Matthew and Julie Bos wrote:
Great stuff, but lets spread the credit a little further. http://www.fe.doe.gov/coal_power/existingplants/mercurycontrol_fs.shtmlU.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham says the Bush administration's newly announced National Energy Policy "calls for this type of technological ingenuity to meet many of the nation's energy and environmental goals." The Anti-Christ strikes again! But this one did not make the news.
"In 1993, the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy gave five of the Nation's top environmental monitoring companies the task of assessing the release of trace impurities such as mercury from U.S. coal power plants. The work represented the most intensive effort to date to provide EPA with the critical data it needed on the release of mercury and other toxic impurities from the Nation's power plants."
Further on in the report:
"In May 2001, the Department selected a second group of technology development projects, each proposing a more novel mercury control system in an earlier phase of development. The projects were:"
among others, Console Inc.
It's more like the industry was playing games with the rules, Clinton called them on it after they had gotten away with it for quite a while. (see the part of the article I posted)."We have a legal process," said Gaynor. "Congress enacts laws. EPA issues regulations. Industry abides by those laws and regulations. What this [Clinton] NSR initiative is all about is EPA not following the normal rulemaking processes to establish an interpretation of the law, and instead it is trying to argue that the interpretation that they're now seeking to enforce has always been in existence, when in fact it hasn't been." The Clinton era EPA changed the rules to a place where they were never meant to be. Bush switched them back. Yes, the old plants stay put, but they can get better. And they should. And they will. People will demand it, again this is not a bad thing.
But the bottom line is that efficiency over the initial state of the plant (built in 1973 I believe) is 5%.Oh, and about the fifteen percent. I'll make a correction down to 12 percent, but that's my final offer. (It just takes time to track down source documentation (That is unless your name is Dan M.)). Detroit Edison is proposing to replace the entire high-pressure sections of two turbines to allow for the use of a new type of turbine blade and to reconfigure the design in order to improve efficiency and reduce maintenance costs. To install the Dense Pack, Detroit Edison must shut down the units. Detroit Edison expects the installation to take approximately 44 days, and plans to complete the installation during the time normally allotted for turbine outages. Installation of the Dense Pack would involve replacement and reconfiguration of blades in the high-pressure sections of the two units, using rotors and casings to support the new blade configuration. In addition, the Dense Pack would use a newer, substantially improved type of blade than is currently in use at the Monroe facility. As noted above, Detroit Edison states that the high pressure sections of the turbines at Units 1 and 4 are operating at 7% below their original efficiency ratings due to accumulated deterioration in the high-pressure section of the turbines. The Dense Pack project would increase efficiency of the high-pressure sections of the turbines over current levels by 12%, restoring the 7% lost efficiency at the high pressure section and improving the efficiency of the high-pressure section by 5% over the original design. This increased efficiency in the high-pressure sections would increase the overall efficiency of each of the turbines by 4.5%. In addition, the new Dense Pack configuration could reduce efficiency deterioration by 70%. Therefore, Detroit Edison expects the inspections and needed repair or replacements to occur once every 10 years, instead of once every 4 years.
And how is efficiency related to emissions? I ask not to make a point but because I don't know and I'm about done in for the night so I'm not gonna do another search. 8^)
Well, in 30+ years of paying in to the system with at least 17 to go I would hope to get something out of it. And by the by, if it helps keep the system solvent, I'm all for raising the eligibility age.Just remember who is going to be paying your social security! :)
I should hope not!I'm not paying for your Viagra,
Doug
Who can only hope he never needs the stuff...
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
