4 ms·

It's likely true, but quite probably even worse. A friend here in NSW Australia told me some years ago, while working at one of the larger coal-fired power pla

by Jedd 5y ago

It's likely true, but quite probably even worse. A friend here in NSW Australia told me some years ago, while working at one of the larger coal-fired power plants we have, that emissions are measured on only one of the four stacks, and the results are then extrapolated. Obviously this was ripe to be gamed, which is precisely what happened. Good coal (black, low-emission, cleaner-burning) was used to power that turbine, the other three turbines got the low-quality / high-emissions brown coal. Either way, studies like TFA rely on the accuracy of the data that different nation states collect and publish, and I seriously doubt the accuracy of much of those data.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ip26 5y ago
Slightly adjacent, but this is one of the reasons I'm looking forward to GHGSat & MethaneSat.
elevaet 5y ago
> It's likely true, but quite probably even worse. "Worse" is kind of better, because big improvements can be made by focusing on these big polluters.
- pmichaud 5y ago
  Assuming the big polluters are real instead of being the most honest. If they are just more honest instead of being more polluting, worse is worse.
  - ulrikrasmussen 5y ago
    Very good point. This should be relatively easy (compared to the general problem of climate change) to find out though, by picking a random subset of them and thoroughly measuring their outputs. If the findings here are true, it sounds like it's one of the cheapest ways to cut a big chunk of our emissions. All nations should have an interest in funding the rapid construction of alternatives to these power plants.
  - MichaelZuo 5y ago
    Yes, this is the very tricky aspect of regulating pollution. There’s so much room for dishonesty in reporting due to the complexity of the processes, that without thorough investigation a simple plan may end up causing the opposite effect.
- lostlogin 5y ago
  If the pollution was never happening, it would seem hard to fix. For example, plants ‘cleanly’ burning coal seem better. Are they actually?
RandomWorker 5y ago
If it’s on a country basis they probably just tabulate the energy carriers(brown coal/coal/gas/wood/etc.) times the carbon factor, not on individual coal plant reporting.
caf 5y ago
That story doesn't really check out. Brown coal and black coal come from different coal fields, and those power stations in NSW are powered by nearby coal fields. Brown coal in particular is so energy-poor it's not really worth transporting it anywhere. Brown coal needs a different furnace design, too, to account for the high moisture content. Seems more likely that there's some random efficiency differences between the units due to differences in build/maintenance history and the monitoring is done on the unit that's known to be the best-performing one, and that's been exaggerated as it goes through the rumour mill.
- Jedd 5y ago
  Yup, see my reply to the sibling comment made at about the same time as yours. I've mucked up with the brown coal assumption (mining and power generation are not my thing) but I don't doubt the accuracy of the report from my engineer friend that the highest quality coal they shipped in went into the one burner that was carefully monitored, and the cheapest / lowest quality material went into the others.
  - caf 5y ago
    For some context for those reading along, here's Liddell Power Station: https://goo.gl/maps/tNMeDzyrgwtFsiE67 https://goo.gl/maps/tNMeDzyrgwtFsiE67 You can see the enormous pile of washed and graded coal at the southern end, fed by a network of conveyors that leads to the Ravensworth CHPP to the southeast.
throwawaylinux 5y ago
I'm sure things are gamed, at least within what the letter of what regulations allow if not further. But NSW does not mine brown coal or have brown coal power plants, and buying brown coal from other mines would obviously attract attention. But the design differences between brown and black coal plants at all stages from fuel processing, injection, burning, and waste extraction are so different between brown and black fuel that you couldn't just flip between them even if you had the fuel on hand. So I doubt the accuracy of this rumor too.
- Jedd 5y ago
  Hmm, you're right. This was a comment made to me about a decade or so ago, when this person was at, or had just left, Liddell power station. It was definitely gamed in the way I described - the best coal went into the one burner that was actually monitored - and I'm guessing I since assumed that to mean brown went into the other three. Referring to http://www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/576543/Quality-of-coal-deposits.pdf http://www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_f... - it looks like NSW has a range of coal qualities being mined, and I'm sure even slight deltas in price, at the quantities we'd be looking at for a power station that size, would reward this behaviour.
- grecy 5y ago
  As an Australian that has just returned after 15 years away, it baffles me there are Australians who will iterate the differences between "Extraordinarily mind-bendingly bad" and regular old "horribly bad" like it makes a difference. "Clean Coal" is actually a joke and I'm genuinely shocked people fell for it. Murdoch has A LOT of control here.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    > As an Australian that has just returned after 15 years away, it baffles me there are Australians who will iterate the differences between "Extraordinarily mind-bendingly bad" and regular old "horribly bad" like it makes a difference. I don't know what you're getting at or how it relates to what I wrote. Black coal generation is about twice as good as brown coal for emissions intensity of production of electricity and gas is about twice as good as black coal. These differences and other differences in efficiency are extremely important if you're looking to minimize emissions, which is the subject of the article.
nwatson 5y ago
The "thejuicemedia" channel has a great series of "Honest Government" ads on Australian coal and energy policy ... expect a stream of expletives. Sample ad:https://youtu.be/OL8a1YEhk_o https://youtu.be/OL8a1YEhk_o They have plenty of "ads" treating other topics as well.

by Jedd 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ip26 5y ago

Slightly adjacent, but this is one of the reasons I'm looking forward to GHGSat & MethaneSat.

elevaet 5y ago

> It's likely true, but quite probably even worse. "Worse" is kind of better, because big improvements can be made by focusing on these big polluters.

pmichaud 5y ago
Assuming the big polluters are real instead of being the most honest. If they are just more honest instead of being more polluting, worse is worse.
- ulrikrasmussen 5y ago
  Very good point. This should be relatively easy (compared to the general problem of climate change) to find out though, by picking a random subset of them and thoroughly measuring their outputs. If the findings here are true, it sounds like it's one of the cheapest ways to cut a big chunk of our emissions. All nations should have an interest in funding the rapid construction of alternatives to these power plants.
- MichaelZuo 5y ago
  Yes, this is the very tricky aspect of regulating pollution. There’s so much room for dishonesty in reporting due to the complexity of the processes, that without thorough investigation a simple plan may end up causing the opposite effect.
lostlogin 5y ago
If the pollution was never happening, it would seem hard to fix. For example, plants ‘cleanly’ burning coal seem better. Are they actually?

RandomWorker 5y ago

If it’s on a country basis they probably just tabulate the energy carriers(brown coal/coal/gas/wood/etc.) times the carbon factor, not on individual coal plant reporting.

caf 5y ago

That story doesn't really check out. Brown coal and black coal come from different coal fields, and those power stations in NSW are powered by nearby coal fields. Brown coal in particular is so energy-poor it's not really worth transporting it anywhere. Brown coal needs a different furnace design, too, to account for the high moisture content. Seems more likely that there's some random efficiency differences between the units due to differences in build/maintenance history and the monitoring is done on the unit that's known to be the best-performing one, and that's been exaggerated as it goes through the rumour mill.

Jedd 5y ago
Yup, see my reply to the sibling comment made at about the same time as yours. I've mucked up with the brown coal assumption (mining and power generation are not my thing) but I don't doubt the accuracy of the report from my engineer friend that the highest quality coal they shipped in went into the one burner that was carefully monitored, and the cheapest / lowest quality material went into the others.
- caf 5y ago
  For some context for those reading along, here's Liddell Power Station: https://goo.gl/maps/tNMeDzyrgwtFsiE67 https://goo.gl/maps/tNMeDzyrgwtFsiE67 You can see the enormous pile of washed and graded coal at the southern end, fed by a network of conveyors that leads to the Ravensworth CHPP to the southeast.

throwawaylinux 5y ago

I'm sure things are gamed, at least within what the letter of what regulations allow if not further. But NSW does not mine brown coal or have brown coal power plants, and buying brown coal from other mines would obviously attract attention. But the design differences between brown and black coal plants at all stages from fuel processing, injection, burning, and waste extraction are so different between brown and black fuel that you couldn't just flip between them even if you had the fuel on hand. So I doubt the accuracy of this rumor too.

Jedd 5y ago
Hmm, you're right. This was a comment made to me about a decade or so ago, when this person was at, or had just left, Liddell power station. It was definitely gamed in the way I described - the best coal went into the one burner that was actually monitored - and I'm guessing I since assumed that to mean brown went into the other three. Referring to http://www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/576543/Quality-of-coal-deposits.pdf http://www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_f... - it looks like NSW has a range of coal qualities being mined, and I'm sure even slight deltas in price, at the quantities we'd be looking at for a power station that size, would reward this behaviour.
grecy 5y ago
As an Australian that has just returned after 15 years away, it baffles me there are Australians who will iterate the differences between "Extraordinarily mind-bendingly bad" and regular old "horribly bad" like it makes a difference. "Clean Coal" is actually a joke and I'm genuinely shocked people fell for it. Murdoch has A LOT of control here.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > As an Australian that has just returned after 15 years away, it baffles me there are Australians who will iterate the differences between "Extraordinarily mind-bendingly bad" and regular old "horribly bad" like it makes a difference. I don't know what you're getting at or how it relates to what I wrote. Black coal generation is about twice as good as brown coal for emissions intensity of production of electricity and gas is about twice as good as black coal. These differences and other differences in efficiency are extremely important if you're looking to minimize emissions, which is the subject of the article.

nwatson 5y ago

The "thejuicemedia" channel has a great series of "Honest Government" ads on Australian coal and energy policy ... expect a stream of expletives. Sample ad:https://youtu.be/OL8a1YEhk_o https://youtu.be/OL8a1YEhk_o They have plenty of "ads" treating other topics as well.