Re: Carbon Dioxide Emissions May Harm Ocean Life

From: Ian St. John (istjohn_at_noemail.ca)
Date: 07/26/04 

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:30:40 -0400

Angelo Campanella wrote:
> Ian St. John wrote:
>>> Today, more than ever, the Unites States produces a greater
>>> percentage of its electricity from coal.
>> Approximately 27% of all energy use.
>
> Close enough; I read 50% for electricity. Point is that the
> electricity consumption is becoming a problem, chiefly due
> to A/C, I say.

Actually I would dispute the role that A/C plays in this. Only on a few
really hot days does A/C start pushing the energy grid. Most people still
use fans in preference up to a point. And then there is the excuse to go to
the beach...

Electricity consumption is not really a problem The shakiness of the grid
and uneven demand are the problem. The point of coal fired power plants is
that they are an easy way to make major gains in CO2/emissions reductions
with an investment that has to be made anyway due to the plants age.

>> I do. However, the real problem is the disgraceful 'rustbucket
>> America' condition of these 50 year old plants with 30% thermal
>> efficiency ensuring that more CO2 is put in the atmosphere for every
>> watt produced than are necessary. The modern plants are up to 44%
>> thermal efficiency and there are plants that can get 42% burning
>> *lignite* which is also known as 'flammable dirt'.
>
>http://www.entek.chalmers.se/~klon/msc/VGB-Power-Plant-Conference_Andersson
_et_al_February_01_03.pdf
>
> The lignite aspect is not at issue;

Sure it is. The fact is that operating plants at 50% higher efficiency means
you *create* 33% less CO2 and other pollutants. i.e. 2*1.5 = 3*1.0

Less fuel, less pollution.

> it's the cost of building and maintaining the CO2 and SO2 capture process.

Scrubber technology is the wrong way to go and only adds about 1c to the
price tops. It is not the major cost of the power plant. Fuel is.

> It definitely pushes future coal plants to be less cost effective,

Again, wrong. Modern coal power plants can utilise gassification to allow
for a more efficient separation of energy from pollutants and sequestration
using cheap and easily available magnesium silicate rocks. The gains in
efficiency compensate for the extra processing of the CO2. and this would
allow for clean AND green energy from an easy and cheap source. The point
about lignite is that high effiiciency can be gotten from what normally
gives only 25% efficiency even in modern plants due to low combustion
temperatures. The addition of oxygen compensates to raise the flame
temperature and the limiting factor then becomes the universal one of steam
turbine tolerances.

> making Nuclear more promising.

Yes. You are a pro-nuke guy but harping on it is not a good way to go. There
are an abundance of solutions, not just one.

> I look for that trend to grow in the US. It likely is in progress now,
> but the utility industry won't yet publicly declare their intentions.
Then
> you have the coal lobby mixing in their 'plight'.

The coal lobby will campaign for the 'status quo' simply because they are
making profits and have a large share of the market. There is little
incentive for THEM to change the game.

>
>> responsible choices are not guilty if they use power. The problem
>> cannot be blamed on the public, but on those who make business
>> decisions that create or aggravate the problem.
>
> They argue that the public (us) 'demands it' each time we flip a
> switch on.

Yes As if it were the publics fault. So the problem is not lack of peaking
power or power levelling, the problem becomes the failure of the consumer to
wake up in the middle of the night to turn the high usage appliance on. Hmm.
Talk about fautly logic. The problem with systems such as electricity is
that you cannot point a finger. I think that there is a pseudo fable about
this referring to the fight among the parts of tthe body as to who was 'more
important'. You may remember that the *** won.

>
>> Actually, you can blame the financial sector which chose the last
>> great expansion of nuclear to come at a time of uncertain design and
>> double digit interest rates. Or maybe the huge expansion of demand
>> for capital to build nuclear created the high interest rates as more
>> and more investment was sucked up in grand projects? Let us not be
>> simplistic here.
>
> I don't recall the financial sector making a direct attack. Theirs is
> secondary or reactionary. Basically, they (the financiers) ask the
> technical people (some of us) what it will cost to go that way, and
> how
> well will industry amortize it (service the debt; make mortgage
> payments; NOT default loans or bonds, etc.). If the deal looks shaky
> in
> any way, financiers get up and walk out. Nuclear power, by the '60's
> was
> promising big-time overhead safety costs and real & imaginary
> environmental hazards+costs of unbounded or undetermined scope; hence
> their walk-out; no surprise. Today, revisiting the scene, they will
> likely be more tolerant, but they still want assurance of default free
> loan amortization.

You seem to be missing a bit of history. The great expansion of nuclear back
then *was* financed. However, it was financed at double digit rates. This,
as much as the problem of erratic and changing regulatory requirements cost
the industry the game. The fault has never been the promise of nuclear power
itself.

>
>> My living quarters are desperately spartan. My transportation is by
>> public transit. Not much in the way of waste in my life. However, do
>> go on about yourself. It is becoming clear that this is all about
>> you.
>
> Sounds like my student and early work days. Since then I married,
> bought a house, raised and launched two sons, and now I am in an empty
> nest; a house that used to be "too small", but now seems just right
> for my wife and me.

Yes. I noticed that the males born just before me got fast promotions and
steady jobs as they were always the 'most expereinced' of a small set as the
baby boom generation kept things expanding, while the baby boomers
themselves (my self included) tended to find the jobs already taken.. and
erratic employment culminating in the latest 'downsizing', global
competition, etc. as there are too many of them and thus competition on the
job market is fierce. On the other hand, I have a lot of talent and have
managed to keep on top of it most of the time. Just without the job security
you need to live the American Dream. Three months of unemployment can wiipe
out the savings of three years of work. I probably could have saved more
working steadily for WalMart, but then I wouldn't be able to pay my child
support. ( a bit of bad luck there, medically speaking )

>
>> You'll have to ask my landlady. I moved here to be within walking
>> distance to work ( just before my employer decided to move into the
>> outskirts as they had a buyer for the building and needed money for
>> a business acquisition. I am just a plaything of the job market...
>
> Good benchmark for the alternative life style.
>
> By the way, thinking back generally; didn't the US invent and
> promulgate the bicycle near the end of the 19th century? One of the
> most
> energy efficient transportation machines ever invented! I think that
> Dayton, OH is the home of one of the earliest manufacturers of same..
> the Huffy brand.. recently closed due to foreign competition. The US
> gets no credit for that? Cruel world. Viva Lance Armstrong!

On the other hand, he rides a Trek bicycle made in Waterloo, Wisconsin.

>
> Cheers
> Angelo Campanella

Uhh. Don't you mean Campagnolo? ;-)