In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:45:27 -0800 (PST): Hi,
This might however offer another interim solution. Gas powered generating plants have become important in recent years for two reasons. 1) CH4 produces less CO2 / BTU, and 2) The gas can be burnt in a "topping" turbine, the exhaust heat of which is used to boil water to produce steam for a conventional steam turbine. This combined cycle is frequently around 60-70% efficient, as opposed to a steam turbine alone, which is usually no more than about 40% at best. Now, if powdered coal were to replace the gas in the gas turbine portion of the system, then one would theoretically have a system that could still achieve 60-70% efficiency, but running purely on coal rather than natural gas. IOW the greenhouse gas results would lie somewhere between a gas powered plant and a normal coal fired plant (and it would increase the profits of the power companies because they would consume less coal). Furthermore, the characteristics of the process that were problematic for automotive use could easily be dealt with in a stationary application. This would also tie in with the Pickens Plan, freeing up natural gas for automotive use. >Eco-nightmare or valid alternative? > >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/automobiles/04COAL.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 > [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
