Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Welcome to the Leverguns.Com Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here ... politely.

Moderators: AmBraCol, Hobie

Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.

Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 31936
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by AJMD429 »

Interesting reading about the "tallest dam in the U.S." and noting that it is capable of generating a little over 800 Megawatts of power. One of the smaller coal-fired power plants in Indiana, built almost 80 years ago, generates almost 400 Megawatts.

It seems like hydroelectric power is disruptive to waterways, and not the huge provider of energy I thought it was...!

Granted, burning coal isn't the nicest thing either, but it sure generates lots of power with a relatively small and inexpensive plant.
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
User avatar
Ji in Hawaii
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Moku Manu, Hawai'i

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by Ji in Hawaii »

Hawai'i uses petroleum based fuels to generate electricity, and has the most expensive electric costs in the country. My regular no AC, no heating normal electric bill is around $230.00 a month. When I lived in Idaho (35 years ago, not adjusted to inflation) I paid $5.00 a month in the summer, and a whopping $25.00 a month in the dead of winter 20 below zero outside, electric furnace going full blast 24/7. Idaho power was hydroelectric so much more efficient than Hawaiian fuel oil produced electricity. I wonder how the cost per kilowatt hour compares hydroelectric versus coal.
Here in Hawai'i wind farms are popping up everywhere where there's a consistent trade wind exposure. I read somewhere though I don't recall where that wind power not all that efficient and takes forever if ever to make back the cost of the hardware. Solar panels are also very popular here with a large percentage of homes now having solar electric panels on their roofs. Hardware always expensive.
Illegitimus Non Carborundum
Akā, ʻo ka poʻe hilinaʻi aku iā Iēhova, e ulu hou nō ko lākou ikaika;
E piʻi ʻēheu aku nō lākou i luna, e like me nā ʻaito;
E holo nō lākou, ʻaʻole hoʻi e māloʻeloʻe,
E hele mua nō lākou, ʻaʻole hoʻi e maʻule.
`Isaia 40:31
Bill in Oregon
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 8850
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:05 am
Location: Sweetwater, TX

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by Bill in Oregon »

Doc, a lot of dams in the West are built primarily for irrigation water storage and flood control, with power generation almost an afterthought.
tman
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3243
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:43 pm

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by tman »

Coal fired electricity power generation is the buggy whip industry of the 21st Century. Natural gas, wind, solar, and nuclear can provide it safer, cleaner and CHEAPER. Lot of Western European countries are planning to moth ball their Nuke plants, because of their increasing reliance on wind and solar..
User avatar
Blaine
Posting leader...
Posts: 30495
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Still Deciding

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by Blaine »

The PNW, has low power rates due mostly to hydroelectric production.
The Rotten Fruit Always Hits The Ground First

Proud Life Member Of:
NRA
Second Amendment Foundation
Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
DAV
User avatar
jeepnik
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 6831
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:39 pm
Location: On the Beach

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by jeepnik »

AJMD429 wrote:Interesting reading about the "tallest dam in the U.S." and noting that it is capable of generating a little over 800 Megawatts of power. One of the smaller coal-fired power plants in Indiana, built almost 80 years ago, generates almost 400 Megawatts.

It seems like hydroelectric power is disruptive to waterways, and not the huge provider of energy I thought it was...!

Granted, burning coal isn't the nicest thing either, but it sure generates lots of power with a relatively small and inexpensive plant.
Hydro electric power is only a side benefit. Mostly dams provide water storage, and prevent flooding. When most of the large dams that create hydroelectric power, the need was much smaller. In other words, electricity is good to have, but only if you don't die of thirst or get killed in a flood.
Jeepnik AKA "Old Eyes"
"Go low, go slow and preferably in the dark" The old Sarge (he was maybe 24.
"Freedom is never more that a generation from extinction" Ronald Reagan
"Every man should have at least one good rifle and know how to use it" Dad
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 31936
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by AJMD429 »

I suppose that HUGE investment initially to make the dam/reservoir and make the generating stuff hook up to it, is partly offset by the water-storage and distribution benefit, and the day-to-day operation costs would be minimal, whereas the coal-burner is relatively cheap to build, but gonna eat up lots of expensive coal every day. If I recall correctly, a local railroad guy told me that when they shut one of the coal-fired plants down just for maintenance a few years back, his boss told him that it meant literally millions of dollars a day in reduced revenues for the railroad. They had an 80-car or so train-full of coal delivered daily during some parts of the year. That's going to up the cost of producing the electricity I suppose.

Anyway, I was surprised they couldn't get lots more energy from a huge 700-foot drop and lots of cubic feet of water, but like someone else posted, the generation is more the afterthought versus the main reason for the reservoir.
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
User avatar
Blaine
Posting leader...
Posts: 30495
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Still Deciding

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by Blaine »

AJMD429 wrote:I suppose that HUGE investment initially to make the dam/reservoir and make the generating stuff hook up to it, is partly offset by the water-storage and distribution benefit, and the day-to-day operation costs would be minimal, whereas the coal-burner is relatively cheap to build, but gonna eat up lots of expensive coal every day. If I recall correctly, a local railroad guy told me that when they shut one of the coal-fired plants down just for maintenance a few years back, his boss told him that it meant literally millions of dollars a day in reduced revenues for the railroad. They had an 80-car or so train-full of coal delivered daily during some parts of the year. That's going to up the cost of producing the electricity I suppose.

Anyway, I was surprised they couldn't get lots more energy from a huge 700-foot drop and lots of cubic feet of water, but like someone else posted, the generation is more the afterthought versus the main reason for the reservoir.
:roll: In Washington State, 60% of the power is hydro.....If Kali wasn't so interested in returning all their water to the Pacific Ocean for the benefit of a 2" silver fish, maybe they could do better.
The Rotten Fruit Always Hits The Ground First

Proud Life Member Of:
NRA
Second Amendment Foundation
Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
DAV
765x53
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1043
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:12 pm
Location: Bushwhacker Capitol, Missouri

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by 765x53 »

Funny to think.
When the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, our only reliable sources of power are water wheels and steam.
After 2 million years, if you want light and heat you still have to burn something, even if it is enriched uranium.
User avatar
ollogger
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 2794
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:47 pm
Location: Wheatland Wyoming
Contact:

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by ollogger »

765x53 wrote:Funny to think.
When the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, our only reliable sources of power are water wheels and steam.
After 2 million years, if you want light and heat you still have to burn something, even if it is enriched uranium.

I know a lot of folks that live off Grid with solar & wind as their main source for electricity but
they all have their trusty fuel burning generator for a back up, as from what I gather off grid life aint
what its cracked up to be, it seems a constant fix or replace or run the generator to charge batteries


Brad
HawkCreek
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 6:21 pm

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by HawkCreek »

ollogger wrote:
765x53 wrote:Funny to think.
When the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, our only reliable sources of power are water wheels and steam.
After 2 million years, if you want light and heat you still have to burn something, even if it is enriched uranium.

I know a lot of folks that live off Grid with solar & wind as their main source for electricity but
they all have their trusty fuel burning generator for a back up, as from what I gather off grid life aint
what its cracked up to be, it seems a constant fix or replace or run the generator to charge batteries



Brad

So it's like ranching minus the flush toilets at home?
User avatar
Sixgun
Posting leader...
Posts: 18566
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:17 pm
Location: S.E. Pa. Where The Finest Winchesters & Colts Reside

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by Sixgun »

When I was a kid , back in the early sixties, nuclear electricity plants were touted as the cleanest and cheapest way to produce electricity. I remember my parents saying, "wow, this is going to be great, we can get rid of the oil furnace and have a full electric house."

Turned out that PECO......Philadelphia electric company, which is coal or natural gas...I don't know.....now has one of the highest rates in the country.

My son who drives coal trains was telling me that one of the big shots in the coal industry told him there's enough coal in the ground to run this country for 300 years.

I say we use it, along with all of the reserves of oil as it's just a matter of 40-50 years or so until the smart people come up with something.

I heat with wood and have a high sear rated heat pump for air conditioning. I seldom get a bill over $150. We are full electric here including our water heater. I have plenty of outside lighting and ALL of my light bulbs are LED or compact fluorescents.

We eat plenty of beans and put cabbage in the dog food.....the excess gas that's generated helps to heat the house.----6
Model A Uzi’s
Image
flatnose
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:24 pm

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by flatnose »

I always thought the Hoover dam, was one of the country's best achievements, and one of the best bangs for the buck.
The dam facts......https://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/powerfaq.html
User avatar
marlinman93
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 6432
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:40 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by marlinman93 »

There are numerous reasons (beyond just power) why hydroelectric dams are much better than any other source. Cheaper electricity, cleaner, irrigation, flood control, recreational. Yes, the one drawback is migratory fish have a tougher time getting through fish ladders, but have done so for over 80 years at Bonneville Dam on the Columbia. Prior to the dam being built, flooding in towns along the lower Columbia was not that uncommon. Since it was built flooding is nearly non existent.
Pre WWI Marlins and Singleshot rifles!
http://members.tripod.com/~OregonArmsCollectors/
User avatar
marlinman93
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 6432
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:40 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by marlinman93 »

Sixgun wrote: My son who drives coal trains was telling me that one of the big shots in the coal industry told him there's enough coal in the ground to run this country for 300 years.

6
Something we have in common! My oldest son drives crude oil trains.
Pre WWI Marlins and Singleshot rifles!
http://members.tripod.com/~OregonArmsCollectors/
.45colt
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 4720
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:00 am
Location: North Coast of America-Ohio

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by .45colt »

Sixgun wrote:

My son who drives coal trains was telling me that one of the big shots in the coal industry told him there's enough coal in the ground to run this country for 300 years.

6
That's great news Six, I heat the House with anthracite coal from Your backyard . 8) .
User avatar
jeepnik
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 6831
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:39 pm
Location: On the Beach

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by jeepnik »

BlaineG wrote:
AJMD429 wrote:I suppose that HUGE investment initially to make the dam/reservoir and make the generating stuff hook up to it, is partly offset by the water-storage and distribution benefit, and the day-to-day operation costs would be minimal, whereas the coal-burner is relatively cheap to build, but gonna eat up lots of expensive coal every day. If I recall correctly, a local railroad guy told me that when they shut one of the coal-fired plants down just for maintenance a few years back, his boss told him that it meant literally millions of dollars a day in reduced revenues for the railroad. They had an 80-car or so train-full of coal delivered daily during some parts of the year. That's going to up the cost of producing the electricity I suppose.

Anyway, I was surprised they couldn't get lots more energy from a huge 700-foot drop and lots of cubic feet of water, but like someone else posted, the generation is more the afterthought versus the main reason for the reservoir.
:roll: In Washington State, 60% of the power is hydro.....If Kali wasn't so interested in returning all their water to the Pacific Ocean for the benefit of a 2" silver fish, maybe they could do better.
Nailed that one. They cry because we have a drought and not enough water storage. They wail when we get a year like this one and there aren't enough dams to handle it. All the while they are tearing down dams.

Of course we can't use lead bullets in most of the state anymore because of a bunch of pseudo science saying it's bad.

Two years and 7 days and I'll be retired. Heading out, don't know where yet, but not here.
Jeepnik AKA "Old Eyes"
"Go low, go slow and preferably in the dark" The old Sarge (he was maybe 24.
"Freedom is never more that a generation from extinction" Ronald Reagan
"Every man should have at least one good rifle and know how to use it" Dad
User avatar
Sixgun
Posting leader...
Posts: 18566
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:17 pm
Location: S.E. Pa. Where The Finest Winchesters & Colts Reside

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by Sixgun »

marlinman93 wrote:
Sixgun wrote: My son who drives coal trains was telling me that one of the big shots in the coal industry told him there's enough coal in the ground to run this country for 300 years.

6
Something we have in common! My oldest son drives crude oil trains.

That too Marlinman.......on the crude....sometimes new cars also........one time there was a load of those 700 HP Hellcats.......U.P Railroad based out of Denver
Model A Uzi’s
Image
Rusty
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 9528
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: Central Fla

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by Rusty »

Ask someone in Tenn. about their power bills. The Tenn. Valley Authority has had the lowest bills around for a long time. They have dams with hydro electric generation all thru the state.

A lot of self reliance magazines have articles about micro hydro generating. Even very small streams can generate power based on the fall and the flow they have.
If you're gonna be stupid ya gotta be tough-
Isiah 55:8&9

It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled.
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 31936
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by AJMD429 »

They cry because we have a drought and not enough water storage. They wail when we get a year like this one and there aren't enough dams to handle it. All the while they are tearing down dams.
Yeah - because if it is too dry, it's "climate change", and if it is too wet, it's "climate change".... :roll:

I'll bet if it was just right and the weather never changed, they'd still call it "climate change"... :roll: :roll:
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
mohavesam
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:40 am
Location: Rugerville AZ USA

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by mohavesam »

Burn the coal. Burn the oil.
What's a little poisoned air between friends? It makes the babies stronger, right? :wink:
I'm positive God created the universe... I'm just not convinced He had any choice in the matter.
-A. Einstein
User avatar
Blaine
Posting leader...
Posts: 30495
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Still Deciding

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by Blaine »

mohavesam wrote:Burn the coal. Burn the oil.
What's a little poisoned air between friends? It makes the babies stronger, right? :wink:
Really? :roll:
The Rotten Fruit Always Hits The Ground First

Proud Life Member Of:
NRA
Second Amendment Foundation
Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
DAV
TWHBC
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 199
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:45 am

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by TWHBC »

Many locales are ruling against wood burning for heat.
I heat with wood, in a stove that met all standards for clean burn when it was installed 13 years ago.
But perusing the companies latest literature, it seems that these 'standards' are a changing target!
The nearest town is starting to nose around with regulating burning wood, due to health complaints from new residents moving out from the nearest cities, due to crowded schools, crowded roads, increasing crime, escalating land and housing prices, etc.
Many of these people think that meat comes only in plastic packaging, their government provides everything, only free range chickens and eggs are acceptable, and the out of doors is only for looking at!
Thank goodness I have Amish all around me, they know about life, and that working the land means more than just looking!
The DOT has announced that the nearest hwy intersection is going to be changed to a round about! Wonder how the Amish horse drawn carts and wagons will work with cars and trucks in lieu of the present 4 way stop? Wonder how a very large 8 wheel tractor with large plow, or a large combine will work with this?
Remember this an area that thinks a red octagonal traffic sign means SLO-N-GO, and that gravel road intersections need warnings on TV that during the growing season the corn is tall and can obstruct visibility!
mark
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:44 am
Location: Tumbi Umbi. Au

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by mark »

For bulk megawatts its either coal of nuclear, generally the choice is political.

For specialised applications you have many choices, again the choice is either based on engineering or politics.

Down this way we have just about everything other than nuclear.

I haven't been able to find any credible figures for megawatts in for megawatts out.

Those wind farms and solar stations are manufactured from the generating capacity of coal.

In one of the driest continents on earth we grow rice with irrigation, seems a little strange.

As for hydro, its generally used to meet peak demand. In many cases, after they drop the water through the turbines they pump it back up the hill using coal powered pumps in the dead of night.

After all, there is only so much catchment area and water in the dam.

Mark
M. M. Wright
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 4296
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Vinita, I.T.

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by M. M. Wright »

It would make coal burning much cheaper if it were transported in coal slurry pipe lines but the railroads own rights of way that they won't allow pipe lines to cross.

Here in Oklahoma there are huge coal reserves that are mostly under produced because it is high sulfur and the utility companies can't burn it because of EPA regulations. The Japanese have scrubbers that can make the exhaust clean but it is expensive even though our coal has a much higher btu than the Wyoming coal they burn here.

I did some research on the subject years ago and it would have been cheaper to burn local coal but they cited not enough production locally. Of course not. But if demand were there the production would come up.

Pretty much all hydro production is tapped already and it is a very small percentage of the demand for electricity.

Wind generation is going bust because of high maintenance costs. I see many windmills that are broken and not fixed because it is not cost productive.

Looks like we are stuck with natural gas or coal.
M. M. Wright, Sheriff, Green county Arkansas (1860)
Currently living my eternal life.
NRA Life
SASS
ITSASS
User avatar
marlinman93
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 6432
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:40 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by marlinman93 »

There are areas down the Willamette Valley in Oregon where the preponderance of heating is done with wood stoves, and because of that and stagnant air, they have real smoke issues! Because of the way certain towns sit between the hills and mountains, the smoke just hangs in the valleys, and creates big problems for people with respiratory issues. Some cities have to ban using the wood stoves on certain days when there's no air movement, and it gets very bad.
Pre WWI Marlins and Singleshot rifles!
http://members.tripod.com/~OregonArmsCollectors/
765x53
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1043
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:12 pm
Location: Bushwhacker Capitol, Missouri

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by 765x53 »

If you have never seen coal smoke, check out this video of a steam locomotive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOUl7Sj ... re=related
Now, imagine the same smoke billowing from every house, building, factory, train, ship, mill, agricultural engine and power plant in the world.
The point I'm trying to make is, few people alive today have any idea what real air pollution would be like, if it still existed.
User avatar
Blaine
Posting leader...
Posts: 30495
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Still Deciding

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by Blaine »

A modern, coal-burning generation station can hardly be compared to a smoke-belching locomotive. :lol:
I've hunted downwind of the supposedly "horrible" coal-burning generators south of Oly, Wa....can't smell a thing. Some white, mostly condensation, stuff leaves the stacks...
The Rotten Fruit Always Hits The Ground First

Proud Life Member Of:
NRA
Second Amendment Foundation
Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
DAV
User avatar
jeepnik
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 6831
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:39 pm
Location: On the Beach

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by jeepnik »

M. M. Wright wrote:It would make coal burning much cheaper if it were transported in coal slurry pipe lines but the railroads own rights of way that they won't allow pipe lines to cross.

Here in Oklahoma there are huge coal reserves that are mostly under produced because it is high sulfur and the utility companies can't burn it because of EPA regulations. The Japanese have scrubbers that can make the exhaust clean but it is expensive even though our coal has a much higher btu than the Wyoming coal they burn here.

I did some research on the subject years ago and it would have been cheaper to burn local coal but they cited not enough production locally. Of course not. But if demand were there the production would come up.

Pretty much all hydro production is tapped already and it is a very small percentage of the demand for electricity.

Wind generation is going bust because of high maintenance costs. I see many windmills that are broken and not fixed because it is not cost productive.

Looks like we are stuck with natural gas or coal.
Been doing that since the late 1800's. Railroads fought valiantly to stop crude oil pipelines from crossing their ROW. Fed's finally forced the issue. But coal is a bad word these days so it's unlikely they will see any help from the Feds.
Jeepnik AKA "Old Eyes"
"Go low, go slow and preferably in the dark" The old Sarge (he was maybe 24.
"Freedom is never more that a generation from extinction" Ronald Reagan
"Every man should have at least one good rifle and know how to use it" Dad
User avatar
marlinman93
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 6432
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:40 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by marlinman93 »

BlaineG wrote:A modern, coal-burning generation station can hardly be compared to a smoke-belching locomotive. :lol:
I've hunted downwind of the supposedly "horrible" coal-burning generators south of Oly, Wa....can't smell a thing. Some white, mostly condensation, stuff leaves the stacks...
That's very true for almost any fixed coal burning company today, regardless of where it is. I've been past the coal fired plant in Eastern Oregon, and no sign of any pollution exiting the stacks. Whatever exits seems to quickly disappear as if it was steam.
Pre WWI Marlins and Singleshot rifles!
http://members.tripod.com/~OregonArmsCollectors/
User avatar
jeepnik
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 6831
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:39 pm
Location: On the Beach

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by jeepnik »

Four things that seem to concern folks about coal emissions are carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and oxides of sulfur (SOX).

Carbon monoxide can be handled with the way combustion is done to have a more complete combustion process.
Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of complete combustion and some sort of scrubber is needed.
NOX again is dealt with by controlling the combustion process.
SOX will be dependent on the sulfur content of the coal, and can be scrubbed as well.

There are many technologies out there that will produce emissions that are well within limits. There are only two issues.

First, you have to maintain the equipment.
Second, some idiot came up with BAT, Best Available Technology. Say you have a NOX limit of 20 ppm on your permit. Someone comes along and promises (may not actually be able to accomplish) a NOX of 10 ppm. They get it declared the BAT. Now anything built, or radically altered will have to meet 10 ppm.

This sort of thing has happened more than once in the combustion related industries. Governmental officials who don't know any better, and air quality officials who do but have their own agenda swallow the new technologies hook, line and sinker. Much to the detriment of industry and the people as a whole.

It's a pretty complicated mess, made more so by greed, politics and ignorant decisions makers.
Jeepnik AKA "Old Eyes"
"Go low, go slow and preferably in the dark" The old Sarge (he was maybe 24.
"Freedom is never more that a generation from extinction" Ronald Reagan
"Every man should have at least one good rifle and know how to use it" Dad
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 31936
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by AJMD429 »

jeepnik wrote:It's a pretty complicated mess, made more so by greed, politics and ignorant decisions makers.
Politics can be defined as the ignorant institutionalization of greed.

Capitalism is accused of being 'greed' but uses it to drive competition to provide 'for the greater good' by keeping costs low and quality high. On the other hand, Politics uses greed to force the middle class to subsidize the vote-selling dependent poor, and pretend the 'wealthy' are getting soaked.
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
765x53
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1043
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:12 pm
Location: Bushwhacker Capitol, Missouri

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by 765x53 »

BlaineG wrote:A modern, coal-burning generation station can hardly be compared to a smoke-belching locomotive. :lol:
I've hunted downwind of the supposedly "horrible" coal-burning generators south of Oly, Wa....can't smell a thing. Some white, mostly condensation, stuff leaves the stacks...
Exactly my point. Everyone concerned about pollution today, does not know what it is.
User avatar
Blaine
Posting leader...
Posts: 30495
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Still Deciding

Re: Power Generating - Dams versus Coal

Post by Blaine »

765x53 wrote:
BlaineG wrote:A modern, coal-burning generation station can hardly be compared to a smoke-belching locomotive. :lol:
I've hunted downwind of the supposedly "horrible" coal-burning generators south of Oly, Wa....can't smell a thing. Some white, mostly condensation, stuff leaves the stacks...
Exactly my point. Everyone concerned about pollution today, does not know what it is.
Don't get me wrong....I have asthma, and probably some mild COPD.....If I get around smoky fires, it's bad news....I always have the puffer on hand.
The Rotten Fruit Always Hits The Ground First

Proud Life Member Of:
NRA
Second Amendment Foundation
Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
DAV
Post Reply