- Reaction score
- 4,395
- Points
- 1,160
It doesn't matter what a change to, the system will be dissected and gamed. Strategic voting games FPTP, and picking an independent as second choice games ranked ballot.
PuckChaser said:Progressive voters will never vote Tory, ...
MIT proposes gasification fuel cell coal plants to get to 60% efficiency which is double pulverized coal efficiency
Researchers at MIT have come up with a plan to generate electricity from coal with much greater efficiency — possibly reaching as much as twice the fuel-to-electricity efficiency of today’s conventional coal plants. This would mean, all things being equal, a 50 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions for a given amount of power produced.
The key is combining into a single system two well-known technologies: coal gasification and fuel cells.
Coal gasification is a way of extracting burnable gaseous fuel from pulverized coal, rather than burning the coal itself. The technique is widely used in chemical processing plants as a way of producing hydrogen gas. Fuel cells produce electricity from a gaseous fuel by passing it through a battery-like system where the fuel reacts electrochemically with oxygen from the air.
The attraction of combining these two systems, Ong explains, is that both processes operate at similarly high temperatures of 800 degrees Celsius or more. Combining them in a single plant would thus allow the two components to exchange heat with minimal energy losses. In fact, the fuel cell would generate enough heat to sustain the gasification part of the process, she says, eliminating the need for a separate heating system, which is usually provided by burning a portion of the coal.
Coal gasification, by itself, works at a lower temperature than combustion and “is more efficient than burning,” Ong says. First, the coal is pulverized to a powder, which is then heated in a flow of hot steam, somewhat like popcorn kernels heated in an air-popper. The heat leads to chemical reactions that release gases from the coal particles — mainly carbon monoxide and hydrogen, both of which can produce electricity in a solid oxide fuel cell.
In the combined system, these gases would then be piped from the gasifier to a separate fuel cell stack, or ultimately, the fuel cell system could be installed in the same chamber as the gasifier so that the hot gas flows straight into the cell. In the fuel cell, a membrane separates the carbon monoxide and hydrogen from the oxygen, promoting an electrochemical reaction that generates electricity without burning the fuel.
This illustration depicts a possible configuration for the combined system proposed by MIT researchers. At the bottom, steam (pink arrows) passes through pulverized coal, releasing gaseous fuel (red arrows) made up of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. This fuel goes into a solid oxide fuel cell (disks near top), where it reacts with oxygen from the air (blue arrows) to produce electricity (loop at right). Illustration: Jeffrey Hanna
Because there is no burning involved, the system produces less ash and other air pollutants than would be generated by combustion. It does produce carbon dioxide, but this is in a pure, uncontaminated stream and not mixed with air as in a conventional coal-burning plant. That would make it much easier to carry out carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) — that is, capturing the output gas and burying it underground or disposing of it some other way — to eliminate or drastically reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. In conventional plants, nitrogen from the air must be removed from the stream of gas in order to carry out CCS.
One of the big questions answered by this new research, which used simulations rather than lab experiments, was whether the process would work more efficiently using steam or carbon dioxide to react with the particles of coal. Both methods have been widely used, but most previous attempts to study gasification in combination with fuel cells chose the carbon dioxide option. This new study demonstrates that the system produces two to three times as much power output when steam is used instead.
Conventional coal-burning power plants typically have very low efficiency; only 30 percent of the energy contained in the fuel is actually converted to electricity. In comparison, the proposed combined gasification and fuel cell system could achieve efficiencies as high as 55 to 60 percent, Ong says, according to the simulations.
Advanced ultracritical coal plants can get to 52% efficiency
The hotter coal (or any thermal plant - natural gas and nuclear) can run then the more efficient they can be.
Upgrading existing plants and building new high-efficiency, low-emissions (HELE) coal-fired power plants addresses climate change concerns in two important ways. In the near term, emissions can be reduced by upgrading existing plants or building new HELE plants. Such plants emit almost 20% less CO2 than a subcritical unit operating at a similar load. Over the longer term, HELE plants can further facilitate emission reductions because coal-fired plants operating at the highest efficiencies are also the most appropriate option for CCS retrofit.
The best new coal plants in China are in the Ultra-supercritical 44-46% efficiency range.
Developments in AUSC steam cycles are expected to continue this trend. AUSC coal-fired plants are designed with an inlet steam temperature to the turbine of 700–760°C. Average metal temperatures of the final superheater and final reheater could be higher, up to about 815°C. Nickel-based alloy materials are needed to meet this demanding requirement. Various research programs are underway to develop AUSC plants. If successful, a commercial AUSC-based plant would be expected to achieve efficiencies in the range of 45–52% (LHV [net], hard coal). A plant operating at 48% efficiency (HHV) would emit up to 28% less CO2 than a subcritical plant, and up to 10% less than a corresponding USC plant. Commercial AUSC plants could be widely available by 2025, with the first units coming online in the near future.
PMSH apologized in 2008, but ...The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today announced that on May 18, 2016, he will make a formal apology in the House of Commons for the Komagata Maru incident.
This year will mark the 102nd anniversary of the Komagata Maru incident, where 376 passengers of mostly Sikh descent arrived in Vancouver and were refused entry into Canada due to the discriminatory laws of the time.
The Prime Minister made the announcement at Vaisakhi on the Hill concluding a three day religious ceremony, where Sikh scriptures were read continuously to commemorate Vaisakhi.
... as soon as (PM Harper) left the stage members of the Sikh community rushed to the podium denouncing the apology and said they wanted it made on the floor of the House of Commons.
"The apology was unacceptable," said Jaswinder Singh Toor, president of The Descendants of Komagatamaru Society.
"We were expecting the prime minister of Canada to do the right thing. The right thing was … like the Chinese Head Tax," said Toor, referring to Harper's full apology to the Chinese-Canadian community in 2006 for the head tax imposed on Chinese immigrants who came to Canada between 1885 and 1923 ...
Thucydides said:I'm going to post this here since it demonstrates the convergence between technology and politics. The proposed gassification/fuel cell system is far more efficient than a straight thermal system (in technical terms, it is not limited by the Carnot cycle), and could be even more efficient by tapping the waste heat to run a bottoming cycle engine (maybe a steam turbine, or maybe a gas turbine using the hot exhaust gasses, much like a turbocharger).
The article "sells" the idea by bowing to the church of global warming, and any serious attempts to develop this will probably have to be marketed like this. Not mentioned is the real benefit; cutting the input costs in half (burn 1/2 the coal for the same amount of energy) is a huge boost in productivity, and increasing productivity is the only way *we* can pay for the expensive welfare state that has been built since the 1960's. Cheap and reliable energy is key to a modern economy (ask Ontario how losing cheap and reliable energy is working out), so any serious politician, economist or interested members of the public should be advocating for and inversting in these sorts of technologies as infrastructure, rather than "green" energy boondoggles or Performing Arts Centres as infrastructure.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/mit-proposes-gasification-fuel-cell.html
:nod:PuckChaser said:Politics of convenience. Notley was NDP because Alberta Liberals/Liberals had no chance of winning. Bob Rae went federal Liberal because the federal NDP at the time had no chance to win. Jean Charest turned Liberal in Quebec because the Tories weren't even close to winning.
Anything for power seems to run a trend in the Liberal party?
Oldgateboatdriver said:Just a couple of small points, if I may Thuc.
I read the article carefully through and through: They claim no combustion, but where the heck do they get their steam from ???
Second, why on god's green earth would we, in Canada, want to go back to coal based technology for electricity production when we completely got out of that business altogether ?
PuckChaser said:I have a feeling that even if you tripled the efficiency of coal, the climate lobby would still demand that you ban it. They have too much at stake in the electric car/wind turbine industry.
Did anyone else think of a former-Army General who, rumour has it,* first approached the Conservative Party and who now is relegated to the Liberal back bench until he proves his Liberal Party loyalty?PuckChaser said:Politics of convenience.
PuckChaser said:Politics of convenience. Notley was NDP because Alberta Liberals/Liberals had no chance of winning. Bob Rae went federal Liberal because the federal NDP at the time had no chance to win. Jean Charest turned Liberal in Quebec because the Tories weren't even close to winning.
Anything for power seems to run a trend inthepoliticsLiberal party?
Journeyman said:Did anyone else think of a former-Army General who, rumour has it,* first approached the Conservative Party and who now is relegated to the Liberal back bench until he proves his Liberal Party loyalty?
* I've seen it published several times, but Ifeardistrust lawyers.
Bird_Gunner45 said:It does seem strange that they made such a big deal out of Sajjan's experience when they had the FORMER ARMY COMMANDER in the party. All things being equal (and the need to meet ratios matters) there is no way that you can believe that being a reserve LCol (or reg force one- not ripping on reserves!) makes you more qualified to run the military than having commanded the entire army.
Bird_Gunner45 said:It does seem strange that they made such a big deal out of Sajjan's experience when they had the FORMER ARMY COMMANDER in the party. All things being equal (and the need to meet ratios matters) there is no way that you can believe that being a reserve LCol (or reg force one- not ripping on reserves!) makes you more qualified to run the military than having commanded the entire army.