Oh, hey look these guys are burning coal (destroying the envirment) wow never seen this before whhoooopieee!! stupid no one wants to see steam from burning coal come out of concrete pipes. give us some information about it atleats. I AM NOT A TREE HUGER, just pointing out the obvious that this video is indeed pointless!
the old power plants provide america with about 25 % of our eletricity and economic justification for real air cleaning devises are not economically justified, although ethically, and logically justified they are under the EPA, a political entiety, bent on preventing american manufacturing, in line with the new goods and services country the clintonian/obama regime envision for america the poor
our latest coal fired power plants are emission free---the old ones more than a thousand could also be emissionless----sending the emissions downwind through a watert cooled water wash scrubber, lowering the temperature to particle phase, then settling out the particles and reusing the water, I submitted this to COAL-GEN last year, and my abstract was not one considered for proposal, however they have asked me for another abstract before Jan 6, 2012. one study estimated 144 deaths per year/plant
Serene, I'm sorry but I am just so worried about the country's economy. It continues to degrade and one of the reasons is expensive energy. Manufacturing continues to move outside the country putting people out of work. We subsidize inefficient, expensive & unreliable renewable energy. Then all the equipment for renewable is built overseas. Jobs in this country have dried up. It is really tough for young people. Homer City may close soon due to environmental rules. Power from Canada to replace.
Solar and windpower are an attack on the low and middle income people who work for a living. We continue to lose jobs due to high energy costs and when the bills start tripling low and middle class people suffer and lose jobs. Typically people who support this technology don't know anything about technology or make money off it. Typical supporter is a college student whose parents have paid everyting for them. All renewable energy equipmetn is made in foreign lads, Build gas, nuc & coal
Solar and windpower are an attack on the low and middle income people who work for a living. We continue to lose jobs due to high energy costs and when the bills start tripling low and middle class people suffer and lose jobs. Typically people who support this technology don't know anything about technology or make money off it. Typical supporter is a college student whose parents have paid everyting for them. All renewable energy equipmetn is made in foreign lads, Build gas, nuc & coal plants
it is GUILTY for claiming 13,000 American lives prematurely annually.
It is GUILTY of putting sulfuric dioxin, mercury, cause of acid rain, Ash, lead into the atmosphere.
it is a myth and a big lie that we need to be on coal to keep the economy running. Investments on renewable energy aswell as much more reseach will enable renewables in the comming decades to become more powerful and affordable then coal.
@SereneiBE Bullshit you people make all these false claims with no basis. The loss of cheap energy in the United States is causing 50,000 premature deaths a year because of lower standard of living and less money to give charities, Wind and solar cause problems on the power grid already even though they are such a small percentage of energy generation. There is no way way solar produces power anywhere int he range of 7 cents/kwh. The 24 cents an hour when its available maybe. coal 2 cents.
@SereneiBE Yes coal is dangerous, economically it is vital. Pennsylvania, Kentucky, wyoming and West Virginia depend on Coal, for Energy and income. there are 2000 coal mines in the U.S Employing Over 170,000 people, 600 Coal power plants employ another 150,000. Trucking and many other non mining coal jobs. a little over 750,000 workers. Where will these people work, Yes coal in unsafe, so create more jobs to research and develop safer and cleaner coal operations. it is possible it can be done.
@ChaoGarden5 The honest truth is renewable energy isn't the answer. It's a sidekick to real energy sources, and will be for a very long time. It's not a feasible replacement for nonrenewables, especially coal. Coal is abundant, and land reclamation has solved one of its few problems. There's no need for coarse language, but your reply truly showed your intelligence.
@k2han Renewables ever since the 1980s have come a long way.
Back in 1980 solar for example costed between 50-100 cents KWH in todays dollars. Today in the us it ranges from 7 to 24 cents, depending on the state and location. Solar for example has come a long way.
With additional reseach solar along with geothermal, wind can become part of the answer.
@SereneiBE We have many wind turbines around here, and they are a very good alternative energy source. However, the politics involved with land usage and "unattractiveness" are still limiting the technology. I'm just saying that coal needs to remain a fuel source.
It's kind of funny that they have a heating tower (the chimney) and a cooling tower. Maybe the purpose is only to burn coal, heat and cool. One would think excess heat could be used for heating or in the industry. In Denmark we use the excess heat (for fjernvarme) giving efficiencies of up 85 %. This plant probably has an efficiency of 30-40 %. So 60 % to 70 % goes to heat the bottoms of pelicans.
@Sumokurt1 yeah I know what a chimney is, it was supposed to be a wordplay, First you burn, produce heat, then you cool throwing out most of the energy, with what purpose. This can be done in a smarter way, it's waste of horrible fossil fuel that kills our habitat.
@Sumokurt1...The cooling towers do recapture a lot of the heat. What you are seeing is water vapor, not hot steam. The water vapor is visible when the air become over saturated...like a cloud. A cloud is not hot, yet you see the water vapor under certain atmospheric conditions.
Thats nuclear! the small, fat large smokestacks are actually cooling towers where access steam is released from the generator and the small skinny smokestacks are just pumping out exhaust from the engines used to cool the steam to be reused
most definitely coal plant! I guess some who posted know nothing about the "scrubbers" used to trap most of the pollutants from the coal. I can see a power station across the ridge from me, that is most definitely coal and this time of year you can barely see the smoke/steam coming out of the stacks.
@TattooGenie88 What things are looking deadly? The cooling towers shown at the beginning of the video? All they do is remove heat from the cooling water. That's it.
@TattooGenie88 Well it was YOU that didn't specify. All I did was ask. It's YOUR fault for not giving more information. No need to call names. I figured that just maybe you assumed those were cooling towers for a nuke plant like some of the others did.
Looks can be deceiving. Just because it LOOKS scary, that doesn't mean it is. The dangers associated with a power plant are typically no worse than any other industrial process. No need to be scared of something you obviously know little about.
@WKHalford wow are you fuckin serious???? did i offend you or something???? i didnt comment to get on your nerves so calm the fuck down and shut your fucking mouth.
@TattooGenie88 Simply replying to someone doesn't make them a "shitty person".
It's replying to someone the way you replied to me that makes them a "shitty person".
And when a person calls me names and curses me, I don't do what they say.
At least I have contributed many posts about the actual subject of the video. I've educated at least 2 on here. You have done no such thing. Your pathetic posts serve no useful purpose. How does it feel to have accomplished NOTHING good?
@TattooGenie88 No, I will not. I don't do what people like you tell me to do. You are truly a FOOL if you think you will intimidate me into doing what you say.
I bet if you weren't hiding behind that computer that you wouldn't be talking to me like that.
@TattooGenie88 When you said "all you do is sit on your ass and talk shit...shut the fuck up..people dont wanna hear your stupid shit okay? so shut the fuck up", on my page, you were so VERY wrong.
So you asked EVERYONE of they wanted to hear my "stupid shit"? No, you didn't. That means what you said is a LIE, making you a LIAR. I had an INTELLIGENT conversation going back and forth with 2 guys on this same video. It's OBVIOUS they WANTED to hear what I had to say.
@TattooGenie88 Pathetic little kid? A 45 year old with experience at 2 natural gas combined-cycle combustion turbine power plants and 2 simple-cycle coal power plants? A guy that actually knows something about the subject of the video and who posted accordingly? A guy who makes over $82K a year at a coal plant WITHOUT overtime and can easily make over $100k with overtime?
You posted NOTHING relevant about the subject and are mad at someone that did and called you on your BS. THAT'S pathetic.
@WKHalford wow your cool arguing with a 15 year old kid thats still in school that doesnt have a career yet and said one little thing that made you blow up. YOUR PATHETIC AND YOU CAN SHOVE YOUR "82K" UP YOUR FUCKING ASS. there. goodbye asshole.
@WKHalford actually dick wadd my parents love me vry much. and guesss what im not your kid so you cant do shit and i bet that bugs you. so seriously this time, grow up and be the "45 year old" mature man you say you are. goodbye...oh p.s. i could easily get away with talking like this to you in person..you have no control over me.
@TattooGenie88 I don't WANT control over you. I'm satisfied with letting you rant and rave because you keep showing everyone here that reads what you say exactly what kind of punk you are.
I'm talked WAY more mature than you have. I've actually addressed the subject of the video, you have NOT. THAT shows how immature you are.
And yes, in person you WOULDN'T talk to me that way.
Again, you've replied several times after saying you were done. Not only are you immature, you don't keep your word.
@WKHalford haha your funny. you dont know how i am..and yes i would tal kto you like that. all i said was "those things look deadly as fuck" THATS IT! I DIDNT SAY THEY WERE DEADLY, I SAID THEY LOOKED DEADLY. open your ears dumbass and i bet no1 else cares about you proving them wrong. your a stupid fuck face who is a pathetic asshole who says hes mature, when clearly hes not, and proves people wrong.
@TattooGenie88 You're right, I do prove people wrong. Thanks for acknowledging that! After all, I do actually know a lot about the subject of the video.
If I were stupid, then wouldn't that mean I know nothing about what's in the video? Just like YOU know nothing about what's in the video?
And mature? Part of being mature is having enough self control to not use bad language in every post, like you have done.
And no, they only LOOK deadly to little kids like you who are scared of the dark.
@TattooGenie88 You MIGHT talk to me like that in person, but you WOULDN'T get away with it. If you want to act like a man by talking like one, when you do that in person TO a man, you had better be able to defend yourself LIKE a man.
I love it. I keep posting and you just fall for it, keeping on and on, showing your true self. And you keep showing how you cannot form mature sentences like a man, instead having to say curse words because you aren't smart and mature enough to pick better words.
Why are we using coal to heat water when we can use the electricity we created to heat the water itself?? Electrical energy is much more efficient than using coal. Keeping water at a boiling point to create steam pressure only requires a few zaps of electricity.
@tnguyen318 Because the point here is to generate more electricity than you use. Coal is an excellent source of heat energy to make steam with. That steam then turns a steam turbine, which turns a generator.
With all the electricity the plant itself uses (for auxiliary systems, etc.) plus the fact that no form of electricity generation is 100% efficient, what you propose wouldn't sustain itself.
Don't you think that of it was a simple as you make it sound that they would be doing it that way?
Sometimes things are simple but we don't see it. You are presenting a fact (but not) that it would require the entire amount of electricity that was created during the process of burning coal to go back to spin a propeller to power the generator and all the other things a power plant needs to run on. My proposition was that it would only take 75% of the electricity the power plant created to go back to run itself while the 25% left is used by the people.
@tnguyen318 And what you are proposing with the 75% and 25% cannot happen. The frictional, electrical resistance, and hysteresis losses won't allow a generator to self-sustain. You MUST have a source of heat to do the mechanical work of powering the generator.
And don't forget the power to run the auxiliary systems.
Don't you think that if it could be done that the engineers that KNOW about electric power production would have figured out how to do it after all the decades of power production?
You don't get what I'm trying to say. Electrical Energy (electricity) is far more powerful than Steam Energy when used to move something (in this case propel). Meaning 10 Volts can spin a turbine faster that one gallon of steam pressure. You should think about other people's ideas instead of blocking it out and denying it. You shouldn't fight their ideas but use rational reasoning. Maybe their right. You're using power and not your ears. I know you don't believe that my idea is possible.
@tnguyen318 Then why are they not using electricity to spin generators? You think you know more than the engineers?
The ONLY way for your idea to work is for the generator to put out more energy than it takes to produce that energy. And THAT is IMPOSSIBLE.
Most electricity generation is done with steam. The only thing better is to use a combustion turbine to turn a generator. And THAT is inefficient unless they use the engine's exhaust heat to make steam to turn a steam turbine generator.
I don't know how electricity generation works. Electrical Magnetic Field calculations when the generator is spinning is greater than when it gets transferred into the wires is what you're trying to say. But isn't there such thing as a transformer to solve that problem?
@tnguyen318 Transformers do not create electricity. They only step up or step doen the voltage as needed. The generator will typically produce 13.8kV, and the transformer will step that up to whatever the transmission line voltage is (maybe 230kV). But the amount of megawatts is the same except for small losses due to the inefficiency of the transformer.
A generator creates electric current flow by passing conductors through a magnetic field, which induces a voltage in those conductors.
How can it "step up" yet still be the same? If we can increase electricity from 13.8W to 230W, why can't the extra 216kV run the turbine. How much electricity is required to run the motor to spin the turbine? Unless it would require more than 216.2kV. But can't the 216.2kV be increased some more to 216W x 17 =3,675W? That's alot of extra electricity that can go back to spinning the turbine.
Basically, how much electricity would it take to run a motor to propel the turbine? Tell me exactly.
@tnguyen318 Because there is more to electricity than voltage. Remember, I said the megawatts (mW) stays the same except for transformer losses.
Watts (or in this case megawatts or mW) is what actually does the work, and is also known as power. Watts = volts (electromotive force) x amps (current flow). As the volts goes up, the amps goes down by the same percentage, and vice-versa. As a result, the watts stays the same and so does the amount of energy or work that can be done with that energy.
@tnguyen318 The amount of energy (used for work) that a generator can put out is measured in watts, and is called megawatts (mW). One thousand watts is a kilowatt (kW), and a megawatt is one million watts. Like I said in my last post, a transformer doesn't create electricity, which means it doesn't change the megawatts (except for the small losses due to inefficiency).
Motors are also measured by how much work they can do, but in the form of horsepower. One horsepower is 746 watts.
@tnguyen318 All of the power (wattage) is available for use except the small amount lost.
There's 2 main reasons the voltage is raised for transmission through power lines: (1) It reduces the amps needed to transmit the same amount of mW. This reduces the wire size needed because the amps (current) is lower. Remember, higher voltage equals less amps. (2) Higher voltages can be transmitted more easily for longer distances. Transmission lines leaving a power plant often travel hundreds of miles.
@tnguyen318 Once the power leaves the power plant and travels through transmission lines to where it is going, the voltage is reduced by transformers to less dangerous and more easily used voltages and is distributed by distribution lines to the pole outside the house.
On the pole outside your house (or in a box on the ground if the lines are underground), there is a transformer that steps the voltage down to the house current that is used in the house.
What do you mean by electricity generation is not 100% efficient? Is it the thing I'm hearing about "losses"? If so, I don't think its correct. I think electricity generation is 100% efficient unless you have a defunct generator. Losses are due to transferring of electricity and not the generating.
@HomiesOfMars and you know that because you watched the simpsons once. this is coal you can tell because it has smoke stacks, the cooling towers are just that, they cool the water. hell even the smoke stacks dont smoke anymore, its just water vapor coming out.
Hey dipshit, I hate to burst YOUR bubble, but you are in fact a dipshit. Those hyperbolic shaped towers are what cool the circulating water that passes through the condensers to collapse steam back into water. The heat is released into the atmosphere, hence that big ass cloud of steam. As for the "skinny" chimneys, that is the conditioned flue gas from coal cumbustion in the furnace. That shit has been scrubbed of sulfur and NOx, and is cleaner than the farts you let. rcrealights is right. COAL.
Uh, I don't mean to burst your bubble, but those three towers next to the skinny towers are towers for nuclear power plants. Also, since you've filmed this late in the year, it's going to be cold outside to where you see the water vapor. If the clouds were dirty, the vapors wouldn't be white, but black. Do your homework.
@jasonnessaofficial im sooooo tired of aruging with you people who think you know it all!!!!! this is a coal power plant! why dont you spend the time and read all 14 pages of the comments before you make your self look like an a**!!! i did my homework now it is time for you to do yours!!! good luck
@rcrealights Regardless of the type of plant, at the beginning the video is showing cooling towers. That's water mist coming out.
And what you see coming out of the stack is also water vapor, which means the plant has scrubbers to catch the sulfur compounds, turning them into sulfuric acid, gypsum, etc., which are products used as raw materials to make things.
Any actual pollution coming out is what you usually DON'T see.
The other stacks that have nothing coming out are probably shut down.
@rcrealights From what I learn on Applied heat and Mass transfer.. those towers with steam coming out from it iare called colling towers. And the shape can look like nuclear power plant...so Mr. jasonnessaofficial i think u shud do your homework!!!
The three large towers are hyperbolic cooling towers. Both Nuclear and Coal run on the same steam cycle so both use realitively the same technology to condense the steam back into water. The very tall smoke stacks tell you its a coal plant.
The skinny tall towers are smoke stacks for the coal smoke, the 3 fat towers are cooling towers for the steam.
The reason why you see those towers at a nuke plant is because both coal and nuclear plants heat water to make steam which turns a steam turbine connected to a generator. You see those fat towers at any industrial process that heats water. The cooling towers only make clean steam.
Those three towers next to the skinny towers are cooling towers, they are present in nuclear plants or coal plants or whatever the fuck needs to cool water steam.
@jasonnessaofficial Sorry, but coal and nuclear use very similar stacks. Also, note the black residue around the lip of the tower, and the giant tube-like smokestack. This is a coal plant.
Jesus Christ are you stupid or what, come on nuclear plant, suuuuuure and I guess the conveyors you can see at beggining are transportinf Uranium to the boiler, what a joke hahahaha
Jesus Christ are you stupid or what, come on nuclear plant, suuuuuure and I guess the conveyors you can see at beggining are transportinf Uranium to the boiler, what a joke hahahaha
@jasonnessaofficial it doesnt matter what the cooling towers look like, and that is steam you idiot, the dirty coal smoke goes through catalac converters and then is filtered out again, which only leaves trace amounts of carbon monoxide unfortunatly, but its not enough to do any damage, so do your homework.
@jasonnessaofficial No, you do your homework. I work at a coal plant that uses the same type of cooling towers as a nuclear plant. Coal cooling towers take many forms, including both you see here. Also, the vapor coming out the towers is white. It's 87 degrees where I am now, and it's still white. It was white two months ago when it was almost 100 degrees. So, don't post false knowledge.
No the dirty coal is being used because it's cheap and the wealthy in this country do not care about peoples health just the dollars, I wish my grandfather that had black lung was alive he would tell you how dirty the whole process is, it's funny that N.Y.and N.J. have law suits against the homer city power plant. I do understand how some that make their living with coal would argue this point and these day's I can't blame them. But coal is dirty.
The cooling towers are green, if anything. The steam is reheated by its cool state and goes back to the boiler and the rest is in the condensor and back out to the tower. BTW, only 3 of these 4 stacks are in use. The tallest one is the old stack for the new scrubber. I've worked here for a while. This plant also has a gypsum and SCR process, so until you stop using electricity, stop building with drywall, and what-not, shut up.
Is what some people don't understand is that you could cover Britain with wind turbines and it would only generate around 4% of the required electricity for the grid. Where as stations like Drax in Britain alone can provide 8%-10% of our energy needs. So I'm guessing in America wind turbines would hardly make any difference what so ever. and we must remember to keep the frequency of electricity at the same rate wind turbines have to be kept running by an electric motor when it isn't windy.
So basically is what I'm getting at is that renewable power at the moment is no where near developed enough to take over from coal or nuclear stations. So for all you environmentalists out there you're going to have to learn to live with these stations or have no power your choice.
It is estimated that 86 percent of incremental world coal demand between now and 2030 will come from China and India. About half of China’s coal use is for electricity; and 80% of electricity generation is fueled by coal.
China reportedly added over 90 gigawatts of new coal-fired power plant capacity in 2006 alone – the equivalent of almost 2 large coal power plants a week, and more than the entire fleet of generating plants in the United Kingdom.
Coal is inherently higher-polluting and more carbon-intensive than other energy alternatives.
China’s coal output increased from 1.3 billion tons in 2000 to 2.23 billion tons in 2005 making China by far the world’s largest coal producer (next largest is the U.S. with 1.13 billion tons produced in 2005).
To meet their rising needs, China and India are certain to burn more coal.
Using boiling water as steam to generate electricity is not very efficient. Using the natural flow of water to generate electricity is better. There is no need for work. That is why we use wind, solar and natural oceanic energy.
True but they create next to no power where as Nuclear and Coal fired power station can make up to 6-10% of the power required. This is a British example will be less in the US obviously.
Do you know that most of the power plants in the world have shut down and is no longer operating? Power plants are old news. We use super conducting generators now.
A 10,000 watt Generator spins another generator. The electricity to spin that generator only takes 2,000 watts. That generator then produces another 10,000 Watts to spin another generator again using only 2,000 watts. That means that there is an excess of 8,000 watts to every other generator we spin. Meaning every city has one generator. And it connects from city to city world wide.
But you will still need a conventional power station to make the first generator spin and to be fair we don't have these in the UK. Sounds interesting I'll look it up.
That I am not sure of. But the word we should be using is "extra" electricity. If one generator can produce enough electricity to spin another generator, and the extra electricity of that generator goes back to the first generator to keep in running, yet still being able to produce electricity to power a third generator, then we might not even need a primary energy source. But if we do, it will be wind turbines or Hydro-electric.
You should look it up! ETF is feeling the 'Britt's power is too affordable' - in regards to LNG / Methane Gas turbine generated electricity sold across the river to Great Brittan to start the nuke cycles and run industrial plants to hen house lights. My fear is Brittan will find itself isolated from Nationalized energy programs and be forced to go all nuke and a bit of gas - or call U.S. and we will sea born minimal heavy fuel oil and gas to keep you backed up. You trust France? ;)
@MrVanorsdol WTf of comment was that... we were talking about coal plants and YOU pull some shit about war like ...shooting in anger ...red badges and stuff. by the way Old country calling US... NO it needs saving from U.S. economic crisis,“subprime” mortgages, corporate junk bonds, and other forms of debt.
my fault ,i´ve should new ...YOU´RE A STAR AND STRIPES PRIEDFULL FOLL.
@heartlessvietboy Electricity isn't magic. 10,000W represents the load that generator can carry and maintain a frequency of 60hz (if in the united states). A 2,000W motor hooked to the 10,000W gen is a load on it. That motor can only power a 2,000W or less gen (2,000 if friction or heat losses did not exist). While the original gen has only 8,000W available and the 2nd gen produces less than 2,000W of power. Netting you less than 10,000W total.
@heartlessvietboy Not meaning to rude but I quote "energy can be neither CREATED nor destroyed" The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. WIKI.
I'm not sure where your facts came from but in truth a 10,000 watt generator requires more than 10,000 watts of energy to drive it. The reason it is not 10,000 W for 10,000 W is that there are losses due to friction and energy conversion efficiency. If your theory, if true would mean that perpetual motion was possible.
I am not an expert in the study of electrical generation. However from models that have been presented before me and from the lectures that I have heard, there is a possibility that we can run an electric generator using lesser electricity than it created. Meaning abundant free electricity.
@heartlessvietboy As an industrial electrician/instrument & controls tech with experience working at 2 natural gas-fired power plants and 2 coal-fired power plants with a total of 18 years experience in my trade, I can say that's not true.
If what you are saying were true, then it would be possible to create energy out of nothing. That's NOT TRUE.
In addition, it takes extra energy to run the generator's auxiliary systems (lube/hydraulic oil, cooling water, instrument air, electronics, etc).
@heartlessvietboy A generator cannot self-sustain. In order to have power "coming from" a generator, you need a source of heat energy to keep it "running".
A generator cannot put out more energy than what is put into it. Period. But that is what you are proposing.
Then there's frictional, electrical resistance, and hysteresis losses that cause a generator to put out LESS energy than what goes in.
Don't forget that I have experience with power generation, so I do know a few things about it.
Maybe one day it will. I've never built a Generator myself but I think you can create tremendous amounts of electricity (lightening bolts) in the Generator itself. Thats not only to power itself but sending some extra electricity out too!
I've come to a point in my life where I'm accepting of practically every idea that exists. You'll be surprised one day at how the Universe really is. Those who are against a special meaning of existence will find new things to try to explain what is going on.
@heartlessvietboy A generator cannot power itself. The only way a generator can do that is for it to put out more energy than it takes to produce that energy. That is impossible. It would be like you using 3000 calories a day while eating 500. You would die. A generator wouldn't run at all.
If it could be done, engineers that know more about it than you and me combined would be doing it. And the power companies would be rushing to put that technology in service if it existed.
@heartlessvietboy I don't care how wise it is or isn't. I know MORE than enough to know a generator cannot produce more energy than is put into it. Period.
I also know that since a generator puts out LESS power than it uses, what you propose cannot be done. Period.
I've explained in detail, even using the calorie analogy. If you want to go on believing fairy tales, then do so.
Like it or not, both of those word DO have legitimate uses, and to deny that they have legitimate uses is not wise.
@heartlessvietboy That won't work. The electricity needed to produce the heat needed to heat the water into hot enough steam would exceed what the generator would put out.
For example, a 100 megawatt (mW) generator might require the equivalent of 120 mW of heat to put out 100 mW.
This is a guess, taking inefficiency into account PLUS the power needed for lube oil pumps, cooling water pumps/fans, instrument air compressors, electronic controls, plant lighting, backup DC lube oil pumps, etc.
If a transformer can increase the wattage from 100 megawatts to lets say 320 megawatts, why can't we use that extra 220 megawatts of electricity to heat the water instead of burning coal?? Since you said it only requires 120 megawatts to heat the water.
@heartlessvietboy I NEVER said electricity could be used to make steam. I was talking about the amount of heat needed to generate that amount of power (mW).
I clearly said "That won't work. The electricity needed to produce the heat needed to heat the water into hot enough steam would exceed what the generator would put out".
I NEVER said a transformer increases wattage. I CLEARLY said that the wattage (megawatts) a transformer puts out is the same as what goes in except for small losses.
Maybe you're right, you're the one with the experience. I'd think by using our "ideas" we can build a megawatt generator capable of producing twice the amount of electricity. But in this case there is no such idea or inventor that has proven successful.
Yes, the big stacks are called hyper-bo-lick cool-ing towers, sound it out. The 'smoke' is water vapor. Many coal plants use the nuke style cooling system, very advanced and not dirty. Well, you can shut off half your electric lifestyle and then complain on coal.
@MrVanorsdol no man ,its more like a huge stell box full of pipes underneath the low pressure steam turbine.
the deal is to condense the exhaust steam from the turbine by rejecting the heat of vaporisation to the cooling water passing through the condenser. (usually sea water)
I sure agree regarding the large slag pipes inside the boiler houses and vaporazation big ten exhaust stacks are designed to return any Turbine Heat away from loss to the exhaust towers - to suck out every bit of heat to detail out Heat Rate and Ratios in process takes too many words. 1 Point - Seawater is primarily a nuke plant duty. Most US coal plants run on grey water - fresh body of water - encompass most the W & Central US where energy is most affordable. Folks he's right! V
I say 'conventional' meaning not Hyperbolic cooling - condenser towers (some particulate exhaust ppb). Menatwar points out the hyperbolic towers are not exhaust towers, rather they capture heat loss to return to the turbine that generated it. Then eventually the 'conventional' towers do exhaust any unrecovered heat or particulate matter. If you see more than 5% opacity (burn matter / vapor) out the conventional tower the plant is being fined by the literal second.
I live right next to it. You dont notice pollution till it rains and something white turns brown. The tallest stack is out of commision and is 39 ft shorter than the wtc.
Oh, hey look these guys are burning coal (destroying the envirment) wow never seen this before whhoooopieee!! stupid no one wants to see steam from burning coal come out of concrete pipes. give us some information about it atleats. I AM NOT A TREE HUGER, just pointing out the obvious that this video is indeed pointless!
gayboy7071 1 week ago
cooool O.O Love power plants :3
22Helloworld 3 weeks ago
The short fat towers are for water cooling. That is steam not polution. Now the tall skinny stack that is polution. Coal is nessesary evil.
kramer7018 4 weeks ago
to bad most of you don`t have a clue what your looking at. i work at a power plant that has 4- 600 megawatt coal burning units.
Super99tj 1 month ago
I would be ashamed to own that. It is horrific.
en1841 2 months ago
wow do you really think thats polluting anything? wow...
robby844 2 months ago
this is no coal power plant! This is Three Mile Island NUCLEAR power plant
TheGlobalSoundSystem 3 months ago
@TheGlobalSoundSystem that is not 3 mile. take a look at 3 mile on google earth
zyxweftr 3 months ago
@TheGlobalSoundSystem Yeah this what I see in The Simpsons
mafelmark 2 months ago
the old power plants provide america with about 25 % of our eletricity and economic justification for real air cleaning devises are not economically justified, although ethically, and logically justified they are under the EPA, a political entiety, bent on preventing american manufacturing, in line with the new goods and services country the clintonian/obama regime envision for america the poor
lassiecox 3 months ago
our latest coal fired power plants are emission free---the old ones more than a thousand could also be emissionless----sending the emissions downwind through a watert cooled water wash scrubber, lowering the temperature to particle phase, then settling out the particles and reusing the water, I submitted this to COAL-GEN last year, and my abstract was not one considered for proposal, however they have asked me for another abstract before Jan 6, 2012. one study estimated 144 deaths per year/plant
lassiecox 3 months ago
looks like a nuclaer power plant
threedog14 3 months ago
these things look deadly as fuck
TattooGenie88 4 months ago
They are thinking about adding to it by putting a natural gas power plant alongside. We have a lot of natural gas in the area.
ogel4132 4 months ago
this a greenleftie's faverit gripe the green lefties just like pagens
TheRobert2254 4 months ago
Serene, I'm sorry but I am just so worried about the country's economy. It continues to degrade and one of the reasons is expensive energy. Manufacturing continues to move outside the country putting people out of work. We subsidize inefficient, expensive & unreliable renewable energy. Then all the equipment for renewable is built overseas. Jobs in this country have dried up. It is really tough for young people. Homer City may close soon due to environmental rules. Power from Canada to replace.
thinkingthingsthru 5 months ago
Solar and windpower are an attack on the low and middle income people who work for a living. We continue to lose jobs due to high energy costs and when the bills start tripling low and middle class people suffer and lose jobs. Typically people who support this technology don't know anything about technology or make money off it. Typical supporter is a college student whose parents have paid everyting for them. All renewable energy equipmetn is made in foreign lads, Build gas, nuc & coal
thinkingthingsthru 5 months ago
Solar and windpower are an attack on the low and middle income people who work for a living. We continue to lose jobs due to high energy costs and when the bills start tripling low and middle class people suffer and lose jobs. Typically people who support this technology don't know anything about technology or make money off it. Typical supporter is a college student whose parents have paid everyting for them. All renewable energy equipmetn is made in foreign lads, Build gas, nuc & coal plants
thinkingthingsthru 5 months ago
COAL POLLUTION
it is GUILTY for claiming 13,000 American lives prematurely annually.
It is GUILTY of putting sulfuric dioxin, mercury, cause of acid rain, Ash, lead into the atmosphere.
it is a myth and a big lie that we need to be on coal to keep the economy running. Investments on renewable energy aswell as much more reseach will enable renewables in the comming decades to become more powerful and affordable then coal.
SereneiBE 5 months ago
@SereneiBE Bullshit you people make all these false claims with no basis. The loss of cheap energy in the United States is causing 50,000 premature deaths a year because of lower standard of living and less money to give charities, Wind and solar cause problems on the power grid already even though they are such a small percentage of energy generation. There is no way way solar produces power anywhere int he range of 7 cents/kwh. The 24 cents an hour when its available maybe. coal 2 cents.
thinkingthingsthru 5 months ago
@thinkingthingsthru maybe you should do more research, whether renewable energy is cheaper or expensive depends heavily on where you live.
SereneiBE 5 months ago
@SereneiBE Yes coal is dangerous, economically it is vital. Pennsylvania, Kentucky, wyoming and West Virginia depend on Coal, for Energy and income. there are 2000 coal mines in the U.S Employing Over 170,000 people, 600 Coal power plants employ another 150,000. Trucking and many other non mining coal jobs. a little over 750,000 workers. Where will these people work, Yes coal in unsafe, so create more jobs to research and develop safer and cleaner coal operations. it is possible it can be done.
wlhg03 4 months ago
Thats not a nuke it is a coal fired fossil. Those are cooling towers with water vapor coming out.
jmcavote 6 months ago
you know your filming steam, right.
cypressride 6 months ago
Natural draft cooling towers can be used at any type of power plant. Not just at nuclear plants.
lakewood85 6 months ago
that doesn't appear to be a clean coal power plant
2sillytube 7 months ago
@Jason those towers are Hyperbolic cooling towers, they can be used for Nuclear as well as coal.
Stationary Engineer.
turbo944s2 7 months ago
All that comes out of those towers is clouds. The chimney is the one blasting soot and CO2 :)
ITSNOSHER 7 months ago
thanks for the vid
crudeoilsystems 7 months ago
one word
P O L L U T I O N
ChaoGarden5 7 months ago
@ChaoGarden5 No, one word: S T E A M
k2han 5 months ago
@k2han
4 words
shut the fuck up
ChaoGarden5 5 months ago
@ChaoGarden5 The honest truth is renewable energy isn't the answer. It's a sidekick to real energy sources, and will be for a very long time. It's not a feasible replacement for nonrenewables, especially coal. Coal is abundant, and land reclamation has solved one of its few problems. There's no need for coarse language, but your reply truly showed your intelligence.
k2han 5 months ago
@k2han Renewables ever since the 1980s have come a long way.
Back in 1980 solar for example costed between 50-100 cents KWH in todays dollars. Today in the us it ranges from 7 to 24 cents, depending on the state and location. Solar for example has come a long way.
With additional reseach solar along with geothermal, wind can become part of the answer.
SereneiBE 5 months ago
@SereneiBE We have many wind turbines around here, and they are a very good alternative energy source. However, the politics involved with land usage and "unattractiveness" are still limiting the technology. I'm just saying that coal needs to remain a fuel source.
k2han 5 months ago
This is the hallmark image for the global warming alarmists. Too bad it's just steam.
jtnoodle 8 months ago
It's kind of funny that they have a heating tower (the chimney) and a cooling tower. Maybe the purpose is only to burn coal, heat and cool. One would think excess heat could be used for heating or in the industry. In Denmark we use the excess heat (for fjernvarme) giving efficiencies of up 85 %. This plant probably has an efficiency of 30-40 %. So 60 % to 70 % goes to heat the bottoms of pelicans.
simras1234 8 months ago
@simras1234 the chimneys are only to exaust smoke while the cooling towers are to give out steam from the cooling process.
Sumokurt1 8 months ago
@Sumokurt1 yeah I know what a chimney is, it was supposed to be a wordplay, First you burn, produce heat, then you cool throwing out most of the energy, with what purpose. This can be done in a smarter way, it's waste of horrible fossil fuel that kills our habitat.
simras1234 8 months ago
@Sumokurt1...The cooling towers do recapture a lot of the heat. What you are seeing is water vapor, not hot steam. The water vapor is visible when the air become over saturated...like a cloud. A cloud is not hot, yet you see the water vapor under certain atmospheric conditions.
marksimonelli 7 months ago
Some coal-fired power plants have cooling towers, I'm with you on this one.
Posternal 9 months ago
Thats nuclear! the small, fat large smokestacks are actually cooling towers where access steam is released from the generator and the small skinny smokestacks are just pumping out exhaust from the engines used to cool the steam to be reused
billy545455 9 months ago
@billy545455 I have those were I live on coal plants too.
HaloSpartanG13 8 months ago
once through cooling water system much better :D
michaeljones764 9 months ago
most definitely coal plant! I guess some who posted know nothing about the "scrubbers" used to trap most of the pollutants from the coal. I can see a power station across the ridge from me, that is most definitely coal and this time of year you can barely see the smoke/steam coming out of the stacks.
jbradley26847 9 months ago
those things just look deadly as fuck
TattooGenie88 10 months ago
@TattooGenie88 What things are looking deadly? The cooling towers shown at the beginning of the video? All they do is remove heat from the cooling water. That's it.
There's NOTHING deadly about them.
WKHalford 9 months ago
@WKHalford well no duh dipshit...ik that..the power plant looks scary.
TattooGenie88 9 months ago
@TattooGenie88 Well it was YOU that didn't specify. All I did was ask. It's YOUR fault for not giving more information. No need to call names. I figured that just maybe you assumed those were cooling towers for a nuke plant like some of the others did.
Looks can be deceiving. Just because it LOOKS scary, that doesn't mean it is. The dangers associated with a power plant are typically no worse than any other industrial process. No need to be scared of something you obviously know little about.
WKHalford 9 months ago
@WKHalford wow are you fuckin serious???? did i offend you or something???? i didnt comment to get on your nerves so calm the fuck down and shut your fucking mouth.
TattooGenie88 9 months ago
@TattooGenie88 If you didn't comment to get on my nerves, then why are you still commenting?
And no, I will NOT shut up. I'm sure I know more about power plants than you do.
How you are addressing me shows quite clearly what kind of person you are.
WKHalford 9 months ago
@WKHalford shut the fuck up. im done talking to you.
TattooGenie88 9 months ago
@TattooGenie88 Simply replying to someone doesn't make them a "shitty person".
It's replying to someone the way you replied to me that makes them a "shitty person".
And when a person calls me names and curses me, I don't do what they say.
At least I have contributed many posts about the actual subject of the video. I've educated at least 2 on here. You have done no such thing. Your pathetic posts serve no useful purpose. How does it feel to have accomplished NOTHING good?
WKHalford 9 months ago
@WKHalford shut the fuck up. im done with you.
TattooGenie88 9 months ago
@TattooGenie88 No, I will not. I don't do what people like you tell me to do. You are truly a FOOL if you think you will intimidate me into doing what you say.
I bet if you weren't hiding behind that computer that you wouldn't be talking to me like that.
WKHalford 9 months ago
@TattooGenie88 When you said "all you do is sit on your ass and talk shit...shut the fuck up..people dont wanna hear your stupid shit okay? so shut the fuck up", on my page, you were so VERY wrong.
So you asked EVERYONE of they wanted to hear my "stupid shit"? No, you didn't. That means what you said is a LIE, making you a LIAR. I had an INTELLIGENT conversation going back and forth with 2 guys on this same video. It's OBVIOUS they WANTED to hear what I had to say.
You are an IDIOT.
WKHalford 9 months ago
@WKHalford fuck you. good byee :)
TattooGenie88 9 months ago
@TattooGenie88 Awwwwww, don't go away crying...
WKHalford 9 months ago
@WKHalford oh im not lol ill go away laughing at a pathetic little kid XD have fun..byeee :)
TattooGenie88 9 months ago
@TattooGenie88 Pathetic little kid? A 45 year old with experience at 2 natural gas combined-cycle combustion turbine power plants and 2 simple-cycle coal power plants? A guy that actually knows something about the subject of the video and who posted accordingly? A guy who makes over $82K a year at a coal plant WITHOUT overtime and can easily make over $100k with overtime?
You posted NOTHING relevant about the subject and are mad at someone that did and called you on your BS. THAT'S pathetic.
WKHalford 9 months ago
@WKHalford wow your cool arguing with a 15 year old kid thats still in school that doesnt have a career yet and said one little thing that made you blow up. YOUR PATHETIC AND YOU CAN SHOVE YOUR "82K" UP YOUR FUCKING ASS. there. goodbye asshole.
TattooGenie88 9 months ago
@TattooGenie88 Now how could I possibly know you are 15? To make that statement as if I knew when I didn't shows idiocy and ignorance.
If you were MY kid, you would get your ass whipped for talking like that.
I bet your parents are ashamed of the way you talk.
Regardless, I bet you wouldn't get away with talking to me like that in person.
No wonder you are acting so childish. It's because you are a child.
WKHalford 9 months ago
@WKHalford actually dick wadd my parents love me vry much. and guesss what im not your kid so you cant do shit and i bet that bugs you. so seriously this time, grow up and be the "45 year old" mature man you say you are. goodbye...oh p.s. i could easily get away with talking like this to you in person..you have no control over me.
TattooGenie88 9 months ago
@TattooGenie88 I don't WANT control over you. I'm satisfied with letting you rant and rave because you keep showing everyone here that reads what you say exactly what kind of punk you are.
I'm talked WAY more mature than you have. I've actually addressed the subject of the video, you have NOT. THAT shows how immature you are.
And yes, in person you WOULDN'T talk to me that way.
Again, you've replied several times after saying you were done. Not only are you immature, you don't keep your word.
WKHalford 9 months ago
@WKHalford haha your funny. you dont know how i am..and yes i would tal kto you like that. all i said was "those things look deadly as fuck" THATS IT! I DIDNT SAY THEY WERE DEADLY, I SAID THEY LOOKED DEADLY. open your ears dumbass and i bet no1 else cares about you proving them wrong. your a stupid fuck face who is a pathetic asshole who says hes mature, when clearly hes not, and proves people wrong.
TattooGenie88 9 months ago
@TattooGenie88 You're right, I do prove people wrong. Thanks for acknowledging that! After all, I do actually know a lot about the subject of the video.
If I were stupid, then wouldn't that mean I know nothing about what's in the video? Just like YOU know nothing about what's in the video?
And mature? Part of being mature is having enough self control to not use bad language in every post, like you have done.
And no, they only LOOK deadly to little kids like you who are scared of the dark.
WKHalford 9 months ago
@TattooGenie88 You MIGHT talk to me like that in person, but you WOULDN'T get away with it. If you want to act like a man by talking like one, when you do that in person TO a man, you had better be able to defend yourself LIKE a man.
I love it. I keep posting and you just fall for it, keeping on and on, showing your true self. And you keep showing how you cannot form mature sentences like a man, instead having to say curse words because you aren't smart and mature enough to pick better words.
WKHalford 9 months ago
@WKHalford whatever you waste my time. and dont tell me what i will and wont get away with . GOODBYE
TattooGenie88 9 months ago
@TattooGenie88 You said I have no control over you, yet I keep making you post comments. It appears I indeed DO have control over you...
WKHalford 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TattooGenie88 And by the way, after YOU said "im done talking to you" and "im done with you", you came back and made 2 more posts.
Not keeping your word is a REAL example of pathetic.
WKHalford 9 months ago
@WKHalford and if your not a shitty person, dont reply to me anymore.
TattooGenie88 9 months ago
Why are we using coal to heat water when we can use the electricity we created to heat the water itself?? Electrical energy is much more efficient than using coal. Keeping water at a boiling point to create steam pressure only requires a few zaps of electricity.
tnguyen318 10 months ago
@tnguyen318 Because the point here is to generate more electricity than you use. Coal is an excellent source of heat energy to make steam with. That steam then turns a steam turbine, which turns a generator.
With all the electricity the plant itself uses (for auxiliary systems, etc.) plus the fact that no form of electricity generation is 100% efficient, what you propose wouldn't sustain itself.
Don't you think that of it was a simple as you make it sound that they would be doing it that way?
WKHalford 9 months ago
Sometimes things are simple but we don't see it. You are presenting a fact (but not) that it would require the entire amount of electricity that was created during the process of burning coal to go back to spin a propeller to power the generator and all the other things a power plant needs to run on. My proposition was that it would only take 75% of the electricity the power plant created to go back to run itself while the 25% left is used by the people.
tnguyen318 9 months ago
@tnguyen318 And what you are proposing with the 75% and 25% cannot happen. The frictional, electrical resistance, and hysteresis losses won't allow a generator to self-sustain. You MUST have a source of heat to do the mechanical work of powering the generator.
And don't forget the power to run the auxiliary systems.
Don't you think that if it could be done that the engineers that KNOW about electric power production would have figured out how to do it after all the decades of power production?
WKHalford 9 months ago
You don't get what I'm trying to say. Electrical Energy (electricity) is far more powerful than Steam Energy when used to move something (in this case propel). Meaning 10 Volts can spin a turbine faster that one gallon of steam pressure. You should think about other people's ideas instead of blocking it out and denying it. You shouldn't fight their ideas but use rational reasoning. Maybe their right. You're using power and not your ears. I know you don't believe that my idea is possible.
tnguyen318 9 months ago
@tnguyen318 Then why are they not using electricity to spin generators? You think you know more than the engineers?
The ONLY way for your idea to work is for the generator to put out more energy than it takes to produce that energy. And THAT is IMPOSSIBLE.
Most electricity generation is done with steam. The only thing better is to use a combustion turbine to turn a generator. And THAT is inefficient unless they use the engine's exhaust heat to make steam to turn a steam turbine generator.
WKHalford 9 months ago
I don't know how electricity generation works. Electrical Magnetic Field calculations when the generator is spinning is greater than when it gets transferred into the wires is what you're trying to say. But isn't there such thing as a transformer to solve that problem?
tnguyen318 9 months ago
@tnguyen318 Transformers do not create electricity. They only step up or step doen the voltage as needed. The generator will typically produce 13.8kV, and the transformer will step that up to whatever the transmission line voltage is (maybe 230kV). But the amount of megawatts is the same except for small losses due to the inefficiency of the transformer.
A generator creates electric current flow by passing conductors through a magnetic field, which induces a voltage in those conductors.
WKHalford 9 months ago
How can it "step up" yet still be the same? If we can increase electricity from 13.8W to 230W, why can't the extra 216kV run the turbine. How much electricity is required to run the motor to spin the turbine? Unless it would require more than 216.2kV. But can't the 216.2kV be increased some more to 216W x 17 =3,675W? That's alot of extra electricity that can go back to spinning the turbine.
Basically, how much electricity would it take to run a motor to propel the turbine? Tell me exactly.
tnguyen318 9 months ago
@tnguyen318 Because there is more to electricity than voltage. Remember, I said the megawatts (mW) stays the same except for transformer losses.
Watts (or in this case megawatts or mW) is what actually does the work, and is also known as power. Watts = volts (electromotive force) x amps (current flow). As the volts goes up, the amps goes down by the same percentage, and vice-versa. As a result, the watts stays the same and so does the amount of energy or work that can be done with that energy.
WKHalford 9 months ago
@tnguyen318 The amount of energy (used for work) that a generator can put out is measured in watts, and is called megawatts (mW). One thousand watts is a kilowatt (kW), and a megawatt is one million watts. Like I said in my last post, a transformer doesn't create electricity, which means it doesn't change the megawatts (except for the small losses due to inefficiency).
Motors are also measured by how much work they can do, but in the form of horsepower. One horsepower is 746 watts.
WKHalford 9 months ago
If it doesn't "create", what is the purposing of "upping"? And if its "upping", how much is available for use?
tnguyen318 9 months ago
@tnguyen318 All of the power (wattage) is available for use except the small amount lost.
There's 2 main reasons the voltage is raised for transmission through power lines: (1) It reduces the amps needed to transmit the same amount of mW. This reduces the wire size needed because the amps (current) is lower. Remember, higher voltage equals less amps. (2) Higher voltages can be transmitted more easily for longer distances. Transmission lines leaving a power plant often travel hundreds of miles.
WKHalford 9 months ago
@tnguyen318 Once the power leaves the power plant and travels through transmission lines to where it is going, the voltage is reduced by transformers to less dangerous and more easily used voltages and is distributed by distribution lines to the pole outside the house.
On the pole outside your house (or in a box on the ground if the lines are underground), there is a transformer that steps the voltage down to the house current that is used in the house.
That's as simple as I can explain it.
WKHalford 9 months ago
What do you mean by electricity generation is not 100% efficient? Is it the thing I'm hearing about "losses"? If so, I don't think its correct. I think electricity generation is 100% efficient unless you have a defunct generator. Losses are due to transferring of electricity and not the generating.
tnguyen318 9 months ago
@tnguyen318 Generation is NOT 100% efficient. There are frictional losses, resistance to electrical current, and hysteresis.
In fact, burning the fuel, turning water to steam, etc. isn't 100% efficient.
Then there's the power needed to run the plant auxiliary systems, such as lube oil and cooling.
And "defunct" means it is no longer around. Wrong word.
I'm an industrial electrician/instrument & controls tech with 18 years experience in my trades, so I do know quite a bit about the subject.
WKHalford 9 months ago
This Is Nuclear....
HomiesOfMars 11 months ago
@HomiesOfMars and you know that because you watched the simpsons once. this is coal you can tell because it has smoke stacks, the cooling towers are just that, they cool the water. hell even the smoke stacks dont smoke anymore, its just water vapor coming out.
coalandnuclear 11 months ago
@coalandnuclear yea i'm sorry i see now...
HomiesOfMars 10 months ago
Hey dipshit, I hate to burst YOUR bubble, but you are in fact a dipshit. Those hyperbolic shaped towers are what cool the circulating water that passes through the condensers to collapse steam back into water. The heat is released into the atmosphere, hence that big ass cloud of steam. As for the "skinny" chimneys, that is the conditioned flue gas from coal cumbustion in the furnace. That shit has been scrubbed of sulfur and NOx, and is cleaner than the farts you let. rcrealights is right. COAL.
TheRiff42 11 months ago
Uh, I don't mean to burst your bubble, but those three towers next to the skinny towers are towers for nuclear power plants. Also, since you've filmed this late in the year, it's going to be cold outside to where you see the water vapor. If the clouds were dirty, the vapors wouldn't be white, but black. Do your homework.
jasonnessaofficial 11 months ago
@jasonnessaofficial im sooooo tired of aruging with you people who think you know it all!!!!! this is a coal power plant! why dont you spend the time and read all 14 pages of the comments before you make your self look like an a**!!! i did my homework now it is time for you to do yours!!! good luck
rcrealights 11 months ago
@rcrealights Regardless of the type of plant, at the beginning the video is showing cooling towers. That's water mist coming out.
And what you see coming out of the stack is also water vapor, which means the plant has scrubbers to catch the sulfur compounds, turning them into sulfuric acid, gypsum, etc., which are products used as raw materials to make things.
Any actual pollution coming out is what you usually DON'T see.
The other stacks that have nothing coming out are probably shut down.
WKHalford 9 months ago
@rcrealights From what I learn on Applied heat and Mass transfer.. those towers with steam coming out from it iare called colling towers. And the shape can look like nuclear power plant...so Mr. jasonnessaofficial i think u shud do your homework!!!
kucingkopi 9 months ago
@jasonnessaofficial
The three large towers are hyperbolic cooling towers. Both Nuclear and Coal run on the same steam cycle so both use realitively the same technology to condense the steam back into water. The very tall smoke stacks tell you its a coal plant.
Allante715 11 months ago
@jasonnessaofficial
The skinny tall towers are smoke stacks for the coal smoke, the 3 fat towers are cooling towers for the steam.
The reason why you see those towers at a nuke plant is because both coal and nuclear plants heat water to make steam which turns a steam turbine connected to a generator. You see those fat towers at any industrial process that heats water. The cooling towers only make clean steam.
l2avism 10 months ago
@jasonnessaofficial
Those three towers next to the skinny towers are cooling towers, they are present in nuclear plants or coal plants or whatever the fuck needs to cool water steam.
:)
RamiroR 10 months ago
@jasonnessaofficial
you need to do homework. this is a coal fired power plant. i know because i ship coal there myself!
94punxsy 10 months ago
@jasonnessaofficial you dumbass
johnralex 10 months ago
@jasonnessaofficial Sorry, but coal and nuclear use very similar stacks. Also, note the black residue around the lip of the tower, and the giant tube-like smokestack. This is a coal plant.
frogger626 9 months ago
Jesus Christ are you stupid or what, come on nuclear plant, suuuuuure and I guess the conveyors you can see at beggining are transportinf Uranium to the boiler, what a joke hahahaha
ALBERTDOT 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus Christ are you stupid or what, come on nuclear plant, suuuuuure and I guess the conveyors you can see at beggining are transportinf Uranium to the boiler, what a joke hahahaha
ALBERTDOT 8 months ago
@jasonnessaofficial Those towers are not exclusive to nuke plants. They are just a style of cooling towers used.
Saluki388 8 months ago
@jasonnessaofficial it doesnt matter what the cooling towers look like, and that is steam you idiot, the dirty coal smoke goes through catalac converters and then is filtered out again, which only leaves trace amounts of carbon monoxide unfortunatly, but its not enough to do any damage, so do your homework.
boldziga 7 months ago
@jasonnessaofficial No, you do your homework. I work at a coal plant that uses the same type of cooling towers as a nuclear plant. Coal cooling towers take many forms, including both you see here. Also, the vapor coming out the towers is white. It's 87 degrees where I am now, and it's still white. It was white two months ago when it was almost 100 degrees. So, don't post false knowledge.
k2han 5 months ago
No the dirty coal is being used because it's cheap and the wealthy in this country do not care about peoples health just the dollars, I wish my grandfather that had black lung was alive he would tell you how dirty the whole process is, it's funny that N.Y.and N.J. have law suits against the homer city power plant. I do understand how some that make their living with coal would argue this point and these day's I can't blame them. But coal is dirty.
musclecarpower 1 year ago
The cooling towers are green, if anything. The steam is reheated by its cool state and goes back to the boiler and the rest is in the condensor and back out to the tower. BTW, only 3 of these 4 stacks are in use. The tallest one is the old stack for the new scrubber. I've worked here for a while. This plant also has a gypsum and SCR process, so until you stop using electricity, stop building with drywall, and what-not, shut up.
ajm0747 1 year ago
@ajm0747
Damn Straight!
Allante715 11 months ago
OP is a moron, the exhaust you have depicted is in fact water vapor.
comedytracker 1 year ago
DIRTY DIRTY DIRTY COAL
s46d45m17 1 year ago
@s46d45m17 That 'dirty coal' is the reason you're able to make stupid comments on YouTube.
LetsPlayStarcraft 1 year ago
Free electricity does not exist.
DGFerro 1 year ago
wow you guys just solved the energy crisis in youtube comments.
SummerinCinCity 1 year ago
Is what some people don't understand is that you could cover Britain with wind turbines and it would only generate around 4% of the required electricity for the grid. Where as stations like Drax in Britain alone can provide 8%-10% of our energy needs. So I'm guessing in America wind turbines would hardly make any difference what so ever. and we must remember to keep the frequency of electricity at the same rate wind turbines have to be kept running by an electric motor when it isn't windy.
Intercity47GBRail 1 year ago
So basically is what I'm getting at is that renewable power at the moment is no where near developed enough to take over from coal or nuclear stations. So for all you environmentalists out there you're going to have to learn to live with these stations or have no power your choice.
Intercity47GBRail 1 year ago
It is estimated that 86 percent of incremental world coal demand between now and 2030 will come from China and India. About half of China’s coal use is for electricity; and 80% of electricity generation is fueled by coal.
China reportedly added over 90 gigawatts of new coal-fired power plant capacity in 2006 alone – the equivalent of almost 2 large coal power plants a week, and more than the entire fleet of generating plants in the United Kingdom.
Dayversion 1 year ago
Coal is inherently higher-polluting and more carbon-intensive than other energy alternatives.
China’s coal output increased from 1.3 billion tons in 2000 to 2.23 billion tons in 2005 making China by far the world’s largest coal producer (next largest is the U.S. with 1.13 billion tons produced in 2005).
To meet their rising needs, China and India are certain to burn more coal.
Dayversion 1 year ago
the short stacks are the cooling towers, steam from condensing water is what is coming out. the tall stacks are the scrubbed coal combustion gases.
mrxios 1 year ago
3rd tallest chimney in the world !! 371 metres
birdhovno 1 year ago
coal is realy polutive no wounder theres a black storm cloud over the plant
estelleperdita 1 year ago
Do American coal plants have particle filters and stuff? Coal could at least be made a little cleaner.
Staatl 1 year ago
Using boiling water as steam to generate electricity is not very efficient. Using the natural flow of water to generate electricity is better. There is no need for work. That is why we use wind, solar and natural oceanic energy.
heartlessvietboy 1 year ago
True but they create next to no power where as Nuclear and Coal fired power station can make up to 6-10% of the power required. This is a British example will be less in the US obviously.
Intercity47GBRail 1 year ago
Do you know that most of the power plants in the world have shut down and is no longer operating? Power plants are old news. We use super conducting generators now.
heartlessvietboy 1 year ago
No offence but how do you think the super generators run without steam or gas turbines? In fact I'm quite intrigued!
Intercity47GBRail 1 year ago
A 10,000 watt Generator spins another generator. The electricity to spin that generator only takes 2,000 watts. That generator then produces another 10,000 Watts to spin another generator again using only 2,000 watts. That means that there is an excess of 8,000 watts to every other generator we spin. Meaning every city has one generator. And it connects from city to city world wide.
heartlessvietboy 1 year ago
But you will still need a conventional power station to make the first generator spin and to be fair we don't have these in the UK. Sounds interesting I'll look it up.
Intercity47GBRail 1 year ago
That I am not sure of. But the word we should be using is "extra" electricity. If one generator can produce enough electricity to spin another generator, and the extra electricity of that generator goes back to the first generator to keep in running, yet still being able to produce electricity to power a third generator, then we might not even need a primary energy source. But if we do, it will be wind turbines or Hydro-electric.
heartlessvietboy 1 year ago
Not a bad idea, wonder if it would work?
Intercity47GBRail 1 year ago
I do not think a generator can run itself. I do not think a generator can start itself. It will require something.
heartlessvietboy 1 year ago
You should look it up! ETF is feeling the 'Britt's power is too affordable' - in regards to LNG / Methane Gas turbine generated electricity sold across the river to Great Brittan to start the nuke cycles and run industrial plants to hen house lights. My fear is Brittan will find itself isolated from Nationalized energy programs and be forced to go all nuke and a bit of gas - or call U.S. and we will sea born minimal heavy fuel oil and gas to keep you backed up. You trust France? ;)
MrVanorsdol 1 year ago
No I do not trust France lol! I will have a read up on this too.
Intercity47GBRail 1 year ago
@MrVanorsdol WTf of comment was that... we were talking about coal plants and YOU pull some shit about war like ...shooting in anger ...red badges and stuff. by the way Old country calling US... NO it needs saving from U.S. economic crisis,“subprime” mortgages, corporate junk bonds, and other forms of debt.
my fault ,i´ve should new ...YOU´RE A STAR AND STRIPES PRIEDFULL FOLL.
menatwar 1 year ago
@heartlessvietboy Electricity isn't magic. 10,000W represents the load that generator can carry and maintain a frequency of 60hz (if in the united states). A 2,000W motor hooked to the 10,000W gen is a load on it. That motor can only power a 2,000W or less gen (2,000 if friction or heat losses did not exist). While the original gen has only 8,000W available and the 2nd gen produces less than 2,000W of power. Netting you less than 10,000W total.
DGFerro 1 year ago
Free Electricity needs to be known to the world. It is abundant now. Or at least we should only be paying $15.00 a month in electricity.
heartlessvietboy 1 year ago
@DGFerro Quite properly explained.
MrVanorsdol 1 year ago
@heartlessvietboy Not meaning to rude but I quote "energy can be neither CREATED nor destroyed" The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. WIKI.
I'm not sure where your facts came from but in truth a 10,000 watt generator requires more than 10,000 watts of energy to drive it. The reason it is not 10,000 W for 10,000 W is that there are losses due to friction and energy conversion efficiency. If your theory, if true would mean that perpetual motion was possible.
Thank you
justfoo2006 1 year ago
Perpetual Motion is balogny.
heartlessvietboy 1 year ago
I am not an expert in the study of electrical generation. However from models that have been presented before me and from the lectures that I have heard, there is a possibility that we can run an electric generator using lesser electricity than it created. Meaning abundant free electricity.
heartlessvietboy 10 months ago
@heartlessvietboy As an industrial electrician/instrument & controls tech with experience working at 2 natural gas-fired power plants and 2 coal-fired power plants with a total of 18 years experience in my trade, I can say that's not true.
If what you are saying were true, then it would be possible to create energy out of nothing. That's NOT TRUE.
In addition, it takes extra energy to run the generator's auxiliary systems (lube/hydraulic oil, cooling water, instrument air, electronics, etc).
WKHalford 9 months ago
What does running an electric generator have to do with energy created out of nothing? "Running" and coming from nothing are different words.
heartlessvietboy 9 months ago
@heartlessvietboy A generator cannot self-sustain. In order to have power "coming from" a generator, you need a source of heat energy to keep it "running".
A generator cannot put out more energy than what is put into it. Period. But that is what you are proposing.
Then there's frictional, electrical resistance, and hysteresis losses that cause a generator to put out LESS energy than what goes in.
Don't forget that I have experience with power generation, so I do know a few things about it.
WKHalford 9 months ago
Maybe one day it will. I've never built a Generator myself but I think you can create tremendous amounts of electricity (lightening bolts) in the Generator itself. Thats not only to power itself but sending some extra electricity out too!
I've come to a point in my life where I'm accepting of practically every idea that exists. You'll be surprised one day at how the Universe really is. Those who are against a special meaning of existence will find new things to try to explain what is going on.
heartlessvietboy 9 months ago
@heartlessvietboy A generator cannot power itself. The only way a generator can do that is for it to put out more energy than it takes to produce that energy. That is impossible. It would be like you using 3000 calories a day while eating 500. You would die. A generator wouldn't run at all.
If it could be done, engineers that know more about it than you and me combined would be doing it. And the power companies would be rushing to put that technology in service if it existed.
WKHalford 9 months ago
It isn't wise to use the words Never and Cannot.
heartlessvietboy 9 months ago
@heartlessvietboy I don't care how wise it is or isn't. I know MORE than enough to know a generator cannot produce more energy than is put into it. Period.
I also know that since a generator puts out LESS power than it uses, what you propose cannot be done. Period.
I've explained in detail, even using the calorie analogy. If you want to go on believing fairy tales, then do so.
Like it or not, both of those word DO have legitimate uses, and to deny that they have legitimate uses is not wise.
WKHalford 9 months ago
What about just using the electricity to heat the water?
heartlessvietboy 9 months ago
@heartlessvietboy That won't work. The electricity needed to produce the heat needed to heat the water into hot enough steam would exceed what the generator would put out.
For example, a 100 megawatt (mW) generator might require the equivalent of 120 mW of heat to put out 100 mW.
This is a guess, taking inefficiency into account PLUS the power needed for lube oil pumps, cooling water pumps/fans, instrument air compressors, electronic controls, plant lighting, backup DC lube oil pumps, etc.
WKHalford 9 months ago
If a transformer can increase the wattage from 100 megawatts to lets say 320 megawatts, why can't we use that extra 220 megawatts of electricity to heat the water instead of burning coal?? Since you said it only requires 120 megawatts to heat the water.
heartlessvietboy 9 months ago
@heartlessvietboy I NEVER said electricity could be used to make steam. I was talking about the amount of heat needed to generate that amount of power (mW).
I clearly said "That won't work. The electricity needed to produce the heat needed to heat the water into hot enough steam would exceed what the generator would put out".
I NEVER said a transformer increases wattage. I CLEARLY said that the wattage (megawatts) a transformer puts out is the same as what goes in except for small losses.
WKHalford 9 months ago
Maybe you're right, you're the one with the experience. I'd think by using our "ideas" we can build a megawatt generator capable of producing twice the amount of electricity. But in this case there is no such idea or inventor that has proven successful.
heartlessvietboy 9 months ago
Leaving your Television on when going down stairs will waste 2 charcoals.
tnguyen318 1 year ago
Thinking bout taking a degree program to become a plant operator. Very cool job.
ElProfGringo 1 year ago
Yes, the big stacks are called hyper-bo-lick cool-ing towers, sound it out. The 'smoke' is water vapor. Many coal plants use the nuke style cooling system, very advanced and not dirty. Well, you can shut off half your electric lifestyle and then complain on coal.
MrVanorsdol 1 year ago
@MrVanorsdol "water fall" tower refrigerator it´s more efficient cose it uses less coolant water flow than convencional condenser...
menatwar 1 year ago
I'm sorry? I don't follow. Conventional Condeser tower?
MrVanorsdol 1 year ago
@MrVanorsdol no man ,its more like a huge stell box full of pipes underneath the low pressure steam turbine.
the deal is to condense the exhaust steam from the turbine by rejecting the heat of vaporisation to the cooling water passing through the condenser. (usually sea water)
menatwar 1 year ago
I sure agree regarding the large slag pipes inside the boiler houses and vaporazation big ten exhaust stacks are designed to return any Turbine Heat away from loss to the exhaust towers - to suck out every bit of heat to detail out Heat Rate and Ratios in process takes too many words. 1 Point - Seawater is primarily a nuke plant duty. Most US coal plants run on grey water - fresh body of water - encompass most the W & Central US where energy is most affordable. Folks he's right! V
MrVanorsdol 1 year ago
I say 'conventional' meaning not Hyperbolic cooling - condenser towers (some particulate exhaust ppb). Menatwar points out the hyperbolic towers are not exhaust towers, rather they capture heat loss to return to the turbine that generated it. Then eventually the 'conventional' towers do exhaust any unrecovered heat or particulate matter. If you see more than 5% opacity (burn matter / vapor) out the conventional tower the plant is being fined by the literal second.
MrVanorsdol 1 year ago
do u kno how much i would shit myself laughing if this guy just whipped out a bong and started getting high
but ye shut that plant down polution
eacao 1 year ago
This is horrible O.o We're all dead xD
MrBmannen 1 year ago
its nuclear...
hellomoto4000 1 year ago
I live right next to it. You dont notice pollution till it rains and something white turns brown. The tallest stack is out of commision and is 39 ft shorter than the wtc.
aaronkundla 1 year ago
Hey, brown is dirt, have you never heard of it raining dirt? Visit West Texas.
MrVanorsdol 1 year ago
@aaronkundla I have family there, so we can run out and have a civilized conversation on your concerns, as I may have the same concerns and hopes!