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

[turbguy + 1,543]

1 hour ago, specinho said:

 

based on this summary taken from the link given ( https://netpower.com/technology/ )

not sure if it has been altered after reading our posts but...........

Judging from it, there might be a few problems with this design.

i) purify oxygen from the air. How, was not mentioned clearly.

ii) input CO2 into the combustor. CO2 reduces burning efficiency. Will this extinguish the burner unintentionally, somehow?

iii) water flow is not complete. If it acts as a coolant, after heated up, it does not show the water is returning or flowing somewhere but out of the chart.

iv) water separator. If this means condensation of waste vapor, CO2 might dissolve here. What is the efficiency of this flow?

v) the aim has not been to produce enough heat or steam to turn the turbine but gas CO2 to turn it??

 

 

1. Purify oxygen from the air. Mr. Eric mentioned this process is energy intensive and emits large amount of carbon. If net positive energy is not a prerequisite, would chemical reaction in the combustor, although consuming part of the energy, still stands in providing Oxygen without emitting carbon?

2. Helium as coolant...... Read it in Technoquest magazine about an interesting topic called superconductors, that liquid helium works at -250 'C....... Where is this pointer leading, Turb?

 

I have an interest in superconductors. May be this is where the answer for fast charging would be in the future. But, feeling something is amiss with the concept. Not able to pin point yet.... Anyone can enlighten me about how it works in laymen term? 

 

 

A main use of the CO2 "recycled" to the combustor is to limit turbine inlet temperature.  In effect, the excess gas (CO2) is a coolant.

Any "typical" Combustion Turbine uses air as the working fluid, which is about 70% nitrogen, which also won't "support" combustion.  Even then, only a fraction of the oxygen in air is used during combustion.  I can't remember the fraction, but it has been getting smaller with advances in metallurgy, cooling schemes, and thermal coatings, allowing more fuel flow to be burned, increasing turbine inlet temperature and thus cycle thermal efficiency.

If you want more output from a single-speed CT, you just keep adding more fuel flow (until something melts).

Using a working fluid of mainly CO2 (with a fraction of steam) has advantages.  For one, it's hard to get NOx emissions when there's no nitrogen!  It's a more dense fluid, as well.  Don't get me started on mercury turbines!

As for some oxygen-separating chemical reaction occurring in the combustor, how does one separate, and isolate, the oxygen from the nitrogen in a combustor?  Maxwell's Demons comes to mind...

As for the heat sink for this cycle "diagram", it has to be the "water extraction" device, where "hot air" is rejected.  BTW, it's gonna take a LOT of cool air or a WHOLE LOT of surface area, or both, to do that with ambient air! BTW, there will be a considerable temperature drop as gas expands through the turbine.

BTW, one line is missing from the chart.  See that arrow going from the turbine to a city?.  Add another arrow from that turbine to the "compressor pump".  That is where about 2/3rd's of the turbine power output is REALLY directed.  Suck, Squeeze, Burn, Blow!

The compressor pump might be more appropriately positioned AFTER the heat exchanger, not before, BTW.

AND, that natural gas and oxygen used better be REALLY clean! Else, tramp contaminants will build up in the working fluid.

As for helium gas working fluids/coolants, go here as an example.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_gas_reactor

Edited August 24, 2021 by turbguy

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

https://www.projecttundrand.com/

The Minnkota project I talked about above 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

5 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Doesn't contradict what I said - I never said it couldn't be done.  I said " I don't think they can do it in a way that helps the environment, or the well being of humans."  The existence of early stage permitting for a project to execute one of those ideas doesn't mean it's a good idea.     

In principal it should be far less environmental degradation than a water disposal well, of which there are tens of thousands in the US. To also fluid like water, the rock downhole may well equate to sand depending on permeability in the target zone. To a gas, it might as well be open space. Ideally, you'd use a depleted gas well since the downhole pressure is dramatically lower. 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

https://pulse.ghgsat.com/

It appears satellites are old new's..

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

2 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

https://pulse.ghgsat.com/

It appears satellites are old new's..

Indeed. The difference is that the next-gen systems will have pinpoint real-time accuracy and continuous coverage.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

14 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

In principal it should be far less environmental degradation than a water disposal well, of which there are tens of thousands in the US. To also fluid like water, the rock downhole may well equate to sand depending on permeability in the target zone. To a gas, it might as well be open space. Ideally, you'd use a depleted gas well since the downhole pressure is dramatically lower. 

The well isn't the problem with respect to the environmental costs or the energy costs.  Dealing with the pollutant stream at surface before you get it to the well is.  Projects like this one hand wave away the part where the effluent from the power plant gets treated and then injected but that's actually the hard part.  

[turbguy + 1,543]

16 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

https://www.projecttundrand.com/

The Minnkota project I talked about above 

I've been aware of that station and it's amine-absorbtion "muffler" for a couple years.

The issue that might be difficult for that station will be the derating the station net output will experience due to the process heat required to release the CO2 from the amine, and the additional house power required to operate the CO2 compressors.  I expect that could be an "eyebrow-raising" hit to net station heat rate.  I don't know the pressure required for successful continuous injection.

If they had a paying customer for the CO2, that would really help the balance sheet.  I believe there is an earlier, smaller project in Saskatchewan (Boundary Dam station?) that had effectively the same absorption tech for a significant emission reduction, and has a CO2 customer, but suffers considerable system tech-troubles, as well as about a 10-15% net output hit.  Ouch!   That's gotta be one helluva compressor!  Hopefully, they recover the heat of compression and use it back into the process.

When you consider that the vast heat energy from coal is from carbon combustion (with a little hydrogen as well, depends upon the coal), you are effectively transporting almost all the mass tonnage of coal, plus the oxygen added, out of the plant through a pipe rather than an atmospheric stack.

Operators like to avoid excess air in boilers, and minimize CO generation, so I gotta think, what's left over for the stack?  The nitrogen, I would guess...

These plants are beginning to appear more like refineries than power houses.

Edited August 25, 2021 by turbguy

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

6 hours ago, turbguy said:

I've been aware of that station and it's amine-absorbtion "muffler" for a couple years.

The issue that might be difficult for that station will be the derating the station net output will experience due to the process heat required to release the CO2 from the amine, and the additional house power required to operate the CO2 compressors.  I expect that could be an "eyebrow-raising" hit to net station heat rate.  I don't know the pressure required for successful continuous injection.

If they had a paying customer for the CO2, that would really help the balance sheet.  I believe there is an earlier, smaller project in Saskatchewan (Boundary Dam station?) that had effectively the same absorption tech for a significant emission reduction, and has a CO2 customer, but suffers considerable system tech-troubles, as well as about a 10-15% net output hit.  Ouch!   That's gotta be one helluva compressor!  Hopefully, they recover the heat of compression and use it back into the process.

When you consider that the vast heat energy from coal is from carbon combustion (with a little hydrogen as well, depends upon the coal), you are effectively transporting almost all the mass tonnage of coal, plus the oxygen added, out of the plant through a pipe rather than an atmospheric stack.

Operators like to avoid excess air in boilers, and minimize CO generation, so I gotta think, what's left over for the stack?  The nitrogen, I would guess...

These plants are beginning to appear more like refineries than power houses.

The 45Q money is impressive however. Figure a ton per megawatt produced. Their numbers as I recall were $200 million per year. 

[MikedeTigre 0]

The level of Lake Mead has not changed appreciably from April 2014 through April 2021.  At least based on the Bureau of Reclamation.  

[turbguy + 1,543]

21 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

The 45Q money is impressive however. Figure a ton per megawatt produced. Their numbers as I recall were $200 million per year. 

I did not run across the financials for Boundary Dam.  Where are they?

I thought they sold some CO2 and injected some.

I found it "interesting" they ducted the flue gas from the farthest (probably youngest) unit away from the "muffler" plant.

Edited August 25, 2021 by turbguy

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 minute ago, turbguy said:

I did not run across the financials for Boundary Dam.  Where are they?

I thought they sold some CO2 and injected some.

I was talking about the tundra project linked above. The only Boundary Dam I've heard of is on the border with Canada and Washington State, and oddly enough is an actual hydroelectric power plant. No CO2 

[turbguy + 1,543]

9 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

I was talking about the tundra project linked above. The only Boundary Dam I've heard of is on the border with Canada and Washington State, and oddly enough is an actual hydroelectric power plant. No CO2 

Ok, thanx!

Here's Boundary Dam Station:

https://www.saskpower.com/our-power-future/infrastructure-projects/carbon-capture-and-storage/boundary-dam-carbon-capture-project

Boundary Dam is somewhat operational. To be expected with a "first of" project.

The 45Q credits are "eyebrow-raising"!

That does have potential to be profitable if system capital financial/operating costs can be covered in a Canadian environment.

 

Edited August 25, 2021 by turbguy

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

29 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Ok, thanx!

Here's Boundary Dam Station:

https://www.saskpower.com/our-power-future/infrastructure-projects/carbon-capture-and-storage/boundary-dam-carbon-capture-project

Boundary Dam is somewhat operational. To be expected with a "first of" project.

The 45Q credits are "eyebrow-raising"!

That does have potential to be profitable if system capital financial/operating costs can be covered in a Canadian environment.

 

Watched the video for awhile before the "music" made me nauseous. 

45Q tax credits is American, I have no idea what Canada does there. 

[specinho + 467]

On 8/25/2021 at 3:50 AM, turbguy said:

A main use of the CO2 "recycled" to the combustor is to limit turbine inlet temperature.  In effect, the excess gas (CO2) is a coolant.

Any "typical" Combustion Turbine uses air as the working fluid, which is about 70% nitrogen, which also won't "support" combustion.  Even then, only a fraction of the oxygen in air is used during combustion.  I can't remember the fraction, but it has been getting smaller with advances in metallurgy, cooling schemes, and thermal coatings, allowing more fuel flow to be burned, increasing turbine inlet temperature and thus cycle thermal efficiency.

If you want more output from a single-speed CT, you just keep adding more fuel flow (until something melts).

Using a working fluid of mainly CO2 (with a fraction of steam) has advantages.  For one, it's hard to get NOx emissions when there's no nitrogen!  It's a more dense fluid, as well.  Don't get me started on mercury turbines!

As for some oxygen-separating chemical reaction occurring in the combustor, how does one separate, and isolate, the oxygen from the nitrogen in a combustor?  Maxwell's Demons comes to mind...

As for the heat sink for this cycle "diagram", it has to be the "water extraction" device, where "hot air" is rejected.  BTW, it's gonna take a LOT of cool air or a WHOLE LOT of surface area, or both, to do that with ambient air! BTW, there will be a considerable temperature drop as gas expands through the turbine.

BTW, one line is missing from the chart.  See that arrow going from the turbine to a city?.  Add another arrow from that turbine to the "compressor pump".  That is where about 2/3rd's of the turbine power output is REALLY directed.  Suck, Squeeze, Burn, Blow!

The compressor pump might be more appropriately positioned AFTER the heat exchanger, not before, BTW.

AND, that natural gas and oxygen used better be REALLY clean! Else, tramp contaminants will build up in the working fluid.

As for helium gas working fluids/coolants, go here as an example.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_gas_reactor

[specinho + 467]

On 8/25/2021 at 11:06 PM, turbguy said:

When you consider that the vast heat energy from coal is from carbon combustion (with a little hydrogen as well, depends upon the coal), you are effectively transporting almost all the mass tonnage of coal, plus the oxygen added, out of the plant through a pipe rather than an atmospheric stack.

Operators like to avoid excess air in boilers, and minimize CO generation, so I gotta think, what's left over for the stack?  The nitrogen, I would guess...

it has been a secret.........

in order to increase efficiency of coal, moisture ought to be removed....... and the size - pulverized (really?? )........... to turn yellow flame from coal into blue.........

[turbguy + 1,543]

8 hours ago, specinho said:

it has been a secret.........

in order to increase efficiency of coal, moisture ought to be removed....... and the size - pulverized (really?? )........... to turn yellow flame from coal into blue.........

 

What are you saying?

Dealing with very wet coal is a nightmare.  That is why dealing with coal "straight off the pile" is something operators need to keep aware of.  When it is frozen, it can be a REAL nighmare!

I had experience at a plant that built it's own coal slurry pipeline to a mine located over 90 miles away, in order to thwart increased rail shipping costs.  It "worked", but VERY poorly.  After the railroad backtracked, the plant manager took a 26# sledge to the drying plant control panels.

Drying coal to remove inherent moisture (the water embedded microscopically) takes energy that is not fully recovered upon combustion.

Properly maintained/operated coal pulverizers can easily reduce raw coal with inherent moisture to mostly "flour", with a nominal/small distribution of larger particles (whatever primary air flow can pick up as it flows through the pulverizer to the burners).  That said, unburned carbon in bottom ash and fly ash does occur infrequently, and can ruin the ash for potential recycling.  It is an indicator of improper pulverization and/or primary air flow.

Edited August 27, 2021 by turbguy

[nsdp + 449]

On 8/26/2021 at 2:11 PM, specinho said:

No but nitrogen certainly supports NOx.