Green Groups Thwarting Geothermal Solutions to Energy Problems

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

HaHaHa! Nuclear has been around for 70 years and has done only one thing, increase in price.  I have nothing against nuclear except its increasing costs. We don't need the hydrogen if we have the nuclear plants to make it.

Obviously it's gone up in price. What makes you say with certainty that the reverse can't be true? Not sure what you mean when you say that we don't need the hydrogen.

Edited October 30, 2021 by KeyboardWarrior

[Jay McKinsey + 1,491]

1 minute ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Obviously it's gone up in price. What makes you say with certainty that the reverse can't be true? Not sure what you mean when you say that we don't need the hydrogen?

Any day now I am sure aliens are going to land and tell us how to make nuclear reactors that decrease in cost as they scale. That is effectively what you are saying. Solar wind and batteries are technologies that have a long proven record of decreasing costs, even if they have the occasional speed bump, that is how exponential cost curves work.

We will just use the electricity from the nuclear plant and not deal with the extra costs of dealing with hydrogen. Regardless, if it is economically viable to make hydrogen by new build nuclear then bring it on. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,491]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

These numbers are already out of date with the current surge of input costs.

You're still running late, Jay.

Yep, those natural gas costs need to be dramatically increased.

[turbguy + 1,555]

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Obviously it's gone up in price. What makes you say with certainty that the reverse can't be true? Not sure what you mean when you say that we don't need the hydrogen.

The "reverse" is highly unlikely.  Have you noticed the cost of concrete, steel, copper, and manpower recently? 

For electric generation, lets just throw away 70% (+/-) of the energy released.

 

Edited October 30, 2021 by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Any day now I am sure aliens are going to land and tell us how to make nuclear reactors that decrease in cost as they scale. That is effectively what you are saying. Solar wind and batteries are technologies that have a long proven record of decreasing costs, even if they have the occasional speed bump, that is how exponential cost curves work.

We will just use the electricity from the nuclear plant and not deal with the extra costs of dealing with hydrogen. Regardless, if it is economically viable to make hydrogen by new build nuclear then bring it on. 

The days of price declines for solar are gone for good, days of doom are now beginning. Batteries are running up against cost barriers, also. What we are seeing is a return to coal to meet the current crisis and oil to back up the coal. 

That shows how horribly inept the Greens are at  planning a modern economy.

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yep, those natural gas costs need to be dramatically increased.

Those solar costs are on an exponential curve to the sky. That makes solar non-competitive in a modern economy.

[markslawson + 1,061]

On 10/28/2021 at 1:04 PM, ronwagn said:

https://freebeacon.com/policy/green-groups-thwarting-geothermal-solutions-to-energy-problems/

Green Groups Thwarting Geothermal Solutions to Energy Problems

Pro-geothermal bill would make it easier to generate affordable, renewable energy

Its extraordinary isn't it? One of the few sources of energy that are renewable and dispatchable (can be ramped up and down on demand), and doesn't require nearly the same sort of investment, time to build or have anything like the environmental impact of dams and the greens are doing their best to block it. Plenty of places such projects can be built that are not natural wonders/heritage sites.. But they still push dams on general principles (until specific sites are mentioned) but block geothermal. Talk about idiocy.  

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 minute ago, markslawson said:

Its extraordinary isn't it? One of the few sources of energy that are renewable and dispatchable (can be ramped up and down on demand), and doesn't require nearly the same sort of investment, time to build or have anything like the environmental impact of dams and the greens are doing their best to block it. Plenty of places such projects can be built that are not natural wonders/heritage sites.. But they still push dams on general principles (until specific sites are mentioned) but block geothermal. Talk about idiocy.  

I think that the low hanging fruit may be in simple heating projects that use the higher temperatures not far below our feet. No additional energy needed aside from pumping liquid in a closed circuit. 

https://www.epa.gov/rhc/geothermal-heating-and-cooling-technologies

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

The "reverse" is highly unlikely.  Have you noticed the cost of concrete, steel, copper, and manpower recently? 

For electric generation, lets just throw away 70% (+/-) of the energy released.

 

Why are you mentioning the thermal efficiency? Reactor outputs are rated in MWe, not MWth. If you're using HTGR, there's potential for only 50% waste heat. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Any day now I am sure aliens are going to land and tell us how to make nuclear reactors that decrease in cost as they scale. That is effectively what you are saying. Solar wind and batteries are technologies that have a long proven record of decreasing costs, even if they have the occasional speed bump, that is how exponential cost curves work.

We will just use the electricity from the nuclear plant and not deal with the extra costs of dealing with hydrogen. Regardless, if it is economically viable to make hydrogen by new build nuclear then bring it on. 

The limit of the cost function isn't zero at infinity. An exponential cost curve is just a mathematical model; subject to change by [insert factors]. Solar cost will not decline to infinitesimal values. 

So France is building a $13 billion Gen 3 reactor with a capacity of 1570 MWe. In France, the capacity factor for solar is around 15%, so a solar farm matching this output would cost $10.5 billion before batteries. Remember too, in 30 years the Gen III will still be running, and the farm will be scrapped before another $10.5 billion is spent. 

This is France's first Gen III, so obviously the next few aren't going to soar that high. They should have been around $4 billion, which would have totally killed the solar alternative in terms of cost. 

Edited October 31, 2021 by KeyboardWarrior

[turbguy + 1,555]

51 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Why are you mentioning the thermal efficiency? Reactor outputs are rated in MWe, not MWth. If you're using HTGR, there's potential for only 50% waste heat. 

Nuc Plants are commonly rated in MWe or MWth.

Generators are commonly rated in MVA.

Nuc Reactors are most commonly rated in MWth.

A HTGR would indeed have significant increased thermal efficiency.

There ain't many of them around, however.  Peach Bottom 1 comes to  mind (a prototype), then a few experimentals and a couple small commercials.  Most are still LW reactors.

Anything built that ain't a LW reactor (except for a handful of fast breeder/liquid sodium reactors) these days will be a prototype. 

A prototype of any kind carries with it increased risks, both financial and technical.

 

Edited October 31, 2021 by turbguy

[nsdp + 449]

On 10/29/2021 at 1:28 PM, KeyboardWarrior said:

With what working fluid? Water? Better use something else. 

What fluid you use doesn't matter.  200C water is the same as 200C diesel. Fluid doesn't matter how hot it is does.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,491]

3 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

The limit of the cost function isn't zero at infinity. An exponential cost curve is just a mathematical model; subject to change by [insert factors]. Solar cost will not decline to infinitesimal values. 

So France is building a $13 billion Gen 3 reactor with a capacity of 1570 MWe. In France, the capacity factor for solar is around 15%, so a solar farm matching this output would cost $10.5 billion before batteries. Remember too, in 30 years the Gen III will still be running, and the farm will be scrapped before another $10.5 billion is spent. 

This is France's first Gen III, so obviously the next few aren't going to soar that high. They should have been around $4 billion, which would have totally killed the solar alternative in terms of cost. 

The limit of the cost function is  asymptotic and we have a long way to go. We have barely even begun bringing perovskites to market.

Should have been but wasn't 4 billion and that would have knocked out solar? You sure believe in a lot of pixie dust. People made up a number to get funded and you act like it has some basis in reality.  Framville is a bad joke, a decade late and $10 billlion over budget. At least you seem to understand that the subsequent plants are going to be disasters as well. 

If only they would spend that money on solar in N. Africa and HVDC undersea connections they would be way ahead. 

[turbguy + 1,555]

I guess we will have to wait until the geothermal industry gets big enough to buy their OWN congressmen...

Wind and Solar will probably get there first.

Edited October 31, 2021 by turbguy

[Jay McKinsey + 1,491]

For those of you saying greenies are totally against geothermal I will point out one of those dastardly facts. Almost 5% of California's electricity comes from geothermal. 

Edited October 31, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

13 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

For those of you saying greenies are totally against geothermal I will point out one of those dastardly facts. Almost 5% of California's electricity comes from geothermal. 

And over 60% unaccounted for...now, what could those unmentioned 60%+ sources be? I wonder.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

18 hours ago, nsdp said:

What fluid you use doesn't matter.  200C water is the same as 200C diesel. Fluid doesn't matter how hot it is does.

Yes it does. Are you familiar with the equations of state? Specific heat capacities of different fluids? All of these can affect Brayton efficiency. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

18 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The limit of the cost function is  asymptotic and we have a long way to go. We have barely even begun bringing perovskites to market.

Should have been but wasn't 4 billion and that would have knocked out solar? You sure believe in a lot of pixie dust. People made up a number to get funded and you act like it has some basis in reality.  Framville is a bad joke, a decade late and $10 billlion over budget. At least you seem to understand that the subsequent plants are going to be disasters as well. 

If only they would spend that money on solar in N. Africa and HVDC undersea connections they would be way ahead. 

Pixie dust huh? You can clearly see that despite its massive overbudget, it's on par with a solar installation and takes up 1/4 of the land required. What exactly is it that you're not seeing? 

I told you it's the first Gen III, and it's not nearly as overbudget as it should have been. 

Edited October 31, 2021 by KeyboardWarrior

[Jay McKinsey + 1,491]

2 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Pixie dust huh? You can clearly see that despite its massive overbudget, it's on par with a solar installation and takes up 1/4 of the land required. What exactly is it that you're not seeing? 

I told you it's the first Gen III, and it's not nearly as overbudget as it should have been. 

Update on the cost overrun. It is now 16 billion.

Construction on a new reactor, Flamanville 3, began on 4 December 2007.^[4] The new unit is an Areva European Pressurized Reactor type and is planned to have a nameplate capacity of 1,650 MWe. EDF estimated the cost at €3.3 billion^[4] and stated it would start commercial operations in 2012, after construction lasting 54 months.^[5] The latest cost estimate (July 2020) is at €19.1 billion, with commissioning planned tentatively at the end of 2022.^[6][2]

In July 2020, the French Court of Audit finalised an eighteen-month in-depth analysis of the project, concluding that the total estimated cost reaches up to €19.1 billion. The severe delays incurred additional financing costs, as well as added taxes and levies. In a response, EDF did not dispute the findings of the court.^[6] In the same month, France's energy minister Barbara Pompili noted the high costs and delays, calling the project "a mess".^[30]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant}

According to the French Court of Audit (Cour des Comptes), the estimated construction cost of EDF’s 1.650 EPR nuclear project in Flamanville might rise to €19.1bn (+€6.7bn, including €4.2bn in financial costs) due to additional costs. Consequently, the production cost of the electricity generated by the EPR could reach between €110/MWh and €120/MWh.

https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/flamanville-3-nuclear-projects-cost-may-rise-eu67bn-france.html

Solar cost in France is half as much:

Ground-mounted PV costs are estimated at 55 euros/MWh according to French energy regulator CRE and the government predicts costs could fall to 40 euros/MWh by 2028, reducing the need for subsidies.

A huge 1 GW solar project recently announced by Neoen and French utility Engie highlights the growing confidence in the renewable PPA market.

Located in the Gironde region in south-west France, the Horizeo project includes energy storage and green hydrogen facilities and the power would be sold through long-term PPAs, avoiding the need for subsidies. 

Private offtakers are currently looking to secure contracts below 47 euros/MWh, Decaen said. https://www.reutersevents.com/renewables/solar-pv/zero-subsidy-solar-poised-fill-frances-capacity-shortfall

 

^{Storage cost is included in the Gironde 47MWh price . The extra land is included in the solar cost as is depreciation. Replace the plant in twenty years and the MWh cost will go down. You really don't seem to understand how cost works.}

Edited October 31, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Replace the plant in twenty years and the MWh cost will go down.

No, you're reinvesting the same capital to produce power for another 20 years. Meanwhile, the nuclear plant operates for 60 with one initial investment. The plant could cost $30 billion and it would still be superior to the solar installation. 

It's easy to prove that whoever claims over $100 per MWh is full of shit, because if you DO the math using a $20 billion dollar plant with 60 years of generation, you're going to get $23 per MWh. Let's round that up to $50, why not? Accounting for refueling, lowered capacity factor for shutdowns (also for refueling). Decommission is 10% of a plant's initial cost.

Why don't you tell me what the battery system costs, and we'll figure out the cost per MWh over its useful lifetime. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

@Jay McKinsey By the way, depreciation isn't factored into upfront cost. What exactly makes you think they factor that in? Depreciation is treated more like an operating expense. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

Looks like the North Anna station is licensed for another 20 years. Totaling 80 years. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

21 hours ago, turbguy said:

Nuc Plants are commonly rated in MWe or MWth.

Generators are commonly rated in MVA.

Nuc Reactors are most commonly rated in MWth.

A HTGR would indeed have significant increased thermal efficiency.

There ain't many of them around, however.  Peach Bottom 1 comes to  mind (a prototype), then a few experimentals and a couple small commercials.  Most are still LW reactors.

Anything built that ain't a LW reactor (except for a handful of fast breeder/liquid sodium reactors) these days will be a prototype. 

A prototype of any kind carries with it increased risks, both financial and technical.

 

Fair, but all of the ratings I've mentioned have been MWe. Presumably with efficiencies of 35%. Hydrogen production from the sulfur iodine cycle could be as high as 70%, which would make an excellent use for nuclear installations. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,491]

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

@Jay McKinsey By the way, depreciation isn't factored into upfront cost. What exactly makes you think they factor that in? Depreciation is treated more like an operating expense. 

Cost per MWh includes operating expense, depreciation, upfront costs and everything else. Cost per MWh is the only number that matters. Upfront costs are a subset. 

 

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

No, you're reinvesting the same capital to produce power for another 20 years. Meanwhile, the nuclear plant operates for 60 with one initial investment. The plant could cost $30 billion and it would still be superior to the solar installation. 

It's easy to prove that whoever claims over $100 per MWh is full of shit, because if you DO the math using a $20 billion dollar plant with 60 years of generation, you're going to get $23 per MWh. Let's round that up to $50, why not? Accounting for refueling, lowered capacity factor for shutdowns (also for refueling). Decommission is 10% of a plant's initial cost.

Why don't you tell me what the battery system costs, and we'll figure out the cost per MWh over its useful lifetime. 

No one wants to depreciate over 60 years. Solar gets to reinvest that 20 million three times and make it back with profit yet not raise the cost per MWh. Actually it goes down per MWh because the cost of solar and batteries decreases. It is nuclear that goes up.

If you read the quote from the article you would note that the $47 MWh cost from Gironde includes storage. That puts it still lower than your made up unrealistic nuclear cost number. Oh and the solar plant will be online in a few years, not over a decade from now.

 

Edited October 31, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

15 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

If you read the quote from the article you would note that the $47 MWh cost from Gironde includes storage. That puts it still lower than your made up unrealistic nuclear cost number. Oh and the solar plant will be online in a few years, not over a decade from now

Why don't I just say your figure is made up? There's no real evidence for that number. Just a bunch of "some jackass in office came up with this figure" subtext from what I'm seeing. I divided the cost of the plant by its lifetime power production at 95% capacity factor. 

How do you not understand that a one time investment of $20 vs three investments of $10 causes a difference in cost per MWh over time?