stupid european politicians...making new coal plants

[jverne]

europe will be getting new and huge coal plants.
wow, what a great solution that is.

CIVITAVECCHIA, Italy ? At a time when the world?s top climate experts agree that carbon emissions must be rapidly reduced to hold down global warming, Italy?s major electricity producer, Enel, is converting its massive power plant here from oil to coal, generally the dirtiest fuel on earth.

Over the next five years, Italy will increase its reliance on coal to 33 percent from 14 percent. Power generated by Enel from coal will rise to 50 percent.

And Italy is not alone in its return to coal. Driven by rising demand, record high oil and natural gas prices, concerns over energy security and an aversion to nuclear energy, European countries are expected to put into operation about 50 coal-fired plants over the next five years, plants that will be in use for the next five decades.

oh ****....people we need to use nucular fission energy! and focus on fusion for the future.

so many people need a kick in the balls my leg would probably break before i'm done with them all.


whoops...forgot the source http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/w...mc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

 

[Saturos]

Coal plants. Heh.

Have you ever played any of the Sim City titles? maybe it's because of the low education levels of the people in these areas is the reason why they are resorting to coal power.

I bet these areas are mainly, "dirty industry" too and not "high-tech".

 

[Insano]

How about your inform yourself a bit better? Coal is the energy source for the near future, untill we achieve commercial nuclear fission generators.

Do you think that there aren't new ways to burn coal? You can stock the carbondioxide that is set free, and hold it in tanks. Not to forget that there's hydrogen formed, which can be used for clean transport.

I did a full paper on this issue, and it's ignorance like this that annoys me.

 

[jverne]

How about your inform yourself a bit better? Coal is the energy source for the near future, untill we achieve commercial nuclear fission generators.

Do you think that there aren't new ways to burn coal? You can stock the carbondioxide that is set free, and hold it in tanks. Not to forget that there's hydrogen formed, which can be used for clean transport.

I did a full paper on this issue, and it's ignorance like this that annoys me.

read the article, CO2 sequestration is not that easy.

hydrogen formed? you mean CO2+H2O?

of course they are cleaner nowadays, but they can't compare to nuclear fission.



edit:

untill we achieve commercial nuclear fission generators

lol, what?

 

[Remus]

untill we achieve commercial nuclear fission generators.

edit:
lol, what?

Exactly... :|

That's fusion. Fission reactors is what we have right now....

 

[Insano]

Typo, it's obvious I meant fusion reactors.

I would send you my paper, but it's in Dutch so I guess that's not your cup of tea. There's a lot of innovation in the coal sector. If you're interested, check out the IGCC technology (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle). As I previously said, coal will likely be the primary source of hydrogen.

I don't even get the threadstarter. The article he posted even states that the new plans use new technologies:

In order to get over oil, which is getting more and more expensive, our plan is to convert all oil plants to coal using clean-coal technologies,” said Gianfilippo Mancini, Enel’s chief of generation and energy management. “This will be the cleanest coal plant in Europe. We are hoping to prove that it will be possible to make sustainable and environmentally friendly use of coal.

 

[Mr Stabby]

CO2 capture is a relatively simple process, and could easily be done at these power stations.

 

[Dodo]

i bet italy, the country itself as in the ground, plants, forests, the land itself, emits more CO2 in a day then 10 of those coalplants would do in a month.

(Holland emits more CO2 in a day then all the cars driving in a do in a month)

-dodo

edit: ohyeah, mankind, is only responsible for 0.033% of all CO2 in the atmosphere, the rest is produced by the earth itself. (FLAME ME PLZ YESYES)

 

[Saturos]

edit: ohyeah, mankind, is only responsible for 0.033% of all CO2 in the atmosphere, the rest is produced by the earth itself. (FLAME ME PLZ YESYES)

I'm a firm believer in this theory too. Global warming is just a natural regression from the ice age imo. :|

 

[Dodo]

yup!! :cheers:

-dodo

 

[Beerdude26]

edit: ohyeah, mankind, is only responsible for 0.033% of all CO2 in the atmosphere, the rest is produced by the earth itself.

But what about other gases that have a bigger influence? (Real question btw, I just know that CO2 doesn't have that big of an impact compared to other gases and I'm wondering what the others do)

 

[nurizeko]

The aversion to nuclear power is irritating, but thats in the same lane of moronic as the general population of "eco" tards.

Seriously, moronic idiots who managed to blag their way through their degree's start harping on about how windmills and the like which most certainly are not cost efficient and reliable energy providers are the future is annoying, while they denounce nuclear power.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/dec/09/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment

This article claims expanding forests in the northern hemisphere will increase global warming. The whole of Europe has been one large forest and its been colder.

Technically these scientists are meant to be intelligent people but it seems that human natue causes them to suffer idiocy somewhere on their way.


The world has been on the edge of destruction since the first doomsayers.

Scientists who have let their position become politicized have long predicted doom and gloom, a new Ice age, then suddenly global warming, then global cooling, then just climate change, ignoring the fact the climate changes all the time with or without us.

It is more then bad science when opposing views, genuine scientific positions, are shut out and shunned like a witch, especially to secure grants and keep the climate change lobbyists happy and ever listening to their "wisdom".


Its a shame so many "scientists" are so unwilling to engage in genuine scientific method and merely sit on what they know and prefer, but this is always the way in science, and it always takes a small group of real scientists to show what they have discovered to actually merit shaking up the bone idle lazy and comfortable scientists who prefer an unchanging outlook on scientific understanding.

As it is, the continuing complete lack of climatological chaos wiping the human race aside fo our "arrogance" or some bullshit metaphysical punishment and judgement for our folly or whatever is starting to tell, just a matter of time before folk see it for the crap it is and move onto the next BS doomsday scenario.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

Found this to, nae bad.

 

[kattmat]

i bet italy, the country itself as in the ground, plants, forests, the land itself, emits more CO2 in a day then 10 of those coalplants would do in a month.

(Holland emits more CO2 in a day then all the cars driving in a do in a month)

-dodo

edit: ohyeah, mankind, is only responsible for 0.033% of all CO2 in the atmosphere, the rest is produced by the earth itself. (FLAME ME PLZ YESYES)

These kind of arguments are pretty old and tiresome. As everyone knows the Earth has a big atmosphere. Lots of gases and particles. Over time the composition of the atmosphere reach a natural equilibrium. The CO2 that is released in geologic process for instance is used by plants or taken up by the oceans.

While the are always fluctuations, it's not too dramatic unless some major unusual event happen. Like humans burning the ENTIRE fossil fuel reserves on this planet. While this might be "0.033%" a year, that's 0.033% more then what is naturally present. While there are such variations present at all time, this is no volcanic eruption that's over in a week. If humans have been doing this for centuries it's going to lead to some kind of effect on the atmosphere. While we can always argue about how much and what other processed there are, it's clear that humans are releasing too much CO2 in the atmosphere and has been doing that for at least 150 years.

 

[jverne]

Typo, it's obvious I meant fusion reactors.

I would send you my paper, but it's in Dutch so I guess that's not your cup of tea. There's a lot of innovation in the coal sector. If you're interested, check out the IGCC technology (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle). As I previously said, coal will likely be the primary source of hydrogen.

I don't even get the threadstarter. The article he posted even states that the new plans use new technologies:

http://www.coal21.com.au/IGCC.php

Improvements in efficiency dramatically reduce emissions from coal combustion as the graph at right highlights. Increasing efficiency from 35 to 40%, for example, reduces carbon dioxide emissions by over 10%.

lol

 

[Eejit]

The aversion to nuclear power is irritating, but thats in the same lane of moronic as the general population of "eco" tards.

Seriously, moronic idiots who managed to blag their way through their degree's start harping on about how windmills and the like which most certainly are not cost efficient and reliable energy providers are the future is annoying, while they denounce nuclear power.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/dec/09/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment

This article claims expanding forests in the northern hemisphere will increase global warming. The whole of Europe has been one large forest and its been colder.

Technically these scientists are meant to be intelligent people but it seems that human natue causes them to suffer idiocy somewhere on their way.


The world has been on the edge of destruction since the first doomsayers.

Scientists who have let their position become politicized have long predicted doom and gloom, a new Ice age, then suddenly global warming, then global cooling, then just climate change, ignoring the fact the climate changes all the time with or without us.

It is more then bad science when opposing views, genuine scientific positions, are shut out and shunned like a witch, especially to secure grants and keep the climate change lobbyists happy and ever listening to their "wisdom".


Its a shame so many "scientists" are so unwilling to engage in genuine scientific method and merely sit on what they know and prefer, but this is always the way in science, and it always takes a small group of real scientists to show what they have discovered to actually merit shaking up the bone idle lazy and comfortable scientists who prefer an unchanging outlook on scientific understanding.

As it is, the continuing complete lack of climatological chaos wiping the human race aside fo our "arrogance" or some bullshit metaphysical punishment and judgement for our folly or whatever is starting to tell, just a matter of time before folk see it for the crap it is and move onto the next BS doomsday scenario.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

Found this to, nae bad.

You're basically a conspiracy theorist. I'm disgusted.

 

[The Monkey]

Fucking Eurotrash.

 

[dfc05]

CO2 capture is a relatively simple process, and could easily be done at these power stations.

Actually, no.

First of all, the CO2 in the flue gas is dilute. So you need to concentrate it, maybe with a separations process... e.g. gas->liquid, in a big absorption column, to get the CO2 out of the gas into some solvent. Maybe a membrane, but they're still working on that. And then you need a stripping column to get the CO2 gas out of the solvent. And all of this has to be done on massive flue gas flowrates. It is expensive.

Then after you do all that, you need to figure out where the heck to sequester it. Saline formations: they're still testing to make sure it actually stays there. I've heard varying things -- some professors are doing research on it, others are really skeptical. And it has to be in an area that actually has a saline formation. You could chemically react it to tie it up in a solid... provided you have large amounts of stuff to react it with. Enhanced oil recovery: they're working on it. Ocean storage: all I can say is... why the heck would you do that.

So... yes maybe the CO2 capture/sequestration will eventually work out. But for now, no it's not that easy.

 

[Insano]

http://www.coal21.com.au/IGCC.php

lol

I guess you got the solution? Don't you grasp how complicated the problem is? Our entire society is based on energy. Oh, and btw:

"Increasing efficiency from 35 to 40%, for example, reduces carbon dioxide emissions by over 10%. "

Nobody knows how far this technology can be optimalised.

 

[jverne]

I guess you got the solution? Don't you grasp how complicated the problem is? Our entire society is based on energy. Oh, and btw:

"Increasing efficiency from 35 to 40%, for example, reduces carbon dioxide emissions by over 10%. "

Nobody knows how far this technology can be optimalised.

With efficiencies currently approaching 50%, IGCC power plants use less coal and produce much lower emissions of carbon dioxide than conventional power plants.

With development of new gas turbine concepts and increased process temperatures efficiencies of more than 60% are being targetted.

meh...they didn't even reach 60% efficiency.


look i understand that coal is abundant and some people wants to exploit it. but coal is just dirty. the slag it produces contains toxic materials which need to be disposed in landfills, CO2 sequestration faces alot of problems right now (read dfc05).

read:

coal wastes

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02d.html

coal waste more radioactive than nuclear waste

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, fly ash?a by-product from burning coal for power?contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste.

nuclear is the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium

The Energy Watch Group has calculated that, even with steep uranium prices, uranium production will have reached its peak by 2035 and that it will only be possible to satisfy the fuel demand of nuclear plants until then.

yeah i know, supplies are not huge, but if we just put more attention to nuclear fusion we might save ourselves in a nice clean way.

 

[Insano]

You seem to know why the uranium prices are rising, besides China stocking it all up. Then you'd have to know that we'll need alternatives after the "nuclear is teh future"

 

[Eejit]

You seem to know why the uranium prices are rising, besides China stocking it all up. Then you'd have to know that we'll need alternatives after the "nuclear is teh future"

It doesn't have to last forever, just until we get the technology of the renewable energy sources to a sufficient level to take over.

 

[Insano]

If you really believe that, good for you.

I had a couple of instruction classes from energy experts, so I rather believe what they said.

 

[Eejit]

If you really believe that, good for you.

I had a couple of instruction classes from energy experts, so I rather believe what they said.

So they said that there is absolutely no chance of fission acting as a stop-gap energy solution until other methods are perfected? Seems quite odd, care to explain?

 

[Insano]

No, fission will definately be needed (I never said it wouldn't), but it won't be sufficient. Energy demand in 2050 will be 2x-4x the current (Shell research), with the growing world population.

It's foolish to ignore the possibility of coal reserves, definately when there's a lot of things that can be done to improve it.

 

[Eejit]

No, fission will definately be needed (I never said it wouldn't), but it won't be sufficient. Energy demand in 2050 will be 2x-4x the current (Shell research), with the growing world population.

It's foolish to ignore the possibility of coal reserves, definately when there's a lot of things that can be done to improve it.

If the population keeps growing at it's current rate food will be a FAR bigger issue than energy by 2050.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

So what happens when the coal runs out too? Investing in coal is dumb as ****, you'd think people would learn from our oil problems.

 

[Insano]

If the population keeps growing at it's current rate food will be a FAR bigger issue than energy by 2050.

That's a whole other issue, and definately not impossible to overcome. Genetic modification, there's a lot of room left in Africa, ...

So what happens when the coal runs out too? Investing in coal is dumb as ****, you'd think people would learn from our oil problems.

"reflecting a current reserves-to-production ratio of 164"

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html

That gives us enough time to shift to renewable energy and fusion energy.

 

[Parrot of doom]

So what happens when the coal runs out too? Investing in coal is dumb as ****, you'd think people would learn from our oil problems.

Economist, are we?

Maybe you should write them a letter and tell them why they're wrong. With expert advice like yours, they'll probably give you a job.

 

[Evo]

Hell if this means that the coal mines here in Wales open up again and we can make all the Chavs work in them then I will be a happy man

Really if they can get coal to be clean and less environmentally damaging than I assume it is then go for it!

 

[jverne]

fission will probably last for the next 50 years. iter, the first self sustained fusion reactor will be operational really soon, and even with insanely limited budget (8billion). that is so little money it's almost a joke, for ****s sakes translating services for the European parliament cost that much. this is a joke, it must be.

 

[Beerdude26]

iter, the first self sustained fusion reactor will be operational really soon, and even with insanely limited budget (8billion). that is so little money it's almost a joke, for ****s sakes translating services for the European parliament cost that much. this is a joke, it must be.

D:

 

[PvtRyan]

I wonder if peak uranium is really such a big deal, because - unlike in fossil fuel plants - the fuel cost of nuclear energy is a very, very low percentage of the energy price. The price can easily increase tenfold without the cost of the energy going up. There's plenty of uranium, we're just running out of the easily accessible supplies. As long as demand for energy keeps growing, uranium mining will eventually become profitable.

 

[theotherguy]

No, fission will definately be needed (I never said it wouldn't), but it won't be sufficient. Energy demand in 2050 will be 2x-4x the current (Shell research), with the growing world population.

It's foolish to ignore the possibility of coal reserves, definately when there's a lot of things that can be done to improve it.

It's more foolish to revert back to dirty coal. You can talk all you want about CO2 sequestration and the like, but the truth is, energy companies care only about the bottom line. Coal is cheap, abundant and easy to use. Energy companies would rather just burn the coal and forget about the CO2 that escapes.

What we really need is to have a very steep carbon tax to bring the cost of coal up to the cost of gas and oil, possibly more.

We need to invest the most strongly in solar, wind and nuclear power, and put all of our efforts into replacing current coal power plants with natural gas and oil. Building more coal plants should be the absolute last resort. It's entirely possible to build an infrastructure of solar and wind power which would meet a good deal of our energy demand, and fill the rest with nuclear. The market demands coal, but in this case, the market is broken, and must be put into line by government action.

 

[Parrot of doom]

It's entirely possible to build an infrastructure of solar and wind power which would meet a good deal of our energy demand, and fill the rest with nuclear. The market demands coal, but in this case, the market is broken, and must be put into line by government action.

No it isn't actually. And governments have an amazing track record of doing exactly the wrong with with markets, which is why socialism is such a failure.