notsonice + 1,255 DM April 28 (edited) 3 hours ago, specinho said: Quote:" ......... those that claim burning coal and using oil it is not harmful are brain dead." This world works on trial and error. Incessant improvision by humble pioneers make things better for all. 1. Evolution of oil - Oil started by burning crude. Heavy soot, heavy pollution. - pioneers found out crude could be refined. Distillation at different temperature produced different products. Many other things extended from here. - petrol with lead and sulphur was introduced => petrol without lead and minimal sulphur was introduced - long chain hydrocarbon produced much soot, often due to incomplete combustion => short chain HC were introduced e.g. propane, octane. Cleaner fuel with complete combustion, protect engine and save money 2. Evolution of coal - Wood was burnt for fire. - air pollution was very bad e.g. smog, acid rain => wood was cured to form chunks of coal. Air quality and efficiency of burning improved. - coal mining, powder form was introduced. Too dense, little air during combustion. Much material wasted with incomplete combustion. Heat efficiency was low => modification to increase efficiency. Some coal plants have efficiency of ~87%. Small mind gossip; great mind improvise....... Where are you looking, at gossip or improvision, determine your stand towards oil and coal... Some coal plants have efficiency of ~87%.????????????????? the conversion of the BTUs in coal to electrical energy....87 percent???????? where is this plant?????????? the best one in the world...less than 50 percent......... if you think Coal fired power plants are efficient I have a bridge to sell you where coal losses are 1 Ash....... 2 Scrubbers/pollution control systems 3 on the steam cycle side...there is a reason for the need for cooling towers/cooling water......Take a class in thermodynamics 4 inherent loss when heat is converted into mechanical energy to turn the generators 5 the amount of energy put into mining , cleaning and transporting coal ...........this is not a small number over 5% of the energy value of coal is required just to mine it, losses of coal during mining, etc etc....... China's Pingshan Phase II Sets New Bar as World's Most ... POWER Magazine https://www.powermag.com › chinas-pingshan-phase-ii-s... Oct 2, 2023 — Pingshan Phase II, a cutting-edge 1.35-GW ultrasupercritical coal-fired unit, achieves a remarkable net efficiency of 49.37%—making it the ... The average coal-fired power plant in the United States operates near 33% efficiency. Transformative Power Systems | Department of Energy Edited April 28 by notsonice 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,545 April 28 14 hours ago, specinho said: Some coal plants have efficiency of ~87%. I can absolutely confirm that NO coal plant has a thermal efficiency of 1/2 of what you state. I can absolutely state that NO heat engine has ever achieved that degree of thermal efficiency (at least, not for very long). 1 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192 April 28 Ah yes, speechio proving why I have him blocked... 87%... Uh huh. Nice one! Pssstt: Moon is made of cheese Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
specinho + 470 April 29 20 hours ago, notsonice said: Some coal plants have efficiency of ~87%.????????????????? the conversion of the BTUs in coal to electrical energy....87 percent???????? where is this plant?????????? the best one in the world...less than 50 percent......... if you think Coal fired power plants are efficient I have a bridge to sell you where coal losses are 1 Ash....... 2 Scrubbers/pollution control systems 3 on the steam cycle side...there is a reason for the need for cooling towers/cooling water......Take a class in thermodynamics 4 inherent loss when heat is converted into mechanical energy to turn the generators 5 the amount of energy put into mining , cleaning and transporting coal ...........this is not a small number over 5% of the energy value of coal is required just to mine it, losses of coal during mining, etc etc....... China's Pingshan Phase II Sets New Bar as World's Most ... POWER Magazine https://www.powermag.com › chinas-pingshan-phase-ii-s... Oct 2, 2023 — Pingshan Phase II, a cutting-edge 1.35-GW ultrasupercritical coal-fired unit, achieves a remarkable net efficiency of 49.37%—making it the ... The average coal-fired power plant in the United States operates near 33% efficiency. Transformative Power Systems | Department of Energy 9 hours ago, turbguy said: I can absolutely confirm that NO coal plant has a thermal efficiency of 1/2 of what you state. I can absolutely state that NO heat engine has ever achieved that degree of thermal efficiency (at least, not for very long). 5 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: Ah yes, speechio proving why I have him blocked... 87%... Uh huh. Nice one! Pssstt: Moon is made of cheese Kindly refer page 385 for this post: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP April 29 3 hours ago, specinho said: Kindly refer page 385 for this post: It sounds like a post from Eco who loves spouting about how great coal is, but talks nonsense. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM April 30 (edited) pesky inexpensive solar panels coupled with inexpensive LFP Batteries....... wiping out coal and now replacing Nat Gas peakers and the Renewable Boom is just starting Electrek Nevada put big battery energy storage where a coal plant used to be Nevada utility NV Energy's largest battery energy storage system sits on a former coal-fired power plant site and will save customers a lot... . 23 hours ago Crude Oil Prices Today | OilPrice.com Battery Storage Is the No. 1 Energy Investment Playground | OilPrice.com Battery storage was the fastest-growing energy technology in the power sector in 2023, with deployment more than doubling year-on-year. . 1 day ago Press Enterprise Menifee battery storage plant will be one of largest in the U.S. Rising on a former power plant, Nova Power Bank will save renewable energy for peak hours. . 2 days ago San Luis Obispo Tribune A massive battery storage plant is in the works in Morro Bay. Here’s a look at the project site Vistra Corp. applied to build a battery plant in Morro Bay, California, on the retired power plant property. The city council can pick the... . 4 hours ago Edited April 30 by notsonice Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron Wagner + 710 May 9 On 4/25/2024 at 4:05 PM, notsonice said: you need to take a look at https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review/resources-and-data-downloads (EI) this is the site that really has all the data/graphs that are the most accurate EI took over for BP in 2022 notice coal barely moved up in 2022 from 2021...2022 matched the peak of 2013 your chart is off 250,000,000 tonnes in 2013....2022 matched it (actually 2022 was just shy of it) notice the dips for all the years in between .........2023 numbers are not out and will not be put out until June....looking at the BP chart comes from the BP energy review (which I found has the best data/backup) (you need to look at their annual reports) they break down the info better than anyone.......pretty easy to see coal plateaued over the last 11 years notice the number for 2013 .. 8,256 million tonnes . Statistical Review of World Energy From 1952 until 2022, bp’s economics team also informed the energy economics community through its Statistical Review of World Energy, which provided historic data on world energy markets. The Statistical Review of World Energy has a new custodian: the Energy Institute (EI), the chartered professional membership body for people who work in energy. (For more detail, read the press release.) The 2024 edition of the Energy Institute Statistical Review of World Energy will be published on 20 June, providing free-to-access data on global energy production, consumption, trade and emissions for 2023. Your graph is outdated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,545 May 9 (edited) On 4/28/2024 at 11:13 PM, specinho said: Kindly refer page 385 for this post: I don't know what you are attempting to say here... My current stance: If mankind is going to achieve thermal efficiencies of heat engines to the ~85% level, using materials available, it currently must include a heat sink, cooled by at LEAST liquid nitrogen (at atmospheric pressure), and perhaps even liquid helium! Edited May 9 by turbguy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192 May 9 2 hours ago, turbguy said: I don't know what you are attempting to say here... My current stance: If mankind is going to achieve thermal efficiencies of heat engines to the ~85% level, using materials available, it currently must include a heat sink, cooled by at LEAST liquid nitrogen (at atmospheric pressure), and perhaps even liquid helium! 2nd law of thermodynamics has NEVER been violated. eff ~Thot-Tcold Dropping Tcold slightly won't help much. With delta T already greater than 1500C, a couple hundred C lower, while nice is not the stumbling block, rather the internal friction of the materials being consumed is the ultimate choke for greater efficiency. We already have NG multi stage reheat turbines exhausting to near vacuum at greater than 60% efficient when peak theoretical efficiency is ~70%. Unless we go BACK to Carnot cycle with slightly higher theoretical efficiency of 73% allowable... Technically multi stage can go past theory as you can technically combine adiabatic losses together though at this point in time NO ONE has figured out how this could be possible even theorized in the physical world. Highest single stage Brayton cycle is ~45% currently Highest single stage Carnot cycle is ~50% currently. Unless we can massively increase Thot, we are doing next to nothing and unless someone figures out how to go past theory, we are chasing phantoms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
specinho + 470 May 10 On 5/9/2024 at 12:19 PM, turbguy said: I don't know what you are attempting to say here... My current stance: If mankind is going to achieve thermal efficiencies of heat engines to the ~85% level, using materials available, it currently must include a heat sink, cooled by at LEAST liquid nitrogen (at atmospheric pressure), and perhaps even liquid helium! 1. The image attached intends to show there is info posted somewhere here regarding the efficiency of coal plants operated throughout United States. Page 385 was a recap from the figure posted. Some coal plants have been highly efficient but overlooked. Let them help others to achieve the same level of efficiency, with a fee, or paid by government. Shutting down low cost energy plant that keeps inflation low could be avoided. Money wasted on hasty but flawful projects could be reduced. Cleanliness of coal plant can be further improved by recycling waste heat, converting CO2 into non soluble compound, filtering out possible soot and such. 2. Mentioned it somewhere regarding efficiency of fuel burning few years ago. Hope i could recall correctly... The calculation intended to query a statement made by EV fans in an online course, with aim to downgrade fuel engine. Based on a few info provided by web in UK, including heat produced per litre of fuel on standstill or idling condition, mol in a litre of fuel, efficiency: output heat/input heat etc. The result was: theoretically, the efficiency hits 98% on fuel engine. Imagine: C8H14 octane ( petrol) + O2 oxygen ---------> CO2 carbon dioxide + H2O water vapour + heat Complete combustion is possible when engine is new. Efficiency of fuel burning = 100%. Efficiency might decrease over time due to lack of maintenance and such. And, Yes, there is a cooling system and exhaust pipe but nothing fancy like liquid nitrogen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,545 May 10 (edited) 41 minutes ago, specinho said: 1. The image attached intends to show there is info posted somewhere here regarding the efficiency of coal plants operated throughout United States. Page 385 was a recap from the figure posted. Some coal plants have been highly efficient but overlooked. Let them help others to achieve the same level of efficiency, with a fee, or paid by government. Shutting down low cost energy plant that keeps inflation low could be avoided. Money wasted on hasty but flawful projects could be reduced. Cleanliness of coal plant can be further improved by recycling waste heat, converting CO2 into non soluble compound, filtering out possible soot and such. 2. Mentioned it somewhere regarding efficiency of fuel burning few years ago. Hope i could recall correctly... The calculation intended to query a statement made by EV fans in an online course, with aim to downgrade fuel engine. Based on a few info provided by web in UK, including heat produced per litre of fuel on standstill or idling condition, mol in a litre of fuel, efficiency: output heat/input heat etc. The result was: theoretically, the efficiency hits 98% on fuel engine. Imagine: C8H14 octane ( petrol) + O2 oxygen ---------> CO2 carbon dioxide + H2O water vapour + heat Complete combustion is possible when engine is new. Efficiency of fuel burning = 100%. Efficiency might decrease over time due to lack of maintenance and such. And, Yes, there is a cooling system and exhaust pipe but nothing fancy like liquid nitrogen. You are calling complete combustion "Efficiency of Fuel Burning"?? Is THAT what you are choosing to call thermal efficiency??????????????????? If that is so, then yes, many coal plants get very close to zero unburned coal. Nat gas CT Generators also burn ~100% of the fuel. Have you heard of Thermodynamics? There is NO heat engine that will ever achieve thermal efficiencies in the 90% percentile using materials available today. PERIOD!! Edited May 10 by turbguy 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP May 10 3 hours ago, specinho said: 1. The image attached intends to show there is info posted somewhere here regarding the efficiency of coal plants operated throughout United States. Page 385 was a recap from the figure posted. Some coal plants have been highly efficient but overlooked. Let them help others to achieve the same level of efficiency, with a fee, or paid by government. Shutting down low cost energy plant that keeps inflation low could be avoided. Money wasted on hasty but flawful projects could be reduced. Cleanliness of coal plant can be further improved by recycling waste heat, converting CO2 into non soluble compound, filtering out possible soot and such. 2. Mentioned it somewhere regarding efficiency of fuel burning few years ago. Hope i could recall correctly... The calculation intended to query a statement made by EV fans in an online course, with aim to downgrade fuel engine. Based on a few info provided by web in UK, including heat produced per litre of fuel on standstill or idling condition, mol in a litre of fuel, efficiency: output heat/input heat etc. The result was: theoretically, the efficiency hits 98% on fuel engine. Imagine: C8H14 octane ( petrol) + O2 oxygen ---------> CO2 carbon dioxide + H2O water vapour + heat Complete combustion is possible when engine is new. Efficiency of fuel burning = 100%. Efficiency might decrease over time due to lack of maintenance and such. And, Yes, there is a cooling system and exhaust pipe but nothing fancy like liquid nitrogen. Have you heard the expression "a little knowledge can be dangerous"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
specinho + 470 May 11 (edited) 21 hours ago, turbguy said: You are calling complete combustion "Efficiency of Fuel Burning"?? Is THAT what you are choosing to call thermal efficiency??????????????????? If that is so, then yes, many coal plants get very close to zero unburned coal. Nat gas CT Generators also burn ~100% of the fuel. Have you heard of Thermodynamics? There is NO heat engine that will ever achieve thermal efficiencies in the 90% percentile using materials available today. PERIOD!! You might have mixed up a) efficiency of fuel burning b) efficiency of heat conversion Yes, short chain liquid petroleum gas and petrol can be burned completely at 100% efficiency. Do you recall they are called clean energy? No soot, no left over, no other pollutant. Efficiency of heat conversion would always be less than 100%, depending on the design. - assuming coal is mainly made up of hydrocarbon, after millions of years of high heat, high pressure curing underground. - Assuming the smaller the size of coal, the more complete the burning. - however, powder form of coal could choke off air. As mentioned before here, a) more air = more oxygen that helps in burning more efficiently. Inlets of air are the key. b) chunks of coal sustain the burning for longer period of time and provide space for air to be mingling around to increase efficiency c) coal - ash separator allows ash to drop down and be separated from the fuel. This enhances efficiency d) old design used double boiler. - Heat from coal is used to heat up water in a container. Here heat is transferred onto container and then water. Water boiled, turbine is turned, electricity generated. - Heat could be lost via radiation from container, distance between container-water and fire, starting temperature of water heated, type of water or liquid used etc - double boiler has another harvesting point, the use of mercury, or waste heat from coal burning for additional wind turbine ( besides steam turbine)... e) in addition, there is a range of wavelength to choose from, shall boiling water is the only aim, i.e. from infrared to UV... A combination of old and new addition could possibly enhance efficiency by far... Edited May 11 by specinho Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
specinho + 470 May 11 (edited) 18 hours ago, Rob Plant said: Have you heard the expression "a little knowledge can be dangerous" I'm able to accept correction on wrong info provided, shall there is any. Feel free to Counter dispute it... It is what makes forum happening. Not uniformity... That creates a solemn and silent gathering. Worse, unison into the wrong direction... And not knowing. Edited May 11 by specinho Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,545 May 11 (edited) 46 minutes ago, specinho said: Yes, short chain liquid petroleum gas and petrol can be burned completely at 100% efficiency. Do you recall they are called clean energy? No soot, no left over, no other pollutant. Ahhh.. There are other gasses in our atmosphere that we use to obtain the oxygen for burning "stuff". Oxygen in not the major component. Nitrogen is. Most of the gas exiting a coal fired stack is Nitrogen. Unfortunately, you got to heat up that nitrogen in the firebox as well. Ever hear of NOx?? That's a recognized and regulated pollutant, emitted by almost all high-temperature combustion conditions. Then, there's the tramp elements in the fuels, such as sulfur. Ever hear of SO₂? That said, obtaining complete combustion of pulverized coal in the 95+% range is very common. The operator is interested in keeping excess (unused) oxygen very low as well. Edited May 11 by turbguy 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM May 11 5 hours ago, specinho said: I'm able to accept correction on wrong info provided, shall there is any. Feel free to Counter dispute it... It is what makes forum happening. Not uniformity... That creates a solemn and silent gathering. Worse, unison into the wrong direction... And not knowing. bot reply Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,009 GE May 11 11 hours ago, turbguy said: Ahhh.. There are other gasses in our atmosphere that we use to obtain the oxygen for burning "stuff". Oxygen in not the major component. Nitrogen is. Most of the gas exiting a coal fired stack is Nitrogen. Unfortunately, you got to heat up that nitrogen in the firebox as well. The lab instrument for total carbon analysis said it would work fine with zero air (normal air with water and CO2 removed). It worked okay but the machine got way better results with pure O2. If only we ran coal plants with pure O2! LOL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,009 GE May 11 6 hours ago, notsonice said: bot reply Bots write better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM May 11 2 hours ago, TailingsPond said: Bots write better. low IQ bot 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
specinho + 470 May 12 On 5/11/2024 at 11:48 AM, turbguy said: Ahhh.. There are other gasses in our atmosphere that we use to obtain the oxygen for burning "stuff". Oxygen in not the major component. Nitrogen is. Most of the gas exiting a coal fired stack is Nitrogen. Unfortunately, you got to heat up that nitrogen in the firebox as well. Ever hear of NOx?? That's a recognized and regulated pollutant, emitted by almost all high-temperature combustion conditions. Then, there's the tramp elements in the fuels, such as sulfur. Ever hear of SO₂? That said, obtaining complete combustion of pulverized coal in the 95+% range is very common. The operator is interested in keeping excess (unused) oxygen very low as well. There is a link here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx - under " Sources", you will find 1. Natural sources e.g.lightning and thunder 2. Biogenic e.g.nitrogen fixing microbs 3. Industrial sources a) thermal NOx - At high temperatures, usually above 1300 °C (2600 °F), molecular nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2) in the combustion air dissociate into their atomic states and participate in a series of reactions. ( Side note: not sure if coal plant will reach this temperature for boiling water??) b) fuel - The major source of NOx production from nitrogen-bearing fuels such as certain coals and oil, is the conversion of fuel bound nitrogen to NOx during combustion ( Side note: coal, fossil fuel were formed by rapidly burried forest and animals during natural disaster like volcanic eruption, earthquake. Under high pressure and heat, cured over millions of years, there is an assumption: nitrogenous, sulphuric compound, which form protein structure in general, would be degraded. Imagine burning an egg over the fire. Nitrogen oxide, oxide of sulphur would evaporate as gas and you can smell them. Left over would be black compound, of carbon and hydrogen, and may be water, depending on how dry we char the egg). From these info, might be wrong, we can deduce that a) as temperature at coal plant might not reach that high, reaction between atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen probably has little chance to take place. b) after millions of years of burning underground, all protein, together with their nitrogeneous and sulphurous product, might have been evaporated. Or, there could be remnant left should the density of burial was very high. Perception of damaging acid rain during industrial revolution in the 40s or 50s, probably caused by using logs, or dried wood from freshly chopped trees. Dried wood logs are not cured or charred. Only water was evaporated. Noticed leaves of live plants near a burning pit were blacken when dried branches were burnt. Another event was during volcanic eruption in Indonesia. Lightning would strike at the same place with abnormal frequency. At night, this lightning would spread upwards, instead of usual downwards. Rain it produced charred leaves of live plants as far as in Malaysia. Has anyone tested the released gas from coal plant, to know what kind of compound is present? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
specinho + 470 May 12 10 hours ago, notsonice said: low IQ bot 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,545 May 12 11 hours ago, specinho said: Has anyone tested the released gas from coal plant, to know what kind of compound is present? Yup. Continuously, at generating units in the USA. Ever hear of CEMS (Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems). They are REQUIRED by law. As is REPORTING the results to the EPA, particularly if there are "exceedences" over operating license stipulations for emissions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,545 May 12 (edited) 12 hours ago, specinho said: a) thermal NOx - At high temperatures, usually above 1300 °C (2600 °F), molecular nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2) in the combustion air dissociate into their atomic states and participate in a series of reactions. ( Side note: not sure if coal plant will reach this temperature for boiling water??) Just how hot do you think a flame gets in a firebox? The NOx occurs within the FLAME, which is much hotter than the bulk firebox gas after the flame, Edited May 12 by turbguy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,545 May 13 (edited) On 5/10/2024 at 9:02 PM, specinho said: d) old design used double boiler. - Heat from coal is used to heat up water in a container. Here heat is transferred onto container and then water. Water boiled, turbine is turned, electricity generated. The most thermally efficient steam-electric plants don't really call them "boilers", since they operate above the supercritical point for water. There is no "boiling" in a supercritical unit. The inlet feedwater absorbs heat and transitions to a "vapor-like" state without boiling. They are properly called "steam generators". Edited May 13 by turbguy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
specinho + 470 May 13 9 hours ago, turbguy said: Yup. Continuously, at generating units in the USA. Ever hear of CEMS (Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems). They are REQUIRED by law. As is REPORTING the results to the EPA, particularly if there are "exceedences" over operating license stipulations for emissions. A Coal plant owner or government agencies e.g. EPA is doing the test? There is a common scenario of " you see what you want to see"... a) shall the agenda is to shut coal plant down, government agency will do all they can to raise a case. In other words, create what is probably not there, or omit what is important, to make the case. Requested water test from a government agency upon suspecting it was polluted with fecal matter. The test included ammonia, oxygen, pH. No fecal coliform test, no examination or recording of obvious malodour emitted, no sedimentation test. The aim was suspected to be certifying immature recycled waste water technology adopted. b) shall owner is doing it, there is a possibility that figure would be minimized or no test at all, to dodge investigation. A beach side resort has done it in order to release waste water into the sea. Therefore, for government officers who are usually ill equipped with skill and knowledge here in this country, anything said or done by the rich would be nodded with approval. One just needs to tell them "this is what it is", and they will believe to give you a go ahead. USA is likely similar. So, we have a solution. Get a neutral party with no conflict of interest to do the test, or, tell government officers " this is what it is"......... 'o' +~+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
