Texas Power Outage Danger Until June 18th. Texans told to conserve energy!

[Eric Gagen + 713]

2 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

This green crowd is well aware of the future ramifications of Greening up. It is my belief it has become a obsession,a way of life...perhaps a higher cause

 To make it worse government bodies are enabling this movement with obscene amounts of cash, the environmental community is crying havoc, planet earth is being destroyed. Meanwhile the technical side gets paid quite handsomely to pursue their passions, tinkering on steroids...and no one is going to is going to spoil their fun until there is some financial accountability.

Actually it is much like a hot rodder building a high performance engine, bolting on 1000 cfm carbs, over boring engines, large exhaust headers, huge overlapping cams and 18 million volt ignition systems. Once this tinkering is done and this Hodge Podge of parts runs in a engine they find out they have created a non functional mess, it seems this parts don't play well together.

First CA now TX, both state's a conglomeration of high priced expensive parts that do not work when called to race down the track.

But hey who cares, there is plenty of money here, and were having the time of our lives doing it. Being critical of this exercise is very similar to stating " Yes Honey You Do Look Fat In That Dress"

Just a opinion.

 

 

This is the part that you and @footeab@yahoo.com seem to be stumbling over.  You imagine that the changes taking place in the grid are a part of some foolish plan to burn money doing things that are unwise.  5 years ago, there was some merit to that argument, but the economics have changed.  What's happening now is that a bunch of 'hot rodders' are cobbling together a system that is cheaper than the old one and runs just as well. Is creating that new system a linear perfect process?  No, but the payoff is getting more and more obvious.

 When I can do a back of the envelope calculation and figure out that a basic home solar system with  battery storage will pay for itself in 10 years, and 15 years ago it would cost twice as much as it brought in over it's lifetime, that's a massive economic improvement.  Could you throw away all those improvements?  Sure you could, but why would you want to? And why would you want to force me to spend extra money to continue to buy overpriced electricity, when I can make my own for less?  

On the Texas front specifically,  what evidence, if any do you have indicating that some new types of changes in the electrical grid are causing problems?  The Winter blackout and the spring shortage warning were both caused by lack of power from natural gas combined with a lousy set of regulatory incentives clashing with a rising population.  These were/are old problems that finally came to the fore - not new ones caused by technological change.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

4 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

You are stuck on the least important of my 3 points - increasing capacity of electrical production. Even if you leave out coal, nuclear or natural gas power generation (not sure why you would leave out natural gas, since it's one of the fastest growing methods of electric power generation, but there you go) , this is still the fastest and easiest of the 3 problems to solve.  A supercritical natural gas plant or a wind farm, or a solar farm can go from planning to on production in 2 or 3 years of time.  Any problem that can be fixed by increasing supply of electricity is the simplest one, and can be fixed quickly. 

The real problems are figuring out how to utilize the emergent capability for flexible demand, and figuring out how to distribute power in a scenario with large numbers of widely distributed intermittent centers of supply and demand.  Getting the solutions to these problems wrong will be cripplingly expensive to rectify, and until they are, will cripple the growth of the entire economy while wasting considerable amounts of electric power generating capacity.  No sane method of adding volume of electric power capacity additions will solve these issues in a reasonable way - they have to be tackled directly and worked with.  

Even in a world where you can build unlimited coal, natural gas or nuclear 'baseload' power, it doesn't make sense to do so any longer in most places.  A mixture of better grid organization, and flexible demand when coupled with intermittent sources of supply provides reliable electricity at a lower cost in most places.  Outside of a few geographical niches, and a minimum backup level of supply you have to subsidize the sources of energy which you prefer to make them competitive.  A perfect example is my home state of Texas, where the construction of natural gas electric plants has nearly stopped (or maybe has stopped completely) because they aren't as profitable as wind farms, and now maybe solar too.  Natural gas isn't limited by law or NIMBYism or any other constraint in Texas - in fact it's promoted in general because it's a domestic resource with an abundant low cost of supply.  It just isn't good enough to make the cut on a level playing field any longer. 

When you have a stupendously cheap source of electric power like wind (and solar coming) that comes with a few challenges, you don't throw up your hands and abandon it to do something more expensive - you figure out how to make it work better in the most economical way.  This is basically the history of electrical power generation - how to match demand to supply without excessive waste.  It was a challenge for hydroelectric power, it was a challenge for coal plants, it was a challenge for nuclear plants, and it is a challenge for wind power.  Each one is resolved in different ways, at different times to create the best economic results.  

Again, the renewables are only competitive with the help of government subsidies and tax incentives, which comes out of the public purse (that's you and me, if we pay our taxes).

No need to reach into the public pocket to fund natural gas or coal, which are thriving in spite of tax disincentives and government sanctions and harassment. Natural gas and coal have broad shoulders, enough to carry other sectors on their backs.

Edited June 25, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Eric Gagen + 713]

40 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, the renewables are only competitive with the help of government subsidies and tax incentives, which comes out of the public purse (that's you and me, if we pay our taxes).

No need to reach into the public pocket to fund natural gas or coal, which are thriving in spite of tax disincentives and government sanctions and harassment. Natural gas and coal have broad shoulders, enough to carry other sectors on their backs.

That was true at one time, but it's not true any longer.  The wind power subsidy got rolled over in the general rush to throw money all over the place, but it's no longer necessary to stimulate wind energy: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/another-wind-ptc-extension-no-thanks-say-many-in-industry  

"Not everyone in the wind business may be ready to see the PTC disappear. But even the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the industry’s main trade group, has not said it will push for another extension. Instead, its priorities include what will likely be longer term campaigns around a national carbon price and a buildout of the country’s increasingly constrained grid infrastructure."

and

"

Finally, there’s the question of whether onshore wind even needs a federal subsidy any more. New wind farms are the cheapest form of generation across large regions of the country, with power-purchase agreements now routinely signed at prices far below the $24/megawatt-hour PTC.

Some argue that that when the PTC goes away, so too will the need for tax-equity finance, bringing cheaper capital into the market.

Dan Shreve, WoodMac's head of global wind energy research, believes the potential cons of a revised or expanded PTC outweigh the potential advantages.

Fighting for another extension would waste political capital the industry could more usefully spend on things like pro-transmission policies, Shreve said in a recent presentation.

“The fact of the matter is that the onshore wind market is mature, in terms of EPC practices, turbine supply, logistics,” Shreve said. “The cost position of wind has come down so much that the PTC is no longer needed.”

The subsidy was scheduled to expire for a considerable time before it got a last minute 1 year extension due to Covid (right at the end of Trump's term), and yet, new wind farm starts continued to be announced without the benefit of a subsidy.  That, combined with the other comments, suggests that while it's a nice 'perk' for the wind industry at this point in time, it's not necessary any longer.  

I won't get any tax credits or subsidies for setting up my house with a solar system (I don't think I will at least) but it still makes economic sense.  

Edited June 25, 2021 by Eric Gagen

[nsdp + 449]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, the renewables are only competitive with the help of government subsidies and tax incentives, which comes out of the public purse (that's you and me, if we pay our taxes).

No need to reach into the public pocket to fund natural gas or coal, which are thriving in spite of tax disincentives and government sanctions and harassment. Natural gas and coal have broad shoulders, enough to carry other sectors on their backs.

Obviously you are not knowledgeable concerning the US Tax Code  and do not know about  first year depreciation of intangible expenses that are capitalized and expensed over 30 years in other industries and the forever infamous depletion allowance. That is why extractive industries have a below 8% effective tax rate.  There are others as well.  those two far exceed anything the wind or solar industries receive. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/biden-proposes-eliminate-fossil-fuel-tax-breaks
ingorance here is astounding among the fossil fuel crowd.

[nsdp + 449]

21 hours ago, turbguy said:

Long range planning consists of educated guesses of load growth (by percentages), and allowance for planned generation outages (for maintenance) and estimated forced generation outages.

That said, there are industrial facilities that are contractually obligated to shed load during times of stress.

There are a few facilities that even must call the local utility for permission/scheduling before they even start a process (think, NASA wind tunnels and the like).

Have a look at last week's power generation mix, and just look at what generation is available for use off-peak.

Those coal plants would just LOVE to run flat out!

 

 

 

Yes the coal plants would love to run flat out and bankrupt their owners.   Witness all of the investor owned utilities in ERCOT(WAParish counts twice. Once for HL&P and once for what is now NRG) and First Energy and Exelon's power generation unit.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 6/24/2021 at 12:03 AM, turbguy said:

Did you need 500 KW for local loads??

Nearly. The farm was to be situated on an empty lot next to a dental clinic, owned and operated by my father. This building would have first priority. Nearby is a home building business where they truck the houses out when they're finished. Their power demand was sufficient to absorb the rest, but I couldn't sell power to them at a rate that would satisfy 5% returns on my end with avoided electricity cost on their end. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

2 hours ago, nsdp said:

There are others as well.  those two far exceed anything the wind or solar industries receive

Depreciating 80% in five years is quite the bonus. This comes AFTER the tax credit as well. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

7 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

 What's happening now is that a bunch of 'hot rodders' are cobbling together a system that is cheaper than the old one and runs just as well.

🤣🙄🤣

[nsdp + 449]

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Depreciating 80% in five years is quite the bonus. This comes AFTER the tax credit as well.ce. 

Does that match 100% in one year?   Beyond that  you don't know how depletion allowances work.   It effectively allows write off of the mineral body twice if you are clever.  I don't know very many dumb oil and gas accountants.  That is why all oil men including Republicans pray daily to St. LBJ patron of the depletion allowance.

Edited June 26, 2021 by nsdp
Line skipped

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

5 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

That was true at one time, but it's not true any longer.  The wind power subsidy got rolled over in the general rush to throw money all over the place, but it's no longer necessary to stimulate wind energy: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/another-wind-ptc-extension-no-thanks-say-many-in-industry  

"Not everyone in the wind business may be ready to see the PTC disappear. But even the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the industry’s main trade group, has not said it will push for another extension. Instead, its priorities include what will likely be longer term campaigns around a national carbon price and a buildout of the country’s increasingly constrained grid infrastructure."

and

"

Finally, there’s the question of whether onshore wind even needs a federal subsidy any more. New wind farms are the cheapest form of generation across large regions of the country, with power-purchase agreements now routinely signed at prices far below the $24/megawatt-hour PTC.

Some argue that that when the PTC goes away, so too will the need for tax-equity finance, bringing cheaper capital into the market.

Dan Shreve, WoodMac's head of global wind energy research, believes the potential cons of a revised or expanded PTC outweigh the potential advantages.

Fighting for another extension would waste political capital the industry could more usefully spend on things like pro-transmission policies, Shreve said in a recent presentation.

“The fact of the matter is that the onshore wind market is mature, in terms of EPC practices, turbine supply, logistics,” Shreve said. “The cost position of wind has come down so much that the PTC is no longer needed.”

The subsidy was scheduled to expire for a considerable time before it got a last minute 1 year extension due to Covid (right at the end of Trump's term), and yet, new wind farm starts continued to be announced without the benefit of a subsidy.  That, combined with the other comments, suggests that while it's a nice 'perk' for the wind industry at this point in time, it's not necessary any longer.  

I won't get any tax credits or subsidies for setting up my house with a solar system (I don't think I will at least) but it still makes economic sense.  

Check your own source here, it supports my statement about government intervention being necessary for renewables to thrive.

" Instead, its priorities include what will likely be longer term CAMPAIGNS around a national carbon price and a buildout of the country’s increasingly constrained grid infrastructure." There it is, discriminatory taxes on "carbon" levied by government, and government programs for a "buildout" of "grid infrastructure", pursued by a "campaign" directed at government involvement.....just what I pointed to above. You are making my points again.

These are all based on government intervention and government contracts.

 

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

3 hours ago, nsdp said:

Obviously you are not knowledgeable concerning the US Tax Code  and do not know about  first year depreciation of intangible expenses that are capitalized and expensed over 30 years in other industries and the forever infamous depletion allowance. That is why extractive industries have a below 8% effective tax rate.  There are others as well.  those two far exceed anything the wind or solar industries receive. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/biden-proposes-eliminate-fossil-fuel-tax-breaks
ingorance here is astounding among the fossil fuel crowd.

Do other industries "receive" the carbon tax? Do other industries get subsidies embedded in exclusive government contracts? 

There is no level playing field in the energy business.

The so-called "tax breaks" you refer to are discussed in the article which you have cited, as follows, showing that these "breaks" are of little or no importance,

"Overall, energy economists say eliminating the provisions will have a fairly minimal effect on overall U.S. oil and gas production. Gilbert Metcalf, a professor of economics at Tufts University, cited an analysis he conducted in 2016 that found removing the favorable tax treatments would reduce domestic oil production by 4%. “If environmental groups are saying this is going to be a nail in the coffin for fossil fuels that helps us de-carbonize the economy, that’s simply not the case,” said Metcalf, who served as deputy assistant secretary for environment and energy at the Treasury Department in 2011 and 2012. “On the other hand, if you hear the industry groups saying this will just absolutely decimate the industry, that’s also not the case.”Metcalf’s analysis also found removing these tax provisions would have only modest effects on gasoline, oil, and natural gas prices."

You should read the fine print in the articles you cite.

Edited June 26, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Eric Gagen + 713]

6 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Check your own source here, it supports my statement about government intervention being necessary for renewables to thrive.

" Instead, its priorities include what will likely be longer term CAMPAIGNS around a national carbon price and a buildout of the country’s increasingly constrained grid infrastructure." There it is, discriminatory taxes on "carbon" levied by government, and government programs for a "buildout" of "grid infrastructure", pursued by a "campaign" directed at government involvement.....just what I pointed to above. You are making my points again.

These are all based on government intervention and government contracts.

 

Sure, but remember the source  - the AWEA is a lobbying organization for the wind energy industry.  Among other objectives, they are literally paid to come up with ways to get money from the government via regulation, or tilt the playing field.  

When those are the explicit objectives of an organization, and their members and supporters no longer believe that a tax credit of 1.5 cents a kilowatt hour is worth trying to keep, you can trust that they really don't need it any longer.  

The fact that they want government advantages shouldn't be suprising - so does everyone else!  Note that one of their newer priorities is grid infrastructure - the very issue I cited as one of the more serious problems out there. 

P.S. I'm glad you read the article!  Part of the reason I didn't cite everything in it was to keep the post length down. It's always easier to have a discussion when everyone has read the same sources.  

[turbguy + 1,391]

17 hours ago, nsdp said:

Yes the coal plants would love to run flat out and bankrupt their owners.   Witness all of the investor owned utilities in ERCOT(WAParish counts twice. Once for HL&P and once for what is now NRG) and First Energy and Exelon's power generation unit.

Cycling an operating coal-fired plant is highly undesirable, and highly unprofitable.  You know that.

(Couple that with underutilized O&M staffing).

Run flat-out, overall costs/MWh are minimized.  You know that.

If they still cannot compete within the market, so be it.

If the market demand grows (EV's), then prices rise, and coal makes money!

Look at al the coal cycling going on in the charts!  They need to approach the straight-line nucs!

 

[turbguy + 1,391]

On 6/25/2021 at 11:38 AM, Eyes Wide Open said:

This green crowd is well aware of the future ramifications of Greening up. It is my belief it has become a obsession,a way of life...perhaps a higher cause

First CA now TX, both state's a conglomeration of high priced expensive parts that do not work when called to race down the track.

Just a opinion.

 

 

That "race down the track" during times of high demand has occurred since electric utilities came into being.

The issue is not just supply, recognize it's also uncontrolled demand.  Uncomfortably, that's you, me and a LOT of others...

The electric "grids"  are undergoing change.  They ALWAYS have.

This time, that change is a significant shift away from "burning stuff".

That's too bad for those involved or invested in that "stuff".

That said, the "stuff" will be in demand for quite some time.

Edited June 26, 2021 by turbguy

[Eric Gagen + 713]

38 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Cycling an operating coal-fired plant is highly undesirable, and highly unprofitable.  You know that.

(Couple that with underutilized O&M staffing).

Run flat-out, overall costs/MWh are minimized.  You know that.

If they still cannot compete within the market, so be it.

If the market demand grows (EV's), then prices rise, and coal makes money!

Look at al the coal cycling going on in the charts!  They need to approach the straight-line nucs!

 

Coal plants can cycle - they just have to do it in a controlled way - the general gentle ups and downs from day to day are perfectly maneagable.  What they can't do is pop production from say 250 MW to 750 MW in 5 minutes to make up for the 500 MW that was coming in from the 100 miles out of town and had a high capacity supply line go down in a tornado.

[turbguy + 1,391]

5 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

Coal plants can cycle - they just have to do it in a controlled way - the general gentle ups and downs from day to day are perfectly maneagable.  What they can't do is pop production from say 250 MW to 750 MW in 5 minutes to make up for the 500 MW that was coming in from the 100 miles out of town and had a high capacity supply line go down in a tornado.

A LOT of coal plants are currently cycling on and off, not just a gentle ramp-up, ramp down.  Even gentle ramps require cycling feedpumps, mills, fans, and other equipment on and off.

Their duty has changed considerably over the past 10 years.

Edited June 26, 2021 by turbguy

[-trance + 114]

Sounds like the coal plants need to invest in energy storage technology. LOL

[specinho + 439]

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

8 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Sure, but remember the source  - the AWEA is a lobbying organization for the wind energy industry.  Among other objectives, they are literally paid to come up with ways to get money from the government via regulation, or tilt the playing field.  

When those are the explicit objectives of an organization, and their members and supporters no longer believe that a tax credit of 1.5 cents a kilowatt hour is worth trying to keep, you can trust that they really don't need it any longer.  

The fact that they want government advantages shouldn't be suprising - so does everyone else!  Note that one of their newer priorities is grid infrastructure - the very issue I cited as one of the more serious problems out there. 

P.S. I'm glad you read the article!  Part of the reason I didn't cite everything in it was to keep the post length down. It's always easier to have a discussion when everyone has read the same sources.  

Yes, and I think that the wind industry emits a lot of wind. They will advocate for government support and tax DISincentives for the oil and gas industry, which is the main competitor. This all boils down to government picking and choosing which source of energy will be used, regardless of the most cost-efficient considerations or economic rationality.

Who will foot the bill? The good old American taxpayer, not just through income tax, but through usage taxes impacting on the poor. The same poor folks who voted in Biden & Co., and next election the masses will remember how they were betrayed by government.

Edited June 26, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

A LOT of coal plants are currently cycling on and off, not just a gentle ramp-up, ramp down.  Even gentle ramps require cycling feedpumps, mills, fans, and other equipment on and off.

Their duty has changed considerably over the past 10 years.

Agreed - that's terrible for them - i was just pointing out that a duty cycle that looked like the average for all coal plants isn't bad.  For individual plants the numbers are going to look a LOT worse.  

[Eric Gagen + 713]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Yes, and I think that the wind industry emits a lot of wind. They will advocate for government support and tax DISincentives for the oil and gas industry, which is the main competitor. This all boils down to government picking and choosing which source of energy will be used, regardless of the most cost-efficient considerations or economic rationality.

Who will foot the bill? The good old American taxpayer, not just through income tax, but through usage taxes impacting on the poor. The same poor folks who voted in Biden & Co., and next election the masses will remember how they were betrayed by government.

So we agree - industry associations lobby for their industries in ways that they think will benefit them.  So when the largest wind energy lobbying association says they don't need a tariff believe them - it would be like the API lobbying for an end to depletion allowances - if they say they don't need it,  you can bet your bottom dollar they really don't.  Each and every industry lobbying association will always try to support their industry and penalize other competitive ones.  It's literally their job.  A rep for the AWEA or the API or failed to do that would be out on the street in a heartbeat.  You can't take the existence of lobbyists with legislative objectives as proof of anything.  

[turbguy + 1,391]

2 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

What they can't do is pop production from say 250 MW to 750 MW in 5 minutes to make up for the 500 MW that was coming in from the 100 miles out of town and had a high capacity supply line go down in a tornado.

BTW, even heavy duty CT's cannot ramp that fast, unless they are already on line at low load.  And they typically ain't at low load as they suffer a terrible heat rate at that condition.

The only single generation sources that can pick up load that fast are:

• Aero-Direvitive CT's (think jet engines with a load wheel).
• Reciprocating engines (typically diesels).
• Hydro units.
• Batteries

Now ramping up a large herd of coal-fired resources that fast could be possible...

Edited June 26, 2021 by turbguy

[Eric Gagen + 713]

22 hours ago, turbguy said:

BTW, even heavy duty CT's cannot ramp that fast, unless they are already on line at low load.  And they typically ain't at low load as they suffer a terrible heat rate at that condition.

The only single generation sources that can pick up load that fast are:

• Aero-Direvitive CT's (think jet engines with a load wheel).
• Reciprocating engines (typically diesels).
• Hydro units.
• Batteries

Now ramping up a large herd of coal-fired resources that fast could be possible...

Jet engines are basically what natural gas peaking plants are - one of them which I went to (this was a long time ago) used a pair of modified DC-9 jet engines hooked to a genset run on natural gas instead of jet fuel.  

Real 'full scale' natural gas combined cycle gas turbines are a little more complex, but can still ramp up in 15 minutes  - I watched it happen at the cogeneration plant in where I went to college, when they needed a bunch of steam and electric power for the heating system when the buildings opened in the morning.  That was IIRC a 480 MW plant, and they took it from an overnight rating of ~ 120 MW or so to ~ 350 MW in about 10 minutes. 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Eric Gagen
kilowatt to megawatt error

[turbguy + 1,391]

2 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Jet engines are basically what natural gas peaking plants are - one of them which I went to (this was a long time ago) used a pair of modified DC-9 jet engines hooked to a genset run on natural gas instead of jet fuel.  

Real 'full scale' natural gas combined cycle gas turbines are a little more complex, but can still ramp up in 15 minutes  - I watched it happen at the cogeneration plant in where I went to college, when they needed a bunch of steam and electric power for the heating system when the buildings opened in the morning.  That was IIRC a 480 Kw plant, and they took it from an overnight rating of ~ 120 KW or so to ~ 350 KW in about 10 minutes. 

Those "jet engines" were aero-derivatives.  A Nat Gas peaking plant does include those, plus also heavy duty CT's.

A modern "Full Scale" CC Plant is AT LEAST 250MW.

That 480KW plant is a mere "peanut".

AND that small plant it was running and warm at the time of ramp-up.

A "real" CC plant takes about a half-hour or so to even warm up the steam lines once steam from the HRSG rises, and then more for the ST rotor and casing.  Only the CT can be started from cold "kinda quickly" (say 10-15 minutes from jacking gear to full speed, some load).

I would expect an aero-derivative to go from cold to full load in about 5 minutes, or even much less.   And to go from FSNL (full speed no load) to full load, less than 1 minute.

[nsdp + 449]

4 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Those "jet engines" were aero-derivatives.  A Nat Gas peaking plant does include those, plus also heavy duty CT's.

A modern "Full Scale" CC Plant is AT LEAST 250MW.

That 480KW plant is a mere "peanut".

AND that small plant it was running and warm at the time of ramp-up.hydrogen and oxygen

A "real" CC plant takes about a half-hour or so to even warm up the steam lines once steam from the HRSG rises, and then more for the ST rotor and casing.  Only the CT can be started from cold "kinda quickly" (say 10-15 minutes from jacking gear to full speed, some load).

I would expect an aero-derivative to go from cold to full load in about 5 minutes, or even much less.   And to go from FSNL (full speed no load) to full load, less than 1 minute.

Depending on the fuel it can be less than 1 minute for a stone cold aero.   Use hydrogen and oxygen(NASA 1962)  you can eliminate 11 out of 14 stages in the compressor(T-56) and for a T-56 (C-130 and P3) net output goes from 3.75mw(Rolls 501K) to 8.2MWH NASA 1962.  A reconfigured GE90X would be about 200mw but not need the exotic material since the water injection reduces operating temps. You need water injection and recycle low temp steam to keep from melting the burner can (flame temp is 3760K and is pure steam).   It also provides inertial mass and dynamic reactive power  from the generator almost immediately(instead of hours for coal) which reduces the risk of going into a blackout and blackstart.

Thanks to covid there are thousands of aero engines that will never fly again.   Refurbished they carry the same warranty as a brand new one at 20% of the cost.  Coupled with an electrolyser NASA showed you have instantaneous load matching. Do that with your coal burner.