Jump to content
david wild

Coal Power

Recommended Posts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amen and amen...........Bobby j.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Obama sent boiler MACT through it cost our facility about $25 million to comply. Sounds outrageous, but it is a legitimate number. We could not use natural gas turbine generators. Had to buy a mega boiler system.

We keep getting shafted by the DNR too. Once they came up and said our power generation dam needed a fish ladder so the walleye could swim past. Had not been one there for 80 years. The alternative was to pay a one time fine of $75,000 dollars. Paid it. They did it to everyone on the river. AKA- Legal Extortion.

 

Edited by Mack Technician
price adjustment....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, david wild said:

July 13 2017 1600 Coal fired powerplants either being built or planned, everywhere but here, that is thanks to super stupid Obama destroying the coal industry in the US and bringing price of coal down to where poorer nations can afford to burn coal, while we burn high cost gas and use other green energy. 

Another words we took it up the poop shoot, destroyed peoples lives, put people out of business all in the name of the enviroment and now there will more coal fired power plants in countries that have no pollution controls. Yes sir them Liberals sure are good at lying and giving the good old USA a good screwing and somehow still think that we believe them when they say they love this country, BS, they hate America and are out to do the working man in, they spend all their time on Trump and not working on the problems of the country, for me what whatever ill comes their way they deserve, Oh and they all lied about moving to Canada, or maybe Canada would not let them in. Liberals are like a bad disease with no cure. Smoke that you undercover Hillary fans, supported Trump from day one and support him all the way, I don't care if he stepped into the rose garden and took a dump, I would support his choice of where to fertilze the garden especially after having to grow all them watermellons:lol:  (i like watermellons too)

Been trying to get a "Trump 2020" sticker. The price is going up on them. That market-crafty-sucker managed to inflate the resale value of HIS NAME!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joseph Moody Jr said:

China  is canceling plans to build more than 100 coal-fired power plants, seeking to rein in runaway, wasteful investment in the sector while moving the country away from one of the dirtiest forms of electricity generation, the government announced in a directive made public this week The announcement, made by China’s National Energy Administration, cancels 103 projects that were planned or under construction, eliminating 120 gigawatts of future coal-fired capacity. That includes dozens of projects in 13 provinces, mostly in China’s coal-rich north and west, on which construction had already begun.

 

They may have made a token cut back in China but they are still working on coal globally.  China’s two global policy banks, the China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China, have already provided more than $43 billion in overseas coal financing, show the Chinese energy investments info published this year by Boston University.

Some of the countries targeted for coal-power expansion, like Egypt or Pakistan, currently burn almost no coal, and the new coal plants could set the course of their national energy policies for decades, environmentalists warn.

In Egypt, coal projects by Shanghai Electric and other global developers are set to bring the country’s coal-fired capacity to 17,000 megawatts, from near zero, according to the Urgewald database.

Pakistan’s coal capacity is set to grow to 15,300 megawatts from 190. In Malawi, planned coal projects would bring its coal-fired capacity to 3,500 megawatts from zero.

Chinese companies are not the only drivers of the global coal expansion.

The world’s single largest coal-plant developer is India’s NTP corp. which plans to build more than 38,000 megawatts of new coal capacity in India and Bangladesh.  Japan’s Marubeni Corp.  is also involved in joint ventures for a combined 5,500 megawatts of new coal generation in Myanmar, Vietnam, Philippines and Indonesia, according to the database. Japan is also adding to its coal-fired capacity at home, to make up for an energy shortfall in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. A Marubeni spokesman confirmed projects in the four countries as of 2017.  Western investors also continue to play a role in financing new coal plants overseas. Bonds and shares of the world’s biggest coal developers, like India’s National Thermal Power and Marubeni, are frequently found in the portfolios of large institutional investors and banks.

To much profit involved to stop.

Edited by 41chevy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for ruffling any feathers, but on the other only the truth hurts. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea we can talk  about it when we re on the  reservation 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know coal traffic is way down on the Railroads. started shortly after OBozo took office 9 years ago and forced coal fired plants to shut down with EPA crap. The railroads then started shipping our coal to China for them to burn and send the fumes right back over us...so tell me again how did we save the planet? not to mention how many jobs lost and people out looking for work from his clueless actions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US coal shipped by BNSF train to western Canada port loading onto Chinese ships... just sayin'

BC Mack

coal exports.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BCMACK: how are you doing with the cruiseliner and the bus. I haven't been on here for quite a while

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China switches 4.8 million homes to gas, electricity from coal

Reuters  /  March 11, 2019

BEIJING - China expanded its coal-to-gas and coal-to-electricity projects to 35 cities in 2018 from 12 cities the previous year, China’s environment minister, Li Ganjie, said on Monday, as the world’s second-largest economy stepped up its fight against smog.

China’s winter heating program used to burn an estimated 400 million tonnes of coal a year, and switching it to cleaner types of fuel was identified as a major part of the country’s war on pollution, now in its sixth year.

The program to convert households to low-emission heating ran into difficulties last winter amid widespread natural gas shortages, but 4.8 million households still managed to make the switch from coal to natural gas and electricity last year, up from 4 million households switched in 2017.

China has also installed ultra-low emissions technology at more than 80 percent of its total coal-fired power generation capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had (have) the ultra low emissions coal precipitator system at our plant...….. moth-balled and dismantled.

When we lost our coal via Obama-MACT, WPS came in and installed an oversize natural gas feed to the facility promising an "all you can eat" supply. During last month's cold snap we got shutdown by WPS, capped on consumption and threatened with a daily fine if we negatively affected the residential heating grid with overconsumption. 

The coal absence issue is multiple fuel sources are reliant on combining and blending. Ex- to burn bark and biomass you do best with coal as the accent fuel. Taking one fuel source reduces the boiler efficiency of other fuels. At one time we had natural gas, biomass, methane from our water treatment system and coal all burning simultaneously and intermittently relative to cost and availability. "Greeny's" don't get that.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I firmly believe that the free market’s natural innovation is the solution to 99% of our problems. Assuming that global warming is true (even through the average temperature of the earth has only risen 1.8° F since the mid 1800s) then at the very minimum companies such as Tesla will innovate new ways to do what we already do because eventually we will run out of resources. Coal and Oil will cease to exist one day, so at some point companies will have to innovate ways to travel and create power that don’t need these materials. For the past 20-30 years we’ve had 8 years before we can’t go back because we’ll have messed up our earth so much. I was talking to a guy who used to live in PA and he told me when he was a kid the rivers would be orange. It’s certainly not like that now. I’m quite certain it’s not because the EPA stepped up and cleaned it. I remember reading that Germany was banning the sale of gas powered cars in 10 years which is definitely the wrong way to go, gas power will phase itself out as time goes on as I’ve already proven. Overall we should just let the market innovate like it always has instead of forcing it to change. We all know how well that worked out for the U.S.S.R.

 

And does anyone really believe that a planet that survived 2 major extinction events, an ice age, and the impact that created the moon, would even blink at something as insignificant as a race of organisms who burn some nasty stuff? This earth will continue to host life until it gets incinerated by the sun.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CaptainCrutch said:

I was talking to a guy who used to live in PA and he told me when he was a kid the rivers would be orange. It’s certainly not like that now. I’m quite certain it’s not because the EPA stepped up and cleaned it.

I agree with you on that.   I live on the susquhanna river about 15 miles south of where the the north and west branches join.   Thes west branch came from tye mountains and up into ny.   The north branch came from the coal regions.  When I was a kid and we went fishing you had to go to the other side of the river because it was cleaner.   Now our side is the cleaner side wich is mostly north branch water from the coal region.    We take our kids out kayaking and the water is beautiful, but there's no way I want to drink it.  image.jpg.eb3c03419cb5e5909448a747e1a6acc1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was 10 years old when I ended up living next to the susquhanna river up past the mines in the wilkes-barre valley . At that time my friend and I would fish all the time in the river but we would never eat the fish catch and release only. You should have seen the water running in the river all along Pittston and down past Plymouth all mine runoff. In Luzerne and wilkes-barre it was a common thing to read about sinkholes opening up all over the place after the nox mine disaster. Up in oldforge the creak ran redish orange up till about 8 years ago.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

No doubt conservation is key.

Its the extortion of law abiding, clean, industry I'm talking about. Take a perfectly law abiding point-user, IOW-some company who takes water out of a river at one point and returns it to the river at one point. Even the parking lot sewer drains are treated and monitored before returning to the river so no run off.

We are above two converging rivers. The point (south of us) where the rivers meet is a starting hot spot for nitrates. Ends up one branch goes through farmland and one comes from point-users with no agriculture. The farmland river branch is hot with nitrates, the industrial branch has a clean number of PPM Nitrates. State says "what do we DOOOOOOO!!!!, we need to get the nitrates south of the convergence lowered.

Solution:

State.....Threaten the point users to bring the PPM lower to compensate for the farms deposits

Factory...……. "we can't, it is almost as low as the inlet water"

State.... if you can't lower the PPM pay a fine or sponsor a shoreline run-off control program for farmers on the other branch of the river

Factory.... send us the fine, we are not going to manage or sponsor your shoreline control program 

 

True story, among a host of other crap the state has pulled since I've been here.

   

Edited by Mack Technician

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

They get it from the Federal EPA!  Interesting read. Fine refiners for not using an additive that does not exist, increase the require percentage of the non existant additive and increase the fines. Course we pay for it at the pumps.

 

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) contains a renewable fuel standard that mandates the production of ethanol to the level of 36 billion gallons by 2022, where 15 billion gallons is to be corn-based and the remainder is to come from advanced forms of biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol. The advanced biofuel contribution starts at 0.6 billion gallons in 2009 increasing to 1.35 billion gallons in 2011, 2.0 billion gallons in 2012 and eventually to 21.0 billion gallons in 2022. Because cellulosic ethanol was not yet commercial, EPA issued changes to the original act that requires four separate standards including 1.0 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel by 2012 and 16 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels by 2022, subject to annual assessments that EPA will set each November for the following year.

The original legislation set the goal for motor fuel from cellulose at 250 million gallons for 2011 and 500 million gallons for 2012.[ii] EPA lowered those figures to 6.6 million gallons for 2011 and 8.65 million gallons for 2012, just a small fraction of the original numbers (about 2 percent), but an incredibly large amount when the cellulosic biofuel does not exist commercially.

The Clean Air Act requires the EIA to provide EPA each October with an estimate of the amount of transportation fuel, biomass-based diesel and cellulosic biofuel projected to be available in the following calendar year. EIA’s estimate for 2012 for cellulosic biofuel production is 6.9 million gallons, 20 percent lower than the EPA requirement established for 2012.  To see that even EIA’s lower estimate is high, for 2011, EIA predicted cellulosic biofuel production to be 3.94 million gallons, but “actual sales, if any, are expected to fall well below the estimate” according to the agency.

The State of Cellulosic Ethanol Producers

One reason the mandates cannot be met is that the companies that were expected to produce cellulosic ethanol and that received the first round of subsidies from the government did not make it commercially. About 70 percent of the cellulosic ethanol mandated for 2010 (about 70 million gallons) was expected to come from Alabama-based Cello Energy. However, that projection was made before Cello Energy had built the cellulosic ethanol plant and before the technology was proven to work. In 2009, a jury ruled that Cello Energy lied about how much cellulosic biofuel it could produce and in October 2010, the firm declared bankruptcy.

A 2011 report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded that “currently, no commercially viable bio-refineries exist for converting cellulosic biomass to fuel.” The reason, according to the NAS, is because of “the high cost of producing cellulosic biofuels compared with petroleum-based fuels, and uncertainties in future biofuel markets.” According to NAS, even the 2022 target will not be met “unless innovative technologies are developed that unexpectedly improve the cellulosic biofuels production process.” The report also concludes that the renewable fuel standard “may be an ineffective policy for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions,” since the full life cycle of the fuel, including its transport, could result in higher emissions than conventional petroleum.

The federal government under Presidents Bush and Obama has poured at least $1.5 billion of grants and loan subsidies to potential cellulosic producers. Recently, in August 2011, the Obama Administration funded a $510 million program in partnership with the Navy to produce advanced biofuels for the military. In September 2011, the federal government loaned $134 million to Abengoa Bioenergy to build a cellulosic plant in Kansas and the Department of Energy provided POET, which advertises itself as the “world’s largest ethanol producer,” a $105 million loan guarantee for cellulosic biofuels.

Refiners Must Pay Penalties

Refiners have to purchase waiver credits for failing to comply with the mandate to purchase cellulosic biofuel that does not exist commercially. For 2011, the cost is estimated at $6.8 million, but the amount will not be determined until refiners close their books in February. According to Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, the credits cost about $1.20 per gallon.These costs are passed onto consumers of gasoline and diesel fuel, so the renewable fuels mandate becomes an invisible tax paid at the gas pump. It is just another way for the federal government to tax consumers, and in this case without most of them suspecting it.

Conclusion

Congress subsidized a product (cellulosic biofuel) and mandates its use although that product does not exist and is punishing oil companies for not purchasing the nonexistent product. And the federal government is still subsidizing the industry in the hope that someday it might exist. All along, consumers and taxpayers are paying for the debacle whether at the pump and/or in subsidies and loan guarantees.

As Charles Drevna stated, “Once again, refiners are being ordered to use a substance that is not being produced in commercial quantities—cellulosic ethanol—and are being required to pay millions of dollars for failing to use this nonexistent substance."

 

This makes no sense to feeble old me, how about you??.

Edited by 41chevy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2019 at 12:26 AM, CaptainCrutch said:

I firmly believe that the free market’s natural innovation is the solution to 99% of our problems.

 

I remember reading that Germany was banning the sale of gas powered cars in 10 years which is definitely the wrong way to go, gas power will phase itself out as time goes on as I’ve already proven. Overall we should just let the market innovate like it always has instead of forcing it to change. We all know how well that worked out for the U.S.S.R.

 

I was working with a fella last year and told me about a pod cast that explains how and why the petrol and diesel powered vehicles are really a thing of the past

 

And economics was the basic factor that really drives everthing these days

 

Hardly any people smoke today in Australia and at $50.00 a pack it doesn't take Einstein to work out it is economics not a health craze that most people gave lung lollies the boot 

Anyway this podcast, if you are smart enough to be able to work this stuff out ( I struggle) 

You will need a app "Podcast Republic" I believe is the app

And here is the link http://feeds.soundcloud.com/stream/492745920-thedrivenpodcast-by-2025-all-new-cars-will-be-electric.mp3

Well worth a listen and the way it is explained it really does make sense

Dunno if global warming is true or real, I doubt it very much though

I do however believe if there is a better way of doing things then we should 

I have worked in coal fired power stations in Victoria Australia (they gave the Princess and I our start in the world) and I dont feel they are as bad as the media make out

The last ones built "Loyang A & B" were the cleanest power stations built in southern hemisphere 

Of more recent times I have been involved in building Australia's biggest solar farms and it doesn't take Einstein to work out that these will very quickly take over from coal

They are quick to build, almost zero maintenance and last at the very least last 25 years 

But this is Australia and we are a huge sparsely populated country with a huge cloudless sky over most of the country 

 

Paul 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2017 at 1:11 PM, fxfymn said:

I normally do not comment on any political discussion here since this site is supposed to be about trucks and those of us who value them. But I will not tolerate anyone questioning my patriotism no matter my political point of view. I care about this country and what is happening to it as much as anyone else, even though I cannot abide the direction it is heading in now. But as I said I am not here to argue your viewpoint, just the outright slander of those who disagree with you. Stop it.

''Odds and Ends".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...