i have just been talking to my mate Pete, from over the road. he was one of the last batch to finish at Kellingley when it shut 7 years ago. he is 58. worked there all his working life from being 16.
i mention this new pit opening in Cumbria. he mentioned that he is in a facebook group with old miners and former NUM employees. he said it has been long known that the pit was going to happen, and also that the government had plans for more pits to open in the future.
The mine is forecast to produce 2.8 million tonnes of coal per year; assume 10 year lifespan so...28 million tonnes.
On average, mining a tonne of coal generates 400kg of waste.
Mining 28 million tonnes of coal will generate 11.2 million tonnes of waste.
How and where will that be disposed of?
How will the coal be 'cleaned'?
How will the coal be moved away from the mine to a port for export - I'm assuming rail; is there an existing railhead and what works are required to upgrade a local port?
As for ex-miners stating authoritatively that gov has plans for more pits - if true, that would be known by environmental groups and would have been well publicised.
I'm calling that nothing more than wishful thinking by a few deluded individuals.
It's simple - the Tories have looked around at the state of the country, all the strikes going on and they've agreed that something doesn't look quite right. Some Thatcher-worshipper must have just pointed out that there aren't any coal miners on strike.
So they're creating some coal miners, who can then go on strike before being brutally crushed by the Tory Government.
Was probably a Liz Truss idea but she's not stayed around long enough to see any of it through.
What you haven’t explained is how you have reached the conclusion that it will result in a net “lower environmental cost”. Which is weird because it is the single most important thing to most people.
It is in the document I linked, the mine will have a three pronged strategy to deal with Co2 emissions associated with its operation - mitigation, avoidance and offset. They are committing to use electric machinery and vehicles using electricity from green sources, bio diesel for trains, methane capture and reuse and to offset anything left over in line with the Climate Change Committee guidelines. This will make it considerably more "green" than competitor mines so if, as anticipated, they knock out production from those competitors there is a net saving.
The owners of the new mine are so convinced by the public good of the project, they've hidden the ultimate ownership of the investment fund in a Cayman Island operated shell company.
So that's all fine legitimate and above board I'm sure, and not at all in any way shady.
Get those bailouts ready.
You open a mine on a hokey plan, promise a load of stuff. Sell it on. It goes kaput later, but not your problem anymore.
Borrowed directly from the fracing cookbook
Is it not better to dig it out here than import it from China / Russia?
I was under the impression that China was importing huge amounts of coal from Australia.
Thing is, it really doesn't matter that much where the coal comes from. Unless the global use of coal drops, it makes no difference where it is dug up and burned, the effect on the environment is the same.
This will make it considerably more “green” than competitor mines so if, as anticipated, they knock out production from those competitors there is a net saving.
Okay so you have highlighted how this mine will will result in a net lower environmental cost.
What you still haven't explained is why there does not appear to be one single environmental group which supports the project. In fact they all seem to be strongly opposed to it.
Why might that be? Why would organisations such as the WWF and Greenpeace be so strongly opposed to a proposal which has such obvious benefits for the environment? It doesn't make sense.
Hols Australia was producing sod all a few years ago whilst China was still opening more faces and mines. We were selling 10 to 12 pump systems a year to China, each represented a full on long wall operation which makes Cumbria look like kids digging a sand pit. The Austealian market was dead, may have changed in the last couple of years.
Why might that be? Why would organisations such as the WWF and Greenpeace be so strongly opposed to a proposal which has such obvious benefits for the environment? It doesn’t make sense.
No idea, I don't really follow them.
stumpy - australia is world's largest net exporter of coal and 6th largest producer.
No idea, I don’t really follow them.
Oh come on, have a wild guess! Surely you must have an idea?
And why are you following the Independent Commission report on the proposal but not the Climate Change Committee which is an independent statutory body whose purpose is to advise the government?
This is what the Chairman of the CCC Lord Deben had to say about the proposal:
"The opening of a new deep coking coal mine in Cumbria will increase global emissions and have an appreciable impact on the UK’s legally binding carbon budgets. The mine is projected to increase UK emissions by 0.4Mt CO2e per year. This is greater than the level of annual emissions we have projected from all open UK coal mines to 2050."
It is clear the CCC believes that Woodhouse Colliery will have a significantly negative impact on Net Zero.
And whilst it might compare favourably with established practices, as you appear to highlight, that does not necessarily mean that it is the appropriate way forward.
This is what Greenpeace UK policy director had to say about the proposal:
"There's a technological revolution building in steel-making, but this approach could make the UK a backwater in the 21st-century clean tech race"
The Austealian market was dead, may have changed in the last couple of years.
"May have" carries a lot of weight in that claim.
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/five-coal-exporting-countries/
With exports of 249.4Mtoe in 2018, Australia is the leading coal exporting country in the world — accounting for 29% of the world’s total coal exports. In 2018, Australia produced 301.1Mtoe of coal, consuming about 15% for domestic needs.
This is what the Chairman of the CCC Lord Deben had to say about the proposal:
“The opening of a new deep coking coal mine in Cumbria will increase global emissions and have an appreciable impact on the UK’s legally binding carbon budgets. The mine is projected to increase UK emissions by 0.4Mt CO2e per year. This is greater than the level of annual emissions we have projected from all open UK coal mines to 2050.”
This conflicts with what the Government report suggests, without going through the workings it is difficult to form a conclusion. I did see him on Newsnight the other night and I couldn't follow the logic of his argument.
This is what Greenpeace UK policy director had to say about the proposal:
“There’s a technological revolution building in steel-making, but this approach could make the UK a backwater in the 21st-century clean tech race”
I don't think this follows at all.
Scargill famously had a nice flat in (ISTR) The Barbican funded by the unions. Oh the innocence and transparency of the old days..
I don’t think this follows at all.
I don't see why not. You are backing investing £millions in extracting coal in an allegedly more environmentally friendly manner. The point I believe Greenpeace are making is that £millions should instead be invested in steelmaking without the use of carbon.
https://www.ssab.com/en/fossil-free-steel/purewaste
I am not backing it, I am not against it, as you have sensibly pointed out it is private money and it is up to them what they spend it on. We can put incentives in places to encourage behaviour but that is it. Saying it should be invested in a different way is a pretty useless argument in the context.
Sorry I thought you were backing the proposal.
Obviously I am not claiming that the people with £165 million to invest in the proposed colliery should be forced to invest it in something else.
But the UK government can do a lot more than just put incentives in places to encourage behaviour. It can say "you can't do this but you can do that".
Which if the government is serious concerning its commitment to COP27 it must do.
Failing private investment in developments such as fossil free steel then obviously the government can step in. Obviously all profits to eventually come from this government investment would need to be kept out of private hands.
Although forcefully restricting the use of carbon intense steel should provide an incentive I would have thought.
Would the mine actually employ 500 people, though?
Here you are mefty, from a source that you can trust - the Daily Telegraph 😉
The strongest and most comprehensive criticism of the proposed Woodhouse Colliery that I have yet seen :
The Government has degraded this country’s diplomatic credibility for no economic purpose. It has once again damaged efforts to turn Britain into a global clean-tech hub, the real growth accelerant this decade if only they would grasp the chance.
"Economically, it is investing in the technologies of the last century. Socially, it is pursuing jobs in industries that are on the way out. Politically, it is undermining the UK’s authority on the most important global issue of our times”
Sorry I thought you were backing the proposal.
The difference is semantic but was used to emphasise its a question of not banning something.
But the UK government can do a lot more than just put incentives in places to encourage behaviour. It can say “you can’t do this but you can do that”.
And a mining company would say fine we will go off and look for some other mining opportunities.
Anyway we have strayed off the subject.
Read the Daily Telegraph article, it is clearly extremely well researched and covers every aspect of the proposal.
If I wasn't 100% convinced before reading that article I am now.
Would the mine actually employ 500 people, though?
It depends how they've counted, but 25 years ago that would be normal to operate a big UK colliery
Would the mine actually employ 500 people, though?
I would think the answer to that is yes, though I would have thought to extract about 3m tons/year it would be more, given actual miners in shifts, support staff, truckers etc etc.
Question should be how many of them will be local and from the UK and how many will come from coal producing countries like Poland or India.
It is false to say coking coal is required to make steel. There are already alternatives in production which provide a significant reduction in emissions. The gov is completely contradicting its climate change commitments allowing investment in old technology rather than encouraging new tech and providing the infrastructure to support it.
E.g.
https://www.h2greensteel.com/
I wonder who in the tories has interests linked to the Cayman Island company who owns the proposed coal mine?
Cayman isles company owns the Cumbrian coal mine
People keep talking about jobs, but does anyone think these mining jobs will actually be good jobs? I mean, ones that will give good quality of life and create transferrable useful skills for the modern world?
Molgrips,the jobs will be skilled and well paid but not particularly great working conditions although with modern safety standards not as unsafe as some make out. Trouble is there won't be many of them and will generally be limited as experience or qualifications will be needed.
I wonder who in the tories has interests linked to the Cayman Island company who owns the proposed coal mine?
Probably no one. And as your link points out EMR Capital is Australian owned.
The initial driving political force behind the Woodhouse Colliery proposal has been the Labour-LibDem controlled county council which unanimously approved the proposal over 3 years ago.
The reason nothing much has happened since then is that the Westminster government has been dragging its feet over the issue, it initially refused to get involved:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-50274212
"Plans for the UK's first deep coal mine in decades will go ahead after the government decided not to intervene.
Cumbria county councillors gave it the go-ahead in March, but this sparked a number of objections, including a call for government scrutiny.
However, ministers have now said the council should take the decision.
Councillors have ratified their support for the plans."
Work was expected to start nearly 3 years ago. Also from the above link:
"It is hoped work could begin on the site in early 2020, with coal production starting about two years later."
Two years later the Labour-LibDem controlled county council was still backing the proposal:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55871503
"Cumbria councillors told BBC News there were no good planning grounds for them to refuse permission for the mine, near Whitehaven, and said it would help to diversify local employment prospects.
The government’s chief planning officer Joanna Averley defended Mr Jenrick’s decision not to over-rule their consent for the mine."
The government's position was that this decision had nothing to do with them. Also from the above link:
"And in this case, the decision was that this was a decision for local determination, and the application was approved by the local authority… a decision for local democracy."
Then 18 months ago the government decided to intervene and put a temporary halt on the decision made by the Labour-LibDem controlled council:
"A controversial new coalmine planned for Cumbria appears to have been put on hold.
The local government secretary, Robert Jenrick, had previously refused to intervene but on Thursday night he said he would take responsibility for the scheme away from the local authority".
So on that basis I doubt that the proposal is driven by Tory Party links with the Australian company behind the scheme.
Edit: The only possible reason that I can think for the government to give its approval for a scheme which is clearly so unacceptable under COP27 commitments is to keep Northern Research Group Tory MPs sweet.
If you step back, arguably the worst thing about this, is the message it sends out both globally and domestically about how serious we are, both as a government and a nation, about climate change and the use of fossil fuels. It's the equivalent of buying a huge gas-guzzling V8 for your half mile commute while your neighbour is cycling the same route to work, a big two fingers to everyone else.
If you expect other countries to commit to any sort of positive action on fossil fuel use and climate change, you have to be seen to walk the walk yourselves. In that context, nit-picking about the details is of limited relevance.
What we should be doing is investing in sustainable energy production and creating new jobs in that way.
Sorry, I know this is all glaringly obvious and probably a repetition of stuff that's been said already multiple times.
What we should be doing is investing in sustainable energy production and creating new jobs in that way.
Which is fine until the sun sets and the wind isn't blowing. Wind and solar currently meeting 1% of demand. Gas 57%. Coal 3%. Imports 15%.
I call it a failure of energy policy when we rely on imports to keep the lights on.
People keep talking about jobs, but does anyone think these mining jobs will actually be good jobs? I mean, ones that will give good quality of life and create transferrable useful skills for the modern world?
Of course they will be. Many will be though jobs but good jobs.
All skills are transferable and useful skills. So not sure what you mean tbh.
Wind and solar currently meeting 1% of demand. Gas 57%. Coal 3%. Imports 15%.
That is the last ten minute average. You are right - at night time, as like in the last ten minutes, solar energy drops to zero. And on windy days wind produces more energy than on calm days.
But you are very wrong imo to challenge the claim that "What we should be doing is investing in sustainable energy production and creating new jobs in that way".
We can and must wean ourselves off fossil fuel, the proposed Woodhouse Colliery does nothing to help achieve that aim.
And contrary to your cynical dismissal a great deal has already been achieved, precisely because of a strong determination.
2020 marked the first year in the UK’s history that electricity came predominantly from renewable energy, with 43% of our power coming from a mix of wind, solar, bioenergy and hydroelectric sources.
By the end of 1991, renewables accounted for just 2% of all electrical generation in the UK. By 2013 this figure had risen to 14.6%.
2017 placed Britain into the position as one of Europe’s leaders in the growth of renewable energy generation. Only countries like Iceland, Norway and Sweden, who had more established renewable schemes, used more on a relative scale.
In 2019, zero-carbon electricity production overtook fossil fuels for the first time, while on 17 August renewable generation hit the highest share ever at 85.1% (wind 39%, solar 25%, nuclear 20% and hydro 1%).
And also note :
2020 also saw UK have its longest run of coal-free power, with a total of 68 days between 10 April and 16 June. This is the longest coal-free period since the industrial revolution, which began in the mid-1700s!
https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/how-much-uks-energy-renewable
Which makes us ask the question 'how then can they justify the price gouging?' I know 'international markets ' etc etc but has the wind got more costly? It does make you king sick.
EDIT: the Crown owns 12 miles out to sea from the shore and they get rent from everything passing over it. I'm sure the king's not sick, quite the reverse, he'll be gobbling it up.
The Swedish plant H2 (to use hydrogen instead of coke) is planned to be ready from 2025, for industrial production. This is a collaborative effort with a wind turbine manufacturer.
There's other players also racing to be 'first' in this area.
There is also the potential of improving our recycling streams with electric arc furnaces, though I doubt this would meet domestic demand.
Which makes us ask the question ‘how then can they justify the price gouging?’ I know ‘international markets ‘ etc etc but has the wind got more costly? It does make you king sick.
It’s the ‘market’, your buying in leccy not wind.
I think it’s a cultural thing, the population seem to accept things that when you look make no sense, blind acceptance of is what is rather than what could be,should be.
Anyway back ta mine r lad :-).
Which is fine until the sun sets and the wind isn’t blowing.
Yawn. Not this old trope again. What's your solution then? Keep burning stuff?
What we need is more renewables and lots more grid scale storage.
Not this old trope again
Made famous by Donald Trump, a man who understood a thing or two about science.
According to irc's gridwatch link solar power produced 3% of the UK's electricity in the last ten minutes and wind also 3%
So quite a bit more than last night's 1% for both combined. Although last night was an exceptionally windless night I noticed. And not very sunny.
Its obvious from those graphs that if we had enough grid storage to flatten the evening demand peaks we'd stop burning massive amounts of gas.
Grid scale storage? Pump storage is the best we have at the moment. How many valleys do you want to flood? Current capacity for UK puimp storage is about 30Gwh which is less than an hour's demand in the evening.
Plus even pump hydro isn't 100% efficient. Around 80%.
The correct answer for electricity is nuclear as the French proved decades ago. With gas and pump storage to ramp up and down.
In any case electricity is the easy bit. Most gas is used for heating. Winter peak heat demand is equivelent to 197GWh. Nearly 5 times peak electricity demand. Even if we stopped using gas for electricity (we can't we need it to balance wind) we would still need huge amounts for heating.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/12/11/peak-demands-for-natural-gas/
The correct answer for electricity is nuclear as the French proved decades ago.
France gets approximately 20% of it's energy needs from renewables, why is that better than the UK which at 39% gets almost twice as much of its energy needs from renewables?
Is there something that I am missing?
According to that ^^ article wind currently produces 8% of France's energy needs, and they are now urgently looking at increasing that capacity significantly because of the growing crises.
Wind now accounts for approximately 23-25% of the UK's energy, so France would have to instantly treble what it currently producing from wind to match the UK.
Current capacity for UK puimp storage is about 30Gwh
Well for starters we currently have around 30GWh of battery storage in the UK's EV car parc which is only increasing so lets tap into some of that for peak demand management. We'll also need grid battery storage. Also we will be massively increasing the capacity of wind and solar which will mean even on days of low wind or sun there will be enough lectricity to run "undelayable" requirements. All the tech is available we just need to get it deployed.
As to home heating, heat pumps are the obvious solution we just need to find a way to make them more affordable.
Nuclear may have a part to play but IMHO its too expensive and takes too long to build the plants.
Global coal use will apparently reach a record level this year, and profits for the largest coal producers have tripled:
https://worldnewsera.com/news/finance/stock-market/coal-profits-triple-as-demand-surges/
The world’s largest coal mining companies tripled their profits in 2022 to reach a total of more than $97bn, defying expectations for an industry that was thought to be in terminal decline.
Cumbria coal mine plan thrown out by High Court judge
Mr Justice Holgate said in his judgment: "The assumption that the proposed mine would not produce a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions, or would be a net zero mine, is legally flawed."
I really doubt this project was ever designed to actually happen.
You create a project that appears viable, do the work, get permits blah blah blah. You sell it for a lot of money to someone who thinks it will happen - you're a winner. The new operator discovers it's actually a bit rubbish economically, and mothballs the idea, soaking the loss into their overall profit /loss and getting their money back via paying less tax . The jobs never existed in reality.
