The impact of the possible decommissioning of Port Talbot blast furnaces and supply of coal to heritage railways from foreign countries.

[eldomtom2]

Of course we don't know the grounds on which the application was refused. But I'd be very surprised if, somewhere in the refusal the term "net zero commitments" (or similar) did not appear.

So in other words you are getting angry based on a hypothetical.

 

[alex17595]

Well here's a starter for ten:

Of course we don't know the grounds on which the application was refused. But I'd be very surprised if, somewhere in the refusal the term "net zero commitments" (or similar) did not appear.

There is little doubt in my mind that in not too long, mining and burning coal in the UK will be seen in the same light as slaying every first-born. Of course the nation will be more than happy to import steel and other energy-intensive products from countries which don't particularly care how much coal they burn. Just so long as the UK achieves "net zero" it doesn't matter where the CO2 emissions are transferred to.

It was before my time there and quite a few years ago now so probably pre net zero. I was told it would be because of an increase in vehicle movements despite 10 ton being like 1 lorry load a year.

This whole off shoring of our co2 output is rediculous, at least if its done here we can put controls on the emissions produced instead off using chinese steel where they don't care what they burn.

 

[Taunton]

Had we switched to diesel trains in WW2 our transport infrastructure would be crippled, not enough diesel imports and electric overheads would be vulnerable to enemy bombing and power station outages.

This is an interesting discussion. There was never any supply trouble with aircraft fuel for the vast expansion of use by the RAF (in contrast to Germany where it became a key issue), while the vast majority of shipping, both merchant and Naval, had already changed over from coal to oil fuel, and again did not report supply shortages.

 

[Mountain Man]

It was before my time there and quite a few years ago now so probably pre net zero. I was told it would be because of an increase in vehicle movements despite 10 ton being like 1 lorry load a year.

This whole off shoring of our co2 output is rediculous, at least if its done here we can put controls on the emissions produced instead off using chinese steel where they don't care what they burn.

The reality is off shoring of CO2 is largely a myth. Like trickle down economics before it, we now have off shoring of CO2. There is always some myth floating around that sounds great and statistically lacks any credibility

 

[Vespa]

This is an interesting discussion. There was never any supply trouble with aircraft fuel for the vast expansion of use by the RAF (in contrast to Germany where it became a key issue), while the vast majority of shipping, both merchant and Naval, had already changed over from coal to oil fuel, and again did not report supply shortages.

It is theoretically possible to run trains on oil after converting, which will not be quick because shortage of materials for conversion, with the atlantic convoy being contantly attacked, you would risk spreading a scarce resource even further as oil and petrol is already rationed impacting on everything else.

 

[Taunton]

It is theoretically possible to run trains on oil after converting, which will not be quick because shortage of materials for conversion, with the Atlantic convoy being constantly attacked, you would risk spreading a scarce resource even further as oil and petrol is already rationed impacting on everything else.

Yes, but petrol for cars was mainly rationed to divert huge quantities to the military, the RAF, and to army lorries which were at this time almost wholly petrol, not diesel - in part because the supply chain for diesel was limited then, but for petrol much more established, particularly as they overran various other countries which were all petrol. There was a great benefit in sticking with one fuel for everything.

Steam locomotives running on oil were well established in the USA by the 1930s, particularly in places like California or Texas which were well away from any coal mines, and were almost wholly oil - they had gone straight from wood to oil firing there. The pipework required is relatively straightforward to manufacture and install, without high-tech components. The locos of some companies like the Santa Fe were converted back and forth as they moved around the system. Refinery techniques were not as developed then as now, there was a considerable residual product from the crude, for which burning in steam locos (and ships' boilers etc) was fine. Of course, the many UK loco manufacturing businesses of the era were also very familiar with oil firing components, as they built export locos for those overseas countries and colonies where there was no coal supply.

 

[Vespa]

Yes, but petrol for cars was mainly rationed to divert huge quantities to the military, the RAF, and to army lorries which were at this time almost wholly petrol, not diesel - in part because the supply chain for diesel was limited then, but for petrol much more established, particularly as they overran various other countries which were all petrol. There was a great benefit in sticking with one fuel for everything.

Steam locomotives running on oil were well established in the USA by the 1930s, particularly in places like California or Texas which were well away from any coal mines, and were almost wholly oil - they had gone straight from wood to oil firing there. The pipework required is relatively straightforward to manufacture and install, without high-tech components. The locos of some companies like the Santa Fe were converted back and forth as they moved around the system. Refinery techniques were not as developed then as now, there was a considerable residual product from the crude, for which burning in steam locos (and ships' boilers etc) was fine. Of course, the many UK loco manufacturing businesses of the era were also very familiar with oil firing components, as they built export locos for those overseas countries and colonies where there was no coal supply.

It is very possible to do all that with the benefit of hindsight today, I read my grandparents letters written during the war, the prevailing mood of the time was to save everything for essential war needs and use what we already have like coal, no one is sure how the war would end and civilian fuel needs is secondary to military requirements.

The situation heritage steam railway lines is facing shows dependency on imports puts you in a vulnerable position if supplies are cut off suddenly with no home industry to backfill.

If third countries suddenly stopped exporting to Britain for whatever reason conflict, blocked trade routes like the Red Sea or Panama, we have no major manufacturing industry to fill the gaps.

 

[Pigeon]

Given the costs of mining and transportation, locations with lots of high quality iron ore available locally will, other things being equal, be able to make steel more cheaply from iron ore than locations that don't.

OTOH you need a lot more coal than you do iron ore to produce x amount of steel. So if you have to ship one or the other of them to the smelter, it often makes sense to ship in the iron ore and get the coal locally. The South Wales ironworks started doing this quite early on, bringing in iron ore from the north of England since their local ore wasn't suitable for steelmaking (although the South Wales iron industry was already in decline by then). Then at the end of the 19th century they started shipping in iron ore from mines in Spain newly expanded with help from Welsh mining engineers. I'm not sure, but I think processing Spanish iron ore had a good deal to do with the Port Talbot operation coming into existence.

Solution: heritage coal mine mining heritage south wales steam coal using authentic victorian methods and standards for heritage steam industrial applications only.

>snort<

Who do you think would volunteer to work in a coal mine exactly??

You would absolutely get people volunteering to work in a coal mine. Coal mining is a bit like railways in that respect, only harder to dig if you're not into it yourself.

What really clobbers the idea is the safety aspect. Maintaining a safe operation in the South Wales coal field is not a matter for the faint-hearted, and if it's being run by volunteers mostly with little experience and has dumb tourists coming round to watch the operations, the chances of disaster are likely to be a terminal discouragement.

Yes they have ancient freemining rights to the extent they even have an exemption from recent bans of domestic house coal sales.

I think this is on its last legs though. The problem is some combination of needing to actually do a certain amount of mining to keep the rights, and restrictions on how the inheritance can be passed on to keep the rights amongst Foresters and not allow outsiders to inherit them... or something like that. There have been enough people in recent generations disinclined to mine but inclined to marry/move outside the Forest that it is now no longer possible for the few people who do still hold active rights to pass them on to any heirs, so the rights will collapse when those people die. Which is rather sad.

 

[JJmoogle]

I think this is on its last legs though. The problem is some combination of needing to actually do a certain amount of mining to keep the rights, and restrictions on how the inheritance can be passed on to keep the rights amongst Foresters and not allow outsiders to inherit them... or something like that. There have been enough people in recent generations disinclined to mine but inclined to marry/move outside the Forest that it is now no longer possible for the few people who do still hold active rights to pass them on to any heirs, so the rights will collapse when those people die. Which is rather sad.

The rights come from being born within the Hundred of St Briavels(the district council area these days) and then working for a year and a day(under an existing freeminer) you can then get the right for land to freemine, and freemining doesn't just cover coal aye, you can have other people not born in the hundred work in your mines, they just can't apply for their own.

The biggest barrier was the closure of the maternity unit in the 80s at the Dilke(and yes they can tell you conspiracies about that, same with NCB closing Eastern and Keeping Northern United open when the former had just had new roads fitted to a face, and the latter was the worst deep gale out of the two at the time) however I have noticed in the 20 years I've known the forest a surprising number of people choosing homebirth because of a recognition of keeping these rights.

I believe this started in the late 90s when the government tried to restrict new freemines require planning permission and pay absurd funds which would have killed it, this was beaten, it's too ancient a right to mess with like that, another was the threats with the recent coal ban, again beaten because the right is too ancient. I know a few people of my age(30) who already are or are going to become freeminers, I think they'll be alright.

 

[Pigeon]

Oh well that's good to know, cheers.