Nearly 300 mining jobs have been lost at the Aberpergwm coal mine near Neath after the company announced a shutdown.
Sad to see yet another working mine lost, especially with 6.8m tonnes left in the ground.
BBC News link (http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-20944454)
Some would say that the carbon is better left down there and not turned into CO2.
the important question is, can we get in there for a look round the place?
hmmm
lets assume they got the full 6.8m tonnes out.
coal is approx 80% carbon. so 80% of 6.8 = 5.44m tonnes of carbon burnt.
CO2 being one carbon to two Oxygen and lets assume that a carbon and an oxygen weigh about the same - they are closeish on the period table.
So thats 5.44m + (2 x 5.44m) = approx 16m tonnes of CO2 produced if the mine remained open until coal reserves were completely used up.
16m compared to the approx 2.996×10^12 tonnes of C02 in the atmosphere today is (according to my calculator):
0.005% change.
Plants love CO2. :P
And of course lets not forget that the slight increase in CO2 in the atmostphere is one of the factors for the increased yeild of the worlds farms. So in fact it'll help rapeseed grow better :-)
:silly: :silly: :blink: :lol:
[quote="timwatts" post=12873]the important question is, can we get in there for a look round the place?[/quote]
I'll see if I can get hold of the mine foreman to see if we can get a visit I managed with Tower before it closed.
that would be great. :-)
[quote="timwatts" post=12874]hmmm
lets assume they got the full 6.8m tonnes out.
coal is approx 80% carbon. so 80% of 6.8 = 5.44m tonnes of carbon burnt.
CO2 being one carbon to two Oxygen and lets assume that a carbon and an oxygen weigh about the same - they are closeish on the period table.
So thats 5.44m + (2 x 5.44m) = approx 16m tonnes of CO2 produced if the mine remained open until coal reserves were completely used up.
16m compared to the approx 2.996×10^12 tonnes of C02 in the atmosphere today is (according to my calculator):
0.005% change.
Plants love CO2. :P
And of course lets not forget that the slight increase in CO2 in the atmostphere is one of the factors for the increased yeild of the worlds farms. So in fact it'll help rapeseed grow better :-)
:silly: :silly: :blink: :lol:[/quote]
Is that 80% by weight or volume because I think most of the none carbon elements of coal are heavier than carbon. :unsure:
[quote="j0nas" post=12875][quote="timwatts" post=12873]the important question is, can we get in there for a look round the place?[/quote]
I'll see if I can get hold of the mine foreman to see if we can get a visit I managed with Tower before it closed.[/quote]
If you get a trip count me in. :woohoo:
though by weight but would have to check.
I do appreciate that Tim works for the fossil oil industry, and may be sensitive to anyone who challenges the use of fossil fuel. Both scientific and political opinon is now clearly of the view that the burning of all fossil derived hydrocarbon is adding to the problem we face with Climate Change by increasing the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere. Sure enough plants will eventually recapture this carbon, but we are at the same time cutting down rainforests and reducing the plant population. It is a double recipe for disaster.
But Tim's argument misses the crucial issue, which is not that the actual percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing this problem. The problem is caused by the Greenhouse effect. CO2 reflects heat back into the earth, and just a tiny increase in CO2 will vastly increase thermal absorption - and this is the reason why the burning of mineral hydrocarbons is doing so much damage - on a scale that now threatens the whole of life on this planet as we know it.
The solution is to use carbon and hydrocarbon material that is already in circulation as a means to transfer solar energy, ie plant material that was growing within the last ten years - as opposed to plant material that has been taken out of circulation for between 40 and 400 million years as in the case of oil and coal. The energy in mineral hydrocarbons and vegetable oils is derived from the sun. The only difference is that fossil fuels contain solar energy from millions of years ago.
Having said that, I must also congratulate Tim for converting his Landy to run on Straight Vegetable Oil, which is probably the most environmentally responsible way to travel. If only more people did the same thing!
[quote="JohnNicholson" post=12885]I Having said that, I must also congratulate Tim for converting his Landy to run on Straight Vegetable Oil, which is probably the most environmentally responsible way to travel. If only more people did the same thing![/quote]
that would make you a very rich man and our cars would smell like old chippies :whistle: :whistle: .
I am already a very rich man.
For some reason people queue up behind my wonder truck, I assume they love the smell.
[quote="JohnNicholson" post=12888]For some reason people queue up behind my wonder truck, I assume they love the smell.[/quote]
or they are waiting to buy a bag of chips off you :P :P and a fish of coarse
[quote="JohnNicholson" post=12885]Having said that, I must also congratulate Tim for converting his Landy to run on Straight Vegetable Oil, which is probably the most environmentally responsible way to travel. If only more people did the same thing![/quote]
That'll make up for the V12 Jag engines I love then :evil:
Probably need a few more conversions to offset the V8's though... :evil:
Pity I can't afford to run the one sitting on a mates drive though :(
so does burning veg oil not create Co2?
to be fair, i'm not arsed about global warming, i'm going to buy a v8 jag in the hope next summer will be better than the last one.
[quote="Mad-Dan" post=12891]so does burning veg oil not create Co2?
to be fair, i'm not arsed about global warming, i'm going to buy a v8 jag in the hope next summer will be better than the last one.[/quote]
I have a mint Daimler Double Six going cheap, if You can afford the juice to run it, and fancy something older. No rot at all, better attention to detail and build quality than the XJS series, despite being based on the same platform.
Yes, of course burning veg oil also produces CO2 in exactly the same way as does burning mineral (fossil) fuel. However, as I explained before, the issue (for those of us who want to make a responsible choice on the way we use energy), is where this carbon material comes from. i e all fossil carbon in coal, gas or oil is created by energy from the sun that was captured by plants and then stored below the earth's surface for many millions of years. If we suddenly release this energy by burning and let the carbon into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide then we seriously displace the balance of the earths systems. In terms of geological time two hundred years of the industrial revolution is a flash in time compared to the 400 million years since the carboniferous period.
By comparison, using energy that is collected from the sun by plants in the last few years does not cause such a disbalance in the earth's systems.
In my view this does not justify cutting down rainforests to grow palm oil for bio-fuels. This is a counter productive business venture, thankfully the British Government is now stoppoing new oil from being used for bio-fuels.
The work I do is to collect used cooking oil and other used or waste materials which can be blended to make fuels with as low a fossil derived content as possible within the law. Sadly, the law in the UK prevents many of the materials I wish e could use, but I am constantly lobbying government for a better legal structure that could achieve real environmental change.
[quote="timwatts" post=12874]
Plants love CO2. [/quote]
This is quite possibly the single most important factor in the whole CO2 political debacle that I believe is either "missed" or obfiscated.
Not only do plants love the stuff, they NEED it. The more CO2 there is, the more "lush" the flora genus becomes. The more it thrives the more oxygen it produces and, inevitably, we have equilbrium.
Of course, all things are not equal and the planet has gone through a great many very significant changes in it's history and, oddly, appears to have survived them all.
Interesting isn't it ;)
Ian
If it was as you suggest Ian, the trees and grass at the sides of roads would grow so much more strongly that they would encroach the roads. The fact is that the actual percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is very low indeed. Increasing it makes the earth absorb more heat from the sun and hold it inside the virtual greenhouse. This warming makes deserts expand and ice caps reduce.
It is also true that there have been many periods when the earth has been through hot phases and cold phases. The problem is that these changes last many millions of years. Scientists are now looking at what are called 'tipping points' where slight warming sets of mechanisms which in turn instigate further warming, and so on so we end up with an inevitable and disastrous process of change that we are powerless to correct. It may then take longer for the earth to revert to our current climate conditions than the time that mankind has existed - probably much longer.
One thing I can agree about is that the earth has been through many such swings as part of its 'natural' evolution, and one of the things I find especially awesome is when we meet a clear junction in the rocks when underground. These show that an 'event' took place in the earth's history. One such event can be clearly seen in the Rhyd Alun passageway, and there is a sticky clay in the joint between two distinctively different types of rock. This clay is probably volcanic ash or ash from major landscape fires.
One of the most spectacular events was about 65 million years ago when a meteor the size of Anglesey hit Guatemala. This set going a whole series of curst events that caused major extinctions. It caused the difference between two periods of geological time, and there is a white clay like ash layer 2†thick where ever this sequence of rocks are exposed. It also changed the genetic structure of life on the planet so that adaptability became the most important factor rather than speciality. This resulted in the demise of the dinosaurs and the rise of ham - the ultimate in adaptable life existence.
[quote="JohnNicholson" post=12893]Yes, of course burning veg oil also produces CO2 in exactly the same way as does burning mineral (fossil) fuel. However, as I explained before, the issue (for those of us who want to make a responsible choice on the way we use energy), is where this carbon material comes from. i e all fossil carbon in coal, gas or oil is created by energy from the sun that was captured by plants and then stored below the earth's surface for many millions of years. If we suddenly release this energy by burning and let the carbon into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide then we seriously displace the balance of the earths systems. In terms of geological time two hundred years of the industrial revolution is a flash in time compared to the 400 million years since the carboniferous period.
By comparison, using energy that is collected from the sun by plants in the last few years does not cause such a disbalance in the earth's systems.
In my view this does not justify cutting down rainforests to grow palm oil for bio-fuels. This is a counter productive business venture, thankfully the British Government is now stoppoing new oil from being used for bio-fuels.
The work I do is to collect used cooking oil and other used or waste materials which can be blended to make fuels with as low a fossil derived content as possible within the law. Sadly, the law in the UK prevents many of the materials I wish e could use, but I am constantly lobbying government for a better legal structure that could achieve real environmental change.[/quote]
So, using that logic, is it better to heat my house from a fire kept lit by burning conifers, cos they grow quickly, than it is to heat my house using gas?
Ali, which shape double six is, i've had a few of these, i'm a big fan of jags.
What you say Dan is correct about burning conifers, but my guess is that you live in Manchester and there may be problems actually burning any house fire.
An even better solution would be to burn the chippings created by people like John Crazy when they cut the brushwood along roadsides, but let it dry out well and then blend it with waste palm oil, and the solid crap I remove form UCO. Doug has just built a fantastic stove which can burn both logs and chippings. This provides hinm with heat, hot water and cooking. It is a most impressive feat of engineering design and practical craftsmanship.
I would be very interested in experimenting with mixtures of veg oil waste and wood waste. It would be a great project with the various skills present between UCET members.
I love the idea of renewable fuel and fully appreciate the importance of looking after our fantastic planet for future generations.
However, during the tourist season, my stock run consists of Rhos on Sea - Edinburgh - Scarborough & back to Rhos on Sea (just shy of 700 miles). Logistically it wouldn't be possible to do this using biofuel on the 60 litre fuel tank on my van.
Secondly, any environmental benefit is easily off set by the 4 gas guzzling lorries that now collect my rubbish / recycling that 1 lorry used to collect... (rant over) :whistle:
[quote="Ian" post=12894][quote="timwatts" post=12874]
Plants love CO2. [/quote]
This is quite possibly the single most important factor in the whole CO2 political debacle that I believe is either "missed" or obfiscated.
Not only do plants love the stuff, they NEED it. The more CO2 there is, the more "lush" the flora genus becomes. The more it thrives the more oxygen it produces and, inevitably, we have equilbrium.
Of course, all things are not equal and the planet has gone through a great many very significant changes in it's history and, oddly, appears to have survived them all.
Well, whilst I agree with what you say with regard to the gas exchange of plants I feel that I must point out that we are cutting down the trees,and concreting over the grass, at an ever increasing rate, plants cannot do thier work if they have been anhilated.
And can I put a word in for solar pannels which use the suns photons directly, thereby helping to cool the plannet.
'94 HE 6.0L
I have a C plate XJS V12 as well.
If that's not to Your taste, I can turn up loads, I used to buy them to Trike the running gear, and still keep in touch with a lot of people.
In reply to Mr Sweetie...
There are people making bio-fuels all over the UK. When I do long trips I take extra fuel in 20 litre tubs in the back. We must never let the stupid things Councils do ever put us off doing what we know is the right thing for the long term. Many Councils are also running their service vehicles on 100% bio-fuel.
I have been working with authorities in China where they remove the yellow fat that sticks to the roof of sewers as a fuel for the council vehicles that operate the tips. This process uses ozone which is made by generators running on fat, so they get electricity, heat and feul from this stinking waste. I cant get any help from the UK government to develop the concept here.
I am a bit confused about Dougs post - unless he only added the last paragraph, which does make sense. I think the case that plants are needing more CO2 to grow better as a reason to justify the burning of fossil fuels was thrown out many years ago! As I have said before, Climate Change is caused by the Greenhouse Effect not by gassing us out with CO2.
[quote="JohnNicholson" post=12901] We must never let the stupid things Councils do ever put us off doing what we know is the right thing for the long term. Many Councils are also running their service vehicles on 100% bio-fuel.
I cant get any help from the UK government to develop the concept here.[/quote]
I have friends who work in a variety of sectors all over the world and it would appear that as a country we are extremely out of date with many things John.
I really admire your work and enthusiasm towards bio-fuels, but as soon as anything like that catches on in a big way, they'll just tax the arse off it.
A classic example of this was when in 1984 the post office converted the whole of their fleet operating out of Shrewsbury to LPG, then the government wacked the tax on it, then they converted them all back.
[quote="JohnNicholson" post=12897]I would be very interested in experimenting with mixtures of veg oil waste and wood waste. [/quote]
these are already on sale as slugs or pellets. basically compressed wood waste and a flammible additive to keep it together, not sure what the ingredients are but im sure your waste product would create the same results. drop some waste produce off with doug and im sure he'll have it figured out in no time.
I must be careful here.
I did drop some waste oil off on poor John Crazy - but that really was a horrible accident!
Before doing the same to Dougie I will come to a prior arrangement.
I must say again though that his new stove is a work of art.
I also learnt that Doug makes other wonderful things that could be used as a fuel.
To address a few raised issues (mostly Johns oddly);
I did not say that the flora IS more lush, I suggested it would be if there were more CO2 (thusly, there would be an increase in oxygen and therefore equilibrium QED.) I also stated that “things are not equal†meaning there are other influences. None of what I stated was intended to defeat an argument for lower CO2 emissions although I do sincerely believe that the argument to reduce it is overstated and obfuscated.
John’s best friend, Jeremy Clarkson, took a vehicle expedition across the arctic to the North Pole (in a Totoya Hilux) and made it to the actual pole. His last remark was (about his trip to the North Pole) “The most surprising thing of all is, that it is still here†â€" said in the context that the “environmentalists†would all have us believe it was not. I am not suggesting that the poles are not receding (they are) but I am suggesting (again) that the position is being overstated and obfuscated.
It is also science fact that the planet produces some (I could say sizable but it is a moot point) CO2 emissions all by itself without humans doing anything all. In the past it produced gazillions of the stuff. Again, oddly, it seems to have sorted itself out. Moreover, it could be argued that human CO2 production is only an accelerant and not a cause. Not that this is a provocative statement :P
And some food for thought ... Why do scientists need to reverse the effects? Why do we need to revert? There is a basic law of science that prevents anything returning to its original state and has prevented the planet from returning to its former self on any previous occasion (and no matter what we do now will prove all attempts ultimately futile)
To quote Professor Brian Cox (who does know a thing or two);
Entropy.
;)
[quote="JohnNicholson" post=12905]I must be careful here.
I must say again though that his new stove is a work of art.
[/quote]
hand made out of stainless steel
Ok,
I have been thinking about the argumenst against Fossil fuels and in favour of other "bio" solutions.
I think the problem is not which source of carbon you burn, it's just burning carbon at all. Bio fuels are returning CO2 to the atmosphere from more recent times, fossil fuels are returning CO2 to the atmosphere from millions of years ago. They both return CO2 to the atmosphere!
If we stop burning fossil fuels and derive all our energy from bio fuels we will still put the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, plus we will also deforest the planet at an ever increasing rate. I don't know the numbers but I'm certain we will use all the renewable bio fuels very quickly if we don't use any fossil fuels at all. I'm not against bio (unless I'm behind John's 101... :silly: ) but it isn't the long term solution for the planet. It only works because a relatively small number of people use it. There isn't enough chip fat to run everybodys car and there isn't enough wood in the forests to heat everybodys house. There isn't enough space in this crowded country to site the required number of wind turbines (that only generate for a small part of the time) nor is there space for all the PV needed (that only generates during the day, and uses rare earth minerals that are themselves in short supply)to provide all the electricity we need.
The only real solution is to significantly reduce the energy we use. Anything else is scribbling in the margins...
[quote="NewStuff" post=12900]'94 HE 6.0L
I have a C plate XJS V12 as well.
If that's not to Your taste, I can turn up loads, I used to buy them to Trike the running gear, and still keep in touch with a lot of people.[/quote]
makes my 3.5 V8 look like a toy :(
[quote="Iestyn999" post=12909][quote="NewStuff" post=12900]'94 HE 6.0L
I have a C plate XJS V12 as well.
If that's not to Your taste, I can turn up loads, I used to buy them to Trike the running gear, and still keep in touch with a lot of people.[/quote]
makes my 3.5 V8 look like a toy :([/quote]
Bet yours is cheaper to run though :(
20, *IF* You behave, on the rather laughably named "High Efficency" 6.0L
17 on the 5.3 Straight into low single digits if you play with the loud pedal.
I wouldn't care if it didn't cost so damn much. If I had a better job, I'd be keeping the Daimler, and triking the Jag. If I had a better job, I'f be having one of these baby's in a Trike...
[video width=425 height=344 type=youtube]HA6am0rCwAk[/video]
[quote="LesW" post=12908]Ok,
I have been thinking about the argumenst against Fossil fuels and in favour of other "bio" solutions.
I think the problem is not which source of carbon you burn, it's just burning carbon at all. Bio fuels are returning CO2 to the atmosphere from more recent times, fossil fuels are returning CO2 to the atmosphere from millions of years ago. They both return CO2 to the atmosphere!
If we stop burning fossil fuels and derive all our energy from bio fuels we will still put the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, plus we will also deforest the planet at an ever increasing rate. I don't know the numbers but I'm certain we will use all the renewable bio fuels very quickly if we don't use any fossil fuels at all. I'm not against bio (unless I'm behind John's 101... :silly: ) but it isn't the long term solution for the planet. It only works because a relatively small number of people use it. There isn't enough chip fat to run everybodys car and there isn't enough wood in the forests to heat everybodys house. There isn't enough space in this crowded country to site the required number of wind turbines (that only generate for a small part of the time) nor is there space for all the PV needed (that only generates during the day, and uses rare earth minerals that are themselves in short supply)to provide all the electricity we need.
The only real solution is to significantly reduce the energy we use. Anything else is scribbling in the margins...[/quote]
insulate your homes more ,buy a bike and walk more often . oh ye and live next door to a pub
[quote="LesW" post=12908]
The only real solution is to significantly reduce the energy we use. Anything else is scribbling in the margins.a..[/quote]
Are you suggesting that a significant reduction is a "solution" ?
... I would guess you actually mean it would slow down the effect (significantly?)
Ergo, you agree humans are an accelerant (or catalyst) and not the "cause" ?
;)
Ian
I just want big old engines that go fast and sound like that one ^^^
Please don't make me hug trees, I don't like splinters.
I don't honestly give a rats arse what makes it do that, as long as it does.
As much as I'm a big old Geek, leccy motor's don't exactly evoke any emotional response. Dirty great big V8's? Love em or hate em, they get a response.
Sooner or later the earth WILL correct itself, but make no mistake it will involve a much smaller human population, and perhaps no human poulation.
[quote="Ian" post=12912][quote="LesW" post=12908]
The only real solution is to significantly reduce the energy we use. Anything else is scribbling in the margins.a..[/quote]
Are you suggesting that a significant reduction is a "solution" ?
... I would guess you actually mean it would slow down the effect (significantly?)
Ergo, you agree humans are an accelerant (or catalyst) and not the "cause" ?
;)
Ian[/quote]
I think a significant reduction would be a solution. It's just not apparent how much of a reduction is required. I think there is a level of CO2 production that nature can effectively cope with and neutralise...
If we ant energy then we need to look at non carbon sources. At the moment they are very few and far between. For renewables to work effectively, presuming we can find enough space on our crowded island for them, we need to be able to efficiently store surplus energy for use in the times where they don't work (i.e at night, on windless or very windy days...), we don't have the technology to efficiently store any energy so there will be big losses in conversion. This means even more requirement for pointless windmills and solar PV that both only return a profit due to massive subsidies. The only current solution that adds up, if we don't burn carbon, is nuclear...
Doug,
Yes and yes but is it not inevitable in either case regardless of our actions now ?
Les,
You are still using the word "solution" ... even if we went "nuclear" would the planet still not evolve/devolve/change/mutate (call it whatever you will) ... I'm with the Professor .... "Entropy"
;)
Ian
To return to topic slightly - what a shame! :(
Anyone know how many drift mines are left operating in Wales now? Can't be many, surely?
A
return to the topic?? are you mad??! ;-) After I so rigorously gave the bellows a good old pumping and started the flaming ;-) Perhaps it is time to blow on the embers.....
John, I work in the Oil industry for the time off! ;-) If i wasn't doing what i was doing someone else would be.
Those who know me well will also know i'm certainly not PRO fossil fuels! In fact, quite the opposite.
However I am mindful that the reality of most situations most normally lies at the exact center of the extremes.
I'm not at all 'arguing' one way or the other i am just stating 'stuff' ;-)
It is true that plants grow (and therefore convert C02 back to carbon and O2) faster and 'better' when in an atmosphere of elevated C02. So provided we actually allow the planet to turn itself green, and stop cutting stuff down then we'll be ok.
Lets face it, if for every tonne of fossil fuel burnt we allowed a additional ton of plant life to grow we would be carbon neutral.
Lets face it, we're not gaining or loosing any carbon. We're just moving it about the place and we're getting panicy about releasing all this long term stored stuff up into the atmosphere all of a sudden (rightly so). Its is ultimately only returning it to the normal carbon cycle from which is came.
Carbon recovery and storage (the latest big thing) is an eons old concept, and tree's and plants have been doing it since the dawn of life itself.
I don't feel inclined to re-research the actual figures but if you weighed all the carbon on the planet, the quantity locked up in fossil fuels is a very small percentage. Releasing all of this fuel all in one go could be instantly (within growing time) be counteracted by growing that many billion tonns of extra forest.
Personally my view is that we need to focus our priority on regaining balance by returning the planet to a state of forestation and worry less (less not none) about the fossilized carbon we're returning to where it came.
One very important aspect of this is the TYPE of plants that we cover the surface of the planet with. As the human population increases a important aspect is that land needs to be allocated to food production. Lets remember that we ourselves are pretty good devices at storing carbon too.
There is a massive amount of work being done to investigate ways of making crops grown 'better' which in actual fact means making crops more efficient at converting C02 into food / per unit area. Genetic modification of crops is the next big thing (well its already happening) in restoring balance in our carbon cycle. To make 'space' on the planet for us maybe we should aim to genetically modify plant to become more efficient at balancing things.
Also with regards to self regulation, are you aware that the co2 effiency of plants increases with temperature? So if we get global warming, the plants become more efficient at growing and remove more C02 - i.e. a self regulatory process.
My belief is that the large scale deforestation of the planet (and lets not forget the man made effect of increased desertification which is very very hard to reverse through the mis-managed use of land- which includes the growing of crops, rapeseed included) plays a much bigger part in the argument than the burning of fossil fuels in terms of the long term future (and past!).
I believe that once the land is pushed beyond a certain critical limit of deforestation, leading to reduced fertile soils the process will be pretty much irrecoverable. Perhaps we should be learning more from mars.
Lets not forget also that C02 is not (by a long way) the only contributing factor to the green house effect.
Doug is right - Provided we don't push it too far, it will find balance as it has done time and time before. If mankind will be part of the balance equation is another question entirely.
Don't forget, throughout geological time there have been episodes of very high CO2, with percentages up to 17% and even higher. And nothing to do with man, as we were yet to evolve...
Nature/the planet regained the balance by sinking carbon into long term storage, coal/oil/gas is one such store. Other carbon sinks are the sea, the home of lots of CO2 long term and also rock...
Every time there has been high CO2 in the atmosphere there has been massive deposition of limestone, a rock that is quite important to us as cavers.
High CO2 = limestone deposition by algae and corals, higher temperatures also encourage algae and coral growth so it's a double whammy B)
Todays high CO2 emissions are tomorrows new limestone, bring it on... :silly:
Better and better ....
Not only does more CO2 bring about equilbrium, not only is it fated to entropy, but we also get CAVES to play in.
Conservationists and politicians who are proponents of enviromental taxes should be re-employed within the fossil fuel industry so the rest of us can have a good time :woohoo:
[quote="JohnNicholson" post=12897]What you say Dan is correct about burning conifers, but my guess is that you live in Manchester and there may be problems actually burning any house fire.
An even better solution would be to burn the chippings created by people like John Crazy when they cut the brushwood along roadsides, but let it dry out well and then blend it with waste palm oil, and the solid crap I remove form UCO. Doug has just built a fantastic stove which can burn both logs and chippings. This provides hinm with heat, hot water and cooking. It is a most impressive feat of engineering design and practical craftsmanship.
I would be very interested in experimenting with mixtures of veg oil waste and wood waste. It would be a great project with the various skills present between UCET members.[/quote]
I've found that my Clearview solid fuel stove runs very well on discarded hydraulic fluid filters from excavators. Saves the energy in crushing them :evil:
[quote="BeardedDragon" post=12934]To return to topic slightly - what a shame! :(
Anyone know how many drift mines are left operating in Wales now? Can't be many, surely?
A[/quote]
This depends on if you mean the legal ones, or the unofficial illegal ones! The Welsh Coal Mines website is a good reference for at least the legal ones....