What different methods? Steel is Iron and carbon. How do they make steel without the carbon from coal?
The vast majority of coal is to produce the heat for the blast furnace, which can be replaced with LNG or hydrogen - as a trial has demonstrated in Sweden but it currently uses coal and gas to produce the hydrogen... https://www.rechargenews.com/transi...-power-commercial-steel-production/2-1-799308 The mine itself will likely never open - its a maximum of 2 years to the next election and the decision could then be overturned by the incoming government (especially if it isn't in production by then).
It can be done you dont need coal to melt the iron and you dont have to get the carbon from coal its currently in its infancy but it may well be the long term future more information here if this link works. https://www.dw.com/en/green-steel-c... ditch,electricity made from renewable energy. I havent really researched this coal mines positives and negatives in detail but the expanation we would use coal from there instead of importing it looks weak unless we can produce the coal cheaper than other countries. Which is unlikely as wasnt that the reason we shut all the pits in the first place
They'll be no young uns apply when they find no phones, no WiFi, no toilets, no canteens, no leaving ya job without good reason, darn pit and no individual showers
As you say, importing coal which is a bulky and heavy cargo (like many bulky heavy imports) creates a far bigger carbon footprint than relatively locally mined stuff. Reducing imports saves the country money as does creating employment (not just miners, engineers, local economy -shops, industry suppliers . Whilst producing iron and steel without coal is the Holy grail of researchers in the field , hydrogen, bio fuels-wood, electrolysis etc are still way off being replacements for iron and steel production. Environmentalists see headlines of 'New coal mine vs environmental climate control policy' and launch a tirade without acknowledging that : a) In this uncertain World, security of supply i.e. accepting we still need to be able to produce iron and steel and not end prodution in the UK , relying 100% on imports is not correct. b) Importing all our iron and steel when we have the natural resources to do so in-house has to make more sense financially. c) Importing coal from countries even less likely to adhere to strict climate control measures when producing iron and steel (US China??) as well as the alredy mentioned shipping costs makes it a less damaging to the environment option. We cannot do without steel and steel manufacture cannot manage without coal for the foressable future . On that basis the only correct decision has been made. Arguing that nuclear creates 5000 jobs compared to 500 for a coal mine is comparing apples and pears.
The real environmental argument against opening the mine (which has no counter argument) is that we would be increasing the worldwide tonnage of coal mined because the rest of the world is not going to significantly reduce production just because we are mining our own. Result is a nett increase in carbon emissions from coal.... Something which is unlikely to be completely offset by the reduction in shipping.
UK produced the cheapest deep mined coal in the World. The ONLY reason it was "cheaper to import" was that much of it was heavily subsidised by those foreign Govts concerned, something Thatcher was not prepared to do. UK had vast reserves of coal as well as being leaders of clean burn technology (Grimethorpe) which I believe was sold on the cheap to the Netherlands? The overall savings never took into account the loss of income for miners and businesses and communities supporting the mining industry which in turn reduced tax revenue and hitting the Welfare bill hard with tens of thousands thrown on the dole and prosperous communities ending up as 'sink' towns. All that said, it was a working environment that no one in teh 21st century should have to endure. No amount of camaraderie and community spirit that existed can disguise that it was a dangerous and unpleasant and unhealthy job and those who worked at the face extracting it were undervalued and underpaid.
You'd think the Tories would stockpile it. Ya know, in case the miners decided to strike at some point. Do they not learn from their own history. *Very much sarcastically said
It's Met coal they are looking to mine, like others have said it's for making pig iron. This in turn is turned into steel. We in the UK don't make so much pig iron anymore if at all, I don't know about Scunthorpe or Glasgow.
...unless the reduced market reduces demand from those exporting countries leading to reduced production. Why would they continue to produce the same amounts if they do not have a market for them? Why would World tonnage increase unless there is a shortage of coal vs demand. It may reduce the overall cost due to increased supply over demand. It is drop/increase in demand for steel that determines tonnage of fuel burnt surely, and not the other way round . Ultimately, as has been said, alternatives to fossil fuels will be found. By your argument the coal producers will still be producing the same amounts when iron and steel switches to alternative greener methods.
Starting to mine coal in the UK would increase the amount mined worldwide. Maybe the other countries would eventually reduce capacity but in the short to medium term there would be an increase. This would be a permanent bump in production and permanent release of CO2 at a time when the planet simply can't afford it. And as I said, it wouldn't be completely offset by the reduction in shipping. Any long term benefit in reducing carbon emissions may come too late to stop the worst effects of climate change. Far better I think to increase steel recycling and reduce the amount of coal and iron ore mined. This is something that we did successfully in the war to get steel for armaments. We should be pursuing it more urgently now.
But are you not equating producing coal with burning coal? Are you saying there is a shortage of coal supply worldwide stifling production. I do not believe that is the case. Stockpiling coal does not, obviously, increase C02 emissions only burning it does. Even if (as predicted by some) demand increases due to the Gas energy crisis, There is sufficient capacity in US India etc to up production anyway so unlikely that this new mine is of any significance in the grand scheme. We are not increasing the amount we burn just using an alternative (lower footprint) source). Rather than producing more existing suppliers simply divert the coal we would have used to somewhere else. We are in no way influencing the amount Worldwide that can/will be burned. That is an entirely different issue.
No. If coal is produced, somebody will buy it and burn it. It won't remain stockpiled for long, the price will fall....
So either way...suppliers limit the supply to keep the price high by not increasing production OR they produce more and sell more albeit at lower price. Either way there is still plenty of coal underground so the rate at which it is burned is basically demand driven not supply driven as you are saying. Your argument only works if current supply potential is limited (which it isn't) and only a new supplier can increase the global supply to satisfy demand (which it isn't the case). America (one of the main sources of coal) could increase production if it chose to. It works like OPEC who can increase or reduce supply thus controlling price of crude. If another supplier suddenly increased global supply and prices were falling they would cut output to push the porices back up. The amount of coal this new mine will produce is small fry in the World supply especially as it's out put is already earmarked for doesmtic consumption and will have little effect on World supply demand and prices. India, China, and USA are far bigger burners of coal than little old UK.
Fair points. But, investing the massive amounts of money on this new mine would be better spent on renewable energy. However, your arguments are simply the typical man in the street's one of "It makes no difference what I do so I'll carry on driving my gas guzzling 4x4". Just because our "little old UK" efforts are (I agree) small beer by comparison with other countries' massive outputs of CO2 we should simply carry on digging and burning. As I stated in my first post on this thread, this particular mine and it's purpose make it somewhat different to the generality of coal mining and should be judged on that basis.
How does investment in renewable energy get over the need for domestic supply of a fuel needed for this specific purpose' A little bit patronising I have to say,( yes I know I can be also) inasmuch as the "typical man in the street.... gas guzzing 4x4 ...little old UK" argument does not apply in this case. This is because,, as you say, it is different to the generality of coal mining. Every effort should be made...wherever there are alternatives.. to replace fossil fuels with green alternatives and even small contributions (like domestic Solar and hybrid heat pump with underfloor heating installations can help) for which we are awaiting the installation. In terms of 4x4 I have one (Cat 5) due to the region we live in but scrapping a 10 year old perfectly serviceable vehicle for an EV when we only do around 4-5000 km year is proven to be un-evironmental friendly. 'Gas Guzzling' and 4x4 does not always go hand in hand either. My 2.o litre Yeti averages about 18km/litre which combined with the low annual mileage does not exactly make me an 'environmental terrorist'
