Home
* Contact * INDEX *
Current Issues * My
BLOG
* Priority Issues *
Reference Index * Selwyn's
Profile * Your
Comments
..
In Support of T. L. Cardwell
The Morning Bulletin (Rockhampton) recently published an excellent article by Mr. T. L. Cardwell on the practical aspects of coal fired electricity production.
Mr. Cardwell has had a long time association in the electricity generation business and no doubt during that period has seen many improvements in production efficiency and has probably been integrally involved in implementing them. Every aspect of his article was absolutely correct, technically and practically unassailable. If you haven't been able to catch up with it you can find a copy of it by clicking
HERE
The problem is that Mr. Cardwell is obviously an honest and loyal Australian who is prepared to state his case forthrightly, openly and, no doubt deal fairly with any criticism. Unfortunately that does not seem to apply to some of those who purport to govern in our best interest and, for that group, their science, quite the opposite of Mr. Cardwell's, is also "settled".
This is so apparently, notwithstanding the allegedly manipulated if not fraudulent base data, from where this "settled science" is derived. But if only this were a straight out difference in scientific opinion it could be relatively easily settled and probably in favour of Mr. Cardwell. Unfortunately the waters are a little murkier and, while Mr. Cardwell argument deals with production efficiency, the other side of the equation is quite a more sinister track.
An explanation…
The "Global Warming" theory has been going around for a couple of decades now and the association, if not correlation between carbon dioxide [CO2] and this global warming, have gradually been cranked up over that period of time. It would appear from some reports over this time span the figures have been "interpreted" exactly to facilitate this relationship. Don't let the long time spans distract you. It has been rumoured that the finalisation of the "Global Warming" scheme (scam) would take at least 40 years.
Around 1998, apparently it became clear to the main body of scientists, those not funded by "Global Warming" interests, that the great likelihood was the earth was actually cooling. Without making any inferences whatsoever, it was about this time when "Global Warming" underwent a name change and became "Climate Change". Thus, while removing the "link" between "Global Warming' and carbon dioxide, the "Climate Change" carbon dioxide link could continue unabated.
Why, you may ask, would anyone go to all this trouble and "split hairs" just for the sake of a change in terminology.
Again, an explanation…
Of all the atmospheric gases that have an effect on the Earth's temperature at any one time, the greatest by far is water vapour. Man has no control over the atmosphere's water vapour so no connection can be made between something done by humans and atmospheric warming or cooling, as a result of clouds. In fact most of the climate models used to project future world temperatures do not involve cloud effect as it's simply too hard to throw into the equation.
Atmospheric gases are not the only culprits for interfering with the earth's climatic conditions! The radiation coming from the sun, a change in the earth's molten core and magnetic field, orbital variations, volcanic activity and particulate fallout, all have a natural adverse effect. While these factors, and others, are always changing there has been stepped up activity with many of these factors in the last couple of decades, particularly the last eight (8) years or so.
So back to the gases and particularly carbon dioxide, as that is portrayed as the bogey of the day. Of all the atmospheric gases anthropogenic [man made], carbon dioxide is the only one that can be quantitatively tied back with any level of precision to human production. Never mind for the moment how minuscule the effect of this factor may be, it is the only atmospheric gas that can be reverse-engineered into human production and further more to a specific source.
The plot now becomes clearer. Here we have an anthropogenic gas - CO2 - that can be quantitatively traced back to an individual production unit and the claim is made that this gas is detrimental to the health of the world. In fact, the warnings are dire. Either we stop the production of CO2 or the world as we know it will come to an end by say 2050.
That CO2 is not the proven culprit is beside the point, precisely the point that Mr. Cardwell was trying to make. But no one in authority seems to want to listen to his view, correct as he may be.
While CO2 remains the bogey and has to be reduced to save the planet it would seem to be reasonable to tax the production of this horrific gas and so stop the "polluters" producing it in such quantities. Now, as is the case with all production of energy or production of any type for that matter, the cost of production is passed on to the consumer as "a cost of production". Ultimately, while the producer initially pays, it is the consumer, that is you and I, who foot the actual costs incurred.
Furthermore, atmospheric pollution is an international concern. There is no point in Australia reducing its carbon dioxide production to zilch while some other nation or nations produces it with no controls at all or perhaps with "sham controls". So it is only reasonable to "agree" to a tax on production being imposed by an international body by way of a legally binding internationally imposed tax. And of course that requires some "international body" to have the authority to enforce the payment of the tax and while that has been the aim of "globalists" for years, we won't go there at this time.
So what we have, when all is said and done, is a methodology for submitting Australia and its people to an internationally imposed tax over which we will not have any control or say on rate gross, all based on a very uncertain premise that the only controllable gas emission - CO2 - is causing all the Earth's problems.
Now we can appreciate why Mr. Cardwell's knowledge and experience, so eloquently reduced to words, has not even elicited a response from the Government.
Are you surprised?
RETURN TO: INDEX
Home
* Contact * INDEX *
Current Issues * My
BLOG
* Priority Issues *
Reference Index * Selwyn's
Profile * Your
Comments
.
Coal Driven Power Stations and Carbon Dioxide
by Terence Cardwell
I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations, renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading
Scheme (ETS).
Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using
power station cooling towers for an example. The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.
Frustration about the so called incorrectly named man made 'carbon emissions' which of course is Carbon Dioxide
(CO2) emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet.
Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.
And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal
power stations or renewable energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no knowledge of.
First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters and heat the air and water before 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 or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.
Coal fired power stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost wise that is very low.
The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 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 of coal fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.
We have, like the USA, coal fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia - exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.
The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because 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 work that out. But there is only one
problem - it doesn't exist.
Yes - there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.
The maximum size wind generator is 3 megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course 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 for a 'base load' because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.
The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (The ultimate power
generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes they can pump it back but it cost to do that.
(long story)
Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro electric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.
Based on an average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.
As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types. Solar thermal generation and
solar electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts of electricity.
Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing
thermal power generation. So get your heads out of the clouds do some basic mathematics and look at the facts not going off with the 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 where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.
Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness 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% in air over the last 50 years.
To put the percentage of carbon dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;
If you had a room 12 ft x 12 ft x 7 ft or 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x .25m x .17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.
Australia emits 1 percent of the world's total carbon dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by twenty percent or reduce emissions by .2 percent of the world's total CO2 emissions.
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% in 50 years.
Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by .004 percent.
Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = .00008 percent. (getting confusing -but stay with me).
Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = 0000008 percent.
Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = .00000016 percent effect per year they would have on the world CO2 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 and roofing 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 even closing some smaller business.
NOTE: To the Editor, I thought I should clarify. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Station near Newcastle. I would be pleased to supply you any information you may require.
This article appeared in the Rockhampton morning Bulletin on
22.12.2009
E-Mail: Terence.
L. Cardwell
RETURN TO:
INDEX
