Modern Low-Aquifer-Usage Power Plants That Work

[PGHammer 1,504]

Does anyone (other than DocM and myself) remember our posts on on power plants that use a combination of natural gas (hence near zero air pollution) and wastewater (hence nearly zero tapping of aquifers - which is a problem with ALL power plants)?  It's frigging SCALABLE (as both of us pointed out). in fact, I have yet more data - hard data, at that.

 

1.  I give you Competitive Power Ventures' St. Charles Energy Center (CPV SCEC) - 725 MW - powered by natural gas, but uses mostly wastewater (as opposed to tapping aquifers - which most power plants - regardless of what power them - do).  It's the same technology that powers Brandywine Power - which was recently sold to KMC Thermo - but upscaled.  http://cpv.com/our-projects/cpv-st-charles/.

 

2.  Competitive Power Ventures' Woodbridge Energy Center (CPV WEC) - the same tech that drives CPV SCEC; but it's three years OLDER.  Privately funded - but fully operational (in BOTH cases).  http://cpv.com/our-projects/cpv-woodbridge/

 

3.  What I flat-out LOVE about plants like SCEC and WEC - you can park them next to wastewater treatment plants and reduce THEIR pollution.  However, I'd wager that power plants like these two are squarely in the crosshairs in the "Green New Deal" - DESPITE that they not only don't pollute themselves, but attack pollution elsewhere.  (Care to take the wager?)

[The Rev 413]

Well, whether it's a good idea or not, I dunno, cuz i'm not super sciencey...  But I do know that whatever great environment-saving technologies are in the pipeline, they're not gonna get anywhere til we have a US president that cares more about saving the environment than finding faster ways to destroy it.  

 

[DocM 16,615]

57 minutes ago, The Rev said:

Well, whether it's a good idea or not, I dunno, cuz i'm not super sciencey...  But I do know that whatever great environment-saving technologies are in the pipeline, they're not gonna get anywhere til we have a US president that cares more about saving the environment than finding faster ways to destroy it.  

 

The best environmental project we could embark on is to start replacing regular powerplants with next-gen  thorium nuclear power.  Earth has gobs of it, it's more efficient than uranium, and if produces less and shorter-lived waste. 

 

Renewables are fine, but can't pull the whole load for numerous reasons.

[PGHammer 1,504]

4 hours ago, DocM said:

The best environmental project we could embark on is to start replacing regular powerplants with next-gen  thorium nuclear power.  Earth has gobs of it, it's more efficient than uranium, and if produces less and shorter-lived waste. 

 

Renewables are fine, but can't pull the whole load for numerous reasons.

No, they can't.  (Even green-energy advocates admit that.)

 

The very reason I brought up the two power plants I did is because they are buildable - they use proven technology, and they attack the pollution problem on multiple fronts.

 

1.  Front one - they burn natural gas (the cleanest fuel for such out there) - and one we (as in the United States) have plenty of - to the point that we can - and are - exporting it. (However, every Democratic Presidential candidate - no exceptions - want to stop our exports of it - AND stop our drilling for it - silly merely from an electrical-generation standpoint!)

 

2.  Front two - the draw on aquifers is far less than even a traditional CNG power-generation plant - let alone one powered by any other energy source.

 

3.  Front three - by the time the water reaches the watershed, it is far cleaner than when it left the treatment plant; in fact, every test so far has put it on par with when it entered the water system.  (Tell me - what is wrong with that?)

 

[PGHammer 1,504]

6 hours ago, The Rev said:

Well, whether it's a good idea or not, I dunno, cuz i'm not super sciencey...  But I do know that whatever great environment-saving technologies are in the pipeline, they're not gonna get anywhere til we have a US president that cares more about saving the environment than finding faster ways to destroy it.  

 

The Rev - I chased down the info on Brandywine Power because it's in my front yard  - it's fifteen miles from my house.  The SCEC is five miles further away (to my SE) - also still in my front yard.  Neither (due to being powered by CNG) pollute by any stretch of the imagination; they also attack the issue of wastewater pollution by using it as the core of the steam cycle - it is, in fact, a KNOWN issue with wastewater treatment plants.  Park one of these (better yet, several of them) down the pipe(line) and the issue goes away.  On top of the attack on wastewater pollution (a major issue - which everyone admits), the power-generation faciilities use LESS in terms of aquifer draw (due to using wastewater) than a traditional power plant (another known issue).  This sort of power plant solves SEVERAL pollution problems - is easily buildable - it can be done without costing the taxpayer a single tax dollar (all three power plants I referred to were privately financed) and don't face the NIMBY issues that most power plants - even wind farms - do. (In fact, fire up the Google-fu and chase down the protestations merely regarding offshore wind farms in Maryland - my home state.)