Long story but areally interesting one and shows how strongly "what we know" has beenmanipulated.
My name is Terence Cardwell. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSWworking, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4X 350 MW Munmorah Power Stations near Newcastle.
Terence says this about Coal fired power plants:
First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up thechimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaustheat is captured by the economisers and reheaters that heat the air and waterbefore entering the boilers.
The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2.There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators orbagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boilerwall convection.
Coal-fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss andcan generate a massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate powerat efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost-wise that isvery low.
The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuelis 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.
As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes ofcoal-fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk powergeneration.
We have, like, the USA , coal-fired power stations because we HAVE the rawmaterials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing atAustralia – exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials andindependence. The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclearbecause they don't have the coal supply for the future.
Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply.Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don't have to be a genius to workthat out. But there is only one problem---It doesn't exist
Yes - there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world butthey only add a small amount to the overall power demand.
The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained ona continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for thesame reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This ofcourse depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45%-65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied onfor a 'base load ‘because they are too variable. And they certainly could notbe used for load control.
The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro ElectricSystem (the ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when wateris there from snow melt or rain. And yes, they can pump it back but itcosts to do that. (Long Story).
Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro-electric generationbecause of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have windgenerators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount oftotal powergenerated.
Basedon an average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) youwould require over 33,300 wind generators.
As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades andthere are two types.
Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case theycannot generate large amounts of electricity.
Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have thecapability of replacing Thermal Power Generation. So get your heads out of theclouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts, - not going off withthe fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)
We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet.The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia whereeverything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being ageneral pain in the backside.
Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness isthat the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.
According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% inair over the last 50 years.
To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;
If you had a room 3.7 x 3.7 x 2.1 metres the area carbon dioxide would occupyin that room would be .25 x .25 x ..17m or the size of a large packet ofcereal.
Australia emits 1% of the world's total carbon Dioxide and the government wantsto reduce this by 20% or reduce emissions by 0.2 % of the world's total CO2emissions.
What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?
By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in50 years.
Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by...004%.
Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = ...00008%. (Getting confusing -but staywith me).
Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise.00008 divided by 100 =...0000008%.
Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% whichis 1/5th of .0000008 =...00000016% effect per year they would have on the worldCO2 emissions based on their own figures.
That would equate to an area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.
For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar andRoofing Installations, Clean Coal Technology Renewable Energy, etc, etc.
How ridiculous it that?
The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and evenclosing some smaller businesses.
T.L. Cardwell
My name is Terence Cardwell. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission ofNSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last wasthe 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Stations near Newcastle . I would be pleased tosupply you any information you may require.
Expand
