HS2

[griffgriff]

18 hours ago, icn said:

No - for steel you just buy from producers using low-carbon energy sources (hello Iceland). I'm less familiar with concrete though.

I can’t help but think that’s a “robbing Peter to pay Paul’ strategy. More likely it’s down to ‘off setting’ …. You can do anything you like, providing you plant a tree in Patagonia and put up a ‘save the whale’ poster.

 

Griff

[jamie92208]

9 hours ago, Trog said:

 

He has a good reputation, is supposed to be the only one working there with honest intentions.

Not a very good ending though.  

 

Jamie

[corneliuslundie]

But how many of our current government will be remembered in several hundred years?

Oh, I forgot. They will be celebrated for HS2.

Jonathan

Edited February 27, 2022 by corneliuslundie

[rockershovel]

7 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

But how many of our current government will be remembered in several hundred years?

Oh, I forgot. They will be celebrated for HS2.

Jonathan

Since you raise the subject, I suspect that Johnson will be remembered for being the PM who signed Brexit. 

 

Mrs Thatcher will be remembered without doubt, along with Blair.

 

It depends really. When I did O Level history, the names of 18th Century politicians like Fox, Pitt and Burke surfaced with tedious regularity  (although I confess that why, escapes me at present). 

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, griffgriff said:

I can’t help but think that’s a “robbing Peter to pay Paul’ strategy. More likely it’s down to ‘off setting’ …. You can do anything you like, providing you plant a tree in Patagonia and put up a ‘save the whale’ poster.

 

Griff

The whole "zero nett carbon" concept is based upon having actual emissions appear to some one else's account. 

[APOLLO]

We can't afford Net Zero. It's as simple as that.

 

Many will not be able to afford this year with these prices. And this is the price cap April this year to 30 September. After that it's anyones guess given the current situation to the east.

 

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/information-consumers/energy-advice-households/check-if-energy-price-cap-affects-you

 

Brit15

[JeffP]

I've already seen prices taking off "due to covid" in France.

Anyone like to bet on them coming back down now its settling down?

Can you say "profit"?

[rockershovel]

8 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

We can't afford Net Zero. It's as simple as that.

 

Many will not be able to afford this year with these prices. And this is the price cap April this year to 30 September. After that it's anyones guess given the current situation to the east.

 

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/information-consumers/energy-advice-households/check-if-energy-price-cap-affects-you

 

Brit15

Even its advocates admit this; you only need pay brief attention to realise that it depends on imposing huge borrowing on householders' mortgages and uncontrollable energy bill increases. 

 

You also don't have to look very far to work out that it is futile, that our contribution will be negligible and none of the real drivers are doing anything. 

 

My best guess is that we are heading back to a situation akin to the 1970s; energy price rises, inflation to relieve the unrepayable borrowing choking the banking system, rises in the cost of borrowing after more than a decade of artificially suppressed interest rates. 

 

Whether this is policy, "due to covid" or any other thing, doesnt really matter. We are heading for one of those interludes "by which God teaches the law to princes" and the system rebalances itself. 

[icn]

6 hours ago, griffgriff said:

I can’t help but think that’s a “robbing Peter to pay Paul’ strategy. More likely it’s down to ‘off setting’ …. You can do anything you like, providing you plant a tree in Patagonia and put up a ‘save the whale’ poster.

 

Griff

How so - you've omitted to provide an explanation? Iceland has plentiful thermal energy, that's why it's easy to perform energy intensive transformations there with virtually no carbon emissions. No one's being robbed, other than heat being taken from the earth.

 

Of course you do have to transport the output material to where it's going to be used, but that transport is happening anyway (don't see much metal being mined in the UK after all), and transport-related emissions are likely negligible in comparison to the smelting.

 

Someone rightfully pointed out that Iceland doesn't actually produce steel, rather aluminium. Fair point - but the analogy still applies: you can relocate production to locations with minimal emissions. (Aluminium has a much worse footprint, so it makes sense that they started with the aluminium rather than steel.)

[Edwin_m]

55 minutes ago, icn said:

How so - you've omitted to provide an explanation? Iceland has plentiful thermal energy, that's why it's easy to perform energy intensive transformations there with virtually no carbon emissions. No one's being robbed, other than heat being taken from the earth.

 

Of course you do have to transport the output material to where it's going to be used, but that transport is happening anyway (don't see much metal being mined in the UK after all), and transport-related emissions are likely negligible in comparison to the smelting.

 

Someone rightfully pointed out that Iceland doesn't actually produce steel, rather aluminium. Fair point - but the analogy still applies: you can relocate production to locations with minimal emissions. (Aluminium has a much worse footprint, so it makes sense that they started with the aluminium rather than steel.)

I believe coal is essential for conventional methods of steel production, as the carbon reacts with the iron oxides in the ore to produce CO2 and pure(r) iron.  There are various processes under investigation that reduce or avoid these emissions.  

 

Aluminium is generally produced by eletrolysis, so has always needed large amounts of electric power.  Hence the smelters tend to be in places with cheap power from hydroelectric, or in the case of Iceland geothermal.  

[corneliuslundie]

Yes though steel contains carbon whether it comes from coal or from another source.

Agreed about transport being a much smaller issue than production. What I was referring to was a view I have seen stated that it is OK to buy steel made in Germany as it doesn't count towards our emissions.

And I am afraid that we are not going to build railways without steel, unless we go back to wooden rails - and wheels. I don't think that is what is planned for HS2 (though please don't suggest it to the politicians).

Jonathan

[Northmoor]

50 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Yes though steel contains carbon whether it comes from coal or from another source.

Agreed about transport being a much smaller issue than production. What I was referring to was a view I have seen stated that it is OK to buy steel made in Germany as it doesn't count towards our emissions.

And I am afraid that we are not going to build railways without steel, unless we go back to wooden rails - and wheels. I don't think that is what is planned for HS2 (though please don't suggest it to the politicians).

Jonathan

The carbon in steel does not come from coal, the coal is added at a strictly controlled rate during steel making to remove it to the required level (there's far more carbon in cast iron).

[62613]

3 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

I believe coal is essential for conventional methods of steel production, as the carbon reacts with the iron oxides in the ore to produce CO2 and pure(r) iron.  There are various processes under investigation that reduce or avoid these emissions.  

 

Aluminium is generally produced by eletrolysis, so has always needed large amounts of electric power.  Hence the smelters tend to be in places with cheap power from hydroelectric, or in the case of Iceland geothermal.  

Not coal, but coke; the impurities in raw coal affect the properties of the finished steel

 

[Mark Saunders]

18 minutes ago, 62613 said:

Not coal, but coke; the impurities in raw coal affect the properties of the finished steel

 

Redcar blast furnace had a coal injection plant added by SSI prior to closure. 

[Edwin_m]

29 minutes ago, 62613 said:

Not coal, but coke; the impurities in raw coal affect the properties of the finished steel

 

Noted thanks, but the coke does of course come from coal.  

[griffgriff]

4 hours ago, icn said:

How so - you've omitted to provide an explanation? Iceland has plentiful thermal energy, that's why it's easy to perform energy intensive transformations there with virtually no carbon emissions. No one's being robbed, other than heat being taken from the earth.

 

Of course you do have to transport the output material to where it's going to be used, but that transport is happening anyway (don't see much metal being mined in the UK after all), and transport-related emissions are likely negligible in comparison to the smelting.

 

Someone rightfully pointed out that Iceland doesn't actually produce steel, rather aluminium. Fair point - but the analogy still applies: you can relocate production to locations with minimal emissions. (Aluminium has a much worse footprint, so it makes sense that they started with the aluminium rather than steel.)

Great…. Build it there then

 

As others have pointed out. It merely off set against others. It was illustrated quite well on a recent radio phone in. A caller enquired why their energy bill was going up because of the rise in gas prices. They had a, so called ‘green’, tariff that supplied energy from environmentally sound sources. They were disappointed to learn the energy market doesn’t work like that; there is only so much of it and (this is my point) much of it has foul and polluting origins …  some make it sound clean…but it just gets dirtier somewhere else.

 

Griff

[corneliuslundie]

Apologies. The source I read was obviously talking rubbish. I have learned something today.

I am sure that what they use as Margam is anthracite, not coke though. Presumably slightly different processes. I don't think you would convert anthracite to coke. But again I may be wrong.

Anyway, I am sure HS2 will not be carrying much of either. (See, back on topic).

Jonathan

[KingEdwardII]

8 hours ago, icn said:

Iceland has plentiful thermal energy,

The majority of Iceland's electricity is actually produced by hydro power. They do have thermal energy power stations, but in practice it produces only a small proportion of the electricity. The thermal energy is of more practical use in providing heating for buildings, especially in the major centres like Reykjavik. The thermal energy is also extensively used for saunas and geothermal spas. For a cold country like Iceland, that makes a lot of sense.

 

8 hours ago, icn said:

you can relocate production to locations with minimal emissions

Well, only if it makes economic sense. No source of power is free. Smelting iron is still more cheaply done by using coke.

 

For the Aluminium smelters, the process is inherently based on the use of electricity. So a place with lots of low-cost electricity is favoured for the smelters. In Iceland, the last Aluminium smelter constructed also required a large and controversial hydro scheme to be built - fortunately Iceland is both mountainous and wet, so at least this was practical. 

 

Yours, Mike.

[96701]

We obviously need more nuclear power stations on line. It must be carbon neutral.

[APOLLO]

10 hours ago, 96701 said:

We obviously need more nuclear power stations on line. It must be carbon neutral.

 

Agree - BUT Ten to twenty years away, and at great cost unfortunately.

 

Brit15

[Ron Ron Ron]

All this is well off topic.

Start an “Energy” topic in the Wheeltappers section.

 

 

.

[Mike Storey]

As Ron*3 has said, can we please get this back to HS2 relevance? I know that some of this is relevant to the stated ambitions of the HS2 Environmental Strategy, but we are straying a bit away from that.

 

Thanks

[jamie92208]

No problem. As of today Dorothy has advanced 170 yards. I don't have my spreadsheet handy but will update it in a couple of days.

 

Jamie

[Ron Ron Ron]

1 hour ago, jamie92208 said:

No problem. As of today Dorothy has advanced 170 yards. I don't have my spreadsheet handy but will update it in a couple of days.

 

Jamie

 

Progress may be further on than that.

Geoff Marshall and some others were shown around the Long Itchington site a couple of weeks ago and have posted videos online.

Apparently, the Dorothy rig is about 125m long (shorter than the Chilterns machines) and the rear end of it looks to be at least 40 or 50m in from the portal.

 

The leading Chilterns TBM, Florence, has reached the first ventilation shaft at Chalfont St. Peter, hence its very slow progress as it passes through.

 

 

 

.

[jamie92208]

4 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Progress may be further on than that.

Geoff Marshall and some others were shown around the Long Itchington site a couple of weeks ago and have posted videos online.

Apparently, the Dorothy rig is about 125m long (shorter than the Chilterns machines) and the rear end of it looks to be at least 40 or 50m in from the portal.

 

The leading Chilterns TBM, Florence, has reached the first ventilation shaft at Chalfont St. Peter, hence its very slow progress as it passes through.

 

 

 

.

That will be interesting  work. The guy from the Chilterns Society mentioned that in his last update. Apparently  the TBM's are actually cutti g through the sides of the shoft and the shaft lining in that are is made of  IIRC glass reinforced platic segments so that the TBM's can chew through them.

 

Jamie