1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Clean Coal Technology

Discussion in 'Off Topic Threads' started by Barry C. Roach, Jan 15, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Barry C. Roach

    Barry C. Roach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,209
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    I usually don't start a thread 'off topic' but I feel the need to vent a bit.

    Lately I have seen tv commercials announcing that "Clean Coal Technology" is a myth. I want to tell you that the ultimate in CCT is just around the corner. Peabody Coal Company, in partnership with other energy companies, is currently building the world's first Zero emmissions coal fired generation plant. In fact those of you who visit Sparta, Ill can see it being built. It is very near there. It plans to go on line in 2011. Try to build a nuke in that time. We can build these plants 15 to 1 of nukes.

    Also it is a fact that coal fired gereration plants emit primarily steam these days. Very small amounts of smoke, but, of course greenies don't know the difference. Utilities across the country scrub all their emmissions and have for many years now. Over 60% of the nations energy is produced by coal fired plants. The greenies and your current administration wants to eliminate this cheap source of electrical generation and replace it with super hi cost nukes and touchy-feely unreliable wind generation. By-the-way the utilities hate wind power. It is so irregular, variable and unreliable they struggle wildly to control their grid. One manager told me that it's costing more to regulate than it is to produce more electricity from coal fired boilers.

    Remember, coal is, by very far, the cheapest, safest and most consistant way to make electricity. The greenies would like us to think that coal fired plants are the smoke belching beasts that are shown in movies of 1920's steel plants. They still use those films today.

    So - if you don't want the government or the greenies to make energy decisions for use that will greatly increase your energy costs for unfounded reasons, I suggest you contact your congressman. It's time to speak up for ourselves against these lying greenies and so-called environmentalists.

    I consider myself a conservationist - a common sense person that knows the difference between hype and the facts. Please join me in a fight for our future. Thank you for listening.
     
  2. Barry C. Roach

    Barry C. Roach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,209
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
  3. timb99

    timb99 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,330
    Location:
    Shawnee, Kansas, USA
    Won't get any argument from me.

    I design coal fired power plants for a living.

    And nuke. So I don't mind if we go that way either.

    There are indeed a lot of issues with windmills. I can expound if you'd like. They're certainly not what the media would have us believe. I'm not against building them, however.

    The concern about the CCT technology plant that is being built near you is that 1) the technology is not proven on a large scale...that's what this plant is trying to accomplish, and 2) you can't just build them anywhere. Basically, you are taking millions of tons of carbon dioxide, and compressing it and injecting it into salt caverns. You must build the plant near places where you can pump the CO2. That's not just anywhere.

    And, you do still have the ash that is left over after you burn the coal to deal with.

    The plants we're building now that are NOT clean coal technology are indeed far less polluting than their predecessors of even just 15 years ago. Every plant that gets built is squeezed a little more by the EPA to emit less "stuff."

    However, they still emit a lot of CO2

    The last two plants I have worked on are designed to remove nearly all of the particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and mercury.
     
  4. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    This will be BY FAR the most dangerous legacy of Barack Obama, I believe. CO2, greenhouse gases, carbon credits, cap and trade...all this is designed to make modern life obsolete. Cheap energy sources keep the engine of capitalism running. It allows wealth to be created.

    If they can get a noose around this...they can create a society where "community organizers," not-for-profit NGO types, think-tankers, university professors, etc. are elevated in stature in the economy to the same level as industrialists.

    For generations in America, people and corporations who "produce" something have been the alpha species in our economic system. We are in the process of banishing that from our society. They do not want an industrial economy. They want a high-minded, idealistic non-profit utopia where lawyers, community activists, professors, and social workers are the new elite - and where our iPods are made and shipped in from somewhere else.

    They see an industrial economy as "beneath our dignity." They feel we should have "gotten beyond that" as a society by now. They really _do_ believe all you need to have for your national economy are simply teaching the young, caring for the old, entertaining everyone, shining each other's shoes, and now and then, suing each other. And a sprinking of computer designers and Wall Street paper traders, just to keep things interesting.

    By the time everybody realizes they're wrong, it will be too late. We'll have a 22% youth unemployment rate (like Europe), kids with Master's degrees will live with their parents until they're 30 years old (like Europe), the population will just get older and older, and those who are fortunate enough to have anything will keep re-electing politicians who promise government laws to protect them from losing what they have.

    Now - remember, the Earth will be just as polluted - because all that ugly dirty stuff will still be produced by other countries. The only difference will be the balance of trade...all our wealth will head in their direction, and they will amass it, and sit there and figure out what to do with it.

    And guess what - some of these places won't have such high ideals as us. They'll censor their internet, jail their journalists, genitally mutilate their women, and threaten everyone else into submission.

    And Global Warming, and the control of sources of energy production, will be how they get their foot in the door. Barack Obama can be a good President in every other possible way, and even turn out to be a great guy in some ways...but he will be the one who put the regulatory apparatus in place, to press down the accelerator pedal on this re-arrangement of the organizing principles of our economy.

    That will be change. And you definitely better believe in it.
     
  5. Barry C. Roach

    Barry C. Roach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,209
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Write your congressman and senator. I just did.
     
  6. ricks1

    ricks1 TS Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,545
    cct was tried before, not here but in another country It back fired. What they are doing is on the right heading but the wrong path. It is suprizing tim99 that you dont know that. Here is a good example, If you take a CO2 tank that is rated for 5000psi and put it under water and pump 10000psi in it what will happen? Nothing can live on straight CO2. the CCT is only a hype to keep the greens at bay for a while. It will never work the way they are telling the public it will. The coal to gas is the way to go but that is not cheap and no one is up to triple you electric bill YET
     
  7. Barry C. Roach

    Barry C. Roach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,209
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Coal to gas fine too. But Rick, they've already trebled your energy costs once. If you think it wont happen again, and soon, you know little about the economics of energy.
     
  8. timb99

    timb99 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,330
    Location:
    Shawnee, Kansas, USA
    Perhaps, rick1, you could educate me.
     
  9. richrob

    richrob TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    Messages:
    335
    I would argue that nuclear is the cleanest, safest, and for sure the cheapest way of producing electricity.

    That being said, if something were to happen it would have the largest impact so the potential is there, I recognize that and don't need a lecture.

    With an ageing fleet America needs more nukes, If they end up shutting down Oyster Creek in New Jersey, though its only about a 900 Mw plat, watch the impact it has on the energy costs in the area.

    - Rich

    As an aside windmills as commercial form of energy are unreliable and do not produce enough power for the footprint. Not to mention they are an eyesore.
     
  10. Barry C. Roach

    Barry C. Roach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,209
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Nukes have problems even paying for themselves. Coal plants, about a year and a half. Coal is far, far, far the most economical way to produce electricity.
     
  11. BT-100dc

    BT-100dc Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,487
    Barry excellent piece. I don't think the other "Barry" is going to do anything with clean coal technology. These Dems hate coal but I can't determine whether they hate drilling more? Either way we're screwed. I live in Ohio and support the use of coal. I believe they want to put the coal industry out of business. I guess it's left to be seen but if it were me I would sell my holdings in any coal company. Just my opinion. Darrell
     
  12. richrob

    richrob TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    Messages:
    335
    You obviously have not worked in or around the nuclear industry, money is being made hand over fist. The majority of the plants currently generating were heavily subsidized by the government and were ok with being offline more than on.

    As technology and our understanding of the industry has advanced we are making breaker to breaker runs on the units.

    What that means is from refueling cycle to refueling cycle, there is 0 down time, constant production at or near 100% capacity for 18 months to 2 years depending on the type of reactor. With current electricity costs each unit is making over $100,000 an hour.

    Yes, there is a large time and monetary investment in building a nuke plant, but let me ask you this, why would they want to do it if they could not make money? This is a business, and its all about profit, the industry would not be investing hundreds of millions of dollars just to research and apply for new plants if it were going to put them in the red.

    Exelon for example has already bought land in Texas to build a plant they have not even applied to the NRC for. Also, they are currently going through a hostile takeover of NRG, simply because they hold the rights to the plant that is first in line to be approved and built. And nukes can't make money?

    -Rich
     
  13. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,642
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    buzz, kudos for a well thought out readable post.

    HM
     
  14. Barry C. Roach

    Barry C. Roach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,209
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    I know that no nuclear plant has ever paid for itself. You obviously don't know the difference between gross and net.
     
  15. timb99

    timb99 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,330
    Location:
    Shawnee, Kansas, USA
    Barry,

    Not sure where you're getting your information, but nuclear power is a very big money maker for utilities that operate them. If they weren't they'd be mothballed.

    In my area, Wolf Creek and Callaway are proven performers.

    Many utilities are already into the licensing process for several new units throughout the USA (Entergy at the Grand Gulf Station, TVA at Bellefonte, Ameren at Callaway, for example.)

    If these plants weren't cost effective, I guarantee nobody would be considering building new ones.

    Fort Calhoun in Nebraska, where I interned one summer as a young engineering student, is into its 36th year of operation. Pretty sure it paid for itself within its first 10 years of operation.
     
  16. richrob

    richrob TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    Messages:
    335
    Timb99, thankyou for using real facts and common sense. If these plants did not make money they wouldn't be trying to build more.

    It may be true that no plant has paid for its self because the government did back in the day, but that's not saying that they couldn't or that they don't make money.
     
  17. ricks1

    ricks1 TS Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,545
    tim they tried the CO2 deal in the 80s in Africa. I dont know how deep the wells were , they pumped the CO2 into the wells and in time [dontknow] but it created a small earth quake and the CO2 came to the surface. It killed around 200 people and several thousand animals. They are building[or that is what is said] a CCT now in WV. they drilled 3 wells 10,000foot deep. these wells are about 4000ft apart in a triangle. As of the design now there is NO back check system in place. How much CO2 can you put in sand till it fills up? NO ONE KNOWS. The plants that are useing the "scrubber" system is creating a large land fill problem. They had to deal with fly ash and now spent limestone/gypsum. The plant here[wv] is the proto type. I am 90 miles from it but they will be pumping CO 2 in the ground UNDER the Ohio River. I hope they will have everything figured out by the time it goes on line. But you know what engineers say when it dont work. BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD
     
  18. Lead Man

    Lead Man TS Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Messages:
    524
    Anyone look at the fly ash problem in east TN? The dam broke and all kinds of havoc has taken place. They will use this to the advantage of the greenies. Hussien has already mentioned looking at the regulations on the industry.

    Three Mile Island did the same thing to the nukes.

    The industry on both sides have nothing but knee jerk reactions which cause years of set backs for producing good technology. Both can and will be good sources of energy, just depends on where you get your income, and secure feelings as to which you favor.
     
  19. shot410ga

    shot410ga Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,760
    No such thing as "clean coal energy."
     
  20. XXPowder

    XXPowder Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    539
    The "clean coal" campaign was always more PR than relality-currently the is no economical way to capture and sequester carbon emissions from coal, and many experts doubt there ever will be. Coal accounts for about 30 percent of the US carbon emissions, Coal contains toxic metals like arsenic and mercury. The Kingston coal plant in Tennessee Valley had a dike break in Dec.22,2008 flooding Harrimann, Tenn, and left much of the town uninhabitalble. They dumbed about 100 times more waste than the exxon Valdez disaster. We may see clean coal some day, but right there isn't any!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Search tags for this page

clean coal technologies forum

,

shooting forum clean coal