Electrical Components

We Have been doing this for the past 25 years in Europe, what took you so long?

Spencer.

Perhaps you dont have as many people with their handsd in the till.

Spencer, a major cause has been republican administrations thwarting legislation designed to require more efficient, less polluting technologies by incentivizing existing, older plants to simply add on. That way, they are exempt from most pollution legislation.
World citizens should be outraged.

Anything that reduces our dependence on oil is worth pursuing. Coal and Nuclear still provide the highest and most reliable output. The problem is both have well documented environmental problems so action needs to be taken to reduce pollution and simultaneously produce more power. IGCC is a great start but more attention needs to be paid to the balance of plant equipment. Condenser designs have remained virtually unchanged since 1950 and are still manufactured with 70-85% cleanliness factors. This means 30-15% of the tubes do not contribute to condensing steam from the initial start-up. A properly designed condenser will use less material, cooling water, water treatment chemicals and provide a lower back pressure.

As far as alternative power (wind, solar, geothermal, etc.) is concerned, wind seems to have the upper edge. The problem is that the wind turbine companies now need to figure out how to make the technology economically viable. At some point they need to wean themselves off the Government and create their own industry. Until wind and other alternative fuels prove they sustain an industry they will continue to be an afterthought.

Plasma. This is the cleanest way to burn coal, and anything else that is stable, no radioactive material,. You can use garbage, trash ect. Everything is burned clean without carbon emissions. The system is ready for use today if someone had the insight.

Hi Guest.

This is what we are doing with a lot of garbage here in the UK, near to where I live they burn nearly all the garbage to produce electricity!

Nuclear? Here our government has given the go ahead for 12 new nuclear power plants, but we have a big problem because we are a small island, what do we do with the nuclear waste?

Coal? Here in the UK we have vast resources of the stuff, it has been calculated that we have 500 years worth at least. The Dutch and the Germans have been using clean burn coal power plants for the past 20 years, why can't we.

Renewables like Solar, Wind and Wave power? We have been building vast wind farms these past 10 years, but as soon as the wind drops to a certain level they are useless. Wave power has yet to come to the fore, but we have a vast tidal difference here, and it has been proposed to build a tidal barrier since 1975 on our longest river that can be utilised. But as yet it has not been built?

Solar power? Well we have days if not weeks when we are covered in cloud, so that can be left out of the equasion.

Then there is the political element, this is a difficult one because our poiticians don't like to commit themselves to anything lest it upsets certain powerful people or lobbiests!

Then there is oil and gas, our government has got their fingers into the pies here, they collect vast sums in tax from it so they are not going to upset the apple cart.

We have difficult choises to make in the near future over energy supplies, and it is not helped by government dithering!

Spencer.

It saddens me to read what this educated crowd is writing. The fact that we are building new power plants should be an outrage, no matter what the fuel source. We have absolutely no need for new power and transmission lines in this country (USA) for the next 30 years.

To prove my point I will give the following facts. 70% of electricity goes into the heating, lighting, cooling, and ventilating of structures (commercial, residential, industrial) (see Energy Information Agency). I work in a building that has cut the use of electricity in half and that was in 1997. No solar, no wind, or biofuels. Everything is based on an effective passive design, which is cheaper than standard construction. It just requires some thought.

Lighting is 20% of the building's electricity consumption ("Overview of U.S. Building Stock", Lawrence Berkley National Labs). The biggest savings we have is in the form of daylighting. We do not turn on lights at all except during bad storms and at night. Furthermore, we save on cooling because even the best lights are only 20% efficient. Therefore, they kick out 80% of the energy that goes into them in the form of heat. That translates into about 20-50% of the cooling load (depending on the type of building you have). Cooling demands are also roughly 20% of buildings electrical consumption.

So now by turning off the lights and the corresponding savings from cooling loads you can save 25-30% off our electricity demand. So lets be conservative and say we get a 25% reduction in the demand for electricity in buildings. 25% of 70% is 18% of the total U.S. electrical demand can be eliminated.

To address the critics points right away. Glare on computer screens from opening window shades has already been solved by Retro-Solar in Germany with their advanced blinds and shades. And data centers energy reductions of 80% are realistic when you integrate the heat output of liquid cooled servers (120F or 49C) with a single effect absorption chiller.

We are currently upgrading our facility, the Intelligent Workplace at Carnegie Mellon University, to reduce our primary energy consumption by 80% compared to standard US practices, which should put us even or slightly ahead of best German practices. I realize this is in the research world and is not ready for public consumption, but the 28% savings definitely is ready as that was accomplished in 1997.

Finally, to address those on the other side of the Atlantic. US buildings consume 3 to 4 times as much primary energy as European buildings (2 to 3 times the site energy). Since your homes and offices are already relatively efficient, doing solar and wind and clean coal makes sense. It makes no sense for Americans who have not even taken advantage the easy energy savings that Europeans take for granted.

One note on IGCC is that the thermal output should be routed to homes and businesses for space heating and cooling (again via absorption chiller). An IGCC may get 40-45% efficiency as compared to the standard 33%, but if you send that heat to a district energy system you may get 60-80% efficiency. So when you build your new coal plants, site them in areas where the reject heat can be utilized.

As with everything, its getting the word out and getting policy makes to understand what really needs to get done. While the Bush administration has done nothing, the past administrations haven't done much more. Its mainly because they don't know what to do or don't understand the solutions. The other problem is that conservation is not sexy like solar or biofuels. Even wind is becoming too mainstream. But the best economic arguement still lies with conservation. Maybe after 15 to 20 years when we have deployed the conservation strategies we can approach alternative fuels.

I have been bouncing back and forth to and from the states to the other side of the pond to visit power plants in the US and UK.

To be fair, the US is quite different from the UK. Not just demographics, but the lifestyle. We use our resources in excess. Food, energy, goods, space, you name it.

My point is that as engineers and scientists we can develop technology to accommodate the crowds. It is a matter of understanding what is more likely to happen than focusing on what we want. I want to be conservative, but our society here in the US is not ready for that sort of self control; most feel it is not necessary.

IGCC plants in the UK are not getting funds from government as was expected and projects have been scratched. The funds are going to retrofit plants that are already built, serving the grid, but polluting the environment with SOX, NOX, and C02. So they are building scrubbers and changing their parameters for combustion.

CCS is still not proven to be commercially stable. It seems more power is needed to store it and deliver it.

The UK is surrounded by water, and therefore can benefit from seawater FGD units to scrub the SOX without the need for limestone.

As for nuclear power, it is not a solution without understanding what can be done with the waste.

Coal will carry both the UK and the US for decades (I believe) as it has for many years. We just have to focus on eliminating the emissions. This directive is already in place around the world with legislation to enforce it by putting pressure where it hurts operators, their pocket.

My point is: we can try to get people to lower their water heater temperature, insulate their homes and buildings, turn off the lights, etc. and expect little from our audience. On the other hand we can focus on what the industry can do (which by the way tends to have a more significant impact globally) to keep from polluting.

On another note, how is it that we remove the sulfur compounds from the water vapor in a IGCC plant. I have yet to hear of the methods (not that they don't exist, I just wish to learn about the new technology).

<On another note, how is it that we remove the sulfur compounds from the water vapor in a IGCC plant>

You meant--'from the Coal gasification products=H2+CO+H2S+SO3 Mix'

Many variations of Klaus Process are utilized.

Detailed in http://www.springerlink.com/content/p21246p286452200/