Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Oct 23, 2017 3:43 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sep 03, 2014 6:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Posts: 219
Location: Newport Beach, CA
E Ireland wrote:
Problem is you will never get the permissions to build a complex there.

Up in the Arctic you can build a complex that sprawls over a huge area and not even have a problem with someone complaining that their house will be compulsorily purchased.
And the Greens will have trouble claiming that a Chernobyl esque accident would cause absurd amounts of property damage.
I wonder how much the total value of all the property up there actually is.

And that is another benefit of these huge lines.
Baseload that is unused in the winter in Winnipeg can be used in summer in Los Angeles and things like that.


I'm with you on the desire to use remote locations for easy siting. I don't think aiming for inhospitably cold sites is worthwhile. Avoid harsh weather where you can, especially if it can interfere with construction and maintenance. North America has a very low population density, surely there are good locations to be found. Like Utah's deserts, or Wyoming.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 03, 2014 7:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sep 22, 2013 6:43 am
Posts: 17
Location: Prescott, AZ USA
Cthorm wrote:
...

I'm with you on the desire to use remote locations for easy siting. I don't think aiming for inhospitably cold sites is worthwhile. Avoid harsh weather where you can, especially if it can interfere with construction and maintenance. North America has a very low population density, surely there are good locations to be found. Like Utah's deserts, or Wyoming.

Lots of open space out here in the American West. The problem probably is water. There is not much of that out here but if a MSR that did not have to use water for cooling would be perfected that would be just the ticket.

_________________
Norm


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 04, 2014 4:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1497
Air cooled systems will have serious problems with efficiency losses in high summer - especially if you have a large number of plants that will significantly alter the local climate.
Dropping 90GWt of waste heat into the local environment will major effect s if you can't buffer it with a giant body of water.

Line commutated converters (which are the only type available for these voltages) also do not tend to like flow reversals - having a large central complex ensures that while the flows may change in magnitude they will never reverse.

Also if we are going to have a huge array of power stations where almost all the energy is coupled through HVDC systems - could you save money by replacing t he standard ~50/60Hz generating equipment with higher speed but more compact 400Hz generating equipment?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 04, 2014 10:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5058
E Ireland wrote:
Air cooled systems will have serious problems with efficiency losses in high summer


Doesn't appear so bad with indirect Heller natural circulation systems. 5% or so, unless you're building in the desert - no need to do that, nobody is proposing large nuclear parks in the desert, but it could be done at an acceptable averaged summertime 10% loss over a full wet deluge cooling tower.

Any direct once through cooling is going to win out on efficiency, and there are other advantages in logistics, especially when building in say an industrial harbor. So locations on large lakes and oceans are still attractive.

Quote:
- especially if you have a large number of plants that will significantly alter the local climate.
Dropping 90GWt of waste heat into the local environment will major effect s if you can't buffer it with a giant body of water.


Not so sure about that Ed. 10 GWe seems like all you'll want from a park, more just gets into logistics issues. 10 GWe of baseload covers a massively large demand area, even with US levels of electricity consumption, plus full on electric vehicles and heating. 10 GWe means, with inefficient dry cooling, about 15 GWt of heat rejection (40% efficiency). 15 GWt is pretty small compared to what the sun throws at us. A sunny area would get a peak of 1 GWt/km2. So the 15 GWt of rejection just matches 4 by 4 km of sunny land. Its pretty tiny compared to cities that change the albedo and heat capacity and so have to deal with up to hundreds of GWt of added peak heat load in summer. They do ok, granted the climate is changed locally but it is acceptable locally (even comfortable in cold areas where the cities warmth is welcomed) and doesn't have a major effect globally. Compared to the mana of the sun, we humans are playing with children's toys.

You'd be surprised at how well a thermally bouyant (concentrated) column of air dissipates. Putting many dry cooling towers together can actually improve the thermal column stability and effect.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 04, 2014 10:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5058
nsche wrote:
Cthorm wrote:
...

I'm with you on the desire to use remote locations for easy siting. I don't think aiming for inhospitably cold sites is worthwhile. Avoid harsh weather where you can, especially if it can interfere with construction and maintenance. North America has a very low population density, surely there are good locations to be found. Like Utah's deserts, or Wyoming.

Lots of open space out here in the American West. The problem probably is water. There is not much of that out here but if a MSR that did not have to use water for cooling would be perfected that would be just the ticket.


I think it is mostly exaggerated. The big water hog is agriculture, consuming about 80% of US freshwater demand. If all thermal powerplants were inefficient LWRs on wasteful deluge cooling wet towers, you'd be talking about around 5% or so of freshwater consumption.

We have to think in terms of cost effectiveness. Where can we save the most water for the least money? Its all in agriculture. Electricity from a large powerplant is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, so cutting down production by 10% due to dry cooling would be in the ballpark of tens of millions of dollars in cost of electricity lost alone. Its a recurring cost, you lose tens of millions every year for the life of the plant. That buys you a LOT of drip irrigation systems...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 04, 2014 10:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1337
Location: NoOPWA
Cyril R wrote:
Its a recurring cost, you lose tens of millions every year for the life of the plant. That buys you a LOT of drip irrigation systems...
Or a lot of desalination.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 04, 2014 11:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5058
KitemanSA wrote:
Cyril R wrote:
Its a recurring cost, you lose tens of millions every year for the life of the plant. That buys you a LOT of drip irrigation systems...
Or a lot of desalination.


It would have to help farmers. Desal water is too expensive for the bulk foodstuffs like corn and potatoes. It would be acceptable for closed greenhouses on high cost foodstuffs like strawberries, but that's not the main problem to start with.

My guess is start with cutting the demand, if you look at the ridiculous systems used to "irrigate" farms. They're the kind of systems I would design for cooling the air evaporatively. They're pretty good at that. That's crazy. Just a little more investment in pipework and you have a massive cut in water consumption. Labor cost can be saved by employing white collar crime criminals - choice between short work on the irrigation systems or a longer jail sentence. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 04, 2014 12:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1497
Israelis are down to 52 US cents per cubic metre now.
The energy cost itself is only 3-4kWh/cubic metre, so with low cost electricity we can probably bear down the costs some more.
Israel thinks it can make 35 US cents/cubic metre.

IF we can get ~3c/kWh then we might be able to bear down on it to 15 cents or so - which is the beginning of the agricultural price range.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 04, 2014 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5058
Anything over 10 cents/m3 is considered very expensive for most US farmers.

Farmers are not going to pay 3-10x more for water. Forget it. With advanced irrigation, they can pay 1/2 or 1/3, sometimes less. That's attractive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 04, 2014 12:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1497
Yes, but the point I am making is that we are getting towards the point where desalination for agricultural use is an option.

New technologies like FO and Aquaporins can potentially get us down into the agricultural price range.
The capital and labour costs of these more efficient irrigation systems are enormous - which is why they are not adopted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 04, 2014 1:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1337
Location: NoOPWA
Cyril R wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
Cyril R wrote:
Its a recurring cost, you lose tens of millions every year for the life of the plant. That buys you a LOT of drip irrigation systems...
Or a lot of desalination.


It would have to help farmers. Desal water is too expensive for the bulk foodstuffs like corn and potatoes.
It is if it is used that way, the way we make it today. But the main issue is not the farming issue, it is the residential and commercial issue. And desal-H2O is plenty cheap for that in MANY areas of the world where water is scarce. And may become cheap enough is used as an effective bottoming cycle for power plants.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 04, 2014 1:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5058
Quote:
But the main issue is not the farming issue


It is the main issue. Residential is just a sideshow, good for politicians, but not actually much water use. Agri water consumption dwarfs everything else combined.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 04, 2014 1:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5058
E Ireland wrote:
Yes, but the point I am making is that we are getting towards the point where desalination for agricultural use is an option.


And the point I'm making is that we really really aren't. Not even close. The cost structure of pumping water out of a well is different than the cost structure of desalination.

Cereals require a typical 1600 m3 of water per ton of product. At 50 cents/m3, this adds $800/ton. On a typical $300/ton product price, that's crazy.

Say you get down to 25 cents/m3 on desal. I'm sorry but I have a hard time believing desal of any type can be lower than this. It is still an added water cost that is greater than the current total value of the product. Crazy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 04, 2014 1:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1337
Location: NoOPWA
Cyril R wrote:
Quote:
But the main issue is not the farming issue


It is the main issue. Residential is just a sideshow, good for politicians, but not actually much water use. Agri water consumption dwarfs everything else combined.

But that is ari-water, sacrosanct and separate. If they got charged competitive prices they would become more efficient themselves.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 04, 2014 2:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1497
This is one of those wierd american things isn't it?
In Britain farmers pay comparable water bills to domestic properties - but then we don't normally do irrigation of fields in a big way, it isn't really necessary.

In either case it appears that UHVDC (and indeed UHVAC technologies like the new 1200kV AC lines being built in China) have major potential to reshape the entire global energy market.
Stranded resources are no longer stranded no matter where they are.

Gas rich states could potentially engage in CCGT plant construction in a value adding exercise.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

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