Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

On the British Government Decision to Ban Coal: Biofuels Implications.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-26-06 05:49 PM
Original message
On the British Government Decision to Ban Coal: Biofuels Implications.
Edited on Fri May-26-06 05:55 PM by NNadir
In the Summer of 1306, bishops and barons and knights from all around England left their country manors and villages and journeyed to London. The came to participate...in Parliament, but once in the city they were distracted by an obnoxious odor. These nobles were used to the usual stenches of medieval towns - the animal dung, the unsewered waste, and the rotting garbage lining the streets. What disgusted them about London was something new in the air: the unfamiliar and acrid smell of burning coal. Recently, blacksmiths and other artisans had begin burning these sooty black rocks for fuel instead of wood, filling the city streets with pungent smoke. The nobles soon led popular demonstrations against the new fuel, and King Edward I promptly banned its use. The ban was largely ignored, so new laws were passed to punish first offenders with "great fines and ransoms." Second offenders were to have their furnaces smashed...

...those trying to sell coal could not have been helped by the products resemblance to one of the most unique and grisly symptoms of the Black Death: The buboes, or black swellings of the lymph nodes...

...These grim associations came on top of medieval society's longstanding belief that foul-smelling air on health, perhaps one reason the English so quickly decided that coal smoke was a threat...

...However, there was a serious threat to that economic growth- the trees on this small island nation were once again disappearing...the iron industry was gulping down huge amounts of charcoal, using up the forests wherever the ironworks were located.

During Elizabeth's, reign, dozens of commissions were sent out by the central government to investigate the wood shortage around the nation, and each one confirmed the serious decline of the forests. Contemporary writers were alarmed about the loss of England's woods, and they wrote of huge forests that had been greatly decayed and spoiled. This destruction meant not only a fuel shortage...but also of the most important building material of the time...

...By 1600, London's population had reached 200,000, nearly twice that of 50 years earlier..."




Plus ca change, c'est la meme chose, n'est-ce pas?.

All of the above comes from the first two chapters of the book I'm currently reading:



http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0142000981&itm=4

It's worth a look.

The book is written by an environmental lawyer and from what I can tell, she doesn't know too much about science, but hell if she hasn't written a gripping history in any case, a history that has some implications of the current debates that play out here.

Occasionally I have heard, in such a way as to actually believe that the persons saying it are serious, that wood burning is an option for significantly displacing fossil fuels, the worst of which is also the one longest used, coal. What the hand-waving that accompanies this ludicrous claim ignores, of course, is history.

The matter has played out before. The English forests could not support 200,000 people living in London and so, in a matter that would have much bearing on the future, the English overturned the existing laws against the use of coal.

We're full circle, no?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
brokensymmetry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-26-06 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good post, and great irony.
Truly, some things never change.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-26-06 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Thanks.
Until seeing this book, I had no idea that the issues went back quite so far as the 14th century.

Eye opening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-26-06 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. There is absolutely no comparison between
Edited on Fri May-26-06 06:31 PM by jpak
burnng coal in open fireplaces and modern clean efficient wood burning technology.

This is ridiculous nonsense without any redeeming merit whatsoever.

Many modern pellet stoves are so efficient and so low-emission they do not require conventional chimneys - only a small vent pipe.

There is a 40 MW wood-fired power plant in my hometown. It does not emit "smoke" and you can't smell it. The only visible "emission" is a little steam on a cold winter's day.

Copenhagen has a large 570 MW combined heat and power biomass plant - is Copenhagen plagued by "London Fogs"???

Nope

QED




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dcfirefighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-26-06 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. UK of today
If the UK dedicated the entirety of their 17,000,000 Ha of agricultural land to coppiced woodlots, producing 10 tonnes per Ha, worth 20 MJ/kg they could produce 3.4 x 10^18 J of primary energy. With a conversion efficiency of 30%, this represents 283 Billion kWh. The UK currently uses 346 Billion kWh of electricity, in addition to other sources of energy, as well as currently using their cropland to grow food. Furthermore, they seem to be suffering a drought, which could adversely affect their ability to grow biomass for fuel.


This is ridiculous nonsense without any redeeming merit whatsoever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-27-06 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. "in addition to other sources"
And primary energy for what? Heat? Electricity?? Automotive fuels?????

Has the UK fully exploited its solar electric, wind, wave and tidal power resources???

Are British homes as well insulated as they could be????

Are their lighting systems and home appliances as energy efficient as they could be????

Do they use solar hot water systems??? Could they use passive solar energy for heat???

Have UK mass transit systems achieved their full potential?????

What about the fuel efficiency of British automobiles - any room for improvement????

FYI: modern wood stoves convert ~80% of the energy released from wood combustion into useful thermal energy.

The notion that "some claim" that biomass - and biomass alone - is going to "replace fossil fuels" for an energy profligate society is a silly straw-man argument.

Oh yeah, and how much uranium ore does the UK produce each year????

None.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-27-06 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. and another thing...
Biomass combined-heat-and-power (for district heating) is ~80% efficient as well....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-27-06 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
7. More "Plus ca change..." from "Coal, a Human History": James Watt.
On occasion I have found myself in these pages pointing out the confusion expressed by some between the scientific units the "watt" (as in "a brazillion megawatts of solar energy") and the "joule." Both units are named for great British scientists. The "joule," a unit of energy is named for "James Joule" who found the precise relationship between work and heat as well as work and electricity, laying the foundation for what we now know as the first law of thermodynamics.

(Here - for a diversion - is a picture of the most famous piece of Joule's actual apparatus:



With this he showed the equivalence between gravitational energy and heat.)


The "watt," a unit of power on the other hand is named for James Watt, who preceded Joule. Watt was the person who perfected the first truly cyclical heat engine, the steam engine. No telling of the tale of coal would be complete without reference to James Watt, and in her book, Coal, A Human History (Perseus Books, Copyright 2003) Barbara Freese does not disappoint in this regard.

After first describing briefly the first practical steam engine, the Newcomen engine, Freese writes thusly of Watt:

Watt thrived in mathematics, though, and studied the art of making mathematical instruments. It was in this capacity that he was asked in his late twenties to fix a small model of a Newcomen engine kept at Glasgow University.

Like the larger version, the model was extremely wasteful, needing lots of coal to keep it going. Watt realized that as steam was injected and then cooled with water, heat was wasted in the constant reheating and cooling of the cylinder...

...one day...the solution suddenly flashed into his mind...

...but turning...his idea into a working steam engine would prove to be an ordeal...

...Then Watt found a new partner, the irrepressible Birmingham industrialist Matthew Boulton, and one of the most celebrated business partnerships in history was launched. Boulton was more than a manufacturer; he was an industrial visionary who had surrounded himself with people who shared his fascination with technology and his faith in how it could transform the world...

...Boulton's manufactory was called Soho, and there his skilled artisans made an odd assortment of precision crafted goods ranging from fancy decorative items...to serious scientific instruments...Soho became a symbol of modern, high-quality (sic) British manufacturing , and it actually drew tourists; Catherine the Great was among the man...

Boulton had a longstanding interest in steam engines, in part because the water wheels that powered Soho were unreliable. He had earlier performed his own unsuccessful experiments with the steam engine, and he even corresponded with his friend Benjamin Franklin on engine design. Boulton knew of Watt's work in Scotland and decided to back him...



The bold is mine. The excerpts of the work are found on pages 61-64.

So again we see that the then existing renewable energy in the middle of the 18th century could not supply Britain's economy.

It is important to note as we face the stark reality that the fossil fuel driven heat engine has become too dangerous and now must be replaced, the biggest difference between those times and these times. In 1800, the population of the United Kingdom including all of Ireland was 16.3 million, up from around 6 million a century earlier.

In 2001 including Northern Ireland, but excluding the independent Republic to the South was 58.8 million.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dcfirefighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-27-06 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. And thus we capitalize J and W when we use them. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-27-06 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Until you pointed it out, I never actually thought about that.
Why we write "kg" and not "KG", "J" and not "j," "km" and not "KM," and W and not w. It just seemed natural, sort of like remembering the gender of words in French or German. (Of course we have "das Maedchen," which does not seem natural - as Mark Twain noted, in German only can a potato be a "she" and a little girl an "it".) But I looked it up, and indeed, as is the case with most things, a rule: The abbreviation is capitalized when the unit is named in honor of a person. So it is that we have kW-hr.

http://www.poynton.com/notes/units/index.html

Apparently the abbreviation prefixes bigger than equal to one million are also capitalized. Thus we have "kJ" and "MJ" and "EJ," and not "KJ," "mj" or "eJ." the latter my favorite, "exajoule."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Massacure Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-27-06 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Most amusing. I always wondered why kW was not abbreviated Kw or KW.
Edited on Sat May-27-06 09:19 PM by Massacure
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-28-06 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. lol. I confess to capitalising almost at random...
I never did work that out. Shame on me. :dunce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-27-06 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
9. "...huge forests that had been greatly decayed ."
Reminds me of the time I went to Exmoor forest. We had to actually search for paltry stands of trees!

As I remarked to my girlfriend at the time, they ought to call this place ex-forest moor. It was pretty bleak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 07:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC