CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING

[Stanley]

He'd be worth a stretch limo!

[Pluggy]

"Quite enjoying my 'enforced' retirement."
I think that could be the key Pluggy and you have found it. As you know,I stopped driving and walking any longer than 30 minutes at a time. Notice that I 'stopped', I don't regard it as 'giving up' but a welcome respite from things that had become a burden. Like work and the demands of the wider world. You are allowed to be selfish and only do what pleases you and is possible. You are intelligent enough to have worked this out for yourself.
As for the disability itself, it's there and the trick is to live with it. I could easily go into a decline about cancer but refuse to do so, I just accept it and keep buggering on. When it's a bad morning and all the wage slaves are scraping ice off the windscreens be glad you aren't out there with them.
Oh, and devote some time to making sure you get all the benefits you are entitled to! You've paid into the system for long enough!
One question... If I needed help and sent a car for you would you turn out?

Answering the last bit first I could probably make it on foot to your place although its at the upper liimt of how far I can walk these days.

With the state of the roads and the number of cars and idiots on them, I don't mourn being able to drive. Enough is enough. And always having been of the "work to live" (rather than the other way round) mindset I don't miss working either.

[Stanley]

Good to both responses Stephen. I shall consult with you if and when I need you and we'll go from there.
I love not having to drive. In my case it's a double bonus because it means I have ditched vehicle ownership and all the associated expense and hassle. I realise that it might not be quite the same for you.
Take it easy and enjoy yourself, you have earned it!

[Tizer]

Some more visual evidence of climate change. I suppose Trump would say they were fake photos...
`Images reveal Iceland's glacier melt' LINK

[Stanley]

Hard evidence has no effect on morons who are certain they are right Tiz. Only sea level rise flooding cities and hitting them in the pocket will convince them and then it will be too late.

[Stanley]

The dilemma... I love my warm house but know that it gets that way by burning fossil fuel. Should I go into a decline?

[plaques]

Don't worry Stanley, like a lot of us sooner or later you will be carbon neutral.

[Tizer]

It's OK Stanley, you're offsetting by not running a car, having a small house, not buying new stuff every day etc etc. You're probably making up for the carbon emissions of several other people!

[Stanley]

Very reassuring, thanks to you all. I shall not feel like a pariah! You are all right of course and one key area where I am in front of the curve is having a shed where I can do repairs and keep stuff going. The thought that always comes to mind when I see the arguments in favour of new and more efficient cars and machines, including the current obsession with electric vehicles, is that nobody seems to talk about the carbon footprint of manufacturing new stuff as opposed to the disadvantage of the older but 'inefficient' machines. I suspect that in the case of an old but low annual mileage car, the old one is better for the planet!
Over the years I have often disputed with people who bang on about the inefficiency of the old stationary steam engines, pointing out their profligate use of cast iron in massively over-built old-fashioned technology. They seemed to quieten down a bit when I pointed out that these old engines are still more efficient in terms of energy use over Grid based electricity because of the enormous losses in transmission. Also that every part of them is easily recyclable in the event of scrapping and in fact producing better iron than modern extraction and production. 'Textile Cast Iron' always brought a better price than ordinary scrap for this reason. When Bancroft closed I proved to Malcolm Dunphy, a prospective buyer of the mill, that our annual energy charge was 50% less than his on comparable loads. I suspect that many more old technologies have little known advantages like this.
See Newton Pickles' evidence in the LTP on this subject. He explains why so many mills were made uneconomical when they scrapped their steam plants.
One last point, the energy for electric cars has to be made in relatively inefficient power stations and that's where the pollution moves to if it is not solar, wind or Hydro power.

[Tizer]

Talking about repairs and keeping things going, the aerator on the end of the monobloc tap outlet of our washbasin fell to bits. The plating on the inside wall disintegrated and all the bits of the aerator came apart - plastic bits, wire meshes etc. I've tried to buy an identical one in the local plumbers' supply shops but none of them can help, they all want to sell new taps. I looked on ebay but can't be sure ones there are the same as ours. Finally I fixed the aerator back into the end cap with epoxy glue, put the meshes in and fitted it back!

[Pluggy]

They seemed to quieten down a bit when I pointed out that these old engines are still more efficient in terms of energy use over Grid based electricity because of the enormous losses in transmission.

You're wrong by my sources. Grid transmission losses are about 8% on average in the UK

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 38607.html

Most of the fossil fueled power stations are combined cycle gas turbine plants with a typical efficiency of over 60%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_ ... ower_plant

CCGT typically produces around 50% of the UK's electric, most of the rest is low carbon nuclear, renewables and the not no carbon efficient biomass. Coal is getting to be a rounding error.

https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

The efficiency of reciprocating compound steam engines is difficult to come by but around 13% is likely using this graph

http://www.cuug.ab.ca/branderr/eeepc/017_coal.html

and using a figure of 32 MJ per kg of coal. (Good quality anthracite is around 34, brown coal is around 26)

A steam turbine is about 3 times better ( around 40% ) and a typical single stage locomotive engine is about half as good.(around 7%)

And given that natural gas has a much lower carbon footprint than coal, grid electric wins by a country mile.

[Stanley]

In that case how do you explain the fact that Kw for Kw our energy costs were half what they would have been using mains electricity. (Comparable mills) That figure of 13% for steam engines is way too low. Sounds as though someone is trying to sell electricity as efficient! That's what the NIFE men did after the war and closed many mills. Why do you think Bancroft was the last complete weaving mill in Barlick to close? (Making a profit right up to the end)

[Pluggy]

Sorry Stanley, you're going to need to provide sources, I've been screwed over by unfounded assertions once too often. Bancroft being the last mill to close is a very weak argument, the cost of generating power in a mill is pretty insignificant along side the wages bill. Their business model worked.

The fact that reciprocating steam engines are consigned to museums is testament in itself.

The efficiency of such engines is open to to dispute because such records were kept in horsepower vs bushels of coal per hour or similar and bushels was a vague unit depend on who measured them. The energy content of coal varied immensely as did things like boiler pressure and temperature, many boilers were derated to lower pressures to keep them going for longer which screwed their efficiency. Coal was cheap and efficiency didn't matter so much. Locomotive engines are the best researched as they very in common use in large numbers until comparatively recently. 7% is a widely accepted figure for their efficiency. The extra efficiency to be gained with using compound engines was largely written off for the simplicity and reliability of a single stage.in a harsh environment.

As you know the efficiency of the rankine cycle is largely a product of the hot and cold sink temperatures, reciprocating engines run on saturated steam so their hot sink temperature is directly related to pressure. I don't know what pressure bancroft ran at but the best lancahire boilers when they were new ran at around 160 psi (11 bar) they were often derated to about 60 psi as they got old and unable to withstand the pressure. A boiler exploding almost invariably killed people. At saturated temperatures this equates to between 150C and 190C ish. A cutting edge steam plant using super high pressures and super heated steam runs at 500 + C and achieves maybe 40% efficiency. Its helped considerably by the offset to absolute zero that the carnot equation uses. The maximum theoretical efficiency of steam plant at derated 60 psi and 15C cold sink temp is 1 - tmin/ tmax 1 - 288/473 (degrees kelvin) = 39% give or take, new lancashire boiler at 160 psi and 190C and 15C cold sink is 1-288/513 = 44% Drax power station at 568C and 15C is 1- 288/841 = 66% and it actually gets 42% A reciprocating engine has far greaer losses than a turbine due to much higher friction and large heavy lumps of metal changing direction at every revolution.

[Tripps]

Reach for your towel and throw it in Stanley.

[Tizer]

There's nowt like a good debate!

[Stanley]

I don't "have to" do anything Pluggy. I am not dealing with theory but facts. Go to the LTP and read Newton on the subject, particularly Pendle Street Mill in Nelson. I can still see the incredulous look on Dunphy's face when he heard our total annual energy cost for a 400KVA load.
When I was running Ellenroad Coates Inks got an energy firm in and got them to do an assessment of the viability of running the 600KVA alternator we had from the engine and making their own juice. The assessment was checked out by Coates accountants and the worst case scenario was a saving of over 40% on their energy costs. In the end the Coates Board decided not to proceed on the grounds of reliability. Understandable considering the age of the engine but the economic case was proved.

[Pluggy]

I;ll put it the box marked unfounded magical claims with all the rest Stanley,

Just for my interest, what pressure was Bancrofts boiler(s) set to while it was still weaving ?

[Stanley]

160psi.
While you are rubbishing what I say take time off to look at practical matters like still running boilers for heating and process after an engine was scrapped and investigate the allocation of thermal efficiency between the boiler and the engine. (That was the biggest downside to electrification.) Look at how condensate from the heating system was dealt with after the engine was scrapped. Examine the effect on Lancashire Loom efficiency of switching from belt drive to individual electric motors. Compare driving line shafts by electric motor and retaining belt drive to looms with individual motors. Overall economic efficiency is much more complicated than theory, for a very clear exposition of the traps read Newton's account of what happened when he was called in as a consultant at Broughton Road Shed in Skipton.
When the NIFE men came to Bancroft Newton was called in again and when he asked them to put their guarantees of greater efficiency on paper and sign it they left. That's why Bancroft never electrified. They knew all the theory that you allude to but didn't understand how complicated a question it was and in the end that was what governed what happened on the ground. All they could see was that they knew electric driving was cheaper just like you. The manufacturers weren't daft and their method of looking each week at cloth woven against coal burned was simple but affective. It served them well! (In particular, look at the comparative costs of steam drive and electrification, capital, energy and maintenance, then allocate it to loom numbers and cloth woven. You might begin to see the light!)
So stop rubbishing what I say and go and read the evidence....

[plaques]

Not wishing to get into the Steam V Electric debate but it reminds me of my old lecturer in calculating water flow through pipe systems , Bernoulli and all that, At the end of a long complicated calculation he said "actually the best way is a hosepipe and bucket and a stop watch.

[Big Kev]

I'm sure I remember electricity transmission 'losses' were between 5 and 10% when I worked for the grid. The increase in transmission voltages should have reduced that further by now but I don't have access to the figures anymore.

[Stanley]

[Tizer]

The sooner Americans get rid of Trump the better the future will be for the world...
`Paris climate accords: US notifies UN of intention to withdraw' LINK

[Whyperion]

The Electricity Arguement we are getting into some kind of a muddle. There is also the energy cost in mining and transporting the coal. Until relatively recently electricty was not generated from at present cheap fossil fuel of gas. Bancroft also closed - although some UK sheds and mills continued for a few more years because of changes in demand for the finished goods, and competition for soucing the items from overseas suppliers ( which in themselves although £££ cheap , as for environmental costs of production there would be no difference, perhaps a little higher).
The other muddle is Air Pollution (another problem Coal had when the load was reduced - not because the boliers were not up to taking the capacity but because the finished product demand was falling off), although the items polluting the air and being climate change drivers may be one and the same. The calculations for 'embedded CO2' and what the net CO2 reduction is for any change in an activity over say a 50 year period is not easy to calculate, but should be required for every planning development or political behaviour change nudge.

[Tizer]

A slap in the face for Donald Trump...
`Climate change: ‘Clear and unequivocal’ emergency, say scientists' LINK

[Stanley]

Looking at that list, we are all doomed!!
Trump might cease to be a problem. Encouraging signs in the US in both state elections and the impeachment evidence that he is running out of road. Surely common sense should eventually succeed?