[BITList] Coal Driven Power Stations and Carbon Dioxide.

[John Feltham]

  This guy says it like it is................You be the judge




Subject:  Coal Driven Power Stations and Carbon Dioxide.


This article appeared in the Rockhampton morning Bulletin on 22.12.09.

This is an excellent piece for anybody who needs to be educated about  
Australia's Coal driven power houses.

Terry is now retired and is in excellent health at age 69. Nobody paid  
him to write the article which was, (to their credit), published by  
the local press.


Written By Terence Cardwell <terrycar at iinet.net.au>

The Editor

The Morning Bulletin.

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 reheaters 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 costs 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.










-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bcn.mythic-beasts.com/pipermail/bitlist/attachments/20100202/57a66b57/attachment-0001.shtml