| |
VK3XX > ENERGY 23.06.05 12:20l 146 Lines 7500 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 9D1414VK3XX
Read: GUEST OE7FMI
Subj: Energy and the environment
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0SIF<DB0EA<DB0RES<DK0WUE<7M3TJZ<IK6PYS<SP7MGD<VK7AX<
VK6HGR<VK3AVE<VK3FRS
Sent: 050623/0946Z @:VK3FRS.#MEL.VIC.AUS.OC #:52452 [Kilsyth] $:9D1414VK3XX
From: VK3XX@VK3FRS.#MEL.VIC.AUS.OC
To : ENERGY@WW
Greetings readers,
This bulletin has been provoked by several recent topics on packet. It
seems to me that the passage of time influences the science to comform
with political agenda, and the (mis)information put out within the the
various media outlets is geared to this.
Just over 15 years ago I was assigned, as an electrical engineer, to the
project management and design of the conventional mechanical and
electrical plant for a landfill gas power station. This was to use gas
from a landfill as a source of fuel to generate electricity. The project
was to satisfy an policy created by the Goverment of Victoria through the
then State Electricity Commission which offered tariff incentives to help
make the economics of such generation at least slightly viable! Thus a
developer made a small profit and the enviroment received some benefit
too.
It was a steep learning curve for me in respect of regulatory
environmental issues, and gas treatment in particular. From a landfill
conference in the UK and close working with an international firm of
consultants who were working with a Local Council to exploit the
capabilities of landfill gas as a fuel, I had to learn many things which
after about 40 years in the power industry were entirely new to me.
At that time methane (CH4 or Carbon Hydrate to Warren!) was the evil which
had to be controlled to counter global warming. The scientific theory that
was being put about at the time was that "greenhouse" gases, notably
methane and carbon dioxide, were the two most prolific gases contributing
to global warming. The amount of methane given off from landfills, farm
animals etc was deemed of far more significance then the carbon dioxide in
the exhaust gases of conventional power plants. The primary argument was
that the methane had 20 times more greenhouse effect than did carbon
dioxide. This was supported by the relative molecular weights of CH4 and
CO2, being if I recall correctly 25 for methane and 52 for carbon dioxide.
So attention was directed at the time to the greater of the two evils as
so much methane was being produced globally and released to the
atmosphere. Burning landfill gas to generate electricity was a GOOD THING!
To the extent that the carbon dioxide in the exhausts to atmosphere from
power stations met the current environmental regulations it was of less
significance than the methane which was burned. that is, there was a net
benefit environmentally.
After 15 years and particularly with the resurrection of the nuclear
debate, carbon dioxide became the biggest problem. In the tons released
into the atmosphere from power sources globally. It may well be,
particularly with the astronomical growth of Chinese power consumption
being currently forecast and the greater emphasis on global warming which
may or may not be due to human factors at all. I dont wish to debate this
as I am not a atmospheric scientist.
So what about the media? They promote the latest political agenda in their
search for profits and news in that order. Carbon sequestration becomes
the current buzz-word. That means separating CO2 out and blowing it down
holes in the ground.
Only last week I read in a quality newspaper that some trials had been
carried out at a disused coalmine in Poland. These were interesting
because allegedly the CO2 interacted with the remaining coal to produce
methane which emerged from other holes in the ground. Although to be fair
this was seen to be a useful fuel to burn to generate electricity and in
the process create more CO2. Probably enough to drive the compressors that
blow the CO2 down the holes in the first instance, but knowing a bit about
the laws of physics I would doubt that.
After this shattering news in an aside they did comment that after blowing
several tons of CO2 down the hole the methane came back up the other holes
and quickly expired followed by CO2 coming back out with it. Now, it is
true that coal mines generate methane. This has been known for at least a
couple of centuries and when mixed with air in the right proportions it is
highly explosive! Sure, the CO2 would damp this down a bit. The methane
would have been filling the fissures of the mine for many years and, yes,
the CO2 would replace methane which took years to be generated but putting
in tons per day soon filled all the fissures!
Great revelations. This has been known about in the oil industry for years
and is known as secondary extraction. Water or gas, which would otherwise
be flared, is reinjected by large compressors to blow residual gas out of
a well field to get more oil out. And it only makes a marginal, but
profitable, total extra amount from a given well field before only the
fluid injected comes back out again. Not sustainable for long!
Another thing that always amuses me when this issue comes up in the
context of nuclear energy is pictures of huge natural draught concrete
cooling towers belching a white colourless gas. Guess what, that is water
vapour which forms cloud from which extra rain falls eventually, somewhere
on earth, and the cloud cover retains the sun's heat falling upon the
earth. So now we have another problem to think about! I always knew water
was bad for you.
In the context of carbon sequestration it makes for much employment of
accountants and lawyers to administer carbon credit trading. Yet another
sevice industry to take the place of real wealth creation by innovation
and manufacturing.
Hooray, everyone views their specialised circle and continues to rotate
within it. By doing their own thing and not thinking out the consequences
outside their specialisation it keeps the money coming in and going around
and a bye-product of votes. But it doesnt fulfil any real sustainable
benefit long term. Just another circle.
So the real message is: what things can be done to conserve the use of
energy? I just wonder what savings can be made from a few things that come
to mind.
Business turning computers off when not in use.
Manufacturers putting off switches again on appliances instead of relying
upon remote controls which leave things running in standby mode, each
consuming albeit small amounts of power but multiplied by millions and
8760 hour per year.
Turning lights off in empty rooms and reducing external lighting of homes.
Running lots of portable entertainment devices which require lots of
batteries all produced in polluting industries.
Leaving lights on in commercial offices 24/7. etc.
Industry has done a lot to reduce power consumption by providing a market
which encourages, for example, more efficient motor drives. Power
generation with more efficient generation cycles and cleaner fuels are
contributing to ongoing innovations. Even wind farm investment makes its
contribution though I happen to think that it has its place...offshore and
in deep water like oilfields.
The market place and our western culture, however, is devoted to demanding
more and more products largely for entertainment which consume energy to
manufacture and use, while industry is racing to catch up before the
lights go out.
I may even tell you my thoughts on sunspots and solar flares as a
contribution to global warming if you respond to this in whatever is your
chosen manner. At least it all keeps the packets flowing.
Enough now! Cheers and
73 - GORDON, VK3XX @ VK3FRS
Message timed: 19:05 AEST on 23 Jun 2005
Message sent using WinPack V6.80 (Registered)
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
