On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 19:51:21 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" <sails.man1@verizon.net> wrote the following: "dpb" wrote: Over the last 30 years or so, SO2 and NOx reduction through scrubbing and selective catalytic reduction technologies has made significant differences in those smog/acid rain contributors. Fabric filters and improvements in electrostatic precipitators have reduced...

"dpb" wrote: Over the last 30 years or so, SO2 and NOx reduction through scrubbing and selective catalytic reduction technologies has made significant differences in those smog/acid rain contributors. Fabric filters and improvements in electrostatic precipitators have reduced particulate emissions and more recently, technologies such as wet electrostatic precipitators and ...

On Jun 7, 9:56 pm, dpb <n...@non.net> wrote: Doug Houseman wrote: In article <4c0d4d79$0$1312$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>, ... Common steam plants in use today, built years ago - are in the 40-42 percent thermal efficiency range. Newer prototype plants have hit over 60 percent. I doubt the prototypes will ever be built full scale with that level of efficiency....

Doug Houseman wrote: In article <4c0d4d79$0$1312$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, ... Common steam plants in use today, built years ago - are in the 40-42 percent thermal efficiency range. Newer prototype plants have hit over 60 percent. I doubt the prototypes will ever be built full scale with that level of efficiency. ... Who are those? Gas combined-cycle turbines, maybe?...

In article <4c0d4d79$0$1312$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, "Lew Hodgett" <sails.man1@verizon.net> wrote: "GROVER" wrote: We were told the plant ran at the highest possible thermal efficiency and that your reputation as a future engineer would be made if you could improve it one tenth of one per cent. Pushing the envelope of technology is not easy! ...

... big difference in pollutants is to burn that ' clean coal' those adverts on US TV talk about. *smirk* Seriously, one plant I worked at had a pile of 'summer coal' for those hazy days. That used to be quite common; not so much any longer w/ restricted limits altho may be some places that still have to. Detroit Edison Monroe plant did so routinely; we had online sulfur meter there ...

Robatoy wrote: On Jun 7, 3:49 pm, dpb <n...@non.net> wrote: I'd have to look up CANDU but I don't think its power density rates any higher than that of conventional LWRs; its advantage is low-enrichment cost and the continuous refueling facility. CANDU's are fuelled on the fly, but initial capital cost is very high. Ontario Power Generation is now considering a LWR....

...One big difference in pollutants is to burn that ' clean coal' those adverts on US TV talk about. *smirk* Seriously, one plant I worked at had a pile of 'summer coal' for those hazy days. Many existing US coal-fired plants operate with relatively low steam temperatures and pressures (subcritical steam conditions). These old plants are generally used during high electricity ...

On Jun 7, 3:49 pm, dpb <n...@non.net> wrote:  I'd have to look up CANDU but I don't think it's power density rates any higher than that of conventional LWRs; it's advantage is low-enrichment cost and the continuous refueling facility. CANDU's are fuelled on the fly, but initial capital cost is very high. Ontario Power Generation is now considering a LWR. A lot of people I know/...

Lew Hodgett wrote: "dpb" wrote: Large fossil-fired generation is in the 35-36%%; Bull Run mentioned earlier is about 38%%; new super-criticals are up to at least pushing the 40%% mark if none have yet broken it. ---------------------------------------- Glad to see some improvement over the years. ... There's not been a sizable central-station generation plant ...