• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Idea for retiring coal plants

longview

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
44,613
Reaction score
14,469
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Small nuclear power reactors - World Nuclear Association
Almost all coal plants have a rail head, if they do not, then they are on a waterway.
Steam turbines may be low tech, being over a century old, but it is solid technology,
used by about 90 percent of the power plants that turn heat to electricity.
The source of the heat is the difference between a coal plant and a nuclear plant.
The article bring up the idea that small nuclear reactors, factory made to rigid specifications,
could be set up to provide the steam in coal plants, instead of burning coal.
Special rail cradles could be designed to attach the control lines, cooling and steam lines.
The small reactors could be fueled at a controlled factory, and transported where needed.
Standardizing the design could improve overall reliability.

Thoughts, ideas?

NOTE: The US needs about 1300 full size new nuclear plants to provide the energy we currently get from
fossil fuels.
 
longview said:
Small nuclear power reactors - World Nuclear Association
Almost all coal plants have a rail head, if they do not, then they are on a waterway.
Steam turbines may be low tech, being over a century old, but it is solid technology,
used by about 90 percent of the power plants that turn heat to electricity.
The source of the heat is the difference between a coal plant and a nuclear plant.
The article bring up the idea that small nuclear reactors, factory made to rigid specifications,
could be set up to provide the steam in coal plants, instead of burning coal.
Special rail cradles could be designed to attach the control lines, cooling and steam lines.
The small reactors could be fueled at a controlled factory, and transported where needed.
Standardizing the design could improve overall reliability.

Thoughts, ideas?

NOTE: The US needs about 1300 full size new nuclear plants to provide the energy we currently get from
fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

Switching to NG is more practical - the conversion could be done in months instead of years.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Switching to NG is more practical - the conversion could be done in months instead of years.
Click to expand...
True enough! and most natural gas pipelines run near railroad tracks as well.
I am thinking Nuclear is the more long term solution, with our available technology.
 
longview said:
True enough! and most natural gas pipelines run near railroad tracks as well.
I am thinking Nuclear is the more long term solution, with our available technology.
Click to expand...

I agree, but the NG short term solution is better than nothing. The regulatory hoops, for obvious reasons, are far less as well as the complexity of the conversion effort going from coal to NG vs. coal to nuclear. The good news is that steam (or pressurized water) pipes can be rerouted/interchanged fairly easily.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I agree, but the NG short term solution is better than nothing. The regulatory hoops, for obvious reasons, are far less as well as the complexity of the conversion effort going from coal to NG vs. coal to nuclear. The good news is that steam (or pressurized water) pipes can be rerouted/interchanged fairly easily.
Click to expand...
Yea, I see coal as on the way out, the logistics of moving large quantities of a bulky fuel will slowly cause the plants to not be profitable.
Conversion to NG, could extend the life of those plants for many decades, and result in substantial savings.
 
longview said:
Small nuclear power reactors - World Nuclear Association
Almost all coal plants have a rail head, if they do not, then they are on a waterway.
Steam turbines may be low tech, being over a century old, but it is solid technology,
used by about 90 percent of the power plants that turn heat to electricity.
The source of the heat is the difference between a coal plant and a nuclear plant.
The article bring up the idea that small nuclear reactors, factory made to rigid specifications,
could be set up to provide the steam in coal plants, instead of burning coal.
Special rail cradles could be designed to attach the control lines, cooling and steam lines.
The small reactors could be fueled at a controlled factory, and transported where needed.
Standardizing the design could improve overall reliability.

Thoughts, ideas?

NOTE: The US needs about 1300 full size new nuclear plants to provide the energy we currently get from
fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
Convert them to burn the blue diesel, or natural gas.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Convert them to burn the blue diesel, or natural gas.
Click to expand...

Coming to a street corner near you, these have the potential to further decentralize the power grid, placing power generation closer to regions of need. Together with a new, smart grid powered by solar, wind, hydro, wave action etc. this can be done...Let's do it and sooner than later.
 
Russell797 said:
Coming to a street corner near you, these have the potential to further decentralize the power grid, placing power generation closer to regions of need. Together with a new, smart grid powered by solar, wind, hydro, wave action etc. this can be done...Let's do it and sooner than later.
Click to expand...

New places for effective hydro is hard to come by and I am against wave and wind energy.

Solar I believe will be our best future option.
 
Russell797 said:
Coming to a street corner near you, these have the potential to further decentralize the power grid, placing power generation closer to regions of need. Together with a new, smart grid powered by solar, wind, hydro, wave action etc. this can be done...Let's do it and sooner than later.
Click to expand...
I think when solar gets further developed it can supplement the base load, but I do not think it can replace the base load.
Many of the base load plants are coal, switching they to natural gas, or even small nuclear, would be a vast improvement in
reducing pollution.
 
[h=2]India meets climate goals early by doubling coal, and keeping it as main energy source for next 30 years[/h]
In the last day in the media, India is going to use coal as its backbone energy for the next thirty years, is buying coal mines all around the world, and will double production by 2020 to a massive 1,500 million tons per annum. At the same time India is meetings its climate goals early, and is likely to reduce emissions by 2 – 3 billion tons by 2030.
They can’t all be true:
[h=4]Coal to be India’s energy mainstay for next 30 years: policy paper[/h]
–Economic Times, May 16th​
[h=4]China, India dominate coal ownership as some shun climate risks: report[/h]
– Reuters, May 15th[h=4]Coal Decline In China & India Likely To Reduce Emissions Growth By 2-3 Billion Tonnes By 2030[/h]– Cleantechnica, May 16th

[h=4]China, India to Reach Climate Goals Years Early, as U.S. Likely to Fall Far Short[/h]
-InsideClimateNews, May 16th​
The top two headlines are backed by big numbers: India is the worlds third largest coal producer, and coal powers 60% of India’s energy needs. But the poor investors or readers of industry rags might think India’s coal use is falling. Read the fine print.
[h=4]Lessons in spin:[/h]It’s all in how an issue is framed. The third headline talks about “reductions” from forecast values, meaning theoretical savings of emissions “that might have been, but weren’t”.

The fourth headline tells us that the two massive coal producing nations are “meeting climate targets early” which just shows how pathetic the climate targets are.

If these countries are a “success” what does failure look like?

We have to teach children (adults) how to filter these contradictions.
 
longview said:
Yea, I see coal as on the way out, the logistics of moving large quantities of a bulky fuel will slowly cause the plants to not be profitable.
Conversion to NG, could extend the life of those plants for many decades, and result in substantial savings.
Click to expand...
Are you sure NG would be easier to transport? Look at all the trouble with the single Keystone pipeline. There sure are a lot of power plants out there. That would be a lot of new pipelines.
 
Russell797 said:
Coming to a street corner near you, these have the potential to further decentralize the power grid, placing power generation closer to regions of need. Together with a new, smart grid powered by solar, wind, hydro, wave action etc. this can be done...Let's do it and sooner than later.
Click to expand...
No, solar, wind, hydro, and wave cannot replace coal. NG and nuclear can. The sources you listed can certainly provide auxiliary sources of energy someday, and I hope they do, but they are unlikely to be our only source of energy.

Efforts should be concentrated on replacing coal, auxiliary energy can be moved to the front burner later.
 
Lord of Planar said:
New places for effective hydro is hard to come by and I am against wave and wind energy.

Solar I believe will be our best future option.
Click to expand...

Ok, but the idea is to utilize all forms of electric generation available to us. Along coast lines wind and wave action are plentiful sources. Nuclear is an essential part of the mix, and these smaller units when strategically placed will be part of that mix. Essential in the long run is a transition from fission reactors to fusion, but that's decades away from being realized.

I don't necessarily like interfering with stream flow in rivers, or cluttering up the sky line with wind turbines but anything we do will have environmental impact that we must accept. We can no long accept pumping over 30 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and oceans every year.
 
natsb said:
No, solar, wind, hydro, and wave cannot replace coal. NG and nuclear can. The sources you listed can certainly provide auxiliary sources of energy someday, and I hope they do, but they are unlikely to be our only source of energy.

Efforts should be concentrated on replacing coal, auxiliary energy can be moved to the front burner later.
Click to expand...

You missed the point of my post. It is essential to include nuclear in the mix of energy sources and we in the U.S. are replacing coal with natural gas to a substantial degree. The small nuclear units mentioned by the OP can be part of that transition.
 
Lord of Planar said:
New places for effective hydro is hard to come by and I am against wave and wind energy.

Solar I believe will be our best future option.
Click to expand...

Wind energy and wave energy is a form of solar energy in any case.
 
RetiredUSN said:
I am more worried about our 3rd world power grid than I am about the fuel we use at the moment.

The outdated US electric grid is going to cost $5 trillion to replace - Business Insider

Aging And Unstable, The Nation's Electrical Grid Is 'The Weakest Link' : NPR
Click to expand...

The smart, modern electrical grid will be decentralized with many more smaller sized electric generation stations adding strategically to the grid. For that we will utilize all forms of energy available to a given location. For this to work you need to be concerned with how we generate electricity...the two go hand in hand.
 
Russell797 said:
I don't necessarily like interfering with stream flow in rivers, or cluttering up the sky line with wind turbines but anything we do will have environmental impact that we must accept.
Click to expand...
These all have their own environmental impacts.

Russell797 said:
We can no long accept pumping over 30 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and oceans every year.
Click to expand...
Not indefinitely, but it is a long time till it poses any problems. We have time to create better technologies without harming our economy now.
 
BillRM said:
Wind energy and wave energy is a form of solar energy in any case.
Click to expand...
Wind changes the downstream winds, kills birds, and is ugly. Wave is just a clutter in the oceans ready to decay after some decades. Solar can create shelter and cooler sands in the deserts, and vegetation can come back.
 
longview said:
Small nuclear power reactors - World Nuclear Association
Almost all coal plants have a rail head, if they do not, then they are on a waterway.
Steam turbines may be low tech, being over a century old, but it is solid technology,
used by about 90 percent of the power plants that turn heat to electricity.
The source of the heat is the difference between a coal plant and a nuclear plant.
The article bring up the idea that small nuclear reactors, factory made to rigid specifications,
could be set up to provide the steam in coal plants, instead of burning coal.
Special rail cradles could be designed to attach the control lines, cooling and steam lines.
The small reactors could be fueled at a controlled factory, and transported where needed.
Standardizing the design could improve overall reliability.

Thoughts, ideas?

NOTE: The US needs about 1300 full size new nuclear plants to provide the energy we currently get from
fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

The steam turbine is the easy bit.

The steam turbine in an old coal power station needs replacing.

The coal power station is easy to decomission.

The new nuclear one is an entirely different animal and wants lots of different things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom