A Breath of Fresh Air ?

Rivergoer

Well-Known Member
Seems logical visibility (haze) will improve, the bigger question will be what happens to the water rights?

 

bobco

Well-Known Member
I saw this AM that the Navajo Power Plant has burned it's last load and shutting down it's boilers.
Will this have an immediate effect on the air quality @ Powell ?
never saw a air quality problem at Powell, even if that coal belching beast was putting of a load of smoke it would be blown to the east of Powell. times are a changing , coal is dead.
 

Trix

Well-Known Member
It will be very interesting to track the haze issues in northern AZ. For decades environmental activists have attributed the periodic haze lingering in the Grand Canyon to NGS, regardless of wind direction. Nor have hundreds of millions of dollars in stack emissions controls improved the air quality, so the critics say. From my 38 years working in the electric utility industy I have, uh, some biases that tell me otherwise.
 

CHRIS MCBETH

Well-Known Member
I honestly don't think that plant affected air quality on Powell. I do believe it affected northern Arizona Navajo country pretty heavily though, and without spending time researching and providing references I recall there was some significant health issues that the Native American's held SRP accountable for in the form of hundreds of millions in reparations.

That said, the water-rights issue is an interesting one as I hadn't previously seen or heard any chatter about that. It would stand to reason that's why SRP and investors are willing to "walk away" from a multi-billion dollar plant... it's possible the water-rights are worth more.

I hope those rights are distributed fairly to private and public interests, and I REALLY hope they're not sequestered for that ill-fated pipeline to St. George.
 

Cliff

Well-Known Member
The general drift of "smoke" has always been NE Usually a light yellow in color. Very rarely coming over Page or the Grand Canyon. A couple days ago there was a much darker flow NE. Yesterday and today the flow has been ESE
One just has to look at the fire smoke coming from the fire to the west .
 
RE: water-rights issue is an interesting issue...

Every $ is a factor, but the bigger economic issue is energy costs. Coal plants are in danger everywhere because they struggle to compete with cheap natural gas. Natural gas driven generator fuel cost is significantly lower $/mmBTU. Natural Gas can be extracted and piped in from West Texas, the Four Corners area and western Colorado for far less than coal can be extracted and shipped from a coal mine, even one that is nearby.

There is a plant in Illinois that has a mine onsite and it is struggling to make enough revenue to pay for construction of the plant. I actually interviewed for a high level job there when the plant was under construction and they expect the plant to be a golden goose, but natural gas prices were 2x to 3x what they are today. Now, because they are competing with generators who pay very little for gas fuel, they have to sell power for not much more than it costs to produce.
 

bubba

Well-Known Member
Yesterday coming through the cut there was a frisky coyote and a sleepy coyote at the entry on the tip of the Wahweap side... the wind was zero and the center NGS stack had a light thin smoke trail. As the sun set I had no idea I was watching the final breath. It was a quite peaceful exit. At sunrise I did not even notice the stacks were silent. With that said, the fire burns to the west struggled to let clear air dominate, casting a common yellow haze.

Most of the employees left some time ago. Shutdown crew remain with growing reclaim transition team. New jobs in reclaim and renewables will exclipse those lost in mining with better pay, better health and better environmental benefits.

The shareholders, the world, and especially the old mining employees are in a better place.
 

John P Funk

Well-Known Member
New jobs in reclaim and renewables will exclipse those lost in mining with better pay, better health and better environmental benefits.
This message has been brought to you by Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, renewable energy welfare programs are just around the corner. We need to start thinking logically about our energy future rather than emotionally(Greta Thunberg). Nuclear power is the only thing that makes sense for the future as it's carbon neutral and inexpensive.
 

linnell

Well-Known Member
We got in on the "no money down" roof-top solar deal because it made economic sense and it works great unless the panels are covered in snow. Agree with nuclear power.
 

John P Funk

Well-Known Member
We got in on the "no money down" roof-top solar dea
I've installed a few grid-tie solar systems and my solar panel wholesaler had some financing options available for the end consumer. Could you offer some details on the terms of the "loan"? I had a hard time getting clients to bite on an investment with an ROI more than 10 years away(even with a 30% income tax credit/subsidy).
 

Cliff

Well-Known Member
I used the smoke stacks as an indicator of smooth or rough flying when arriving at the airport. Can see it from 30+ miles away and plan accordingly. Too bad its gone now for that use.
Nuclear is really the way to go except for the hysterical cacophony of noise over the storing of spent fuel. The radioactivity didn't just materialize, it was always part if the earth. Maybe someone can sometime figure out how to reprocess it into much lower radiation numbers and then store it. That technology is way beyond my elementary understanding of anything nuclear.
 

linnell

Well-Known Member
I've installed a few grid-tie solar systems and my solar panel wholesaler had some financing options available for the end consumer. Could you offer some details on the terms of the "loan"? I had a hard time getting clients to bite on an investment with an ROI more than 10 years away(even with a 30% income tax credit/subsidy).
!.99% for 12 years, the subsidy almost covered the down payment, everything considered our "electric" bill is less and we will own the panels with a 25 year warranty on the panels
 

GregC

Well-Known Member
This message has been brought to you by Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, renewable energy welfare programs are just around the corner. We need to start thinking logically about our energy future rather than emotionally(Greta Thunberg). Nuclear power is the only thing that makes sense for the future as it's carbon neutral and inexpensive.
John, I've noticed over the years that you and I agree on most things, but can't agree with nuclear. When the waste is only half as deadly after thousands of years longer than any civilization has lasted, I'm against it. ( I used to say it'd be ok if they bury it at YOUR house, but now I'm 10 miles north of Monticello and that makes you pretty close I think! :) ). There seem to be two perfectly viable options that no one is willing to consider.

[*]Hydro. Gravity is not in short supply. Every 100' of elevation makes about 45 lbs. of pressure. Probably a million places meet the criteria to generate at least a megawatt of power (lots of small plants make the system more redundant and bulletproof). Many more positives I won't list.
[*]Geothermal. I'm pretty sure the center of the earth will remain molten liquid for the foreseeable future. 1 cu. ft. of water will make about 17,000 cu. ft. of steam, more than enough to make electricity and the added benefit of left-over heat to use, plus you get the water back when it condenses. A few chemistry problems, ie: calcium scaling and etc. but not insurmountable.

The construction phase would be a "boom", but after that, low maintenance cost and small profit margins make investors nervous.

GregC
 
Last edited by a moderator:

John P Funk

Well-Known Member
GregC, I agree that nuclear waste is probably the biggest negative for nuclear power(most of the other negatives have been handled sufficiently in the past 40 years). Any solution to a problem has trade-offs. Hydro power is great, but extremely localized, and you need water/elevation(sorry Kansas). It's currently probably equally difficult to permit a new water impoundment as a nuclear power plant. Geothermal works well and is one of the few energy generation methods that has efficiencies over 100%(you get more energy out than you put in), but on a city sized scale I don't know that it works(maintenance costs/etc). In addition, geothermal works pretty well for heating/cooling, but I haven't heard it used very successfully for power generation. Any problem can be overcome, but the market should drive the changeover not government subsidies(income tax credits) or government punitive regulations. Solar has some benefit for the individual home, but for metropolitan areas that require power at night, solar just doesn't make sense.
 

Bill Sampson

Well-Known Member
Just quick comment regarding the above - early on they talked about replacing the generating station with solar panels. I was in the solar business for 7 years, so I have some knowledge of this. If solar were put on basically the same footprint as the generating station, during construction there could be 250 to 400 jobs for the build. After the project is finished it would require 2 people at the most to monitor it, so there is no equal job tradeoff. For solar to truly benefit Page, battery backup would be mandatory. Just as I retired I was quoting more battery backup projects all the time. Solar is a good source during the day, even if there are some clouds, but without battery backup, it is useless at night.
I agree that nuclear is a very efficient power source, but disposal of the nuclear fuel rods is virtually impossible. Just ask anyone affiliated with the nuclear plant at San Onofre in California. The rods are stored outside awaiting a final location for storage. The federal government spent millions building storage in Northern Nevada, just to find out it was too close to a water source. The money is alloted for storage, just not the location.
 

Pegasus

Well-Known Member
.......I was in the solar business for 7 years, so I have some knowledge of this. If solar were put on basically the same footprint as the generating station, during construction there could be 250 to 400 jobs for the build. After the project is finished it would require 2 people at the most to monitor it, so there is no equal job tradeoff. For solar to truly benefit Page, battery backup would be mandatory.
Bill or anyone else with large-scale solar experience, do you know why no one was interested in turning the NGS site into a solar field? It seemed like a "no-brainer" to me with the significant expense of constructing the power transmission lines already being in place and connected to the national grid (I've read some satisfactory sites can't be developed because of the cost of connecting to the grid). Possibly politics or other issues were present (i.e. water rights)? I'm genuinely curious why this was not a good site for a solar field and would love to be enlightened. Thx, Doug
 
Top