Gov. Kathleen Sebelius told The Eagle editorial board recently that she’s not inclined to block the proposed coal-fired power complex near Holcomb. She said that “it is a very difficult issue to tackle on a state-by-state basis, because just having a policy in Kansas does not impact what happens in Oklahoma, Colorado, Missouri, which affects our air or our citizens’ health. It will affect our economy, but not necessarily improve health quality.”
But a group of eight states, including six in the Northeast, would beg to differ — Kansas’ policy very much has an impact on the bigger environmental picture, they noted in a statement last week opposing the new plants. They pointed out that the estimated 15.4 million tons of carbon dioxide pumped out every year by the Holcomb plant would negate the 12 million tons of CO2 that eight northeastern states hope to be removing from the atmosphere by 2020. Colorado opposition is building, too, based on a projected 64 percent rate hike in the next five years to pay for the plants.
Seems the issue might be more interconnected than Sebelius thought. Where’s our regional global warming compact?
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
168 Comments
Or how about we build more Nuclear Plants?
Hmmmm. A few jobs (probably less than 10 full time) vs. pollution, rapid water depletion, and a bit lower energy cost.
Knowing Western Kansas, they’ll want their coal plant.
Southwest Kansas is already part of the third world. Why not make the illegal aliens feel even more at home some filthy coal plants.
Joe: Finally Joe, a cogent, reasoned response that puts you strongly in the non-political environmentalist camp. Welcome to the fight (from Casablanca)!
Sebelius’ logic (Why should we have a policy when other state’s don’t?) Kansas was always specious. If the other statehouses adopt Sebelius’ logic, nothing will ever happen because everyone will wait for everyone else. For a governor to use this excuse is particularly sad because what it basically comes down to is a governor announcing she doesn’t want to lead, she wants to follow.
Building a coal plant near Holcomb is a bad idea, given the precarious long term water situation, heavy duty CO2 emissions, and frankly the lack of real need for such a plant.
SEK wants a plant on the site of the closing Kansas Army Ammunition Plant.All the infrastructure is already in place and unused.Missouri, Oklahoma and Arkansas have raised no objections that I’m aware of.Bring it on.
No easy answers on this one… electricity at the cost of significant pollution. Unfortunately, every conceivable source of energy has drawbacks. Hydroelectric requires changing the environment by blocking rivers. Wind power changes the scenery landscape. Nuclear has its extremely vocal opponents (regardless of an enviable safety record). Oil/gas…well the shortfalls are obvious there.
So…if we allow the consequences to block energy use, we are back to the Stone Age. Hopefully, better scientific minds will prevail and logical people will accept compromises that provide the needed energy and strive to minimize negative environmental impacts.
Raptor: Recently I have become interested in Wind Farms. You mentioned the “scenery blocking” problems and some people mention bird kills. Another major one is that the wind doesn’t always blow.
Regarding the scenery objection, I know some areas in Kansas that are sparsely settled. However, don’t know if transmission lines are available to those areas.
I suspect the three coal-fired plants proposed for Holcomb/Garden City area will be difficult to stop because of the paid materials supplier/ mechanical equipment/coal supplier/paid lobbyist network — none of which cares a wit about Kansas and its environment.
I’m with Nathan on this. We need to be moving forward on new generation nuclear plants. There have been significant improvements in technology (for example the ‘pebble reactor’) and we can use recycled decommissioned warheads back-mixed with DU for fuel.
I could never figure out why we need a rate hike so we could get MORE of something.
According to free marketiers, when you have MORE of something the price goes down.
We build a mega-electric plant, we have more electricity, but the price goes up?
Shouldn’t the price go up if we DON’T build it?
And might that not lead to actual conservation?
I used to oppose nuclear power, but now the very real and apparent threats of acid rain and global warming outweigh the threat of radioactive waste storage.
Far outweigh it.
Particularly since one day some country that doesn’t have big oil strangling research will develop FUSION and just “burn” all the radioactive waste up.
Alternative fuels are intriguing, but when you crunch the numbers the outputs just aren’t there.
Energy efficiency on the other hand could make a huge difference and it’s barely been tapped.
I’m with Nathan and Ben, too, on this one. Capn, I’m with you also regarding fusion and conservation.
With that all said, I’m also for exploration and development of so-called “alternative energy sources”, that is, wind, solar, etc. For Kansas, I think hydro is a non-starter.
Each of these has its benefits and burdens. It is the responsibility of those who make the decisions to carefully weigh the same, and come up with the mix which provides the greatest benefit at the least burden. I again raise my lonely cry: “surely there is a way to quantify the environmental costs, and assign them to the project”.
Trust Ben though I do, nuclear energy produces a toxic waste that lasts for 10s of thousands of years. I don’t think I can be convinced that we have any business leaving that kind of legacy.
Look around you at the unbelievable WASTE in electric energy. I’m not even going to bother listing them since any rational person can see it. Tell ME we need more of it.
No what we need is conservation.
J R – my approach would not actually create any “net new” nuclear waste. I owuld be using that which is already there – decommissioned nuclear warheads and depleted uranium. That is a key factor.
That said, I am 100% with you on efficiency, conservation, wind, etc.
By the way, to the comment “the wind doesn’t always blow” – actually it DOES. Just not always in the same places. So, we need dispersed turbines. One good thing – the wind tends to blow even more when it is hot – which is when we run our ACs more.
As long as Nebraska sucks and Oklahome blows (but periodically switch roles) we will have plenty of wind.
For crying out loud. If everyone surrounding the state of Kansas were tossing puppies onto the highway for sport, would that make it OK for Sebelius?
“We can’t control the other states from throwing puppies onto the road, so Kansas forming legislation against it would not make a difference…go ahead and throw puppies for now.”
Weak
~Dubyahttp://wichitavoice.com/blog/
By the way, the wind turbine idea is great. I drove past them on the way to Coffeyville the other day (don’t ask) and I was very impressed with the number and by the fact that most of them were spinning in relatively low wind.
I know of a family in Western Kansas who has surplus electricity at the end of most months with just ONE 15′ windmill. They sell the power BACK to the power company.
Unfortunately, I don’t have the stats on the efficiency of those large turbines, but I am very much in favor of ANYTHING that will pull us out of the clutches of Middle East oil.
~Dubyahttp://wichitavoice.com/blog/
That’s right Dubya!! Bring on the coal plants. To hell with all these posey sniffers.
Logical?Transport dirty coal from Montana to Holcomb. Boil water to generate electricity, throw away waste heat (energy). Throw away more energy by sending electricity long distances to Denver, Oklahoma, etc (heats transmission wires).
Throw away more energy at the end-user — poorly insulated homes, inefficient appliances, etc.—-”64 percent rate hike”? Add to that a carbon tax that’ll likely be imposed in a few years.
And it’s very unlikely the plants will operate for their designed (50 year?) lifetime.They’ll go bankrupt when customers switch to cheaper sources, such as distributed generation — or be shutdown when the climate crisis becomes more undeniable.
” For a governor to use this excuse is particularly sad because what it basically comes down to is a governor announcing she doesn’t want to lead, she wants to follow.”
No shit.
That’s why we call her “governor leadership” around here. Heavy on the sarcasm.
Her motto? “Which way did they go? How many of them were there? How fast were they going? I must know. I am their leader…”
Sadly ksfg, you are correct. i am hoping that we can begin to exert more influence on her to take the long-term interest of KS into more consideration.
heheheheh
Look to water issues if you really want examples of non-leadership and the use of water as political payoff.
Her other motto?
“Some of my friends are for this, and some of my friends are against this. But as for me… I’m for my friends!”
Lots of luck Ben. Her “vision” extends about as far as her next campaign.
hee hee hee hee
Poppin’ the corn right now….
By the way, I read today that the cattle industry is likely to suffer because of diversion of feed corn to ethanol. I have some mixed feelings here – I have problems with ethanol because of the water issue but at the same time would like to see more renge feeding of beef instead of so much feedlot.
A good short European film on the advantages of decentralized energy, ‘What are we waiting for?’ at,http://www.localpower.org/resources/multimedia.htm
Shows some actual examples, like a huge greenhouse in the Netherlands that’s heated by a Combined Heat & Power plant — plus they feed the CO2 in the exhaust to the greenhouse plants.
Ben,
A study that claims mixed prairie grasses are a better for biofuel. Carbon negative, and can be grown on land not suitable for agriculture.
‘Prairie grass against global warming?’http://www.primidi.com/2006/12/10.html
Found it at ‘Global Warming News’http://members.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/enviro/gwnews.html
(hat tip to illconsidered.blogspot.com)
Hi Ben
“I have problems with ethanol because of the water issue but at the same time would like to see more renge feeding of beef instead of so much feedlot.”
The problem here is that diverting corn to ethanol wont grow any LESS irrigated corn. Irrigated corn is the problem, not where it ends up.
Of course I agree that ethanol plants out here use way too much water and are not net energy producers. They create very few jobs when evaluated in light of the capital invested, both public and private.
I also agree that more range fed beef and less feedlot beef would be a good thing for the environment and for small farmers.
But even if all the feelots went away, the ethanol plants would still be encouraging corn growers to pump that water and harvest those bushels. They’d just pay less for it after they ran off the other buyers.
Ethanol made from non-irrigated crops could, under the right circumstances, be a good thing. But until then, the damage done by raising irrigated crops is more or less permanent. Build ethanol where there is sufficient water.
And that aint Russell.
The ethanol plants originally located out here because feedlots were the primary market for the waste “mash”. And irrigated crops were already growing here so they were close to the source of raw materials.
And in the early days, the only way to make ethanol “pay” was to have as much market as possible for the byproducts. The ethanol itself wouldnt make money. Still wouldnt without subsidy.
I see the ethanol or energy subsidy really just being another government farm subsidy for irrigated grains. One step removed and with a little perfume added. Still welfare for irrigation queens anyway you dress that pig.
heheh. Sorry for the ramble. Maybe everyone is still on the “all abortion all the time” thread….
zzzzzzzzzzz
heheheheh
cosmos, ksfg – agree with both. I would add stuff like kudzu grown ‘down south’ as a bio-source. Animal byproducts are good for bio-diesel. Basically, use all sorts of garbage instead of ‘good stuff’
kfg, thanks for that perspective. The ethanol subsidy is just another ag subsidy; makes a lot of sense to me. Yes, clearly a major problem with the ethanol plants use of corn as feedstock is the need to irrigate more fields to grow the corn, thereby further draining the water supplies, etc.
Your comment on the need for the plants to be located near feedlots for purposes of selling the “mash” for feed is also spot on; I wonder just how much of the gross revenues of the plants are made up of these sales.
heheheheh
I wish someone would take out the garbage on this blog too!
heheheheheh
Very good Farm girl. Sewed it up quite nicely. I myself think that the best “alternative” is the nuclear plants. THey have very low emissions, and creat much more energy per unit input and would make a WHOLE LOTTA jobs with all the security needed, infrastructure development, and the HIGH TECH finally comes to Kansas.
Well folks that is what High tech looks like. WInd farm all ya want, nukes are the way for the forseeable future.
VT, I spent a little time in the venture capitla world in Austin, and evaluated business plans for several ethanol related projects in the late eighties and early nineties. (Heheh. Being from Kansas automatically made me the resident “ag” specialist. heheheh.)
Anyway, eastern New Mexico made a big push for dairies at one time, and they successfully relocated them from more traditional dairy states. ’cause ya know, cows and humans have a hard time co-existing. The humans always win.
Anyway, to get the dairies to move, they had to promise them access to cheap grain, which meant irrigation and subsidies. Eventually they reached the economic development of a cheese plant and milk processing plant when they had a critical mass of dairies.
Then, heheh, like trailing parasites, the ethanol related business plans came rolling in. ’cause where you have grain and cattle, you also have ethanol because of the aftermarket thing.
Two or three of the plans I reviewed had as many as 12 “byproducts” and places they could be sold. I dont know about today. Maybe they just all go to feedlots now, or they have hundreds of products and afterproducts.
I also reviewed plans for homone free, antibiotic free beef and related processing plants that could be virtually free of e coli.
heheheh. But back then, no one believed that people would pay $10lb for steak that was grass fed with no grain finish.
heheheheheheheheheheheheheheh
That’s why the v.c. guys stick with computers and the web these days.
hehehehehehhe
Ok, so you guys know I am not a scientist and have little knowledge about nukes. But dont they use a lot of water for cooling, just like the coal plants? Maybe fewer emissions but more or less the same amount of water?
Just wondering.
In answer to Randy Schofields question. “where is our regional global warming compact”? Fortunatly, it exists only in your head. And don’t give me any of that hooey about polar bears doing the backstroke. Global warming is the biggest hype job ever foisted on the people of this Country.Besides, can’t you just picture it? Three beautiful smokestacks towering up in the Western Kansas sky. Why I’ll bet at night in the clear high plains air their strobe lights will be visiable for sixty or seventy miles. Glorious! And don’t forget the mile long coal trains that will be arriving two or three times a day to keep those ravenous beasts fed. Just think, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, cranking out those 2200 megawatts to keep the booming front range of the rockies lit up. Whats not to love about it? For once I’m in total agreement with Governor “Do nothing”. There is nothing she can or should do to stop the building of these plants.
Chris – my fellow scientists disagree strongly with your claim.
http://www.wunderground.com/education/education.asp
and links contained therein.
Ksfg – nuke plants will use water but the newer designs much less.
Ben, a question which has occurred to me; once the water is used for cooling (not being turned to steam for generation, although once it returns to liquid form, this would apply, too) is it reusable for these purposes, that is, the used water goes to a collection pool, to be reused (supplemented by “new water”); or has it picked up a certain quantity of radiation making it unsafe (for the folks there runnning the thing) for such reuse?
Yes, it can be re-used. In fact, you will find a pond at Wolf Creek that is pumped both ways as I recall.
Its amazing how so many of you have all the answers, but know so little about the subject. I’ve designed power plants all my adult life, and all I can say is, you guys with all the answers must get your information from the news media, and they know squat about power generation and transmission.
Coal, for the time being, is the only reasonable answer. Nuclear is the future, as long as we can keep the “chicken little’s” from claiming the sky will fall.
All the so called “green” sources, solar, wind, etc. are AT BEST, supplements. These sources are the highest installed cost per kilowatt generated. And like was stated above, the wind doesn’t blow all the time, and you can’t store electricity in big batteries to use it later. Coal has about 90% “availability.” Wind has about 25% availability. You can’t replace existing power generating capacity with wind generation. Its not cost-effective, and its not even feasible…unless you only want electricity about 25% of the time you flip the switch on.
Plus, if you want to use green energy sources, plan to pay a LOT more for your electricity than you do now.
Here’s a hint…USE LESS ELECTRICITY! Its the only rational method of keeping the next power plant from coming on line.
To the person above who incorrectly wondered why supply and demand didn’t apply to make electricity prices lower when there was more supply, DUH!
A coal-fired power plant installed cost of the size of ONE of the ones going up at Holcomb will be on the order of A BILLION dollars. Somebody has to pay for it, and that’s the rate payer. Sorry, that’s just how it works.
By the way, scanning through the posts again, I’m willing to bet not one of you actually knows how a power plant generates power and transmits its electricity to your house.
Tim – I don’t know the specifics about design but I do know about the heat-to-steam-to-turbine system. The heat can come from combustion (including trash BTW), from nuclear, or even from geothermal. Wind is another way to turn the generator – of course you need more ‘propellers’ as you noted due to less availability.
I agree that we need to use less – I also think we need to work toward ‘flattening the curve’ through various means.
Hey B.H. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda. All those scientists on that link I’m sure have an agenda. They want to get tenure at their cushy university jobs or keep receiving research grants so of course they toe the party line. There are just as many scientists who do not agree with Al Gore but are forced to keep silent for the above stated reasons. But why am I telling you this? You work in the scientific field, so you know what I’m saying is true. Movies like “The Day After Tommorrow” have about as much credibility as “Reefer Madness”. Conservation of natural resources and not excessively polluting the enviornment are good things. Scaring people with doomsday scenarios just to promote a left wing, Godless political agenda is not.
No CfMT, I know what you say are lies. Just like the tobacco executives years ago, so your bunch spread your lies. As usual, you refuse to even consider the evidence, preferring instead to accuse us of having “a left wing, Godless political agenda” – just like the tobacco executives did.
Hey Chris I’m confused.
Just what is the downside to a cleaner planet and a more efficient and domestically available energy? Can you help me with that?
By the way – a comment about “The Day after Tomorrow”:
“But no, a sudden global warming-induced climate shift could not cause the kind of instant wild weather mayhem depicted in the movie. In this respect, The Day After Tomorrow is science Fiction with a capital “F”. The laws of meteorology get seriously abused here.”
(from my link above)
Tim,
You lose, I’ve got an EE background.And a lot of energy is WASTED with centralized power.
“All the so called “green” sources, solar, wind, etc. are AT BEST, supplements.”
Are you claiming that the 100% renewable powered city, Malmo Sweden, does not exist?http://www.rtcc.org/2006/html/soc_gov_malmo.html
Malmo is in video I posted above, starts at 11:50.
“Holcomb will be on the order of A BILLION dollars.”
Will it be paid off before it has to be shutdown, due to the climate crisis? If not…?
“Here’s a hint…USE LESS ELECTRICITY!”
A BILLION dollars invested in CHP, DG etc systems, higher efficiency appliances, weatherization, etc is MUCH more rational than building a new coal plant.
Hey Chris I’m confused.
Just what is the downside to a cleaner planet and a more efficient and domestically available energy? Can you help me with that?
Sorry JR, but the efficent and domestically available energy you speak of is a pipe dream. I would refer you back to what Tim said about five posts ago. And this stupid idea of not building fossil fuel or nuclear power plants in order to drive prices up in the hopes that it will spur inovation and alternative energy sources is the same crap we hear all the time from the left. Far better that the money be spent on further cleaning up the emissions from burning coal than chasing after things that hold no promise of meeting our needs.And B.H. your logic in linking the global warming hype to tobacco company excutives is almost laughable. I would have thought a scientist could have come up with something better than that.
Chris – the only parallel i could come with rediculous enough to explain your willful ignorance is tobacco. Global warming is not hype; it is all too real. “Way back when” we were told that smoking/health was hype.
Chris?
I have to reuse an old line here. You know us liberals recyclers and all. But I think it will be the first time you’ve heard it.
Chris? If Rush farts it aint Guy Lombardo.Sh t is the stuff that comes outta his mouth and your a s. Shinola comes in a can. Try not to mix them up!That’s about all the time I have to spend with you since you are clearly not very bright.
Cosmos touches on an interesting fact. Am I correct that a very great deal of energy is lost in transmission lines? That being the case? How much sense does it make to put a power plant hundreds of miles away from the target market?
J R – yes, there is a lot of losses in transmission lines. That is why there was so much hope several years ago for “high-temperature” superconductors. They would have essentially zero transmission loss. Unfortunately, they are just too hard to deal with to make reliable large-scale transmission.
What’s a Mac Town?
So Chris believes that the 100% renewable powered city, Malmo Sweden, “is a pipe dream”?
Ignorance, denial, and delusions are a bad combination.
CFMT’s comments led me to wonder just how many folks there are out in this world who still deny there is global warming occurring; even many, if not most of, the opponents of the proponents of human activity contributing to the degree thereof will concede that there is warming occurring; it is just labeled “natural” or “normal” by these folks; IIRC, Ben informed that as the world is in an interglacial period, there is warming happening, as would be expected as no glaciers are creeping South (or North, depending upon the hemisphere).
“ConclusionUnfortunately, it appears that we have not learned our lesson from the past 30 years’ experience with the ozone-CFC debate. Once again, we find a theory that has wide support in the scientific community being attacked by a handful of skeptics, publishing outside of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, their voices greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful corporations and politicians sympathetic to them.”
It’ll be a good day when the proudly ignorant blowhard from McPherson completes his convalescence and returns to his day job.
Tracy: It’s like the old “mining towns” where everybody had a “shotgun shack” and worked the mine.MacDonald’s lets him live in one of their shacks and flip burgers.
Uh B.H. way back then (mid 70’s) when I was in school, we were told by all the scientists of the day that the planet was heading into a new ice age. Our climate in Kansas was going to be about what Winnepeg, Manitoba’s is. Brrr. Did you buy that one too?As for power loss in transmission of electricity, it is minimal these days compared to what it once was. Why do you think the area north and west of Bismark, N.Dakota is home to numerous huge powerplants, anyone of which could probably easily supply the needs of the entire state. It is because they are located near the Worlds largest supply of Lignite (a brown low btu form of coal). Almost all the power generated by these plants goes to the west coast over hundreds and hundreds of miles of transmission lines.Oh, and cosmos, disagreeing with you does not make one ignorant, in denial, or delusional. Pointing out one city on the entire plant, (which probably is sitting on a geothermal vent anyway)does not make the case for our ability to meet our power needs in this country by such methods.
CFMT,
I remember no such prediction from my own schooling (Class of 1986). I do, however, remember lots of discussion of the Greenhouse Effect, most of which now seems borne out by the climatological data. As well as what I can see with my own two eyes, thank you very much.
What qualifies YOU to talk about anything scientific, CFMT, such that any of us should have the slightest regard for what you have to say? Degree? Publications? What?
If you’re going to play the science game, you play by its rules–not the made-up, right-wing corporate think-tank bullshit peddled by James Inhofe and his ilk.
No Chris, I did not. Nor did I sell it.
We do expect that in a few thousand years we might be looking at a glaciation, although it is uncertain just how the baseline changes will effect it.
By the way, who was telling you that? And in what time frame? I have seen the claim repeated many times that such a thing was being pushed but have not seen much evidence to support it.
There was some discussion of what the effects of a large input of particulate and aerosols into the stratosphere would do – and that WOULD be a dramatic short-term cooling (so-called nuclear winter). But not what you are referring to.
Maybe I just went to the wrong school. They didn’t push that at MIT. What school were you at that was pushing that?
Now it’s my turn to be ignorant. Thing is I’ll admit it up front instead of showing it off in my post ala Chris.
Ben or cosmos or Tim
We often hear that solar energy is not practical because of the low power production it provides. But given the fact that conventional power is transmitted with a substantial energy waste, wouldn’t solar as a point of power on the site compare a great deal more favorably?
Secondly, we hear of folks selling electricity back to the power company. Does this mean this energy is actually fed into the power grid? And if so, would a large number of small sources feeding into the grid tend to mitigate some of the loss in energy transmission? A sort of thousands of little boosts if you will. TOO I recently learned there are now solar power SHINGLES! Think of all those rooftops……
I know these are simplistic questions. But I think the most powerful source of energy in solar system may be drastically under exploited. I am looking for a new line of work and there is one just ONE mention of solar power in the yellow pages.
You have to remember, Chris (or marcie whoever it is) from McPherson probably works at that huge oil refinery NCRA. They butter their bread from polluting the earth. Just drive through there and you can smell that wonderful stench of money when the south wind blows.
Solar can be useful because it can be generated at the point of use – eliminating transmission losses. Also, if it is on everyone’s rooftops that presumably eliminates NIMBY issues of siting. There are new flexible materials that can be put on roofs.
Reverse metering is only allowed in certain places; I would like to see that here. That is what leads to “net metering” where I might either be taking from or feeding to the grid.
Lots of approaches out there. Another I like is “community wind” where a group (Co-op for example) own some turbines and generate their power. Again, short transmission distances.
Of course, I also come back with nuclear as I have said before.
Many approaches – put them all together and get a solution.
Ben Huie,
Exactly. It’s all about diversification and site-specific technologies. There’s no single monolithic energy source that’s going to easily replace fossil fuels and obtain the same efficiencies.
Which explains some of the resistance on the part of many folks. They’re operating within a paradigm that doesn’t function outside the model of large-scale, vertically integrated monopolistic enterprises. Like oil and energy companies, for example.
Chris,
“(mid 70’s) … all the scientists of the day that the planet was heading into a new ice age.”
Looks like you had a severe reading comprehesion problems then also.http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/they-predicted-cooling-in-1970s.html
“(which probably is sitting on a geothermal vent anyway)”
Sound of ANNOYING LOUD BUZZER: Wrong guess! They use solar, PV, wind, biomass, and extract heat from sea water in the canal.
Another example,http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid319.php“The Sacramento Municipal Utility District closed its Rancho Seco nuclear plant, and is recreating itself as a utility based on photovoltaics and energy efficiency.”
When you’ve dug yourself into a deep hole, it’s wise to stop digging.
People, people, people: Why do I feel like Custer at the Little Big Horn? Are there no other conservative posters on this thread? I’m sorry for busting into your little amen corner here. I guess your just not used to having anybody challenge your sacred tenants. I guess in the church of Liberalism, all decension must be squashed.
And darn it p-mom, you found me out again. There is no pulling the wool over your eyes. I am a proud employee of the (huge?) NCRA oil refinery. Actually as American oil refineries go, we are quite small. But I’m sure you would like to see us shut down like so many small refineries have been in the last thirty years. Maybe some really smart people with MIT degrees can figure out a way for us to get around without burning fossil fuels someday. I just hope its after I’m drawing my pension and settled into a comfortable retirement.
Hey, I think I just figured out why there are no other conservative posters on this thread. Its because we have real lives and real jobs and families to raise. Most of us don’t have time to just sit around and spew venom and hatred at anybody who doesn’t agree with us.
Chris,
“Why do I feel like Custer at the Little Big Horn?”
That’s easy. Because the facts, and reality, do not support your “opinions”.
No Chris, there are many other conservative posters. Also, many of us on the ‘left’ also have real jobs and real families. And I have not spewed any hatred and venom. You, on the other hand, with your accusations of “hooey … Global warming is the biggest hype job … left wing, Godless political agenda …” Sounds like hatred and venom to me.
You never did tell me what school you attended that taught about the impending freeze.
Preferred tactics of the industry representatives:
“Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to get research funding.
Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental problems in order to further their ideological goals.
Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage.”
Fits you to a “t” industry shill Chris.
CFMT,
Quite a victim complex there. You run your mouth ignorantly, challenge people who have published in the field you presume to discuss, and then claim to have been bullied when you’re called out for, well, talking a bunch of crap.
You’re so dishonest on so many levels it’s hard to know where to begin. But the basic fallacy is the idea that for anyone to call bullshit on your ignorant and misleading assertions is tantamount to ‘picking’ on you.
To a shill you like, ‘facts’ and ‘data’ = ‘venom’ and ‘hatred.’ It’s the usual right-wing ad hominem: when you’re losing an argument, denounce the winner as full of ‘hate.’
You’re pathetic, CFMT, though I admit that you deploy the phony arguments and objections of the right-wing media machine like a practiced hand.
I hope you heal quickly so you can get back to pumping gas. You’re way out of your league around here.
Thoughtful ideas about this nations energy FUTURE are being discussed here Chris. You represent this countries energy past and present. And as an employee in that industry, you of course have a biased opinion. That’s strike one against you.
Strike two? You spout all the usual tired talk radio drivel. But you don’t even do that intelligently.
Imagine a gathering of folks in polite discussion. Suddenly some drunken goon staggers in and begins shouting and throwing things. Get the picture? Well on this thread? The drunken belligent crasher would be you! Strike two.
And NOW you’ve got the additonal character flaw of whining about your treatment here. “Boo hoo I’m all alone and you won’t let me throw excrement aroud! I’m gonna take a swing!!”
That’s three Chris. Lower your head in proper humiliation and toddle back to the bench.
B.H. What difference would it make if I did name the schools I went to? With your MIT pedigree you would just look down your nose at them anyway. Oh, and your “nuclear winter” response awhile back was way off the mark. The whole nuclear winter theory did not emerge until the early to mid eighties when Ronnie Reagan was scaring the bejebbers out of all you kool aid drinkers with all his talk about actually winning the cold war and not just rolling over to the Soviets. The new iceage theory was a good ten years before that.I’ll think I’ll just call it a night so I can pull some of these arrows out of me
You may want to go, like, read some books. And get somebody to dry your tears.
Chris, don’t play the victim or KSGolfnut will call you out – and if you dare to defend yourself, he’ll start trolling….
Careful.
Thanks Chris for tacitly admitting that you made it all up about a school that taught you about the imminent freeze. And you are wrong also about nuclear winter not coming along until Reagan – it goes back quite a while before that. In fact, the same mechanism (but not nuclear) is believed to have done in the dinosaurs (bolide impact kicking up duat).
As for the arrows – Custer deserved to die.
“spew venom and hatred”
Pot, meet Kettle:
“all you kool aid drinkers”
Typical of someone with nothing useful to say.
By the way, if you went to Bethel I would have said that is a quality institution. And I would be EXTREMELY surprised to see them teaching such a thing. I have known too many faculty there.
A sort of idle question: How is it a “Godless agenda” to want to be good stewards of God’s creation?
(FSB Magazine) — If you wanted to choose the perfect location for capturing the ocean’s energy, you couldn’t do much better than the Oregon coast. Waves arrive there with immense power, having traveled across thousands of miles of open water with few barrier islands, reefs or other obstructions to slow them down.
Some are so large that they can be tracked by Satellite days before they arrive. Starting in 2007, those massive, ceaseless waves will help light homes and businesses along the West Coast, thanks to an entrepreneur named George Taylor.
. . . .
Buttressing Taylor’s optimism, researchers at Oregon State University say that only 0.2 percent of the ocean’s untapped wave energy could power the entire world. This figure may seem incredible, but water is a very dense medium, about 1,000 times thicker than air, and capable of transmitting immense energy when in motion.
What’s more, about 60 percent of the world’s population lives within 40 miles of a coast. The buoys Taylor plans to install off Oregon in 2007 will generate electricity at rates competitive with that produced by coal – currently the cheapest, most abundant, most commonly used (and dirtiest) source of energy, at about 4.5 cents a kilowatt hour. Future generations of the buoys could conceivably produce power more cheaply than that.
More at http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/14/magazines/fsb/nextlittlething_wave_power.fsb/?postversion=2006121509
BH, an idle answer to your idle question: only Calvinists and their successor and assigns would think like that. :)
Thanks VT. I was trying to figure out Chris’ BS that, because I wish to steward God’s creation I am therefore Godless.
Not that it really matters, but in my 7th grade science class we were taught about the theory of the impending ice age.
I think we spent a whole day on it…
Not saying it proves anything, just an observation.
cosmos,
Having an EE background doesn’t mean you know anything about power generation, and judging from your explanations, you may have some knowledge, but you don’t know the business.
You CANNOT ignore economics. People will not accept paying 4 or 5 times as much for electricity, just because its cleaner.
Distributed power might look pretty on paper, but I have trouble believing it is particularly economical, considering the life-cycle costs.
A diesel generator set “might” be 25 to 30% efficient, in terms of electric kW out to fuel BTU in.
A coal plant is more like 35 to 40%, and a combined cycle is 45 to 50%.
Yes, there are line losses in transmission lines.
What are you going to run those distributed diesel generators on? Diesel fuel? Natural gas? That’s not solving the problem.
Building 6 or 7 hundred 1000 kW diesel generator sets with appropriate pollution controls won’t be terribly cheap. In fact, I’d guess this option will cost as much or more to build than a central station plant. It will definitely cost plenty to fuel. Economies of scale.
Building 700 one-megawatt wind power turbines does not mean you can eliminate a 700 megawatt power plant. It just doesn’t work that way. They cannot generate 700 megawatts all the time, and certainly not when you need them to. They work when the wind blows.
The Holcomb station will meet the EPA’s limits on flue gas emissions. CO2 is the only problem child. There is just no viable way to convert CO2 emissions to something harmless.
People have been working on fusion and tidal power, and a whole bunch of other great ideas for years. How many kilowatts are generated by those “promising” technologies?
There are already waste-to-energy plants in existence. They just can’t be built on a large scale, and the fuel (your trash) is really difficult to burn and therefore it is difficult to control the process. Another great idea that just isn’t terribly practical when you actually try to make it work.
Nuclear is the answer (why SMUD closed Rancho Seco is still a mystery to me) and the nuclear waste storage is a political issue, not a technological one. Wind, solar, etc. unless you blot out the countryside with them, can’t replace base load power generating stations.
BTW, I remember the ice age predictions too.
You stated, “Boil water to generate electricity, throw away waste heat (energy).” Have you ever taken a thermodynamics course? Law number one, you can’t get something for nothing. Law number two, you can’t even get close.
“And it’s very unlikely the plants will operate for their designed (50 year?) lifetime.” Actually, its probably a 40 year lifetime. And yes, they do and they will. Plus, Holcomb will be paid off in 10 years, more than likely.
There are plants built in the 40’s that still operate. The problem is, 20 years from now, there will be something more efficient, and they’ll just be used less.
I won’t doubt that the city of Malmo exists, but that website is a promo, and I’ll bet the truth is a little different.
Nathan, Tim, I would be quite interested in knowing exactly what you were ‘taught’ about the ‘impending ice age’. I remember as we discussed Milankovitch we also looked at that in the ‘far future’ (thousands of years) but definitely not ‘impending.’
Ben,
I remember that it was an article or something in one of the magazine. Our science teacher used it as an example and briefly described it.
It wasn’t “taught” to me persay. It was briefly discussed.
To be honest, I don’t remember a thing that was said.
I simply remember it was discussed.
I think that was around the time I made a styrofoam representation of a cell too.
Ah yes, the simpler days of life.
Ben, spent a bit of quality time with “the google” and dredged up the article linked below, which discusses magazine articles in the ’70s on an impending ice age. Wonder if the articles referenced therein are the ones Nathan, et al remember?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
VERY GOOD Tim. GOod analysis and well reasoned argument.
Take note folks that is how to state your case.
Tim,
“You CANNOT ignore economics. People will not accept paying 4 or 5 times as much for electricity, just because its cleaner.”
Let’s see your credibile links proving that efficiency, renewables, DG, CHP, etc cost “4 or 5 times as much” as centralized coal.
And don’t forget to include the external costs of coal — CO2, health (mercury, etc), acid rain damage, coal mining impacts, etc
Maybe ASBESTOS can help you “state your case”?
I suggest ‘General Energy Policy’,http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid306.php
“BTW, I remember the ice age predictions too.”
You might want to read those “predictions” again.http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/they-predicted-cooling-in-1970s.html
Unlike today, there was NO scientific consensus, almost no data, and a whole lot of unanswered questions.
cosmos – makes sense. By the 70s I was ignoring the popular press for science and stuck to my technical journals. I had to go through quite a process to get my work published back then so tended to expect the same with what I read.
Cosmo,
Funny you should mention acid rain. You don’t hear much about acid rain any more, do you? Because it doesn’t happen much any more. The use of low sulfur coal, and flue gas cleaning technology has improved to the point where more than 90% of the sulfur is removed (the main constituent of acid rain), nearly all of the particulate matter (ash) down to extremely small size is removed, most of the oxides of nitrogen (NOX) are converted to nitrogen and oxygen, and very little CO is emitted due to high efficiency combustion. We’ve even got technology now that will take 75% of the mercury out of the flue gas, and that technology is only about 2 years old. Its going to get better.
What’s going up the stack of the coal plants we’re building now is MOSTLY nitrogen (and recall, air is more than 75% nitrogen), CO2, water vapor, and some other small amounts of known pollutants.
As I said before, CO2 is the primary offender, but you get that with any form of combustion, using any combustible fuel. Even your diesel generators.
I know how much it costs to build and fuel a coal plant. I know how much it costs to build and fuel a nuclear plant, and a combined cycle plant. I also know a little about small capacity diesel generator sets.
But you know what, I relly don’t know that much about your CHP’s.
Know why? Because nobody is knocking down our door to ask us to design and build them. But utilities are knocking down our doors right now begging us to build coal plants for them.
Know why? Coal is proven, economical technology. The fuel cost is stable, and the resource is abundant. These other things you mention, where are they in use on a major basis, except the one place you note in Sweden?
The Rocky Mountain Institute? Looks like a lot of scholarly studies that look promising, but are untried on a large scale.
I’m all for wind, as long as everyone recognizes it won’t replace base load coal and nuclear units, and also recognize on a cost per kilowatt, its more expensive, and will cost the rate payer more for their electricity.
Now, let me ask you this. What efficiency steps do you take in your own home to reduce the electricity burden? Have you replaced ALL of your old, inefficent appliances with new, top of the line ultra-efficient appliances?
Me neither.
And if regular folks like us aren’t going out and buying new, more efficient appliances (who can afford to?) to replace all their old, less efficinet appliances that still work, who’s going to take the lead?
Do you drive an electric car to reduce pollution due to auto exhaust (which account for percentage-wise, as much pollution as “industrial plants”)? Where does the electricity to charge the electric car’s battery come from? And what do you do with the battery when it ends its useful lifetime (isn’t that pollution too?)
You have on rose colored glasses. And maybe I’m guilty of being a naysayer, or playing the devil’s advocate. But I’ve got 23 years of experience and knowledge of the business that you don’t have, and I know how the market and the industry work, and frankly, your ideas don’t show me any dramatic improvement over what we have now.
Thermodynamics tells us you can’t get something for nothing. You make electricty, you make heat. You burn any combustible fuel, you make greenhouse gases.
And in the big picture, building the plants at Holcomb will improve things, because these new plants will be more efficient, and will pollute less (there’s a correlation there!) than older existing plants that are less efficint and pollute more, on a per kW generated basis.
“We’ve even got technology now that will take 75% of the mercury out of the flue gas”< comforting: (
mercury<—–Deadly neureotoxic poison: (
popup,
Think of it this way.
Coal doesn’t have a lot of mercury in it, but mercury does accumulate near the plant over time. It doesn’t disperse like some other pollutants. It lands near the plant, and plants are often close to sources of water, such as lakes and rivers.
Yes, it is a problem, and one we are addressing.
The amounts are small, but it doesn’t take much mercury to cause a problem.
Think of this.
Fill a football stadium with ping-pong balls. The ping-pong balls represent the amount of flue gas going up the stack of a coal-fired power plant.
Thirty of those ping-pong balls are mercury molecules.
The current technology is capable of taking out 22 of the ping pong balls.
This technology is not in wide use yet, and existing plants don’t have it.
It is being added to some new plants. I believe the EPA will mandate it soon, and require it to be included on new plants, and retrofitted to older plants.
And you can complain about the fact that we’ve only got technology to take out 75% of the mercury, or you can get excited about the fact that before, nothing was done, but we’re looking forward to reducing emissions significantly.
Tim,
We’re STILL waiting for your proof that efficiency, renewables, DG, CHP, etc cost “4 or 5 times as much” as centralized coal.
What are the acid rain costs of the 10% of sulfur not removed? Health costs of the 25% of mercury not removed?
“Even your diesel generators.”
I have not advocated “diesel generators”.
“I relly don’t know that much about your CHP’s.”
*BEFORE* you argue against them, I suggest you educate yourself.http://www.epa.gov/chp/awards/winners2005.htm
“[RMI] Looks like a lot of scholarly studies that look promising, but are untried on a large scale.”
I’d say San Francisco is “large scale”. And the many real-world examples in book http://www.natcap.org/ . Plus advising the Pentagon.
“But I’ve got 23 years of experience and knowledge…”
That suggests you have “tunnel vision” — it doesn’t prove that centralized coal is the best source. Technology has changed. Global warming was barely an issue in 1983.
“Thermodynamics tells us you can’t get something for nothing.”
What benefit do customers paying for electricity from “your” coal plant get from the waste heat you dump in the air, or water?From the energy lost in the transmission grid?
Tim,
A small Colorado group heavily invested in coal-burning utilities donated $100,000 to climate change skeptic Pat Michaels.http://grist.org/news/daily/2006/07/28/2/
Why can’t the HUGE coal industry provide you a credible study proving your claim that efficiency, renewables, DG, CHP, etc cost “4 or 5 times as much” as centralized coal?
A little humor to lighten the day …
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/56631
Silly me.
Your “DG” is distributed generation, not diesel generator. My bad.
And CHP is just another word for what I’ve been calling “combined cycle.”
Been doing those kind of power plants for years. Unfortunately, many of them use combustion, and fossil fuels like natural gas. Yes, much more efficient than coal plants, but they’ve fallen out of favor recently since natural gas prices are so volatile.
Fuel cells that use hydrogen?
Maybe I’m missing something, but there isn’t a lot of free hydrogen laying around waiting to be found. You have to make it. Either from electrolysis of water (which requres electricity) or from natural gas, one of those fossil fuels you get out of the ground that makes greenhouse gases when burned.
“What benefit do customers paying for electricity from “your” coal plant get from the waste heat you dump in the air, or water?”
Well, none. You can’t use that waste heat because it is so low energy. Again, you can’t change or ignore those annoying laws of themodynamics. And CHP’s and nuclear plants generate waste heat too, just less of it.
“Technology has changed.”
No $hit?
I’m not smart enough to say whether global warming is real or not, or if it is, whether it is man-made or a natural phenomenon.
Everybody likes it when the lights go on, and their air conditioner runs. You can’t change the laws of thermodynamics. All that stuff generates heat.
My job is to make the plants that make the electricity, and do it economically. Right now, thats coal, and the future is probably nuclear.
Remember, being “open minded” means also considering that your “new and better way” may not stand up to the test of practicality. Maybe it will. For now, its only being used in a few selected places as far as I can tell.
“From the energy lost in the transmission grid?”
The energy lost in the transmission grid from a base load power plant is less than the energy you’d have to spend to get fuel to all those little distributed generating units you’re promoting.
“A small Colorado group heavily invested in coal-burning utilities donated $100,000 to climate change skeptic Pat Michaels.”
So friggin what?
“What are the acid rain costs of the 10% of sulfur not removed? Health costs of the 25% of mercury not removed?”
Can’t really say. That’s outside my knowledge base. But in both cases, its less than what used to be done in the past, which is to remove none of those pollutants.
Bottom line, only time will tell if the future looks more like your vision, or mine. You may be right. But for now, it doesn’t look that way.
I’m obviously not going to change your mind, so I’m not going to try.
Tim just spanked all those that oppose the coal fired power plants. That is is how logic and intellect work. Very Good Tim.
Sorry COsmos, there are no answers or consensus on Global Climatic Change. The only “consensus is that “there is a wrming trend”. There is not consensus on WHAT is causing it. (Please do not quote from Slient Spring or Earth in the Balance or that terrible movie.) Remember “Silent Spring? TOTAL scientific fabrication! But the greeniacs *believed* it. and that was all that mattered.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++”And don’t forget to include the external costs of coal — CO2, health (mercury, etc), acid rain damage, coal mining impacts, etc”
Could you get us those costs there Cosmo ole boy. Dollar value in 2006 dollars with some refrence backing there buddy.
Remember that a KU Professor said that the wind machines would employ 2.5 times the unmber of people because of the required maintenance on wind generators. (Moment of inertia causes a lot of vibrations and vibration on mechanical things is BAD thing.) SO just the maintenance costs would be 2.5 tims higher and that woudl put a lot into the ole kilowatt price of generation, when it was generating.
You misdirected individuals (wellmeaning though you are) are simply WRONG. It is either Coal or Nukes. Take your pick. That is the only real technology on large scale that is reasonably pratical. Yes between here and the future those other technologies will be there, but water in the western Kansas is not a problem with the Coal Fired power plants, it is with the ETHANOL PRODUCTION. That stuff is mostly water, and takes a helluva lot of water in the process with all the steam heating and distillation process.
That is why we need a coherent energy policy. Drill the ANWR, open up the Gulf areas for oil (China and Cuba are drilling there anyway) and get the new technologies on the fast track. Pull all the oil subsidies and tax credits, it is an old technology and not the direction of the future. THAT is how you get there from HERE.
What the greens want and what the free marketers want is NOT what the majority of Americans want.
Additionally for the “Global warming idiots” think CHINA! China will burn more coal in the next decade,…. than the US has burnt in the last CENTURY!! Now think of how dirty the Chinese Power Plants are. They do not agonize over emissions, or acid rain. They want the power. There is a lesson in this.
Tim, I have appreciated reading your posts on this thread. While I am one who truly hopes that the future will bring alternatives for electricity production, at this point, but as of now, it’s either coal fired or nuclear, to get away from using natural gas, et al to fire the boilers, if you will.
ASBESTOS, the water issue is real on the proposed coal fired plant in Western Kansas. I grant the ethanol production plants are a bigger problem, when one also considers the water used in corn irrigation; but the amount of water to be used by the proposed plant is not insignificant in amount, IIRC. I’d still have issues if all the power to be generated thereby was totally to Kansas consumers; but, again IIRC, some 85% thereof is going elsewhere.
” …at this pont, as of now…”; geez, gotta remember to read this stuff more closely.
ITs a Blog there Vaughn, I get what you are saying. We are typing this in, and mistakes are made. I don’t make a big deal of the verbage or spelling as long as the thought comes across.
Don’t let anyone give you hell on that on a blog. That means that their argument has run out of gas.
There is A LOT of water used in production of ethanol, in ADDITION to the irrigation. The first thing the ethanol plants secure is WATER RIGHTS. Western Kansas is going to go dry and become dessicated from the irrigation, the corn, and the ethanol. The Power Plant (IMO) is not going to make that big of a deal since they recycle a lot of water in modern Power Plants.
It is going to be the cos$hit and the water extraction that is going to doom Western Kansas. So much worse than the flood irrigation they had in the 1970’s when I was growing up there. They used to keep a pump running all the time and the engine exhaust manifolds used to glow cherry red and you could see them a mile a way at night!
ASBESTOS<—–fossil fuels shill?
Tim<—opinion biased by employment?
NO popup I M a NUKE schill. Get it right! What are you a drive by poster?
popup,
“Tim<—opinion biased by employment?”
I won’t say that’s not possible. It might even be probable….
It’s paid for the groceries for quite a long time now.
But I do know the power industry. Utilities are slow to adopt exciting new technology. They seldom want “serial number 1″ of anything. Tried and true makes them happy, especially when they have investors to satisfy.
Their job is to make megawatts, and do it economically. They’re not into R&D.
And quite frankly, they do a pretty good job of providing electricity to their users.
Blackouts are a big deal when they happen, because they almost never happen.
There’s a price for everything, and right now, that price is that we’re polluting the air and heating up the environment. But we’re getting better at reducing those things.
Cheers to all.
Tim
Tim,
If you’re trying to “sell” the idea of new coal plants at Holcomb, you might want to STOP, before you cause any more damage.
You STILL haven’t backed up your bogus claim that my solutions cost “4 or 5 times as much” as your centralized coal.
You seem clueless, and unqualified, to talk about the alternatives to coal. In the context of efficiency and renewables, you thought DG (Distributed Generation) = diesel generator.
“And CHP is just another word for what I’ve been calling “combined cycle.” ”
This is your “combined cycle”, = CCPPhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle
And this is CHP,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Heat_and_Power
“And CHP’s … generate waste heat too, just less of it.”
The waste heat from CHP can USEFULLY heat buildings, etc.They can even setup “your” CCPP’s to work as CHP’s.
“I’m not smart enough to say whether global warming…”
I guess you’re also not smart enough to realize that the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, et al have MUCH more credibility than the handful of “skeptics” your coal industry has funded.
“…is less than the energy you’d have to spend to get fuel to all those little distributed generating units you’re promoting.”
Uhhh… you really believe it is expensive to “get” solar to PV and other solar systems? Wind? Nearby biomass? Methane from a local landfill?
Not to mention the even cheaper higher efficiency…
So what if acid rain and mercury health problems might cost “less than what used to be done in the past”?
ZERO, from newer systems = much better.
Give it up cosmo: You need to recognize when you have lost. Tim has nailed it time and again, yet you continue to diagree. Whats up with that? You have an almost worship complex going with B.H., probably because of all the letters after his name, yet when someone like Tim comes along who clearly has alot of expertise in this field you refuse to listen to him. You remind me of people I knew in school who weren’t cool enough for the “in” crowd, yet they hung around on the fringes hoping to get some crumbs from their heros table.
Combined Cycle and Combined Heat and Power are essentially the same thing.
You burn something (usually a fossil fuel) to make power. In the case of a combustion turbine, your exhaust temperature is on the order of 1000°F. Really hot, so you can use it to do other useful work, like turn water into steam and generate electricity in a steam turbine generator, or turn cold water into hot water and pump it somewhere for building heating. None of this is new. Lots of university campuses are heated this way. I understand the technology.
But you still have waste heat! Yes, even CHP’s. Its inevitable! Its those pesky laws of thermodynamics again. You can’t get something for nothing. You still have to cool the oil that lubricates the combustion turbine bearings. You still have motors running pumps and fans that generate heat. You still have to cool the generator windings. You still have hot exhaust going up a stack (albeit at 200°F instead of 1000°F.)
In the case of both combined cycle and coal plants, you still have to cool the steam that comes out of the steam turbine (which sub-atmospheric and at about 100°F and therefore not usable to generate any useful work) through the use of water and cooling towers.
The temperature of the exhaust going up the stack of a coal power plant is at about 150°F. Lots of waste energy because its lots of volume, but its low temeperature energy and not usable for useful work. We’ve already squeezed as much work out of it as we’ll be able to get.
I’m not making this stuff up!
And any time you burn something, whether it be methane or natural gas, or whatever, you still get exhaust gases and therefore pollutants. You can’t burn something and get ZERO emissions! The only true zer emission is wind power, and its just not practical to try to replace all your base load power with wind power.
I don’t have the time or inclination to go research whether I was “off” in my claim of 4 to 5 times the cost. But you have to factor in both the cost to build the plant, and the cost of fuel over the lifetime of the plant, and natural gas is way more expensive than coal on a dollars per Btu basis.
The infrastructure to get wind power to the users is what makes it expensive. Lost and lots of little generators that have to be tied to a grid. Power generation conductor is not cheap to buy or install. Plus, wind turbines are very maintenance intensive, and have to be repaired a lot, so they don’t even run all the time, and they don’t run when there’s not enough wind, AND, they have to be shut down if the wind is too fast, otherwise they damage the blades! And they take up a lot of real estate. Some utilities who have wind power generators offer thie rate payers the option to have them “feel good” and have their power come from only the wind generators (really it comes from the grid, and the individual electrons might have come from anywhere) but you know what? Those rate payers pay more per kilowatt for that peace of mind! Because it costs the utilities more to get a megawatt out of a wind turbine than out of a coal plant’s steam turbine, if you take the entire life cycle cost into account.
Methane from a landfill? TRY to make that work on anything but a limited basis. First, you have to collect it. Then, what you’ve collected is MOSTLY AIR, which you have to separate out to get a useful fuel.
Solar’s great, but by all accounts, its limited and just a supplement. I have no objection to it, but its not going to replace base load electric power plants.
“You seem clueless, and unqualified, to talk about the alternatives to coal.”
Maybe, but if we’re getting into character assasinations here, I’ve probably forgotten more about power generation than you’ll ever know.
But you’re right. Obviously you’re smarter than me. You’re better at surfing the net and finding stuff on wikipedia, the details of which I have labored over for years to actually make them work in practice.
I concede.
Well I’ve been part of this forum for a long while “Let”.I find your take fairly uninformed.
cosmos ALWAYS has credible links.
Tim? Who’s Tim? Never saw a post from Tim before. My take is Tim is quite likely an industry rep. sent here to get the energy industry heard. He admitted himself that he may be biased because of his employment.
Get your feet a little wetter before you go making judgements “Let”.
JR
That’s because I’ve never posted here before.
I’m just a plain old working stiff, trying to help a few of the uninformed get a little more informed about something most people simply don’t understand.
Hey, if I worked for Coke, I’d probably be biased against Pepsi, don’t ya think?
Yes I do. And thank you for being honest about it Tim.
You are clearly very knowledgeable. And the information IS appreciated.
But as you yourself have posted, coal is not a particularly attractive source of energy. It’s efficient but ugly if you will.
Earlier on this thread, or it may have been on the other, I asked if this plant was truly necessary. I’ve not been convinced that it is.
What? Demand is going to increase significantly? Uh…why? The population is not skrocketing. Energy use gets more efficient all the time. And just when did it start making any sense to someone without dollars imvolved to PLAN on greater need for energy. You know, as opposed to using that energy more efficiently?
Quite honestly, I don’t know specifically for Sunflower, but I will say this.
There are a LOT of old power plants (that incidentally, are not as efficient, and pollute more than newer ones) that are running past their expected life span. At some point, they are too expensive for the utilities to keep running, and pollute too much for environmental regulators to allow them to continue to operate.
And believe it or not, demand is still going up, faster than the population is rising!
Look at all the stuff people have today that uses electricity, that none of us had 20 or 30 years ago. I’ll bet you can think of a few. It all adds up.
And, some utilities have more users at peak times than they have generation capacity, so they have to buy power from other utilities. In many cases, the cost of buying power from a competitor utility is more expensive than building a new power plant to cover that need.
Like I said, I’m not close enough to the Sunflower utility to know (they’re not one of our customers) but those are some of the common reasons.
Tim
And by the way, the people who would be building the kind of plants cosmo is talking about, CHP’s and distributed generating stations, would come to companies like the one I work for to design and build them.
So, even if that does come to pass, I’m still going to be the guy who gets paid to design them.
Frankly, I don’t know if that lends any more credibility to my arguments, but its not like I’ll be out of a job if the industry goes away from coal and goes the way the way cosmo thinks it should.
“cosmos ALWAYS has credible links.”
Not hardley JR, NOT EVEN CLOSE. What he cut and pastes from are political agenda driven sites, devoid of science.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“There are a LOT of old power plants (that incidentally, are not as efficient, and pollute more than newer ones) that are running past their expected life span.”
That is the one point that these on this blog and others fail to get. We are going to be losing a lot of generating power in the next decade.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Don’t worry TIm, this crew of JR, Cosmo, Dr. Bennie Huie Beluie and WSCLARK are usually here in their mental “Circle jerk” giving eath other mental “reach arounds” and do not care for truth, they just want their little egos loving rubbed.
“Don’t worry TIm, this crew of JR, Cosmo, Dr. Bennie Huie Beluie and WSCLARK are usually here in their mental “Circle jerk” giving eath other mental “reach arounds” and do not care for truth, they just want their little egos loving rubbed.”
You really need to do some work on your public relations campaign, Asbestos, it doesn’t seem to be working well for you.
You kind of come off looking like a jerk.
BTW – I am still waiting for you to disclose your credentials.
Dial 1-800-WAH-BABY
WSClark,
Are you asking for my credentials?
Tsk, tsk, ‘Bestos, that is a pretty lame comeback.
Did ya work on that a long time or did you “borrow” the line from Rush Limbaugh?
….But really, what ARE your credentials?
Still waiting……
From this site:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/ene_coa_con-energy-coal-consumption
IT states that there is about 20 million tons of coal burn annually in Kansas. How the hell is there 15.4 million tons of CO2 being produced annually …BY JUST THESE 3 planned plants???Someone needs to answer how there is MORE WASTE MASS CO2 from these 3 plants than the original total of coal burned in the ENTIRE STATE????
HMHMHMMMMM!!!!!
“WSClark, Are you asking for my credentials?”
No, Tim, I have been asking Asbestos for HIS credentials for several days, since he seems to feel that Dr. Huie’s credentials are unacceptable.
Tim, I can say that at least you are honest about your job-related bias and you seem to at least reason through your opinions.
I may not agree with you, but you haven’t referred to Ben Huie and Dr. Bennie Huie Beluie.
You have shown some class in presenting your position – far more than Mr. Asbestos.
BTW – I have yet to meet Dr. Huie and have no personal agenda. I merely respect his credentials and his reasoned agruments.
And I haven’t a clue as to how a “mental reach around” is processed.
“And I haven’t a clue as to how a “mental reach around” is processed.”
Well apparently you are a natural!
ASBESTOS
You really are obtuse aren’t you?
Upthread you say you are for nuclear energy.
Yes well. Ben Hule does not have me convinced that nuclear energy can be made safe. But he tries at every opportunity. You should be more careful about who is or is not on your side. That is if you care about anything but your own fat ego.
I didn’t give you a hard time either until you started being a wanker.
I don’t know what your agenda is here but you sure are not winning any hearts.
Tim if the new plant is HONESTLY to replace an aging dirtier plant than the power company should sell it that way. Like I say, I can’t see that great of an increase in demand that justifies building it.
From this site:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/ene_coa_con-energy-coal-consumption
IT states that there is about 20 million tons of coal burn annually in Kansas. How the hell is there 15.4 million tons of CO2 being produced annually …BY JUST THESE 3 planned plants???Someone needs to answer how there is MORE WASTE MASS CO2 from these 3 plants than the original total of coal burned in the ENTIRE STATE????
HMHMHMMMMM!!!!!
“Well apparently you are a natural!”
‘Bestos, you really need to work on those comebacks – your’s are really bad.
You need to TRY to show some intelligence or wit with a comeback, but just a Jr. High School “so are you!” comment.
Now take a little time – you know, ten or twelve years – and get back to me.
Bring your credentials with you.
Bad news people. The Topeka Crapital Urinal is reporting tonight, that Sebelius is reconsidering her earlier decision not to oppose the plants. Sounds like she is getting ready to cave to the “watermelon people” and impose a moratorium on all new power plant construction. Of course Sunflower will sue the State and some judge will decide whether or not the plants can be built. Anyway, as usual, the lawyers will get rich while the taxpayers will foot the bill
Again I ask:
How can 3 plants produce almost as much mass in waste CO2 as the mass of coal burnt in TOTAL for the ENTIRE STATE FOR THE YEAR???
It doesn’t compute Asbestos. The three big units at Jefferies and the two at LaCygne will burn more coal and release more CO2 than the three proposed at Holcomb. That doesn’t even take into account the old dinosaurs at Lawrence and Tecumseh, not to mention the KCK plants. Sounds like someones playing fast and loose with the figures.
Asbestos,
Here’s why.
If they’re using powder river basin Wyoming coal, which I suspect they will, Carbon constitutes a little less than 50% of the weight of the coal.
MOST of that carbon will be burned, and through the combustion process will combine with oxygen in the combustion air, will leave the stack as carbon dioxide.
Carbon has a molecular weight of about 12.
Carbon dioxide has a molecular weight of about 44 (its 12 plus two oxygen atoms at 16 each.)
That oxygen weighs more than the carbon started out as in the coal.
If my math is correct, the three new units at Holcomb combined would burn a little less than 10 million tons of coal each year, depending on whether they run 24/7 the entire year, which they won’t.
Judging from calculations I have from a similar power plant, the 15.4 million tons of CO2 produced is a fairly accurate number.
Tim
Tim,
Thank you very much for proving my earlier points.
“Combined Cycle and Combined Heat and Power are essentially the same thing.”
Nope! CHP is more efficient.
“… and at about 100°F and therefore not usable to generate any useful work)”
Even when it’s say, maybe about 10 degs F outside?
“I don’t have the time or inclination to go research whether I was “off” in my claim of 4 to 5 times the cost.”
So you admit your “claim” was bogus, and unsupported.
“Hey, if I worked for Coke, I’d probably be biased against Pepsi, don’t ya think?”
Obviously…
“Look at all the stuff people have today that uses electricity, that none of us had 20 or 30 years ago.”
Like what? Homes and buildings that can feed electricity back to the grid? Lamps that use 1/4th the electricity? More efficient refigerators, A/c’s, computers, etc…?
“And, some utilities have more users at peak times than they have generation capacity,..”
Yeah… and they can buy and install (very cheaply) nat gas generators (or etc) to easily handle those rare “peak times”.But for some reason… you do NOT want America to know that.
“It’s paid for the groceries for quite a long time now.”
You said it… But now it’s time for a more RATIONAL and LOGICAL energy policy.
Umm, Cosmos, peak times happen twice a day, all summer long.
Cripes, now you’re arguing semantics. CHP and CC are essentially the same thing, as both use some of the exhaust heat from a combustion process that is already being used to generate power, for other uses. But not ALL the waste heat.
“Even when it’s say, maybe about 10 degs F outside?”
Yep, because you’re not heating air in a building from 10°F to 72°F. You’re ehating air in a building from 70°F to 72°F, so the best temperature differential you can get out of that 100°F is about 20°F, down to about 80 degrees. That water just doesn’t have much energy to give, unless you use a huge volume, which costs more to pump to the end user than you get out of it.
Doesn’t it suck to be wrong?
The concept of sensible energy and the overall subject of thermodynamics is lost on you because you’ve never studied it or had to apply it to real life.
BTW, we used to install a lot of peaking combustion turbines. Still do a few occasionally. Natural gas is expensive, so utilities don’t choose that option much.
“Like what? Homes and buildings that can feed electricity back to the grid? Lamps that use 1/4th the electricity? More efficient refigerators, A/c’s, computers, etc…?”
How many homes and buildings right now feed back power ot the grid? NOT MANY! How many people still use incandescent lights because they are $1 for 4 instead of the efficient fluorescent ones that are $7 each? (I mean, I use the efficient ones, but most people don’t.)
Did everybody have garage door openers 30 years ago. WHO had computers 30 years ago? Who had cell phones and I-pods and video games that all require electricity 30 years ago? Who had electric heat pumps 30 years ago? Hell, I still have the same refrigerator I bought 21 years ago BECAUSE IT STILL WORKS!
“But now it’s time for a more RATIONAL and LOGICAL energy policy.”
YEAH, lets start by reinstating CAFE limits on car manufacturers!
Now there’s something that will really help!
Tim,
Thank you very much for AGAIN proving my points.
“because you’re not heating air in a building from 10°F to 72°F.”
Tell that to the people in the Netherlands, who are heating HUGE greenhouses with CHP… plus the CO2 “fertilizer” factor.
“Hell, I still have the same refrigerator I bought 21 years ago BECAUSE IT STILL WORKS!”
You could replace your old (and VERY inefficient refrigerator) with a newer one that would lower your electricity bills, and quickly pay for itself.
Even if your electricity provider did not offer you a cash bribe to upgrade, like some do.
Not to mention the extra A/C costs during hot weather…
VT,
“IIRC, some 85% thereof is going elsewhere.”
It looks like it’d be 92% ?http://kansas.sierraclub.org/Wind/WhoGetsHolcombPower.htm
But, I guess Kansas is happy to help the coal industry. Or is it because Tim needs to buy groceries?
You might be able to bully the others on this weblog with your “I’m the smartest guy in the room” attitude and if you don’t agree with me you’re an idiot.
But cosmo, you sound to me like one of those guys who gets all their “experience” out of books (or in your case, the internet), and have never really had to make any of their theories work.
Kinda like the petulant young college kid who just graduated and believes he knows more than all those “old guys” who are still muddling about doing things the old fashioned way, until he starts to actually have to produce something, and comes to realize those old guys have forgotten more than he knows.
Sounds like you haven’t gotten to that “having to actually produce something” stage in your life yet.
Can’t say for greenhouses, but most building heating systems don’t use 100% outside air to get the inside air up to temperature. That’s wasteful. They recirculate the already warm inside air, and you lose your heat through the walls. And building heating is what CHP’s would be used for in the US, not greenhouses.
Greenhouses might be able to directly use the exhaust gases for heating, but frankly, how many huge greenhouses do you see dotting the countryside in Kansas? I don’t recall seeing any.
Just out of curiosity, are you still in college?
Do you actually have any real responsibilities?
Are you independently wealthy?
Do you go out every time the latest new appliance is introduced and buy it because it is a little more efficient than the one you have now? If you do, you’re the only person I know that does. Most real people don’t replace appliances until they wear out.
The refrigerator still works. I don’t need a new one. My monthly levelized electricity bill is about $115. Even if half of that was just my refrigerator, and its not, it would take 2 to 3 years years to pay back the expense of replacing something that still works. I think I’ll wait until it wears out, thank you. I figure I can get another 2 years out of it.
And as for my claim of 4 to 5 times the cost, it was an educated guess, and I’m more comfortable with my educated guesses than your “facts.”
By the way, if you knew anything about the industry, you’d know it is not uncommon for utilities to build power plants in one state and send the power through those awful, inefficent transmission lines, to another state.
A perfect example is California. Lots of power generated elsewhere that is sent to California. Know why? Because California has some of the most restrictive environmental laws in the country, and its not practical to build a coal plant in California, due to cost and the fact that the flue gas cleanup technology just isn’t to where California requires it to be. So you know what those utilities in California do when they start having brown-outs and black-outs?
They build coal power plants in Utah.
See Cosmo confirmatory eveidence, I said the same thing. When are you going to buy a clue?
“You might be able to bully the others on this weblog with your “I’m the smartest guy in the room” attitude and if you don’t agree with me you’re an *idiot*.”
Tim,
“peak times happen twice a day, all summer long.”
I was referring to abnormal “peaks” that occur only occasionaly, during record hot days.
“CHP and CC are essentially the same thing, ”
NO, CCPP, altho more efficient than non-CC, still throws away exhaust heat. CHP does useful work (heat water, homes, etc) with the exhaust.
“Kinda like the petulant young college kid who just graduated and believes he knows more than all those “old guys”"
I give you multiple real-world examples, RMI, etc… so you attack me personally? To try to prove those examples are invalid, or don’t exist?
You seem unable to even grasp the difference between CCPP and CHP.
And I’ve personally done many improvements to my home — installed ridge vents, sealed ductwork, added insulation, caulking, CF lamps, etc.I signed up to wind power, which reduced my electric bill when nat gas prices went up.
“most building heating systems don’t use 100% outside air to get the inside air up to temperature”
I NEVER said anything about using “outside air”. My point was your big centralized coal plant throws away the exhaust heat — CHP does USEFUL work with the exhaust.
“how many huge greenhouses do you see dotting the countryside in Kansas?”
Are you UNABLE to understand that CHP can also heat buildings, homes, and water?
From header: “Colorado opposition is building, too, based on a projected 64 percent rate hike in the next five years to pay for the plants.”
Smart utility companies know that it’s cheaper for customers to become more efficient than to build new $1 BILLION power plants.
Some utilities offer rebates for more efficient A/c’s, weatherization, and CF lamps. They pay the customer to replace old, inefficient refrigerators.
“And as for my claim of 4 to 5 times the cost, it was an educated guess”
You don’t seem very educated on the issue, and you’re wrong. Efficiency is cheapest.
A federal carbon tax is likely, plus global warming may force coal plants to shutdown.
“it is not uncommon for utilities to build power plants in one state and send the power… to another state.”
Just because it’s “not uncommon” does not make it the best solution. Power technology, building materials, etc have changed and improved.
Blackouts?’California Electricity: Facts, Myths, and National Lessons’Aout 45% down page at http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid171.php
Boy where to start …
Lets see, someone above is definitely correct that hydrogen is a real problem – their ain’t any ‘lieing around’ to be used. It must be generated – i.e. probably nuclear. And, by the way, I am an advocate of nuclear. I am also an advocate of wind, solar, conservation, etc.
China is a problem. Definitely. As are many other industrializing countries. This brings me back to supporting nuclear as an option elsewhere as well as here.
Unfortunately, with all the malicious name-calling from ASS-WORST-OS it makes it hard to actually have a ciivl discussion of such issues.
Chris – what exactly is a “watermelon people”?
Tim – an interesting problem in CA is that PG&E sold platns like Moss landing and others to out-of-state companies as part of their wierd “deregulation” they did under Pete Wilson. So, a lot of power gets shipped OUT on CA and then other power back IN. A way to get around some of the regulations that remain. The whole thing was poorly put together as even former governor Wilson acknowledged.
WSC – I think Tim has a fair amount of experience in the industry so his “credentials” may well be “school of hard knocks” which is a very good source. I haven’t really gone through what he has written in detail but he seems to be accurate.
An idea for greenhouses that I find intriguing: feed power plant effluent directly in. Capture waste heat, CO2, and water vapor from combustion. Use to grow biomass for further combustion and/or biofuels. (Not sure I want food crops there). Up north I have seen inflatable ‘buildings’ made of polyethylene – do something like that perhaps. Just speculation, the engineering would have to be worked out.
Rocky Mountain Institute? Whats this, a couple of old hippies that never got the memo that the 60’s are over. Sitting up on a Mountain somewhere blowing joints and writing white papers that almost nobody reads. Or is it just another left wing think tank funded by the usual left wing tax exempt foundations like Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers, Carneige Institute for world (government) Peace, etc.? Dedicated, no doubt to destroying capitalism and helping America comfortably merge into their one world government. Do yourself a favor Cosmos, delete these people from your address book and come back to reality.
Cosmos asked:Chris – what exactly is a “watermelon people”?
Glad you asked.
Watermelon people are green on the outside and red on the inside.
If you need further explanation ,all you have to do is ask.
Ben, at least Tim doesn’t try to turn your name into some sort of insult.
Actually, I have found his posts to be well reasoned. I didn’t question Tim’s cred – just Asbestos – since Ass seems to think that his “knowledge” trumps your Ph D.
Ben,
If you haven’t seen, this European video has 4,000 hectares of greenhouses heated by CHP (about 4:20 minutes into movie)’What are we waiting for?’,http://www.localpower.org/resources/multimedia.htm
Cosmo, again and again you show your ignorance.
“CCPP, altho more efficient than non-CC, still throws away exhaust heat. CHP does useful work (heat water, homes, etc) with the exhaust.”
You’re wrong. CCPP uses the waste heat of the exhaust of a combustion turbine to heat water to generate high pressure steam which is then sent to a steam turbine-generator, to generate “useful work” in the form of generating electrical power.
And they BOTH throw away some waste heat. Thermodynamics says they must! New technology doesn’t overrule the laws of thermodymnamics!
Please stop telling me I’m wrong on this one…I’ve designed, done construction management, and commissioning on combined cycle power plants. My depth of understanding of what they are and how they work probably exceeds the depth of knowledge you’ve gotten from reading about them.
“Are you UNABLE to understand that CHP can also heat buildings, homes, and water?”
No, I understand that quite well. What I don’t think you understand is the details of how they actually do it! I do! Do you?
You have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding, (or at least a misunderstanding) of thermodynamics, yet you continue to tell me how wrong I am and how I don’t understand the things I’ve built.
“Smart utility companies know that it’s cheaper for customers to become more efficient”
It works when people actually do it. Will you create the efficiency police to make sure everyone toe’s the line?
Ben,
Though I won’t go into too much detail as to my credentials, I have a Professionsal Engineer’s license in Kansas and Nebraska, I have worked at a nuclear power plant (hands-on), have been responsible for contract management of sub-critical and super-critical coal fired power boilers, air quality control equiment, 10,000 horsepower fans, pumps, valves, etc. ad nauseum, have performed startup and commissioning on combined cycle power plants both domestically and overseas (China and Thailand), have been responsible for major system design on too many power plant designs to recall.
Cosmo, what are your credentials?
Tim – are you familiar with the new nuclear design using a sort of ‘microspeheres’? Apparently they might be a very interesting new generation. As I have mentioned above I think we need to be moving in nuke worldwide. A quandry though – how do we foster nuclear power but keep material out of the hands of nuts like Kim il Nutjob?
Chris – it’s too bad you have to stoop to name-calling (red on the inside); that detracts from discussion. And about the only thing ‘red’ about me is my blood.
Chris from black town…don’t be such a weenie.
Once again BH, my namecalling is directed at the left in general, not you personally. Sorry if you were offended.
Chris – since I have only met one real “red” in my life your name-calling is generally useless and detracts from the discussion. (And that poor guy had a real hard time with e when I nailed him about the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia)
What’s the temperature of the exhaust from one of your CC’s?
Wouldn’t it still do some “useful work” if feed into greenhouses during cold weather?
“It works when people actually do it. Will you create the efficiency police to make sure everyone toe’s the line?”
Businesses (like Walmart) are becoming more energy efficient voluntarily. Homeowners do it when they realize the money it will save them.
Feebates would speed up the transition.
Reducing demand with efficiency is cheaper than new coal plants.’Which way to go in pursuit ofpower?’http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/16246843.htm“According to an analysis by Environmental Defense, existing efficiency programs in Texas have resulted in a cumulative reduction in peak demand of 585 megawatts (MW) between 2002 and 2005, at a cost of about $460 per kilowatt.
By comparison, TXU estimates the costs of its new plants to be $1,100 per kilowatt, which DOESN’T even include transmission, distribution and fuel costs.
The first coal plant could be up and running by 2009 at the earliest; efficiency programs can be implemented immediately.”
Tim: “You CANNOT ignore economics. People will not accept paying 4 or 5 times as much for electricity, just because its cleaner.”
* Coal or natural gas: about 4 cents per kilowatt-hour* Efficiency: see above* Wind: 4 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour* Biomass: between 7 and 9 cents per kilowatt-hour.* Concentrated solar plant: about 10 to 14 cents per kilowatt-hour* Solar panels: 25 to 40 cents per kilowatt-hour (dropping soon, new technology)
Tim, what are Amory Lovins’ credentials?
‘Rocky Mountain Institute Staff List’http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid166.phphttp://www.smallisprofitable.org/TheAuthors.html
Ben,
No, I am not familiar with that technology.
I most familiar with the GE design of the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor that has been used in Japan at Kashiwazaki/Karima units 6 and 7, and now being built in Taiwan at the Lungmen power station.
Tim
Thanks. I had read some things abot the new designs in Tech Review. Looked like it would be useful for small plants. Apparently it would shut itself down in a power failure rather than have the potential to melt.
Chris – I have met some scientists from RMI. They are hardly hippies. Again, you detract from yourself by such wild BS.
Chris – since I have only met one real “red” in my life
Come on BH, lets get real. Anyone who has spent as much time in and around colleges and universities as you have has been around many reds. They might not identify themselves as such, unless they are confident you are one of them, but they are predominant on most major college campuses in this Country. And you usually address them as Dr. or Professor. They can’t make it out in the real world, so they are content to spend their lives indoctrinating our children in their anti-capitalism and their secular humanism.
No Chris, I think you are hallucinating. The engineering, science, and business faculties in oarticular tend to be more ‘right’ than ‘left’; however I do not call them fascists either.
Perhaps you have been around different institutions than I have.
Try looking in the Anthropolgy, sociology, and Poly Sci. dept’s.
Chris are you going to recover soon and relieve us of your presence? I am really hoping so.
Don’t misunderstand. I’m not wishing you well. I’m wishing you farewell.
“Reds”"Watermelon people”
Good lord man. You been working in the refinery too long.
Kook.
Tim you make an interesting point about the appliances. Though I think having a 21 year old refrigerator is crazy.
We OUGHT to have tax credits for newer energy efficient appliances. I’m in the market for a washer right now. I’m looking for a used front loader since the new ones are prohibitively expensive. Be nice if we got a little incentive to do the right thing.
Poli Sci – you mean like my friend Ken Ciboski at WSU?
cosmo, what are YOUR credentials?
Tim,
My “credentials” are that I follow what I learned in EE, and later in computer programming — look for all reasonable solutions, analyze them, and choose the best one(s).
You seem stuck in the past, thinking that more big, centralized coal and nuclear plants are the best and/or only solution.
Building new coal plants is probably the worst possible “solution”, for many reasons.
I suggest you read the books ‘Natural Capitalism’, and ‘Small is Profitable’.
J R,
Feebates would provide a great incentive — charge a fee on less efficient choices, that fund rebates on more efficient one.It’s tax-neutral, and unlike arbitrary “standards”, encourages manufacturers to constantly improve products.
Works on anything that uses energy — appliances, cars, even new home design/construction.
Re front-loader washer, IIRC they spin fast, and can put out lots of vibration — need a solid floor underneath.
‘Refrigerator Retirement Savings Calculator’http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=refrig.calculator(other appliances on left side of page)
“My “credentials” are that I follow what I learned in EE, and later in computer programming — look for all reasonable solutions, analyze them, and choose the best one(s).”
Without understanding them?
You say you have an EE background. Do you have an EE degree? Are you a professional engineer? Have you ever actually worked as an engineer?
No?
In other words, you don’t have any credentials. All you’re doing is parroting someone else’s ideas.
Get back to me when you’ve actually done something, and have some practical knowledge to back up what you read off the internet.
Tim – I think I may be able to find some references to that reactor design I referred to. I think it would be quite interesting to get a discussion about the current state of nuclear technology – preferably without labeling.
I suspect I am somewhere between you and cosmos in some ways. From what I have seen RMI has a lot of good stuff. However, I also think we need to do nuclear which is where I differ with cosmos. It would make a good discussion I think.
Tim,
Again, you try to attack me personally. Is that because you’re UNABLE to support your big central coal plants with facts?
Tim: “Combined Cycle and Combined Heat and Power are essentially the same thing.”
(CHP can get higher efficiencies than CC.)
Tim: “Building 6 or 7 hundred 1000 kW diesel generator sets with appropriate pollution controls won’t be terribly cheap.”
(DG = Distributed Generation, not “diesel”)
Tim: “The energy lost in the transmission grid from a base load power plant is less than the energy you’d have to spend to get fuel to all those little distributed generating units you’re promoting.”
(ZERO transport costs for efficiency, sun, and wind)
Tim: “People will not accept paying 4 or 5 times as much for electricity, just because its cleaner… as for my claim of 4 to 5 times the cost, it was an educated guess”
(Reducing demand with efficiency = $460 per kilowatt.Cost of TXU’s new coal plant = $1,100 per kilowatt — EXCLUDING transmission, distribution and fuel costs.)
Should I rely on Tim, who made those bizarre posts? No WAY! I PREFER to rely on energy experts like Amory Lovins.
Tim, tell us why efficiency, DG, renewables, etc are NOT feasible — but spending maybe $3 BILLION to build 3 new coal plants at Holcomb is GOOD. Besides paying for your groceries…
BTW: Ratepayers are projected to get a 64% rate hike. And… can you say “federal carbon tax”?
Cosmos: where do you get this silly notion that a Federal Carbon tax is a fait accompli? I’m sure Rangal and the boys and girls on Ways and Means would love to impose one, but as a lessor President once famously said, “the Presidency is still relevant”.
This reminds me of the line George Harrison wrote in the Beatles song Taxman, “if you get too cold I’ll tax the heat”.Once the American people find out what a Carbon Tax would mean to their bottom line, they will reject it too.
Chris,
The new Holcomb coal power plants will have a 40 or 50 year lifetime. You want to personally guarantee those $3 billion of CO2 emitters will NOT be impacted by global warming issues?
Boulder just passed a carbon tax.
The funds raised pay for energy audits, to help increase efficiency and reduce electricity demand — “their bottom line” is improved.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15651688
Boulder, Berkley, Madison, Lawrence? All kookvilles. Its kinda like city councils passing antiwar resolutions. It gives a couple of people a good feeling, but nobody else notices.
Chris,
Do you want to label Duke Energy, who has coal and nat gas power plants, “kookvilles”? They WANT a federal tax on CO2 emissions.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/04/duke_energy_to_.html
Cosmos
Do you want to label Duke Energy, who has coal and nat gas power plants, “kookvilles”? They WANT a federal tax on CO2 emissions.
After reading the link you provided, I would say that the key word is “Federal” in this case. They are hoping to head off a hodge podge of State and Local taxes and laws and instead have only one federal standard to meet. Also, like any business tax, a federal carbon tax will not be payed by Duke Energy. They will just pass it on to their customers
Chris,
The customers (mostly) pay the carbon tax — but if the product (say coal-fired electricity) is less attractive price-wise, the company “pays” with less sales, and lower profits.
They need a rough idea of what impact the carbon tax will have, to avoid overbuilding new coal plants, etc.
Duke doesn’t want a “hodge podge” of carbon taxes, but they also know the tax is inevitable. They want to shape the policy. And 2 more reasons…
‘Grabbing the Carbon Elephant’http://www.duke-energy.com/news/mediainfo/viewpoint/2005/elephant“Why would the CEO of a large energy company advocate less energy consumption? Because it’s important to take the long view on environmental as well as economic issues….Our international competitors – motivated by mandatory emissions reductions – have gotten a head start. Japan is the world leader in solar power and hybrid cars, and Europe leads in wind power. Their economies will benefit from greater energy efficiency, and ours will be disadvantaged if we lag behind.”
Reading most of these responses reminds me we are teaching what we don’t know in schools and not teaching what we do know.
Or, as the old saying with a a modern ending goes, you can fool some of the people some of the time. All the people some of the time and “the rest of the time doesn’t make one damn bit of difference”.
In 1995, Kansas passed a law where there could be no new power plants built unless they used the “fuel of the future”, natural gas. Only problem was, no one asked if there was enough natural gas and at what price. (Didn’t matter when they passed the law – it felt good and passing the law cured the problem).
Now, what is the hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere is CO2 and methane? Shouldn’t we have been on a roller coaster graph of warming and cooling every few years?
How about raising money to stop the erosion of the Rocky Mountains.They have already lost perhaps half their original size.
Unless something is done, they are not going to be there for future generations. This is going on everyday. What will we do?
The greatest question of our time is which time of the fools do you want to be a part of?
That’s the biggest worry and problem of all.
drsangle,
“Now, what is the hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere is CO2 and methane?”
The old (and stupid) CO2 is insignificant argument?
CO2 alone causes between 9 and 30% of our greenhouse effect.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/01/water-vapor-is-almost-all-of.html
Pre-Industrial Age CO2 was 280 parts per million, and it never went above 300 during the previous 650,000 years.
CO2 now is at about 380 ppm, and it’ll be over 600 in 40+ years if we continue “business as usual”.
drsangle: “Shouldn’t we have been on a roller coaster graph of warming and cooling every few years?”
No, due to thermal inertia of Earth’s ocean.It takes much longer to heat 1 gallon of water to boiling on a stove than it takes to boil 1 tablespoon.
Imagine trying to heat the huge quantity of water in the oceans…
Also, the sulfates and other aerosols we are spewing into the atmosphere block some of the sun’s energy (cause cooling).
I’m sorry, I forgot the new and stupid arguments.
Your examples prove my case.
BTU’s, Dah. As I said, it is very sad that we have a educational system that does not teach what we know instead of teaching what we don’t.
But we will use your example of CO2 levels. And all those thousands of feet of carbonates came from where?
It is sinful to not do something you can do and to complain about something you can’t do anything about.
But that is the current society we live in.
It is the “feel good” feminized society of today.
Waste your life believing in something you don’t know rather that what we do know.
The old and stupid?
Or the old and right.
Believe what is or believe what you wish.
The CO2 and Methand is a few hundredths of one percent.
We are in a interglacial period.
Thank God or whatever we are in a period that has given us all a period that humans can expand.
CO2 levels have been greatly higher than they are today or even expected.
Due to thermal inertia? BTU’s, Dah.
You didn’t answer the question of how much CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere?
You want this to be true so bad and it isn’t.
You didn’t answer the question and there is a good reason why.
JUST ANSWER WHY THE EARTH GOT WARMER AND THEN FROZE BEFORE.
THAT IS ALL WE ASK. SOMETHING SMART.
You have done what all of you have done. Fear, Fear, Fear instead of doing something worth while.
Answer the question. You didn’t and can’t.
DRSANGLE
Let me just put it simply, it takes the same amount of proportional amount of BTU’s to heat a teaspoon of water as it does the oceans.
You don’t know the difference.
I would suggest you read the definition of BTU’s and take course in physical science.
We don’t need to spend more money on education, we need to make sure we are teaching what we do know and make sure the students understand it.
From Old and Stupid, young person.
DRSANGLE
What you really need to worry about is why you are so needing in destruction by humans.
The rest of us are going to live our lives doing the best we can for ourselves and others, while you want everything to be destroyed to prove your right.
Everything that has been predicted has been wrong.
Do you have any math experience?
The longer things go on, the more proof you are wrong.
More hurricanes? Even though predicted by the “expert”. Didn’t happen nor have any of the previous preditions been correct.
The more severe predictions, the more you will be wrong.
As you predict the diasters, more and more will realize you are wrong.
You can’t understand why no one will believe you. It is because you are wrong.
You have not answered my questions.
You can’t.
I thank everyone for your time and consideration. I expect those that are mature and knowledgeable to do the right thing instead of what is fashionable.
God, What a county that has so much money they don’t think they need brains.
DRSANGLE
Cosmos????
Where are you?
Where did you get your education?
What is the percentage of CO2?
Where did thousands of feet of carbonates formations come from?
Hello?
Come on now. Did you go to school here recently where they are now teaching what we don’t know instead of what we do.
And, are you using an excuse to do nothing instead of doing something?
AS I ASKED BEFORE. GO TO THE WORLD BOOK AND LOOK UP THINGS, I KNOW THIS WILL TAKE SOME WORK YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN USED TO BEFORE BUT TRY.
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
COME ON NOW. DON’T BE A PUSSY.
TOO BLUNT FOR YOU? COME ON NOW.
YOUR GOD IS AL GORE. HE IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. HE IS CERTIFIABLY DILUSIONAL. YOU KNOW HE SAID HE INVENTED THE INTERNET AND HE AND HIS WIFE WERE THE BASIS FOR THE MOVIE LOVE STORY. COME ON NOW. MAKE YOU CASE. ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. DON’T REFER US TO ANOTHER WEB SITE. COME ON ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
DRSANGLE
cosmos???
I went to your contact page andgee, guess what, there was nothing there!
What a surprize.
Make your case.
DRSANGLE
drsangle,
Too much eggnog last night?
You seem to be some combination of confused, ignorant, gullible, irrational, and delusional.
Tell us WHY you believe natural climate variations in the past PREVENTS humans from causing a change when we increase greenhouse gases.
Do the GHG’s we emit (oil, coal, etc) carry little signs that say “Human emitted”? Does infrared radiation somehow magically detour around them, and escape our atmosphere?
Yes, CO2, methane, N2O, SF6, PFC’s, CFC’s, and HFC’s are present in very small amounts — but they have potent greenhouse impacts.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases
drsangle: “More hurricanes? Even though predicted by the “expert”. Didn’t happen…”
Gore actually said: “As the oceans get warmer, storms get stronger”.And it’s GLOBAL. Go update your “education” on the SEVERE 2006 Pacific and southern hemisphere storms.
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/lo/love+story.html“Erich Segal has said that he based the character of Oliver on Vice President Al Gore and Gore’s Harvard roommate Tommy Lee Jones.”
(May 2000)’The ‘Love Story’ tale has been wrong for three years. So why won’t the press corps correct it?’http://www.dailyhowler.com/h052500_1.shtml