Cogeneration

[oneoff]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/partners/advgetechnology1216/3-reasons-why-energy-efficient-cogeneration-is-gaining-momentum/article33312441/

Simple concept used by Edison in his first power plant


It involves using waste heat produced by primary electrical generation. Typically; just like any internal combustion engine you get 1/3 of energy as useful productive work to turn wheels or spin a generator etc; but there's 1/3 of energy coming off the radiator and motor and about 1/3 of waste heat going up the exhaust stack.


For nearby buildings and factories the cost of heating buildings; or
evaporating water from distillers dried grains etc could be very reasonable. Greenhouses nearby could even benefit from the CO2 included in the exhaust gas stream. Should we close down the Shand greenhouses just because some zealots have labelled it as a "dirty coal plant?? Does increasing efficiency of energy use by 50% get rejected just because a group has their agenda on track?.

Some would say its just another way to kill 2 or 3 birds with just one stone.

[oneoff]

So the green houses at Shand give some needed jobs that produce something of worth that not one contrarion complains about. They produce "free" trees in the best meaning of the word free.

If properly tended (and the recipients do take some pride in the planting and necessary care of seedlings); then that new life soon does its own thing and captures carbon to the tune of about 500.000 additional trees each and every year since about 1991 according to the Sask Power web site. And it can go on for 20 to 40 or more years with practically zero additional intervention..

Anybody ever think of that argument or is it overlooked or worse still just rejected by using the "ignore" button in people's minds.

[oneoff]

We provide a selection of tree and shrub seedlings free of charge to Saskatchewan not-for-profit agencies, service clubs, conservation agencies and individual landowners for shelterbelts, wildlife habitat and reclamation projects. The number one requirement is a shared commitment to preserve and enhance Saskatchewan’s natural landscape. Applications are accepted July 1–March 15.

Here's some background info

Why Plant Seedlings?
Planting, protecting and maintaining trees and shrubs can help us to:

Sequester CO 2
Enhance the appearance of a particular area
Improve wildlife habitat by providing shelter and food
Reduce soil and wind erosion
Reclaim marginal or disturbed tracts of land
Who is Eligible?
All shelterbelt, wildlife habitat and reclamation projects that will be planted on land holdings no less than 4.04 ha (10 acres) are eligible, provided:

Seedlings are not for profit or gain
Seedlings are not intended for yard or commercial landscaping purposes
Projects are environmentally sound

[chuckChuck]

So if farmers and landowners are planting trees, adopting zero tillage and grazing permanent pastures with the intent of capturing carbon, what should happen when farmers purposely remove trees and wetlands?

[oneoff]

Now expand yours minds to the possibilities.

That new proposed refinery; or that natural gas processing plant or that cryogenic ethane stripping facility could have attached projects at a safe distance back...but still in feasible distance from great waste heat producing components.

And I happen to know how even a puny 100KW raw natural gas fired generator can quite comfortably heat thousands of square feet of only yet partially insulated building space just with cogeneration. And "waste heat" is of no interest or under the jurisdiction of any regulator. That is a legal point of some importance and known by next to no persons outside head Crown legal departments.

Lets give the hundreds of other similar workable add on efficiency gaining projects a chance. So far there is next to no support for initiatives to be done on their own merits.


And why not either tax waste heat; or better still allow waste heat sources be put to productive uses. Maybe only tax it if it isn't being used (or allowed to be used) for productive uses.

There also could be a misconception that applying for the meager subsidies just might be the most minor factor considered by those who create innovations....because of the red tape and loss of all control that typically results. Its just possible that true entrepreneurs would sooner be allowed to succeed or fail though their own efforts.

[oneoff]

Well that is derailing the tread completely; but you are forgiven as I've done the same a hundred times before. Its also a question with clear answers in my mind.

My opinion is that the concept of mitigation is valid and addresses that valid concern brought forward.

For someone who plants and tends trees; you know very well that no sane person is going to destroy what they worked hard to establish.
For all other situations it seems totally reasonable; that no one should ever complain if any consolidation/"drainage" is offset (or even more than offset) through new expansion of equivalent (or greater) mitigation somewhere else on their properties. Six inches of water in low spots drowns out crop most times at every runoff events. That water diverted (and controlled) into larger storage area or adequate outlets has potentials of its own and when properly done though approved projects can work to everyone's benefit. There is a concept of improvements; and tiling,even drainage; accepted farming practices and stewardship can be bastardized by those who haven't spent appropriate time with their blinders off. Sask never had that vision. Other adjoining provinces and the world used those concepts, benefited for generations and now residents complain about the inevitable problems; but conveniently ignore what it would be like farming the swamp; or the bush or the obstacles.

They say the insects will take control of the world when humans have had their turn. Remember that it is within human control to make that reality in the next 10 minutes. We're no safer than we were decades ago or will be decades later. What we can do is little things like working toward better, cleaner, safer means to satisfy demands (and especially needs) with relatively scarce resources and with some consideration of everyone else has some expectation of also having. And that expectation doesn't include more sacrifice and third world conditions. They know tough times would wish for all our luxuries and conveniences....not more of their impoverished conditions and hardships that we are headed for.

And like everything else in life; there should be no expectation it will turn out as planned. Iit won't be 100% fair and the more wealthy will attempt to direct the changes. My words

And now I realize exactly what Murray Mandryk (Leader post "editor") meant when he said the history of the world since the second World War could be summarized in a single sentence;

There has to be reasonableness, practicality and an admission of how everyone fits into a scheme of how the earth will likely turn out with basically uncontrolled human population control.

Thats an important subject to tackle; but first there needs to be proof that a consensus can be reached on at least one detail. I;m not sure that can be done....but time will tell.

That seems reasonable and workable to me. That has been and I hope still is the position of the Dep't of Environments and Water oversight agencies. That's probably what "cap and trade" concepts are founded on.

Please advise if there is any common ground in this response.

Same goes for the topic of cogeneration. Was Edisons first power plant a failure and should that idea be resurrected on a scale much bigger than is currently the case?. Because it does work and there are few examples that can be given where up to 50% efficiency increases are there for the picking.

Just what was objectionable or unpalatable about any word in the cogeneration concept above?

[oneoff]

[QUOTE=oneoff;334294]Well that is derailing the tread completely; but you are forgiven as I've done the same a hundred times before. Its also a question with clear answers in my mind.

My opinion is that the concept of mitigation is valid and addresses that valid concern brought forward.

For someone who plants and tends trees; you know very well that no sane person is going to destroy what they worked hard to establish.
For all other situations it seems totally reasonable; that no one should ever complain if any consolidation/"drainage" is offset (or even more than offset) through new expansion of equivalent (or greater) mitigation somewhere else on their properties. Six inches of water in low spots drowns out crop most times at every runoff events. That water diverted (and controlled) into larger storage area or adequate outlets has potentials of its own and when properly done though approved projects can work to everyone's benefit. There is a concept of improvements; and tiling,even drainage; accepted farming practices and stewardship can be bastardized by those who haven't spent appropriate time with their blinders off. Sask never had that vision. Other adjoining provinces and the world used those concepts, benefited for generations and now residents complain about the inevitable problems; but conveniently ignore what it would be like farming the swamp; or the bush or the obstacles.

They say the insects will take control of the world when humans have had their turn. Remember that it is within human control to make that reality in the next 10 minutes. We're no safer than we were decades ago or will be decades later. What we can do is little things like working toward better, cleaner, safer means to satisfy demands (and especially needs) with relatively scarce resources and with some shared expectation everyone else in the world might wish to have. And those expectations doesn't include more sacrifices and third world conditions. They know tough times and would wish for all our luxuries and conveniences....not more of their impoverished conditions and hardships that we are headed for.

And like everything else in life; there should be no expectation everything will turn out as planned. It won't be 100% fair and the more wealthy will attempt to direct the changes. My words

And now I realize exactly what Murray Mandryk (Leader post "editor") meant when he said the history of the world since the second World War could be summarized in a single sentence;

There has to be reasonableness, practicality and an admission of how everyone fits into a scheme of how the earth will likely turn out with basically uncontrolled human population control.

That is an important subject to tackle; but first there needs to be proof that a consensus can be reached on at least one detail. I;m not sure that can be done....but time will tell.

That seems reasonable and workable to me. That has been and I hope still is the position of the Dep't of Environments and Water oversight agencies. That's probably what "cap and trade" concepts are founded on.

Please advise if there is any common ground in this response.

Same goes for the topic of cogeneration. Was Edisons first power plant a failure? Should that idea be resurrected and reimplemented on a scale much bigger than is currently the case?. Because it does work and there are few examples elsewhere that can be given where up to 50% efficiency increases are there for the picking. Its even seen in the European Union as the only way that the goals of the Paris accords can be reached.

Just what was objectionable or unpalatable about any word in the cogeneration concept above?

[chuckChuck]

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Relatively low cost and abundant energy supplies in Canada and a low population have allowed us to prosper with out worrying about conservation. As a relatively new country with lots of resources to exploit we have not had to be as innovative or efficient as many older developed countries.

We are now into a new era where energy use and supplies matter. This will shape the future. Co-generation is in wide use in many parts of the world. It is a great way to improve energy efficiency. It needs to be applied more.

All of Estevan perhaps could have had space heating entirely from all the cooling water used at shand and boundary. It was probably never applied because the cost of heating fuel and natural gas was probably much lower.

[oneoff]

And that could still be a possibility if coal/maybe natural gas had a potential future in Estevan.

Thats a part of the deliberate waste (or overlooking) of resources that have been mentioned numerous times. Also proves the point that leaving futures solely up to "experts" typically loses most input of those who have noticed those potentially viable wastes and losses.
For example cogeneration will obviously never happen with wind or solar; as its not compatible in any imaginable way.