Smoking and power production are two very different things. Smoking is a legitimate public health issue. Power production is an economic, utilities, and environmental issue - however an administration that puts in place regulations that increase hard particle pollution in the name of fighting "global warming" is doing a great disservice to the people of our country.
Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
Smoking and power production are two very different things. Smoking is a legitimate public health issue. Power production is an economic, utilities, and environmental issue - however an administration that puts in place regulations that increase hard particle pollution in the name of fighting "global warming" is doing a great disservice to the people of our country.
Coal fired power generation fell behind natural gas power generation probably more than a year ago, and most older coal plants are converting, or have plans to convert. Coal is not "coming back". Sure, it will never disappear, after all, some people still burn wood.
Here is another reality... you cannot convert a coal fired power plant to natural gas. You must completely tear down the coal fired power plant than build a new natural gas power plant. Two totally different designs.
Considering that all coal-fired power plants are built on lakes with railroad spurs supporting the coal transport --- and the new gas-fired power plant requires a pipeline to be built to remote areas to transport natural gas -- even the fuel transportation infrastructure updates will require significant costs and time to update.
I'll be darned, so my customers buying my retrofit equipment are not even going to use it! Oh well, sales are sales.
Explain the retro-fit equipment you sell.
The only plants capable of be converted in North Carolina are those near Charlotte which are close to the natural gas pipeline infrastructure.
Shrug, that's a local market condition. Overall the country is converting, and dozens of plants are being retrofitted, not "completely torn down". Like I said, coal is not going away, but it's not coming back. You're talking out your ass. Which I guess is completely in line with the Drumpf Age.
Carefully explain which power plant components are kept and which are discarded when converting a power plant from coal to natural gas.
I can do this. I want to see if you even understand the basic concepts involved.
Here is some reading material to give you a hint....
http://www.power-eng.com/articles/p...coal-to-gas-plant-conversions-in-the-u-s.html
http://www.babcock.com/library/Documents/MS-14.pdf
Last edited:
Naming the parts of a natural gas power generation system, their function, and how they are connected, wouldn't prove a thing, particularly when anyone can google "the basic concept". Which by the way, you can google yourself, as can anyone else here, the fact that power generation is converting from coal to gas, it is not all being "completely torn down".
The majority of coal fired power plants do not support conversion without effectively discarding nearly all of the components. Only the older, smaller power plants support more direct conversion since natural gas plants typically are small.
I posted some learning material above for you to educate yourself.
Your article with the risk guessed by scientists...
I did not see man man co2 in the top 9 risks.
So we can say no qualified scientist thinks agw is an existential risk of greater than 0.03% Or using agw logic we can say no published scientist named AGW as an existential risk.
Overall probability 19%
Molecular nanotechnology weapons 5%
Superintelligent AI 5%
Non-nuclear wars 4%
Engineered pandemic 2%
Nuclear wars 1%
Nanotechnology accident 0.5%
Natural pandemic 0.05%
Nuclear terrorism 0.03%
--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_catastrophic_risk
I did not see man man co2 in the top 9 risks.
So we can say no qualified scientist thinks agw is an existential risk of greater than 0.03% Or using agw logic we can say no published scientist named AGW as an existential risk.
Overall probability 19%
Molecular nanotechnology weapons 5%
Superintelligent AI 5%
Non-nuclear wars 4%
Engineered pandemic 2%
Nuclear wars 1%
Nanotechnology accident 0.5%
Natural pandemic 0.05%
Nuclear terrorism 0.03%
--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_catastrophic_risk
Last edited: