[*Cobber*]

Just to put this into perspective here is an article that was sent to me this morning on coal fired power stations. Long but worth the read.

> This article appeared in the Rockhampton morning Bulletin on 22.12.09.
> Although I have never ever met the author I was, after some difficulty,
> able to contact him by phone.
> This is an excellent piece for my friends to send to their politicians
> or to anybody who needs to be educated about Australia 's Coal driven
> power houses.
>
> Terry is now retired and is in excellent health at age 69. Nobody paid
> him to write the article which was, (to their credit), published by the
> local press.
>
> Terry told me I could distribute his article as I saw fit.
>
> Written By Terence Cardwell <terrycar@iinet.net.au
> <mailto:terrycar@iinet.net.au>>
>
> The Editor
>
> The Morning Bulletin.
>
> 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
> and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading Scheme.
>
> 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 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 a 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 a 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.
>
> T.L. Cardwell
>
> _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.__