1970's Scotland.

A research facility was tasked to examine the future of Coal after the North Sea gas industry decimated the coal industry in the UK as a whole, and also the cheaper open cut coal from Australia was making Coal mines in the UK unprofitable.

USA put in $600 million Pounds Germany $200 million. and the UK matched those sums.

The plant examine various technologies for extracting power from the coal.

One of the old methods before Natural gas was to heat Coal with no air present and extract the gas produced ( Coal Gas) Residue was Coke, clean burning and efficient heating and very little emissions.

Another process was to pelletise coal into BB sized pellets and burn in a  tray filled with iron pellets. Heated the iron pellets to red hot and burnt very efficiently. For household use you could mechanically pour the coal pellets into the grate and set to the right feed to heat the house. Commercially the process was upscaled to Power station levels and it was a very efficient 72%.

Very low co and CO2 emission technology.

That plant still exist today and is used to produce the smell they add to Natural gas so if there are leaks we are aware of them.

 

Smacks of the Electric car debacle. Oil companies didn't want them and still don't. I lived near that plant and the work they were doing was never secret. Locals could buy the pelletised coal and modify the grate to burn it. It worked but it never caught on because it cost two hundred pounds to convert your fire. The other reason it didn't look like a coal fire just a red to/white glowing tray.

My rant for the day 

 

 

All this technology is still available and yet I see ads promoting someone going to Japan to see them use Australia coal at 40% efficiency

Even some (sensible) Greenies admit that nuclear maybe the go. Being scared of nuclear power these days is like people being scared of cars when they were first introduced - a man walking and waving a red flag in front of the car has well gone. Technology & public acceptance sorted that out. The biggest issue these days is what do do with the spent fuel, not the plant safety.

Nuclear "nowadays"
would be the most cleanest. safest fuel supply on market.

I was involved with old school Nuclear back in late 50's early '60's.
Warheads on missiles in West Germany in the Cold War.
Also with one of the first Nuclear power plants in UK.
My home town (West Hartlepool) Digging the cooling tower pits.
then craning the heavy stuff in.
They've just closed it down recently. 50\60 yrs usage.

Nowadays. It's a completely different item. NOT a problem.
As long as no flooding, and no ground shaking\splitting, the footings.

We have both in the ground here.
Utilise both.
but sell out of the ground. Not licencing removal so we get nil profits from it.

This country has given away multi billions of $$$'s.
giving contents of ground to licencees????.
Sooo dumb.

^^ Canberra ^^ Big building by the lake !! Lol

We could store the Spent fuel where the Pomm's did all their Nuclear testing in the 50's Maralinga - for that matter they could build Nuclear Power stations down there as well - stable geography and now useless for anything else.

Snowy Mountains 2.0 is really a big battery. You pump all the water back up with excess power (wind, solar etc,) and let it fall back down again when required. Just a closed waterwheel. It's done now but only the excess from the generators and not solar / wind is used.

I liked the big solar chimney/tower that was going to be built up in the Sunraysia area. However one-one wanted it in their backyard. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower

From time to time I revisit this subject but invariably end up with a headache and just a little bit more confused.

It seems that Nuclear is not necessarily cheaper and the construction phase is very long and expensive.  The facilities have a short life.  Many of the world's existing plants are approaching the end of their life span, many of Britain's in the early 2020's and the race is on to replace them with whatever New Generation Reactors are available.

It seems that we may be working towards a generation of mini nuclear plants with waste with much shorter half lives.

Of course the future is renewables feeding into a smart grids with multiple  back up inputs from things like stored hydro, perhaps geo thermal & wave action type generation .. oh yes chemical batteries of some sort.  Perhaps there is a place for new Nuclear in the medium term too.  Not sure about 'clean coal' though.

Changing usage habits is also a vital factor.  For direct or indirect energy products.

The Qld State Govt (& other State Govt schemes) Solar bonus scheme was a great initiative that fell into disfavour maybe because of vested interest & denier activities.

It needs to be revisited for domestic consumption at least, given the advances in technology & much reduced solar & (soon) battery costs of recent years.  The ability to self generate during grid outages or overload is vital.  Easier & cheaper to subsidise/encourage residential solar than build new mega generator stations of whatever sort into and ancient technology based grid. We urgently need a distributed generation smart grid.

 

I think that if we want to have a reasoned input to this discussion then we need to do lots of research into current technologies .. of just accept the views of eminent scientists & not politicians or self serving interest groups.... or the self styled forum experts (That doesn't refer to us of course)

 

past 11pm here ... Off to bed for me too  (maybe a little more reading on the subject first, now that I'm worked up about it)

 

edit .. Sorry couldn't help myself  ..

 

Here's a bit more light reading .. a bit old though.  I'll see if I can find something more recent

 

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter2.html

-- Edited by Cupie on Sunday 10th of September 2017 11:12:58 PM

Not sure if Nuclear power is the answer to our future energy needs

I base my theory, (which I hope is wrong), that many amongst us are not yet responsible people

I believe that we should keep our coal power stations on standby, until we are assured that the combination of, wind/solar/tidal/battery power is feasible

Basically...
ALL homes should have Solar on roof and small wind Genny's to suit each persons requirements.
With a battery bank alongside for dark times.

Then. Whichever power supply turns out most economical and reliable.
Use for industrial.

We hve a lot of homes up mere. Us incl on solar.

It runs Air cond during day plus house.

Battery bank and we fully self sufficient. It's simple.

Too many people are not up with the times.

We paid $16k for full install. Paid off in 7 1\2 yrs.
Last 4 yrs near. Free electric. free Hot water.
and cash in back pocket.

If govt's sort themselves. They'll arrange something similar.
Homes and Ind separate.
\
IF... Thgey ever get any brains and take over power again.

Off to the shops.

Aus-Kiwi wrote:

---

How about a big generator on each house ? Lol

---

 Are you suggesting 10kVa solar for all.

Our Government here is getting their hairy little palms grease.
Just as they have been for last 100 yrs.

That's why nothing ever gets done.
Big business just greases them off to Hawaii or some other fancy holiday.

5 or 6 kva will feed most houses.
We manage on 4.2 comfortably. 2 Storey. 2 people. Central Qld.
With 30 Evac Tubes Water heating too.
ALL homes should be set up.

If you go to large energy suppliers nowadays.

They'll install your requirements in panels on your roof.
And YOU just pay them so much for kw's used.

They need your panel area to cover some credits they get to be avail for from Gov't.

One came round here last yr. circulating posters for such.

People should check up on it. Homeowners that is.