MALCOLM & FINKEL.
Our media has become more divided than ever.
Used to be that both sides could agree on the facts.
Now the alarmists hate Malcolm/Finkel's coal initiative, and so do
Malcolm's new chief scientist (Finkel) has come up with a scheme that:
- Insists that any new power provider
to the network guarantee supply, (e.g.
must have batteries or similar for storing power for night.)
- Allows coal power stations but
charges a carbon tax past 700Kg of
Carbon Dioxide per MWH.
That second point is bloody brilliant. Let me explain why..
- 700KG CO2 contains 700 * 12 / 44 = 191 Kg Carbon.
- Anthracite (high quality black Coal) is about 92% carbon.
- So 208 Kg Anthracite burns to produce 700Kg CO2
- Burning Anthracite produces around 35MJ/Kg.
- Ultra Supercritical Coal fired power stations a have thermal
efficiency of ~48%.
So on burning 208 Kg Anthracite in an UltraSuperCritical
power plant, 208 * 0.48 * 35 * MJ are produced, which is about 3.5 GJ
If we spread this 3.5 GJ energy burn over an hour, we produce
3,500,000,000/3,600 MW ~
1 MWH of energy.
You read it right.
Under Finkel's proposal, we
could build power stations which would pay near zero carbon tax if
allowed to discharge 700Kg CO2 per MWH
But please, Allan and Andrew, shut up about this information. At
the moment the alarmists are wavering against Finkel. But you
guys, by your
strident opposition, are persuading them it might be acceptable.
Not optimum, but acceptable. If you start explaining that it
actually gives open slather on building coal fired power stations
(without Carbon Capture) then I just know they would go troppo.
And those battery/storage requirements are a neat trick. There is
that (or any other storage) technology will be available (cheap) any
time soon. (Personally I would suggest giant flywheels for
cheap energy storage.)
And bye the bye.
I am a Mechanical Engineer. I worked for a time
at Pyrmont Power station. Do not denigrate Finkel because he is
electrical Engineer. I had to learn a lot of Electrical &
Engineering to become a Mechanical Engineer. I assume the same
for Electrical & Civil engineers.
I would argue that Mechanical Engineers are the original climate
scientists. Mechanical Engineers study heat engines, and the
atmosphere/hydrosphere is a heat engine.
hear that Australian Fauna biologists and UK economists are posing as
climate scientists I know why climate science has got it all so wrong.
So Allan and Andrew. Keep up the good work. And stay stum on
mail comments to: email@example.com