Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Bear Cub · 10-21-2008, 03:35 PM

smooth: Sure, foreign automakers are pushing efficient vehicles. But that's not an apples to apples comparison here. What would you think if the government said "your cars all put out emissions that are too high by our new standards, even though they met the standards established when they were built. It is not the automaker's responsibility to recall and retrofit all of these old vehicles with new technology at their own cost." That's a pretty damn huge cost to the automakers, and you can bet the R&D guys developing the concept cars are going to be the first ones getting laid off.

While other countries may be "ahead of us" in green efforts, the fact is that the populated areas come back to using "dirty" American technology. That is why the Fluors, Bechtels, Shaws, and Foster Wheelers of the world are building coal, nuke, and natural gas plants overseas while its going out of style (and nuclear is an incredibly clean, safe power supply, so don't even get me started on the nuclear waste bullshit).

Tully: there is more to efficiency than factoring in the output of solar and wind energy. We're not talking generation efficiency, we're talking efficiency of the entire process. We're sitting on enough dirt cheap coal to last us decades and decades into the future. We've had unparalleled nuclear technology available to us for years that we haven't used in 30 years because the power plants of the 70's left a bad taste in our mouth. We have the technology to build these plants NOW, the companies have the money to build these plants NOW, and we need something that will meet our growing energy needs NOW.

EPC companies are also the ones that build these alternative-energy prototype plants. Just about anything that has been thought of has been tried at least once overseas. Energy companies stateside haven't jumped on-board, because nothing has shown enough promise to meet output needs based on the kind of money they have to spend, and in the time-frame they need to have it up and running by, in order to meet current growth requirements.

By capping CO2 emissions, energy and EPC companies are going to put their time and resources towards retrofitting existing plants and updating current design requirements. This is going to take millions of dollars per power station, and based on the time it takes to currently do a scrubber job, 4-6 years a piece. If this doesn't come from our federal tax dollars, its going to come at cost to consumers of your favorite energy provider.

Wouldn't you rather just leave current emissions requirements in place which are SIGNIFICANTLY improved over the previous generation plants, and put those resources towards alternative energy projects?

The fact is, you're going to spend a few years getting the legislation to go through, a few years of planning, and 4-6 years of construction. Figure 10 years before these plants get their retrofits from concept to project turnover. That's 10 years worth of time and money wasted by energy companies that they would have been more apt to put towards alternative energy.

If politicians lead people to believe that it's just a gradual process to have these plants cut back emissions by 2050, then they're full of shit, and the energy companies know it. If legislation doesn't establish a hard deadline for the immediate future on something like this, energy companies will let the plants operate at full scale, ride it out until repairs to the boilers and boiler piping cost more than they're worth, and decommission the plant before 2050 rolls around anyways (average lifespan of a power plant is 30-40 years).

OK, I'm officially done with this discussion before my blood pressure goes too high. I'm not going and digging up hard sources on this either. I build these plants, I talk with clients, I see what comes in for bid and what doesn't, I see where the money for technology is being invested. Major energy companies aren't high and mighty on alternative energy right now, and if they're forced to sink their money updating past/current facilities just for CO2 emissions, they'll all but drop alternative energy projects for quite some time. They've already diverted a ton of resources just to meet the sulfur dioxide, mercury, and NOx emissions requirements.

I'd just like to reiterate that I could care less how this pans out. I get paid to build these plants regardless of what their generation source is. But it irritates me to no end when politicians and Greenpeace nuts think that their immediate interests trump the natural progression of engineering.

10-21-2008, 03:35 PM	#36 (permalink)
Bear Cub The Reverend Side Boob Location: Nofe Curolina	smooth: Sure, foreign automakers are pushing efficient vehicles. But that's not an apples to apples comparison here. What would you think if the government said "your cars all put out emissions that are too high by our new standards, even though they met the standards established when they were built. It is not the automaker's responsibility to recall and retrofit all of these old vehicles with new technology at their own cost." That's a pretty damn huge cost to the automakers, and you can bet the R&D guys developing the concept cars are going to be the first ones getting laid off. While other countries may be "ahead of us" in green efforts, the fact is that the populated areas come back to using "dirty" American technology. That is why the Fluors, Bechtels, Shaws, and Foster Wheelers of the world are building coal, nuke, and natural gas plants overseas while its going out of style (and nuclear is an incredibly clean, safe power supply, so don't even get me started on the nuclear waste bullshit). Tully: there is more to efficiency than factoring in the output of solar and wind energy. We're not talking generation efficiency, we're talking efficiency of the entire process. We're sitting on enough dirt cheap coal to last us decades and decades into the future. We've had unparalleled nuclear technology available to us for years that we haven't used in 30 years because the power plants of the 70's left a bad taste in our mouth. We have the technology to build these plants NOW, the companies have the money to build these plants NOW, and we need something that will meet our growing energy needs NOW. EPC companies are also the ones that build these alternative-energy prototype plants. Just about anything that has been thought of has been tried at least once overseas. Energy companies stateside haven't jumped on-board, because nothing has shown enough promise to meet output needs based on the kind of money they have to spend, and in the time-frame they need to have it up and running by, in order to meet current growth requirements. By capping CO2 emissions, energy and EPC companies are going to put their time and resources towards retrofitting existing plants and updating current design requirements. This is going to take millions of dollars per power station, and based on the time it takes to currently do a scrubber job, 4-6 years a piece. If this doesn't come from our federal tax dollars, its going to come at cost to consumers of your favorite energy provider. Wouldn't you rather just leave current emissions requirements in place which are SIGNIFICANTLY improved over the previous generation plants, and put those resources towards alternative energy projects? The fact is, you're going to spend a few years getting the legislation to go through, a few years of planning, and 4-6 years of construction. Figure 10 years before these plants get their retrofits from concept to project turnover. That's 10 years worth of time and money wasted by energy companies that they would have been more apt to put towards alternative energy. If politicians lead people to believe that it's just a gradual process to have these plants cut back emissions by 2050, then they're full of shit, and the energy companies know it. If legislation doesn't establish a hard deadline for the immediate future on something like this, energy companies will let the plants operate at full scale, ride it out until repairs to the boilers and boiler piping cost more than they're worth, and decommission the plant before 2050 rolls around anyways (average lifespan of a power plant is 30-40 years). OK, I'm officially done with this discussion before my blood pressure goes too high. I'm not going and digging up hard sources on this either. I build these plants, I talk with clients, I see what comes in for bid and what doesn't, I see where the money for technology is being invested. Major energy companies aren't high and mighty on alternative energy right now, and if they're forced to sink their money updating past/current facilities just for CO2 emissions, they'll all but drop alternative energy projects for quite some time. They've already diverted a ton of resources just to meet the sulfur dioxide, mercury, and NOx emissions requirements. I'd just like to reiterate that I could care less how this pans out. I get paid to build these plants regardless of what their generation source is. But it irritates me to no end when politicians and Greenpeace nuts think that their immediate interests trump the natural progression of engineering. __________________ Living in the United Socialist States of America.