From: null@void.com   
      
   "Jim Wilkins"  writes:   
      
   > "Richard Smith"  wrote in message news:m1frdddo17.fsf@void.com...   
   >   
   > Hi all   
   >   
   > I was about to do another whimsical post, but then remembering female   
   > abilities to hunt information, went did a web-search first.   
   >   
   > AI came back with this:   
   >   
   > A "coal iron oxygen gas-turbine steam plant combined cycle" refers to   
   > an Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) system,   
   > specifically an oxygen-blown IGCC, where coal is gasified using   
   > oxygen (instead of air) to produce a clean fuel gas. This fuel gas   
   > then powers a gas turbine for electricity, and the heat from the gas   
   > turbine's exhaust is used in a steam turbine to generate more   
   > electricity, forming a combined cycle that increases overall   
   > efficiency and reduces emissions compared to traditional coal plants.   
   >   
   > Find everyone is already there, searching on "IGCC".   
   > It's "too abvious".   
   >   
   > I could see that with "tonnage" oxygen, such plant is feasible.   
   > I visualised using fluid circuit of Fe-C to dissolve coal, clean   
   > (desulphurise?) and react C with O2.   
   > Exhaust is pure CO2.  Sequester to exhausted gas fields or use in mega   
   > greenhouses to grow biomass.   
   >   
   > Obvious advantage - a coal heap is the only way of securely having a   
   > year's supply of fuel.  Even if you have no coal yourself, in fair   
   > weather you keep your stocks high, and if things go wrong you have a   
   > long time to get alternative solutions in place.   
   >   
   > Japan built new coal-fired power-stations after the Fukishima nuclear   
   > accident even though they have no coal source themselves because they   
   > realised they need a "buffer".   
   >   
   > Urmm - it's difficult for someone deciding your "democratic   
   > credentials are not good enough" to deny you your coal-pile - you   
   > simply gather it back up again.  Destroy the power-station and not   
   > many will be convinced the party who did it is your friend...   
   >   
   > Lot of national security arguments in its favour.   
   >   
   > Anyone have any experience of this?   
   >   
   > Best wishes   
   > ------------------------------------   
   >   
   > I have no hands-on experience but (because) I've studied it with the   
   > help of my chemistry degree. Much is possible, what's practical   
   > depends on economics, availability and waste disposal. It's largely a   
   > problem in chemical engineering, a separate degree. Everything close   
   > to practical and a lot that isn't has already been tried, much in   
   > Germany during WW1 and 2.   
   >   
   > I think coal gasification is too complex and maintenance intensive for   
   > a small scale and I don't want to become a full time power plant   
   > engineer. Wood is demanding enough.   
   >   
   > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gas   
   > Wood can be distilled in simple apparatus the same way, and was used   
   > to power cars during WW2. The problem is tarry byproducts. There is no   
   > cheap and easy source of hydrogen for the processes that turn coal   
   > into gas or liquid hydrocarbons for fuel, though it's done for more   
   > valuable products. Hydrogen is merely a troublesome storage and   
   > transport medium for electric energy sourced from solar or hydro. High   
   > voltage DC transmission lines may be a better way, like your links to   
   > France and Holland.   
   >   
   > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_photosynthesis   
   > "Artificially photosynthesized fuel would be a carbon-neutral source   
   > of energy, but it has never been demonstrated in any practical   
   > sense. The economics of artificial photosynthesis are noncompetitive."   
   >   
   > Personally I have the other storable solid fuel, self-gathered   
   > firewood in metal roofed sheds and some solar, both practical on a   
   > home scale, and the smokeless Jotul-copy wood stove is somewhat useful   
   > for cooking, hot water, annealing and hardening. The price of LiFePO4   
   > batteries has fallen low enough to avoid the hassles of other types   
   > and solar panels are nearing $0.50 per Watt. I use laptops as   
   > recording TVs and power them and an Alpicool T60 inverter   
   > fridge/freezer from solar charged batteries, the AC-only gear such as   
   > monitors and the TV antenna amp from a $50 Bestek 300W sine   
   > inverter. Most other DC appliances are too expensive and like the   
   > microwave and coffee pot not used enough to cost much. I dry laundry   
   > outdoors, under a 4' deck roof overhang for 2-3 days in damp   
   > weather. In winter the laundry freeze-dries. Air conditioning costs me   
   > around $20 a month for July and August, not worth a large capital   
   > investment to change. They and the window fans for cool nights are on   
   > Kill-A-Watt meters.   
   >   
   > Wood stove kettle hot water can be poured into the washing machine. I   
   > modified garden sprayers with sink spray hoses for hot showers when   
   > the power grid is down. They stay filled by the door to put out brush   
   > fires.   
   >   
   > I don't have $$ cable TV or wired Internet, the reason for my 10GB   
   > monthly cellular data limit on a $35 plan. So far I haven't had to buy   
   > extra data.   
   >   
   > The compromises in steam locomotive design illustrate the tradeoffs   
   > between efficiency and complexity. They rarely condensed the steam as   
   > was done on ships to decrease fuel and clean fresh water consumption,   
   > because air condensers were too bulky and fragile. Instead they used   
   > the cylinder exhaust to increase firebox draft because their   
   > smokestacks had to be short and inefficient to clear bridges and   
   > tunnels.   
   > https://forum.trains.com/t/simple-expansion-verses-compound-ex   
   ansion-steam-locomotives/242914/16   
   > jsw   
      
   Condensers on locomotives could recover water but could not create a   
   vacuum which enhanced the efficiency.   
   As far as I know...   
   Heard of the South African locos.  They had coal but not oil and strong   
   political reasons to bear the complexity in order to transport consuming   
   coal.  Yes the non-condensing version of the class were considered   
   absolutely excellent.   
   Cornish beam engines pumping could on 50psi (maybe 55psi or 60psi in   
   that case) could reach 10.6% efficiency coal in the boiler to water down   
   the adit.   
   That is not "all other things being equal" !!   
   Implies the engine must be up near the Carnot Cycle thermodynamic limit   
   of about 18%.   
   The "direct condenser" was probably "significantly to blame".   
   I assume that at 50psi the boiler could tolerate lubricating oil in the   
   return feed - which was warmed from condensing the steam.   
   If I get it right - about 1/4 to 1/3rd of the power came from the   
   condenser vacuum under the piston.   
   The huge pistons eg. 2m diameter - probably made for an enormous   
   expansion-ratio - lower starting pressure, but much higher expansion   
   ratio?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)