No. Why pay money, which is very limited, to relocate a perfectly functional plant. You pay millions only to start out where you are now at? Wait till it wears out and is decommissioned, then build in a new location.
What would make one ask a question like this? Do you have any idea what it would cost to relocate a plant like Drake? In our current times, economic situation, etc., how would that make any sense?
No way should they move it! It would cost more to move than you would believe. Instead they should look into the renewable rescourses and invest in those. How about a mini hydroelectric plant on Fountain Creek? Maybe several small plants, which would help control flooding, erosion control and also produce some electricity. Solar fields to the East and South and maybe even some windmills through some of the valleys.
Yeah, and it's not just steam I doubt moving it would make it any more efficient or less polluting. They might stop scrubbing efforts if you hide it.
What you see is entirely steam. Those are the cooling towers. Yes it pollutes, but contrary to popular belief, what you can actually see is 100% water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhaymaker
What would make one ask a question like this? Do you have any idea what it would cost to relocate a plant like Drake? In our current times, economic situation, etc., how would that make any sense?
This.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImJustAvg
No way should they move it! It would cost more to move than you would believe. Instead they should look into the renewable rescourses and invest in those. How about a mini hydroelectric plant on Fountain Creek? Maybe several small plants, which would help control flooding, erosion control and also produce some electricity. Solar fields to the East and South and maybe even some windmills through some of the valleys.
Renewable sources is a great idea once feasible, but for the Springs now, it just isn't. Fact is, the amount of energy you can get from one single coal plant can't be replaced by MANY water, wind, and solar plants. The technology just isn't there yet, and in the case of wind, probably will never be. It's just a physical limitation, wind doesn't carry much energy. Also hydroelectric plants can have serious impacts on the local wildlife. It's only really feasible in the case of already existing dams, as putting them elsewhere really only takes the environmental burden off the air pollution and puts it on habitat disruption and other factors. And those factors can be seen far down the river it's placed on, too. And really, it would be even more expensive to replace the coal with all those other plants than moving the current plant, which as already mentioned would be outrageously expensive given the current economic situation.
I have to disagree with you on the renewable resources. The US Air Force Academy has a solar field under construction right now that they hope will handle over 50% of their needs. And be a good teaching enviroonment for the cadets.
A buddy in Phoenix has been able to cut his heating and cooling costs by 78% by installing solar panels on his roof. Even on the hotest days when his air conditioner is really working out, his electric meter is going backwards.
Wind Energy is a proven technology! Drive across I-70 and see all the wind generators there. And that is on flat land. Most of the canyons in Colorado has a pretty constant wind in them that is higher than what it is out in Kansas.
Mini Hydro generators can be used without the massive dams. A creek as wide as Foutain creak could be narrowed into a culvert pipe with the hydrogenerator without major impact on wildlife; downstream impact or massive costs. This technology is used in many different countries, and although it would never replace an entire coal plant, it could be used to power some government buildings close to the creek for a low cost and quick payback.
The bottom line is the more renewable resources we can bring into the mix the better for the environment.
Wind energy is proven how? Yes it works....but the average coal plant in the US has an output of 667MW. The average wind turbine has an output of around 0.33MW. And they have to be pretty well separated to not interfere with each other. Meaning you need huge plots of land to generate the same amount of electricity. Nuclear power truly is the best possible way to produce power, but since people insist it is hugely dangerous, it can't get a hold. It's very clean, very efficient, and very safe, but because Soviets disregarded dozens of safety concerns and operating procedure at Chernobyl, they're deemed unsafe.
Wind is a viable alternative but not on the scale of a huge power plant, at least at this time. I am NOT saying that all of the coal and oil fired power plants can be replaced with anything short of a nuclear power plant. BUT as more and more green technology plants are developed it would take some of the strain off the current plants instead of them having to run at max capacity most of the time.
I am NOT advocating that we can get rid of the current power plants anytime in the foreseeable future, BUT efforts need to be made to look into the green technologies for mini and mid sized power plants to handle the surge requirements and necessary expansions as the energy requirements increase in our communities.
I doubt moving it would make it any more efficient or less polluting. They might stop scrubbing efforts if you hide it. 
Linear Mode
