IntenseDebate - henryadamsuk

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Mark Jenkinson: The ca... · 1 reply · +1 points

I agree that there is a global market for met coal - and that WCM's claims of intent to restrict their sales to UK+Europe cannot be trusted, as once they get planning permission - they can ignore any conditions and sell it anywhere for any purpose. But at the hearing - we have to argue vs WCM's stated intention of market - UK Europe (& point out what they claim cannot be trusted). If WCM then say they wish to sell further abroad they then break one of their arguments they use - that their coal "saves" on transportation emissions! (even tho such savings are only around 1% of end-use emissions).
So I do get the point.
Yes indeed Australia is a massive producer of met coal, and coal in general. Responsible for huge CO2e emissions and part responsible for a recent loss of billions of animals in extensive fires made so much more likley due to global heating - from burning coal and other ff's.

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Mark Jenkinson: The ca... · 2 replies · +1 points

Denial of climate science is a belief-like thinking - like a religion.
Science could not be more opposite to religion in its way of thinking: critically examining evidence and using logic.
Trump demonstrates the foolishness of climate-denialism. He is an embarrassment to most US scientists.
I must admit - I'm a retired scientist now doing unpaid science work.

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Mark Jenkinson: The ca... · 6 replies · +1 points

There's so much wrong here.
Firstly you ignore climate science: we have to shift from fossil fuels rapidly.
Secondly renewables are now cheaper than ff's.
Baseload is an out-of-date concept.
Hydrogen can be produced using electrolysers when they produce more than we need at that point, which thereby would reduce the cost of that hydrogen. Electrolysers are getting cheaper.
Hydrogen when combusted results in harmless water vapour instead of CO2 and thus has great potential for producing iron from iron ore without CO2 emissions. UK gov has recognised that and is investing money into hydrogen research.
Our economy will be trashed by climate disasters if we don't decarbonise.
...

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Mark Jenkinson: The ca... · 3 replies · +1 points

West Cumbria Mining in their planning application state that only 13% of their output is aimed at the 2 UK blast furnace (BF) sites, and 83% for export to Europe's BF-using steelmaking firms. We do know that Europe's main steelmaking firms are aiming for 25% to 30% CO2 reductions by 2030 (& substantially more after that) [I have collated their press releases etc]. Any tariffs would make WCM's prospects worse not better (esp if any carbon border adjustments are added). So that is fairly clear to me. There is obvious momentum in Europe to decarbonise i.e. shift from coking coal. For the UK to back a dying fossil fuel method when we are hosting COP26 would be embarrassing.
UK's coking coal deposits aren't that great. If I've remembered rightly they are fairly high sulphur. Any BF firms if they bought some would probably want to mix it with other types.

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Mark Jenkinson: The ca... · 5 replies · +1 points

The UK gov has already made statements in favour of decarbonising the UK steel industry, and in shifting to use of hydrogen too.
Unlike countries like Sweden and Germany it is less decisive as re its support, partly due to PT and Scunthorpe being owned by foreign co.s (& who caused that?).
Unlike UK, Sweden has its own steel firm SSAB and Germany Thyssenkrupp, and their gov's are much more supportive in attitude - to helping those firms decarbonise.
But UK's MPI is very pro- steel decarb i.e. shifting away from coal in steel-making.

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Mark Jenkinson: The ca... · 0 replies · +1 points

MJ states: "EAFs are still not fossil-free – requiring the addition of coking coal, albeit in much reduced quantities"
The MPI report states that EAFs don't need the addition of coking coal www.bit.ly/MPItoSLACCreWCM

Is MJ referring to the graphite electrodes which do wear in use, or what??

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Mark Jenkinson: The ca... · 1 reply · +1 points

Hybrit does NOT need coking coal. MJ is wrong.
The Hybrit process uses hydrogen as a reducing agent for iron ore in a DRI plant INSTEAD of coal not in addition to some coal.

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Mark Jenkinson: The ca... · 1 reply · +1 points

MJ refers to reductions in emissions due to shorter transportation distances.
I have calculated that these would be only around 1% of the end-use and total emissions resulting from the coal extracted, so are a distraction from the larger mine-operation-emissions (methane etc), and much larger end-use emissions in the blast furnaces.
WCM's mine at Whitehaven wld result in 9 to 10 million tonnes CO2e pa - equal to the emissions of a million UK people which is double the pop of Cumbria. HUGE and of national signif, esp as UK is hosting COP26 in 2021.

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Mark Jenkinson: The ca... · 7 replies · +1 points

Europe's steel industry is committed to significant reductions in emissions and thus coal use by 2030, and substantial reductions thereafter.
Read MPI report and e.g.: these reduction commitments by 2030:
SSAB 25%
Thyssenkrupp 30%
ArcelorMittal 30%
...
MJ is wrong in his "foreseeable future" statement.
I have links to steel firm statements, MPI etc here: https://henryadamsblog.wordpress.com/2020/02/20/s...

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Mark Jenkinson: The ca... · 2 replies · +1 points

There are a number of major flaws in Mark Jenkinson's article which undermine any case for coal.
I have just written these in full but they were abruptly all erased in front of my eyes (by???) except for the 1st sentence I wrote.
In short - the recent report by the steel industry's research body the Materials Processing Institute comes to opposite conclusions to those of MJ: www.bit.ly/MPItoSLACCreWCM
So too do statements made by most of Europe's steelmaking firms such as SSAB, Thyssenkrupp, ArcMit.
Would you find their work more credible or MJ's - that's your choice but I know who I would find more credible.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with henryadamsuk

People I'm following

henryadamsuk