Debating the case for coal in the UK

[david dissadent]

Yes we have masses of the stuff under our feet. Lets get using it and fuck the small number of lefties who oppose it, they speak for nobody but themselves.

Using what is now considered pretty basic physics Joseph Fourier worked out the what the "black body" temperature of the earth should be and realised the earth was warmer. He proposed that the earth's atmosphere retained some of the heat of the sun to warm it beyond what it would have been had it been an atmposphereless body. This is named the Greenhouse effect.Link to back that up

Do you dispute this?

Do you dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps upwelling infrared radiation, heating the atmosphere?

Do you dispute that human activity has been adding CO2 to the atmosphere over the past 200 years?

Do you dispute that there has been a measured increase in the temperature of the earth over the past century?

 

[sonny61]

Using what is now considered pretty basic physics Joseph Fourier worked out the what the "black body" temperature of the earth should be and realised the earth was warmer. He proposed that the earth's atmosphere retained some of the heat of the sun to warm it beyond what it would have been had it been an atmposphereless body. This is named the Greenhouse effect.Link to back that up

Do you dispute this?

Do you dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps upwelling infrared radiation, heating the atmosphere?

Do you dispute that human activity has been adding CO2 to the atmosphere over the past 200 years?

Do you dispute that there has been a measured increase in the temperature of the earth over the past century?

No I don't dispute that the Earth did get warmer over a 25 year period.
Change in Earth's average global temperature over the past 1000 years showing that during the Medieval Warm Period (950-1100A.D.) temperatures were likely similar to the first part of the 20th century, climate cooled during the Little Ice Age (1350-1850), and has warmed dramatically in recent decades. How do you explain that?

Is not the obvious explanation that the Earth temperatures have always gone up and down throughout time? During the Roman period in Britain there were vineyards in the North East of Britain. In colder times the Thames froze over.

Has the Earth's temperature not risen since 1998? In fact did it not go down in 2008?

 

[david dissadent]

No I don't dispute that the Earth did get warmer over a 25 year period.

So you state that the earth has gotten warmer over the past 25 years? Why have you chosen this time frame, since 1984. Almost every single source, no matter how hostile to AGW gives us a 150 year warming. Are you claiming that global temperatures were falling for the 100 years before? for the 50 years before or what, what are you claiming?

Change in Earth's average global temperature over the past 1000 years showing that during the Medieval Warm Period (950-1100A.D.) temperatures were likely similar to the first part of the 20th century, climate cooled during the Little Ice Age (1350-1850), and has warmed dramatically in recent decades. How do you explain that?

This is all very informative but it is now demonstrate-ably warmer than in the first half of the 20th century. If the first half of the 20th century was cooler than the second half and that you have claimed it was the same temperature as the MWP, you are now claiming that we are at the warmest for the past 1000 years at least. Yes.

Is not the obvious explanation that the Earth temperatures have always gone up and down throughout time? During the Roman period in Britain there were vineyards in the North East of Britain. In colder times the Thames froze over.

How interesting. You now think that the temperature of the British Isles is a proxy for the entire globe. Do you not feel this a tad, well you know arrogant?

But while we are here, you do realize that physics requires a reason for something to be warmer or colder. Things do not spontaneously heat up or cool down. You seem to be claiming they do. Do you also believe in magic?

Has the Earth's temperature not risen since 1998?

Yes it has but why pick 1998 why not any other year. Any special reason?

In fact did it not go down in 2008?

Compared to what? 2007, well it was an la Nina year which tends to produce lower temperatures, but that tells us nothing about long term averages, unless long term averages are a problem for you?

NOW SONNY61
You seem to be avoiding some questions here.

Using what is now considered pretty basic physics Joseph Fourier worked out the what the "black body" temperature of the earth should be and realised the earth was warmer. He proposed that the earth's atmosphere retained some of the heat of the sun to warm it beyond what it would have been had it been an atmposphereless body. This is named the Greenhouse effect.

Do you dispute this?


Do you dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps upwelling infrared radiation, heating the atmosphere?

Do you dispute that human activity has been adding CO2 to the atmosphere over the past 200 years?

 

[free spirit]

The figures for a coal power plant are 24-40% increase in fuel needed to capture 81-88% of the CO2 produced. (see page 43 table TS 10).

I think you're slightly misreading the information in that table.

the 81-88% figure is for the total amount of CO2 emissions avoided by using these plants compared to a standard non CCS coal fired power station, ie the increase in fuel use is already calculated in that figure.
It's not the figure for the percentage of the CO2 produced that is captured.

So, a CCS coal fired power station would emit between 12-19% of the CO2 compared to a standard coal fired power station for each KW/h produced.

Given that the higher figure is for capturing post combustion in existing plants, that would need just short of 1 new powerstation for every two fitted.

true, but then if we're talking new stations it's only an extra 1 station for every 4 built.

This does not including the energy cost of transporting that much gas, producing the infrastructure to transport and the energy necessary for injection into geological sequesteration sites.

true, but that's an arguement for starting now so that we can reuse as much of the existing north sea gas and oil infrastructure as possible as fields wind down their production, rather than leaving it until after everything's been decommissioned to start from scratch building new rigs, drilling new boreholes etc.

These will be (for the uk) older gas fields, these will be under huge pressure and with temperatures often well above 100C (some will be much cooler).

The pressures not that great relatively speaking as they've already been emptied of their gas or oil to the point where it's uneconomic to pump any more out (more of an issue when combined with EOR).

Also when ever geological sites in the North Sea are mentioned, then enhanced oil and gas recover is brought up. This is simply producing more carbon.

True, this is a major concern.
However there are a couple of points to consider here.

Firstly, there are advantages to using fields as they're exhuasted without Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) in terms of the potential to reuse existing infrastructure - adapt the platform, and reuse the existing wells. With EOR, there's the additional upfront cost of drilling new boreholes to inject the CO2 as well as new facilities to house the equipment needed to inject the CO2 meaning either a new platform, or a subsea installation vs a non EOR site where you could use the existing platform.

BERR give the difference in platform cost between non EOR and EOR sites as £40m vs £140m for shallow water sites, and £75m vs £280m for deep water sites.

Secondly, surely someone at some point has to inject some sanity into the situation and not allow CCS captured carbon to be used to enable more oil or gas to be pumped out... or at least not with any public money, or any money from carbon trading etc. surely.

 

[Sesquipedalian]

I couldn't bring myself to have the debate with him

Was he not worthy ?

 

[behemoth]

I'd go back down in an instant if I had the choice.

Despite the scars and missing body parts? My job has been good to me financially and socially, but no way I'd want my kid to get covered in dangerous chemicals on a 12 hour nightshift. Like yours, my industry is accused of being one of the most polluting. I'd leave in an instant given the choice.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes we have masses of the stuff under our feet. Lets get using it...

Are you simple-minded, or do you just not bother to pay attention?
We can't "just get using it", because good old Maggie and her successor didn't mothball the pits, they closed them, switched off the pumping gear and sealed the pit-heads, so you now have loads of deep mines filled with chemically-unsavoury water (take a look at leachate problems from mines to get a handle on what sort of unsavoury chemicals I'm talking about) that will, in most cases, take years to empty, and then years to gewt operational again.
The only way of circumventing those problems is to go for open-cast which, on the scale necessary to supply several dozen power stations, would render people who live above shallow seams homeless, cause severe local pollution and bugger transport infrastructure.

and fuck the small number of lefties who oppose it, they speak for nobody but themselves.

Just as you do, with your ill-informed shite.

A local ballot of where the new coal pit is opening should be held asking whether they object to new jobs and cheap power.

So, no loaded questions, then?

Those who object to using coal from the new pits can use candles, which I am sure they will

What a fuckwit.

 

[kyser_soze]

Yes, because what we need to do now is go back to digging stuff out of the ground and burning it. Yup, cos that's been such a brilliant idea for the environment for the last 200 years, hasn't it?

 

[derf]

Met an ex miner the other day. He was banging the drum for the mining industry in the UK saying we could be self sufficent for power. He was a bit of a lefty militant guy/ I agreed with him from a social perspective but how do you tell someone to wake up. Its the C21st and we don't need to be using coal we need renewables.

Maggie was just thinking ahead.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes, because what we need to do now is go back to digging stuff out of the ground and burning it. Yup, cos that's been such a brilliant idea for the environment for the last 200 years, hasn't it?

Depends, doesn't it?