Apology Accepted!

[ronwagn + 6,290]

18 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

What you re thinking of as "bunker" is actually a refined fuel.  In the old days, bunker was broken into two types:  IFO 180 and HFO 380.   IFO for intermediate fuel oil, and HFO for Heavy fuel oil.  Now, those are products that are from the bottom of the refinery splitters, what is left over in still-liquid form when the middle distillates are taken out.  So in the "old days" thaat stuff was sold to the ship industry and burned off in those monster diesels that were specifically designed for that grade of fuel.  And it was very cheap - below 6 cents a gallon, at one point. 

Once the IMO demanded that all ships go to low-sulfur fuels on January 1, 2020, the ship industry largely demanded that the refining of the grades of bunker be carried out by the fuels suppliers, not done on board by aftermarket treatments to keep the sulfur out of the exhaust.  And the fuels industry has largely responded, so what you are seeing as quoted as "bunker" is the heavy stuff but with the material purified.  And that is why you are seeing those $400/tonne cost figures.   

Can you still buy the old crud?  Nope.  Off the market.  Now it is either marine diesel, or refined and treated bunker. 

On another note, the reason you do not see many ships powered by natural gas is that of energy density.  A big ship's diesel running on gas produces considerably less power than one on oil fuel, so the same engine gets less horsepower, and thus steams much slower.  It will also run colder, causing internal engine problems.  And you need to store all that gas, which is yet another problem.  It is not as easy as you might think; lots of technical issues. 

Jan, I think that some diesel is blended into the fuel mixture which helps the process but I would have to research that again. Even the long range trucks use some diesel, especially when going over the mountains I think. Possibly something to do with lubrication, would have to review the technology which is always changing a little. 

Some explanation in this short piece.

https://dieselnet.com/tech/engine_natural-gas.php

Edited July 2, 2020 by ronwagn
reference

[Yoshiro Kamamura + 274]

The simplest of us are once again the fastest to jump after the bacon. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

On 7/1/2020 at 1:17 AM, Wombat said:

Yeah, I already saw my own miscalculation. But I can see how the operators of the largest container ships might like the idea of "dual-fuel" given the ability to switch the mix depending on price. I guess the refinery waste is used to produce both bunker fuel and bitumen to make asphalt roads, but I do wonder the effects that electric vehicles would have on supply and demand. If there were less oil refineries in the future, I guess there would be less bunker fuel produced? On the other hand, a rapid decline in demand for bunker fuel due to more gas-powered ships may cause the price to decline? The ship operators would become "price-makers" as opposed to price takers? The other thing I like about Ron's suggestion is that dual-fuel ships should also be able to take 20% green H2. Flipside is that without all that SO2 in the atmosphere, the planet will warm even faster. There is always a trade-off.

The bunker fuel cost is a result of LTO that eliminate heavy residual oil output in refining. Orinoco heavy was also a source of bunker fuel. There is a shortage and it will likely get worse as LTO rebounds more quickly in production than heavier crudes. The lack of diesel output and residual fuel oil from LTO refining is part of the reason WTI sells at a 10% discount to Brent grades despite the lower sulfur.

The main issue with the SO2 particulates is that it is preventing sea evaporation and the heavier rains that would come with it, and bigger CO2 fertilizer effect than the already big one we have had so far. That CO2 sequestration in plants would join with the lower CO2 emission from LNG ships to have a significant net effect to lower greenhouse effect, if not temperatures. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

On 7/1/2020 at 11:16 AM, Rob Plant said:

OMG Jan what have you said??

Ron is gonna be soooo pissed at you!!

All good points though.

I do believe that generally 70% of ships power comes from their turbos so either make these more efficient or more plentiful and that may solve the power issue. The other points still stand though

 

From what I have read they simply run dual fuel and switch to oil  when they need the acceleration.

[Wombat + 1,028]

1 hour ago, 0R0 said:

The bunker fuel cost is a result of LTO that eliminate heavy residual oil output in refining. Orinoco heavy was also a source of bunker fuel. There is a shortage and it will likely get worse as LTO rebounds more quickly in production than heavier crudes. The lack of diesel output and residual fuel oil from LTO refining is part of the reason WTI sells at a 10% discount to Brent grades despite the lower sulfur.

The main issue with the SO2 particulates is that it is preventing sea evaporation and the heavier rains that would come with it, and bigger CO2 fertilizer effect than the already big one we have had so far. That CO2 sequestration in plants would join with the lower CO2 emission from LNG ships to have a significant net effect to lower greenhouse effect, if not temperatures. 

As I said, there is always a trade-off. Methane is on the verge of replacing CO2 as worst greenhouse gas and LNG ships would mean even more methane emissions from the oil & gas sector? I like the idea of green H2, but accept that LNG is the necessary bridge fuel.

[0R0 + 6,251]

On 7/2/2020 at 7:54 PM, Wombat said:

As I said, there is always a trade-off. Methane is on the verge of replacing CO2 as worst greenhouse gas and LNG ships would mean even more methane emissions from the oil & gas sector? I like the idea of green H2, but accept that LNG is the necessary bridge fuel.

Most of the methane  leakage comes from new wells not yet connected to pipes before they start flaring. They now use periodic inspection with detectors around them to make sure they don't have leaks, and fix those that do. Methane emissions from this source are dropping. LNG in transport is routinely flared when recompression and refrigeration are not available, but CNG in trucks and engine fuel use is tightly controlled. Not a major source.

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

On 7/1/2020 at 6:16 PM, ronwagn said:

Natural gas is the answer. It is less expensive and more abundant than any other energy source. It is very clean and quick to set up. It does not blight the landscape and create the toxic waste that solar does or the fiberglass that has to be buried. A lot of waste streams can be made into biogas creating a dual benefit of eliminating waste while creating green energy. 

Nuclear cannot compete on a cost benefit ratio over the lifespan especially since they are still leaving their antiquated plants standing and they are being subsidized by the end consumers who have to pay higher energy prices. Worst yet, they have not yet found a safe way to store their nuclear waste for thousands of years. Add to that, the American people do not want them anymore because they never delivered the cheap energy they promised back during President Eisenhower's terms.

Hydrogen is expensive to produce and difficult to transport. It has not proven itself in any substantial way.  

Dangers of Nuclear Plants and Radioactive Waste

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jp7yumkT6T1tEAdC4jb1K6LvO45rtoHwFbRcl08rrS4/edit

 

Well not really

-Nuclear power far from not being able to compete is the second cheapest energy source after hydropower, when done right, when there's "political commitment" to do things, and there's a fordist supply chain, (building your standardized reactors before constructing it) the cost can get really low, Remember that the biggest cost is always the capital costs, also old reactors can be just as if not more profitable because they have already paid off.

-In the USA the LCOE of state-of-the-art gas fired CCGTs is around 30-35U$D/KWe 

-The tri-unit Systems 80 palo Verde nuclear powerplant it costed 3000U$D/KWe and it generated electricity at 30U$D/KWe on peak and 20U$D/KWe off peak its estimated LCOE is 13U$D/MWh, its lifespan is 60 years.

-in Japan, Genkai 4&3, and Ohi 4&3 were built for 2500U$D/KWe, they were turnkey ford style projects made by mitsubishi, its lifespan is 60 years

-South korea nuclear electricity wholesale price is 28U$D/KWe, with their Systems 80 (OPR1000/APR1400) its lifespan is 60 years ,

-In Russia novovoronezh-2, with its two VVER-1200/TOI was built for 1850U$D/KWe, and Kursk-2 is being built for 1350U$D/KWe, 3.5 billion for the two VVER-1300/TOI, they generally sell electricity at around 20U$D/KWe

The lifespan of the VVER-1200 is around 80 years, while for the VVER-1300 it could be possible to go as far as 120 years.

fission products become less radioactive than natural uranium after 500 years, we have a lot of buildings that can last way longer than that, a 1.2GWe reactor will produce around 1300KG of fission products per year at full power, from which only 12% are useless and problematic, Sr-90, Cs-137, Cs-135, and Cs-134, those last two are pretty much non dangerous but they are hard to separate, The rest are really valuble,Technetium (great catalyst) Xenon, rare earths, and precious metals like Ruthenium, Rhodium, Palladium, Silver, are the ashes of Uranium-233, Uranium-235, Plutonium-239

It must be mentioned that natural gas contains Radon Gas which is billions of times more radioactive than Uranium-238, if CCGTs had to have the same standards of radiation as Nuclear reactors no a single gas fired plant would be operating today. 

that would be also good for natural gas to liquids, since with a lot of electricity you can more easily do the FT-Process or Syngas-To-Liquids+, which would give us better and higher quality fuels at lower prices and higher margins for companies since Gas is much cheaper per ton than Oil.

Edited July 19, 2020 by Sebastian Meana

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 6/30/2020 at 11:26 PM, Wombat said:

Just one problem Ron. Bunker fuel is dirt cheap. I am talking $2/barrel. Using NG would cause shipping cost to increase by a factor of 4 or 5. Nuclear powered ships would be better if there was a way to ensure that no nuclear materials got into the hands of terrorists. That is the kind of thing the UN should be able to regulate. After all, they already have weapons inspectors?

Nuclear is best, but gas has a cost advantage over bunker fuel in dollars per btu. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 7/2/2020 at 6:54 PM, Wombat said:

As I said, there is always a trade-off. Methane is on the verge of replacing CO2 as worst greenhouse gas and LNG ships would mean even more methane emissions from the oil & gas sector? I like the idea of green H2, but accept that LNG is the necessary bridge fuel.

Green H2 is sold at a massive opportunity cost if it’s generated from anything other than gas. 

You’re way better off selling the power. (I understand that it could be a way to use excess power, but there isn’t enough excess to meet hydrogen demand for the applications you’re interested in). The only way this changes is if gas goes to absurd highs, which would drive the cost of hydrogen up and thus make green H2 profits on par with power sale. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

19 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

Well not really

-Nuclear power far from not being able to compete is the second cheapest energy source after hydropower, when done right, when there's "political commitment" to do things, and there's a fordist supply chain, (building your standardized reactors before constructing it) the cost can get really low, Remember that the biggest cost is always the capital costs, also old reactors can be just as if not more profitable because they have already paid off.

-In the USA the LCOE of state-of-the-art gas fired CCGTs is around 30-35U$D/KWe 

-The tri-unit Systems 80 palo Verde nuclear powerplant it costed 3000U$D/KWe and it generated electricity at 30U$D/KWe on peak and 20U$D/KWe off peak its estimated LCOE is 13U$D/MWh, its lifespan is 60 years.

-in Japan, Genkai 4&3, and Ohi 4&3 were built for 2500U$D/KWe, they were turnkey ford style projects made by mitsubishi, its lifespan is 60 years

-South korea nuclear electricity wholesale price is 28U$D/KWe, with their Systems 80 (OPR1000/APR1400) its lifespan is 60 years ,

-In Russia novovoronezh-2, with its two VVER-1200/TOI was built for 1850U$D/KWe, and Kursk-2 is being built for 1350U$D/KWe, 3.5 billion for the two VVER-1300/TOI, they generally sell electricity at around 20U$D/KWe

The lifespan of the VVER-1200 is around 80 years, while for the VVER-1300 it could be possible to go as far as 120 years.

fission products become less radioactive than natural uranium after 500 years, we have a lot of buildings that can last way longer than that, a 1.2GWe reactor will produce around 1300KG of fission products per year at full power, from which only 12% are useless and problematic, Sr-90, Cs-137, Cs-135, and Cs-134, those last two are pretty much non dangerous but they are hard to separate, The rest are really valuble,Technetium (great catalyst) Xenon, rare earths, and precious metals like Ruthenium, Rhodium, Palladium, Silver, are the ashes of Uranium-233, Uranium-235, Plutonium-239

It must be mentioned that natural gas contains Radon Gas which is billions of times more radioactive than Uranium-238, if CCGTs had to have the same standards of radiation as Nuclear reactors no a single gas fired plant would be operating today. 

that would be also good for natural gas to liquids, since with a lot of electricity you can more easily do the FT-Process or Syngas-To-Liquids+, which would give us better and higher quality fuels at lower prices and higher margins for companies since Gas is much cheaper per ton than Oil.

There are many tricks to selling nuclear power. The main theme is that total costs are never considered. Dismantling the plants and safely storing the nuclear waste for thousands of years is the biggest issue. Cost overruns have cost the ratepayers and taxpayers billions of dollars in the U.S.A. alone. The San Onofre plant still overlooks the Pacific Ocean despite being closed for many years. California doesn't normally allow such things so I guess a lot of money changed hands. 

See Dangers of Nuclear Plants and Radioactive Waste. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jp7yumkT6T1tEAdC4jb1K6LvO45rtoHwFbRcl08rrS4/edit

San Onofre Nuclear Plant  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

11 hours ago, ronwagn said:

There are many tricks to selling nuclear power. The main theme is that total costs are never considered. Dismantling the plants and safely storing the nuclear waste for thousands of years is the biggest issue. Cost overruns have cost the ratepayers and taxpayers billions of dollars in the U.S.A. alone. The San Onofre plant still overlooks the Pacific Ocean despite being closed for many years. California doesn't normally allow such things so I guess a lot of money changed hands. 

See Dangers of Nuclear Plants and Radioactive Waste. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jp7yumkT6T1tEAdC4jb1K6LvO45rtoHwFbRcl08rrS4/edit

San Onofre Nuclear Plant  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station

I hope you like long replies because i'm bored and this will be one

The case of san onofre is really not so much a issue of the nuclear industry as a consequence of not having one, San Onofre did just buy steam generators from Mitsubishi, that didn't work, and Mitsubishi refused to pay back or make new ones, and since they are in another country they are not covered by the US legal system, they got scammed by people in other country, plus mitsubishi doesn't care that much about the US nuclear powerplants they are busy either rettrofitting the PWRs at japan and thinking how to replace all the reactors that will be decomissioned, specially now that Tepco is basically a state owned corporation.

in most nuclear LCOE they consider too the cost of mid-life refubishment, the cost of decomissioning, that still makes the capital cost over lifetime at least 55% of all costs, the second cost is the workers at the plant, and in third the fuel, without considering taxes.

There are many tricks, or i would say sacrifices, all energy produces some sort of waste and demands some kind of sacrifice of something in order to work, flooded areas for hydropower, earthquakes for geothermal, the ocassional oil spill or gas explosion for oil and gas, fly ash for coal and mine accidents, for nuclear is commitment political mainly.

as i said before nuclear waste is only a part of fission products which is a part of the total spent fuel, a 1300MW electric and 3400MW thermal reactor, or a efficiency slightly under 40%, running all year round at 100% will produce 1290KG of fission products per year, from which 24% is useless and waste (Cesium-134, Cesium-135, Cesium-137, Strontium-90) so in reality is 310KG for 1.4GWe/a, the really annoying ones are Cs-137 and Sr-90 with half life of 30 years, which means every 30 years 1kg of Sr-90 or Cs-137 basically dissapears and becomes either Zirconium-90 or Barium-137, after 300 years  from 1kg only 1grams remains, after 600 years only 1miligram remains, the nuclear waste issue is around the idea of considering Plutonium as waste and not as valuable fuel for fast reactors, altho you can use it in a normal reactor, but you will use 67% of it instead of 100% like in a fast one.

Supposing you separate all the Cesium and Strontium through the UNEX process, and then vitrify it in a alumino-silicate glass form in which you replace the Soda-Lime for Cesia-Strontia then 414 reactors, 128 SNUPPS units with 3400MWt, and 256 MCFRs with 2900MWt, would produce around 50 to 60 tons of cesium and strontium that is highly radioactive, supposing you vitrify it in aluminosilicate then all of that would fill around 12 Dry casks storage canisters per year, supposing you have a place in the ground that is 60 meters deep 450 meters long and 50 meters wide (each cask is 2.5 diameter x 5 tall) , and can hold 10000 casks (each it would take 750 years to fill it totally, time after which you can just take the Casks and put it back in the mine, at the end of that period the aluminosilicate glass becomes less radioactive than natural uranium that point. and after 60 years you would be producing no more Cs137 or Sr90 because it would start to decay faster than you can produce it.

The biggest issue is public support, and starting to do pyroprocessing, which is a potentially luccrative business if coupled with fast reactors, a nuclear pyroprocessing facility from the same commodity would get 3 revenue streams, money from dealing with spent fuel , money from selling new fuel to reactors (if possible Uranium-233 breeded from Thorium-232, since is the best Thermal spectrum fuel), and money from selling the valuable stuff in there.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 7/20/2020 at 8:55 AM, Sebastian Meana said:

I hope you like long replies because i'm bored and this will be one

The case of san onofre is really not so much a issue of the nuclear industry as a consequence of not having one, San Onofre did just buy steam generators from Mitsubishi, that didn't work, and Mitsubishi refused to pay back or make new ones, and since they are in another country they are not covered by the US legal system, they got scammed by people in other country, plus mitsubishi doesn't care that much about the US nuclear powerplants they are busy either rettrofitting the PWRs at japan and thinking how to replace all the reactors that will be decomissioned, specially now that Tepco is basically a state owned corporation.

in most nuclear LCOE they consider too the cost of mid-life refubishment, the cost of decomissioning, that still makes the capital cost over lifetime at least 55% of all costs, the second cost is the workers at the plant, and in third the fuel, without considering taxes.

There are many tricks, or i would say sacrifices, all energy produces some sort of waste and demands some kind of sacrifice of something in order to work, flooded areas for hydropower, earthquakes for geothermal, the ocassional oil spill or gas explosion for oil and gas, fly ash for coal and mine accidents, for nuclear is commitment political mainly.

as i said before nuclear waste is only a part of fission products which is a part of the total spent fuel, a 1300MW electric and 3400MW thermal reactor, or a efficiency slightly under 40%, running all year round at 100% will produce 1290KG of fission products per year, from which 24% is useless and waste (Cesium-134, Cesium-135, Cesium-137, Strontium-90) so in reality is 310KG for 1.4GWe/a, the really annoying ones are Cs-137 and Sr-90 with half life of 30 years, which means every 30 years 1kg of Sr-90 or Cs-137 basically dissapears and becomes either Zirconium-90 or Barium-137, after 300 years  from 1kg only 1grams remains, after 600 years only 1miligram remains, the nuclear waste issue is around the idea of considering Plutonium as waste and not as valuable fuel for fast reactors, altho you can use it in a normal reactor, but you will use 67% of it instead of 100% like in a fast one.

Supposing you separate all the Cesium and Strontium through the UNEX process, and then vitrify it in a alumino-silicate glass form in which you replace the Soda-Lime for Cesia-Strontia then 414 reactors, 128 SNUPPS units with 3400MWt, and 256 MCFRs with 2900MWt, would produce around 50 to 60 tons of cesium and strontium that is highly radioactive, supposing you vitrify it in aluminosilicate then all of that would fill around 12 Dry casks storage canisters per year, supposing you have a place in the ground that is 60 meters deep 450 meters long and 50 meters wide (each cask is 2.5 diameter x 5 tall) , and can hold 10000 casks (each it would take 750 years to fill it totally, time after which you can just take the Casks and put it back in the mine, at the end of that period the aluminosilicate glass becomes less radioactive than natural uranium that point. and after 60 years you would be producing no more Cs137 or Sr90 because it would start to decay faster than you can produce it.

The biggest issue is public support, and starting to do pyroprocessing, which is a potentially luccrative business if coupled with fast reactors, a nuclear pyroprocessing facility from the same commodity would get 3 revenue streams, money from dealing with spent fuel , money from selling new fuel to reactors (if possible Uranium-233 breeded from Thorium-232, since is the best Thermal spectrum fuel), and money from selling the valuable stuff in there.

It sounds like a plan but we have had plans upon plans and nothing happens with the radioactive waste or the nuclear plants. It all just sets there

. If the plant receives a renewal of life permit the customers pay for the maintenance and their power bills get higher for many years. This has happened in Illinois where I live, and in many areas. Our politicians receive a lot of support from the nuclear industry, so they give them extensions on the plants. The people pay the extra costs. Even when plants are not completed the customers bear the cost for many years. 

The potential for nuclear was good but it was not implemented as well as it needed to be. The people have seen and paid the bill. Free people do not want any more of it. Those in dictatorships have no choice and it will work there as long as it works for the leaders. 

My bias is for natural gas as piped, CNG, or LNG. I will switch to anything even cleaner if it comes really close to the same price. I know that wind and solar claim they are cheaper, but do not consider the total cost over the entire lifetime, the aesthetics, the redundancy needed to support it, etc. 

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

2 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

It sounds like a plan but we have had plans upon plans and nothing happens with the radioactive waste or the nuclear plants. It all just sets there

. If the plant receives a renewal of life permit the customers pay for the maintenance and their power bills get higher for many years. This has happened in Illinois where I live, and in many areas. Our politicians receive a lot of support from the nuclear industry, so they give them extensions on the plants. The people pay the extra costs. Even when plants are not completed the customers bear the cost for many years. 

The potential for nuclear was good but it was not implemented as well as it needed to be. The people have seen and paid the bill. Free people do not want any more of it. Those in dictatorships have no choice and it will work there as long as it works for the leaders. 

My bias is for natural gas as piped, CNG, or LNG. I will switch to anything even cleaner if it comes really close to the same price. I know that wind and solar claim they are cheaper, but do not consider the total cost over the entire lifetime, the aesthetics, the redundancy needed to support it, etc. 

Yes, thats true, customers pay for the life expension of a nuclear powerplant, that's simply economics, you renew your nuke instead of buying a new one and the customer pay for the costs the same way it would pay for the fuel of any power source. 

There are countries who are implementing nuclear power and have an idea of what they are having to do, more specifically Russia, China, maybe India, an japan who has to renew their fleet.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 minutes ago, Sebastian Meana said:

Yes, thats true, customers pay for the life expension of a nuclear powerplant, that's simply economics, you renew your nuke instead of buying a new one and the customer pay for the costs the same way it would pay for the fuel of any power source. 

There are countries who are implementing nuclear power and have an idea of what they are having to do, more specifically Russia, China, maybe India, an japan who has to renew their fleet.

It ends up that the economic idea is peddled to the people and then they are screwed financially in the latter years even more than in the first period of time. I am old enough to remember Eisenhower's talk about cheap nuclear energy. 

Do you really trust Russia, China, or India to dispose of their nuclear waste conscientiously? They have three of the worst records in the world for taking care of their own environment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoms_for_Peace

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

17 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

It ends up that the economic idea is peddled to the people and then they are screwed financially in the latter years even more than in the first period of time. I am old enough to remember Eisenhower's talk about cheap nuclear energy. 

Do you really trust Russia, China, or India to dispose of their nuclear waste conscientiously? They have three of the worst records in the world for taking care of their own environment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoms_for_Peace

The kinda are into it, is part of Rosatom strategy to solve the political issue of nuclear waste, they hope to do a proof-of-concept first of a kind lead cooled reactor integrated with pyroprocessing plant meanwhile they store vitrified fission products onder a roof

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/under-one-roof-russias-integrated-strategy-for-spent-fuel-management

Russia is a country that is obsessed to try to look better than anyone to cover things up or whathever.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

48 minutes ago, Sebastian Meana said:

The kinda are into it, is part of Rosatom strategy to solve the political issue of nuclear waste, they hope to do a proof-of-concept first of a kind lead cooled reactor integrated with pyroprocessing plant meanwhile they store vitrified fission products onder a roof

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/under-one-roof-russias-integrated-strategy-for-spent-fuel-management

Russia is a country that is obsessed to try to look better than anyone to cover things up or whathever.

I actually like the idea for using the waste. The world needs better ways to centralize and securely store nuclear waste. The middle of Siberia sounds good. Nevada sounded good too. Maybe the profit possibilities will get it going there. I doubt it though.