(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

Burning Coal; Explain to me.....

J

john in la

Well-known Member
Location
What part of in La do you not understand
With the diverse knowledge; insight; opinion; of those that visit this web site; maybe someone here can explain to me how cutting coal use in the United States is gona make one iota of a difference in global greenhouse gasses; when we are building coal train to ship transfer terminals so that Europe and Asia can up its coal use.

I know of at least 3 such transfer terminals in my area; with a 4th just getting approval to be built; and all of them have a capacity to ship (or are being expanded to ship) in the neighborhood of 20 MM tons annually.

A train so long you can look both ways and not see either end

a178054.jpg


headed for a transfer terminal that use to be owned by CN.

8423579289_4a46fd6521_c.jpg

Growing steam coal exports can boost La. economy
 
I have read and heard on TV the following. No idea if it's real or just hot air. I'm just the messanger.

Natural Gas vs Coal: Undoubtedly, high efficiency natural gas-fired power stations can produce up to 70% lower greenhouse gas emissions than existing brown coal-fired generators, and less than half the greenhouse gas emissions of the latest technology black coal-fired power stations. Notice the distinction between black and brown coal, however, exactly how much less CO2 also depends upon the type of gas-fired station.
 
I burn coal in a boiler system. The man I buy my coal from started selling free standing coal stoves last fall. He had 35 of them to sell and sold out. I know its not comparible to a power plant but many small fires will equal one big one at some point.
 
I just bought a half ton of coal Monday for shop heat. I use it along with wood. The place I had bought coal before had gone out of business due to age and health. This new supplier was hard to find as he doesent advertise. He told me that he hasd run adds in local papers and the "doo gooders" called him and said it was aganst the law to sell coal. How about that! They could not produce such a law, he is still selling but doesn't advertise.
By the way coal heats very well. joe
 
I don't have all the answers, but with todays technology there is no way to burn coal clean. Even China is planning on reducing coal usage, they have polluted the air so bad it's causing medical problems. And we all breath the same air.
 
Dean,
There is more than meets the eye that some are concerned about. Again I didn't write this article, just copy and pasted it.

Particulate matter (PM), also known as particle pollution, includes the tiny particles of fly ash and dust that are expelled from coal-burning power plants. Particulate pollution is a mixture of soot, smoke, and tiny particles formed in the atmosphere from sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and ammonia (NH3). Fine particles are a mixture of a variety of different compounds and pollutants that originate primarily from combustion sources such as power plants, but also diesel trucks and buses, cars, etc. They are sometimes referred to as PM2.5 (particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter - less than one-hundredth of the width of a human hair). Fine particles are either emitted directly from these combustion sources or are formed in the atmosphere through complex oxidation reactions involving gases, such as sulfur dioxide (SO2) or nitrogen oxides (NOX). Among particles, fine particles are of gravest concern because they are so tiny that they can be inhaled deeply, thus evading the human lungs' natural defenses.[1]
 
It will make little difference in the aggretate, perhaps even an aggregate increase in so-called green house gasses. The coal does not move itself from the source to the user.

Dean
 
John,
There are some coal mines in Indiana. At one of our local scrap yards there is a radiation detector next the the scales. I ask, why do you need radiation detectors? They said that some hospital equipment is radioactive and so is the equipment used in coal mines.

So not only does coal produce more CO2, particulate matter, there is a small amount of radiatrion.

Coal is largely composed of organic matter, but it is the inorganic matter in coal—minerals and trace elements— that have been cited as possible causes of health, environmental, and technological problems associated with the use of coal. Some trace elements in coal are naturally radioactive. These radioactive elements include uranium (U), thorium (Th), and their numerous decay products, including radium (Ra) and radon (Rn). Although these elements are less chemically toxic than other coal constituents such as arsenic, selenium, or mercury, questions have been raised concerning possible risk from radiation. In order to accurately address these questions and to predict the mobility of radioactive elements during the coal fuel-cycle, it is important to determine the concentration, distribution, and form of radioactive elements in coal and fly ash.

The EPA won it's case in the supreme court. Coal is out, natural gas is in. Like ethanol in gas, Nothing anyone of us can do but vent. I'm not liking the idea that my electric bill will go through the ceiling.
 
Speaking of ethanol, what about all the co2 produced by alcohol production? For every 330 gallons or so of alcohol one metric tonne of co2 is produced. Most of the ethanol fuel plants recover and sell the co2 but what about the distilleries that are producing thousands of tonnes a day?
 
They now know that 50-60% of the granite countertops in this country are emitting levels of radiation that are considered above the safe level.

With all the chemicals in carpet and the household chemicals people use, their house can kill them - but they are keeping up with what is popular!
 
Kentucky just lost 670 coal mine jobs the radio reported this week. Those were very good paying jobs. Hurts their economy big time in coal region. There is a trade off for what we are told is need for cleaner air. Guess transfer stations helps coal exports, but seems like we need investment in clean burn technology to keep our coal here and our jobs here where they are helping the economy and people with jobs. The emphasis for absolutely perfectly clean air could swing the other way in a few months.
 
Greg,
I'm not crazy about the war on Carbon, but carbon lost the war. Rarely does the supreme court reverse it's decision.

Yes, it sad people are losing jobs. Indiana will lose jobs too.

FYI, 12 tons of carbon + 32 ton of oxygen produces 44 ton of CO2. A power plant near by gets 100 50 ton cars of coal a day. So if it burns a car load every 15 minutes, that's about 48 ton of coal, 128 ton of oxygen and 176 ton of CO2. That's from just one coal fired power plant.

A guy who works at the power plant says that over 1/2 the electricity they produce is used to run the power plant, crushing the coal, running the pumps and fans.

Using natural gas will eliminate the crushing.
 
Natural gas is composed of hydrocarbons, while coal is almost pure carbon. Burning carbon produces CO2, burning hydrogen produces water. So coal produces more CO2 per Btu than does natural gas. So natural gas is better for the environment, which is not the same as being "good" for the environment.
 
So you have unintended consequences. That's why significant reductions of greenhouse gases won't occur without international agreement. But that is not to say the US should not work to reduce its CO2 production, given that we're the number two producer after China.
 
The radiation in coal most likely (do not know for sure) comes from radon. Oil drilling produces the same radioactive radon in drill pipe and the reason used drill pipe is cheap and you see a lot of it used for cattle yards. A dumb public and a good lobbyist makes for a market of products not fit for a scrap yard.
So should we ban oil drilling also.

But the real question was......
Why should you (US) have to pay higher electric bills because you use natural gas when your neighbor across the street gets to use cheaper coal (Europe)
If coal causes a proven risk to the public ban it. Not just for domestic use but for export also to prevent others from using it.

We will receive the same risk from burning coal if it is burned in the US or Antarctica. The day we receive this risk will just be different.
 
Russ you are wrong Coal can be burned clean, it is just the cost to do so that gets prohibitive. One of TVA,s largest plant here within 10 miles of me is one example but they have spent upwards of 20 million making it an example . Uses about a third as much limestone as coal it burns just to scrub the exhaust. Emissions are cut to bellow anything EPA has mandated. Not train cars but barge load about one each hour.
 
It is not just the miners that loose there jobs it affects a lot more people also , like around here years back when the stopped the strip mining . It did not just put the guys that did the stripping out of a job it took the guys that had the coal buckets down the tubes then the guys that had the tire businesses and the truck parts supply houses down slowed down the truck sales and the trailer Mfg. co.down , the equipment dealers down and the big equipment mfg. layed off the steel mills slowed down car and truck sales went down . Like down in the Cadiz Ohio area where there were five working giant shovels stripping coal you can not believe how many warm bodys it took to shell we say service just one of them shovels . From the guys that ran the shovels on down the line the number was staggering at the jobs lost when each one shut down .
 
Mark,
You are right, everything we do there are unintended consequences. I remember the same argument when freon 12 was ban in the US. We can't use but the rest of the world can and we only use a small %.

I don't know what happened in the rest of the world, but if you look at AC's, dehumidifiers and Refrigs sold in the US and made outside our boarders, they use 134a.

Do other countries still use R12 or did they follow our lead?

China will have to choke to death on their air pollution. Remember when they had the Olympics, they shut down some of their bigger air polluting factories?

I agree China is bad and we are only a drop in the bucket. The alternative is uranium an not too many in favor of that either.
 
"A guy who works at the power plant says that over 1/2 the electricity they produce is used to run the power plant, crushing the coal, running the pumps and fans."

Regardless of what that guy "who works at the power plant" says. That is utter nonsense.

Dean
 
Last year we had a very large ash spill from abandon holding ponds that belonged to Duke power. These pond were supposed to have been cleaned up years ago but the NC. state legislators kept giving Duke extensions. If you don't believe coal ash is toxic, spread some on your pasture or lawn and see what happens. They were lucky on this spill that it didn't shut down every town water supply from Danville va. to the east coast of NC.

We have one clean power plant burning coal. Never see smoke. Just vapor/steam out the stack. Clover Power Station has the distinction of being one of the cleanest coal-fired power stations in the nation. $1.2 billion of the cost to build was environmental. Got new NG plants being built now and new gas lines being built also. They don't need the $1.2 billion spent to make them clean.

We now have 3 wood burning power stations operating. They use the by products of timber cutting. Nearly all loggers now have chippers to supply these power stations and it pays very well. Timber is big in my area. 3 osb mills in 60 miles of rt. 501 and those wood burning power plants are within 40 miles of each other. Farmers get the wood ash for crop and grass for cattle. Can't beat the combination of wood ash and chicken litter for grass and hay. Guys that use wood ash have 50- 60 bu. yields on soy beans now. That just about double what it was before the ash.

I hate for folks to lose jobs over coal but I also hated to see folks lose jobs over tobacco being killed. We had to change. The country will have to change as well.

I'm happy to see so many here understand the difference in coal and NG. I've worked with both as a fuel. I much prefer NG any day.
ash spill
 
By what I've read, China is building a new coal fired plant every week and they burn it the old fashioned dirty way, but it supplies them with cheap power. Hard for our industry to compete.
 
George
I think you mis-understood him

He most likely said the plant is only 50% efficient.
Only 1/2 of the coal energy is converted to electricity.

Not they use 1/2 of the coal energy to run the plant.

Most of the energy from a power plant; be it coal N.G. what ever is put out the stack or into a water source surrounding the plant.
Oil refineries have this same problem. The difference is they use the wasted energy to heat buildings and pipes that keep the thick oil flowing.
 
Companies need to export to get a decent price for it. At best, the US is a stagnant market for goods and services.
 
RM, I don't live all that far from you,as the crow flys.I started my working career at a coal fired power plant in VA many years ago, Now that plant is being shut down and will be torn down next year. But what is really gotten people stirred up around here is a new 48in gas line is coming right through the middle of our county heading south to supply the Duke plants you speak of, and will be within 5 miles of the plant they are going to demolish. Its too old to upgrade they say. The people that live in this area do not want the gas line passing through their property and have formed some of the largest groups in VA and WV that I have ever seen to fight it's coming through.An all out war has just begun over this line and it's going to get nasty before it's over.
 
What happens to the limestone after it is used. Seems like a whole lot of lime stone after fifty years if headed for the land fill.
 
(quoted from post at 10:30:17 01/01/15) Dean,
There is more than meets the eye that some are concerned about. Again I didn't write this article, just copy and pasted it.

Particulate matter (PM), also known as particle pollution, includes the tiny particles of fly ash and dust that are expelled from coal-burning power plants. Particulate pollution is a mixture of soot, smoke, and tiny particles formed in the atmosphere from sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and ammonia (NH3). Fine particles are a mixture of a variety of different compounds and pollutants that originate primarily from combustion sources such as power plants, but also diesel trucks and buses, cars, etc. They are sometimes referred to as PM2.5 (particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter - less than one-hundredth of the width of a human hair). Fine particles are either emitted directly from these combustion sources or are formed in the atmosphere through complex oxidation reactions involving gases, such as sulfur dioxide (SO2) or nitrogen oxides (NOX). Among particles, fine particles are of gravest concern because they are so tiny that they can be inhaled deeply, thus evading the human lungs' natural defenses.[1]
Click to expand...

Compare the amount and size of micro carbon between a NG turbine and a coal plant with scrubbers and precipators.
The EPA was also concerned about dust from farmers working fields and is looking for a way to regulate the fine particulate.
 
(quoted from post at 11:14:20 01/01/15)

A guy who works at the power plant says that over 1/2 the electricity they produce is used to run the power plant, crushing the coal, running the pumps and fans.

Using natural gas will eliminate the crushing.
Click to expand...

His numbers are way off. The conveyers, pulverizers and bag house do not demand that amount of power. Coal boiler feed pumps and condenser cooling water demands are comparable to nuclear.
As previously stated the 50% was thermal to electrical conversion efficiency. Very good numbers actually to approach 50%.
The latest and greatest John Deere at Nebraska managed 37% efficiency which has equaled or set records.
 
The whole thing is idiotic. We have a clean-burning coal powered generating plant here, the only one in the state- used to use local coal, but it was "dirty" enough that they couldn't scrub it enough to meet regs. So started bringing in Wyoming anthracite by the train load- that worked for several years, now they have to shut the whole thing down by 2025.

The pollution of this facility is in the single digits as a percentage of the pollution put out by third world coal plants- you'd think the enviro whackos would want the stuff burned in the cleanest way possible, because its gonna get burned somewhere. And a whole lot of diesel is burned to get it to the west coast for export, too.

But not to fear- our Prez made a deal with China- we have to get to a certain level by 2020, they have to start thinking about doing something by about 2035. Very shrewd negotiator, our Prez. . . I want to take him along the next time I'm trying to buy an old tractor.
 
(quoted from post at 13:29:24 01/01/15) What happens to the limestone after it is used. Seems like a whole lot of lime stone after fifty years if headed for the land fill.
Click to expand...

Used for drywall and concrete.
 
Is this the line coming through Nelson Co.? There's another one coming from Chatham va. too. What I saw on the news is Nelson Co. folks are against that one and fighting hard but Buckingham. co. is for it, the same line. I can understand some fear after that one blew up at Appomattox a few years ago. Heck of a hole in the ground and several homes melted. That's an older pipeline and I hope they have found and replaced the weak spots. There's another one being planned too. Can't remember where that one is. No close by though.

I think some of those plants are under construction so the gas line might be delayed but will be laid at some point. Starting court battles now because folks won't let surveyors on land. I respect both sides but progress will come. Good or bad. Good for some bad for others. I just hope no one gets hurt.

I'm far more concerned over the big chunk of uranium in the ground about 25 miles south west of me. If that ever got in the water supply from mining those towns and cities down stream would be ghost towns soon and bad water forever. Hard to trust companies when they do like Duke did on the coal ash in this day and time. That was crazy.
 
Well said, Mike.

The coal fired generating plant most near to me (about 4 miles) is closing this year (2015) because it is not cost effective (if even possible) to retrofit it to meet draconian EPA regulations.

I've lived nearby for decades and know many folks who do work or have worked at this plant over the past decades. These jobs were considered prime jobs in this area. Many farms (not to mention many more houses, cars, tractors, trucks, etc., etc., etc.) have been bought and paid for by the wages earned at this plant. No longer.

Did I mention that the next most near generating plant (about 10 miles away) will close within two years for the same nonsensical reasons?

Did I also fail to mention that the third most near generating plant (about 30 miles away) will also close within two years for the same nonsensical reasons?

At one time or another within the past few decades each of these three plants was considered one of the most modern and efficient (sometimes, the largest) generating plants in the country, if not the world, not to mention the best place to work in the area.

The United States was once a great nation.

Dean
 
No the heat breaks down the lime stone and the byproduct is used to produce the dry wall in your house. One of the largest producer of dry wall in the nation. Goes out by the truck and train .
 
There are resource facts that are irreversible. There is no realistic way to remove CO2 from coal combustion (it can be done at double the cost and 1/3 increase in the consumption of coal. There is a finite amount of coal. all coal remaining will be of lesser and lesser quality and higher and higher cost of extraction. Governmental regulation is the beat we can expect, but it is not affecting the use of coal or the sequestration of co2 in other countries. We have no "national" ability/willingness to control the export of coal to the uncontrolled world.
I do research what I say. I teach courses in resource management. I understand real world demand for energy. I understand the implications of cold turkey stopping of the extraction of coal. I have family with generations of work in coal mining. I believe we need to phase out the world use of coal. It is dirty in many ways not visible to 99% of the users of the energy. From distribution of mercury into the fish of our lakes, to the radiation from the nuclear elements in the flue gasses, to the CO2, it is destructive. Nothing will cure it's problems. Humanity has a desperate intention to continue to do things shown to be bad for them, especially when the effects seem to be in the future, or not causing them to wear masks (see Beijing China pollution) I risk ridicule (here on the tractor channel (as my wife calls it))to tell the truth in unfettered words. Jim
 
There are actually two lines. The one that is stirring up all the stink right now is the Mountain Valley Pipeline,going from Wetzel county WV to Pittsylvania County Va(300 miles). Goes very close to VA Tech in Blacksburg.
 
Despite their push to be 'green' Germany is burning more coal than ever.
They also have a new demographic. Energy poor. Those who are paying over 20% of their monthly income on energy.
Once the truth about the global warming and climate change religions come out a lot of people are going to be really mad.
How to arrive at 98% out of 12,000+ consensus on climate: 1)gather all the papers in the last however long on climate. 2) discard the ones that don't mention man causing climate change. 3)count any mention of man causing climate change that is not an outright denial as support of man being the primary cause of climate change. 4)figure the percent which, based on your criteria, supports the idea 5)add back in other 1/3 that you ignored earlier to the 2/3 that your percentage was figured from.
1/3 of the original 12,000+ made no mention of man causing any climate change. 2% of the others clearly stated that man has little to no affect. Less than 2% stated that man is the primary or sole cause of climate change. The other 96%+ said that if man has any influence it is very small.

The epa's entire air quality standards methodology is based on studies from the 80s that were never peer reviewed. As near as anyone can tell. They won't let anyone outside the agency see it.
The expanded jurisdiction epa is seeking under the clean water act is another way to subvert state water regulations that give ranchers right of use of the land that the federal government illegally owns in the west.
Had Clive Bundy paid the millions BLM claimed he owed, legally, 87.5% would be spent to repair the damage they did trying to take the land to which he has legal right. The fees were part of a voluntary program to establish property lines and improve facilities on the range, from back in the days when BLM actually managed the lands it was charged with.
 
It is certainly that, Cowmechanic.

Unfortunately, the movement, founded upon a proven fradulent 1962 book by Rachael Carson, has morphed itself into a pagan religion.

Consequently, the followers of such religion are not responsive to rational argument because such interferes with their beliefs.

Dean
 
Key phrase: "[H]as mandated."

Once the private sector wastes enough money to achieve compliance with the latest round of nonsensical EPA regulations, the bureaucratic zealots raise the bar yet again.

Enough is never enough.

The bureaucrats must, above all else, justify their bloated salaries and incomprehensible benefits.

Those few of us with the background necessary to see the "big picture" recognize that the inevitable result is economic collapse.

Dean
 
Well, I , for one, am against nuclear power. BUT...not for the usual reasons. I oppose it because it creates deadly hazardous waste that so far is not able to be recycled or rendered safe. Sealing it in concrete or burying it in salt is simply NOT the solution to the waste problem. IMHO, they have had over 70 years to solve the waste problem, and seem to be no closer to a solution than they were 70 years ago.
 
Janicholson,
I risk ridicule (here on the tractor channel (as my wife calls it))to tell the truth in unfettered words. Jim

That is sad but true, I too not only risk ridicule, but many personal attacks, name calling, by a few. Know first hand what you are talking about.

Some can't handle the truth, sad to say.
People need learn the meaning of freedom of speak, I may not like what you have to say, but defend your right to say it. It's time someone does something with the bullies out of YT.

Just watch, Bet I get ridiculed.
George
 
The "guy that works at the plant" is not necessarily an expert. The REAL experts are sitting in the office at computers analyzing ways to increase efficiency thereby increasing profits. Some guy running a forklift or a crusher is no more of an expert than the bag boy at the local supermarket.
 
guys i am 73 years young and i can remember when the train all were steam and lots of smoke we do much better with coal burning today. i have a little book her i got form Xmas last printing date jan 2014 it lists composition of air nitrogen as78.084 percent ox at 20.947argon0.934 and co2 at 0.033. now if that all after 200 years of burning coal i dont see any problem and remember all living plant need and use co2 so go shovel that load to some that will be live it
 
No misunderstanding, The man said the electric company was the largest single consumer of the electricity they generate, 50%.
He has worked for the local electric company for 30 years in the control room. It's very possible the man didn't know what he was talking about. So what % does a power plant require to crush coal, run blowers and pumps?

About 10 years ago, the electric company built a power station where they heat the coal in an oxygen free environment, burn the gas produced in a turbine to make electricity. Then the heat from the turbine exhaust goes to preheat the water in a conventional steam boiler. Not sure of the numbers on the coal gas plant. No idea is the emissions are better either. The new plant is only about 3 miles from my place in the north end of the county.

A local college does the same thing with wood chips, bake them then burn the gasses. They claim it's cleaner.
 
You outdid yourself, LAA. I don't think you've managed to pack so many falsehoods into a single post before.

When did contempt of science become a conservative trait? I remember back in the days of Saint Ronald Raygun when scientists were treated with respect, even awe. These days faith healers and snake handlers get more respect by the GOP. If you're running for office in a red state, you'd better renounce critical thinking in general and science in particular, lest you be labeled an apostate. Even in this ostensibly blue state of Michigan, our legislature is controlled by GOP politicians who despise science almost as much as they love Matty Moroun.

I wonder who the Koch brothers think will build their beloved coal-burning plants once they've purged the country of scientists and engineers. Snake handlers and faith healers are weak when it comes to solving differential equations and Laplace transforms.

I'm going to make a prediction about 2016. The GOP will select a candidate for POTUS. This candidate will either acknowledge the need to address climate change or will not. If it is the former, he or she will be the next president. If not, President nnalert will be up for re-election in 2020.

Happy New Year, habibi.
 
(quoted from post at 14:53:53 01/01/15)

A train so long you can look both ways and not see either end
Click to expand...

Saw one of these on my way into work on Monday on a track that runs along I-70 in Columbus (Ohio). Someone is still using a lot of coal.
 
With 3 transfer terminals in our area we several of these trains every week. This could very well be the same train you see as these tracks (first picture) is where the east west tracks out of New Orleans turn north and head up I55.

Look at the bottom picture and you can see the whole train. In the bottom left corner you will see one engine. That is the rear (end of) the train. Just to its left you will see the lead engines (2 of them) just coming under the conveyor bridge. That whole circle is rail cars full of coal.
 
JN please cite references to your statement that "all future mined coal will be of lesser quality". Thx
 
CO2 and H2O are the ideal products of any 100 percent efficient combustion. CO, SO2, N2O, mercury, unburnt fuel, coal ash, diesel particulates, etc. are the bad ones.
 
The known reserves of coal have been looked at or they would not be known. The coal we harvest first is the hard anthracite ore bodies with about 95% carbon. Wikipedia as a source, about 1% of the coal is in this category. Unknown reserves are just that, but will also be likely to be of lesser carbon content and small net volume. The coal mining we do whether long wall mining destroying farms in central/southern Illinois, or mountain top mining in the Appalachian chain, are soft coal. There have been hundreds of mines both surface strip mines and shaft mines that have left behind deposits of marginal coal. From Havre MT to the east all along the Canadian border are deposits of bituminous and lignite based "soft" coal. These, and the coal we are now using from Wyoming Colorado, and Montana are soft coal or intermediate somewhat better coal. Power companies purchase coal that their technologies can fire and meet current regulation. As time goes by we will see fewer of these plants staying in compliance with the coal they can get. I have been in these mines, I have seen them. Read Scientific American, or Science Magazine. Both have articles addressing the issues. My fault for making an allness statement. Jim
 
J.I.Case and many others started the traction engine business in the 1800s If that is not tractor related I don't know what is. The discussion is important to the beliefs and the foundations of the way we think about the world. Farms use electrical energy in large quantities. The energy supplies we use directly affect production and are environmentally important as well. The moderators tolerate these discussions because they are germane to all. Jim
 
Hmmmmmmmm?

Let's see....

Coal and steam built this country. (Study history if you do not agree.)

Coal snd steam produced the energy and power to make iron, steel (and now) aluminum that was/is used to make (guess what?) tractors (among other things).

Were it not for coal and steam, you and all of the rest of us would still be grubbing for a starvation-avoidance existance with wooden and iron tools pulled by animals under the direction of a king, duke, baron, earl, lord, etc.

You doubt?

Study history for 50+ years like I have.

Dean
 
I stand corrected. MY FRIEND WHO WORKS AT A POWER
PLAND WAS WRONG. Here are the stats I dug up 6%
TO OPERATE PLANT.

The steam is condensed for re-use. During this
process the latent heat of condensation is lost
to the cooling water. This is the major loss and
is almost 40 % of the energy input.
Losses in the turbine blades and exit losses at
turbine end are some of the other losses.
The Rankine cycle efficiency is dictated by the
maximum temperature of steam that can be admitted
into the turbine. Due to metallurgical
constraints steam temperatures are at present
limited to slightly more than 600 °C.
The third stage converts the mechanical rotation
to Electricity in a generator. Copper, magnetic
and mechanical losses account for 5 % loss in the
Generator. Another 3 % is lost in the step-up
transformer which makes the power ready for
transmission to the consumer.

To operate the power plant it is required to run
various auxiliary equipment like pulverisers,
fans, pumps and precipitators. The power to
operate these auxiliaries has to come from the
power plant itself. For large power plants around
6 % of the generator output is used for internal
consumption.

This brings the overall efficiency of the power
plant to around 33.5 %. This means we get only
1.9 kwhr of electrical energy from one kg of coal
instead of the 5.56 kwhr that is theoretically
available in the coal.

The efficiency or inefficiency of power plants is
something that we have to live with for the
present till technology finds away out.
 
This created quite a stir. It is always a pleasure to read the calculations provided by Jim Nicholson and George Marsh.
 
I would also expect the power required to generate the electricity, which is called house power, would be less than 5%.
 
DavidG
Please note I stand corrected on what my friend told me. Check post below to B&D.
George
 
I see a lot of the crying is about lost jobs and the resultant damage to communities.

Nobody is "owed" a job. Jobs exist at the leisure of the employer, and if it becomes economically or physically infeasible to continue your employment, your position will be eliminated. How fair or unfair the circumstances, is irrelevant. Why should a company run itself into the ground (i.e. bankruptcy) to provide jobs and preserve the status quo?

Dealing with change is hard, and it's nice if you can settle into a nice comfortable rut for a few decades, but that's becoming harder and harder these days.

As for the people displaced by these plant closures you can't tell me that:

1. Their skills are so specific to the industry that they were displaced from that NONE of them can be leveraged in another industry.
2. They are so deeply rooted in the local community that they can't pull up stakes and go where the jobs are.

Of course nobody should have to do what they don't want to do, but then don't come crying to me because you can't find a job in a dead town, and you're poor and miserable.
 
mkirsch,
We will always need electricity. Can't see us
going AMISH. I've also seen 2 NG power stations
built near by in the past 20 years. They called
them peaking plants. My guess is the peaking
plants will be full time power stations. We also
have two large NG lines in the county. One goes
north to Chicago, the other to Indy.

I think T Boone said that we could be energy
independent if all semis ran on CNG. And we have
a large supply of NS.

Then we have a new style power plant that turns
the coal into a gas and uses a gas turbine to
power the generators. It been in operation for
about 10 years. Not 100% sure it's cleaner but it
was suppose to be more efficient.

Yes, people will be out of a job at one end of
the country. However if NG is the fuel of the
future, then well drillers will be busy at the
other end.

In Terre Haute there is a company that is setting
up shop to use the sludge from city waste
treatment to make oil.

Our county landfill is selling it natural gas.

I think Germany is WW2 was trying to make oil out
of coal.

So, it may be possible that coal may not be
totally dead.

Of course you may want to check my facts. No
claim they are 100% accurate. They are all from
my aging memory. So if some want to get picky
with my numbers, please post a link to the real
numbers.
Everyone have a great day. I'm going to have some
tractor therapy.
George
 

Coal liquidfication worked so well for the WWII Germans. They sold the tech to South Africa during the embargo. Made the South Africans a bunch of $$$ as they improved and sold the equipment they developed.
NG makes a decent methyl alcohol fuel for mobile use with just some NG, steam and a catalyst.
With some coal and NG, ordinary gasoline and diesel are just a refinery process away.
 
I didn't know Germany sold coal liquidfication
tech to S Africa. So it sounds like coal may not
be totally dead. It's just not going to be used
in the way it has been in the past.

Will it be cheaper to make methyl alcohol using
NG or make ethanol with corn? Is methyl better
than ethanol?

In 1940 my dad was a fireman on the RR. He said
that if they needed to make steam real fast, they
would inject steam on the coal. There would be
some kind of chemical reaction that caused the
coal to burn faster. Never understood that
either. I thought the steam would do just the
opposite.
 
The whole global warming thing is a hoax.
The crackdown on the coal industry is nothing more than our current leader trying to cut us down to size. While other country's continue to advance we continue to decline. Wonder how we are going to charge our electric cars they are trying to push when most of the power in this industry is powered by coal.

Cows are actually our biggest producers of green house gases, surprise the EPA hasn't done anything about that yet !
 
(quoted from post at 21:52:58 01/01/15) I stand corrected. MY FRIEND WHO WORKS AT A POWER
PLAND WAS WRONG. Here are the stats I dug up 6%
TO OPERATE PLANT.

The steam is condensed for re-use. During this
process the latent heat of condensation is lost
to the cooling water. This is the major loss and
is almost 40 % of the energy input.
Losses in the turbine blades and exit losses at
turbine end are some of the other losses.
The Rankine cycle efficiency is dictated by the
maximum temperature of steam that can be admitted
into the turbine. Due to metallurgical
constraints steam temperatures are at present
limited to slightly more than 600 °C.
The third stage converts the mechanical rotation
to Electricity in a generator. Copper, magnetic
and mechanical losses account for 5 % loss in the
Generator. Another 3 % is lost in the step-up
transformer which makes the power ready for
transmission to the consumer.

To operate the power plant it is required to run
various auxiliary equipment like pulverisers,
fans, pumps and precipitators. The power to
operate these auxiliaries has to come from the
power plant itself. For large power plants around
6 % of the generator output is used for internal
consumption.

This brings the overall efficiency of the power
plant to around 33.5 %. This means we get only
1.9 kwhr of electrical energy from one kg of coal
instead of the 5.56 kwhr that is theoretically
available in the coal.

The efficiency or inefficiency of power plants is
something that we have to live with for the
present till technology finds away out.
Click to expand...

A Pickering Nuclear unit rated at 540Mw would net 515Mw out to the grid. it takes approx 35Mw to run the pumps etc.
 
(quoted from post at 20:43:52 01/02/15) The whole global warming thing is a hoax.
The crackdown on the coal industry is nothing more than our current leader trying to cut us down to size. While other country's continue to advance we continue to decline. Wonder how we are going to charge our electric cars they are trying to push when most of the power in this industry is powered by coal.

Cows are actually our biggest producers of green house gases, surprise the EPA hasn't done anything about that yet !
Click to expand...

The biggest producer of so called "greenhouse gases' is the sun and the earths warm atmosphere evaporating our oceans and other bodies of water. about .28% of the gases can be contributed to man or your cows. Water vapor accounts for about 95% of the "greenhouse gases". About 96.7% of the CO2, the major boogeyman in the Climate Change Industry is naturally occurring. About 3.3% can be attributed to man. That's 3.3% of the 5% of greenhouse gases that aren't water vapor.

Anyone ever wonder why the Climate Change Industry/Vegan Industry worries about cow farts but ignores all the other farting animals in the world?
 
Here's the problems as I see them-

NG is, like every other fossil fuel, a finite product. NG is also expensive to route to everyones home. CNG is also expensive to package and move and like propane has some downsides iwth transport and storage.

Coal, 'nuff said. I wish it were cleaner, more efficient, but it's not. Same for "biomass" on the industrial level. We have a biomass plant on Ft Drum near here. It's an answer to a political issue.

Oil. Yeah, well we've all seen the rise and fall and the background of the players and politicians making their zillions is always going to put the little guy at a disadvantage. Same for NG, CNG, Propane and even coal.

Hydro. Why we aren't building dams, small ones at that, on every body of moving water is beyond me. The "No dams" industry is almost as powerful as the no nukes/coal industry. Small hyro, tidal generators, etc. could account for a goodly amount of our power in the wetter parts of our nation. Why we aren't doing this is a real good question IMO.

Modern nuclear plants. They don't have to be 1950's/60/s tech anymore. "The China Syndrome" and some rather over blown hysteria (IMO) have basically turned an engineering issue into a political issue. As I understand the right kind of reactor can produce much, much smaller waste issues and produce a type of waste that can be used. Maybe I'm all wrong on this one, but as with global man made climate change there's so much rhetoric involved it's hard to find the real answers.

Wind, solar, geo thermal. The problem I see here is that we're trying to do "The One Big Plant" thing. We have huge wind farms here in nothern NY that are only profitable because of subsidies. We have some fairly large solar farms that only exist because of subsidies. IMO the answer isn't with the One Big Plant but with thousands of smaller plants/dams and household solar/wind and geo thermal if you have access. The One Big Plant takes care of the city, the smaller local/home level rigs do the outlying areas. I would conservatively venture the guess there must be 5,000 sites in northern NY alone the could be put to use with small hydro. Even on my farm here in the realtively flat lands I have a site that could generate useable amounts of power via hydro 3 seasons of the year and 4 in a wet year. Of course all this requires a paradigm change in energy usage. That's the biggest stumbling block IMO after gov't issues, assuming the money was there to do it.

If someone would like to have a discussion about this idea, I think it would be interesting.
 
Yes the ocean and land for that matter put out a lot of CO2. But then again the land and ocean take in a lot of CO2.
It is a well balanced eco system we call earth.

But like any balanced system in you have more input (us adding CO2) than output a unbalanced system will evolve.

Look at it like this.....
You make $97 a week. (what the world can uptake in CO2)
You have $96 a week in bills. (what the world puts out in CO2)
Now all of a sudden you get $100 in bills (the world out put of CO2 and mans CO2)

You will get along for a while because the world had a larger uptake than out put for millions of years (this was your savings account)

Sooner or later the savings is gona run out; and like us today we are putting out more CO2 (man made and earth made) than the earth can take in.

My real question was..........
If CO2 is so bad that we ban burning coal; why do we promote others burning coal to destroy our air.
 
(quoted from post at 10:56:16 01/03/15) Yes the ocean and land for that matter put out a lot of CO2. But then again the land and ocean take in a lot of CO2.
It is a well balanced eco system we call earth.

But like any balanced system in you have more input (us adding CO2) than output a unbalanced system will evolve.

Look at it like this.....
You make $97 a week. (what the world can uptake in CO2)
You have $96 a week in bills. (what the world puts out in CO2)
Now all of a sudden you get $100 in bills (the world out put of CO2 and mans CO2)

You will get along for a while because the world had a larger uptake than out put for millions of years (this was your savings account)

Sooner or later the savings is gona run out; and like us today we are putting out more CO2 (man made and earth made) than the earth can take in.

My real question was..........
If CO2 is so bad that we ban burning coal; why do we promote others burning coal to destroy our air.
Click to expand...

But John, the problem is that it's not $100.00. You had (using your example) $95.00 of water vapor, $3.50 of naturally occurring CO2 and $0.12 of man made CO2 and the rest is methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. The total of all the man made gases comes out to about $0.28 of your $100.00. Starting from the pre-industrial baseline studies indicate man made additions to GH gases amount to a little over 12K PPB (.0012%!!!)and natural causes account for about 69 PPB. That''s almost 6x as much naturally produced GH gases as man made GH gases since the industrial age began. Those are US Dept of Energy figures and don't add in water vapor.

Now, I will admit to being skeptical. But asking me to believe that .28% of the GW atmospheric gases (not the same as pollutants BTW), at a 12K PPB increase over 150 years while natural factors are responsible for a 69K PPB increase....and then throw in agenda driven studies, falsified data thats been uncovered, various other pretty sketchy activity and the distortions that are peddled as "fact"...it all adds to my skepticism. Does climate change? Of course. Can man have influence? Of course. But when the same people that tell you we did something tell you that anything we do isn't likely to have any effect but that we should keep funding their research and that we should take some pretty radical steps involving wealth redistribution... it kind of makes you wonder just what the heck is really going on.
 
reading what all you guys have to say. i think i will start raising horses so i can get a buggy and get around. now you want clean up behind the horses
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
1952 WD -- New to me tractor, what advice? Spring Projec
Replies
9
Views
8K
cleddy
C
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top