From the BBC:

 
The smoke pictured does look excessive and bad smelling, and yes smoke can look as though it smells bad ! A yellow/green/brown colour often indicates bad smelling smoke.

I think that they should consider smokeless fuel, either for initial lighting up, or for the whole duty. In the longer term electric preheating or even electric steam raising would help.

 

Finn is conducting his own scientific analysis of those alleged smells ... 

 
Ahhhh, 'new'. Indeed, nearly 5 years old.

 
Carnarfon's new and much remodelled WHR station, opened, was it 2019? Compared with the first station there, the track was taken further along beneath the retaining wall, and is now in a confined slot between the wall and the new station building. The arrangement possibly gives more opportunity for loco smoke to emerge onto the terrace above. Below, a Google Streetview link.

In its original guise, the WHR in its brief previous existence didn't enter the town at all: beneath the terrace there the through lines ran to the town's station where Morrisons now is, while maps.nls.uk shows the slate wharf and various connections to an engineering works for good measure.

Mark


https://tinyurl.com/mr3j9hce

 

Pardon? Please elucidate? What new station?

 
When I was on the Isle of Man last year the steam railway was using Colombian coal. Very smoky and a strong sulphurous smell. A driver told me that it burns well with a high heat, with better thermal efficiency and much less ash than the Welsh coal they previously used.

 

It seems the Welsh mine supplying the best steam coal was closed for environmental reasons, thus leading to the environmental pollution.

 
**Paddington Hard Stare at the design of the new station there**

Not sure how its contribution to the issue can be mitigated. Extend the roof over the platform perhaps. :-)

Mark

 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg7m7n511vo

Train smoke is making us sick, say residents
Families living above a tourist railway believe thick acrid smoke from trains is making them ill.

They claim fumes from the Welsh Highland Railway has caused "considerable concern" on Rhes Segontiwm, in Caernarfon, Gwynedd.

Nia Davies Williams said: "People are getting sick. It's terrible, I'm very worried about our health."

The railway said the war in Ukraine was making it more difficult to get cleaner coal leaving them reliant on dirtier imports.

...........continues

 

Hard agree, even though I was the perpetrator of that particular peat product burning.

Mark

 

I would be astonished if at the least there hadn't been a few messages going around asking about working together on what appears a common problem.

 
Peat is now out of favour for either fuel or for horticultural purposes, due to the environmental harm resulting from the large scale extraction of peat.

Peat WAS used to fire locomotives, mainly in the Irish republic during the last war. Ireland has no significant coal reserves and was therefore reliant on imports from the UK or from mainland Europe. Neither was reliably avilable in wartime.

 
Do heritage railways form a consortium to jointly pursue this? It's an approach that must have been explored.

Mark

Full disclosure: used to the curious property of peat, as it burns, to emit smoke that doesn't sting the eyes, I bought peat briquettes from a small shop in a rural seaside town and then used too much at once in a hearth with which I was not familiar.

Firstly, the chimney, though extended in height at some stage in the building's existence, didn't draw well at all, and secondly, whatever the binder used in these briquettes, the perpetrator needs to sit down somewhere and consider their career choices. Three days later, the stench was more of less gone from the little dwelling...

 
I've merged a few more posts from today into an existing topic here on the same subject - as ever, in the interests of continuity and clarity.

CfN. 

 

Use of smokeless patent fuel should not add to costs, but only a trial would  show this with any reliability.

Preheating the boiler with electricity would save coal, and volunteer hours and probably be self financing. Especially if off peak electricity could be used. The slow and steady warming should prolong boiler life.

Use of a battery loco as described is almost certainly cheaper in running costs, but hugely expensive in capital. There is growing interest in battery locos on the national network, perhaps we might see prototypes loaned to heritage lines for testing and free publicity ?

My suggested new battery powered motor luggage vans sound expensive ! but could be justified for main line steam rail tours. Having an extra say 500 HP available on demand could allow a steamer otherwise restricted to 8 coaches, to haul 10 or more vehicles, think of the extra ticket sales. The need to hire a diesel loco could be avoided. The new  vehicle would not add to the train length as it could double as the support coach.
Having justified the capital costs for main line steam specials, why not keep it on a preserved line who could use it at little cost.

 
Given the very tight financial margins (and reliance on donations and volunteers)
the majority of heritage operators operate under, how would they finance these suggestions?

 
Could not patent smokeless fuel be used in steam locomotives ? It was trialled back in BR steam days and found generally satisfactory, but more expensive than natural coal. Back in the old days, this fuel was generally known as "ovoids" a reference to the shapes it was made in.

I can also see two ways in which coal consumption and smoke production may be minimised.
Firstly fit electric immersion heaters into the water space in the boiler. The boiler may thus be preheated by a shore supply before the first duty of the day. With the boiler full of hot water, steam may be raised quickly with minimum coal use and smoke production. AFAIK one narrow gauge UK railway does this.

By increasing the electrical loading, it would be possible to raise steam thus rather than merely heating the water in the boiler.

A more radical suggestion would be to construct (or modify from existing stock) a few motor luggage vans as used on the southern decades ago.
Such a vehicle if equipped with traction motors of at least 500 HP, and a lithium battery able to supply full power for an hour could be usefully coupled behind the steam engine. Fit in the steam loco cab a simple push button control by which crew can select "nothing" or normal operation, "50% electric assistance" or "100% electric assistance" Most of the time the steam loco would be operated in the normal way. If the engine tends to slip under adverse rail conditions, or is at risk of stalling on an incline, then the driver can apply electric assistance.
This would reduce the temptation to "over-fire" the loco and would would reduce coal use and smoke production. Charge the battery overnight from a shore supply, one charge should last a working day, remembering that use is intended to be only brief under adverse conditions.

On DMUs in general, consider shutting down one engine when stopped, saving fuel and reducing diesel fumes.

The larger heritage lines should consider a battery loco for ECS moves and engineering trains. The odd passenger train could be hauled thus, some enthuisiasts would pay well for the novelty, though most expect steam.

 

It's a significant problem right across the sector and reading the article, the Welsh Highland and Ffestiniog company is looking for a solution.  The Tallyllyn has also identified the problem - mentioned in the article - but I have seen others reporting the issue too.

What is co-operation like between all the heritage rail groups on this - is this something that the Heritage Rail Association [is/could/should] be helping with?   There is talk of the expense of shipping appropriate coal from a world away - would that expense to both the environment and the heritage operators be reduced by bulk?

The people in Caernarfon feel are saying "this line is just for leisure - and this is our daily lives seriously damaged", asking perhaps for curtailment of the trains. But yet leisure brings people and business to the town, and their lives and and the town would take a serious knock if it were not to run.

It's questionable to me whether the Welsh Highland really is heritage, but in so many heritage /preserved lines, I see steam fading somewhat and more trains becoming diesel.  Not that switching is a magic solution - indeed diesel multiple units with engines under the carriage have made places like Westbury, where trains wait a while, thoroughly unpleasant at times. Engines /power plants burning any fuel at the extreme ends of the trains, away from the buildings are one thing but ticking over in the centre / near and under canopies and places where people are trying to eat / meet / work make those environments nasty.  Perhaps we should be moving all the more to electrification which can be sustainable, and where it isn't it uncouples the generation from the location of the train itself.

 
The Welsh Highland Railway for one is struggling to source fuel of a suitable quality to meet the needs of both its locos and its neighbours.

Mark

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/dirty-coal-smoke-steam-train-30235925

 
For lighting anthracite I use either some charcoal soaked in bioethanol, or an LPG blowlamp
.

 

I have one of those gas-fired weed burners. It's rubbish at weeding, but great for lighting fires, and would probably be safe indoors if use under a chimney.

 

Brandy is a form of bioethanol, but the term is more generally used to describe bioethanol intended for burning as fuel, and treated to render it undrinkable, as otherwise it would be very cheap vodka.
Ethanol fuel is used as an ALLEGEDLY green additive to petrol, and also to fuel camping stoves, food warming units, and lab burners if gas is not available.

 
= Brandy

 
Yes AFAIK, the anthracite was from here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberpergwm#:~:text=Today%20Aberpergwm%20is%20the%20only,low%20sulphur%2C%20and%20high%20efficiency.
 The coal delivery driver stated that the roof fall was minor and that production was only expected to be halted for about 2 weeks. No reports of injuries.
Have only had one fire with this fuel, it seems to be good qaulity, though hard to ignite like all anthracite.
(I use a couple of pieces of barbeque charcoal soaked in bioethanol, and a handful of plain charcoal, success every time !

 
Thank you for the info.

 
Presumably Aberpergwm? It may well be some minor issue or other rather than a major incident.

https://www.energybuild.co.uk/

Mark

 
May I ask which mine suffered the recent "roof fall" was,

 as I can't find anything about a recent roof fall.

 
I have just received a delivery of Anthracite, this is still readily available but only from one mine in Wales.
There may be a VERY SHORT TERM shortage as the only UK colliery has suffered a "roof fall"
£640 a ton, though I needed half that much.
Patent coal derived smokeless fuels are readily available, but the late Fred Dibnah put me off those "gods good coal from which all the goodness has ben taken out"
I generally prefer to burn logs, but keep a reserve of coal for emergencies.
The last lot was stolen whilst I was in hospital.
The coal merchants advised that housecoal is no longer available, it was available until recently, but only in opened bags and not prepacked.

 
BBC breakfast news are reporting on Tuesday 22 August 2023.

 

New style indulgences are now available.
Russian gas is bad, because purchase of same is financially supporting the invasion of Ukraine.
Chinese gas is good, or at least less bad than russian gas.
Russian gas transported via china now becomes good and can be burnt with a clean conscience. The indulgences are paid to the chinese government by way of the substantial price difference between bad russian gas and good chinese gas.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/china-aggressively-reselling-russian-gas-europe

 
IME, most visitors to heritage lines want and expect steam. This should therefore be provided whenever possible. The odd suspension of steam power is reasonable at times of extreme fire risk, or coal shortage, or of course during "diesel gala" type events.
But most visitors expect steam.

As regards the enviromental cost of coal burning, I have long felt that most heritage lines could be a bit greener in other respects. Solar power on buildings. Battery locomotive for shunting and ECS moves. Electric pre heating of steam locomotives.
Battery train for any regular commuter trains that are to be run.

 

There's often more than once cause of an issue ... and for simplicity just one issue is headlined / made public

Why are heritage railway customers there?   Some for the ride or the day out, others for a spot of nostalgia or to see and experience things as they used to be, or were when they were young.  We've discussed in the past why steam locomotives from the grouping era (up to 1948) are so often painted in their nationalised colours in preservation, and concluded that it might be because that's how they're more familiar to customers seeking nostalgia.

Taking that argument further, and looking at fire risk, coal availability, and the environmental profile of steam locomotives, would there be sense in having steam run on special occasions in a hopefully-damper spring and autumn special weekend or two, and having summer trains loco hauled by class 24, 25, 28, 33, 35, 42, 50, 52 ... or run with class 101, 108, 116, 121, 122 or (please!) 201 multiple units.  And, yes, use pacers for the alternate trains within peak multi-train timetables.

 
I was told recently by a Shropshire resident that a signaller on the Severn Valley Railway had informed that the official reason for running only diesel services this summer – the risk of line side fires – was not the whole truth. "They've run out of coal. It all came from Russia and now they can't get anymore."

 
Plenty of coal at  the Isle of Wight Steam railway but some interesting facts about how they source it and how much they use

 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-62241336

 
One picture looks like the roof of a very large shed. Just the sort of structure that should be covered with solar panels, thereby adding to green energy supplies without use of any extra land.

Even the basic "deemed to comply" limit of about 11 kw at three phase 400 volts would help, but bigger is better if conditions allow.

 
before 7pm on Thursday

 
Fields behind my house are used to grow maize, harvested every September. Some goes to produce slurry at the nearby dairy farm by being put through the moo-cows, but it seems that most goes direct to the local antisocial digester to produce subsidies.

Harvesting is by contractors and goes on around the clock next to me and elsewhere around the outskirts of the village.





It soon mounts up:



It isn't used for cover for pheasants, which is not to say that wildlife doesn't show more easily when it is gone:





A few days after harvesting, the fields are ploughed, fertilised with the output from the antisocial digester, then seeded with grass. Again, this is a 24 hour operation.

Occasionally, someone will forget to close a gate, leading to the neighbours taking advantage:



and even showing a bit of natural curiosity. Or looking to see if Shaun the Sheep has started.



Now - where were we?

 
This thread reminded me of a song, that some of us, of a certain surfeit of old men excluded by GWR customer surveys, might recall....

Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey
A kiddley divey too, wouldn't you?
Yes, mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey
A kiddley divey too, wouldn't you?
If the words sound queer and funny to your ear
A little bit jumbled and jivey
Sing mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy

The last lines about animal feedstuffs for biomass set me thinking !

 
Remarkable!

Amaizing!  

 
To give an idea of the acreages involved, last night I had a conversation with a local farmer who is part of a consortium running a gas (for energy)-producing digester. The consortium has about 5000 acres under cultivation for various crops, half of which are for feedstock for the digester.

Apparently there is seen to be a market for the gas in Germany. Although there is quite a digester industry there, the gas currently goes straight for use for electricity generation.

If this is typical, I imagine that the odd use of maize for gamebird cover is inconsequential by comparison.

 
A lot of maize that's grown in Britain is as cover for pheasants, I'm told (by someone who spent several years in agricultural work). Some of it is not even harvested.

 

We disagree again, alyhough only on matters of degree. I am wholly opposed to energy crops displacing food.

I also abhor so-called biomass power, which relies on importing kiln-dried wood pellets from across the Atlantic. Some studies show that the biggest power station using this fuel emits more carbon dioxide than it did when it burned coal. These sound like good ideas and attract the attention of politicians keen to tick a few boxes in the carbon records. That drives perverse behaviour. Biodigesters were originally supposed to use waste, from animals and crops. Fields of maize are grown just to feed them now, with stuff being transported from the Bristol area to Devon in some cases. They use the slurry from dairy farms, which turns another waste product, albeit a valuable one, into a much less smelly fertiliser, but slurry can't work on its own. Farm crop waste doesn't produce as much gas as maize when added to the mix, so the fields fill with maize instead of feeding the cattle. If the whole country were to suddenly go vegan, I would wager that cattle would still be bred to make waste for biodigesters until the end of the subsidy programme.

Om places unsuitable for food crops, you see a lot of Christmas trees being grown under high voltage electricity lines. I don't think it's because the magnetic fields promote growth so much as the ground being unsuitable for much else.

 
We should not in my view by flying lettuces in from anywhere. Waste of fuel.

Some food imports are unavoidable, but these should in my view by non perishable, high energy density foods that can be imported by sea or rail.
Grain, canned meat, edible oils and fats, or spices and condiments that are only needed in small volumes.

I am in general opposed to energy crops displacing food.

Trees for building timber and firewood can be grown in places unsuited for food crops.

 

There must be a subsidy there somewhere. Otherwise, someone would point out that using the farmland to grow fuel would mean importing more food, with all the problems that brings. Even if the proportion of UK citizens eating meat were to fall below the present 90%-95%, it would still make more sense to reduce food miles by growing more of the stuff here. Raising crops for fuel whilst flying lettuces from Africa seems like robbing Peter to pay Paul, then robbing both of them again.

 
Isn't that sort of super-silage at heart? Dale Vince of course has his personal ethics to produce 'green gas' without using animal products (which would include by-products such as waste) and these might also influence the maths with the decline of meat eating.

Still, I'd rather have him as owner of a football club than, say, Mike Ashley!

 

That sounds like similar logic to the Ecotricity (prop. Dale Vince) plan to meet all our gas requirements greenly, i.e. from grass directly.

The cited report from Imperial Consultants claims to be independent, but it doesn't really read like it.

For some reason nobody else seems to believe in this idea. The report does assume a decline in meat eating and thus production as a source of spare grassland to harvest, though so do other prognisticators. I suspect the numbers need to be looked at carefully to work out if they make any sense. Still, they are now building the first of their "green grass mills" somewhere near Reading.

 
In many places, the dung of animals is saved, dried and burnt as fuel for cooking or domestic heating. Burning the spent oil seed simply cuts out the middleman! (or middlecow).

But you're right that as with all cases of using food or food-related items for fuel, we need to ask whether it's a sensible use. Though I expect the amount used by Talyllyn railway, even should they go over to it for all uses, is negligible compared to the amount produced nationally.

 
I have misgivings about the yellow "coal" which is a byproduct of rapeseed oil production.
So far as I can tell this is the solid residue left after the edible oil has been extracted by pressing. AKA "spent oil seed"

Firstly presuming that this Is spent oil seed, then it is a valuable animal feeding stuff and burning it for fuel is rather a waste. When eaten by animals, the dung of the animals is a valuable fertiliser.

Secondly, spent oil seed still contains traces of oil and as a result it is prone to self heating and then to spontaneous combustion. Bulk storage is therefore a considerable fire risk.

It might of course be the case that the yellow "coal" is NOT in fact the spent seeds, but is some other residue such as the stalks or leaves of the plants, in that case the idea may have more merit.

 
Very interesting. I wonder what the rapeseed oil smoke smells like (probably not quite like your kitchen!).

 
The Talyllyn Railway has shared an update on the different types of "coal" that they have been using recently.
https://youtu.be/KGaP3iCB_XM

 
ISTR that Malawi featured in some earlier scheme whereby carbon emissions could be offset by insulating the loft spaces in the homes of poor farmers.

BTW, I do not regard regard the comparison with Greta to be in any way derogatory.
Not perhaps entirely accurate, but fine as a light hearted compliment.

 

I stand by my comment, which was actually a compliment. broadgage and myself are of very similar mind on this issue, if not on all issues. Pigtails probably wouldn't suit him, though. 


I am surely vindicated 

broadgage's system of Hybrid Indulgences is probably already being worked into a Commons announcement as we speak, as a positive step towards Ground Zero. I have only one minor criticism - won't it be Rwanda, not Malawi?

 

I expect that a new and improved version of indulgences is under development and will soon be available. At present the purchase of indulgences permits fossil fuel to be burnt as normal in return for a payment.

The new and improved version will permit of burning Russian coal and other fossil fuels in return for a payment. Making the payment will ensure that the Russian fuel is now called "not really russian" Perhaps by offsetting whereby a poor farmer in Malawi agrees to stop burning Russian coal.

In some cases BOTH types of indulgence will be needed.

The old style, whereby fossil fuel becomes not really carbon emitting, AND the new style whereby russian becomes not really russian.

 

How dare you!

I see Broadgage as the Greta Thunberg of this forum with his strident views on the environment!  (I think he drinks more Port than Greta though!) 

 

I wouldn't have thought they have the money to splurge on greenwashing, or to buy indulgences, as broadgage calls it.

 
Do the heritage steam groups actively practice carbon offsetting in respect of the coal they burn?

 
The calorific value of coal for heritage steam needs to be really high, and since the demise of the uk coal mines, has been sourced from Russia. Obviously now unavailable, the worldwide hunt is now on as other current supplies don’tburn hot enough

 
The website of a local coal merchants lists a wide variety of coal and smokeless fuels, at about the usual prices.
The only product out of stock is Colombian house coal trebles. Doubles are available.

 
There would be a lot fewer supporters/users of heritage rail should it all go diesel/electric such that many won’t raise sufficient funds to continue. That was what I understand

 

Makes sense. Done.

 
Suggest merging this thread with the "end of coal" thread.

 

Almost all heritage railways have some diesel traction, but most of the visitors to such railways expect steam. If the diesel traction is something old, interesting, or unusual, then some enthusiasts will prefer this and may travel specially to experience same, but most visitors expect steam.

I have previously suggested that the larger heritage lines should consider battery locomotives for ECS moves and engineering trains, and as the first reserve in case of failures.
A battery multiple unit is worth considering for any local commuter trains that may be offered outside of the steam season.

I have also suggested that electric heaters be fitted to steam locomotives for warming up before the days work.

Returning to coal, I am not aware of any general coal shortage. I have promotional material inviting me to stock up before next winter which does not imply any shortage.

 
I saw the piece repeated on Sky News within the last hour.   Saying by one bloke "if this is not solved, [some] heritage railways will have to close".  How many heritage railways are there without alternative diesel traction?  Is it time to electrify some more heritage railways?

 
Yes we are using a glued together mix of coal dust and olive stones!

 
Been all over the rail online heritage rail sites for a week or so now. Looking to Australia to siurce the right calorific value coal now

 
item on Sky news that the conflict in Ukraine has seen coals supplys dry up.

Think it should be shown again,although it MIGHT be on the play again option,

I saw the item on Sunday afternoon at 17:40pm ish

 

Seems an over reaction to me.
I am in favour of boycotting Russian coal and other goods, but believe that the railway should be able to obtain non Russian supplies.
Anthracite is not the ideal fuel for locomotives but can be used, it is produced in Wales. It has a good calorific vale and produces little smoke, but may need generous use of the blower to urge the fire.
Housecoal can be obtained from Colombia, most coal merchants have stocks.
Various patent fuels are available, including the ovoids mentioned in the report.
"Eco coal" is available from many suppliers, it is only somewhat eco but better than real coal. It is made partly from olive stones, an unavoidable by product of the olive oil industry.

 

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/local-hubs/mid-wales/2022/03/12/railway-to-shun-russian-coal/

 

I am glad to hear of this, which may surprise some people in view of my well known concerns about climate change and fossil fuel usage.

There is no readily available* way to produce iron and steel without* coke made from coal.
Iron and steel are essential materials for a modern society, or indeed even for a Victorian society. Steel is used to build railways, ships, modern buildings, bridges, and almost all modern machinery. In the event of war, iron and steel are vital for the manufacture of weapons.

I see no merit in importing coal or steel works coke , nor in importing ready made iron and steel., probably from china.
China has an appalling record on human rights, and on the environment. I see no merit in becoming reliant in imports of such strategic materials.
Retaining iron and steel manufacture within the UK, including the supply of fuel used in this manufacture is in my view a matter of national security.

* Iron and steel CAN be made by the use of charcoal, obtained from trees, this was done centuries ago, but is completely unsuitable for large scale manufacture. I have heard, but can not substantiate, that one thousand tons of trees are needed to make one ton of iron.

Iron and steel can also be made in a furnace fueled by hydrogen and oxygen, these gases can be obtained from water by renewably generated electricity. This process shows some promise for the future, but wont help for this years and next years iron and steel requirements. A little coke or perhaps charcoal is still needed, but very little.

The need for new iron and steel can be reduced by recycling of already existing and now redundant material, but some new manufacture will still be needed.

So reluctantly I support UK coal mining for strategically important purposes, but NOT for general use.

 
On BBC Wales news one mine in Glyneath South wales been given a new licence to dig coal to supply port Talbot steel works

 
Thanks Graham for recovering that. The chart in part 4 of the source linked above is also very illustrative.

 
Thanks. I'm surprised by how large a proportion domestic use is.

 
Follow up ... issues with forum posting ... here's what I recovered:

 
I'm sure it was given earlier, but of all coal consumed in UK, how much is used domestically? How much used by heritage rail?

 
The ban on housecoal is becoming less effective by the day.
"bulk" is now defined not as a ton or more, but as meaning "not pre packed" So a single bag is fine provided that this is opened and therefore not prepacked.

Most coal merchants have a minimum delivery volume of 10 bags, or one quarter of a ton, but that is simple economics and applies also to permitted patent fuels and anthracite.

Most supermarkets and petrol filling stations cant cope with open bags so that has SLIGHTLY restricted sales. Around here a community group is organising deliveries of ten open bags to one address for local distribution to other residents in order to evade the ban, which is ANOTHER imposition on the poor, who apparently all heat with open coal fires.

 

My mistake. Never easy to tell which box is being ticked these days. Good to hear that local air quality is being improve by this bag slitting. I wonder why no-one thought of it before?

 
The ban on housecoal is not to save the planet. The carbon emissions from use of permitted anthracite and from "prohibited" house coal are about the same per unit of heat.

The purpose of the ban is to improve local air quality by reducing smoke and fine particulate emissions.

 
I sold my place with the open fire last March. I still see plenty of the big orange lorries used by my previous supplier, so I guess they are still trading. Their website is a little tight-lipped, so I looked elsewhere, and found:


So, not only are we saving the planet by these new regulations, we have also generated growth in the craft knife sector.

 

I wonder if that counts as recycling nowadays… 

 
I am not aware of any exact minimum weight of delivery to be counted as "bulk" most coal merchants consider two tons or more as bulk, some will take orders for one ton.

For routine winter use to heat one room with a fire or stove, and partially warming nearby rooms by natural air circulation, I would expect about one ton per winter.

For whole house heating about twice that.

For a solid fuel AGA or Rayburn that heats bath water, cooks meals, and heats the house via radiators, several tons a winter.

House coal should not be used in closed domestic appliances due to the risk of explosions. It is for open fires, and large industrial boilers, including locomotives, under skilled control and with a good induced or forced draught.

 
How much counts as bulk and how much would a coal-burning household expect to use each winter? My Polish in-laws would generally get through at least 2 tonnes a winter, but obviously winters are longer and colder there.

 
The "ban" on retail sales of house coal is now in effect with little effect. The ban only applies to "pre-packed" house coal and is generally evaded by sales in open bags rather than in sealed bags.
Most petrol stations and super markets cant cope with open bags so that has reduced sales a bit. Open bags are available for delivery or collection from most coal merchants.

The other loophole is that there is no prohibition on bulk sales, this exemption is intended for industrial use, including steam railways and other heritage uses. This is being misused by community groups buying a ton or two of loose house coal for use by individual households, all done to "protect the poorest households against the LATEST government scam to extract EVEN MORE money from them"

Traveler gangs are also selling house coal, bagged or otherwise, door to door. Generally of poor quality and of less than the claimed weight. This coal is often stolen shortly after delivery.

 
The advantage of substantial thermal mass and extreme insulation, is that there is very little to go wrong.
Heat pumps are expensive to buy, may need costly repairs and consume significant electricity.

An extremely well insulated home will need NO heating in average winter weather, and only a little heating in severe weather.

MVHR adds complexity, but not as bad as a heat pump, and reduces energy use still further.


A super insulated home is immune to SHORT power cuts, it should remain comfortable for a few hours, and tolerable for up to 24 hours.
I therefore recommend a small solid fuel stove in case of any prolonged power outage. This should see very little use and is not the main heat source. It could however save your life if the power goes out for a week or more in a severe winter.

For similar reasons I would recommend  a small battery charging PV system, not worthwhile in strict financial terms, but could be most important in an emergency. A single 300 watt PV module and a couple of 12 volt deep cycle batteries would serve. That would provide for limited essential lighting, and low power portable electronics in an emergency.

 

Thank you both - interesting reading material. Definitely rural, and a borehole will be in place for water. That means that some drilling kit will be in situ, which could cut the cost a fair bit. The installation within the house will be the same, so I think I will look at the difference in cost versus difference in running costs. My role does not extend to decision making, but such information as is around tends to be either too generic or aimed at a particular answer.

 
For a new house, I would favour great thermal mass and excellent insulation, together with MVHR. Such a house will need no heating in average winter weather, and only a very little heating in severe weather.
This very small heating demand is affordably met from direct electric heating.

In such a home I would install a small solid fuel stove, unlikely to be much used, but most useful to have in case electricity becomes unavailable for an extended period.

Grid tied PV to reduce electricity bills.
A small battery charging PV system to supply limited emergency power in case mains electricity becomes unavailable for an extended time.

Cooking all electric normally, but perhaps a small LPG hob in addition, with gas bottles in a safe external store.

 

Yes and it will normally require a more space than the average garden for the pipes.  More suited to a rural location than a town.  Unless you want to go for a borehole in which case it is even more complicated. 

 

A ground source installation is somewhat more complicated, requiring pipes to be buried underground. See here

 

A family member is about to start building a house, and looking into the different options. He has the luxury of a blank canvas within a field. It seems ground source is better, but more expensive - is this right?

 

Yes correct.  A near surface ground source heat pump (without any significant geothermal energy) used for domestic heating typically has a Coefficient of Performance (COP) of 4 which means that it will typically produce 4 times more heat than the electricity put in. The amount of electricity required depends on the temperature increase you require so if there is some geothermal energy it would increase the COP but increasing the output temperature will decrease the COP. 

The COP of an air source heat pump is typically 3. 

 
Good.
I am opposed to large scale coal burning for power generation, and the UK has ALREADY greatly reduced coal burning in power stations.

I would support limited coal burning for heritage or historical purposes. Since this is ungreen, I would hope that heritage railways and other heritage coal users would be as green as possible in other respects.

 
Government confirms that the environment bill will not apply to steam trains. 

According to Railadvent it's not just steam locomotives but heritage engines in general.

https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2021/11/government-confirms-environment-bill-will-not-apply-to-steam-locomotives.html

 

The heat in the "hot rocks" being exploited in Cornwall is found in granite. Coal is formed by peat being compressed by sediments, so the ground is much softer and a lot cooler. The temperature of the water in an abandoned coal mine is around 16°C. Although warm enough to be of benefit in a heating system, because warming water from 16°C to 50°C takes a lot less energy than starting at 4°C, you can't make electricity directly from it. In the hot granite in Cornwall, the temperature of the water is around 180°C. The steam can be used directly to power turbines, or through heat exchangers to heat water to above boiling point. The cooler waste water can be fed to zonal heating systems, as is proposed in Cornwall, or pumped back underground to heat up again.

The heat in the hot rocks comes mainly from radioactive decay. The Cornish hot water contains much higher concentrations of Thorium than are found elsewhere, although not sufficiently high as to be harmful in normal circumstances. I believe the drilling has found aquifers, but "dry" rocks can be exploited by pumping water into boreholes at sufficient pressure to form cracks.

Don't say it too loudly - this is nuclear energy, that could be exploited on a much wider scale by fracking.

 
Agree, heat pumps can produce several times the heat that would result from direct electric resistance heating.
My point was that electricity is still required, some reports state or imply that water from old mines can provide free heating.

 
But once the heat pump is in you get far more heating (or cooling, depending which way it's running at the time) than the amount of power put into the pump. If you can run that pump off PV or wind or whatever's green at the time, you get more heat for your kilowatt than using that electricity directly for heating.

 
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/01/full-steam-ahead-for-cornwalls-geothermal-energy-project
Full steam ahead for Cornwall’s geothermal energy project
Team behind project at United Downs site near Redruth say power plant will be producing electricity and heat by next year......
(Continues)

 
Here's a thought why not use the sites for geothermal,after all there's a fair amount of water already present ,and a good deal of the drilling has been done for you,I'm thinking something along the lines of what's happening at the Eden Project in Cornwall.

 

The water from flooded coal mines is not warm enough to directly heat homes or other buildings. A heat pump is required at significant capital cost and ongoing electricity consumption. Arguably better than burning oil or gas, but not as cheap or as green as is often implied.

 
What a good idea!