China coal fired power stations

[krugerandsmith]

China to build dozens more coal fired power stations. They already have more than the whole of Europe and that's including Germanys six recently built stations.

 Will the climate change protesters get off their comfortable backsides and go and demonstrate over there.

[Stonepark]

China is using relatively cheap coal and coal fire power stations to bootstrap their people into relative prosperity just like the West did, can't blame them for that.

 

Climate change protesters are never going to be able to alter physics and need to find something better to do.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Stonepark

[TIGHTCHOKE]

17 minutes ago, krugerandsmith said:

China to build dozens more coal fired power stations. They already have more than the whole of Europe and that's including Germanys six recently built stations.

 Will the climate change protesters get off their comfortable backsides and go and demonstrate over there.

We did it albeit a long time ago.

How do you propose to stop them?

[oowee]

The EU should take the hit and start to tax their exports. We should stand upto China whilst we can. Boycott their products (not easy but I try). Public shame. 

[Scully]

Good for them I say. 👍

[Westward]

If - and it's a very big IF - burning fossil fuels causes climate change, the protesters need to realise that China + India are already responsible for 2/3rds of all the world's emissions of CO2 and they are the only countries rapidly increasing those emissions. China alone increases their emissions every 18 months by an amount equal to the total emissions of the UK.

To make it even worse, the reality is that both China and India have "Developing Nation" status which means they aren't bound by international convention to install pollution controls on their coal power stations.

All we can do here is make expensive and pointless little gestures like running electric cars which achieve virtually no pollution benefits but most certainly enable the owners to feel smug.

[Scully]

Aren’t we currently developing deep sea ocean bed mining technology to cater to ( in part ) and supply the minerals required for battery life technology? 

[DoolinDalton]

More pollution means more premature deaths in both countries, so they are in effect controlling their population!  Nuff said...I'm just putting some more coal on the burner!😃  

[Scully]

1 minute ago, DoolinDalton said:

More pollution means more premature deaths in both countries, so they are in effect controlling their population!  Nuff said...I'm just putting some more coal on the burner!😃  

Good lad, I’m just topping up the Landrover. 🙂

[KB1]

On 21/11/2019 at 07:15, Stonepark said:

China is using relatively cheap coal and coal fire power stations to bootstrap their people into relative prosperity just like the West did, can't blame them for that.

 

Climate change protesters are never going to be able to alter physics and need to find something better to do.

👍 Good Post

[team tractor]

I was told by a guy in the know that it’s just as friendly as wind turbines.

the carbon footprint of building turbines is worse than coal fired power stations . 
wind turbines have a limited life too. It’s only steam released into the air  .

 

im just a humble joiner tho so I know nothing  

[Yellow Bear]

1 minute ago, team tractor said:

I was told by a guy in the know that it’s just as friendly as wind turbines.

the carbon footprint of building turbines is worse than coal fired power stations . 
wind turbines have a limited life too. It’s only steam released into the air  .

 

im just a humble joiner tho so I know nothing  

Before I retired 6 years ago the actual carbon footprint of a Wind turbine was twice the power it generated over 20 years if you factored in service and maintenance and for a solar panel it was 3 times if it lasted 20 years  and other pollution cause by manufacture was high in addition to "carbon footprint!". 

However the green lobby chose to sweep this under the carpet (no surprise there then)

[henry d]

2 hours ago, team tractor said:

I was told by a guy in the know that it’s just as friendly as wind turbines.

the carbon footprint of building turbines is worse than coal fired power stations...

im just a humble joiner tho so I know nothing  

So it would seem.

Looks like it is just 146 days, not taking into account the maintenance, so either the cost of maintenance has come down or someone's figures are suspect...

[NoBodyImportant]

I was a steam engineer for about 8 years.  Hands down the best steam you can get is over coal.  I could make steam for about 1/4 the cost then natural gas and that was on top of the artificial inflation Obama put on coal. I was in charge of deciding how many boilers to light and when.  I would always cover 90% of my needs burning coal and I would keep a gas boiler hot to cover the 10 % plus any fluctuations I had. The only advantage gas has over coal is it is quicker to respond.  Wich is why I would use it to cover the fluctuations is steam usage. 

[henry d]

1 hour ago, NoBodyImportant said:

...The only advantage gas has over coal is it is quicker to respond.  Wich is why I would use it to cover the fluctuations is steam usage. 

But the thermal efficiency is less for coal, so mass for mass gas is better and the health benefits of not breathing coal particulates etc...

[NoBodyImportant]

16 hours ago, henry d said:

But the thermal efficiency is less for coal, so mass for mass gas is better and the health benefits of not breathing coal particulates etc...

No airborne particulates,  we maintained less then .0001 per ton.  The biggest factor is cost and heat retention.  With gas boiler you increase flow through your boiler then you must increase the flow of gas.  But your steam tubes can only absorb so much heat and the rest goes up the stack.  With coal you have a heat retaining ash bed. The steam tubes will absorb the heat vs going up the stack.  Mass for mass it’s more efficient. 

[NoBodyImportant]

You see to raise one pound of water one degree you need one btu of heat.  But that changes at 212f.  You need 970 Btus to change 212 degree water to 212 degree steam.   This part of the steam cycle is called the latent heat part.  You have to heat to the water but not change it’s temperature.  This is why Btus per ton doesn’t matter as water tubes only absorb heat so fast. When you burn gas then it’s gone. All the Btus are gone. The tubes absorb what they can and the rest goes up the stack.  With coal you burn it and it releases Btus over a period of time.  

Edited November 23, 2019 by NoBodyImportant

[NoBodyImportant]

Here is the problem with coal.  It’s cheap, I mean it’s dirt cheap.  Even with 25 years of artificially inflating it with fines and taxes and carbon credits it’s still dirt cheap.  When you go into the hills of Appalachia it’s literally falling out of the road banks.  It’s so cheap that if left unchecked it would destroy solar, natural gas, hydro, wind power industries.  There is not any money to be made when something is so plentiful that it’s laying on the ground.   To make green energy viable you have to make coal illegal.  

Edited November 23, 2019 by NoBodyImportant

[Scully]

🙂👍

[KB1]

22 hours ago, team tractor said:

It’s only steam released into the air  .

If you're referring to Coal fired Power Stations, then what you think looks like steam is actually a blend of Mercury, Lead, Sulphur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Particulates etc…….🤢

 

[Westward]

3 hours ago, NoBodyImportant said:

Here is the problem with coal.  It’s cheap, I mean it’s dirt cheap.  Even with 25 years of artificially inflating it with fines and taxes and carbon credits it’s still dirt cheap.  When you go into the hills of Appalachia it’s literally falling out of the road banks.  It’s so cheap that if left unchecked it would destroy solar, natural gas, hydro, wind power industries.  There is not any money to be made when something is so plentiful that it’s laying on the ground.   To make green energy viable you have to make coal illegal.  

Which presumably is why it's the heat source of choice in China & India.

I appreciate you sharing your knowledge of the subject, but from what you've pointed out it does seem difficult to see a cleaner way to generate enough energy to meet our future needs, especially if we're all forced to drive electric vehicles.

[NoBodyImportant]

1 hour ago, KB1 said:

If you're referring to Coal fired Power Stations, then what you think looks like steam is actually a blend of Mercury, Lead, Sulphur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Particulates etc…….🤢

 

Actually with modern scrubbing it’s mostly captured and sold to the fertilizer companies.  In fact it cost more to scrub the air then it does for the coal itself. 

[NoBodyImportant]

5 minutes ago, Westward said:

Which presumably is why it's the heat source of choice in China & India.

I appreciate you sharing your knowledge of the subject, but from what you've pointed out it does seem difficult to see a cleaner way to generate enough energy to meet our future needs, especially if we're all forced to drive electric vehicles.

Not to come across as pro coal. Coal companies will buy a beautiful mountain for couple hundred dollars an acre.  Then they will strip mine it flat.  Literally take a mountain and level it.  Then they will sell that flat land for 25 times the original price to build a walmart and parking lot.  

[henry d]

3 hours ago, NoBodyImportant said:

You see to raise one pound of water one degree you need one btu of heat.  But that changes at 212f.  You need 970 Btus to change 212 degree water to 212 degree steam.   This part of the steam cycle is called the latent heat part.  You have to heat to the water but not change it’s temperature.  This is why Btus per ton doesn’t matter as water tubes only absorb heat so fast. When you burn gas then it’s gone. All the Btus are gone. The tubes absorb what they can and the rest goes up the stack.  With coal you burn it and it releases Btus over a period of time.  

Lots of testicles here, boiler tubes are (generalisation) set up to collect heat due to their construction and metallurgy, fins/type of metal, gas (and oil) can be finely tuned as they are gaseous coal on the other hand is a solid. So on start up and at any power change you Chuck coal in and the heat that can't be taken by the finned tubes goes up the funnel, gas/oil is easily tuned to the power requirements, much like a coal fire and a gas fire. Boiler set up is crucial of course.

[NoBodyImportant]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

Lots of testicles here, boiler tubes are (generalisation) set up to collect heat due to their construction and metallurgy, fins/type of metal, gas (and oil) can be finely tuned as they are gaseous coal on the other hand is a solid. So on start up and at any power change you Chuck coal in and the heat that can't be taken by the finned tubes goes up the funnel, gas/oil is easily tuned to the power requirements, much like a coal fire and a gas fire. Boiler set up is crucial of course.

Yes, you can get into stack warmers and insulating properties of soot on steam tubes also but that’s another story.  Bottom line is coal is cheaper then gas.  And yes on start up there is waste with coal but you only starting up a few times a year.  

Edited November 23, 2019 by NoBodyImportant