Hi Jim & Scott The article says "DAILY ACTIVITY, PRODUCING 1,000 MEGAWATTS" and here is the link, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27348-2001Jul20.html but they dont have this table which is available in newspaper. Full details Fuel used : 9,000 tons of coal Emissions released : CO2- 30,000 tons SO2- 600 tons NO2- 80 tons Thorium- 57.6 lbs Uranium- 23.4 lbs All the above were release from burning of coal. Madan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Does any one else getting riled up when the press uses power and energy as synonyms? They call MW energy, MW-hr power and then vis versa in the next sentence. Correct me if I'm wrong (I usually bat 0.500) but power can be considered a rate of energy consumption. I have said that one hamster running in a wheel could provide all the energy you need (joules) but the darn hamster can't provide it fast enough, i.e. not enough power (joules per second, aka watts). Scott C. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of James R. Frysinger > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 1:38 PM > To: U.S. Metric Association > Cc: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:14582] Re: Carbon Emissions > > > In what time period, Madan? 1000 MW is a quantity of power but 9000 t of > coal produce a certain amount of energy. > > Scott has shown the need to account for atomic masses in the > stoichiometry. To recap, your statement that 1 unit of coal combines > with 2 units of oxygen is correct only if "unit" means "atom". But 12 g > of carbon combine with 32 g of oxygen to produce 44 g of CO2. > > Actually, coal is closer to being 75 % to 84 % carbon (bituminous and > anthracite, respectively). I just ran across those numbers for a project > I'm working on (an encyclopedia article on nuclear power plants) and > I'll try to go back and find them. > > What we haven't talked about yet are the important pollutants SOx and > NOx, where the x's represent variable coefficients of the sulfur > dioxides and nitrogen dioxides. My article includes data on this also so > I'll dig it out and post it in case you wish to include it in your > reply. > > Jim > > M R wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > In yesterday's (2001-07-23) edition of Washington > > Post, there was an article on Nuclear Fusion Power, > > and a table of comparison showing the difference > > between fusion and thermal power gives this info. > > > > To power a 1000 MW thermal power plant, it takes 9,000 > > tons of coal and it gives of 30,000 tons of co2 > > emission. > > > > Even if 1 unit of carbon combines with 2 units of > > oxygen to form co2, it should give < 27,000 tons of > > co2 (9,000 tons carbon + 18,000 tons oxygen) , > > and if we eliminate the ash and other substances, the > > figure should be much lesser. I really wonder whether > > they meant 30,000 tons or 30,000 pounds. > > > > And they have given the waste for nuclear materials in > > pounds. > > > > Before responding to Washington Post, I would like > > someone to comment on this. > > > > As for the success of the Kyoto Protocol, I > > congratulate our friends in Europe, Canada, Russia, > > Japan, Australia, etc for the role played by their > > governments. > > > > 1 day, they may forge an SI protocol which allows SI > > only products within member countries. > > > > Madan > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger > > http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ > > -- > Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!" > James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/ > 10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789 >
