Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Oct 23, 2017 3:42 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
PostPosted: Aug 13, 2014 4:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5058
jagdish wrote:
http://nuclear.inl.gov/deliverables/docs/ornl-tm-2006-69_htl_salt.pdf
NaCl-MgCl2, KCl-MgCl2, KF-ZrF4,and NaF-NaBF4 could be the cost effective salts for heat storage. They could be in a storage outside the core as partly melted salts for phase change energy to add to heat storage.


These salts are all higher melting, less compatible with steam and generally more corrosive than NaNO3-KNO3 eutectic.

NaNO3-KNO3 eutectic is a very good allround heat storage medium, good with steam, easy on stainless steel, low melting, cheap, nontoxic, available in massive supply, etc. etc.

In a future higher temp storage system the chlorides look better on balance, but it remains to be seen that there are substantial advantages to going above 570C in the storage. Creep and corrosion become serious issues, you want a big tank but big tank in creep regime means massively thick walls, which is difficult to make and suffers thermal stress etc.

It doesn't look like we can improve much on $100/kWe for the tank and salt cost of the nitrate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 13, 2014 4:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5058
djw1 wrote:
The steam generator and TG would have to be speced to the peak load,
but I suspect this will be cheaper than a separate peaking TG and SG,

Having said this, the Caiso duck is not a problem we should focus on.


Agree, but I think that the general scheme of storage has merit for most markets, not just California. You could have a combined baseload-peaker plant, that means nearly limitless market potential. It would be useful for >90% of the electricity supply in just about any country or area.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 13, 2014 12:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: May 24, 2009 4:42 am
Posts: 826
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Cyril R wrote:
I think that the general scheme of storage has merit for most markets, not just California. You could have a combined baseload-peaker plant, that means nearly limitless market potential. It would be useful for >90% of the electricity supply in just about any country or area.
I've spent time in generation development roles at different times and it's always good to have options, having a credible option to go to 90% MSR/LFTR power is a very useful thing whether you exercise that option in the near term or not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 13, 2014 12:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3072
The biggest value is in discussions not in real work.
I'm thinking we can say with a straight face that yes nuclear not only can load follow at some significant economic cost but together with high temp thermal storage it can do a decent, economic job of peak handling - even those induced by renewables.

So, if in the discussion is with someone who really really believes in renewables then high temp nuclear is still a contender for the bulk of the energy supply. And if there is someone who is very concerned about CO2 emissions and thinks renewables are part of the solution it provides a rational way that nuclear could be used instead of coal and gas.

This isn't to say I think renewables are a good idea - but it does concede that renewables have a lot of public and political support in the west and I'd rather not do political battle with them. If we can get them to begrudgingly admit there is a place for nuclear and that it is better than coal or gas then I hope we can avoid their opposition to nuclear expansion (in particular outside the west).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 05, 2014 6:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1337
Location: NoOPWA
Cthorm wrote:
Cyril R wrote:
Wow! Best evidence against the stupid idea of grid connected solar panels ive seen in months. California, stop subsidizing energy sources that deliver power right when it isnt needed.


It actually looks like grid connected solar was helping smooth the load out until about mid 2013.
No, it does not smooth out the load. It shift demand from a lower peak to a higher peak. Thus, not only will all that solar not take over for some of the capacity that is otherwise needed, it will actually add to the needed capacity. Under this scenario, solar has a NEGATIVE capacity credit!

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Last edited by KitemanSA on Sep 05, 2014 11:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 05, 2014 7:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1497
I don't suppose the giant trough happens to line up with peak demand on the Eastern seaboard does it? (Or would that be too much to hope?)

A couple of 800/1100kV UHVDC bipoles could probably allow you to move power around like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 05, 2014 11:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1337
Location: NoOPWA
E Ireland wrote:
I don't suppose the giant trough happens to line up with peak demand on the Eastern seaboard does it? (Or would that be too much to hope?)
Yes, but not necessarily with the same impact. The weather patterns can be totally out of sync. Cloudy west while an AC demanding heatwave grasps the east.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 05, 2014 5:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 265
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
Cthorm wrote:
California actually has a moratorium on new nuclear power plants, which automatically expires if the nuclear fuel cycle is closed in the US (i.e. Yucca Mountain opens or fuel reprocessing is allowed). But it does have a couple of relevant loopholes:

Nuclear reprocessing is legal in the USA. It's not done for economical reasons instead. It's said that new enriched uranium is cheaper than reprocessing.
If the issue was just this, then CA could fund S-PRISM construction or LFTR development, both have integral reprocessing. The reality is the CA people has been sold a lot of anti nuclear lies... Those have been discussed ad nauseum in other threads and other forums and other sites.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 07, 2014 12:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Nov 23, 2010 6:51 pm
Posts: 124
KitemanSA wrote:
Cthorm wrote:
Cyril R wrote:
Wow! Best evidence against the stupid idea of grid connected solar panels ive seen in months. California, stop subsidizing energy sources that deliver power right when it isnt needed.


It actually looks like grid connected solar was helping smooth the load out until about mid 2013.
No, it does not smooth out the load. It shift demand from a lower peak to a higher peak. Thus, not only will all that solar not take over for some of the capacity that is otherwise needed, it will actually add to the needed capacity. Under this scenario, solar has a NEGATIVE capacity credit!

The graph does indicate an increasing demand peak in the early evening, but how can solar be shifting demand? Wouldn't that evening peak be increasing in the absence of solar as well?

It looks to me that until 2013 solar was reducing the amount of time that peak generation capacity was required from morning, afternoon and evening to evening only - saving some fuel costs but not reducing capital costs. Increasing use of solar is now creating a mid-day surplus with little value (not much savings from shutting down baseload generators for a few hours a day).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 07, 2014 2:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1337
Location: NoOPWA
Titanium48 wrote:
Increasing use of solar is now creating a mid-day surplus with little value (not much savings from shutting down baseload generators for a few hours a day).
Negative savings in some cases. Baseload units are often baseload because they are not economical unless the capital cost is spread across all 24 hours in a day. If it can't be, then some of those baseload plants will close and be replaced with more peaking power plants, a NEGATIVE value.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

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