Recycling Coal plants

[Blues Man]

Very interesting. Noticed immediately this does not include cost for construction, or handling of waste. Just the cost of running the plant. Evaluated in that manner, the cost of Solar and Wind are close to 0 per kw/hr. When I was young, and they were first touting the building of nuclear plants, these same people said that they were failsafe, and would produce electricity so cheap it would not be metered. LOL Also noticed this article was dated 2002. That is 19 years ago, so why are we not seeing a bunch of these reactors now?

Since no one has built an MSR reactor there are only estimates

In depth: Costs – Stichting Thorium MSR

www.thmsr.com

It has been suggested that based on its size and design, it may be feasible to produce 100 megawatt thorium-MSR’s for around $200 million apiece, similar to the way Boeing produces large aircraft in factories, which would come down to at $2,00 per watt, lower than the capital cost of a coal power plant.

The typical cost o a wind turbine in 1.3 million per MW of INSTALLED CAPACITY so in reality to get 1 MW of actual power 4 1 MW turbines must be installed. so it really costs over 5 million per MW and then we still have to deal with the fact that the power is intermittent

 

[Old Rocks]

The volume of electricity is falling...that's how those numbers were fudged.

Electricity is measured by MW/hr, not volume. While there was a slight decrease in 2020, from 2010 to 2020, the use of electricity has plateaued. The figures were not fudged. Renewables surpassed coal and nuclear in use because they are economically a better deal.

U.S. electricity consumption 2023 | Statista

How much electricity does the United States use in a year? The annual electricity consumption in the U.S. grew steadily over the past few years.

www.statista.com

 

[Old Rocks]

Since no one has built an MSR reactor there are only estimates

In depth: Costs – Stichting Thorium MSR

www.thmsr.com

It has been suggested that based on its size and design, it may be feasible to produce 100 megawatt thorium-MSR’s factories for around $200 million apiece, similar to the way Boeing produces large aircraft in factories, which would come down to at $2,00 per watt, lower than the capital cost of a coal power plant.

The typical cost o a wind turbine in 1.3 million per MW of INSTALLED CAPACITY so in reality to get 1 MW of actual power 4 1 MW turbines must be installed. so it really costs over 5 million per MW and then we still have to deal with the fact that the power is intermittent

That is not the cost that Lazard sees;

Levelized Cost of Energy+

Levelized Cost of Energy+

www.lazard.com

 

[JohnDB]

There is no such thing as clean coal. And how on Earth are you saying coal is a renewable resource? Once it is burned, it is gone. As far as aluminum and silicon being more polluting than coal, you are full of shit.

Then the only obvious thing left is that you don't understand what yellow coal is, why it isn't used, or how it is made and can be made...or how clean Coal technology is clean.

 

[Blues Man]

That is not the cost that Lazard sees;

View attachment 545708

Levelized Cost of Energy+

Levelized Cost of Energy+

www.lazard.com

Based on obsolete light water reactor costs

 

[fncceo]

China is faces with a very large population with rising expectations.

America can't have rising expectations?

 

[Old Rocks]

America can't have rising expectations?

We are already a first world nation, and most of our citizens enjoy a life that is quite rich compared to the life in China. The Chinese and also people of other non-first world nations, aspire to the standard of living that we enjoy. Yes, we can do better, but compared to those in second and third world nations, we are already there. And through the media they see how rich the first world nations are, and ask their leaders why they are so poor. The leaders that fail to work to improve the state of their citizens will eventually be removed. Sometimes in rather unpleasant manners.

Yes, we can and do have rising expectations. However, our 'Conservatives' continue to try to take us back to the 19th century.

 

[Decus]

Thank you for the link. Sounds like they are trying to cover all the bases. Yes, hydrogen storage is another way to store grid scale energy. It is not very efficient, but we are using what is basically free energy to create it, and it can be stored indefinitely. Energy storage, like energy generation, is not a single solution problem. Location, costs, amount of energy needed on peaks, all are factors in choosing what is the best solution for a given location. As more people install solar with battery backups, and a number of companies develop programs like Tesla's Autobidder, the grid will become more robust and stable. Add in grid scale storage of the various types, and the future looks very good for less costly energy and more of it.

I'm happy to see that having different opinions doesn't have to lead to hostility. Where we still disagree however is that I believe wind and solar are unreliable sources of energy and no amount of energy storage can provide us with a stable and constant supply, based on the amounts of energy we use in the US. The only stable and constant source of clean energy production I see is created by geothermal, hydroelectric or nuclear power generation. Given that geothermal and hydroelectric cannot be produced everywhere, nuclear is my preferred solution.

.

 

[Decus]

Also most industry shut down in 2020 so stopping the chart isn't exactly an accurate representation of reality.

But the main thing that even this chart shows is the rise of natural gas as States begin to wrestle with carbon credits from regulatory requirements.

We can use Clean Coal technology, which is a renewable resource,...it also utilizes the yellow coal that we currently have no use for.
But let's just pollute more by using aluminum smelting and silicon refining in the meantime. (Those two industries pollute longer lasting toxins than coal ever dreamed about)

I would like to see clean coal technology roll out a few pilot projects and put the competing technologies to the test. If true that coal can be burned to produce electricity without emitting pollutants such as sulfur it could give a second life to the coal industry and help maintain our energy independence.

.

 

[JohnDB]

I would like to see clean coal technology roll out a few pilot projects and put the competing technologies to the test. If true that coal can be burned to produce electricity without emitting pollutants such as sulfur it could give a second life to the coal industry and help maintain our energy independence.

.

The technology is actually kinda old...it was first developed, in part, by the Germans during WWII because they had access to coal but not diesel when we got the middle east away from them.

Since then a LOT of technology has come about and an even further understanding of chemistry and physics. To make clean Coal burning generation plants wouldn't be that difficult...but the refineries to process the yellow coal or to manufacture the yellow coal would be problematic with the EPA... nobody wants there to be a refinery or process factory in their neighborhood...or even a electric generation plant...we barely tolerate water towers these days. (Ugghhhh)

Everything is politics anymore. Dumbest thing I've ever seen. Especially when we know that ALL politicians are liars.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We have renewables that generate electricity for far less cost than the coal fired plants that it makes economic sense to close them down and replace them with renewables.

Does Germany have renewables that generate electricity for far less cost than their coal fired plants?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I appreciate your honesty. There is presently no way of saying if this is a viable option for energy storage but I have to say that thermal storage has a number of limitations including the inability to store energy for an indefinite period of time. The goal shouldn't be to simply find a way to convert existing coal plants but rather to find the most efficient and cleanest means for producing and storing electricity.

Here is a company that was built on solar energy production and is now moving into the field of energy storage:

Electrical Energy Storage - Fraunhofer ISE

www.ise.fraunhofer.de

Their idea is not new but they are demonstrating the possibilities of using solar energy to create hydrogen. This makes sense in a number of ways:

• hydrogen is a clean burning fuel
• it can be stored until needed (indefinitely)
• it can be used by a number of different industries, as well as to provide energy to the grid (replacing natural gas, coal, diesel, etc.)
• ......

If you want to convert coal plants this is potentially the better way to do it.

.

• it can be stored until needed (indefinitely)

Stored how?

 

[Old Rocks]

• it can be stored until needed (indefinitely)

Stored how?

Pressurized or cryogenic tanks. Same as natural gas.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Pressurized or cryogenic tanks. Same as natural gas.

So much less energy than methane. So much harder to store.

 

[whitehall]

You can claim that "coal plants are no longer economically viable" if you consider that migratory bird killing windmills are at the point where breakdowns are not economically viable without taxpayer funding and solar panels can't recoup their manufacturing costs for the better part of half a century. Coal fired plants still produce more electricity than windmills and solar panels combined.

 

[Old Rocks]

You can claim that "coal plants are no longer economically viable" if you consider that migratory bird killing windmills are at the point where breakdowns are not economically viable without taxpayer funding and solar panels can't recoup their manufacturing costs for the better part of half a century. Coal fired plants still produce more electricity than windmills and solar panels combined.

Any more silly lies to put out there? Hydro is a renewable, and wind, solar, and hydro produced more power in the US than coal did last year. And within five years, wind and solar on their own will produce more power than coal. Renewables get less government subsidies than does fossil fuel corporations.

Electricity in the U.S. - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

The major fuel/energy sources and their contribution to annual U.S. electricity generation.

www.eia.gov

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Any more silly lies to put out there? Hydro is a renewable, and wind, solar, and hydro produced more power in the US than coal did last year. And within five years, wind and solar on their own will produce more power than coal. Renewables get less government subsidies than does fossil fuel corporations.

View attachment 546505

Electricity in the U.S. - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

The major fuel/energy sources and their contribution to annual U.S. electricity generation.

www.eia.gov

Renewables get less government subsidies than does fossil fuel corporations.

Liar.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I appreciate your honesty. There is presently no way of saying if this is a viable option for energy storage but I have to say that thermal storage has a number of limitations including the inability to store energy for an indefinite period of time. The goal shouldn't be to simply find a way to convert existing coal plants but rather to find the most efficient and cleanest means for producing and storing electricity.

Here is a company that was built on solar energy production and is now moving into the field of energy storage:

Electrical Energy Storage - Fraunhofer ISE

www.ise.fraunhofer.de

Their idea is not new but they are demonstrating the possibilities of using solar energy to create hydrogen. This makes sense in a number of ways:

• hydrogen is a clean burning fuel
• it can be stored until needed (indefinitely)
• it can be used by a number of different industries, as well as to provide energy to the grid (replacing natural gas, coal, diesel, etc.)
• ......

If you want to convert coal plants this is potentially the better way to do it.

.

https://afdc.energy.gov/files/pdfs/hyd_economy_bossel_eliasson.pdf

 

[Decus]

View attachment 547752

https://afdc.energy.gov/files/pdfs/hyd_economy_bossel_eliasson.pdf

The research link you posted was produced by ABB, a company that sells battery storage solutions for the grid so it is understandable that they would want to claim that other types of energy storage solutions aren't desirable.

The fact is:

"Very large amounts of hydrogen can be stored in constructed underground salt caverns of up to 500,000 cubic meters at 2,900 psi, which would mean about 100 GWh of stored electricity. In this way, longer periods of flaws or of excess wind / PV energy production can be leveled. Even balancing seasonal variations might be possible."

Account Suspended

energystorage.org

The push for large scale hydrogen storage has already been launched in the US, Europe and other countries worldwide:

An $11 trillion global hydrogen energy boom is coming. Here's what could trigger it

Storing fuel in salt caverns isn't a new, but hydrogen's growing role in decarbonization has revitalized interest in the concept.

www.cnbc.com

"A recent study by the Jülich Institute for Energy and Climate Research (IEK-3) stated that salt caverns offer a flexible, efficient option for hydrogen storage. The research group estimated that Europe has the technical potential to store 84.8 PWh of hydrogen in bedded salt deposits and salt domes."

Dutch gas giant begins storing hydrogen in underground salt cavern

Operated by Gasunie, the underground storage facility is located near Veendam in the province of Groningen and should be fully operational in 2026. Tests will be run until spring 2022.

www.pv-magazine.com

Now try to understand the significance of 84.8 petawatt hours (PWh) of hydrogen storage only in Europe - WORLDWIDE energy demands for 2020 was about 24 petawatt hours (PWh).

Electricity demand globally 2040 | Statista

The electricity demand worldwide amounted to over 22 petawatt hours in 2017, up from nearly 13.2 petawatt hours at the beginning of the century.

www.statista.com

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The research link you posted was produced by ABB, a company that sells battery storage solutions for the grid so it is understandable that they would want to claim that other types of energy storage solutions aren't desirable.

The fact is:

"Very large amounts of hydrogen can be stored in constructed underground salt caverns of up to 500,000 cubic meters at 2,900 psi, which would mean about 100 GWh of stored electricity. In this way, longer periods of flaws or of excess wind / PV energy production can be leveled. Even balancing seasonal variations might be possible."

Account Suspended

energystorage.org

The push for large scale hydrogen storage has already been launched in the US, Europe and other countries worldwide:

An $11 trillion global hydrogen energy boom is coming. Here's what could trigger it

Storing fuel in salt caverns isn't a new, but hydrogen's growing role in decarbonization has revitalized interest in the concept.

www.cnbc.com

"A recent study by the Jülich Institute for Energy and Climate Research (IEK-3) stated that salt caverns offer a flexible, efficient option for hydrogen storage. The research group estimated that Europe has the technical potential to store 84.8 PWh of hydrogen in bedded salt deposits and salt domes."

Dutch gas giant begins storing hydrogen in underground salt cavern

Operated by Gasunie, the underground storage facility is located near Veendam in the province of Groningen and should be fully operational in 2026. Tests will be run until spring 2022.

www.pv-magazine.com

Now try to understand the significance of 84.8 petawatt hours (PWh) of hydrogen storage only in Europe - WORLDWIDE energy demands for 2020 were about 24 petawatt hours (PWh).

Electricity demand globally 2040 | Statista

The electricity demand worldwide amounted to over 22 petawatt hours in 2017, up from nearly 13.2 petawatt hours at the beginning of the century.

www.statista.com

.

The research link you posted was produced by ABB, a company that sells battery storage solutions for the grid so it is understandable that they would want to claim that other types of energy storage solutions aren't desirable.

If you have a source that shows H2 doesn't have much less energy for the same volume, post it up. I could probably find an old chemistry textbook. Would that work, or are they anti-hydrogen also?

The push for large scale hydrogen storage has already been launched in the US, Europe and other countries worldwide:

Throw enough government dollars at an issue, people will do a lot of senseless things.

Now try to understand the significance of 84.8 petawatt hours (PWh) of hydrogen storage only in Europe - WORLDWIDE energy demands for 2020 were about 24 petawatt hours (PWh).

You want to generate multiples of annual worldwide power demand, and use it to store hydrogen underground? What are we going to use for power while you're doing that?