Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 07:15 am, by: Perry Morgan(Uzz32)
From a letter published in a Aust paper ( I forget which and can't be arsed lookin )An interesting read no matter what you make of it.
"I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading Scheme.
Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example. The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.
Frustration about the so called incorrectly named man made 'carbon emissions' which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet.
Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.
And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no knowledge of.
First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and re-heaters and heat the air and water before entering the boilers. The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.
Coal fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost wise that is very low.
The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost. As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.
We have, like, the USA, coal fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia - exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.
The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don't have the coal supply for the future. Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don't have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem---It doesn't exist.
Yes - there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand. The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied for a 'base load' because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.
The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (The ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes they can pump it back but it cost to do that. (Long Story).
Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro electric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.
Based on a average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators. As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types. Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts of electricity.
Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal power generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts not going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.) We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.
Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves. According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years.
To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;
If you had a room 12 ft x 12 ft x 7 ft or 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x .25m x .17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.
Australia emits 1 percent of the world's total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by twenty percent or reduce emissions by .2 percent of the world's total CO2 emissions. What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels? By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years. Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by .004 percent. Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = .00008 percent. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).
Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = .0000008 percent. Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = .00000016 percent effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.
That would equate to a area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.!!!
For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and roofing installations, Clean coal technology. Renewable energy, etc, etc. How ridiculous it that. The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some smaller business.
T.L. Cardwell
To the Editor I thought I should clarify. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Station near Newcastle. I would be pleased to supply you any information you may require."
Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 11:25 am, by: Miles Baker(Milesb)
I find that guy's claim of 96% thermal efficiency to be very very difficult to believe - considering both the laws of thermodynamics and the huge volume of fresh water that is used by the valley to cool its power stations. Likewise, I've seen claim after claim of "clean coal" with their mercury capture, ash scrubbers and so on. But go have a look at the air and trees anywhere near them. A fraction of a percent leaving their chimneys is still a buttload. Cancer rates near coal mines and power stations are still higher than average in a lot of places. And in other places they're covered up.
David Vaughan Goo Roo Relaxed, but no provincial. IS300
Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 01:11 pm, by: David Vaughan(Davidv)
Right. It looks like he is picking only very small parts of the generation cycle to claim that bit of efficiency.
His figures on tiny percentages are also misleading. By way of analogy, we can stand a small amount of some poisons (e.g. arsenic) in our bodies. Increase the poison by 10% and it can kill you, but it will still be only a small increase and a tiny proportion of your body weight.
If we did not have 280 ppm of CO2 in the air, the planet would probably be an ice block according to an article by Prof P Doherty in today's AFR . We now have about 340-380 ppm on Cardwell's figures with an expected rise to 480 ppm on Doherty's. Change is far more sensitive than Cardwell pretends.
Finally, Cardwell uses per-country rather than per-capita emissions. Across the world population, assuming you allow economic development in all countries, it is per capita which is more important.
Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 02:23 pm, by: Bobby Green(Nash)
Miles Baker wrote on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 02:21 am:
Sustainability and cost are more important in my opinion. The infrastructure investments required to take us off coal and on to nuclear would be very high, and as coal exists in much larger quantities than uranium, then it would be an investment into a limited energy source for a gain that may or may not be beneficial for the environment. Exposing the nation to possible supply side shocks due to the waning quantities available of refined uranium for fission reactors would not be on any sane government's to do list. This is ignoring the vast array of political issues which are also involved in this argument.
Miles Baker Goo Roo Vic 66 Mustang GT Convertible, 55 Chevy Bel Air, 69 Firebird 455, 69 Nova SS Clone, 65 Mustang Fastback, 67 Mustang Convertible, 67 Camaro RS/SS
Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 02:53 pm, by: Miles Baker(Milesb)
Well then I guess every other major government must be insane and we are the only smart ones. As we have our own supply supposedly owned by the people we are not troubled by price shocks. Which would be many decades away. Also look at thorium as I suggested. Correctly designed u reactors may be converted to th. And $ are not the only factor. How about people's health? Coal is filthy. It kills people. Right now. Also it is predicted that soon reactors will be cheaper to build and run than coal. coal is the past. We need to start moving on. With our reserves of nuc fuel we should be the next Dubai. Mine it, process it, manufacture fuel, rent it, store the waste. We have the fuel, we have the space, we have the intelligence.
Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 03:43 pm, by: Dave Hart(Davyboy)
His boiler efficiency may be 98% but a coal fired power station thermal efficiency would be more like 35%. Add to that the transmission losses if the generation is far from the demand of 5-10%. Yes Australia is blessed with plentiful supplies of coal and other minerals including uranium. I was once informed that a coal fired power station of a 25yr life span would never produce more energy than what it took to build and run over those 25yrs. That may have included only deep mined coal and not open cast.
Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 03:46 pm, by: Aaron Mead(Aaron)
That letter makes coal power generation sound welcoming. Anyone know much about Korea and their efforts regarding Fusion plasma generation? It seems in 08 there was high output lasting a fraction of a second, and last year , even higher output lasting a few seconds. I ve only seen a little on SBS doco and what internet news articles than can be googled. Anyone got any good comment?
David Vaughan Goo Roo Relaxed, but no provincial. IS300
Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 03:59 pm, by: David Vaughan(Davidv)
There is a fusion unit close to being fired up in France, funded by much of Europe and America. I read an article on it in New Scientist a little while ago. It was focussing on the technical problems with containing a small sun in a magnetic bottle and apart from that was gee whiz, as NS tends to be these days.
As I recall this is only a test reactor to extend the achieved fusion period. It seems that maintenance costs on fusion reactors will be very high. If they work they sound like "free" energy except for the massive construction and maintenance costs, which put fission reactors in the shade.
Don't know anything beyond that I am afraid. I have not Googled anything or looked at Wikipedia.
Miles Baker Goo Roo Vic 66 Mustang GT Convertible, 55 Chevy Bel Air, 69 Firebird 455, 69 Nova SS Clone, 65 Mustang Fastback, 67 Mustang Convertible, 67 Camaro RS/SS
Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 05:05 pm, by: Miles Baker(Milesb)
I know a dude working on fusion in Europe. He told me it is all very interesting for him but doubtful it will work for retail power generation within our lifetimes. Doubtful as in uncontrollable laughter.
David Vaughan Goo Roo Relaxed, but no provincial. IS300
Friday, February 12, 2010 - 07:10 am, by: Matthew Sharpe(Madmatt)
Tokamac reactors are a waste of money. They have spent nearly 50 years working on the problem now and are no closer to a workable solution. Plasma "pinch" generators are more promising but don't seem to be able to provide stable power output for anything more than microseconds - of course they have had almost no funding, as Tokamac technology has soaked it all up.
Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 06:29 pm, by: Callum Finch(Sigeneat)
Miles Baker wrote on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 05:05 pm:
I know a dude working on fusion in Europe. He told me it is all very interesting for him but doubtful it will work for retail power generation within our lifetimes. Doubtful as in uncontrollable laughter.
I saw a doco on the science behind the test reactor they built. To contribute to what your mate told you i got the impression we are even unlikely to see the research reactor (different to the test reactor?) which is proposed to be built in the next 40 years or so. Between finding funding and actually building the tech there arent many hopefull people.
Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 07:52 pm, by: Miles Baker(Milesb)
Yeah he said it basically fires for a tiny fraction of a second and produces some of the most disgustingly poisonous stuff ever and cannot be contained. Their numbers all point to requiring a containment device or material so crazy they can not even imagine ever being able to produce it. So much for fusion being "clean".
Previous
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
