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

[nsdp + 449]

23 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.

 

They only level the field for the fossil fuel tax breaks  given fossil fuels by St. LBJ.  Take fossil fuel's tax breaks away (GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION) and level the playing field.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

23 hours ago, nsdp said:

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.

The point is that 100% of renewable project costs are absorbed by tax incentives. 20% credit and 80% depreciation write offs. 

[edit] except for interest and opex

Edited June 27, 2021 by KeyboardWarrior

[turbguy + 1,391]

42 minutes ago, nsdp said:

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.

Yeah, aero-direvatives can be really fast, but hydrogen ain't exactly a profitable fuel source at present.

I doubt a turbine innet temp is 3760K is ever workable.  Flame temp, yes, increased mass flow with water injection, yes, (now you need REALLY CLEAN water)!  Can that water be recovered??

If the T2 is THAT high, I know of no material that will withstand those conditions for even a minute or two of operation. Coatings and cooling schemes are good, but not THAT good.  And I don't wanna think about the NOx (if you use air instead of O2).

If a steam plant is at FSNL. you have gobs of reactive support available.  The more load (real power) generated, the LESS reactive capability you have

Those retired jet engines are gonna need considerable mods to generate electricity.  It can be done, however.

Edited June 27, 2021 by turbguy

[turbguy + 1,391]

1 minute ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

The point is that 100% of renewable project costs are absorbed by tax incentives. 20% credit and 80% depreciation write offs. 

[edit] except for interest and opex

Don't you have to have income to take advantage of some of those incentives??

[nsdp + 449]

21 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Yeah, aero-direvatives can be really fast, but hydrogen ain't exactly a profitable fuel source at present.

I doubt a turbine innet temp is 3760K is ever workable.  Flame temp, yes, increased mass flow with water injection, yes, (now you need REALLY CLEAN water)!  Can that water be recovered??

If the T2 is THAT high, I know of no material that will withstand those conditions for even a minute or two of operation. Coatings and cooling schemes are good, but not THAT good.

If a steam plant is at FSNL. you have gobs of reactive support avallable.

Those retired jet engines are gonna need considerable mods to generate electricity.  It can be done, however.

You use water injection 3:1 to quench  the temp but you still get instantaneous supercritical steam.  This is work NASA did to build the J-2 second and third stage engines for the Saturn V.   Those had to burn for 56 seconds on the second stage and then stage 3 had to light and burn 1 min  and 6 seccodns  and then stage 3 had to relight and burn 45 seconds more for  Trans Lunar Injection (TLI).  Test stand times were twice that.  Werner an the Paperclip boys forgot more than we know today about combustion and they did it with slide rules , T-Squares and CRC's Rubber bible.

Schoenung_Keller_ASME2018-7183_DRAFT.pdf 

Jay retired as director of Sandia's Combustion Burn Lab.

Edited June 27, 2021 by nsdp
proper credit for Mr. Keller

[nsdp + 449]

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19890015076/downloads/19890015076.pdf 

If you need supplemental cooling you  do this.   It also helps cool the waste heat recovery  system.

this is just like the Swift Packing company motto. They use everything but the pig squeal.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

55 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Don't you have to have income to take advantage of some of those incentives??

Indeed. But you don't build these on a large scale unless you have the income do you? That was my mistake. I'm in college only earning about 20k a year on the side. I was able to get a large loan, but had no way to use the tax benefits.

Thus, when somebody says that without tax benefits these systems don't make sense, I can agree since that was the perspective of my venture. 

[turbguy + 1,391]

13 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Indeed. But you don't build these on a large scale unless you have the income do you? That was my mistake. I'm in college only earning about 20k a year on the side. I was able to get a large loan, but had no way to use the tax benefits.

Thus, when somebody says that without tax benefits these systems don't make sense, I can agree since that was the perspective of my venture. 

 

When somebody says that without tax benefits, these systems don't make sense...

Somebody else is building a lot of them.

It ain't going to cease.

Taxes are typically imposed to extract revenue from social or market activity that causes social DAMAGE.  Such as alcohol, transportation fuels, consumption of just about everything, and property value.

If an "activity' causes less damage, should it not be taxed at a reduction?

[turbguy + 1,391]

11 hours ago, nsdp said:

You use water injection 3:1 to quench  the temp but you still get instantaneous supercritical steam.  This is work NASA did to build the J-2 second and third stage engines for the Saturn V.   Those had to burn for 56 seconds on the second stage and then stage 3 had to light and burn 1 min  and 6 seccodns  and then stage 3 had to relight and burn 45 seconds more for  Trans Lunar Injection (TLI).  Test stand times were twice that.  Werner an the Paperclip boys forgot more than we know today about combustion and they did it with slide rules , T-Squares and CRC's Rubber bible.

Schoenung_Keller_ASME2018-7183_DRAFT.pdf  1.35 MB · 5 downloads

Jay retired as director of Sandia's Combustion Burn Lab.

Thanks for the link.  That's an exotic system if I've ever seen one!

Looks practical.  Actually, they should be able to eliminate the CT compressor altogether!

Interesting, they use renewable excess power to obtain the O2 and H2.

Still gonna need make-up water (deaireator pegging steam released to atmosphere, and steam seal exhausting on the ST).  And cooling water for the condenser (and lube oil/generator gas coolers).

Still rejects at least 50% of the energy to the environment, and needs close water chemistry control.  Pure water does not like to stay that way.

Don't forget about capacitor banks for VAR control.  They are really great (but not cheap).  Not as good as a voltage regulator on the excitation on a rotating machine, but they do work. 

Edited June 27, 2021 by turbguy

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

12 hours ago, nsdp said:

They only level the field for the fossil fuel tax breaks  given fossil fuels by St. LBJ.  Take fossil fuel's tax breaks away (GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION) and level the playing field.

To keep things fair, you'll happily get rid of your mortgage tax deduction too right? 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

17 hours 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.

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.

Sorry it was supposed to be 480 MW - not 480 KW - I'm excessively sloppy with my orders of magnitude here.  

[turbguy + 1,391]

1 hour ago, Eric Gagen said:

Sorry it was supposed to be 480 MW - not 480 KW - I'm excessively sloppy with my orders of magnitude here.  

A college with a 480 MW plant?

That's a LOT of money for a college.

No way could they "use" 480 MW.

Are you certain it wasn't just CHAP (Combined Heat and Power), instead of CC?

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

19 hours ago, turbguy said:

 

When somebody says that without tax benefits, these systems don't make sense...

Somebody else is building a lot of them.

It ain't going to cease.

Taxes are typically imposed to extract revenue from social or market activity that causes social DAMAGE.  Such as alcohol, transportation fuels, consumption of just about everything, and property value.

If an "activity' causes less damage, should it not be taxed at a reduction?

How do you measure the carbon footprint in a way which can be applied in different industries?

You need to look at total product inputs of harmful emissions, assuming that CO2 is a target.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

20 hours ago, nsdp said:

They only level the field for the fossil fuel tax breaks  given fossil fuels by St. LBJ.  Take fossil fuel's tax breaks away (GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION) and level the playing field.

The so-called tax breaks for the oil and gas industries do not make much difference to the larger picture.

"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."

[Boat + 1,315]

8 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

To keep things fair, you'll happily get rid of your mortgage tax deduction too right? 

Of course. That’s one of the reasons we’re 30 Trillion in debt. I have bought 4 homes and of course got back a few bucks but nothing compared to rich who benefit by the millions. With 1/2 the population making $30,000 or less per year who do you think those mortgage deductions were designed for. You need to get woke boy. 

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

3 hours ago, Boat said:

Of course. That’s one of the reasons we’re 30 Trillion in debt. I have bought 4 homes and of course got back a few bucks but nothing compared to rich who benefit by the millions. With 1/2 the population making $30,000 or less per year who do you think those mortgage deductions were designed for. You need to get woke boy. 

The proposed gasoline taxes will impact heavily on the American poor....the same poor folks who voted Biden & Co. into power. 

Political betrayal in spades.

[turbguy + 1,391]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

How do you measure the carbon footprint in a way which can be applied in different industries?

You need to look at total product inputs of harmful emissions, assuming that CO2 is a target.

Treat it like a VAT.  Each step in the process and delivery of the "product" tallies it up.

OR: Apply the tax to every entity's step involved in raw material extraction/processing/manufacture/distribution/delivery.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 6/23/2021 at 3:38 PM, turbguy said:

Sorry, you must not have caught my edit adding terminal voltage.

It is amazing, to me, how many terms are used to quantify electricity and the measurements of fuels of all kinds. It seems like a deliberate effort to obfuscate the differences between the true power per dollar or other monetary unit. Only someone who is quite knowledgable of all fuel and energy measurements can sort them out, and that with paying close attention to detail. 

[nsdp + 449]

23 hours ago, turbguy said:

Thanks for the link.  That's an exotic system if I've ever seen one!

Looks practical.  Actually, they should be able to eliminate the CT compressor altogether!

Interesting, they use renewable excess power to obtain the O2 and H2.

Still gonna need make-up water (deaireator pegging steam released to atmosphere, and steam seal exhausting on the ST).  And cooling water for the condenser (and lube oil/generator gas coolers).

Still rejects at least 50% of the energy to the environment, and needs close water chemistry control.  Pure water does not like to stay that way.

Don't forget about capacitor banks for VAR control.  They are really great (but not cheap).  Not as good as a voltage regulator on the excitation on a rotating machine, but they do work. 

You forget that this uses the higher heating value of H2 with O2 not the lower heating value using atmospheric air. . That is an 8% efficiency gain since you have no inert gases to adsorb heat.  So with 40% efficiency for the turbine alone, http://intpower.com/engine-specifications/allison-501-kh/ current NG CCGT units add 21%. 8% gain substituting O2 for air(and NO ISO DERATE)  and then based on what the gulf cost utilities did in the  early 70's with using chlor alkali units  doing load following to improve heat rates you can add another 2.5%.  A PEM cell instead of alkali is between 3-3.5% improvement in total  efficiency. NETL at Morgantown did 72.9% with a PEM fuel cell and topping and bottoming cycles added to improve efficiency  in 1994-5. Publication 96FC5 if you can find it.   Cap banks are passive not dynamic reactive power source. No inertial mass.  As a dispatcher I still have to worry about grid inertial mass with the cap bank.

Edited June 28, 2021 by nsdp
can't spell

[turbguy + 1,391]

31 minutes ago, nsdp said:

You forget that this uses the higher heating value of H2 with O2 not theblower heating value using atmospheric air. . That is an 8% efficiency gain since you have no inert gases to adsorb heat.  So with 40% efficiency for the turbine alone, http://intpower.com/engine-specifications/allison-501-kh/ current NG CCGT units add 21%. 8% gain substituting O2 for air(and NO ISO DERATE)  and then based on what the gulf cost utilities did in the  early 70's with using chlor alkali units  doing load following to improve heat rates you can add another 2.5%.  A PEM cell instead of alkali is between 3-3.5% improvement in total  efficiency. NETL at Morgantown did 72.9% with a PEM fuel cell and topping and bottoming cycles added to improve efficiency  in 1994-5. Publication 96FC5 if you can find it.   Cap banks are passive not dynamic reactive power source. No inertial mass.  As a dispatcher I still have to worry about grid inertial mass with the cap bank.

I can't count the number of times I had to resolve generator high vibration issues by pounding generator capability curves into operator's (and even management's) heads.  Several sites would answer the dispatcher's call for "more voltage", and raise excitation outside of the curves, overheating the field.   There are limits to the dynamic response that caps can really help with.

At one site, they ignored the curves, and overexcited beyond the trip limit of a 650 MW unit.  While I was examining the data historian at that unit to find the cause of the trip, something still just didn't look right.  I started questioning what was going on with grid conditions. About 2 minutes later, a transmission line in Walton Hills, OH (30 miles away) sagged into ignored vegetation, which then cascaded into something I'm sure you might have heard about, on August 14, 2003.

The data historian screen when dark, so did the lights, and a lot of sh*t hit the fan.

I said to myself, "Hey, I'm in a Power House!  Without power!"  I heard other plant units coasting down.

Off I ran (yes, RAN) to see if all the battery-powered DC equipment on the other 4 units started.  It did.

Then it was off to see if any people were stuck in plant elevators

True, caps don't provide a lick of inertia.

Edited June 28, 2021 by turbguy

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 6/23/2021 at 5:08 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Only off by a factor of 1000...

But, battery required is actually far bigger. 

Need to only charge them to a maximum of about ~80% and only discharge them to around ~60% if you want your batteries to last a long time(10,000+ cycles).  Otherwise the $$$ proposition does not pencil out.  All early adopters have found this out the hard way over the last decade and are now replacing their batteries(ouch).  360 cycles/year ~10,000 cycles ~ 3 decades, or covers standard mortgage which banks giving out loans will start demanding as their asset they own must last. 

So, if overnight load is ~10kWh(AC, lights, TV, and assume have a giant hot water tank to heat during the day and run laundry during day and not at night--> so further expense etc), then your battery bank needs to be at minimum 50kWh, unless you have a large insulated cold water tank to store solar energy in the form of cold water.  Since I guarantee with 99% accuracy you don't, either you do not use AC and sweat, live where the temperatures are mild, or you are sucking off the grid and have a monthly power bill which frankly completely invalidates the whole purpose of having battery bank to begin with and actually costs you more money than you save. 

Lets take the Renogy 2kWh battery you linked for $1500(which is horrifically bad price by the way)... in reality that 2kWh battery is only good for ~400Wh of useable capacity unless you just love buying batteries on the regular.  Also banks won't lend you money on that stuff in the upcoming decades, it is only a matter of time till they start demanding Depth of Discharge statistics to loan money.

Assume you have a 10kWh load after sun goes down and before sun rises, then in reality you need 25 linked renogy batteries.. or $36,000+ shipping + tax ~$40,000 + inverter + solar panels + charge controller + permits + battery rack with insulation/heater + labor.... or in effect more cost than your cheap home in the USA for power requirements... Yes, very expensive housing you can do this, or people who are essentially camping can also do this(been there myself and I enjoy it though the wife, does not, kids do).  Average house?  Dream on.

PS: NO the Tesla Powerwalls will not last.  Their average DoD(depth of Discharge) is too damned big for the average house so their capacity will drop much faster than their cars who on average and only driven about ~50 miles a day and then plugged in at night.  And they are using NMC which is worse than LiPo4 for cycle life. 

EDIT: Here are several guys who have Tesla PW degradation issues just as I described: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/powerwall-2-available-energy-after-2-years.228580/

So how are the car batteries doing?

[nsdp + 449]

43 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

It is amazing, to me, how many terms are used to quantify electricity and the measurements of fuels of all kinds. It seems like a deliberate effort to obfuscate the differences between the true power per dollar or other monetary unit. Only someone who is quite knowledgable of all fuel and energy measurements can sort them out, and that with paying close attention to detail. 

No some are Imperial units (mcf, mmbtu), some are metric (gigajoule), some are instantaneous (kw) and s metric (megajoule), some are work done (kwh, mwh or gigajoule/hr or kCal/h)

Vickers Speck304032018.pdf

Edited June 28, 2021 by nsdp
spelling ignore ayyachment included by mistake

[nsdp + 449]

36 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

So how are the car batteries doing?

If you want an honest answer,   they have a lot of problems to solve. Chemistry , don't use cobalt like Boeing on the 787 or nickel (Arizona Public service and Korean utilities).  Use iron with lithium so it won't catch fire or various other chemical instability problems. Inverters from DC to AC have more problems for dispatchers than they solve.  That can be solved with a DC motor driving an AC generator but battery types don't think that way, it's not Kool.   Thermal issues when it is hot>35C or cold<0C, batteries tend not to work. Battery promoters live in Wolkenkuckucksheim (cloud cookoo land) to quote Schopenhauer and Hegel.

Edited June 28, 2021 by nsdp
fat fingers

[turbguy + 1,391]

14 minutes ago, nsdp said:

If you want an honest answer,   they have a lot of problems to solve. Chemistry , don't use cobalt like Boeing on the 787 or nickel (Arizona Public service and Korean utilities).  Use iron with lithium so it won't catch fire or various other chemical instability problems. Inverters from DC to AC have more problems for dispatchers than they solve.  That can be solved with a DC motor driving an AC generator but battery types don't think that way, it's not Kool.   Thermal issues when it is hot>35C or cold<0C, batteries tend not to work. Battery promoters live in Wolkenkuckucksheim (cloud cookoo land) to quote Schopenhauer and Hegel.

Power electronics "should" be able to emulate a rotating machine, almost precisely.

I guess "grid forming" inverters are more expensive?? 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 6/25/2021 at 4:52 PM, 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.  

 It makes economic sense for you because you will not be taken advantage of like many people over the last ten years. You are very well informed and, I assume, young enough to benefit from your proposed system. It would not be wise for older folks to make that investment looking forward IMHO. I would go for a natural gas generator for backup purposes, and possibly, propane tank backup for my heating needs.