Lew Hodgett wrote:
....
I envision gov't involvement to involve setting some goals and
insuring that those who invest their money will not be left high and
dry before they see a return by insuring continuation of the program,
then getting out of the way and let it happen.
....

That's the wrong way -- if it turns out to be an uneconomical choice for
whatever reason, money should be lost and the particular technology
should go away posthaste in place of whatever else happens to be the
winner. That should be determined by the markets not the government.

What the government needs to do is to set a fixed set of rules and leave
them unchanged for a significant length of time rather than twiddling
them around all the time by changes in tax credits or additional taxes
or different emissions controls standards, etc., etc., ...

--

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:46:22 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:


Either way, it's going to require gov't involvement to provide a
stable environment for private industry to to the job.

Lew


Those are without a doubt the scariest words I've read here in quite
some time.

Frank

Yeah, the last part is correct but undoubtedly it will require more
_dis_-involvement to provide anything close to stability.
Unfortunately, the best thing the gov't provides is the uncertainty of
what will they do next?

--

Morris Dovey wrote:
dpb wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
...
The government and industry don't appear to be interested in any
technology that doesn't produce ongoing revenues capable of providing
mega-salaries to top execs and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
campaign contributions.

I don't believe that for a minute.

You talked to EPRI or responded to DARPA or DOE RFPs on Advanced
Technology? You sent concept proposals to the National Labs for
cooperative research? You talked w/ various research
centers/deans/department heads at State universities? Looked at the
various Foundations who sponsor advanced research? There are zillions
of options for funding but it does takes work to go find them.

Eh? I'm not in business to produce concepts. If I were, then your
suggestions would make sense.

The national labs want me to pay them. Hell - if I could afford to pay
them, then I wouldn't need them at all. :-)

I've already been the university route once.

I was talking the incubation centers more than paid research from
either...there are at least 30 new startups in the Oak Ridge, TN, area
that are a byproduct of guys w/ ideas w/ the UT/ORNL incubation process
that are going concerns.

--

Lew Hodgett wrote:

If we don't get serious and start developing alternative energy
sources NOW, our $700M+/month expenditure for foreign oil will just
get larger.

When it gets too large, alternatives should pop up like wild maple
trees. I say "should" because government involvement can always throw a
monkey wrench in the gears of the free market.

BTW, the source of that $700M+/month number comes from T Pickens.

He may have his own axe to grind, but he is in the neighborhood.

If he has his own ax to grind, why would his figures mean anything?
I saw him on TV pimping natural gas, so I figure he is selling natural
gas? Not that there is anything wrong with him selling gas or using
natural gas, but for some reason, I think he has more invested than save
the world, save the country type stuff. Am I wrong?

I don't know what you call it, but I call it a $700M+/month TAX being
paid to offshore countries, most of which, don't particularly like us.

That is a nasty tax, but our own country taxes the hell out of that
$700M also. Watch what happens when all that tax money goes away and
everyone is driving "cheap" electric cars. Do you think your wonderful
government will simply eat that huge (windfall profit) tax loss?

If I'm going to pay that $700M+ TAX every month, would jut a soon see
it paid in the USA to develop alternative energy.

There is already a ton of alternative energy, and much more on the way,
particularly if big brothers stays out of the way.

$4-$5/gallon gasoline is a bitter pill to swallow, but it seems the
only way to get at our oil gluttony problem.

True, but then the cost of gasoline doesn't need to be artificially
inflated. Normal supply and demand will take care of it all, just as it
has for most products not controlled by government and monopolies.
Microsoft comes to mind first and fore most when thinking of getting
screwed by a monopoly...

Our economy has been built on cheap oil.

The gays of cheap energy, especially oil, are history.

Depends on your definition of "cheap". If the government taxes the
**** out of each gallon of gas you buy, and pays you to run inefficient
solar or wind power, things can get out of whack in a hurry. On the
other hand, if Morris comes up with an efficient solar panel, or wind
turbine or anything that is better than oil, it will be available simply
do to supply and demand that always works well over the long run, with
minimum government involvement.

Time to get up off our dead and dying, and get to work.

That time seldom needs defined by Big Brother.

Now, if we can only get an alternate energy policy established by our
gov't to create and nurture alternate energy development.

The only time you need government to get involved in this crap is if
someone monopolizes things (like Microsoft has the OS market) Otherwise,
there are plenty of capitalists willing to take the risk of getting rich
on alternate energy systems that make sense.

Without a stable environment over the long haul, private capital will
NOT invest the billions needed to solve the energy problem(s).

Private capital is always right around the corner, looking for ways to
get rich making you happy.

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

Jack Stein wrote:
....
I saw him on TV pimping natural gas, so I figure he is selling natural
gas? Not that there is anything wrong with him selling gas or using
natural gas, but for some reason, I think he has more invested than save
the world, save the country type stuff. Am I wrong?
....

No, you're not wrong... (or, , I'm not sure, actually which...)

The side effect of wind generation is that one will need far more
reserve generation owing to the unsteady nature of the fuel source (the
wind).

Now, guess what's the most likely/convenient/lowest-initial-cost
generation capacity w/ the facility to have the required very rapid ramp
rates????

--

Frank Boettcher wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Either way, it's going to require gov't involvement to provide a
stable environment for private industry to to the job.

Those are without a doubt the scariest words I've read here in quite
some time.

Amen to that. Unless of course he meant governments responsibility to
keep terrorists and others from traipsing across our borders to blow
stuff up, or insuring that all business is on a level playing field,
taxed equally and not monopolizing markets or simply invading our
country to change it's capitalistic nature, or not printing money
whenever it feels like it needs to spend another trillion on stupid,
unneeded projects...

Somehow I think he is closer to thinking government should seize control
of business and decide for us what is best as private business and the
individual are too stupid to figure out whats works best.

I'm probably reading too much into it, what the heck...

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote:

I don't have a lot of time available for digging, but I'm sure
you're right. So far, the sources I've found have all had an
associated overhead that would slow, rather than accelerate, the
work to be done. I figure I'm already going slow enough.

At this poimt in time, what is your objective?

[1] Produce an inexpensive, maintenance-free, extended-service,
multi-horsepower engine that performs direct conversion of solar
radiation to mechanical energy.

[2] Use that technology to implement an inexpensive, maintenance-free,
extended-service pump capable of moving air and/or fluids using only
direct conversion of solar radiation to mechanical energy.

[3] Use both of the above to implement an inexpensive, maintenance-free,
extended-service cooling/refrigeration system using only direct
conversion of solar radiation to mechanical energy.

Has it changed from when you started?

The original goal was to identify practical ways to improve availability
and quality of food and shelter worldwide using already known technology
which did not depend on the existence of any energy infrastructure.

That goal diverged into two fairly broad 'sub-problems':

[1] Keeping dwelling temperatures within some reasonable temperature
bounds, and

[2] dealing with the problem that the food-supply depends highly on
water - and that the water is all too frequently in the 'wrong' place.

The only universal energy source I could identify was solar. The first
goal made the obvious split into:

[1a] Solar heating, and

[1b] Solar cooling.

The first of these has been solved with a passive solar panel that is so
efficient it could be labeled "stealthy" - it eats radiant energy at all
wavelengths from UV to HF radio (I don't have a way to test LF and VLF)
with a remarkable efficiency - and it'll do that without moving parts,
without electricity, and without fuel anywhere between the Arctic Circle
and the Tropic of Cancer, and between the Tropic of Capricorn and the
Antarctic Circle.

Interestingly [1b] and [2] appear to be so closely related that their
solutions can use not only the same technology, but much of the same
hardware. Anyone who's interested in getting a glimpse of how this stuff
is shaping up is invited to browse through the pages linked below.

HTH

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/

"dpb" wrote:

Unfortunately, the best thing the gov't provides is the uncertainty
of what will they do next?

The alternate energy problem is IMHO, so complex that it is beyond the
ability of the free market economy to solve it in the foreseeable
future.

It is so large that it is going to require the everybody in the entire
country to get involved and devote a part of their energies to solving
this problem.

Seems to me the definition of gov't is to provide the means to
accomplish those things that we as individuals can't achieve.

I'm certainly not qualified to comment on the nitty gritty of how you
structure gov't to achieve a solution; however, the necessity of gov't
leadership in a project of this magnitude is obvious.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"dpb" wrote:

Unfortunately, the best thing the gov't provides is the uncertainty
of what will they do next?

The alternate energy problem is IMHO, so complex that it is beyond the
ability of the free market economy to solve it in the foreseeable
future.

I think that's not so...the transition _to_ oil was done w/o government
intervention and the transition away will occur in that manner too _IF_
the government doesn't screw it up, that is.

It is so large that it is going to require the everybody in the entire
country to get involved and devote a part of their energies to solving
this problem.

Seems to me the definition of gov't is to provide the means to
accomplish those things that we as individuals can't achieve.

I'm certainly not qualified to comment on the nitty gritty of how you
structure gov't to achieve a solution; however, the necessity of gov't
leadership in a project of this magnitude is obvious.

Not to me it isn't--in fact what is obvious to me is that whoever tries
to mandate a particular solution or set of solutions will undoubtedly
not be prescient enough to foresee all the problems in their chosen
paths nor nearly capable enough to predict all the other technologies
that will spring up if not prevented from doing so by artificially
propping up less successful favorite sons (so to speak).

Again, businesses on both ends will look to make the most prudent
choices for their own success--both ends means consumers of energy and
producers. If there's an opportunity to make a new widget, somebody
(Morris is a prime example on a small scale, there are thousands of
others like him and virtually every company involved in the most remote
way is also) will give it a shot. Not all will succeed, of course, but
the chances of finding the most effective solution(s) are far better if
there's incentive other than artificial ones.

That said, there's a role government can play and that is to judiciously
fund research and deployment of proven technologies and they do. The
problems arise when the policy mandate for specific technologies
overrides the competitive market forces so people react to those
influences instead.

I think the German emphasis on solar and wind now is just one
example--their conversion is sizable but the extremely high
subsidization rates are the cause. If not careful they're going to end
up w/ an infrastructure based on non-economic technology that will hurt
the overall economic competitiveness for a long time to come.

Similar issues arise here w/ the mantra of wind power--examination of
output from the large wind farms installed so far show they have at best
40% average capacity factors and periods of only 20% even when built in
the most advantageous areas of the country. That means it takes from
2.5X to 4X the target generation capacity as installed capacity which is
a very expensive capital investment solely for the privilege of using a
free fuel. And, as has been noted elsewhere, that the wind isn't as
reliable a fuel source as any conventional, there's the added need for
spinning reserve at a far higher percentage of grid capacity than for
other forms of generation. And, unfortunately, the only really suitable
form right now and for the foreseeable future to provide that reserve
capacity is the gas turbine which is about the most illogical use we can
make of dwindling natural gas supplies.

In short, the market will do a far better job of determining what and
when alternative sources are available if allowed to do so. Of course,
besides the government often being a hindrance more than a help, there's
the problem of the anti-development crowd, no matter what the
alternative. In the end, if fear it may be that which is the most
limiting factor in responding in a timely manner, even over government.

The problem as I see it is to too great an extent we have shifted from a
decentralized "bottom-up" society to one that expects that every problem
must be solved by a central government. That despite ample
demonstration that rarely if ever does a real solution to a problem come
from that end.

W/ that, finis...

--

In article ,
says...

"dpb" wrote:

Unfortunately, the best thing the gov't provides is the uncertainty
of what will they do next?

The alternate energy problem is IMHO, so complex that it is beyond the
ability of the free market economy to solve it in the foreseeable
future.

....and you believe government can solve the problem?

It is so large that it is going to require the everybody in the entire
country to get involved and devote a part of their energies to solving
this problem.

....and you believe in fairies, too?

Seems to me the definition of gov't is to provide the means to
accomplish those things that we as individuals can't achieve.

No, the purpose of government is to do exactly what the Constitution
says it should do. It is *not* to tell me how to live my life. I
would hope that you believe in liberty, as well.

I'm certainly not qualified to comment on the nitty gritty of how you
structure gov't to achieve a solution; however, the necessity of gov't
leadership in a project of this magnitude is obvious.

No, it is not obvious. People are flawed, by nature. Government is
simply an extension of people, just as flawed and a *lot* more
powerful. That is a very dangerous combination.

--
Keith

In article , jbstein2
@comcast.net says...
Frank Boettcher wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Either way, it's going to require gov't involvement to provide a
stable environment for private industry to to the job.

Those are without a doubt the scariest words I've read here in quite
some time.

Amen to that. Unless of course he meant governments responsibility to
keep terrorists and others from traipsing across our borders to blow
stuff up, or insuring that all business is on a level playing field,
taxed equally and not monopolizing markets or simply invading our
country to change it's capitalistic nature, or not printing money
whenever it feels like it needs to spend another trillion on stupid,
unneeded projects...

Somehow I think he is closer to thinking government should seize control
of business and decide for us what is best as private business and the
individual are too stupid to figure out whats works best.

I'm probably reading too much into it, what the heck...

From reading Lew's previous comments, I think you're pretty much
right on the money.

--
Keith

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

"dpb" wrote:

Unfortunately, the best thing the gov't provides is the uncertainty of
what will they do next?

The alternate energy problem is IMHO, so complex that it is beyond the
ability of the free market economy to solve it in the foreseeable future.

It is so large that it is going to require the everybody in the entire
country to get involved and devote a part of their energies to solving
this problem.

Seems to me the definition of gov't is to provide the means to accomplish
those things that we as individuals can't achieve.

I'm certainly not qualified to comment on the nitty gritty of how you
structure gov't to achieve a solution; however, the necessity of gov't
leadership in a project of this magnitude is obvious.

Lew

The problem is that there are no leaders in government. As I heard it put
recently, do you think the "alphas" of our society go into politics?
(By the way, if you nominate Obama for the job I'm going to puke on my
shoes). You want to know what you get when you put the government in charge
of alternate energy? Ethanol from corn. I'm from a corn state, and it's
the stupidest idea I've ever heard. Putting the goverment in charge these
days gets you political solutions instead ones that make economic sense.
What's the solution, then? It beats the hell out of me, but I bet it isn't
going to be more government involvement.

todd

"todd" wrote:

The problem is that there are no leaders in government. As I heard
it put recently, do you think the "alphas" of our society go into
politics?

That's why we have elections on a regular basis.

With all the crap a candidate and their family has to endure, there is
little incentive to run for political office.

(By the way, if you nominate Obama for the job I'm going to puke on
my shoes).

You seeem to have a problem controlling body functions.

You want to know what you get when you put the government in charge
of alternate energy? Ethanol from corn. I'm from a corn state, and
it's the stupidest idea I've ever heard.

Since less than 5% of the corn is converted, before being returned as
animal feed suplement, maybe the ethanol program is not such a bad
call after all.

BTW, think you will find the lobbying of ADM, ConAgra, Cargill, et al,
may hve had something to do with implementation of the ethanol
program.

It was exactly a lack of leadership from congress but rather the
lobbyists that lead to the environment being established.

BTW, it is my understanding that corn was just a stop gap.

Those plants can be converted to other feed stocks on short notice.

What's the solution, then? It beats the hell out of me, but I bet
it isn't going to be more government involvement.

IMHO, we need a major change in leadership to among other things,
reestablish the reputation of gov't not to be an ATM for the
privileged few, but a servant of the many.

Lew

"Morris Dovey" wrote:


The first of these has been solved with a passive solar panel that
is so efficient it could be labeled "stealthy" - it eats radiant
energy at all wavelengths from UV to HF radio (I don't have a way to
test LF and VLF) with a remarkable efficiency - and it'll do that
without moving parts,

Sounds like you need what we used to call a "Rabbi", AKA: Someone who
can give you air cover and tell you where the "bombs" are planted.

If you have put together a good game plan, somebody like P Allen
(Microsoft founder) might be interested.

He has been supporting Rutan and his companies space research here in
SoCal.

Just a thought.

Today, a private foundation might be the most productive.

Lew

todd wrote:

(By the way, if you nominate Obama for the job I'm going to puke on my
shoes).

Thank you for not puking on /my/ shoes. :-\

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Lew Hodgett wrote:

Sounds like you need what we used to call a "Rabbi", AKA: Someone who
can give you air cover and tell you where the "bombs" are planted.

If you have put together a good game plan, somebody like P Allen
(Microsoft founder) might be interested.

He has been supporting Rutan and his companies space research here in
SoCal.

Just a thought.

Today, a private foundation might be the most productive.

Perhaps. Thanks for your thoughts.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:yrFyk.58$Yw1.24@trnddc03...

"todd" wrote:

The problem is that there are no leaders in government. As I heard it
put recently, do you think the "alphas" of our society go into politics?

That's why we have elections on a regular basis.

With all the crap a candidate and their family has to endure, there is
little incentive to run for political office.

Thanks for making my point.

(By the way, if you nominate Obama for the job I'm going to puke on my
shoes).

You seeem to have a problem controlling body functions.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole

You want to know what you get when you put the government in charge of
alternate energy? Ethanol from corn. I'm from a corn state, and it's the
stupidest idea I've ever heard.

Since less than 5% of the corn is converted, before being returned as
animal feed suplement, maybe the ethanol program is not such a bad call
after all.

BTW, think you will find the lobbying of ADM, ConAgra, Cargill, et al, may
hve had something to do with implementation of the ethanol program.

Duh! You think? Like I said...politics.

It was exactly a lack of leadership from congress but rather the lobbyists
that lead to the environment being established.

BTW, it is my understanding that corn was just a stop gap.
Those plants can be converted to other feed stocks on short notice.

And that's about as smart as using corn. Can they be coverted to cellulosic
ethanol production? IF ethanol can be a viable fuel, it's not going to be
made from grain. IMO, all of it is stop-gap until we can get all-electric
vehicles.

What's the solution, then? It beats the hell out of me, but I bet it
isn't going to be more government involvement.

IMHO, we need a major change in leadership to among other things,
reestablish the reputation of gov't not to be an ATM for the privileged
few, but a servant of the many.

How about we reestablish the idea of a limited federal government that
actually follows the powers enumerated to it in the Constitution? I
know...that's just crazy talk.
todd

Morris Dovey wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
....

Today, a private foundation might be the most productive.

Perhaps. Thanks for your thoughts.

Which was also one of those in previous sources of funding I gave...

I'll reiterate EPRI (their actual name these days but the entity
formerly known as the Electric Power Research Institute) is always
looking for good ideas to fund. They're self-funded by (mostly) member
electric utilities. Spent quite a number of years w/ them as primary
client altho my specialty was I&C-related as pertained to advanced
controls/instrumentation of interest to the utilities. Last project
before retiring back to the family farm after Dad died was pulverized
coal flow measurement via turbulent noise and unique signal processing.
The intent is to go from concept to the device--at the time I left
and passed the work to colleagues, DOE had just picked up a sizable
fraction of the next step to fund a series of tests at the coal flow
facility EPRI was building. All again to indicate there's $$ for ideas
w/ merit and that have an end payoff.

--

dpb wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Today, a private foundation might be the most productive.

Perhaps. Thanks for your thoughts.

Which was also one of those in previous sources of funding I gave...

I noticed that - and I appreciate your thinking as well. As happens
sometimes when there's a sudden wealth of ideas, I find myself more than
just a bit distracted by the possibilities...

I'll reiterate EPRI (their actual name these days but the entity
formerly known as the Electric Power Research Institute) is always
looking for good ideas to fund. They're self-funded by (mostly) member
electric utilities. Spent quite a number of years w/ them as primary
client altho my specialty was I&C-related as pertained to advanced
controls/instrumentation of interest to the utilities. Last project
before retiring back to the family farm after Dad died was pulverized
coal flow measurement via turbulent noise and unique signal processing.
The intent is to go from concept to the device--at the time I left and
passed the work to colleagues, DOE had just picked up a sizable fraction
of the next step to fund a series of tests at the coal flow facility
EPRI was building. All again to indicate there's $$ for ideas w/ merit
and that have an end payoff.

You've worked on some interesting projects! (Recalling what you said in
the cyclone separator thread, back when, and adding this...)

One aspect of the private foundation route would seem to be the need to
identify those whose interests align with the hoped-for results - I
can't help but wonder how enthusiastic an energy industry related
foundation is likely to be for developments intended to shrink their
markets...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:
....
One aspect of the private foundation route would seem to be the need to
identify those whose interests align with the hoped-for results -

Yes, that's key when writing proposals -- they need to be directed. One
of the assets the local or university incubator centers bring into play
is knowledge in that area of where to go for seed money -- not only do
they know the well-known players (The Gates Foundation, Paul Allen,
etc., that everybody knows about), they know and have contacts w/ the
lesser-known and those who specialize in specific areas.

I don't know exactly where DeSoto is, but even here in very rural SW KS
we're fortunate to have a Community College which has a Corporate
Development Division and a budding incubator program in cooperation w/
K-State. I would expect there would be similar resources near you.

can't help but wonder how enthusiastic an energy industry related
foundation is likely to be for developments intended to shrink their
markets...

Very.

Change your point of view--you're not actually shrinking their markets;
in reality you're expanding them only with an alternate generation
source. You're too close and thinking your fighting against them rather
than look at the big picture of "where do we go from here?".

EPRI has had involvement in alternate energy sources "for since
forever", long before country---err, make that green was cool.

There was a demonstration combined wind/solar project w/ TVA as the
prime utility near Kingston where the I&C Center is 15 years or more
ago. They've put quite a lot of funding into fuel cell and hydrogen as
well and that's just the tip of the iceberg. If there's anything
whatsoever to do, however remote, w/ generation and transmission, EPRI's
interested.

As I emphasized in the sidebar w/ Lew, these are energy companies and
their objective is MW on the grid at reasonable cost and at the
necessary reliability. It's those last two little tidbits that are all
too often being ignored in the present discussion. The objective isn't
"green" generation--that, after all, is actually a fairly trivial
problem if that's the only ultimate objective. It's getting it at an
acceptable cost point and particularly, making it a portion of an actual
operating grid that is 24/7 that is the hard part.

That's where I worry about falling into the German trap of
over-committing too early to a particular technology and getting a large
infrastructure in place that is simply not cost-effective. That has the
very high risk of making the entire country even more at a disadvantage
in the global economic picture and it is, despite anybody's wishes
otherwise, a global economy and competitive position therein is and is
going to remain significant.

I've not looked at what DOE has in their Advanced Generation funding
programs for current RFPs for quite some time. That's where the coal
flow test loop funding came from after EPRI had put in about $1.5M over
roughly six years looking at initially five alternate technologies
before eventually choosing the one to continue with. A couple of the
others w/ other vendors are still continuing w/ other funding sources
(either internal or other backers than EPRI).

While that focuses on the general grid generation issue, there's great
interest in the niche markets as well. I personally think your concepts
would be well received.

--

"dpb" wrote:


Last project before retiring back to the family farm after Dad died
was pulverized coal flow measurement via turbulent noise and unique
signal processing.


While still a student, our thermo class got to take a tour of a local
coal fired utility plant.

Still remember, the boilers were at least 5-6 stories tall.

The coal was pulverized finer than face talcum, then blown into the
boilers at the top and burned as it fell to the bottom.

The clinker that was formed at the bottom of the boilers was almost
like glass chards.

It couldn't be used for road bed or anything else useful at the time.

Was told by our professor that a lot of research money was available
to find a use for this clinker.

Since you have been involved with the utility industry, let me ask the
question:

Did the industry ever solve the clinker/chard problem?

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
....
While still a student, our thermo class got to take a tour of a local
coal fired utility plant.

Still remember, the boilers were at least 5-6 stories tall.

The coal was pulverized finer than face talcum, then blown into the
boilers at the top and burned as it fell to the bottom.

The clinker that was formed at the bottom of the boilers was almost
like glass chards.
....
Did the industry ever solve the clinker/chard problem?

Don't suppose you recall the particular plant, perchance--or, if you
remember who and where it was, if I don't know it already I can easily
find it and answer specifics of that unit more accurately.

But, from the description, that would be an usual design for a
pulverized-coal fired unit--in fact, I'm not aware of any top-fired unit
that isn't stoker-fired. Not to say there aren't some I've not run
across as, as I said earlier my primary area is in I&C and I'm a
transplanted NucE to the fossil side, anyway...

But, to answer the actual question, I'd say for the most part, yes. The
answer/solution is basically in controlling the coal types and quality
for the specific furnace. That's not to say there still aren't times
when a furnace will slag or form clinkers, but it's a livable level of
problem in general as long as don't try to change coal properties too
drastically.

That, of course, is a continuing experiment by all utilities to continue
to push the envelope on coal, in particular the Western low-sulfur,
low-rank coals that do have a much lower heating value and higher
intrinsic ash content thus requiring far more actual material to be
processed.

Although as I read the question again, perhaps that isn't what you mean
by "solving" the problem, I don't know...

--

"todd" wrote:


Duh! You think? Like I said...politics.

Face it, politics or AK47's at 10 paces.

Tyhe present tactic of confrontation for confortation's sake is about
like failing at windmills per Don Quoite.

It doesn't get it done in a civilized society.

And that's about as smart as using corn. Can they be coverted to
cellulosic ethanol production? IF ethanol can be a viable fuel,
it's not going to be made from grain. IMO, all of it is stop-gap
until we can get all-electric vehicles.

Don't think anybody thinks it is an end all, but it is a start.

How about we reestablish the idea of a limited federal government
that actually follows the powers enumerated to it in the
Constitution? I know...that's just crazy talk.

You said it.

Lew

"dpb" wrote:

Don't suppose you recall the particular plant, perchance--or, if you
remember who and where it was, if I don't know it already I can
easily find it and answer specifics of that unit more accurately.

The Illuminating Co, E72nd & Shoreway, Cleveland

The coal was from strip mines in SE Ohio.

Although as I read the question again, perhaps that isn't what you
mean by "solving" the problem, I don't know...

You end up with a clinker/chard pile of waste.

Other than haul it to a land fill, did the industry ever find a use
for it?

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"dpb" wrote:

Don't suppose you recall the particular plant, perchance--or, if you
remember who and where it was, if I don't know it already I can
easily find it and answer specifics of that unit more accurately.

The Illuminating Co, E72nd & Shoreway, Cleveland

The coal was from strip mines in SE Ohio.

Although as I read the question again, perhaps that isn't what you
mean by "solving" the problem, I don't know...

You end up with a clinker/chard pile of waste.

Other than haul it to a land fill, did the industry ever find a use
for it?

Relatively few liquid slag units still; most have been retired and newer
units are dry ash.

No indication this unit still on the books according to the 1995
Directory of Electric Power Producers so can't determine anything more
about what it actually was, specifically. Probably pretty small,
perhaps an early cyclone unit to hazard a complete guess.

Interestingly, we did some of the early test work on the coalflow
instrumentation project at the East Lake plant.

A fair amount of ash is used for aggregate--concrete, block, asphalt,
etc., ... As long as unburnt C is 0.4-5% it's suitable.

Ash disposal is an issue although I'm still of the opinion there's no
real reason that which isn't used might as well go back into the hole
from which it came...

--

"dpb" wrote:

No indication this unit still on the books according to the 1995
Directory of Electric Power Producers so can't determine anything
more about what it actually was, specifically. Probably pretty
small, perhaps an early cyclone unit to hazard a complete guess.

Interestingly, we did some of the early test work on the coalflow
instrumentation project at the East Lake plant.

A fair amount of ash is used for aggregate--concrete, block,
asphalt, etc., ... As long as unburnt C is 0.4-5% it's suitable.

Ash disposal is an issue although I'm still of the opinion there's
no real reason that which isn't used might as well go back into the
hole from which it came...

Doesn't surprise me, it was an old plant back then.

The majority of the generation came from Avon Lake and Eastlake.

Eastlake will live in infamy as the plant that took the east coast
down a few years ago.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
....
Eastlake will live in infamy as the plant that took the east coast
down a few years ago.


My recollection is that while the incident started there, it was a
failure to disconnect elsewhere in the grid that actually was the cause
of the widespread outage. I'd have to review the incident reports
again, however, to be positive of the sequence.

--

On Sep 13, 3:23*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"dpb" wrote:
Last project before retiring back to the family farm after Dad died
was pulverized coal flow measurement via turbulent noise and unique
signal processing.

While still a student, our thermo class got to take a tour of a local
coal fired utility plant.

Still remember, the boilers were at least 5-6 stories tall.

The coal was pulverized finer than face talcum, then blown into the
boilers at the top and burned as it fell to the bottom.

The clinker that was formed at the bottom of the boilers was almost
like glass chards.

It couldn't be used for road bed or anything else useful at the time.

Was told by our professor that a lot of research money was available
to find a use for this clinker.

Since you have been involved with the utility industry, let me ask the
question:

Did the industry ever solve the clinker/chard problem?

Lew

Well, Lew... now you're into my area of expertise. The bulk of
pulverized coal turns into 'fly-ash' and is caught by electrostatic
precipitators. The clinkers are a minimal product of most coals burned
for power generation.
That doesn't mean I disagree with the possibilities of using fly-ash
as fillers for road contructuon, etc, but the mineral remnant is
notoriously weak in structure and is hard to bind with anything cheap.

I am sure of one thing though. the first guy to find a use for fly-ash
will be a bezillionare over-night.

On Sep 13, 3:57*pm, dpb wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:

...

While still a student, our thermo class got to take a tour of a local
coal fired utility plant.

Still remember, the boilers were at least 5-6 stories tall.

The coal was pulverized finer than face talcum, then blown into the
boilers at the top and burned as it fell to the bottom.

The clinker that was formed at the bottom of the boilers was almost
like glass chards.
...
Did the industry ever solve the clinker/chard problem?

Don't suppose you recall the particular plant, perchance--or, if you
remember who and where it was, if I don't know it already I can easily
find it and answer specifics of that unit more accurately.

But, from the description, that would be an usual design for a
pulverized-coal fired unit--in fact, I'm not aware of any top-fired unit
that isn't stoker-fired. *

You have just been disqualified. Stoker units died a death many moons
ago. Many.

"Robatoy" wrote:

Well, Lew... now you're into my area of expertise. The bulk of
pulverized coal turns into 'fly-ash' and is caught by electrostatic
precipitators. The clinkers are a minimal product of most coals burned
for power generation.
That doesn't mean I disagree with the possibilities of using fly-ash
as fillers for road contructuon, etc, but the mineral remnant is
notoriously weak in structure and is hard to bind with anything cheap.

I am sure of one thing though. the first guy to find a use for fly-ash
will be a bezillionare over-night.

Good old fly ash.

Have some fly ash customers who like our solution for continuous fly
ash silo level measurement.

It is not an easy application.

Lew

Robatoy wrote:
....

You have just been disqualified. Stoker units died a death many moons
ago. Many.

Yes, as did this unit...although I didn't say it was; only that a
top-fired downfired pulverized unit would have been unusual and
something I personally hadn't ever seen. Of course, I also noted
there's stuff out there I've not seen as I'm mostly I&C and a
nuc-transplant to the fossil side.

I'd guess this unit was probably 40 yr old when Lew visited and that was
probably around that long ago as well making it somewhere near many
moons since it was new...ymmv if you know something specific about that
particular unit it would be interesting to know.

--

"dpb" wrote:

I'd guess this unit was probably 40 yr old when Lew visited and that
was probably around that long ago as well making it somewhere near
many moons since it was new.

That plant was long in the tooth when our class visited which was '58
time frame.

My guess is that it passed the century mark several years ago.

That utility was strictly a belt and suspenders bunch.

Their engineering dept considered 50 year old technology as break
thru.G.

Lew

On Sep 13, 5:15*pm, dpb wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:

...

Eastlake will live in infamy as the plant that took the east coast
down a few years ago.

My recollection is that while the incident started there, it was a
failure to disconnect elsewhere in the grid that actually was the cause
of the widespread outage. *I'd have to review the incident reports
again, however, to be positive of the sequence.


My mother who lives jsut outside of Cleveland was online reading
her email when he PC went dead. She assumed she did
some thing wrong, but couldn't figure out what. Abandoning the
computer she then discovered that the lights in her house didn't
work later. That really worried her. Breaking the computer
was one thing, but the house lights?

To make a long story short she figured out what had happened
before she blamed herself for the loss of power to the entire
Eastern US.

--

FF

On Sep 13, 5:58*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote:

Well, Lew... now you're into my area of expertise. The bulk of
pulverized coal turns into 'fly-ash' and is caught by electrostatic
precipitators. The clinkers are a minimal product of most coals burned
for power generation.
That doesn't mean I disagree with the possibilities of using fly-ash
as fillers for road contructuon, etc, but the mineral remnant is
notoriously weak in structure and is hard to bind with anything cheap.
...


I used to work for Stock Equipment company, though sadly, not until
after Arthur Stock had sold the company. The bread and butter of
our business was gravimetric feeders.

As I am sure you know, like coal itself fly ashes have enormous
variation in their properties. Something like 10 - 15% are
pozzolanic,
meaning they set like cement.

A few years ago utilities were experimenting with adding materials
to their scrubbers to produce, on the fly, useful materials like
(IIRC)
gypsum.

A major impediment to this sort of innovation is that Electric
power companies are in the business of producing electricity,
not 'stuff'.

A worse impediment to cost savings and especially fuel savings
measures in general is the economic regulatory structure.
Utilities typically have two sources of funding. Investors,
and ratepayers. The Public Utility Commissions (affectionately
referred to as pukes) typically restrict expenditures for capital
improvements to invested dollars, while allowing ratepayer
dollars to be spent on operational costs. Rates (with some
limitations) are allowed to go up and down with fuel usage
and costs. Investors expect a relatively short term return
on their investment. Consequently, when I was in the business
a utility would not make any improvements not required by law
unless they expected a return on the investment within nine
months.

That problem is by no means unique to the power industry and
is a major reason for why our economy has largely become
a house of cards. No long term investment.

So, while conversion from volumetric to gravimetric feeders
would typically reduce coal usage by 15% a number of utilities
would not do it.

Sometimes a utility would receive permission from their puke
to invest ratepayer money in a capital improvement. This
was typically reported in the Press as "charging customers
for electricity they had not yet generated", though that particular
phrase was more often used in the context of investing rate-
payer money in nuclear plant construction.

--

FF

In article e450b639-e4b0-482b-a6a2-a764d888ad14
@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, says...
On Sep 13, 5:15*pm, dpb wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:

...

Eastlake will live in infamy as the plant that took the east coast
down a few years ago.

My recollection is that while the incident started there, it was a
failure to disconnect elsewhere in the grid that actually was the cause
of the widespread outage. *I'd have to review the incident reports
again, however, to be positive of the sequence.


My mother who lives jsut outside of Cleveland was online reading
her email when he PC went dead. She assumed she did
some thing wrong, but couldn't figure out what. Abandoning the
computer she then discovered that the lights in her house didn't
work later. That really worried her. Breaking the computer
was one thing, but the house lights?

To make a long story short she figured out what had happened
before she blamed herself for the loss of power to the entire
Eastern US.

Sheesh, how naive. It was obviously Window's fault the Eastern US
crashed.

--
Keith

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:

I used to work for Stock Equipment company, though sadly, not until
after Arthur Stock had sold the company.

Are you still in the Cleveland area?

Lew

Morris Dovey wrote:
Swingman wrote:

IOW, all the asses in congress, combined, have failed to exhibit
enough judgment to make a single pimple on a wooddorkers butt.

We already knew that :-)

Does anyone have any info on new refining capacity under construction
or in the process of being brought on line in the near future?

Saw this mentioned in a TV commercial yesterday


Marathon is spending $3.2 billion on the project that will expand the crude
oil refining capacity by 180,000 barrels of oil per day
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...8/ai_n18712309

Rod

dpb wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
...
You are probably not going to like this response, but it is reality.

There has not been a "grass roots" refinery built in the USA in over
30 years, and hopefully, there will NEVER be another built, at least
until after some usable form of alternate energy is developed.
...
That's sheer stupidity...to not process shale or sand oil while
waiting on some yet-to-be-discovered magic "alternative" fuel would
be asinine.
And, of course, while that's true on building "clean site" refinery
capacity, actual capacity has more than double in that time frame by
combinations of expansion and process improvement. So, while it's
important that new refinery capacity be built, the significant factor
of the proposed facility is that it will be processing shale oil.

"alternative energy" will become available as it becomes economically
viable, not before, in large quantities, anyway.


It is worth noting Denmark's successful energy independence
program......following the original oil price shocks of the 70's they
embarked on a very serious plan to avoid foreign energy sources(a then 99%
dependency). With little doubt they succeeded in freeing from the grip of
the OPEC oil cartel......They now lead in windmill technology (20% of
domestic electricity production) and use other renewable including solar,
biomass and thermal ......Drilling for North sea oil did help just a little
since they now export oil and they do have the highest electric and
gasoline($10 gal) cost of western Europe. Houses have fewer appliances,
families have fewer cars and mass transit is very popular in their tiny
country. People there do a remarkable job of conserving energy, somehow with
that choice between heating ones home and eating......food usually wins.
Rod

On Sep 14, 1:43*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:

I used to work for Stock Equipment company, though sadly, not until

after Arthur Stock had sold the company.

Are you still in the Cleveland area?

Lew

No, but I frequently come back to visit.

--

FF

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

dpb wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
...
You are probably not going to like this response, but it is reality.

There has not been a "grass roots" refinery built in the USA in over
30 years, and hopefully, there will NEVER be another built, at least
until after some usable form of alternate energy is developed.
...
That's sheer stupidity...to not process shale or sand oil while
waiting on some yet-to-be-discovered magic "alternative" fuel would
be asinine.
And, of course, while that's true on building "clean site" refinery
capacity, actual capacity has more than double in that time frame by
combinations of expansion and process improvement. So, while it's
important that new refinery capacity be built, the significant factor
of the proposed facility is that it will be processing shale oil.

"alternative energy" will become available as it becomes economically
viable, not before, in large quantities, anyway.


It is worth noting Denmark's successful energy independence
program......following the original oil price shocks of the 70's they
embarked on a very serious plan to avoid foreign energy sources(a then 99%
dependency). With little doubt they succeeded in freeing from the grip of
the OPEC oil cartel......They now lead in windmill technology (20% of
domestic electricity production) and use other renewable including solar,
biomass and thermal ......Drilling for North sea oil did help just a
little since they now export oil and they do have the highest electric and
gasoline($10 gal) cost of western Europe. Houses have fewer appliances,
families have fewer cars and mass transit is very popular in their tiny
country. People there do a remarkable job of conserving energy, somehow
with that choice between heating ones home and eating......food usually
wins. Rod

I'm having a hard time buying that definition of "successful". The
highest electric and gasoline costs in western Europe makes them
successful?




--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough