Cheaper prices due to renewables - forget it

[markslawson + 1,057]

This is from an article in the UK's Telegraph. Regrettably, the article is behind a paywall but excerpts are below - its a warning to Americans not to bother with wind, particularly offshore wind. Yes, power prices are up because gas is expensive but wind is contributing to the problem big time. Much the same problem is occurring in Germany which has spent billions of euros on wind - onshore and offshore - and on solar only for the war in the Ukraine to expose their still substantial dependence on gas and ineffectiveness of renewables. Now there is talk of German industry moving to the US. Time for the many tireless advocates and apologists to acknowledge reality. 

Telegraph article: The UK already has 15 GW of offshore wind, more than 300 times as much as the USA: and our experience should be a terrible warning to Americans.

The UK’s electricity prices are the highest since records began in 1920 and are now amongst the highest in all Europe. One reason for this is obvious: slightly less than half our electricity comes from gas-burning Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGTs) and gas now costs £90 per megawatt-hour (MWh), nearly five times higher than normal. CCGTs are cheap to build (around £650m per GW) and operate. In normal times they would generate electricity at a total cost of £40 per MWh. That’s now risen to nearly £150/MWh, thanks to Vladimir Putin and his impact on the gas market.

But that’s not the whole story. The other reason why British electricity is so expensive is because we have so much wind power: particularly, so much offshore wind power. Bad though the current situation is, we would be an even worse state if we had built even more offshore wind, as the British government plans to.

As an example, the offshore wind farms Hornsea Two and Moray East were completed in 2022 with capital costs of £2.77 billion per GW and £2.75bn/GW, more than four times the cost of CCGT capacity. They’re expensive to maintain, which is not surprising since offshore windfarms have all their many generators mounted at the top of 200-metre tall masts far away from land. Estimates of maintenance costs are as high as £200m per GW installed, per annum. The nominal cost of offshore wind generation is £170/MWh – noticeably higher than that for CCGTs, even in these dire times of high gas prices.

The other factor to bear in mind is that not only is wind capacity extremely expensive to build, wind farms do not deliver anything like their rated capacity over time. This is bad news for the customer, because the higher the capacity factor – that is, the higher the percentage of the rated capacity the powerplant actually delivers over time – the cheaper the energy. In 2022 the UK’s onshore and offshore windfarms operated with a capacity factor of 33 per cent. In 2021 it was only 29 per cent. 

It gets worse. Like most other renewable generation technologies, wind power is unpredictably intermittent and highly variable. Also, since wind turbines are not synchronously connected to the grid, they provide no “grid inertia” – more on that shortly. Wind turbines cannot be asked to deliver energy when it is required, and their output changes rapidly. These failings must be mitigated and costed, and users have to pay for these costs on top of the price of the electricity.

In 2021 the UK annual grid balancing costs reached £4.19 billion, £150 per household. For context, back in 1995 when we didn’t have much wind power the balancing cost for the grid was a mere £250 million per annum. A large, and growing, contribution to these costs is constraint management, as when a wind farm producing electricity which isn’t wanted – perhaps when it is windy in the middle of the night – is paid not to put that electricity into the grid.

 

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

On 6/13/2023 at 1:41 AM, markslawson said:

This is from an article in the UK's Telegraph. Regrettably, the article is behind a paywall but excerpts are below - its a warning to Americans not to bother with wind, particularly offshore wind. Yes, power prices are up because gas is expensive but wind is contributing to the problem big time. Much the same problem is occurring in Germany which has spent billions of euros on wind - onshore and offshore - and on solar only for the war in the Ukraine to expose their still substantial dependence on gas and ineffectiveness of renewables. Now there is talk of German industry moving to the US. Time for the many tireless advocates and apologists to acknowledge reality. 

Telegraph article: The UK already has 15 GW of offshore wind, more than 300 times as much as the USA: and our experience should be a terrible warning to Americans.

The UK’s electricity prices are the highest since records began in 1920 and are now amongst the highest in all Europe. One reason for this is obvious: slightly less than half our electricity comes from gas-burning Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGTs) and gas now costs £90 per megawatt-hour (MWh), nearly five times higher than normal. CCGTs are cheap to build (around £650m per GW) and operate. In normal times they would generate electricity at a total cost of £40 per MWh. That’s now risen to nearly £150/MWh, thanks to Vladimir Putin and his impact on the gas market.

But that’s not the whole story. The other reason why British electricity is so expensive is because we have so much wind power: particularly, so much offshore wind power. Bad though the current situation is, we would be an even worse state if we had built even more offshore wind, as the British government plans to.

As an example, the offshore wind farms Hornsea Two and Moray East were completed in 2022 with capital costs of £2.77 billion per GW and £2.75bn/GW, more than four times the cost of CCGT capacity. They’re expensive to maintain, which is not surprising since offshore windfarms have all their many generators mounted at the top of 200-metre tall masts far away from land. Estimates of maintenance costs are as high as £200m per GW installed, per annum. The nominal cost of offshore wind generation is £170/MWh – noticeably higher than that for CCGTs, even in these dire times of high gas prices.

The other factor to bear in mind is that not only is wind capacity extremely expensive to build, wind farms do not deliver anything like their rated capacity over time. This is bad news for the customer, because the higher the capacity factor – that is, the higher the percentage of the rated capacity the powerplant actually delivers over time – the cheaper the energy. In 2022 the UK’s onshore and offshore windfarms operated with a capacity factor of 33 per cent. In 2021 it was only 29 per cent. 

It gets worse. Like most other renewable generation technologies, wind power is unpredictably intermittent and highly variable. Also, since wind turbines are not synchronously connected to the grid, they provide no “grid inertia” – more on that shortly. Wind turbines cannot be asked to deliver energy when it is required, and their output changes rapidly. These failings must be mitigated and costed, and users have to pay for these costs on top of the price of the electricity.

In 2021 the UK annual grid balancing costs reached £4.19 billion, £150 per household. For context, back in 1995 when we didn’t have much wind power the balancing cost for the grid was a mere £250 million per annum. A large, and growing, contribution to these costs is constraint management, as when a wind farm producing electricity which isn’t wanted – perhaps when it is windy in the middle of the night – is paid not to put that electricity into the grid.

 

I tend to agree that CCGT's are the cheapest and best form of powergen out there. They are far less pollutive than coal and more efficient than most forms of powergen including renewables.

That said wind farms per GW are still 1/3 of the cost of new nuclear fission plants and we are still building those.

In fact we are still building new CCGT plants as well.

The UK isnt just about wind farms, I think that gets missed by a lot of people. The majority of powergen is from CCGT's (39.8% last year)

https://www.power-technology.com/marketdata/power-plant-profile-trafford-ccgt-power-plant-uk/

[notsonice + 1,243]

On 6/12/2023 at 6:41 PM, markslawson said:

This is from an article in the UK's Telegraph. Regrettably, the article is behind a paywall but excerpts are below - its a warning to Americans not to bother with wind, particularly offshore wind. Yes, power prices are up because gas is expensive but wind is contributing to the problem big time. Much the same problem is occurring in Germany which has spent billions of euros on wind - onshore and offshore - and on solar only for the war in the Ukraine to expose their still substantial dependence on gas and ineffectiveness of renewables. Now there is talk of German industry moving to the US. Time for the many tireless advocates and apologists to acknowledge reality. 

Telegraph article: The UK already has 15 GW of offshore wind, more than 300 times as much as the USA: and our experience should be a terrible warning to Americans.

The UK’s electricity prices are the highest since records began in 1920 and are now amongst the highest in all Europe. One reason for this is obvious: slightly less than half our electricity comes from gas-burning Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGTs) and gas now costs £90 per megawatt-hour (MWh), nearly five times higher than normal. CCGTs are cheap to build (around £650m per GW) and operate. In normal times they would generate electricity at a total cost of £40 per MWh. That’s now risen to nearly £150/MWh, thanks to Vladimir Putin and his impact on the gas market.

But that’s not the whole story. The other reason why British electricity is so expensive is because we have so much wind power: particularly, so much offshore wind power. Bad though the current situation is, we would be an even worse state if we had built even more offshore wind, as the British government plans to.

As an example, the offshore wind farms Hornsea Two and Moray East were completed in 2022 with capital costs of £2.77 billion per GW and £2.75bn/GW, more than four times the cost of CCGT capacity. They’re expensive to maintain, which is not surprising since offshore windfarms have all their many generators mounted at the top of 200-metre tall masts far away from land. Estimates of maintenance costs are as high as £200m per GW installed, per annum. The nominal cost of offshore wind generation is £170/MWh – noticeably higher than that for CCGTs, even in these dire times of high gas prices.

The other factor to bear in mind is that not only is wind capacity extremely expensive to build, wind farms do not deliver anything like their rated capacity over time. This is bad news for the customer, because the higher the capacity factor – that is, the higher the percentage of the rated capacity the powerplant actually delivers over time – the cheaper the energy. In 2022 the UK’s onshore and offshore windfarms operated with a capacity factor of 33 per cent. In 2021 it was only 29 per cent. 

It gets worse. Like most other renewable generation technologies, wind power is unpredictably intermittent and highly variable. Also, since wind turbines are not synchronously connected to the grid, they provide no “grid inertia” – more on that shortly. Wind turbines cannot be asked to deliver energy when it is required, and their output changes rapidly. These failings must be mitigated and costed, and users have to pay for these costs on top of the price of the electricity.

In 2021 the UK annual grid balancing costs reached £4.19 billion, £150 per household. For context, back in 1995 when we didn’t have much wind power the balancing cost for the grid was a mere £250 million per annum. A large, and growing, contribution to these costs is constraint management, as when a wind farm producing electricity which isn’t wanted – perhaps when it is windy in the middle of the night – is paid not to put that electricity into the grid.

 

reality...Enjoy the article

 

China's offshore wind boom drives costs down to match coal

Huge Chinese build out of wind at sea pushes LCOE sharply lower even as other markets feel pinch, says BloombergNEF

12 June 2023 6:46 GMT UPDATED  12 June 2023 14:49 GMT

By Tim Ferry 

 

 

While other regions feel upward pressure China's booming offshore wind industry has driven the sector's power price down to match coal, a new report by analyst BloombergNEF found.

The trend in wind at sea came against a background of solar and wind energy costs largely unchanged in the first half of 2023 year-on-year as rising interest rates negate any declines

Capital costs for solar are the highest they’ve been since 2014, while wind hasn’t seen the current level since 2017, putting a floor under levelised cost of energy (LCOE) for the sectors, BNEF said in its 1H 2023 LCOE update.

 

Slowing onshore wind and solar cost declines “are also consistent with the maturing of these technologies”, and BNEF noted that the doubling of module capacity, which drives a 28.5% cost decline, is taking longer to achieve.

Still, “onshore wind and solar remain the cheapest new-build technologies for producing electricity, a position they have held since 2018,” BNEF asserted.

Global average LCOE ranged from $42 to $48 per MWh for onshore wind and solar, compared to $92/MWh for natural gas-fired power, according to the firm.

 

The China effect

Global costs of offshore wind and coal-fired power have converged as Chinese demand, 57% of the global market, and vast manufacturing capacity have driven weighted averages downwards. China's offshore wind LCOE plunged to $65.7/MWh – $21 less than the rest of the world.

China's Envision bags huge wind turbine deal at Saudi $8.4bn Neom green hydrogen mega-plant

Read more

LCOE for coal-fired power meanwhile has risen on “stranded asset risk caused by stronger climate ambition worldwide,” BNEF noted, with both standing at $74/MWh.

Offshore wind’s global LCOE is distorted by China’s dominance, and costs in Europe and North America actually rose.

Renewable energy advocacy group American Clean Power Association (ACP) estimates US offshore wind LCOE at $98/MWh.

The world's second largest economy saw similar cost declines in onshore wind, which dropped to $34/MWh – 21% below other markets.

China plans huge pipeline network to move hydrogen from wind and solar-rich regions

Read more

Increased pricing pressure from developers, a switch to larger 4-5MW platforms, and “fierce competition among manufacturers” drove turbine prices in China 61% below the $930,000/MW global benchmark.

BNEF noted that despite recent bumps, solar and wind costs will maintain their downward trajectories, plunging 50% by 2050 “thanks to continuing technology improvements, greater economies of scale and reduced financing costs.”

The research firm forecasts wind and solar both averaging $20/MWh across major markets by 2050, while offshore wind will plunge to an average of $37/MWh.

[markslawson + 1,057]

13 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

I tend to agree that CCGT's are the cheapest and best form of powergen out there. They are far less pollutive than coal and more efficient than most forms of powergen including renewables.

That said wind farms per GW are still 1/3 of the cost of new nuclear fission plants and we are still building those.

I don't disagree with much of the post. I haven't looked at nuclear much, however nuclear plants last maybe three times longer than  wind generators, particularly if you're going to build them well out to sea, and are considerably more useful in that they are not dependent on the weather.. However, I must look at nuclear.. anyway, leave it with you..  

[markslawson + 1,057]

13 hours ago, notsonice said:

reality...Enjoy the article

Notsonice - you read the UK article, right? The one area we have any reliable figures from shows that offshore wind is horrifically expensive, yet you quote an article from a green consultancy (BNEF, is not quite a propaganda arm but it pushes the renewables line) relying on figures from China and claim its reality? Even the deepest green consultants don't try to claim the offshore wind is anything but the most expensive of the various forms of renewable energy. If they had tried to claim that offshore wind beat coal on LCOE (which is different from costs in a grid), then maybe. Even then coal is far more valuable in powering a grid as its not dependent on weather. Now look down the article you cite. See the reference to hydrogen pipelines? H2 pipelines are the stuff of fairy land. Use a transmission line of, if the distances are too great, don't bother. Last I heard the Chinese were planning DC high voltage power lines to shuffle intermittent energy about the country. That makes somewhat more sense than using H2. I think someone on the central party staff chucked in a mention of H2 to make his/her bosses look good.     

[notsonice + 1,243]

3 hours ago, markslawson said:

Notsonice - you read the UK article, right? The one area we have any reliable figures from shows that offshore wind is horrifically expensive, yet you quote an article from a green consultancy (BNEF, is not quite a propaganda arm but it pushes the renewables line) relying on figures from China and claim its reality? Even the deepest green consultants don't try to claim the offshore wind is anything but the most expensive of the various forms of renewable energy. If they had tried to claim that offshore wind beat coal on LCOE (which is different from costs in a grid), then maybe. Even then coal is far more valuable in powering a grid as its not dependent on weather. Now look down the article you cite. See the reference to hydrogen pipelines? H2 pipelines are the stuff of fairy land. Use a transmission line of, if the distances are too great, don't bother. Last I heard the Chinese were planning DC high voltage power lines to shuffle intermittent energy about the country. That makes somewhat more sense than using H2. I think someone on the central party staff chucked in a mention of H2 to make his/her bosses look good.     

did you bother reading what I posted.....as usual you ignore everything that does not support your BS babble

so here it is again......

China's offshore wind boom drives costs down to match coal

[markslawson + 1,057]

20 hours ago, notsonice said:

did you bother reading what I posted.....as usual you ignore everything that does not support your BS babble

so here it is again....

The point was that I did read your post, which you imagined trumped mine, and noted the problems with it. You didn't respond to any of those points. Offshore wind is proving a huge problem in the UK. The Chinese say their experience is different but, for starters, its obvious they've left out the balancing costs (see my original post). These are not included in the LCOE calculations in any case. However, I strongly suspect they are fudging the calculations that are included in the LCOE, simply because the Chinese experience is so different to everywhere else. As for coal plants, and as you're into headlines, note this one.

China is building six times more new coal plants than other countries, report finds

see the report

Anyway, as you are unlikely to accept any of this, I'll leave it with you.. 

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

7 hours ago, markslawson said:

The point was that I did read your post, which you imagined trumped mine, and noted the problems with it. You didn't respond to any of those points. Offshore wind is proving a huge problem in the UK. The Chinese say their experience is different but, for starters, its obvious they've left out the balancing costs (see my original post). These are not included in the LCOE calculations in any case. However, I strongly suspect they are fudging the calculations that are included in the LCOE, simply because the Chinese experience is so different to everywhere else. As for coal plants, and as you're into headlines, note this one.

China is building six times more new coal plants than other countries, report finds

see the report

Anyway, as you are unlikely to accept any of this, I'll leave it with you.. 

Mark I presume you're referring to this

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin

It also states in that very report this

"Champenois says the surge in permits last year could be China's coal industry seizing upon a last chance to get financing for new coal plants, which are increasingly uneconomical compared to renewables."

and this

Champenois says "shifting coal investments into renewables and storage would be the smart decision for China. That way they won't have "stranded assets" she says, investments that will end up losing money."

So that sort of pisses on your chips (sorry English expression) regarding you're costs of renewables compared to coal!

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

Installed coal power generation capacity worldwide from 2005 to 2020, with a forecast until 2050

https://www.statista.com/statistics/217256/global-installed-coal-power-generation-capacity/

Although this by no way gets anywhere to the Paris agreement on reducing reliance on coal it also doesnt predict much of a change over the next 27 years on coal fired powergen. 

Many of those new build coal stations will be replacing older more uneconomic and dirty stations with cleaner technology. So the installed capacity wont change much.

[markslawson + 1,057]

16 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Champenois says the surge in permits last year could be China's coal industry seizing upon a last chance to get financing for new coal plants, which are increasingly uneconomical compared to renewables."

But in fact the coal binge-build doesn't have anything to do with that or with cost considerations, or projected grid demand or anything much else to do with reality. In China, construction is driven by party-political considerations. Its a means of creating jobs and for regional party bosses to look good to the the central government. The offshore wind stuff would have been driven by the same factors. At various times political factors has driven binge building of smelters, dams, wind farms, conference centres, highways and most other stuff you can think off (the empty cities are the result of another set of factors). Once you realise that, you can see that the commentator is simply reflecting what other activists have been telling him. Its a green organisation after all. Renewables might be cheaper on a per-output basis, that is on levelised cost of output (and that's for onshore wind - offshore is hopelessly uncompetitive), but they are of limited use on a grid because they are weather dependent. And mixing coal and renewables is a very bad idea. Anyway, we're going over the same ground again so I'll leave it with you. I'll start another thread soon.  

[specinho + 457]

From a task assigned many years ago to secure water supply in case of draught and reduce half a million of bill for electricity, found out mini hydro plant is interesting. It could have been the easiest modification from existing water supply. For examples,

a) pipe water

- build a tank to fill up water to desired volume, + a turbine and generator, you have electricity.

- or, if the water supply has a direct source from big metal pipe to a place, channel that high pressure water directly onto the hydro lectric generator before distributing them per need. 

b) manmade waterfall

- design desirable volume of water and altitude for potential power... From existing setting or building one. 

c) waste water discharged from facilities like nuclear plant, factory etc

- fukushima is about to dump remaining radioactive contaminated waste water into the pacific. If someone can change their mind to use that water to form closed loop hydropower, where the water will be reused sustainably from a tank or so, favourite seafood of many would have been saved. In addition, it is much cheaper and safer to operate than nuclear. 

- waste water from fabric factories used to be a big polluter in developing world. If they can be taught to filter the water in cascade, to generate electricity, how much healthier our seafood would be without water like this reaching the estuary and sea...? 'n'

 

Do not read too much into confusing figure calculated using formulated maths equations that just the professors and a few students of them know how to use, feeding into software programmed. If it can not be understood by most, it should be scrapped..... Right?  'n' >~<

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

On 6/16/2023 at 12:52 AM, Rob Plant said:

Mark I presume you're referring to this

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin

It also states in that very report this

"Champenois says the surge in permits last year could be

A stupid infrastructure tabulator is your "source" ...  "could be"... what more needs to be said. 

Knows nothing about the grid or finance... and then "could be" and YOU run with it... 

Suggest looking at mental exercises for senility... you have lost it dude.

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

On 7/1/2023 at 11:06 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

A stupid infrastructure tabulator is your "source" ...  "could be"... what more needs to be said. 

Knows nothing about the grid or finance... and then "could be" and YOU run with it... 

Suggest looking at mental exercises for senility... you have lost it dude.

Good God man youre stupid!

It wasnt even my "source"

Again your reading comprehension seems to be way off

Maybe you need to go back to your meds?

[James Pipe 0]

On 6/12/2023 at 5:41 PM, markslawson said:

Time for the many tireless advocates and apologists to acknowledge reality. 

The limitation of wind/solar power can be balanced by nuclear power. It might be the reason many countries are pushing for nuclear power in Dubai COP28.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxzKbCQIAhM

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

11 hours ago, James Pipe said:

The limitation of wind/solar power can be balanced by nuclear power. It might be the reason many countries are pushing for nuclear power in Dubai COP28.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxzKbCQIAhM

?  No, wind solar cannot be balanced by Nuclear. How can nuclear turn on/off quickly to "balance" wind, solar? It can't.

True, most people on this forum cannot do basic math.  Please do not add to their number.

[markslawson + 1,057]

12 hours ago, James Pipe said:

The limitation of wind/solar power can be balanced by nuclear power. It might be the reason many countries are pushing for nuclear power in Dubai COP28.

I have no problems with nuclear myself but we need to distinguish between the small modular reactors which can load follow very well, with the gigantic base load nuclear reactors which can't, or don't easily, as footeab points out. In Australia, where I live, an additional problem is finding a location for one. A lot of people might agree with the need for a power reactor but no-one will want it near them. I'd be surprised if a location can be found for just one within 20 years.... actually at this stage very large diesel powered plants are about the only option for reliable power, in Australia at least. It is, of course, absurd to back up a clean-green power grid with diesel but there it is.. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

14 minutes ago, markslawson said:

I have no problems with nuclear myself but we need to distinguish between the small modular reactors which can load follow very well, with the gigantic base load nuclear reactors which can't, or don't easily, as footeab points out. In Australia, where I live, an additional problem is finding a location for one. A lot of people might agree with the need for a power reactor but no-one will want it near them. I'd be surprised if a location can be found for just one within 20 years.... actually at this stage very large diesel powered plants are about the only option for reliable power, in Australia at least. It is, of course, absurd to back up a clean-green power grid with diesel but there it is.. 

Load following between big and small reactors is the same. It sucks. Nuclear  reactors on the grid are baseload, end of story. SMR is a joke.

[turbguy + 1,535]

55 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Load following between big and small reactors is the same. It sucks. Nuclear  reactors on the grid are baseload, end of story. SMR is a joke.

Load-following with current nuclear designs is avoided due to the safety issues that arise with "unnecessarily  challenging the equipment" (think, starting and stopping reactor feedwater pumps and the like).  Even then, Xenon-poisoning issues arise from large load changes which impacts reactivity.  We don't need another Chernobyl. Remember, all that fuel for 18 months+ is contained in one "box".  And that "box" is hot and highly pressurized.

SMR's may still have similar concerns, or they may not.

The Natrium reactor (liquid sodium cooled) that is intended for Kemmerer in Wyoming will include considerable thermal storage, which will enable considerable load-follow flexibility.

I would not count SMR's out, yet.

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by turbguy

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

Just now, turbguy said:

Load-following with current nuclear designs is avoided due to the safety issues that arise with "unnecessarily  challenging the equipment"(think starting and stopping reactor feedwater pumps and the like). 

SMR's may still have similar concerns, or they may not.

The Natrium reactor (liquid sodium cooled) that is intended for Kemmerer in Wyoming will include thermal storage, which will enable considerable load-follow flexibility.

I would not count SMR's out, yet.

Oh but you completely ignored the refutations about your long term coal contracts claim.

Now you are claiming  theoretical possibilities for nuclear reactors for which you have zero evidence other than they will have batteries just like wind.. 

Thermal storage is not a thing. I mean really, what is this thermal storage of which you speak? Provide an example that lasts more than a few hours?

[turbguy + 1,535]

11 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Oh but you completely ignored the refutations about your long term coal contracts claim.

Now you are claiming  theoretical possibilities for nuclear reactors for which you have zero evidence other than they will have batteries just like wind.. 

Thermal storage is not a thing. I mean really, what is this thermal storage of which you speak? Provide an example that lasts more than a few hours?

5 1/2 hours of many-megawatt molten salt thermal storage is not to be ignored.  

Steam conditions that exceed those in the current fleet is not to be ignored either.

If you don't believe nuclear is a clear choice to better integrate renewables into the energy supply, too bad.

https://natriumpower.com/reactor-technology/

There are some BIG NAMES behind this.

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by turbguy

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 minute ago, turbguy said:

5 1/2 hours of many-megawatt molten salt thermal storage is not to be ignored.  

Steam conditions that exceed those in the current fleet is not to be ignored either.

If you don't believe nuclear is a clear choice to better integrate renewables into the energy supply, too bad.

https://natriumpower.com/reactor-technology/

 

Steam conditions are less than an hour. Molten salt is a complete loser and can easily be ignored. Oh I am not anti nuclear as baseload but you are not describing baseload.

You are just as whacked here as you were with your claims of long term coal contracts. 

[turbguy + 1,535]

10 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Steam conditions are less than an hour. Molten salt is a complete loser and can easily be ignored. Oh I am not anti nuclear as baseload but you are not describing baseload.

You are just as whacked here as you were with your claims of long term coal contracts. 

Steam condition apply to the turbine inlet temperature and pressure, and do not have any "time" component.

Think of thermal storage as a battery that does not degrade with cycling, or as pumped storage.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

Just now, turbguy said:

Steam condition apply to the turbine inlet temperature and pressure, and do not have any "time" component.

Think of thermal storage as a battery that does not degrade with cycling, or as pumped storage.

Good grief!! It degrades immediately. It is called the second law of thermodynamics. I mean seriously you are claiming that insulation on a hot body is 100% effective, that makes you an imbecile. 

And you still don't acknowledge your failed claim about long term coal contracts.

 

 

 

[turbguy + 1,535]

9 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Good grief!! It degrades immediately. It is called the second law of thermodynamics. I mean seriously you are claiming that insulation on a hot body is 100% effective, that makes you an imbecile. 

And you still don't acknowledge your failed claim about long term coal contracts.

 

 

 

If I have a 5 1/2 hour supply of molten salt at 550 degrees C, that I use to boil water in a separate heat exchanger, aka-steam generator, (the cooled salt is pumped into another tank), there is minimal change in resulting steam conditions.

It operate like a battery, or like pumped storage (upper reservoir-lower reservoir).

Edited December 5, 2023 by turbguy

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

27 minutes ago, turbguy said:

If I have a 5 1/2 hour supply of molten salt at 550 degrees C, that I use to boil water in a separate heat exchanger, aka-steam generator, (the cooled salt is pumped into another tank), there is minimal change in resulting steam conditions.

The absolute heat conditions are decreasing dramatically over very short periods of time with your heat storage . It is a physical law. What is wrong with you?

Batteries are far cheaper for the same capability and is why they outnumber molten salt installations by such a large amount that no one bothers to calculate the difference. In the US there are maybe 3 molten salt storage units and that is it (1 in Nevada, 2 in Arizona) ; Batteries are being built all over!

Still waiting for your explanation of long term coal contracts.

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by Jay McKinsey