The E.P.A. and environmentalist nut jobs shutting down power plants.

[Major Jizz]

The power plant which I work in is basically, FUCKED.

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/03/08/more-than-100-coal-plants-shutting-but-how-much-difference-will-it-make/

"After public pressure, Chicago will shut two aging coal-fired power plants, and the owner of one of the power plants, Midwest Generation, may shut its other four coal plants in Illinois. Since the start of 2010, more than 100 coal plants have been slated for early retirement.

A major reason for coal plants shutting has been public opposition to pollution from coal. Also, looming requirements by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for stringent pollution controls could take a toll on the coal industry, while boosting the market for pollution control devices. One huge coal plant in New Mexico lost a legal battle with the EPA to avoid having to install a more effective type of pollution-control equipment.

But what really has the coal industry “frightened” is cheap natural gas, the result of a boom in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, of shale deposits. But demand for natural gas may soon grow, since more natural gas vehicles are already in the works, and an announcement by President Obama that he’ll expand tax credits for alternative vehicles to include those powered by hydrogen and natural gas."

http://www.c2es.org/federal/analysis/bingaman-clean-energy-standard-act-2012

[Diogenes The Cynic]

So, the environmentalists don't like coal because its dirty?

But they also don't like nuclear power because its "scary"

and hydroelectric because it damages fish habitats

and solar because it harms desert ecosystems?

Fuck their noise. I bet this shit is being funded by T. Boone Pickens.

[Bill Brasky]

Coal is dirty, but theres a place for it, in the big wheel of humanity.  That place is China.

You have to think of the source of coal, when weighing the whole concept.  Its WAY more environmentally damaging to extract than gas, despite what people have seen in Gas Wars, or whatever recent shit crossed their radar. 

Then once the coal is burned, they put the waste ash into big piles, which is another environmental hazard...  (in case you're keeping count, thats three separate strikes for coal gen  -  the source, the burning- if improperly scrubbed, and the waste deposits)

The result of burning gas is basically nothing.  Heat, water vapor, and some off-gassing that doesn't require any filtering.

Fracking is not the only source of gas, it is perhaps 10% of the total that reaches pipelines.  And it is believed that more gas lies undiscovered and/or untapped than we've ever burnt, ever.  Potentially hundreds of years worth.  With motors and houses being more efficient than ever before, requiring less energy. 

All in all, coal is ultimately destined to be shut down.  All coal plants have an expiration date.  We should be pushing to shut them down, and selling our goddamn coal to China and India, getting some of our GDP back.  Since we're the Saudi Arabia of coal, and all. 

But do I think they can continue to burn it until they run gas pipes into the existing turbine locations.  Which is probably the plan anyways, since those are where the electrical grid originate from.

And since gas is currently priced at 2.05 a decatherm (half of what it cost a few years ago), and coal is approximately $200 a ton (double of what it cost a few years ago), and we have a hellofa time exporting gas, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which one's least likely to get any love.

Personally, I don't care what they do, as long as electricity stays affordable.  (which is unlikely in the long run, because the grid is antiquated and cannot maintain the projected exponential load).

However, that long term problem could've been avoided by placing gas microturbines in slack areas.  Care to guess how many communities opted for that?  (hint, almost none)

Which is why, as I've mentioned umpteen times before, my wishful, ideal plan is to put up a self-sufficient solar farm in a warm climate, augmented by wind or water, and let the whole world go fuck itself. 

Some people even get their shit efficient enough so's their electric meter spins backwards, and they get a paycheck from the electric company, instead of a bill.  That'd be nice.

[Turd Ferguson]

I dont know too much about it, but one of my brothers professors at college has, what seems like a perpetual motion machine, but in reality is just a water wheel that creates electricity by water coming from a pond up on top of a slope, crashing down on the wheel connected to a generator. Using the force of gravity to negate the net loss of energy is the key to the whole operation I guess. Apparently, there is enough electricity generated to pump the water used back up to the pond and fall again onto the wheel, continuing the whole cycle infinitely, or until the water dries up I guess. I would have my doubts about something like this, but my bro says he saw it in action with his own eyeballs.

Anyone else hear of anything like this?

[Bill Brasky]

It has to be a closed circuit.  It cannot take on water from an outside source, or experience evaporation or spillage.  Otherwise, its basically a hoaxy parlor trick. 

He could have a hole drilled in the lower pond to keep the level, and a feeder source at the top pond introducing new water.

Which means, its basically a river. 

You'd have to have two meters to prove it.  One on the source that provides the spill, energizing the wheel, and another meter at the return, proving exact compensation back to the source.

If theres no meters, the whole thing is bullshit.  An engineer that created perpetual motion would absolutely buy meters to prove his model. 



 

[dalebert]

Perpetual motion is a myth. It basically means you've completely eliminated friction or any other kind of loss of energy from the equation. Even if you managed to do that, it would move continuously, but you wouldn't be able to take any energy out of it to use or it would stop moving after the energy of motion was all drained and turned into another form of energy. Also, every time you convert energy from one form to another, you lose some energy because it can't be 100% efficient. That's as much a myth as perpetual motion.

Therefore, he is not both gaining energy from it and then using a portion of the energy to pump the water back up to continue the cycle in a closed system. Water is being added to the pond by nature, either just by regular rains and if it's a big enough pond, the level wouldn't drop that much for the amount he's bleeding off it, or by a stream from uphill or maybe even an underwater input from an underground stream or something.

Nature is raising the potential energy of the water and that's the energy he's tapping into. Pumping water back up into the stream is just really wasteful (of energy), unless this is just something he does to have a cool-looking watermill and he doesn't want to drain too much water. But I guarantee you he's not pumping the same amount of water back up as is being used by his watermill or he would have a net loss of energy due to inefficiency.

[Turd Ferguson]

I'm not doubting anything either one of you guys is saying. It's kinda what I was thinking too, but is it possible that the accelerated velocity of the water falling, using the force of gravity, is producing more energy than the electric pump he is using to pump the water back up to the pond? The only reason I ask this is because he says there is no battery connected to the pump and there is no stream feeding the pond. Its man made. I'm probably going to have to see this thing for myself if I can, to see whats the deal is. Maybe theres something my brother isnt telling me about it.

Like, "Oh yeah Mike, I forgot to tell you about these 13 elephants he has that take water back up to the pond."

I'll get to the bottom of this.