Coal, for use on steam hauled heritage railways - merged posts

[whole diary]

[TonyK]

I doubt if Greta would be given a visa to enter China.

I don't see why not. She could do a speech to the assembled suits at party HQ^▸ (Headquarters), say "How dare you!", then be given a tour of happy smiley solar panel factories, with the official media in close attendance. She is a teenager with a passion for the environment, and not a subversive or a spy, and therefore of little cause for alarm. She wouldn't need a yacht either - the journey from Sweden is possible overland. Quicker than sea too, taking under 3 weeks, even with two changes of gauge.

[Rhydgaled]

A little internet search reveals that there are at present 184 coal-fired power stations under construction in China.  I don't see how the "decarbonisation" (a totally impossible target and almost certainly prohibitively expensive) that is now stated Government policy for the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) is going to make all that much difference to the atmosphere. It'll just make us all colder, less free, and less prosperous[/b]

In the short term then maybe it will "just make us all colder, less free, and less prosperous" but unless we (and China, and everyone else) can put a stop to climate change the world will end up alot poorer (both financially from the cost of dealing with major cities becoming below sea level and in terms of biodiversity) in the slightly longer term.

We can but hope that China sorts itself out. If it doesn't then, as you say, anything the UK does is unlikely to change the outcome - we'll still end up with London below sea level etc. If, on the other hand, China (and the USA etc.) does sort itself out then we had better have sorted ourselves out here in the UK - otherwise it will be our emissions here in the UK that will be responsible for tipping the world over the edge and into the very bad place we are currently heading for.

[ellendune]

I don't see how the "decarbonisation" (a totally impossible target and almost certainly prohibitively expensive) that is now stated Government policy for the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) is going to make all that much difference to the atmosphere. It'll just make us all colder, less free, and less prosperous[/b]

In the short term then maybe it will "just make us all colder, less free, and less prosperous" but unless we (and China, and everyone else) can put a stop to climate change the world will end up alot poorer (both financially from the cost of dealing with major cities becoming below sea level and in terms of biodiversity) in the slightly longer term.

We can but hope that China sorts itself out. If it doesn't then, as you say, anything the UK does is unlikely to change the outcome - we'll still end up with London below sea level etc. If, on the other hand, China (and the USA etc.) does sort itself out then we had better have sorted ourselves out here in the UK - otherwise it will be our emissions here in the UK that will be responsible for tipping the world over the edge and into the very bad place we are currently heading for.

I disagree that net zero is prohibitively expensive. If we invest in new technology we can develop solutions that are cost effective.  The cost of renewable energy has come down dramatically over the years and we have even touched the most reliable source - Tidal Power.  If we distribute tidal generation around the UK (to sort out the periodic changes) we can get a reliable base load of generation 24/7 all the year round.  If we had put as much money on research into this in the last decade as we did into nuclear power development in the 1950's it would have been done by now!

I also disagree that our efforts will make little difference.  We are still one of the major emitters of CO2 and every bit helps reduce the impact of Climate Change. 

[broadgage]

I agree, and even if "net zero" can not be achieved in the near term,  a considerable reduction in fossil fuel use is still preferable to carrying on as normal.
Under present and foreseeable near future conditions I doubt that we can produce a reliable 24/7 electricity supply without burning natural gas at times of low renewable energy input.
Tidal power could change that and should be exploited on a considerable scale.

It was proposed for the Bristol Channel, but the NIMBYs managed to prevent it.

And returning to heritage railways, coal burning steam engines are inherently un green. Heritage lines should therefore IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) try to be as green as possible in other respects including.

Use of a battery locomotive for ECS^▸ (Empty Coaching Stock) moves, shunting and infrastructure trains.
Use battery traction for out of season commuter services.
Consider electric preheating of steam locos to reduce coal used.
Generate electricity from PV modules to the greatest possible extent.
Provide electric vehicle charging points for visitors.
Use electric road vehicles when possible.
Use high efficiency lighting and appliances whenever possible.

[bradshaw]

A read if Wikipedia regarding the Severn Tidal Barrage produces this

  Following the Severn Tidal Power Feasibility Study (2008–10), the British government concluded that there was no strategic case for building a barrage but to continue to investigate emerging technologies. In June 2013 the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee published its findings after an eight-month study of the arguments for and against the Barrage. MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament) said the case for the barrage was unproven. They were not convinced the economic case was strong enough and said the developer, Hafren Power, had failed to answer serious environmental and economic concerns. 

Not really the Nimbys in this case?

[TonyK]

A read if Wikipedia regarding the Severn Tidal Barrage produces this

  Following the Severn Tidal Power Feasibility Study (2008–10), the British government concluded that there was no strategic case for building a barrage but to continue to investigate emerging technologies. In June 2013 the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee published its findings after an eight-month study of the arguments for and against the Barrage. MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament) said the case for the barrage was unproven. They were not convinced the economic case was strong enough and said the developer, Hafren Power, had failed to answer serious environmental and economic concerns. 

Not really the Nimbys in this case?

I don't think so. There were a few influential MPs pushing it, and I was surprised the lobby didn't get it through. I seem to recall thinking that this was a rare case where the scientists had won the day, with some rather foreboding forecasts of gloom, doom, and ecological ruination being backed up by modelling and experimentation. I'm sure we haven't heard the last of it, but I can't see it happening.

Thinking it through, I think its very size mitigates against it. A big wind turbine costs a few million quid, a few hundred turbines cost a few hundred million quid. If it turns out that a few of them don't make money or cause a peat bog to slide into a salmon river, it isn't the end of the world, at least not for the finance group and promoters of the turbines. The Severn Barrage is an all or nothing job, a big roll of the dice with billions riding on it. If the Severn silts up behind it and all fish disappear, it is a complete failure, not a partial one. I don't think the men with the money see the chances of a complete success as high enough to gamble.

[grahame]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page)

There are fears steam trains will stop running under new laws which may lead to a ban on burning coal.

Paul Lewin, of the Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland heritage railways in Gwynedd, said the industry needed "water-tight" exemptions to any proposed legislation.

Concerns were raised in the House of Lords any new law could "bring about the death of Thomas the Tank Engine" and threaten heritage attractions.

Aren't some of the Ffestiniog locomotives oil burners? - https://www.festipedia.org.uk/wiki/Ffestiniog_Goes_Back_To_Coal

[TonyK]

They could burn trees from ancient forests, and call it "green biomass". That way, there would be subsidies galore. Drax power station does it, so why not?

[TaplowGreen]

Couldn't they be adapted to run on something other than coal?

[broadgage]

Couldn't they be adapted to run on something other than coal?

Possibly but firstly they would then not be "proper" steam locomotives which what the customers want, and secondly alternative fuels all have drawbacks.

Oil burning, nearly as polluting as coal, not traditional.
Turf or peat, has been used historically, especially in the Irish Republic (which has no significant coal) but now frowned upon for environmental reasons.
Logs, possibly, have been used overseas in places lacking coal. Needs alterations to burn effectively in machine designed for coal.
Natural gas, possible in theory but unlikely to due to the costs of compressing or liquifying.
LPG^▸ (Liquefied Petroleum Gas), popular for miniature engines but not "proper" for full size passenger hauling engines.

Smokeless coal derived patent fuels, probably the most likely as are very similar to proper coal. Some types are light green as they contain waste material such as olive stones.

Electricity, hardly practical for a moving engine, but could be used for preheating "on shed" At least one narrow gauge railway does this.

[rogerw]

All changed to coal some time ago. sourcing the used oil which they used became too difficult and expensive

[rower40]

There are a lot of things from the ‘old days’ that we don’t do any more.
Slavery
Bear-baiting
Sending urchins up chimneys
Maybe it’s time to add ‘burning coal for entertainment’ to that list?

[broadgage]

There is still a fair bit of slavery, largely overseas but the odd case crops up even in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom).
Bear baiting is extinct I think but only for want of bears. Bull fighting/bull baiting remains regrettably popular as does dog fighting even in the UK.
Modern chimneys are not suitable for urchins, but children are still used in various dangerous trades, in places less civilised then the UK.

And of course motor racing and air shows burn a great deal of fuel for entertainment. Also the amount of flying and driving for leisure.
I would therefore accept a little coal use by heritage railways, and the odd steam special on the main line.

[TaplowGreen]

And of course motor racing and air shows burn a great deal of fuel for entertainment. Also the amount of flying and driving for leisure.
I would therefore accept a little coal use by heritage railways, and the odd steam special on the main line.

The rather obvious flaw in your argument however is that there is often no alternative to driving or flying, whereas travelling on a train burning coal is 100% a matter of choice.

Absolutely agree re motor racing by the way, an obscenely expensive waste of resources and damage to the  environment - put them in pedal cars and give them 75 laps of the Magic Roundabout in Swindon instead, it'd be fantastic entertainment!!! 

[broadgage]

There are alternatives to flying or driving for leisure.
Either holiday in those parts of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) and the nearer parts of Europe that can be reached by surface public transport, or stay at home.