I didn't realize Alaska was becoming like a Third World Country! (Bethel: taxes, live)

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by rotorhead

Coal-fired power is hardly third world, it's more like the real world....

I agree with rotorhead, particularly considering the status of AGIA and the likelihood of getting a gas-pipeline into the Mat-Su from the Northslope.

The Mat-Su is running out of natural gas and with no pipeline in sight for the foreseeable future, a coal-fired powerplant seems to be the best, most cost effective, and practical alternative.

Concerning nuclear power, it wasn't that long ago (1992) that we had a nuclear reactor crack at Fort Greely. Not a good idea for Alaska.

See Fort Greely SMDC Nuclear Reactor SM1A Contaminated Sites Report

[Marty Van Diest]

Kinda frustrating:

No power plant so prices will go up.
No pebble mine
No gas line
No shell oil exploration
No methane gas

Is there any thing we CAN produce?

[Xa'at]

Originally Posted by Marty Van Diest

Kinda frustrating:

No power plant so prices will go up.
No pebble mine
No gas line
No shell oil exploration
No methane gas

Is there any thing we CAN produce?

Yeah, salmon! And tourists!

[Arcticthaw]

Ahhhh! the 60s all over again!
Depend on handouts of government.

Hey what about getting power from Healy, two plants there and already a coal mine. Maybe we need to put a third plant there and send the power down the interetie.

[Marty Van Diest]

Originally Posted by Xa'at

Yeah, salmon! And tourists!

That's about it allright...let's see. That will employ about 20% of our current population.

And the power plant in Healy is probably the way to go. The locals will OK it because it will be polluting someone else's air.

[JavaPhil]

With bag houses, coal plants are not as bad as they were 25 years ago. And there are drawbacks to almost all other forms of power plants. Diesel is another fossil fuel and getting more expensive daily. Nuclear has waste problems, hydro blocks spawning fish and in some areas limits irrigation waters, and without enough rain can run dry in some areas. Wind and solar are dependent on the weather and require large banks of batteries (also a waste problem). All are current forms of power generation and each has problems and advantages. This is my line of work, and most of what I have at my fingertips are facts, not my personal opinion. The biggest drawback to coal is not sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide or particulates as such. It's biggest thing is that coal burning releases more radiation than a comparable nuclear plant.

[Marty Van Diest]

Originally Posted by JavaPhil

It's biggest thing is that coal burning releases more radiation than a comparable nuclear plant.

That's news to me. I had no idea.

I actually don't have a problem with coal, we have plenty of it...let's use it. I'm just frustrated that we are stymied at every attempt to use our resources. It seems to me that there is either an effort to try to bankrupt Alaska by not letting us sell or use our natural resources, or that people really can't see that we need to use them.

As much as many of us criticize Canada and it's socialistic government...at least their government allows them to mine their resources. It's no wonder that most of the mining companies working in Alaska are Canadian companies.

[upstream]

Google Fischer Troupes, or coal to gas. The Governor of Montana is pushing hard to get this technology to market for Montana coal. It is an expensive process, but with the rising cost of oil, it's becoming a more affordable process.

I agree that wind depends on the weather, however, seeing the large scale wind generation farms in the Southwest & Western US, I didn't see large battery banks for storing the energy produced. It appeared that that the energy produced from these farms was going straight to grid.

We've got to curtail our hungry for energy, or we've got to secure new sources that don't pollute as we have been doing for years. I'm not a greenie, but I'm smart enough to know that we can't keep crappin' in our nest and expect to have a livable planet for the foreseeable future.

Heard on the radio the other day that some scientists were excited about the possibility that they had found a planet with an atmosphere much like ours on earth; and that we could move to this planet when earth became uninhabitable. Upon hearing this, I thought, great, we just made our planet disposable.

Ken

[MinuteMan]

Originally Posted by JavaPhil

The biggest drawback to coal is not sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide or particulates as such. It's biggest thing is that coal burning releases more radiation than a comparable nuclear plant.

Mercury is a widespread pollutant from coal, mining, internal combustion, etc.

Sources and Causes of Mercury in the Environment - WA State Dept. of Health (http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/mercury/merenv.htm - broken link)

[ak49er]

Even given that the MEA will almost certainly build the cheapest, dirtiest plant possible under the current regs (unless forced to do otherwise by the legislature), it would actually mean that the valley would get more efficient power than they do now. Here is where virtually all of S. Central Alaskas power comes from. It's called the Beluga power plant, and it's way out there completely off the road system on the other side of Cook Inlet, near the village of Tyonek.

http://inlinethumb53.webshots.com/62...600x600Q85.jpg

Every working generator in this plant is powered by natural gas from the Cook Inlets platforms, and spun by a jet-engine style gas turbine instead of the more efficient steam turbines found in coal plants. To make things worse, all of Belugas gas turbines are simple-cycle, with the exhaust heat just dumped out the stacks instead of being used to generate steam for a combined-cycle turbine. This means that most Alaskans are getting their electricity from a power plant thats maybe 25-30 % efficient (they're pretty old turbines), while a modern coal plants steam turbines would be typically 36-38% efficient. Beluga could upgrade to a combined-cycle process, which can approach 50-60% efficiency but it would be massively expensive.

Calling a coal plant "third world" is a misnomer at best. It's where the majority of the US gets it base electrical load from every day.[/quote]



Hey that's a great picture of my office. A few good points a few misleading facts though "Rotorhead". Beluga has 7 units, 2 GE Frame 5, 2 GE Frame 7, 2 ABB 11-DN, and one BBC Steam Turbine. One frame 7 is an "e" model, more efficient than the other. The two ABB 11-DN both vent their waste heat into Heat Recovery Steam Generators which motivate a BBC Steam Turbine with an output of 60-65 MW. This unit has been supplying "free power" since 1979. It is the newest unit in the fleet. Additionally the 11-DN are the most efficient units in Alaska, this trio alone is good for 200MW. While old and inefficient, compared to units shipped today. And no, we couldn't upgrade the other units to HRSG's as they are turned on and off with peak demand which happens in the morning, noon and evening. Like it or not Beluga is here to stay and most likely will be powering the Valley, long after both CEA and MLP build new plants in Anchorage utilizing GE 6F or LM006. At times we are limited on output though as the gas field here can no longer naturally supply the pressure we need to maintain the Relative Gas Density to operate our more efficient units, which tend to be alot more temperamental than the older dinosaurs. The gas consortium here built a 25 million dollar compressor plant to maintain line pressure as the field pressure drops as we ship more gas off to Taiwan to make trinkets and big screen TV's. Gas is just going to get more expensive, coal burning more cleaner. I am green myself, I power my car and heat my home using Solar and Waste Vegetable Oil, as I do not want to continue to pay an ever increasing "Fuel Surcharge". The cost of producing and delivering electricity continues to fall as more efficient and cost effective ways of of doing business ar implemented each day. The only increase continues to be the fuel surcharge. Go nuclear.