"Climate campaigners should block road-building not HS2"

[whole diary]

[TaplowGreen]

I would prefer to see steel manufactured in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) with UK coal, rather than being imported. A UK source of coking coal will encourage the return of steel making to the UK.

The carbon emmisions are regretable, but can not be avoided if we are to continue use of steel. I see no merit in exporting the carbon emmisions to china.

I am happy to not fly, and I try to minimise purchases of goods transported by air.
I can not avoid use of iron or steel products and structures.

The British Steel Industry ultimately failed because its product was too expensive and nobody wanted to buy it. It is far, far cheaper to buy/import steel from Europe or Asia.

A weaker £ and the freedom from EU^» (European Union - about) rules forbidding Government subsidy may help if the Government are interested enough to help, however if you seriously think that opening one mine, the majority of whose product is already slated for export is going to somehow reinvigorate an industry which has been struggling in its death throes for decades despite several venture capitalist induced false dawns, I would suggest diluting the Port (Talbot) a little! 

[ellendune]

I would prefer to see steel manufactured in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) with UK coal, rather than being imported. A UK source of coking coal will encourage the return of steel making to the UK.

The carbon emmisions are regretable, but can not be avoided if we are to continue use of steel. I see no merit in exporting the carbon emmisions to china.

I am happy to not fly, and I try to minimise purchases of goods transported by air.
I can not avoid use of iron or steel products and structures.

The British Steel Industry ultimately failed because its product was too expensive and nobody wanted to buy it. It is far, far cheaper to buy/import steel from Europe or Asia.

A weaker £ and the freedom from EU^» (European Union - about) rules forbidding Government subsidy may help if the Government are interested enough to help, however if you seriously think that opening one mine, the majority of whose product is already slated for export is going to somehow reinvigorate an industry which has been struggling in its death throes for decades despite several venture capitalist induced false dawns, I would suggest diluting the Port (Talbot) a little! 

I wouldn't rely too much on relaxation of state aid rules, despite what was said AIUI^▸ (as I understand it), WTO state aid rules aren't much different to EU ones. 

[TonyK]

Steel making is one thing that should not be left to rot at home, unless you want to risk having to buy steel from a future enemy. So are PPE and vaccines now. I think the past year will lead some in government to look critically at those things we use a lot of, but no longer produce at home. At least they should be looking critically at it.

[Robin Summerhill]

Aviation is not in my view comparable to the production of iron and steel.
There are alternatives to flying, including ships and railways, or even staying in one place.
There is no realistic alternative to steel, nor is there any proven way to manufacture it without coal. Steel is needed to build ships, railways, and modern structures.

...

I am happy to not fly, and I try to minimise purchases of goods transported by air.
I can not avoid use of iron or steel products and structures.

This is actually a rather dangerous line of thinking if one takes it a few stages further. It is essentially saying “flying is bad for ecology. I can avoid doing it therefore everybody else should too.”

Heritage railways would be in for a bad time if the idea catches on. There must be a sizeable chunk of the population who see no good reason for them because they never go, so the argument might run “Heritage railways are bad for ecology. They burn fossil fuels and they don’t provide a public service. Rip ‘em all up; throw the rails into a smelter and reuse the steel. And put all the stock in a museum.”

Do we really need road or rail transport? It’s all bad or the planet. Most of us have got two legs haven’t we? The heavy stuff can go on a cart behind a horse or two. Not only do we save all those toxic emissions, we get a plentiful supply of organic manure into the bargain. That sounds like another win-win situation to me as well...

We’ve also got plenty of canals about the place, and those few things that actually do need shifting around the world can be sailed there. Well we used to it that way, didn’t we?

Of course, doing all this would axe millions of jobs around the world but never mind about that, all of those people can stay in one place as suggested.

PS – please nobody tell Greta about this post  

[broadgage]

Steel making is one thing that should not be left to rot at home, unless you want to risk having to buy steel from a future enemy. So are PPE and vaccines now. I think the past year will lead some in government to look critically at those things we use a lot of, but no longer produce at home. At least they should be looking critically at it.

Agree, very strongly.
Basic building materials and raw materials should so far as reasonable be produced within our own country. Including but not limited to
Iron and steel (including the coking coal)
Cement.
Bricks.
Roof tiles, corrugated iron.
Industrial chemicals.
Electric wire and cable. Electrical generating and distribution equipment.
Building timber, and processed wood products such as plywood and particle board.
Glass, including window glass and glass containers.

Production of many such materials is energy intensive, but I see no merit in importing such items and exporting the pollution, whilst becoming reliant on potential future enemies.

We should also aim to produce as much as possible of our own food, medical supplies and other essential goods.

When domestic production is not possible, HMG should keep emergency stocks of basic supplies.

[broadgage]

This is actually a rather dangerous line of thinking if one takes it a few stages further. It is essentially saying “flying is bad for ecology. I can avoid doing it therefore everybody else should too.”

Heritage railways would be in for a bad time if the idea catches on. There must be a sizeable chunk of the population who see no good reason for them because they never go, so the argument might run “Heritage railways are bad for ecology. They burn fossil fuels and they don’t provide a public service. Rip ‘em all up; throw the rails into a smelter and reuse the steel. And put all the stock in a museum.”

Do we really need road or rail transport? It’s all bad or the planet. Most of us have got two legs haven’t we? The heavy stuff can go on a cart behind a horse or two. Not only do we save all those toxic emissions, we get a plentiful supply of organic manure into the bargain. That sounds like another win-win situation to me as well...

We’ve also got plenty of canals about the place, and those few things that actually do need shifting around the world can be sailed there. Well we used to it that way, didn’t we?

Of course, doing all this would axe millions of jobs around the world but never mind about that, all of those people can stay in one place as suggested.

PS – please nobody tell Greta about this post  

Even I am not proposing a ban on flying, but am opposed to any form of grant or subsidy that encourages more flying, rather than letting it shrink naturally.

I and many others enjoy heritage railways, they could however improve matters by minimising fuel use, I have suggested ways to achieve this.

Of course we need road and rail transport, but both should be electrified as far as possible. Horses could well be used in rural areas.

Canals are potentially useful for heavy and non urgent freight. Should be used more in view of the very low energy used. One horsepower per boat, either an actual horse or battery power.

Sea going ships could be sail powered, at least partly thereby reducing fuel used.

All these alternatives provide employment.

[grahame]

please nobody tell Greta about this post  

[stuving]

Here's some numbers about coal and this new mine, which may be useful here (on other threads).

West Cumbria Mining said this back in October:

Once construction of the mine is completed and Woodhouse Colliery moves into the operational phase, the company plans to extract and process around 2.7 million tonnes of metallurgical coal per year, focused on supplying the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) and European steel-making plants, which currently import around 60 million tonnes per annum from USA, Canada, Russia and Australia.

As is normal with projects of this nature and as part of the planning approval being granted, CCC has set-out extensive planning conditions which WCM needs to meet to enable the company to move forward to the next phases of the development of the project. These include a legally binding greenhouse gas assessment commitment as part of the Section 106 agreement, a first for such a project, together with an production end date of no later than 2049 to recognise the transition to a net zero carbon economy over the coming decades.

Note, that 60 Mt is for the EU^» (European Union - about); the UK only uses 3 Mt of which 0.6 Mt is mined here.

DUKES (again!) has figures for types and uses of coal, of which (2019):

Coking coal used:   2.94 Mt
Steam coal used:   4.47 Mt 
      of which rail:   15 Mtkt -  Estimate revised following research carried out into heritage railways.

Coke oven gas and blast furnace gas production amounted to 9.35 GWh, virtually all of it used in steel-making, or for process heat and electricity used in the plant.

There's a couple of other official references at the House of Commons (for the debate in December 2020) and the Industrial Decarbonisation & Energy Efficiency Roadmap to 2050 (Iron and Steel 2015).

WCM's planning documents are here (on their site).

[Bmblbzzz]

I think that should be 15kt not 15Mt for steam coal used by rail?

[stuving]

I think that should be 15kt not 15Mt for steam coal used by rail?

You're right, of course - I'd divided all the other numbers by 1000 without even noticing I'd done it.

[TaplowGreen]

please nobody tell Greta about this post  

How DARE you!

[TaplowGreen]

Some discussion of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) on Andrew Marr this morning with Sian Berry..........interesting for those citing the environmental credentials of HS2 to consider the Green Party's view;

https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2020/02/11/jonathan-bartley-responds-to-government%E2%80%99s-decision-to-greenlight-hs2/

https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2019/11/28/hs2-is-an-act-of-ecocide-green-party-call-for-end-to-devastating-%C2%A380-billion-project/

............as you can imagine, they're not particularly enthusiastic about the new coal mine either, and neither are Labour......whoever would have thought that?

[Bmblbzzz]

I've just read this report about the outlook for rare earth metals, which are used in electric motors, among other places. It's not hugely optimistic. Extraction and processing cause various environmental problems, especially as these are often poorly regulated, and this in turn leads to doubts about the feasibility of decarbonisation.

Research has found that the environmental cost of rare earth metal mining in China outweighs the benefits, particularly because of illegal mining. In response, the authorities have taken measures, including instituting new regulations.

The high vulnerability of the EV industry could raise doubts over the feasibility of decarbonisation efforts given the envisaged role of electric vehicles in carbon reduction.

https://investors-corner.bnpparibas-am.com/investing/rare-earth-metals-how-to-limit-the-impact-of-the-clean-energy-transition/

[TonyK]

I've just read this report about the outlook for rare earth metals, which are used in electric motors, among other places.

Wind turbines are another, although more modern types use electromagnets in place of the couple of tonnes of neodymium used in magnets. Anything using a powerful permanent magnet can use rare earth metals to great effect.

[Rhydgaled]

Aviation is not in my view comparable to the production of iron and steel.
There are alternatives to flying, including ships and railways, or even staying in one place.
There is no realistic alternative to steel, nor is there any proven way to manufacture it without coal. Steel is needed to build ships, railways, and modern structures.

...

I am happy to not fly, and I try to minimise purchases of goods transported by air.
I can not avoid use of iron or steel products and structures.

This is actually a rather dangerous line of thinking if one takes it a few stages further. It is essentially saying “flying is bad for ecology. I can avoid doing it therefore everybody else should too.”

Heritage railways would be in for a bad time if the idea catches on. There must be a sizeable chunk of the population who see no good reason for them because they never go, so the argument might run “Heritage railways are bad for ecology. They burn fossil fuels and they don’t provide a public service. Rip ‘em all up; throw the rails into a smelter and reuse the steel. And put all the stock in a museum.”

While I wouldn't go as far as "rip 'em up", since the heritage railway sector is (presumably) tiny in comparison to other things, I don't think it would be right to completely ignore the issue given the fuss that used to be made about fitting low-energy light blubs which (presumably) make a very small saving in the grand scheme of things. My personal view is that no more 'Tornados' (new build steam locos) should be commenced so that, when the owners/regulator decides a loco is too warn out to carry on and is withdrawn the number of serviceable steam locos slowly decreases and the locos in question get turned into static exhibts. It might of course be possible to play "trigger's broom" and keep all the locos going by replacing every part with new one at a time, but at least it would stop the sector growing.

As for steel:

Steel making is one thing that should not be left to rot at home, unless you want to risk having to buy steel from a future enemy. So are PPE and vaccines now. I think the past year will lead some in government to look critically at those things we use a lot of, but no longer produce at home. At least they should be looking critically at it.

Agree, very strongly.
Basic building materials and raw materials should so far as reasonable be produced within our own country. Including but not limited to
Iron and steel (including the coking coal)
Cement.
Bricks.
Roof tiles, corrugated iron.
Industrial chemicals.
Electric wire and cable. Electrical generating and distribution equipment.
Building timber, and processed wood products such as plywood and particle board.
Glass, including window glass and glass containers.

Production of many such materials is energy intensive, but I see no merit in importing such items and exporting the pollution, whilst becoming reliant on potential future enemies.

We should also aim to produce as much as possible of our own food, medical supplies and other essential goods.

When domestic production is not possible, HMG should keep emergency stocks of basic supplies.

I think I agree with that; what I would say is that rather than exporting the pollution we should try to make our steel in a less polluting way and set and example to the rest of the world (and perhaps even export the interlectural property of said method). Carbon Capture and Storage steelworks anyone? If we could develop that, yes our steel might more more expensive than imports but we could make it mandatory to use it on environmental grounds helping to keep our steelworkers employed and maintaining the ability to do steel production here in case of war.