Green Groups Thwarting Geothermal Solutions to Energy Problems

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

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.}

Rosatom is shipping Gen III+ on time and on budget

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

16 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Rosatom is shipping Gen III+ on time and on budget

They said the same thing about RBMK. Is a thousand square mile exclusion zone included in the budget?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

2 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

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? 

You dividing the build cost by 60 years is quaint. But fine, your 50 euro MWh guess is still not less than solar plus storage. You didn't include a profit margin in that price guess did you?

Oh I understand it causes a difference. It just seems to be the opposite difference from what you think it is. As you said, it is the *same* $10 being reinvested three times versus a single use of $20. The multiple use of the same capital is a capital multiplier and far more efficient, thus lower cost. Plus the reinvestment allows new lower cost hardware to be used that increases the production per dollar which increases efficiency even more. This is all embodied in the MWh cost.

Oh, and a solar storage plant will be online in a few years, not a decade from now.

 

 

 

Edited November 1, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[turbguy + 1,537]

2 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

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. 

The exotic cycles, combined with hydrogen-producing chemical "refineries", are excellent proposals.

Any built will be prototypes.

Risks are way too high for the private sector.

You might as well put your money into coal.

(Or perhaps into Scotch Tape fusion).

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

10 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

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

It is public information that I have posted before. I recommend this great website called "google".

[nsdp + 449]

On 10/29/2021 at 6:17 PM, KeyboardWarrior said:

@Jay McKinsey Over 18 billion adjusted for (current) inflation. If the capacity factor for solar up there is 20%, then the solar farm would cost $26 B to match actual power output. 

Assumption of $0.80 per watt of solar. 

You haven't dealt with the two long term problems that  require a sinking fund four times the cost construction.  You have 24000 years of tons of radiaoactive material to maintian and SECURE. Second as your spent fuel continues neutron alpha and beta decay you still contibute to thermal decay causing global warming. 

[turbguy + 1,537]

3 hours 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. 

I have to say that the "60 year" lifetime (and related safety margins) you are using typically apply to the RPV only.  Once it becomes to embrittled by neutron bombardment (and hydrogen), heat-treatment to restore fast fracture toughness is an option, but this has never been performed to a RPV that has been in-service (that I know of).  Typically, coupons are placed within the RPV for periodic Charpy impact testing for in-service degradation of transition temperature.  The stainless weld cladding overlay within an RPV complicates in-service non-destructive examination for defects that could approach critical size for a pressurized thermal shock event that could rupture the vessel.  Then add in the corrosive effects of exposure of boric acid now and then...

Well before the end-of-life of an RPV, the plant will be replacing MAJOR capital-demanding turbine-generator and heat transfer (eg, steam generator, and main condenser tubing) components, amounting to more billions "invested" across the life of the RPV.  Stuff just wears out.

All of that also requires a large employee base for 24x7 management, operation, maintenance, and security, supported by a host of expensive contractors.  Most of which will change at least TWICE over a 60 year lifetime.

In the meantime back at the solar farm, aging solar panels will be disassembled, the plastic-silicon laminated wafers will be slipped out, replaced, and resealed, reusing the glass and frame, say about a dozen or two a week, with three-four folks working 40 hrs/week.  All while using no fuel, and no access to a heat sink.

The janitorial expenses for a nuclear plant alone will overwhelm the labor expense of a large solar array. 

[nsdp + 449]

DOE remains confident in the Blue Mountain geothermal plant in Nevada https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/doe-remains-confident-in-the-blue

Still margimaL REVENUE EXCEEDS MARGINAL COST. It operates because every mw generated reduces the loan loss and eliminated green house gases.

[nsdp + 449]

BLM geothermal lease sale in New Mexico, Nov. 18, 2021  https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/blm-geothermal-lease-sale-in-new-mexico-nov-18-2021/

Another chance for you to put your money where your mouth is and (go bankrupt)  Lightning Dock I has already gone bankrupt and DOE paid the loan guarantee. 

 

[turbguy + 1,537]

On 10/29/2021 at 5:03 PM, KeyboardWarrior said:

I'd like to have a small reactor if that were practical. I was just going to say that the Bruce Generating Station, in Canada, occupies 2200 acres. A solar farm matching its output of 6.2 GW (actual output, not installed capacity) would occupy more than 15,000 acres. 

EDIT: It's actually a lot more than that, but you can figure it out. 

Seems to me that the Canadian portion of Lake Ontario has a lot of underutilized area.

Lake Erie is even shallower.

[nsdp + 449]

15 minutes ago, turbguy said:

I have to say that the "60 year" lifetime (and related safety margins) you are using typically apply to the RPV only.  Once it becomes to embrittled by neutron bombardment (and hydrogen), heat-treatment to restore fast fracture toughness is an option, but this has never been performed to a RPV that has been in-service (that I know of).  Typically, coupons are placed within the RPV for periodic Charpy impact testing for in-service degradation of transition temperature.  The stainless weld cladding overlay within an RPV complicates in-service non-destructive examination for defects that could approach critical size for a pressurized thermal shock event that could rupture the vessel.  Then add in the corrosive effects of exposure of boric acid now and then...

Well before the end-of-life of an RPV, the plant will be replacing MAJOR capital-demanding turbine-generator and heat transfer (eg, steam generator, and main condenser tubing) components, amounting to more billions "invested" across the life of the RPV.  Stuff just wears out.

All of that also requires a large employee base for 24x7 management, operation, maintenance, and see back at the solar farm, aging solar panels will be disassembled, the plastic-silicon laminated wafers will be slipped out, replaced, and resealed, reusing the glass and frame, say about a dozen or two a week, with three-four folks working 40 hrs/week.  All while using no fuel, and no access to a heat sink.

The janitorial expenses for a nuclear plant alone will overwhelm the labor expense of a large solar array. 

 Post operation requires 25,000 years storage of spent radioactive materials.  You have to pay for that too.

[turbguy + 1,537]

10 minutes ago, nsdp said:

 Post operation requires 25,000 years storage of spent radioactive materials.  You have to pay for that too.

Yup, but that's relatively cheap.  Particularly if it's all stored underground, making it difficult to access.

Hey! Just put it under roads and parking lots to reduce snow removal expenses!

I tended to avoid spent fuel movement activities.  If one spent fuel assembly ever was mistakenly raised out of the water for a few seconds, and I was in the same room...I won't say more.

Edited November 1, 2021 by turbguy

[nsdp + 449]

32 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Yup, but that's relatively cheap.  Particularly if it's all stored underground, making it difficult to access.

Hey! Just put it under roads and parking lots to reduce snow removal expenses!

I tended to avoid spent fuel movement activities.  If one spent fuel assembly ever was mistakenly raised out of the water for a few seconds, and I was in the same room...I won't say more.

But it is a huge wad of cash up front since the security deposit only pays interest at US 30 year treasuries

[Ecocharger + 1,447]

6 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

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. 

 

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.

 

Solar and battery costs are now trending up. Sorry.

[Ecocharger + 1,447]

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

It is public information that I have posted before. I recommend this great website called "google".

Well, 84% of all energy we use is fossil fuels. The same percentage as 40 years ago.

Edited November 1, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

21 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Well, 84% of all energy we use is fossil fuels. The same percentage as 40 years ago.

Actually it is down to 79%. Please try and keep up.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

39 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Solar and battery costs are now trending up. Sorry.

Not as much as fossil fuels are going up.

Edited November 1, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

21 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Not as much as fossil fuels are going up.

Don't worry. Your precious heavy metals that are essential for solar and wind are right behind it. 

Also, your little pie chart is 🇺🇸-centric.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/06/20/bp-review-new-highs-in-global-energy-consumption-and-carbon-emissions-in-2019/

World is still using about 84% hydrocarbon energy. 

[Ecocharger + 1,447]

50 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Not as much as fossil fuels are going up.

Oil and gasoline prices going up does not change consumer demand for autos. But solar projects are classified as being cancelled or possibly cancelled due to the price rises in inputs.

[Ecocharger + 1,447]

52 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Not as much as fossil fuels are going up.

Your sources are not world, but U.S., Jay, you sure do get confused by numbers.

[Ecocharger + 1,447]

58 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Actually it is down to 79%. Please try and keep up.

This is NOT a world energy chart, sorry. World is 84%. That was also 84% in 1980, nothing changes.

 

"Cumulatively, fossil fuels — shown below in shades of gray — still accounted for 84% of the world’s primary energy consumption in 2019.

Edited November 1, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

11 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Oil and gasoline prices going up does not change consumer demand for autos. But solar projects are classified as being cancelled or possibly cancelled due to the price rises in inputs.

OIl and gasoline prices going up decreases demand for ICE cars and increases demand for EVs. I have demonstrated this to you, ICE car sales are down and EV sales are up.

[Richard D + 86]

On 10/29/2021 at 10:40 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

No, he better go after whatever idiot patent lawyer who took his money convincing him that BS he typed up as a patent is actually a patent.  Reminds me of the genius's who continually "invent" the stink free toilet and there are now ~ 50 patents spanning 100 years on something that is unpatentable... AKA put a fan on the toilet seat/bowl etc to suck the fumes directly from the bowl.  This genius "invented flight" and pretends this is a patent.

This idiot thinks that if you combine energy sources this is patentable... Or if you use a hydraulic sprint and a torsion spring this is somehow patentable.....

PS: Patent office doesn't bother rejecting patents unless piss poorly written usually and a waste of their time.  They just take the fee and rubber stamp nearly everything unless they think 1 patent should actually be several patents.  If overlap, they do not care; go to court.

Something that I have been fuming about for years. Exxon patented catalytic gasification of coal,way back. Along comes another upstart company,quite recently,and the US Patent Office allows them to patent the same thing. Is the US Patent Office staffed by morons who got a job because of 'equal opportunities'? I have a vested interest,because I have taken out two patents in the United Kingdom for the treatment of red mud waste from alumina production. The UK Patent Office rigorously searched past and present patents to make sure that mine covered new ground.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

10 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

They said the same thing about RBMK. Is a thousand square mile exclusion zone included in the budget?

RBMK had no containment structure at all. Gen III+ means rated safe against both Chernobyl and Fukushima scenarios. The "thousand mile exclusion zone" is Europe's largest nature preserve these days.

[Richard D + 86]

On 10/29/2021 at 7:49 PM, Andrei Moutchkine said:

No longer an issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Rankine_cycle

Has heavy, but volatile organic working fluid in a closed loop. Basically, a glorified fridge.

This stuff will make extra energy out of the cooling circuit of a larger diesel engine. Think about it - if your car were properly designed, it'd be more efficient to run with the aircon on!

A use of impure steam from geothermal could be to produce hydrochar from garbage. Few waste to energy plants work well and are very expensive. Plastic in garbage would mostly melt to globules which could be floated off from the hydrochar.