Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side?

Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/04/2013 14:59

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
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/04/2013 15:06

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
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/04/2013 15:10

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
Posted by: CeeBee

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/04/2013 17:13



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.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/04/2013 18:11

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?
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/04/2013 18:20

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?
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/04/2013 18:21

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
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/04/2013 18:28

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?
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/04/2013 18:28

...
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/04/2013 19:14

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!!!!
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/04/2013 19:56

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.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/04/2013 20:22

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.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/04/2013 22:39

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?
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/04/2013 23:51

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.
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/04/2013 00:14


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.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/04/2013 08:44

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 ]


Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/04/2013 09:53

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....
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/04/2013 10:01

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
Posted by: windyrob

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/04/2013 10:54

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.


Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/04/2013 11:52

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.








Posted by: ROM

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/04/2013 12:10

In reference to the apparently so polluting Cockatoo Coal mine in the post above.

Note the distance scale in the bottom LH corner.

Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/04/2013 13:10

Originally Posted By: ROM
Note the distance scale in the bottom LH corner.


And look at the size of it in comparison to the Township.



A little bit closer and you will also notice how close it is to a water course



the mine may look "small" now......

Quote:
planning is underway for a staged expansion of Baralaba mine and the Company’s nearby exploration grounds.

The operation sits within a larger 550km2 area of Cockatoo Coal exploration projects.


So it will only get bigger.

Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/04/2013 20:26

While I agree that your average coal mine is a scar on the landscape Just how big a scar would a renewable energy plant produce. Oh, and by the way those giant wind turbines are made of steel. Guess what that needs.....Coal. There is only one way to prevent massive negative impacts on the environment caused by human activity. Give up ALL of our comforts and live natural lives. Is anyone willing to do this? Answer...Very, very few.Those that are are have already removed themselves from modern society and I applaud them for having the courage of their convictions. Not me though.Not now anyway.
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/04/2013 20:59

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139141/thomas-n-thompson/choking-on-china


Cars drive on Jianguo Road on a hazy day in Beijing, 2013. (Jason Lee / Courtesy Reuters)

"Carbon dioxide emissions from cars in China are growing exponentially, replacing coal-fired power plants as the major source of pollution in major Chinese cities.



The deniers always fall back on the argument that because we don't live in tree houses and eat moss AGW is fake. If you quickly check other AGW threads the people who support the wholesale use of coal are the denialists of AGW. They deny anything and it's best not to waste your time with these people.

Yes we have built a great society on the back of coal, but guess what ? it's time to move on from that to cleaner energy as our population has exploded and the natural earth systems can't cope with the pollution.

Posted by: ColdFront

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/04/2013 22:20

I admire your guts for starting the thread YS. The resulting personal attacks were inevitable. So was the ridiculous argument that because you don't go the 100% green route you are somehow a hypocrite. So you're supposed to make your own nails too? GOLD!!!!! ....and shame on you for not using your forehead to hammer the nails home! What were you thinking?

You are entitled to your opinion and I commend you for resisting the trolls. The reality is however that all the while there is demand for a product it will be sold. Whether legally or otherwise. You don't really think the Americans (and us) are in Afghanistan on a peace mission do you?

O is for oil but also for Opium . Afghanistan produces more opium than any other nation! The world functions on lies. Coca Cola recently removed a chemical from their soft drink along with Pepsi that was found to cause cancer without any fanfare. Coal is a dirty product and attempting to deny it is foolish.


There is a lot of ignorance regarding alternatives and any mention of them will start a war or words. Ultimately hydro power is perhaps the answer or tapping into thermal energy beneath us as it is infinite. However MONEY is the inhibitor. China's demand for coal is insatiable but even they are slowly recognising the negatives and taking steps away from it. But what would they know right?


Meanwhile the Americans still use oil for heating but have nuclear powered warships. Priorities in order?
Posted by: refstar

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/04/2013 23:35

...
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 08:45

Thanks for your support CF, this thread was long overdue as the bulk seem to think that Coal fired power is the poster child of society and can do no wrong, but when you look into it coal has it's failings just like any other method of power generation, but the funny thing is no one wants to see or admit those faults.
I suppose it is similar to some parents the cannot see their child as being naughty or not Perfect, in their eyes they are perfect and can do no wrong......

Yes, wind/Solar does have it's short comings like coal fired, but at the end of the day solar/wind is not belching out Tonnes of pollution every day, tonnes of CO2, everyday,particulates, heavy metals, seems all of these things are ok, just so we can have a few “luxuries”!

Then there are the statements like you would have to move back into the forest or jungles so you do not use any of the earths resources to build your house, well the funny thing would be you would be happy living in the jungle with your tribe until one day, some Westerner came along with a bulldozer and said sorry guys we have a permit to explore and mine this area for coal and there is nothing you can do about it,so we are going to have to relocate you to another area, on the bright side we can equippe you with all the modern "luxuries" and you will even have power and it will make your life so much better! But the point is it wouldn't make them happy, the poor people would be happiest where they are doing what they always do without interference from the outside world!

Yes, i agree with your comment on the Opium, why do you think the US Gov fights so hard to control an area? after all even though Drugs are illegal there is still a huge amount of money involved-on BOTH sides.

the Basic method of Coal fired has not changed much over the last 100 years, but the people have, back then there was not as many cars, people, factories and the like, you ask the masses if they would prefer clean air or polluted air in their cities and you know what the response will be, but the funny thing is everyone is like sheep and does not want to do nothing about it they would prefer if SOMEONE ELSE does it.

Renewables may have their short comings but they have come along way in the past decade and will continue to improve all the time, unlike coal which cannot really go anywhere else now.

China is not as slow as people may take them for look at silver, until very recently the were a net exporter of Silver now they are a net importer of Silver, and yet their output of Silver commemorative coins has exploded,so basically what they are doing is buying everyone else’s silver that they want to offload “cheaply” and when the price skyrockets again because supply has tightened they will then start selling their own again
Posted by: ROM

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 09:04

Reality rules.
For those who believe that coal fired power should be banned right now, do your bit.
Go out to your power board, switch off all your mains power, remove all the fuses and drop them into the rubbish bin.
Set your clock, if it's not electric and time yourself to see how long it will take before you are scrabbling in that bin for those fuses.

Yes, I have been there and done that and have seen the past without any electricity or refrigeration or piped water or sealed roads or telecommunications or air travel and all the other trappings of civilisation now taken for granted and demanded by even those who claim they are living the so called simple life.
That was the reality of the life of 70 plus years ago.

And it was without the utter hypocrisy of those on here who claim to be living a simple life and environmentally but contribute nothing to our prosperity but live on the public purse and who in reality would be derelicts in a hovel without access to other's hard work and endeavors in supplying power and water and food and health and facilities and roads and telecommunications and all those items of our modern civilisation they so roundly condemn but continue to hypocritically use themselves to the maximum whenever it suits their purposes.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 09:18

At his point in time the only viable option to coal as a power source is Nuclear and IMHO the consequences of that are far worse than what we put up wih from coal. The other major factor that few people take into account when discussing so called 'Fossil fuels', like coal and oil is that these resources are not only used for power. Everything and I mean EVERYTHING we use in our daily lives requires these substances. Either as power in the manufacturing and transportaion or as a major ingrediant in it makeup. While I applaud YS for doing what he can which is more than most of us the simple fact is if we get rid of fossil fuels we stop living our cushy lives. We lose transport-the world shuts down. We lose medicine-We all die.We lose building material-We freeze. etc etc. Check for yourself. Think about one aspect of yourlife and then find out how large a part these substances play in it's existence.If it plays anypart then then that aspect of your life can be considered evil and must be gotten rid of. Ia gree with CF that Hydro and geothermal are the longterm answer for power bu the fact is Fossil fuels are not the cause of deaths. Without it there would not be as many people on the planet today as there are so depending on how you look at it fossil fuels are the cause of survival.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 09:43

Every new and existing mine site in Australia has to have a rehabilitation plan in place and being constantly worked on as the mine progresses the worked area is filled in, environmental scientists move in and the land is refurbished back to as close to natural bushland as possible. We saw several different areas that had be rehabilitated and the ones which had been rehabilitated 3 or more years ago where basically no different to the normal bushland around the mine site.

My wife and I did a coal mine tour at Premier Coal in Collie in WA in January this year.

The mine is an open cut pit up to 300 metres deep in parts. Mostly sand with bands of coffee rock and seams of coal. As part and parcel of the land rehabilitation the next area to be mined is scanned from the air and ground and all major features recorded, (This includes locations of the largest trees etc) the top soil and plants are removed and placed in a suitable area where the plants are kept alive in a nursery, all logs, rocks etc are removed and again stored in an area to be used when the mine progresses past the area the logs where taken from. The overburden is trucked out of the immediate area to a holding area where it sits until the hole is ready to be back filled. After the mine site is back filled it is then refurbished with all native plants, the logs and rocks are replaced and native trees are then replanted. As the mine site goes below the local water table the ground water is pumped out by pumps running 24/7. The water is passed through a series of 7 dams which then use various natural and artificial methods to remove the suspended iron (Iron Chelate) and the water, which by this stage is fit for human consumption, is then fed directly back into the Collie River which has the effect of continuous flushing the river down to the dam where the resulting inflow is released down stream continuously as an overflow. This provides a constant flow of fresh water into the river and wet lands. The upside of this is that the water in the dam can be used both to produce steam via a series of coal fired power stations as well as providing an almost drought proof reliable water supply for the towns and farms in the immediate area.

This is mandated by state and federal law and is now the norm for mine sites. At a separate mine site the resulting open cut area has been turned into a motor sport facility with a life of around 30 years. Once this time has expired the mine is to be turned into a ground water storage area by turning off the pumps and allowing the ground water to fill the pit there by recharging the local ground water supplies.




First stage dam showing water holding area, above that is an area under revegetation and above that
overburden being stored to back fill the next area that has finished being mined.



The pit.


Revegetation at top of photo



Muja Power station in operation - note lack of visible smoke
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 10:04

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
I admire your guts for starting the thread YS. The resulting personal attacks were inevitable. So was the ridiculous argument that because you don't go the 100% green route you are somehow a hypocrite. So you're supposed to make your own nails too? GOLD!!!!! ....and shame on you for not using your forehead to hammer the nails home! What were you thinking?



Those kinds of arguments are typical in this section of the forum though, it's why there's only like 5 people who consistently post in the section.

It's not only money that's a factor it's also greed and selfishness. People want their cheap plastics made in china and cheap electricity to power their plasmas and LCD TVs without considering any of the externalities. Who cares if people in China have to wear masks, we get cheap products right....

China has more initiative in renewable energy than we do, it's pretty sad really. Just take a look at their solar city, puts us to shame

http://www.chinasolarcity.cn/Html/dezhou/151210479.html
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 10:20

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
While I agree that your average coal mine is a scar on the landscape Just how big a scar would a renewable energy plant produce. Oh, and by the way those giant wind turbines are made of steel. Guess what that needs.....Coal. There is only one way to prevent massive negative impacts on the environment caused by human activity. Give up ALL of our comforts and live natural lives. Is anyone willing to do this? Answer...Very, very few.Those that are are have already removed themselves from modern society and I applaud them for having the courage of their convictions. Not me though.Not now anyway.


And how are renewables going to have a chance when people such as yourself are so vehemently opposed to them?

You have to think that "scar on the landscape" will never heal and that land will never be able to be used again........

Ahh yes, the elusive "luxuries"...The elusive "lifestyle"....

Take our old neighbours, he was a welder on 30k a year and she grew hydroponic Tomatoes and earned about 20k a year from it, they were both happy but wanted the “elusive lifestyle”, so they headed over to the Wild west to seek their fortune from the mining boom...Long story short..7 years, he is one of the big wigs at BHP "who doesn't get out of bed for less than $2000 a day now.." and she is a travel agent, they have a 7 level pole house, cars, investment properties,they have everything that they ever wanted, except children and are they happy? no!

She never sees him, he is always overseas,or always working long long hours, when he does come home the don't talk, they don't do anything anymore and last time we heard from them they were not far from separating. all for that "elusive lifestyle' that they thought that they needed. Yes, all that "cushy lifestyle" made them so much more happier.
Most people do not fall into their particular lifestyle but they are not far from it, working long hours,stuck in traffic,have to take that important call, never seeing their family, buying useless junk they don't need,mountains of debt... yes from where i sit that lifestyle looks oh so much better....not.

ROM we have windup clocks here, they are brilliant, no need to reset when the power goes out and none of the electromagnetic radiation right next to your head while you are sleeping.
Posted by: Locke

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 10:48

How many lives are saved by access to the cheap electricty from coal fired power plants.

Before you ramble on about the deaths caused by coal fired power perhaps you might want to look at the mortality rates in countries without ready access to that cheap energy.

You think your own tokenistic approach to living "green" represents what it would really be like if the world was without coal fired power. I guess thats what happens when idealism trumps rational thinking.

Oh and when you start advocating a course of action that would potentially cost millions of lives, grow some balls and expect some debate.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 10:52

Originally Posted By: SBT
Every new and existing mine site in Australia has to have a rehabilitation plan in place and being constantly worked on as the mine progresses the worked area is filled in, environmental scientists move in and the land is refurbished back to as close to natural bushland as possible. We saw several different areas that had be rehabilitated and the ones which had been rehabilitated 3 or more years ago where basically no different to the normal bushland around the mine site.



Not completely true there,


Looks inviting doesn't it? nice place to go for a swim? Well basically if you hopped in there you would not make it to the other side, as the water containing in the old Mount Morgan open cut is the equivalent of BATTERY ACID! Look at the creeks flowing down stream from the open cut, they are stained yellow.



Also who picks up the tab from all the rehabilitation work? and it is not always, the miners, like Mount Morgan it is Handled by the government thru tax payes money.
Just like other min sites where the owners have gone bust... either they are left to rot or the tax payer has to pick up the tab....

Quote:
The Dee River in Queensland is being killed by toxic water from an old gold mine. Mount Morgan is one of thousands of abandoned and unregulated mine sites, many of which are leaking contaminated ‘legacy water’ into river catchments.


Whittenoom? one of the biggest blytes on the Australian landscape an abandoned asbestos mine....



Posted by: refstar

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 11:05

hang on a second - Mt Morgan is a gold mine, you are talking about Coal mines. Different subject, last time I looked gold wasn't primarily used to generate power!!!!
Posted by: refstar

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 11:06

Originally Posted By: Locke
How many lives are saved by access to the cheap electricty from coal fired power plants.

Before you ramble on about the deaths caused by coal fired power perhaps you might want to look at the mortality rates in countries without ready access to that cheap energy.

You think your own tokenistic approach to living "green" represents what it would really be like if the world was without coal fired power. I guess thats what happens when idealism trumps rational thinking.

Oh and when you start advocating a course of action that would potentially cost millions of lives, grow some balls and expect some debate.


Hear hear!
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 11:11

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
While I agree that your average coal mine is a scar on the landscape Just how big a scar would a renewable energy plant produce. Oh, and by the way those giant wind turbines are made of steel. Guess what that needs.....Coal. There is only one way to prevent massive negative impacts on the environment caused by human activity. Give up ALL of our comforts and live natural lives. Is anyone willing to do this? Answer...Very, very few.Those that are are have already removed themselves from modern society and I applaud them for having the courage of their convictions. Not me though.Not now anyway.


And how are renewables going to have a chance when people such as yourself are so vehemently opposed to them?

You have to think that "scar on the landscape" will never heal and that land will never be able to be used again........

Ahh yes, the elusive "luxuries"...The elusive "lifestyle"....

Take our old neighbours, he was a welder on 30k a year and she grew hydroponic Tomatoes and earned about 20k a year from it, they were both happy but wanted the “elusive lifestyle”, so they headed over to the Wild west to seek their fortune from the mining boom...Long story short..7 years, he is one of the big wigs at BHP "who doesn't get out of bed for less than $2000 a day now.." and she is a travel agent, they have a 7 level pole house, cars, investment properties,they have everything that they ever wanted, except children and are they happy? no!

She never sees him, he is always overseas,or always working long long hours, when he does come home the don't talk, they don't do anything anymore and last time we heard from them they were not far from separating. all for that "elusive lifestyle' that they thought that they needed. Yes, all that "cushy lifestyle" made them so much more happier.
Most people do not fall into their particular lifestyle but they are not far from it, working long hours,stuck in traffic,have to take that important call, never seeing their family, buying useless junk they don't need,mountains of debt... yes from where i sit that lifestyle looks oh so much better....not.

ROM we have windup clocks here, they are brilliant, no need to reset when the power goes out and none of the electromagnetic radiation right next to your head while you are sleeping.


I think you are misunderstanding my argument YS. I am not opposed to renewables. Indeed I am all for them if they can meet the requirements of our society and will have fwer negative impacts than fossil fuels. Most however don't. Certainly not wind or solar on an industrial scale. I do however believe it is hypocritical to live off fossil fuel deposits and thenclaim they are evil. Now, everyone is hypocritical at some stage and as long as they admit to the hypocrisy it is acceptable because at least they understand it. The question I always ask(and for which I never get an honest answer mind you), is that if these things are so evil then why do those that think they are evil happily utilise them and their benifits every day of their lives. I would love to see the a world without mines or pollution or farms devestating the natural environment or oil rigs in pristine areas that will eventually (guaranteed), cause enviromental destruction but I'll be buggered if I am going to give up my lifestyle to achieve that. The only difference between me and those that argue against these things is that I am honest about the fact that I accept the consequences for that lifestyle. Everyone that lives in our society accepts those consequences. Many may say they don't but they don't give up the perks of society do they? If people were honest with themselves they would admit that.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 11:24

Originally Posted By: Locke
How many lives are saved by access to the cheap electricty from coal fired power plants.

Before you ramble on about the deaths caused by coal fired power perhaps you might want to look at the mortality rates in countries without ready access to that cheap energy.

You think your own tokenistic approach to living "green" represents what it would really be like if the world was without coal fired power. I guess thats what happens when idealism trumps rational thinking.

Oh and when you start advocating a course of action that would potentially cost millions of lives, grow some balls and expect some debate.


Seems like Double standards? so it is fine to take lives because of coal fired power to save lives,Just to have coal fired power? what is your point? Shouldn't we then be embracing other methods, safer ways to generate your beloved power, that don't put the lives of millions of people in danger every year?

Maybe you should look in the mirror before you cast aspersions?
I am quite happy with my reflection.
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 11:25


For whatever reason, I have a "dread" emotional reaction to this image.





Yet these seem almost serene.









I'm just saying there are "reactions" to images versus what is really going on.

The first picture is probably cropped/an unrealistic zoom in some manner. The smokestack pictures are mostly inert N2 gas and water vapour. The coal mine pits are far from where anyone lives and yes they can be reclaimed after.

----------------

There is not enough wood on the planet for colder latitudes to make it through even one winter. 2 billion people would cut down every tree within 500 miles in just 1 winter (you would not believe what my backyard looks like right now compared to Yasified_shak's eden-scape yard - nobody where I live would make it through the winter without significant home/workplace heating, not a single person).
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 11:26

I said new and existing mine sites, not abandon ones.

As for Whittenoom it is gone - it was completely removed off the face of the planet. They spent millions rehabilitating the land after the removal of all infrastructure and access to the mine site and old township is strictly controlled. The pictures you have posted are of buildings that no longer exist but you already knew that. You skew facts to suit yourself and your sad conspiracy theories. Asbestos is a natural product - you know one of those things you continually bang on about being good for you.

Once again you equate earning a very good wage as being unhappy. Not true. I know quite a few people in the mining industry who are earning a huge income and are quite happy. They have paid off their homes, taken their kids on world trips, they are given the best education available, clothes, cars, land and they have set up trusts so their kids have a good start in life and they pay a hell of a lot in tax each fortnight. - They buy locally which helps out retailers, they buy food, fuel, cars, real estate, clothes, travel, pay rates and all the other stuff that normal people do. I also know at least one person who made a fortune via hydroponics - of course getting caught meant he did some serious jail time though.

You just can't get your head around that earning money is not evil and working in the mining industry isn't a crime against humanity.
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 11:27

Lockes argument is a non point as coal energy is not cheap energy. If you don't understand externalities then i suggest you google it.

Argument
Renewable energy is too expensive
"[Wind energy] is a more expensive way of producing energy than the alternative." (David Montgomery)

Answer
When you account for the effects which are not reflected in the market price of fossil fuels, like air pollution and health impacts, the true cost of coal and other fossil fuels is higher than the cost of most renewable energy technologies.

It is a false argument to claim that "cheap coal" is the only way to keep living standards up and save lives in developing nations. It is simply not true that coal is cheap energy, it is more expensive than renewables.

"Many people prefer coal combustion to renewable energy because it seems to be cheaper. However, when accounting for the true costs of coal power, most renewable energy sources are actually significantly cheaper in the long-run."

"A 2013 report published by the International Monetary Fund concluded that global fossil fuel subisides amount to $1.9 trillion annually. $1.4 trillion of this is due to externalities, $800 billion due to climate change. This estimate is based on a conservative social cost of carbon of $25 per tonne of CO2 emitted. An arguably more realistic estimate of $100 per tonne of CO2 would bring global fossil fuel subsidies to over $4 trillion per year, with $3.2 trillion due to climate change."

http://skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-is-too-expensive.htm
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 11:29

Originally Posted By: Bill Illis

The coal mine pits are far from where anyone lives






I hope that is sarcasm ??

haven't been to the Hunter Valley I take it ? Or America ?



According to a health impact assessment by the Kentucky Environmental Foundation that examines research on the impact of coal in Kentucky, the health costs came in at more than $62 million in 2007 — and that’s just for asthma, which inflicts 1 in 10 Kentuckians and kills about 50 people in the state per year. Asthma rates for African Americans of high school age in Kentucky are at 22%.

More than 3.3 million residents in the state live within 30 miles of a coal fired power plant.

The report examines costs along the coal value chain, including mining, transportation and electricity generation. KEF cites a study from Public Health Reports that finds 2,347 – 2,889 yearly excess deaths from coal mining in Appalachia, costing the region an estimated $10 billion each year.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01...ives/?mobile=nc


So in the USA they could reduce excess mortality by reducing coal mining and the use coal fired power stations. Burning coal seems the opposite of saving lives in developed nations at least.


Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 11:40

Quote:
The coal mine pits are far from where anyone lives and yes they can be reclaimed after.


Think again, look how close the mine is to houses and probably the town's main water supply....



Posted by: refstar

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 11:45

Ever though that the mines were there first and then housing encroached on the mines? Nah, too busy flailing away at the "evil" coal mines......
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 12:00


Looks very populated in this picture.

Also looks like a nice place to visit.





And the billions of dollars provided by that black deposit will provide a lot of comfort to millions of people.

Versus a few dozen windmills which do absolutely nothing but kill animals and make people sick within range.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 12:24

Originally Posted By: SBT
I said new and existing mine sites, not abandon ones.

As for Whittenoom it is gone - it was completely removed off the face of the planet. They spent millions rehabilitating the land after the removal of all infrastructure and access to the mine site and old township is strictly controlled. The pictures you have posted are of buildings that no longer exist but you already knew that. You skew facts to suit yourself and your sad conspiracy theories. Asbestos is a natural product - you know one of those things you continually bang on about being good for you.

Once again you equate earning a very good wage as being unhappy. Not true. I know quite a few people in the mining industry who are earning a huge income and are quite happy. They have paid off their homes, taken their kids on world trips, they are given the best education available, clothes, cars, land and they have set up trusts so their kids have a good start in life and they pay a hell of a lot in tax each fortnight. - They buy locally which helps out retailers, they buy food, fuel, cars, real estate, clothes, travel, pay rates and all the other stuff that normal people do. I also know at least one person who made a fortune via hydroponics - of course getting caught meant he did some serious jail time though.

You just can't get your head around that earning money is not evil and working in the mining industry isn't a crime against humanity.



Good in theory but not in practice...Mines will still go belly up.
Mines will still be abandoned, mines will still be abandoned and the tax payer will still have to foot the bill.

New or existing or abandoned it still exists, fact is there are thousands of environmental and Toxic mine sites right across the country because of mining and it's after effects.

Whittenoom may have been "whiped off the map" but doen't mean it is gone!
Quote:


THE infamous asbestos mining town of Wittenoom has finally been wiped off the map with the site de-gazetted by the government.

The announcement coincided with the release today of the latest report into asbestos contamination.

Regional Development Minister Jon Ford said[b the report clearly demonstrated that the risks for most types of land users in and around Wittenoom were in a medium-to-high risk. [/b]

"The Department of Health has independently examined the report and indicated that these levels of risk of exposure to asbestos contamination represent an unacceptable public health risk,'' he said.

"The fact that Wittenoom continues to attract people who are then potentially exposed to an unacceptable health risk is untenable.''

But the eight residents who still live in the Pilbara ghost town have vowed to stay.

"We're not going anywhere,'' said Lorraine Thomas, who owns the Wittenoom gem shop and has lived there for 23 years.

"This is our home and whether it's a gazetted town or not doesn't mean a thing to us.''

Mrs Thomas had a solar power system installed in the town on Monday to supply four homes owned by her and husband Les.

The State Government turned off electricity a year ago.

Mr Ford said the removal of townsite status would help the Shire of Ashburton progress the closure of the town including closing all roads into the area.

"The state government, after consultation with the Shire of Ashburton, has finalised the process to remove Wittenoom's status as a townsite,'' Mr Ford said.

The government announced in 2006 that it was pressing ahead with the closure.

Since then three residents have sold properties and moved out and 17 vacant lots are being bought with negotiations underway for the acquisition of another nine properties.


Yes, Asbestos maybe a natural substance and is harmless when it is naturally buried in the ground, it only turns deadly at the hand of man when he digs it up...


earning money may be fine, but again at what cost, working 12 hours a day for 10 days at a time? seeing your kids grow up because you're not there to notice?
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 12:34

Originally Posted By: Bill Illis

Looks very populated in this picture.

Also looks like a nice place to visit.





And the billions of dollars provided by that black deposit will provide a lot of comfort to millions of people.

Versus a few dozen windmills which do absolutely nothing but kill animals and make people sick within range.



Of course it would look less populated if you take the picture looking away from the township..... smile And it is exactly the same mine as in the photo's below.





Quote:
Versus a few dozen windmills which do absolutely nothing but kill animals




Not when compared to powerlines. smile
Posted by: ROM

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 12:59

With wind turbines spread across huge areas of territory there will have to be many hundreds of kilometres of new high voltage power lines built to take that wind energy from the wind farms to the customers and industry.
So if there is such a kill of birds from powerlines already as you claim then the wind industry is going to be completely responsible for all those extra bird deaths from the power lines built specifically for the wind turbine farms as well as the huge number of bird and bat deaths they already cause.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 13:05

Originally Posted By: Mt Morgan Water Treatment
“There has never been an uncontrolled spill of water from the open cut pit in the mine’s history,” Hinchliffe said. He went on to say that there were two controlled releases were carried out in March this year, after the public were first informed.

“The water in the open cut pit is not toxic or poisonous and while it contains elevated levels of copper, aluminium, magnesium and other metals along with sulphate salts, these occur naturally....

http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/qld-provides-mine-rehab-funding-boost

http://mines.industry.qld.gov.au/safety-and-health/abandoned-mine-lands-program.htm Abandoned Mines Rehab Program

http://mines.industry.qld.gov.au/safety-and-health/mount-morgan.htm Mt Morgan rehab program which started in 2000

http://hancockcoal.com.au/files/alpha-co...20&%20Rehab.pdf

http://www.fba.org.au/news/downloads/cqminingforum_michael-rodgerson.pdf

http://www.claytonutz.com.au/publication...arge_mines.page Progressive Rehab of Mine Sites

http://www.maculrob.com.au/downloads/306...on%20update.pdf

Just some of the efforts being made in Queensland to fix the problems.

Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 13:06

Funny how you people cry over a few dead animals yet you don't care about AGW or pollution and its effects on humans, too funny guys.

Also funny that the pro coal guys don't provide any evidence at all to support their positions, yet there is plenty stating how much coal costs in dollars and lives.

Oh yes an open cut mine would make for a lovely picnic spot Bill Illis, are you serious or what ?
Posted by: Locke

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 13:11

Quote:
so it is fine to take lives because of coal fired power to save lives


So I assume your saying that we shouldn't use energy from coal fired plants because it costs lives.

In that case we'd better stop using nuclear, wind and solar all have which have recorded plenty of fatalities.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 13:27

Originally Posted By: SBT
Originally Posted By: Mt Morgan Water Treatment
“There has never been an uncontrolled spill of water from the open cut pit in the mine’s history,” Hinchliffe said. He went on to say that there were two controlled releases were carried out in March this year, after the public were first informed.

“The water in the open cut pit is not toxic or poisonous and while it contains elevated levels of copper, aluminium, magnesium and other metals along with sulphate salts, these occur naturally....

http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/qld-provides-mine-rehab-funding-boost

http://mines.industry.qld.gov.au/safety-and-health/abandoned-mine-lands-program.htm Abandoned Mines Rehab Program

http://mines.industry.qld.gov.au/safety-and-health/mount-morgan.htm Mt Morgan rehab program which started in 2000

http://hancockcoal.com.au/files/alpha-co...20&%20Rehab.pdf

http://www.fba.org.au/news/downloads/cqminingforum_michael-rodgerson.pdf

http://www.claytonutz.com.au/publication...arge_mines.page Progressive Rehab of Mine Sites

http://www.maculrob.com.au/downloads/306...on%20update.pdf

Just some of the efforts being made in Queensland to fix the problems.



But what is the PH of that water that is contained in said open cut pit?
For those that don't know it is around a PH of 2.7 which is comparable for battery acid.




Never been an uncontrolled spill?

Quote:
The abandoned Mount Morgan gold mine, which overflowed for the first time in its history three weeks ago, is still spilling acid and heavy metals into the Dee River.


Quote:
Neal Johansen, who lives near Mount Morgan, says that although waste water has been trickling out of the old mine for years, the damage caused by Oswald dumping 700 mm of rain in the area has been catastrophic. He’s been surveying the river to assess the damage.


Not poisonous?

Quote:
The abandoned Mount Morgan gold mine, which overflowed for the first time in its history three weeks ago, is still spilling acid and heavy metals into the Dee River. Local farmers now say that the Dee River is an unnatural shade of blue-green for a lot of its length, and birds and fish are dying.‘I've never before seen the white sediment on the bottom, which is probably aluminium hydroxide that's now dropped out because it's increased to a pH level where it will actually fall out of suspension,’ Mr Johansen says. ‘I certainly have never seen this before. So that is actually of quite a huge concern I should imagine... 55 km downstream [from the mine].’

A little further downstream from where Mr Johansen has found evidence of low pH levels, farmer Ian Scott has now found dead birds.

‘We saw quite a few dead animals—birds, there’s odd fish, cockatoos, there’s even crows, magpies, peewees,’ Mr Scott says. ‘I’ve probably seen about 20. We saw a shag or waterbird floating past. It was sick—obviously been poisoned.’
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 13:58

Originally Posted By: Enrique
Funny how you people cry over a few dead animals yet you don't care about AGW or pollution and its effects on humans, too funny guys.

Also funny that the pro coal guys don't provide any evidence at all to support their positions, yet there is plenty stating how much coal costs in dollars and lives.


And lives! Too funny eh? Pull it back a bit please?

The principally left of centre eco-narcissistic "greens" in their airconditioned homes in front of their PC (powered by taxpayer subsidised LRET and SRES schemes) have absolutely no idea of the damage they are causing with their activism to destroy cheap energy. They will wail and moan "what about the children" when a dodgy model shows the temp will rise by a degree or so by the end of the century... But they will stick their fingers in their ears when faced with the real-world consequences of expensive, or unavailable energy.

Once again! That is the inevitable consequence of state socialism everywhere - see Eastern Europe, Cuba, Venezuela and most obviously North Korea and Haiti or Cuba (Contrast Sth Korea and US/Puerto Rico):



And this is the cost in human terms:

starving in north korea

starving in haiti

starving in cuba

Got it? I think that we (the pro-cheap energy supporters) have the high ground here...
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 14:30


Originally Posted By: Arnost
Got it? I think that we (the pro-cheap energy supporters) have the high ground here...


Moral highground? what do those countries have in common? they are ruled by Merciless dictators.

Originally Posted By: ROM
With wind turbines spread across huge areas of territory there will have to be many hundreds of kilometres of new high voltage power lines built to take that wind energy from the wind farms to the customers and industry.
So if there is such a kill of birds from powerlines already as you claim then the wind industry is going to be completely responsible for all those extra bird deaths from the power lines built specifically for the wind turbine farms as well as the huge number of bird and bat deaths they already cause.


Now if we were Going to build Coal fired power stations in the same area that would require new powerlines to be built i presume you would have no problem with that?
I think all the pro coal supporters really need to take a step back and have a good look at what is really going on and that damage that their striving for "cheap power" is costing, sure the power may be cheap but the damage done at the end will cost a lot more.


Quote:
A study released in August 2010 that examined state pollution data in the United States by the organizations Environmental Integrity Project, the Sierra Club and Earthjustice found that coal ash produced by coal-fired power plants dumped at sites across 21 U.S. states has contaminated ground water with toxic elements. The contaminants including the poisons arsenic and lead.
Arsenic has been shown to cause skin cancer, bladder cancer and lung cancer, and lead damages the nervous system. Coal ash contaminants are also linked to respiratory diseases and other health and developmental problems
, and have disrupted local aquatic life. Coal ash also releases a variety of toxic contaminants into nearby air, posing a health threat to those who breath in fugitive coal dust.
Currently, the EPA does not regulate the disposal of coal ash; regulation is up to the states and the electric power industry has been lobbying to maintain this status quo. Most states require no monitoring of drinking water near coal ash dump sites. The study found an additional 39 contaminated U.S. sites and concluded that the problem of coal ash-caused water contamination is even more extensive in the United States than has been estimated. The study brought to 137 the number of ground water sites across the United States that are contaminated by power plant-produced coal ash.

Mercury contamination

U.S. government scientists tested fish in 291 streams around the country for mercury contamination. They found mercury in every fish tested, according to the study by the U.S. Department of the Interior. They found mercury even in fish of isolated rural waterways. Twenty five percent of the fish tested had mercury levels above the safety levels determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for people who eat the fish regularly. The largest source of mercury contamination in the United States is coal-fueled power plant emissions.

Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 14:41

In reality this argument is pointless regardless of which side you take. Reason being that untill Renewables can provide the energy required(regardless of cost or 'green credentials') they will play second fiddle to fossil fuels. Why can't people get their heads around the fact that people do not truly care about the environment over their own well being.If anyone says otherwise there is a 99% chance they are lying or can't face the truth.
Posted by: Jimmy B

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 15:03

Wikipedia has a good link about Coal Ash aka Fly Ash. What it is. It's chemical make up. How its reused to manufacture other products - mainly cement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_ash#Portland_cement
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 15:16

Just saw this:

Quote:
The largest source of mercury contamination in the United States is coal-fueled power plant emissions.


Nope - the largest source of domestic mercury contamination is "green" light bulbs. They're darn dangerous things:

Quote:
Before Cleanup
•Have people and pets leave the room.
•Air out the room for 5-10 minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment.
•Shut off the central forced air heating/air-conditioning system, if you have one.
•Collect materials needed to clean up broken bulb:
•stiff paper or cardboard;
•sticky tape;
•damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes (for hard surfaces); and
•a glass jar with a metal lid or a sealable plastic bag.

During Cleanup
•DO NOT VACUUM. Vacuuming is not recommended unless broken glass remains after all other cleanup steps have been taken. Vacuuming could spread mercury-containing powder or mercury vapor.
•Be thorough in collecting broken glass and visible powder. Scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard. Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder. Place the used tape in the glass jar or plastic bag. See the detailed cleanup instructions for more information, and for differences in cleaning up hard surfaces versus carpeting or rugs.
•Place cleanup materials in a sealable container.

After Cleanup
•Promptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials, including vacuum cleaner bags, outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of. Avoid leaving any bulb fragments or cleanup materials indoors.
•Next, check with your local government about disposal requirements in your area, because some localities require fluorescent bulbs (broken or unbroken) be taken to a local recycling center. If there is no such requirement in your area, you can dispose of the materials with your household trash.
•If practical, continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the heating/air conditioning system shut off for several hours.



http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 15:24

Originally Posted By: Arnost


Got it? I think that we (the pro-cheap energy supporters) have the high ground here...


You don't have the moral high ground at all. You just cant comprehend that we can replace so called cheap coal with renewables while being affordable and good for the environment.

You fail to grasp the externalities of coal and how expensive it really is to use. Then when shown that wind or solar is cheaper it's always "think of the birds".... rubbish, renewables just don't fit in the AGW denialist vocabulary. Only cheap energy and trying to say that coal is the saviour poor nations. Comapare Chinas GDP per capita with ours and then compare the renewable industries.
GDP/per capita
93 China 5,439
7 Australia 67,039

renewables
China--17.88% of total production
Australia-9.64% of total production

So a second world country can do better than the developed world, hardly seems like coal is the be all and end all.


China 2050 towards to sustainable energy

*Reducing coal proportion in total primary energy
below 50%

*Providing new increasing energy demands mainly by
nuclear and renewable and contributing more than
30% proportion in total primary energy after 2035

http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/RxsY3908kaqwVPacX9DLcQ/niweidou_coal_mar05.pdf
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 15:28

Your research skills are very ordinary Arnost, your rant on green lightbulbs is not supported by anything.

"Sources of mercury. Mercury is an element in the earth's crust. Humans cannot create or destroy mercury. Pure mercury is a liquid metal, sometimes referred to as quicksilver that volatizes readily. It has traditionally been used to make products like thermometers, switches, and some light bulbs.

Mercury is found in many rocks including coal. When coal is burned, mercury is released into the environment. Coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions to the air in the United States, accounting for over 50 percent of all domestic human-caused mercury emissions"

http://www.epa.gov/hg/about.htm
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 15:29

No one has the moral high ground because no one will do what needs to be done. We are all going to wind up with dislocated shoulders if we don't stop patting ourselves on the back for being so wonderful.
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 15:32

How do people and wildlife become exposed to mercury?

The primary way people in the U.S. are exposed to mercury is by eating fish containing methylmercury.

http://publicaccess.supportportal.com/li...osed-to-mercury


Bet its from those fish eating green light bulbs lol
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 15:39

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
No one has the moral high ground because no one will do what needs to be done. We are all going to wind up with dislocated shoulders if we don't stop patting ourselves on the back for being so wonderful.


Ok then

Knowing the effects of Mercury on humans, would you rather live near a coal fire power station or a solar farm ? or are you a NIMBY ? fine as long as some one else has to put up with the negative externalities or the mining/burning process ?

In case you don't know the health effects of Mercury, worth a read.

EPA
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 15:41

Originally Posted By: Enrique
How do people and wildlife become exposed to mercury?

The primary way people in the U.S. are exposed to mercury is by eating fish containing methylmercury.

http://publicaccess.supportportal.com/li...osed-to-mercury


Bet its from those fish eating green light bulbs lol


No. It's from mining and industry. Just like all the other things fish are exposed to it is from human activity(with a small amount being natural exposure). You should do some research and find out what goes into tthe water apart from mecury Enrique. Huge amounts of pollution from domestic sources like farms, towns and cities.Do you live in any one of these places. If so you are participating (willingly I might add) to the polluting of waterways and contamination of fish(and the rest of the environment), just like the rest of us.Face it. We are ALL responsible.
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 15:47

I was being facetious Brett, Arnost is the one claiming mercury comes from light bulbs.... I'm not an idiot.

Im not the one against cleaning up our act either, i'd happily pay more for renewable energy and recycling initiatives.

It comes back to same old droll argument that we don't really care because we don't live in tree's, but we don't have to. We can have a modern society and a clean one, it will just cost more.

Do you want to continue down the path we're on or would you be happy to see things change? You cant sit on the fence forever, claim we are all responsible and say it's to hard to change how we do things.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 15:51

Greens MP accuses State Government of ignoring ash dam health concerns

Greens MP John Kaye has described the ash dams surrounding Lake Macquarie's two coal fired power stations as a cocktail of heavy metals that are a risk to human health.

Dr Kaye says local residents are being exposed to dust and water-borne contaminants, including arsenic, lead, mercury and chromium from ash dams at Vales Point and Eraring.

He says independent exposure monitoring is essential to ensure that contamination levels are understood and controlled.

"American research shows communities around the ash dams at coal fired power stations are at real risk from a cocktail of heavy metals that will damage almost every human organ," he said.

"The amount of radioactivity produced by these ash dams is equivalent to standing next to the encasement of a nuclear waste dump."


Dr Kaye says privatising the power stations will only make managing the existing ash dams more difficult.

"In America it has been a major issue while in Australia it has been kept quiet," he said.

"The O'Farrell Government and its Labor predecessor had hoped, 'out of sight out of mind'.

"It's time for this Government to recognise that these ash dams create a significant public health risk."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-15/gr...ealth-c/4629444
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 16:00

I would love to see things change. Mining and industries are big pollutors(although as you are well aware I am highly skeptical of the AGW theory) of our land and waterways. But then again I also believe farming has just as big a detrimental effect on the environment as does urban development. I firmly believe that to make any difference whatsoever we have to completely change our lifestyles. We cannot keep what we have without continuing to affect the environment in a negative fashion. However I am honest enough with myself to admit that I will not give up what I have(and I am nowhere near as materialistic as many), in order to acheive that. There are very few who are, however many quite happily pay lip service to the grand ideals without ever really committing to the reality of them. As I asked in a previous post. Take a good hard look at EVERY and I mean EVERY aspect of your life and take note of what is required to make it a reality. You could not have this life without affecting the environment negatively. I have spent my whole life fishing. If I am not working I am on, in or around the water in some way shape or form. I see the damage done on a regular basis but the fact is I would not have a safe and relatively easy life free from hardships without the things that cause that damage.As much as I dislike it we either accept it or stop utilising what it provides.

Ps. This does not mean we cannot clean up our act in relation to things like mines, industry and domestic mess but the fact is it will not be enough.
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 16:35


Made from the Earth's most abundant substance -- sand -- polysilicon is tricky to manufacture. It requires huge amounts of energy, and even a small misstep in the production can introduce impurities and ruin an entire batch. The other main challenge is dealing with the waste. For each ton of polysilicon produced, the process generates at least four tons of silicon tetrachloride liquid waste.

...

When exposed to humid air, silicon tetrachloride transforms into acids and poisonous hydrogen chloride gas, which can make people who breathe the air dizzy and can make their chests contract.


That article doesn't even get into the Cadmium laced water that the solar manufacturing plants also produce.
Posted by: snafu

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 16:54

FYI Enrique;
the mercury vapour/dust released from a single broken CFL light bulb is up to 800 mcg/m3, which is eight times the average eight-hour occupational exposure limit allowed by OSHA (100 mcg/m3). What's worse is the recommended limit for children is a mere 0.2 mcg/m3. A child exposed to a broken CFL bulb will receive eight thousand times the recommended amount of mercury vapour! A broken 13-watt CFL bulb will only have released 30% of its mercury a full four days after it is broken — the remainder is trapped in the bulb.

Which brings us to - CFLs are supposedly better for the environment, but according to the Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers, 98% of CFLs end up in landfills — creating a mercury build-up that can escape into our soil and waterways.

Not only that, they also emit high levels of ultraviolet radiation — specifically, UVC and UVA rays. In fact, the UV rays are so strong that they can actually burn skin and skin cells.

Alliance for Natural Health - USA

Don't see that reported by the MSM or on any Green Party fliers though do you?

p.s. Sorry for straying OT YS.....carry on.

Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 18:20

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy


Ps. This does not mean we cannot clean up our act in relation to things like mines, industry and domestic mess but the fact is it will not be enough.


I agree.


I'm not promoting 100% clean living as im just as guilty as most as living the 1st world life, its how i was brought up and it sticks. What I would like to see is us cleaning up our act in the facets that we can. Clean energies for houses and cars would go a long way to reducing our footprint on the planet even if you don't think CO2 is an issue. But a complete change in the way we live would generations of small steps towards using less, not implausible over a 100-200 year period.

Farming is actually the biggest nonpoint source of water pollution in the world, so are right that farming has detrimental effects on the ecosystems. Australia is especially guilty of this because we grow and farm non native animals and crops that require lots of tending. i have studied a tiny bit of land management but am by no means an expert on the issue, but the general feeling is that we have major issues in Australia (salinity and acidity. As long as we learn from our mistakes in land management I'll be pleased.
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 18:24

In reply to Andy.

Yes creating solar panels creates waste, but much less waste than coal. As efficiency and lifespan increase, the gap between coal and solar pollution grows wider. eventually you could have solar panel factories being powered by solar, which would cut emissions even more.

It takes power to make power—even with a solar grand plan. From the mining of quartz sand to the coating with ethylene-vinyl acetate, manufacturing a photovoltaic (PV) solar cell requires energy—most often derived from the burning of fossil fuels. But a new analysis finds that even accounting for all the energy and waste involved, PV power would cut air pollution—including the greenhouse gases that cause climate change—by nearly 90 percent if it replaced fossil fuels.

Even though thin-film solar PVs employ heavy metals such as cadmium recovered from mining slimes, the overall toxic emissions are "90 to 300 times lower than those from coal power plants," the researchers write in Environmental Science & Technology.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solar-cells-prove-cleaner-way-to-produce-power
Posted by: refstar

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 18:38

Originally Posted By: Enrique
In reply to Andy.

Yes creating solar panels creates waste, but much less waste than coal. As efficiency and lifespan increase, the gap between coal and solar pollution grows wider. eventually you could have solar panel factories being powered by solar, which would cut emissions even more.

It takes power to make power—even with a solar grand plan. From the mining of quartz sand to the coating with ethylene-vinyl acetate, manufacturing a photovoltaic (PV) solar cell requires energy—most often derived from the burning of fossil fuels. But a new analysis finds that even accounting for all the energy and waste involved, PV power would cut air pollution—including the greenhouse gases that cause climate change—by nearly 90 percent if it replaced fossil fuels.

Even though thin-film solar PVs employ heavy metals such as cadmium recovered from mining slimes, the overall toxic emissions are "90 to 300 times lower than those from coal power plants," the researchers write in Environmental Science & Technology.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solar-cells-prove-cleaner-way-to-produce-power


Solar is far more toxic in what it uses than coal. To say otherwise is just absurd. As well, solar panels require far more energy input than they will ever generate. How's that for waste.
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 18:44

Provide evidence please refstar, otherwise its an unsubstantiated by claim by a non expert. I provided pretty clear evidence that it is 90-300 times LESS toxic than coal waste.


Emissions of cadmium (including in cadmium‐containing compounds) from CdTe PV systems are
over 100 times lower than those from coal‐fired generation, over 130 times lower than grid ‐ based electricity in Europe, and over 1440 times lower than oil‐fired generation on a life cycle basis

Link
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 18:50

Originally Posted By: refstar
Solar is far more toxic in what it uses than coal. To say otherwise is just absurd. As well, solar panels require far more energy input than they will ever generate. How's that for waste.


That is Untrue, the embodied energy that it takes to make a solar panel is now paid off in about 18 months from installation, then for the next 25-30 years they will continue to make pollution free power.
Beside that the majority of the solar panel manufacturers in China adhere to and have to comply to ROHS certification.
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 18:55

It is interesting that emissions of heavy metals are greatly reduced even for the types of PV technologies that make direct use of related compounds. For example the emissions of Cd from the life cycle of CdTe PV are 90-300 times lower than those from coal power plants with optimally functioning particulate control devices. In fact, life-cycle Cd emissions are even lower in CdTe PV than in crystalline Si PV, because the former use less energy in their life cycle than the later. In general, thin-film photovoltaics require less energy in their manufacturing than crystalline Si photovoltaics, and this translates to lower
emissions of heavy metals, SOx,NOx, PM, and CO2.In anycase, emissions from any type of PV system are expected to be lower than those from conventional energy systems because PV does not require fuel to operate.


Straight from the actual paper, As i said earlier, as efficiencies increase the gap will only get wider.
link

First published in the american chemical society journal 06 February 2008
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 20:02

Whatever stats you pull out can't equate to shrapnel from a CFL light lobe, and associated mercury residuals spreading across a room when the frigging light globe breaks when your changing it. Which happens multiple times every day in households across Australia!

These things were suppose to be life time affairs. Let me tell you, I have a five globe (dimmable) pendant over me with three of the incandescent globes older than ten years. I have a hallway where I have two four CFL pendants where I have replaced six - yes SIX! in the last four years. And the last two replacements were of already replaced Home Brand CFLs . And gues what these shattered in my hand as I was taking them out.

The greenslimers "dictatorial" directives (yes Turdball is a greenslimer) made me change thes and introduce what everyone acknowledges is a poison into my home. And it was based on outright lies - they will last longer CRAP...

I have young kids... The greenslimers take tens of thousands of my tax and redistribute to wasteful endeavors. The greenslimers make me buy poison. The greenslimers are ultimately responsible for any health issues that my under 10 yo kids experience... [LOL - well we know the last is never going to happen as it is people like me who have never (apart from education) taken a dollar of Tax welfare who in the greenslimers opinion are the enemy!]]
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 20:42

I bring actual facts to the thread and you just continue with anecdotal evidence and claim you are winning. I have proven that most mercury does not come from lights from the exact same source you used.

Posted by: Arnost

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 21:02

But I just have to get this in:

From Jeremy Grantham:

Quote:
But the difference is that we have the facts behind our propaganda. They're in the "screaming loudly" rather than the "fact based" part of the exercise, because they don't have the facts. They are masters at manufacturing doubt. What I have noticed on the blogs and in the comments section under articles is that over several years, as the scientific evidence for climate change gets stronger, the tone of the sceptics is getting shriller and more vicious and nastier all the time.


Classic case of projection. [And dont you love that he refers to it as propaganda] ... Every one of the warmists predictions has foundered (or been showed to be not unusual and within natural variation). Proven over and over again.

Science has proved you wrong - all the empirical data / observations is stacked up against you. And the socialist world state is falling apart around your ears. And you still have your fingers in your ears.
Posted by: LittleDavey83

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 21:11

I've put up some evidence-based posts in some other 'buddy buddy AGW threads' recently Enrique, I'd appreciate a debate on some of those if you're up for one?

On this topic - are you disputing that CFL's contain mercury? Or that the mercury contained in CFL's is likely to become an environmental problem? Here's some links for you on both points:

One broken ‘green’ CFL bulb contains at least .5 mg of mercury

The CFL Mercury Nightmare

Oh No! CFLs May Increase Mercury Pollution

Compact Fluorescent Bulbs and Mercury: Reality Check

Light Fingered
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 21:13

Sorry link for the Grantham piece:

http://guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/apr/15/jeremy-grantham-population-china-climate
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 21:17

Originally Posted By: snafu
FYI Enrique;
the mercury vapour/dust released from a single broken CFL light bulb is up to 800 mcg/m3, which is eight times the average eight-hour occupational exposure limit allowed by OSHA (100 mcg/m3). What's worse is the recommended limit for children is a mere 0.2 mcg/m3. A child exposed to a broken CFL bulb will receive eight thousand times the recommended amount of mercury vapour! A broken 13-watt CFL bulb will only have released 30% of its mercury a full four days after it is broken — the remainder is trapped in the bulb.

Which brings us to - CFLs are supposedly better for the environment, but according to the Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers, 98% of CFLs end up in landfills — creating a mercury build-up that can escape into our soil and waterways.

Not only that, they also emit high levels of ultraviolet radiation — specifically, UVC and UVA rays. In fact, the UV rays are so strong that they can actually burn skin and skin cells.

Alliance for Natural Health - USA

Don't see that reported by the MSM or on any Green Party fliers though do you?

p.s. Sorry for straying OT YS.....carry on.


ok, then.....

Quote:
How much mercury is contained in a CFL?
Each bulb contains an average of 5 milligrams of mercury, “which is just enough to cover a ballpoint pen tip,” says Leslie, associate director of the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer. “Though it’s nothing to laugh at, unless you wipe up mercury [without gloves] and then lick your hand, you’re probably going to be okay.”
Approximately 0.0234 mg of mercury—plus carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide—releases into the air per 1 kwh of electricity that a coal-fired power plant generates. Over the 7500-hour average range of one CFL, then, a plant will emit 13.16 mg of mercury to sustain a 75-watt incandescent bulb but only 3.51 mg of mercury to sustain a 20-watt CFL (the lightning equivalent of a 75-watt traditional bulb). Even if the mercury contained in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute 4.65 more milligrams of mercury into the environment over its lifetime.



Quote:
Coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of mercury air pollution, accounting for roughly 40 percent of all mercury emissions nationwide, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The mercury they emit is affecting national parks, warns Bart Melton, an analyst with the nonprofit National Parks Conservation Association.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 21:19

Quote:
On this topic - are you disputing that CFL's contain mercury? Or that the mercury contained in CFL's is likely to become an environmental problem?


Obviously...

I put up data after data point - even down to quoting the leftard EPA - and I get accused of all sorts of nefarious peccadillos as it doesn't suit the left wing tunnel vision of a world view! Gotta love it!
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 21:23

Quote:
an incandescent would still contribute 4.65 more milligrams of mercury into the environment over its lifetime.


Yes... But not in my frigging bedroom or kitchen as happened to me!
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 21:51

Originally Posted By: Arnost
Quote:
On this topic - are you disputing that CFL's contain mercury? Or that the mercury contained in CFL's is likely to become an environmental problem?


Obviously...

I put up data after data point - even down to quoting the leftard EPA - and I get accused of all sorts of nefarious peccadillos as it doesn't suit the left wing tunnel vision of a world view! Gotta love it!





Originally Posted By: Arnost


Nope - the largest source of domestic mercury contamination is "green" light bulbs. They're darn dangerous things:






Clearly proven false right ? The largest source of contamination is Coal and Humans come into contact with this by eating fish. CFLs don't get a mention when it comes to human exposure and risk.

I used the same source as you as you, the EPA. Your link didn't support your argument so i searched it myself and came up with better information
Posted by: CeeBee

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 22:03

I've changed out heaps of CFL bulbs without breaking them. All it takes is some co-ordination and care not to grasp the glass tubes but to grip the hard body the holds the tubes in place. It's a no brainer that yanking on the glass tubes will cause them to break.
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 22:07

Originally Posted By: CeeBee
I've changed out heaps of CFL bulbs without breaking them.


I was going to post this as well.

Using Arnosts logic i could argue that i have broken zero CFLs, therefore CFL pollution doesn't exist at all.
But that's not much of an argument is it ? It's not really an argument at all.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 22:11

I said domestic! What part of domestic don't you understand?
Posted by: CeeBee

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 22:13

Originally Posted By: Arnost


Thanks for posting that article - what he says is so true! Some choice quotes...

Quote:
The sceptics are getting angrier and more vicious every year despite the more storms we have, and the more mad crazy weather we have…
One of the problems is that typically you are not dealing with the facts. Putting in more facts makes the sceptics more angry. They have profound beliefs – as opposed to knowledge – that they are willing to protect by all manner of psychological tricks.


Quote:
Libertarians believe that any government interference is bad. Anyone with a brain knows that climate change needs governmental leadership and they can smell this is bad news for their philosophy. Their ideology is so strongly held that remarkably it's overcoming the facts. They are using incredible ingenuity to steer their way around facts that they do not choose to accept philosophically. Laying down more facts just makes them more angry. You may win over a few neutrals. They are the people you can win over. But it's very hard to win over the hardcore sceptics, of which there are plenty.


Quote:
If you're saying something that people don't want to hear or accept, a significant proportion of them will reply with hostility. Not because they know the facts, or because they have researched it themselves, but because they're so psychologically involved in believing good news that they will oppose it with a reflex. In addition, if the solutions proposed sound like they involve the government, you will have all the political rightwing try to block it as a reflex, even if it means them overriding hard science, which is what's going on today.
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 22:14

I'll get you in to change my screw in CFLs then CeeBee, I haven't had a single one not break on me... Stupid design, end up with cut fingers... Aghhg, frustrating much!

And if we are really talking about pollution between energy sources than we really need to be talking about toxins emitted per kilowatt generated, not time frames, afterall, a solar panel only produces power when the sun is shining. I wouldn't mind betting that once you factor in toxins produced in production + dealing with the proper disposal of panels after they've reached their use by dates, the gap narrows.
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 22:15

What part of exposure dont you understand. People are more exposed domestically by eating fish than breaking a damn light bulb (who breaks light bulbs anyway ?) . They are more exposed due to PM from mining and burning than CFLs...
CFLs are a non issue that you brough up to bash green technology.






Originally Posted By: Andy Double U


And if we are really talking about pollution between energy sources than we really need to be talking about toxins emitted per kilowatt generated, not time frames, afterall, a solar panel only produces power when the sun is shining. I wouldn't mind betting that once you factor in toxins produced in production + dealing with the proper disposal of panels after they've reached their use by dates, the gap narrows.


Please provide evidence to support your position. I do believe the paper was based on average power generation of solar panels, not just lifespan anyway.
4.1. Direct Cd Emissions.Fthenakis (11) compiled the
direct, atmospheric Cd emissions from the life cycle of CdTe
PV modules based on 30 years of module lifetime, 9%
efficiency, and the average U.S. insolation of 1800 kWh/m2/yr.


Plus they are 90-300 times less polluting, coal has a lot of catching up to do.
Posted by: Petros

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 22:16

Originally Posted By: ROM
Reality rules.
For those who believe that coal fired power should be banned right now, do your bit.
Go out to your power board, switch off all your mains power, remove all the fuses and drop them into the rubbish bin.
Set your clock, if it's not electric and time yourself to see how long it will take before you are scrabbling in that bin for those fuses.

Yes, I have been there and done that and have seen the past without any electricity or refrigeration or piped water or sealed roads or telecommunications or air travel and all the other trappings of civilisation now taken for granted and demanded by even those who claim they are living the so called simple life.
That was the reality of the life of 70 plus years ago.

And it was without the utter hypocrisy of those on here who claim to be living a simple life and environmentally but contribute nothing to our prosperity but live on the public purse and who in reality would be derelicts in a hovel without access to other's hard work and endeavors in supplying power and water and food and health and facilities and roads and telecommunications and all those items of our modern civilisation they so roundly condemn but continue to hypocritically use themselves to the maximum whenever it suits their purposes.


Nail on the head ROM - Idealists "half living' their their own ideals. Meanwhile Australian has to trade and exist in the global economy to provide a living for my kids, nowadays our naural hedge has been reduced to "once cheap power" and the sale of unprocessed resources. The greenies here hate the concept of burning coal here to make the cheap power (yet allow us to export 3 times the quantity into ships to burn elsewhere). The greenies also seem to be happy to load ships here full of our ore to allow other countries to create shiny products without the same environmental rules we apply here.

Hypocrites....... - which come in the form of city based latte sipping acedemics, or country based "alternative lifers" that dont realise they require either the public purse or "an environmentally destructively-based family inheriteance" to fund their idealistic green "self-sufficient" lifestyle.
Posted by: CeeBee

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 22:30


What have you guys got against sipping on a latte? It's really very odd.

One of the best things to come out of Italy imho.
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 22:30

Heavy metal emissions in reply to Andy

The total direct emissions of cadmium during module manufacturing are 0.004 g/GWh(11). Emissions during accidental releases (e.g., fires) are extremely small, if any. Such emissions could add to the total of 0.02 g/GWh. The latter have been investigated experimentally with the aid of high-energy synchrotron X-ray microprobes (16). Cd emissions from the life cycle of CdTe modules (Table S3 in the Supporting Information) are estimated to be 90–300 times lower than those from coal power plants, which are 2–7 g Cd/GWh


I prefer a cappuccino after riding my euro Colnago carbon fibre yuppie push bike.....

Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 22:59


Okay coal is bad.

(and so are those twisty lightbulbs which last only 1/10th as long as advertised and have burned two bulb housings in my house so far and are thus not allowed ever again).

But what about natural gas power then.

Virtually no pollution, relatively efficient, the newer gas turbines work a lot better than those of 20 years ago.

And with fracking, there will be 100s of years of supply just about everywhere and thus the cost will stay low for at least 100 years or so.

Downside is it still releases CO2 (but much less than coal or even solar/wind power taking manufacturing and transport into account) and leaks in production/distribution may release Methane (natural gas is +95% Methane).


Natural Gas then?

Posted by: Petros

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 23:07

Originally Posted By: Enrique
Lockes argument is a non point as coal energy is not cheap energy. If you don't understand externalities then i suggest you google it.

Argument
Renewable energy is too expensive
"[Wind energy] is a more expensive way of producing energy than the alternative." (David Montgomery)

Answer
When you account for the effects which are not reflected in the market price of fossil fuels, like air pollution and health impacts, the true cost of coal and other fossil fuels is higher than the cost of most renewable energy technologies.

It is a false argument to claim that "cheap coal" is the only way to keep living standards up and save lives in developing nations. It is simply not true that coal is cheap energy, it is more expensive than renewables.

"Many people prefer coal combustion to renewable energy because it seems to be cheaper. However, when accounting for the true costs of coal power, most renewable energy sources are actually significantly cheaper in the long-run."

"A 2013 report published by the International Monetary Fund concluded that global fossil fuel subisides amount to $1.9 trillion annually. $1.4 trillion of this is due to externalities, $800 billion due to climate change. This estimate is based on a conservative social cost of carbon of $25 per tonne of CO2 emitted. An arguably more realistic estimate of $100 per tonne of CO2 would bring global fossil fuel subsidies to over $4 trillion per year, with $3.2 trillion due to climate change."

http://skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-is-too-expensive.htm


…. The “true costs of coal power”???

Other than the sensible cost (cost of land lease/acquisition, royalties, post use land rehab, labour, power etc…to make coal available to burn) – the “cost” of burning coal is limited to pollution and water usage procurement costs. These “costs” as I understand you mean, are the consequential damage from CO2, SOx, NOx and dust ingress to the atmosphere from that burning.

Whats the big deal?, if these costs are low impact compared to the material savings of creating worlds cheapest power to Australia – a nation desperately needing an economic edge against the cheaply labour-sourced 3rd world trade competitors.

Australia has and does burn this coal with techniques to limit Sox/NOx values to below the required EPA standards. Re CO2 – the atmosphere is presently running at low/medium historic levels and this gas is needed to provide the carbon requirement of growing trees/plants for the world to survive. I don’t need to tell you what happens to the 3-fold more quantity of coal we ship to India and China to burn (your ilk ignore this).

The word does not have to get rid of carbon, its not arriving daily from the solar system, we have a finite quantity. It has, and will always, vary over the same band of gaseous, plant biomass and ground sequestered stock. For example, underground coal fires are the norm in S Gippsland Victoria.
Posted by: snafu

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 23:09

Hydro... bounce.....Oops, sorry, not allowed to build dams either... frown
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 23:19

Originally Posted By: snafu
Hydro... bounce.....Oops, sorry, not allowed to build dams either... frown


Hydro can be done on tides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
Posted by: snafu

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/04/2013 23:45

You mean tidal like this?
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 00:55

No... Like this.

http://www.energy.siemens.com/fi/en/renewable-energy/hydro-power/ocean-power.htm#content=The%20world%E2%80%99s%20first%20commercial%20tidal%20current%20power%20plant%20
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 05:40

Bloody Fracking! That is one option I hate the thought of. It will expand and it will do massive damage to out waterways. Far worse than any other fossil fuel IMHO.
Posted by: CeeBee

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 08:35




Kids vs Big Polluter


http://environmentvictoria.org.au/content/end-polluter-handouts
Posted by: CeeBee

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 08:40

Originally Posted By: Andy Double U
I'll get you in to change my screw in CFLs then CeeBee, I haven't had a single one not break on me... Stupid design, end up with cut fingers... Aghhg, frustrating much!


It's strange that both you and Arnost are able to insert CFl's into the socket without breaking them but you both break them when you remove them.

What are you doing different during the removal process?

And if you are cutting yourself every time you remove them wouldn't it be sensible to at the very least wear some form of hand protection as in maybe a snug fitting leather glove.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 08:44

Originally Posted By: Petros
Originally Posted By: ROM
Reality rules.
For those who believe that coal fired power should be banned right now, do your bit.
Go out to your power board, switch off all your mains power, remove all the fuses and drop them into the rubbish bin.
Set your clock, if it's not electric and time yourself to see how long it will take before you are scrabbling in that bin for those fuses.

Yes, I have been there and done that and have seen the past without any electricity or refrigeration or piped water or sealed roads or telecommunications or air travel and all the other trappings of civilisation now taken for granted and demanded by even those who claim they are living the so called simple life.
That was the reality of the life of 70 plus years ago.

And it was without the utter hypocrisy of those on here who claim to be living a simple life and environmentally but contribute nothing to our prosperity but live on the public purse and who in reality would be derelicts in a hovel without access to other's hard work and endeavors in supplying power and water and food and health and facilities and roads and telecommunications and all those items of our modern civilisation they so roundly condemn but continue to hypocritically use themselves to the maximum whenever it suits their purposes.


Nail on the head ROM - Idealists "half living' their their own ideals. Meanwhile Australian has to trade and exist in the global economy to provide a living for my kids, nowadays our naural hedge has been reduced to "once cheap power" and the sale of unprocessed resources. The greenies here hate the concept of burning coal here to make the cheap power (yet allow us to export 3 times the quantity into ships to burn elsewhere). The greenies also seem to be happy to load ships here full of our ore to allow other countries to create shiny products without the same environmental rules we apply here.

Hypocrites....... - which come in the form of city based latte sipping acedemics, or country based "alternative lifers" that dont realise they require either the public purse or "an environmentally destructively-based family inheriteance" to fund their idealistic green "self-sufficient" lifestyle.

You really have no idea do you? the idea of being "self Sufficient" is to be completely, "self Sufficient" and not live off the purse strings of others. By growing your own food, generating your own power, recycling things that others have thrown out because they have become bored of it or they just want to buy a new one....People who live a self sufficient lifestyle can live of far less dollars, than the typical city slicker consumerist.

It is only those that live the typical "consumerists" ideal that have no idea, and what is it they want from life usually? to live happy a simple life! i think those that are banding about the "hypocrite" label should have a good look in the mirror first.
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 08:47

Originally Posted By: Bill Illis

Okay coal is bad.



But what about natural gas power then.

Virtually no pollution, relatively efficient, the newer gas turbines work a lot better than those of 20 years ago.



Downside is it still releases CO2 (but much less than coal or even solar/wind power taking manufacturing and transport into account) and leaks in production/distribution may release Methane (natural gas is +95% Methane).


Natural Gas then?



Nice, deciding to be sensible on the topic.

Natural gas is a much better option than coal for sure, but i would like to see evidence to support your claim that it releases less CO2 than solar manufacturing. I would also like to carbon capture utilised on natural gas, which natural gas loses less efficiency than coal with carbon capture.

I guess the other benefit of natural gas would be extraction process would be far less intensive than open cut coal mining ?



Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
Bloody Fracking! That is one option I hate the thought of. It will expand and it will do massive damage to out waterways. Far worse than any other fossil fuel IMHO.


As for Fracking, I don't know enough about to pass judgement on whether it's good or bad. I would love to see some info on it smile

Originally Posted By: Petros


The word does not have to get rid of carbon, its not arriving daily from the solar system, we have a finite quantity. It has, and will always, vary over the same band of gaseous, plant biomass and ground sequestered stock. For example, underground coal fires are the norm in S Gippsland Victoria.



As for this post, doesn't even warrant a response. I hope you realise that externalities actually turn into real tangible costs over time ? perhaps you should do some of your own research on the topic.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 08:51

Originally Posted By: CeeBee
Originally Posted By: Andy Double U
I'll get you in to change my screw in CFLs then CeeBee, I haven't had a single one not break on me... Stupid design, end up with cut fingers... Aghhg, frustrating much!


It's strange that both you and Arnost are able to insert CFl's into the socket without breaking them but you both break them when you remove them.

What are you doing different during the removal process?

And if you are cutting yourself every time you remove them wouldn't it be sensible to at the very least wear some form of hand protection as in maybe a snug fitting leather glove.


A standard incandescent globe is 100% glass sticking out of the bayonet and the glass is probably a similar thickness to CFL.
CFL's also have the extra thick plastic at the base of them that makes it easier to grab when removing them, another thing about CFL's is they generally don't like being flicked on and off for relatively short periods of times like in area's like passageways (exactly the same principal with fluro tubes) so that will reduce the lifespan quite quickly.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 09:30

Quote:
You really have no idea do you? the idea of being "self Sufficient" is to be completely, "self Sufficient" and not live off the purse strings of others. By growing your own food, generating your own power, recycling things that others have thrown out because they have become bored of it or they just want to buy a new one....People who live a self sufficient lifestyle can live of far less dollars, than the typical city slicker consumerist.


What sort of medical facilities have you established for yourself? Put it another way - given you live on "less dollars", that would suggest you don't have private health insurance. Who do you propose pays for your bypass surgery, or the hundreds if not thousands of dollars of drugs most people need as they age? Am I going to have to pay for that? Or whose purse strings will you be tugging when your knees won't allow you to weed and debug your garden and it can't feed you?
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 09:34

Quote:
CFL's also have the extra thick plastic at the base of them that makes it easier to grab


I n my case it was that plastic that broke and hence why the glass shattered...
Posted by: refstar

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 09:42

Originally Posted By: CeeBee
Originally Posted By: Andy Double U
I'll get you in to change my screw in CFLs then CeeBee, I haven't had a single one not break on me... Stupid design, end up with cut fingers... Aghhg, frustrating much!


It's strange that both you and Arnost are able to insert CFl's into the socket without breaking them but you both break them when you remove them.

What are you doing different during the removal process?

And if you are cutting yourself every time you remove them wouldn't it be sensible to at the very least wear some form of hand protection as in maybe a snug fitting leather glove.


They degrade quickly upon use - simple explanation. They are alot more fragile than the older glass globes.
Posted by: CeeBee

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 10:10

The glass does not degrade at all, nor does the plastic.

Arnost must have had a defective plastic casing, either that or a superhuman grip because those casings are very hard and to break one just by gripping it would be highly unusual.
Posted by: refstar

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 10:49

Originally Posted By: CeeBee
The glass does not degrade at all, nor does the plastic.

Arnost must have had a defective plastic casing, either that or a superhuman grip because those casings are very hard and to break one just by gripping it would be highly unusual.


Yes they sure do - have a look at them next time. The plastic casing gets very brittle and the glass has a burnt look about it.

Or do you have a peer reviewed paper that says no?
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 11:56

Originally Posted By: refstar
Yes they sure do - have a look at them next time. The plastic casing gets very brittle and the glass has a burnt look about it.

Or do you have a peer reviewed paper that says no?


lol grin

In any case, yeah, I've noticed the same thing. In just the same way as the starters in a conventional fluorescent become brittle with age, the bases on these globes also become discoloured and brittle. I think the issue with my globes is that either they are getting so warm in their holders, or there's some arcing happening that is causing the bases of the bulbs to fuse themselves to the holders... I usually end up ripping the entire thing out of the ceiling so that I can get a decent grip on the fitting.

Bring back incandescents!
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 12:13

Who has not seen this when changing a CFL?

Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 12:20

Yep, maybe not quite as extreme as that, but still pretty bad. I don't necessarily buy the cheapies either as mine seem to have an uncommon fitting.
Posted by: liberator

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 12:31

What about those new power cells that run off natural gas? Produce power, heat is a by product that can be used to supply hot water to the house. Also produces water as a byproduct. Not too sure about the CO2 produced though. Trouble is that last I saw they are about 40K eack. Can generate enough power for a house 24 hrs a day and have surplus to put back in the grid
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 13:10

Maybe you guys need to start a lounge room thread on CFLs smile Perhaps share tips on how to change them without breaking them.
Posted by: Crookhaven River

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 15:25

For screw in globes get yourself a can of electrical lube from Dick Smith. Spray it into the threads between the bulb & the fitting, leave it for a couple of minutes to soak in. Then gently try turning the bulb, sometime a bit of a light wriggle side to side can help.

Once you get it out get a green Scotch Brite pad & carefully clean the threads in the fitting, wipe it out with a cloth.
Spray some of the lube into the fitting & lightly wipe with your cloth leaving just a thin film. Do the same to the threads on the bulb, insert & tighten just enough to get a good contact.
Next time you need to replace a bulb life should be allot easier.

You could also use Dickies contact cleaner instead of the scotch pad

Of course turn off the power at the meter box, pull the main fuse, put it in your pocket & check that the power is off.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 16:17

Originally Posted By: Arnost
Quote:
You really have no idea do you? the idea of being "self Sufficient" is to be completely, "self Sufficient" and not live off the purse strings of others. By growing your own food, generating your own power, recycling things that others have thrown out because they have become bored of it or they just want to buy a new one....People who live a self sufficient lifestyle can live of far less dollars, than the typical city slicker consumerist.


What sort of medical facilities have you established for yourself? Put it another way - given you live on "less dollars", that would suggest you don't have private health insurance. Who do you propose pays for your bypass surgery, or the hundreds if not thousands of dollars of drugs most people need as they age? Am I going to have to pay for that? Or whose purse strings will you be tugging when your knees won't allow you to weed and debug your garden and it can't feed you?


Simple, it is called alternative or traditional medicine, ahnd why would i need it? i don't eat a typical western filled with fats, sugars and chemicals..
ever heard of a raised garden bed?
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 16:35

Health, environmental groups call for end of coal-fired power plants

EDMONTON – Pollution from coal-fired power plants generates $300 million in medical costs and contributes to 100 premature deaths in Alberta each year, a study undertaken by a coalition of health and environmental groups shows.

Using data from industry and computer modelling developed by the Canadian Medical Association, the study suggests emissions from coal-fired electricity plants cause asthma sufferers to miss 4,800 days of work and school in Alberta and prompts 700 emergency-room visits from patients seeking treatment for respiratory and cardiovascular ailments each year.

“There is a misconception that we need to be using coal because it is cheap,” says Noah Farber, the director of communications and government relations for the Asthma Society of Canada. “But when you add in the related health-care costs, coal is not as reasonable as you think.”

Unveiling the results of its study at a news conference in Edmonton on Tuesday, the coalition will call on Alberta to develop a comprehensive renewable energy policy and adopt stricter standards for greenhouse gas emissions.

The province burns more coal than the rest of Canada combined, and greenhouse gas emissions from its six coal-fired plants are only slightly less than all of the emissions from oilsands operations combined.

“We believe that health costs from coal power can’t be overlooked anymore,” says Beth Nanni, a program specialist with the Lung Association of Alberta and the Northwest Territories. “We want coal to be phased out as soon as possible.”

New federal greenhouse gas regulations require conventional coal plants to be phased out over a period of 50 years but the coalition, which also includes the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and the Pembina Institute, wants them phased out more quickly in Alberta.

In 2011, Alberta coal plants emitted 33 per cent of the province’s entire output of sulphur dioxide, 10 per cent of its nitrogen oxides, six per cent of its fine particulate matter and 44 per cent of its mercury.

In addition to causing acid rain, nitrogen oxides form ground-level ozone, which is linked to the exacerbation of asthma, as is exposure to sulphur dioxide. Mercury emitted by coal plants can affect neurological development, while exposure to particulate matter is known to affect lung development in children and has also been associated with an increase in cardiac disease.


“The question on the table now is, ‘Can we make the process (of phasing out coal plants) occur faster than that?’ ” says Kevin Sauve, a communications adviser with the Pembina Institute. “We need to have a public discussion of what the real costs are.”

The study notes that other jurisdictions are moving away from coal-fired generation at the same time Alberta remains focused on it. Ontario’s coal fleet was once the size of Alberta’s, but will be phased out completely by the end of 2014. And once more dependent on coal than Alberta, Nova Scotia has legislated targets that require 40 per cent of its power to be generated by renewable electricity by 2020, which will cut its coal dependence in half.

“We are seeing other jurisdictions pull away from coal and are not really happy with the timeline here,” says Farrah Kahn, a campaigner with the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, a national voice for doctors on health and conservation issues. “Our concerns are for the patients that are dealing with problems related to this. There are alternatives out there.

“We need a plan to put them in place so that have cleaner air and people are more healthy.”



Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/health/He...l#ixzz2QhRUmeLS
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 16:48

Sorry but the health costs argument(about almost anything) is ridiculous. How many premature deaths come about as a result of Cars. Or Pushbikes,trees,heaters, pets etc etc. It doesn't cost us anything. If they don't die sooner they will die later and the associated costs will be the same. In reality, probably more because they will retire and be a burden on the economy for longer.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 17:10

Germany calls for coal exit

According to a new survey, 80% of German citizens have said they want to put a stop to coal power generation. In their opinion, the phase out of coal-fired electricity should be completed no later than 2040.



Greenpeace has submitted a proposal for a coal phase-out legislation.
Wikimedia/Flocko
A survey conducted by TNS-Emnid for Greenpeace concludes that the large majority of German people want to phase out coal-fired power generation by 2040. Even 80% of Germany’s Social Democratic Party (SPD) supporters are said to be for the phase out, although the party has been traditionally closely associated with the coal mining industry.

According to Greenpeace energy expert Gerald Neubauer, an energy transition without an exit from coal, is only a half transition. "We can dispense with coal," stated Neubauer. To compensate for the exit, Greenpeace calls for a "rapid expansion of renewable energies, more efforts on energy-efficiency, and flexible gas power plants as a bridging technology."

For its survey, TNS-Emnid interviewed 1,001 people in March. It concludes, among others, the following:

4% of respondents voted for a rapid coal phase out by 2030; 80% are for a medium-term exit, by 2040
95% of those who vote Green called for a short- to medium-term exit
80% of Christian Democratic Union (CDU) supporters and 80% of SPD supporters voted for a medium-term exit
86% of supporters of other German political parties surveyed are in favor of a phase out by 2040




Read more: http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/germany-calls-for-coal-exit_100010882/#ixzz2QhasouQ0
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 17:15


I assume premature excess deaths would result in wasted money on education, work place training and loss of labor units.

You pay for public services over a full lifespan, if i go through the education system including uni and drop dead when I'm 35 from a lung condition, the taxes i paid in my lifespan wouldn't cover the public system expenditure. Times this by 100s or 1000s of people and it adds up to real cost doesn't it ?

"In 2009/10,NSW spent $12,540 per full-time primary student in the classroom"


link
Posted by: Petros

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 17:54

Enrique - why do you continually post items that show that greenies all want coal fired power stations shut down? Do you really think this is new news?
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 18:31

Originally Posted By: Petros
Enrique - why do you continually post items that show that greenies all want coal fired power stations shut down? Do you really think this is new news?


What are you on about. I haven't posted a single news article or greenie related article. I have posted Information on solar versus coal emissions.

I'd ask that you withdraw your comment before i flag it as offensive.

Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 18:52

Probably because some would rather be in the dark about these issues, it is a bit like a child, if you can't see it then it is not there.
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 18:55

I think his comment may have been directed at you ? Just he defaulted to me because im well hated in the AGW section ?


Im not sure.... who ever it's directed at it's a pretty immature thing to post. Perhaps he should present an argument instead of defaulting to such a statement, heck some of the usual haters are even being sensible on the issue.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 19:33

The very thought of cheap power is poisonous to greens.

But it is legal, it's available, I can afford it, I use it without guilt or worry about what I am doing to the environment, after all we have some of the strictest environmental laws on the planet and our clean air policy is the envy of some countries.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 19:53

Enrique - I doubt very much that you are "hated".
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 20:02

I bring facts to this thread that solar doesn't produce more pollution than coal and what did you bring ?? CFLs and an attack against me smirk

Posted by: Seabreeze

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 21:56

Enough of the personal jibes/remarks from some members. Focus on the topic, rather than on the other person.

Thankyou.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/04/2013 22:00

Los Angeles Halts Using Electricity From Coal Plants

Los Angeles will become the biggest U.S. city to abandon coal-fueled electricity after the taxpayer- owned utility said it will support renewable sources, boost energy efficiency and build a new natural-gas fired plant.
The city’s Department of Water and Power, the nation’s largest municipal-owned utility, will phase out the electricity it imports from the Navajo Generating Station in Arizona and Intermountain Power in Utah, according to a statement yesterday. The two coal plants provide 39 percent of the city’s power.
“The era of coal is over,” Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said in a statement. “By divesting from coal and investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency, we reduce our carbon footprint and set a precedent for the national power market.”
Los Angeles, the nation’s second-most populous metropolitan area after New York, has cut greenhouse-gas emissions by more than 28 percent from 1990 levels, which it says is more than any other major U.S. city. Coal releases twice the carbon dioxide as natural gas per megawatt of power produced, and climate advocates have seized on phasing out its use as the necessary first step in addressing global warming.
Coal generation in the U.S. is under mounting pressure from cheap natural gas prices, tougher federal pollution standards, state-level energy efficiency requirements and activist lobbying.
Beyond Coal
Coal accounted for 37 percent of power generation last year, down from 45 percent in 2010 and almost 50 percent in 2005, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The Sierra Club, which has a Beyond Coal campaign, said 142 U.S. coal-fired power plants have closed during its efforts, representing 105 gigawatts of electrical capacity. That puts it more than halfway towards its goal of retiring 30 percent of the U.S. coal fleet by 2020.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg donated $50 million to the Sierra Club 18 months ago to fund anti-coal efforts. The mayor is founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP.
The Los Angeles utility released a fact sheet that showed it will sell off the stake it has in the Navajo facility, and end using power from that plant by 2015. It doesn’t own a share of the Utah plant, and so it said it worked out a plan to shut the coal plant and construct a smaller natural-gas fueled facility. Construction of that plant should be completed by 2025, the city’s fact sheet said.
The “decision to end Los Angeles’ reliance on dirty coal and guide the city to a more sustainable future is a bold step on the path towards solving the climate crisis,” former vice president Al Gore said in a statement.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-19/los-angeles-halts-using-electricity-from-coal-plants.html
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 18/04/2013 08:35

The Economics of China's Pollution Problem

On January 12, a Saturday earlier this year, residents of Beijing woke up to air so thick with pollution that pedestrians could barely see a few feet in front of them. Hourly readings of the city's Air Quality Index (AQI) being reported by the United States Embassy ran off the scale, which ends at 500, peaking at 755. The levels of particulates smaller than 2.5 micrometers -- fine air particulates that pose the biggest health risk, which are considered safe at readings of around 25 parts per million -- reached almost 900.

Following the pollution of the past winter, the pressure to clean up China's air has never been so acute. "The government has been left with no choice but to respond and take action," says Wei Huang, an air pollution specialist at Greenpeace in Beijing. The economics of environmental cleanup, however, are unclear. According to experts, a lasting policy would demand a shift in the types of industry that drive the country's economy and involves a potential slowdown in GDP growth. And, while the recipe for cleaner air could cause some industries to suffer, others are expecting a potential windfall with the rollout of new environmental measures.

The difficulty in putting a number on the economic costs and benefits of tackling China's air pollution comes from both sides of the issue -- the economic losses due to pollution and the cost of cleaning it up. "It's hard to pull out an exact number on the economic loss due to air pollution in China," notes Wei. "[The country] just started to publically publish [pollution] data in 2013 for all the major cities."

In a study released last year, Greenpeace pegged the cost of pollution in Beijing at around US$328 million, based on levels measured in 2010. In Shanghai, the cost was even higher, at US$420 million. This estimate, however, is based only on the number of premature deaths due to air pollution. Other costs -- such as those related to chronic illness, lost productivity and environmental degradation -- were so difficult to measure with existing data that Greenpeace left them out of its metric entirely. In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study released the same year, researchers looked at labor and healthcare costs in 2005 and concluded that China had lost US$112 billion due to air pollution.

Although China has made efforts to calculate the cost of pollution in the past, with a "Green GDP" effort spearheaded by the country's Ministry of Environmental Protection, those numbers were never released. Without them, it is difficult to measure the economic gains and losses of a cleanup. At the moment, China spends US$91 billion a year on environmental protection, or about 1.3% of its GDP. Experts estimate a further investment is needed to really clean things up -- anywhere from 2% to 4% of GDP, or up to US$500 billion each year.

The Target Industries

Although pollution sources vary regionally, the 2012 Greenpeace report places a majority of the blame for China's air pollution on coal and automobile exhaust fumes. Any plan for a clean-up must take into account energy production and China's expanding population of automobile owners. In a report released by Deutsche Bank in March, experts encouraged an aggressive approach to tackling pollution in the next five years. China needs "big bang measures," wrote Jun Ma, Deutsche Bank's chief economist, in the report. "The public is now demanding immediate and material government actions to improve air quality."

Among the suggestions listed in the report was a reduction in average coal consumption growth by half from the years 2013 to 2017, lowering expectations from 4% annual growth to 2%. According to the report, this measure could be complimented with an increase in the annual growth rate of clean energy sources and a deployment of clean coal technologies that could help reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants by up to 70%.

In addition, the Deutsche Bank report suggests lowering expectations for future growth in the sales of passenger vehicles and regulations that increase fuel efficiency. At the same time, the report suggests increasing investment in public transportation options such as rail and subway lines.

The report predicts that this can all be done while maintaining an economic growth rate of 6.8% annually -- a slight reduction from China's current projections of a 7.5% growth rate for 2013. While this seems simple enough, it is predicated on China cutting its energy intensity per unit of economic output in half -- a move that would enable economic growth to continue while increases in energy use slow. But that would require a shift from energy-intensive manufacturing toward an increase in the high-tech and service industries. This process could lead to significant economic costs.

For example, China's steel industry is currently responsible for producing around 46% of the world's steel. Smelting steel is an energy-intensive, highly polluting business. Slimming down the industry would likely lead to factory closures and layoffs. Some experts hope that these costs would be offset by an increase in more environmentally-friendly jobs, such as healthcare or tourism, but the adjustment could still be painful

Full Story
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 18/04/2013 11:14

As China Addresses Its ‘Airpocalypse,’ Coal Exporters Fear Loss Of Another Market

China’s air pollution crisis is more evident than ever. A new research report, conducted under the World Health Organization’sGlobal Burden of Disease project, shows thatover 1.2 million premature deaths were caused by PM2.5 pollution (fine particles like soot, mostly resulting from fossil fuel combustion). That accounts for 15 percent of the total deaths in China during 2010 and 40 percent of global air pollution-related deaths. The data also showed that Chinese people’s average exposure to PM2.5 increased 50 percent from 1990 to 2010, compared to 10 percent globally.

Burning coal is a leading cause of air pollution in China, coal fired power plants release dangerous pollutants such as SO2, NOx and particulate matter that contributes to PM2.5 pollution. Of course, burning coal is also a major source of the carbon pollution that is changing our climate.

The crisis was especially severe in Beijing earlier this year, when air pollution levels soared, “hitting pollution levels 25 times that considered safe in the U.S.”


After this so called “airpocalypse,” Chinese government officials and the public are paying increased attention to air pollution and the impacts of coal fired power plants. Seven high level government officials (including several vice ministers) issued a joint proposal during the annual political conference in March 2013, calling for a cap on coal consumption in key regions to clean up air pollution. The Beijing government has also released a plan to reduce air pollution.

It’s clear that addressing China’s air pollution crisis will require reducing coal consumption. In response to the air pollution crisis, Deutsche Bank issued a report on measures needed to bring air quality to acceptable levels. Their conclusion was that to meet national air quality targets even by 2030, China’s coal consumption will need to peak and decline within this decade. That would have big impacts on the global coal market – as Bloomberg News reported, “Global shipments of thermal coal could be 18 percent lower than forecasted by 2015 should China, the biggest importer, toughen measures to curb air pollution to safe levels.”

In fact, this trend has begun, and a note from Goldman Sachs predicts that “2013 will represent a watershed event for the seaborne market” because China’s thermal coal imports will fall this year, the first time that has occurred since the financial crisis in 2007-2008.


The prospect of reduced Chinese coal demand is already impacting the business plans of coal producers. A proposed coal export terminal in Australia was recently put on hold with the project backers citing “weak Asian demand,” as well as community opposition. The Wall Street Journal reports that for Chinese coal producers, “Faced with slowing domestic demand and attempts to reduce pollution, diversifying into other countries and commodities is the way forward.” Immediately after the Deutsche Bank report, Peabody’s stock fell 4.6%, “the result of an analyst citing the potential for Chinese coal demand to wane as the country fights pollution” according to the Motley Fool.

The U.S. coal industry is betting on China’s appetite for coal to justify its proposed Pacific Northwest terminals. But, the reality is that public opposition to coal is growing and people are demanding cleaner air. At the same time the government is creating policies to cap coal production and consumption, posing big risks for any coal producer counting on a growing Chinese coal market.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04...another-market/
Posted by: ROM

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/04/2013 11:53

Those who are constantly decrying Coal as a dangerous substance but who themselves are using a huge range of coal derived products as well as the energy generated from coal in their every day lives is indicative of their complete ignorance of the essential role that coal plays in the lives of all of us.

It is a very telling indictment on the level of knowledge or more accurately, the complete ignorance of the more rabid anti coal luddites of the roles that various energy generating technologies, coal being the main one, that has over the last 250 years created the technological civilisation that has and is giving our generation the level of living standards and quality of life and a longetivity of life that has never been experienced ever by mankind previously in all of his history.

There is a great deal of breast beating about renewable energy generation and the so called dangerous coal on this forum at present.
Coal of course is used to produce 41% of the world's electrical energy and shows no signs of being reduced very much in that role for another couple of decades at least.

Coal is just one of a half dozen energy generation technologies all of which have both their drawbacks as well as their advantages.
Energy generators such as Nuclear with it's very long lived radioactive waste products, most of which can be used and consumed with the use of breeder reactors and the coming Thorium reactors.
But nuclear is almost free of any of those dreaded and dangerous, at least in the minds of the rabid global warming believers, but also essential plant food, Carbon Dioxide plus having an economical power generation life of over 50 years for most nuclear power generators.

With Hydro, the only renewable energy source that is viable and long term, there is the initial very high capital cost of the dams and turbines and the disruption of a considerable expanse of the natural river valleys.
But a disruption which is fully compensated for within a decade or so by other natural and very beneficial outcomes that come with large bodies of water.

Gas is the up and coming energy source which as well as being found in immense quantities through fraking of the deep shale rock deposits right across the globe plus it also reduces CO2 emissions, emissions that will take on a less and less important place in the public consciousness as global temperatures continue to plateau.
And those global temperatures will quite possibly start to fall over the next few years as solar activity continues to slowly decrease.
And the great scam and catastrophic proclaiming ideology of global warming will then become nothing more than a cult theology of a small bunch of zealots.

The so called alternative power generation systems such as wind and solar with wind in particular, will just disappear with the ending of the economical life of the current wind turbines which from some very recent surveys of actual wind farms are showing that the economical life of a wind turbine is about 15 years, not the 20 or 30 as claimed by the turbine manufacturers or wind farm owners in enticing investors.
The fact that already investment is dissapearing for wind energy plus the howls of horror from the wind farm owners that they can't survive without the massive government subsidies and the government mandated very high electricity charges for consumers provides a reality check for those of who think in their ignorance and zealotism that wind energy will power the world.

Spanish investment in renewable energy has dropped by some 96% in the last year due to the removal of nearly all government subsidies and government mandated lucrative price regimes for the so called renewable energy industry.

Solar of course works for about 10 hours a day if you are lucky and mostly a good deal less than that so solar may help with personal power supplies but there there is no way solar will ever amount to much on a industrial and national scale .

For wave power, geothermal and various other supposed renewable energies systems, except in very, very limited situations such renewable energy dreams are just that, dreams!

Both wind and solar require at least a spinning reserve of about a minimum of 80% of the total power demands, fossil fueled in the current situation, that can come on line within a couple of minutes as the wind and solar have been both shown to be so variable and unpredictable

That leaves coal as the main global energy source for the foreseeable future.
When something cheaper and better and cleaner that is suitable for reliable and cheap energy generation on an industrial and countrywide scale comes along mankind will adopt it and very quickly.

Coal will still be the main global energy source at least until either or both Thorium reactors and / or Fusion power reactor technologies become fully viable perhaps by mid or late 21st century.

Or perhaps some of the many other forms of nuclear generation are funded and developed.
There are a lot of better nuclear power technologies out there that are considerably better than the light water and boiling water reactors that are the main nuclear power generator technologies in use at present.
Those other nuclear reactor technologies are better and more efficient with less waste.
Those more efficient forms and types of nuclear reactors have been tested and just need resources and development to become fully competitive with the present reactor technology.

The light water and boiling water reactors were developed as uranium and plutonium for nuclear bombs during the early Cold War period could be extracted from the fuel rods of those particular reactor types.

This leaves Coal

Coal is directly used for and accounts for energy required to produce about 80 percent of the global steel production from the blast furnaces and is responsible for generation the immense amounts of electricity used in refining the scrap metal in the Electric Arc Furnaces that is listed as accounting for the remaining 20% of annual global steel production.

Coal is directly used in the kilns that are used to produce cement which in turn is used for concrete, one of the world's most used building and essential construction materials.

Coal is used in generating the immense amounts of electrical power used in that metal that is sometimes called "congealed electricity", ie; aluminum,
And coal products are also used in very large quantities to make the carbon cathodes used in the anodes on the refining pots for aluminum metal production.
Quote:
The aluminum industry consumes about 0.45 lb. of anode carbon for each pound of aluminum produced. The ideal carbon should have a moderately-isotropic structure with minimum oxidant-accessible surface of low, uniform reactivity, and a maximum ash content, excluding bath salts, of a few tenths of one percent. Industrial anode carbon is a baked composite usually made of calcined petroleum coke filler with a binder of coal-tar pitch coke.


Coal is used in large quantities for heat generation in the essential and quite critical to the paper manufacturing drying processes in the final stages of the paper manufacturing.

Coal by-products are used extensively in creating pharmaceutical and household products; ie Uses of coal

Quote:
Using coal for industry can include burning it for the heat or using its by-products.

For example, methanol and ethylene, which are ingredients in coal, can be used in plastics, fertilizers, medicines and other products.

Concrete and paper factories also burn coal for their production.

When coal is baked, it is used to smelt iron ore to eventually make steel for cars and buildings.

Coal gasification and coal liquefaction (coal-to-liquids) are also possible uses of coal for producing synthetic fuel.

&

Other important users of coal include alumina refineries, paper manufacturers, and the chemical and pharmaceutical industries.

Several chemical products can be produced from the by-products of coal.
Refined coal tar is used in the manufacture of chemicals, such as creosote oil, naphthalene, phenol, and benzene.

Thousands of different products have coal or coal by-products as components: soap, aspirins, solvents, dyes, plastics and fibres, such as rayon and nylon.

Coal is also an essential ingredient in the production of specialist products:

* Activated carbon - used in filters for water and air purification and in kidney dialysis machines.

* Carbon fibre - an extremely strong but light weight reinforcement material used in construction, mountain bikes and tennis rackets.

* Silicon metal - used to produce silicones and silanes, which are in turn used to make lubricants, water repellents, resins, cosmetics, hair shampoos and toothpastes.


We have seen a very heavy breathing from the coal knockers on the area extent of the coal mines and how seriously bad that is.

Well there is another essential contributor to our civilisation which has disrupted and destroyed far more of our natural environment and destroyed far more native bushland as well as native animals and their habitats and has created far more and literally huge amounts of serious chemical and particle pollution than coal mines are likely to ever have done.

It's called City Development.

From Geoscience Australia we can access satellite based comparisons between a number of large Australian cities and their extent starting in 1988 and the changes and the immense growth in their areas and the consequent destruction of all of those natural environments I mentioned above that have taken place until now, 2011 or in some 23 years time span.

Perhaps most ironic of all it is the energy from coal fired power stations, from coal fired blast furnaces in steel mills and coal fired cement kilns that has enabled this massive expansion of our cities to take place over the last century.

Australian Urban Expansion
Click on a state and it's cities will come up for selection. [ eg; NSW ]
Click a city; [eg; Sydney ]
Select one from 5 types of presentations [ eg Sydney true colour ; before and after ]
This presentation has a vertical dividing line which, using your pointer you can slide that line from one side to the other of the Sydney pic and watch the changes .

For this post I will post the fixed satellite shots of Sydney in 1988 and the extent of Sydney's expansion by 2011 ;
Other Australian cities show similar expansion with the consequent effects I referred to above over that 23 years as you can check for yourselves from the Geoscience site.

Sydney 1988


Sydney 2011

Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/04/2013 12:10

Quote:
Retire the coal-fired power stations

South Australia's two coal-fired power stations at Port Augusta shut-down, one permanently; partly due to wind power. An article in The Advertiser, 2012/04/18, said that the Northern Power Station would only run in Summer to meet peak demands while the older Playford Power Station would be shut down permanently. (The PPS was the dirtiest in Australia in terms of carbon dioxide per unit of electricity generated.)
It is likely that the coal-fired power stations will be replaced with a gas-fired station. It would be much better to replace them with renewables; the Australian Youth Climate Coallition have a campagn to Repower Port Augusta with solar thermal and wind power – please support them.


Originally Posted By: ROM
The so called alternative power generation systems such as wind and solar with wind in particular, will just disappear with the ending of the economical life of the current wind turbines which from some very recent surveys of actual wind farms are showing that the economical life of a wind turbine is about 15 years, not the 20 or 30 as claimed by the turbine manufacturers or wind farm owners in enticing investors.
The fact that already investment is dissapearing for wind energy plus the howls of horror from the wind farm owners that they can't survive without the massive government subsidies and the government mandated very high electricity charges for consumers provides a reality check for those of who think in their ignorance and zealotism that wind energy will power the world.


That is why south Aust is leading the way in terms of Wind power generation.
Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
Quote:
Wind power peaks in SA http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8528671/wind-power-peaks-in-sa Sep 6 2012 South Australia’s wind farms briefly provided 85 per cent of the state’s electricity during windy conditions this week, the Clean Energy Council says.

Policy director Russell Marsh said data from the Australian Energy Market Operator showed 55 per cent of all the electricity used by South Australians on Wednesday was generated by wind power.

But it said wind power peaked briefly at 85 per cent on Monday morning. “South Australia has proven once again that wind energy can generate real power and lots of it,” Mr Marsh said. ”All this wind is putting South Australia well ahead of the curve on Australia’s 20 per cent renewable energy target.”


Percentage of SA Energy Contribution by Fuel Type

SA annual electricity imports and exports

Quote:
Installed wind power in South Australia
by wind farm, October 2011
Total 1205 MW capacity


Quote:
Updated from ESIPC Annual Planning Rept of Fossil fueled power SA. 2009
Total MW Capacity3644


Proof is in the pudding, SA has 1/4 of it's electricity generating capacity in wind turbines, and it is producing over 25% of SA electricity needs, and a other times has even exceeded that and produced over 1/2 of of SA electricity needs.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/04/2013 12:16

Sometimes you just have to laugh at the very deep holes the anti coal and global warmers are digging for themselves as the great renewable energy scam comes to an ignominious end and leaves them looking like fools that have backed the wrong horse and lost their last shirts.

This from the BBC, about the last media outfit to report this unless the great alternative and renewable energy scam was really coming to an end and even the very warming biased BBC can now see that as well.

Green energy on the back foot after carbon trading blow
It's been a bad week for efforts to develop green energy around the world.
Quote:
A new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) says that progress towards carbon-free energy production has basically stalled.

"Despite much talk by world leaders," said IEA executive director, Maria van der Hoeven, "and despite a boom in renewable energy over the last decade, the average unit of energy produced today is basically as dirty as it was 20 years ago."

The IEA uses a complex calculation called the carbon intensity index to show how much CO2 is emitted to provide a given unit of energy.

The index stood at 2.39 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of oil in 1990. By 2010, it has shrunk fractionally to 2.37 tonnes.

Back to black
The major reason for such a small reduction of that period, according to the IEA, was the resurgence of coal. And it continues to grow. Globally, coal-fired electricity generation rose by an estimated 6% from 2010 to 2012 , faster than non-fossil energy.

The major growth in coal came from developing economies, with China accounting for 46% of global coal demand in 2011.

But it's not just them.

Europe, the region that likes to think of itself as perhaps the greenest in the world, has also seen a return to coal in the last couple of years. While the US has turned to shale gas, Europeans have once again embraced the black stuff, as the cost of coal has plummeted.

However, it is not all bad news for the green sector. Renewables such as solar and wind have boomed in 2011 and 2012, perhaps driven by government spending.

They accounted for 19% of global electricity generation in 2011 which according to the report is "broadly on track to meet a 2C scenario by 2020" for a globally altered climate.

Electric vehicle sales have doubled (still a measly 110,000) while hybrid vehicles have finally broken the one million sales mark.

But turning this oil tanker (perhaps coal carrier is a better metaphor?) is not going to be easy.

And efforts will not have been helped by a vote in the European Parliament that rejected an attempt by the Commission to prop up the extremely ailing EU carbon market.


Carbon trading is seen as critical for making green energy more affordable
The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has been seen as the world's best attempt to cut carbon by means of cap and trade. Essentially, 12,000 or so electricity generators and industrial heavy users of energy have had their emissions limited by EU law. The development of this market was seen as critical to both cutting emissions and driving investment in green energy.

But too many allowances were issued over the past few years - and the market price collapsed. The Commission attempted to rectify this by reducing the number of allowances due to issued in the next two years, a proposal known as backloading.

The Parliament though wouldn't wear it. Many MEPs held to the view that the collapsing carbon price was an accurate reflection of the real economy.

Some environmental campaigners have also welcomed the backloading breakdown. They argue that the market hasn't worked as it essentially has become a means of avoiding real carbon cuts by paying someone else to do them.

"We believe the failed backloading vote points to the fact that we need alternative tools - direct, ambitious, just regulatory policies," said Hannah Mowat from Fern, a NGO that has been working on carbon issues for a decade.

"We are now trying to galvanize support around more effective tools to achieve emissions reductions. " she added.

There is now going to be a serious amount of head-scratching among European academics and politicians on the best ways forward for green energy.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/04/2013 12:32

Must be like them sceptics? keep on clinging to a sinking ship?

Quote:
"... a massive 26% of South Australian electricity was generated by wind, up from 18% in 2010 and less than 1% five years ago. Since 2006-07 the share of gas in power generation has fallen from 58% to 49% but the big change has been in coal, which has fallen from 42% to 25%.Wind is effectively replacing coal."
Dr Bethune informed me (email) that the data on which this was based came from the AEMO.
With wind power getting ahead of coal it's no wonder that the Liberals and particularly Rowan Ramsey federal Parliamentarian for Grey, where the dirtiest coal-fired power station in Australia is, are concerned about the falling profitability of the fossil fuel industry.

Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/04/2013 14:01

Originally Posted By: ROM

The rank hypocrisy of those on this thread and forum who are constantly decrying Coal as a dangerous substance but who themselves are using a huge range of coal derived products as well as the energy generated from coal in their every day lives is indicative of their complete ignorance of the essential role that coal plays in the lives of all of us.

Perhaps most ironic of all it is the energy from coal fired power stations, from coal fired blast furnaces in steel mills and coal fired cement kilns that has enabled this massive expansion of our cities to take place over the last century.


Pollution link to cancer also found in Newcastle

Damning new evidence of the link between cancer and industrial pollution has been produced by further analysis of statewide NSW Cancer Council statistics obtained by the Workers Inquiry.

The results show extraordinary levels of leukaemia and cancer near the Newcastle steelworks. For both, the rates close to the steelworks, BHP's oldest and most run-down, are approximately double those near the company's Port Kembla plant.

The figures reveal a similar correlation as found in Wollongong between the cancer and leukaemia rates and radial distance from the steel plant and other heavy industry. In the Hunter region the leukaemia rate is more than eight times higher near the steelworks than it is at West Wallsend, 18 km away; and the cancer rate is 3.8 times higher.

The pattern of distribution, shown in the accompanying diagram and table, shows an inverse square relationship between cancer rates and distance from the steel plant, like that uncovered by the Workers Inquiry in Wollongong. Such a radially symmetrical curve is compelling evidence of a specific point source -- the steelworks. There is less than a 1 percent possibility that this pattern is produced by chance.

As the diagram and table show, there is a smaller leukaemia peak in the Boolaroo and Warners Bay postcodes, near Pasminco's Cockle Creek smelter. A comparable peak (not shown in the graphic) exists in Heddon Greta, Weston and Kurri Kurri, near an aluminium smelter.

The statistics were analysed by environmental scientist Chris Illert and come from the same set of postcode-by-postcode figures that were finally supplied to the Workers Inquiry from the NSW Central Cancer Registry after years of being withheld from researchers. Covering the period 1972-94,/b] the data show a pattern that has existed for at least two decades.[/b]

In the case of Wollongong, the average rate of leukaemia at Berkeley, 4 km from Port Kembla, was 4 per 1,000 people over 22 years -- 10 times higher than at Minnamurra, 18 km from the smokestacks.

For the Hunter region, the leukaemia rate was twice as high near the steelworks
-- at Carrington, approximately 2 km from BHP, it was 8.4, compared to 1 at West Wallsend.

Likewise, the cancer rate at Carrington was 185.2, whereas at West Wallsend it was 48.8. The corresponding figures in the Illawarra were about half -- 95.5 at Berkeley and 14.85 at Minnamurra.

Both Wollongong and Newcastle are sites of heavy industrial complexes, based on the steelworks, surrounded by working class suburbs. For decades, thousands of workers and their families have had little financial choice but to live and work in the fumes belching from these complexes..

Having extracted every possible ounce of profit out of its original Newcastle works, BHP has formally announced its closure, not only axeing a total of 3,000 steelworkers' jobs but also seeking to wash its hands of countless victims of its industrial pollution. Port Kembla is likely to suffer a similar fate. There, the company has eliminated thousands of jobs and is continuously driving up the rate of output while slashing maintenance spending by 30 percent.


The Newcastle figures reinforce the conclusion drawn by the Workers Inquiry commissioners that the Wollongong crisis is part of a wider industry-caused pattern of cancers and ill-health. Moreover, they demonstrate that this pattern is far from confined to the Illawarra. It is likely to exist in all working class-industrial areas.

Evidence presented to the Workers Inquiry showed that cancer rates are going up everywhere. The number of cancer cases diagnosed in NSW has more than doubled from 11,489 in 1972 to 24,922 in 1993. In 1991, cancer replaced coronary heart disease as the leading cause of death in Australia.

By 1994 cancer accounted for 27 percent of all deaths nationwide, compared to 16 percent in 1972.

Workers News will further investigate the Newcastle situation. As in Wollongong, it is certain that the industry-related cancer pattern has been deliberately covered up by BHP and other major companies, backed by successive Labor and Liberal governments and the trade union bureaucracy.

The Workers Inquiry established that the staggering number of leukaemia and lymphoma deaths among teenagers and young adults in the southern suburbs of Wollongong would have remained hidden from public view if not for the efforts of one of the young victims, Melissa Cristiano, whose struggle was taken up by other residents and workers through the Workers Inquiry itself.

The inquiry proved that for decades, governments, official agencies and the trade unions have worked together to protect the corporate profits of industrial giants such as BHP, regardless of the destruction of working class lives and health. The findings and the recommendations issued by the six commissioners are now being presented at a series of public meetings in major working class centres, including Newcastle.

http://www.sep.org.au/cancer/inquiry/newc-o97.htm
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/04/2013 14:05

Coal is both 100% ORGANIC and 100%NATURAL so according to some it must be 100% SAFE.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/04/2013 14:12

Quote:
Pollution link to cancer also found in Newcastle


You better sit down for what I have to say next ... erm, actually you better stay standing:

Did you know that this is associated with 100,000 cancer cases each year inthe US! And it is unreported here in Australia!

linky

And

Quote:
proved that for decades, governments, official agencies and the trade unions have worked together to protect the corporate corporal profits posteriors of industrial "giants"
smile
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/04/2013 14:13

Originally Posted By: SBT
Coal is both 100% ORGANIC and 100%NATURAL so according to some it must be 100% SAFE.
Of course it is! it is 100% organic and safe...... when left in it's own natural state UNDERGROUND! and undisturbed!! smirk it is only when man starts meddling and digging it up that it causes pollution and when you burn it that it causes all sorts of problems.
Posted by: snafu

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/04/2013 14:32

Ummm...my father worked at Newcastle BHP (steelworks) for 45 years. He is now 87 and NO sign of cancer, leukaemia or lymphoma.
Posted by: ozthunder

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/04/2013 14:47

I do not normally partake in any Climate threads as they all nasty and personal.

The cancer clusters in the Illawarra are real, but probably more aligned to heavy metals.

For example to now closed copper smelter spewed out lead in the fumes for numerous years and children went to school in the shadow of the 'big stack' including myself. The school was finally moved.

I worked 10 years in a now closed down power station, a few of the older guys have died of asbestosis or dust related diseases. It is just pot luck, just like some smokers get away free despite their habit.

Snafu you should thank your lucky genes. My Dad was not so lucky with dust disease from Port Kembla contributing to his death.
Posted by: liberator

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/04/2013 15:33

http://www.theage.com.au/national/new-kinds-of-power-to-the-people-20130418-2i31m.html
Posted by: ROM

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/04/2013 19:16

From the Wall Street Journal;

Another something that you can't do and probably never will do with wind turbines or solar panels;

]Coal-to-Chemicals Projects Boom in China

Quote:
For years China has been a magnet for the chemicals industry, attracting European and American companies with its cheap production costs and growing market.

Now China has another attraction for the energy-intense chemical industry: vast supplies of coal that can replace oil and natural gas as raw materials for chemical production.

In the last two years, China has built nearly 20 plants that convert coal into a gas that can be used to make such things as plastic and pharmaceuticals, according to the Gasification Technologies Council, an industry trade group. The new plants draw on technology developed by companies such as General Electric Co. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC.

Now, Western chemical firms are getting in on the action. Celanese Corp. opened a plant this year that uses coal-based feedstock to make a chemical used in paints and food sweeteners. Dow Chemical Co. has partnered with Chinese energy company Shenhua Group Corp. to study a project to convert coal into plastics. Mining company Anglo American PLC is also looking at a coal-to-chemicals project. Suppliers to the chemical industry, such as Praxair Inc., are vying to open accounts with the new coal-to-chemical plants.

"Coal to chemicals is an opportunity that's literally exploding [in China] right now," says Timothy Vail, chief executive and president of Synthesis Energy Systems Inc., a company that builds coal-gasification plants.

Launching their own coal-to-chemicals projects in China represents one way Western companies are fighting to keep their competitive edge. In the past decade, chemicals makers based in Europe and North America have lost market share to their counterparts in Asia, where demand for chemicals is rapidly growing.

China's government, meanwhile, has orchestrated the buildup of the coal-to-chemicals industry in an effort to reduce the nation's growing dependence on imported natural gas. Using China's vast coal deposits to make chemicals and plastics provides a more reliable source of raw materials that can feed the expansion of China's main economic growth engine, its manufacturing sector. The new plants also replace older, soot-belching chemical factories that have earned the government a bad reputation for the pollution they create in Chinese cities.

Gasification technology, which uses high temperatures and pressure to break the molecular bonds in coal to produce gases that can be recombined into a variety of fuels and chemicals, has existed for more than a century. Germany gasified coal to fuel its planes during World War II. China has made fertilizers through gasification for decades. But there had been little incentive for the global chemical industry to gasify coal until prices began soaring for natural gas and oil.

North America has its own huge reserves of coal, sparking interest in gasification plants in that continent as well. But development has been slowed by concerns that the projects would contribute to growing emissions of the gases that cause global warming. Among fossil fuels, coal emits an especially large amount of carbon dioxide when being burned, and man-made carbon dioxide is one of the most prevalent gases that human activities are contributing to earth's rising temperatures. Gasifying coal to produce chemicals emits less carbon dioxide than does burning coal as fuel, but the process still ejects more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than using natural gas would produce, says Eric Larson, a research engineer at the Princeton Environmental Institute.

The U.S. government doesn't yet limit nationwide the amount of global-warming emissions industry can release into the air. But the future prospect of such rules, along with coal's dirty reputation, has kept coal gasification from catching on in the U.S. on the same scale as it has in China, analysts say. "There is a stigma about coal because of its historical environmental and safety concerns," says Edward Glatzer, director of technology at Nexant Inc., a San Francisco-based consulting firm.

Some of the Western companies planning to jump into the sector in China, including Dow Chemical, are considering ways to offset or store the global-warming emissions their projects will generate. One possibility -- a process that would inject carbon dioxide deep underground for storage -- is a largely untested technology that is likely to be very expensive. In the meantime, gasification projects are getting speedily green-lighted in China without concern over emissions.

China is poised to surpass the U.S. as the No. 1 emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. Studies show that about one-fourth of China's global-warming emissions are released in the process of making the tennis shoes, toys, computers, shirts and other products that the country exports abroad.

While the Chinese government agrees on the need to reduce carbon emissions, it prefers to achieve that through increased energy efficiency and by using more alternative energy. It has no plans to cap carbon emissions because it believes such a move would limit economic growth.

Government officials have smoothed the way for gasification projects by fast-tracking permits and helping companies to secure capital, industry executives say. "In anywhere between 24 to 32 months they have [plants] built and operating," says John Lavelle, general manager of GE Energy's gasification business. "It's pretty remarkable."

Cheap labor and minimal regulations mean coal-gasification plants in China can be built for about two-thirds to one-half the cost of a project in the U.S. or Europe. Coal-to-chemical plants built in the last two years have expanded Chinese capacity by 45 million cubic meters of gas a day that can be used as chemical feedstocks, according to the Gasification Technologies Council. The plants slated for construction in the next four years will double that capacity.

Western companies involved in China's coal-to-chemical industry argue that coal gasification has the potential to be environmentally friendly. Because the gasification process separates out carbon dioxide, the global-warming gas can be more easily captured and stored once an affordable technology is developed. Dow, for example, says it is studying ways to sequester carbon dioxide -- or to offset its environmental impact by reducing emissions elsewhere through projects such as planting carbon-dioxide-consuming trees.

Celanese says it is committed to controlling greenhouse-gas emissions in all its operations, reducing them by 30% from 2005 to 2010. "Reducing emissions means you are more efficient," says David Weidman, the company's CEO and also a member of the board for environmental group the Conservation Fund.

Chinese companies aren't sweating the issue, say analysts at the China Petroleum and Chemical Industry Association. Only China's two biggest oil and chemical firms, the state-owned giant China Petroleum & Chemical Corp., known as Sinopec, and China National Petroleum Corp., parent of the listed PetroChina, are studying how to store carbon emissions.


Posted by: ROM

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/04/2013 19:25

And how the Chinese are using all that coal to turn into those ubiquitous plastics with each Gasifier unit capable of turning 2000 tonnes a day of coal into a gas suitable for the raw materials to make plastics and numerous other products.

Siemens to Supply First 500MW Coal Gasifiers to China for Coal to Plastics

Quote:
Siemens Energy will deliver the first two of five coal gasifiers to Shenhua Ningxia Coal Industry Group Co. Ltd. (SNCG) in China. (Earlier post.) The coal gasifiers, each with a thermal capacity of 500MW, are destined for the Ningxia coal-to-polypropylene (NCPP) plant in Ningxia Province in northwest China.


Cross-section through the Siemens 500MW gasifier. Click to enlarge.
After completion in early 2010, the plant with its five gasifiers will have an hourly production capacity of approximately 540,000 cubic meters of syngas, which will then be converted in downstream processes to polypropylene plastic.

The Siemens coal gasifiers, which are 18 meters long with an inside diameter of 3 meters and weigh 220 tonnes, are among the world’s largest and most powerful. They are capable of gasifying up to 2,000 tonnes of coal daily.

In the gasification process hard coal, lignite and other substances such as biomass, petcoke and refinery residues will be converted to syngas, and environmental pollutants such as sulfur and carbon dioxide subsequently removed. The syngas can then be used for power generation in integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants or as a raw material in the chemical industry, for example in the production of synthetic fuels.

The Siemens 500-MW coal gasifier is characterized by its straightforward design, high availability level, low servicing requirements, and fast startup and shutdown. Work is already in progress on gasifiers in the next higher capacity class.

In 2006, Siemens acquired the technology for the gasification of fossil raw materials and the 50-percent stake in the Chinese joint venture with Shenhua Ninxia Coal Industry Group from the Swiss company Sustec Holding AG.


Cross-section through the Siemens 500MW gasifier.

Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/04/2013 22:09

lifeboats at the ready.. shocked whistle

New Report Shows Days of Cheap, Affordable Coal-Fired Power Are Over
Escalating costs, increasingly-competitive clean energy alternatives, emerging ‘OCEC’ cartel make new coal plant investments risky

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the Sierra Club released a new study, revealing that the days of cheap, affordable coal fired power are now over. The report, Locked In: The Financial Risks of New Coal-Fired Power Plants in Today’s Volatile International Coal Market, challenges the traditional view that coal is a cheap and reliable energy option for countries around the world. At a time when coal-fired power is at a historic low in the US and the EU, the report warns of developing countries locking themselves into coal plant investments that face significant financial risk from rising costs.

Authored by Bruce Buckheit, former Director of the EPA’s Air Enforcement Office, the report upends a common argument in favor of coal investment – that it is cheap and affordable. Rather, the report highlights the rising costs of coal plant construction, rising global coal prices, and the emergence of an “Organization of Coal Exporting Countries” (OCEC) -- all of which make electricity from coal-fired power plants inherently risky and unaffordable for countries around the world.

“Environmental and public health concerns aside, the truth is coal is just a lousy financial investment,” says Justin Guay, Washington Representative for the Sierra Club. “Policymakers and financial institutions need to catch up to this 21st century reality - coal is no longer affordable.”

According to the report, the primary factor affecting the viability of coal-fired power plant projects is increasing costs. Construction cost overruns of up to 100% have become common-place while coal prices continue to rise around the world. The latter is exacerbated by an emerging OCEC that dominates a highly concentrated global coal market. The top two producers alone - Australia and Indonesia - account for more than 50% of global coal exports, providing ample opportunity for maintaining high coal prices. Often prevented from passing on these costs to consumers due to domestic regulatory structures, coal plant investments in China and India retain maximum exposure to these cost fluctuations which puts significant pressure on profit margins, making them extremely risky investments.

The fallout from these rising costs is already evident around the world. In India, the 4GW Tata Mundra Ultra-Mega Power Plant project is seeking to be released from its long-term power purchase agreements in the face of billions of dollars in losses, before it has even completed construction. In the United States, the recently-completed Spiritwood Station coal plant in North Dakota has opted to remain idle rather than operate at a loss.

“We are seeing a rise in non-performing coal assets around the world,” says Guay. “These risky investments force average citizens to pay the price for increasingly expensive coal fired power.”

Compounding these problems is the opportunity cost of the alternative – clean, renewable energy. Leading competitors such as wind energy and solar photovoltaic (PV) panels are experiencing plummeting prices and rapidly becoming competitive with coal fired power. The report documents that the cost of power from solar PV has fallen by over 60% since 2008, while new wind power can provide energy at 5-10 cents/kWh, making it competitive with coal in any market.

“Clean energy is increasingly competitive around the world,’ says Guay. “Countries and financial institutions that lock themselves into coal investments are exposed to the risk volatile international fuel markets – something clean energy investments avoid.”

Ultimately, the report argues that avoiding ‘lock-in’ to new coal fired power plant investments requires assuming that coal prices will rise, using accurate discount rates, and establishing a risk premium for any proposed coal plant investment. The combination of these measures can help shield financial institutions from the increasing risks associated with coal.

To read the report go here: http://www.sierraclub.org/international/lockedin/
Posted by: ROM

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/04/2013 22:33

If you quote from a Greenpeace, the WWF or Sierra Club publication Yasi, don't be expected to be taken seriously by anyone, anywhere outside of the watermelon brigade.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/04/2013 22:55

Originally Posted By: ROM
If you quote from a Greenpeace, the WWF or Sierra Club publication Yasi, don't be expected to be taken seriously by anyone, anywhere outside of the watermelon brigade.


Oh?... only according to the sceptics... well then what about the Victorian Auditor general grin
Lifeboats... whistle

Coal fired power hits decade low

Let’s be honest: the relationship between renewable energy and the electricity market is complex. So what does the latest report from Australian energy research firm RepuTex tell us?

Well, for a start, coal-fired power has reached a ten-year low.

The report, widely covered in the media, shows coal now makes up 74.8% of the National Electricity Market (NEM), down from 85.8% in 2008-2009.

At the same time the contribution of other energy, and renewable energy in particular, has risen. Hydro power makes up 8.7% of the market, with wind making up 3.8%, both record highs for these energy sources. This leads to the conclusion that greenhouse emissions in the NEM have also reached a ten-year low.

The RepuTex report indicates that both increased renewable energy generation and weaker demand is putting a “squeeze” on traditional generation.

This is ultimately reducing the market price of electricity as renewable energy competes with coal and other traditional energy sources. But, as said, the relationship between renewable energy, competition and market prices is complex.

Does renewable energy lower prices?
In 2011 the Victorian Auditor-General reported that the brown coal industry was concerned that the 10% renewable energy target would deliver too much too quickly which would reduce wholesale electricity prices and impact on brown coal generators.

We looked back and modelled the hypothetical impact of distributed solar photovoltaics (PV) on electricity prices in 2009 and 2010. Lowering the wholesale cost of electricity might offset the costs of renewable energy support schemes.

Using the model we estimated introducing 5,000 megawatts (MW) of solar would lower the market price of electricity by more than A$1.8 billion over 2009 and 2010. When we completed this analysis there was a minuscule 385 MW of solar in the electricity market. Now there is already 2,500 MW, making our estimate look conservative.

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) forecasts 12,000 MW to be installed by 2030 in their “moderate” scenario. The impact of PV on market demand is already starting to show on the market.

The average wholesale electricity prices for 2011-12 were the lowest (in real terms) since the market commenced in 1998. Even with the carbon tax, prices are not much above the long-term average of about A$50 per megawatt hour (adjusted to 2013 dollar terms). Recently, the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) reportedthat wind generation is moderating wholesale electricity prices in South Australia, and when there is less wind, prices are higher.

Merit order effect
The reason has a lot to do with an interaction called the “merit order effect”.

In our electricity market, energy is offered into the market by generators on a five minute basis. Each generator, or source of electricity, is used according to cost, with lowest cost being used first. This sometimes called a “merit order” dispatch system.

Low-cost electricity generators, including renewable sources such as wind and coal, are used before high-cost generators like peak gas turbines. Price is determined by cost of fuel and operating costs. The last generator used in each five minute block to meet demand sets the price.

If new low-cost generators are added, like renewables with no fuel costs, it alters the “merit order”. High-cost generators may then not need to be used, resulting in lower prices. Personal or household (distributed) renewables like rooftop solar photovoltaics (PV) can have the same effect on merit order.

However, the merit order effect can’t last forever. Theoretically supply and demand should eventually balance, as demand grows and old generators close. However, with another 8,000 MW of wind capacity projected to be installed by 2020 and another 10,000 MW of solar PV by 2030 it is easy to envisage a scenario where wholesale prices stay low for a long time.

Will prices be passed on to customers?
Renewables and distributed PV are not the only thing affecting merit order and the wholesale electricity market.

As the Queensland Competition Authority (QCA) recently noted, the merit order effect is not just due to solar generators.

It is the result of a number of different influences from both the supply and demand side. Economic conditions influence industrial demand; households are increasingly using their own solar; and customers are adopting energy efficient measures. It can be difficult to distinguish between these factors.

Even assuming a fully competitive market, participants need to manage risk and exposure to volatile wholesale price. Even if market prices drop when renewable energy is introduced, more sophisticated market modelling suggests distributed renewable generation actually reduced market volatility.

In a competitive market, lower wholesale prices are completely foreseeable. What is less clear is whether, and to what extent, these prices will be passed on to customers.

This depends largely on the electricity generator’s hedging and contracting arrangements, and market behaviour, among a myriad of other factors.

Some argue that price reductions will flow through to consumers and eventually lower electricity prices.

Others argue that the oligopolistic behaviour displayed in electricity markets will erode competition and the merit order effect, preventing it being passed on to consumers.



http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/04/coal-fired-power-hits-decade-low/


Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 21/04/2013 09:15

Quote:
Sometimes you just have to laugh at the very deep holes the anti coal and global warmers are digging for themselves as the great renewable energy scam comes to an ignominious end and leaves them looking like fools that have backed the wrong horse and lost their last shirts.


Lucky coal is such a strong industry and is self supporting...now i wonder what would happen to the Coal industry if you took away the Massive Government subsidies and financing...Would Coal go the way of the dinosaurs?

Carbon crunch hits coal power as banks baulk at funding

Last night's move brings to about $1.1 billion the value of debt refinancings, under which foreign investors have been forced to bail out coal-power generators that are under strain as the impact of the carbon tax and volatility on financial markets has made it difficult to refinance.

The refinancing on Millmerran was worth $478m, although InterGen's overall refinancing was worth close to $1bn as it also owns the Callide C power station, which is a joint venture with the Queensland state government.

The government was told last year that the major brown-coal power stations in Victoria's Latrobe Valley, as well as Queensland's Millmerran, were due to refinance between $4.5bn and $6.5bn in debt by the end of this year. The opposition last night seized on the announcement, particularly the banks' refusal to refinance the power stations.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national...f-1226408428480

Will cost of bailout of coal miner be itemised on WA household utility bills?

A report in the Australian Financial Review (AFR) yesterday (4 April 2012) suggested two Western Australian Government Enterprises, Synergy and Water Corporation, have been asked to consider contributing to a $90 million dollar bailout of the ongoing saga of the Bluewaters coal fired power station and Lanco Infratech's need for subsidies to support the project.


http://www.seaaus.com.au/content/view/472/145/

Bailout for Millmerran power



MILLIONS of dollars have been pumped into the Millmerran power station to keep the asset afloat as the looming carbon tax takes its toll on the coal-fired electricity industry.
http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/bailout-millmerran-power-toowoomba/1431368/

Premier refuses to guarantee worker entitlements

WA Energy Minister Peter Collier has been left red-faced after State Premier Colin Barnett overruled his decision to guarantee the entitlements of collapsed miner, Griffin Coal's 500 workers.
http://myresources.com.au/publications/the-mining-chronicle/news/933-griffin-bailout-blackballed

Electricity sector faces $6.5b debt refinancing


''All four major Victorian brown coal base load power generators (Loy Yang A, Loy Yang B, Hazelwood and Yallourn Energy) and the Queensland black coal generator, Millmerran, have upcoming debt maturities,'' it said.

''The requirements for this refinancing are estimated as being

between about $4.5 billion and $6.5 billion to be refinanced prior to the end of 2012,'' the report said, quoting ratings agency Fitch.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/electrici...l#ixzz2R2xt4YGr


Future hinges on wind enegry

Australia's energy system is necessarily complex: particularly in Victoria where we rely on an increasing number of energy sources.

The legacy brown coal-fired power stations of the Latrobe Valley, drawing on a resource that was always and obviously finite, are experiencing challenges as generation technologies and a new suite of energy policies start to bite.

We noted coal-fired plants are experiencing greater difficulty in gaining finance and environmental approval.


Last month it was reported that the parent company of the Latrobe Valley's Hazelwood power station - now more than 40 years old - had to inject $650 million of rescue capital into Hazelwood after it was unable to secure bank finance.

Similarly, Queensland's Swanbank B and the Hunter Valley's Munmorah coal-fired power stations were closed last month and in May respectively because they were no longer economically viable.

These difficulties will continue, as financiers see increasing risk associated with such assets.

Interestingly, it now seems a reasonably commonplace view that we're unlikely to see another new coal-fired power plant debt financed in this country.

Another contender is gas - currently very expensive and, as Minister for Resources and Energy Martin Ferguson said "domestically the role of gas in Australia's electricity system may take longer to materialise than previously expected".

Overall, growth in electricity demand has fallen in recent times. Forecasts by Australian Energy Market Operator are now for growth of 1.7 per cent per annum through to 2020 - down from an original forecast of 2.3 per cent.

We can thank higher energy prices to bolster ageing transmission and distribution infrastructure, increased domestic energy conservation measures and the uptake of renewable wind and solar energy platforms for this change.

Let us be clear though. While this trend of reduced growth in demand can be expected to continue in the short-term, the outlook in the long-term is for continued growth in demand.

Given an expectation that coal will no longer dominate our energy generation in the lifetime of most Australians, what do we expect to fill the gap?

[/b]Clearly, the future is with a diversified energy system including a substantial role for renewables.

Wind and solar power can deliver on the challenge right now, with ever increasing sophistication and scale and reducing costs.[/b] Other technologies are following closely behind.

Renewable sources currently provide 9.6 per cent of total electricity produced in Australia.

In South Australia renewable energy, specifically wind energy, provides more than 20 per cent of the state's electricity needs. And the figure is rising.

Our view is that a more diversified and geographically distributed energy sector is critical to Australia's continued energy security, prosperity and general wellbeing.

A drive to establish a world-class decentralised, distributed energy system not only means substantial investment in jobs in regional Australia, but also lowers the pressure to upgrade our antiquated transmission and distribution systems, many of which date back to the middle of last century. And being the key cause of rising power bills, surely this is an attractive proposition.

As well, diversified technology changes the cost base, and reduces risk.

While both major renewable forms - wind and solar - require significant upfront capital investment, ongoing costs of production are low since the fuel source is free, and forever.

As such technologies are deployed globally, so the costs rapidly decline.

For Australia, the biggest challenge is in the transition.

The wind sector as the first mover must get better at managing the process of change, and we know now we cannot rely on government to provide us a bridge to a community well-informed about the complexities of such a shift.

We do know though that Australia is not the first country to tackle this challenge. In Europe, Scandinavia, the US and South America for example, this transition has been under way for a long time.

We are none of those countries above, but there is no reason we cannot be learning from and following the best of their leads.

http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2012/08/22/528001_opinion-news.html
Posted by: snafu

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 21/04/2013 13:53

It would be nice YS if you also report on what else happened in the energy world...... wink

World Bank move signals trouble for energy security

Kenya Power’s deal that forced World Bank out of wind farm
Posted by: snafu

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 21/04/2013 14:07

That doesn't include what has been happening over in Italy recently btw.... wink

Has the Mafia infiltrated the renewable energy industry?

Italian police seize $1.7b in mafia-owned wind and solar energy assets

How the Italian Mafia turned clean energy into dirty money

Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 21/04/2013 14:23

Originally Posted By: snafu
It would be nice YS if you also report on what else happened in the energy world...... wink


That's what the other threads are for... whistle poke
Posted by: snafu

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 21/04/2013 14:27

It's not just coal that has a dark and dirty side... whistle evillaugh
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 21/04/2013 15:23

Not as dark nor as dirty as coal though...
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 21/04/2013 15:48

Or a bit closer to home....

Inquiry into Coal Seam Gas industry after corruption claims

http://www.cqnews.com.au/news/lock-the-gate-calls-for-csg-rushed-approvals-inqui/1814596/

ICAC hears more evidence about coal deal

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-16/ic...316?section=nsw

CASCADE COAL'S plan for a $1 billion mine at Mount Penny, which would make some of the nation's richest men even richer, appears doomed after Barry O'Farrell said corruption allegations would be considered when deciding the application.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/1b-mine-looks-doomed-20130221-2eud3.html#ixzz2R4dZQzkn

Further afield..

Coal scam under the benign Ministership of Manmohan Singh is now a matter of CBI investigation which is being monitored by the Apex Court.

http://www.niticentral.com/2013/04/21/thanks-to-upa%E2%80%99s-bungling-economy-is-back-to-where-it-was-in-1990-68631.html

Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/04/2013 09:04

Originally Posted By: ROM
Well you have provided an interesting efficiency graph Yasi. I didn't see it initially as I have you under the "ignore" button.

So to the graph and you still haven't defined yet what you mean by efficient, just posted a graph without any explanation on what you believe being "efficient" actually relates to..
The inference to drawn from that is you don't really know what "efficiency" is or relates too.


You really should not choose to ignore you know, as you tend to miss out on lots of interesting facts and figures, here are some updated ones for the Thermal efficiencies

Updated bayswater and Liddell efficiencies...Seems the highest efficiency was 35.2% over a 4 year period.



Updated Eraring efficiencies...Seems the highest efficiency was 37.9% over a 4 year period.



Updated efficiencies combined for Mt Piper,Vales point and wallerawang...Seems the highest efficiency was 35.8% over a 4 year period.



Here is some more.

Originally Posted By: Delta electricity
Key Issues
Debt and Capital Structure
Delta’s debt was reduced by $450 million on 1 March 2011 as part of the GenTrader
arrangements. However, Delta regards its current debt level of $855 million as too high to
sustain in the medium-term based on its uncommitted generated electricity. Delta’s debt
represented 335 per cent of its equity at 30 June 2012.
The table in the following Performance
Information section shows the significant movement in this ratio over the last four years.


Originally Posted By: Bayswater power
Debt to equity ratio decreased by 32.5 per cent mainly due to the repayment of $32.0 million
borrowings to New South Wales Treasury Corporation and a reduction of $698 million
in the
asset revaluation reserve resulted from the devaluation of infrastructure assets, which also
increased return on average equity by 1.6 per cent

Sales revenue decreased by $32.0 million from the previous year as a result of low demand,
low pool and contract market prices.
Partially offsetting the reduction in sales revenue was $14.0 million received from an
insurance settlement for the Liddell power station.

Financing costs were $10.0 million higher than last year due to losses on interest rate futures’
positions associated with treasury management. These losses were created by the fall in
bond rates to historically low levels.


Originally Posted By: Eraring power station
Generation has trended downwards over the past three years primarily due to planned
outages for work undertaken on the capacity upgrade project at Eraring Power Station and
recent plant failures.


Total revenue increased by $6.3 million mainly due to a $4.1 million increase in interest
revenue and $5.1 million of green revenue associated with green energy productivity targets.


Well fancy that? Coal fired doesn't seem to stable to me.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/04/2013 09:42

Coal fired not stable? Well from memory in the last 19 years I have lost power twice, Tessi for 3 days and Yasi for 10 and only then because the Kelso sub station took a couple of lightning strikes as well as massive power line damage along Riverway Drive. On both occasions the coal fired power stations further south and the gas fired generator here in Townsville continued to work 24/7.

The difference between wind and coal is that coal can be switched from one power plant to another within a couple of minutes while wind actually needs to be blowing for it to produce anything before it can be switched or used.

Now your average wind turbine would have to be shut down during a cyclonic event in case it damaged the turbine/tower/transformer. A coal fired power station continues to work regardless of weather conditions.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/04/2013 10:53

Those,figures and quotes come straight from the horse's mouth.

cupla more?

Originally Posted By: Vales point
Targeted plant availability was not achieved in 2011–12 due to prolonged scheduled and
unscheduled outages in the Vales Point power station. An unscheduled outage is an
unexpected interruption to a power station’s normal generating activity due to an unforseen
event such as unit failure. The annual availability for Vales Point in 2011-12 was 62 per cent.

Production of electricity was below target in 2011-12 and lower than the previous year actual,
mainly as a result of sustained periods of low spot prices which made production of electricity
uneconomical. Delta attributes the fall in spot prices to flat demand due to consumers reacting
to higher electricity prices, government schemes promoting energy efficiency, and renewable
energy installations such as roof top solar panels.



Originally Posted By: Liddell
Liddell’s plant availability in 2010-11 was
impacted by a generator failure on Unit 3.


Originally Posted By: SBT
Now your average wind turbine would have to be shut down during a cyclonic event in case it damaged the turbine/tower/transformer.


Ok, Now correct me if i am wrong...BUT isn't windy hill in a cyclonic region? the same area where Larry and Yasi passed by only a few years back? and didn't didn't they come out the other side with no damage? aaaand wouldn't a Coal fired or Gas fired plant be wound right down or shut down altogether during or after a cyclone?

Ahh look here it is.
Quote:
Transfield Services Infrastructure Fund’s Townsville power plant has been shut down because of tropical cyclone Yasi, forcing Arrow Energy to halt coal seam gas supplies to the generator.
Originally Posted By: SBT
Now your average wind turbine would have to be shut down during a cyclonic event in case it damaged the turbine/tower/transformer. A coal fired power station continues to work regardless of weather conditions.

i Doubt it...




Operation data for a Turbine.

Quote:
A wind turbine is designed to produce a maximum of power at wide spectrum of wind speeds. All wind turbines are designed for a maximum wind speed, called the survival speed, above which they do not survive. The survival speed of commercial wind turbines is in the range of 40 m/s (144 km/h, 89 MPH) to 72 m/s (259 km/h, 161 MPH). The most common survival speed is 60 m/s (216 km/h, 134 MPH). The wind turbines have three modes of operation:


Originally Posted By: SBT
The difference between wind and coal is that coal can be switched from one power plant to another within a couple of minutes while wind actually needs to be blowing for it to produce anything before it can be switched or used.


That is why Turbines are situated in Windy area's like coast likes as more ofetn than not the wind is blowing...

Quote:
Nuclear and coal power plants may take many hours, if not days, to achieve a steady state power output
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/04/2013 21:02

Just one of several accidents that have occurred world wide due to the brakes failing during wind storms.

There are plenty out there to find.

Just one more reason I don't want one within a couple of miles of me.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/04/2013 21:36

Because the alternative is so much better?



Posted by: ROM

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/04/2013 21:48

Thank god for coal!
Tonight all that electricity from all that burning coal is keeping my wife and myself and my neighbours and those many thousands of residents of my region warm and dry while the cold rain drips casually down outside.
Posted by: snafu

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/04/2013 22:03

Did you know SBT and ROM, that a High Court judge in the UK on the 15th of this month, ruled to give energy firms in the UK the right to erect 125 metre high wind turbines just 350 metres from homes!....saying it was 'unlawful'!.

Judge John Howells QC agreed with RWE today in a High Court judgement which is likely to be used as a trump card by energy firms whenever councils object to wind farms being built too close to homes.


The greenies and eco-activists continually ask this question to us deniers, idiots, people who don't know what we're talking about people on a regular basis, "would you like to live next door to a coal-fired or nuclear power station?"....which I might add are usually several km's away.

Now I ask this question directly to @_Yasified_shak and other eco-nuts; would you allow an energy company to build 125m high windmills 350m from your front (or back) door?

Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 08:26

Originally Posted By: Snafu
Now I ask this question directly to @_Yasified_shak and other eco-nuts; would you allow an energy company to build 125m high windmills 350m from your front (or back) door?


Now that really is a silly statement, ofcourse i would, i already have one that is sitting on my roof above the backdoor!

In Australia Turbines have to be built a minimum of 1 kilometer, or closer if mutually agreed upon by the owners of the property/neighbouring properties.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 08:51

If wind became a big provider of energy the chances are those rules would change YS. And don't jjust answer that question based on a single turbine. Would you be happy if an entire wind farm was built around your home. Given your location it obviously won't happen but that is exactly what would happen to some people.
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 08:57

Due to zoning there would be no chance that a windmill would be built 350m from my front door.

If i lived on a farm in a wind area i'd jump at the chance to have windmills. The people who get paid for having these don't seem to get sick, so it would silly not to.


http://theconversation.com/new-study-wind-turbine-syndrome-is-spread-by-scaremongers-12834

Wind turbine sickness is a hoax, it's not as common as people think.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 09:09

The certitude of those who don't live under or anywhere near the wind turbines that the turbine sickness is all a hoax.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 09:17

Coal fired power stations don't throw debris up to 600m from the turbine when they disintegrate.

Nice videos YS but of course they aren't the actual power plants blowing up but the transformers attached to them, of which each wind farm also has at least one.



Now in a country that is as bush fire prone as ours why the hell would you want to build something that can burst into flames and throw burning debris down wind? And yes it was in Scotland but what is to say that it can't happen here?

Posted by: Arnost

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 09:26

"Now in a country that is as bush fire prone as ours why the hell would you want to build something that can burst into flames and throw burning debris down wind?" Good point!
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 09:31

So do they build them in bushfire prone land ? or just open grass paddocks ? How often do they burst into flames and how many large bushfires have they started ?

You realise that Australia has zoning laws for these type of things.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 09:41

Fact is they will eventually be responsiple for starting a bushfire. It's not a reason to avoid them however. Every method of generating Electricity on a large enough scale to provide for our energy needs over a long period of time will have issues.You just have to weigh up the pro's and cons of each and from what I have seen the cons outweigh the pros when it coms to industrial scale wind. My personal belief is that every house in the country should have it's own solar and wind power(even a small hydro setup in the right areas) to provide as much of it's own use as possible and atm coal(but far less of it) to provide the base load for the rest of the country.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 10:48

Originally Posted By: Arnost
"Now in a country that is as bush fire prone as ours why the hell would you want to build something that can burst into flames


Like overhead power lines or car exhausts on dry grass?
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 10:52

Originally Posted By: Snafu
The greenies and eco-activists continually ask this question to us deniers, idiots, people who don't know what we're talking about people on a regular basis, "would you like to live next door to a coal-fired or nuclear power station?"....which I might add are usually several km's away.


You may want to rethink that statement....Eraring



Vales point....



Wallerawang


And this is a better alternative to have in your backyard? open cut for Bayswater power.....




Mt Piper....



Redbank....


Yes, the alternative is soooo much better, Bleching pollution, spewing out heavy metals, particulates,radiation,into the atmosphere for many many miles around the area, and yes all those houses you see would be subject to all that pollution on a daily basis.

Then you have those others that have massive open cut coal pits on their doorstep.....
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 11:02

Originally Posted By: Arnost
"Now in a country that is as bush fire prone as ours why the hell would you want to build something that can burst into flames and throw burning debris down wind?" Good point!


Ok, if that is such a concern then maybe we should remove all of those highvoltage powerline that have started fires in the past...

Originally Posted By: ROM
The certitude of those who don't live under or anywhere near the wind turbines that the turbine sickness is all a hoax.


here is an interesting table, Sceptics will have you believe that “Turbines create noise pollution”



Here is a graph from the newly opened Mc Arthur wind farms, Showing noise monitoring levels.







seems the highest decibel reading is 47, or to put that in perspective....



So that is somewhere between the fan running on your computer and the sound of your fridge running.
Quote:

Q: What about infrasound?A:Studies have confirmed that infrasound from wind farms is less than that caused through naturally occurring means.

A.The studies conclude that there are no plausible links to adverse health from infrasound emanating from wind turbines.


Sceptics.....



Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 11:27

You should scrap that last little comic YS. You cant build wind turbines without coal and oil.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 12:30

Originally Posted By: SBT
Coal fired power stations don't throw debris up to 600m from the turbine when they disintegrate.

Nice videos YS but of course they aren't the actual power plants blowing up but the transformers attached to them, of which each wind farm also has at least one.


Explosion Reported at Georgia Power's Coal-Fired Plant Bowen Near Euharlee, Ga. -Reports

Link

Explosion and fire at WE Power Plant in Oak Creek Wisconsin


Link


We wont mention chernobyl either now will we?

Or,....



Or Gas and Gas pipelines.

Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 12:42

I have no doubt that power lines and exhausts have and will continue to cause bush fires, the point I was making wasn't that they wouldn't be the only source but another one.

So I say again, why add yet another multiple potential source of fire to our already bush fire prone landscape.
Posted by: CeeBee

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 13:27



With climate change, due to the burning of fossil fuels, we will experience more extreme heatwaves and catastrophic fire risk days, which is wayyyyyyy more of a danger to life and property than a malfunctioning wind turbine!
Posted by: snafu

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 13:30

Originally Posted By: YS
Q: What about infrasound? A:Studies have confirmed that infrasound from wind farms is less than that caused through naturally occurring means.

A. The studies conclude that there are no plausible links to adverse health from infrasound emanating from wind turbines.


Would those studies be by Simon Chapman, Professor in Public Health at the University of Sydney by any chance? If they are, he has NO qualifications, he is a sociologist. He doesn't have medically related qualifications, nor specialize in hearing and hearing disorders, nor is he an acoustic engineer. He also stated at an AGL sponsored wind farm committee in Coopers Gap, Queensland, held on 18th October, 2012:

Quote:
I believe people are annoyed by wind farms and they may feel sick because of the thought of them. I can’t produce a paper that shows any evidence that is really worrying about wind farms relating to health. There is one paper by Alec Salt, an audiologist who has shown that hair in the ears of rodents can be measured to be waving around when exposed to infrasound. Some opponents to wind farms have used this paper to argue that infrasound has measurable physiological changes to the hair in the ears of rodents.


FYI; Alec Salt is a Professor of ear physiology at Washington University School of Medicine. He did his doctorate in Cochlear Physiology. He is also a Master of Science in Neurocommunications and is a Bachelor of Science in Biology. He has 35 years research experience in ear physiology.... wink

The dB levels measured is not the issue. It is the frequency (Hz) at which these dB levels occur.

You are obviously unaware of the two-month (April-May, 2013) South Australian EPA study that is taking place at the Waterloo wind farm, you are also unaware of the Orders (4th April, 2013) given by the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) Commissioners, Mr M Wright QC and Mr A Liston which state:

Quote:
There is evidence before the Tribunal that a number of people living close to wind farms suffer deleterious health effects. The evidence is both direct and anecdotal.

There is a uniformity of description of these effects across a number of wind farms, both in southeast Australia and North America. Residents complain of suffering sleep disturbance, feelings of anxiety upon awakening, headaches, pressure at the base of the neck and in the head and ears, nausea and loss of balance.

In some cases the impacts have been of such gravity that residents have been forced to abandon their homes.

On the basis of this evidence it is clear that some residents who live in close proximity to a wind farm experience the symptoms described, and that the experience is not simply imagined.


Your statement,
Quote:
In Australia Turbines have to be built a minimum of 1 kilometre, or closer if mutually agreed upon by the owners of the property/neighbouring properties
is also incorrect. A new ruling brought in by the Vic. State Government states;
Quote:
turbines must be 2 kilometres from uncontracted landholders residences, and that permission must be granted by the uncontracted landowners for further development.


Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 13:41

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents
Civilian nuclear accidents since 1952.


Just so YS has something to read.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 15:11

I like the source of where you obtained the info from Snafu.....An anti wind turbine sceptics website... wink whistle



Quote:
While 17 reviews to date worldwide have reviewed the hundreds of pieces of research and the anecdotal claims of health impacts, and universally agreed that wind farms don’t cause harm and that there is no mechanism for them to cause harm, a small number of vocal anti-wind campaigners believe that they have found the causative agent — infrasound generated by wind farms.

The infrasound hypothesis was put forward by Dr Nina Pierpont, a paediatrician, in her book Wind Turbine Syndrome — 294 pages of self-published, non-peer-reviewed material, based on phone interviews with 23 self-selected people who claimed that their widely varied symptoms were all caused by wind farms.

Infrasound can’t be heard or felt except at much higher intensities than normal sound. The research shows clearly that it doesn’t cause harm to humans except at very high intensities, above that required for audible sound to cause harm. The human heart creates so much infrasound that it overwhelms all but the most intense external sources of infrasound. This is public record and available to all with some simple research. Yet the myth persists.




Quote:
Now for wind turbines:

Do wind turbines emit infrasound? Yes, like virtually every other piece of moving equipment, wind turbines emit infrasound.
How much infrasound do wind turbines emit? Modern wind turbines emit an average of 60-63 dBG next to the wind turbine. This means that humans can’t hear or feel the infrasound when they are standing next to the wind turbine. It also means the infrasound is far below the levels at which other impacts above were noted.
Is infrasound the same as the regular sounds caused by the blades passing the tower? No, this is regular noise that occurs a bit more than once a second, but it is different than infrasound. It is often confused with infrasound because of the coincidence of low numbers per second of something related to noise. This is best described in the same way as your heart-rate or music, as beats per minute.
How low is the infrasound at dwellings near wind turbines? Measurements with good methodology and approaches detected infrasound at 200 and 360 meters at less than 60 dBG outdoors, and showed that indoors with the windows closed infrasound was even lower.
Does wind energy cause unusual amounts of infrasound at dwellings? No. A well-structured comparative study sponsored by the South Australia Environment Protection Authority concluded that wind energy generated infrasound was below the levels experienced by urban and rural dwellers from other sources, and could not be separately identified.
Organised shutdowns of the wind farms adjacent to Location 8 and Location 9 indicate that there did not appear to be any noticeable contribution from the wind farm to the G-weighted infrasound level measured at either house.


Quote:




Originally Posted By: Snafu
FYI; Alec Salt is a Professor of ear physiology at Washington University School of Medicine. He did his doctorate in Cochlear Physiology. He is also a Master of Science in Neurocommunications and is a Bachelor of Science in Biology. He has 35 years research experience in ear physiology....


Is Alec Salt — the only researcher who seems to think this — correct that infrasound specifically from wind turbines affects the ear at much lower levels than previously thought? Peter Seligman, PHD, DEng, and director of seven generations of cochlear implant sound processors doesn’t think so.
The level of infrasound picked up from the body by this microphone was a major problem and far exceeded all infrasound from external sources. In fact it was some ten times greater.

and

Another argument that has been put up (Dr Alec Salt) is that infrasound stimulates the outer hair cells of the cochlea. These cells are said to be inhibitory and thus do not create any perceivable sensation. It is held that because wind turbine infrasound is air‐borne rather than conducted through the body, it has different effects on the auditory system and also the vestibular system. The explanation given is that these systems have not evolved to deal with air‐borne noise. Even if that is the case, the former point stands; that beyond a few hundred metres, airborne infrasound is below the level of natural and other man‐made noise.

Other researchers do not appear to be replicating or citing Mr. Salt’s work except in the process ofdebunking it. It is worthy of note that Mr. Salt’s work is not based on human studies, but a significant extrapolation from studies on guinea pigs. In the absence of significant other work by others in this area, it is gross speculation that infrasound above 60 dBG poses a threat to humans.

As has been pointed out, Salt and other researchers making these claims are taking measurements very close to wind turbines and measuring levels of low-frequency sound far above that at dwellings:

Two articles (Jung and Cheung 2008 and Sugimoto et al 2008) have been cited as arguments that wind turbines generate high levels of infrasound and LFN (Salt and Hullar 2010). However, the measurements reported in those articles were made in close proximity to wind turbines and are uncharacteristic of exposure in residential buildings. Jung and Cheung (2008) measured at 10 and 98 m from a 1.5 MW turbine with levels exceeding 80 dB in the frequency range 1–10 Hz. Sugimoto et al (2008) report levels of up to 80 dB in the frequency range 1–20 Hz inside a small shed 20 m from the wind turbine.

From the same paper, Bolin et al rather thoroughly dismiss Salt’s wildly speculative claims:

Salt and Hullar (2010) hypothesized from previous research that the outer hair cells are particularly sensitive to infrasound even at levels below the threshold of perception.

In their article, the last paragraph mentions that wind turbines generate high levels of infrasound, with reference to three articles, two of which are not relevant to exposure in residential environments (Jung and Cheung 2008, and Sugimoto et al 2008).

No references were made to published compilations of knowledge that indicates that the infrasound to which humans are exposed to by wind turbines is moderate and not higher than what many people are exposed to daily, in the subway and buses or at the workplace (e.g. Leventhall 2007, Jakobsen 2005).

It is therefore hard to see that Salt and Hullars’ results are relevant for risk assessment of wind turbine noise in particular.




SBT.....

28 noted "accidents" listed, that list would probably not account for all the other "mishaps" that they deem people do not need to know about.....

We looked at a property once at Stanwell which was about an easy 5ks from the Stanwell power plant, and there was a distinct sulphur smell in the air.....we asked the agent back then, "do you think the power plant could pose any issues health wise living near a power plant"? to which he of course answered no, in typical non-truthful real estate fashion/speak.....we asked the owner why he was selling later on after the agent left and he informed us that he wanted to go because it was just him now as his wife had just died from cancer....... BYE BYE!!.....................
Posted by: Crookhaven River

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 15:32

You can keep up to date with the day to day thrills & spills at U.S nuclear facilities here.

U.S.NRC
Event Notification Reports


http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 15:46

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
I like the source of where you obtained the info from Snafu.....An anti wind turbine sceptics website... wink whistle



Quote:
While 17 reviews to date worldwide have reviewed the hundreds of pieces of research and the anecdotal claims of health impacts, and universally agreed that wind farms don’t cause harm and that there is no mechanism for them to cause harm, a small number of vocal anti-wind campaigners believe that they have found the causative agent — infrasound generated by wind farms.

The infrasound hypothesis was put forward by Dr Nina Pierpont, a paediatrician, in her book Wind Turbine Syndrome — 294 pages of self-published, non-peer-reviewed material, based on phone interviews with 23 self-selected people who claimed that their widely varied symptoms were all caused by wind farms.

Infrasound can’t be heard or felt except at much higher intensities than normal sound. The research shows clearly that it doesn’t cause harm to humans except at very high intensities, above that required for audible sound to cause harm. The human heart creates so much infrasound that it overwhelms all but the most intense external sources of infrasound. This is public record and available to all with some simple research. Yet the myth persists.




Quote:
Now for wind turbines:

Do wind turbines emit infrasound? Yes, like virtually every other piece of moving equipment, wind turbines emit infrasound.
How much infrasound do wind turbines emit? Modern wind turbines emit an average of 60-63 dBG next to the wind turbine. This means that humans can’t hear or feel the infrasound when they are standing next to the wind turbine. It also means the infrasound is far below the levels at which other impacts above were noted.
Is infrasound the same as the regular sounds caused by the blades passing the tower? No, this is regular noise that occurs a bit more than once a second, but it is different than infrasound. It is often confused with infrasound because of the coincidence of low numbers per second of something related to noise. This is best described in the same way as your heart-rate or music, as beats per minute.
How low is the infrasound at dwellings near wind turbines? Measurements with good methodology and approaches detected infrasound at 200 and 360 meters at less than 60 dBG outdoors, and showed that indoors with the windows closed infrasound was even lower.
Does wind energy cause unusual amounts of infrasound at dwellings? No. A well-structured comparative study sponsored by the South Australia Environment Protection Authority concluded that wind energy generated infrasound was below the levels experienced by urban and rural dwellers from other sources, and could not be separately identified.
Organised shutdowns of the wind farms adjacent to Location 8 and Location 9 indicate that there did not appear to be any noticeable contribution from the wind farm to the G-weighted infrasound level measured at either house.


Quote:




Originally Posted By: Snafu
FYI; Alec Salt is a Professor of ear physiology at Washington University School of Medicine. He did his doctorate in Cochlear Physiology. He is also a Master of Science in Neurocommunications and is a Bachelor of Science in Biology. He has 35 years research experience in ear physiology....


Is Alec Salt — the only researcher who seems to think this — correct that infrasound specifically from wind turbines affects the ear at much lower levels than previously thought? Peter Seligman, PHD, DEng, and director of seven generations of cochlear implant sound processors doesn’t think so.
The level of infrasound picked up from the body by this microphone was a major problem and far exceeded all infrasound from external sources. In fact it was some ten times greater.

and

Another argument that has been put up (Dr Alec Salt) is that infrasound stimulates the outer hair cells of the cochlea. These cells are said to be inhibitory and thus do not create any perceivable sensation. It is held that because wind turbine infrasound is air‐borne rather than conducted through the body, it has different effects on the auditory system and also the vestibular system. The explanation given is that these systems have not evolved to deal with air‐borne noise. Even if that is the case, the former point stands; that beyond a few hundred metres, airborne infrasound is below the level of natural and other man‐made noise.

Other researchers do not appear to be replicating or citing Mr. Salt’s work except in the process ofdebunking it. It is worthy of note that Mr. Salt’s work is not based on human studies, but a significant extrapolation from studies on guinea pigs. In the absence of significant other work by others in this area, it is gross speculation that infrasound above 60 dBG poses a threat to humans.

As has been pointed out, Salt and other researchers making these claims are taking measurements very close to wind turbines and measuring levels of low-frequency sound far above that at dwellings:

Two articles (Jung and Cheung 2008 and Sugimoto et al 2008) have been cited as arguments that wind turbines generate high levels of infrasound and LFN (Salt and Hullar 2010). However, the measurements reported in those articles were made in close proximity to wind turbines and are uncharacteristic of exposure in residential buildings. Jung and Cheung (2008) measured at 10 and 98 m from a 1.5 MW turbine with levels exceeding 80 dB in the frequency range 1–10 Hz. Sugimoto et al (2008) report levels of up to 80 dB in the frequency range 1–20 Hz inside a small shed 20 m from the wind turbine.

From the same paper, Bolin et al rather thoroughly dismiss Salt’s wildly speculative claims:

Salt and Hullar (2010) hypothesized from previous research that the outer hair cells are particularly sensitive to infrasound even at levels below the threshold of perception.

In their article, the last paragraph mentions that wind turbines generate high levels of infrasound, with reference to three articles, two of which are not relevant to exposure in residential environments (Jung and Cheung 2008, and Sugimoto et al 2008).

No references were made to published compilations of knowledge that indicates that the infrasound to which humans are exposed to by wind turbines is moderate and not higher than what many people are exposed to daily, in the subway and buses or at the workplace (e.g. Leventhall 2007, Jakobsen 2005).

It is therefore hard to see that Salt and Hullars’ results are relevant for risk assessment of wind turbine noise in particular.




SBT.....

28 noted "accidents" listed, that list would probably not account for all the other "mishaps" that they deem people do not need to know about.....

We looked at a property once at Stanwell which was about an easy 5ks from the Stanwell power plant, and there was a distinct sulphur smell in the air.....we asked the agent back then, "do you think the power plant could pose any issues health wise living near a power plant"? to which he of course answered no, in typical non-truthful real estate fashion/speak.....we asked the owner why he was selling later on after the agent left and he informed us that he wanted to go because it was just him now as his wife had just died from cancer....... BYE BYE!!.....................


Interesting. You walked away from the property because you suspected the power plant was responsible for people suffering ill health although you had absolutely no proof whatsoever.(Just because somebody died of cancer does not mean it was caused by the plant by the way) Don't see how this is any different to people not wanting turbines near their houses due to potential health problems even though there is no definitive evidence to support the threat.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 15:58

And the constant Sulphur smell and smoke hanging in the air plus one of the other facets was that the school that the kids would have gone to was even closer to the power plant.
I know the effects that smoking have on people breathing in all that toxic smoke.....

I would rather live close to Turbines, than a coal fired plant that is belching out toxins and pollution 24 hours a day 7 days a week.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 16:06

I wouldn't want to live next to either to be honest. Both are bloody horrible to look at but the fact is we need electricity(and other natural resources for that matter), therefore the chances are somebody is going to wind up living near them aren't they. One thing I know though is that in order to produce an equal amount of power then wind will scar a far larger portion of the landscape than coal.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 16:12

Quote:
One thing I know though is that in order to produce an equal amount of power then wind will scar a far larger portion of the landscape than coal.


That i highly doubt, have a look as some of the earlier photo's that i uploaded, and look at the size of the scars that are on the landscape from coal mining! (there would be thousands more of those all over the Australian landscape thanks to coal)
Turbines on the other hand once removed, you would never know they were/had been there.......
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 16:17

I'm not talking about once they have been removed. I'm talking about while they are there. To produce power a wind farm needs a massive amout of open space. Far more than a coal fired power station. Also to produce the wind farm you need steel. Steel needs coal. therefore the coal mines would still be required=double the scars.
Posted by: snafu

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 16:43

Wind towers also require huge amounts of cement/concrete for their foundations. Some towers are also made out of concrete composites.

Concrete manufacturing is one of, if not the, highest CO2 emitter.... evillaugh

btw YS....thanks for the h/t for that site, have never visited it... smile
Posted by: snafu

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 17:15

Wind Power - The Dark and Deadly Side

Spanish-owned Union Fenosa is behind eight wind projects across NSW and Victoria. Four have been approved and four are in the planning stage.

This company has been accused of serious human rights violations and legal violations in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Mexico and Columbia.

According to the largest grassroots environmental network in Europe, Friends of the Earth in Europe, Union Fenosa was guilty of being responsible for the persecution and assassination of community leaders in Guatemala and Colombia, of violating labour rights and of depriving the poorest of essential services by raising prices, and cutting electricity supply in Guatemala, Mexico, Colombia and Nicaragua.

A case against the company was filed by CEIBA-Friends of the Earth Guatemala, together with other Central American organizations that are also protesting against Union Fenosa’s abuses in other countries in the region.

In Guatemala, eight social leaders who demanded the expulsion of the transnational corporation have been murdered since October of 2009, four of them in March of 2010, according to FOE.

But you don’t need to travel so far to read similar reports of abuses by the wind developer.

Australian Green Left Weekly reports in 2010 dozens of social leaders had been shot and eight killed in the struggle between Union Fenosa and communities in the west of Guatemala.

On October 24, Victor Galvez was shot 32 times as he left his office, where he was meeting with neighbours whose electricity supply had been cut off by one of Union Fenosa’s subsidiaries.

Go to Greenleft.org.au and do a search on Union Fenosa. (The link on the left should bring up the search.)

Up come the above stories, as well as a piece by pro-wind energy campaigner Ben Courtice decrying Victorian Liberal government wind policy.

"Wind developer Union Fenosa had two previously-approved planning permits in western Victoria blocked by the planning minister," the report says, which extensively quotes Friends of the Earth’s Cam Walker.

Union Fenosa in Australia = good. Same company in Latin America = bad.

I should add that in 2008 Union Fenosa was acquired by Gas Natural.

Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 17:58

So the 28 nuclear incidents listed are just the tip of yet another conspiracy theory YS?

Ignore button super glued into ON position from now on.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 18:50

Originally Posted By: SBT
So the 28 nuclear incidents listed are just the tip of yet another conspiracy theory YS?

Ignore button super glued into ON position from now on.


No mention of these just for a few....
Poison gas leak from Sydney nuclear reactor spark cover up claims
Aug 29, 2010

Link

Radiation leak fear at Sydney's Lucas Heights as four workmen contaminated
Apr 15, 2012 –
Link

LUCAS HEIGHTS REACTOR LEAK
October 2008
Link

well seems the sceptics can't handle, the heat so they hit the ignore button evillaugh evillaugh evillaugh
They must not like what they read? and i have proven my point.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 18:57

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
I'm not talking about once they have been removed. I'm talking about while they are there. To produce power a wind farm needs a massive amout of open space. Far more than a coal fired power station. Also to produce the wind farm you need steel. Steel needs coal. therefore the coal mines would still be required=double the scars.


Even when they are still there the come nowhere close to the amount of abandoned mines, and mine sites that are currently in Australia.
How can this compare.....to Turbines?





Point is Turbines can be removed at the end of their lives, this sort of damage will remain.
Posted by: Petros

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 19:04

I learned today that SA has 700MW of wind generators installed.

The max aggregated generated power from these (at any one time) to date is circa 330MW.

The average generation from these sits at 8% of that installed 700MW in recent times (6-8 months to date).

When the wind blows, these generators are allowed to simply sychronise to the system and generate whenever they like. AEMO must then respond and "schedule off" other generators in response to the "new" power.

If the wind is expected to blow in coming days, AEMO cannot prepare with confidence for an expected influx of power because the wind generators are not obliged to operate if they dont want to. The system has to "tolerate" the (IMO almost nuisance) wind power due to political reasons, not load demand reasons. Hence base load and hydro generation must be utilised inefficiently (ie. not into the well predicted morning and evening load peaks) to cater for the "best guess" when wind will or wont, blow. We dont save anything in the big picture.

And now another 300MW of wind generators has just been bought online in Vic in recent days. I dont know whether I do or dont want to see a 150-tower wind farm! It must be a sight! (or blight).
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 19:21

Well if we're looking at ugly blights on the planet, then these structures are up there with planet wrecking ability...
http://www.diserio.com/melbourneskyline.html
Posted by: old_man_fisho

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 19:41

Originally Posted By: SBT
So the 28 nuclear incidents listed are just the tip of yet another conspiracy theory YS?

Ignore button super glued into ON position from now on.


Not a conspiracy...

1st.the list you pointed to is from wiki...Pfft...of all people you are using wiki for factual information and not entertainment purposes??? LOL! smile
2nd. The “scope” is very narrow on what is “in” and what is not therefore it’s a very skewed POV on the matter.

CHR pointed out(@CHR knows a fair bit about the crappy nuclear world)...
Originally Posted By: Crookhaven River
You can keep up to date with the day to day thrills & spills at U.S nuclear facilities here.

U.S.NRC
Event Notification Reports

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/

And that’s the US only, I could dig up the links to th other reporting agencies worldwide but couldn’t actually give a [censored].

Ironically I posted because I read somewhere the other day...

Quote:
Religion does three things effectively:

1.Divides people.
2.Controls people.
3.Deludes people


Huh? confused shouldn’t that be Climate Change not religion... unless climate change is... LMFAO! evillaugh

Pretty much the nuclear industry is a big bunch of lying cheating theiveing scum… not indifferent to Big coal, Big Oil and absolutely BIG GREEN and you can also add politicians, businesses, activists and just about anyone else that breathes oxygen, infact pretty much if there is a homosaipien at the middle of it and there’s money/power/a warm fuzzy feeling of making a difference to be had… it will be a load of Bulldust!!! smirk

...argh mad I just realized I wasted 5 mins of life writing this [censored] that I will never get back, like preaching to the choir! wink
Posted by: ROM

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 21:50

Somebody is bound to get his knickers in a knot over this.

Shale and conventional gas in the USA is now so plentiful and as a result, cheap that it is displacing coal as the energy source of choice even in the former coal fired big steam turbine power generation plants.

So now with a surplus of coal, the Americans are exporting coal to wherever they can find someone to buy it.

Europe, the land where CO2 emissions are verboten [ forbidden by authority ] seems to like the cheapness of American coal and here's the export figures that show that.

Table 7. U.S. Coal Exports

American coal exports to Europe;

2011 = 53,941,906 tonnes
2012 = 66,399,406 tonnes

Increase in American coal tonnage's exported to Europe from 2011 to 2012 = 23.1%
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/04/2013 22:33



1 large coal fired power plant produces the energy equivalence of:

--> 2.7 million people doing heavy manual labour.

--> 273,000 large draft animals as in horses.

--> 2,200 wind turbines (large 3 MW at 15% efficiency)


Take you pick?

--> work your butt off every day;
--> drive draft animals all day and shovel manure at the end of every day;
--> have wind turbines across the horizon as far as you can see (everywhere that is);
--> go back to hunter/gatherer and/or subsidence manual farming (with no electricity or home heating/cooling and no internet/TV radio and the occasional period when you have no food); or
--> accept the efficiency and huge power output of the power stations along with whatever side-effects they produce (minimized of course through regulation).


You can choose "none of the above" but that is not reality, it is just wishful thinking.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 08:21

If I was forced to choose other than reliable power it would be the hunter/gatherer lifestyle but lets face it. Not going to happen.
Old-Man-fisho...Well said. We all take a side to one degree or another(it is human nature after all), but in reality everything we do is corrupted. YS is right in saying Coal has a dark and dirty side-it does, but is seriously mistaken in thinking that wind is any better. Just depends on your point of view. I suppose this means the entire argument is a waste of time but I'm enjoying it anyway:)
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 11:26

Originally Posted By: Bill Illis


1 large coal fired power plant produces the energy equivalence of:

--> 2.7 million people doing heavy manual labour.

--> 273,000 large draft animals as in horses.

--> 2,200 wind turbines (large 3 MW at 15% efficiency)


Take you pick?

--> work your butt off every day;
--> drive draft animals all day and shovel manure at the end of every day;
--> have wind turbines across the horizon as far as you can see (everywhere that is);
--> go back to hunter/gatherer and/or subsidence manual farming (with no electricity or home heating/cooling and no internet/TV radio and the occasional period when you have no food); or
--> accept the efficiency and huge power output of the power stations along with whatever side-effects they produce (minimized of course through regulation).


You can choose "none of the above" but that is not reality, it is just wishful thinking.

The first part is wishful thinking?
There are currently 15 wind farms operating across Sth Aust with an installed capacity of 1203 megawatts (MW) of power (currently st aust has a bit over 3600MW of total capacity for fossils) and Turbines are currently generating over 1/4 of Sth Aust energy needs.

Currently there is a total of 1345 operating turbines Australia,South Australia has the largest installed capacity with around 49 per cent of the nation’s total wind capacity.

A little more insight into a "large coal fired power station"

Quote:
For large power plants around 6 % of the generator output is used for internal consumption.


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


Posted by: snafu

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 11:48

Don't know about you, but 33.5% is more than double of 15%.

Anyway, does your tiny rooftop mounted wind turbine sound anything like these?



Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 12:26

Originally Posted By: snafu
Don't know about you, but 33.5% is more than double of 15%.


Quote:
There are three principles governing the amount of energy available from the wind: (1) the power available to the turbine is proportional to the wind speed cubed; (2) the power available is directly proportional to the swept area of the blades and (3) Betz' law determines the maximum theoretical efficiency of wind generators is 59%.
The load factor (or capacity factor) for South Australian wind farms is usually in the range 32-38%. This means that a wind farm could typically produce between 32 and 38% of its nameplate capacity averaged over a year
Posted by: ROM

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 12:52

What is a “capacity factor” and why does it matter?

Definition;:
Capacity factor is the ratio of the actual energy produced in a given period, to the hypothetical maximum possible, i.e. running full time at rated power.
.
Capacity Factor is an indicator of how much energy a particular wind turbine makes in a particular place.

Capacity Factor is not an indicator of efficiency.


What are common values for capacity factor?

All power plants have capacity factors, and they vary depending on resource, technology, and purpose.

Typical wind power capacity factors are 20-40%.

Hydro capacity factors may be in the range of 30-80%, with the US average toward the low end of that range.

Photovoltaic capacity factors in Massachusetts are 12-15%.

Nuclear capacity factors are usually in the range of 60% to over 100%, and the national average in 2002 was 92%.

The capacity factors of thermal plants cover a wide range; base-loaded thermal power plants (e.g.large coal) may often be in the range of 70-90%,

A combined cycle gas plant might be 60% depending on gas prices, whereas power plants in the role of serving peak power loads will be much lower.

One might expect a new biomass thermal plant to have an 80% capacity factor.


Is a higher capacity factor “better”?

Within a given technology or a given plant, yes, you can generally say that a higher capacity factor is better and in particular, more economical. But it does not make sense to compare capacity factors across technologies, because the economics of both production and capacity are so different from one technology to the next – the capacity factor is just one of many factors in judging if a power plant is feasible.
Instead, more useful is to compare the cost of producing energy among the various technologies.

Capacity Factor is not an indicator of efficiency.
Posted by: snafu

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 12:53

Originally Posted By: YS
While 17 reviews to date worldwide have reviewed the hundreds of pieces of research and the anecdotal claims of health impacts, and universally agreed that wind farms don’t cause harm and that there is no mechanism for them to cause harm, a small number of vocal anti-wind campaigners believe that they have found the causative agent — infrasound generated by wind farms.

The infrasound hypothesis was put forward by Dr Nina Pierpont, a paediatrician, in her book Wind Turbine Syndrome — 294 pages of self-published, non-peer-reviewed material, based on phone interviews with 23 self-selected people who claimed that their widely varied symptoms were all caused by wind farms.

Infrasound can’t be heard or felt except at much higher intensities than normal sound. The research shows clearly that it doesn’t cause harm to humans except at very high intensities, above that required for audible sound to cause harm. The human heart creates so much infrasound that it overwhelms all but the most intense external sources of infrasound. This is public record and available to all with some simple research. Yet the myth persists.


Rubbish!

Care to explain the 1985 NASA study Long Range Downwind Propagation Of Low-Frequency Sound
Posted by: Jax

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 13:22

The power of suggestion was proven in a controlled study Snafu, where the only people to suffer adverse reactions to infrasound were the ones who expected to. They reacted to a placebo sound just as much as they did to the real sound. The other group suffered no reaction to either the real thing or the placebo.

Re the NASA study you linked, you have to wonder how they ascertained the difference between the noise they recorded from the turbine and the noise of the wind turning it using 1985 pre-digital sound equipment.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 14:02

Originally Posted By: SBT

Ignore button super glued into ON position from now on.


While you've got the glue out can you add me to that list please?

You can now see why I said you were a brave man YS . All those opposed will copy and paste all the junk in the AGW thread without an ounce of scientific accreditation to their names and call it fact.

We have to change our ways at some point and have to start somewhere. The crap posted up against it is as ignorant as suggesting it should happen overnight and at no point has YS done that but the personal attacks have still found their way into yet another thread about AGW. YS has taken much bigger steps to reduce his footprint than most here but you still insult him for buying a hammer. Classy stuff.

The play by ROM that Arnost is an intelligent man so shouldn't be challenged is beyond belief. That's pre-school playground stuff and is a form of cyber bullying and given that you are an intelligent man it is beneath you.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that we need to find alternative energy sources in the future and that coal is indeed a very dirty fuel.

Advancements in technology are a result of trial and error just as sure as our motor vehicles now have airbags and abs brakes where once they didn't even have seat belts and DUI was legal. You have to start somewhere. Wind generators are just a stepping stones and the ones that catch fire will inevitably lead to a better way of doing it where they don't catch fire. A point lost on some who keep regurgitating that same image. In the meantime if they can find a way to use coal cleanly then I'm all for it (ignoring the lives lost to mining it each year for a moment)

The image of a busted up wave generator which was a pioneer piece highlights the lack of ability to debate the topic. Technology moves forward and has certainly done so in that field. Corrosion remains the biggest challenge but man being the amazing creature he is will overcome it eventually.

Solar panels have become much more efficient. The batteries that store the energy have become much more efficient and in a very short space of time relative to our industrial age. The production methods have become more efficient. So the argument that coal is needed to manufacture the items is kind of ridiculous because the reality is that much less of it is needed to achieve the same result than was needed ten years ago. We will continue to become more efficient.

Coal at the moment is more about jobs than healthy living. Australia's abundance of natural gas could power our lives but we'd have to pay more to do it due to outlay and it would erode our export earnings.

We have a vast uranium deposit and I'm certain that had we spent the money we have wasted on wars (as a planet) we'd have endless cheap, clean power by now from uranium and further down the periodic table. Any steps to advance our technology and clean up our ways is to be applauded. Anyone with any pollution related illness would understand this.

It's a shame the world can't run on an individual's class and manor because YS would be a good power source for the way he has conducted himself in here alone.

On the topic of AGW I am and have always been on the fence because a) I am not a scientist and b) our history doesn't go back far enough to prove either way beyond reasonable doubt so it is a futile discussion and a breeding ground to bring out the worst in people.

I beat you old man fisho. I wasted 10 minutes wink
Posted by: snafu

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 14:10

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
We have a vast uranium deposit and I'm certain that had we spent the money we have wasted on wars (as a planet) we'd have endless cheap, clean power by now from uranium and further down the periodic table. Any steps to advance our technology and clean up our ways is to be applauded. Anyone with any pollution related illness would understand this.

To be quite honest and blunt CF, if it wasn't for the greenies and activists, we would probably have nuclear and more hydro power here NOW.

Ironic isn't it.... smirk

Posted by: refstar

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 15:13

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
Originally Posted By: SBT

Ignore button super glued into ON position from now on.


While you've got the glue out can you add me to that list please?

You can now see why I said you were a brave man YS . All those opposed will copy and paste all the junk in the AGW thread without an ounce of scientific accreditation to their names and call it fact.

We have to change our ways at some point and have to start somewhere. The crap posted up against it is as ignorant as suggesting it should happen overnight and at no point has YS done that but the personal attacks have still found their way into yet another thread about AGW. YS has taken much bigger steps to reduce his footprint than most here but you still insult him for buying a hammer. Classy stuff.

The play by ROM that Arnost is an intelligent man so shouldn't be challenged is beyond belief. That's pre-school playground stuff and is a form of cyber bullying and given that you are an intelligent man it is beneath you.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that we need to find alternative energy sources in the future and that coal is indeed a very dirty fuel.

Advancements in technology are a result of trial and error just as sure as our motor vehicles now have airbags and abs brakes where once they didn't even have seat belts and DUI was legal. You have to start somewhere. Wind generators are just a stepping stones and the ones that catch fire will inevitably lead to a better way of doing it where they don't catch fire. A point lost on some who keep regurgitating that same image. In the meantime if they can find a way to use coal cleanly then I'm all for it (ignoring the lives lost to mining it each year for a moment)

The image of a busted up wave generator which was a pioneer piece highlights the lack of ability to debate the topic. Technology moves forward and has certainly done so in that field. Corrosion remains the biggest challenge but man being the amazing creature he is will overcome it eventually.

Solar panels have become much more efficient. The batteries that store the energy have become much more efficient and in a very short space of time relative to our industrial age. The production methods have become more efficient. So the argument that coal is needed to manufacture the items is kind of ridiculous because the reality is that much less of it is needed to achieve the same result than was needed ten years ago. We will continue to become more efficient.

Coal at the moment is more about jobs than healthy living. Australia's abundance of natural gas could power our lives but we'd have to pay more to do it due to outlay and it would erode our export earnings.

We have a vast uranium deposit and I'm certain that had we spent the money we have wasted on wars (as a planet) we'd have endless cheap, clean power by now from uranium and further down the periodic table. Any steps to advance our technology and clean up our ways is to be applauded. Anyone with any pollution related illness would understand this.

It's a shame the world can't run on an individual's class and manor because YS would be a good power source for the way he has conducted himself in here alone.

On the topic of AGW I am and have always been on the fence because a) I am not a scientist and b) our history doesn't go back far enough to prove either way beyond reasonable doubt so it is a futile discussion and a breeding ground to bring out the worst in people.

I beat you old man fisho. I wasted 10 minutes wink


Cyber bullying also comes in the form of deliberate misrepresentation. ROM's post was in no way suggesting that Arnost be worshiped as some sort of forum god, but about the ignorant dismissal of anything that was said simply cause it was against their 'mantra'.
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 15:19

Every kilowatt hour (kWh) of NSW electricity that is used creates 1.07 kg of carbon pollution (also known as CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas). This compares to only 0.244 kg for natural gas and 0.231 kg of carbon pollution for LPG gas.*

With this in mind why do people support coal when gas is a much better option ? Bill changed his tone to gas and then went back to talking about coal.


The worshiping Arnost thing had nothing do with going against a "mantra",. It was to do with a stupid comment made on a video that he didn't even watch because he thinks climate scientists just sit at computers and make stuff up, all buddy buddy ya know.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 15:23

The Greenies of the 60's 70' and 80's cleaned up the planet - not you lot. Our water ways are no longer open sewers, our air quailty is better than 100 years ago, our general health has improved in no small way by the efforts of those who went before you.

My generation created huge national parks and conserved vast areas of Australia, we recognised that there has to be a balance between conservation and use and we achieved it without locking away huge areas to never be used in the future. Yes we made mistakes, every generation does but we learned from ours and moved on.

So today you see a country that doesn't have huge smog issues that cause brown outs on a regular basis, today you can't walk across the Yarra on dead horse and dogs bodies, you can now drink water from the tap, have indoor plumbing, hospitals, tarred roads, power, Internet etc all because of those who went before you.

Climate Change is going the way of the dodo, coal fired power stations are cleaner than they have ever been and produce a fraction of the pollution they used, open cut mining is now forced to rehabilitate the land, projects are in place to rehabilitate abandoned mine sites etc but no that isn't good enough. He equates every coal fired power station to the photos he puts up of the ones in India. So if you have a problem with the ones in India complain to them. We have ours already sorted out.

I do have respect for Old Man Fisho and others his age because he stood up in his day for what he thought was right and has the courage of his convictions. He was anti vietnam war - I wasn't, I wasn't in the Army and not old enough to deploy overseas then and but have faced my share of protesting uni students, being spat on, called a war criminal, murder, rapist and baby killer etc and stood there and took it without flinching because I have self disipline and guts to not react.

I might not agree with his stance then or now but I agree and have defended his right to voice it on many occasions - he earned that right by protesting, putting his body on the street to show what he thought was right.

You might find my tone and posting style abrasive - stiff, it is done deliberately to make you and other people think.

I was taught never to back down from a bully, never to let a wrong go unrighted and never remain silent when a voice of reason is needed. It is what growing up and becoming a man or woman meant in Australian society in my day and if that sounds like it is terribly old fashioned and out of step with the rest of todays society then so be it.

But back then a mans word was his bond and we had an intangible something called integrity, a trait long gone by all this touchy feely society but some of us old farts know and understand what it means.

Posted by: snafu

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 15:29

Tell me YS Enrique. How much CO2 does Mother Nature produce daily and what are your proposals to her to stop releasing it?
Posted by: refstar

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 15:30

Originally Posted By: Enrique
Every kilowatt hour (kWh) of NSW electricity that is used creates 1.07 kg of carbon pollution (also known as CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas). This compares to only 0.244 kg for natural gas and 0.231 kg of carbon pollution for LPG gas.*

With this in mind why do people support coal when gas is a much better option ? Bill changed his tone to gas and then went back to talking about coal.


The worshiping Arnost thing had nothing do with going against a "mantra",. It was to do with a stupid comment made on a video that he didn't even watch because he thinks climate scientists just sit at computers and make stuff up, all buddy buddy ya know.


The peer review process is all 'buddy buddy'? Otherwise, if I was getting a paper peer reviewed I would give my paper to someone I knew vehemently disagreed with me. But we all know that they don't, hence the increasing number of papers of late being withdrawn due to serious errors and deficiencies.
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 15:35

You don't pick who reviews your work that is why peer review is so good. Also the identity of the Author can be withheld to remove author bias.

So would i be wrong in saying you have no idea what the peer review process involves ? do you have access to journals ?
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 15:37




Originally Posted By: snafu
Tell me YS Enrique. How much CO2 does Mother Nature produce daily and what are your proposals to her to stop releasing it?


This is such a dumb question snafu, if you want to know i suggest you find the answer yourself as i doubt anyone else cares.
Posted by: snafu

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 15:37

Originally Posted By: Enrique
Also the identity of the Author can be withheld to remove author bias.

D'oh!
Posted by: refstar

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 15:38

Originally Posted By: Enrique
You don't pick who reviews your work that is why peer review is so good. Also the identity of the Author can be withheld to remove author bias.

So would i be wrong in saying you have no idea what the peer review process involves ? do you have access to journals ?


You would be very wrong. It;s hard to get an 'unbiased' review in subjects like climate change, for e.g., when there is a certain mindset around.
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 15:40

Originally Posted By: snafu
Originally Posted By: Enrique
Also the identity of the Author can be withheld to remove author bias.

D'oh!


I dont know the point of your post ?

When an article is reviewed the reviewer doesn't know who's work it is so he cannot just say it's good because it's his buddy......
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 15:44

Originally Posted By: refstar

You would be very wrong. It;s hard to get an 'unbiased' review in subjects like climate change, for e.g., when there is a certain mindset around.


Prove it.

Show me a study that goes through every single discipline related to climate change and show me that the review process is biased compared to say medicine or nano technology.

Do you realise how broad climate change science is ? How many fields of academia it covers ?


Atmospheric and Physical Sciences: Climatology, Meteorology, Atmospheric dynamics, Atmospheric physics, Atmospheric chemistry, Solar physics, Historical climatology

Earth Sciences: Geophysics, Geochemistry, Geology, Soil Science, Oceanography, Glaciology, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoenvironmental reconstruction

Biological Sciences: Ecology, Synthetic biology, Biochemistry, Global change biology, Biogeography, Ecophysiology, Ecological genetics

Mathematics, Statistics and Computational analysis: Applied mathematics, Mathematical modelling, Computer science, Numerical modelling, Bayesian inference, Mathematical statistics, Time series analysis


I eagerly await your reply but i assume it will take a while to prove all these areas are more corrupt than other areas of academia. This list is also short due to it not containing any social sciences, humanities or engineering professions.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 15:47

Originally Posted By: Enrique
Every kilowatt hour (kWh) of NSW electricity that is used creates 1.07 kg of carbon pollution (also known as CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas). This compares to only 0.244 kg for natural gas and 0.231 kg of carbon pollution for LPG gas.*

With this in mind why do people support coal when gas is a much better option ? Bill changed his tone to gas and then went back to talking about coal.


The worshiping Arnost thing had nothing do with going against a "mantra",. It was to do with a stupid comment made on a video that he didn't even watch because he thinks climate scientists just sit at computers and make stuff up, all buddy buddy ya know.


Because many of us don't buuy the 'Carbon' pollution being as big an issue as the AGW crowed tell us. Gas is fine depending on how it is sourced. I am dead against frakking as it is a surefire way of poisoning our water system. As far as peer review goes. In the climate feild it has lost credibility. Only 'Pal' review could possibly have seen a paper that itself stated it was not robust get through and be published.
Posted by: CeeBee

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 15:48


10 Harsh Realities of the US Coal Industry

A typical-sized 500 megawatt coal-fired electricity plant in the United States puts out each year:

1. 3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main greenhouse gas, and is the leading cause of global warming. There are no regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S.

2. 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide (SOx) is the main cause of acid rain, which damages forests, lakes and buildings.

3. 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide. Nitrogen oxide (NOx) is a major cause of smog, and also a cause of acid rain.

4. 500 tons of small particles. Small particulates are a health hazard, causing lung damage. Particulates smaller than 10 microns are not regulated, but may be soon.

5. 220 tons of hydrocarbons. Fossil fuels are made of hydrocarbons; when they don't burn completely, they are released into the air. They are a cause of smog.

6. 720 tons of carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a poisonous gas and contributor to global warming.

7. 125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge from the smokestack scrubber. A scrubber uses powdered limestone and water to remove pollution from the plant's exhaust. Instead of going into the air, the pollution goes into a landfill or into products like concrete and drywall. This ash and sludge consists of coal ash, limestone, and many pollutants, such as toxic metals like lead and mercury.

8. 225 pounds of arsenic, 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, and many other toxic heavy metals. Mercury emissions from coal plants are suspected of contaminating lakes and rivers in northern and northeast states and Canada. In Wisconsin alone, more than 200 lakes and rivers are contaminated with mercury. Health officials warn against eating fish caught in these waters, since mercury can cause birth defects, brain damage and other ailments.

9. Trace elements of uranium. All but 16 of the 92 naturally occurring elements have been detected in coal, mostly as trace elements below 0.1 percent (1,000 parts per million, or ppm). A study by DOE's Oak Ridge National Lab found that radioactive emissions from coal combustion are greater than those from nuclear power production.

10. A 500 megawatt coal-fired electrical plant burns 1,430,000 tons of coal, uses 2.2 billion gallons of water and 146,000 tons of limestone a year.
Posted by: snafu

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 15:49

Originally Posted By: Enrique
Originally Posted By: snafu
Tell me YS Enrique. How much CO2 does Mother Nature produce daily and what are your proposals to her to stop releasing it?


This is such a dumb question snafu, if you want to know I suggest you find the answer yourself as I doubt anyone else cares.

Why is it a dumb question Enrique? AFAIK, man produces 3% of 0.098% CO2. What produces the other 97% of 0.098% CO2 (peer reviewed papers only please).

Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 15:51

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy





In the climate feild it has lost credibility.


I'll ask you same of you as Refstar, you can't make these allegations without proof.

See my above post.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 15:52

And 500 megawatts can supply all the power for at least a couple of hundred thousand households for the year as well
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 15:53

Originally Posted By: snafu

Why is it a dumb question Enrique? AFAIK, man produces 3% of 0.098% CO2. What produces the other 97% of 0.098% CO2 (peer reviewed papers only please).



Why do you think it's a relevant question ? Please move on.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 16:05

Originally Posted By: Enrique
Originally Posted By: Brett Guy





In the climate feild it has lost credibility.


I'll ask you same of you as Refstar, you can't make these allegations without proof.

See my above post.


I gave you the preoof. The Marcott paper. When changing dates of proxies willy nilly becomes acceptable then all credibility is gone.
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 16:05

We know that carbon levels have been rising and we know where it comes from... Hint, not natural.

The nuclei of carbon atoms in carbon dioxide emitted by burning coal, oil, and natural gas (fossil fuels) differ in their characteristics from the nuclei of carbon atoms in carbon dioxide emitted under natural conditions. Coal, oil, and natural gas were formed deep underground tens of millions of years ago, and the fraction of their nuclei that were once radioactive has long ago changed to non- radioactive carbon. But the carbon dioxide emitted from natural sources on the Earth's surface retains a measurable radioactive portion. As carbon dioxide has been emitted through fossil fuel combustion, the radioactive fraction of carbon in the atmosphere has decreased. Forty years ago scientists provided the first direct evidence that combustion of fossil fuels was causing a buildup of carbon dioxide and thereby diluting radioactive carbon in the atmosphere by measuring the decreasing fraction of radioactive carbon-14 captured in tree rings, each year between 1800 and 1950.


Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of sources, and over 95% percent of these emissions would occur even if human beings were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year. But these natural sources are nearly balanced by physical and biological processes, called natural sinks, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. For example, some carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water, and some is removed by plants as they grow.

As a result of this natural balance, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would have changed little if human activities had not added an amount every year. This addition, presently about 3% of annual natural emissions, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, until at present, its concentration is 30% above pre- industrial levels.
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 16:07

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy




I gave you the preoof. The Marcott paper. When changing dates of proxies willy nilly becomes acceptable then all credibility is gone.


One paper ?

I want a review of all the papers, authors and reviewers showing that there is bias in all climate science related fields. Can you show me this or not ? Or are you just making up facts ?

Have other fields not related to climate science never had a dodgy paper or two published ?
Posted by: snafu

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 16:08

Enrique, this is getting OT on this thread. Bring your tested and verified evidence over the Science of AGW thread.
Posted by: refstar

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 16:08

Originally Posted By: Enrique
Originally Posted By: snafu

Why is it a dumb question Enrique? AFAIK, man produces 3% of 0.098% CO2. What produces the other 97% of 0.098% CO2 (peer reviewed papers only please).



Why do you think it's a relevant question ? It's just you trying the old smoke and mirrors trick again, please move on.


Answer the perfectly reasonable question! After all, your WHOLE premise is based on the answer.
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 16:10

Originally Posted By: snafu
Enrique, this is getting OT on this thread. Bring your tested and verified evidence over the Science of AGW thread. We'll be waiting.


You use the same arguments that were made and answered in the 90's. It feels like i have jumped in the hot tub time machine.


Refstar, please answer my question directed towards you instead of getting involved in Snafus charades.
Posted by: snafu

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 16:12

Sorry YS. Hopefully you can get this thread back OT... smile
Posted by: refstar

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 16:12

Enrique -

Here's a few:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/gergis-et-al-hockey-stick-paper-withdrawn-finally/
http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/201...raction-notice/

All 'Pal" reviewed, all found to be in error.
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 16:21

That doesn't answer the question and you know it Refstar.

How much more bias is in all fields of climate science compared to fields not in climate science ? can you answer the question or not ? Do you understand the question ?

You made the claim that all of climate science is pal review, prove it.
Posted by: refstar

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 16:31

Originally Posted By: Enrique
That doesn't answer the question and you know it Refstar, stop posting fluff and add some substance.

How much more bias is in all fields of climate science compared to fields not in climate science ? can you answer the question or not ? Do you understand the question ?

You made the claim that all of climate science is pal review, prove it.


Actually, that's NOT what I claimed. Stop being disingenuous. I inferred that climate science papers are reviewed by those with a like mindset, so that process is flawed. Those 3 papers alone prove that there are problems with the Pal process. gee Warmistas don't like it when you uncover their dirty secrets.....
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 16:41

Ok - how about a change in direction here.

Greenpeace in an act of piracy has boarded a coal ship bound for Korea

Quote:
GREENPEACE says its six protestors aboard the Korean-bound coal ship MV Meister have "no intention of getting off".

...

"(Due to) the failure of the Australian Government to take action against coal exports, Greenpeace has now been forced to take action ourselves."


http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/greenpeace-protesters-board-coal-ship/1841729/

Now - in my opinion the greenslimer pirates should be faced with the full force of the law... [Piracy on the high seas is usually a capital crime everywhere and interestingly capital punishment is a legal form of punishment in South Korea...]
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 16:43

I give up.... you have no proof that pal review is more prevalent in climate than any other field do you.

Originally Posted By: Arnost



Now - in my opinion the greenslimer pirates should be faced with the full force of the law... [Piracy on the high seas is usually a capital crime everywhere and interestingly capital punishment is a legal form of punishment in South Korea...]


I agree completely, same goes for those Steve Irwin whale nutjobs.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 16:48

Originally Posted By: Arnost
Ok - how about a change in direction here.

Greenpeace in an act of piracy has boarded a coal ship bound for Korea

Quote:
GREENPEACE says its six protestors aboard the Korean-bound coal ship MV Meister have "no intention of getting off".

...

"(Due to) the failure of the Australian Government to take action against coal exports, Greenpeace has now been forced to take action ourselves."


http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/greenpeace-protesters-board-coal-ship/1841729/

Now - in my opinion the greenslimer pirates should be faced with the full force of the law... [Piracy on the high seas is usually a capital crime everywhere and interestingly capital punishment is a legal form of punishment in South Korea...]


Umm how about a change to back on topic? smirk
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/04/2013 17:04

Quote:
Umm how about a change to back on topic?


Ummm - OK

Here is the green's plan and budget on how to disrupt coal mining in Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1206_greenpeace.pdf

As you can see they have plans and directives funded by millions of dollar. Out of interest are you going to contribute?

The Proposal:
• We are seeking investment to help us build a nation-wide coal
campaign that functions like an orchestra, with a large number
of different voices combining together into a powerful symphony.
• The proposed campaign program has multiple projects that
contribute to one another and overlap.
• Prospects are broken down into two levels. Level 1 is the base
level of resourcing that is required to have an impact. Level 2
is where we need to take the program to in order to have
maximum impact.
Level 1 Level 2
1. Litigation $395,000 - $955,000
2. The Battle of Galilee $435,000 - $490,000
3. Hunter Valley – Enough is Enough! $354,000 - $260,000
4. Forward defence in W.A. and Victoria $160,000 - $120,000
5. Changing the Story of Coal $275,000 - $390,000
6. Creating Investor Uncertainty $40,000 - $180,000
7. Exposing the Health Impacts of coal $30,000 - $70,000
8. Field Organising Program $180,000 - $940,000
9. Movement Support $195,000 - $220,000
10. Program management $130,000 - $100,000
Total $2,194,000 - $3,725,000

Are you going to condone the damage that will be done as a consequence to the employees and their families as the disruption goes on? Do you accept that there will be casualties allong the way (if only to the greenfilth pirates that could have fall of when climbing on to the ship and got chopped by the props)? And do you accept that should accidents like these happen then the Master of the ship would be held accountable under maritime law and exposed to litigation and loss of livelihood (after all Greenpeace has a million dollars allocated to just this) - do you think that this is a good thing?
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 25/04/2013 16:44

Quote:
Are you going to condone the damage that will be done as a consequence to the employees and their families as the disruption goes on? Do you accept that there will be casualties allong the way (if only to the greenfilth pirates that could have fall of when climbing on to the ship and got chopped by the props)? And do you accept that should accidents like these happen then the Master of the ship would be held accountable under maritime law and exposed to litigation and loss of livelihood (after all Greenpeace has a million dollars allocated to just this) - do you think that this is a good thing?


Do you going to condone the damage that coal, coal mining Coal fired power does to families and the environment? (or just give me shallow excuses as to why we need it?)
Do you accept the thousands of deaths every year as a direct result of coal mining just so you can have precious coal? Do you accept all the indirect deaths that are caused every day/year as a result of coal pollution, particulates,heavy metal poisoning ?


Quote:
As you can see they have plans and directives funded by millions of dollar. Out of interest are you going to contribute?


For your reference, no i don’t.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 26/04/2013 10:25

Relief in sight for residents coal dust rail corridor

HALF of the coal being transported through Brisbane will be sprayed to make it less likely for dust to blow across homes from next week.

But critics say the adhesive spray veneer will not be enough and want rail wagons carrying coal covered.

About 10 million tonnes of coal a year is transported though more than 30 suburbs to the Port of Brisbane.

Residents along the rail corridor and downwind of the piles of coal at the Port have urged the government to stop the spread of potentially harmful coal particles.

New Hope Corp, which moves about five million tonnes of coal a year through Brisbane, said yesterday that from May 2 it would spray the veneering liquid to form a crust over the loads, which it said would eliminate about 90 per cent of emissions.

Two other companies, Peabody Energy and YanCoal, have told the Queensland Resources Council they will veneer by the end of the year.


John Gordon, spokesman for Stop Brisbane Coal Trains, said covering wagons was a better solution than veneering only the port-bound loads.

Experts say there is as much coal dust spread by air swirling in the exiting wagons and from dirty undercarriages than from full loads.

"The question about veneering is the way back. Even if it was effective, what happens for the return? I'm not even sure it works on the inbound trip," Mr Gordon said.

He said the government should police the veneering to make sure it was happening.

"It's a real imprecise science. If you have cracking of the shell, there's still emissions. I just think it's a cheap trick," he said.

Veneering coal wagons has been done in Central Queensland for years, but wealthy mining entrepreneur Clive Palmer has called for all coal wagons to be covered to protect the environment.

Waratah Coal, owned by Mr Palmer, intends to specially install covers if it receives permission from the government to move coal from Alpha to Abbot Point, near Bowen.

"It's the right way to go to protect the environment," said Managing Director Nui Harris.

The company was looking at veneering the piles of coal at the port or installing a large fixed watering system to reduce emissions.

Greens lead Senate candidate Adam Stone said Mr Palmer's decision to cover coal wagons demonstrated it was a reasonable and realistic way to protect community health, and all coal trains must be required to follow suit.

"The convenience of the coal industry must not be allowed to triumph over the health of communities living near coal railways and ports," Mr Stone said.

"Safeguarding public health must be a non-negotiable cost of doing business.

Doctors say coal dust is potentially harmful, especially for people regularly exposed.

Inhaling larger coal particles can trigger asthma attacks and cause upper respiratory problems. Smaller particles can lodge deep in the lungs and cause heart and lung disease, similar to smoking.


Queensland Health says exposures are within national particulate standards, although monitoring being conducted.

A Senate commitee held hearings last week in Newcastle as part of its inquiry into coal dust pollution. The committee has been urged to have hearings in Brisbane but has not made a decision.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queen...f-1226628995819
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 26/04/2013 10:32

New Zealand Company Found Guilty Over Deadly Mine Blast

WELLINGTON — A New Zealand mining company that owned a colliery where 29 men died in a 2010 gas explosion was found guilty Thursday of safety breaches that led to the fatal blast.
Judge Jane Farish found there was a direct link between safety breaches at Pike River Coal and the deaths at the South Island colliery on November 19, 2010 -- New Zealand's worst mine disaster in almost a century.
"In this case, there were fundamental breaches of the Health and Safety in Employment Act which led to the unnecessary deaths of 29 men," she said in a written judgement at the Greymouth District Court.
She found Pike River Coal guilty on all nine counts laid against the company, including failing to take all practicable steps to prevent employees coming to harm. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of NZ$250,000 ($211,000).
Farish said sentencing would take place on July 4 and 5, although it is unclear what assets the company has, as it went into receivership when the mine failed to re-open after the explosion.
The disaster claimed the lives of 24 New Zealanders, two Australians, two Britons and a South African.
Their remains are still entombed about 2.5 kilometres (1.6 miles) into the mine shaft, with recovery teams unable to reach them because of fears that volatile gases remain in the pit.
An Australian company that provided services at the mine, VLI Drilling Pty Limited, was convicted last October of three safety breaches and fined NZ$46,800.
The mine's former chief executive Peter Whittall will go on trial facing similar charges later this year. He has pleaded not guilty.
A royal commission into the disaster found late last year that operators ignored numerous danger signs in a rush to boost production at the mine and there was no effective oversight from regulators.
The commission did not recommend pursuing criminal charges over the disaster, instead calling for a major overhaul of mine safety regulation in New Zealand.

http://www.authintmail.com/news/australia/new-zealand-company-found-guilty-over-deadly-mine-blast
Posted by: LittleDavey83

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 26/04/2013 19:01

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
Relief in sight for residents coal dust rail corridor


I am strongly of the opinion that all coal cars should be covered; hell, all open cars carrying anything which may emit dust should be covered. I'm not sure how it hasn't happened yet to be honest!! Trucks have been required to cover their loads of dirt/rock/etc with heavy covers for years now - why not rail?
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 27/04/2013 00:01

Lil Davey 95% of the dust is either blown off in less than a kilometre or as it was started in US a spray is used to damp down the coal so it doesn't blow out of the wagons. I was a huge(?) issue in the US until the EPA stepped in and mandated these spraying. But then conducted tests which showed that the actual amount of dust released by these trains is minuscule even without spraying or covering.

Of course the Death Trains as Hansen calls them continue to crisscross the USA without any problems. Hansen is the least credible when it comes to issues including his wild imagination on Death Trains.

Several credible members of WUWT conducted a discourse on this last year and reading what was posted and the links provided from several transport and environmental agencies it was shown that the problems only exist in the minds of those trying to kill coal fired power stations or with some conspiracy theory about the government poisoning the population with coal dust. It goes like this, miners develop miners lung from exposure to coal dust therefore and coal dust causes problems, trains carrying coal must therefore be off gassing clouds of coal dust so they are putting the public at risk. All very nice and neat except for a couple of significant issues. Exposure concentrations vs exposure times. Average for a susceptible miner to contract miners lung was from memory around 15 years of exposure in a confined space for periods of 6 to 12 hours a day 5 days a week for 12 to 15 tears. So the odd train trundling past at 60kph with little to no visible dust isn't going to cause anyone any real issues.

I suggest that a quick exercise in Goggling the issue is what is needed for those who are unconvinced to get to the truth of the matter instead of relying on the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist with an axe to grind.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/17/hansens-death-trains-now-with-extra-scary-coal-fallout/ here is a good place to start.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 27/04/2013 00:03

Japan turns back to coal-fired power plants

(1) http://www.smh.com.au/business/japan-turns-back-to-coalfired-power-plants-20130425-2ihb0.html

The Japanese government is moving to speed up the environmental assessment process for new coal-fired power plants as its power sector struggles with a surging energy bill in the wake of the forced idling of much of the country's nuclear power plants following the Fukushima power plant meltdown in 2011.

At present, it can take up to four years for approvals for new plants to be processed.

According to Japanese media reports, the government intends to make 12 months the maximum period for assessing and approving new coal-fired power plants as its utilities seek to develop more power stations to stem surging energy supply bills.

The closure of much of the country's nuclear power capacity following Fukushima has forced the utilities to restart idled oil-fired power plants, which has pushed up energy bills significantly since oil is the most expensive fuel source.

Advertisement

And with the government considering the closure of much of the installed nuclear capacity over the medium term, the spotlight is back on coal as the cheapest energy source, notwithstanding plans to cut carbon emissions.

A commitment to slice 2020 carbon emissions by 25 per cent from their 1990 level will be revised by October, according to Japanese newspaper reports.

Tokyo Electric, which operated the Fukushima complex, is adding an estimated 2.6 gigawatts a year of coal-fired generation capacity from two new plants that started operation this month.

It is also sourcing electricity from two coal-fired plants operated by Tohoku Electric Power Co that have been restarted after being repaired following the devastating March 2011 earthquake and tsunami.

The No.2 unit at Tokyo Electric's Hitachinaka plant, with 1000 megawatts of capacity, began operating this month, along with the 600MW No. 6 unit at its Hirono power station. The utility is also purchasing half of the output from the No. 1 and No. 2 units at Tohoku Electric's Haramachi plant in northern Japan, each of which can generate 1000MW.

In total, these coal-fired power plants are expected to consume about 11.5 million tonnes of coal in a full year of operation.

The government's move to speed up the assessment process coincides with Tokyo Electric's call for tenders for the construction of new coal-fired power stations with 2600MW of capacity, which it wants to have in operation by the end of the decade, to replace lost nuclear capacity.

Of Japan's 50 nuclear power plants, just two are in operation at the moment. All were shut for a review of operating procedures after the Fukushima accident.


Oh dear, looks like the myth of the renewables taking up the slack from close nuclear just isn't working.
Posted by: LittleDavey83

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 27/04/2013 07:32

Yeah SBT, I know the scare's overrated, but I still wouldn't like to live next to a rail line transporting uncovered coal...or rock, or anything really. It's not hard to set up a retractable cover, nor overly expensive (and yes I know we're talking about trains kilometres in length!!) I just think it's a no-brainer, whether its dangerous or not, considering the lengths that road transport goes to. Whether it's NEEDED from a health perspective, well...that's another issue lol. Just cover it, then no-one can complain! Easy solution really.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 27/04/2013 07:58

Originally Posted By: SBT
So the odd train trundling past at 60kph with little to no visible dust isn't going to cause anyone any real issues.


Just because you can't see visible dust does not mean it is not there! and beside that is the worst kind of dust(especially from coal), the smaller the particles the further they travel into your lungs.

A few odd trains? bit like a few odd trucks "rumbling day and night" passed your house.......
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 27/04/2013 09:06

Originally Posted By: SBT
Average for a susceptible miner to contract miners lung was from memory around 15 years of exposure in a confined space for periods of 6 to 12 hours a day 5 days a week for 12 to 15 tears.


At least the miners get to go home at the end of the day and got a few days off to get away from the dust, here the dust is in and around people's homes for 24 hours a day 7 days a week...and who are the most at risk? children playing in their yards..
Quote:
``What people are telling me is that they're constantly having to clean outside areas and spaces because they are being covered in dust,'' he said.


Originally Posted By: SBT
So the odd train trundling past at 60kph with little to no visible dust isn't going to cause anyone any real issues.


The odd train trundling past?

Quote:
"These trains carry up to one million tonnes per month of coal through the streets of Toowoomba, Ipswich and Brisbane.


1 million tonnes per month completely uncovered.

Originally Posted By: SBT
Approx 10,000 tip truck trips passed my house 24/7 for 15 months......


10,000 trucks at roughly 20 tonnes per load.....
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 27/04/2013 10:01

1000000 tones a month and no one has attributed any disease or injury resulting from those trains or what they are carrying now have they? Wouldn't you think that Qld Health would have built a database of such things occurring. If it was happening you would see a corridor of health issues the length of the railway lines from Ipswich to the Port of Brisbane dating back 70 odd years and indeed along every rail corridor that coal is carried on in Australia but it just isn't happening.

Steam trains used to run on all major suburban train lines within every capital city in Australia for over 100 years and they spewed smoke, ash and dropped coal on the tracks and all manner of cinders. I used to love standing on the pedestrian railway bridges while these trains run underneath me and covered me in coal smoke, I still can't help but remember this when ever I smell coal smoke.

Proof is what is called for here people. So how about proving what your saying is fact not half baked ideas based on a premise that coal dust is dangerous when it comes off trains in the form of dust. Any links including the Qld Public health database would be good if you can find it. Some successful legal precedents in the form of successful law suits where someone has either individually or as a group has sued the company and won damages from injuries caused by coal dust from trains. I won't hold my breath though waiting.

Look if Hansen can't prove it, and he is one of the most coal fired power stations hatting nutters on the planet, then you lot have zero chance of doing it either.

By all means demand that coal be covered when it is being transported. I don't have a problem with that because then you will force them to be seen to be doing something, (the greens excel at this form of demands - must be seen doing something that doesn't achieve anything) just that it won't actually achieve anything except make loading and unloading a longer process and more complicated process, cost a fortune, employ a heck of a lot of Chinese making the covers and employ a lot of Australians to repair them when they get torn and force up the price of coal for zero benefit to the company.

Unless of course it is just another conspiracy theory cover up by "big coal".
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 27/04/2013 22:08


Clearly, there are substances that are harmful to human health and the environment.

But humans are not dumb. When we understand the actual implications of a substance is harmful, it gets banned or is tightly regulated.

Let's think of nerve gases (most of which started out as by-products of insect-control), plutonium (but not uranium as we have evolved to get rid of a certain amount of uranium - it is a common element in soils etc), radiation, excess amounts of heavy metals (similar to the uranium story, smalls amounts are not harmful), poisons, asbestos (which unfortunately took too long to recognize).

Then there is a lot of substances that some people think ARE harmful and, in fact, are not harmful in the least or at an easily manageable level.

This is where the environmental movement goes wrong. It is not looking at whether something really is harmful, it is based on myth and emotional reactions.

There are substances that are border-line. My earlier example of asbestos is one where it took a long time to understand how harmful it is. There are others like DDT, which is fine for humans, indeed it protects us remarkably well from insect-borne deseases and damage, doesn't actually hurt birds unlike the myth which still exists but it is a persistent-little chemical. It doesn't break-down in nature. So although its banning was a mistake based on myth at the time, it turned out to be a good decision because of its persistence factor.

That's my view.

Let's focus on the facts and proof (but we should be aware of risks because every now and again, some substance/chemical turns out to be more of a problem than we thought). On the other hand, the environmental movement does not understand how much damage they are doing by not focussing on facts and instead relying on instinctive emotional reactions.

If people want to go back to hunter-gatherer ways, then more power to them.

But you can't force the rest of us to do so.
Posted by: Crookhaven River

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 28/04/2013 01:21

"plutonium (but not uranium as we have evolved to get rid of a certain amount of uranium - it is a common element in soils etc), radiation, excess amounts of heavy metals (similar to the uranium story, smalls amounts are not harmful)"


Lung cancer deaths from indoor radon and the cost effectiveness and potential of policies to reduce them

Quote
Lung cancer is the commonest fatal cancer in many countries; in the United Kingdom in 2006 it accounted for 22% of deaths from cancer.1 Most lung cancers are caused by cigarette smoking, but another recognised lung carcinogen is the chemically inert gas radon-222 (half-life four days), a ubiquitous natural air pollutant arising from radioactive decay of the uranium-238 present throughout the earth’s crust.

Outdoor radon concentrations are usually low, but indoors they are higher, especially in houses and other small buildings, and in most countries radon is the largest source of exposure to natural ionising radiation.

If inhaled, solid short lived radon progeny may deposit on the bronchial epithelium exposing sensitive cells to α irradiation. Radiobiological evidence suggests that cells exposed to even a single α particle become appreciably damaged. Therefore, at low doses the risk of cancer is proportional to the number of cells exposed, and the dose-response relation is likely to be linear.

For most people the bronchial dose of radiation is determined principally by the concentration of radon in the home. Studies of radon related lung cancer have quantified the risk in terms of radon concentration rather than radiation dose because concentrations can be measured directly. For the same reason policies to control radon are usually formulated in terms of radon concentration.

http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.a3110
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 28/04/2013 08:56

Quote:
Steam trains used to run on all major suburban train lines within every capital city in Australia for over 100 years and they spewed smoke, ash and dropped coal on the tracks and all manner of cinders. I used to love standing on the pedestrian railway bridges while these trains run underneath me and covered me in coal smoke, I still can't help but remember this when ever I smell coal smoke.


And back then there was probably not 16.7 Million Vehicles on the road to add to that pollution...
Australia as a whole has become a more transient nation, so how many of those that would live next to train lines now would spend 2-3 (or more generations) next to train lines? back in the early days people stayed in the same house or same area, now they don't they move from house to house, city to city state to state.

Originally Posted By: SBT
Look if Hansen can't prove it, and he is one of the most coal fired power stations hatting nutters on the planet, then you lot have zero chance of doing it either.


there is no link between coal dust and health issues?

It is a bit like some of the other post that i made...
Quote:
Pollution link to cancer also found in Newcastle

Damning new evidence of the link between cancer and industrial pollution has been produced by further analysis of statewide NSW Cancer Council statistics obtained by the Workers Inquiry.


A few more....

Research finds additional harm from coal dust exposure

Link

Characterization of dust exposure for the study of chronic occupational lung disease: a comparison of different exposure assessment strategies

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/151/10/982.full.pdf

Toxicity and occupational health hazards of coal fly ash (CFA). A review of data and comparison to coal mine dust
http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/6/659.full.pdf

Characterisation of atmospheric particulates around a coal-fired power station
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166516298000676

Health effects of electricity generation from coal, oil, and nuclear fuel

http://repository.cmu.edu/tepper/1173/?utm_source=repository.cmu.edu%2Ftepper%2F1173&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

Particulate air pollution and acute health effects

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673695901736

Originally Posted By: Bill Illis
But humans are not dumb. When we understand the actual implications of a substance is harmful, it gets banned or is tightly regulated.


Humans are not as smart as you may think,
take smoking look at all the evidence that show how bad it is for people, but has it been banned? no, for one there is too much money to be made from taxes, then there is the other old adage, oh my father smoked everyday until he was 90....doesn't mean to say that you wont drop dead at 40 though.....Or no it wont happen to me.....

Asbestos? how long was it before they finally took action on that? how long did they blame "something else?" evidence was there for years yet it was ignored!

How smart is that?

The ones that are smart are Europe and Japan, if they think a substance is bad they will ban it, and there are substances that have been banned in those countries for decades that are still freely available here, why? because a country like the USA claims it is “safe” so Australia follows along blindly........
There is plenty of evidence that proves that coal and coal dust is harmful, but do people want to listen (especially the sceptics) ...no.
Humans may not be dumb. but they are not very smart either.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 28/04/2013 09:31

We have been using coal to fire steam trains and stationary engines since the 1780's (231 years).

If coal dust was going to cause a problem when it was being transported it would have been recognised a heck of a long time before now and steps taken to reduce the risk or eliminate it from use.

Whinging and whining about so called health issues because YOU think coal dust is dangerous when it is being transported and then throwing into the equation industrial pollution from Newcastle (which contains millions of different compounds as well as coal dust), pollution from vehicles, asbestos and smoking as examples of how long it took to recognise the health issues works directly against your own argument. The health issues where recognised and steps taken to reduce or eliminate the cause but for some reason this isn't good enough for you.

An example of this sort of action can be found here:
Originally Posted By: Greenpussers
Beryllium

(The author of this first article is unknown, but it is most probably from a newspaper journalist)

UP to 3000 sailors have been exposed to a deadly dust while serving in the navy. The dust was created during routine work on the hulls of HMAS SUPPLY and the aircraft carrier HMAS MELBOURNE and all personnel who served on the ships between the 1950s and 1985 are being urged to have medical tests.

The dust came from machines called jason pistols which were used to scour paint and rust from the ships. The pistols used vibrating rods coated with an alloy containing a heavy metal called beryllium. It is now known beryllium dust can cause fatal and untreatable lung disease, similar to asbestosis. Beryllium poisoning has led to huge compensation claims overseas, particularly in the US. Jason pistols containing the metal stopped being used in 1985.

The Australian navy would not comment other than to confirm the jason pistols were used by servicemen and the subject was under investigation. The danger was identified by veterans' group the Naval Tankerman Association in mid-December. It has urged all its members, via its website, to see a doctor. National President Bob Currin said: "We have established that 3000 seamen and women were serving on the ships that used jason pistols over the relevant period. Hundreds have suffered breathing problems, but up to now they have been catalogued as asbestosis. We do not know how many of them may be caused by beryllium."

The alert was sounded after former naval officer Peter Robertson, who served on HMAS SUPPLY, received a medical report indicating beryllium exposure. "I was in the navy for 23 years and I never got told about this - there were no tests given," he told The Daily Telegraph last year. "There were more than 150 crew on the HMAS SUPPLY and, as far as I know, no one has been told."

Mr Currin, from Baradine in northwestern NSW, who says he served on HMAS SUPPLY for nine years, said: "We knew the jason pistols were made from a special compound that stopped them sparking off the ship's metal when we chipped the paint and rust. It's only now we've discovered it included beryllium and was dangerous." Beryllium is a heavy metal which, when inhaled in dust form, causes pneumonia-like symptoms, similar to asbestosis. Beryllium poisoning kills 2 to 6 per cent of those exposed and can lie dormant for years. Symptoms include scarred lungs, shortness of breath and eventually death. It is incurable. It was used in jason pistols because it does not cause sparks when used to strip metal.

HMAS SUPPLY was a refuelling ship filled with flammable oil and HMAS MELBOURNE was an aircraft Carrier which carried large supplies of aviation fuel. "The list of those exposed to beryllium runs to thousands, including myself," Mr Currin said. "Jason pistols were used in general maintenance. Everyone used them. Everyone mucked in to do the cleaning." Mr Currin said he was routinely covered head to foot in dust after using the device. "The needles, which are made of beryllium, would vibrate to break up the paint. As that happened, dust would come off the needles. This is the problem. You'd be covered in dust. There's no doubt we all breathed it in."

Despite the dangers posed by beryllium being known since the 1950s, Mr Currin said none of the hundreds of former personnel he had corresponded with in recent weeks had been informed of the danger by the navy. He said "hundreds" of cases of reported asbestosis among affected sailors were now being reviewed to see if beryllium was involved. "Just the knowledge that they have been exposed is worrying their family," he said. Mr Currin said it might never be known how many personnel had been affected because many had claimed enhanced pensions on the grounds of having asbestosis. Beryllium poisoning and asbestosis present similar symptoms.

Former personnel who renounced their asbestosis claims risked losing their pension.


20/20 hindsight is a marvellous crutch for an argument don't you think? Well you must think it is the ideal crutch to use because you keep using it over and over again.

Mistakes made in the past are being rectified as they are discovered, not covered up and hidden as you are claiming.

There is no Death or Disease corridors associated with transporting coal anywhere in the world that I can find and throwing a red herring into the argument by claiming Newcastle has industrial pollution problems WITHOUT proving that it was caused by coal dust is disingenuous and beneath contempt. Industrial pollution can come from hundreds of different sources such as the quote above.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 28/04/2013 11:13

Oh, so i alone think coal dust is Dangerous?
what about all of the scientists that have proven links between coal dust and disease? all of the studies that have been done that prove links between coal dust and disease? they know nothing? they are wrong also? the miners with "miners Lung" are wrong? the people with "Black lung" are wrong?

But didn't you say yourself miners were susceptible...
Exposure concentrations vs exposure times. Average for a susceptible miner to contract miners lung was from memory around 15 years of exposure in a confined space for periods of 6 to 12 hours a day 5 days a week for 12 to 15 tears.


Originally Posted By: SBT
There is no Death or Disease corridors associated with transporting coal anywhere in the world that I can find


Cancer Mortality (1965–77) in Relation to Diesel Fume and Coal Exposure in a Cohort of Retired Railway Workers2

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/70/6/1015.short
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 28/04/2013 13:14

Nurses have joined a Newcastle-based community campaign to warn of the health hazards from increasing coal shipments.

He said the same monitoring stations also indicated that pollution regularly exceeds World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines for fine particles with a diameter of less than 2.5 microns, which can reach down to the alveoli in the lungs.
"All particle pollution can adversely affect the respiratory and cardiovascular systems and the latest WHO air quality guidelines identify fine particles as one of the most dangerous pollutants for human health," Dr Whelan said.

Full Story


NZ Government.

Originally Posted By: Health Effects of Coal Dust in a Non-Occupational Context :
Literature Review
The particle size distribution of this respirable fraction includes a proportion of particles less than
2.5 µm in diameter (referred to as PM2.5). While all sub-PM10 particles are considered respirable,
those less than 2.5 m in diameter are likely to penetrate further into the lung and are generally
considered therefore to present a greater risk to health. Factors associated with the extent of coal dust release wherever coal is mined, transported.
stockpiled, handled or loaded include wind speed, moisture content (especially of the stockpile
surface) and the extent of mechanical handling of the coal.

The latter factor contributes to abrasion
of the coal material and thus to the generation of dust.

Full Story


Occupational Safety and Health Guideline for Coal Dust (< 5% SiO2)

Link
Posted by: old_man_fisho

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 28/04/2013 14:47

Y'all know coal dust contains Uranium and Beryllium right?! evillaugh

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.pdf
http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1084k/report.pdf

So does the soil in your garden, but hey, who cares right!?! LOL!
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 28/04/2013 17:13


Originally Posted By: Page 3 of YS Article
Models developed on the basis of a 1992 American study5 indicate that between 2% and 12% of miners exposed to a constant dust burden of 2mg/m3 in a bituminous coal mine would be expected to have simple CWP after a 40 year working life.


So 2mg of dust per cubic metre exposure for 40 years creates a medical condition in 2 to 12% of the total number of miners working underground.

Well colour me a realist but coal dust in the open will never reach those concentrations from a coal train driving past, nor would the coal dust be hanging suspended in the air for 8 hours.

In other words you have once again provided the very means to debunk your own claims.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 28/04/2013 18:56

And which post was that one above from?

Coal dust led to former railway worker's death, inquest is told

Link




Hello? is anybody there?




Quote:
Dr Andrew Jeremijenko - a Mater Private Emergency doctor who has treated numerous coal workers over 20 years - said the State Government was not being honest about the potential harm of tiny coal particles.


Meanwhile in Brisbane.....



Originally Posted By: SBT
So the odd train trundling past at 60kph with little to no visible dust isn't going to cause anyone any real issues.


Oh... the odd train trundling past...



Coal workers’ pneumoconiosis (CWP) is the disease most commonly associated with coal mining. It is not a fast-developing disease, usually taking at least ten years to be manifested, and often much longer when exposures are low. In its initial stages it is an indicator of excessive lung dust retention, and may be associated with few symptoms or signs in itself. However, as it advances, it puts the miner at increasing risk of development of the much more serious progressive massive fibrosis (PMF).

Less well studied are the epidemiological effects of respirable coal dust in lower
concentrations, or exposure for shorter periods, as can occur for individuals living in
proximity to transport lines and processing centers such as proposed Gateway Pacific
Terminal.


Quote:
A 1993 study on a West Virginia rail line, transporting bituminous coal similar
to the coal from the Powder River Basin, showed loss of coal dust of up to a pound of
coal per mile per car (Simpson Weather Associates, 1993). This loss occurs throughout
the entire transport,
as the mechanical fracturing of the coal continuously produces
fugitive dust as the coal settles. [b]There are even substantial coal dust emissions on the return trip, as the “empty” cars actually contain a significant quantity of fine particles
known as “carry back” (Cornell Hatch 2008). [/]
In addition to the dust emission from coal cars, the terminal processing, storage, and
shipping of coal, such as is planned for the Gateway Pacific Terminal, can lead to even
higher fugitive emissions, approximating those of an open pit coal mine (Ghose and
Majee, 2007). In this study of airborne monitoring around an open pit mine in India, and
in the attendant transport corridor, PM10 episodically approached levels that would be
considered in violation of OSHA standardsin the United States, and the residential areas
Posted by: ROM

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 28/04/2013 19:59

...



Posted by: ColdFront

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 28/04/2013 21:18

That's such a ridiculous argument ROM. The guy started a thread to discuss the need to advance ourselves away from dirty fossil fuels. He didn't anywhere say it had to happen yesterday so suggesting he should go and live in a cave and rub sticks together for heat in the meantime is absurd and for anyone on the fence it appears as a diversion away from surrender due to defeat.

There is evidence aplenty that coal is not the perfect solution to our energy needs. There are drawbacks with most forms of energy truth be told including the so-called "green alternatives" as they too have to be manufactured but attacking his "well being" and mental state is pretty low just because he doesn't support your view.

It's a shame all the AGW associated threads can't be made to RIP. No-one wins and to varying degrees you are all wrong. The history of scientific research isn't long enough to qualify whether or not humans are having a major impact on AGW so despite the constant merry go round none of you will likely be proven right before you push up daisies.

One thing is for certain and no amount of denying will ever change the fact that we are polluting our planet. The smog in China is proof enough as is it is in countless cities around the world and acid rain is NOT a natural occurrence. If the end result is that we embrace so-called clean energy based on a lie but it still results in cleaner air then we all win. Or at least future generations of this amazing species might.
Posted by: Seabreeze

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 28/04/2013 21:31

A note to criticise ideas / arguments but avoid criticising the person, and furthermore, how they may choose to live in their own home.
Posted by: CeeBee

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 01/05/2013 09:22


Coal Power Plants Are Killing Thousands in Europe: Report



Lots of the world's attention has been focused recently on the startlingly high levels of smog in China. But things aren't too great in Europe, either, where the popularity of coal-fired power plants is endangering the lives of entire generations of people.

That's according to a report released late last week by the Health and Environment Alliance, a Brussels-based nonprofit, which indicates that coal pollution causes more than 18,200 premature deaths each year in Europe – or 23,300 deaths, if you add in Serbia, Croatia and Turkey. The economic costs of burning coal totals between €42.8 and €54.7 billion annually (up to $71 billion in dollars), equaling about 4 million lost working days every year.

It's interesting to study the country-by-country breakdowns in HEAL's report, which the group says is the first to comprehensively examine the medical-economic impact of coal on the continent. Some of the worst polluters are power-generation facilities in former Eastern Bloc countries, like the imposing Maritsa Iztok lignite complex in Bulgaria and the quad-smokestacked Turcenia Power Station in Romania. More than half of the total health impacts that HEAL logged come from Romania, Poland and Germany, while runner-up countries with high levels of combustion include Bulgaria, Turkey, the Czech Republic, France and the United Kingdom.

Coal as a power source has been a decades-long wane in Europe, but HEAL sees the potential for a "short term rebound" in the fossil-fuel's popularity due to high prices for natural gas. Actually, it's already happening: Coal is gaining traction in part due to the actions of Germany, which ditched nuclear power in favor of coal in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. And there are 50 more coal power plants in development in Europe, some designed to burn lignite (aka "brown coal") that's cheap but especially foul for the environment.

Coal pollution has been linked to chronic diseases of the heart and lungs and can trigger nasty stuff like bronchitis, emphysema, lung cancer, heart attacks and arrhythmias. A boom in coal could increase the amount of ozone and particulate matter over European cities, where already between 80 and 90 percent of people are breathing air that's beyond dirty as defined by the World Health Organization.

HEAL is asking policymakers to consider putting a moratorium on new plants or use better pollution-scrubbing technology. At the very least, says the group's leader, Genon Jensen, the "startlingly high costs to human health should trigger a major rethink on EU energy policy."



http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighbo...pe-report/4924/
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 01/05/2013 10:31


Of course, we could get rid of coal-generated electricity.

Then Europe would lose millions of people from freezing to death.

Especially poor people as the rich people would find a way to use their money to stay warm.

The alternative would be to burn wood instead of coal.

But all the trees would be gone in the first winter. Europe would be completely deforested.

Poor people would not be able to afford the price of wood which would go up 10,000 times or so.

The anti-coal people seem to be against poor people (although they don't want to face that issue).

Solar doesn't work in high latitudes in the winter and wind fails at night when temperatures fall to their lowest level.

When 5 million people lived in Europe, it was possible to keep everyone warm with wood. But not today when there are 350 million plus.


Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 01/05/2013 16:12

Another beat up by the lunatic green fringe Bill? Nasty coal fired power stations causing death and destruction across the whole of Europe, or may be not as it goes. I don't know about Turkey or Croatia but the rest of the EU have some of the strictest mandated air quality controls on the planet so who is right? This whinge group which claims we are killing thousands of people or the EU who was forced to adopt these stringent air quality measures?

They can't both be right so my money is not with the green enviro nutters from HEAL.
Just another self absorbed think tank trying to dictate their enviro nutter policies without checking to see if any other green environutters have already had a really, really big bite of that subject already.

So I wonder why is Japan either recommisioning or build 17 new coal fired power stations and Germany 11?
Could it be that renewables just can't cut it in the real world? Who would of thought that would ever happen? wink
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 02/05/2013 18:53

Here is some support from left feild for you YS. COAL SEAM GAS. I can't stand it. In my eyes it is bad and can be considered part of this topic I suppose. As well as that the expansion of the ports and dredging in the GBR. I don't really see this as a coal problem though. More a greed problem in that the companies wan't the shortest route possible to the ships. I believe they should be forced to ship it to existing ports that can already deal with the volume.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 03/05/2013 21:23

To bring a bit of cheer to the topic:

NASA has confirmed that the pollution from coal powerplants is dropping in the US.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coal-pollution.html

And in other good news, the new powerplants in Europe have negligible emissions - they don't even need chimney's!

Posted by: BelieveMe

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 04/05/2013 19:44

Originally Posted By: Arnost

And in other good news, the new powerplants in Europe have negligible emissions - they don't even need chimney's!

I wouldn't get too happy. In reality, the flue gas exhaust full of CO2 is hidden, and is in fact flowing out with the steam.

Check out this link to see how it's done.
http://analysis3.com/download.php?id=18322

In the link that I provided it says the following
Quote:

One crucial objective of the new power plant units is a reduction of CO2 emissions in electricity generation. Since no industrial-scale and commercial solutions, like filters, separators and similar, are available as yet to retain CO2, reductions can only be achieved at present by better utilization of the input fuel in the power plant process, i.e. by an increase in efficiency.


So the plant still produces vast amounts of CO2 which is a known cause of climate change.

Also there is this section
Quote:

SO2 200 milligrams per cubic metre
NOX 200 milligrams per cubic metre
CO 200 milligrams per cubic metre
dust 20 milligrams per cubic metre

So it's just not CO2, but also sulphur dioxide and nitic oxides which create create acid rain.

Unfortunately in Australia, according to this CSIRO submission, no Australian coal fired power station currently have have flue gas desulfurization (FGD) or NOX removal systems installed.

http://icapco2.org/files/WP3-CSIRO_contribution_to_iCap.pdf

Australian coal fired power plants also produce 170 Mtonne CO2/a. which has been well proven to cause global warming, clearly explained in these graphics.



Posted by: Petros

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 04/05/2013 20:08

Carefull BM - the rest of your camp WILL NOT be happy with you stating facts as they are ( - “In reality, the flue gas exhaust full of CO2 is hidden, and is in fact flowing out with the steam.”).

You are supposed to say the CO2 (which apparently is not a “major” emission like Sox etc. as your friends report) is hidden in the dense plume of black (photo-shopped) SMOKE!!!

Hopefully the 5 minute edit time will allow you to “correct” the post.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 04/05/2013 23:23

Don't you just love how ScepticalScience doesn't care a whit for truth. You got to laugh that by their graph 2010 is considered a neutral year! It's just the strongest Niño since 1997. LOL!

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
Posted by: old_man_fisho

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 05/05/2013 12:26

Originally Posted By: BelieveMe
Originally Posted By: Arnost

And in other good news, the new powerplants in Europe have negligible emissions - they don't even need chimney's!

I wouldn't get too happy. In reality, the flue gas exhaust full of CO2 is hidden, and is in fact flowing out with the steam.

Check out this link to see how it's done.
http://analysis3.com/download.php?id=18322

In the link that I provided it says the following
Quote:

One crucial objective of the new power plant units is a reduction of CO2 emissions in electricity generation. Since no industrial-scale and commercial solutions, like filters, separators and similar, are available as yet to retain CO2, reductions can only be achieved at present by better utilization of the input fuel in the power plant process, i.e. by an increase in efficiency.


So the plant still produces vast amounts of CO2 which is a known cause of climate change.

Also there is this section
Quote:

SO2 200 milligrams per cubic metre
NOX 200 milligrams per cubic metre
CO 200 milligrams per cubic metre
dust 20 milligrams per cubic metre

So it's just not CO2, but also sulphur dioxide and nitic oxides which create create acid rain.

Unfortunately in Australia, according to this CSIRO submission, no Australian coal fired power station currently have have flue gas desulfurization (FGD) or NOX removal systems installed.

http://icapco2.org/files/WP3-CSIRO_contribution_to_iCap.pdf

Australian coal fired power plants also produce 170 Mtonne CO2/a. which has been well proven to cause global warming, clearly explained in these graphics.






OH REALLY???


So then you post links from skeptical science when you say this-

http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/1192758/Re_Climate_Science#Post1192758

Originally Posted By: BelieveMe
Hi Bill, I managed to find this image
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~mmalte/rcps/graphics/RadiativeForcingRCPs.jpg
but I still can't find the image that you posted. If it's an image that you created, then I'm sorry but it just won't cut the mustard as my scepticism will kick in. It's just that trend lines, projections and scales can all be adjusted to create a false impression. This is why I insist on only peer-reviewed and respectable scientific publications, where everything has already been double checked and verified. So, I ask the question again. Can someone show me a scientific publication that shows that global warming is caused by something other than greenhouse gases.


Talk about hypocrisy on a GRAND scale!!! *sighs* climate threads should just be locked FOREVER! Problem solved!
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 05/05/2013 13:10

Originally Posted By: old_man_fisho
... climate threads should just be locked FOREVER! Problem solved!


Nah, let them stay open so they can serve as a living record of why people shouldn't just jump on the next problem vested interests create for the general populous. grin
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 05/05/2013 16:11

Dead right Andy... And in the next ten or so years re read them and have a great chuckle!!!!
But imagine if the Government banned scepticism???? Hmmmmm
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 05/05/2013 17:02

I don't think old man fisho even knows what hypocrisy is.....

BelieveMe provided a reference for his post, bill posts graphs with no reference at all. I think half the graphs Bill makes himself (not reviewed by anyone), so why would we even care what they show ? Bill is also a poster on WUWT.

Why should we trust a random nobodies graphs and information over sources such as NASA, NOAA, NAS, IPCC and so on and so forth ?

Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 05/05/2013 17:39

Just saw on the news the Puffing Billy Vs runners annual race..... A coal fired steam train running through the beautiful Dandenong rangers.. Clearly the bush loves all that CO2 because it looks magnificent!!!!
Posted by: BelieveMe

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 05/05/2013 19:07

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
Just saw on the news the Puffing Billy Vs runners annual race..... A coal fired steam train running through the beautiful Dandenong rangers.. Clearly the bush loves all that CO2 because it looks magnificent!!!!

I wouldn't get too happy.

Originally Posted By: National Library of Medicine
Coal-fired power plants are among the country's greatest sources of pollution. They are the biggest industrial emitters of mercury and arsenic into the air. They emit 84 of the 187 hazardous air pollutants identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as posing a threat to human health and the environment.

Coal-fired power plants also emit cadmium, chromium, dioxins, formaldehyde, furans, lead, nickel, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. They emit volatile organic compounds, including benzene, toluene, and xylene. Emissions include acid gases such as hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride. Small amounts of radioactive materials such as radium, thorium, and uranium are also emitted.

Burning coal in power plants emits sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides react with precipitation in the atmosphere to form acid rain. Burning coal also produces particulate matter.

About 60 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 50 percent of mercury emissions, and 13 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions come from fossil-fueled power plants. Coal- and oil-fired power plants also account for about 60 percent of arsenic emissions, 30 percent of nickel emissions, and 20 percent of chromium emissions.

The hazardous air emissions from coal-fired power plants cause serious human health impacts. Arsenic, benzene, cadmium, chromium compounds, dioxins, formaldehyde, and nickel are listed as carcinogens in the Twelfth Report on Carcinogens published by the National Toxicology Program. Furans, lead, and toluene are listed as reasonably anticipated to be carcinogens in the Twelfth Report on Carcinogens.

Hazardous air pollutants emitted by coal-fired power plants can cause a wide range of health effects, including heart and lung diseases, such as asthma. Exposure to these pollutants can damage the brain, eyes, skin, and breathing passages. It can affect the kidneys, lungs, and nervous and respiratory systems. Exposure can also affect learning, memory, and behavior.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 05/05/2013 20:57

...
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 05/05/2013 21:03

Oxygen, CO2, Chlorine, Fluoride, UVb & UVa, Methane, Ozone, and the list goes on... All deadly... And you use them everyday!!!
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 06/05/2013 09:47

Cancer rates higher in the Latrobe Valley.....

NEW cancer statistics for the Latrobe Valley show 884 people were diagnosed with cancer, and 360 died, from 2008 to 2010.

The data was released by Cancer Council Victoria last week, which saw a number of local Cancer Council units raise funds through the annual Biggest Morning Tea initiative.

The figures showed the Morwell district, which covers the Latrobe Valley, recorded 884 diagnoses between 2008 and 2010, of which 498 were men and 386 were women.

Lung cancer was the leading killer of both sexes, killing 48 men and 27 women. For men diagnosed with cancer, this was followed by bowel and prostate cancers while breast cancer was the second biggest killer of women with the disease.

According to the data, there were no cancer diagnoses recorded in children under the age of 15 years in the Latrobe Valley during that period.


See your ad here
Encouraging local businesses, organisations, community groups and individuals to host a local Biggest Morning Tea event any time in May or June, State Member for Eastern Victoria Philip Davis said the events showed support to "those fighting cancer, or the families left behind".

http://www.latrobevalleyexpress.com.au/story/218767/valley-stats-highlight-risk-categories/

seems to be a common thread, area's where there are coal fired power stations have higher rates of Cancers.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 06/05/2013 10:17

Originally Posted By: Petros
Read the post correctly, you are the tiro that thought the photos showed plumes of smoke. There is normally miniscule smoke visible at the Loy Yang stacks, the "smoke" you are frothing over is steam. I'll say it again - steam.


There are also a lot of other highly toxic elements to that smoke also, if you look closer.
A very public death: dying of mesothelioma and asbestos-related lung cancer (M/ARLC) in the Latrobe Valley, Victoria, Australia

It is anticipated that in Australia the number of cases of mesothelioma will continue to rise significantly over the next 15 years with power station workers having a risk second only to asbestos mill workers. Mesothelioma responds poorly to treatment and is almost always fatal, yet there have been few studies related to the palliative care needs of this diagnostic group and none focussing on the Latrobe Valley, Victoria, Australia.

The Latrobe Valley is the fourth largest regional area in Victoria. The electricity industry and brown coal mining at the town of Yallourn were the primary industries. Former power workers are contracting mesothelioma at a rate seven times the national average. A total of 13 participants from the Latrobe Valley were interviewed, comprising five key stakeholders who were local legal and healthcare providers; two people who had been diagnosed with mesothelioma; and six family carers. Most people with M/ARLC in the Latrobe Valley are older males who were employed by the electricity and related industries, while their carers are mostly female wives and daughters.

http://www.rrh.org.au/articles/subviewaust.asp?ArticleID=1183


Vic: Asbestos cancer seven times higher in Latrobe Valley: paper - Asbestos Cancer - Press Release - Mesothelioma and Asbestos Cancer Discussion

http://www.zimbio.com/go/GrNS-ms8YiO/http://mesothelioma.asbestosguideinfo.com/news/post/3-vic-asbestos-cancer-times-higher-latrobe-valley-paper.html
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 07/05/2013 14:14

Quit Coal Hang Banner On Flinders Street Station



Quit Coal activists draped a banner across the facade of Flinders Street Station in Melbourne on Monday morning in an action they say was to let Victoria's Premier Denis Napthine know that he's taking Victorians down the wrong track when it comes to energy.

Quit Coal is a Melbourne-based volunteer run collective that campaigns against the expansion of the coal industry in Victoria.

The 84 square metre banner read 'get off the coal train, Denis and on track for renewables'.

The action lasted for around 2 hours; during which supporters on the ground handed out flyers to commuters. Once the activists descended, they were arrested and charged with trespass, bringing items that are likely to endanger another person or damage property and a causing a common nuisance .

Quit Coal wants the Premier to repeal previous Premier Baillieu’s restrictive wind-farm policy; which it states has cost Victoria around $887 million in lost or stalled investment and slowed the state's move to clean energy.

The group is also demanding a moratorium be introduced on all new coal and unconventional gas projects in the state and for plans to allocate for export an extra 13 billion tonnes of brown coal from the Latrobe Valley to be scrapped. Brown coal is the filthiest of fossil fuels, generating 30 percent higher carbon emissions than black coal.

Quit Coal also wants increased support for investment in the renewables sector.

"Ted Baillieu’s recent resignation gave the Coalition government the opportunity to shake things up but they are fast taking Victoria down the wrong track," reads part of a statement on the Quit Coal web site.

"The new Premier, Denis Napthine, must show he is listening to community concerns about coal and unconventional gas. He must support action on climate change and transition Victoria from polluting fossil fuels to clean renewable sources of energy."

http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=3723
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 07/05/2013 21:22

Environment Minister challenged to tackle Hunter’s coal dust crisis

At a packed community forum last night, NSW Environment Minister Robyn Parker admitted that her department supported the proposed fourth coal terminal (T4) despite admitting that it will add to the region’s coal dust crisis. The Minister failed to indicate how she plans to respond to the current spate of air pollution alerts and exceedances in Newcastle and the Hunter.

“Ms Parker and her department should not have endorsed T4. Her job is to protect community health and the environment,” said Coal Terminal Action Group spokesperson John Hayes.

Air pollution experts from the University of Newcastle and the NSW EPA last night confirmed that particle pollution regularly exceeds the national standard throughout the Hunter. There have been 98 exceedances of the national PM10 standard in the region during the last 12 months. The EPA issued 36 air pollution alerts during October. Health experts compared particle pollution exposure to smoking to demonstrate there is no safe level.

“We should not be comparing Newcastle’s air quality to Mexico, Rome or Beijing or accepting a single exceedance of the national standard,” said Stockton resident Cathy Burgess.

“How bad does the Hunter’s air pollution need to be before the Environment Minister and her department reject developments that will add to the problem?” she asked. “We expect government ministers to champion the cleanest air possible.”

The meeting highlighted a conflict between the environment and health departments. While the EPA endorsed T4 “subject to conditions”, NSW Health expressed concern that PM10 levels in Newcastle already exceed the national standard many times each year, that an additional 120 million tonnes of coal each year will result in a substantial increase in coal train traffic to and from the Port of Newcastle, and that Port Waratah Coal Services has inadequately considered air quality issues associated with rail transport of coal, including diesel emissions.

CTAG has convened a meeting between community representatives and the Hunter’s elected local, state and federal politicians for next Monday November 12 to seek their commitment to addressing the region’s coal dust crisis.

“Government decisions in coming months could change Newcastle irrevocably. Our vision is for a healthy, diverse and sustainable city, “said Mr Hayes. “We know this vision is shared by some of our representatives.”

http://www.hcec.org.au/20130417/environment-minister-challenged-tackle-hunter%E2%80%99s-coal-dust-crisis
Posted by: Petros

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 07/05/2013 21:57

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
Originally Posted By: Petros
Read the post correctly, you are the tiro that thought the photos showed plumes of smoke. There is normally miniscule smoke visible at the Loy Yang stacks, the "smoke" you are frothing over is steam. I'll say it again - steam.


There are also a lot of other highly toxic elements to that smoke also, if you look closer.
A very public death: dying of mesothelioma and asbestos-related lung cancer (M/ARLC) in the Latrobe Valley, Victoria, Australia

It is anticipated that in Australia the number of cases of mesothelioma will continue to rise significantly over the next 15 years with power station workers having a risk second only to asbestos mill workers. Mesothelioma responds poorly to treatment and is almost always fatal, yet there have been few studies related to the palliative care needs of this diagnostic group and none focussing on the Latrobe Valley, Victoria, Australia.

The Latrobe Valley is the fourth largest regional area in Victoria. The electricity industry and brown coal mining at the town of Yallourn were the primary industries. Former power workers are contracting mesothelioma at a rate seven times the national average. A total of 13 participants from the Latrobe Valley were interviewed, comprising five key stakeholders who were local legal and healthcare providers; two people who had been diagnosed with mesothelioma; and six family carers. Most people with M/ARLC in the Latrobe Valley are older males who were employed by the electricity and related industries, while their carers are mostly female wives and daughters.

http://www.rrh.org.au/articles/subviewaust.asp?ArticleID=1183


Vic: Asbestos cancer seven times higher in Latrobe Valley: paper - Asbestos Cancer - Press Release - Mesothelioma and Asbestos Cancer Discussion

http://www.zimbio.com/go/GrNS-ms8YiO/http://mesothelioma.asbestosguideinfo.com/news/post/3-vic-asbestos-cancer-times-higher-latrobe-valley-paper.html



?? - the chimneys are spewing out asbestos too?


I think we'll have to widen the flues to accomodate the volume of dangerous substances you have refered too on these last 3 forum pages!! But I commend you, spewing out asbestos is a new on - but I guess you live and learn.
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 08/05/2013 08:16

It's a beat up Petros, i don't know why I'm helping you but here goes..... Yas has selected and highlighted parts of the paper that suit his argument.


If you actually read the paper it has nothing to do with burning or mining coal.

"Power station workers were exposed to asbestos during construction of the power stations, as well as in the building of their own homes. Former power workers in the Latrobe Valley are reported to be contracting mesothelioma at a rate seven times the national average "


Sure there's some nasty chemicals emitted from smokestacks but asbestos isn't one of them.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 08/05/2013 09:13

Thanks Enrique - good comment.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 08/05/2013 10:39

Exposure to asbestos + Smoke and particulates from coal fired power stations increases your risk developing mesothelioma.

Is it just a coincidence that the latrobe valley with 3 Coal fired power stations has a 7 times higher risk of developing mesothelioma than any other area in Australia?

Not to mention it's higher rates of other cancers....
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 08/05/2013 10:59

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak


Is it just a coincidence that the latrobe valley with 3 Coal fired power stations has a 7 times higher risk of developing mesothelioma than any other area in Australia?



That depends if other communities that have had high levels of asbestos exposure have the same or lower cancer rates than the Latrobe valley.

The paper linked certainly doesn't draw any conclusion that it was from a combination of PM10-2.5 from coal and asbestos.


From Vic health
"Mesothelioma is almost always caused by exposure to asbestos and can develop decades after the exposure. "
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Mesothelioma

Also When they say it also caused by mining they mean the mining of asbestos.
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 08/05/2013 11:46


My best friend growing up died of Mesothelioma just before Christmas. He was never exposed to a power plant or asbestos that could be determined. We grew up in the sticks where there are no power plants. If anything I was exposed to the exact same environment as him, in other words, what might be described as the end of civilization/development.

Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 08/05/2013 11:51

Was your friend possibly exposed through contact with another person who worked with asbestos ?

It is possible to get Mesothelioma without exposure, but from what i can gather it is rare.
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 08/05/2013 11:55

Originally Posted By: Enrique
Was your friend possibly exposed through contact with another person who worked with asbestos ?

It is possible to get Mesothelioma without exposure, but from what i can gather it is rare.


Nope.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 08/05/2013 12:11

If your over 30 you have been exposed to asbestos via brake drums on cars, oven linings, building materials, oven mitts, toasters, linings in clothes dryers, science labs at school and about 1000 other sources from Trams, Trains lagging on pipes etc.

Not every one who is exposed to asbestos develops any of the cancers or diseases. A percentage do though and it is this percentage that drives the asbestos panic that we are now subjected too almost daily. (I work in a school where the entire 2 storey block of 8 classrooms was closed for a week because a workman had removed a man hole cover and there may or may not have been asbestos in the roof at some point).

It is a horrible way to die and having seen first hand what it does to those who are affected I couldn't think of anything worse.

I am not saying that it isn't dangerous but you have to realise that not everyone who is exposed to it has a problem and those that do are in the minority. From some of the EPA studies I have seen say it could be as low as 3% of the population that is suspectable.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 08/05/2013 22:21


Georgia coal-fired plant explosion last month caused by worker error


ATLANTA —
Georgia Power officials say employee errors led to an explosion that rocked Plant Bowen in northwest Georgia. Georgia Power spokesman Mark Williams told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Thursday that an internal investigation revealed employees at the coal-fired plant near Cartersville failed to comply with procedures and didn't follow communications protocols. (photo courtesy of Georgia Power)
Georgia Power officials say employee errors led to an explosion that rocked Plant Bowen in northwest Georgia.

Georgia Power spokesman Mark Williams told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Thursday that an internal investigation revealed employees at the coal-fired plant near Cartersville failed to comply with procedures and didn't follow communications protocols. The explosion happened as workers were shutting down a unit for maintenance.

Williams didn't elaborate on which specific protocols were breached, but says that led to the plant having a combustible mix of hydrogen and air in a generator.

The early April explosion left three people injured and prompted an investigation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The federal investigation is not yet complete and no disciplinary action has been taken.

http://www.gpb.org/news/2013/05/02/ga-power-worker-error-caused-explosion
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 08/05/2013 22:34

18 Die in blast at coal mine in China

Beijing, Apr 22 (EFE).- Eighteen workers died and another 12 were injured in a coal-mine explosion over the weekend in northeastern China, official media reported Monday.

The blast occurred at 1:26 p.m. Saturday at the Qingxing Mine in the northeastern province of Jilin, which borders on North Korea.

When the explosion occurred, 73 miners were at work down in the mineshafts, though about 50 were able to get out unscathed.

The injured miners are hospitalized but their lives are not in danger, local authorities said.

This is the third fatal accident in the province in less than 30 days - in the two previous ones, which occurred on March 29 and April 1, a total of 53 people died.

Every year more than 3,000 workers die in Chinese mines, especially coal mines, the principal source of energy for the world's second-largest economy.

Many of the accidents are due to the lack of safety measures in pits operating illegally.

Another factor contributing to the high accident rate is the over-exploitation of coal deposits with extra shifts and ever-deeper excavations, which increase the danger of high concentrations of explosive firedamp gases.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/agencia-efe/130422/18-die-blast-at-coal-mine-china
Posted by: Crookhaven River

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 09/05/2013 09:12

Sorry wrong thread.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 09/05/2013 09:28

And how many billions of lives are much better because of coal YS?
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 09/05/2013 10:26

How many are worse of because of it?

Nearly 3000 have died in china in the past year alone and that is just China, how many more die worldwide every year as a result of coal mining alone? then years into the future the suffer from Black lung and other mining related diseases because of working with coal?

Then all of those that suffer as a direct result of coal pollution from coal fired plants


Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 09/05/2013 11:02

NSW coal generators stare down the abyss

A few days ago AGL chief executive Michael Fraser gave a presentation where he stated that the NSW government coal generators were of “questionable” value given NSW’s depressed electricity demand and the major surplus of generating capacity.

Yet Premier O’Farrell is saying he expects a price of $3 billion dollars “and nothing less” from the privatisation of these generators.

According to analysis by Climate Spectator using NEM Review and AEMO data, since the carbon price was introduced NSW coal generators have suffered a reduction in cash profits between 45 and 70 per cent relative to the average of the prior five financial years.

The reality is that the NSW coal generators are the meat in the sandwich of the National Electricity Market.

To the north they face some relatively new, efficient and lower emission Queensland coal generators that they can’t push off their perch. Then to the south they have the dirt cheap brown coal generators, several of whom are old and emissions intensive, but their fuel is so cheap it almost doesn’t matter.

Then you add the fact that electricity demand has taken a bigger dive in NSW than any other state and a $23 carbon price, and the NSW coal generators start to really hurt.

Life is then further complicated by the fact that when the South Australian wind really blows it squeezes the Victorian brown coal generation into NSW. And provided the Coalition doesn’t fiddle with the Renewable Energy Target, there will be an awful lot more of this wind power to contend with.

The table below details how the profits of each generator have dived since July 2012.


Mothballing or closures of generating capacity seem to be inevitable and a number of units have had extended periods out of action as shown below.



Read more: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/arti...s#ixzz2SkkGf7aH



Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 09/05/2013 11:45

Coal hits new low as NEM demand continues to fall

The total amount of electricity supplied by Australia’s coal-fired generators has hit its lowest ever level since 1998 – the year the National Electricity Market began operating – according to the latest Carbon Emissions Index (Cedex) report by pitt&sherry.

The report, released today, finds that coal power plants are now supplying less than 75 per cent of NEM electricity, compared with more than 90 per cent back in 1998, and suggests this could be the new status quo for the industry, with operators of coal-fired power stations changing their modus operandi to match the changing outlook.

According to the report, overall demand for electricity from NEM generators, and associated emissions from the electricity sector, continued to fall in the year to April 2013, with annualised total electricity sent out by NEM generators coming in at 10.3 TWh (or 5.2 per cent) below the mid-2010 peak.



“Operators of coal fired power stations appear to have accepted that reduced demand will last for some time and are changing the way they operate their power stations,” the report says.

By way of example, it points to Macquarie Generation, operator of the Bayswater and Liddell power stations in the Hunter Valley, NSW. Having operated all four units at both stations over the summer, it says, Macquarie has shut down three of the four units at Liddell over the past two months – the older and less efficient of the two stations.

In SA, meanwhile, the anticipated complete shut down of Northern, the only coal-fired power station in the state, occurred with the first unit in late March and the second in mid April.

The news was not much better for gas, with the annualised output from gas-fired generators falling for the first time in nearly two years, with Queensland and SA – the two states known for largest gas generation – both recording lower generation rates.

Wind and hydro, meanwhile, have continued to grow – “very strongly in the case of hydro,” says the report, with annualised generation increasing for eleven months in a row; a 31 per cent, 3.95TWh rise that kicked off just before the commencement of carbon pricing.



http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/coal-hits-new-low-as-nem-demand-continues-to-fall-73555
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 09/05/2013 13:36

Yes people die from coal mining in China - meh so what. I don't know a single person in China so I have zero personal involvement in whomever gets killed. It is just a number.

Thousands or hundreds aren't dying in Australia from coal fired power stations either, much to somebody's chagrin by the sounds of it.

Thousands are not getting sick from living in rail corridors that are supposedly contaminated to the point that it is instant death sentence for anyone who lives there, well that is the impression that someone wants to give.

People continue to live in these areas even after all the hype and bulldust put out by single interest groups and fanatics and you have to wonder why?

The lives that coal fired power saves and maintains is in the billions.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 09/05/2013 14:16

That's rich, just collateral damage then?

So, experts in their fields know nothing?
they conduct studies that link coal, coal particulates and pollution and it means nothing? so long as power is available at whatever the cost that is fine....

Quote:
Physicians for Social Responsibility has released a groundbreaking medical report, “Coal’s Assault on Human Health,” which takes a new look at the devastating impacts of coal on the human body. Coal combustion releases mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health. This report looks at the cumulative harm inflicted by those pollutants on three major body organ systems: the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, and the nervous system. The report also considers coal’s contribution to global warming, and the health implications of global


http://www.psr.org/resources/coals-assault-on-human-health.html


Coal Combustion Blamed For 200,000 Deaths

April 19, 2013 i

Coal-fired power generation is putting millions of lives at risk around the world, according to a new review of the scientific evidence.

The scientific literature review, conducted by environmental health experts at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), reveals pollutants generated from coal combustion have profound effects on the health of local communities but can also travel long distances, affecting communities remote from power plants.

Lead author Dr. Susan Buchanan, Director of the University of Illinois Pediatric Environmental Health Unit said: “Every step of the lifecycle of coal generates pollution that is harmful to human health, but the bulk of the health burden is associated with pollutants from combustion for electricity.”

The review found air pollution from coal combustion was responsible for over 200,000 deaths globally each year, and caused almost two million serious illnesses, and 151 million minor illnesses. These figures do not include the health burden from climate change, to which coal is a significant contributor.

Climate and Health Alliance Convenor Fiona Armstrong said the latest review provided further evidence of that coal-fired power must be phased out and tighter regulation of the industry was needed.

“Current energy policy does not account for the harm to human health that is being by the combustion of coal and fossil fuels for electricity generation and transport,” Ms Armstrong said.

“The health and wellbeing of Australians and people worldwide is being compromised by policies that privilege and prioritise the extraction and combustion of fossil fuels over safer, healthier, lower emissions, renewable energy resources.”

The Climate and Health Alliance is calling for: the removal of subsidies for fossil fuels and for greater support for clean energy technologies such as solar and wind; for enhanced air quality standards to reduce exposure to harmful pollutants from coal; and for all new coal projects to be required undertake a comprehensive health impact assessment to evaluate the potential for harm to human health.

http://www.amsj.com.au/coal-combustion-blamed-for-200000-deaths/
Posted by: Petros

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 09/05/2013 22:21

Hmm - I consider myself an expert in Brown Coal electricity generation field after working in the engineering side of that industry for near 40 years.

Yasi - I continually read articles created by "experts' (mostly via your posts! - else I would not normally come across them via established industry forums, AEMO publications, industry publications and my daily newspaper reads) that are in fairyland!!!

These experts, are clearly people prepared to say whatever your lobby group want them to say. Never mind facts.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 10/05/2013 09:50

But that does not make you an expert in health though.

Yes, and i am sure all of those dedicated sites only "select" what they want people to hear or see, not what they don't want peolple to hear/see because it may look bad for the industry.
Posted by: Petros

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 10/05/2013 21:27

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
But that does not make you an expert in health though.

Yes, and i am sure all of those dedicated sites only "select" what they want people to hear or see, not what they don't want peolple to hear/see because it may look bad for the industry.



We could go on with this difference of opinion forever eh?

.... and we both will look like idiots to the other readers.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 11/05/2013 12:04

I meant to post this last week and only just remembered to do so today.

Debunking Coal Death Trains

Hansen’s Death Trains – now with extra scary ‘coal fallout’

Posted on July 17, 2012 by Anthony Watts

(1) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/17/hansens-death-trains-now-with-extra-scary-coal-fallout/

WUWT readers surely remember this:

hansen_coal_death_train1

NASA’s Dr. James Hansen once again goes over the top. See his most recent article in the UK Guardian. Some excerpts:


“The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”

And this:


Clearly, if we burn all fossil fuels, we will destroy the planet we know. Carbon dioxide would increase to 500 ppm or more.

Well, Hansen’s “death trains” have taken on a crazier, even more wobbly, left spin. Physicist Gordon Fulks writes Via Lars Larson nationally syndicated radio show:



Hello Everyone,

I asked my brother, who lives near Scottsbluff, Nebraska, to send some photos of the railroad tracks used by coal trains to carry vast amounts of Wyoming coal east. The BIG SCARY issue raised by the political Left here in Oregon is no longer the theoretical ‘Global Warming’ from the burning of this coal but a much more practical concern: black coal dust from the trains polluting local communities. They have stirred up images of Oregon blighted by coal dust from trains carrying the coal down the Columbia River to export terminals in St. Helens, Oregon and other communities that can accommodate ocean going ships.

As with so many other such scares dreamed up by those who specialize in deliberate misinformation, this one has no validity. My brother notes that dust is a perpetual problem during the hot, dry, and windy summer months in the Nebraska Panhandle. But the dust is brown not black and therefore of natural origin. His photos (attached) show that the railroad tracks and overpasses themselves are remarkably clean, despite the passage of thousands of coal cars each week. This is a main route for coal trains heading east, perhaps the main route.

With such a stark contrast between what Alarmists claim and what the reality is, we have to wonder if these people are capable of any honesty at all. They are a factor in all such environmental discussions because the press (such as journalist Scott Learn at The Oregonian) gives them prominent and largely unquestioned coverage.

When I am faced with people who have lied to me, I refuse to be duped a second time. In a public hearing in California years ago I asked a very prominent attorney why we should believe what he was now saying, “since you did not tell us the truth previously.” His response was classic: “This is a different case?” The fallout from my question was dramatic. His client dropped him! In my opinion, we must hold people responsible for deliberate deceptions or those deceptions simply continue from the same people and from imitators.

Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA

Here’s the picture. See any black?



This all got started by some activists that are equating some door to door poll with science. This is what likely got them bent out of shape:

Port of St. Helens approves coal export agreements with two companies

And the reactions, from http://www.beyondtoxics.org/blog/

==============================================================

Stopping coal: A renewed moral imperative

By Lisa Arkin on July 11, 2012

I want to be clear: I am not against trains (I often travel by passenger train)! I am, however, critical about using our rail system to haul coal to coastal ports and then load the coal and ship it off to Asian destinations. And justifiably so! Besides the significant safety issues posed by rail shipment of massive amounts of coal, we should consider the certainty of grave health problems we will have to address.

It is already true that health problems associated with polluted air occur in our community. Beyond Toxics has engaged with community health issues in the River Road, Trainsong and Bethel neighborhoods for many years. Recently we completed a community health survey in West Eugene. A striking pattern emerged. We found that 30% of the nearly 350 households we interviewed believe that at least one family member suffers from asthma.

===========================================================

Lisa Arkin, Exec. Director
Lisa Arkin, Exec. Director Oregon Toxics Alliance – aka the Coal lady

Gosh, knock on a few doors, run an uncontrolled non-scientific survey by activist friends (no control group), ask about asthma, then claim it is the moral basis for shutting down coal trains. Who could fault logic like that? /sarc.

They don’t just want some changes, they want wholesale stoppage: see Stopping Coal in Oregon

Here’s the entire basis for worry, a FAQs on the BNSF railroad company page:

Coal Dust-Frequently Asked Questions and it addressed the question, How extensive is the coal dust problem?


“Since 2005, BNSF has been at the forefront of extensive research regarding the impacts of coal dust escaping from loaded coal cars … From these studies, BNSF has determined that … The amount of coal dust that escapes from Powder River Basin coal trains is surprisingly large. …BNSF has done studies indicating that from 500 lbs to a ton of coal can escape from a single loaded coal car. Other reports have indicated that as much as 3% of the coal loaded into a coal car can be lost in transit. In many areas, a thick layer of black coal dust can be observed along the railroad right of way and in between the tracks. … large amounts of coal dust accumulate rapidly…”

She continues:


So let’s do the math. Multiplying the amount of coal projected to arrive at the Port of Coos Bay, which is 6 – 10 million tons per year, by BNSF’s suggested 3% product loss, this calculation suggests that coal trains would release as much as 300,000 tons of coal dust along its journey through Oregon. That is an immense amount of highly toxic coal dust every day of the year!

300,000 tons, all in Oregon? Gosh. Heh. She seems to miss the fact that the trains move, and that the lightest dust will be dropped from the train first, as it gains speed as air moves over the train. And, that coal dust is much much heavier than air, and settles quickly. Much of what escapes may not be dust, she cites “500 lbs to a ton of coal can escape from a single loaded coal car” but really, just how much of that is dust?

From the BNSF website, it doesn’t go far, and seems to settle right on the tracks:



It also seems to be more like pebble sized detritus, rather than “dust”.

If you look at this image from the BeyondToxics.org website, you’d think dust was a huge and widespread problem:



Source: http://www.beyondtoxics.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/CoalTrainVideoFF_CROP1-300×233.jpg

That’s a crop from this one video shot in Pennsylvania, which has become a favorite of those anti-coal activists:

But if you look at video of other coal trains from the Powder River Basin, I don’t see a repeat of that issue. Of course when it is raining (as it does a lot in the Pacific Northwest) there’s no coal dust at all.

If such dust and losses were a huge and widespread problem (even in Oregon), we should be able to see the difference via aerial photos in West Eugene where train tracks should be pitch black with the supposed 300,000 tons of coal dust/year accumulated over the years.


Southern Pacific rail yard in West Eugene, OR – note the nearby houses, and try to find all that coal dust – click to enlarge

BTW that grey you see is roadbed for the train tracks, composed of golfball sized crushed rock. Note the nearby residences, probably where they knocked on doors.

Source: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=44.067276,-123.12692&spn=0.01494,0.027938&t=h&z=16

But, annoyingly inconvenient for the activists, it seems the problem has been solved by BNSF, who voluntarily implemented coal dust standards in 2010 for their rail shipments. But Oregon’s BeyondToxics doesn’t tell you that.

From the very same BNSF FAQs page where they cite the coal dust loss as being a problem, there’s this:


What are the coal dust standards?
BNSF’s coal dust emission standards are contained in Items 100 and 101 of BNSF’s Coal Rules publication called Price List 6041-B. The standards require that coal cars must be loaded in conformance with a specified loading template. The new coal loading profile produces a more rounded contour of the coal in coal cars that eliminates the sharp angles and irregular surfaces that can promote the loss of coal dust when cars are in transit.
BNSF’s coal dust emission standards also provide that the amount of coal dust emitted from a train may not exceed specified levels as measured by trackside monitors (TSM) at two locations on PRB lines. One TSM is located at milepost 90.7 on the Joint Line and the other TSM is located at milepost 558.2 on BNSF’s Black Hills subdivision. A third trackside monitoring station has been constructed on the Big Horn subdivision at milepost, and will be fully operational in early 2010.

Yes, they built a coal weather station, see http://www.bnsf.com/customers/what-can-i-ship/coal/coal-dust/pdf/q4_2.pdf

It doesn’t seem to be much of a problem anymore in Wyoming at the source either. I’ve looked at dozens of coal train photos and videos out of the Powder River basin in Wyoming, and they all look pretty much like this:



Source: Highball productions Railfan video

POWDER RIVER – THE ORIN LINE

Staggering, continuous coal train action on BNSF’s Orin line in the Powder River coal basin. UP shares the line, and there is a continous parade of trains. Lots of meets, a couple of side by sides, and 8 (yes, eight) trains in one shot, and even a broken knuckle. Some nice storm light and some nice sunset shots, this is one amazingly busy place.

While Ms. Larkin ponders the lack of black on the ground in that aerial photo, and the photos of the Powder River coal trains, and the coal dust solution put in place by BNSF (and why she doesn’t report it), she can also take a minute to read this essay, which I’m repeating here:

U.S. Life Expectancy in an Era of Death Trains and Death Factories

Posted on March 4, 2009 by Anthony Watts

Guest post by Indur M. Goklany

In a recent op-ed in the Guardian that WUWT commented on, James Hansen of global warming fame, argued for closing coal fired power plants asserting that “The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”

So what’s happened to US life expectancy as the number of coal fired death factories have multiplied and as the climate has gotten warmer?

us-life-expectancy-era-of-hansen-death-trains

Figure 1: Data are plotted for every ten years from 1900-1940, 1945, and each year from 1949 onward. Data sources: life expectancy from Statistical Abstract of the United States 2009, and earlier editions; coal usage from Goklany (2007) for 1900-1945, and EIA (2008) for 1949-2007; carbon dioxide emissions for 1900-2005 from Marland et al (2008).

As the above figure shows, US life expectancy at birth increased by 30.5 years, from 47.3 years to 77.8 years, between 1900 and 2005, while coal usage more than tripled. Carbon dioxide emissions in 2005 were nearly nine times the 1900 levels. And, of course, the climate has also gotten warmer (not shown). To appreciate the magnitude of this improvement in life expectancy, consider that the approximate life expectancy in pre-industrial societies varied from 25-35 years.

While the increase in life expectancy is not directly due to greater coal use or CO2 emissions, much of it was enabled in one way or another by the prosperity fueled in large part by coal and fossil fuel consumption, as I have noted in my book, The Improving State of the World: Why We’re Living Longer, Healthier, More Comfortable Lives on a Cleaner Planet. Also recalling the IPCC’s temperature trends from 1900 onward, according to my eyeball analyzer there seems to be a better correlation between life expectancy and coal use (and CO2 emissions) or their logarithms than that between temperature increase (either for the US or the world) on the one hand and, on the other hand, coal use (and CO2 emissions) or their logarithms.

It may be argued that Hansen’s comments pertain to the future, not to the past or present. But to this I would respond that the above figure is based on real data whereas Hansen’s declaration is based on some unknown projection about the future based on unknown, unvalidated and unverified models.

Giving up fossil fuel energy use and, with that, compromising the real improvements in life expectancy and other indicators of human well-being that have accompanied that energy use, would be like giving up a real bird in hand to avoid being attacked by a monster that may or may not exist in the bush, that is, a monster that may only exist in the virtual world.

This doesn’t seem like a rational trade-off.

==============================================================

I just can’t get too worked up about railroad coal dust, which in my opinion, is a non-problem unless you are mining it and exposed to high levels of it constantly. Plus, it seems BNSF already solved the problem, but the activists aren’t telling you that.

As a kid, I had a coal bunker in my basement, with coal dust permeating the house at times when we’d get a new shipment. Somehow I managed to survive.

UPDATE: in comments, Les Johnson points out that coal cars are sprayed with something to prevent such dust losses. I checked this out. It seems this has been solved a long time ago, as the patent for the process goes back to 1979:

Control of dust during coal transportation

Spraying of coal in an open top hopper car with an aqueous composition containing at least about 2.5% of a binder material consisting of solid material in an aqueous suspension of an asphalt emulsion or a black liquor lignin product and containing 0.1 to 2.0% of water soluble ethoxylated alkyl phenol or sulfo succinate wetting agent results in the formation of a crust layer which provides protection against loss of coal due to wind action during rapid movement of the car.

Improvements to the patent are as recent as 2006:

http://www.google.com/patents/US4169170

Like I said, this is a non-problem, already solved. But, that one video from Pennsylvania gets a lot of folks all worked up about black lung disease I’m sure.


Usual thing, click the link above for all the graphs, video clips charts etc.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 11/05/2013 12:11

The article that started all this nonsense.

Coal-fired power stations are death factories. Close them

(1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal

The government is expected to give the go-ahead to the coal-burning Kingsnorth power plant. Here, one of the world's foremost climate experts launches an excoriating attack on Britain's long love affair with the most polluting fossil fuel of all
James Hansen

The Observer, Sunday 15 February 2009

A year ago, I wrote to Gordon Brown asking him to place a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants in Britain. I have asked the same of Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, Kevin Rudd and other leaders. The reason is this - coal is the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet.

The climate is nearing tipping points. Changes are beginning to appear and there is a potential for explosive changes, effects that would be irreversible, if we do not rapidly slow fossil-fuel emissions over the next few decades. As Arctic sea ice melts, the darker ocean absorbs more sunlight and speeds melting. As the tundra melts, methane, a strong greenhouse gas, is released, causing more warming. As species are exterminated by shifting climate zones, ecosystems can collapse, destroying more species.

The public, buffeted by weather fluctuations and economic turmoil, has little time to analyse decadal changes. How can people be expected to evaluate and filter out advice emanating from those pushing special interests? How can people distinguish between top-notch science and pseudo-science?

Those who lead us have no excuse - they are elected to guide, to protect the public and its best interests. They have at their disposal the best scientific organisations in the world, such as the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences. Only in the past few years did the science crystallise, revealing the urgency. Our planet is in peril. If we do not change course, we'll hand our children a situation that is out of their control. One ecological collapse will lead to another, in amplifying feedbacks.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air has already risen to a dangerous level. The pre-industrial carbon dioxide amount was 280 parts per million (ppm). Humans, by burning coal, oil and gas, have increased this to 385 ppm; it continues to grow by about 2 ppm per year.

Earth, with its four-kilometre-deep oceans, responds only slowly to changes of carbon dioxide. So the climate will continue to change, even if we make maximum effort to slow the growth of carbon dioxide. Arctic sea ice will melt away in the summer season within the next few decades. Mountain glaciers, providing fresh water for rivers that supply hundreds of millions of people, will disappear - practically all of the glaciers could be gone within 50 years - if carbon dioxide continues to increase at current rates. Coral reefs, harbouring a quarter of ocean species, are threatened.

The greatest danger hanging over our children and grandchildren is initiation of changes that will be irreversible on any time scale that humans can imagine. If coastal ice shelves buttressing the west Antarctic ice sheet continue to disintegrate, the sheet could disgorge into the ocean, raising sea levels by several metres in a century. Such rates of sea level change have occurred many times in Earth's history in response to global warming rates no higher than those of the past 30 years. Almost half of the world's great cities are located on coastlines.

The most threatening change, from my perspective, is extermination of species. Several times in Earth's history, rapid global warming occurred, apparently spurred by amplifying feedbacks. In each case, more than half of plant and animal species became extinct. New species came into being over tens and hundreds of thousands of years. But these are time scales and generations that we cannot imagine. If we drive our fellow species to extinction, we will leave a far more desolate planet for our descendants than the world we inherited from our elders.

Clearly, if we burn all fossil fuels, we will destroy the planet we know. Carbon dioxide would increase to 500 ppm or more. We would set the planet on a course to the ice-free state, with sea level 75 metres higher. Climatic disasters would occur continually. The tragedy of the situation, if we do not wake up in time, is that the changes that must be made to stabilise the atmosphere and climate make sense for other reasons. They would produce a healthier atmosphere, improved agricultural productivity, clean water and an ocean providing fish that are safe to eat.

Fossil-fuel reservoirs will dictate the actions needed to solve the problem. Oil, of which half the readily accessible reserves have already been burnt, is used in vehicles, so it's impractical to capture the carbon dioxide. This is likely to drive carbon dioxide levels to at least 400 ppm. But if we cut off the largest source of carbon dioxide - coal - it will be practical to bring carbon dioxide back to 350 ppm, lower still if we improve agricultural and forestry practices, increasing carbon storage in trees and soil.

Coal is not only the largest fossil fuel reservoir of carbon dioxide, it is the dirtiest fuel. Coal is polluting the world's oceans and streams with mercury, arsenic and other dangerous chemicals. The dirtiest trick that governments play on their citizens is the pretence that they are working on "clean coal" or that they will build power plants that are "capture-ready" in case technology is ever developed to capture all pollutants.

The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death. When I testified against the proposed Kingsnorth power plant, I estimated that in its lifetime it would be responsible for the extermination of about 400 species - its proportionate contribution to the number that would be committed to extinction if carbon dioxide rose another 100 ppm.

The German and Australian governments pretend to be green. When I show German officials the evidence that the coal source must be cut off, they say they will tighten the "carbon cap". But a cap only slows the use of a fuel - it does not leave it in the ground. When I point out that their new coal plants require that they convince Russia to leave its oil in the ground, they are silent. The Australian government was elected on a platform of solving the climate problem, but then, with the help of industry, it set emission targets so high as to guarantee untold disasters for the young, let alone the unborn. These governments are not green. They are black - coal black.

The three countries most responsible, per capita, for filling the air with carbon dioxide from fossil fuels are the UK, the US and Germany, in that order. Politicians here have asked me why am I speaking to them. Surely the US must lead? But coal interests have great power in the US; the essential moratorium and phase-out of coal requires a growing public demand and a political will yet to be demonstrated.

The Prime Minister should not underestimate his potential to transform the situation. And he must not pretend to be ignorant of the consequences of continuing to burn coal or take refuge in a "carbon cap" or some "target" for future emission reductions. My message to Gordon Brown is that young people are beginning to understand the situation. They want to know: will you join their side? Remember that history, and your children, will judge you.

• James Hansen is director of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. He was the first scientist to warn the US Congress of the dangers of climate change.


Hansen is no longer an employee of NASA - it seems that they finally got sick and tired of him dragging their good name through the mud via his hatred of mankind and in particular cheap energy in the form of coal fired power stations as well as his public arrests, over the top lies and deciets etc and encouraged him to um retire.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 11/05/2013 12:17

Hansen’s “death train” argument denied as a “nuisance”

Posted on June 20, 2011 by Anthony Watts

(1) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/20/hansens-death-train-argument-denied-as-a-nuisance/


After all the caterwauling from Hansen about coal “death trains”, and his defense of criminal mischief at a power plant in the UK, this is a real “mud in your eye” moment and an affirmation that no one industry can be singled out as a scapegoat for global warming, climate change, climate disruption.

The supremes have spoken:

Supreme Court rejects climate nuisance suits

The Supreme Court today unanimously rejected the effort by some states to sue utilities for greenhouse gas emissions on the basis of the nuisance doctrine, holding that the Clean Air Act pre-empts federal common law.



In our favor, SCOTUS did say that the EPA could refuse to regulate GHGs as long as the refusal is not arbitrary and capricious. So skeptics will take today’s win and work toward the next (non-Obama) administration rolling back the endangerment finding.

Click here for the Court opinion in AEP v. Connecticut.

Full story at junkscience.com

This WUWT post by Indur Goklany is also worth reviewing:

U.S. Life Expectancy in an Era of Death Trains and Death Factories
[/I]
As per usual click on (1) link to see all the inner links etc.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 11/05/2013 12:33

Originally Posted By: SBT
Well, Hansen’s “death trains” have taken on a crazier, even more wobbly, left spin. Physicist Gordon Fulks writes Via Lars Larson nationally syndicated radio show:


Hmmm written by Gordon Fulks smirk
Clearly one sided...Gordon Fulks is One of the biggest sceptics around

Quote:
Climate skeptic instructor fired from Oregon State University



Originally Posted By: SBT
Spraying of coal in an open top hopper car with an aqueous composition containing at least about 2.5% of a binder material consisting of solid material in an aqueous suspension of an asphalt emulsion or a black liquor lignin product and containing 0.1 to 2.0% of water soluble ethoxylated alkyl phenol or sulfo succinate wetting agent results in the formation of a crust layer which provides protection against loss of coal due to wind action during rapid movement of the car.

Improvements to the patent are as recent as 2006:

http://www.google.com/patents/US4169170

Like I said, this is a non-problem, already solved. But, that one video from Pennsylvania gets a lot of folks all worked up about black lung disease I’m sure.


Well it is obviosly not a "non-problem" in some areas still.

Article from 2 days ago...

Residents near coal corridor south-west of Brisbane should wear masks, says environtmental medicine expert Dr Andrew Jerimijenko

RESIDENTS concerned about the health impacts of uncovered coal trains should wear masks to protect themselves from the dust, says a leading expert in the field.

Dr Andrew Jerimijenko, a GP who specialises in environmental medicine, made the suggestion at a community meeting at Yeronga on Wednesday night to discuss the health effects of coal trains passing through Brisbane suburbs.

"That's what we do on the mine site, we get people to wear a mask so they don't breath in the coal dust,'' he said.

"It's a simple thing to do.''

About 70 residents attended the meeting held at Kurilpa Scout Hall, only metres from the Yeronga train station.

Dr Jerimijenko spoke about health problems found in coal workers and took questions from the crowd.

One resident wanted to know what could be done to minimise the risk.


Dr Jerimijenko suggested residents seal their windows, turn on their air conditioning and if necessary wear a mask.

"If you are concerned those options are available,'' he said.

Dr Jerimijenko said he couldn't tell people what, if any, health risks they faced from coal dust because no studies had been done.

The number of coal trains travelling along the West Moreton line is set to double from about 5000 a year to 10,000 by 2020.

New Hope Group, which is responsible for about 60 per cent of coal trains carrying coal to the Port of Brisbane, began veneering this month after two months of dust testing at selected points along the line.

But Dr Jerimijenko said veneering - which involves spraying coal with chemicals to prevent it from spreading - was not ideal.

"The problem you have is coming back, do they veneer the empty carriages? My understanding is they don't."

He said a simple solution would be to cover the coal trains with lids.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/...e-1226638146680
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 11/05/2013 12:42

Hardly an open argument.

Originally Posted By: SBT
Hansen’s “death train” argument denied as a “nuisance”

Posted on June 20, 2011 by Anthony Watts

(1) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/20/hansens-death-train-argument-denied-as-a-nuisance/


Quote:
Watts Up With That?
Watts established the blog, Watts Up With That? (WUWT?) in 2006. The blog focuses on the global warming controversy, in particular, Watts skepticism about the role of humans in global warming

Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 11/05/2013 13:52

As per usual it is up to you and any one else who wants information to read and understand what has been said, follow the links within the articles do some more research and then make up your own mind.

A service I provide for those looking for information, not left wing green hype.

Meanwhile in the real world, thousands of Brisbanites are still refusing to fall ill or die from the effects of so called coal dust pollution.


As for Anthony Watts stance on climate change and global warming it might help if you actually read how he came to the conclusions that climate change and global warming was based on a lie originally as a result of very badly sited Stevenson screens and reporting sites. (The IPCC/CRU had an opportunity to reassess their theory when he first exposed the problem. He laid no blame at anyone's feet and invited anyone who wanted to, to explore what he had found and in the case of cAGW mob a chance to rewrite some or all of their claims. They didn't and that has started an all in war from the Warmista's™ against him and his followers for daring to have a contrary view point.)

It started years ago as a side project to help people understand how temperatures being reported at 'official' reporting centres where vastly different to what people where actually experiencing. He found that things like jet exhausts at airports being pointed directly at Stevenson screens raised temperatures, as did having them sited next to freeways made of concrete, in front of the heat exchangers of air conditioning units, being placed on gravel instead of grass and any number of other problems which all contributed to Urban Heat Influence being responsible for increased temperatures.

Through his and his group members efforts in photographing these reporting sites and having independent checks done they have proved that UHI was the cause for the USA temperature records being skewed so high.

In other words he exposed a fault in the system.

He is a university trained meteorologist with many years of observation experience behind him as well as working in the TV industry as a weather reporter.

He came to his conclusions about global warming the same way I did. By investigating what was being said and coming to the opinion that it was all based on a failed hypothesis. I am just a layman but even I can follow the information he supplies and the other people who regularly contribute to his blog. That doesn't mean that I blindly believe everything that is posted there. But rather I use my skills to research those facts as I can and then come to a conclusion.

He dared to question what was being said to him by experts and discovered that it held little to no credence so set about setting the record straight via his blog.

Unlike the Green Left he provides information backed up by research as well as providing links to articles or information contained within each post. Yes he states an opinion about cAGW, yes he questions the science, No he won't lie down and go away. He uses his right to free speech to say what he thinks is the truth backed up by facts - not politically correct left wing green environuts dogma.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 11/05/2013 20:09

Originally Posted By: SBT
As per usual it is up to you and any one else who wants information to read and understand what has been said, follow the links within the articles do some more research and then make up your own mind.

A service I provide for those looking for information, not left wing green hype.


No, it is full of right wing sceptics propaganda instead.
whistle

You claim the issue of coal dust has been "sorted", well it hasn't and it still persists.

Black coal dust dresses salad

IT'S not easy growing healthy vegetables across the road from one of Australia's busiest coal rail corridors.

"[The plants] are always covered in dust, just like the clothes on the line," Tighes Hill resident Gleny Rae said yesterday.

While much has changed in the former industrial suburb since the closure of BHP, some residents believe coal dust is as significant a threat to human health as the former steelworks ever was.

"It's just always around; we're constantly breathing it," Ms Rae told Greens senators Richard Di Natale and Lee Rhiannon who visited her house.

The senators are in Newcastle for the first public hearing of the national Senate inquiry into the health impacts of air pollution.

The majority of the 83 submissions the committee received were from the Hunter region. Most expressed concern about the rapid expansion of the mining industry on air quality.

Senator Rhiannon said the enforcement of national air quality standards was essential.


"That's feedback that I've had for years now from people who say we are told there are conditions but nothing happens. That's what we want to change from this inquiry," she said.

Senator Di Natale, a public health specialist, said the health costs of increased air pollution were constantly underestimated, and the epidemiological evidence was clear.

"When you get chronic low-grade exposure to the pollutants that people in Newcastle are exposed to, you are going to see an increase in the illnesses that are related to coal dust," he said.

Today's hearing starts at 9am at Newcastle Town Hall.

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1434396/black-coal-dust-dresses-salad/?cs=12
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 11/05/2013 20:59

You wouldn't be working in the solar panel industry by any chance Yasi?? I saw a panel smashed today due to poor placement near a golf course. lets hope that those who have them don't get large hail storms!!!
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 12/05/2013 09:14



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Pretty much says it all about 400ppm. The Thermal Worriers™ keep carping on about CO2 being the main driver of global warming all the time forgetting that the miniscule amount of CO2 pales into absolute insignificance compared to the major warming phenomena which is water vapour.

And yes burning coal produces CO2 but it also produces H2O.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 12/05/2013 09:27

Except there is NO record of these supposed increases in health issues that can be laid at the feet of coal dust and this is and will continue to be the point that completely and utterly shoots your claims to bits every time that there is a problem.

You can't prove it for Brisbane, Newcastle or any other rail corridor you can name in Australia. I have no doubts that Newcastle has health issues caused by pollution from iron and aluminium smelting as well as ship building and iron and steel manufacture but from coal dust alone?

Once again I ask for proof, again and again and it never arrives.
You made the claim. You have to provide the proof. It is quite simple concept and one I use all the time. In any debate if you make a claim you have to be prepared to back it up with cold hard facts.

You can't or quite possibly have tried to find the facts and also can't find them so rely on constant harping on about the claims without providing any proof.

You have a history on this forum of making unfounded claims and not backing them up with facts. If you want to be taken seriously by anyone I suggest you start doing some homework and looking beyond the green rhetoric that you rely on and actually exploring both sides of the argument and then making your mind up.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 12/05/2013 14:58

I have brought plenty of facts to the table, the problem is that you don't see them as you are using the "ignore feature".....

So is it just coincidence that area's like Newcastle, the latrobe valley and even the hunter valley, where there is coal mining and coal fired power plants in operation have higher instances of cancer?

Quote:
Hunter New England Area Health Service (HNEAHS) has
a higher cancer incidence and a higher rate of death
from cancer than NSW, most notably among males


Quote:
New report highlights health fears for Hunter Valley
Updated Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:35am AEDT


Health authorities are coming under pressure to properly investigate the health impacts of mining on Australia's largest coal mining region, in the New South Wales Hunter Valley.

It comes after new research showing a link with increased death rates and disease in some other countries.

Sydney University's Associate Professor Ruth Colagiuri analysed research from 10 countries including the USA and the UK.

She says coal mining communities there had elevated rates of cancer and higher death rates from illnesses such as heart, lung and kidney disease.

Birth defects were also more prevalent.

Professor Colagiuri says there are clear indications of serious health issues associated with coal mining and coal-fired power plants for surrounding communities.

But she says there has been no such research done in the Hunter Valley.


Quote:
Physicians for Social Responsibility has released a groundbreaking medical report, “Coal’s Assault on Human Health,” which takes a new look at the devastating impacts of coal on the human body. Coal combustion releases mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health. This report looks at the cumulative harm inflicted by those pollutants on three major body organ systems: the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, and the nervous system. The report also considers coal’s contribution to global warming, and the health implications of global


http://www.psr.org/resources/coals-assault-on-human-health.html

Quote:
You have a history on this forum of making unfounded claims and not backing them up with facts. If you want to be taken seriously by anyone I suggest you start doing some homework and looking beyond the green rhetoric that you rely on and actually exploring both sides of the argument and then making your mind up.


Your information is sourced directly from sceptics based websites like http://joannenova.com.au/ how one sided can you get?

Quote:
Hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power
plants include:
•Acid gases, such as hydrogen chloride and
hydrogen fluoride;
•Benzene, toluene and other compounds;
•Dioxins and furans;
•Formaldehyde;
•Lead, arsenic, and other metals;
•Mercury;
•Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH); and
•Radioactive materials, like radium and uranium.
2,3
Researchers have found these toxic emissions
cause a dangerous array of harm to human health
as shown in Table 1.
3
These emissions can make
breathing difficult and can worsen asthma, chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchitis and other
lung diseases. These pollutants can cause heart
attacks and strokes, lung cancer and other cancers,
birth defects and premature death.These pollutants threaten essential life
systems. Acid gases are corrosive and can irritate
and burn the eyes, skin, and breathing passages.
Long term exposures to metals have the potential
to harm the kidneys, lungs, and nervous system.
Exposures to a handful of the metals and dioxins in
coal-fired power plant emissions increase the risk of
cancer. Specific forms of arsenic, beryllium,
chromium, and nickel have been shown to cause
cancer in both human and animal studies. Table 1
also identifies those pollutants that have long-term
impacts on the environment because they accumulate in soil, water and fish.


Full Report
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 12/05/2013 15:04

More on coal.

Massive Underground Coal Fire Started in 1962 Still Burns Today

Link

Quote:
You may have already heard the story of Centralia, PA, a coal mining town that had some 1,000 inhabitants at its peak. Now, that population is down to 9. It's become a ghost town for one of the most bizarre reasons imaginable--a fire started in 1962 to burn trash in a dump inadvertently spread to a coal seam underground and has simply never stopped burning. The most recent report, published Dec. 1st in the Bismarck Tribune, confirms that the fire continues to this day--it's lasted an incredible 47 years so far.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 12/05/2013 16:05

Another aspect of the dark side of coal is coal fires.

Quote:
Coal fires are a serious health and safety hazard as well as affecting the environment by releasing toxic fumes, reigniting grass, brush, or forest fires, and causing subsidence of surface infrastructure such as roads, pipelines, electric lines, bridge supports, buildings and homes. Whether started by humans or by natural causes, coal seam fires continue to burn for decades or even centuries until either the fuel source is exhausted, a permanent groundwater table is encountered, the depth of the burn becomes greater than the ground’s capacity to subside and vent, or humans intervene. Because they burn underground, coal seam fires are extremely difficult and costly to extinguish, and are unlikely to be suppressed by rainfall.[1] There are strong similarities between coal fires and peat fires.




Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 12/05/2013 21:05

Lung cancer alarm near coal-fired power stations

A new analysis of pollution data for the Port Augusta region contradicts reassurances from the South Australian Government that smoking can be blamed for high lung cancer rates.

Residents of the region have long complained about health problems they link with two power stations, Playford and Northern, which burn highly-polluting brown coal.

The lung cancer rates around Port Augusta are said by medical experts to be double the expected number.


The independent analysis has been presented in Adelaide at a briefing for state parliamentarians organised by Doctors for the Environment Australia.

Port Augusta mayor Joy Baluch lost her husband to lung cancer 16 years ago and he never smoked.

She dismissed the Government's explanation of high lung cancer rates in the region.

"Of course I don't believe the Government, why should I? After 40 years of constantly being told that the problems at Port Augusta are attributed to the high consumption of cigarettes. This is absolute rubbish," she said.

"They are blatantly lying to the residents."


Fight for data

Air pollution statistics for Port Augusta are collected by Alinta Energy, which owns the two power stations, in conjunction with the Environment Protection Authority.

Professor David Shearman, of Doctors For The Environment Australia, said it took a six-month battle to get the figures, so they could be independently examined.

"What it amounts to is the community feels they have not been listened to," he said.

"When you look at how this community exists, it exists under the shadow of a power station that pours out pollution. They've had to stomach this for years because it supplies a large portion of the state's energy and there's been no alternative."

Professor Shearman said smoking rates were about 7 per cent higher in the Port Augusta region than other areas.

"That's really insufficient to account for a doubling of ... lung cancer," he said.

He said cleaner alternatives for power generation now needed to be considered for the area.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-03/lung-cancer-coal-fire-power-stations-doctors/3987412
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 12/05/2013 21:10

Report finds cancer risk for coal workers

A six-year probe into cancer rates at one of Australia's largest coal loading terminals has found workers are getting cancer at nearly three times higher than average.

Workers at the Port Waratah Coal Services (PWCS) Kooragang Island coal terminal in Newcastle were told of the findings yesterday.

The company says it is taking the report seriously and is trying establish the reason for such high cancer rates.

Garry Herritt started work at the Kooragang coal loader in 1990 and was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2004.

He says he is pleased the report has been released.

"It is very pleasing for me personally to see that it's been tabled," he said.

"The disconcerting aspect is of course, the result."

"There is a 1.7-fold increase in the risk of cancer compared to state and national average and a 2.8-fold increase in the risk of cancer compared to the local comparison population at Carrington," he said.

"We can't really pinpoint what might be causing this effect but statistically speaking, it is a strong effect so there is something about the site that might be causing this effect."

Workers are developing a mix of cancers including melanoma, prostate and colorectal.

Over half of the company, which expects to ship 110 million tonnes of coal from the Hunter Valley through its terminals this year, is owned by mining giants Rio Tinto, Xstrata and Anglo American.

PWCS chief executive Hennie Du Plooy says he is taking the findings seriously.

"[There is] no indication at the moment of any occupational link and we'll be continuing some study work to explore that further," he said.

The report recommends an expert review of the site, advice be taken on a cancer-screening program, and workers be encouraged to see their doctors.

PWCS says it accepts all the recommendations.

"In terms of how long it will take, we can't predict that," Mr Du Plooy said.

"I think that depends on the scope of the study and how long it takes the researchers to do it rigorously and properly as they have done in this case."

The Maritime Union of Australia's Glen Williams is calling for a government investigation into Kooragang Island workplaces and says the results are a cause for concern.

"Is it something that is in the water on Kooragang, is it something that is in the air?" he said.

"Those are the questions that we need answered."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-20/coal-terminal-workers-at-risk-of-cancer-says-report/4142746
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 12/05/2013 21:33

My information comes from sites that quote other sources within the stories and can be verified if you take the trouble to read them and follow the links.

I don't rely on dogma as proof. Your quotes are all from anti coal websites or green enviro nutters with a political axe to grind.

There is NO corridor of death in Newcastle caused by coal. How can I tell? No Royal Commission to start with. No medical emergency being declared, no mass evacuations, no designating of the region as a no go zone like they did to Wittenoom. No union picket lines, no strikes, no opposition members screaming for action, no Green Party members calling for an end to all coal use in the senate etc. The state and federal governments haven't declared any emergency measures for a clean up in fact there is nothing happening.
The problem is all in the mind of those who wish to close down coal use and will use any means to do it and has nothing to do with real world problems.


A 1.7 increase in cancer rates = 3 times higher rate? That could mean 1 person died last year from cancer and this year 3 people might die from cancer but none of it has been confirmed as being caused by exposure to coal. It is like saying the sky is blue there fore all blue eyed people have bits of sky for eyes.

Maybe if their math skills where higher and that the study could nail down the types of cancer to being caused solely by exposure to coal you might have a case but no numbers of people who got cancer, not broken down by types and no mobility study makes for a fluff piece with no substance.

Again it is an opinion piece by the ABC with scant facts, nothing that can be verified and the statement that
Quote:
"[There is] no indication at the moment of any occupational link and we'll be continuing some study work to explore that further," he said.
Of course the company will continue to look into it so they can cover their collective bums if anything is found.

For all we know it could be skin cancer from surfing, lung cancer from smoking or any number of cancers none of which are caused by coal exposure. Just quoting coal workers died from cancer is meaningless.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 12/05/2013 21:51

It isn't easy proving cancer claims. I spent 10 years representing people with cancer and other diseases and injuries in their fights with the federal government over military compensation claims and the requirements of proof are both extensive and in some cases highly complicated.

An example 1): Most of us who served in the 1970's and 80's used a fuel developed for use in cooking stoves called Range Fuel B (Cooking Range Fuel Type B) which has now been found to contain benzene, a known cariogenic which can cause leukaemia among other things. We used it to wash weapons without using any gloves or respirators and had direct skin contact sometimes for hours at a time. But only after it was withdrawn from use in field kitchens. It is still being fought in a number of cases and until it is accepted by the Repatriation Medical Authority any claims will be refused.

Example 2): I represented an RAAF aircraftsman who had contracted a form of brain cancer and had less than 3 months to live when I first spoke to him. I submitted his claim that day and had an answer back in 7 days - claim disapproved. I continued to fight this claim for 3 years after he died and finally got his wife the compensation he was entitled to and the reason it was finally approved? A photo of him sweeping down a Halifax Bomber in Townsville that had been used to track the radioactive fallout from one of the tests in Maralinga. In the photo was a UK civilian scientist dressed in an anti radiation suit while he and 8 other members of the RAAF stood on and around the bomber sweeping the dust out of the collectors mounted in the wings as well as every vertical and horizontal surface.

So what am I getting at here? To make a successful claim for cancer in this case the cancer has to be one associated with coal or coal dust, it must be proven to be caused solely by that exposure with no other causes being allowed.

If however the cancer could have been caused by any other reason the cancer claims will be disallowed and no matter how much spin, bulldust or hype anyone or any group puts on it, it is medically impossible for every cancer to be caused by coal exposure and so any reference to coal causing it is a lie.
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 12/05/2013 22:04



What are the cancer rates at solar cell manufacturing plants?

Lots of nasty chemicals and heavy metals used in these processes.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 13/05/2013 09:03



Originally Posted By: SBT
Of course the company will continue to look into it so they can cover their collective bums if anything is found.


You hit the nail right on the head there! they will try to “cover their collective bums if anything is found” that is what they are doing now you only have to look at who made the statement you refer to
Quote:
Port Waratah Coal Services (PWCS) chief executive Hennie Du Plooy says he is taking the findings seriously.

"[There is] no indication at the moment of any occupational link and we'll be continuing some study work to explore that further," he said.


He then goes on to say
Quote:
"Is it something that is in the water on Kooragang, is it something that is in the air?" he said.
covering something up maybe?

Originally Posted By: SBT
no designating of the region as a no go zone like they did to Wittenoom.


Aaaand how long did it take before they finally took action on that front? they new for years that Asbestos was causing all sorts of health issues, but did they do anything about it? no, they did the old side step....”it’s probably something in the water” "it’s probably something in the air....” then the old cover up....... of course they would try to blame everything else, Same with coal and coal dust , why wouldn’t they? After all coal is worth Billions to the e-con-o-mee, so what if a few people die or get cancer because of coal dust, the heal system will take care of them wont it?

Originally Posted By: SBT
I spent 10 years representing people with cancer and other diseases and injuries in their fights with the federal government over military compensation claims and the requirements of proof are both extensive and in some cases highly complicated.

An example 1): Most of us who served in the 1970's and 80's used a fuel developed for use in cooking stoves called Range Fuel B (Cooking Range Fuel Type B) which has now been found to contain benzene,. a known cariogenic which can cause leukaemia among other things.



Benzene and coal mining
Benzene in coal mining poses a potential health threat to coal miners and those who live in close proximity to coal mining facilities. Benzene is an emission produced in the coking process of coal mining



Originally Posted By: SBT
lung cancer from smoking or any number of cancers none of which are caused by coal exposure. Just quoting coal workers died from cancer is meaningless.



Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
Lung cancer alarm near coal-fired power stations
Professor Shearman said smoking rates were about 7 per cent higher in the Port Augusta region than other areas.

"That's really insufficient to account for a doubling of ... lung cancer," he said.

He said cleaner alternatives for power generation now needed to be considered for the area.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 13/05/2013 10:00

All just more coincidence?

Port Augusta is SA's cancer hotspot





NEW SA Health statistics have confirmed what the residents of Port Augusta say they have known for years: they have a higher rate of cancer than the rest of the state.

Port Augusta has double the number of cases of lung cancer than the expected state average, according to official figures cited by Health Minister John Hill in a document obtained by the Sunday Mail.

But while locals point the finger squarely at the town's coal-fired power stations, Mr Hill says it's because residents smoke too much.

In a letter from Mr Hill to Port Augusta Council on February 5, the minister cited confidential data from the SA Cancer Registry that shows 36 Port Augusta residents were diagnosed with lung cancer between January 2005 and December 2007.

While he did not provide the state average for the disease, Mr Hill noted in the letter Port Augusta's figure was "double the expected number" of cases for the state.

"The number of cases of each cancer type that occurred in Port Augusta in this period was close to the number expected from state averages, except for lung cancer, where the number of cases was double," he wrote.

"This finding . . . could result from a combination of many factors including, most importantly, smoking history."

But a leading Government cancer researcher, who declined to be named, said there was "no way" a 6.9 per cent higher number of smokers in Port Augusta would account for double the rate of lung cancer.

A national lung cancer expert, who also declined to be named, said blaming the statistic on smoking was "a cop out".

The Sunday Mail tried to obtain further statistical information from the SA Cancer Registry, but was told it was "confidential". Mr Hill's letter came in response to an inquiry from Port Augusta Council city manager Greg Perkin, who wrote to the minister about the issue on December 18.

"We just want to get to the bottom of it," Mr Perkin said.

`He said he was surprised that Mr Hill had attributed the town's cancer rate to smoking, as the community had long considered the local power plants could be part of the problem. Mr Perkin is now awaiting a response from SA Health to his second letter, dated February 25, in which he asked if there was "some other reason for the unusually high lung cancer rate".

Port Augusta Mayor Joy Baluch, whose husband, Teofil, died of lung cancer 14 years ago, said she had long been concerned about health effects of the power stations, citing it as the main issue that prompted her to enter local government in the 1970s.

Ms Baluch said Teofil, who died aged 70, had worked in one of the power stations for about two years and had never smoked. She also said their home was "right in line with the power station".

"People can't convince me the power station is not carcinogenic, there are just too many cases (of cancer), it's terrible," she said.

She said she would not let the issue go. "We will pursue this," she said.

A Port Augusta nurse, who did not want to be named, said she regularly treated lung cancer patients who had no smoking history, as well as patients with bronchitis, asthma and sinus problems.

She also believed the power stations were to blame, saying high levels of ash in the town's air often made it difficult to breathe.

"I see it (lung cancer) all the time and they are not all smokers, and they are not all old," she said. Power plant operator Flinders Power denied it was to blame, saying it met or exceeded all Environmental Protection Agency requirements for air quality. Greens MLC Mark Parnell said the EPA had granted the older of the two power stations a permanent exemption from meeting regular EPA standards. "Your gut reaction would tell you something is not right," he said.

The EPA did not respond to the Sunday Mail's request for comment. A spokesman for SA Health said, while dust particles emanating from coal-fired power stations could contribute to negative health effects, the average levels of such particles in Port Augusta were no different from those in Adelaide.

Mr Hill, when approached for comment, would not be drawn on whether there could be a link between the power stations and the high rate of lung cancer, instead reiterating statistics about smoking.

"The single most common cause of lung cancer is smoking and historically over 32 per cent of adults in Port Augusta have been smokers, which is higher than the average in the rest of the state," he said.

Cancer Council SA chief executive Professor Brenda Wilson said she did not know the origin of Mr Hill's statistics and would like to view the data before making comment.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south...3-1225846333836


Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 13/05/2013 10:08

I suggest you start looking at a decent reference if you want to keep making these claims.
Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. At between$150 to $400.00 a copy I doubt you will want to purchase it but you may find a version online. If you do I suggest you look at the opening chapter on how the Guides work, how it was created, why it is used as the authority for classification of Permanent Impairments by the US and Australian federal governments and what is and isn't covered. This is the document that is used by Workcover, Comcare, DVA, MCRS and MCRA to determine if an injury or disease is related to work and if it may be covered by the various legislations that cover the above work groups.

It outlines how a determination is arrived at, what testing is required for each injury and disease including clinical testing, diagnostic testing methods and such like. It states in parts that if a diagnosis can't be arrived at then no determination can be made. In other words no clinical proof the claim is rejected.

Until you have an understanding of how medical impairments are arrived at you don't have a clue about how investigations are carried out to determine who and what was at fault. Merely claiming that cancer rates are higher because they worked with coal is rubbish without proof. Is this yet another conspiracy to hide the truth (?) yet again in yet another conspiracy to hide that the federal and state governments are complacent in harming their own citizens by hiding what is happening.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 13/05/2013 11:18

Quote:
Until you have an understanding of how medical impairments are arrived at you don't have a clue about how investigations are carried out to determine who and what was at fault. Merely claiming that cancer rates are higher because they worked with coal is rubbish without proof. Is this yet another conspiracy to hide the truth (?) yet again in yet another conspiracy to hide that the federal and state governments are complacent in harming their own citizens by hiding what is happening.


I may not be an expert in Medicine but it is not hard to see through tactics companies use to try and side step/Blame shift their way around illness and disease cause by their products.

as can be seen by...
Quote:
cited by Health Minister John Hill.........
But while locals point the finger squarely at the town's coal-fired power stations, Mr Hill says it's because residents smoke too much.


Or

Originally Posted By: Port Waratah Coal Services (PWCS) chief executive Hennie Du Plooy says
"Is it something that is in the water on Kooragang, is it something that is in the air?" he said.


No cover ups?

Quote:
Doctors raising the alarm

Two doctors were responsible for raising the alarm about the asbestos risk at Wittenoom. In 1948 Dr Eric Saint, the area flying doctor, was newly arrived from England and so was aware of the health risks from asbestos from his experience there. A few years later in the late1950s, Dr Jim McNulty was working as the Mines Medical Officer. Both men were appalled at the conditions and both raised the alarm about the health risk for the workers. However the Mines Department, with its own entrenched culture, turned a deaf ear to their concerns. Historian Lenore Layman tells more.


2 Doctors raised the alarm about asbestos in the late ‘40’s and 50’s....Now i am sure when they first put their theories forward the would have been labled as crackpot, didn’t know what they were talking about and so on....

It was even earlier than that that the warning signs for asbestos were there.

Quote:
In the early 1900s researchers began to notice a large number of early deaths and lung problems in asbestos mining towns. The first diagnosis of asbestosis was made in the UK in 1924. By the 1930s, the UK regulated ventilation and made asbestosis an excusable work-related disease, followed by the U.S about ten years later


Meanwhile back in Australia.

Quote:
Taking risks with asbestos mining
Asbestos mining companies ignored evidence of potential threats to the health of their workforce and did whatever they could to forestall the introduction of measures which might restrict their operations and profitability. Author Gideon Haigh tells more.

Government turning a blind eye

Josef Schrott was a miner working in Wittenoom in the 1960s who witnessed how the inspections were carried out at the minesite. He is critical of the government authorities who seemed to turn a blind eye to dangerous working conditions that they knew could carry a death sentence for the asbestos miners. He describes how advance warnings of the inspectors’ visits ensured that they never saw the real conditions encountered by the miners in their daily work.


So Governments, doctors new the risks of asbestos going back over 50 years ago....and when exactly was asbestos banned completely?? Victoria completely banned the use of Asbestos around the early 2000’s!
(Blue asbestos was banned in 1967 and Brown was not banned until the late 80's)

Quote:
The court cases

The history of asbestos in Australia and around the world, is a history of cover up with companies choosing to ignore the dangers for as long as possible. Even when they did acknowledge any liability for occupational disease, monetary settlements ensured workers did not talk publicly about their case.
http://www.australianasbestosnetwork.org...es/default.aspx


Yes, quite clearly no companies ever cover anything up to protect themselves or their companies or interests.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 13/05/2013 18:43

A little closer to home and another city with a coal fired power plant in their backyard, and an area with higher instance of cancer.......

Why are we sick?

AN alarmingly high rate of cancer cases – more than double the state average – has prompted Gladstone residents to demand an investigation.

In response to community fears, Health Minister Stephen Robertson confirmed yesterday that officials would "closely monitor" the situation in the central Queensland industrial city.

Mr Robertson, whose father died of leukemia, said Gladstone's abnormal rate could be dismissed as an aberration, but lessons learned from the breast cancer cluster at the ABC studio in Toowong, Brisbane, had made officials cautious.

He said the Government would "continue to monitor it and do further research".

"But the advice to date is that there isn't a cause for serious concern," he said.

Among those leading the call for an inquiry is cancer victim Meredith Blyton who said yesterday:"It is worrying not to know what is causing the high rate of leukemia and I think the authorities really do need to investigate."



The 46-year-old grandmother has lived in Gladstone since she was 11, but is now contemplating leaving the area after being diagnosed with leukemia.

Her call was backed by her daughter Cathy Mitchell, 20, a mum-of-two, who said the family had found it difficult to cope with her mother's illness.

"I think the Health Department owes it to the people who are sick to look into the abnormal rate of disease here," she said.

The cancer alarm was raised last week in Parliament by local MP Liz Cunningham after being approached by another concerned Gladstone resident Paul Tooker who said he thought it was odd that his children were forever talking about schoolmates who were getting sick.

For years the concerned father has campaigned about coal dust problems in the area but he decided it was time to get some hard evidence.

"But I knew if I could get Liz (Cunningham) to ask the question on notice that they would have to give her the information," he said.

The call for an inquiry was also backed by Miss Universe Australia Kimberley Busteed whose brother Corey died of the disease when he was just nine years old in 1996.


"It was a terrible time. It was just horrible for my whole family and this is something no family should have to go through," she told The Sunday Mail.

Mrs Cunningham said a cocktail of poisonous gases and coal dust had blanketed the city for years and she believed it was "incumbent on the Department of Health and the Minister for Health to investigate any links that could be identified".

Health Department figures show that between 1996 and 2004, the rate of chronic lymphoid leukemia was 108 per cent higher than the whole of Queensland, with 19 cases diagnosed.

Other types of leukemia are also higher, with 22 cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2004 – seven more than average.


Mr Robertson said he was aware of previous issues raised over the years by the Gladstone community about the possible impact of ongoing industrial development and emissions. He said the Government had responded appropriately then.

"But you can only act on the basis of good evidence and to date that evidence isn't robust enough for us to elevate our level of concern," he said.

Industrial growth began in Gladstone in the 1960s and the city is now the home of the world's biggest aluminium refiner, Queensland's biggest power station, Australia's largest cement operation and a huge coal transport depot.

Professor Bruce Armstrong, director of research at Sydney Cancer Centre said exposure to benzene in the air could cause leukemia.

"It is worth exploring these industries, particularly if they are a source of benzene."

Mrs Blyton, who started chemotherapy at the Royal Brisbane Hospital last week and is waiting for a bone marrow transplant said she had "often wondered what's floating about in the air that I have been breathing all these years".

Emissions data from the National Pollutant Inventory reveal Cement Australia which opened in 1981 at Fishermans Landing, just west of Gladstone, is emitting 14,000 kg of benzene a year.

A spokeswoman said the likelihood of any emissions from the site affecting the community were "very minimal" and within recommended levels.

"The workforce and community in Gladstone is of paramount importance to Cement Australia, and our approach is to constantly reduce any emissions," she said.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/why-are-we-sick/story-e6freoof-1111113666225
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/05/2013 12:13

Another town, Another Coal fired power plant and again the same issues.

Anglesea Power Station it’s safe, trust me? Alcoa




“Alcoa’s coal mine and power station has been part of the Anglesea community for over 40 years and is safe for the neighbouring community”, said the company’s State General Manager of manufacturing operations, John Osborne.

In 1969 the Anglesea Powers Station was brought online and the toxic pollution began. Alcoa has polluted over Anglesea for more than 40 years. The pollution was hidden for many years and all we ever heard was the spin from Alcoa as to how it was doing with regards to its own targets, whatever they needed to be. The Anglesea population was oblivious to what was actually happening.

It is beyond comprehension why Alcoa Australia has criticised calls for independent air and health tests around its coal mine and power station, if it is true that the emissions are ‘safe’. A responsible corporate citizen would welcome such a challenge in order to‘clear the air’ however this is not the stance of Alcoa Australia. What is it that the Alcoa Anglesea Power Station is hiding? Is it that the emissions are in fact more toxic, more health affecting and cancer causing than they have reported under the self regulatory scheme?

For 40 years and counting Alcoa has given residents particulate matter, heavy metals and toxins such as, Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium, Carbon monoxide, Chlorine Chromium (III), Hexavalent Chromium (VI), Fluoride compounds, Lead, Mercury, Oxides of Nitrogen, Polychlorinated dioxins and furans (TEQ), Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (B[a]Peq), Sulphur dioxide, Boron, Thorium, nickel, Uranium, Gallium, Tin, Aluminium, Barium, Caesium, Niobium, Tellurium, Antimony, Thallium and more. Each one of these chemicals slowly maims and can kills. Each one of these chemical affect the quality of life.


Why for the so called 40 safe years as reported by Mr Osborne was everything alright? Well it wasn’t. Cancers developed, health problems increased, but since we were only hearing one side of the story no one was the wiser. Even the various Governments and the inept departments, the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) are no wiser at best, complicit at worst for allowing Alcoa Anglesea Power Station to destroy the health and environment of the Anglesea residents. Both organisations owe a duty of care to the Anglesea Residents.

Just like smoking cigarettes’ it takes some years for health to deteriorate to the extent that emphysema and cancers raise their ugly head. However with children these exposures develop quicker and last a life time as toxic chemicals accumulate in their developing bodies.


Alcoa has a duty of care to ensure the Power Station emissions are safe and it is very disingenuous for Mr Osborne to make claims that the emissions are ‘safe’ when in reality the opposite is fact.

What Mr John Osborne also fails to tell is that only in the last 13 years has the so called“safe toxins emissions” become mandatory in its reports to the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI), prior to this period, information was hidden from the public and not even reported. Alcoa hid behind self relegation.

Residents developed health problems, cancers, asthma, fibrosis, kidney damage, hypersensitivity effects, increased respiratory symptoms, and they also died. The connection to these health problems is similar to the spin of the tobacco companies. Alcoa denies causing health problems, however they always add that they emit in accordance with its EPA Licence.

The self regulatory scheme allows Alcoa Anglesea Power Station, to do whatever it wants regardless of the outcome to ensure the best possible take on the dangerous health effecting emission. Money is always the driving force; the bottom line appears to be more
important than the health of Anglesea residents.


So not only are the residents being mislead by Alcoa and the Government, the bodies that has been established to safe guard the community and environment the EPA and the DSE have also failed to be proactive. Is this a case of the tail wagging the dog, or is it a dog with lots of fleas?

Will Alcoa fund an independent health screening of residents to ensure that everything is safe? This could probably be the cheapest investment Alcoa could ever make, if the emissions from the Anglesea Power Station are in fact ‘SAFE’. Naturally, if the results are ‘not safe’ it would let them as they do now, sanitise the results.

The point is that regulatory testing should be funded by the Victorian Government NOT Alcoa.

However, (Alcoa rejects Anglesea air test calls, ABC News September 05, 2011).

The Victorian Baillieu Government, the local member for Polwarth MP Terry Mulder, do they care about the health of the Anglesea residents?
http://www.angleseanews.com/archives/1553
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/05/2013 13:04

No morbidity study = no proof.

People all over Australia who don't live next to the Alcoa power station also get all those medical issues too.

Yet another Big Green™ newspaper beat up with no evidence and yet another Pollution/Industry Conspiracy YS?
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/05/2013 13:13

All the area's have one thing in common, coal fired power plants in their back yards and they all have the same health and pollution concerns.

Seems funny you stick up for Army members in the form of help with legal litigation ( so you must have believed that was the cause) over breathing in smoke from Cooking fuels that were used in the Army and contained Benzene, the exact same thing that is contained in coal....Benzene.

Originally Posted By: SBT
An example 1): Most of us who served in the 1970's and 80's used a fuel developed for use in cooking stoves called Range Fuel B (Cooking Range Fuel Type B) which has now been found to contain benzene, a known cariogenic which can cause leukaemia among other things. We used it to wash weapons without using any gloves or respirators and had direct skin contact sometimes for hours at a time. But only after it was withdrawn from use in field kitchens.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/05/2013 14:22

Part of a report from
STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
References Committee
Inquiry into the impacts on health of air quality in
Australia
Submission from Surf Coast Air Action and Transition Town
Anglesea.

The health of both permanent and visiting populations of Anglesea are at risk from air
pollution from Alcoa’s coalmine and power station due to;
• Very close proximity.
• Aging and outdated power station infrastructure, not in keeping with current
best practice.
• Particulates from both the open cut coal mine and the coal fired power station.
• Very high sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions from the combustion of locally
mined brown coal which has 10 times the sulphur content of brown coal
mined in the Latrobe Valley (3% vs. 0.3%).
An average increase in 10μg/m³ is
associated with a 3-4% increase in all-cause mortality.

Given the proximity of Anglesea to Alcoa’s open cut coal mine, from which coal
dust (particulates) disperse onto the town, and the power station and stack, from
which particulates are also generated, Anglesea residents are clearly at risk from
acute and cumulative exposures and acute and cumulative adverse health
impacts.

Originally Posted By: More from report
those populations most at risk and the causes that put
those populations at risk.
Due to proximity, old and polluting technology, particulates and high SO2 emissions,
the entire population of Anglesea, both permanent and visiting, is at risk.
Sulphur Dioxide:
Alcoa’s Anglesea power station is less then one tenth the size and output of
Hazelwood power station in Victoria’s LaTrobe Valley, however emits 3 times the
total volume of SO2.


Air Emission Study and Human Health Risk Assessment - Alcoa
Anglesea Power Station:
SCAA has specific and significant concerns following the (eventual) public release of
the Air Emission Study and Human Health Risk Assessment - Alcoa Anglesea Power
Station.1
The first concern is the obvious discrepancy between the date of the report (September
2008) and the eventual release date (November 29, 2012). A more than four year delay
is worth highlighting. That the report would never have been released if not for sustained
pressure from Greg Barber in the Victorian Senate is of particular concern. This fact
seems to have been lost during the collective back-slapping on the part of the
government for their “transparency”. How a report with serious implications for the
health of a community, the contents of which were clearly already known to the
Government and EPA, can be deliberately with-held
under the auspices of a
longstanding (and in this case misused) FOI exemption, is a serious issue which needs
to be bought to attention.
Secondly, the high sulphur content in coal mined from the Anglesea heathland has led to
a unique feature of emissions from the Anglesea power station, namely, yearly SO2
volumes more than three times that produced by Hazelwood power station (a notorious
CO2-emitter with 10 times the power output of Anglesea). It is therefore little wonder
that Alcoa themselves were interested in learning more about their emissions and the
potential for these to impact on the residents of Anglesea. The actual results are
interpreted dispassionately by the report writers, but clearly indicate multiple
instances when peak hourly ambient SO2 levels exceeded the standards
mandated by the EPA. This includes a level of 300 ppb recorded at the kindergarten
and 299 ppb at the then primary school (the EPA standard is 200 ppb). For the majority
of monitoring stations sulphur dioxide concentrations peaked between 11.00am and
2.00pm, that is, when Anglesea children are outside and playing. What is not reported
is the obvious additional conclusion, which is that Anglesea residents have been
regularly exposed to hazardous levels of SO2 not just for the 3 year monitoring
period, but for decades (the power station began operation in 1961).
The third point to highlight is the subsequent response to this report. The report writer
concludes “the potential for the emissions from the power station to cause acute
health effects is above the acceptance criteria... and is caused by the sulphur
dioxide emissions from the stack”. They then recommend “that
8
management/mitigation measures are adopted to reduce the acute risk posed by
SO2 emissions from the power station”2. Whether this led to any meaningful
response from the Government or the EPA is unclear, but Alcoa has since adopted
“mitigation measures ” amounting to turning down the output of the power station when
the prevailing winds predict increased SO2 exposures for Anglesea residents.
Notably, in Alcoa’s own Anglesea Environment Report of May 2006 they write, “…the
best option for Alcoa Anglesea is installing SO2 scrubbing technology…this solution
will result in a significant reduction (50%) in SO2 emissions. ”3 In fact the installation of
SO2 scrubbing technology can reduce SO2 emissions by up to 90%.4 Alcoa has since
decided against this “best option” based on cost. Alcoa has however installed these
devices in equivalent power stations in their home country of the United States.
Despite knowing that acute (e.g., hourly average) rather than long-term (e.g., monthly)
SO2 exposure is an important respiratory health determinant, Alcoa have continued to
provide only monthly ambient monitoring data on their website. They have also
neglected to monitor at the site of the new Anglesea Primary School, which sits
literally in the shadow of the power station.


Link to study
Posted by: Petros

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/05/2013 18:55

Originally Posted By: SBT
As per usual it is up to you and any one else who wants information to read and understand what has been said, follow the links within the articles do some more research and then make up your own mind.

A service I provide for those looking for information, not left wing green hype.

Meanwhile in the real world, thousands of Brisbanites are still refusing to fall ill or die from the effects of so called coal dust pollution.


As for Anthony Watts stance on climate change and global warming it might help if you actually read how he came to the conclusions that climate change and global warming was based on a lie originally as a result of very badly sited Stevenson screens and reporting sites. (The IPCC/CRU had an opportunity to reassess their theory when he first exposed the problem. He laid no blame at anyone's feet and invited anyone who wanted to, to explore what he had found and in the case of cAGW mob a chance to rewrite some or all of their claims. They didn't and that has started an all in war from the Warmista's™ against him and his followers for daring to have a contrary view point.)

It started years ago as a side project to help people understand how temperatures being reported at 'official' reporting centres where vastly different to what people where actually experiencing. He found that things like jet exhausts at airports being pointed directly at Stevenson screens raised temperatures, as did having them sited next to freeways made of concrete, in front of the heat exchangers of air conditioning units, being placed on gravel instead of grass and any number of other problems which all contributed to Urban Heat Influence being responsible for increased temperatures.

Through his and his group members efforts in photographing these reporting sites and having independent checks done they have proved that UHI was the cause for the USA temperature records being skewed so high.

In other words he exposed a fault in the system.

He is a university trained meteorologist with many years of observation experience behind him as well as working in the TV industry as a weather reporter.

He came to his conclusions about global warming the same way I did. By investigating what was being said and coming to the opinion that it was all based on a failed hypothesis. I am just a layman but even I can follow the information he supplies and the other people who regularly contribute to his blog. That doesn't mean that I blindly believe everything that is posted there. But rather I use my skills to research those facts as I can and then come to a conclusion.

He dared to question what was being said to him by experts and discovered that it held little to no credence so set about setting the record straight via his blog.

Unlike the Green Left he provides information backed up by research as well as providing links to articles or information contained within each post. Yes he states an opinion about cAGW, yes he questions the science, No he won't lie down and go away. He uses his right to free speech to say what he thinks is the truth backed up by facts - not politically correct left wing green environuts dogma.



Yup - endorse that fully.
Posted by: Petros

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/05/2013 19:00

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
I have brought plenty of facts to the table, the problem is that you don't see them as you are using the "ignore feature".....

So is it just coincidence that area's like Newcastle, the latrobe valley and even the hunter valley, where there is coal mining and coal fired power plants in operation have higher instances of cancer?

Quote:
Hunter New England Area Health Service (HNEAHS) has
a higher cancer incidence and a higher rate of death
from cancer than NSW, most notably among males


Quote:
New report highlights health fears for Hunter Valley
Updated Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:35am AEDT


Health authorities are coming under pressure to properly investigate the health impacts of mining on Australia's largest coal mining region, in the New South Wales Hunter Valley.

It comes after new research showing a link with increased death rates and disease in some other countries.

Sydney University's Associate Professor Ruth Colagiuri analysed research from 10 countries including the USA and the UK.

She says coal mining communities there had elevated rates of cancer and higher death rates from illnesses such as heart, lung and kidney disease.

Birth defects were also more prevalent.

Professor Colagiuri says there are clear indications of serious health issues associated with coal mining and coal-fired power plants for surrounding communities.

But she says there has been no such research done in the Hunter Valley.


Quote:
Physicians for Social Responsibility has released a groundbreaking medical report, “Coal’s Assault on Human Health,” which takes a new look at the devastating impacts of coal on the human body. Coal combustion releases mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health. This report looks at the cumulative harm inflicted by those pollutants on three major body organ systems: the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, and the nervous system. The report also considers coal’s contribution to global warming, and the health implications of global


http://www.psr.org/resources/coals-assault-on-human-health.html

Quote:
You have a history on this forum of making unfounded claims and not backing them up with facts. If you want to be taken seriously by anyone I suggest you start doing some homework and looking beyond the green rhetoric that you rely on and actually exploring both sides of the argument and then making your mind up.


Your information is sourced directly from sceptics based websites like http://joannenova.com.au/ how one sided can you get?

Quote:
Hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power
plants include:
•Acid gases, such as hydrogen chloride and
hydrogen fluoride;
•Benzene, toluene and other compounds;
•Dioxins and furans;
•Formaldehyde;
•Lead, arsenic, and other metals;
•Mercury;
•Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH); and
•Radioactive materials, like radium and uranium.
2,3
Researchers have found these toxic emissions
cause a dangerous array of harm to human health
as shown in Table 1.
3
These emissions can make
breathing difficult and can worsen asthma, chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchitis and other
lung diseases. These pollutants can cause heart
attacks and strokes, lung cancer and other cancers,
birth defects and premature death.These pollutants threaten essential life
systems. Acid gases are corrosive and can irritate
and burn the eyes, skin, and breathing passages.
Long term exposures to metals have the potential
to harm the kidneys, lungs, and nervous system.
Exposures to a handful of the metals and dioxins in
coal-fired power plant emissions increase the risk of
cancer. Specific forms of arsenic, beryllium,
chromium, and nickel have been shown to cause
cancer in both human and animal studies. Table 1
also identifies those pollutants that have long-term
impacts on the environment because they accumulate in soil, water and fish.


Full Report


Asbestosis Yasi. Dont go too public about that or you'll have FAR more than me correcting you.
Posted by: Petros

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/05/2013 19:00

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
More on coal.

Massive Underground Coal Fire Started in 1962 Still Burns Today

Link

Quote:
You may have already heard the story of Centralia, PA, a coal mining town that had some 1,000 inhabitants at its peak. Now, that population is down to 9. It's become a ghost town for one of the most bizarre reasons imaginable--a fire started in 1962 to burn trash in a dump inadvertently spread to a coal seam underground and has simply never stopped burning. The most recent report, published Dec. 1st in the Bismarck Tribune, confirms that the fire continues to this day--it's lasted an incredible 47 years so far.


The point being?
Posted by: Petros

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/05/2013 19:12

Coal fired power stations take coal from the ground, a natural and unprocessed substance and burn it in air. The smoke contains elements not good for anyone in big doses (chimney sniffing at 260M?).

Are you aware that there are lots of factories burning "stuff". LOTS of them? - take your vendetta to these areas where it really matters! You mentioned in-ground coal fires, there are and alway have ocurred for centuries.

You have drifted off the warmist debate and headed of into the dangerous chemicals polluting our air - then start with the low hanging fruit. Take on the highly polluting chimneys about the world and leave us to rational debate is this level.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/05/2013 22:08

Originally Posted By: Petros
Coal fired power stations take coal from the ground, a natural and unprocessed substance and burn it in air. The smoke contains elements not good for anyone in big doses (chimney sniffing at 260M?).

Are you aware that there are lots of factories burning "stuff". LOTS of them? - take your vendetta to these areas where it really matters! You mentioned in-ground coal fires, there are and alway have ocurred for centuries.

You have drifted off the warmist debate and headed of into the dangerous chemicals polluting our air - then start with the low hanging fruit. Take on the highly polluting chimneys about the world and leave us to rational debate is this level.


Now that is a bit of a turn from your it is just harmless water vapour comment...

That is what this thread is about, the dark and dirty side of coal.
Posted by: Bill Illis

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/05/2013 22:42



Each large coal plant produces the energy equivalent of:

- 2.7 million people doing manual labour.

That is a truly enormous positive impact which has lifted humanity out of the fields/forests and a short life, living from harvest to harvest/from animal kill to animal kill - into the computer age.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/05/2013 09:55

Quote:
Opponents of the Anglesea mine note that the mine and coal-fired power station is located less than 1.5 kilometres from homes and a school. These individuals not that air pollutants emitted from the power station can impact human health.
In August 2012 Greg Barber, a Greens representative in the Victorian parliament, announced that he was introducing a motion to remove Alcoa's exemption from the Freedom of Information Act. Barber also announced that he would also introduce a motion "for the government to table in Parliament an Air Emissions Study & Human Health Risk assessment that was conducted for Alcoa in 2008, which has been denied to the public under its Freedom of Information exemption."
"Alcoa has released its health risk assessments to the public in relation to other facilities around Australia; in fact, they are on its website for all to see. You have to ask yourself why Anglesea is the exception. People who live near the Alcoa power plant and coal mine have a right to know what impacts the pollution might be having on their health,"
he said


Pollution statistics for the Anglesea power plant, note the amount of sulfur, carbon monoxide, hydrochloric acid among some of the pollutants that are release into the air, considering how small the actual Anglesea power plant is.



Note the proximity of the coal mine and power plant to the township.


Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/05/2013 11:37

Testing finds coal dust levels top National Standards five days in seven

Dust pollution levels in Tighes Hill and Carrington have been found to be well in excess of national air quality safety levels on at least five days of a single week, in testing commissioned by frustrated community groups.

Alarmed that investigations of the source of dust pollution and its impacts on community health had not taken place, community groups commissioned air quality testing along the Hunter’s ‘coal corridor’ and the results were analysed by one of Australia’s leading air quality experts.

Dust particle pollution 10 microns and less in size (PM10) which is easily absorbed into the lungs and can lead to toxic materials such as lead, cadmium and other chemicals entering the blood stream, was recorded at levels as high as 80 micrograms per cubic metre averaged over a 24 hour period at Garrett St in Carrington. The national standard for PM10 is 50 micrograms per cubic metre.

The dust pollution testing was conducted during the assessment period for the proposed fourth coal loader (T4) in Newcastle, in suburbs close to the Port of Newcastle and along the lower Hunter’s ‘coal corridor’. The results were compared to those recorded at established Environment Protection Authority (EPA) monitors further away in Cooks Hill and also at Beresfield. Data from the Orica monitor in Stockton was also compared to results from city locations.

Three portable air quality monitors were used to test dust pollution levels at 11 locations in Mayfield, Carrington, Tighes Hill, Kotara, Hexham, Thornton, East Maitland and Lochinvar. Samples were recorded at one and 10-minute intervals from 10 December 2012 to 6 January 2013.

The results of testing in suburbs close to the Port of Newcastle clearly show that the suburbs closer to industrial infrastructure,including coal loaders and coal train lines, experience much higher levels of particle pollution compared with levels recorded at the EPA monitor in Cooks Hill.

An alliance of 18 community groups, the Coal Terminal Action Group, commissioned the air quality testing with technical advice from Professor Howard Bridgman from the University of Newcastle and Professor Lidia Morawska from the Queensland University of Technology.

The alliance said today that the results demonstrate the urgent need for more detailed independent research of dust pollution in the Hunter’s ‘coal corridor’ and called for the T4 application processes to be halted while a health assessment is conducted.

“It would be irresponsible if the NSW Government pushed ahead with its plans to develop Newcastle’s fourth coal terminal without first establishing what the true impact on people’s health will be,” said spokesperson for the community groups, Zoe Rogers.

“No studies have been conducted by government or industry to give the community confidence about where dust pollution is coming from and what the impacts of it are on peoples’ health.

“People's health is a fundamental issue, but it appears the NSW government is intent on developing the new coal terminal irrespective of the damage it would inflict.”


Full report findings.
http://www.hcec.org.au/sites/default/fil...ndards-5-days-7
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/05/2013 12:42

And still no morbidity study to back up a single claim.

So I ask again - prove that the coal dust is killing people along the transport corridors.

In other words - Emphrical evidence instead of hype.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/05/2013 12:48

Was there a morbidity study done for your cooking fuels used in the Army?
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/05/2013 15:25

Google F11 Deseal/Reseal for how it was done by them. A class action was started to sue the government for willfuly damaging service personnels health. The same will happen once the study above has been completed.

The same could be done with your "death corridors", if you could produce the evidence that is.

So to start with you have to get records of all natural deaths (not suicide, motor vehicle accidents, death by misadventure, over dose, foul play etc) in NSW along the corridor, then find out which ones could have been caused by coal dust alone and then supply those with a statement of claim to the NSW state government. Any lawyer would be happy to take this on but you will need bloody deep pockets to fund it. Probably more that $10 million for the intial investigation from which they will then tell you if you have a case or not. Probably take anything from 5 to 10 years for the prelim results.

No evidence = no claim.
Posted by: Petros

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/05/2013 20:56

Yasi's original topic: "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".

Not many takers out there to support your cut/pasted claims eh Yasi?
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/05/2013 21:12

This thread has had nearly 11,500 views so far,so even if people are not replying to threads, the message is still getting out there.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/05/2013 21:54

Originally Posted By: Yasi
the message is still getting out there.

It is Yasi but maybe not quite as you might think.
You are showing us the rigidity of the mind set of the deep greens, the eco "green shirts" and the causes and the intended outcomes and the strictures, personal and societal the eco green shirts are promoting which for many lurkers on this forum that will be a revelation and one in which they may not wish to ever see ever have any influence in our society.

And yes, Wiki does have separate sections for Green shirts, Brown shirts and Black shirts, few of which those younger than myself would even recognise as existing.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/05/2013 22:05

The tide has for coal, people no longer want to live want to live with Coal fired power plants spewing out Tonnes of toxic pollution into their environment.

Share of power from coal drops

The change in how Australia generates electricity has been illustrated by the share coming from coal falling below three-quarters for the first time - a shift that has helped cut carbon dioxide emissions.
Black and brown coal-fired power stations supplied 74.8 per cent of national electricity last month. The share from renewable sources such as hydro, wind and solar hit a record 12.5 per cent, according to a monthly survey by consultants Pitt & Sherry.
Gas - a fossil fuel with less than half the emissions of coal - supplied 12.7 per cent, slightly up on the previous month.
Demand for power in the national market - covering most of NSW, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT - is falling. Pitt & Sherry principal consultant Hugh Saddler said emissions from eastern states generators had fallen at a rate of 5.5 million tonnes a year, or 3.5 per cent, since the carbon price was introduced in July. The Coalition has vowed to scrap the carbon tax if it wins office in September.


At the end of 2008, coal-fired power plants accounted for 84.1 per cent of total electricity.
Among the big states, NSW output from coal was little changed last month compared with January, but at the Kogan Creek, Stanwell and Tarong plants in Queensland it fell. Output from the brown coal-fired plants Loy Yang A, Loy Yang B, Yallourn and Hazelwood in Victoria fell for the seventh month in a row.
The summer peaks for power usage associated with airconditioners were not as sharp as expected.
''Obviously, [falling summer peaks] has important implications for future spending on network upgrades which, as everyone now knows, has been the main driver of electricity price rises over the past four or five years,'' the survey said.
The rapid spread of solar panels probably accounted for about a quarter of the drop in demand, as households and businesses were able to reduce the power purchases from the grid, Dr Saddler said. Much of the rest of the drop - about 6 per cent since the end of 2010 - comes from a shift away from energy-intensive industries such as smelting, and from energy efficiency.
Federal government figures show power prices have risen 40 per cent in the past three years. Dr Saddler said higher costs made people more aware of energy use.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/cli...l#ixzz2TMVgJaJS
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/05/2013 08:03

Europe Coal Use to Fall 26% as Plants Close, Deutsche Bank Says

Europe, which was overtaken as the largest importer of seaborne thermal coal by China last year, will cut consumption 26 percent by 2020 as power stations burning the fuel close, according to Deutsche Bank AG.
Usage will fall to 271 million metric tons from 365 million last year, Michael Hsueh and Michael Lewis, analysts at the bank in London and Paris, said today in a report. The amount of coal-fired generation capacity will drop 15 percent to 162 gigawatts in the period as the European Union seeks to meet renewable energy targets, they said.
“In Europe, emissions policies already in place will result in net closures of coal-fired generation over the next five years, while expanding renewable output will push coal utilization lower through 2020,” Hsueh and Lewis said.
The declining European consumption will outpace a 4.7 percent a year cut in coal output within the region, according to the report. Annual global output capacity growth will need to fall to 1 percent a year from 3 percent to meet seaborne thermal coal demand of 1.061 billion metric tons in 2020, compared with 1.027 billion last year, it said.
“Three of the most important demand centers, China, Europe and the U.S., contain the seeds of a softening in demand growth, while U.S. export capability may grow,” the analysts said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-09...-bank-says.html
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/05/2013 08:32

Study: 65 Percent Of Coal Plants In Danger Of Closure

Duke Energy officials is planning to close four of its coal processing units at its Wabash River Facility in 2015. They are still deciding whether to transition a fifth unit to a natural gas processor.

Duke Energy Spokesman Lew Middleton says since 1990, Duke has spent about $2.8 billion to upgrade its Indiana facilities so they comply with EPA regulations.

“These units here at Wabash River—units two, three, four and five—are some of the oldest that we have in our system,” Middleton says. “When you do the economic analysis, it just does not make economic sense for us to install the pollution controls that would be necessary to meet the new EPA standards.”

A Duke University study shows EPA regulations, combined with the low price of natural gas, is making many older coal plants economically infeasible.

And while the price natural gas is playing a role, the study emphasizes that even if natural gas were four times as expensive as coal, producing natural gas would still be cheaper than retrofitting an old coal plant.

Citizens Action Coalition Director Kerwin Olson says regardless of the reason, shutting down coal plants is a good thing.

“The environmentally friendly choice, the best choice for public health and the best choice for our economy is transitioning away from coal to renewable energy and energy efficiency,” he says. “There’s an enormous opportunity economically to develop those resources.”
http://indianapublicmedia.org/news/study-65-percent-coal-plants-danger-closure-48380/
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/05/2013 08:42

Work and Health in the
Latrobe Valley:
Community Perspectives
on Asbestos Issues


(A 2004 report from the Centre of Health & Society (School of Population Health at the University of Melbourne) on the perspectives workers exposed to asbestos, and their families, from the Latrobe Valley.)

Workers’ knowledge of asbestos

It was widely understood by the workers we interviewed that access to information
about asbestos risks was difficult, and in most cases wasn’t even an option.
Yet workers recall the visible evidence, from their first days of working in the
power stations, that they could see there was a lot of asbestos dust around. During
their daily work they would be cutting through asbestos to make repairs, or dust
would be released into the air from the insulation around the turbines and boilers.
Some workers, like Brian, talk of ‘clouds’ of dust obscuring their vision, of wiping
the film off their coffee cups and throwing ‘snowballs’ of asbestos at each other.
We used to work on the turbines which were covered in white asbestos
lagging. We used to climb over that, it was just like fluff and it used to
blow up into the air and we used to throw it at each other and play in it
and have a good old time. That was just normal.

But when asked what they knew of the risks the most frequent answers were: ‘we
weren’t told anything’, ‘we didn’t know’, and ‘there were never big notices, “keep away, there’s
asbestos about”’. One indicator of employer awareness of the hazard would be the
supplying of personal protective equipment, but even that wasn’t on offer until
well into the 1980s. Ray remembers: ‘I can’t recall any warnings at all in 1980,
and I
think you might have had masks, but that was for coal dust, there was nothing said about sbestos’. And Beth, speaking about her husband’s experience, says: ‘there was no
warning, no protection, masks or anything. You would sometimes put a hanky over your mouth.’

Workers spoke about a growing awareness and discomfort with the dust in their
work environments. They remember back to a dusty workplace and how, in
hindsight, this was a signal to them that it may have been bad for their health.
Asbestos was, therefore, clearly visible in the workplace environment in one sense;
however, workers’ knowledge of the hazards of exposure was very restricted. As
David describes: ‘there was no awareness… most people knew it was bad, or could be bad, but
that was as far as it went’. Most now realise that their employers must have been
aware of the dangers, and that they did not pass on to their employees the
information available at the time. Although some began to question their managers
in the 1970s, and may have been worried about the health risks, workers were
more concerned about keeping their jobs. Industrial action did not seem to be an
option until much later on, although strikes over working conditions such as wage
rates were quite common.
Workers described feeling exploited, betrayed and cheated by an employer who
they believe put them all at unnecessary risk for the sake of higher productivity.
There was a strong feeling that ‘it was pushed under the mat’ and ignored by the
management of the SEC. All of the workers we spoke to believe that their
employer knew of the dangers, but was not upfront about communicating this risk
to their employees.

Full Report
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/05/2013 09:38

Old news YS. That has been gone over time and again. Why keep dredging it up? Running out of steam on the issue and now having to fall back on something we both agree with was a problem but isn't now with new industrial regulations. I have 4 A4 pages of building addresses and dates I worked in that had visible asbestos lagging and dust tucked away in my service medical file in case I develop anything related to it. I am not expecting to and neither have the 700+ others who worked in them during my time in the military but the government insisted that we list where and when we might have been exposed.

Asbestos is bad for those who are susceptible to it. It isn't an instant death sentence for everyone who used it otherwise there would be no one of my generation left on the planet and you wouldn't be here either as we where all exposed to it on a daily basis.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/05/2013 21:40

Setbacks for coal industry; rulings for EPA, new health studies




if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is guilty of anything in Eastern Kentucky, it's doing too little too late to avert a potential public health catastrophe.Yet, Sen. Mitch McConnell plans to be in Pikeville and Hazard Monday to unveil legislation aimed at "rolling back the EPA's burdensome regulations."

Someone should ask him how much disease and death his constituents must bear to keep the coal industry's bulldozers rolling.

(Also, how can Eastern Kentucky coal that costs $3.78 per million BTUs compete with natural gas or Wyoming coal that's selling for $2 per million BTUs?)

Three federal judges — and an undetermined number of sick Kentuckians — should put all of Kentucky's elected officials on notice that the cumulative impacts of mountaintop mining must no longer be ignored.

Sadly, these impacts are so widespread they can't be measured just in total maximum daily pollution loads or peak runoff from scalped hills. They must also be counted in cancer, heart and lung disease, birth defects and deaths of people who live near surface mining.

In a week when two federal appeals courts dealt the coal industry defeats, a panel of scientists also weighed in supporting studies linking surface mining to an array of health problems.

Reps. John Yarmuth, D-Louisville, and Harlan County native Louise Slaughter, a Democrat who represents Rochester, N.Y., used the occasion to renew their call for the first comprehensive federal study of mountaintop mining's health effects.


"Breaks my heart what's happening in Kentucky," said Slaughter, a microbiologist with a master's degree in public health, during a briefing Tuesday on a scientific review commissioned by the Center for Health, Environment and Justice, an environmental organization. The review was of studies, mainly by the University of West Virginia. One of the reviewers, epidemiologist Steven B. Wing, an associate professor in the University of North Carolina's School of Public Health, said: "The evidence shows that mountaintop removal threatens public health and the environment. It's time to act to protect rural communities."

To that end, Yarmuth and Slaughter are sponsoring the Appalachian Communities Health Emergency (ACHE) Act, which would impose a one-time fee on mountaintop mine operators to fund research by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and other agencies. New mountaintop mining permits would be halted until the findings are known.

It's easy to see how surface mining on the scale it's been allowed in Appalachia could harm the public. Heavy metals, along with dust, silica and other pollutants, are released when mountaintops are blasted and bulldozed to uncover the coal. A University of Kentucky study of toenail clippings found higher levels of arsenic in people who live near mountaintop mining than in people who live in Louisville.

On the judicial front, the coal industry's legal defeats were handed down by two courts made up five-to-one of judges appointed by Republican presidents. The rulings reaffirm the EPA's authority to veto mining permits and rejected as "arbitrary and capricious" the Corps of Engineers' reauthorization of the nationwide permit that allowed the coal industry to fill valleys and bury streams under tons of rock and dirt.

In reversing a decision by U.S. District Judge David Bunning, the Sixth District U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati faulted the Corps' failure to consider the cumulative environmental impacts of past mining, a failure of which Kentucky regulators are also guilty.




Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/04/25/2614264/setbacks-for-coal-industry-rulings.html#storylink=cpy
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/05/2013 12:15

Port Augusta's Solar Mayor Dies

Many in Port Augusta and elsewhere are mourning the passing of the City's firebrand Mayor, Joy Baluch, who lost her battle with cancer on Tuesday.

Port Augusta City Council is flying the City’s flags at half mast as a mark of respect for the Mayor; who was the City’s leader for almost thirty years.

A larger-than-life figure, Mayor Baluch was a driving force behind the push to rid the area of coal fired power and embrace solar thermal energy based electricity generation.

According to AdelaideNow, Ms Baluch's husband died 16 years ago from lung cancer. While he was not a smoker, he had worked in the Port Augusta power stations. The health impacts of the coal fired facilities were an important motivator in Mayor Baluch spearheading the campaign for the area's coal-fired stations to be replaced by solar.

Greens Leader Senator Christine Milne said a fitting tribute to Mayor Baluch's memory would be to fulfil her dream of repowering Port Augusta with solar energy.

Port Augusta City Manager Greg Perkin said the city has lost its most passionate and fearless supporter.

"Mayor Baluch has been a tireless supporter for not only Port Augusta but for the region and she will be sadly missed. She has very much been a Mayor who has been heavily involved in the community, always making herself available to attend events, even as she battled ill health."

Born Nancy Joy Copley in Port Augusta, October 10 1932; Ms. Baluch served 11 years as a councillor before she was elected as Mayor in 1981, serving 29 years all told in that capacity.

"The health of the people in Port Augusta has been affected by this coal-fired power station for the last 40 years and statistics prove this ... We need to see solar thermal energy developed in South Australia and for us to become world leaders in this renewable energy. Certainly gas is not the answer."

Adelaidenow.com.au
Posted by: Petros

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 17/05/2013 22:11

A great spot to spew out your fascination Yasi.

But all the stuff you post is pollution related. As I posted not far above, coal power stations get real unadultered natural coal from undergroud and burn it in real natural raw air. The particulates of combustions are very effectively captured and sequestered in ground with only the combustion product CO2, H20 and N2 making 99+% of the chimney flue gases. These do contain low levels of SOx/NOx, like you would if you burn wood in your own home, which the "true" greenies tend to do. City greens sip late's and thumb magizines showing pictures of wind generators not thinking of the flue gases produced by the factories that create the solvents needed to make the fibreglass components. Bizare.

you love posting charts of the full (low level spectrum) of the flue analysis - which is great as someone needs to make sure polluters are kept in check.

Now go and look at flue gas analysis of plastics, food (belive it or not), metal product producers etc. and post the products produced by these.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 18/05/2013 09:01

It is funny Petros you change your story to suit your mood,You often state that
Originally Posted By: Petros
(when your “Smoke” can be seen – which is water vapour).

Originally Posted By: Petros
The smoke contains elements not good for anyone in big doses


And you work for a coal fired power station so your view would be anything but unbiased....

All that ash and all the byproducts from coal don't just simply disappear as you would have everybody believe, all the ash and toxic elements that come out the bottom have to be dumped and more often than not they are dumped in massive Toxic ash pits.

The charts supplied show quite clearly what spews out the top.

Anglesea power station spews out 39,000,000kg of Sulphur dioxide per year for a small 150MW power plant.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 18/05/2013 13:01

Originally Posted By: Petros
A great spot to spew out your fascination Yasi.

But all the stuff you post is pollution related. As I posted not far above, coal power stations get real unadultered natural coal from undergroud and burn it in real natural raw air. The particulates of combustions are very effectively captured and sequestered in ground with only the combustion product CO2, H20 and N2 making 99+% of the chimney flue gases. These do contain low levels of SOx/NOx, like you would if you burn wood in your own home, which the "true" greenies tend to do. City greens sip late's and thumb magizines showing pictures of wind generators not thinking of the flue gases produced by the factories that create the solvents needed to make the fibreglass components. Bizare.

you love posting charts of the full (low level spectrum) of the flue analysis - which is great as someone needs to make sure polluters are kept in check.

Now go and look at flue gas analysis of plastics, food (belive it or not), metal product producers etc. and post the products produced by these.


I would also doubt that "true greenies" would be burning 66,000 tonnes of wood everyday like like Loy Yang does in a small area like the Latrobe valley.(and that is just from 1 power plant)

Quote:
Electricity generation at Loy Yang Power requires over 60,000 tonnes of brown coal a day, supplied exclusively by Loy Yang mine.


Green energy does not wastes more than 1 million water every hour either!

Quote:
Water is converted into steam in each of Loy Yang Power's four boilers at the rate of more than one million litres of water each hour


Like the previous reply all that coal waste has to go somewhere and either it is out the top and what comes out the bottom generally goes into ash ponds....
Quote:
Coal Ash

The toxic threat to our
health and environment

http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/coal-ash.pdf
Posted by: GDL

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 18/05/2013 15:26

Its impossible to waste water. ..............GDL
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 18/05/2013 21:25

You are dead right GDL... Our local water catchment authority is just starting to realise this.... update soon..
Posted by: Petros

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 18/05/2013 22:15

Yasi - re "all that ash and..."

What ash? Read, listen learn, ash is very effectively collected and sequestered. You wont listen to anyone other than your greens website to paste off.
Posted by: Jax

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 18/05/2013 22:57

Originally Posted By: GDL
Its impossible to waste water. ..............GDL


...That depends where your water comes from. And how regularly it tops up. I take it your local rainwater comes it at more than 300 mm per year?
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 18/05/2013 23:17

GDL is talking about the earth's water capacity.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/05/2013 08:27

Originally Posted By: Petros
Yasi - re "all that ash and..."

What ash? Read, listen learn, ash is very effectively collected and sequestered. You wont listen to anyone other than your greens website to paste off.


So you're telling me that the ash from the burning of the Coal is an inert and harmless substance?
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/05/2013 10:15

I dunno. I have never heard of an Australian coal fired power station causing drinking water shortages as mostly they take water either from natural sources/water courses or purpose built dams that only feed the coal plant.

As to fly ash in Australia, it is now very heavily regulated and it is being sequested in a variety of ways including cement manufacture, road base, stabilising earthworks, rubber manufactured products etc. We even have an Australian Standard for Fly ash - it is AS 3582.1 you can view it as a .pdf here Australian Standard for Fly Ash

So far from being solely a pollution problem it is now being converted into a valuable resource which companies are now making a profit from.
Posted by: Petros

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/05/2013 19:09

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
Originally Posted By: Petros
Yasi - re "all that ash and..."

What ash? Read, listen learn, ash is very effectively collected and sequestered. You wont listen to anyone other than your greens website to paste off.


So you're telling me that the ash from the burning of the Coal is an inert and harmless substance?


Absolutely. The ash is sent to landfill, and the water used as the transport medium for this is safe to send to sea after its used for that purpose. Get off your hobby horse and have a little faith in your countries Environmental Protection Agency – everything you copy/paste seems to imply they don’t exist.

Again, you are far better questioning manufacturing plants than coal fired power stations that simply burn unadultered coal in normal (albeit 400ppm CO2) air. You are simply wasting a lot of effort at the wrong target. Look at the other chimneys that spew out all kinds of “bad” stuff. Then you maybe better effective in your quest to save the word.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/05/2013 19:13

Petros... Like button pushed...
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 20/05/2013 12:01

Some of the elements in Fly ash..
Quote:
Potentially toxic trace elements in coal include arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, barium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, radium, selenium, thorium, uranium, vanadium, and zinc. Approximately 10% of the mass of coals burned in the United States consists of unburnable mineral material that becomes ash, so the concentration of most trace elements in coal ash is approximately 10 times the concentration in the original coal


these substances don't just disappear when coal is burnt.
Fly ash is far from an “inert substance” that’s why it is classified as a hazardous substance...
When handling.
Risk & Safety Phrases
R48/20: Harmful: danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure through inhalation.
R36/37/38: Irritating to eyes, respiratory system and skin.
S21: When using do not smoke.
S22: Do not breathe dust.
S24/25: Avoid contact with skin and eyes.
S38: If insufficient ventilation, wear suitable respiratory equipment.

http://www.flyashaustralia.com.au/_respu...S%20Jul2510.pdf
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 20/05/2013 13:34

http://www.cementaustralia.com.au/wps/wc...pozzolanic.html just one of many uses for fly ash in Australia.

However I can't seem to find anywhere where we are either directly or indirectly responsible for any coal or fly ash being created in the USA so why are you mentioning it here?
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 20/05/2013 13:45


Originally Posted By: SBT
I can't seem to find anywhere where we are either directly or indirectly responsible for any coal or fly ash being created in the USA so why are you mentioning it here?



I can't find anywhere in the original post or heading "Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side?" where this thread is limited to Australia's coal industry!
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 20/05/2013 19:26

The point I and others are making is we can't and don't have any influence on any country other than Australia CF.

Stop trying to make out that the problem is ours alone, that what happens in other countries happens here too, that the land fill issues of fly ash, that a form of coal of which we don't even have are our problem because they aren't.

You could halt all coal production and burning in Australia and it wouldn't make 1 iota of difference to the world. They would just source their coal from elsewhere.
Posted by: Petros

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/05/2013 20:34

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
Some of the elements in Fly ash..
Quote:
Potentially toxic trace elements in coal include arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, barium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, radium, selenium, thorium, uranium, vanadium, and zinc. Approximately 10% of the mass of coals burned in the United States consists of unburnable mineral material that becomes ash, so the concentration of most trace elements in coal ash is approximately 10 times the concentration in the original coal


these substances don't just disappear when coal is burnt.
Fly ash is far from an “inert substance” that’s why it is classified as a hazardous substance...
When handling.
Risk & Safety Phrases
R48/20: Harmful: danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure through inhalation.
R36/37/38: Irritating to eyes, respiratory system and skin.
S21: When using do not smoke.
S22: Do not breathe dust.
S24/25: Avoid contact with skin and eyes.
S38: If insufficient ventilation, wear suitable respiratory equipment.

http://www.flyashaustralia.com.au/_respu...S%20Jul2510.pdf


Your disharge analysis sources are impressive.

Now please tell us what is the gas analysis of a major bushfire?

Re flyash (which in Australian power station flue gas DOSENT FLY because it is captured in precipitators): ONCE AGAIN you refuse to acknowledge that in Australia the EPA is just as aware as you purport to be about these matters, set regulations and limits, and monitor them actively and aggressively.

ONCE AGAIN you switch to deflect. Yasi you are at risk of losing your intellectual credentials implied to others unless you address why you think that the Australian EPA is ineffective (or has too lenient regulations).
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/05/2013 12:54

Why would you believe that government agencies "do the right thing" when they go to extreme lengths to cover things up?

Quote:
Opponents of the Anglesea mine note that the mine and coal-fired power station is located less than 1.5 kilometres from homes and a school. These individuals not that air pollutants emitted from the power station can impact human health.
In August 2012 Greg Barber, a Greens representative in the Victorian parliament, announced that he was introducing a motion to remove Alcoa's exemption from the Freedom of Information Act. Barber also announced that he would also introduce a motion "for the government to table in Parliament an Air Emissions Study & Human Health Risk assessment that was conducted for Alcoa in 2008, which has been denied to the public under its Freedom of Information exemption."
"Alcoa has released its health risk assessments to the public in relation to other facilities around Australia; in fact, they are on its website for all to see. You have to ask yourself why Anglesea is the exception. People who live near the Alcoa power plant and coal mine have a right to know what impacts the pollution might be having on their health,"
he said.

That the report would never have been released if not for sustained
pressure from Greg Barber in the Victorian Senate is of particular concern. This fact
seems to have been lost during the collective back-slapping on the part of the
government for their “transparency”. How a report with serious implications for the
health of a community, the contents of which were clearly already known to the
Government and EPA, can be deliberately with-held
under the auspices of a
longstanding (and in this case misused) FOI exemption, is a serious issue which needs
to be bought to attention.


Originally Posted By: Petros
Now please tell us what is the gas analysis of a major bushfire?


Does a bushfire rage 24 hours a day 365 days of the year in the same spot?-No

Just because the EPA set limit does not mean that they will be followed nor will they take action if they are not complied with.

My wife rang the EPA once about people dumping hard rubbish in the creeks, their response? "not our problem" go speak to the waterways department....she Rang them and they basically state, anyone can dump whatever they want into the creek as long as it does not kill the fish....
Rang council they state they would keep an eye on things and they have the ability to prosecute but rarely ever do because they don't have the resources of funds, so the bottom line is you can dump whatever you want without consequence and the EPA do not care.

Originally Posted By: Petros
Re flyash (which in Australian power station flue gas DOSENT FLY because it is captured in precipitators)

there you are wrong, because Anglesea does not have precipitators, either does Playford or Northern or Collie or Muja.
Posted by: Petros

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/05/2013 18:49

Bingo! - Yasi, spend your time more effectively for yourself and simply concentrate on slandering the EPA instead. Contact your local MP and express your concerns. Lobby to get tighter emission restrictions etc.

The root of all evil clearly rests with dodgy EPA in Australia following your mentality.

Although if you REALLY want to clean up the earth, that shift to China should be also taken seriously. Get stuck into thier EPA-equivelant!
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/05/2013 22:42

You left Wangaratta Yasi because it was boring mate... Good to see your filling your time with such energy, promoting your passion.. And its good that you are mate, but when do you actually say to yourself, " Is it worth my time"? And all those dedicated to saving their passion should ask this question because life is so short????
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/05/2013 13:08

I think the time when you say enough is enough is the time when you give up on life, if you can't be passionate about something then what is there? there will always be plenty out there that have a passionate hatred for non polluting energy sources why i will never know?
If there is no one to stand up for what they believe in life then everyone would just get walked over.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/05/2013 18:41

I don't have a hatred for non polluting energy sources YS, far from it. If you could come up with say a wind turbine that would generate base load power 365 days of the year I would gladly accept it - but I have a hatred for massive wastes of time, effort and money and the utter bulldust that accompanies their continued use when they can't and never will work in their current form.
Posted by: Petros

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/05/2013 22:53

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
I think the time when you say enough is enough is the time when you give up on life, if you can't be passionate about something then what is there? there will always be plenty out there that have a passionate hatred for non polluting energy sources why i will never know?
If there is no one to stand up for what they believe in life then everyone would just get walked over.


Cant fault a word you said Yasi. You have demonstrated passion in the anti-coal power debate for sure.

Alongside passion, there is also, interpretation, investigation and comprehension.

Also sorry that we always seem to be at loggerheads.

For the record, I’m employed within the brown coal fired sector but certainly not paid to express pro-coal sentiment.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/05/2013 23:15

I wonder how many of these we have in Australia - probably make a few members crawl up in a ball and start gibbering about all them CO2's destroying the planet.

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm CO2 generators for commercial green houses.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 25/05/2013 09:54

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/20/the-washington-post-eilperin-emissions-trick/

The Washington Post Eilperin emissions trick

Posted on March 20, 2013 by Anthony Watts


Dave Burton, via his Facebook page writes:

The Washington Post’s caption says “…emissions spew from the smokestacks at… coal-fired power plant…”

Do you want to know what propaganda looks like?

Take glance at this article from the Washington Post. The photo at the top is purest propaganda, blatantly and deliberately deceiving readers and smearing a private company:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/e...fcb4_story.html

Here’s the letter I wrote to the Washington Post’s “Reader Representative” (now that they’ve terminated their longstanding Ombudsman position):

http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Ltr_to_Washington_Post-propaganda_not_emissions_spewing.htm





From: David Burton Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:21 PM

To: “Doug Feaver, Washington Post Reader Representative”



Dear Mr. Feaver,


Now that there’s no Ombudsman at the Washington Post, do the reporters and editors think truth doesn’t matter?

Here’s a March 15 story by the Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/e...fcb4_story.html
(or here: http://www.webcitation.org/6FDzmyweg)


This is the lead photo, of Westar Energy’s Jeffrey Energy Center “spewing emissions” from coal:



Inline image 1


Charlie Riedel/AP - Silhouetted against the sky at dusk, emissions spew from the smokestacks at Westar Energy’s Jeffrey Energy Center coal-fired power plant near St. Mary’s, Kan.

And what do you suppose those black, deadly-looking plumes of “emissions” really are?

Condensing steam, that’s what. Just plain water.

Plumes of condensing water vapor normally look white and benign, but by artfully choosing a vantage point to the east of the plant, and a time just after sunset, AP photographer Charlie Riedel managed to make the pretty white plumes look black and threatening.

That power plant has state-of-the-art “scrubbers,” which which cost over $400 million, and which remove 95% of the SO2 and nearly all of the particulate matter. Almost nothing visible is left except steam. Here’s what those same stacks really look like, under normal lighting conditions:



Inline image 3


You’ve got to grudgingly admire the AP / Washington Post’s mastery of the propaganda craft.

I sent an email similar to the above to Westar Energy, and got back the following reply:

———- Begin forwarded message ———-

From:




Date: Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Subject: Re: Washington Post / AP propaganda photo – “emissions spew” from power plant

To: David Burton
Hello, and thanks for forwarding this information.

We have contacted AP numerous times regarding this photo. We agree that it is a skilled photographer using lighting to create a dramatic image that reinforces the story.

Here’s the latest that Gina Penzig, Director, Corporate Communications, sent:
[I][b]I appreciate that Charlie is a skilled photographer who used backlighting to capture a dramatic image of the plant that reinforces the emissions story and the perception that power plants are dirty. I fully acknowledge that plants are a source of emissions and the EPA work to reduce emissions has been important. We’re in the midst of spending billions of dollars to change the make up of that plume from our coal plants to almost completely steam. In fact at JEC, we’re very close. (I’d love to set up a tour and talk about what we’ve done. We’re pretty proud of it.)

I’d like to point out that the photo is nearly four years old. I’m not asking that it be replaced with a photo that we provide. I’d challenge the photo editors to look up Jeffrey Energy Center on Google images. You will see a variety of photos from a variety of sources that show a more accurate representation of the plant and what it emits. A photographer can easily capture a plant photo from off of our property, but I’d gladly set up an escort for a photographer who would like to go onto the plant site.



Thank you again for sharing the information with us!

Alice K. Landers

Communications Representative

Corporate Communications

Westar Energy, Inc.

785.575.8113
———- End forwarded message ———-


What shameful, shameful misbehaviour by the Washington Post!


Please print an apology, and appropriately discipline the responsible parties, and tell me what action you’re taking.

Dave

Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 25/05/2013 11:51

Originally Posted By: Petros
Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
I think the time when you say enough is enough is the time when you give up on life, if you can't be passionate about something then what is there? there will always be plenty out there that have a passionate hatred for non polluting energy sources why i will never know?
If there is no one to stand up for what they believe in life then everyone would just get walked over.


Cant fault a word you said Yasi. You have demonstrated passion in the anti-coal power debate for sure.

Alongside passion, there is also, interpretation, investigation and comprehension.

Also sorry that we always seem to be at loggerheads.

For the record, I’m employed within the brown coal fired sector but certainly not paid to express pro-coal sentiment.


No Petros.
i am not associated with ANY groups whatsoever.
Posted by: Petros

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 25/05/2013 19:41

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
Originally Posted By: Petros
Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
I think the time when you say enough is enough is the time when you give up on life, if you can't be passionate about something then what is there? there will always be plenty out there that have a passionate hatred for non polluting energy sources why i will never know?
If there is no one to stand up for what they believe in life then everyone would just get walked over.


Cant fault a word you said Yasi. You have demonstrated passion in the anti-coal power debate for sure.

Alongside passion, there is also, interpretation, investigation and comprehension.

Also sorry that we always seem to be at loggerheads.

For the record, I’m employed within the brown coal fired sector but certainly not paid to express pro-coal sentiment.


No Petros.
i am not associated with ANY groups whatsoever.


Thanks Yasi - good to know we parry over over own ideals. smile
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 26/05/2013 15:20

Retiring coal-fired plants in Nevada passes Senate

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) — The Nevada Senate endorsed NV Energy Inc.'s plan Wednesday to retire coal-fired power plants and pave the way for the state's biggest electrical utility to transition to more renewable sources.

After several revisions, SB123 was approved unanimously and now moves to the Assembly.

Under the bill, NV Energy will eliminate at least 800 megawatts of coal-fired electric generating capacity by Dec. 31, 2019. It also provides for the construction or acquisition of 350 megawatts of generating capacity from renewable energy and another 550 megawatts of capacity from other electric generating plants such as natural gas.

One megawatt of power can supply about 600 homes during peak energy usage.

Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy Chairman Kelvin Atkinson, D-North Las Vegas, said the bill makes a "strong policy statement" and puts Nevada at the "forefront of energy policy in this country."

NV Energy has 10 power plants in Nevada, seven of which use natural gas.

Under the bill, NV Energy will close the Reid Gardner coal plant in southern Nevada by 2017. The company also plans to cease taking power from the Navajo plant in northern Arizona and close the Valmy coal-fired plant in northern Nevada by 2025.

While initial versions of the bill came under fire from consumer advocates and members of the Public Utilities Commission, the revised language had bipartisan support and alleviated earlier concerns.

PUC members had objected to one provision that would have allowed NV Energy to build new cleaner-burning facilities without regulatory oversight and protection for ratepayers.

But the bill was amended and Atkinson said the PUC will continue to review "rate consequences" of new plant construction.

"I may not necessarily agree with my colleagues whether coal is good or bad ... but the political reality is that sooner or later those plants are going to be gone," said Sen. James Settelmeyer, R-Minden.

Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval and Democratic U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, who earlier this year called on NV Energy to give up its coal plants, both supported the bill and urged its passage.

But Nevada Policy Research Institute, a conservative think tank, said the utility's plan would lessen regulatory intervention and cost ratepayers.

"There is no cap on rate hikes caused by an increase in natural gas prices, which are historically volatile," said Geoffrey Lawrence, NPRI deputy policy director.

"Ratepayers would have to reimburse NV energy for constructing new power plants and also pay NV energy for the capital costs of coal-fired power plants it's no longer using and even for stockpiles of coal it has purchased but no longer wants to use," Lawrence said.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-05-23/retiring-coal-fired-plants-in-nevada-passes-senate
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 26/05/2013 15:24

Three hurt in second fire in a week at plant

WHEATLAND, Wyo. (AP) — One worker was hospitalized and two others treated and released after a second fire in a week at the same power plant.

The fire early Sunday happened at the coal unloading area at the Laramie River Station plant, Basin Electric Power Cooperative said in a release Monday.

The three workers were hurt trying to put out the fire. All three were treated at Platte County Memorial Hospital in Wheatland.

One worker was flown to the North Colorado Medical Center Western States Burn Center in Greeley, Colo., and remained there Monday. The others were released but scheduled for follow-up treatment at the burn center Monday.

Basin Electric spokesman Daryl Hill said he didn’t know the conditions of the three employees. The utility did not release their names.

A fire broke out at the same coal-fired power plant last Tuesday. Nobody was hurt in that fire, which firefighters put out within a few hours.

Hill said the fires didn’t appear to be related.

“It’s probably more unfortunate-coincidental than anything,” he said.

The previous fire started in a surge bin, a container that collects coal from conveyor belts.

The Laramie River Station is a 1,700-megawatt, coal-fired power plant. Basin Electric is the plant’s operating agent. Five other utilities are partners.

The utility had shut down one of the plant’s three units for maintenance before last week’s fire. Another unit was taken out of service after that fire.

The plant was functioning at one-third capacity Monday with one unit in operation. Hill said utility officials expected the other two units to remain offline until early June.

http://www.jamestownsun.com/event/article/id/186858/group/News/
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 27/05/2013 11:41

Beijing to shut coal-fired boilers to clean up air

Beijing has vowed to eliminate most coal-fired boilers in the city center by the end of 2015 to reduce pollution from fine particulate matter, especially during the heating season.

After reducing coal use by 700,000 metric tons last year, the capital plans to cut another 1.4 million tons this year and use no more than 21.5 million tons, according to the 2013 coal consumption reduction plan released by the city's Environmental Protection Bureau and Commission of Development and Reform.

The capital used 26.35 million tons of coal in 2010, the environmental bureau said.

Beijing still has a large number of coal-fired central heating boilers that give off large amounts of coal dust, and noise during the heating season.

Richard Saint Cyr, a family medicine doctor at United Family Health in Beijing, said he has noticed an uptick in discussions about the worsening air quality with many patients since winter.

He said that air pollution in the past winter was unusually serious and he had never witnessed such collective anxiety in Beijing.

Fine particulate matter poses a serious threat to people's hearts and lungs, he said.

Shang Wenchao, 28, a lifelong Beijing resident, said he used to clean his nostrils before going to sleep in winter because the air he breathed was filled with soot from burning coal.

"You have to wear a mask every day while outdoors or you would be eating coal," he said.


Shang said the situation is much better now, but the pollution is still worse in the winter because of the coal-fired boilers.

In response, the city's Environmental Protection Bureau is taking action has said it will replace coal-fired boilers within the Fourth Ring Road with clean energy by the end of 2015.

All coal-fired boilers with a capacity of generating 20 tons of steam per hour and above will be replaced with clean energy by the end of 2015, it said.

The last five coal-fired boilers at Shougang Machinery Co's heavy machinery branch in the Shijingshan district were shut down in March, making Shijingshan the third city district without coal-powered heating, after Xicheng district and Dongcheng district.
Link
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 27/05/2013 11:47

Report damns CSG health effects

ON THE back of damning report released this week about the potential health effects on communities across Australia from coal and coal seam gas projects, doctors have called for urgent national reforms.
The Health Factor by Doctors for the Environment Australia reveals the costly legacy unfolding for Australia from under-regulation of the pollution caused by many resource projects.

The Health Factor describes cases where coal projects have been allowed to pollute at levels known to compromise human health and where inadequate monitoring of air quality disguises the dangers.

The report describes how cardio-respiratory and other diseases in nearby communities are likely to be caused or exacerbated by pollution from coal mining and transport.

It also points out the research and regulation on coal seam gas lags well behind these developments, and the degree to which they harm human health is not yet understood.

“It is clear State government approvals of coal and coal seam gas projects are often influenced by potential economic gain without thorough assessment of potential harms,” DEA spokesperson David Shearman said.

“Permitting dangerous pollution is creating a costly legacy for Australia that is being picked up in the healthcare and other sectors.

“The social and financial costs of this pollution are not being measured or factored in when projects are given the go ahead."

Dr Shearman said Australian resource projects were not operating with “world’s best practice”.

“What we are seeing is a trend to ‘cutting green tape’ without consideration of the consequences,"
he said.

"There is room for assessment to become much more efficient by using the same standards in all states."

The Health Factor describes the failure of governments and resource companies to protect human health and it advocates for health impact assessments to be a mandatory part of the approval processes for any polluting industrial project.

“Assessment of the health impacts of resource projects need to be much more robust and consistent across all States.” Dr Shearman said.

“Governments need to conduct proper health impact assessments before projects are approved to better protect the health of communities.

“Rules for monitoring pollution during the life of the project and beyond must be introduced."


http://www.stockandland.com.au/news/agri...ts/2658455.aspx
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 30/05/2013 12:18

Pollution threatens health in the Latrobe Valley


Earlier this year Doctors for the Environment released a new report focused on the impact of pollution on health in Australia. In particular, they looked at the impact of coal fired power in the Latrobe Valley, with some concerning findings outlined below

The Latrobe Valley has five brown-coal-fired power stations and many coal mines. Almost half of the sulphur dioxide emitted in Victoria is emitted in the Latrobe Valley.

Despite this, there is only one Independent EPA air quality monitoring station in the area and it is not located correctly to pick up the impact of industry or power generation. Monitoring by electricity generators is required by the EPA and shows there are exceedances of the currently sulphur dioxide standard. This data is not available to the public. Furthermore, this monitoring station does not monitor for particulates as small as PM2.5 (2.5 parts per mission), in spite of the high risk of this pollutant to health.

Evidence given by the Principle Scientist of Air Quality at EPA Victoria in October 2011 during a VCAT hearing discusses the issue of sulphur dioxide arising from coal combustion there. She noted that studies on the health effects of sulphur dioxide in Australia mirror the results of international studies.[b] These effects are well documented and include mortality, respiratory conditions and health. There is no safe level of exposure, particularly for sensitive groups.

The state standards for sulphur dioxide relate to the national air quality standards – which were set 14 years ago. In recent years there have been extensive reviews of health impacts of sulphur dioxide, which has led the WHO (World Health Organisation) and the US EPA significantly tightening their standards, so they are now much more stringent than Australian state and federal standards.

Doctors for the Environment state that to their knowledge, despite the significant exposure to air pollution, there has been no recent federal or state commissioned research on the impacts on health of the population in the Latrobe Valley, so it is highly likely this area has significant exposure to air pollutants at levels known to affect health.

Inadequate state standards and monitoring, out dated federal standards and little research on the health impacts all contribute to this failure.

Study report
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 31/05/2013 11:16

There has been a lot of "talk" here that 1200 new coal fired power plants are to be built worldwide....

Originally Posted By: ROM
Institute for Energy Research
November 29, 2012
Countries World wide propose to build 1200 new Coal Plants
Originally Posted By: ROM
Now with some 1200 coal fired power generation plants being built around the world
Originally Posted By: SBT
The rest of the planet is increasing coal fired power production


One has to wonder how many of those plants will actually ever see the light of day? and if you read the stories it only states "proposed" not actually under construction.

This graph below shows that there has not been much action in close to 30 years on the coal fired construction front .....



This graph show proposed and under construction, the US has about 28GW of capacity under construction, but you also have to wonder how many Coal fired power stations have been closed down whistle




Report: EPA rules to shut down more than 280 coal-fired units
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/03/report.../#ixzz2UpI9HM7q

So it seems that 280 Coal fired units have/will be shut in the US alone with a further 220 to be closed by 2020.....

the above pictures come from.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf

Another interesting fact...China is closing coal fired plants also.
Quote:
difficulty in tracking Chinese coal data is that new plants frequently displace older ones. In 2007, the National Development and Reform Commission (NRDC) of China announced that the building of all new coal plants must be accompanied by the elimination of older, less efficient generators.

July 2009: Beijing closes coal plants
In July 2009, Beijing officials announced they were accelerating a plan to shut down smaller, less efficient coal-fired power plants. Because of a drop in demand for electricity, authorities were able to close coal plants totaling 7,467 generating units 18 months ahead of schedule. The closures are part of an effort to to improve energy efficiency and reduce demand for imported oil and gas. The closures are estimated to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 1.1 million tons and carbon dioxide emissions by 124 million tons each year.

China to close old, small coal plants
As part of the Chinese government's five-year plan to address air pollution, "Notice of the General Office of the State Council about Forwarding Guiding Opinions on Pushing Forward the Joint Prevention and Control of Atmospheric Pollution to Improve the Regional Air Quality Developed by the Ministry of Environment Protection and Relevant Departments," the country is looking to: "Eliminate conventional thermal power generating units which have been operated for 20 years and whose capacity of each unit is less than 100 MW, various generating units whose service is up and whose capacity of each unit is less than 200 MW, and various coal burning units whose power supply standard coal consumption is 10 percent higher than average level of the province (autonomous region and municipality) in 2010 or 15 percent higher than national average level."[147]
The plan is a continuation of policy established in the previous five-year plan, which mandated the shutdown of old coal plants under 50 MW. In the past five years, China has shut down over 50 GW of older and smaller coal plants. Xue Jing, director of statistics and information at the China Electricity Council (CEC), said at an earlier conference that China will invest more in the power grid and clean energy, and gradually decrease the proportion of power plants that are coal-fired. Statistics from the CEC report show that in 2008, China’s investment in nuclear power and wind power increased 72 percent and 88 percent year on year, respectively. At the same time, investment in coal-fired plants declined 22 percent
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=China_and_coal
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 31/05/2013 11:20

Seems even China is waking up to Coal fired power and it's effects on it's people.

December 2011: Thousands protest new coal plant
On December 20, 2011, tens of thousands of residents in "a key economic area" of China’s southern Guandong Province gathered in the streets, occupying a highway to demonstrate against an existing coal plant and the development of a new coal plant near Shantou city. The residents say existing coal plants in the area are already fouling local air and water, making people sick and damaging their livelihoods. Police moved in with tear gas, according to CNN, who also said the protest was initially censored on Twitter by the Chinese government.

According to Climate Progress: "Each year, protests spring up to counter the construction of dirty coal plants. But this appears to be the biggest yet. Officials now say they will abandon plans to build a new coal plant in the area. Two people were reportedly killed in clashes with police, but the government is denying those reports."



March 2012: Hainan residents protest new plant
On March 11, 2012, an estimated ten thousand residents of the southern Chinese island province of Hainan took to the streets of Ledong county in protest of plans to build a 1.9 billion yuan (U.S. $301 million) Yinggehai coal-fired power plant in their hometown. Protesters arrived at the venue for the March 12 opening ceremony kick-starting construction work on the plant, and closed their businesses as a strike against the plant. Local sources said some protesters also attacked local government buildings, clashing with riot police who were deployed to restore order. Online news reports related to the protest appeared on microblogs and chatrooms, but were quickly deleted. A Ledong county resident surnamed Mao said the villagers were afraid that the sea pollution caused by a coal-fired power plant would wipe out their fishing businesses and farmland.

Plans for the plant began in 2007, but did not receive approval from the National Resources Bureau in Beijing until November 2011. The plans were opposed by more than 8,000 local residents during a consultation exercise carried out by China Power's Hainan division in January 2012. An official at the Yinggehai township government offices said the government was trying to persuade the villagers to accept the project, and that it was "not likely" that the project would be stalled by the protests: "This is a project which has been ordered by the government at national level, so we will implement it regardless of how much resistance we meet."

A Yinggehai resident surnamed Hu told Radio Free Asia that the government had failed to take local people into account when making its plans: "They think they can implement any plans they like, but there is no benefit to us that will come from this at all.... This project is just 900 meters (2,952 feet) from our homes."[121]

October 2012: Chinese protesters clash with police over power plant
In October 2012 it was reported that Chinese protesters against the building of a coal-fired power plant in a southern Chinese town threw bricks at police who fired volleys of teargas and detained dozens in the country's latest environmental dispute. It was not clear what occurred first.

At least 1,000 people in Yinggehai, on China's Hainan island, began several days of protests after construction resumed at the plant, which had been halted by earlier demonstrations. Dozens had been injured and many were detained by police[122]

Increased cancer rates

In May 2011, it was reported that cancer was now the leading cause of death in China. Chinese Ministry of Health data implicated cancer in close to a quarter of all deaths countrywide, in both wealthy cities and rural areas. The Earth Policy Institute wrote that: "Reports from the countryside revealed a dangerous epidemic of “cancer villages” linked to pollution from some of the very industries propelling China’s explosive economy." More than 450 “cancer villages” have emerged across China in recent years, according to an analysis by geographer Lee Liu published in Environment magazine in 2010. These communities—where an unusually high number of residents are struck by the same types of cancer—tend to cluster in poorer areas along polluted waterways or downstream from industrial parks. Whereas much of China’s early industrial development took place along the coast, factories more recently have been locating where labor is cheaper and environmental oversight is less strict, pushing the so-called “cancer belt” inland.
Lung cancer was the most common cancer in China. Deaths from the typically fatal disease shot up nearly fivefold since the 1970s. In China’s rapidly growing cities, like Shanghai and Beijing, where particulates in the air are often four times higher than in New York City, nearly 30 percent of cancer deaths are from lung cancer. In rural areas, liver, lung, and stomach cancers each account for close to 20 percent of cancer mortality. Liver cancer is more than three times as likely to kill a Chinese farmer as the average global citizen; for stomach cancer, rural Chinese have double the world death rate. These cancers are linked to water polluted by chemicals and sewage, along with other environmental contaminants.
Government data indicate that half of China’s rivers and more than three out of every four lakes and reservoirs are too polluted for safe drinking, even after treatment. Nevertheless, they remain a primary source of water for many people. For villages once largely self-sufficient, the poisoning of their water and soil is often devastating.
The Earth Policy Institute went on to say that: "It is easy to point a finger at unscrupulous industries and government officials willing to look the other way, but some responsibility for China’s unhealthy environment originates outside the country’s borders. Waste is frequently loaded up in container ships overseas and delivered directly to China. More insidiously, Western consumers lapping up artificially cheap “made in China” components and products have outsourced pollution to this factory for the world
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=China_and_coal
Posted by: Petros

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 31/05/2013 22:19

So new coal fired Power Station builds are far below what some have claimed, and China is shutting down its coal fired plant too.

Quest achieved Yasi. What are you going to divert your attention to now?
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 31/05/2013 23:35

8-)
Posted by: GrumpyDenier

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 01/06/2013 04:46

Over in the UK we have a battle on our hands with the EU and our own Dept of Energy and Climate Change. The clown we have in charge is Ed Davey, a limp-wristed Liberal Democrat who has been promoted way beyond his competence level.

Whereas you are having your exports punished by your clowns, we are having to pay the rest of the world for the coal we need when we could exploit the millions of tonnes which sit beneath our feet.

More here
Dispatches – 31 May 2013
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 03/06/2013 21:07

Water for power production or people? Google Earth to the rescue!

Water usage by power plants present a hazard to the environment by consuming fresh water that can be a rare vital resource in some areas. Most generators run by having turbines that spin from the force of steam heated by the power plant, and water is also needed for cooling.
Fresh water demand is quickly rising due to rising population, while supplies diminish from a combination of depleting groundwater supplies and local droughts.

Coal-fired fuel plants generate around 40 percent of the electricity produced in this country each year, while consuming 150 billion gallons of fresh water each day to operate. Some such plants have either cut back or eliminated electrical production due to a lack of available water, according to the Department of Energy.
The Department of Energy (DoE) compiled a nationwide database of non-traditional water sources near power plants using Google Earth. It is called the Alternative Water Source Information System (AWSIS).
Using the Google Earth interface, the application allows power plant designers to easily locate non-traditional water sources located within 15 miles or more from their plant. These sources include abandoned mine pools, treatment plans and aquifers. Produced water from the production of oil and gas is one of the non-traditional sources for which there is data available in the map. Six billion barrels of produced water was disposed during 2007, according to ALL Consulting. Saline aquifers that could be used by coal-fired plants are also included in the survey.
All known non-traditional sources of water producing 1,000 gallons of water or more are included. It would take five outlets that size to supply a typical 500-megawatt facility. Data is made available about each of these sources through the system, including the quantity and quality of available water. Basic information about various power production facilities is also available. Because there is little known about some of these smaller sources, the database will be updated as new information is learned.
The map was compiled as part of the Office of Fossil Energy's Innovations for Existing Plants water program run by the DoE's National Energy Technology Laboratory. It was put together by Arthur Langhus Lane Consulting (ALL), based in Tulsa.
The problem of the fresh water demands of people and power plants is being felt outside this country in Maharashtra, India, where the national branch of Greenpeace is concerned that the a local coal plant is exacerbating a drought, causing a water shortage in over 10,000 villages and hamlets.

http://www.itechpost.com/articles/10084/...arth-rescue.htm
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 05/06/2013 11:51

Fewer than one in four main cities in China have safe air

Only 27 out of 113 major cities recorded cumulative air quality that was deemed safe by national standards for all of last year, according to an annual update on China's environment status released yesterday.

The Ministry of Environmental Protection said the overall pollution problems still remained grave last year, as 30 per cent of the country's major rivers were "polluted" or "severely polluted", while the quality of almost 60 per cent of tested groundwater was deemed to be "bad" or "extremely bad".

It also admitted that pollution in rural areas was worsening as industrial and mining activities expanded, as well as poultry farming.

But the annual environmental status update failed to address problems of greatest public concern. For instance, there was no mention of findings in a national soil-pollution survey, despite a public outcry calling for the release of the data over the past several months, nor was there any mention of recent scandals involving cadmium-contaminated rice.

The ministry also did not provide any data on PM2.5 levels, which indicate the amount of airborne superfine particulate matter considered a major health hazard and is largely caused by industrial coal burning and vehicle emissions.

Some experts said the latest annual update showed that the country's environmental deficit continued to expand in 2012, despite a nominal victory in beating pollution targets.

Emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide - pollutants belched from coal combustion and car exhausts - respectively dropped 4.5 and 2.8 per cent from 2011 levels. And chemical oxygen demand, a measurement of organic pollutants in water, dropped by 3 per cent, while ammonia-nitrogen emissions decreased by 2.6 per cent.

Zhou Rong , an energy and climate campaigner with Greenpeace, said the environmental ministry still seemed reluctant to disclose some key pollution data.

However, the ministry said in yesterday's statement that 100 out of 113 mainland cities could have met national air-quality standards last year if the assessment was based on the old set of rules. The new standards took effect this year.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1253614/fewer-one-four-main-cities-have-safe-air
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 05/06/2013 11:54

Victory! Nevada pulls the plug on polluting coal plant



There is big news out of Nevada that will echo around the nation. Late Monday night the Nevada Assembly passed a bill clearing the path to retire the polluting Reid Gardner coal plant. The bipartisan bill is now headed for an expected signature from Governor Brian Sandoval. For the Moapa Band of Paiutes and so many others in Nevada, today is a time for major celebration.
Under Senate Bill 123, which is called the “NVision” plan, the Reid Gardner coal plant will retire earlier than planned – closing units 1-3 in 2014 instead of 2020, and unit 4 in 2017 instead of 2023.
The Moapa Band of Paiutes and Sierra Club have fought for several years to retire the Reid Gardner coal plant, which sits immediately adjacent to the Moapa River reservation. Paiute families have been suffering for decades from high rates of asthma, heart and lung disease, and cancer they believe are related to the plant’s air pollution. We recently featured their story on the cover of our “Cost of Coal” issue of Sierra magazine.
Reid Gardner’s carbon pollution is also Nevada’s biggest contributor to climate disruption.
And there’s more. As part of this bill, Nevada will also end its use of coal power from Arizona’s dirty Navajo Generating Station (NGS) and will plan for 350 megawatts of new renewable energy. This comes on the heels of the recent announcement that Los Angeles will divest from NGS. These actions reflect shifting public perception across the region, delivering a major blow to the regional viability of coal use in the Southwest.
In fact, this bill was greatly strengthened by the involvement of local advocates and community leaders who sought to increase the amount of clean energy that would replace the retired coal power and remove the requirement that the bulk of the replacement, 550 megawatts, would need to be natural gas.
“This victory belongs to all of us who want a cleaner and better future for our families and community,” said Vickie Simmons, member of the Health and Environment Committees of the Moapa Band of Paiutes.
The Moapa Band of Paiutes are national leaders in working for a transition to clean energy, both by working to retire Reid Gardner and in building their own large-scale solar project – the largest tribal solar plant in the nation. The City of Los Angeles will be purchasing 250 megawatts of solar power from the Moapa solar facility, built on their tribal lands northeast of Las Vegas.
The best news of all – community-based efforts like this one are springing up all over the nation. When communities are plagued with health and environmental problems caused by nearby coal plants, they are mobilizing for action. People are demanding change from their leaders, they’re pushing to retire coal plants and replace them with clean energy, and they’re winning big victories, like this one. They want an end to asthma attacks, polluted water, and bad air quality days – not to mention the climate disruption that threatens all our families.
Sierra Club is standing with them all. Together we are showing public officials that coal is dirty and expensive. We know clean energy is the answer, and it’s ready today. It brings good, local jobs that don’t pollute the air or water, don’t cause asthma and threaten our health, and don’t push our climate to the brink.
That’s a victory for everyone.
Learn more about the ugly effects of living downwind from the Reid Gardner plant at the Beyond Coal website.
Watch a short video, ”The Cost of Coal”

Read more at http://redgreenandblue.org/2013/06/04/vi...IGvhgCC5bzZt.99
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 05/06/2013 12:47

Govt has interfered for second time in coal scam probe:


Expressing concern over government not allowing CBI to question former Coal Secretary HC Gupta, BJP today said this is the second time that the Centre has interfered in coalgate probe after then Law Minister Ashwani Kumar "tampered" with the status report.

"There has been a crisis of confidence as far as CBI functioning is concerned. Earlier, attempts were made by the government to interfere in its affairs when the Law Minister was found tampering with the status report on coalgate... Now it has denied permission to CBI to question Mr Gupta," BJP spokesperson Abhimanyu told reporters.

Government has turned down a request of CBI to question Gupta, at present a member of Competition Commission of India, in connection with the coal blocks allocation scam. Latest reports say CBI is likely to make a fresh request.

"This is the second instance of government interference in the CBI probe into the coal scam. BJP condemns this move," Abhimanyu said.

Kumar had to resign from the post of Law Minister after it was revealed that he had vetted the CBI status report on coalgate and made some significant changes in it.

BJP President Rajnath Singh had earlier demanded that since Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held the coal portfolio when the controversial block allocations were made, he should introspect on who should be held accountable.

"Whom was the Law Minister trying to protect when he interfered with the CBI status report? Should not the Prime Minister take moral responsibility for the scam," Abhimanyu asked.

BJP demanded that the Supreme Court take full cognisance of the coal scam probe and appoint a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the case. The party further demanded that the apex court monitor developments in the case on a day-to-day basis.

Abhimanyu also pressed for the cancellation of all controversial coal block allocations as was done in the case of 2G spectrum allocations.

"The loss of funds to the exchequer in the coal scam should also be recovered from the guilty," he said.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1843736/re...-scam-probe-bjp
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 05/06/2013 22:21

Seems coals future may not be so rosy after all...

Hunter Valley mining job cuts on the cards
4 days 17 hours 50 minutes ago
http://www.coalguru.com/australia/hunter_valley_mining_job_cuts_on_the_cards/10101

Jobs go at Premier Coal as coal mining costs rise

7 days 11 hours 14 minutes ago

http://www.coalguru.com/australia/jobs_go_at_premier_coal_as_coal_mining_costs_rise/10050

70 jobs scrapped at Mount Owen coal mine

28 May, 2013

http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/70-jobs-scrapped-at-mount-owen-coal-mine

Australia coal firms dig in for years of mine closings job cuts

11 days 18 hours 16 minutes ago

http://www.coalguru.com/australia/austra...s_job_cuts/9917
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 06/06/2013 14:14

China to cut coal use in key industrial regions

BEIJING--China is considering plans to cut coal consumption in some major industrial regions, people familiar with the policy said, as part of measures to reduce air pollution --an issue that has triggered a surge in public protests.

In a plan to be released this month, China may set a target to reduce coal use in a heavily polluted region in the north spanning Beijing, Hebei and Tianjin by a combined 100 million tons a year by 2015, said a person who has been involved in the policy discussions.

That region consumed an estimated 375 million tons of coal last year, around a tenth of the national total, with Hebei province, China's main steel producer, alone responsible for about 300 million tons.

Tackling a dependence on coal--a major cause of smog and acid rain--though, will test China's resolve to clean up its air, water and soil after decades of rapid industrial growth.

Previous attempts by Beijing to rein in its industrial polluters have not always succeeded, with growth-obsessed local governments often turning a blind eye to violations.

Fierce lobbying by powerful state-owned utilities also appears to have put paid to a recent plan to raise national coal standards and ban low-grade imports.

Jiang Kejun, a senior researcher at the Energy Research Institute, a think-tank run by the National Development and Reform Commission, said precise targets were still being debated, but a decision was expected soon.

"These targets should be included in the plan, but we are actually still in the process of setting the precise numbers--it isn't a particularly easy thing to do," said Jiang, who is involved in drawing up the policies.

China was previously committed to slowing the rate of coal consumption growth, but recent pollution scares appear to have increased its resolve to tackle problems caused by excessive coal combustion.

In January, thick, hazardous smog shrouded Beijing and other industrialized northern Chinese cities for more than a week, with many blaming excessive coal-burning by power plants, steel mills and other industrial facilities.

The new pollution plan is also expected to ban capacity expansions in steel and other polluting industries in major cities, and force firms to run emissions control equipment. Companies that fail to comply face higher power prices and the threat of having their power and water supplies cut off, officials familiar with the policy told Reuters last week.

China has sought to use the growing public clamor against air pollution to get tough on high-polluting, high-energy consuming industries like steel, cement and aluminium, which have been sapped by crippling levels of overcapacity.

Local industry is responsible for 49 percent of Beijing's pollutant emissions, vehicles 22 percent, and drift from surrounding provinces, including Hebei, 24.5 percent, according to a 2011 study. Coal-burning makes up more than 90 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions.

NATIONAL TARGETS

China is also looking to reduce coal consumption in the big manufacturing regions of the Pearl River and Yangtze River deltas by 50 million tons each--though analysts say those figures are unlikely to be enough to change China's overall energy consumption patterns.

"Those are relatively small numbers in the grand scheme of things," said Bill Durbin, analyst at consultancy Wood Mackenzie in Beijing. "We're looking at total coal consumption of nearly 4 billion tons and expect to see that rise, simply because there is a lack of alternatives for baseload power generation, particularly as you move to the central and western regions."

Last October, in its 5-year plan on air pollution, China identified the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region and the Pearl and Yangtze river deltas as "pilot zones" to control coal consumption.

It also said China would seek to reduce the share of coal in the national energy mix by promoting renewables and building new gas storage facilities in key cities. Around half of China's total energy comes from coal, far more than anywhere else in the world.

China has already said it aims to keep national coal production capacity to within 4.1 billion tons by 2015, up from 3.24 billion tons in 2010.

According to the China Coal Industry Association, China's total consumption is still likely to hit 5 billion tons by 2020. Wood Mackenzie, in a report published on June 4, said China's coal demand would double to 7 billion tons by 2030.

"If they cap coal consumption then they will have to raise investment in natural gas, but we're not seeing enough investment that would allow gas to displace coal," said Durbin.

The lack of reliable data is likely to make coal cuts difficult.

In Hebei, unregulated private steel mills with a history of under-reporting output use large amounts of coal. Monitoring nationally will be an even bigger challenge.

Last year's 5-year plan said special emissions restrictions would be imposed in 47 big cities, banning capacity growth in thermal power, steel, construction materials, coking, non-ferrous metals and chemicals.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/china/AJ201306060024
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 06/06/2013 21:44

Thermal coal prices unlikely to recover in 2013 unless Australia cuts output: sources


Global thermal coal prices are unlikely to recover this year unless Australian coal producers lower production or an unexpected event rattles the seaborne market and sends prices north, industry experts attending the Coaltrans Asia conference in Bali, Indonesia, said Wednesday.

An electronic survey conducted during a conference session on Tuesday showed that 50% of the participants do not expect thermal coal prices to recover this year because unrestrained coal production will continue.

Thermal coal prices will go down this year, according to Fabio Gabrielli, Mercuria Energy Trading's director for dry bulk analysis and strategy.

He does not expect any other country, other than the US, to cut production this year. "Until we see Australia cutting, we will not see the bottom [for prices]," Gabrielli said.

Guillaume Perret, director of London-based Perret Associates, a consultancy specializing in coal, iron ore and steel and freight, said global thermal coal supply remains abundant.

"The market is at the moment at the mercy of any shocks that can trigger [upward] market movement," Perret said. "We expect a very slow price recovery in the coming year," Perret said.

Representatives of two Indonesian coal mining companies told conference delagates on Tuesday that they expect prices to recover next year.

"I don't agree," said Michael Soerjadji, the marketing director of Adimitra Baratama Nusantara, when asked for his opinion on the electronic survey results.

Sreejith Chalakkal, the marketing manager of Bayan Resources, said he expects thermal coal prices to recover next year because coal producers have to react to ease cost pressures.

Gabrielli, however, said he expects coal exporting countries, Australia, Colombia, Indonesia, Russia and South Africa, with the exception of the US, to continue to increase production despite current depressed international steam coal prices.

In 2011 and 2012, there was an annual 100 million mt increase in seaborne thermal coal supply, Gabrielli added. The 2012 coal story was not about weak demand but more about abundant coal supply, he explained.

Coal producers reacted to the 2007-2008 boom in commodity prices by ramping up output, which was absorbed by the emergence in 2009 of Chinese demand for steam coal in the seaborne market and India's appetite for coal, Gabrielli said.

A bull rally in thermal coal prices was seen in 2010 and mid-2011 as devastating floods hit Indonesia, Colombia, South Africa and mainly Australia while the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan translated to higher coal demand with the shutdown of nuclear reactors in Japan and Germany, he said.

Then a US shale gas revolution which led to a massive shift to gas from coal, a warm winter in 2011 and 2012, an exceptional hydroelectric power performance in China in 2012 and the Chinese government's decision to tighten credit in Q3 2012 led to the current depressed coal prices, Gabrielli said.

http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/Coal/26995677
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 06/06/2013 22:09

http://mines.industry.qld.gov.au/assets/coal-pdf/new_coal_min_adv_proj.pdf

43 Open cut mines in operation
13 Underground
Coal reserves that will last a couple of hundred years at current rates of mining.
162.5M (Million) Tons exported last year - yep the coal industry is dying Yasi - not.

7 coal export Ports either undergoing or about to start undergoing expansion, a new mine just about to open in the Galilee Basin (Indian Owned) new railway line. Yes prices are depressed at the moment but they will bounce back.

BTW did you know Yasi that the majority of Qld hard coking coal is sold to produce steel and not power?
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 08/06/2013 16:53

Dream of mining job turns into costly nightmare
THE dream of a Buderim man to work in the mines has turned out instead to be a very costly nightmare.

Aaron Hammond, 24, spent $4000 late last year to secure his haul truck licence, in the hope it would lead to a job in the booming mining industry.

Six months on, however, despite making countless inquiries for work, he is still unemployed.

"I've been applying for hundreds of jobs online, and even drove out to Chinchilla, which is a four-hour trip, and spoke to the locals out there but they said I'm wasting my time," Mr Hammond said.

"They said, 'If you haven't got a trade or any major qualification, you're basically wasting your time'.

"I'm still trying, though."

His training included the standard 11 mine induction courses and a standard 4WD course.

"I haven't got anything," he said of his job hunt, "not even an interview or any feedback."

A spokesman for the training company, Industry Partnerships of Ipswich, said demand for workers in the industry had fallen away late last year due to falling mineral prices, inflated wages within the industry and the high Australian dollar, but he assured employment opportunities again were on the rise.

"The industry went through a downturn and unfortunately, for the people who went through training then, the work dried up a bit," managing director Peter Evans said.

"There's coal in the ground that needs to come out and I have no doubt that these companies are going to need workers."

The Queensland Resources Council said employment was still high in the mining industry - with about 11,500 workers in the Coal Seam Gas industry in Gladstone alone, for example - but competition for unskilled jobs such as truck driving was high.

"Competition for mining jobs has always been strong and is now even tougher with the global economic slowdown," the spokesman said.

"Since June last year, the Federal Government estimates the Queensland coal industry has lost about 6000 jobs.

"However, the coal-seam gas industry is growing rapidly and providing some cover for those losses."

Meantime, Mr Hammond, who has experience in construction, plastering and landscaping, remains hopeful of securing a mining job.

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/a-jobless-minefield-mining-jobs/1900170/
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 09/06/2013 08:53

Originally Posted By: SBT
The point I and others are making is we can't and don't have any influence on any country other than Australia CF.


But you piss and moan when Europe and the USA install large Solar power generators.........
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 09/06/2013 11:21

Originally Posted By: Enrique
But you piss and moan when Europe and the USA install large Solar power generators.........
and not one of them has ever made a profit without being propped up by the respective national governments which in turn has increased inflation and is basically bankrupting the countries who have installed them. If you find offence at my posts please feel free to either click on the Ignore User function, Notify a Mod or stop reading what I write.


Waste is waste whether it be here or in any other country of the world.

Renewables are never going to be finically viable in their present form and as a tax payer I object to my taxes being thrown away on rubbish like this in Australia.

Here is the reason why I object to them. After securing $485,000,000.00 in direct funding from the Australian Federal government the Solar Dawn project couldn't come up with a financially viable business plan on how to sell or produce power so it went the way of the dodo bird. In other words even with a huge injection of funds from the Federal and State governments the cost of producing power was so high that they could never market it and make anywhere near a profit so as to pay back shareholders and banks.

It is the same thing all over the world when it comes to these renewable projects. We have a power generation method that does work, yes it burns coal, big whoop, it is being cleaned up emissions wise and modified to burn more efficiently.

It can produce power much cheaper, on demand, 24/7/365 with technology that we already have.
For more information check the link below.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/arena-re...pplicants-24775
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 09/06/2013 12:12

You just see the building of solar projects as a visible for loss for AGW sceptics, nothing more. Same goes for wind power, the people who are so against it just happen to be the people who bury their head in the sand regarding AGW.

Theres always so much rage when the USA builds something and it doesn't come from your tax. Oh yes, we must protect those Californians!!!!!
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 09/06/2013 13:33

SBT,who was it that paid for the construction/maintenance of coal fired power stations back in the day when they were owned by the government?
The tax payer......
Posted by: snafu

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 09/06/2013 18:00

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
SBT,who was it that paid for the construction/maintenance of coal fired power stations back in the day when they were owned by the government?
The tax payer......

Big difference YS.........they provide/provided cheap, reliable power 24/7/365. Wind and solar cannot!

Posted by: Petros

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 09/06/2013 22:03

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
Thermal coal prices unlikely to recover in 2013 unless Australia cuts output: sources


Global thermal coal prices are unlikely to recover this year unless Australian coal producers lower production or an unexpected event rattles the seaborne market and sends prices north, industry experts attending the Coaltrans Asia conference in Bali, Indonesia, said Wednesday.

An electronic survey conducted during a conference session on Tuesday showed that 50% of the participants do not expect thermal coal prices to recover this year because unrestrained coal production will continue.

Thermal coal prices will go down this year, according to Fabio Gabrielli, Mercuria Energy Trading's director for dry bulk analysis and strategy.

He does not expect any other country, other than the US, to cut production this year. "Until we see Australia cutting, we will not see the bottom [for prices]," Gabrielli said.

Guillaume Perret, director of London-based Perret Associates, a consultancy specializing in coal, iron ore and steel and freight, said global thermal coal supply remains abundant.

"The market is at the moment at the mercy of any shocks that can trigger [upward] market movement," Perret said. "We expect a very slow price recovery in the coming year," Perret said.

Representatives of two Indonesian coal mining companies told conference delagates on Tuesday that they expect prices to recover next year.

"I don't agree," said Michael Soerjadji, the marketing director of Adimitra Baratama Nusantara, when asked for his opinion on the electronic survey results.

Sreejith Chalakkal, the marketing manager of Bayan Resources, said he expects thermal coal prices to recover next year because coal producers have to react to ease cost pressures.

Gabrielli, however, said he expects coal exporting countries, Australia, Colombia, Indonesia, Russia and South Africa, with the exception of the US, to continue to increase production despite current depressed international steam coal prices.

In 2011 and 2012, there was an annual 100 million mt increase in seaborne thermal coal supply, Gabrielli added. The 2012 coal story was not about weak demand but more about abundant coal supply, he explained.

Coal producers reacted to the 2007-2008 boom in commodity prices by ramping up output, which was absorbed by the emergence in 2009 of Chinese demand for steam coal in the seaborne market and India's appetite for coal, Gabrielli said.

A bull rally in thermal coal prices was seen in 2010 and mid-2011 as devastating floods hit Indonesia, Colombia, South Africa and mainly Australia while the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan translated to higher coal demand with the shutdown of nuclear reactors in Japan and Germany, he said.

Then a US shale gas revolution which led to a massive shift to gas from coal, a warm winter in 2011 and 2012, an exceptional hydroelectric power performance in China in 2012 and the Chinese government's decision to tighten credit in Q3 2012 led to the current depressed coal prices, Gabrielli said.

http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/Coal/26995677


... the point being?
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 10/06/2013 10:41

The point being is the same one that we keep making YS is that RELIABLE power is what we need and coal provides it but it will never come from renewables because they can't/don't/won't perform to anything like their stated capacity in their present form.

I pay taxes and expect them to be expended for the good of the people of Australia, not wasted on political correct environutter social experiments to produce power from something that doesn't work.

Dogma vs real world? Yes I can see exactly who has their heads buried in the sand.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 10/06/2013 11:37

Originally Posted By: SBT
The point being is the same one that we keep making YS is that RELIABLE power is what we need and coal provides it but it will never come from renewables because they can't/don't/won't perform to anything like their stated capacity in their present form.

I pay taxes and expect them to be expended for the good of the people of Australia, not wasted on political correct environutter social experiments to produce power from something that doesn't work.

Dogma vs real world? Yes I can see exactly who has their heads buried in the sand.



You love that word Dogma don't you poke
well for those that don't have their heads stuck in the sand and actually care to look, they will clearly see what is really going on.....

What is typically stated below....

Originally Posted By: Petros

IF wind is the panacea, and given South Australia is the highest percenctage wind generated Aus state: - then why does its power cost substantially MORE than Vic/NSW? - the states with base load provided by coal generation.

(For the self motivated, the answer can be determined yourself by looking at the data freely provided by the AEMO website) - for the lemmings, just read and believe the tripe coughed up by the greenines as you go broke paying your artifically expensive power bills.


Here is a little quote that sums it up very well....

Originally Posted By: AEMC
Wholesale energy
costs in South Australia have traditionally been high due to the relatively small market,
high dependence on gas fired generation and limited interconnection capability. This looks likely to ease with an increasing volume of wind generation.


The image below also tells an interesting tale... SA is the ONLY STATE where power prices have gone DOWN every other state has one UP between 2 and 34%!

And other interesting fact is that it states Networks drive 100% of the average increases from 2012-2013 to 2014-2015. Distribution accounts for 81% of the price rise




Meanwhile back in Victoria where the prices have risen 11% a quick look reveals that 66% of the driving force behind that is the power generators/retailers.



Full Report
http://www.aemc.gov.au/media/docs/Fact-P...d69d696d7-0.PDF
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 12/06/2013 11:24

Brisbane-based coal company Ambre Energy in US lawsuit, accused of polluting waterways in Washington state

ANGER over coal dust spewing from open train wagons has prompted a major lawsuit in the United States with a Brisbane-based coal company being one of five firms accused of polluting waterways in Washington state.

Ambre Energy, which operates multi-million coal operations in Wyoming through its subsidiary and has plans for a major coal export facility in Washington, has been named in a lawsuit filed last week by the US Sierra Club, an environmental organisation with 600,000 members.

The Sierra Club also sued US-based Peabody Energy, which operates mines in Queensland and Australia, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, and three other coal companies for allegedly discharging coal chucks and dust into rivers in violation of the Clean Water Act.

An Ambre Energy spokesman said the company would "defend its position" if the civil matter went ahead in the US District Court where it was filed in Washington State. Another defendant described the suit as a "publicity stunt."

The suit claims defendants were responsible for the discharge of coal pollutants into waterway through holes in the bottom and sides of rail cars and by spillage or ejection of coal from open wagons.

"Defendants' discharges are especially frequent or severe when their coal trains pass over rough rail tracks, track changes, bridges and switches, in windy conditions, at high operating speed, during steep ascents and descent and during and after precipitation events," the suit said.

It said Ambre owns 50 per cent of the Black Butte and Leucite Hill coal mines supplying coal to the TransAlta power plant.

"Ambre Energy, at a minimum, operates, directs and controls the loading of coal into the rail cars. Ambre Energy has the ability to determine how coal in the rain cars in transported by BNSF," according to the suit.

Three Darling Downs coal mines, including one run by Peabody, have been under attack for coal emissions from open wagons moving to the Port of Brisbane.

About half of 10 million tonnes of coal moving through South Brisbane is now being veneered with adhesive spray after the issue was exposed by The Courier-Mail.

Residents have called for the coal wagons to be fully covered to eliminate health risks from long-term exposure to coal dust.

The Sierra Club lawsuit is a potential threat to Ambre's plans for a massive coal exporting facilities in Longview, Washington and Morrow, Oregon.

The facilities are awaiting development support from US agencies, and legal challenges and political opposition could make it more difficult.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queen...2-1226661346214
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 13/06/2013 12:58

Study shows many premature deaths in Europe are linked to coal emissions

A new study has found that around 22,300 premature deaths every year are caused by the air pollution created by 300 of Europe's largest coal power stations. According to the new study performed by Stuttgart University's Institute for Energy Economics, the air pollution from the power stations not only creates deaths that number in the tens-of-thousands, but also creates billions of pounds worth of costs for companies and governments.

Not only is the burning of coal for the generation of energy linked to climate change, the study says that the air pollution created by the burning of coal is also severely detrimental to people's health. The study also suggests that if the 50 new coal powered plants that are currently planned are built in Europe, it could lead to a further 2,700 premature deaths.

In Romania, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Poland the emissions created by coal powered plants causes more deaths than road traffic accidents. Whilst in the UK and Germany the number of deaths caused by road traffic accidents and emissions related to coal burning is almost equal. The researchers found, by analysing emissions, that around 5,000 premature deaths in Poland could be attributed to coal related emissions in 2010.

Around a dozen more coal-fired plants have been planned for Poland by utility companies and the government, despite the fact that Polish plants have the biggest health impact in comparison to any other plants throughout the entirety of Europe. The report has estimated that the plants with the worst health impacts belong to five different utility companies spread across six different European countries.

Health issues are caused by microscopic particulate pollution that is able to affect the lungs and get into the bloodstream. This type of pollution is mainly caused by the dust emissions, acid gas and soot created by the burning of coal. Microscopic particulate pollution has been linked to a variety of health issues including asthma, lung cancer and heart attacks and affects adults and children alike.

- See more at: http://www.pollutionsolutions-online.com...h.OrtWEUef.dpuf
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/06/2013 11:23

Empty coal wagons 'worst for dust'





RAIL industry insiders say more coal is lost from supposedly "empty" wagons than full ones and the impact of coal dust on track and rolling stock maintenance is a major cost.



The "empty wagon" problem was confirmed by the Rail, Tram and Bus Union's Newcastle organiser, Steve Wright, who said it was well known to the industry.

The Coal Terminal Action Group, which reignited the dust debate this week with allegations an official report had been changed in a cover-up, said the empty wagon claims needed to be investigated.

But group member James Whelan said the focus should stay on invisible, respirable, particles of coal rather than "the coal you can see on the side of the tracks".

"There is almost certainly a relationship, but health experts are not so concerned about coal that cannot be deeply inhaled," Dr Whelan said.

"The smaller the particles, the greater the health impact. And even PM10 is not visible, let alone PM2.5 or PM1."

Asked about the "empty wagon" scenario, the Environment Protection Authority said the study by the Australian Rail Track Corporation was "required by the EPA in response to community concerns that loaded coal wagons should be covered".

"If you are correct in your hypothesis that empty trains are the problem, then it would not be effective to cover loaded coal trains - which is what the debate has been about so far," an EPA spokeswoman said.

She said both versions of the ARTC study suggested there was "no appreciable difference between the dust levels measured from the movement of loaded coal trains and other types of freight trains".

But Dr Whelan said that was just one of 18 conclusions.

"The important thing is that both versions of the report accept that coal trains, loaded and unloaded, have statistically significant elevations of particulate matter concentrations when compared with no trains."

He said the action group would continue to analyse the report differences and take up ARTC's offer of "raw data".

Though the rail union has not been active in the debate so far, dust came from coal trains in both directions, Mr Wright said.

"Especially on long trips down from Ulan or Gunnedah, coal that's been through a washery can start to dry out - especially on hot days," he said.

"The new bat-wing wagons are more aerodynamic and it's not such a problem. But with the older wagons you'd see the dust coming off the top.

"With the empties, they are never really empty.

"Every time the cars go over a set of points or anything that jars the wagons, it tends to shake the coal out the bottom.

"Even though the doors at the bottom are shut, the dust still makes its way through the cracks onto the tracks and the ballast.


"And then it gets swirled up by the next train and the one after that, and so on."

He said the tracks were cleaned using machinery that lifted a section of rail by about 30 centimetres while mechanical "fingers" loosened the ballast rocks from both sides.

Coal dust was vacuumed out and new ballast stones added if needed.

Rail sources directed the Newcastle Herald to a large pile of coal "fines" sitting beside the rail tracks near Warabrook station, which they said had been cleaned from the tracks in a recent maintenance "possession".

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1572041/empty-coal-wagons-worst-for-dust/?cs=12
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/06/2013 21:44

Residents say coal dump like ‘the moon'

Residents near a coal ash dump in Fayette County describe a neighborhood where birds die after drinking from puddles, puppies have birth defects, people are sick and gray dust covers everything.
“It looks like the moon,” said Jayne Daugherty, 50, one of nine residents who spoke Thursday night at a two-hour public meeting about the LaBelle dump in Luzerne, owned by Matt Canestrale Contracting Inc. “People act like we don't matter. … What am I supposed to do? I'm stuck here. Is that fair?”
More than 70 people filled the Luzerne Township fire hall in the old coal mining community of LaBelle
— which has about 220 residents — along the Monongahela River. About 10 officials from the Department of Environmental Protection were there to take testimony and lead an informational meeting, the first of a series of events tied to the dump's permit renewal.
Canestrale is seeking the dump's third permit renewal since it opened in 1998. It's a 504-acre, 40-million-ton hill of coal waste from defunct mines.
The company took control of the site under an agreement to accept fly ash waste from power plants and use that as a low-level cement to solidify the site,
one of the region's largest gob piles.
“We've investigated every health complaint, visited every home … and we can't support the claims that this is caused by off-site fugitive dust,” said Joel Koricich, environmental group manager for DEP's district mining operations. Several studies have shown the dust is organic matter, he said. “I can appreciate the concerns and the complaints. We take them seriously.”
Some residents believe they've suffered a disproportionate amount of illnesses like asthma and cancer, which they blamed on the dump. The site is unstable and leeches manganese, sulfate and aluminum pollution into local water supplies, said Michael Nixon, a board member at the Citizens Coal Council, which is pursuing a lawsuit to shut down the site.
“It's really easy to get up and give a lot of rhetorical comments unsubstantiated by facts,” said Hiram Ribblett, a contracted engineer for Canestrale. “Most of what you heard was rhetoric.”
DEP oversight at the dump has larger business implications for the region. Chevron Corp. started seismic testing for gas exploration, but the DEP temporarily stopped it for extra scrutiny. FirstEnergy Corp. has a pending deal to ship 3 million tons a year of power plant waste from its giant Bruce Mansfield Plant in Beaver County to the LaBelle dump because FirstEnergy's first dump closed under a litany of environmental complaints.
“It doesn't make sense,” Yma Smith, 56, said about the deal to close one dump and keep another 250 feet from her home open for the waste. “People here are sick and dying.”



Read more: http://triblive.com/news/fayette/4179496-74/dump-coal-residents#ixzz2WA9dq5J0
Posted by: bundybear

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/06/2013 23:09

Nothing wrong with a little or a lot of coal dust. Can't be can there?

After all when I questioned the tax dept why hubby couldn't claim the costs of travelling to work I got the same answer as social security gave me. Both govt depts.

If you choose not to live and raise your children where your husband works that is your decision.

I must just be crazy to not want to live in a coal town where when hubby moved out of a small unit it took me a full day on hands and knees to scrub the lino floor from black to a grey type colour. How fussy of me to not want the kids lungs to be so black.

I do find it interesting though. It is all fine and dandy for the families of these 'rich miners' to live with it or pay the penalty of extra living expenses but it is so bad if the the general population may be subjected to it.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 14/06/2013 23:14

And still not one single shred of evidence in any medical journal in Australia that link your death trains to increased morbidly, no studies, no facts, no state or federal interventions and no hope of getting anything done in the near or distant future purely from a lack of evidence.

Just more waffle and hype.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/06/2013 10:51

I would not want to live near that, that's for sure bundybear and i would not want to have my children exposed to all of that either.

Originally Posted By: SBT
Just more waffle and hype.


Funny some say that, then complain about....
Originally Posted By: SBT
Approx 10,000 tip truck trips passed my house 24/7 for 15 months......
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/06/2013 11:44

So what is your point Yasi? The traffic increases passed my home since then has made that figure an average per year now with the building of 700 new homes in 2 different housing estates and another 350 mainly married quarters already started means that on average the road passed my home now is about on a par with any other decent sized city. The number of trucks may be only a minority now but the increases in cars and 4WD's makes up for them. Far as I can tell there has been zero increases in any health issues. Neighbours haven't suddenly developed any health issues from all that traffic. The only thing that has increased is the traffic noise (minor) and emergency vehicle traffic with sirens blaring day and night but that is expected in a large population centre.

Pollution increase? Not that you would notice.

Just because you think something is true, even in the face of overwhelming proof that it isn't true, only makes. Not right.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/06/2013 20:32

The point is when it is happening out the front of your house you are not happy about that, same as others if coal trains were trundling passed their houses 24/7 depositing coal dust everywhere.
Here is a bit more from your original reply.

Quote:
Yes i know all about the friggen dam wall being fixed. Approx 10,000 tip truck trips passed my house 24/7 for 15 months and the main roads mob put a lovely little height variation when they joined two seoerate sections of tar together right outside my house. Every empty friggen semi tip truck went BANG as it drove over it. Mongrels. Oh and in case your wondering.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/06/2013 20:36

Power station focus

ANGLESEA'S Alcoa power station is again in the spotlight, as the Surf Coast Shire claims Victorian standards for sulphur dioxide testing might be too lenient.

The shire is seeking reassurance from the Environment Protection Authority that the air monitoring regimen is as efficient as it is overseas.

Anglesea Ward councillor Margot Smith was particularly concerned with regulations of the coal-fired power station, and moved the notice of motion at last week's council meeting.

"There is no suggestion that Alcoa is breaching any restrictions, but the EPA does need to reassure the Anglesea community that these standards and the monitoring program are providing effective protection from adverse health impacts," Cr Smith said.

In her notice of motion, she highlighted the Victorian EPA maximum standards for hourly sulphur dioxide exposure was higher than that of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

"This step isn't intended to raise alarm, but rather to seek assurance that the monitoring regimen in place in Victoria is effective," Cr Smith said.

EPA media officer Tanya O'Shea said Victoria had national objectives and standards to detect pollutants and ensure air quality.

"The Australian and US standards can't be directly compared, you need to actually analyse the data to be able to compare the two," Ms O'Shea said.

"The national standards are currently under review and the EPA is contributing and supporting the review."

Alcoa general manager of corporate affairs Brian Doy said the company had not been faulted in previous submissions to the Senate and parliamentary committee for various health risk assessments.

Mr Doy said Alcoa was confident its practices were above board.

"The bottom line with this particular inquiry from the Surf Coast Shire, is that we're more than comfortable with anyone going to the EPA," he said.

"Our operations are audited by the EPA and we are compliant with both state and national standards."

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2013/06/04/366376_surf-coast-news.html
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/06/2013 20:44

Potentially toxic levels of mercury found in Narracan Creek trigger further study

The detection of potentially toxic levels of mercury near drinking water in Gippsland has triggered a major investigation by Victoria's environmental watchdog.

A recent study by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) found more research was needed to determine the source of the mercury and whether it is having an impact on the health of residents.

Leon Metzeling, an EPA freshwater expert, says the study published last month found mercury levels in the sediment of the Narracan Creek which breached national benchmarks.

The creek provides drinking water to several Gippsland communities.

"At about half the sites they failed what we call the low level trigger and that basically means go and have a look at it in a bit more detail," Mr Metzeling said.

David Mawer, of Gippsland Water insists there is no risk to public health because heavy metals in sediment are removed during the water treatment process.

"There is absolutely no reason for anyone to be concerned that there are issues relating to mercury in the drinking water. There are not," he said.

There is absolutely no reason for anyone to be concerned that there are issues relating to mercury in the drinking water. There are not.
David Mawer, Gippsland Water
However, the findings have triggered a more detailed study.

EPA and CSIRO scientists will spend the next year testing for mercury pollution throughout Gippsland.

"It'll give us a quantitative robust, you know quite all-encompassing view which we haven't had to date," Mr Metzeling said.

In the past, old gold mines have been blamed for contributing to mercury levels.

But Mr Metzeling says the Latrobe Valley's coal-fired power stations are also thought to be a source.

"It's pretty well established that coal-burning power stations are big sources of mercury around the world," he said.

The EPA says another potential source of elevated mercury levels could be recent bushfires and prescribed burns, where mercury stored in plants and soils is released by the fire back into the environment.

Environmental engineer Gavin Mudd hopes the study fills significant knowledge gaps about the extent of mercury pollution in Gippsland.

"We need to understand mercury because of its very sensitive nature both as an environmental pollutant and with respect to public health," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-28/po...698?section=vic
Posted by: Petros

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 15/06/2013 20:44

..."There is no suggestion that Alcoa is breaching any restrictions, but the EPA does need to reassure the Anglesea community that these standards and the monitoring program are providing effective protection from adverse health impacts," Cr Smith said.

Another Cr*p post.

So like I've told you several times before Yasi, if your concern is evironmental, then take on the EPA, not the power stations that are playing by our Australian Environmental Regulations.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/06/2013 14:16

Why would you take on the EPA when they already know the outcome and have an exemption in place, when it comes to pollution in Anglesea?

Part of a quote from a previous reply.

Quote:
How a report with serious implications for the
health of a community, the contents of which were clearly already known to the
Government and EPA, can be deliberately with-held under the auspices of a
longstanding (and in this case misused) FOI exemption,
is a serious issue which needs
to be bought to attention.
Posted by: Seabreeze

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 16/06/2013 14:48

Another reminder to some members that continual breaches of the forum guidelines will lead to suspension or expulsion from the forum.

Conduct expected of members from the forum guidelines:
Weatherzone is not a venue for "free speech". Hostile, abusive, and offensive conduct is prohibited. Ridicule and intimidation of another user constitutes a serious breach of our standards, and will often result in suspension or expulsion. When debating, be civil at all times and attack the point, not the person. Ad-hominem arguments are not tolerated.

And also, the most relevant points from General Etiquette on the forum that Climate Change sub-forum contributors generally have the most trouble with:
• Be polite, respect people's opinion.
• Criticise ideas, not people.
• No flaming or trolling (i.e. deliberately picking fights with other members). Any personal attacks will not be tolerated.
• No posting messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violate any laws.

Everybody has been duly warned. If your post does not conform with these guidelines, then do not post it, otherwise be prepared for potential suspension or expulsion from the forum.

If there are any questions, please Private Message me.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 18/06/2013 11:09

Indian coal mining scam -Notices on 2 more blocks in Odisha

Business Standard reported that the Ministry of Coal has issued show cause notices on 2 more coal blocks in Odisha over delay in their development, continuing its crackdown on non serious allocatees.

The latest coal blocks to have got notices from the ministry include Mandakini block jointly allocated to TATA Power, Monnet Power and Jindal Photo Ltd and also Ramchandi promotional block, a coal to liquid block alloted to Jindal Steel & Power Ltd.

Apart from Ramchandi block, the MoC has also issued a showcause notice to Mandakini coal block.
http://www.coalguru.com/india/indian_coal_mining_scam_notices_on_2_more_blocks_in_odisha/10490
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 18/06/2013 11:13

Coal-fired plants in China cause smog that killed 9,900

Air pollution from 196 coal-fired power stations in Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei caused 9,900 premature deaths in 2011, with the province, a big coal consumer, deserving most of the blame, according to a new study.

The study looked at the health impact of burning the fossil fuel to generate electricity.

The research was co-authored by Greenpeace and American air pollution experts.

t also found that coal consumption in the region had led to chronic diseases, including 11,110 cases of asthma and 12,100 cases of bronchitis.

Among the deaths, 850 were due to lung cancer linked to the carcinogenic heavy metals - including arsenic, lead, cadmium and nickel - from the burning of coal, while the rest were attributed to stroke, heart disease and chronic lung problems.

The report has added to public concern about air pollution in the wake of the choking smog that blanketed northern Chinese cities last winter. "Seriously, it's time to consider leaving greater Beijing," one microblogger wrote in response to the study's findings.

Hebei is the country's third biggest consumer of coal and was responsible for 75 per cent of the premature deaths recorded, including some in Beijing and Tianjin, the study said. It found that acid gas, soot and dust from coal-burning activities travelled across administrative borders, the study found.

Beijing was the biggest victim, with more than 80 per cent of 1,982 premature deaths registered that were caused by coal-fired plants in Hebei and Tianjin.

Beijing's efforts to cut coal consumption in recent years had been easily offset by the enormous amount of the fuel burned by its neighbours, particularly Hebei, Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner Huang Wei said.

While Beijing is struggling to reduce its annual coal consumption from 27 million tonnes in 2010 to 20 million tonnes in 2015, Hebei alone consumed 307 million tonnes in 2011.

"The findings show that Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei are interdependent in terms of air quality as well as public health," Huang said. "And each of the local governments should start to do something.

"It is high time for Hebei to make substantial moves to reduce its coal consumption because it bears the biggest public health loss, with 6,700 premature deaths in the province."

New measures approved by the State Council last week did not include detailed plans to cut coal consumption nor the setting of a timetable to speed up air quality improvement in city clusters including the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei area, Huang said.

The study also showed that average levels of PM10, large particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns, in January had increased sharply in Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei's provincial capital, Shijiazhuang , over the past three years, despite official claims that air quality had continued to improve.

The data, all from the Ministry of Environmental Protection's website, showed the public was right in thinking that the smog problem was getting worse, Huang said.

"The weather can be blamed as a reason for this trend, but I think that increasing pollution emissions should be counted as a major cause," she said.



http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1263163/coal-fired-plants-china-cause-smog-killed-9900
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 18/06/2013 11:18

Video shows coal dust spewing from train in B.C.

A resident of Rosedale, B.C. is concerned about the “ludacris” amount of dust coming off coal trains recently, and has caught the pollution on video.

The video was taken Sunday afternoon by Ed Graham, who lives adjacent to the tracks, and shows an alarming amount of what appears to be coal dust coming off a Canadian Pacific train.

After about a minute of showing the cloud of dust coming from the train, Graham turns around to show the landscape away from the tracks where the air is clear.

Graham said the dust is an ongoing problem that is occurring more frequently.

“In a day where four or five of the coal trains go by with a couple of them spewing coal dust like that you notice it. It covers everything,” Graham said.

According to Graham, on the days the coal trains go by, at least 25 per cent of them come with a cloud of thick black dust with small to medium sized particles.

“All this talk about expanding the coal industry is great to provide jobs, but at the same time you have to wonder if it’s going to be more of this, or if they are going to get a handle on this.” Graham said.

Graham said the pollution affects the air quality in the area and is concerned about the health impacts of the dust. He said the pollution particularly bothers his mother-in-law, who lives in the same house and suffers from a pre-existing respiratory condition.

In the six years Graham has lived in Rosedale, which is located 10 kilometres near Chilliwack, he has noticed an increase in dust, especially in the last two years.

While Graham is not against coal altogether, he is hoping coal and railway companies can do something to mitigate the amount of dust flying from the trains.

Once coal has been mined and loaded onto a train, it’s sprayed with a glue-like polymer, which acts like a crusting agent to keep the pack firm.

Canadian Pacific spokesperson Ed Greenberg said they are looking into the issue and continuously monitor their coal trains.


He said for a number of years CP has had suppression measures in place to limit coal dust. The coal is sprayed once by the mining company before the train leaves the mine and again by the railway company in Tappin, B.C., which is halfway to the port.

Greenberg could not confirm which mine the train originated from.

Graham is hoping something more can be done to limit the amount of coal dust.

“I understand it’s an industry. I don’t have a problem with the coal industry, I’d just like them to do something about the pollution that’s happening here. It’s covering my house in coal dust. “

Allan Fryer, a spokesman for the Coal Alliance, a group that represents the industry, said he understands the issue is controversial, but companies have been shipping coal safely for more than 40 years.

“We’re keeping the dust for the most part where it belongs in the rail cars and on the terminals and, you know, the proof is there,” he said.

Graham is hoping his video will provide proof of the opposite.

Last week, politicians at the Metro Vancouver regional board debated a proposal by Fraser Surrey Docks to build a direct-transfer coal facility that could handle up to four million metric tonnes of coal and increase train traffic significantly.

Chief medical health officer for Fraser Health Dr. Paul Van Buynder said there is significant community concern about increased coal dust in the communities of South Surrey, White Rock, Surrey, New Westminster and Burnaby if the proposal is approved.

Buynder is recommending a comprehensive health impact assessment to determine the impacts of airborne dust, potential contamination of air, land, food and fish harvested from contaminated waters. The assessment will also look at diesel exhaust impacts, the effects of increased railway traffic on access to emergency care and noise pollution.

Graham is concerned that the expansion of the coal industry could cause more pollution in his backyard.

“Where we live is really beautiful… but it’s almost impossible to keep up with the dust that this creates. Good luck keeping your house or vehicles clean and try having family over for a barbecue. Nothing wrecks a good meal faster that a cloud of coal dust,” Graham said.

http://globalnews.ca/news/649650/video-shows-coal-dust-spewing-from-train-in-b-c/
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 18/06/2013 11:19

Coal conveyor out of action after heavy rain floods Yallourn mine again

The Yallourn open cut mine in Gippsland has been affected by heavy rain.

Last year the Yallourn mine was flooded when the Morwell River diversion failed, releasing water into the open cut mine.

The collapse resulted in massive repair works, which still have not been finished.

After nearly a week of heavy rain there is water in the mine again.

One coal conveyor has been flooded and will be out of action for about three weeks.

Mine operator Energy Australia says coal is being transported to the power station by another conveyor and no generating units have been affected.

It says there has been no damage to the repair works but construction has stopped until the weather eases.

It says the mine will be vulnerable to flooding until the repair work is finished.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-18/yallourn-mine-flooded-after-heavy-rain/4761564
Posted by: datadog

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 18/06/2013 21:00

Yasified shak, today i were following a tip truck down the road with sand blowing of it onto my car - should i complain to the climate commission ?
Posted by: datadog

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 18/06/2013 22:41

Hmmm... well then i wont address the question to any one in particular. I'm wondering what has coal dust got to do with climate ? or is this just an anti Australian, anti coal thread ?










.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 18/06/2013 23:18

Originally Posted By: datadog
what has coal dust got to do with climate ?

Read the thread title.









.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/06/2013 08:27

Originally Posted By: Datadog
Hmmm... well then i wont address the question to any one in particular. I'm wondering what has coal dust got to do with climate ? or is this just an anti Australian, anti coal thread ?


What hasn't it?
Coal is burned in Coal fired power stations, it has to extracted out of the ground and also transported, every step of the way dust/particulates are released in the combustion,particulates are released,with the potential to cause harm and health issues to people so why should this issue not be discussed?

Dust is all part and parcel with coal you can't have one without the other, unless you get rid of coal completely.
Posted by: snafu

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/06/2013 09:12

Once again YS, in your hatred of coal, you have twisted the facts. Most, if not all of the major eastern Australia power plants are located next to their own coal mine. Transport of said coal to these plants is via covered conveyer systems....NOT TRAINS. Trains are used to transport coal to ports for export. Exported to other countries to use in their power plants to provide the huge amounts of power required to manufacture 'windmills'.

Posted by: datadog

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/06/2013 09:39

Yasified shak, with your concern for the health and well being of people you have obviously covered this very serious health issue...

Neodymium, used in making magnets for wind turbines.

...the distinctly dirty truth about the process used to extract neodymium: it has an appalling environmental impact that raises serious questions over the credibility of so-called green technology...

...This is the deadly and sinister side of the massively profitable rare-earths industry that the ‘green’ companies profiting from the demand for wind turbines would prefer you knew nothing about.
Hidden out of sight behind smoke-shrouded factory complexes in the city of Baotou, and patrolled by platoons of security guards, lies a five-mile wide ‘tailing’ lake. It has killed farmland for miles around, made thousands of people ill and put one of China’s key waterways in jeopardy.
This vast, hissing cauldron of chemicals is the dumping ground for seven million tons a year of mined rare earth after it has been doused in acid and chemicals and processed through red-hot furnaces to extract its components...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/...rous-scale.html

Yasified shak, as you've obviously covered this issue in depth could you please link me to the relevant posts ?







.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/06/2013 14:06

Originally Posted By: snafu
Once again YS, in your hatred of coal, you have twisted the facts. Most, if not all of the major eastern Australia power plants are located next to their own coal mine. Transport of said coal to these plants is via covered conveyer systems....NOT TRAINS. Trains are used to transport coal to ports for export. Exported to other countries to use in their power plants to provide the huge amounts of power required to manufacture 'windmills'.


Conveyor belts like these?



or this?




So they don't transport the coal on trucks from the mines to power stations conveyor belts?
They don't transport coal on trains to EXPORT to other countries to burn?
Posted by: Jax

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/06/2013 14:26

I'm not justifying the damage caused in the getting of this stuff that is used in some wind turbine magnets, I'm just providing a more balanced view of it than datadog's link provides. You're most likely sitting within reach of some as you read this.

Quote:
Another chief use of neodymium is as the free pure element. It is used as a component in the alloys used to make high-strength neodymium magnets – powerful permanent magnets. These magnets are widely used in such products as microphones, professional loudspeakers, in-ear headphones, and computer hard disks, where low magnet mass or volume, or strong magnetic fields are required. Larger neodymium magnets are used in high power versus weight electric motors (for example in hybrid cars) and generators (for example aircraft and wind turbine electric generators)

Neodymium is also used with various other substrate crystals, such as yttrium aluminum garnet in the Nd:YAG laser. This laser usually emits infrared waves at a wavelength of about 1064 nanometers. The Nd:YAG laser is one of the most commonly used solid-state lasers..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium



Just some of the Nd:YAG laser uses:

Quote:
Medicine

Nd:YAG lasers are used in ophthalmology to correct posterior capsular opacification, a condition that may occur after cataract surgery, and for peripheral iridotomy in patients with acute angle-closure glaucoma, where it has superseded surgical iridectomy. Frequency-doubled Nd:YAG lasers (wavelength 532 nm) are used for pan-retinal photocoagulation in patients with diabetic retinopathy.

Nd:YAG lasers emitting light at 1064 nm have been the most widely used laser for laser-induced thermotherapy, in which benign or malignant lesions in various organs are ablated by the beam.

In oncology, Nd:YAG lasers can be used to remove skin cancers.[6] They are also used to reduce benign thyroid nodules,[7] and to destroy primary and secondary malignant liver lesions.[8][9]

To treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), Nd:YAG lasers can be used for laser prostate surgery—a form of transurethral resection of the prostate.

These lasers are also used extensively in the field of cosmetic medicine for laser hair removal and the treatment of minor vascular defects such as spider veins on the face and legs. Recently used for dissecting cellulitis, a rare skin disease usually occurring on the scalp.

Using hysteroscopy the Nd:YAG laser has been used for removal of uterine septa within the inside of the uterus.[10]

In podiatry, the Nd:YAG laser is being used to treat onychomycosis, which is fungus infection of the toenail.[11] The merits of laser treatment of these infections are not yet clear, and research is being done to establish effectiveness.[12][13]

Manufacturing [edit]
Nd:YAG lasers are also used in manufacturing for engraving, etching, or marking a variety of metals and plastics. They are extensively used in manufacturing for cutting and welding steel, semiconductors and various alloys. For automotive applications (cutting and welding steel) the power levels are typically 1–5 kW. Super alloy drilling (for gas turbine parts) typically uses pulsed Nd:YAG lasers (millisecond pulses, not Q-switched). Nd:YAG lasers are also employed to make subsurface markings in transparent materials such as glass or acrylic glass. Lasers of up to 400 W are used for selective laser melting of metals in additive layered manufacturing. In aerospace applications, they can be used to drill cooling holes for enhanced air flow/heat exhaust efficiency.[citation needed]

Fluid dynamics [edit]
Nd:YAG lasers can also be used for flow visualization techniques in fluid dynamics (for example particle image velocimetry or laser induced fluorescence).[14]

Dentistry [edit]
Nd:YAG lasers are used for soft tissue surgeries in the oral cavity, such as gingivectomy, periodontal sulcular debridement, LANAP, frenectomy, biopsy, and coagulation of graft donor sites.

Military and defense [edit]

Military surplus Nd:YAG laser rangefinder firing. The laser fires through a collimator, focusing the beam, which blasts a hole through a rubber block, releasing a burst of plasma.
The Nd:YAG laser is the most common laser used in laser designators and laser rangefinders.

Cavity ring-down spectroscopy (CRDS) [edit]
The Nd:YAG may be used in the application of cavity ring-down spectroscopy, which is used to measure the concentration of some light-absorbing substance.


Automotive [edit]
Researchers from Japan's National Institutes of Natural Sciences are developing laser igniters that use YAG chips to ignite fuel in an engine, in place of a spark plug.[17][18] The lasers use several 800 picosecond long pulses to ignite the fuel, producing faster and more uniform ignition. The researchers say that such igniters could yield better performance and fuel economy, with fewer harmful emissions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nd:YAG_laser


Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/06/2013 14:34

Isn't Neodymium also used in coal fired power stations blush
Posted by: Jax

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/06/2013 14:44

Good question.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/06/2013 15:51

There is a lot of "talk" about the rare earth minerals that go into renewables, but there are a lot of "rare earth minerals that are used in many,many common items, like cars, sunglasses,Coal fired power stations, Nuclear power stations,mobile phones, laptops, flat screen TV's, medical applications and much more......
Posted by: datadog

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/06/2013 18:01

Hmmm... if you believe wikipedia it looks like we have a major environmental problem.

Neodymium metal dust is a combustion and explosion hazard. Neodymium compounds, as with all rare earth metals, are of low to moderate toxicity; however its toxicity has not been thoroughly investigated. Neodymium dust and salts are very irritating to the eyes and mucous membranes, and moderately irritating to skin. Breathing the dust can cause lung embolisms, and accumulated exposure damages the liver. Neodymium also acts as an anticoagulant, especially when given intravenously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium

Interesting, does that mean people living down wind of a wind generator get a continuos fine dusting of lung and liver damaging dust ?

I note there have been several wind generators catch fire around the world. Spewing out Neodymium dust down wind.






.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/06/2013 18:42

I never knew that magnets rubbed together? i always thought that they repelled each other......
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/06/2013 21:42

Seems coal fired does use Neodymium whistle

Quote:
Dry-type strong magnetic separation technology is a source control technology, pollution-free, low cost, which is considered to be ideal way to effectively alleviate air pollution caused by coal-burning in China. Permanent magnetic separation has a huge Neodymium magnets advantage in the energy-saving, but the research of combining pulverized coal dry separation desulfurization with the permanent magnet magnetic separation is not much yet, and at home and abroad there isn’t magnetic separation equipment for sorting the very weak magnetic susceptibility powder of pyrite in coal.
Posted by: Jax

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 19/06/2013 23:06

[quote=datadog]Hmmm... if you believe wikipedia it looks like we have a major environmental problem.

Oh dear, you do sound familiar. Have you another name in this forum?
Yes, Wikipedia has its less than believable moments, however, I'm not sure that such basic information such as what technologies and products neodymium is used in can be counted though.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 20/06/2013 08:12

Residents, stud owners welcome CSG water trigger

Fullerton Cove residents say a new law strengthening Federal Government powers over coal seam gas and coal mining projects restores their trust in the approval process.

The Parliament yesterday passed what is known as the 'water trigger bill' which aims to ensure the impact on water is considered before CSG or coal projects are approved.

In April, Dart Energy suspended its exploratory drilling in Fullerton Cove because of tighter government controls on the industry.

Residents spokesman Lindsay Clout says it is a massive win for communities who have been fighting CSG.

"It renews the balance especially when we have politicians fighting for our cause," he said.

"In the early stages it was very difficult to get the message through to politicians on the level of urgency that we thought was required, but that now has occurred.

"It certainly does restore our confidence in the process."

Mr Clout says the new law vindicates his group's fight against CSG.

"I think as the campaign moved along we were confident that we were right," he said.

"So there was never really a doubt in the process it was just a matter of how hard we had to work to make people understand the damage that could been caused here."

The Hunter Thoroughbred Breeders Association says the new protection is long overdue.

Association Vice President Andrew Wiles believes it will give confidence to local communities and provide more certainty for waterways, such as the Hunter River.

He says the government cannot take any risks with such a vital resource.

"Critics will say that this is more about green tape, duplication," he said.

"We can't be fooled by this.

"This is about protection of our water, it's our nation's most important resource and we need to do everything we can to protect it and this is a great step forward."

Mr Wiles says the new legislation will give some clarity to the approvals process.

"We all know that State Government is the major beneficiary of mining projects in the form of royalties and other state-based taxes," he said.

"An independent arbiter at a Federal level will remove this conflict of interest, whether it's actual or perceived, and it'll provide a new level of confidence that doesn't already exist."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-20/residents2c-stud-owners-welcome-csg-water-trigger/4767196
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 20/06/2013 11:48

Greens push for coal dust study

THE federal government will have to produce all of its documents relating to a recent controversial study of Hunter Valley coal train dust if the Greens can get Coalition support for their release.


See your ad here
Green Senator Lee Rhiannon said yesterday she was seeking Coalition support for an ‘‘order for production of documents’’ that would force Transport Minister Anthony Albanese to produce all correspondence related to the report by the Australian Rail Track Corporation.

The motion had been scheduled for yesterday but Ms Rhiannon said it had been put off until next week to give the Greens more time to lobby for support.

The Greens and the Coal Terminal Action Group received a leaked copy of a draft of the ARTC report that showed major changes were made in the week before it was published at the end of May.

ARTC, the NSW Environment Protection Authority and the authors, Queensland consultants Katestone Environmental, have all stood behind the report process, saying nothing out of the ordinary took place.



But Senator Rhiannon said the two versions of the report raised more questions than they answered and a ‘‘call for documents’’ was the best way to get to the bottom of the issue.

She said the health effects of coal dust are known and the community had a right to know that ‘‘public health is not being compromised’’.

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1585086/greens-push-for-coal-dust-study/?cs=12
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 20/06/2013 12:38

Good so once and for all it can be investigated and the truth sorted out from the hype.
Posted by: datadog

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 20/06/2013 21:50

Quote:
I never knew that magnets rubbed together? i always thought that they repelled each other...


Well i'll be. Is that why the wind generators catch fire.. poke

Some toxic pollution spewing wind generator fire works:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rkGXoE3RFZ8

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jCyQD83NLDc&feature=fvwrel

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=0Chtr76jJyA

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0ovHFTSBQ54&feature=related

No fires in this one though Kermit sings the sound track so i thought it would make a nice addition - http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=aU9MHNL9AQk







.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 21/06/2013 09:19

Never mind the fact that Neodymium is used in newer coal fired power stations smirk

Never mind the fact that Neodymium is used in in many household items.

Never mind the fact that Neodymium is used in the medical industry.

Never mind the fact that rare earth minerals are used in coal fired power stations.

Never mind the fact that rare earth minerals are used in Nuclear power plants.

Never mind the fact that rare earth minerals are used in The hard drive in the computer you are using.

Never mind the fact that rare earth minerals are used in the car you drive......

Originally Posted By: Jax
[quote=datadog]Hmmm... if you believe wikipedia it looks like we have a major environmental problem.

Oh dear, you do sound familiar. Have you another name in this forum?
Yes, Wikipedia has its less than believable moments, however, I'm not sure that such basic information such as what technologies and products neodymium is used in can be counted though.

Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 21/06/2013 09:43

Euro coal futures hit new 39-month low as power prices wilt

Friday, 21 June 2013
LONDON: European coal futures for 2014 delivery fell to a new 39-month low at $86.05 a tonne on Thursday, sounding a shriller alarm for producers as commodities prices posted big losses in view of renewed fears about global economic growth.
API2 coal futures for delivery in 2014 fell almost a dollar to trade at $86.05, after sliding through a technical support level at $86.60, heaping further pressure on high-cost, low margin coal producers.
The last time coal traded at $86, the world was slowly emerging from a deep economic downturn, and this time around, mining companies are cutting costs in order to stave off big production cuts.
Further signs that Chinese economic growth is cooling and the US Federal Reserve's plan to roll back its stimulus program prompted a $3 fall in Brent crude prices and across-the board selling in commodities markets on Thursday.
A fall in German power prices towards an eight-year low encouraged traders to sell coal futures, while a stronger dollar made the fuel appear less cheap in real terms for European buyers.
The baseload German power price for front-year delivery traded at 37.83 euros per megawatt hour, down 0.32 euro from Wednesday's close.
Weakness in the physical market also cast a pall over the trade in futures.
Coal delivered into ports in northwest Europe (DES ARA) in July settled at $71.55 a tonne on Wednesday, compared with Tuesday's settlement of $71.25.
Coal for front-month delivery in Europe has fallen around 20 percent since the start of the year due to abundant exports, easing summertime demand for coal and large-scale selling of physical coal by one utility.
The U.S government said on Wednesday that exports of coking and thermal coal hit a record 12.6 million tonnes in March, but this figure is unlikely to be matched this year because of weaker international prices and growing domestic demand for coal, said Lucas Pipes, a consultant with US-based bank Brean Capital.
"We are expecting exports to fall in the coming months, because international coal prices (for prompt physical coal) are around $10 less than domestic prices, which are themselves below break-even cost. High-cost producers will find it increasingly tough to survive," Pipes said.
South African coal from the port of Richard's Bay fell $1 in the July contract to $76.00.
But demand from India, a major buyer of South African thermal coal in the second quarter, could ease in the coming months as the country's Monsoon season makes the logistics of importing and transporting the fuel more difficult, Macquarie said in a report.
High stocks of the fuel in some power stations, a weakening rupee and the likelihood of higher hydro levels in the third quarter could also cool India's demand for South African coal, the bank added.
http://www.brecorder.com/markets/commodi...rices-wilt.html
Posted by: datadog

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 21/06/2013 10:39

KING COAL


The Australian Financial Review - Editorial - 5 June 2013

Moral inferiority of deep green activists


American environmentalist Bill McKibben is receiving fawning coverage on the ABC for his deep green agenda that seeks to persuade investors to dump their interests in fossil fuel industries and for Australia to stop exporting coal. Closing down our second-biggest export industry would be a body blow to the Australian economy and, for instance, slash the tax receipts slated to pay for spending on schools and disability services.

Halting our $40 billion annual exports of thermal and metallurgical coal also would be pointless. If Japan, China, Korea, India and other Asian countries are denied our relatively clean coal, they will look elsewhere to fuel their power plants and stoke their blast furnaces. The result of such carbon leakage could even be an increase in global carbon emissions.

Australians should not feel morally defensive over the critique of a radical modern-day Malthusian who favours a global one-child per family policy. For the past two centuries, we have supplied raw materials to a rolling global industrial revolution that has lifted billions of people out of poverty. This newspaper readily accepts the majority scientific conclusion that the burning of fossil fuels is warming the Earth. But dealing with this requires concerted global action that would both mitigate and adapt to climate change at least cost.

Deep green environmentalists object to this because it would leave Australia generating our energy from a mix of both renewables and fossil fuels and still exporting coal and gas into the second half of the century. They shudder at the idea that we would restrict emissions through the technological ingenuity (such as carbon capture and storage) made possible by economic growth and by funding less-costly mitigation in other countries. They do not care for human progress.

The Australian Financial Review


http://www.australiancoal.com.au/latest-...-activists.html







.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 21/06/2013 12:19

King Coal Sends Piles of Cash to U.S. Government

It's been a tough few years on the coal industry as cheaper, cleaner natural gas has replaced the dirty fuel in domestic electricity generation. Perhaps then, it is unsurprising that the coal industry spent more than $17 million lobbying the federal government last year. Today we'll take a look at how much coal companies are spending, what they're fighting for (or against), and why investors should care.

Dollars for bills
For the full-year 2012, the coal lobby had these big spenders to thank:

Peabody Energy - $5.5 million
CONSOL Energy - $3.9 million
Alpha Natural Resources - $2.6 million
Arch Coal - $1.8 million
Patriot Coal - $1.1 million
Compared to the lobbying dollars its fossil fuel cousin big oil is spending, these numbers aren't that high. Given that the industry is in dire straits - Patriot Coal has already gone bankrupt - one would almost expect the numbers to be higher. But perhaps without these lobbying efforts, things would be far worse for coal. The coal lobby has risen steadily after a big uptick between 2004 and 2005, so let's see what issues are garnering the most cash these days.



Where does the money go?
A quick jaunt through the Senate's Lobbying Disclosure Act database reveals exactly what the companies above deem important enough to spend their money on. As investors, you should probably know what they are, so here are three entries from each of the companies listed above, per their first-quarter disclosures.

Peabody Energy:

"HConRes8, Expressing the opposition of Congress to Federal efforts to establish a carbon tax on fuels for electricity and transportation."
"H.R. 1569, Amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to terminate certain energy tax subsidies and lower the corporate income tax rate."
"SConRes 4, A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax is not in the economic interest of the United States."
CONSOL Energy:

"H.R. 4342, Waterways Are Vital for the Economy, Energy, Efficiency and Environment Act of 2012, All Titles"
"H.R. 2273, Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, All Titles"
"H.R., 6172, To Prohibit EPA from imposing NSPS until CCS is technologically and economically feasible, All Titles"
Alpha Natural Resources:

"Legislation directed at amending current safety standards, regulation and oversight at domestic coal production and processing facilities."
"Legislative language within pending appropriations bills or continuing resolutions that promote or dissuade investments in coal-fired plants or other coal-related infrastructure domestically or overseas..."
"Legislation to amend current environmental laws to increase federal regulation over the permitting, production, or combustion of domestic coal resources and post-mining reclamation activities, including interpretations of Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdictional scope..."
Arch Coal:

"Legislative efforts to expand the Mercury Export Ban Act"
"Promoting Coal Exports"
"President's FY2014 Budget"
Patriot Coal:

"Respond to Member and staff inquiries about Chapter 11 reorganization"
"Educate Members and staff regarding Patriot Coal's Chapter 11 reorganization proceedings"
You'll notice that there is no standard for language or disclosure; some companies eloquently record their actions, while others favor brevity. Regardless, these filings are chock-full of information for investors.

Bottom line
The industry spent about $2.8 million on lobbying in the first quarter; if that trend continues, it could result in a significant pullback compared to years past. However, it makes sense to wait for second-quarter data before even guessing at that call.

More importantly, spending a few minutes perusing the LDA forms of your investments every quarter can do two beneficial things for investors. It fills you in on exactly how much money your company is spending on lobbying, something that public companies rarely ever include in SEC filings. Second, it lets you know what issues management deems important enough to spend millions of dollars on. Money talks, and if the LDA forms don't match up with what management has been preaching, you know there is a problem.

The coal industry in the United States has been in a state of flux since the arrival of a cheaper alternative for energy production: natural gas. Exports are becoming a much bigger part of the domestic coal landscape, and Peabody Energy has deals in place to get its cheaper coal from the Powder River and Illinois basins to India, China, and the EU. For investors looking to capitalize on a rebound in the U.S. coal market, The Motley Fool has authored a special new premium report detailing exactly why Peabody Energy is perhaps most worthy of your consideration. Don't miss out on this invaluable resource - simply click here now to claim your copy today.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/11/5-mining-companies-pouring-money-into-lobbying/
Posted by: datadog

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 21/06/2013 16:32

.

King Coal underpins the Australian economy


(extract)
Over the past 30 years, coal has been one of Australia’s major export industries. In fact, for most of that period it was the major export industry.

Coal represents the main export earner for both Queensland and NSW.

Coal, however, is not just an export industry. What is particularly important is the relationship between coal and electricity generation. The modern Australian economy is highly dependent on access to reliable and cheap electricity. Coal mining and the coal economy underpin our prosperity.

...Similarly the coal economy has forward linkages to Electricity Generation, Iron and Steel Manufacturing, Non Ferrous Metal Ore Mining, Iron Ore Mining, Coal mining itself, Cement, Lime and Ready-Mixed Concrete Manufacturing, Non Metallic Mineral Mining, Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Manufacturing, Basic Non-Ferrous Metal Manufacturing, Grain Mill and Cereal Product Manufacturing, Oil and gas extraction, and Rental and Hiring Services (except Real Estate).

It is clear that the coal economy is deeply embedded in the Australian economy...


Full article here -
http://www.australiancoal.com.au/images/...n%20economy.pdf








.

Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 21/06/2013 20:43



Hmm loom at the source for both articles, bit like Coles or Woolies, saying the Australian public could not survive without them and don't shop at IGA.... smirk
Posted by: datadog

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 21/06/2013 21:05

So yer caint find anything wrong with the article so you rubbish the source.









.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 21/06/2013 21:50

Quote:
Originally Posted By: datadog
So yer caint find anything wrong with the article so you rubbish the source.


..Similarly the coal economy has forward linkages to Electricity Generation, Iron and Steel Manufacturing, Non Ferrous Metal Ore Mining, Iron Ore Mining, Coal mining itself, Cement, Lime and Ready-Mixed Concrete Manufacturing, Non Metallic Mineral Mining, Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Manufacturing, Basic Non-Ferrous Metal Manufacturing, Grain Mill and Cereal Product Manufacturing, Oil and gas extraction, and Rental and Hiring Services (except Real Estate).

It is clear that the coal economy is deeply embedded in the Australian economy...


Who is the biggest employer in Australia? (sorry it is not Coal)
It is woolworths.... grin
Posted by: datadog

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 21/06/2013 23:09

Quote:
Who is the biggest employer in Australia? (sorry it is not Coal)
It is woolworths....


Oh dear, dont quiet understand do you Yasified shak.

Lets have a thought experiment:

Tomorrow we will turn off all coal fired power plants. Now tell me Yasified shak, how do you intend to shop at Woolworth's when there is no lights to see, no power to run the lifts/escalators and there will be a bit of a problem in the cold food section i would imagine... Hmmm... seeing as woolys don't have a going concern any more i guess they just say see-ya to the employees....

So tell me again who is the biggest employer in the land Yasified shak ?........









.
Posted by: CeeBee

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/06/2013 07:06

Australia’s Biggest Employers

1 Woolworths 94,408,
2 Coles Myer 94,000,
3 Queensland Health 47,520,
4 Telstra 44,452, -3.8%
5 National Australia Bank 38,933,
6 Commonwealth Bank Group 36,664,
7 Australia Post 34,842,
8 Qantas 34,832,
9 BHP Billiton 33,184,
10 ANZ Banking Group 32,256,
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/06/2013 07:56

Originally Posted By: datadog
Quote:
Who is the biggest employer in Australia? (sorry it is not Coal)
It is woolworths....


Oh dear, dont quiet understand do you Yasified shak.

Lets have a thought experiment:

Tomorrow we will turn off all coal fired power plants. Now tell me Yasified shak, how do you intend to shop at Woolworth's when there is no lights to see, no power to run the lifts/escalators and there will be a bit of a problem in the cold food section i would imagine... Hmmm... seeing as woolys don't have a going concern any more i guess they just say see-ya to the employees....

So tell me again who is the biggest employer in the land Yasified shak ?.......


well actually i would have to say as a whole the sickness industry, would really have to be one of the biggest industries as they were combined.

do you really think that if Aust did not have coal in the ground that nobody would have a job?
Because companies seem to be sending jobs overseas at an ever rapidly rising rate and this has been going on now for over 30 odd years, and Australia does not seem to to suffering too much.
Coal is not the be all and end all that you seem to believe ROM Datadog, prices are dropping, exports are dropping, sales are dropping, China is reducing it's use.....
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/06/2013 08:05

As Midnight oils sang many years ago, "noting's as precious as a hole in the ground...."

7 coal mine sites 'at risk'

At least seven sites in brown coal mines across the Latrobe Valley have been deemed ‘‘at risk’’ from shifting and collapse by an expert advisory group, with the state government scrambling to shore up the situation.
On Thursday the government released an independent investigation into last year’s collapse of the Morwell River diversion, which flooded the Yallourn mine with 60 billion litres of water, damaging infrastructure and cutting electricity from the nearby power plant for months.
But warnings about the ‘‘performance’’ of the Morwell River diversion were raised a few weeks before the collapse by the government’s technical review board on mine stability, which has also expressed concern about other sites in mines.
The state government has committed $4.2 million in the state budget to fast-track mine stability work and says it is tackling the situation. The owner of Yallourn mine and power plant, EnergyAustralia, is still repairing the diversion, spending $150 million. The repair work is due to be finished in September, but heavy weekend rains meant five billion litres of water again flooded the mine.

The Morwell River diversion was approved in 2005 to allow the expansion of the mine and give the plant access to coal to last until 2032.
The review of the collapse found a series of technical problems during design and construction were likely to blame. They included the design and location of filters, cracking on a flood plain, and reliance of a sole seal over joints in coal conveyor tunnels.
In its 2011-12 annual report, Victoria’s technical review board on mine stability said its assessment of Yallourn included a ‘‘critical review’’ of the performance of the Morwell diversion, prompting it to call a meeting of stakeholders in May 2012 to express its concerns. The diversion collapsed weeks later.
The annual report also says six other sites in Victorian coal mines were found to be ‘‘at risk’’, with the board forming the view ‘‘that the situation with regard to mine stability has reached a serious state".
In May this year the group sent an update letter to state Resources Minister Nick Kotsiras saying it had identified another unstable site. But it also said it was encouraged by signs of a cultural change in the Valley on management of mine stability, adding the $4.2 million was timely.
The reports and advice of the technical review board – beyond the annual report – have not been made public.
Doug Seeney, director of earth resources regulation at the Department of Primary Industries, said the board’s advice on the Morwell River diversion was delivered only a few weeks before the collapse.
‘‘At that stage it wasn’t clear there was an imminent failure. What [the board] were suggesting was there was signs of some movement, and there is movement in a lot of structure in these mines’’ he said.
‘‘They felt it was beyond would should have been expected in the specifications and they felt further study was warranted. And we agreed with that, but of course it had failed before we had got to the point of asking the mine to do it.’’
An EnergyAustralia spokeswoman said the investigation’s findings had been incorporated into its rebuild of the diversion.
Environment Victoria campaigner Victoria McKenzie-McHarg said “the companies responsible for brown coal mines in Victoria make hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars of profit every year. It is unbelievable that they have allowed the mine sites to deteriorate to such a state, placing workers and our environment at risk’’.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/7-coal-mine-sites-at-risk-20130620-2olr7.html#ixzz2WtIh3Obp
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/06/2013 08:35


Originally Posted By: datadog
So tell me again who is the biggest employer in the land Yasified shak ?........datadog


Maybe this might help you get the picture a bit more?



Quote:
These industries were also the main employing industries in 2000–01, although Health care and social assistance has displaced Manufacturing as the largest employer. Between 2000–01 and 2010–11, the Health care and social assistance share of total employment increased by 1.8 percentage points and the Construction industry share of total employment increased by 1.7 percentage points. Conversely, Manufacturing’s share of total employment declined by 3.1 percentage points.


If you can see the mining sector as a whole (and that's not just the coal industry) is one of the lower rungs in the ladder. grin
Out of 19 industries that are listed above 15 employ more people than the mining sector.

Source.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0~2012~Main%20Features~Employment%20in%20Australian%20Industry~241
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/06/2013 09:47

And up crops yet another of Yasi's myriad of conspiracy theories - the "sickness industry" in which he believes that the government is deliberately allowing us to become ill from additives in manufactured foods so big grocery, big pharma and big medicine can make huge profits and employ thousands of people to 'treat' us.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/06/2013 10:38

No conspiracy theory, just the plain facts that the sickness industry in now the largest employer in Aust, not the mining sector as the sceptics would have you believe.

The coal mining industry would probably be lucky if it made it to the top 20.
Posted by: CeeBee

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/06/2013 11:13

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak

Coal is not the be all and end all that you seem to believe ROM Datadog, prices are dropping, exports are dropping, sales are dropping, China is reducing it's use.....


Hmmm, this is the second time that ROM has been linked to datadog. It is true that datadog started posting at the same time that ROM stopped posting, but datadog's posts are nothing like ROM's. The speeling (hehe) is primary school level as is the grammar and it has an American country hick kind of style...which is exactly what one would do I guess if they were wanting to hide behind another username...
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/06/2013 11:30

Around a similar time, yes.

The thing i find funny is that you get these "new users" and these are the only threads that they visit?
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/06/2013 12:18

Originally Posted By: SBT
And up crops yet another of Yasi's myriad of conspiracy theories - the "sickness industry" in which he believes that the government is deliberately allowing us to become ill from additives in manufactured foods so big grocery, big pharma and big medicine can make huge profits and employ thousands of people to 'treat' us.





Joke SBT? You have a very limited knowledge of the medical profession it seems. As you've indicated (countless times) your myriad of medical issues you'd surely have noticed by now that everything on your doctor's desk is sponsored.

Forgetting the whole science in AGW baloney for a moment ,the fact is there is infinite evidence that artificial additives are bad for us. Last time I looked smoking was still allowed too but you'll probably try to convince us that it's a conspiracy also and yet it costs us several $billion a year in health costs.

Late last year several soft drink producers (including the big one ,coca cola) removed (very quietly) the caramel emulsifier from their soft drinks as it was found to cause cancer. No fanfare, no royal commission.

Our vehicle manufacturers could put six point roll cages into our cars and make them out of carbon fibre to reduce our road toll massively but they wouldn't sell any due to cost so they do just enough to make sure the product keeps rolling off the production line at the expense of our health. As an offshoot our governments can use speed as an excuse to milk us dry whilst the car behind tailgates and texts with no police enforcement whatsoever.

Hmmm. Conspiracy theory? If you really can't see that money takes precedence over our wellbeing there is little help for you . Weren't you one of the ones banging on about wind farms causing health issues? Didn't you show another that caught fire despite the fact they made changes to the design to ensure it doesn't happen again. Oh that's right ,it suited your agenda!

I think coal has a place whilst we move to cleaning up our act and if it takes another 50 years so be it but stifling our our advancement with rubbish like employment numbers datadog) and a suggestion coal is good for us is madness. New technologies employ people too wink Of course the miners have all the support in the world until they rock up on the land of someone in here arguing their case. Coal seam gas anyone? Hmmm, it comes from coal. Must be ok then.
Posted by: datadog

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/06/2013 12:30

Originally Posted By: CeeBee
...datadog's posts are nothing like ROM's. The speeling (hehe) is primary school level as is the grammar...



“I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.”

― Mark Twain












.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/06/2013 14:38

Yes CF I see things on his desk that are sponsored by medical companies and I have things on my desk which are freebies from companies that make computers, network cables, switches and wireless access equipment and teachers have freebies like rulers, wall charts and erasers from educational companies that supply the schools etc. It is a form of advertising which is still legal to do even if you don't like it. And by the way I get to see my GP about once every two months.

Companies are allowed to make profits in fact they are mandated by law to do so and if they don't they soon become a drain on the economy, but that doesn't mean there is a conspiracy or anything to keep people sick now is there? To believe that would be patently silly.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/06/2013 16:37

. sleep
Posted by: Jax

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/06/2013 18:30

Or to believe otherwise would be patently silly. Depends who is wearing the blinkers really.
Posted by: GDL

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/06/2013 21:10

CF was Coca Cola forced to remove that emulsifier ?. ................GDL
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/06/2013 21:15

Another blow: Electricity bills become hostage to international coal prices, slated to rise

New Delhi: In a move which could hit the poll prospects of the incumbent government ahead of year ends assembly elections in five states and later the Lok Sabha polls, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs decided on Friday to pass on the increased cost of imported coal to the consumers, thus causing electricity tariffs to rise.

Finance Minister P. Chidambaram said the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs has approved the pass through proposal, which would result increase in power tariff.

"There will be small increase in power tariff. It will be very marginal increase on unit cost of power depending upon the cost of import of coal," Chidambaram said briefing the media.

"They (IPPs) can import coal themselves if they wish, otherwise Coal India will import and this additional price which we pay for imported coal, obviously, has to be pass through in the power tariff," he added.

Chidambaram said: "It is better to have power and pay a few paise more or not have power at all. It is better to have our power plants working and producing power or keep them shut down after investing thousands of crores. For every MW today,

I think the capital cost is between Rs. 5-6 crore."

A Coal Ministry official said the move would result in higher power tariff to consumers.

"Though the quantum of the coal to imported has not been worked out but as per estimates if Coal India imports 15 per cent of coal, it would result in increase in electricity tariff by 15 paise to 17 paise per unit," the official said.

Chidambaram further said the government has initiated measures to augment production and "by first week of July certain other decisions will be taken to open up more coal mines and to produce more coal".

http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/RAJ-JPR...299481-NOR.html
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/06/2013 21:58

Old King Coal: the end is nigh

THINGS are happening that will see the end of Old King Coal.



He is a luxury we can no longer afford.

A recent report titled The Critical Decade 2013-Climate Change Science, Risks and Responses states that Australia’s fossil fuel industries, including of course coal, should be phased out because of their contribution to climate change.

The report recommends that if Australia is to pull its weight in combating climate change, most of its coal reserves will have to be left in the ground.

Australia has enough fossil fuel reserves to produce the equivalent of approximately 51 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases. If burnt, they would significantly contribute to an escalation of the earth’s temperature towards dangerous global warming.

To add to the woes of Old King Coal is the growing realisation that coal is not the cheapest energy alternative when its true cost is taken into consideration.

The true cost of coal includes direct environmental damage to water sources, land and food production, and infrastructure damage from extreme weather events due to rising greenhouse emissions caused by its consumption.


A major cost which must be considered when assessing the true cost of coal is that of the effect on human health caused by its mining, transporting and burning. All of these activities increase air pollution through the release of particulates and noxious gases.

When environmental damage and health factors are considered, coal could well be the most expensive energy alternative.

Old King Coal is being shown the door by the finance sector as well. The Deutsche Bank has warned that China’s use of thermal coal will peak by 2017, which will have an effect on coal prices.

This is compounded by the fact that China intends to set a cap on greenhouse emissions by 2016, which has major implications for the coal industry in Australia.

Carbon pricing also contributes to the demise of Old King Coal. Australia exports coal to countries such as Japan, China, South Korea and the European Union.

All of these countries are considering strategies to reduce carbon emissions through carbon pricing, which is bad news for coal.



Additionally, Old King Coal has to compete with an ever-increasing renewable energy market, which is becoming more and more popular with individual households and communities, and is opening up possibilities for energy provision using proven technology used to harness clean, renewable, free sources of energy on a large and small scale.

Old King Coal has served us well for 300 years but we are starting to realise his true cost, when we factor in the damage he has been doing to the environment and to our health.

We now have at our disposal proven alternatives that don’t harm our environment or our health, and are powered by free fuel. The time has now come for him to give way to a cleaner, healthier cheaper energy future.

http://www.centralwesterndaily.com.au/story/1588511/old-king-coal-the-end-is-nigh/?cs=102
Posted by: datadog

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/06/2013 22:36

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
Old King Coal: the end is nigh

THINGS are happening that will see the end of Old King Coal.



He is a luxury we can no longer afford.

A recent report titled The Critical Decade 2013-Climate Change Science, Risks and Responses states that Australia’s fossil fuel industries, including of course coal, should be phased out because of their contribution to climate change.

The report recommends that if Australia is to pull its weight in combating climate change, most of its coal reserves will have to be left in the ground.

Australia has enough fossil fuel reserves to produce the equivalent of approximately 51 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases. If burnt, they would significantly contribute to an escalation of the earth’s temperature towards dangerous global warming.

To add to the woes of Old King Coal is the growing realisation that coal is not the cheapest energy alternative when its true cost is taken into consideration.

The true cost of coal includes direct environmental damage to water sources, land and food production, and infrastructure damage from extreme weather events due to rising greenhouse emissions caused by its consumption.


A major cost which must be considered when assessing the true cost of coal is that of the effect on human health caused by its mining, transporting and burning. All of these activities increase air pollution through the release of particulates and noxious gases.

When environmental damage and health factors are considered, coal could well be the most expensive energy alternative.

Old King Coal is being shown the door by the finance sector as well. The Deutsche Bank has warned that China’s use of thermal coal will peak by 2017, which will have an effect on coal prices.

This is compounded by the fact that China intends to set a cap on greenhouse emissions by 2016, which has major implications for the coal industry in Australia.

Carbon pricing also contributes to the demise of Old King Coal. Australia exports coal to countries such as Japan, China, South Korea and the European Union.

All of these countries are considering strategies to reduce carbon emissions through carbon pricing, which is bad news for coal.



Additionally, Old King Coal has to compete with an ever-increasing renewable energy market, which is becoming more and more popular with individual households and communities, and is opening up possibilities for energy provision using proven technology used to harness clean, renewable, free sources of energy on a large and small scale.

Old King Coal has served us well for 300 years but we are starting to realise his true cost, when we factor in the damage he has been doing to the environment and to our health.

We now have at our disposal proven alternatives that don’t harm our environment or our health, and are powered by free fuel. The time has now come for him to give way to a cleaner, healthier cheaper energy future.

http://www.centralwesterndaily.com.au/story/1588511/old-king-coal-the-end-is-nigh/?cs=102



Hmmm... and i get accused of trolling.. frown









.
Posted by: CeeBee

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/06/2013 22:54

How in the world could that post be seen as trolling? It is an on topic article. You don't have to read it if it causes you distress.
Posted by: liberator

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/06/2013 23:05

[quote=ColdFront Late last year several soft drink producers (including the big one ,coca cola) removed (very quietly) the caramel emulsifier from their soft drinks as it was found to cause cancer. No fanfare, no royal commission. [/quote]

I know this off topic but can someone point me in a direction with regards to soft drink companies removing their emulsifier, Working in the food industry this is quite an interest to me as we use emulsifiers and I've not heard of this and have been unable to find a Google answer.

still cant get this damn quote thing working properly with so much text going on...
Posted by: liberator

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/06/2013 23:10

not true never forced to remove their emulsifier -still using the same one albeit slightly "modified" all because feeding rats the equivalent of 1000 cans a day caused cancer in RATS. Only California wanted a warning on the coke and other soft drinks using the caramel emulsifier. No other country appears to have concerns;


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03...r-warning-label

Posted by: liberator

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 22/06/2013 23:26

the issue is 4-MI found in caramel colouring, not the caramel colouring itself. I just hate miss truths - still being used in coke (and probably Pepsi) in Europe most likely being used world wide in cola soft drinks, For crying out loud its created when cooking meats - its part of the milliard reaction which causes food to go brown so its probably in most BBQ's and caramel lollies you eat. In fact its most likely found in any food that is cooked. Unless you can find a totally unbiased impartial web site - that's an oxymoron - you cannot trust anything you read on the web which is what makes all these arguments so annoying - you only want to believe what supports your arguments, the counter arguments are WRONG and it seem you don't care what others say, they have to be wrong because they don't support your argument.
Posted by: datadog

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/06/2013 00:16

.


King Coal a winner for Australia


When coal was discovered in Australia in the late 18th century it immediately changed the country's future. It has become a vital national resource, provided strong economic and employment growth and contributed to both our history and our modern way of life.

In addition to providing Australian consumers with affordable electricity, coal underpins the international competitiveness of the entire Australian economy.

Black coal mining in Australia is an increasingly sophisticated, hi-tech activity. Continuous improvements in mining technology, occupational health and safety and environmental performance have ensured that Australia is the world's most efficient and reliable producer of high quality thermal and coking coals for the international market.

The coal industry is supported by a strong equipment and services sector. Australia has world-class expertise in design, construction and operation of mines, transport systems and loading facilities. It also has expertise in training, technical support and project management.



http://www.australiancoal.com.au/coal-in-australia-history.html












.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/06/2013 00:29

Liberator, the reason your quote didn't work was that you forgot to use the ] bracket at the end of the first part of the code.

Never let the truth ruin a good story Yasi, but then that is all you seem able to post, half truths with tentative links like equating the overseas coal prices and our power bills is a prime example.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 23/06/2013 08:43

Originally Posted By: SBT
Never let the truth ruin a good story Yasi, but then that is all you seem able to post, half truths with tentative links like equating the overseas coal prices and our power bills is a prime example.


This is coming from the person who claims Renewables are the sole (one and only) reason for every increase in power power bills.

The article show a direct link between coal, coal prices and rises in power bills.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/06/2013 08:57

Tenaska drops Taylorville coal-plant project

A Nebraska company dropped plans to build a $3.5 billion coal-based power plant in central Illinois, saying it instead will focus on developing natural gas-fueled and renewable facilities elsewhere.

Omaha, Neb.-based Tenaska said a coal-gasification plant in the Christian County town of Taylorville was no longer viable, partly because lawmakers did not agree to a 30-year contract to purchase electricity from the plant, with the costs passed on to customers of utilities and competitive power suppliers.

It also said increasing supplies and lower costs of natural gas and renewable energy also affected its decision.

The plant would have converted Illinois coal to synthetic gas, which would have been used to create electricity. Emissions would have been captured and stored underground.

"We take a conservative approach to development, working to ensure projects will have a long-term market for their power before we begin construction," said Dave Fiorelli, Tenaska's president of development said in a written statement issued Friday.

He added that the "current market is in need of natural gas-fueled and renewable electric generating facilities."

The company had been pursuing the project for more than five years, but the plan faced strong opposition from Exelon Corp., Illinois' largest electricity provider, and manufacturers that said large businesses would have to pay more for power.

It was supported by unions, which said it would have created 2,500 construction jobs and 150 permanent jobs.

http://qctimes.com/news/state-and-region...eb1181210f.html
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/06/2013 09:05

Wake up coal: Renewables is now the main game

It is staggering to observe that even in modern sophisticated economies such as the US, Australia and UK – which are supposed to have modern, sophisticated political systems (no really, don’t laugh) – that the role of renewables in the world’s future energy systems is constantly underplayed.

This has probably got something to do with the way that mainstream media handles the issue. In its pursuit of division, fear and controversy, it’s happy to oblige the tactics of delay and misinformation from the fossil fuel industry, that is seeking to protect and prolong several trillion dollars of investments and revenue streams.

[/u]Too often, renewable energy is portrayed as an expensive and unnecessary plaything or indulgence.[/b] But the media is not solely to blame. There is a shocking lack of vision at the political level too, with the notable exception of the Greens. Conservative political parties, in Australia in particular, [b][u]constantly use green energy as a scapegoat for problems elsewhere; often for superfluous and inefficient grid upgrades.

But one thing should be made clear: whichever way you cut the future energy outlook, and whichever way you attack the challenge of climate change and the goal of reducing emissions, two technology solutions dominate all others – energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Even if the pro-nuclear lobbies and those who still hold on to the dream of carbon capture and storage have their way, the investment in those technologies will pale in comparison to that needed for renewables – be it in solar PV or solar thermal with storage, wind energy (onshore and offshore), hydro, biomass, or the emerging technologies such as wave and tidal.

This is true on two counts. Already, solar PV – and the arrival of socket parity in more than 100 countries – is providing an economic rationale for investment in renewables, regardless of climate policies. Utility-scale wind is cheaper than new fossil fuel plants in many countries – particularly in energy starved developing nations in Africa and Asia – and utility-scale solar will follow soon enough. Once climate policy is taken into the equation, the impact is even more dramatic.

This first graph below – taken from the International Energy Agency’s recent “Redrawing the climate energy map” publication – probably best sums up the situation. It is the IEA’s take on where the greatest emissions reductions are going to take place in the energy industry if the world is going to meet its climate goals. This graph illustrates its “delayed” scenario, which takes into account the probability that governments will not ramp up their policy actions by 2014 – as would be prudent – but would delay a few years.

Energy efficiency and renewable energy sources account for well over half of the abatement. Nuclear and CCS – even if they meet the IEA’s optimistic scenarios, which, given the financing problems for nuclear and the technology challenges for CCS, is unlikely – they still account for less than one-quarter of anticipated abatement. If either of those two technologies fall short, then energy efficiency and renewables will have to take up the slack.

Full Story
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/wake-up-coal-renewables-is-now-the-main-game-14991
Posted by: SBT

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/06/2013 10:57

Simple reason why they aren't taken all that seriously - they don't work.
Posted by: datadog

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 24/06/2013 20:32

.


You are going to still have to have coal-fired plants and everything else because people still want to have electricity even when the wind is not blowing.

— Coy Harris, executive director, American Wind Power Center and Museum, Lubbock, Texas, Voice of America, Mar. 10, 2009










.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 25/06/2013 09:58

Now, every rise in coal prices may inflate your electricity bill


Jaipur: Consumers in Rajasthan should get ready for another hike in power tariff because of the recent decision of the Union government to allow electricity producers to pass on higher cost of imported coal to the consumers.

Coal-based thermal plants of Rajasthan make up to 76 per cent of the power produced in the state and out of the installed capacity of 4207.35 MW of power plants in the state, 3240

MW is from coal-based power plants.

Sources inform that the state should be ready for an increase of 15 to 17 paisa per unit in electricity tariff after the cost of imported coal is passed on to the consumers. However, the exact quantum of increase in price can be arrived at only in the coming months.

Senior officials of electricity department informed that because of increasing cost of imported coal from Indonesia, the costs of buying coal has been increased by more than 30 per cent in the past few months.

Though only 8-10 per cent of imported coal is mixed with the coal in the boilers but continuous increase in price will surely affect the consumers.

However, officials of Rajasthan Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited (RVUNL) maintain that there won’t be any effect on the prices.

“We have enough coal for three months based on our last year’s agreement, the decision needs to be studied on its effect on power plants in the state,” said NM Mathur, CMD RVUNL while speaking to dna.

“In my opinion it won’t have any effect, as it is we are getting the increased tariff approved from the regulatory commission,” added Mathur.

With shortage of gas for the gas-based power plants becoming a regular feature this year, Rajasthan’s dependence on coal-based power plants is increasing.

Problems with coal prices is going on since 2011 when in January the cost of coal for Rajasthan was increased by almost 80 per cent after Coal India Limited increased the prices.

http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/RAJ-JPR...300830-NOR.html
Posted by: datadog

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 25/06/2013 12:00

.


Greenwashing at its best? Put a wind turbine in front of it, and no one will notice that the coal and nuclear plants are still there, working away as much as ever.

— “Rucio”








.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 25/06/2013 18:38

Dudgeon Point Coal Terminal Project to be canned

THE Australian Marine Conservative Society (AMCS) is calling for the Dudgeon Point Coal Terminal Project to be canned.

They reported that the project has been put on hold for 12 months.

The proposed project was poised to include two new coal exporting terminals, just north of Hay Point Coal Terminal.

AMCS say the port will have devastating effects on the Great Barrier Reef, if it were to go ahead.
http://www.dailymercury.com.au/news/dudgeon-point-coal-port-expansion-put-hold/1920750/
Posted by: datadog

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 25/06/2013 20:17

Quote:
"AMCS say the port will have devastating effects on the Great Barrier Reef, if it were to go ahead."


Yasified shak, why do AMCS think there will be problems for the reef ?

I woulda thought any new ports facilities would have to be built to worlds best practice.









.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 26/06/2013 09:18

Obama wants new limits on coal plants

WASHINGTON (CNN) —President Barack Obama unveiled an aggressive new climate change strategy on Tuesday that would limit pollution from existing coal-fired power plants, and he made clear that approval of the Keystone XL pipeline depended on the project not increasing overall greenhouse gas emissions.

Obama raised the two politically charged issues during a sweeping address on second-term environmental priorities that included his plan of executive actions that don't require congressional approval in an era of partisan gridlock in Washington.

He also pledged global leadership on climate change and to redouble U.S. efforts to fight it.

The Georgetown University speech came as environmental constituents and climate change advocates press him to take more aggressive action and to push harder for clean energy alternatives.

Obama said he was taking action for the "sake of our children and the health and safety of all Americans," saying new initiatives on his environmental agenda built around clean-energy industry and policy will spur the economy and leave a cleaner planet for future generations.

"We can do all of that as long as we don't fear the future and instead we seize it," Obama said, adding that his plan was a signal to the world that America would take bold action to reduce carbon pollution.

Obama pledged in 2009 the United States would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17% of 2005 levels by 2020.

Environmentalists have said decisive action was necessary to make that goal possible with a major legislative effort in Congress failing in Obama's first term.

The president again said that U.S. energy strategy must be more than producing more petroleum, reviving his call for eliminating tax breaks for "big oil."

"We can't drill our way out of the energy and climate challenges that we face," he said, a familiar Democratic sentiment on energy policy.



Read more: http://www.ksbw.com/news/politics/obama-...l#ixzz2XGzD3p3u
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 26/06/2013 09:30

Bye Bye coal....

Obama Cracks Down on Coal, Supports NatGas 'Bridge'

http://shaledaily.com/cgi-bin/session.pl...zA2MjZhLnNodG1s
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Coal Fired Power - Dark and dirty side? - 26/06/2013 09:43

Apples Grow Black in Polluted Chinese City

There are no more red apples in the coal town of Zhangjiakou in China’s Hebei Province.

Instead, all the apples have taken on a blackish hue because of dust from nearby coalmines. Piles of coal sit in quarries near the town, and coal dust constantly blows through residential areas.

The unappetizing color of the apples has caused their popularity to decline, so farmers in that area have started growing corn instead, the Global Times, a Chinese state media, reported. The farmers said their apples now had “coal genes” that changed their color permanently.

Everything in the city is covered in coal dust, and the air itself is gray and hazy.


The locals said people living in Zhangjiakou have forgotten what colors things are supposed to be in nature, according to Global Times.

“It’s still dirty no matter how many times we clean… we don’t even open the window, but look at the window sill, it’s still layered in coal dust,” a local resident said, according to the South China Morning Post.

The Post reported that safety standards in the coalmines aren’t good, but complaining doesn’t help because the coal industry is so big. Industry profits sat at 17.2 billion yuan (USD $2.8 billion) in 2011.

“Filing a complaint to the environmental bureau is equal to not filing anything at all,” another Zhangjiakou resident told the Post. “They just don’t care.”

Hebei Province is the most polluted province in China, and Zhangjiakou is the second most polluted city in that province.

The pollution is affecting peoples’ health. More than 9,900 deaths and 70,000 hospitalizations occurred due to coal-related pollution in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region in 2011, according to a report by Greenpeace.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/eet-content/uploads/2013/06/Sooty+air+for+epoch+times.png