OK, forget about oil for a minute

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I seem to have inadvertently set off some fireworks in that Global Warming thread. You just never know when you're gonna push some people's buttons!

Be that as it may, here's another energy-resource related question. Since Ma Thatcher had her fight with the miners in the UK, most of our coalfields have been shut. Mine pumping ceased, meaning that most mines have flooded. If we wanted to, could they simply be pumped out again and worked once more, or has that neglect done damage that would not allow them to re-open and be worked again by the methods that we would have used previously?

 

[The Don]

As I understand it, there's no reason other than cost involved although danger probably comes into it as well.

It'd just be too expensive at the moment

 

[geni]

I seem to have inadvertently set off some fireworks in that Global Warming thread. You just never know when you're gonna push some people's buttons!

Be that as it may, here's another energy-resource related question. Since Ma Thatcher had her fight with the miners in the UK, most of our coalfields have been shut. Mine pumping ceased, meaning that most mines have flooded. If we wanted to, could they simply be pumped out again and worked once more, or has that neglect done damage that would not allow them to re-open and be worked again by the methods that we would have used previously?

In most cases there was some shoreing up of the pit after they were closed. Miners tended to be able to pick up some tempory work doing this. The main issue would be safety though.

 

[Drooper]

I seem to have inadvertently set off some fireworks in that Global Warming thread. You just never know when you're gonna push some people's buttons!

Be that as it may, here's another energy-resource related question. Since Ma Thatcher had her fight with the miners in the UK, most of our coalfields have been shut. Mine pumping ceased, meaning that most mines have flooded. If we wanted to, could they simply be pumped out again and worked once more, or has that neglect done damage that would not allow them to re-open and be worked again by the methods that we would have used previously?

It's interesting that you would categorise a claim that "we are running out of fossil fuels" wih pushing buttons, but you actively view a claim like"homeopathy is an excellent treatment option for animals" as ludicrous and absurd.


Here again, you seem to be coming from a point of near ignorance on the subject you raise.

The cost of mining coal in Britain was and would continue to be horrendously high. Maggie didn't "close the mines". She simply decided in wasn't in your (yes you the taxpayer) interest to fork out more than double the world price of coal and withdrew the massive subsidies.

I can't even imagine why you would want to even try to restart coal mining in Britain again and force taxpayers (yes you again) to begin forking out again for the privilege.

 

[Rob Lister]

I seem to have inadvertently set off some fireworks in that Global Warming thread. You just never know when you're gonna push some people's buttons!

Be that as it may, here's another energy-resource related question. Since Ma Thatcher had her fight with the miners in the UK, most of our coalfields have been shut. Mine pumping ceased, meaning that most mines have flooded. If we wanted to, could they simply be pumped out again and worked once more, or has that neglect done damage that would not allow them to re-open and be worked again by the methods that we would have used previously?

Would it be worthwhile? Can the coal industry in the UK even be profitable without subsidies? Isn't it cheaper to get it from either the U.S. or Western Europe where mining operations are technologically more simple and where reserves are far greater? I think keeping what you've got for a rainy day is a more attractive option.

 

[geni]

Re: Re: OK, forget about oil for a minute

Would it be worthwhile? Can the coal industry in the UK even be profitable without subsidies? Isn't it cheaper to get it from either the U.S. or Western Europe where mining operations are technologically more simple and where reserves are far greater? I think keeping what you've got for a rainy day is a more attractive option.

there are a couple of UK coal mines still open but for the mopst part the stuff is probably best left where it is for now.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Re: Re: OK, forget about oil for a minute

It's interesting that you would categorise a claim that "we are running out of fossil fuels" wih pushing buttons, but you actively view a claim like"homeopathy is an excellent treatment option for animals" as ludicrous and absurd.


Here again, you seem to be coming from a point of near ignorance on the subject you raise.

The cost of mining coal in Britain was and would continue to be horrendously high. Maggie didn't "close the mines". She simply decided in wasn't in your (yes you the taxpayer) interest to fork out more than double the world price of coal and withdrew the massive subsidies.

I can't even imagine why you would want to even try to restart coal mining in Britain again and force taxpayers (yes you again) to begin forking out again for the privilege.

Oh, for goodness sake, you're doing it again!

I'm simply interested in knowing whether the mines are physically capable of being worked again or whether it is a matter of economics.

"Here again, you seem to be coming from a point of near ignorance on the subject you raise."

Well, d'oh, pardon me for not knowing the answer to the question I'm asking. Clearly questions should only be asked by people who don't need to ask them!

Please also note that I wrote, "Since Ma Thatcher had her fight with the miners in the UK, most of our coalfields have been shut." Well funnily enough I do know a fair amount about the politics and economics of the period: Thatcher fought the miners and the coal fields were shut. Yes, they were uneconomic and their continued working would have been economically unsustainable: I didn't deny that, all I said is that they were shut then asked out of simple curiousity about how permanent that might be. Two answers are possible: it's technically feasible, but economics prevent it and will do so for the forseeable future, or it's technically unfeasible unless you have technology that we currently lack.

"I can't even imagine why you would want to even try to restart coal mining in Britain again and force taxpayers (yes you again) to begin forking out again for the privilege."

Would you please desist imputing motives in my asking questions. You've been completely wrong so far. I'm asking because I have no idea what physical state the mines were left in, so I have no idea whether I'd think they should could or might be reopened.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Re: Re: OK, forget about oil for a minute

Would it be worthwhile? Can the coal industry in the UK even be profitable without subsidies? Isn't it cheaper to get it from either the U.S. or Western Europe where mining operations are technologically more simple and where reserves are far greater? I think keeping what you've got for a rainy day is a more attractive option.

"I think keeping what you've got for a rainy day is a more attractive option." That's exactly encapsulated what I was getting at.

I'm less interested in whether it should be done, but more interested in whether they really do represent that rainy day option or whether by the way in which they were abandoned we have effectively deprived ourselves of that option. In other words have they been left in a state deliberately with reopening as a long term option or was no mind paid to the idea.

I guess what it comes down to is to ask whether they were consciously mothballed or simply abandoned.

 

[richardm]

For many of them, the flooding has effectively left them in too dangerous a state to ever be economically reopened for mining.

One alternative suggestion that has been mooted is to ignite the underground pits, and drill in water pipes to harness the heat. There's no particular difficulty in burning them underground; some fields have been doing it for centuries. ETA Aha, I'm confabulating two things here. In fact I think I'm thinking of the On-Site Gasification scheme I've linked to below. The water pipe thing is a heat pump idea, somewhat different.

This means that you can effectively use mines that are too dangerous or expensive to work by other means.

No cites I'm afraid, but someone who used to work for British Steel has complained that although British coal was expensive, it was of a relatively high quality. By the time they imported coal from abroad and accounted for the rocks/general low quality of the coal, it worked out more expensive than the British equivalent. Of course, as a British Steel worker he may well have had an anti-Thatcher bent to say the least, but there it is. I don't want to derail the thread unduly.

Edited to add link to Extracting power from mines without mining them:

The process of coal gasification in a surface gasifier can be replicated underground by drilling into the hydrocarbon reserves, injecting air or oxygen, and gasifying the in-seam coal seam. The product gases are transported to the surface for processing and utilisation.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

For many of them, the flooding has effectively left them in too dangerous a state to ever be economically reopened for mining.

In other words, it may have been uneconomic then, but it would be even worse if we needed it again, barring cunning new ideas such as those you mention. I'd still be interested to know what discussions went on to consider a mothballing process or whether it wasn't even seriously thought about when the gates were shut, but I guess we might need someone closer to the process to tell us.

Next question.

Oil is a chemical feedstock as well as a fuel. I assume that this is respnsible for less use than burning it for energy. Is that right? For some reason, oil seems to be a better feedstock than coal. Is there a one line answer to say what the difference is in their chemistry to that makes oil better? And finally, is there a realistic prospect of creating enough carbon polymers from renewable sources, presumably plants?

 

[richardm]

In other words, it may have been uneconomic then, but it would be even worse if we needed it again, barring cunning new ideas such as those you mention. I'd still be interested to know what discussions went on to consider a mothballing process or whether it wasn't even seriously thought about when the gates were shut, but I guess we might need someone closer to the process to tell us.

Some mines were (and are still) mothballed, but the problem is that it's not just a question of switching them on and off, obviously. Deep mines need constant maintenance to stop them flooding, keep gas levels monitored and so on. It's surprisingly expensive, and without revenue from the coal coming in, well... quite. More often once a mine is closed it's usually considered "sterilised", and the only way to get at the coal is from an adjacent working mine. Even then the costs of getting to it in terms of distance and the dangers from abandoned workings (many of which are still not mapped properly) pretty much make it too expensive to even consider in most cases.

Snipped complicated chemistry questionAnd finally, is there a realistic prospect of creating enough carbon polymers from renewable sources, presumably plants?

I'd have thought not, myself, but I'm no expert.

 

[geni]

Is there a one line answer to say what the difference is in their chemistry to that makes oil better?

coal is a mixture of graphite and big hydrocarbons which are not much good for chemistry.

And finally, is there a realistic prospect of creating enough carbon polymers from renewable sources, presumably plants? [/B]

In thoery it would be posible. Throw in GM technology and it might become economic.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

coal is a mixture of graphite and big hydrocarbons which are not much good for chemistry.



In thoery it would be posible. Throw in GM technology and it might become economic.

Do you know what? I hadn't clicked to the fact that it's the shortness of oil's HC chains that is the difference. But, coal is also hydrocarbons is it? What I mean is, have the original plant chemicals carbohydrates like cellulose all been converted to hydrocarbons, or does more nearly biological material remain.

Hang on a sec' I read your post and thought it was self-evident, but realise it's not. I thought oil refineries' job was to 'crack' hydrocarbons, so it isn't obvious to me what it is about 'big' hydrocarbons that is intrinsically bad.

 

[epepke]

Hang on a sec' I read your post and thought it was self-evident, but realise it's not. I thought oil refineries' job was to 'crack' hydrocarbons, so it isn't obvious to me what it is about 'big' hydrocarbons that is intrinsically bad.

Actually, no.

Cracking hydrocarbons is only done sometimes, such as because gasoline is more valuable than heavier hydrocarbons.

To a zeroth approximation, refining oil is ridiculously easy. You just put it in a container and wait. The light stuff rises, and the heavy stuff settles. Then you just pour off the stuff you want. Cracking is secondary to this; it just makes more of the lighter stuff.

There's no corresponding process for coal, because it isn't liquid. I suppose it would be conceivably possible to crack coal, but you'd have to grind it up and mix it with oil, and that takes work. Or you could heat it and get oil out of it that way, which is done some places, but that takes energy. But if you just burn it, that's all you have to do.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Actually, no.

Cracking hydrocarbons is only done sometimes, such as because gasoline is more valuable than heavier hydrocarbons.

To a zeroth approximation, refining oil is ridiculously easy. You just put it in a container and wait. The light stuff rises, and the heavy stuff settles. Then you just pour off the stuff you want. Cracking is secondary to this; it just makes more of the lighter stuff.

There's no corresponding process for coal, because it isn't liquid. I suppose it would be conceivably possible to crack coal, but you'd have to grind it up and mix it with oil, and that takes work. Or you could heat it and get oil out of it that way, which is done some places, but that takes energy. But if you just burn it, that's all you have to do.

Thanks.

So coal's real problem is that it is a solid?

 

[hodgy]

For many of them, the flooding has effectively left them in too dangerous a state to ever be economically reopened for mining.

It will only be uneconomic for as long as the alternatives are more expensive. Let the market decide.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

It will only be uneconomic for as long as the alternatives are more expensive. Let the market decide.

The difference we are considering is whether it would cost £10 per tonne, £10,000 or £10,000,000 to extract it. If it is £10,000,000, it is effectively unusable under any forseeable circumstance and so has, in effect, been irretrievably lost.