Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Sep 20, 2017 4:51 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Jul 22, 2012 10:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 102
Okay, I do understand that most of you guys hate carbon fuels but please understand this is is just a short term solution for TEPCO power.
TEPCO should set up natural gas steam boilers next to their non running nuclear plants. Run a pipe line from the steam boilers to their nuclear steam turbines. Until their nuclear reactors come on line, have natural gas steam boilers run their nuclear steam turbines.
This way, they can use non running turbines to create power.
Also, they could do upgrades on their nuclear reactors and still have their steam turbines running. Even if it took 5 years to do an upgrade, why not do it.
What do you guys think?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 22, 2012 11:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2008 4:55 pm
Posts: 496
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
I should think that if they did that they would never go nuclear again. Fort St. Vrain did that in Colorado.

http://www.fsvfolks.org/FSVHistory_2.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 22, 2012 5:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 102
Thank you for your reply Ida-Russkie

Fuel loading 1973
1976 power levels greater than 2%.
Core thermal fluctuations were observed on November 23, 1977
on line 1978
first refueling 1979.


From fuel loading,1973 to 1979, how much thermal nuclear reactor energy was turned into grid power? It sounds like it was not much.

That is a 5 year period.
I can understand why they shut down the reactor. Way to many problems.

Japan can upgrade their reactors, all 50, take 3-5 years in doing each one. Why set up more gas,steam turbines with natural gas when you have steam turbines already? Natural gas could be a back up supply of heat when the reactors are not suppling heat to boilers.

Why have steam turbine investments sit idle?


Last edited by Wilson on Jul 22, 2012 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 22, 2012 6:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 102
It took 5 years of power generating to pass nuclear days.

Nuclear 1973-1988

Natural gas 1996-2001

"In February 2001, Fort St. Vrain exceeded the total output generated by the plant during the nuclear days. This was a bittersweet date for those who were at FSV in those days."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 22, 2012 7:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 102
Okay, I see one problem. When you compare efficiencies of a gas turbine + steam turbine to a nuclear 280 C* steam turbine. Its 55% compared to 33% efficiency.

I doubt that the Japanese nuclear steam turbines run higher then 280 C*.

I guess this was not a very good idea after all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 23, 2012 8:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3072
Other know better but I think a combined cycle would take the high temp natural gas and extract energy through a brayton cycle and then take the exhaust heat and run it through a steam cycle. I suppose they could add just the gas turbine and take the exhaust heat to the nuclear power plants. But my impression is that the power companies hope to turn on the nukes in a much shorter period than 5 years - and I would guess it would take some time to build out LNG terminals probably longer than to upgrade the nuclear power plants. Seems to me that the obvious upgrades should not take that long:
Higher seawalls
secure backup power
preplanned hookups for imported power and water
safety gear for workers
landing spots for heavy lift helicopters to bring in equipment even if the roads are unusable
spare equipment stashes in a few well separated locations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 24, 2012 2:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Sep 02, 2009 10:24 am
Posts: 512
Also, CCGT is a very low capital cost energy source - about £1 billion can get you 3GW of capacity.

The expensive but is the fuel, unless your in the USA at present. So the focus on gas is to use it at the highest efficiency, which is over 50% for a CCGT and about 30% for a nuclear steam turbine (where the heat, when it runs, is very cheap).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 24, 2012 11:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2219
Conversion of coal powered plants to nuclear has been discussed in the past.
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=1569&hilit=conversion+of+coal+plants+to+nuclear&start=0
http://coal2nuclear.com/chapter_5_page_2.htm
Now we are discussing the other way round.
I am sure that turbine manufacturers would have an answer. The utilities could take a view after any proposals are received from the manufacturers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 31, 2012 1:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 30, 2008 11:12 am
Posts: 11
The biggest problem is the size- usually a combined cycle plant would be a 270 MW gas turbine exhausting into a heat recovery steam boiler to drive a 130 MW steam turbine. You'd need 3000 MW of gas turbines (and it's fuel) to drive a single 1000 MW nuke steam turbine system. The T&D guys will throw stuff at you when you tell them they have to have another 4000 MW reserve for when that unit trips offline. Not to mention trying to get the line capacity to move that power from one site.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group