Temperatures of Coal Fired Pwr Stations

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Temperatures of Coal Fired Pwr Stations

Temperatures of Coal Fired Pwr Stations16-09-2018 04:24
Kirkieb ☆☆☆☆☆ (20)	Seeking technical information hopefully accurate. What is the temperature of Carbon Emissions at the base of the Stack, the middle of the Stack and at the top of the Stack. Does the temp rise once outside the Stack?
16-09-2018 05:52
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Kirkieb wrote: Seeking technical information hopefully accurate. What is the temperature of Carbon Emissions at the base of the Stack, the middle of the Stack and at the top of the Stack. Does the temp rise once outside the Stack? ...Not sure about the bottom or the middle but out the top of the stack is about 310° F. What I'd be interested in knowing is the average volume/KwH. I suggested to an editor in a coal mining town that the waste heat could probably be used to preheat the coke and dry it out as well. I think that carbon capture might be more efficient if the emissions were cooler. That and cleaning up some of the toxic metals in the emissions as well.
16-09-2018 06:27
Kirkieb ☆☆☆☆☆ (20)	Im interested in the capture of the emissions and alternative ideas for its use. The Toxic metals surely could be captured within a filtration system. To know if the emissions solidifies or not during filtration and maybe a two tier filtration system that separates the Carbon from the Toxins. A magazine fed Filter at side of the Stack feeds the stack with a new filter/s and a secondary magazine collects ejected filters as they become contaminated.
RE: Rough start point16-09-2018 06:29
Kirkieb ☆☆☆☆☆ (20)	Something like this. Although its primitive surely we can make this sort of thing to collect emissions and toxins.
16-09-2018 07:03
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	Kirkieb wrote: ....Seeking technical information hopefully accurate. What is the temperature of Carbon Emissions at the base of the Stack,.... Temperature of flue gasses after energy recovery in the combustion air preheater is about 300 degrees F according to https://www.powermag.com/power-101-flue-gas-heat-recovery-in-power-plants-part-i/?pagenum=2. In line with what James indicated in his reply. Took just a few seconds to look up online. The temperatures will decrease a little as the gasses exit the stack. Regarding filtration, modern coal plants can filter out solids pretty well. Not all operating plants are modern though. Filtering out carbon emissions from a powerplant? A misuse of the word "filter" or maybe a misunderstanding about the carbon emissions. Almost all the carbon emissions from a powerplant is in the form of the gas carbon dioxide. Filtration works for removing solid particles like soot and "fly ash" but not for removing gasses like CO2. To remove the CO2 from the exhaust stream is harder. Read up on CCS, carbon capture and sequesteration for some of the proposed methods.

16-09-2018 07:12
Kirkieb ☆☆☆☆☆ (20)	Interesting although begs to question why cant gases be filtered or absorbed into a collector
16-09-2018 12:04
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	Kirkieb wrote: Interesting although begs to question why cant gases be filtered or absorbed into a collector Gasses can be absorbed. Maybe I'm being too picky but filtering and absorption are different. Absorption of carbon dioxide from the exhaust stream of a powerplant can work. It has been demonstrated. More than one method. It's not cheap though. The amount of CO2 that needs to be removed is the problem. A really large powerplant will burn over a thousand tons of coal an hour and will produce an even greater weight of carbon dioxide every hour. See https://gizmodo.com/5850299/americas-largest-coal-power-plant-burns-11-million-tons-of-bituminous-a-year Read up on "carbon capture and sequesteration" or "CCS." Lots of stuff written.
16-09-2018 16:56
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	still learning wrote: Kirkieb wrote: Interesting although begs to question why cant gases be filtered or absorbed into a collector Gasses can be absorbed. Maybe I'm being too picky but filtering and absorption are different. Absorption of carbon dioxide from the exhaust stream of a powerplant can work. It has been demonstrated. More than one method. It's not cheap though. The amount of CO2 that needs to be removed is the problem. A really large powerplant will burn over a thousand tons of coal an hour and will produce an even greater weight of carbon dioxide every hour. See https://gizmodo.com/5850299/americas-largest-coal-power-plant-burns-11-million-tons-of-bituminous-a-year Read up on "carbon capture and sequesteration" or "CCS." Lots of stuff written. ...The primary method of carbon capture being pursued is having CO2 bind with amines and water. Then to reuse the amines those bonds have to be broken. This is essentially using amines as a flocculant and would be absorption. ..With filtering, CO2 would be removed while other emissions pass through a barrier. What I'd like to see tried is carbon capture using a Joules-Thomson field and seeing if CO2 and contaminants in the emissions can't be separated by their atomic mass. This is where lowering the heat in emissions would be necessary. ..There is a neat trick that could work. Use water as a scrubber. There is a natural attraction between water and CO2, why our oceans can absorb it. And this could possibly remove many contaminants by filtering the water. I think the primary reason something like that hasn't been considered is because it's not highly technical like bonding CO2 with amines. Edited on 16-09-2018 16:58
16-09-2018 21:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	still learning wrote: Kirkieb wrote: ....Seeking technical information hopefully accurate. What is the temperature of Carbon Emissions at the base of the Stack,.... Temperature of flue gasses after energy recovery in the combustion air preheater is about 300 degrees F according to https://www.powermag.com/power-101-flue-gas-heat-recovery-in-power-plants-part-i/?pagenum=2. In line with what James indicated in his reply. Took just a few seconds to look up online. The temperatures will decrease a little as the gasses exit the stack. Regarding filtration, modern coal plants can filter out solids pretty well. Not all operating plants are modern though. Filtering out carbon emissions from a powerplant? A misuse of the word "filter" or maybe a misunderstanding about the carbon emissions. Almost all the carbon emissions from a powerplant is in the form of the gas carbon dioxide. Filtration works for removing solid particles like soot and "fly ash" but not for removing gasses like CO2. To remove the CO2 from the exhaust stream is harder. Read up on CCS, carbon capture and sequesteration for some of the proposed methods. No need to filter out the CO2. It doesn't do anything. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-09-2018 21:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	Kirkieb wrote: Interesting although begs to question why cant gases be filtered or absorbed into a collector Why would you want to? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-09-2018 21:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	still learning wrote: Kirkieb wrote: Interesting although begs to question why cant gases be filtered or absorbed into a collector Gasses can be absorbed. Maybe I'm being too picky but filtering and absorption are different. Absorption of carbon dioxide from the exhaust stream of a powerplant can work. It has been demonstrated. More than one method. It's not cheap though. The amount of CO2 that needs to be removed is the problem. A really large powerplant will burn over a thousand tons of coal an hour and will produce an even greater weight of carbon dioxide every hour. See https://gizmodo.com/5850299/americas-largest-coal-power-plant-burns-11-million-tons-of-bituminous-a-year Read up on "carbon capture and sequesteration" or "CCS." Lots of stuff written. There's no need to remove the CO2 at all. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-09-2018 21:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	James___ wrote: still learning wrote: Kirkieb wrote: Interesting although begs to question why cant gases be filtered or absorbed into a collector Gasses can be absorbed. Maybe I'm being too picky but filtering and absorption are different. Absorption of carbon dioxide from the exhaust stream of a powerplant can work. It has been demonstrated. More than one method. It's not cheap though. The amount of CO2 that needs to be removed is the problem. A really large powerplant will burn over a thousand tons of coal an hour and will produce an even greater weight of carbon dioxide every hour. See https://gizmodo.com/5850299/americas-largest-coal-power-plant-burns-11-million-tons-of-bituminous-a-year Read up on "carbon capture and sequesteration" or "CCS." Lots of stuff written. ...The primary method of carbon capture being pursued is having CO2 bind with amines and water. Then to reuse the amines those bonds have to be broken. This is essentially using amines as a flocculant and would be absorption. ..With filtering, CO2 would be removed while other emissions pass through a barrier. What I'd like to see tried is carbon capture using a Joules-Thomson field and seeing if CO2 and contaminants in the emissions can't be separated by their atomic mass. This is where lowering the heat in emissions would be necessary. ..There is a neat trick that could work. Use water as a scrubber. There is a natural attraction between water and CO2, why our oceans can absorb it. And this could possibly remove many contaminants by filtering the water. I think the primary reason something like that hasn't been considered is because it's not highly technical like bonding CO2 with amines. So now you have 'polluted' water and amines. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-09-2018 04:03
Kirkieb ☆☆☆☆☆ (20)	ok to clarify, green house emissions from Coal Power is a global issue. How can we stop what comes out of the Stack and capture the Toxins, the heavy metals and all the nasties that have the greens wanting Coal Power stopped and in places like Australia who emit 1.4% emissions are experiencing massive power bills due to Renewable costs blowing out and no new coal power stations due to political and international pressure from Toothless UN via Paris Agreement.
17-09-2018 08:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	Kirkieb wrote: ok to clarify, green house emissions from Coal Power is a global issue. How can we stop what comes out of the Stack and capture the Toxins, the heavy metals and all the nasties that have the greens wanting Coal Power stopped and in places like Australia who emit 1.4% emissions are experiencing massive power bills due to Renewable costs blowing out and no new coal power stations due to political and international pressure from Toothless UN via Paris Agreement. You don't want to stop what is coming out of the stack. You might as well plug the stack. You can burn coal efficiently, so you don't get the soot problem. China could learn a thing or two about that (and they are). You can also capture the sulfur dioxide is is sometimes generated when burning sour coal. The result is sulfur, which can be sold to industry. U.S. plants already do this. You can do the same for any mercury impurities that are in the coal. Coal doesn't have to be a dirty fuel. These solutions are already in place in most U.S. plants, and they are not the expensive to install. There is no reason why Australia can't burn coal as efficiently as the U.S. does. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 17-09-2018 08:49
17-09-2018 10:59
Kirkieb ☆☆☆☆☆ (20)	Opinions diver that's for sure. USA is just below China in emissions and both are by far the biggest polluters at 44% and I cant find any facts on US burning cleaner Fuel Power Stations. Defiantly plenty of rhetoric no proof. If they have then why don't they share? USA is increasing the emissions and open about it. The rest of the world should do the same. I think you misunderstand me, I support Coal Fired Power. We cant elect pollies for a term without changing our minds none of us are capable of fixing long term pollution. The price is just too high so Live and live well.

17-09-2018 18:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	Kirkieb wrote: Opinions diver that's for sure. USA is just below China in emissions and both are by far the biggest polluters at 44% and I cant find any facts on US burning cleaner Fuel Power Stations. No. I don't go by opinion. Coal operators don't keep such 'facts' because it varies so much and the coal plant operators are more interested in keeping the plant running than publishing such 'facts'. Burn efficiency has a lot to do with how the furnace is operated. In general, you don't see the soot coming out of U.S. coal plants that you see in China. CO2 is not a pollutant. Kirkieb wrote: Defiantly plenty of rhetoric no proof. Web sites are not a proof. Kirkieb wrote: If they have then why don't they share? They do, for those that want to do it. (China doesn't). Kirkieb wrote: USA is increasing the emissions and open about it. There is nothing wrong with CO2. It is not a pollutant. Kirkieb wrote: The rest of the world should do the same. Same deal. Kirkieb wrote: I think you misunderstand me, I support Coal Fired Power. Are you sure? You seem overly concerned about CO2. Kirkieb wrote: We cant elect pollies for a term without changing our minds none of us are capable of fixing long term pollution. What pollution are you concerned with? Kirkieb wrote: The price is just too high so Live and live well. You are being quite vague about this 'price'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-09-2018 04:47
Kirkieb ☆☆☆☆☆ (20)	This is the smartest person I know and her words are wise "A quote attributed to Einstein goes "intellectuals solve problems and genuises prevent them". I have seen this at work in meetings and situations I've been involved in countless times - it actually means that intellectuals create problems so they can prove how clever they are making up convoluted solutions. The issue with climate change is that it's an all-in effort - the intellectuals don't get that it comes down to mass participation and the "prize" is not an acceptance speech on a podium to a few hundred people rather empowering the man on the street to do something and contribute. Because it's an all-in effort a lot of academics and scientists are looking for a one size fits all - which is never going to happen...no sense in building wind farms where there is no wind - in fact that exact thinking led us to this problem in the first place - e.g. rice is grown in Australia and sold to Indonesia FFS, pastures are grown in the desert in Australia to feed sheep, developers build cheap housing on flood plains - and we all freak out when nature does what nature does - the hero is the one who comes up with the solution that saves the day - we have another bandaid but it doesn't prevent another catastrophe. These people are not the ones who are capable of resolving anything - don't take them seriously".
19-09-2018 17:54
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Kirkieb wrote: This is the smartest person I know and her words are wise "A quote attributed to Einstein goes "intellectuals solve problems and genuises prevent them". I have seen this at work in meetings and situations I've been involved in countless times - it actually means that intellectuals create problems so they can prove how clever they are making up convoluted solutions. The issue with climate change is that it's an all-in effort - the intellectuals don't get that it comes down to mass participation and the "prize" is not an acceptance speech on a podium to a few hundred people rather empowering the man on the street to do something and contribute. Because it's an all-in effort a lot of academics and scientists are looking for a one size fits all - which is never going to happen...no sense in building wind farms where there is no wind - in fact that exact thinking led us to this problem in the first place - e.g. rice is grown in Australia and sold to Indonesia FFS, pastures are grown in the desert in Australia to feed sheep, developers build cheap housing on flood plains - and we all freak out when nature does what nature does - the hero is the one who comes up with the solution that saves the day - we have another bandaid but it doesn't prevent another catastrophe. These people are not the ones who are capable of resolving anything - don't take them seriously". ..It's just as likely that the heat released by the fuel we're using is causing climate change. If that's the case then what needs to be done is to convert energy in the atmosphere to work. While that would be "neutral" as it would not add to or reduce the energy in the atmosphere it might reduce the amount of energy being added. https://photos.app.goo.gl/e31BjgT6vaecemtD7 https://seekingalpha.com/article/4083393-world-energy-2017minus-2050-annual-report Edited on 19-09-2018 17:54
19-09-2018 20:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	James___ wrote: Kirkieb wrote: This is the smartest person I know and her words are wise "A quote attributed to Einstein goes "intellectuals solve problems and genuises prevent them". I have seen this at work in meetings and situations I've been involved in countless times - it actually means that intellectuals create problems so they can prove how clever they are making up convoluted solutions. The issue with climate change is that it's an all-in effort - the intellectuals don't get that it comes down to mass participation and the "prize" is not an acceptance speech on a podium to a few hundred people rather empowering the man on the street to do something and contribute. Because it's an all-in effort a lot of academics and scientists are looking for a one size fits all - which is never going to happen...no sense in building wind farms where there is no wind - in fact that exact thinking led us to this problem in the first place - e.g. rice is grown in Australia and sold to Indonesia FFS, pastures are grown in the desert in Australia to feed sheep, developers build cheap housing on flood plains - and we all freak out when nature does what nature does - the hero is the one who comes up with the solution that saves the day - we have another bandaid but it doesn't prevent another catastrophe. These people are not the ones who are capable of resolving anything - don't take them seriously". ..It's just as likely that the heat released by the fuel we're using is causing climate change. Define 'climate change'. James___ wrote: If that's the case then what needs to be done is to convert energy in the atmosphere to work. What energy in the atmosphere are you talking about? Did you know the atmosphere is colder than the surface? James___ wrote: While that would be "neutral" as it would not add to or reduce the energy in the atmosphere it might reduce the amount of energy being added. What kind of 'work' are you wanting to convert all this free 'energy' into? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate Temperatures of Coal Fired Pwr Stations:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Why exactly is strip mining for coal bad, yet strip mining for Lithium is good	9	23-12-2023 00:11
COULD MOON DUST HELP REDUCE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES?	32	16-10-2023 19:36
Scientists say Florida Keys coral reefs are already bleaching as water temperatures hit record highs	14	29-07-2023 20:14
Florida in hot water as ocean temperatures rise along with the humidity	2	13-07-2023 15:50
Shellyne Rodriguez NY professor fired for pulling a machete on a reporter. I do that all the time	2	24-05-2023 13:45