How Different US States Generate Electricity

Latest Articles

How Different US States Generate Electricity
Page 1, 2 Next

Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment

Author

Message

Jam Lady

Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 2571
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Mon Dec 24, 18 8:11 pm Post subject: How Different US States Generate Electricity
A look at how the 50 states generate electricity - coal, petroleum, nuclear, hydroelectric, natural gas, wind, water, biomass https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/24/climate/how-electricity-generation-changed-in-your-state.html I am not trying to start any arguments, just found it an interesting look at the changes from 2001 to 2017 for each of the states

Ty Gwyn

Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4613
Location: Lampeter

Posted: Mon Dec 24, 18 10:23 pm Post subject:
I`d be interested in the make up of the Natural Gas,what percentage is from a Fracked source? As this Natural Gas seems to be the major dictator in the decline from coal,although noting a good proportion of coal generated power is exported from certain states into the grid to other states. Interesting read,not what we are lead to believe.

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15987

Posted: Tue Dec 25, 18 7:41 am Post subject:

It is disappointing that so many states are reliant on fossil fuels. It doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of climate change to go from coal to gas, especially if, as Ty says, it comes from fracked sources.

Fracking isn't doing very well in the UK I am glad to say. The one attempt so far, in spite of the government waiving planning permission, keeps generating small earth tremors, and has to stop work. I know that there has been low force fracking in other wells to get more oil out, but the more force you put in, the more effect you will have with earth movements.

Maine seems to be very good on the renewables, but there are so many states that I didn't look through all of them, although New England seems to lead the way.

Hairyloon

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 15425
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.

Posted: Tue Dec 25, 18 9:15 am Post subject:

Mistress Rose wrote:

It makes quite a lot more sense than instinct suggests. I forget how much less carbon emission per unit energy there is from gas over coal, but I recall I was surprised.

Jam Lady

Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 2571
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Tue Dec 25, 18 6:15 pm Post subject:
Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels: Coal (anthracite) 228.6 Coal (bituminous) 205.7 Coal (lignite) 215.4 Coal (subbituminous) 214.3 Diesel fuel and heating oil 161.3 Gasoline (without ethanol) 157.2 Propane 139.0 Natural gas 117.0

Ty Gwyn

Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4613
Location: Lampeter

Posted: Tue Dec 25, 18 9:42 pm Post subject:
I found that strange for Anthracite to be a higher omitter of co2 than lignite,when it is well known that a lot more lignite needs to be burned to produce the same heat,its simply economics,lignite is in abundance and its power stations are usually on site as in the case of Germany. This link verifies that, https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Coal_types

Hairyloon

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 15425
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.

Posted: Wed Dec 26, 18 2:33 am Post subject:

Ty Gwyn wrote:

I found that strange for Anthracite to be a higher omitter of co2 than lignite,when it is well known that a lot more lignite needs to be burned to produce the same heat...

It's carbon vs hydrogen innit. You can burn as much hydrogen as you like & it will emit no carbon into the atmosphere (ignoring production & transport), whereas if you're burning carbon, then every but of energy puts carbon into the atmosphere.
Anthracite is a lot closer to pure carbon.

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15987

Posted: Wed Dec 26, 18 8:44 am Post subject:

Natural gas contains methane and some higher hydrocarbons such as ethane, propane, butane etc. The majority of it is methane. I assume you mean HL that when you burn methane you are burning both carbon and hydrogen atoms rather than just the pure carbon of coal. Hard to write it as I am not too good on the formula keys but;

CH4 +5O2= 4CO2 + 2H2O

rather than C + O2 = CO2 from the carbon in coal

As anthracite is higher carbon than other coals it will produce more carbon dioxide as more of the coal burns and less is left.

It makes sense in that way to go for gas, but only if you have the gas supply readily available. At present in the UK, most of our gas comes from Russia via the continent. There is the possibility that at any time a number of countries have the power to cut off our gas supplies completely. Hopefully it will never happen, but imo always helpful to have an alternative source of power for at least vital supplies.

Makes a great deal of sense though to use renewable resources is the amount of power generated is in excess of the power needed to build the installation (less of course the amount a 'conventional' power station would need.)

Hairyloon

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 15425
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.

Posted: Wed Dec 26, 18 11:41 am Post subject:

Mistress Rose wrote:

I assume you mean HL that when you burn methane you are burning both carbon and hydrogen atoms rather than just the pure carbon of coal.

Slightly oversimplified, but good enough unless there is a call for the chemistry lesson.

Ty Gwyn

Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4613
Location: Lampeter

Posted: Wed Dec 26, 18 1:22 pm Post subject:

The carbon in Anthracite is the highest of all coals,98% attained in Irish anthracite collieries,

But when one thinks back to the London Smog of the 50`s ,caused by bituminous burning,hence the Smoke free zones that were brought in where only anthracite and its products were allowed to be burnt,the old coking plants were products were abstracted from the bituminous coal,take a look at the pollution around Lignite power stations with the impurities that product belches out.

I`m no scientist and don`t pretend to understand,but been on the land for the most of my life I notice things,we all know that co2 is needed for plants to grow,we are told that there is a lot more co2 in the atmosphere than 50yrs ago,so why do I need to fertilize at the same rate as 50yrs ago,i would have thought with all the co2 it would reduce my need for fertilizer.

Jam Lady

Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 2571
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Wed Dec 26, 18 1:58 pm Post subject:
Two different things, Ty Gwyn. Through photosynthesis, plants convert carbon dioxide and water into sugar. Plants need major nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and minor nutrients such as calcium, boron, and more. That's where fertilizers come into play.

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15987

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 18 9:09 am Post subject:

Sorry about the chemistry HL, but I was trying to clarify it in my own head as much as anything.

You are right about the smogs Ty. It was poor burning of low grade coal. In fact most things can be burnt very efficiently using the right sort of fire, but the old open fires left a lot to be desired. I have never been to a place where lignite is burnt, but again, with the right sort of fire, it could be burnt cleanly.

Jam Lady you are right about the other nutrients. Yes, taking in more carbon dioxide does help growth, but the other things are needed too. Son had to clear up after an experiment at a tree station near us where they did tests on raised carbon dioxide levels, and the growth was increased dramatically, but that was with all the other nutrients provided.

Ty Gwyn

Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4613
Location: Lampeter

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 18 6:00 pm Post subject:

Well I`ll have to disagree with you there Chris,Coking/Bituminous coal in a domestic situation can only be burnt efficiently in an open fire due to the tar content,it cakes/binds together and doesn't drop to burn in an enclosed fire.

Lignite briquettes are available in competition with your logs,lol,but unlike logs,lignite briquettes are only suitable for open fires or multi fuel burners ,not log only burners as they need more air flow to burn efficiently.

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15987

Posted: Fri Dec 28, 18 9:03 am Post subject:

We haven't burnt ordinary coal for a long time, so I am sure you are right Ty. When I was a child, we used to have Welsh boiler nuts for the Ideal boiler and ordinary housecoal for the open fire, so that could be why. We have always had a multifuel closed fire as we keep it in over night with a bit of high grade coal.

There is a lot of competition for our logs; lignite blocks, which I don't think are very common round here, compressed sawdust and those funny things they sometimes sell in supermarkets which contain goodness knows what. People still prefer the real thing though.

Hairyloon

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 15425
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.

Posted: Fri Dec 28, 18 2:33 pm Post subject:

Mistress Rose wrote:

Sorry about the chemistry HL, but I was trying to clarify it in my own head as much as anything.

No problem at all. I am quite happy to either give or receive lessons.

Quote:

Jam Lady you are right about the other nutrients. Yes, taking in more carbon dioxide does help growth, but the other things are needed too. Son had to clear up after an experiment at a tree station near us where they did tests on raised carbon dioxide levels, and the growth was increased dramatically, but that was with all the other nutrients provided.

It is only on a bright sunny day that carbon dioxide is likely to become the limiting factor, and then only if water and nutrients are adequate.

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment	All times are GMT Page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

View Latest Posts