Another one lost....

[Jonas Smith]

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

[John Nicholson]

Some would say that the carbon is better left down there and not turned into CO2.

[Tim Watts]

the important question is, can we get in there for a look round the place?

[Tim Watts]

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.  

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:

[Jonas Smith]

[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.

[Tim Watts]

that would be great. :-)

[Doug Thompson]

[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.  

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:

[Doug Thompson]

[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:

[Tim Watts]

though by weight but would have to check.

[John Nicholson]

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!

[mike leahy]

[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: .

[John Nicholson]

I am already a very rich man.  

For some reason people queue up behind my wonder truck, I assume they love the smell.

[mike leahy]

[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     and a fish of coarse

[Ali Wiseman]

[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  

[Danny Sutton]

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.