On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:02:28 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:
But as I said, coal fired plants have been declining over the years in
Europe - for instance, we operate just 14 here in the UK now. France has
none, I believe.
There are about 600 coal plants in the US. The numbers are a bit
misleading as coal fired power plants come in all shapes and sizes.
It's not the number, but the generation capacity that's important. In
the US, we built 10 new plants in 2010 for a total new capacity of
1.6GW (gigawatts). However, if you include decomissioned plants, the
net loss in capacity in 2010 was about -4.6GW lost. Most of the loss
was balanced by a transition to federally subsidized wind power. In
2010, there was also the cancellation of 10 additional plants mostly
due to legislative or EPA restriction. For example, California has a
ban on new coal plants (SB1368). Europe is doing much the same.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_phase_out
If the EPA gets its way, it's likely that most of the older US coal
plants will need to close to meet emission requirements.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants
The loss of -4.6GW of coal generation capacity is not going to make
much of a dent in the mercury emissions. At this time, the US gets
about 45% of about 4 trillion kw-hr of electricity from coal. A few
gigawatts of capacity here and there isn't going to change much.
http://www.eia.gov/coal/
Note that capacity loss is usually balanced by burning more coal to
produce more electricity at other plants. Therefore, closing a plant
does NOT constitute an overall decrease in emissions. Only a decrease
in generated mw-hr can decrease emissions.
If you accept my coal generation logic at face value, every product
that uses electricity also dumps mercury into the environment. For
example, my electric water heater would be considered a major
contributor to coal based environmental pollution and far more
significant than a CFL lamp. While this doesn't do anything to help
one decide between CFL and incandescent, it does highlight some
priorities on the process.
Apparently, the vast majority of increase in CO2 emissions,
and use of coal to fire power plants, is coming from India and China.
Yep. Something like 90% of the really obnoxious atmospheric pollution
comes from burning coal. There are technologies that drastically
reduce coal fired plant emissions. They're expensive, messy, use huge
amounts of water, and are being largely ignored by the larger plants.
Not so with the smaller plants, a few of which use one or more
technologies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology
As far as I can tell, neither India or China are doing clean coal
plants.
These
are both technologically competent nations, who are ignoring any
responsibility they might have to reduce emissions. So why does that mean
that I have to suffer a '****ing into the wind' replacement for technology
that I am happy with, so they can carry on regardless ?
I don't have an answer to the "why". Most likely, both countries
economies will collapse without the generated power, which makes it
one of many "necessary evils".
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060
http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558