0
   

Have Environmentalists/EPA Triggered Electric Power Outages To 3 Million Americans?

 
 
Reply Tue 3 Jul, 2012 09:34 pm
http://www.joeclarke.net/

Quote:

As many people fall down in the sweltering heat, because of the loss of power to air conditioners, there are others jumping up and down, because the excessively hot weather seems be to punishing those naughty Americans, known around the world to use more than their "fair share" of energy. Coupled with the severe storms knocking out power lines, to an environmentalist, it may, indeed, be a perfect storm.


In the past several years, American power generating companies have been diverted from upgrading their existing equipment, including coal generating plants, transmission lines, substations, etc. on the Grid, by the incessant hounding of the EPA, which has redirected power companies away from upgrades and planned maintenance, and toward - anything but coal. The EPA has induced hundreds of billions of dollars of expenses, and plan even more penalties,fines, and taxes. To me, a penalty levied by the federal government is a fine, and is a tax. Justice Roberts doesn't like "quibbling over labels," but its all the same - mo money demanded by the government. BTW, In the Senate, “Energy policy has been creeping into the tax code [Carbon Tax] at an exponential rate" Senator Orrin Hatch, June 12, 2012.


From the East Coast, past Illinois, up to 3 million people have been without electrical power, and so the first suspects to be considered responsible for the catastrophes are, of course, the Environmental Protection Agency and its environmentally ill allies like the Sierra Club, as well as President Obama.

Even at this late date, 2,000,000 citizens are without power, including those within Washington, D.C. Bureaucratic slowdowns happily expected.

Obama promised to "bankrupt coal," and in fact, coal companies have been either closing down in droves, or are in the midst of powering down, thus causing the closure of coal powered electric generating stations, as well as coal mines, while firing thousands of workers. This prophetic notice by the Electrical Worker Online Coal Plant Shutdowns Threaten Blackouts from April of 2012, predicts exactly that - America's electric transmission grid will be overly burdened as coal plants are powered down:

Quote:

"As utility companies face new deadlines for coal-fired power plants to comply with tight new EPA clean air regulations, many energy suppliers have plans to shutter plants that employ thousands of IBEW members rather than invest in costly upgrades.

If thousands of megawatts are suddenly taken off-line, this could trigger massive electricity shortages, just as demand is expected to increase, according to a regional transmission organization report.

A report from PJM, a regional transmission organization covering 13 states and the District of Columbia, estimates that 18,000 megawatts of electricity will be lost to the power grid due to expected coal plant shutdowns. That's the loss of enough power to light and heat 18 million homes."


It is very difficult to research the direct relationship between this June-July power outage and the powering down/switching/closing of coal fired electric generating plants, because the media is very protective of everything the evironmentalists and Democrats pontificate, and will seldom do stories that give a black eye to the Greens. Even power companies are very beholding and sensitive to the federal government environment czars, and must constantly ingratiate themselves in the presence of Obama's regulatory czars.


Even if the recent power outages are more due to storm/mechanical damage to the electric grid, rather than the unavailability of backup power due to decommissioning of generating plants, the fact is, that American power companies have been distracted by the EPA and federal government from upgrading the transmission stations and other infrastructure as they are forced to invest capital into ways of transferring from the traditional (and cheap) coal to other sources such as natural gas. Either way, Obama's big rear is still sitting on American energy production. And, don't think they won't be going after natural gas with a vengeance, as they have attacked oil and nuclear through the years.


Here are some alarming charts/graphs of what is planned by the EPA as it robs Americans of its choice to use plentiful coal for energy.

From The Business Insider:

Quote:

'The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule has received nothing but negative feedback from the affected energy industry, which argues the stricter federal emission law will result in higher costs for electricity and massive loss of U.S. jobs. The plan will also require billions of dollars to retrofit power plants with clean coal technologies.

According to a study prepared by the National Economic Research Associates (NERA), the legislation is among the most expensive EPA rules ever imposed on coal-fueled power plants that will cause electric rates to skyrocket by as much as 23 percent and lead to nationwide employment losses totaling 1.4 million job-years by 2020.

Power-plant closures are expected to increase in the coming months, as utilities complete their cost analyses of complying with the Cross-State rule, according to Industrial Info Resources. The EPA rule has already forced coal facilities in Ohio, North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas to retire old units, rather than bare the expense of installing pollution-control equipment.

The coal industry maintains that the EPA doesn't seem to care about the economic damage new regulations will cause."


From The Institute For Energy Research:
IER Identifies Coal Fired Power Plants Likely to Close as Result of EPA Regulations:

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Summary-Map-of-Power-Plants-EPA1-1024x768.png

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,319 • Replies: 17
No top replies

 
raprap
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Jul, 2012 10:06 pm
@gungasnake,
Somehow I get the feeling from the title of your thread that you didn't even bother to read what you posted.

ganja copied and pasted wrote:
recent power outages are more due to storm/mechanical damage to the electric grid


Considering that the electrical grid is almost 50 years old and that EPRI has done nothing more than minimal maintenance of that grid and that the storm of this week only knocked out that grid, this meme on the method of generation of electricity is nothing more than a 'strawman.'

As for coal generation, even discounting the Carbon balance, I would invite you and Mr Clark to visit the 'mountain top removal' coal mines of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and North Carolina before you or Mr Clark start that 'Clean Coal' Claptrap.

Rap
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jul, 2012 10:30 pm
@raprap,
Quote:
Considering that the electrical grid is almost 50 years old and that EPRI has done nothing more than minimal maintenance of that grid


When people talk about how America's infrastructure has not been taken care of and has gone to rot the electric grid is one of the things they are referring to. We had a storm in this part of Washington state around Jan 23 that took my business out for three days and my home for four, because iced up trees took out a major sector of the grid (very remote area, they had to make roads to the spot in order to get the materials there plus helicopter stuff and people in) . This should have never happen, but over the years the money was not spent to cut back the trees to the proper distance. Of course no one was honest with the people, we were told that it was another one of our many "storms of the century" which was the cause, that humans had nothing to do with it.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jul, 2012 04:12 am
@hawkeye10,
In anwer to your qustion,. NO

New gas fired cqmbined cycle power plants are being built all over. Each 900 meg gas power plant emits less than half the pollutants per kilowatt than than do coal fired plants.
Also, gas fired plants have a footprint about 10 times less than coal fired.

I guess , if youd see us taking wood fired power plants off line youd try to spin that too.

What does EPRI have to do with system maintenance other than researching methods of "tree cutting" or tree species to plant near power lines
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Jul, 2012 06:33 am
@farmerman,
We'd have clean coal other than for SlicKKK KKKlintler sealing that low sulfur coal region in Utah off as a national park for the benefit of his LIPPO buddies who own the world's only other similar resource. That was one of the three things which Jerome Zeifman said he'd have impeached SlicKKK over.

Granted George W. Bush never found the cajones to undo that ****, I'm guessing that Romney might.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jul, 2012 08:07 am
@gungasnake,
why this sudden enamorata with coal all of a sudden??
The low S coal in the west is mixed in with alternating layers of High S. Dont forget that.

Paradox Basin coal had as much S, unless they carefully picked through and separated the High and Lo S lenses.

Theres about 100 nillion tons of recoverable LO S coalin the west. There is also,(mixed in) 164 Billion tons of high and medium S Coal (roughly half and hlf)

I think gas is waaay better way to go and if we catch up wth demand, NOW
s a good time to buy into the gas futures since theyve collapsed due to NO CUSTOMER BASE for the huge amounts of recoverable gs availble.

Fuel is an opportunistic thing. We have needs for CLEAN fueled (even "clean coal " aint anywhere near as clean as gas),

And, if youre right, we should have an ETERNAL supply of gas no? you do realize that coal is a fossil fuel found in clearly defined basins and "clines"?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jul, 2012 08:09 am
@farmerman,
Im beginning to believe that Gunga is only here to poke fun at anything that "anti-IDers" do.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jul, 2012 09:21 am
@farmerman,
The intelligent move would be to start building the thorium reactors now and use coal for electricity for the five years that will take, and meanwhile start converting as many existing vehicles as possible to natgas and mandate that all vehicles sold after 2013 use natgas.
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jul, 2012 06:54 pm
@gungasnake,
To use natural gas for a vehicle you'd need about a 10500 psi pressure vessel. Methane does not lend itself well for mobile applications.

Thorium is a hell of a gamma emitter. The necessary shielding required for fuel processing and transportation is why fissile Thorium reactors have not been considered practical. Uranium and plutonium. used in most conventinual power reactors, are mostly alpha emitters so a simple containment provides shielding for shipping and processing.

Rap
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jul, 2012 09:12 pm
@raprap,
The 2012 Honda NATGAS Civic:

http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-natural-gas/?ef_id=3uxP7W3OtwwAABsl:20120706030341:s

Thorium:

http://lenbilen.com/2012/02/15/eleven-reasons-to-switch-to-thorium-based-nuclear-power-generation/

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jul, 2012 09:26 pm
@raprap,
The nat gas that I was talking about for cars is called "wet gas" It contains nat gasoline and propane in its mix. Propane and other heavies can be liquified(LNG) and are excellent auto fuels. The PECO fleet of service trucks are all LNG. Everyone is drilling for wet gas now as theglut of the methane/ethane plays are resulting in major price drops per Mc-ft.

s far as Thorium reactors, the amount of Th is quite a bit more than available Uranium. Thorium isnt itself fissile but shoot it with a neutron and it transmutes to 233U which is fissile. Thorium is cheap, is nturally occuring in vast monazite and thorite deposits.AND it doesnt have to go through the complex beneficiation process like UF6. Heres a popular piece on Th as fuel

Quote:
Thorium as a nuclear fuel

Thorium (Th-232) is not itself fissile and so is not directly usable in a thermal neutron reactor – in this regard it is very similar to uranium-238. However, it is ‘fertile’ and upon absorbing a neutron will transmute to uranium-233 (U-233)a, which is an excellent fissile fuel material b. Thorium fuel concepts therefore require that Th-232 is first irradiated in a reactor to provide the necessary neutron dosing. The U-233 that is produced can either be chemically separated from the parent thorium fuel and recycled into new fuel, or the U-233 may be usable ‘in-situ’ in the same fuel form.

Thorium fuels therefore need a fissile material as a ‘driver’ so that a chain reaction (and thus supply of surplus neutrons) can be maintained. The only fissile driver options are U-233, U-235 or Pu-239 (none of which is easy to supply).

It is possible – but quite difficult – to design thorium fuels that produce more U-233 in thermal reactors than the fissile material they consume (this is referred to as having a fissile conversion ratio of more than 1.0 and is also called breeding). Thermal breeding with thorium is only really possible using U-233 as the fissile driver, and to achieve this the neutron economy in the reactor has to be very good (ie, low neutron loss through escape or parasitic absorption). The possibility to breed fissile material in slow neutron systems is a unique feature for thorium-based fuels and is not possible with uranium fuels.

Another distinct option for using thorium is as a ‘fertile matrix’ for fuels containing plutonium (and even other transuranic elements like americium). No new plutonium is produced from the thorium component, unlike for uranium fuels, and so the level of net consumption of this metal is rather high. In fresh thorium fuel, all of the fissions (thus power and neutrons) derive from the driver component. As the fuel operates the U-233 content gradually increases and it contributes more and more to the power output of the fuel. The ultimate energy output from U-233 (and hence indirectly thorium) depends on numerous fuel design parameters, including: fuel burn-up attained, fuel arrangement, neutron energy spectrum and neutron flux (affecting the intermediate product protactinium-233, which is a neutron absorber).

An important principle in the design of thorium fuel is that of heterogeneous fuel arrangements in which a high fissile (and therefore higher power) fuel zone called the seed region is physically separated from the fertile (low or zero power) thorium part of the fuel – called the blanket. Such an arrangement is far better for supplying surplus neutrons to thorium nuclei so they can convert to fissile U-233, in fact all thermal breeding fuel designs are heterogeneous. This principle applies to all the thorium-capable reactor systems.


Reactors able to use Thorium

There are seven types of reactor into which thorium can be introduced as a nuclear fuel. The first five of these have all entered into operational service at some point. The last two are still conceptual:
Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs): These are very well suited for thorium fuels due to their combination of: (i) excellent neutron economy (their low parasitic neutron absorption means more neutrons can be absorbed by thorium to produce useful U-233), (ii) slightly faster average neutron energy which favours conversion to U-233, (iii) flexible on-line refueling capability. Furthermore, heavy water reactors (especially Candu) are well established and widely-deployed commercial technology for which there is extensive licensing experience.
There is potential application to Enhanced Candu 6 and ACR-1000 reactors fueled with 5% plutonium (reactor grade) plus thorium. In the closed fuel cycle, the driver fuel required for starting off is progressively replaced with recycled U-233, so that on reaching equilibrium 80% of the energy comes from thorium. Fissile drive fuel could be LEU, plutonium, or recycled uranium from LWR. Fleets of PHWRs with near-self-sufficient equilibrium thorium fuel cycles could be supported by a few fast breeder reactors to provide plutonium.
High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors (HTRs): These are well suited for thorium-based fuels in the form of robust ‘TRISO’ coated particles of thorium mixed with plutonium or enriched uranium, coated with pyrolytic carbon and silicon carbide layers which retain fission gases. The fuel particles are embedded in a graphite matrix that is very stable at high temperatures. Such fuels can be irradiated for very long periods and thus deeply burn to exploit their original fissile charge. Thorium fuels can be designed for both ‘pebble bed’ and ‘prismatic’ HTR fuel varieties.
Boiling (Light) Water Reactors (BWRs): BWR fuel assemblies allow for structure & composition options, such as extra moderation and/or half-length fuel rods. This design flexibility means that well-optimized thorium fuels can be created for BWRs, for example, thorium-plutonium fuels that are tailored for ‘burning’ plutonium. BWRs are a well-understood and licensed reactor design.
Pressurised (Light) Water Reactors (PWRs): Viable thorium fuels can be designed for a PWR, though with less flexibility than for BWRs. Fuel needs to be in heterogeneous arrangements in order to achieve satisfactory fuel burn-up. It is not possible to design thorium-based PWR fuels that convert significant amounts of U-233. Even though PWRs are not the perfect reactor in which to use thorium, they are the industry workhorse and there is a lot of PWR licensing experience. They are a viable early-entry thorium platform.
Fast Neutron Reactors (FNRs): Thorium can serve as a fuel component for reactors operating with a fast neutron spectrum – in which a wider range of heavy nuclides are fissionable and may potentially drive a thorium fuel. There is, however, no relative advantage in using thorium instead of depleted uranium (DU) as a fertile fuel matrix in these reactor systems due to a higher fast-fission rate for U-238 and the fission contribution from residual U-235 in this material. Also, there is a huge amount of surplus DU available for use when more FNRs are commercially available, so thorium has little or no competitive edge in these systems.
Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs): These reactors are still at the design stage but will be very well suited for using thorium as a fuel. The unique fluid fuel incorporates thorium and uranium (U-233 and/or U-235) fluorides as part of a salt mixture that melts in the range 400-600ºC, and this liquid serves as both heat transfer fluid and the matrix for the fissioning fuel. The fluid circulates through a core region and then through a chemical processing circuit that removes various fission products (poisons) and/or the valuable U-233. Certain MSR designs [c] will be designed specifically for thorium fuels to produce useful amounts of U-233 – eventually leading to the self-sustaining use of thorium as an energy source.
Accelerator Driven Reactors (ADS): The sub-critical ADS system is an unconventional concept that is potentially ‘thorium capable’. Spallation neutrons are produced d when high-energy protons from an accelerator strike a heavy target like lead. These neutrons are directed at a region containing a thorium fuel, eg, Th-plutonium which reacts producing heat as in a conventional reactor. The system remains subcritical ie, unable to sustain a chain reaction without the proton beam. Difficulties lie with the reliability of high-energy accelerators and also with economics due to their high power consumption. (See also information page on Accelerator-Driven Nuclear Energy)

A key finding from thorium fuel studies to date is that it is not economically viable to use low-enriched uranium (LEU - with a U-235 content of up to 20%) as a fissile driver with thorium fuels, unless the fuel burn-up can be taken to very high levels – well beyond those currently attainable in LWRs with zirconium cladding.

With regard to proliferation significance, thorium-based power reactor fuels would be very poor source for fissile material usable in the illicit manufacture of an explosive device. U-233 contained in spent thorium fuel contains U-232 which decays to produce very radioactive daughter nuclides and these create a strong gamma radiation field. This confers proliferation resistance by creating significant handling problems and by greatly boosting the detectability (traceability) and ability to safeguard this material.






Ive spent several years hunting monazite deposits in several countries. Its quite abundant and is , besides, a surce for several rare earth elements.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jul, 2012 09:34 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
We'd have clean coal


Doesn't exist, never will

Cycloptichorn
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jul, 2012 09:40 pm
I think the biggest issue with power outages is the towers. If they were underground, they wouldn't be at the mercy of wind or ice storms.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jul, 2012 09:49 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
"clean coal" is like "Enhanced Radiation"
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jul, 2012 09:53 pm
@Ceili,
we have an ordinance requiring new buildings to have underground facilities . ( the Constitutionality is being tested in court this year) o far its oked . Its difficult to retrofit underground power lines. Ive always thought that underground is waay better than having all these poles out there in the eather, under trees, and in the heavy traffic routes. In some townships we have fatalities every year in winter when some drunk skids out of control and takes out a power pole which then crushes his car with him in it.
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jul, 2012 06:29 am
@farmerman,
Three different comments

Undergrounf Electrical Transmission
Because of induction it is not economically beneficial to use high voltage (>12.5 KVA) transmission underground. In cities and for short distance transmission (drops) underground transmission is possible.

Thorium
Thorium is about the 11th most common element in the Earths crust. In addition Geiger Mueller Meters that were used to find outcroppings of Uranium Rich deposits were in actually counting the gamma radiation that was given off by Th232 that accompanies uranium (its part of the decay chain). Thorium is also used as a ceramic glaze and is also found in letern mantles (I used to scare the hell out of anti-nukes by putting a Geiger counter on Coleman latern mantles).

The expoaure problem arises when you concentrate Thorium. It doesn't take too much concentration to exceed 80mR/hr gamma, and with high energy gamma shielding requires mass, generally a lot of it (lead and/or concrete).

Methane
Propane is a good portabe fuel--it doesn't take too much pressure to liguify at room temperature (~22 psi), but as you get to shorter and shorter hydrogen chains the equilibrium pressure at room temperature gets higher and higher, Granted my 10,500 psi was estimated using a 20 gal tank and the ideal gas law (scrap paper calc) but it still illustrated the problem of using very light hydrocarbons as fuels--first they are flammable gasses as opposed to flammable liquids like gasolune (>c6 chains) meaning that if the tank is punctured you have a flammable cloud.

This is a significant hazard when you are including this with a kinetic machine like an automobile.

Rap
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jul, 2012 08:15 am
@raprap,
Thorium i only one of two avctinides that create more fissile material as it disintegrates. So the only problem with Thorium is, as you said, variable shielding.

METHANE, yeh but its already being done safely. "Wet gas" is now the target of al the Marcellus drilling and most of that will be used for plastics feedstock and only about 30% for LNG. LNG is a huge by from the resurgent Bkken Field.
Its true that the btu energy density is less than gasoline, butt the price is almost 2 bucks cheaper per unit
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jul, 2012 08:18 am
@farmerman,
back to Th . It is almost a weaponizing-free nuclide because of the gamma "shiled" it creates. Unless you wish to die for your cause , spent 233U /232Th iw a poor choice. It would make a dirty bomb but the techs would probably be all dead.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Piece of coal eroding in my room? - Question by SlipperyRock17
Piece of coal eroding I'm my room - Question by SlipperyRock17
From Coal To Gas: The Potential Risks And Rewards - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Coal CEO calls environmentalists crazy - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Have Environmentalists/EPA Triggered Electric Power Outages To 3 Million Americans?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.9 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 07:57:13