Its not underground fires honest:

"The process of gasification involves drilling horizontally into a seam and then injecting air and oxygen to produce syngas"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...iness-29987033

"Adam Aglionby" wrote in message
...
Its not underground fires honest:

"The process of gasification involves drilling horizontally into a seam
and then injecting air and oxygen to produce syngas"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...iness-29987033

The problems are that where the fire runs can't be controlled.
The fire often can't be extinguished.
The land above subsides.
Guaranteed eakage of gases and other contaminants into ground water and to
the surface.
Cunningly invisible under the sea. But nevertheless still causing pollution.

Hence eminently suitble for the home counties and othe whinging leafy
surburban NIMBYs.
Ten times worse than fracking. The gas produced is low quality and filled
with pollutants.

On 13/11/2014 17:51, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:17:13 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:


"Adam Aglionby" wrote in message
...
Its not underground fires honest:

"The process of gasification involves drilling horizontally into a seam
and then injecting air and oxygen to produce syngas"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...iness-29987033

The problems are that where the fire runs can't be controlled.
The fire often can't be extinguished.
The land above subsides.
Guaranteed eakage of gases and other contaminants into ground water and to
the surface.
Cunningly invisible under the sea. But nevertheless still causing pollution.

Hence eminently suitble for the home counties and othe whinging leafy
surburban NIMBYs.
Ten times worse than fracking. The gas produced is low quality and filled
with pollutants.


A sort of underground old-fashioned gas-works! Bearing in mind the
amount of tar and other nasties those gas-works produced, I can't
imagine the pipework drawing off the gas produced like that, staying
un-clogged for long!


I was under the impression that underground gasification works best with
very deep seams, which can't be reached by conventional means. Those
contain very hard coal, which has relatively little in the way of
unwanted by-products.

--
Colin Bignell

On 13/11/2014 22:09, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 13/11/2014 17:51, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:17:13 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:


"Adam Aglionby" wrote in message
...
Its not underground fires honest:

"The process of gasification involves drilling horizontally into a seam
and then injecting air and oxygen to produce syngas"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...iness-29987033

The problems are that where the fire runs can't be controlled.
The fire often can't be extinguished.
The land above subsides.
Guaranteed eakage of gases and other contaminants into ground water
and to
the surface.
Cunningly invisible under the sea. But nevertheless still causing
pollution.

Hence eminently suitble for the home counties and othe whinging leafy
surburban NIMBYs.
Ten times worse than fracking. The gas produced is low quality and
filled
with pollutants.


A sort of underground old-fashioned gas-works! Bearing in mind the
amount of tar and other nasties those gas-works produced, I can't
imagine the pipework drawing off the gas produced like that, staying
un-clogged for long!


I was under the impression that underground gasification works best with
very deep seams, which can't be reached by conventional means. Those
contain very hard coal, which has relatively little in the way of
unwanted by-products.

And also, I doubt if you have a single pipe from the, er, coal face.
Rather that once you get the seam burning (which presumably means having
an air injection route?) you will seek to tap off gas heading upwards
through natural fissures and voids which will tend to condense (filter)
the tarry volatiles.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:17:13 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:


"Adam Aglionby" wrote in message
...
Its not underground fires honest:

"The process of gasification involves drilling horizontally into a
seam and then injecting air and oxygen to produce syngas"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...iness-29987033

The problems are that where the fire runs can't be controlled.
The fire often can't be extinguished. The land above subsides.
Guaranteed eakage of gases and other contaminants into ground
water and to the surface. Cunningly invisible under the sea.
But nevertheless still causing pollution.

Hence eminently suitble for the home counties and othe whinging leafy
surburban NIMBYs. Ten times worse than fracking. The gas produced
is low quality and filled with pollutants.

A sort of underground old-fashioned gas-works! Bearing in mind the
amount of tar and other nasties those gas-works produced, I can't
imagine the pipework drawing off the gas produced like that, staying
un-clogged for long!

The old method of gas from coal was what we all used until North Sea
gas came on stream. It was make by heating coal in the absence of air.
And indeed this produced gas, as harry so wittily puts it, of "low
quality and filled with pollutants". But that was not what was piped
around the place. It went through a purification process which removed
all these pollutants, simply because the removed stuff made excellent
feedstock for the chemical industry.


Not the same at all. The coal is heated by burning it, (ie adding air).
This means as well as fuel gases (H, CH4, CO), all the combustion products
are present.
ie CO2, N, NOX, SO2.
So gas quality is very low. Expensive to clean up, if it were to be used
domestically.
I expect it would be used in power stations but there would be a lot of
issues and problems to overcome.