New EPA coal regs = $180 billion

[Hyde244]

^ You are spot on - it is a statistical problem. How likely is something to happen?

Let me make it clear: I study energy policy. My previous post was not some hippie heart gush about how we need to save the planet. It was about the vulnerabilities our energy infrastructure faces with regards to extreme weather events.

That is what my current research is directed towards, which inadvertently introduced me to BITOG in the first place while digging through web links and reports.

Hurricane Katrina caused $15 billion in direct damages to energy producers, with millions more spent on recovery and recoop. New York City still has buildings without electricity, and saw massive power outage in part due to electric stations being directly threatened by storm surge on the coast line. There was also major gas shortages as a result of power loss, which lead to the return of gas rationing.

There are obviously weak links in how we supply and produce energy. For instance, with the population boom of the southwest, we are left with the logistical question of how to accommodate the increase in air conditioning use and water demand. Or during a drought/severe heat, what is the required amount of water needed to run a power station? Is that need threatened by water shortage?

What I hope to work towards is a way to minimize damage and inability to continue and expend energy production if more severe weather is to be the new norm.

I'd love to say that it isn't of big concern, and move onto another line of study. Yet the number of incidents caused by extreme weather have increased ten fold since 1992. There is no research nor indicators to suggest that this trend will slow down. We need to be sure our energy systems can handle the change.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
For instance, with the population boom of the southwest, we are left with the logistical question of how to accommodate the increase in air conditioning use and water demand. Or during a drought/severe heat, what is the required amount of water needed to run a power station? Is that need threatened by water shortage?


I think your study will be useful. As a person who has studied nuclear engineering, thermodynamic calculations have been made on the amount of cooling water flow needed for each tick of the temperature scale, and for each load demand region.

You're right, competing interests for water supply will be with us for a long time. The lawsuits between Kansas and Colorado over the Arkansas river flow have never been settled satisfactorily.


Quote:
What I hope to work towards is a way to minimize damage and inability to continue and expend energy production if more severe weather is to be the new norm.

I'd love to say that it isn't of big concern, and move onto another line of study. Yet the number of incidents caused by extreme weather have increased ten fold since 1992. There is no research nor indicators to suggest that this trend will slow down. We need to be sure our energy systems can handle the change.


I often wonder if there is truly a rise in severe weather incidents, or in these modern times with better communications and instant news, we are simply more aware of tornados, hurricanes, etc, often fostered it seems by the doom and gloom media (such as TWC) which seems to have an agenda. I.E., I would question the ten-fold increase.

If one looks at the historical weather record, there have been all kinds of temperature extremes in many countries for centuries. So is this really new, or have there been natural and sometimes severe cyclic weather variatons throughout time?

Secondly, (and your current study may have included this topic) is land use: why do zoning commisions allow home building so close to flood plains and coastal areas? More damage is going to result when building in flood plains and coastal areas due to storm surge, etc. When the population is concentrated in these areas, more material damage will occur.

One suggestion I have for energy producton/distribution is to have distributed 10-110 Megawatt PBR or breeder reactors scattered around the country. Our energy production seems to be concentrated in high powered reactors which supply large regions of the country. This, in my view, is a potential point-source, or failure point.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
A rising temperature would also mean more severe weather activity, such as prolonged droughts and heavy snowfall in the winter.



A professor of Meterology for the RMS has stated:

Quote:

At the present time we cannot attribute individual extreme weather events to climate change. We should distinguish between the possible effects of predicted climate change and the extreme weather that is part of the normal variability of climate.


Italics in orginal statement.

Let's hope future energy policy is based on one of adaptation to extreme weather variations, rather than damaging economic policies based on questionable climate models.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
I would question the ten-fold increase.

+1 I would like to see the source for this claim.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
For instance, with the population boom of the southwest, we are left with the logistical question of how to accommodate the increase in air conditioning use and water demand. Or during a drought/severe heat, what is the required amount of water needed to run a power station? Is that need threatened by water shortage?


I think your study will be useful. As a person who has studied nuclear engineering, thermodynamic calculations have been made on the amount of cooling water flow needed for each tick of the temperature scale, and for each load demand region.

You're right, competing interests for water supply will be with us for a long time. The lawsuits between Kansas and Colorado over the Arkansas river flow have never been settled satisfactorily.


Fortunately, water use for power plant can be non potable sources. Many of the power plant here uses reclaimed water instead of fresh water.

What IMO would be useful is in many places roof top solar panel sized just large enough (or slightly undersized) to power air conditioner during peak hours would be perfect. You get to block some of the sun light on the roof and pay for the peak hour rate. With Chinese dumping and economy of scale, IMO in a few years it would be as valuable as hybrid power train in today's vehicle.

Originally Posted By: Molakule
Quote:
What I hope to work towards is a way to minimize damage and inability to continue and expend energy production if more severe weather is to be the new norm.

I'd love to say that it isn't of big concern, and move onto another line of study. Yet the number of incidents caused by extreme weather have increased ten fold since 1992. There is no research nor indicators to suggest that this trend will slow down. We need to be sure our energy systems can handle the change.


I often wonder if there is truly a rise in severe weather incidents, or in these modern times with better communications and instant news, we are simply more aware of tornados, hurricanes, etc, often fostered it seems by the doom and gloom media (such as TWC) which seems to have an agenda. I.E., I would question the ten-fold increase.

If one looks at the historical weather record, there have been all kinds of temperature extremes in many countries for centuries. So is this really new, or have there been natural and sometimes severe cyclic weather variatons throughout time?

Secondly, (and your current study may have included this topic) is land use: why do zoning commisions allow home building so close to flood plains and coastal areas? More damage is going to result when building in flood plains and coastal areas due to storm surge, etc. When the population is concentrated in these areas, more material damage will occur.

One suggestion I have for energy producton/distribution is to have distributed 10-110 Megawatt PBR or breeder reactors scattered around the country. Our energy production seems to be concentrated in high powered reactors which supply large regions of the country. This, in my view, is a potential point-source, or failure point.


I think a lot of it is a natural cycle while added influence from deforestation and "global warming" tips them over the side once in a while. IMO deforestation is actually more damaging to the ecology of earth than CO2 and green house gases.

As you mentioned a lot of the development is in the high risk zone that could face damages from disasters, yet these properties are high value so human spend a lot of effort, sometimes not economical, to develop in these areas. We are no longer using the prime farmland to grow food but to build homes because it is more valuable to put residents there than oranges. It is cheaper to truck in oranges from 1000 miles away and evict the farm for condos.

Nobody wants nuke plants in their backyard except in Dictator Republic. I think nuclear plants are today more about politics and lawsuits than technology. Fast breeder reactors could have solve most of our energy problem today, even if you factor in a lot of transmission loss on the grid. I hope one day we could improve the grids to a point that is reliable enough and efficient enough to transmit across the globe, or control electricity usage well enough so high power needs are throttled to absorb the fluctuation. Peak demand would no longer be an issue as there's always peak on earth.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Fortunately, water use for power plant can be non potable sources. Many of the power plant here uses reclaimed water instead of fresh water.


Not quite sure where they would get sufficient reclaimed water, as it's a pretty big ask.

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
What IMO would be useful is in many places roof top solar panel sized just large enough (or slightly undersized) to power air conditioner during peak hours would be perfect. You get to block some of the sun light on the roof and pay for the peak hour rate. With Chinese dumping and economy of scale, IMO in a few years it would be as valuable as hybrid power train in today's vehicle.


My FIL installed panels purely to power his air con, and my parents did similar after paying for air con bills.

There are now companies that are offering both aircon and panels as a combined install, and others providing solar boosted systems where the thermal energy is in the refrigeration cycle.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
What IMO would be useful is in many places roof top solar panel sized just large enough (or slightly undersized) to power air conditioner during peak hours would be perfect. You get to block some of the sun light on the roof and pay for the peak hour rate. With Chinese dumping and economy of scale, IMO in a few years it would be as valuable as hybrid power train in today's vehicle.



Ive been saying this for years. Havent acted on it yet but hopefully this spring.

Two panels should be sufficient. Ill use individual inverters so that one panel doesnt offset the other. I have an optimal roof and exposure.

 

[LTVibe]

New Coal Technology Harnesses Energy Without Burning

Quote:
Feb. 6, 2013 — COLUMBUS, Ohio—A new form of clean coal technology reached an important milestone recently, with the successful operation of a research-scale combustion system at Ohio State University. The technology is now ready for testing at a larger scale.

For 203 continuous hours, the Ohio State combustion unit produced heat from coal while capturing 99 percent of the carbon dioxide produced in the reaction.

Liang-Shih Fan, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering and director of Ohio State’s Clean Coal Research Laboratory, pioneered the technology called Coal-Direct Chemical Looping (CDCL), which chemically harnesses coal’s energy and efficiently contains the carbon dioxide produced before it can be released into the atmosphere.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: LTVibe

New Coal Technology Harnesses Energy Without Burning

Quote:
Feb. 6, 2013 — COLUMBUS, Ohio—A new form of clean coal technology reached an important milestone recently, with the successful operation of a research-scale combustion system at Ohio State University. The technology is now ready for testing at a larger scale.

For 203 continuous hours, the Ohio State combustion unit produced heat from coal while capturing 99 percent of the carbon dioxide produced in the reaction.

Liang-Shih Fan, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering and director of Ohio State’s Clean Coal Research Laboratory, pioneered the technology called Coal-Direct Chemical Looping (CDCL), which chemically harnesses coal’s energy and efficiently contains the carbon dioxide produced before it can be released into the atmosphere.





Its claim of "capturing 99 percent of CO2" is misleading. Basically it is using Ferrous Oxide as a way to purify oxygen out of the air, then "burn" the coal with it in a sealed chamber to capture the CO2 easily.

You still get sulfur dioxide just like regular combustion of coal, but you eliminate NOX. Since it is a heat engine, you still have the same problem of cooling and limit of efficiency.

 

[LTVibe]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Its claim of "capturing 99 percent of CO2" is misleading. Basically it is using Ferrous Oxide as a way to purify oxygen out of the air, then "burn" the coal with it in a sealed chamber to capture the CO2 easily.

You still get sulfur dioxide just like regular combustion of coal, but you eliminate NOX. Since it is a heat engine, you still have the same problem of cooling and limit of efficiency.

There is still more research to do, but at least they're trying. And as the article mentioned, the Dept. of Energy is supporting the project.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Since it is a heat engine, you still have the same problem of cooling and limit of efficiency.


+1 I don't see any information on efficiency.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: LTVibe
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Its claim of "capturing 99 percent of CO2" is misleading. Basically it is using Ferrous Oxide as a way to purify oxygen out of the air, then "burn" the coal with it in a sealed chamber to capture the CO2 easily.

You still get sulfur dioxide just like regular combustion of coal, but you eliminate NOX. Since it is a heat engine, you still have the same problem of cooling and limit of efficiency.

There is still more research to do, but at least they're trying. And as the article mentioned, the Dept. of Energy is supporting the project.




Not saying it is a waste of time, they'll learn a lot from this and see whether it justify further research or not. DoE support all sorts of projects as many of them are just too risky for private enterprise but has significant national interest.

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Since it is a heat engine, you still have the same problem of cooling and limit of efficiency.


+1 I don't see any information on efficiency.


The heat captured from this mixture of coal and Ferrous oxide is used to generate steam or run turbine just like we would in a regular coal fire plant. You therefore still has the same design downstream from it. You may have a higher heat source due to the elimination of nitrogen from ambient air, but I don't think that was the goal of their research (which is to reduce emission).

If this is a way to pave ways for a cheap nitrogen extractor or oxygen concentrator, it could be used for natural gas plant as well as regular coal fire plant.