Severe Drought in the West Will Greatly Reduce Electrical Production from Hydroelectric Turbines.

[turbguy + 1,544]

On 8/10/2021 at 2:52 PM, ronwagn said:

There is an very large amount of power used in producing the materials for a wind turbine, the fuel used to transport and erect them, to get rid of the old blades and other old equipment etc. Then there are the new power lines that are needed to reach the spots where they can catch the wind. Natural gas plants are built near the users and their power lines. Natural gas pipes are usually nearby already. 

Ahhh...

You should reflect on the same points for off-shore oil platforms...

AND the fact you don't need to burn anything during operation.

That said, additional transmission is required in many wind-farm instances.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

On 8/10/2021 at 9:52 PM, ronwagn said:

There is an very large amount of power used in producing the materials for a wind turbine, the fuel used to transport and erect them, to get rid of the old blades and other old equipment etc. Then there are the new power lines that are needed to reach the spots where they can catch the wind. Natural gas plants are built near the users and their power lines. Natural gas pipes are usually nearby already. 

Regarding the topic which is basically a water shortage to produce electricity, doesn't a gas plant use 600 gallons per MWh?

I don't understand why the Zero emission gas plants that use Co2 to drive the turbine which is then sequestered and sold on are not used widely. These give you water as a by-product not use it, which means they can be built anywhere and even assist with irrigating land for farming. I agree Ron that NG is a vital form of power and heating to help the world transition to less FF usage, and this type of power plant may be a far better way of using NG IMHO.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

On 8/12/2021 at 3:48 AM, Rob Plant said:

Why not build lots of these zero emission gas plants? Instead of using water like conventional plants these use zero water and actually produce water as a by-product.

Surely all the greenies in CA are happy with zero emissions and they help with water supply which could help irrigate farmland. Cheap to build as well.

https://netpower.com/technology/

This process doesn’t produce water - it consumes it.  All the water use for boiler feedstock and evaporation in cooling is where the water gets used up.  The amount produced by the gas combustion is to small to be worth measuring.  
 

It’s important to note also that this is also not a proposal for a power plant.  It’s a proposal for utilizing a type of fuel cycle.  In order to implement the proposed fuel cycle you first have to have pure oxygen.  

The production of pure oxygen is a very energy intensive process that emits large amounts of carbon.  Unless you happen to have a bunch of pure oxygen lying around there is nothing zero emission about this proposal. 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

1 hour ago, Eric Gagen said:

This process doesn’t produce water - it consumes it.  All the water use for boiler feedstock and evaporation in cooling is where the water gets used up.  The amount produced by the gas combustion is to small to be worth measuring.  
 

It’s important to note also that this is also not a proposal for a power plant.  It’s a proposal for utilizing a type of fuel cycle.  In order to implement the proposed fuel cycle you first have to have pure oxygen.  

The production of pure oxygen is a very energy intensive process that emits large amounts of carbon.  Unless you happen to have a bunch of pure oxygen lying around there is nothing zero emission about this proposal. 

I dont think you've read it properly Eric!

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

I dont think you've read it properly Eric!

I have.  What’s the part you think I missed?  The webpage leaves out a LOT of engineering details.  It handwaves away processes that take 10’s of thousands of tons of industrial equipment and natural gas (to get pure oxygen)

The whole process of generating power via gas turbines (CO2 or otherwise) which requires a large volume of plant cooling water is also given short shrift, and it’s the one that uses all the water. It only gets part of one infographic at the bottom of the page.  They only focus on the parts they want to while ignoring the rest 

Edited August 13, 2021 by Eric Gagen

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

On 8/11/2021 at 12:41 PM, ronwagn said:

I think that other states should be allowed to SELL their EXCESS WATER to California or other states if the public agrees to how the money is to be used. How does that sound?

As long as they can give a 10 year notice that those water rights will be rescinded so they can use their own water then yes. 

[turbguy + 1,544]

6 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

I have.  What’s the part you think I missed?  The webpage leaves out a LOT of engineering details.  It handwaves away processes that take 10’s of thousands of tons of industrial equipment and natural gas (to get pure oxygen)

The whole process of generating power via gas turbines (CO2 or otherwise) which requires a large volume of plant cooling water is also given short shrift, and it’s the one that uses all the water. It only gets part of one infographic at the bottom of the page.  They only focus on the parts they want to while ignoring the rest 

An open cycle/simple cycle CT can operate without consuming any water, at all.

It may (and most likely does) use a closed-cycle cooling loop,as your automobile does.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

48 minutes ago, turbguy said:

An open cycle/simple cycle CT can operate without consuming any water, at all.

It may (and most likely does) use a closed-cycle cooling loop,as your automobile does.

I looked it up - it’s at a plant not actually that far from my house.  I have driven by it.  There’s plenty of water.  Setting up a ‘zero water consumption’ process is pointless.  It’s not the combustion cycle that uses water.  It’s the steam turbines that are driven by the combustion process.  True, they could be made to recycle all the water but why bother?  That costs money and uses up a bunch of steel and labor to make reformers and what not.  Just let the water evaporate and get more.  It’s in a rainy coastal plain by a river and near the ocean.  There’s no shortage of water. 
 

It IS a zero carbon emissions process at least when it’s operating.  It’s currently turned off because it’s not profitable.  

Edited August 14, 2021 by Eric Gagen

[turbguy + 1,544]

3 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

I looked it up - it’s at a plant not actually that far from my house.  I have driven by it.  There’s plenty of water.  Setting up a ‘zero water consumption’ process is pointless.  It’s not the combustion cycle that uses water.  It’s the steam turbines that are driven by the combustion process.  True, they could be made to recycle all the water but why bother?  That costs money and uses up a bunch of steel and labor to make reformers and what not.  Just let the water evaporate and get more.  It’s in a rainy coastal plain by a river and near the ocean.  There’s no shortage of water. 
 

It IS a zero carbon emissions process at least when it’s operating.  It’s currently turned off because it’s not profitable.  

A CC (Combined Cycle) plant will use water to condense exhaust steam from the steam side (plus a little HRSG make-up).  An Open Cycle Gas Turbine does not have a HRSG (Heat Recovery Steam Generator), and therefore does not have a steam bottoming cycle, requiring zero water to operate (albeit, at very poor overall thermal efficiency).

There are several fossil-fired steam plants that use "air-cooled" condensers (one in Gillette, Wyoming, for sure).  They only need water for Boiler make-up (about 2-4% steam throttle flow). There could be some CC plants that use "air-cooled" condensers as well, I am not aware of them.  Air cooling doesn't work well in hot weather, and may require external water sprays to "assist" during those times.   Condenser back-pressure on those plants is typically elevated from water-cooled condensers, requiring "special considerations" for turbine last-stage buckets/blades, along with a non-trivial thermal efficiency hit as well.

I believe the solar plants that heat a fluid in a tower also have air-cooled condensers.

As an aside, recognize that plants using classic evaporation cooling towers require a cooling water make-up flow that is approximately equal to steam throttle flow.  Some make-up flow is required to keep the cooling water chemistry under control, else the service water continues to become more concentrated with "bad actors".
 

Edited August 14, 2021 by turbguy

[turbguy + 1,544]

On 8/11/2021 at 1:52 PM, ronwagn said:

If it doesn't melt in our sunlight it would have to be a chemcal reaction with the particular fabric used. There are many types of fabric available in fabric covered steel truss buildings that could also store unlimited amounts of coal out of the sun and rain. They are huge. 

 

I take it you have not seen a stacker/reclaimer in operation.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

On 8/14/2021 at 2:22 AM, Eric Gagen said:

It’s the steam turbines that are driven by the combustion process.

Its the Co2 that powers the turbines not steam

https://www.powermag.com/what-are-supercritical-co2-power-cycles/

Edited August 16, 2021 by Rob Plant

[nsdp + 449]

On 8/13/2021 at 2:48 AM, Rob Plant said:

Regarding the topic which is basically a water shortage to produce electricity, doesn't a gas plant use 600 gallons per MWh?

I don't understand why the Zero emission gas plants that use Co2 to drive the turbine which is then sequestered and sold on are not used widely. These give you water as a by-product not use it, which means they can be built anywhere and even assist with irrigating land for farming. I agree Ron that NG is a vital form of power and heating to help the world transition to less FF usage, and this type of power plant may be a far better way of using NG IMHO.

CO2 does not sequester easily. Amoco's Bravo Dome project leaks reinjected CO2 just like gas and oil wells leak NG and light NGL's a couple of % per year.  That is especially true through water bearing formations. 20 years as in the sprayberry and most of the original  injection has leaked past the well bores.

[turbguy + 1,544]

20 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Its the Co2 that powers the turbines not steam

https://www.powermag.com/what-are-supercritical-co2-power-cycles/

Gotta have a heat sink somewhere in the cycle.

Either water, air and/or the fuel. 

Edited August 17, 2021 by turbguy

[turbguy + 1,544]

20 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Its the Co2 that powers the turbines not steam

https://www.powermag.com/what-are-supercritical-co2-power-cycles/

Actually a combination of steam and CO2 (in the Allam cycle).

Mostly CO2, though.

Some CO2 will dissolve in the discharged water (easily removed).

Edited August 17, 2021 by turbguy

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

6 hours ago, nsdp said:

CO2 does not sequester easily. Amoco's Bravo Dome project leaks reinjected CO2 just like gas and oil wells leak NG and light NGL's a couple of % per year.  That is especially true through water bearing formations. 20 years as in the sprayberry and most of the original  injection has leaked past the well bores.

Yeah I'm not a big believer that carbon capture works for any length of time, maybe others no a lot more on this and can comment.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

10 hours ago, nsdp said:

CO2 does not sequester easily. Amoco's Bravo Dome project leaks reinjected CO2 just like gas and oil wells leak NG and light NGL's a couple of % per year.  That is especially true through water bearing formations. 20 years as in the sprayberry and most of the original  injection has leaked past the well bores.

CO2 leaks in the sprayberry in west texas?  That's news to me.  Having driven through and stopped in the area, I never noticed anything.  Do you have any data to back that up?  

Also 'oil and gas wells leak several % a year - several % a year of what, and by what process?  Again,  that's some interesting news if true.  Have any data? 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

4 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Yeah I'm not a big believer that carbon capture works for any length of time, maybe others no a lot more on this and can comment.

My opinion is that it can work,  but the cost is horrifically expensive - to such a degree that it will never be worth doing.  Preventing the emissions in the first place is dramatically cheaper and more efficient.  

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

2 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

My opinion is that it can work,  but the cost is horrifically expensive - to such a degree that it will never be worth doing.  Preventing the emissions in the first place is dramatically cheaper and more efficient.  

I agree

Do you think projects like these have much mileage by using existing oil + gas legacy infrastructure (to reduce costs) or do you still think the costs are prohibitive?

https://theacornproject.uk/

https://www.equinor.com/en/where-we-are/united-kingdom/110521-peterhead-CCS.html

I must admit I know very little about carbon capture and whether it can offer any real value. That being said there seems to be quite a lot of interest, investment and projects that seem to be going ahead.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

I agree

Do you think projects like these have much mileage by using existing oil + gas legacy infrastructure (to reduce costs) or do you still think the costs are prohibitive?

https://theacornproject.uk/

https://www.equinor.com/en/where-we-are/united-kingdom/110521-peterhead-CCS.html

I must admit I know very little about carbon capture and whether it can offer any real value. That being said there seems to be quite a lot of interest, investment and projects that seem to be going ahead.

Quite honestly, my assumption that it's not economical already assumes you are reusing existing oil and gas infrastructure.  In all reality though if it is attempted on a serious scale, it won't be the existing oil and gas infrastructure that gets used.  It will be the operational equipment and expertise to put new wells in places that are suitable for CO2 sequestration

In any case, it's not important.  The expensive part is capturing the CO2 stream where it is generated, and then transporting it to a well,  and then injecting it.  These parts of the process are frightfully difficult, to such a degree that they may actually consume more energy than using the fuel created in the first place.  

[nsdp + 449]

11 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

CO2 leaks in the sprayberry in west texas?  That's news to me.  Having driven through and stopped in the area, I never noticed anything.  Do you have any data to back that up?  

Also 'oil and gas wells leak several % a year - several % a year of what, and by what process?  Again,  that's some interesting news if true.  Have any data? 

 DOI/NASA overflights with the ER-2https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-biggest-methane-leak-in-america-is-in-new-mexico/#  "The high emissions were recorded in 2003, prior to the advent of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a technique used to extract oil and gas from shale reservoirs. But parts of the oil and gas system were leaking even before fracking, said Eric Kort, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan and lead author of the study." You  can find his papers at the U Mich .web site and in Geophysical Research Letters. Isotope profiles C13 and O18 over the Permian fingerprint Bravo Dome as  non local source. Alsohttps://www.hcn.org/issues/47.15/in-the-southwests-four-corners-methane-has-a-dark-side  I did the legal emissions report from 1981 to 1986 for Amoco Gas co who operated the gathering system,  Amoco Gas was glad to see the blame placed on Production Co and not the gathering system

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/aircraft/ER-2/index.html

I am recovering from eye surgery so I will give you a start and let you follow theleads

[nsdp + 449]

8 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Quite honestly, my assumption that it's not economical already assumes you are reusing existing oil and gas infrastructure.  In all reality though if it is attempted on a serious scale, it won't be the existing oil and gas infrastructure that gets used.  It will be the operational equipment and expertise to put new wells in places that are suitable for CO2 sequestration

In any case, it's not important.  The expensive part is capturing the CO2 stream where it is generated, and then transporting it to a well,  and then injecting CO2 it.  These parts of the process are frightfully difficult, to such a degree that they may actually consume more energy than using the fuel created in the first place.  

https://www.hcn.org/issues/47.15/in-the-southwests-four-corners-methane-has-a-dark-sideThe only CO2 floods that are  profitable use reservoir gas. Nitric  and Carbonic acid from the exhaust gas mixed is nasty   State of  Mississippi shut down CO2 capture at Kempner Power Plant.  https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/carbon-capture-suffers-a-huge-setback-as-kemper-plant-suspends-work

WaParish was put out of its misery after the Feb. freeze.

W.A. Parish Post Combustion CO ₂ Capture and Sequestration Project Final Public Design Report https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1344080

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 8/14/2021 at 12:00 AM, turbguy said:

 

I take it you have not seen a stacker/reclaimer in operation.

No, please enlighten me. Thanks 

I assume you are talking about stacking coal. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 8/14/2021 at 12:00 AM, turbguy said:

 

I take it you have not seen a stacker/reclaimer in operation.

You could use a metal roof if fabric couldn't take the heat. Such buildings are relatively inexpensive. I am sure the industry doesn't want any change though. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

15 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

My opinion is that it can work,  but the cost is horrifically expensive - to such a degree that it will never be worth doing.  Preventing the emissions in the first place is dramatically cheaper and more efficient.  

Only if you believe in the CO2 theory of Global Warming AKA Climate Change  OR Just Plain Weather. 

[turbguy + 1,544]

44 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

You could use a metal roof if fabric couldn't take the heat. Such buildings are relatively inexpensive. I am sure the industry doesn't want any change though. 

You can (and some do) put roof structures over coal piles.  It is RARE!  The stacker/reclaimers are tall, require significant investment, and the coal still combusts (via spontaneous combustion) anyhow.  It does help with controlling coal pile runnoff expenses. 

Typically the stacker/reclaimer runs on a central pivot with coal delivered via rail/rotary car dumper.