Coal Power Plants

Post Reply
 
Pacowy
Member
Posts: 3555
Joined: Tue. Sep. 04, 2007 10:14 pm
Location: Dalton, MA
Stoker Coal Boiler: H.B. Smith 350 Mills boiler/EFM 85R stoker
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/anthracite

Post by Pacowy » Tue. Mar. 06, 2018 12:43 pm

Thanks. That link clarifies how far removed wind and solar are from being economically competitive with even the fossil-powered peak load generators. Heck, they don't even appear to be competitive with battery systems that store baseload power for peak use. If you read your own cites you might pull back on some of your big claims, esp. as they relate to the U.S.

Mike


 
User avatar
windyhill4.2
Member
Posts: 6072
Joined: Fri. Nov. 22, 2013 2:17 pm
Location: Jonestown,Pa.17038
Stoker Coal Boiler: 1960 EFM520 installed in truck box
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Crane 404 with variable blower
Coal Size/Type: 404-nut, 520 rice ,anthracite for both

Post by windyhill4.2 » Tue. Mar. 06, 2018 8:13 pm

Solar upkeep & maintenance : Must be clean for max output,dust will cut down on efficiency,bird shyt has to be washed off,hail can break the panels,as can high wind blown objects,high wind alone needs no objects to cause serious damage.

Wind generators: Where to start on this high maintenance system & very costly maintenance too....
Blades crack,break,loosen & fall off,bearings go bad & cause fires,bearings lock up & snap shafts,high winds are an enemy of these units,most are programmed to stop completely when the wind gets too strong. The rotating blades kill lots of birds...

BUT... fuel FREE !!! :lol:

 
User avatar
franpipeman
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: Fri. Jan. 11, 2008 4:27 pm
Location: Wernersville pa
Stoker Coal Boiler: efm 520 stoker fitzgibbons pressure vessel
Hand Fed Coal Stove: harman, russo
Coal Size/Type: rice
Other Heating: alpine propane condensing boiler radiant floor

Post by franpipeman » Wed. Mar. 07, 2018 8:26 am

Hail? https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/hail-no-nati ... vere-storm

rain and snow washes dust

we have plenty of rain and snow in Northeast

 
User avatar
David...
Member
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun. Nov. 06, 2016 9:48 am
Location: RI
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Franks 80k output
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Jotul 507B
Coal Size/Type: Nut

Post by David... » Wed. Mar. 07, 2018 9:21 am

Conventional fuel fired power plants have plenty of maintenance issues as well. Add in the cost of fuel supply and waste disposal for some and the cost is no longer the bargain it once was.

David

 
User avatar
BigBarney
Member
Posts: 1853
Joined: Wed. Feb. 08, 2006 2:48 pm

Post by BigBarney » Wed. Mar. 07, 2018 11:04 am

What to do with the ash ?

Maybe haul it back to the mine where the coal came from and use it as fill .

The cars probably go back empty anyway , so fill them up and dump at the

mine.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/utilities-find-g ... sh/518433/

States want the unlined ash pits cleaned up...

"According to Earthjustice, which analyzed Duke Energy’s results, there were "startlingly high levels of radioactivity at 11 out of 18 plants." And the environmental advocacy group also says Duke appears to have taken steps to obscure the findings by not summarizing its groundwater monitoring results in a table, as is customary."

BigBarney

 
Pacowy
Member
Posts: 3555
Joined: Tue. Sep. 04, 2007 10:14 pm
Location: Dalton, MA
Stoker Coal Boiler: H.B. Smith 350 Mills boiler/EFM 85R stoker
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/anthracite

Post by Pacowy » Wed. Mar. 07, 2018 11:28 am

Your idea of backhauling ash is clever, but in the end I think it reaffirms that there aren't any uncontrollable harms associated with ash pits. I'm all in favor of lined ash pits. Aren't sanitary landfills supposed to be lined, too?

That said, I've heard enough of the eco-scare tactics regarding radioactivity and heavy metals in coal ash. The numbers they are talking about - when you can get them to show any numbers at all - are consistent with what is in the dirt in your yard. The last time I checked, for example, you test for radon because of the natural decay of radioactive stuff in the ground, not because everybody's house is built on coal ash. It pretty much speaks for itself that Obama's EPA declined to characterize coal ash as a hazardous material. If the zealots are still harping on that they must not have anything of real substance.

Mike

 
samhill
Member
Posts: 12236
Joined: Thu. Mar. 13, 2008 10:29 am
Location: Linesville, Pa.
Hot Air Coal Stoker Furnace: keystoker 160
Hand Fed Coal Stove: hitzer 75 in garage

Post by samhill » Wed. Mar. 07, 2018 3:57 pm

Regular coal ash must be treated before it can be used for most anything, the stuff we used to haul was mixed with a type of cement, lime & other things along with being dried while the dump sites were lined with clay & groundwaters diverted or channeled thru sealed pipe, not a cheap fix by any means. Untreated fly ash has the consistency of flour at best & would be like quick sand if used for fill as is, the only thing I ever saw it used for was filling in old Nike silos because it would flow just like water to fill voids then old asphalt & other crap before being capped with concrete. There were some experiments with drywall & that may use up some.


 
User avatar
David...
Member
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun. Nov. 06, 2016 9:48 am
Location: RI
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Franks 80k output
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Jotul 507B
Coal Size/Type: Nut

Post by David... » Wed. Mar. 07, 2018 4:06 pm

Even if coal ash was fairy dust, coal produces too much CO2. The only cost effective way to deal with it is not to burn it. Power plants are the low hanging fruit and they are being decommissioned because natural is cheaper.

David

 
coalnewbie
Member
Posts: 8601
Joined: Sat. May. 24, 2008 4:26 pm
Location: Chester, NY
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: LL AnthraKing 180K, Pocono110K,KStokr 90K, DVC
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Invader 2
Baseburners & Antiques: Wings Best, Glenwood #8(x2) Herald 116x
Coal Size/Type: Rice,
Other Heating: Heating Oil CH, Toyotomi OM 22

Post by coalnewbie » Wed. Mar. 07, 2018 4:39 pm

and only fairies believe that the amount of CO2 man produces is even remotely significant. Nuclear waste is an infinitely worse problem. The contribution of solar remains tiny especially in the winter.

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2017/12/2017-th ... ty/548273/

 
Pacowy
Member
Posts: 3555
Joined: Tue. Sep. 04, 2007 10:14 pm
Location: Dalton, MA
Stoker Coal Boiler: H.B. Smith 350 Mills boiler/EFM 85R stoker
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/anthracite

Post by Pacowy » Wed. Mar. 07, 2018 5:09 pm

Sorry David but in the U.S. coal is behind NG and way behind petroleum in terms of CO2 generation by energy fuels. The "low-hanging fruit" in coal-fired generation has already been picked by cheap NG, and further cuts in coal can only be accomplished by increasing the cost of power generation. It's not low-hanging if it costs us industrial competitiveness and regressive utility price increases. If the real issue is CO2, how anxious are the coal-bashers to give up their SUV's?

Mike

 
User avatar
David...
Member
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun. Nov. 06, 2016 9:48 am
Location: RI
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Franks 80k output
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Jotul 507B
Coal Size/Type: Nut

Post by David... » Thu. Mar. 08, 2018 8:35 am

A quick Google search shows that coal accounted for 30% of electricity generation in the USA for 2015. While I am sure the number is lower now it is still substantial. This tells me there is still plenty of low hanging fruit to eliminate in coal generation. Burning coal releases much more CO2 than burning natural gas. Thankfully CO2 emissions from SUV's are coming down as their efficiency goes up.
Since natural gas is cheaper to burn than coal, I don't see where using it will increase the cost of electricity.
I guess you are calling me a fairy because I believe CO2 is causing global warming?

David

 
User avatar
Rob R.
Site Moderator
Posts: 17980
Joined: Fri. Dec. 28, 2007 4:26 pm
Location: Chazy, NY
Stoker Coal Boiler: EFM 520
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Chubby Jr

Post by Rob R. » Thu. Mar. 08, 2018 8:42 am

There was an article in my local paper this morning about how much the demand for power has gone down. Mainly due to the demise of manufacturing, improved appliance efficiency, LED lighting, etc.

With that said, it seems like things never stay the same for long. The town of Massena had a surplus of hydro power, so they were glad to see a Bitcoin mining operation move into an empty aluminum plant.

 
User avatar
David...
Member
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun. Nov. 06, 2016 9:48 am
Location: RI
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Franks 80k output
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Jotul 507B
Coal Size/Type: Nut

Post by David... » Thu. Mar. 08, 2018 9:21 am

I suspect here in New England we are short on capacity. Last May a 1500mw coal fired power plant closed. That's a lot of capacity to lose in one shot. Manufacturing has been declining here for over 100 years. I think that the popularity of A/C has kept our electricity use going up.

David

 
coalnewbie
Member
Posts: 8601
Joined: Sat. May. 24, 2008 4:26 pm
Location: Chester, NY
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: LL AnthraKing 180K, Pocono110K,KStokr 90K, DVC
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Invader 2
Baseburners & Antiques: Wings Best, Glenwood #8(x2) Herald 116x
Coal Size/Type: Rice,
Other Heating: Heating Oil CH, Toyotomi OM 22

Post by coalnewbie » Thu. Mar. 08, 2018 10:07 am

At the same time NY is paying for prime time TV trying to persuade businesses to move to the state. Sounds about average.

 
Pacowy
Member
Posts: 3555
Joined: Tue. Sep. 04, 2007 10:14 pm
Location: Dalton, MA
Stoker Coal Boiler: H.B. Smith 350 Mills boiler/EFM 85R stoker
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/anthracite

Post by Pacowy » Thu. Mar. 08, 2018 10:47 am

David... wrote:
Thu. Mar. 08, 2018 8:35 am
A quick Google search shows that coal accounted for 30% of electricity generation in the USA for 2015. While I am sure the number is lower now it is still substantial. This tells me there is still plenty of low hanging fruit to eliminate in coal generation. Burning coal releases much more CO2 than burning natural gas. Thankfully CO2 emissions from SUV's are coming down as their efficiency goes up.
Since natural gas is cheaper to burn than coal, I don't see where using it will increase the cost of electricity.
I guess you are calling me a fairy because I believe CO2 is causing global warming?
You might want to do a "quick Google search" for a course in remedial economics. The coal generation that has lost out to price competition from NG can be assumed to be concentrated among the higher cost coal plants (e.g., older plants in the east that burn bit, and maybe some long-distance PRB moves) . The coal generation that hasn't lost out to price competition from NG can be assumed to be concentrated among the lower cost coal plants. There isn't a problem with the price competition, but there is one if you take steps to force the low-cost producers off the grid.

I didn't call you a fairy, and I don't dispute that there is a greenhouse effect. Beyond that I think the proposition that anthropogenic emissions of GHG's basically control the climate of Earth exists only in the computers of the IPCC and the minds of its adherents. If you go beyond your quick Google searches and look deeper into the data - including the IPCC's own documentation, as well as information from ice cores, ocean sediments and other scientific sources - you would be offended by the central assumption of IPCC, the Kids vs. Obama/Trump lawsuit, etc. that absent human activities the climate (and in particular, global mean temperatures) would be stable. The evidence shows plainly that the climate has never been particularly stable, and that natural variations repeatedly have produced temperature increases comparable to those observed since the end of the "Little Ice Age" (1600's) without any help from fossil fuels.

If you were familiar with the scientific evidence, you also might be concerned by the testimony before Congress last year by recognized climate experts regarding the tactics IPCC has used to suppress and exclude dissent from their narrative regarding anthropogenic effects. For example, I was familiar with Roy Spencer's work long before he appeared as a witness. If you came away from that with anything other than a concern that IPCC is acting as a tool for advancing a political agenda rather than as a scientific body, IMO you've already had too much Kool-Aid.

Please don't take any of this personally, as I realize there are a lot of people who have bought into the IPCC narrative. But I would urge you to look deeper than you seem to have so far.

Mike


Post Reply

Return to “Coal News & General Coal Discussions”