NOTICE!

The Weatherzone forum has now closed and is in read-only mode until the 1st of November when it will close permanently. We would like to thank everyone who has contributed over the past 18 years.

If you would like to continue the discussion you can follow us on Facebook and Twitter or participate in discussions at AusWeather or Ski.com.au forums.

Page 1 of 25 1 2 3 ... 24 25 >
Topic Options
#1189408 - 14/04/2013 14:59 Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side?
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4219
Loc: El Arish
While we have had an “Alternative energy Scam thread” running for a while Now it is time to explore the Dark and Dirty side of the Coal industry and Coal fired power plants and the damage that they are doing to the planet.




Just a few to start with, one of them is that Coal fired power stations are more "efficient"

Thermal efficiency measures the overall fuel conversion efficiency for the electricity
generation process.
It is influenced by the design, age and condition of a power plant, source
of cooling water, and the quality of coal used.
Macquarie Generation’s market share of the National Electricity Market was 11.2 per cent in
2010-11 (13 per cent in 2009-10).



And the above chart was sourced from a government CF power audit.


Quote:
How many humans have been killed as a result of Coal Mining?
However, in lesser developed countries and some developing countries, many miners continue to die annually, either through direct accidents in coal mines or through adverse health consequences from working under poor conditions. China, in particular, has the highest number of coal mining related deaths in the world, with official statistics claiming that 6,027 deaths occurred in 2004.[20] To compare, 28 deaths were reported in the US in the same year.[21] Coal production in China is twice that in the US,[22] while the number of coal miners is around 50 times that of the US, making deaths in coal mines in China 4 times as common per worker (108 times as common per unit output) as in the US.

In 2006, fatal work injuries among miners in the US doubled from the previous year, totaling 47.[23] These figures can in part be attributed to the Sago Mine disaster of January 2006. The 2007 mine accident in Utah's Crandall Canyon Mine, where nine miners were killed and six entombed, speaks to the increase in occupational risks faced by US miners.[24] More recently, the Upper Big Branch Mine disasterin West Virginia killed 29 miners in April 2010.[25]

Chronic lung diseases, such as pneumoconiosis (black lung) were once common in miners, leading to reduced life expectancy. In some mining countries black lung is still common, with 4,000 new cases of black lung every year in the US (4 percent of workers annually) and 10,000 new cases every year in China (0.2 percent of workers).[26] Rates may be higher than reported in some regions.


Historically, coal mining has been a very dangerous activity and the list of historical coal mining disasters is a long one. In the US alone, more than 100,000 coal miners were killed in accidents over the past century,[17] with more than 3,200 dying in 1907 alone.[18] Open cut hazards are principally mine wall failures and vehicle collisions; underground mining hazards include suffocation, gas poisoning, roof collapse and gas explosions.



Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak


Blair's legacy to be demolished

The third worst eyesore in Britain, according to readers of Country Life, and one of our top three polluters, closed forever today.

Didcot A coal-fired power station has fallen foul of the Large Combustion Plant Directive, a European ruling to close the continent’s dirtiest power stations, and will no longer be spewing thousands of tonnes of CO2, not to mention acutely toxic pollutants, into the atmosphere and into nearby Radley Lakes.

Several doomed attempts were made to edge this filthy dinosaur into the twenty-first century,
with gas and biomass added to the fuel supply and filters added to remove Nitrous Oxide. Greenpeace lent a hand when we blocked the coal conveyer belts, forcing the plant to switch to gas during our occupation, and a group of volunteers climbed the chimney and branded the plant ‘Blair’s Legacy’.

Here’s one of those volunteers, Ben Stewart from our Press Office, questioning the Prime Minister from the top of the chimney -

Unfortunately, even burning a lower carbon fuel like gas, plants like Didcot are still carbon intensive due to the low efficiency of large, centralised power stations. They waste two thirds of the energy they produce because heat can’t be easily transported, and so these power stations just release it into the atmosphere through their giant cooling towers.

Thanks in large part to the pressure Greenpeace supporters brought to bear on the last government, dirty monsters like Didcot A will never be built in the UK again. But switching from big, centralised coal to big, centralised gas, as George Osborne is pushing for, is no more sustainable than switching from Marlborough to Silk Cut.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/blairs-legacy-be-demolished-20130322



Coal is pretty amazing stuff. A single fist-size lump of bituminous coal contains about 12,000 Btu--enough energy to power a 75-watt bulb for two days. It's relatively easy to dig out of the ground and dirt-cheap: about one-sixth the cost of oil or natural gas per Btu. Most of the modern industrial world we see around us was built with coal power.

But coal has issues. Each lump can contain large amounts of sooty particulates, sulfur and nitrogen compounds (which cause acid rain), and traces of mercury and other toxic metals. Although coal-fired power plants are cleaner than they used to be, they are still bad news for the environment and human health. A recent study concluded that coal emissions contribute to 10,000 premature deaths in the United States each year. And coal is by far the largest single source of greenhouse gases in the U.S. So it is no surprise that coal has long been the primary target of proposals to cut air pollution and carbon-dioxide emissions.

Until now. Just in time to skirt the various plans to cap or tax CO2, coal is getting rebranded. The new buzzword is "clean coal"--and it's being portrayed as the high-tech, low-emissions fuel of the future. Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., recently wrote a New York Times op-ed piece calling for the United States to become the "Saudi Arabia of clean coal." U.S. energy secretary Steven Chu has called on his counterparts around the world to promote the "widespread affordable deployment" of clean-coal technology. A current climate bill in the U.S. Senate proposes a complex regime of taxes and subsidies intended to cut America's greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020. But the bill effectively gives the coal industry a pass on cutting emissions until "sufficient commercial-scale" clean-coal technology has been deployed. Why try to reduce our dependence on coal today, the reasoning seems to be, when fabulous, guilt-free clean coal is just around the corner?

There's just one problem with this scenario: Coal will never be clean. It is possible to make coal emissions cleaner. In fact, we've come a long way since the '70s in finding ways to reduce sulfur--dioxide and nitrogen-oxide emissions, and more progress can be made. But the nut of the clean-coal sales pitch is that we can also bottle up the CO2 produced when coal is burned, most likely by burying it deep in the earth. That may be possible in theory, but it's devilishly difficult in practice.

Carbon dioxide is not some minor byproduct of coal combustion. Remember your high school chemistry: When coal burns, oxygen from the air combines with the carbon in the coal in an exothermic (heat-releasing) reaction. Because of the addition of oxygen, the resulting CO2 weighs more than the carbon alone--which means that each pound of coal produces about 2.5 pounds of CO2. Keeping that CO2 out of the atmos-phere requires a process known as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). It works by forcing the exhaust from a power plant through a liquid solvent that absorbs the carbon dioxide. Later, the solvent is heated to liberate the gas, much the way a bottle of soda releases its dissolved CO2 when opened. The CO2 is then compressed to about 100 times normal atmospheric pressure and sent away for storage.


So far, so good. But CCS has two major hurdles. First, it consumes energy--a lot of it. While estimates vary,[b] a coal-fired power plant would have to burn roughly 25 percent more coal to handle carbon sequestration while producing the same amount of electricity. That would mean a vast expansion in mining, transportation costs and byproducts such as fly ash.



But that's the easy part. The harder challenge would be transporting and burying all of this high-pressure CO2. American Electric Power recently began a CCS project at its Mountaineer Plant in West Virginia. The operation captures a few hundred tons of CO2 a day. That's a start--but a typical 500-megawatt power plant produces about 10,000 tons daily. Collectively, America's coal-fired power plants generate 1.5 billion tons per year. Capturing that would mean filling 30 million barrels with liquid CO2 every single day--about one and a half times the volume of crude oil the country consumes. It took roughly a century to build the infrastructure we use to distribute petroleum products. Could we build an even bigger CCS infrastructure of pumps, pipelines and wells quickly enough to hit the ambitious targets the climate bill envisions? Serious plans to engineer--much less finance--such a vast project aren't even on the table.

Here's a final problem: We don't know if the gas will stay buried. We could easily spend hundreds of billions injecting CO2 into the earth only to have it start leaking out again in a few decades. None of this means that CCS is impossible to achieve. But it is a dangerous gamble to assume that it will become technically and economically feasible any time soon.

At the moment, the Senate's climate bill is on the back burner. And many Americans remain dubious about both the causes and the appropriate solutions for global warming. (Recent revelations that several climate scientists apparently tried to squelch legitimate debate certainly don't inspire confidence.) But concern over greenhouse gas emissions will continue, and the pressure to regu-late them is growing. Wouldn't it be a shame if we created a policy that burdens American consumers with higher energy prices and yet does virtually nothing to reduce our CO2 emissions? By embracing the clean-coal myth, that lose-lose scenario may be exactly what we stand to achieve.

Sadly, although it might make little economic or scientific sense, the political logic behind clean coal is overwhelming. Coal is mined in some politically potent states--Illinois, Montana, West Virginia, Wyoming--and the coal industry spends millions on lobbying. The end result of the debate is all too likely to resemble Congress's corn-based ethanol mandates: legislation that employs appealing buzzwords to justify subsidies to a politically favored constituency--while actually worsening the problem it seeks to solve.

The focus on mythical clean coal is particularly frustrating because practical, cost-effective alternatives do exist--and I don't mean just wind and solar power. Natural gas is plentiful in the U.S., and gas-fired power plants produce only about half as much CO2 as coal. Not only that, but once it's ready, the CCS technology envisioned for coal plants would be even more effective if used with natural gas. Tiny gas-fired cogeneration plants in individual homes could also help. Because these mini electrical generating systems use their waste heat to drive the homes' climate control systems, they avoid the huge energy losses involved in making power at distant facilities. This technology exists today. Nuclear power is another proven, low-CO2-emitting option--and despite public fears, U.S. nuclear plants have been paragons of safety compared to the harm done by coal-fired plants.

The cleanest energy option of all is also the closest at hand: conservation. As clean-energy guru Amory Lovins has shown, its almost always -cheaper to save energy than to mine or drill for it. And there are still massive efficiencies to be found almost everywhere energy is used. Boosting incentives for insulation, next-gen LED lights and ultraefficient smart appliances could do more than carbon sequestration to reduce CO2 emissions in the coming decades.

Let's be clear. We should continue research into making coal cleaner--that fuel will be a vital part of our energy mix for decades. But let's not allow clean-coal myths to divert us from real-world energy alternatives that work today.

Read more: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/4339171


Edited by Seabreeze (14/04/2013 18:37)
Edit Reason: Title changed slightly to encourage discussion
_________________________
Why is it in the era of "Time saving" devices, that people are more "Time poor" than ever?

Humans think they are the fabric of society,when they are merely part of the thread.


Top
#1189409 - 14/04/2013 15:06 Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4219
Loc: El Arish
Study spells out fatal danger of coal pollution

Particulates from coal combustion are a serious health hazard. A study commissioned by Greenpeace warns of this fatal danger from coal-fired power plants.
It's a study that made headlines: Some 33,000 years of life are lost every year in Germany and neighboring countries due to particulate matter emitted by coal-fired power plants in Germany. That's according to a study released recently by the Institute for Energy Economics and the Rational Use of Energy, of Stuttgart University. This translates into about 3,100 premature deaths every year.
Particulate matter does indeed cause chronic bronchitis, asthma, cardiovascular disease and cancer, when microscopically small particles are inhaled, entering the lungs and thus the bloodstream. Such particles can be directly released during the process of coal combustion. But the majority forms later in the air - through chemical reaction, as one of the authors of the Greenpeace study explained in an interview with DW.
"Sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) released through combustion react with ammonia to become ammonium sulphate and ammonium nitrate," said Rainer Friedrich, a professor from Stuttgart University. "That's how we get particulate matter," he added. Agricultural fertilizers are responsible for the largest share of ammonia in the atmosphere.

Using emissions data collected by the European Environment Agency, the researchers calculated and modeled the chemical reactions that happen in the air, as well as the resulting pollution to which the European population is exposed. They also considered the results of the broadest and best-known studies previously addressing mortality risks linked with particulate matter.
Rainer Friedrich said that all particulate matter emissions in Germany combined cause some 28,000 cases of premature death every year. Coal accounts for around 10 percent of particulate matter-related cases of premature mortality and disease. Road and sea traffic account for 23 percent, industrial processes account for 13 percent, and other combustion - such as wooden stoves - account for another 6 percent.
But agriculture is responsible for the largest share of such cases of diseases and mortality, at some 40 percent. That's because fertilization releases ammonia, which is required for the atmospheric chemical reactions in the first place.
Not everybody feels the effects of particulates, however. "There are people who are particularly sensitive and who die earlier than if they hadn't breathed in particulate matter," Friedrich said, adding that life expectancy can be reduced by as much as 10 years. "And then there are those who aren't affected by particulate pollution at all."
Need for awareness
Particulate pollution can cause diseases like asthma
Friedrich called particulate pollution the most harmful existing environmental factor, and wants to see pollution reduced as much as possible. "In many developing countries families live in huts and cook on an open fire. Levels of indoor pollution there need to be reduced urgently," he said.
Friedrich said the EU Commission was heading in the right direction by tightening air pollution control in Europe by law "bit by bit." But he also insisted that when setting particulate matter standards, it is important not to "focus on short-term pollution, but rather on long-term levels."
Particulate matter can indeed cause disease, a representative from VGB Power-Tech - the European technical association for power and heat generation - admitted in an interview with DW.
But Christoph Wesselmann, the association's spokesman, stressed that coal-power stations only contributed a few percent to the total emissions of particulate matter in Germany. In addition, said Wesselmann, smokestacks at coal-fired power plants reach high enough into the sky to broadly distribute particulate matter in order to eliminate health danger.
Greenpeace demands phase-out
Environmental organization Greenpeace wants the coal industry and politicians to act now, and phase out coal-generated electricity by the year 2040. "To avoid cases of mortality and disease, politicians urgently need to put an end to coal for good," said Gerald Neubauer, an energy expert with Greenpeace.
He added that for the time being, all coal power stations ought to be equipped with the best filter technology to reduce pollutant emissions.

http://www.dw.de/study-spells-out-fatal-danger-of-coal-pollution/a-16724254
_________________________
Why is it in the era of "Time saving" devices, that people are more "Time poor" than ever?

Humans think they are the fabric of society,when they are merely part of the thread.


Top
#1189410 - 14/04/2013 15:10 Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4219
Loc: El Arish
President Obama Must Protect Our Nation's Water from Power Plant Pollution

The groups are urging the release of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed "Steam Electric Power Generating Category Effluent Limitation Guidelines" for public comment by the court-ordered deadline of April 19th.
"Coal fired power plants are the largest water polluters in the U.S. They account for nearly three quarters of toxic water pollution," said Robert Wendelgass, Clean Water Action President and CEO. "The amount of toxic pollution, which includes arsenic, mercury, cadmium and selenium, which are all harmful to humans and aquatic life - are incredible and must be drastically reduced."
Wastewater discharge rules for power plants have not been updated for more than thirty years. They allow millions of pounds of heavy metals to pollute our water every year. Much of this toxic pollution comes from coal ash ponds and sludge from air pollution control scrubbers. In the absence of a federal rule, nearly 80% of discharge permits for coal-fired power plants now allow unlimited discharges of arsenic, mercury, cadmium, selenium and other toxics. As air pollution control technologies improve, these discharges will only increase.
"The time for action is now. Without strong limits on power plant water pollution, this toxic waste will continue to be transferred from our air to our water," Wendelgass continued, "for the future of our water, EPA must ignore polluters' requests to delay and move forward and publish a proposed rule to deal with this pollution. Coal plants have been poisoning our water and our communities for far too long."

http://www.utilityproducts.com/news/2013...-pollution.html
_________________________
Why is it in the era of "Time saving" devices, that people are more "Time poor" than ever?

Humans think they are the fabric of society,when they are merely part of the thread.


Top
#1189420 - 14/04/2013 17:13 Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654


Exxon Hates Your Children


Imagine if your government gave a company a sweet deal to build your local playground. Then, that company dumped toxic waste underneath where your kids play everyday, just because it was the most profitable thing for them to do.

What would you do? Obviously you’d protect your children and demand that the company fully pay to clean up their mess. You’d demand that the company pay for any medical help needed by your kids. Finally, you’d demand that your government immediately stop sending your tax dollars — subsidies — to that company.

That company is Exxon, the playground is our planet, and the sweet deal they get is by way of massive government handouts. But Exxon is not alone; their competitors and industry friends in the fossil fuel game are all running their businesses in a way that is ruining our children’s futures.

In short, if you judge Exxon and other fossil fuel companies not by the words on their press releases, but by their actions and predictable consequences, Exxon really must hate your children. The facts speak for themselves.

Consider the following:

Exxon must hate your children because their business model depends on drilling for more and more of the fuels that cause climate disruption, even though fossil fuel companies have already discovered significantly more oil, gas and coal than scientists say we can safely burn. They are creating climate chaos every day — and they’re getting rich doing it.

Even the International Energy Agency now agrees that in order to have even chances of limiting global warming to just 2 degrees Celsius (beyond which the worst impacts of warming will kick in), two-thirds of the current proven reserves of fossil fuels must remain in the ground by 2050.

Exxon must hate your children because, for years, they spent millions funding a coordinated campaign to create confusion about climate science, which slowed the move towards a more sustainable future. Now Exxon (finally) admits that climate change is a problem, but…

They say they can’t predict what will happen, and Therefore they will continue business as usual.

In June 2012, Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon, acknowledged that burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet, but said society will be able to “adapt”. Tillerson blamed a public that is “illiterate” in science and math, a “lazy” press, and advocacy groups that “manufacture fear” for misconceptions around the oil and gas industry.

Exxon must hate your children because they and other fossil fuel companies send campaign contributions to candidates for Congress, and in turn, they get massive subsidies…at the expense of more important causes. For every one dollar Big Oil spends on political contributions, they get $59 back in subsidies — a 5800% rate of return. Meanwhile, they make record profits — in 2011, just the 5 biggest oil companies alone (including Exxon) made roughly $135 billion in profits. The at least $10 billion annually in our tax dollars that goes to supporting these rich fossil fuel companies should instead go to building a safe future for all our children.

Exxon must hate your children because climate change threatens the future of all of our children, and they seem to just ignore it. Even before Superstorm Sandy hit the East Coast of the United States, we were witnessing climate impacts on a daily basis, and they’re only getting worse. Just this summer, we’ve seen drought engulf the breadbasket of America. We’ve seen freak storms ravage the Midwest and east coast. All of these impacts are consistent with scientific predictions of climate change. Yet Exxon continues drilling and funding Congressional campaigns, in order to get more subsidies to feed their addiction to their climate-destroying profits.

So, to Exxon, your children’s safe futures stand in the way of their massive profits. They peddle influence, throw their money around, and lobby their way to more subsidies, more obscene profits…and a more dangerous future for the rest of us.

Exxon, and all other oil, gas and coal companies, talk a good game. Their slick ads — which they have the money to place almost everywhere thanks to record profits supplemented by government handouts — promise jobs, prosperity, energy security and a brighter future. Unfortunately, the only promise that they are likely to deliver on is the promise of profits — which won’t matter for your children, who will have to pay the price.

This is not a problem we will solve overnight. To start though, we can demand that Exxon, and all other oil companies, stop using our money to fund climate destruction.
_________________________

Top
#1189427 - 14/04/2013 18:11 Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
You are such an existential individual Yas!!!! You ride your bike everywhere I presume? Grow ALL your own food I presume? Everything in your house is made by you, including the house? With timber grown by you? And cut by hand with tools made by?? your water is caught in either a MAN made tank or a MAN made dam using machines that use your hated MAN made products.. All wires and and pipe work is some how mad by you? And past inspection by the council building code?


Edited by Seabreeze (14/04/2013 18:39)
Edit Reason: removed personal attack/remark

Top
#1189429 - 14/04/2013 18:20 Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? [Re: Simmosturf]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4219
Loc: El Arish
Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
You are such an existential individual Yas!!!! You ride your bike everywhere I presume? Grow ALL your own food I presume? Everything in your house is made by you, including the house? With timber grown by you? And cut by hand with tools made by?? All wires and and pipe work is some how mad by you? And past inspection by the council building code?


Of course i grow my own food, as you have already seen in a previous thread..

The house i am in is build from locally soucreced timbers, yes the backyard, the roof is from another house that was destroyed by cyclone winifred and basically the rest is recycled. I have made many a thing around my property, i made a table from a tree that had fallen...Some people...
Now what has all that got to do with Dirty Coal fired power?
_________________________
Why is it in the era of "Time saving" devices, that people are more "Time poor" than ever?

Humans think they are the fabric of society,when they are merely part of the thread.


Top
#1189430 - 14/04/2013 18:21 Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4219
Loc: El Arish
Facts about air pollution

Published 15 hours ago
POLLUTANTS
The five major air pollutants are regulated by the federal Clean Air Act:

— ground-level ozone, caused by chemical reactions between nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compounds in sunlight.

— particle pollution, also known as particulate matter, produced by coal-fired power plants, industrial boilers, diesel vehicles and woodstoves and other sources. Smoke from old, uncertified wood stoves is a big source of such pollution, the EPA said. Its web site, www.epa.gov/woodstoves, listed energy efficient wood stoves.

— carbon monoxide, which can come from incomplete combustion in heaters, furnaces, wood stoves, fireplaces, automobile exhaust.

sulfur dioxide, mostly from power plants. It narrows airways and causes wheezing, chest tightness

— nitrogen dioxide, also mainly from power plants, can mix with other substances to form smog and soot..


The federal government listed ozone and particles as the greatest threat to human health. Particle pollution produces pieces small enough to enter lung tissue and the bloodstream, leading to an estimated tens of thousands of premature deaths, heart attacks and asthma attacks every year, according to the American Lung Association.

For each pollutant, the EPA has set air quality standards for protecting public health.

For more information on pollutants, visit the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ web site at http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/AirQuality.

HEALTH PROBLEMS
The federal Environmental Protection Agency noted these effects from ozone, whose levels are more likely to be higher during warm months:

— irritation to the respiratory system, leading to coughing, sore throats, chest tightness or chest pain when breathing deeply.

— damaging lung cells, which, when replaced, could scar tissue and reduce lung functions if replacement happens repeatedly.

— increasing the chance of infection by reducing the number of cells that clean out particulates and bacteria from the lungs. It also could reduce the number and effectiveness of white blood cells.

— worsening asthma, requiring doctor visits or medication.

— worsening other lung diseases, such as emphysema and bronchitis.

Children are at higher risk of breathing difficulties, possibly causing permanent lung damage.

http://www.kenoshanews.com/news/facts_about_air_pollution_470995100.html
_________________________
Why is it in the era of "Time saving" devices, that people are more "Time poor" than ever?

Humans think they are the fabric of society,when they are merely part of the thread.


Top
#1189432 - 14/04/2013 18:28 Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
The tools you used are are made from? The steel, although recycled is made from? The computer your using is made from? Your whole entire life has been created using?


Edited by Seabreeze (14/04/2013 18:40)
Edit Reason: personal attack

Top
#1189433 - 14/04/2013 18:28 Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
...


Edited by Seabreeze (14/04/2013 18:41)
Edit Reason: baiting

Top
#1189435 - 14/04/2013 19:14 Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
I'll put it up again... Man progressed.. We used carbon based products to get were we are today... Been moderated but the message stays the same.. Don't criticise our way of life due to coal powered Electricity for the way you live.. Very annoying!!!!

Top
#1189440 - 14/04/2013 19:56 Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
Brett Guy Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 05/10/2010
Posts: 5159
Loc: Bently Park, Cairns
Or you could ask how all your second hand good were transported? Was i by horse and cart made by hand out of natural materials?etc etc. The only reason we live the long comfortable lives we do is because the resources we have consumed. Like it or not we are all responsible for that consumption.

Top
#1189446 - 14/04/2013 20:22 Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
COAL & STEEL



Steel is an essential material for modern life. The manufacture of steels delivers the goods and services that our societies need – healthcare, telecommunications, improved agricultural practices, better transport networks, clean water and access to reliable and affordable energy.

Global steel production is dependent on coal.
70% of the steel produced today uses coal.
Metallurgical coal – or coking coal – is a vital ingredient in the steel making process.
World crude steel production was 1.4 billion tonnes in 2010.
Around 721 million tonnes of coking coal was used in the production of steel.


How is Steel Produced?
Steel is an alloy of iron and carbon. Steel is produced via two main routes

# Integrated smelting involving Blast Furnace (BF) iron-making followed by Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF)

# Electric arc furnaces (EAF).

Raw Materials

Steel is an alloy based primarily on iron. As iron occurs only as iron oxides in the earth’s crust, the ores must be converted, or ‘reduced’, using carbon. The primary source of this carbon is coking coal.

Coke Making

Coking coal is converted to coke by driving off impurities to leave almost pure carbon. The physical properties of coking coal cause the coal to soften, liquefy and then resolidify into hard but porous lumps when heated in the absence of air.
Coking coal must also have low sulphur and phosphorous contents.
Almost all metallurgical coal is used in coke ovens.
The coking process consists of heating coking coal to around 1000-1100ºC in the absence of oxygen to drive off the volatile compounds (pyrolysis).
This process results in a hard porous material - coke. Coke is produced in a coke battery which is composed of many coke ovens stacked in rows into which coal is loaded.
The coking process takes place over long periods of time between 12-36 hours in the coke ovens.
Once pushed out of the vessel the hot coke is then quenched with either water or air to cool it before storage or is transferred directly to the blast furnace for use in iron making.

Iron Making

Iron ore is mined in around 50 countries – the largest producers are Australia, Brazil and China. Around 98% of iron ore is used in steel-making.
During the iron-making process, a blast furnace is fed with the iron ore, coke and small quantities of fluxes (minerals, such as limestone, which are used to collect impurities).
Air which is heated to about 1200°C is blown into the furnace through nozzles in the lower section.
The air causes the coke to burn, producing carbon monoxide which reacts with the iron ore, as well as heat to melt the iron.
Finally, the tap hole at the bottom of the furnace is opened and molten iron and slag (impurities) are drained off.

Basic Oxygen Furnace

The most commonly applied process for steel-making is the integrated steel-making process via the Blast Furnace – Basic Oxygen Furnace.
In the basic oxygen furnace, the iron is combined with varying amounts of steel scrap (less than 30%) and small amounts of flux.
A lance is introduced in the vessel and blows 99% pure oxygen causing a temperature rise to 1700°C.
The scrap melts, impurities are oxidised, and the carbon content is reduced by 90%, resulting in liquid steel.
Other processes can follow – secondary steel-making processes – where the properties of steel are determined by the addition of other elements, such as boron, chromium and molybdenum, amongst others, ensuring the exact specification can be met.

Optimal operation of the blast furnace demands the highest quality of raw materials – the carbon content of coke therefore plays a crucial role in terms of its effect in the furnace and on the hot metal quality.
A blast furnace fed with high quality coke requires less coke input, results in higher quality hot metal and better productivity. Overall costs may be lower, as fewer impurities in the coke mean smaller amounts of flux must be used.
Around 0.6 tonnes (600 kg) of coke produces 1 tonne (1000 kg) of steel, which means that around 770 kg of coal are used to produce 1 tonne of steel through this production route.
Basic Oxygen Furnaces currently produce about 70% of the world’s steel.
A further 29% of steel is produced in Electric Arc Furnaces.

Electric Arc Furnaces

The Electric Arc Furnace process, or mini-mill, does not involve iron-making.
It reuses existing steel, avoiding the need for raw materials and their processing.
The furnace is charged with steel scrap, it can also include some direct reduced iron (DRI) or pig iron for chemical balance.

The Electric Arc Furnace operates on the basis of an electrical charge between two electrodes providing the heat for the process.
The power is supplied through the electrodes placed in the furnace, which produce an arc of electricity through the scrap steel (around 35 million watts), which raises the temperature to 1600˚C, melting the scrap. Any impurities may be removed through the use of fluxes and draining off slag through the taphole.

Electric Arc Furnaces do not use coal as a raw material, but many are reliant on the electricity generated by coal-fired power plant elsewhere in the grid.
Around 150 kg of coal are used to produce 1 tonne of steel in electric arc furnaces.

Pulverised Coal Injection

Pulverised Coal Injection (PCI) technology involves injecting coal directly into the blast furnace to provide the carbon for iron-making – displacing some of the coke required for the process.
A wider range of coals can be used in Pulverised Coal Injection, including steam coal which has a lower carbon content than coking coal.
This method has a number of advantages, including reducing overall costs and prolonging the life of existing coke batteries.

Recycling

Steel is 100% recyclable, with some 482 million tonnes of recycled steel used in 2007. The Basic Oxygen Furnace process uses up to 30% recycled steel (scrap) and around 90-100% is used in Electric Arc Furnace production.

Top
#1189458 - 14/04/2013 22:39 Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? [Re: Simmosturf]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4219
Loc: El Arish
Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
I'll put it up again... Man progressed.. We used carbon based products to get were we are today... Been moderated but the message stays the same.. Don't criticise our way of life due to coal powered Electricity for the way you live.. Very annoying!!!!


What is your solution?
Build more coal fired power plants? pump more pollution and noxious chemicals into the air? pollute the water even more than it already is?
Face it the current method of power generation just does not cut it anymore, something has to give, everyone knows that coal fired power is one of the most polluting industries.

Look at the Air quality that they now have in China, would you want to live in that sort of environment everyday?
_________________________
Why is it in the era of "Time saving" devices, that people are more "Time poor" than ever?

Humans think they are the fabric of society,when they are merely part of the thread.


Top
#1189462 - 14/04/2013 23:51 Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14286
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
It isn't illegal to export coal nor is it illegal to export uranium with the right licences so I don't see your point about dirty coal fired power stations.

Are we supposed to feel guilty because China uses coal to make power? We export coal so we are guilty of air pollution in a country we have no control over it being burnt, in a power plant not owned or operated by Australians? Are you serious?

We don't own or operate the power stations and just like fuel companies can't be held responsible for the hoon killing his mates in a car crash purely because they provided the fuel the car used, neither can we be held responsible for how or what they do with the coal they bought from us.

I buy soy wax from a supplier that certifies that the soy fields it comes from are certified rainforest alliance (whatever that means)- I have no real idea where it comes from, nor do I actually care - the box just says product of Indonesia or Malaysia. I have a clear conscious because it has already been harvested and if I didn't buy it someone else would have. I feel zero guilt about using the resources I have to hand, be it power, technology, health care, medications, fishes from 3rd world countries, coal fired electricity, petrol, LPG etc.


Edited by Seabreeze (15/04/2013 14:57)
Edit Reason: personal remarks. Focus on the topic, rather than the person please.
_________________________
785mm Jan
799mm Feb
130 March
2019 Total 1714mm
2018 Total 822mm






Top
#1189463 - 15/04/2013 00:14 Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
Bill Illis Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/07/2010
Posts: 1003

Is the problem Coal or is it pollution?

If the problem is pollution, then power plants can be made to install scrubbing equipment etc, that can remove almost all of the problem pollution.

Or is the problem Coal power itself.

You know, renewables will never replace Coal.

Some other power source might, but it will not be solar or wind power. We have been working on these technologies for a hundred or even thousands of years. They just have limited capacity.

When humans have been working with something for hundreds of years and still can't make it work, then it most likely is just not going to ever work good enough. It is just impossible given the physics and chemistry of the universe. Just like it is impossible to go faster than light. It is what it is. It doesn't make one feel better about the environment or the world, but facts are facts.

Top
#1189472 - 15/04/2013 08:44 Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Australian coal production [ est ] 2012 / 2013 = 407 mill. tonnes

Australian coal exports [ est ] 2012 / 2013= approx 340 mill. tonnes

_________________________________________

The figures below do NOT include the huge electrical energy requirements to run the steel and cement production plants energy intensive infrastructure and control systems

World steel production = Around 721 million tonnes of coking coal was used in the production of steel.

World cement production = 3.6 billion tonnes

It takes about 200 kg of coal to produce one tonne of cement

Therefore annual world cement production uses about 720 million tonnes of coal

[ 330-400 kgs cement to make one cubic metre of concrete ]

Total World Coal use in Steel and Cement production = 1.4 billion tonnes. [ 4 times Australia's total coal exports ]

____________________________________________

COAL & CEMENT

The cement industry requires energy to produce cement and coal is an important source of the energy needed.
Cement is critical to the construction industry – mixed with water, and gravel it forms concrete, one of the key construction materials available today.
Varying the mix of cement, sand and aggregate enables concrete to be used in a range of applications. Products can be designed, coloured and shaped to accommodate a variety of environmental conditions, architectural requirements and to withstand a wide range of loads, stresses and impacts.
Over 3.3 billion tonnes of cement were consumed globally in 2010. This is 22% more than in 2007.
China's cement consumption alone reached over 1.8 billion tonnes, or 38% more than in 2007.

What is Cement?

Cement is made from a mixture of calcium carbonate (generally in the form of limestone), silica, iron oxide and alumina.
A high-temperature kiln, often fuelled by coal, heats the raw materials to a partial melt at 1450°C, transforming them chemically and physically into a substance known as clinker.
This grey pebble-like material is comprised of special compounds that give cement its binding properties. Clinker is mixed with gypsum and ground to a fine powder to make cement.

Coal is used as an energy source in cement production.
Large amounts of energy are required to produce cement.
It takes about 200 kg of coal to produce one tonne of cement and about 300-400 kg of cement is needed to produce one cubic meter of concrete (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2002).

Coal combustion products (CCPs), such as Fly Ash also play an important role in cement manufacture and in the construction industry generally.



Cement;

A wide range of coals are used in cement plants. As is the case with many coal applications, the plant can be designed in part to suit the coal. Although coal the quality criteria are not very exacting, it is important that variability in quality be small, as the composition of the raw feed must normally be tailored to the coal ash chemistry. As the rotary kiln is by the most common cement plant in operation the following discussion focuses on this type of plant.

In direct firing systems the coal is milled on-line with the pulverized coal being directly fed to the kiln burner. The quantity of primary air used with direct firing systems is normally that required to dry the coal and sweep the mill, and is more than required for transporting the pulverised coal or producing a satisfactory flame.

Direct firing systems are not particularly suited to high moisture coals because:
The moisture which is evaporated during milling is fed into the kiln with the primary air. This has the effect of lowering the flame temperature, and process efficiency.

Additional mill air may be required so that the coal can be effectively dried without having excessive air preheat. This additional air also enters the kiln as primary air. Excessive primary air also has a similar effect to moisture.

In indirect firing systems the coal is milled off-line and is stored in a bin from which it is fed to the kiln burner. High moisture in coals can be associated with low rank and the propensity for spontaneous combustion. This could mean problems when storing the PF in badly designed bins of an indirect fired system.
If coals which are subject to spontaneous combustion are to be used successfully, they may need to be sold selectively to plants with a proven track record in this area.

Milling behaviour of coals for cement kilns has special significance because kiln operators generally place some emphasis on tailoring the coal fineness to suit its reactivity. The accepted measure of coal particle size in the cement industry is the percentage greater than 90ìm. It is widely held that low volatile matter in the coal can be compensated by finer grinding. In order for this option to be open the mills must have the spare capacity to achieve finer grinding, or the coals must have a high Hardgrove Grindability Index (HGI). The trade-off between HGI and VM is therefore important.
Fortunately, low VM bituminous coals tend to have high HGI values.

The main consideration for coal storage is the propensity for spontaneous combustion and explosion of stored PF. If fresh PF remains in one spot, particularly in the presence of hot moist air, self heating and ignition can occur rapidly. This causes any dispersion of coal dust in air, within certain concentration limits, to ignite and explode.

In order to heat the clinker to the required temperature of around 1500°C, it is necessary to have a flame temperature of around 1700°C. This is achieved by providing preheat to the secondary air and limiting the quantity of primary air. As noted above, for high moisture coals in direct fired systems there may be an excess of moist primary air and the required temperature may not be obtained. However for indirect firing systems using dry primary air, a satisfactory flame temperature can be achieved even with low energy coals.

The correct distribution of temperature along the kiln requires that the flame front be located close to the discharge end of the kiln, close to the burner. Coals which are unreactive and slow to ignite may therefore cause problems in some kilns, and in these cases medium to high volatile coals would normally be specified.
The use of swirl burners with low volatile coals is not always successful, as the diverging jet may impinge on the kiln walls just as the coal is igniting. The reducing conditions that this causes in the clinker affects product quality, and damages the refractory lining of the kiln.
While it is normal to have some build up of deposits in the clinkering zone of a cement kiln, excessive deposits in this area, called "clinker ring", can hinder the movement of solids through the kiln and in extreme cases require plant stoppages. A second problem is the formation of deposits in the suspension preheaters.
These problems are commonly associated with the presence of chlorine, sodium, potassium, and sulphur. When the levels of these elements are considered, the combined effects of coal ash and raw feed composition must be considered. The major source of sodium and potassium would normally be the raw feed, however coals with unusually high sulphur or chlorine could contribute to deposit formation and would not be favoured as cement kiln coals.

[ Coal Use series to be continued ]



Top
#1189480 - 15/04/2013 09:53 Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? [Re: SBT]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4219
Loc: El Arish
Basically Coal is a dinosaur, the basic method of coal fired power haves changed very little in the last 100 years, with technology going the way it is going it is just not keeping up, advancements are being made all the time, yet coal is still lagging behind the 8 ball in terms of power generation. Shouldn’t we not be looking at newer cleaner alternatives that do not pollute nor endanger the lives of millions of people every year? it seems that those that support coal and coal fired have the blinkers on when it comes to Coal.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
Indian coal power plants kill 120,000 people a year


Originally Posted By: ROM
The exhaust from those four smoke stacks is truly a very tiny price to pay for yours and probably another half a million others enjoying the power from that one source that enables them to enjoy a life style and comforts that means they need never suffer from cold nor heat nor discomfort nor hunger, a quality of lifestyle that has never been matched by any civilisation nor by the most powerful emperors and rulers ever before in the history of mankind.


Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
So you would be happy for more and more smoke and emissions to be pumped into the atmosphere.Would you like your area to resemble China and the pollution they currently have?.


Originally Posted By: ROM
"We will cough a bit more so that we can bring another half a billion people a much better life by supplying them with cheap reliable energy".



Now if that were “alternative” power sources that were causing the same sort of problems the sceptics of this world would be up in arms demanding blood, it seems like double standards to me that it is fine for a power company to operate a Coal fired power plant that belches millions of tones of pollution, CO2 and Toxins into the air that affect millions of people every year and operate at low efficiencies, then on the other hand there are companies that want to operate clean renewable sources of energy that do not pump out pollution, CO2 nor Toxins into the air, yet pro coal supporters do not want to know about it?
Why? does it boil down to money?, the old argument of Base load” power

Originally Posted By: Bill Illis
When humans have been working with something for hundreds of years and still can't make it work, then it most likely is just not going to ever work good enough. It is just impossible given the physics and chemistry of the universe. Just like it is impossible to go faster than light. It is what it is. It doesn't make one feel better about the environment or the world, but facts are facts.


My sentiments exactly! Coal fired power has been around for over 100 years and the efficiencies have only crept up to 30-40% in the last few decades.

Originally Posted By: Bill Illis

Is the problem Coal or is it pollution?

If the problem is pollution, then power plants can be made to install scrubbing equipment etc, that can remove almost all of the problem pollution.


Digging up the coal from the ground is just as bad,look at the environmental damage that is caused to the land during and at the end of the mines life, yes i am sure you will say the area will be rehabilitated.... but how can you rehabilitate a massive great hole in the ground, without causing more damage elsewhere?
Look at the Deaths associated with coal mining every year, look at the damage it does to miners and the health every year, the people that handle the coal, all the particulates that are released into the atmosphere every year.
Face it Coal, and coal fired power are and out-dated method of power production and have reached the end of their life and it is time to be replaced with newer cleaner options.

scrubbers might help reduce the amount of Toxic matter that is release into the air, but the CO2 is still there and all of the other pollutants that are released from Burning coal do not magically disappear because they have installed scrubbers, the pollution then just ends up in the waterways or is dumped elsewhere.
Originally Posted By: SBT
It isn't illegal to export coal nor is it illegal to export uranium with the right licences so I don't see your point about dirty coal fired power stations.

Are we supposed to feel guilty because China uses coal to make power? We export coal so we are guilty of air pollution in a country we have no control over it being burnt, in a power plant not owned or operated by Australians? Are you serious?

We don't own or operate the power stations and just like fuel companies can't be held responsible for the hoon killing his mates in a car crash purely because they provided the fuel the car used, neither can we be held responsible for how or what they do with the coal they bought from us.


I buy soy wax from a supplier that certifies that the soy fields it comes from are certified rainforest alliance (whatever that means)- I have no real idea where it comes from, nor do I actually care - the box just says product of Indonesia or Malaysia. I have a clear conscious because it has already been harvested and if I didn't buy it someone else would have. I feel zero guilt about using the resources I have to hand, be it power, technology, health care, medications, fishes from 3rd world countries, coal fired electricity, petrol, LPG etc. You on the other hand come across as being completely guilty just breathing on the same planet I live on for some reason. I said it in the Ag Thread - don't try laying you green guilt trips on me - I won't accept it.


Are you serious? we can’t do anything? what a lame excuse, people have been putting forward the clean renewable options, that do provide electricity, but for some strange reason some want to cling to a polluting out-dated dinosaur that in itself is inefficient.
If more people stood up to things then issues like this would not get out of hand but the way it is (like with food production) we would rather put it in someone else's hands and let them do it for us, probably because we have no time....
_________________________
Why is it in the era of "Time saving" devices, that people are more "Time poor" than ever?

Humans think they are the fabric of society,when they are merely part of the thread.


Top
#1189482 - 15/04/2013 10:01 Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4219
Loc: El Arish
Company cites financial woes in seeking reprieve; environmentalists say move imperils residents' health


Four months after filing for bankruptcy protection, the owner of three coal-fired power plants in suburban Chicago on Thursday won a two-year reprieve from tough state limits on their lung-damaging emissions.

The ruling from the Illinois Pollution Control Board allows Midwest Generation to skirt restrictions on sulfur dioxide emissions from its Joliet, Romeoville and Waukegan plants in 2015 and 2016, though the company agreed to take less aggressive steps to reduce its coal fleet's pollution during each of those years

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-...west-generation

Air Pollution in China: The Kids Aren't Alright

Last fall, a startling new report revealed that air pollution caused an estimated 3.2 million premature deaths worldwide in 2010. Now, thanks to a new analysis by our friends at the Health Effects Institute (HEI), we understand that nearly 40 percent of the world’s premature deaths attributable to air pollution (1.2 million people) occurred in China.

Particulate matter is now the fourth-leading cause of death in China, behind dietary risks, high blood pressure, and smoking. And, unless current trends change, urban air pollution is projected to be the number one killer worldwide by 2050. (It’s worth noting that this is problem is not unique to China—HEI also reports that roughly 800,000 people die prematurely every year in India and other South Asian countries).

Now, those who have been following Beijing’s “airpocalypse” are beginning to wonder: what effect is China’s pollution having on children and the elderly?

First, the kids.

The many reasons why air pollution affects children so strongly are well-understood. There are developmental reasons—their lungs are still growing, and the respiratory defenses that adults use to fight infections are still developing. There are also behavioral reasons—children are more active and spend more time outdoors than adults, both of which mean that they take deeper breaths, bringing polluted air into the deepest recesses of their lungs.

In the early 2000s, NRDC supported an extensive study on the link between air pollution and children’s health in China. Led by Dr. Frederica Perera, Director of the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health, a group of scientists examined two sets of women who delivered babies in Chongqing – a major city in Southwest China – before and after a heavily polluting coal-fired power plant was torn down..The study found that prenatal exposure to coal-burning emissions was associated with significantly lower average developmental scores and reduced motor development at age two.Conversely, the study found significant and immediate improvements in the health of the babies who were born after the closing of the power plant (full report available here). There have also been other studies with similar results, which Christina Larson of Bloomberg Businessweek captures in her article.

I remember visiting Chongqing in 2006 and meeting the children involved in the study. It broke my heart to realize that the children born before the power plant was torn down were starting life at a significant disadvantage and didn’t even know it.

Full Story
_________________________
Why is it in the era of "Time saving" devices, that people are more "Time poor" than ever?

Humans think they are the fabric of society,when they are merely part of the thread.


Top
#1189496 - 15/04/2013 10:54 Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
windyrob Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 02/12/2007
Posts: 484
Loc: edithvale
Yas, you actually need to consider the pro and cons to understand why coal, while not ideal, is still the best we have (although we all hope not for long)

Cons
1/I agree that death and disease due to mining coal is unacceptable, unfortunately it will still be required for steel making so there will still be an ongoing problem.
2/Pre 1970s designed power stations are highly polluting due to SO2/heavy metals/particulates. The US clean air act in the 70s resulted in engineering responses that reduced much of these problems. I agree that coal station that do not meet these requirements should be replaced/upgraded as soon as possible!

Pros
1/Coal is by far the cheapest and most widely available energy source and has lifted humanity out of poverty. It is also responsible for dramatically lowering air pollution and preventing wholesale environmental degradation.
This is because Coal replaced Wood!
2/Coal burning releases CO2 which happens to be the basis of all photosynthetic life on the planet and currently at the lowest level since life began. We are in a carbon drought and an ice age for gods sake! Anti CO2 is Anti life! CO2 is a resource, not a pollutant, we should be growing algal biofuels with it mind you!
3/The technology has improved enormously in just a few decades. You aspersions are entirely accurate of Coal power stations only 40 years ago but entirely inaccurate on modern stations. Why do you think China is so polluted and not the other industrial nations. They both use coal but one doesn't have pollution controls or a democracy!

Coal is the best we currently have but not perfect. I would love to see thorium or geothermal take over but until they can match the cost of coal power they just damage the economy. Wind and solar are useless, expensive, and ironically polluting. There are lakes full of toxic gunk from rare earths mining in china for those wind turbine magnets and the manufacture of solar cells actually produces more potent greenhouse gases than they will prevent in their lifetime use.



Top
#1189502 - 15/04/2013 11:52 Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? [Re: windyrob]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4219
Loc: El Arish
Originally Posted By: windyrob
1/Coal is by far the cheapest and most widely available energy source and has lifted humanity out of poverty. It is also responsible for dramatically lowering air pollution and preventing wholesale environmental degradation.
This is because Coal replaced Wood!!


Maybe when compared to the “industrial revolution” but pollution is steadily rising
Quote:
Sulphur dioxide

The health effects of sulphur dioxide pollution were exposed graphically during the "Great Smog" of London in 1952. This resulted in approximately 4000 premature deaths through heart disease and bronchitis. Since then, however, emissions have been significantly reduced through legislative measures. Research has shown that exposure for asthmatics is significantly more damaging than for normal subjects. Concentrations above 125 ppb may result in a fall in lung function in asthmatics. Tightness in the chest and coughing may also result at levels approaching 400 ppb. At levels above 400 ppb the lung function of asthmatics may be impaired to the extent that medical help is required. There have been several exceedences of levels in Northern Ireland due to the high use of solid fuel (coal) in homes for heating purposes. Sulphur dioxide pollution is considered more harmful when particulate and other pollution concentrations are high. This is known as the synergistic effect, or more commonly the "cocktail effect." Therefore the monitoring networks in the UK incorporate both smoke and sulphur dioxide.
Asthma and air pollution

There has been a steady rise in the number of reported asthma cases since the 1970s. Awareness of the disease has been significant in the rising numbers of hospital admissions although air pollution problems are also believed to be significant in the rising number of cases. High concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, ozone and particulates (especially PM10) can all trigger breathing difficulties in asthmatics.


.

Originally Posted By: windyrob
2/Coal burning releases CO2 which happens to be the basis of all photosynthetic life on the planet and currently at the lowest level since life began. We are in a carbon drought and an ice age for gods sake! Anti CO2 is Anti life! CO2 is a resource, not a pollutant, we should be growing algal biofuels with it mind you!


And were humans around at that time?
What was the ratio of carbon Dioxide to Oxygen?

Originally Posted By: windyrob
3/The technology has improved enormously in just a few decades. You aspersions are entirely accurate of Coal power stations only 40 years ago but entirely inaccurate on modern stations. Why do you think China is so polluted and not the other industrial nations. They both use coal but one doesn't have pollution controls or a democracy!


China is also now the factory for the world as everyone wants cheap Tech junk, but they all want to pay nothing for it, (because they can just chuck it out when it breaks,or they introduce a new model a month later with 1 tiny insignificant improvement so every one has to buy it!) so the consequence is that now all of the production is being centred in one area, and look at the consequences, they are playing catch up with the “developed Countries” at a rapid rate in terms of adding new coal fired power stations to cope with the juggernaut and the country just cannot cope with it, China is suffering because of the west.


Originally Posted By: windyrob
It is also responsible for dramatically lowering air pollution and preventing wholesale environmental degradation.








_________________________
Why is it in the era of "Time saving" devices, that people are more "Time poor" than ever?

Humans think they are the fabric of society,when they are merely part of the thread.


Top
Page 1 of 25 1 2 3 ... 24 25 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 44 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
Ansgar Berling, Instability, Krightlane, lynkim1
Forum Stats
29947 Members
32 Forums
24194 Topics
1529243 Posts

Max Online: 2985 @ 26/01/2019 12:05
Satellite Image