I wonder what happened on the planet when all that coal was formed?
Carryfast:
gingerfold:
There was an article in the Sunday Telegraph a couple of weeks ago about Algy Cuff, who in the 1970s was one of the speculators involved in the North Sea oil exploration with Cuff Oil. I thought that he must have been dead by now but he now runs a company that is looking to commercialise a process that will liquefy coal reserves underground and pump up a fuel that is similar in properties to diesel. It seems that the technology for doing this is actually proven and dates back to the time of the good old NCB, but it now needs scaling up to commercial operation. In principle it is somewhat similar to fracking for gas, but without some of the potential problems. Cuff is targeting the coal reserves under the North Sea which are measured in trillions of tonnes and spread as far across from the North East to Norway. Similar huge reserves of coal are also available off the West Coast under the Irish Sea. The potential for this as a source of fuel is for at least a couple of hundred years, so it is claimed. But then again I can recall as a young lad newspaper headlines of the 1950s saying that nuclear power would provide free electricity for everyone. We can dream.
worldcoal.org/coal/uses-of-c … o-liquids/
As for nuclear during the 1950’s to date the truth was/is that it’s just an expensive,dangerous,essential by product of having a nuclear weapons based defence system.Thatcher just tried to take advantage of the idea in thinking that she could also use it to smash the British unions in addition to handing over our self sufficiency in energy provision to foreign exporters.
That’s quite correct. The world’s first nuclear powered electricity station at Calder Hall (later renamed Windscale after a serious fire there in the 1950s) was a ‘by-product’ of the uranium enriching process for nuclear weapons. “Nuclear electricity” is produced in exactly the same way as electricity generated in a coal fired station. The heat from nuclear fusion boils water to produce steam that turns a turbo-generator that produces electricity.
Driveroneuk:
I wonder what happened on the planet when all that coal was formed?
At various times in the geologic past, the Earth had dense forests in low-lying wetland areas. Due to natural processes such as flooding, these forests were buried under the soil. As more and more soil deposited over them, they were compressed. The temperature also rose as they sank deeper and deeper. As the process continued the plant matter was protected from biodegradation and oxidation, usually by mud or acidic water. This trapped the carbon in immense peat bogs that were eventually covered and deeply buried by sediments. Under high pressure and high temperature, dead vegetation was slowly converted to coal. As coal contains mainly carbon, the conversion of dead vegetation into coal is called carbonization.
The wide, shallow seas of the Carboniferous Period provided ideal conditions for coal formation, although coal is known from most geological periods. The exception is the coal gap in the Permian—Triassic extinction event, where coal is rare. Coal is known from Precambrian strata, which predate land plants – this coal is presumed to have originated from residues of algae.
Stolen directly from Wikipedia. Interesting nonetheless.
Why can’t we just use electricity to produce more electricity.
Stick a big electric motor to a big generator for example 440v motor (powerful & strong) turning a high powered generator which could throw out enough energy to run small villages, plot enough of these units around the country and our reliance on fossil fuels will drop off.
Simple terms, think of a wind turbine, take of the big mast and propellers, stick a big motor on the front instead, use a bit of electric to produce hundreds of times more.
Now I’m not a rocket scientist but I have a niggling feeling your plan is flawed… 
Sir Issac Newton"s laws of motion say that it wont work.You cant get more energy out of a machine than you put in.Its back to the drawing board sadly.
alamcculloch:
Sir Issac Newton"s laws of motion say that it wont work.You cant get more energy out of a machine than you put in.Its back to the drawing board sadly.
how does a invertor work then?
put 12v in get 240v out
could you plug a battery charger into the invertor
confused
thelorryist:
Why can’t we just use electricity to produce more electricity.Stick a big electric motor to a big generator for example 440v motor (powerful & strong) turning a high powered generator which could throw out enough energy to run small villages, plot enough of these units around the country and our reliance on fossil fuels will drop off.
Simple terms, think of a wind turbine, take of the big mast and propellers, stick a big motor on the front instead, use a bit of electric to produce hundreds of times more.
And when you have worked out how to do this, you will be the richest man on the planet ever… 
I thought about this thread when walking on Formby Beach today.
I remember as a kid on Crosby Beach seeing lots of older folk with bags and prams following the tide line, it took me a few years to suss out what they where doing and it was collecting coal washed up by the sea.
Virtually opposite the Sefton coast was the Point of Ayr Colliery and this had seams running out under the Irish Sea.
The coal from these seams break through the sea bed and was washed up on the tides especially after heavy storms, as was the case today I saw loads of washed up coal.
You could easily have filled a couple of carrier bags in less than 30 minutes, so free energy is still out there if you have a coal burner
We have the resources but we just need the EU to let us use them and the Chinese to invest in them
Lusk:
thelorryist:
Why can’t we just use electricity to produce more electricity.Stick a big electric motor to a big generator for example 440v motor (powerful & strong) turning a high powered generator which could throw out enough energy to run small villages, plot enough of these units around the country and our reliance on fossil fuels will drop off.
Simple terms, think of a wind turbine, take of the big mast and propellers, stick a big motor on the front instead, use a bit of electric to produce hundreds of times more.
And when you have worked out how to do this, you will be the richest man on the planet ever…
The relevant measurement is actually all about wattage not volts.In which case you’ll need to factor in amps and volts.Then you need to factor in the small issue that firstly you’ve got to find the electric power to power the electric motor first before it can drive the generator.Remembering that for every KW of power you put into the motor you’ll actually be getting less than a KW out of the generator not more.Which is why power stations don’t use electric motors to power their generators,instead of steam turbines preferably using cheap coal to produce the heat to make the steam. 
Whereas my idea,of using undersea water pressures as an air compressor,to drive compressed air powered turbines that would probably be a different matter if only I could patent it in time and get the required bank loan before someone else does. 
Whereas my idea,of using undersea water pressures as an air compressor,to drive compressed air powered turbines that would probably be a different matter if only I could patent it in time and get the required bank loan before someone else does.
Just out of interest, how do you recharge the pipe with air?
Once the water has risen up the tube it would have to be forced out or the tube lifted to drain it, both methods would be using the electricity you’ve just generated, maybe I’m missing something?
Melchett:
Whereas my idea,of using undersea water pressures as an air compressor,to drive compressed air powered turbines that would probably be a different matter if only I could patent it in time and get the required bank loan before someone else does.
Just out of interest, how do you recharge the pipe with air?
Once the water has risen up the tube it would have to be forced out or the tube lifted to drain it, both methods would be using the electricity you’ve just generated, maybe I’m missing something?
You’ve obviously missed the fact that all you need to do is to lift the tube line back out of the water similar to a drilling rig.In which case the water stays where it is in the sea not the pipe and you end up where you started with a load of empty tubes which you then send back down into the water again where the process starts all over again.Assuming that you’re using a counterbalanced lifting system,like a lift uses,you won’t use anything like as much electricity to winch the tube line out of the water as that generated by the air that’s been compressed in the tube line every time it’s sent to the bottom of the sea and opened to the types of pressures involved nor probably even if the lifting rig wasn’t counterbalanced. 
I sometimes idly wonder if Thatcher may one day, hundreds of years hence, be hailed as a national saviour.
Her and her cohorts’ destruction of the mines was a horrible act of petty spite, and as a sideshow she managed to stab those who joined the breakaway union movement in the ribs by shutting their pits too, so much for loyalty and the word of demi gods.
However, when we are all long gone and forgotten that coal still buried safely might just save whats left of this country from whatever horrors the future might have in store.
Juddian:
I sometimes idly wonder if Thatcher may one day, hundreds of years hence, be hailed as a national saviour.Her and her cohorts’ destruction of the mines was a horrible act of petty spite, and as a sideshow she managed to stab those who joined the breakaway union movement in the ribs by shutting their pits too, so much for loyalty and the word of demi gods.
However, when we are all long gone and forgotten that coal still buried safely might just save whats left of this country from whatever horrors the future might have in store.
That’s assuming the place hasn’t suffered a major nuclear disaster before that point on the basis of saving it’s coal reserves for later,rather than get on with using them now regardless of how and why they were saved.I think given the choice of leaving behind a nuclear legacy with a half life of thousands of years or getting on with burning the coal which we’ve got available those distant future generations would probably prefer the latter.
Carryfast:
Juddian:
I sometimes idly wonder if Thatcher may one day, hundreds of years hence, be hailed as a national saviour.Her and her cohorts’ destruction of the mines was a horrible act of petty spite, and as a sideshow she managed to stab those who joined the breakaway union movement in the ribs by shutting their pits too, so much for loyalty and the word of demi gods.
However, when we are all long gone and forgotten that coal still buried safely might just save whats left of this country from whatever horrors the future might have in store.
That’s assuming the place hasn’t suffered a major nuclear disaster before that point on the basis of saving it’s coal reserves for later,rather than get on with using them now regardless of how and why they were saved.I think given the choice of leaving behind a nuclear legacy with a half life of thousands of years or getting on with burning the coal which we’ve got available those distant future generations would probably prefer the latter.
Quite possibly, bearing in mind in another hundred years the population of the country will be so massive that they’ll be digging between miles and miles of bloody high rise flats built to house the buggers, to get to that very same coal.
What a foul mess leaders, millions of our peers elected turkey like for their very own and their childrens future Christmas’, will have left for future generations.
Neglected and fouled the nation they swore to serve whilst pursuing different goals in the middle east for their paymasters.
If it hadn’t been Thatcher and the miners it would have been Thatcher against another union, for example the TG&WU as it was, or the Railway unions, or if not Thatcher, A.N. Other as a Prime Minister. Thatcher and Scargill were brought together at a precise moment in time. At that time the unions were too powerful and dictated affairs to their own agenda and this was to the detriment of the country. “Society” was unbalanaced (I use the word “Society” in its broadest sense to include everyone) and had to be re-balanced. History tells us that if there is a dictatorship, of whatever political hue, then sooner or later a rebellion occurs to redress the balance. If you think of a kids’ see-saw" it goes up and down but by the heavier person moving towards the fulcrum point then equilibrium and balance is achieved. For a time after the miners were defeated the see-saw was tilted the other way but later governments went some way to achieving equilibrium.
And on that note of simplified home-spun philosophy I wish you all a very happy and successful New Year.
gingerfold:
If it hadn’t been Thatcher and the miners it would have been Thatcher against another union, for example the TG&WU as it was, or the Railway unions, or if not Thatcher, A.N. Other as a Prime Minister. Thatcher and Scargill were brought together at a precise moment in time. At that time the unions were too powerful and dictated affairs to their own agenda and this was to the detriment of the country. “Society” was unbalanaced (I use the word “Society” in its broadest sense to include everyone) and had to be re-balanced. History tells us that if there is a dictatorship, of whatever political hue, then sooner or later a rebellion occurs to redress the balance. If you think of a kids’ see-saw" it goes up and down but by the heavier person moving towards the fulcrum point then equilibrium and balance is achieved. For a time after the miners were defeated the see-saw was tilted the other way but later governments went some way to achieving equilibrium.
The fact is the unions,as of 1979,were already a defeated rabble not by Thatcher but by their so called own in the form of Callaghan and Healey.Which is why Thatcher wasn’t faced with a united solid general strike in support of the miners in 1984 and it’s why incomes are now falling in real terms relative to prices and it’s why we’re now a net importer of energy.With a planned future over reliance on a dangerous,expensive,form of energy in the form of nuclear power.Which people will become ever increasingly less able to afford.Instead of being self sufficient in affordable domestically produced coal.
MikeCunn:
Driveroneuk:
I wonder what happened on the planet when all that coal was formed?At various times in the geologic past, the Earth had dense forests in low-lying wetland areas. Due to natural processes such as flooding, these forests were buried under the soil. …
Thanks for the (stolen ) explanation Mike.
I was aware of much of it. i.e. How coal is formed from buried & compressed dead timber.
What I meant was I wondered what had happened on earth for such huge swathes of forest to die off simultaneously over many years hence forming the often deep seems of coal found.