Oh About Those 32,000 "Leading Scientists" Against Global Climate Change. , page 3

Got this letter in my inbox at work this morning, gotta love those guys that work in sub stations. I do appologise, as I dont have a "link" as such, but if I find the original I will post.

ROCKHAMPTOM BULLETIN 22 DECEMBER 2009
Truth about coal powered power genration
This article appeared in the Rockhampton morning Bulletin on 22.12.09.
This is an excellent piece for my friends to send to their politicians or to anybody who needs
to be educated about Australia's Coal driven power houses. Terry is now retired and is in
excellent health at age 69. Nobody paid him to write the article which was, (to their credit),
published by the local press.
Written By Terence Cardwell
The Editor
The Morning Bulletin.
I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon
dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous
Emissions Trading Scheme.
Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using
Power Station cooling towers for an example. The condensation coming from those cooling
towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.
Frustration about the so called incorrectly named man made 'carbon emissions' which of
course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet.
Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of
renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at
the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.
And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal
Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they
clearly have little or no knowledge of.
First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The
boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the
economisers and reheaters and heat the air and water before entering the boilers.
The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is
virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are
99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.
Coal fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate
massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than
10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost wise that is very low.
The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total
generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.
As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal fired power
stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.
We have, like, the USA, coal fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are
VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia - exactly the
reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.
The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don't have the
coal supply for the future.
Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees
that it would be ideal. You don't have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one
problem---It doesn't exist.
Yes - there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a
small amount to the overall power demand.
The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a
continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only
generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are
located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum
capacity. They cannot be relied for a 'base load' because they are too variable. And they
certainly could not be used for load control.
The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and
only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (The ultimate power
Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes
they can pump it back but it cost to do that. (Long Story).
Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro electric generation because of their
high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring
forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.
Based on an average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would
require over 33,300 wind generators.
As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are
two types. Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they
cannot generate large amounts of electricity.
Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of
replacing Thermal power generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic
mathematics and look at the facts not going off with the fairies (or some would say the
extreme greenies.)
We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The
difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made
perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.
Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness the government is
following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.
According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last
50 years.
To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;
If you had a room 12 ft x 12 ft x 7 ft or 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon
dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x .25m x .17m or the size of a large
packet of cereal.
Australia emits 1 percent of the world's total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to
reduce this by twenty percent or reduce emissions by .2 percent of the world's total CO2
emissions.
What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?
By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.
Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by .004 percent.
Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = .00008 percent. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).
Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided
by 100 = .0000008 percent.
Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th
of .0000008 = .00000016 percent effect per year they would have on the world CO2
emissions based on their own figures.
That would equate to a area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.!!!
For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and roofing
installations, Clean coal technology. Renewable energy, etc, etc.
How ridiculous it that.
The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some
smaller business.
T.L. Cardwell
To the Editor I thought I should clarify. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of
NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350
MW Munmorah Power Station near Newcastle. I would be pleased to supply you any
information you may require.
1,204 Words.