Power generation

Information on electric installation and anything related to electric.
Design, materials, sources & prices, for separate topics on:
- Wiring diagrams, regulations and standards
- materials, installation, connection.
- sources & prices
- hazards and trouble shooting
Before you post any questions, download Itchy's tutorials and search for an answer there.

Moderators: Sometimewoodworker, MGV12, BKKBILL, pattayapope, Attila

Power generation

Postby Roger Ramjet » Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:11 am

This is an excellent explanation about the current system, who controls it, how and why.......and why solar power will never happen as long as they talk about "Clean Coal" because there is no such thing, just cheap coal with a massive industry banking on the hype.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opin ... in-the-sun
And then there is the new proposed "Clean Coal" power plant by EGAT proposed for the southernmost provinces, which should never happen, but will. At least it will leave a lasting landmark for grandchildren of the next generation to visit and point to the stupidity involved.
User avatar
Roger Ramjet
 
Posts: 5288
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: solar energy

Postby BKKBILL » Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:31 am

Interesting article today in the Bangkok Post. Hopefully this kind on coverage will influence that coal plant down south the government is keen on.

https://www.bangkokpost.com/business/ne ... dim-policy
It's not who you know, it's whom you know.
User avatar
BKKBILL
 
Posts: 2946
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 10:05 pm
Location: Mae Taeng, Chiang Mai

Re: solar energy

Postby Roger Ramjet » Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:35 pm

BKKBILL wrote:Hopefully this kind on coverage will influence that coal plant down south the government is keen on.

Bill,
It's a nice dream, but "they" have made their minds up already, they even think that Ardani (Indian/Chinese company) will supply the "clean" coal from its new/proposed mega mine in Queensland Australia when the Australian taxpayer funds the project, minus the clean-up at the end and the deal done with importing cheap labour into Australia to run it. They have even handed over to the current government (Federal) huge cheques complete with photos ops and are just waiting for Australia to give them the cash to go ahead with the deal. It's just another pipe dream of Gina Rinehart to make more millions.
Back in Thailand locals are also having a bit of a say in what they want and it isn't coal. However, as there is no legislation here as yet, nothing will happen.
I can recall making all the arguments why solar would never make it to individual houses like yours and mine years ago, on this thread no less. And for 150,000 baht it's a steal that even the farmers could afford, but the powers that be won't allow it. And those solar batteries that the car company (Tesla) makes are just not available, but maybe as soon as one of the multi billionaires from Thailand signs an exclusive contract to supply them, they just might be, possibly, perhaps, maybe.
I don't think it will happen (mega coal mine) in Australia, there are too many people wise to Ardani and its deplorable repayment record on loans, clean-ups and fabricated environmental impact studies. To top that off the farmers are digging in their heels and don't want a bar of it and scientists are currently running a campaign showing all the gas leakages from the experimental fracking, even though the industry is trying to burn it off (in the middle of rivers) so that people can't see it.
But the powers that be will find another source (perhaps Indonesia), I just wish for once they wouldn't treat all the people as idiots.
User avatar
Roger Ramjet
 
Posts: 5288
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: solar energy

Postby Roger Ramjet » Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:59 pm

Bill,
Just as a follow-up here's todays article from the Bangkok Post: https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/genera ... n-songkhla
There's a few new words in there like Impact Assessment Board and the fact it's a gimme to go ahead, come hell or the coming floods. :lol:
User avatar
Roger Ramjet
 
Posts: 5288
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: solar energy

Postby Andyfteeze » Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:10 pm

Following up on the Adani mine, mr Adani will get $2 per ton royalty sent off to a cayman islands bank account. If the mine fails after 2 yrs, he still pockets millions.
India has recently said it will reduce its reliance on coal which naturally mr Adani wants to supply. The Adani mine will more than offset all efforts at carbon dioxide abatement. Its friggin evil on more than one count. The australian government is claiming 10,000 jobs will be created, and thats a very creative way of saying not many. The australian government also wants to lend them $1b to build a rail line.
So anytime you hear about corruption and crazy decisions, australia aint any better.
Andyfteeze
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 6:29 pm

Re: solar energy

Postby Roger Ramjet » Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:53 pm

Andyfteeze wrote:So anytime you hear about corruption and crazy decisions, australia aint any better.

Totally agree Andy, Australians need to wipe out the current lot of pollies and hold Royal Commissions into all of them. Where is ICAC (Independent Commission Against Corruption) at the moment? This lot of pollies exempted themselves from being investigated. They want self appointed committees to look into everything. The press is having a field day at the moment.
All those jobs will go to Indians or Chinese and I've never seen a mega mine that employs more than 500 people and most of them are skilled operators, with no cheap labour. I can't see Adani finding the skilled labour in India or China, especially not for a mega mine. The $1 billion rail line will never happen because the source of it is taxpayers money, and the route they claim they want, goes through the most fertile land in Australia.
And they want a port built right on the Great Barrier Reef. UNESCO have already told them they can't do it and the GBR will be delisted if they do. I cannot believe the arrogance and greed of this lot of pollies. No wonder there are so many leaks of cabinet documents to the media. Big business is running Australia at the moment which is why they don't want a Royal Commission into the banking sector, never mind the Internet scheme they dreamt up.
I'm pleased Aussies are jacking up and putting in solar energy by themselves.
User avatar
Roger Ramjet
 
Posts: 5288
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: solar energy

Postby Roger Ramjet » Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:32 am

Here is the real reason why Thailand will always use coal power:
https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/genera ... power-plan
The statement in it about batteries and storage came right out of the ark. South Australia have just recently commissioned a Tesla battery storage facility that was built in less than the guaranteed 6 months and will use solar power to charge the batteries (the largest in the world currently) and there will be more to come.
User avatar
Roger Ramjet
 
Posts: 5288
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: solar energy

Postby BKKBILL » Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:35 pm

Here is a bit on that Hornsdale Power Reserve battery.

https://www.usnews.com/news/technology/ ... alias-grid
It's not who you know, it's whom you know.
User avatar
BKKBILL
 
Posts: 2946
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 10:05 pm
Location: Mae Taeng, Chiang Mai

Re: solar energy

Postby Roger Ramjet » Sun Dec 03, 2017 8:37 am

It appears the coal powered power plant in the south will go ahead as long as Adani get all the loans, the free money and the go ahead from the Australian Govt.
So the Thais have to wait for all that to happen before they get their monster: https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/genera ... al-support
There's a couple of glaring errors about the water being returned to the sea as it came out. It can't be done, there's a whole chemical process that it goes through as the coolant for the plant, let alone to drive the turbines, which it can't do.
Surely Tesla can make them a better offer?
User avatar
Roger Ramjet
 
Posts: 5288
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: solar energy

Postby Roger Ramjet » Sun Dec 03, 2017 8:03 pm

Here's the latest on Adani getting finance from its Chinese partners. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-03/c ... ne/9221750
Honestly you would think our pollies would have enough brains to see it's dead in the water, but no, pollies are pollies. You have to credit the South Australian Govt for losing a bet on going for the biggest storage battery in the world, they probably all told themselves it couldn't be done, but Tesla bought it in on time and below budget using Australians as labour and engineers.
I wonder if Adani will ask the Thai banks to donate next. :D :D :D
User avatar
Roger Ramjet
 
Posts: 5288
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: solar energy

Postby Klondyke » Sun Dec 03, 2017 8:26 pm

Roger Ramjet wrote:There's a couple of glaring errors about the water being returned to the sea as it came out. It can't be done, there's a whole chemical process that it goes through as the coolant for the plant, let alone to drive the turbines, which it can't do.
Surely Tesla can make them a better offer?


Do you have some concrete reasons for your claim? If the said power plant will be driven by a steam generator fired by whatever coal, there is a very low danger that the sea water will be contaminated somehow. Such a power plant use water for:

-cooling water: that is a similar water you have in your car cooler. It is quite clean since running through a fine condenser (a cooler) of the steam generator. This is a closed system, the heated up water is returned back to cooling towers where is losing its heat, getting cooler before running back to the condenser again. Some power plant located near a large water volume as a river or a sea using the water (fresh or salt) as a coolant (no need of the cooling towers), taking the water from the source and return it back to the source. This water is in no contact with steam cycle.

-water for steam cycle: The very clean water is heated to a steam driving the steam turbine. Afterwards, in a cooled condenser it is condensed to a water, taken back to the feeding system again. This water is also not contaminated, perhaps with some exception of oil leakages that will be removed before the next cycle.

-water for cleaning exhaust gases: this water is sprayed in various stages of the combustion cycle together with a lime materials in order to remove sulphurized gases. The water mostly evaporates and the residuum is a gypsum used for construction materials. A portion of the water is used for catching a hard slag falling down from boiler walls. This water is led to sedimentation ponds for sedimenting and recycling.

Therefore, there not huge contamination by the coal fired power plant. A small contaminated volume will be suitably treated and disposed of as at any other industral plant.

BTW, do you have an idea how many such Tesla plants would need to be installed to substitute such power plant of 2,200 MW?
Klondyke
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:40 pm

Re: solar energy

Postby Andyfteeze » Sun Dec 03, 2017 8:39 pm

Looks like the Chinese banks are starting to walk away from this. Thailand needs to decide if they are going to stay 3rd world or jump up a few steps. This BS about battery technology being too expensive is just a cheap excuse, thai style. When you dont have a good reason , Bs will suffice.
Its like india. Our government is saying more coal will bring more indians out of poverty. More power stations in india is good. It misses the most basic of information. The transmission lines will cost a small fortune which most indians can't affords anyway. Solar power is produced locally so doesnt need huge transmission lines run to all parts of the country. The billions can be better spent. So coal doesn't stackup financially in india. Why would thailand be any different? It will different if, just like drum brakes, its mandated by the government. You just couldn't write this script. The low lying fruit would be to ban red bricks from home construction. I guess its another problem for somebody in the future to solve.
As for how many batteries are required, its totally misleading to equate the number required with generation capacity. The battery's job is to smooth out peaks or temporary infill, not peak output generation. Usually 10% is sufficient to do its job.
Andyfteeze
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 6:29 pm

Re: solar energy

Postby Roger Ramjet » Sun Dec 03, 2017 9:40 pm

Klondyke wrote:Do you have some concrete reasons for your claim? If the said power plant will be driven by a steam generator fired by whatever coal, there is a very low danger that the sea water will be contaminated somehow. Such a power plant use water for:

Yes I do, salt. You can turn the water to steam using heat quite easily, you can extract the salt in doing so, but putting the water without the salt back into the sea is a disaster. Each time there is a flood of fresh water running back into the sea it has this awful habit of killing off the marine life. Please don't raise freshwater rivers as an example, most are tidal (which is why two states in Australia have just had their cities flooded because of high tides and the fresh water has had time to mix with the salt water, lessening the damage.
Let me just quote from the Coalition of Concerned Scientists in the US in regards to your non-polluting coal:

coal power: air pollution

Environmental impacts of coal power: air pollution

Coal plants are the nation’s top source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the primary cause of global warming. In 2011, utility coal plants in the United States emitted a total of 1.7 billion tons of CO21. A typical coal plant generates 3.5 million tons of CO2 per year2.

Burning coal is also a leading cause of smog, acid rain, and toxic air pollution. Some emissions can be significantly reduced with readily available pollution controls, but most U.S. coal plants have not installed these technologies.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2): Coal plants are the United States’ leading source of SO2 pollution, which takes a major toll on public health, including by contributing to the formation of small acidic particulates that can penetrate into human lungs and be absorbed by the bloodstream. SO2 also causes acid rain, which damages crops, forests, and soils, and acidifies lakes and streams. A typical uncontrolled coal plant emits 14,100 tons of SO2 per year. A typical coal plant with emissions controls, including flue gas desulfurization (smokestack scrubbers), emits 7,000 tons of SO2 per year.
Nitrogen oxides (NOx): NOx pollution causes ground level ozone, or smog, which can burn lung tissue, exacerbate asthma, and make people more susceptible to chronic respiratory diseases. A typical uncontrolled coal plant emits 10,300 tons of NOx per year. A typical coal plant with emissions controls, including selective catalytic reduction technology, emits 3,300 tons of NOx per year.
Particulate matter: Particulate matter (also referred to as soot or fly ash) can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility. A typical uncontrolled plant emits 500 tons of small airborne particles each year. Baghouses installed inside coal plant smokestacks can capture as much as 99 percent of the particulates.
Mercury: Coal plants are responsible for more than half of the U.S. human-caused emissions of mercury, a toxic heavy metal that causes brain damage and heart problems. Just 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat. A typical uncontrolled coal plants emits approximately 170 pounds of mercury each year. Activated carbon injection technology can reduce mercury emissions by up to 90 percent when combined with baghouses. ACI technology is currently found on just 8 percent of the U.S. coal fleet.
Other harmful pollutants emitted annually from a typical, uncontrolled coal plant include approximately:

114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium. Baghouses can reduce heavy metal emissions by up to 90 percent3.
720 tons of carbon monoxide, which causes headaches and places additional stress on people with heart disease.
220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.
225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.

Australia has tried to have coal phased out over the years with some success starting with the Snowy Mountains Authority coming into force after WW11, where Tumut 1, 2 and 3 were built. The SMEC (Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation) is considering building Tumut 3,4, and 5 where, like Tumut 1,2 and 3 the water is recycled from its holding lakes in the Kosciuszko National Park a joint venture between two states, Victoria and News South Wales. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumut_Hyd ... er_Station
To get to your questions about contamination, I already mentioned Adani's record on conservation, which scored an absolute zero in that field http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/adan ... port-40853
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/in ... 008598.cms
Adani cares little about modern technology to take out the pollutants which are listed above, all they want is money. They have a disgusting record, just feed in Adani power plant pollution and you'll even get the Indian High Court saying they are massive polluters including in Indonesia.
If you read how Adani propose to strip mine the coal from the most fertile land in Australia and where they intend to build their harbour (Great Barrier Reef) even the United Nations (UNESCO) world heritage has warned both the Queensland and federal governments against allowing them to do it because of their previous track records.
Coal is dirty, no that's an understatement, it's filthy. Every scientific group in the world has published damning data about coal.
As far as my cooling system in my car is concerned it has an additive to stop the formation of nasties building up in the cooling system which should be flushed every few years anyway and it doesn't burn coal.
Klondyke wrote:This water is led to sedimentation ponds for sedimenting and recycling.

Klondyke wrote:BTW, do you have an idea how many such Tesla plants would need to be installed to substitute such power plant of 2,200 MW

Yes 7. I can see that you've never driven in Australia. The seven extra plants can be located in the Great Sandy Desert and it would be like a needle in a haystack. They could also be dotted all over the outback without causing any damage at all.
User avatar
Roger Ramjet
 
Posts: 5288
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: solar energy

Postby Sometimewoodworker » Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:49 am

Roger Ramjet wrote:
Klondyke wrote:Do you have some concrete reasons for your claim? If the said power plant will be driven by a steam generator fired by whatever coal, there is a very low danger that the sea water will be contaminated somehow. Such a power plant use water for:

Yes I do, salt. You can turn the water to steam using heat quite easily, you can extract the salt in doing so, but putting the water without the salt back into the sea is a disaster.

It doesn't seem like a rocket science problem.
You have water with no salt and you have the salt extracted from the water, sure you have lost some water, just add back the correct percentage of salt, and Robert is your father's/mother's brother.

I do believe that salt can dissolve in water. :?
Sometimewoodworker
 
Posts: 1853
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: Non Sa-At / Tokyo

Re: solar energy

Postby schuimpge » Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:52 pm

Guys, do you really think that there’s river or sea water used to generate steam to drive generators in a power plant?
Wake up, the water/steam used to drive the generator sits in a closed loop. You really think someone would run contaminated water through highly sensitive turbines with all the risk of deposits that would destroy the system in months if not weeks?! :D

There’s 2 systems....Internally the water is heated to steam, runs through the turbine and then goes to a condenser where it turns to water again and is heated to steam again.
To run that system, the plant uses river water to cool the condenser system. This external system is open and the big problem is that water leaves the plant at a higher temperature.
That increase in temperature is the most destructive part of such plant..it destroys river/marine life if not properly cooled down before release.
Long term sure the coal-burning is the biggest problem.

Cheers,
Luc
User avatar
schuimpge
 
Posts: 1322
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:01 am
Location: Pathumthani, Thailand

Next

Return to electric

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest