GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

That headline really needs to be pulled out:

Solar Power Bails Out Texas Grid during Major Heat Wave

Solar power has been crucial to keeping the power on in Texas while the state experiences a major heat wave, even as some politicians have attempted to make it more difficult to connect renewable energy to the grid

• By Benjamin Storrow, E&E News on June 26, 2023

Failure is failure, you are trying to gild the lily here, Jay.

Bottom line, the system failed due to over-reliance on wind/solar, a bad choice of supply.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Failure is failure, you are trying to gild the lily here, Jay.

Bottom line, the system failed due to over-reliance on wind/solar, a bad choice of supply.

Fossil fuels failed two years ago. Since then the system is working quite well. Maybe you need to get back on your meds?

Edited June 27, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[specinho + 470]

10 hours ago, turbguy said:

I suggest you actually make an in -depth tour of any coal-fired power house, then report back.

Coal is cheap.

Coal is available.

Coal is filthy stuff.

IMO, while it does work (particularly amine adsorption schemes) Carbon Capture will NEVER be economical.  It requires WAY to much house power!

There has been a chart posted by a participant in this forum regarding efficiency of coal power plants across US. One or two caught attention as they have achieved efficiency of more than 80%, a few around 76%. The rest are still catching up on the average.

Why not take a tour at these few achieving efficiency more than 80%? Find out how they do it, pay them to train the rest operators or help them modify their plants?

Drafted a design for green challenge, a competition that nearly granted my retiring fund..... 'o' 'n'

It is a green factory that could recycle  waste heat generated for reheating water during summer or the wall during winter. In there mentioned carbon capturing methods for this particular factory, i.e. using filter and solution calcium hydroxide, if not mistaken. 

Filter basically retains particulates; solution calcium hydroxide reacts with CO2 to produce sediment calcium carbonate.

Cheap, efficient, effortlessly. 

But, allaasss..... Losed the prize at last final minute to  self degrading bricks. These bricks would be autodegraded by bacteria after few years of construction...... 'o' >.< 😭

10 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

So all of that is ancient news and proven wrong as clean coal is a complete and total failure. Regular coal is more expensive than renewables and so called clean coal is way more expensive than regular coal.

 

Mentioned in a discussion about my observation on open burning somewhere... Shall live wood is burned, i.e. branches or trunks that are  chopped, dried and burnt, leaves near the burning area would have black patches of burnt marks from acid rain. 

Coal, particularly naturally formed, might have been cured under high pressure and heat over millions of years. All proteins, components with sulphur, nitrogen etc might have been burnt and dissipated as gas compounds. Remaining black coal might be just carbon, hydrogen, minor of oxygen, the basic lignified structure without essential protein. 

If this assumption is correct, then by providing sufficient air or oxygen, and adequate size of burning, the efficiency would be great to near complete combustion.

Clean energy used to be something that can be burnt completely producing co2 and water.

If this condition is correct, then, it is indeed a very cheap production and process.

It existence provides affordable and reliable energy to the majority, created civilization and industrial revolution. A great contribution not to be neglected. 

Give them a way to be better... Not cross them out completely while others are not mature enough to stand on their own, except hydro and nuclear. 

Edited June 27, 2023 by specinho

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

11 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Germany's anti-fossil fuel campaign has contribute substantially to the energy crisis for its own people.

That crisis will become more sever as fossil fuel sources are suppressed in Germany going forward.

Utter garbage

Your own article refutes what you claim!

Here it is again as you must have missed it, I'll highlight the relevent part so you dont miss it again!

"Germany is not the only country to be facing high energy prices, with many European states experiencing high oil and gas prices following the Russian invasion of Ukraine early last year. Sanctions on Russian energy, as well as OPEC+ production cuts, have led to oil and gas shortages, driving the prices sky-high. "

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

10 hours ago, turbguy said:

I suggest you actually make an in -depth tour of any coal-fired power house, then report back.

Coal is cheap.

Coal is available.

Coal is filthy stuff.

IMO, while it does work (particularly amine adsorption schemes) Carbon Capture will NEVER be economical.  It requires WAY to much house power!

Turb youre spot on here

carbon capture is uneconomical and always will be.

If Eco had ever been to a coal fired power station he would see for himself how dirty it is and the waste pollution that it produces.

coal is cheap

coal is available

coal is shit!

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

10 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

No need to capture CO2, we need more of it to keep the planet green.

Clean coal is a cheap energy source and it is getting cleaner all the time.

Coal demand is ramping up on a world-wide basis, in response to the cries of Hilary Clinton! She was not disappointed.

Your cries are cries of  desperation, Jay.

https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/coal/052623-global-investment-in-coal-to-rise-10-in-2023-to-150-billion-iea#:~:text=Investment in global coal production,the International Energy Agency said.

Global investment in coal to rise 10% in 2023 to $150 billion: IEA

HIGHLIGHTS

$135 billion spent in 2022

90% investment to be in Asia Pacific

Oops!

Coal and natural gas plants will account for 98% of U.S. capacity retirements in 2023

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55439#:~:text=In 2023%2C operators plan to retire 15.6 gigawatts,according to our Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

10 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yep, in California, the 5th largest world economy, it is outlawed in 2045 along with all other FF.

In the UK its toast by 2025!

[specinho + 470]

10 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Utter garbage

Your own article refutes what you claim!

Here it is again as you must have missed it, I'll highlight the relevent part so you dont miss it again!

"Germany is not the only country to be facing high energy prices, with many European states experiencing high oil and gas prices following the Russian invasion of Ukraine early last year. Sanctions on Russian energy, as well as OPEC+ production cuts, have led to oil and gas shortages, driving the prices sky-high. "

Somewhere in Europe, not sure if it is sweden, norway, or finland, contribution from renewable energy

a) hydro power and

b) the latest classification nuclear plants ( where half life of power starter is said to be millions of years. Presumed once started, it will go on on its own for millions of years....... 'o' '-'),

is the major electricity supply. ( Presumed.......Water freezes in the winter. Waste heat from cooling nuclear plant prevents water from freezing. They have usable hydro all year round. Genius...)

 

There are times when they over produced what they need, and declare electricity is free ( not sure free to be used by the public or something else)... 

Europe opted not to want oil, gas, coal any more. Even nuclear in some places. They force the halt of import of those to hasten the transition,  while the efficiency of their solar and wind is prevailing at ~ 10% on average........ Not so much of war... 

 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

3 minutes ago, specinho said:

Somewhere in Europe, not sure if it is sweden, norway, or finland, contribution from renewable energy

a) hydro power and

b) the latest classification nuclear plants ( where half life of power starter is said to be millions of years. Presumed once started, it will go on on its own for millions of years....... 'o' '-'),

is the major electricity supply. ( Presumed.......Water freezes in the winter. Waste heat from cooling nuclear plant prevents water from freezing. They have usable hydro all year round. Genius...)

 

There are times when they over produced what they need, and declare electricity is free ( not sure free to be used by the public or something else)... 

Europe opted not to want oil, gas, coal any more. Even nuclear in some places. They force the halt of import of those to hasten the transition,  while the efficiency of their solar and wind is prevailing at ~ 10% on average........ Not so much of war... 

 

I presume you are referring to Finland earlier this year

Electricity prices in Finland flipped negative — a huge oversupply of clean, hydroelectric power meant suppliers were almost giving it away

https://www.businessinsider.com/finland-electricity-prices-flip-negative-after-glut-of-hydroelectric-power-2023-5?r=US&IR=T

You need to bear in mind that although Finland isnt a small country geographically it only has a sparse population of around 5.5M.

As such its powergen requirements are very small.

Most European countries still rely on NG as their main form of powergen, I dont know any country that in your words "does not want" oil + NG. The UK doesnt want coal from 2025 other than that I believe all countries want FF to continue to support their energy mix until there is enough renewables and battery storage to mean they no longer need them. That will be a very very long time.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

9 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Fossil fuels failed two years ago. Since then the system is working quite well. Maybe you need to get back on your meds?

The fossil fuel system was a backup in case of wind/solar failure, but it relied on wind/solar to get rolling. The whole system went down due to the failure of wind/solar.

The entire Texas experiment is designed to implode when most needed.

Did they consult you when they designed that system, Jay? I would not be surprised given the outcomes.

Edited June 27, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

7 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

In the UK its toast by 2025!

We are scheduled to just have one small coal plant still operating by 2026 that produces about 60MW. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The fossil fuel system was a backup in case of wind/solar failure, but it relied on wind/solar to get rolling. The whole system went down due to the failure of wind/solar.

The entire Texas experiment is designed to implode when most needed.

Did they consult you when they designed that system, Jay? I would not be surprised given the outcomes.

You just aren't going to give up on your lies about this are you? Reality has been explained to you many times and you just refuse to accept that Renewables were actually producing more power than planned for when the fossil fuel plants failed. 

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The fossil fuel system was a backup in case of wind/solar failure, but it relied on wind/solar to get rolling. The whole system went down due to the failure of wind/solar.

The almighty fossil fuel relies on wind/solar? haha

[turbguy + 1,544]

15 hours ago, specinho said:

There has been a chart posted by a participant in this forum regarding efficiency of coal power plants across US. One or two caught attention as they have achieved efficiency of more than 80%, a few around 76%. The rest are still catching up on the average.

Why not take a tour at these few achieving efficiency more than 80%? Find out how they do it, pay them to train the rest operators or help them modify their plants?

Drafted a design for green challenge, a competition that nearly granted my retiring fund..... 'o' 'n'

It is a green factory that could recycle  waste heat generated for reheating water during summer or the wall during winter. In there mentioned carbon capturing methods for this particular factory, i.e. using filter and solution calcium hydroxide, if not mistaken. 

Filter basically retains particulates; solution calcium hydroxide reacts with CO2 to produce sediment calcium carbonate.

Cheap, efficient, effortlessly. 

But, allaasss..... Losed the prize at last final minute to  self degrading bricks. These bricks would be autodegraded by bacteria after few years of construction...... 'o' >.< 😭

Mentioned in a discussion about my observation on open burning somewhere... Shall live wood is burned, i.e. branches or trunks that are  chopped, dried and burnt, leaves near the burning area would have black patches of burnt marks from acid rain. 

Coal, particularly naturally formed, might have been cured under high pressure and heat over millions of years. All proteins, components with sulphur, nitrogen etc might have been burnt and dissipated as gas compounds. Remaining black coal might be just carbon, hydrogen, minor of oxygen, the basic lignified structure without essential protein. 

If this assumption is correct, then by providing sufficient air or oxygen, and adequate size of burning, the efficiency would be great to near complete combustion.

Clean energy used to be something that can be burnt completely producing co2 and water.

If this condition is correct, then, it is indeed a very cheap production and process.

It existence provides affordable and reliable energy to the majority, created civilization and industrial revolution. A great contribution not to be neglected. 

Give them a way to be better... Not cross them out completely while others are not mature enough to stand on their own, except hydro and nuclear. 

Not only would a couple years of basic physics help you, but also a solid course of basic thermodynamics might help.

The main determinant of a heat engine's thermal efficiency is the temperature difference between the heat source and the heat sink.  In a coal-fired generating unit, using the Rankine cycle, that would be the final steam temperature leaving a modern steam generator (typically about 1050 degrees F), and the exhaust steam temperature from the turbine into the condenser (typically fixed at around 75 degree F).   The higher the steam temperature from the source (the steam generator), the more useful work can be extracted as it is expanded to lower pressures.  The metallurgy of the unit's construction places limits on the source temperature.  Common alloys can only survive so much stress at elevated temperature and last a decent amount of years before failure.

Even with these thermal parameters, expensive "tricks" must be added, such as steam reheating and multiple feedwater heaters.

The thermal efficiency of a typical, condensing, coal-fired power unit is on the order of 35% (on a very good day).  Newer, ultra-super critical coal units "might" have a 40% thermal efficiency, using advanced (read, $$$) alloys to operate at higher source temperatures.

The highest power unit thermal efficiencies are currently achieved with modern combined-cycle units, where the heat source can be considered as the firing temperature of the high-pressure gasses exiting a combustion turbine's combustion chambers (the Brayton cycle), not unusual to be about 2500 degrees F!   Advanced superalloys (including single-crystal metal components) and exotic cooling schemes and coatings permit a reasonable economic life of the hot parts.  The exhaust gasses of the combustion turbine, after expanding to near-atmospheric pressure, are still VERY hot (say about 800 degrees F or more).  The gasses containing this CONSIDERABLE waste heat is passed through a steam generator to boil and superheat water, which provide a heat source for a steam turbine, exhausting to a condenser, very similar to a coal-fired unit.  Such modern units can achieve a little more than 60% thermal efficiencies.  Brayton and Rankine thermodynamic cycles are COMBINED in such units, thus the name.  The working fluids are air and water.

There are other cycles and working fluids that can be exploited (some very interesting), but they are far and few between. 

The down side is that coal cannot be used as a fuel in a combustion turbine.  It has been attempted.   It works for a few hours. Then it doesn't, since impurities and ash "gums up the works".   A liquid or gas must be used as a fuel.  Even then, there are strict limits on the purity of those fuels.  There are even strict limits on the purity of the inlet air!  There are a few instances where a nuclear reactor is used as the heat source in a Brayton cycle, but that's not a fossil source.

The only way of achieving better efficiencies from a coal-fired unit is to make use of the waste heat exiting a steam turbine, BEFORE IT IS CONDENSED BACK TO A LIQUID.  This occurs in district heating plants (CHAP plants, Combined Heat And Power).  While this heat produces no useful work, it provides heat for other processes.  Processes such as district heating.  In this case, the waste heat is used for something useful, but does no useful work.

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2023 by turbguy

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

7 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

The almighty fossil fuel relies on wind/solar? haha

The backup fossil fuel electrical generators needed electricity to get started, but wind/solar could not even manage to do that.

Edited June 28, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Boat + 1,324]

18 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Turb youre spot on here

carbon capture is uneconomical and always will be.

If Eco had ever been to a coal fired power station he would see for himself how dirty it is and the waste pollution that it produces.

coal is cheap

coal is available

coal is shit!

Coal is cheap until you factor in health care costs and environmental costs. Literally dams with lakes of coal waste scattered about the world. Leaching into groundwater. Stories of dam collapse contaminating downstream land, rivers and homesteads. Legacy costs will go on for decades or hundreds of years. Acid rain as part of the glory of coal. Putin the preacher praises the nectar of the fatherland. Suggest a coal ash pit for a stain glass window for the military church and off to sainthood you go. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

The backup fossil fuel electrical generators needed electricity to get started, but wind/solar could not even manage to do that.

Or a match.

Or a cigarette lighter.

Or a piezo electric bbq lighter.

Edited June 28, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[turbguy + 1,544]

13 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The backup fossil fuel electrical generators needed electricity to get started, but wind/solar could not even manage to do that.

Backup generators for the like of high-risk facilities (such as Hospitals, Law Enforcement Centers, Communication installations) are typically diesel generators started promptly via plain old lead-acid batteries, to supply power to identified critical loads. 

Losing all power at these places is a really bad situation.

Losing power in a power house is even WORSE!

Large heavy-duty black-start generation (typically single-cycle combustion turbine generators) use the same, to start a diesel starting means, then spool-up the combustion turbine.  Smaller aero-derivative combustion turbines (think, jet engines with a load wheel) can use electric motors to spool-up.

Large fossil (and nuclear) plants depend upon the availability of grid power to start, then switch to their own auxiliary house power once they are generating.  While these stations also have rooms full of ranks of lead-acid cells and back-up diesel generators, those are only intended to support for safe shutdown.  For instance, rotating equipment still requires forced lubrication as it coasts down to zero speed. Large generators need hydrogen seal oil supply for an indefinite period even when rotation ceases. Heat flux along hot shafts can melt supporting bearings without some sustained oil flow even when stopped.

If a large plant losses grid power, it can no longer deliver it either.  It "might" be able to fall back on it's own auxiliary house power if the equipment can successfully react to the sudden loss of a large portion of load, but that is very rare.

The "Texas situation" was not a problem caused by lack of backup power, it was from the loss of large gas-fueled plants for a host of reasons.  Grid designers and grid operators deal with such scenarios to assure that grid power is available to re-start those plants, AS LONG AS THEY CAN RE-START!  If you ain't got fuel, you don't need power to restart!

Note that wind and solar generation is not a factor here, at all.

Edited June 28, 2023 by turbguy

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

No emergency coal-fired power for National Grid to keep lights on this winter

https://news.sky.com/story/no-emergency-coal-fired-power-for-national-grid-to-keep-the-lights-on-12911040

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

Just now, turbguy said:

Backup generators for the like of high-risk facilities (such as Hospitals, Law Enforcement Centers, Communication installations) are typically diesel generators started promptly via plain old lead-acid batteries, to supply power to identified critical loads. 

Losing all power at these places is a really bad situation.

Losing power in a power house is even WORSE!

Large heavy-duty black-start generation (typically single-cycle combustion turbine generators) use the same, to start a diesel starting means, then spool-up the combustion turbine.  Smaller aero-derivative combustion turbines (think, jet engines with a load wheel) can use electric motors to spool-up.

Large fossil (and nuclear) plants depend upon the availability of grid power to start, then switch to their own auxiliary house power once they are generating.  While these stations also have rooms full of ranks of lead-acid cells and back-up diesel generators, those are only intended to support for safe shutdown.  For instance, rotating equipment still requires forced lubrication as it coasts down to zero speed. Large generators need hydrogen seal oil supply for an indefinite period even when rotation ceases. Heat flux along hot shafts can melt supporting bearings without some sustained oil flow even when stopped.

If a large plant losses grid power, it can no longer deliver it either.  It "might" be able to fall back on it's own auxiliary house power if the equipment can successfully react to the sudden loss of a large portion of load, but that is very rare.

The "Texas situation" was not a problem caused by lack of backup power, it was from the loss of large gas-fueled plants for a host of reasons.  Grid designers and grid operators deal with such scenarios to assure that grid power is available to re-start those plants, AS LONG AS THEY CAN RE-START!  If you ain't got fuel, you don't need power to restart!

Note that wind and solar generation is not a factor here, at all.

In the Texas problem it was the initial failure of wind/solar which required the fossil fuel backup systems to start up and ride to the rescue. That was impossible because of the failure of the wind/solar, and the backup fossil fuel system could not get started on a moment's notice. Even the backup system relied on wind/solar to get started, which did not happen, resulting in total system system failure.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

Just now, Rob Plant said:

No emergency coal-fired power for National Grid to keep lights on this winter

https://news.sky.com/story/no-emergency-coal-fired-power-for-national-grid-to-keep-the-lights-on-12911040

They rely on natural gas, another fossil fuel.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

They rely on natural gas, another fossil fuel.

very true

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

2 hours ago, Boat said:

Coal is cheap until you factor in health care costs and environmental costs. Literally dams with lakes of coal waste scattered about the world. Leaching into groundwater. Stories of dam collapse contaminating downstream land, rivers and homesteads. Legacy costs will go on for decades or hundreds of years. Acid rain as part of the glory of coal. Putin the preacher praises the nectar of the fatherland. Suggest a coal ash pit for a stain glass window for the military church and off to sainthood you go. 

Coal demand will stay at all-time highs going forward partly because of the increased production of EVs for electricity generation. China a case in point.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

Coal demand will stay at all-time highs going forward partly because of the increased production of EVs for electricity generation. China a case in point.

No chance of that fortunately