|
Capt.Whorebags posted:Just note that burning natural gas doesn't release natural gas, the combustion emissions are still mostly CO2 and then traces of other nasties, so in comparison to other fossil fuels - coal and oil - gas fired plants are cleaner and more efficient. Good thing they aren't leaking Natural Gas at all those fracking sites.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2022 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:23 |
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Good thing they aren't leaking Natural Gas at all those fracking sites. Hey now don't be so biased. They're also leaking methane down the entire length of the pipeline too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 00:21
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Good thing they aren't leaking Natural Gas at all those fracking sites. Yup hence my statement about fugitive emissions. Don't discount the methgas leakage from coal mining, too!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 00:47
|
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:Thanks for the article. I followed through to wiki on high temperature gas reactors and would love to see the use of "waste" heat in a GenIV reactor used as process heat for industry which is touted as a possibility, effectively creating an industrial estate around the power plant. In a well designed plant it's actually tough to use the heat for anything. The part where heat is removed is the coldest part of the cycle, and with a steam cycle that might be less than 50C. You need to extract all the heat - and remember that could be twice as much power as the plant generates. You can, if you want, take water at essentially any temperature and design the condenser to that, but increasing that temperature decreases the efficiency of the power plant. GE actually has some numbers from a typical design. In the 1 GW design, the steam condenses at 34C. 1.8 GW of heat is removed, using seawater that is heated from 25C to 32C, which requires 63000 litres of seawater per second. District heating, for example, is typically run at about 80C. Increasing the condenser temperature from 30C, and assuming a hot side of 433C, drops you from a Carnot efficiency of ~57%, to 50%, which on a real plant might mean you drop from 40% to 35% efficiency. Industrial processes might well want even hotter, which drives the efficiency down more. If you can use it all without losses, it's probably a bit more efficient than a heat pump, but you'd better be right next to the power plant and have a plan to use a lot of heat on a completely constant basis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 02:59
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I don't know how efficient gas boilers are. Are any Gen IV reactors coming online before 2030, though? And that's assuming no delays happen, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 03:37
|
|
|
LeastActionHero posted:District heating, for example, is typically run at about 80C. Increasing the condenser temperature from 30C, and assuming a hot side of 433C, drops you from a Carnot efficiency of ~57%, to 50%, which on a real plant might mean you drop from 40% to 35% efficiency. Industrial processes might well want even hotter, which drives the efficiency down more. If you can use it all without losses, it's probably a bit more efficient than a heat pump, but you'd better be right next to the power plant and have a plan to use a lot of heat on a completely constant basis. Its easy to use it as a preheat or as a better source for a heat pump than ambient. But you are correct in that waste heat is often not hot enough for direct use.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 03:47
|
|
|
I sometimes wonder if discussion around efficiency in nuclear plants is missing the wood for the trees. Does it really matter if you don't use every last joule of energy from the nuclear reaction? I would have thought dollars of capex per kw delivered should be the primary overriding KPI and just wear the higher opex fuel cost. Why go to the effort of rejecting heat at 40 degs where it might be significantly cheaper to build a plant that rejects heat at 90 degs and just load more fuel more often. I wouldn't even worry about secondary uses unless it is something like a heat driven desalination plant off the coast of California/Dubai/South Australia and integration wouldn't be a huge drama. In trying to be more efficient - it adds complexity and complexity is what is highlighted as the most significant drawback of nuclear plants. Obviously making a plant that is inefficient also means a bigger plant is required for the same output so there is a balance but I have the impression that nuclear engineering is one of those areas where "value engineering" is a dirty word. We are not after three of the most efficient marvels of cutting edge engineering nuclear plants, we are after a few hundred functional and safe water boilers that use nuclear as a heat source.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 08:19
|
|
|
Just from a quick search it seems fuel (including uranium, enrichment and any processing) is around 15% of total operating costs (though there are sources saying 10-30%), so it's not completely insignificant and would make sense to get as much out of it as possible.  But also I think you're correct that there's some sort of optimal point between between spending more money upfront and extracting a few percent more energy over the lifetime. You could probably do some fun simulations with this but I have some actual work to do now 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 09:32
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Just from a quick search it seems fuel (including uranium, enrichment and any processing) is around 15% of total operating costs (though there are sources saying 10-30%), so it's not completely insignificant and would make sense to get as much out of it as possible. Don't forget to look at the fuel lifecycle slice in the context of the operations and investment slices, too. There's a case to be made for seeking maximum thermodynamic efficiency up to a point in any steam cycle generation technology where capital and operational expenditure overtakes fuel savings... ...especially in the case where fuel reduction has little bearing on the carbon footprint of a plant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 14:09
|
|
|
There's this concept of a dusty-plasma fission-fragment reactor, which you usually hear about regarding space travel. Such a reactor could do MHD direct energy conversion by focusing the fragment beam and decelerating it, with >90% efficiency. This would never be practical or cost-competitive, because fuel is not a major cost for existing plants. It would be badass though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 17:10
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Nuclear is objectively the correct answer for baseline power moving forward if we don't want to destroy human civilization, but also impossible because of human civilization. I mean it's *a* solution, and if it actually happens I won't complain, but it's not the only solution. I think it's more likely we'll massively overbuild renewables and then look for ways to use the surplus on high production days (grid storage or green hydrogen or whatever, I don't know)
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 18:48
|
|
|
Family Values posted:I mean it's *a* solution, and if it actually happens I won't complain, but it's not the only solution. I think it's more likely we'll massively overbuild renewables and then look for ways to use the surplus on high production days (grid storage or green hydrogen or whatever, I don't know) I dunno, I think us changing the approval process for nukes is more likely than massive power storage solutions, but I'm not super certain of that. I'm somewhat pessimistic about the ability of modern late stage capitalism to do anything useful so there's that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 18:56
|
|
|
Family Values posted:I mean it's *a* solution, and if it actually happens I won't complain, but it's not the only solution. I think it's more likely we'll massively overbuild renewables and then look for ways to use the surplus on high production days (grid storage or green hydrogen or whatever, I don't know) This is Denmark  Teal is wind, brownish is coal and dark green biomass. Orange is solar. This is consumption today. Everything above the red is imports from Sweden and Norway. Very lucky to have such neighbors   https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DK-DK1
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 19:00
|
|
|
I really don't think we can get to anywhere near what we need to run our societies on renewables alone and the last decade has just made me more sure of that. We absolutely need nuclear, or we'll keep burning gas and coal until the continent is uninhabitable and the nordic countries install automatic machine guns on their borders to stop all the german, french etc climate refugees.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 19:12
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:America: -We've done multiple outages and steam generator replacements over the years interim slow years. -With regards to new Construction, we have been building new reactors over time but its not been at the pace seen from 60s/70s. (e.g. for the pause between the 90s, and early 2000s). You had Watts Bar Unit 1 finished. Browns Ferry Unit 1 was re-built/refurbished. Bellafonte was mostly finished before the massive TVA layoffs (then essentially cut apart to support the other part of the TVA fleet). Also you had places like Shoreham which were functionally finished but never had fuel loaded into it. You had the power uprates they did at Florida for Turkey Point and St. Lucie. https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/power-uprates/status-power-apps/approved-applications.html At this point while I enjoy nuclear power a lot... I feel like the future is solar PV, offshore wind, onshore wind, and numerous energy storage devices. Maybe we'll get 4th gen nuclear and modular nuclear. Maybe we won't. Senor P. fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Oct 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 20:35
|
|
|
is this where we talk about oil production? OPEC+ look set to cut back on production to try to get oil prices back up despite the fact that oil consumers are dealing with high inflation and recession concerns. https://www.ft.com/content/476d8174-1ad5-4dbe-8092-37853b2a7673?shareType=nongift quote:The size of the cut is still to be agreed but Saudi Arabia and Russia are pushing for reductions of 1mn-2mn barrels a day or more, although these could be phased in over several months. The move would probably trigger US countermeasures, analysts said. What a shitstorm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
higher the better
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 22:14
|
|
|
loving Saudis man, we should just let Iran invade them or something
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 22:22
|
|
|
Senor P. posted:At this point while I enjoy nuclear power a lot... The capacity factor of installed european PV is an abysmal 11%, worse than on shore wind. They're not really the future and energy storage is a fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 04:40
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:I sometimes wonder if discussion around efficiency in nuclear plants is missing the wood for the trees. Does it really matter if you don't use every last joule of energy from the nuclear reaction? I would have thought dollars of capex per kw delivered should be the primary overriding KPI and just wear the higher opex fuel cost. Why go to the effort of rejecting heat at 40 degs where it might be significantly cheaper to build a plant that rejects heat at 90 degs and just load more fuel more often. I wouldn't even worry about secondary uses unless it is something like a heat driven desalination plant off the coast of California/Dubai/South Australia and integration wouldn't be a huge drama. In trying to be more efficient - it adds complexity and complexity is what is highlighted as the most significant drawback of nuclear plants. Its a funny thought, like when you think about it Solar power is excruciatingly inefficient considering how bad the sun is at converting its fuel to energy and how 99.999999% of it is just blasted out uselessly into the nothingness of space and can't be put to use by humans, Nuclear power on Earth is not too shabby in comparison! (this is a joke, don't take it seriously please god)
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 06:25
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Its a funny thought, like when you think about it Solar power is excruciatingly inefficient considering how bad the sun is at converting its fuel to energy and how 99.999999% of it is just blasted out uselessly into the nothingness of space and can't be put to use by humans, Nuclear power on Earth is not too shabby in comparison! well  should be part of every third message in this thread so it fits in quite nicely.His Divine Shadow posted:The capacity factor of installed european PV is an abysmal 11%, worse than on shore wind. They're not really the future and energy storage is a fantasy. Offshore wind for me is the most promising massive source of power on account of its much better supply reliability and out of site out of mind properties. I suspect a lot of the population will happily tolerate the higher fatality rate (I don't see building and maintaining wind at sea to ever become as safe as nuclear, especially when value adding a heap of dodgy construction companies using under-skilled labour gets in on the contracts) and higher costs over permitting nuclear. I'm not all that great on how scalable it is (North Sea is great, Great Barrier Reef and Great Southern Ocean not so much) but there is runs on the board in getting these farms built.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 07:11
|
|
|
Off-shore wind should definitely be expanded (along with nuclear). Edit: BTW, anyone here know how german natgas breaks up into home heating / electricity production? His Divine Shadow fucked around with this message at 07:20 on Oct 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 07:16
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Offshore wind for me is the most promising massive source of power on account of its much better supply reliability and out of site out of mind properties. I suspect a lot of the population will happily tolerate the higher fatality rate (I don't see building and maintaining wind at sea to ever become as safe as nuclear, especially when value adding a heap of dodgy construction companies using under-skilled labour gets in on the contracts) and higher costs over permitting nuclear. I'm not all that great on how scalable it is (North Sea is great, Great Barrier Reef and Great Southern Ocean not so much) but there is runs on the board in getting these farms built. Great Barrier Reef is a marine park so is probably a no-go and I don't think it's considered a great wind resource. Change of government here has seen a slight decrease in fossil fuel fellating by politicians, including the approval of off shore wind zones for the first time. Placement has taken into account existing coal generators that are closing down, so to take advantage of existing transmission network and hopefully re-employ workers from the generation sector. Not exactly sure how many coal plant workers can be employed by offshore wind construction though, but maybe in the ongoing operations? e: details here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-05/offshore-windfarms-climate-renewable-energy-turbines/101303944
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 08:10
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Off-shore wind should definitely be expanded (along with nuclear). It's a bit of a problem for landlocked countries though, at least until global warming makes them into coastal states
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 08:38
|
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:Great Barrier Reef is a marine park so is probably a no-go and I don't think it's considered a great wind resource. Change of government here has seen a slight decrease in fossil fuel fellating by politicians, including the approval of off shore wind zones for the first time. Placement has taken into account existing coal generators that are closing down, so to take advantage of existing transmission network and hopefully re-employ workers from the generation sector. Not exactly sure how many coal plant workers can be employed by offshore wind construction though, but maybe in the ongoing operations? The QLD government just announced they're going to build 7GW worth of pumped storage and a new 500kV transmission network in a local market with ~10GW of maximum demand, if that actually gets built there will be an absolute shitload of new wind and solar projects showing up to take advantage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 10:14
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Offshore wind for me is the most promising massive source of power on account of its much better supply reliability and out of site out of mind properties. I suspect a lot of the population will happily tolerate the higher fatality rate (I don't see building and maintaining wind at sea to ever become as safe as nuclear, especially when value adding a heap of dodgy construction companies using under-skilled labour gets in on the contracts) and higher costs over permitting nuclear. I'm not all that great on how scalable it is (North Sea is great, Great Barrier Reef and Great Southern Ocean not so much) but there is runs on the board in getting these farms built. mobby_6kl posted:It's a bit of a problem for landlocked countries though, at least until global warming makes them into coastal states I like your optimism as someone who lives a few hundred feet above sea level.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 12:34
|
|
|
Might as well ask here too, I am on the lookout for historical nuclear construction costs but have had little success in finding what I am looking for. I know nuclear reactors where built faster and cheaper, in the 70s in particular, in France as well as Sweden, but I am having difficulties tracking down if they where made within budgets and on time based on the project plans when they where built, or if they also ran into overruns of cost and time? I read one old report that said swedish nuclear plants where built on time and within budget, but found nothing more concrete than that. quote:Those who have mainly followed the sad history of the American nuclear-power industry may be surprised to learn of the performance of Swedish systems. They have on the whole been built on schedule and without major cost overruns. That's it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 13:00
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:It's a bit of a problem for landlocked countries though, at least until global warming makes them into coastal states Intuitively, it is probably easier to build your offshore wind on dry land then flood it after. I think that justification allows me to use onshore wind construction costs for offshore wind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 13:13
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Might as well ask here too, I am on the lookout for historical nuclear construction costs but have had little success in finding what I am looking for. You'd probably have to be able to read Swedish to find what you're looking for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 14:37
|
|
|
Google translate will do a passable job on Swedish, so that's not a huge hurdle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 14:48
|
|
|
Oracle posted:You'd probably have to be able to read Swedish to find what you're looking for. That's my native language so no big, I'm also interested in french sources, now that's more troublesome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 16:37
|
|
|
When I looked at NRC permit data in the US in the 60s/70s my impression was they were able to build a lot of reactors because they were trying to build a lot more. There was a lot of gently caress ups, cost overruns and cancellations, but they were able to get some built because the sheer number of projects meant some were likely to make it to completion. There were also a lot more manufacturers; even Allis Chalmers built reactors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 18:14
|
|
|
The turbine for one of those cancelled reactors is installed at Ravenswood in NYC. Big bastard! E: Cancelled Allis Chalmers reactor specifically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
Good article on how hard we've made it to even just run transmission lines: https://www.eenews.net/articles/like-manchin-obama-tried-to-fast-track-transmission-nope/ quote:TransWest, which applied for its first federal permit in 2008 and received its final environmental review in 2020, is waiting for BLM to allow it to start construction. A decision is expected early next year. The project has applied to join the California Independent System Operator.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 18:42
|
|
|
Sounds like something that should be done on a federal infrastructure level, if it's not a directly profitable process.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 19:02
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Sounds like something that should be done on a federal infrastructure level, It is exactly the Federal government which has made it so difficult to do and the Federal government is also bound by the laws it creates. Again, opportunity costs exist regardless of whether you can just print as much money as you want to. If the process is so labyrinthine and costly, then a solution requires changing that process.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 19:07
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Edit:  15% is public electricity generation + 6% electricity generation by industry. 30% is home heating. Translations: Erdgasverbrauch: Natural Gas Usage (Nicht)-Geschätzte Kunden: (Not) Protestes übers. Öffentliche Wärmeerzeugung: Piblic Heating Haushalte: Households GHD: Commercial Öffentliche Stromerzeugung: Public Electricity Generation Industrie: Industry Endenergie: End Energy aka Heat Stofflich: Material Stromerzeugung: Electricity Generation Raffinerien: Refineries Sonstiges: Other DTurtle fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Oct 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
Storm blew in over the nordics, you can tell on the electricity map, windpower is like 20GW right now in all countries. The frequency got away from them too, it's not easy handling such a shifting load. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2022 04:28
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:The frequency got away from them too, it's not easy handling such a shifting load.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2022 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:23 |
|
|
If the grid frequency increases, it means you're generating too much power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2022 23:33
|
|