|
fishmech posted:After the last discussion on that topic, didn't it turn out that it was a particularly inefficient design to actually run as a peaking plant, and probably should have been replaced long ago? But also, due to how heavily invested Australia's always been on traditional coal plants, nobody wanted to build a more efficient peaking design of gas plant (I do believe the existing but mothballed plant was a natural gas design) in the same general area as well. I don't recall any talk of the plant itself being inefficient. Cannot find a credible source but this article claims: http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/cold-hard-economic-reality-of-power-supply-in-australia/news-story/e9518d5f8532b812881ba0f21c7511e5 quote:The reason why Pelican Point, one of the SA’s newest and most efficient gas-fired generators, chose not to offer its electricity appears to be simple: money. South Australia's electricity mix is distinct from the rest of Australia, currently there is no active coal fired power plants in South Australia. Though it is dependent often times on electricity imports. Also, as of typing this, 62% of the electricity being generated in South Australia is from wind. http://www.sa.gov.au/topics/energy-and-environment/energy-supply/sas-electricity-supply-and-market
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 13:00 |
|
|
Pander posted:Cheap efficient energy storage is just a few years down the road, just like fusion. It's basically already here. Just look at what Tesla is building in S. Australia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:South Australia went nuts with wind installations and because of how the economics work a private company shut down one of their peaking plants because it couldn't compete with the lower electricity prices. Recently a number of factors came together and electricity demand could not be met with supply. Turns out they needed that peaking plant but the economics of the state make it unprofitable to keep it on standby. Whoops. Turns out making fossil fuel power plants unprofitable can have nasty consequences for meeting demand. Honestly, no surprises here. Elon Musk's dumb Twitter dare that he made when that happened was accepted. Tesla is going to build a 100 MW/129 MWh battery in 100 days (I think July 6 was day 1) and if it's not online at the end, it's free. There are other massive battery things being built, a 100MW/400 MWh one in South Australia as well. Pelican point is 485 MW in 3 turbines, so already battery storage is at a point where battery manufacturers think they can operate profitably where peaker plants can't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
fermun posted:Elon Musk's dumb Twitter dare that he made when that happened was accepted. Tesla is going to build a 100 MW/129 MWh battery in 100 days (I think July 6 was day 1) and if it's not online at the end, it's free. There are other massive battery things being built, a 100MW/400 MWh one in South Australia as well. It's only dumb if it fails and he loses the money. If he succeeds it's a huge public relations coup. Seems worth the risk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 08:56
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Australia's problem vis-a-vis power boils down to everyone selling our gas overseas for mad stacks so when it is needed to make those last few profit rich megawatts is already been shipped away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 09:32
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:It's only dumb if it fails and he loses the money. If he succeeds it's a huge public relations coup. Seems worth the risk. South Australia is also paying for the thing, so if it isn't able to stabilize the grid (as well as a gas peaker plant could) then it could be dumb from the perspective of public expenditure. Also, its coming from the renewable energy budget, so buying this battery means less turbines/solar. It might turn out to be a good move for SA or Tesla or just one or none of them. No way to tell yet. But, Elon is getting a tonne of publicity either way. In my opinion though, 128 MWh doesn't seem like enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 09:32
|
|
|
Sounds like it can replace 2/3 of one of their turbines for about an hour and a half? Not a bad start.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Sounds like it can replace 2/3 of one of their turbines for about an hour and a half? Not a bad start. This does not seem correct. 2/3 of the turbines provide 323MW, an hour and a half at that would be 485MWh. The battery apparently can run at 100MW and holds 128MWh of energy. That means that it is more like replacing 2/3 for 30 mins. This of course assumes that 1/5 of the load capacity is an acceptable thing at that point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Is there historical data for how much variance there is in wind generated power? If the lowest ever recorded baseline for wind generation is, say, 60% of the average generation, that is going to create wildly different storage requirements than a scenario where the lowest recorded baseline is, say, 30%.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:This does not seem correct. 2/3 of the turbines provide 323MW, an hour and a half at that would be 485MWh. The battery apparently can run at 100MW and holds 128MWh of energy. That means that it is more like replacing 2/3 for 30 mins. This of course assumes that 1/5 of the load capacity is an acceptable thing at that point. There are 2 turbines of 160MW and one of 165 MW at the pelican point peaking plant. That's where his number of 2/3 of a turbines came from.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Electricity was a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Cheap electricity was a mistake
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
Anime was a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Anime was a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
The electronic reproduction of music is a blight on society.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
VC Summers 2&3 are 64% complete and will be abandoned due to construction cost overruns and not enough subsidies to cover them: http://www.aikenstandard.com/news/scana-santee-cooper-pull-plug-on-v-c-summer/article_5d654982-7617-11e7-b066-270a9fc4fd45.html quote:Efforts to build two state-of-the-art nuclear reactors at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Plant in Fairfield County have gone inert.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:VC Summers 2&3 are 64% complete and will be abandoned due to construction cost overruns and not enough subsidies to cover them: I think the engineering parlance is clusterfuck.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
With the future of Vogtle 3/4 in doubt, what reactors are left?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
R I P nuclear
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:R I P nuclear Admittedly, I do think there is (maybe) chance for the Vogtle project to be re-started but the renaissance is looking anemic. In the rest of the world, it seems like Russia and China are mostly dominating construction. Russia especially has been aggressive about construction outside of its borders. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Jul 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:R I P nuclear Fear of nuclear destroyed America's abilities to construct civilian nuclear power plants
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Fear of nuclear destroyed America's abilities to construct civilian nuclear power plants Nah, nuclear being seen as a great way to bilk utilities with huge construction contracts is what did it in. Fear of nuclear didn't cause SONGS or Crystal River to shut down. Fear of nuclear isn't why AREVA is exiting the construction industry. Maybe you can blame the fall of Stone & Webster on the fear of nuclear but that can't explain Westinghouse's contracting fuckups. The Bechtals, Babcox & Wilcoxes of the world never cared about nuclear as an end only as a means to get sweet sweet handouts in the form of cost overruns on publically subsidized projects.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Yeah I'd much less blame fear of ATOMZ for north america's lack of successful investment in nuclear and much more blame the same disease that's crippling our ability to build trains or transit. There's a bunch of institutional forces arrayed against pretty much all expensive infrastructure that ends up bloating its costs to insane levels, and nuclear, being a naturally very capital-intensive thing to start up, has been extremely hard hit by it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Yeah, one phase of the second avenue expansion in NY cost 4.5 billion and that is rail system that is practically limping at the moment. The US is having a growing issue with infrastructure, and nuclear power is only part of it. Also, it really doesn't seem environmentalists had anything to do with the way things turned out (compared to massive cost overruns.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
I only meant that the new power plants were the first started since the Three Mile Island incident in 1979. And that lead to people like stone and wilcox, well, getting out of practice, not to mention all the people who for two decades built power plants retiring and dying with nobody replacing them. Not to deny any of the other problems these projects have...
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
It is fascinating to me how a multibillion dollar project like that can just be abandoned outside of sudden funding changes or similar. Does anyone have any insight as to what happened?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:VC Summers 2&3 are 64% complete and will be abandoned due to construction cost overruns and not enough subsidies to cover them: Jesus this is hilariously timely considering our discussion in the other thread  (and I concur wholeheartedly with your analysis)
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
But regulatory ratcheting *totally* isn't a thing, you guys.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah I'd much less blame fear of ATOMZ for north america's lack of successful investment in nuclear and much more blame the same disease that's crippling our ability to build trains or transit. There's a bunch of institutional forces arrayed against pretty much all expensive infrastructure that ends up bloating its costs to insane levels, and nuclear, being a naturally very capital-intensive thing to start up, has been extremely hard hit by it. What's the issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Ol Standard Retard posted:Jesus this is hilariously timely considering our discussion in the other thread what other thread
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
call to action posted:It is fascinating to me how a multibillion dollar project like that can just be abandoned outside of sudden funding changes or similar. Does anyone have any insight as to what happened? From the various things reported over VC Summer over the last two years or so: the usual infrastructure cost overrun happened, the usual infrastructure construction delays happened and increased the cost overrun some more, Toshiba Westinghouse (a dumbshit inefficient company even by US nuclear industry standards according to nukegoons) went broke and took a while to get sorted out, construction didn't exactly speed up while the investors+Toshiba met to discuss how to proceed, at some point it turned out the likely completion dates for the reactors would be pushed back so far that they'd miss out on a deadline for some sweet sweet subsidy money, it could be safely assumed that Trump wouldn't introduce a carbon tax/more green energy subsidies any time soon, and in the end nobody wanted to continue paying for the things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 09:04
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
QuarkJets posted:what other thread we got into nuclear/renewable chat briefly in the Climate Change thread and Trabs has actually been pretty persuasive regarding the practicalities of nuclear buildout, underscored here by some real-life current events.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
what is the infrastructure cost issue
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/4/this-is-why-infrastructure-is-so-expensive https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2012-08-26/u-s-taxpayers-are-gouged-on-mass-transit-costs About the US's absolutely hosed infrastructure costs. There's lots of takes but it seems like a big mix of factors and the whole way spending is done and projects managed. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Aug 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Ol Standard Retard posted:we got into nuclear/renewable chat briefly in the Climate Change thread and Trabs has actually been pretty persuasive regarding the practicalities of nuclear buildout, underscored here by some real-life current events. Counterpoint: glorious Chinar. Counterpoint 2: glorious Mother Russia. Counterpoint 3: South Korea until like two months ago.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The Bechtals, Babcox & Wilcoxes of the world never cared about nuclear as an end only as a means to get sweet sweet handouts in the form of cost overruns on publically subsidized projects. Nuclear plants have devlolved from something being under to 1-2 billion dollars in the 70s to 10-12 billion dollars for a 2 unit plant today. Which is well beyond a 'classical' lump sum turn key type approach. A lot can happen in 8-10 year construction time and that is well beyond the control of anyone. (Price of copper cabling in the late 1990s compared to the 2000s.) Off the top of my head....( Jacobs, Wahington Group, URS, Bechtel, Kiewit, Babcox and Wilcox, TVA, CB&I, Shaw and Webster (formerly), EBASCO) all built nuclear plants at one time or another. I personally know several people who worked on nuclear plants during the boom of the 70s. (SONGs, Palo Verde, Browns Ferry (the first time)) It does not work favorably in anyone's interest when you cannot get a project to 'completion'. (The utility that owns the plant, the company that owns the design or the architectual company that may have built it.) You want to know what is causing problems? -The fact energy costs and material has increased substantially. -Any design change (whether it be to the reactor or the material) after the design is certified and before the COL is issued or even after the COL is issued. -The fact that a COL for supposedly pre-approved design is averaging 8-10 years. -The AP1000 having to, effectively, getting re-designed after the COL license was issued. -The RCP issues with the AP1000s. -Trying to run these projects as a lump-sump when they should be handled as a cost-reimburseable. -A workforce that refuses to be trained. (We had a journeyman pipe fitter that could not read P&IDs. He continually put down the drawing and walked off and refused to get 'trained' on it.) To me this is a classic case of insubordination and should be dealth with accordingly. Do we deal with it? Nope. Still getting guys from the local hall that are not able to read P&IDs. -Stupidity and lack of common sense (Who cares if my thousand dollar stud bolts are 1/16" longer than they're supposed to be? If they fit the dimension I need them to which is pretty standardized for pipe flanges, who gives a gently caress that they don't meet a spec? Oh no I need to generate paper saying this is a non-conformance and someone has to disposition it.) -Snowball of seemingly small issues ballooning into large ones. (I can't have the pipe fitters move pipe in their own flat bed. The driver has to be a teamster. Oh now we have to schedule poo poo in 24 hours in advance b/c they're busy. Oh we can't do it on a Friday cause the crew only wants to work 4-10s. Can't get a different Friday crew to do it cause different crews don't like touching other crew's work. So now we're a day behind. Oh we're short a crane or fork lift due to maintence problems, etc, etc, etc.) You know what is at the core of Russia's, China's, South Korea, UAE's success stories? A large amount of labor at cheap prices and nationalized material supply chains that do not have to issue out quotes to bid. Any large Construction project in the U.S. might have 1000-2000 people working on it, if that many. The UAE can use 10,000 people and keep them in a man camp working for 6 days a week for a year at a time. You have some people die? Have a heart attack? Die of heat exhaustion? Commit suicide? Well ship them out and get someone new in. The U.S. does not follow the barbarous labor practices of the middle east, China, or South Korea. We have to submit our bids for material out to market to be "competitive". Then we receive counterfeit goods from supposed nuclear accredited companies that we have to "eat the costs" on. (Maybe you can get your money back, maybe not...) You are comparing apples to oranges. Give me a loving break. **Edit You want to know how to make nuclear cheap and affordable in the U.S.? Nationalize every single plant to be under the control of the U.S. Navy. Establish modular reactors based off what is already used in aircraft carriers and submarine. Built (or at least overseen by), owned, and operated by the Navy. Maybe have some of the owners, designers and architects regain some 'common sense' instead of numerous bullshit responses? Hmm you know what, why stop there? How about we nationalize every power plant? Why should electricity be a for-profit enterprise? Jail terms and lawsuits and fines for 'bullshit' are already a thing in U.S. nuclear industry but unfortunately do not seem to dissuade such shite from happening. Talk to anyone that was around during the 'golden age' of U.S. nuclear power plant construction and they will likely tell you that it has gotten substantially much more difficult than it used to be. Senor P. fucked around with this message at 06:29 on Aug 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
Yeah, the big difference between the 1970s and now is that unionized labor is so much more pervasive in 2017.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Yeah, the big difference between the 1970s and now is that unionized labor is so much more pervasive in 2017. Did they have a million different contractor with their very own special snowflake issues in the 1970s or did Big American Nuclear Co just send their own workforce and hire a bunch of extra specialist dudes so they'd be able to work without having to stop for like three days every time someone dropped a pipe?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
Senor P. posted:You want to know how to make nuclear cheap and affordable in the U.S.? Nationalize every single plant to be under the control of the U.S. Navy. Establish modular reactors based off what is already used in aircraft carriers and submarine. Built (or at least overseen by), owned, and operated by the Navy. You are going to have to expound on this one--on its face it sounds like a really bad idea. The U.S. military operates under much different constraints than the commercial world and is not really known for being a low-cost organization.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 11:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 13:00 |
|
|
silence_kit posted:You are going to have to expound on this one--on its face it sounds like a really bad idea. The U.S. military operates under much different constraints than the commercial world and is not really known for being a low-cost organization. The Nuclear Navy at this point almost certainly operates at a better cost ratio than most commercial plants. That's more that the process is streamlined and mass produced and while labor unions are still a thing (a good thing) they also know that the two navy shipyards balk none of the lazy poo poo you see in a lot of other construction processes. I don't think a single S9G reactor plant has been behind schedule. M_Gargantua fucked around with this message at 11:22 on Aug 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 11:19
|
|
