"Climate campaigners should block road-building not HS2"

[whole diary]

[ellendune]

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.

There is work going on to produce steel using Hydrogen, but the general feeling is that it will take well over a decade and perhaps 2 decades to actually get it to work. 

[TonyK]

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.

That is a pretty substantial use of gas, with practically all the fuel consumed on site. Stick some of the fabled carbon capture kit on the exhausts at the steel works, and you have a clean, green operation. That's undoubtedly easier said than done.

[TaplowGreen]

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.

There is work going on to produce steel using Hydrogen, but the general feeling is that it will take well over a decade and perhaps 2 decades to actually get it to work. 

If the use of more expensive steel than the competition is made mandatory, what effect do you think that will have on the competitiveness of our own industry and the demand for its products, and the consequences on prospects for employment.

Also, what sort of incentive would you say it would provide for companies to relocate manufacturing to the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) from abroad, where steel would be cheaper?

Taking shipbuilding for example - would making steel more expensive be helpful to that industry, or would it struggle to compete with the extra costs involved?

Even leaving the environmental damage to one side, in considering these questions, perhaps ask yourself why the British Steel industry collapsed as it did in the first place?

[ellendune]

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.

There is work going on to produce steel using Hydrogen, but the general feeling is that it will take well over a decade and perhaps 2 decades to actually get it to work. 

If the use of more expensive steel than the competition is made mandatory, what effect do you think that will have on the competitiveness of our own industry and the demand for its products, and the consequences on prospects for employment.

That is a serious issue to be dealt with if the world is to deal with Climate Change.  It requires a change to world trade rules so that the import or export of carbon is accounted for.  Ideally an exporting country could remove the embedded carbon they export from their carbon account and it would be added to the importer account.  Governments would presumably deal with this by import taxes and export subsidies but I am not sure the WTO rules would allow this at the moment. 

[TonyK]

If the use of more expensive steel than the competition is made mandatory, what effect do you think that will have on the competitiveness of our own industry and the demand for its products, and the consequences on prospects for employment.

That is a serious issue to be dealt with if the world is to deal with Climate Change.  It requires a change to world trade rules so that the import or export of carbon is accounted for.  Ideally an exporting country could remove the embedded carbon they export from their carbon account and it would be added to the importer account.  Governments would presumably deal with this by import taxes and export subsidies but I am not sure the WTO rules would allow this at the moment. 

That is absolutely correct. We are all in this together, and sacrificing UK^▸ (United Kingdom) industry on the altar of climate change won't do much to help. The Paris Agreement was a start, and is boosted by the US returning to it, but it is a club for those who want to join. Proper trade sanctions on polluting countries is probably the only way forward, but that introduces volatile politics into the mix. Not easy at all.

[Robin Summerhill]

...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.

Nothing directly to do with the topic, but I feel the need to comment because I have been involved in energy efficiency ever since SAP ratings were first introduced in 1991. 

Low energy lighting has less to do with individual savings than the cumulative effect. As I once explained to a sceptical tenant somewhere in Enfield some time ago:

"Think of it like winning the lottery. You decide to share the money with everybody in the country. They'll all get a penny each and nobody would feel any better off. But if you could get everybody in the country to give you a penny, that's worth having."

If everyone in the country used LE lighting we could probably save the output of half a power station.

[TonyK]

...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.

Nothing directly to do with the topic, but I feel the need to comment because I have been involved in energy efficiency ever since SAP ratings were first introduced in 1991. 

Low energy lighting has less to do with individual savings than the cumulative effect. As I once explained to a sceptical tenant somewhere in Enfield some time ago:

"Think of it like winning the lottery. You decide to share the money with everybody in the country. They'll all get a penny each and nobody would feel any better off. But if you could get everybody in the country to give you a penny, that's worth having."

If everyone in the country used LE lighting we could probably save the output of half a power station.

I did a complete switchover to LED lighting a few months after moving into my current home, and noticed the difference immediately on the smart meter. There's a lot of lights in this place, but I would have done the same in a bedsit. The only thing incandescent here is Mrs K, and that's only on bad days.

Multiply that by 21 million households, and it comes to a tidy sum. Add the better energy efficiency of household appliances and home electronics, and it mounts up.

[TaplowGreen]

New coal mine now in doubt.

https://news.sky.com/story/cumbria-plans-for-uks-first-deep-coal-mine-for-30-years-thrown-into-doubt-after-local-council-reconsiders-application-12213426

[TonyK]

New coal mine now in doubt.

https://news.sky.com/story/cumbria-plans-for-uks-first-deep-coal-mine-for-30-years-thrown-into-doubt-after-local-council-reconsiders-application-12213426

The "new information" gives the council a number of ways of arriving at one of the two possible answers.  They could refuse it, and use the figures to say that they haven't given into the mob wielding virtual pitchforks. The company concerned could then appeal against that decision, pushing the decision making onto the secretary of state and unleashing Fracking MK^▸ (Milton Keynes) II. Probably the best idea would be to kick this into the long grass ask for further views in the light of the new information, then decide after the forthcoming Glasgow conference is over. That would give the company involved time to secure the site, although they might actually welcome unpaid tunnellers.

[eightonedee]

Getting us back to HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) - see - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56017605, and in particular the following quote-

Green MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) Caroline Lucas called it a “vanity project”. She says travel patterns have been revolutionised during Covid, and won't return to previous levels. And she complained: “It’ll take decades for the project to have even a chance of becoming carbon neutral because of the emissions from building the line.

Which brings to mind something that often occurs to me when looking out over the North Sea from the North Norfolk coast, where there are now large turbines as far as the eye can see - what is the carbon cost of all that steel that has been used to create those turbines, and transporting them to site, creating the foundations and commissioning them? Will it be recovered in the lifetime of the turbines (if the ones in southern Spain around Tarifa seem to be failing at 20-25 years, how long will they last out in the cold, wet, windy North Sea) - and don't forget there's carbon being created (and disturbance to wildlife too) by the constant traffic of maintenance vessels. Then there's the environmental cost of extracting, refining and transporting the rare earth metals that are now a vital  part of the generation equipment. And we mustn't forget the network of transmission cables to get the power onshore.

I have raised the energy cost of generating hydrogen for transport use without ever seeing an answer, but wonder what the real "whole life" cost of off-shore generation is?

[stuving]

I have raised the energy cost of generating hydrogen for transport use without ever seeing an answer, but wonder what the real "whole life" cost of off-shore generation is?

It's not hard to find reports on these - lots of think-tanky kind of groups producing them. Here are a couple of more official ones.

This is from the National Infrastructure Commission:

The infrastructure required to enable hydrogen HGVs relates to four main areas: the production of the hydrogen, total electricity demand from producing hydrogen (if using electrolysis), and the distribution of hydrogen and refuelling facilities. Hydrogen is one of the least efficient methods for providing propulsion from electricity with a through‑chain efficiency of around 22 per cent, compared to around 73 per cent for battery electric vehicles.

So, that rates as impressively inefficient. And I'm sure it varies a lot, and much work is going on to improve it, so each specific proposal should have a different, but higher, value.

This is from a submission by Vattenfall (written by Royal HaskoningDHV) to the Planning Inspectorate in support of the Norfolk Boreas 1.8 GW^▸ (Great Western) offshore wind farm:

The results of the assessment determined that the GHG^▸ (Greenhouse gas) footprint of the Norfolk Boreas project would be approximately 1,860,339 tonnes under Scenario 1, and 1,939,031 tonnes under Scenario 2 over the project lifetime (30 years). Using the expected energy totals generated over the lifespan of the project, the GHG intensity for the Norfolk Boreas would be approximately 7.48 g/CO2e/kWh under Scenario 1, and 7.80 g/CO2e/kWh under Scenario 2. These figures are within the range (albeit at the lower end) of carbon intensity identified for previous projects.

And they give a broader comparison:

Additional analysis of the data extracted from the 18 technical studies expressed the GHG emissions as grammes (g) of carbon dioxide equivalents – CO2e - per kilowatt-hour (kW h) of electricity generated. These were found to vary quite widely, between approximately 5 and 33 g CO2e kW h-1. There was no clear relationship between the metrics and either turbine rating (in MW) or capacity factor. A further study in 2012, amassed the results of over 200 studies of carbon emissions from wind power and attempted to “harmonise” the results to use only the most robust and reliable data and to align methodological inconsistences. The harmonised results of this study revealed that the range in GHG emissions per kW h of electricity generated varied between approximately 7 and 23 g CO2e kW h-1, with a mean value of around 12 g CO2e kW h-1.

To place these metrics into context, comparable values for electricity generation by gas are around 400 g CO2e kWh-1 (33.3 times that of offshore wind) and, for coal, approximately 1,100 g CO2e kWh-1 (91.6 times that of offshore wind).

[eightonedee]

Thanks Stuving - should have asked you first!

This is from the National Infrastructure Commission:
Quote
The infrastructure required to enable hydrogen HGVs relates to four main areas: the production of the hydrogen, total electricity demand from producing hydrogen (if using electrolysis), and the distribution of hydrogen and refuelling facilities. Hydrogen is one of the least efficient methods for providing propulsion from electricity with a through‑chain efficiency of around 22 per cent, compared to around 73 per cent for battery electric vehicles.

So, that rates as impressively inefficient. And I'm sure it varies a lot, and much work is going on to improve it, so each specific proposal should have a different, but higher, value.

Do you know (or can you find out easily) how does that compare with 25kw v OHL^▸ (Over-Head Line) electric traction please?  And as a bonus question - any figures for the carbon cost of erecting OHL lines (presumably considerably more for GWMLR heavy duty Meccano than other solutions?

At least the wind - v - coal/gas equation is clear, even if it seems that turbines spend a lot of time sitting there motionless.

[Bmblbzzz]

Getting us back to HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) - see - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56017605, and in particular the following quote-

Green MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) Caroline Lucas called it a “vanity project”. She says travel patterns have been revolutionised during Covid, and won't return to previous levels. And she complained: “It’ll take decades for the project to have even a chance of becoming carbon neutral because of the emissions from building the line.

Which brings to mind something that often occurs to me when looking out over the North Sea from the North Norfolk coast, where there are now large turbines as far as the eye can see - what is the carbon cost of all that steel that has been used to create those turbines, and transporting them to site, creating the foundations and commissioning them? Will it be recovered in the lifetime of the turbines (if the ones in southern Spain around Tarifa seem to be failing at 20-25 years, how long will they last out in the cold, wet, windy North Sea) - and don't forget there's carbon being created (and disturbance to wildlife too) by the constant traffic of maintenance vessels. Then there's the environmental cost of extracting, refining and transporting the rare earth metals that are now a vital  part of the generation equipment. And we mustn't forget the network of transmission cables to get the power onshore.

I have raised the energy cost of generating hydrogen for transport use without ever seeing an answer, but wonder what the real "whole life" cost of off-shore generation is?

Well they're kind of made for windy places...

As for the carbon emissions from their manufacture and servicing, this is a valid point and I don't know how much. But as a point of fact, their blades are, I've read, not steel but fibreglass.

[TonyK]

As for the carbon emissions from their manufacture and servicing, this is a valid point and I don't know how much. But as a point of fact, their blades are, I've read, not steel but fibreglass.

They are indeed, with a core of balsa wood. This has caused a worrying scramble for the material in south America. National Wind Watch which has an obviously critical view of wind power, quotes extensively from an article behind a paywall in The Economist. I quote from the publicly available part of the latter

In late 2019 loggers started arriving in Ewegono, a village of nine indigenous Waorani families on the Curaray river in the Ecuadorean Amazon. They were looking for balsa, a fast-growing species of tree whose wood is used in blades for wind-power turbines. There was a global shortage. At first, villagers “grabbed chainsaws, axes and machetes to cut it down”, says Saúl Nihua, Ewegono’s leader. The pay could be $150 a day, a fortune in a region where most people have no jobs.

Soon the harvest became a free-for-all. Some loggers got permits with the help of the Waorani, but others forged them and invaded the indigenous reserve. Many took truckloads of wood without paying their workers. People from less remote places cut all the balsa they could find, stacking it along the road to Arajuno, the nearest town, says Mr Nihua. Buyers in trucks paid as little as $1.50 per tree. Uncontrolled logging degraded the forest. “They’ve killed off vegetation tremendously...without respecting legal limits,” says Mr Nihua, who partly blames himself.

[IndustryInsider]

Did I hear that there’s been a change of track regarding the new coal mine?