[Winnipegger]

In 1995-1996 I worked for TransAlta. I find your claims difficult to believe considering I'm getting my info from internal reports within the power utility.

I may be from Winnipeg and moved back to the Peg, but have worked in a few places in my career. That includes a Toronto, Calgary, a suburb of Richmond Virginia, and Miami Florida.

As for oxygen combining with coal to form methane, do you know the chemical formula? That doesn't work. Coal is carbon with a little other stuff mixed in. Methane has the chemical formula CH4, that means 4 atoms of hydrogen bonded to one atom of carbon. That's why you need water to make methane. Molecular oxygen is O2, so if oxygen combines with coal you get CO2. If water combines with coal you get some CO2 and some CH4. The balanced formula is:

2 C + 2 H2O -> CH4 + CO2

Note conversion of coal to methane will convert half of the coal to carbon dioxide. That's where the energy comes from. The water also has to be hot. If coal beds are converting themselves, then you aren't relying on oxygen, you rely on ground water and geothermal heat. If any oxygen is required at all, then that oxygen is burning coal to form CO2, generating the heat required.

[Winnipegger]

ziggy ziggy:

I wont even mention the zero emmision coal fired plants that Alberta will be putting online as soon as possible.

There's no such thing as zero emission coal. "Clean coal" refers to a process that uses high pressure steam to convert coal to methane in a chamber. It's coal methanization in a controlled, efficient way, not trying to do it underground. Methane is then burned to boil water to steam, some of the steam is routed back to the chamber, the rest goes through a turbine. Traditional coal burning power plants route all of the steam through a turbine, so this actually requires more coal for the same electricity. Yup, "clean coal" burns more coal per kilowatt hour. However, all the sulphur, radioactive isotopes, and other crap in the coal remains as ash in the conversion chamber; it doesn't go up the smoke stack. The ash can be safely buried. Burning methane generates CO2 and water. That means a "clean coal" power plant has more CO2 emissions, not less, and certainly not zero. The advantage is elimination of acid rain, radiation, soot, and all the other crap.

[ziggy]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

In 1995-1996 I worked for TransAlta. I find your claims difficult to believe considering I'm getting my info from internal reports within the power utility.

I may be from Winnipeg and moved back to the Peg, but have worked in a few places in my career. That includes a Toronto, Calgary, a suburb of Richmond Virginia, and Miami Florida.

As for oxygen combining with coal to form methane, do you know the chemical formula? That doesn't work. Coal is carbon with a little other stuff mixed in. Methane has the chemical formula CH4, that means 4 atoms of hydrogen bonded to one atom of carbon. That's why you need water to make methane. Molecular oxygen is O2, so if oxygen combines with coal you get CO2. If water combines with coal you get some CO2 and some CH4. The balanced formula is:

2 C + 2 H2O -> CH4 + CO2

Note conversion of coal to methane will convert half of the coal to carbon dioxide. That's where the energy comes from. The water also has to be hot. If coal beds are converting themselves, then you aren't relying on oxygen, you rely on ground water and geothermal heat. If any oxygen is required at all, then that oxygen is burning coal to form CO2, generating the heat required.

No scientific formula needed,coal burns when exposed to oxygen,it does this all on it's own,thats why China stores their's underwater.
I've also never seen steam injection and I've built hundreds of lease sites for CBM wells.

This is good

$1:

In 1995-1996 I worked for TransAlta. I find your claims difficult to believe considering I'm getting my info from internal reports within the power utility.

Ya,I would believe them.
Now if your talking Trans alta,Mannix,Luscar,and a few others then ya I've worked for them all.I tend to believe what I see,not what someone tells me is gospel. I know what Canada's coal reserves are.

[ziggy]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

ziggy ziggy:

I wont even mention the zero emmision coal fired plants that Alberta will be putting online as soon as possible.

There's no such thing as zero emission coal. "Clean coal" refers to a process that uses high pressure steam to convert coal to methane in a chamber. It's coal methanization in a controlled, efficient way, not trying to do it underground. Methane is then burned to boil water to steam, some of the steam is routed back to the chamber, the rest goes through a turbine. Traditional coal burning power plants route all of the steam through a turbine, so this actually requires more coal for the same electricity. Yup, "clean coal" burns more coal per kilowatt hour. However, all the sulphur, radioactive isotopes, and other crap in the coal remains as ash in the conversion chamber; it doesn't go up the smoke stack. The ash can be safely buried. Burning methane generates CO2 and water. That means a "clean coal" power plant has more CO2 emissions, not less, and certainly not zero. The advantage is elimination of acid rain, radiation, soot, and all the other crap.

Clean coal is low sulpher coal,thats the way it's been refered to in the industry for 30 years,dont make things up dude.

[ziggy]

Here's how they tap CBM in Alberta in laymans terms.

First they bring in a drill and do a hole,usually shallow depending on what seam they want to go through,then it's capped,a wellhead is installed,flow tests are done and if it's good they drill a hole every quarter section,when there all drilled they get connected via pipeline and shipped to a compressor station and eventually a plant.Real simple,it's not rocket science.Alberta's water laws are going to get very stringent soon,dont think you will see steam injection for cbm happening enmasse for a long time.The oilsands are different,thats where I think peg got confused,I'll admit I dont know a whole lot about tarsand extraction except for what my stepdad told me from when he ran the old bucketwheel at syncrude many years ago and what I have read,I do know that what they do with water is a huge issue in the NWT right now with full page ads in the papers and the last issue of "up here"

[Winnipegger]

ziggy ziggy:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

In 1995-1996 I worked for TransAlta. I find your claims difficult to believe considering I'm getting my info from internal reports within the power utility.

Ya,I would believe them.
Now if your talking Trans alta,Mannix,Luscar,and a few others then ya I've worked for them all.I tend to believe what I see,not what someone tells me is gospel. I know what Canada's coal reserves are.

I've never heard of Mannix or Luscar. At that time TransAlta was the only power generation utility for all of southern and central Alberta, including Calgary and Edmonton. Since then they split up, government deregulation and splitting the company resulted in tripple residential power rates. That worked great, didn't it? I assume the companies you talk about are some of the new guys. But at the time TransAlta wasn't a bit player, they were it.

[ziggy]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

ziggy ziggy:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

In 1995-1996 I worked for TransAlta. I find your claims difficult to believe considering I'm getting my info from internal reports within the power utility.

Ya,I would believe them.
Now if your talking Trans alta,Mannix,Luscar,and a few others then ya I've worked for them all.I tend to believe what I see,not what someone tells me is gospel. I know what Canada's coal reserves are.

I've never heard of Mannix or Luscar. At that time TransAlta was the only power generation utility for all of southern and central Alberta, including Calgary and Edmonton. Since then they split up, government deregulation and splitting the company resulted in tripple residential power rates. That worked great, didn't it? I assume the companies you talk about are some of the new guys. But at the time TransAlta wasn't a bit player, they were it.

You never heard of Fred Mannix or Luscar? Given you worked for transalta I thought they would have mentioned who mined their coal.

You should read the story of the Mannix brothers,it's called "beating the odds" and tells the story of the brothers in business in the early years.
I have an autograped copy myself.

[Winnipegger]

ziggy ziggy:

No scientific formula needed,coal burns when exposed to oxygen,it does this all on it's own

The point is when coal burns it forms carbon dioxide, not methane. You can't burn smoke. You need water to make methane, and the process wastes half your coal. To be efficient, you need to seal the coal so oxygen doesn't get at it. Methanization reacts coal with water, and it requires heat.

I saw the CBC report on coal bed methanization in Montana. They were afraid people in Alberta would make all sorts of wild claims about not requiring water or not polluting the soil. You just confirm that.

[ziggy]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

ziggy ziggy:

No scientific formula needed,coal burns when exposed to oxygen,it does this all on it's own

The point is when coal burns it forms carbon dioxide, not methane. You can't burn smoke. You need water to make methane, and the process wastes half your coal. To be efficient, you need to seal the coal so oxygen doesn't get at it. Methanization reacts coal with water, and it requires heat.

I saw the CBC report on coal bed methanization in Montana. They were afraid people in Alberta would make all sorts of wild claims about not requiring water or not polluting the soil. You just confirm that.

Thats because every CBM well I have seen is free flowing,no water is pumped down the hole so dont compare Montana's policies with Alberta's because their very different.Thats not a wild claim,I used to build the leases and pipelines from CBM wells,so you can believe me or the CBC. I know what I saw with my eyes.

[Alta_redneck]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

ziggy ziggy:

I wont even mention the zero emmision coal fired plants that Alberta will be putting online as soon as possible.

There's no such thing as zero emission coal. "Clean coal" refers to a process that uses high pressure steam to convert coal to methane in a chamber. It's coal methanization in a controlled, efficient way, not trying to do it underground. Methane is then burned to boil water to steam, some of the steam is routed back to the chamber, the rest goes through a turbine. Traditional coal burning power plants route all of the steam through a turbine, so this actually requires more coal for the same electricity. Yup, "clean coal" burns more coal per kilowatt hour. However, all the sulphur, radioactive isotopes, and other crap in the coal remains as ash in the conversion chamber; it doesn't go up the smoke stack. The ash can be safely buried. Burning methane generates CO2 and water. That means a "clean coal" power plant has more CO2 emissions, not less, and certainly not zero. The advantage is elimination of acid rain, radiation, soot, and all the other crap.

If this ash is so nasty, why is Trans - Alta trying to find a market for it and sell it as a by-product. We were getting the highway on the south side of Lake Wabamun ready for paving and used ash on a test section instead of using graval. It didn't work that great and I ended up putting 4000 tons of it into the ditch and used it to finish off the slops with it. All the run off would have went through this ash and into the Lake. I would like to think Enviroment Alberta approved this considering it was an Alberta Transportation project.

I really don't know what's in it, but none of the dozen or so smart guys from Edmonton that came out to watch this, suggested we needed any special safety equipment.

[Alta_redneck]

lily lily:

$1:

I really don't know what's in it, but none of the dozen or so smart guys from Edmonton that came out to watch this, suggested we needed any special safety equipment.

If they were so smart they wouldn't be in Edmonton, would they?

They live in Edmonton so they don't have to avoid walking in all the cow patty's on the streets of Calgary

[ziggy]

Ya know,if The pegger should be a little more concerned with his water rather than Alberta's.There's a couple of Uranium mines going into production soon right next to where I'm working......that's upstream from the "Peg"

[ziggy]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

ziggy ziggy:

Never did figure this claim out.

$1:

A few years ago an estimate of their coal reserves was 50 years left.

is this at the current rate of mining? I'll call bullshit on this one.

Yup. That includes all coal reserves in Alberta. That doesn't include coal imported from outside the province. That's what happens you power the entire province on a fossil fuel.

Fossil fuel huh? I have in front of me the local paper with a full page ad about public information sessions for potential system reinforcement in Southern Alberta to support ADDITIONAL wind development.

That's just southern Alberta,you should see what the AESO has planned for the rest of the province.

[hurley_108]

ziggy ziggy:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

ziggy ziggy:

Never did figure this claim out.

$1:

A few years ago an estimate of their coal reserves was 50 years left.

is this at the current rate of mining? I'll call bullshit on this one.

Yup. That includes all coal reserves in Alberta. That doesn't include coal imported from outside the province. That's what happens you power the entire province on a fossil fuel.

Fossil fuel huh? I have in front of me the local paper with a full page ad about public information sessions for potential system reinforcement in Southern Alberta to support ADDITIONAL wind development.

That's just southern Alberta,you should see what the AESO has planned for the rest of the province.

Alberta Generating Capacity [MW]
Coal 5,840
Gas 4,434
Hydro 900
Wind 522
Biomass 184
Fuel Oil 13
Subtotal 11,892

Wind makes up 4% of total generation, and 5% of coal and gas. That means we'd have to incread wind generation TWENTYFOLD to replace coal and gas capacity.

Aint gonna happen aytime soon.

Source

[ziggy]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

ziggy ziggy:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

ziggy ziggy:

Never did figure this claim out.

$1:

A few years ago an estimate of their coal reserves was 50 years left.

is this at the current rate of mining? I'll call bullshit on this one.

Yup. That includes all coal reserves in Alberta. That doesn't include coal imported from outside the province. That's what happens you power the entire province on a fossil fuel.

Fossil fuel huh? I have in front of me the local paper with a full page ad about public information sessions for potential system reinforcement in Southern Alberta to support ADDITIONAL wind development.

That's just southern Alberta,you should see what the AESO has planned for the rest of the province.

Alberta Generating Capacity [MW]
Coal 5,840
Gas 4,434
Hydro 900
Wind 522
Biomass 184
Fuel Oil 13
Subtotal 11,892

Wind makes up 4% of total generation, and 5% of coal and gas. That means we'd have to incread wind generation TWENTYFOLD to replace coal and gas capacity.

Aint gonna happen aytime soon.

Source

Dont bet on it,they cant plant the wind turbines here fast enough,hell,they cant build them fast enough.No way it's going to replace fossil fuels but it will preserve them for awhile.Fuel oil rules the world(diesel)it wont be a scarcity of it that creates havoc but the price per barrell.So the more wind farms they can build and the more power transmission lines they can put in are a good thing,here's the link to the AESO site and their glimpse into the future for Alberta's grid.AESO projections