Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Feb 22, 2018 12:12 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Water?
PostPosted: Aug 29, 2014 11:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Dec 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Posts: 219
Location: Newport Beach, CA
E Ireland wrote:
Joshua Maurice wrote:
@Ireland,
Wait, are you talking shielded underwater high power lines going across the Atlantic?

Why not? We have now got HVDC projects putting cables in 2000m or more of water, on the abyssal plain in the Mediterranean.
It seems to indicate that there are unlikely to be any showstoppers about running a similar cable from Scotland/Northern Ireland to Labrador - where it could be connected to the proposed additional projects in the Churchill Falls area.

A domestic customer for NF&L Hydro spends roughly 9 Canadian Cents per kWh for electricity.
I pay nearly 25.


Those lines can't be cheap. The amortized capital costs would probably be well over the 16 cents/kWh pricing spread.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Water?
PostPosted: Aug 29, 2014 2:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: May 24, 2009 4:42 am
Posts: 826
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Cthorm wrote:
Those lines can't be cheap. The amortized capital costs would probably be well over the 16 cents/kWh pricing spread.
HVDC ties are expensive, I don't know that they are that expensive, but with MSR/LFTR technology you can build quite close to load centres and need only modest transmission infrastructure.

The counterpoint to that is that as a cost of dealing with NIMBY's we may find NPP's concentrated in key areas pumping out up to 10 GW onto large capacity HVDC interconnectors, but that's using technology to deal with a people problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Water?
PostPosted: Aug 29, 2014 3:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2008 4:55 pm
Posts: 496
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
I can see underwater power plants before they ship the power that far.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Water?
PostPosted: Aug 29, 2014 4:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1502
Cthorm wrote:
E Ireland wrote:
Joshua Maurice wrote:
@Ireland,
Wait, are you talking shielded underwater high power lines going across the Atlantic?

Why not? We have now got HVDC projects putting cables in 2000m or more of water, on the abyssal plain in the Mediterranean.
It seems to indicate that there are unlikely to be any showstoppers about running a similar cable from Scotland/Northern Ireland to Labrador - where it could be connected to the proposed additional projects in the Churchill Falls area.

A domestic customer for NF&L Hydro spends roughly 9 Canadian Cents per kWh for electricity.
I pay nearly 25.


Those lines can't be cheap. The amortized capital costs would probably be well over the 16 cents/kWh pricing spread.

HVDC lines are cheap - converter stations are the expensive part - which is why Hydro Quebec manages such low cost rates despite shipping power huge distances. You only ever need two stations.
The power line is just a big bar of aluminium wrapped in cheap insulation and cheap steel armour.
The longest line today is like 2300km, Labrador to Ireland isn't enormously further. (Make it roughly 3000km)

16c/kWh is $1400/kw-yr. That is HUGE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Water?
PostPosted: Aug 29, 2014 4:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 28, 2011 10:44 am
Posts: 247
The proposed NordBalt line between Sweden and Lithuania
is 400 km under water, 50 km land, 700 MW, VSC, +-300kV.
The budget is 580e6 euros of which 270 is the cable.
If they meet the budget, the capital cost of the line will
be less than 1 USD cents per kWh. Loss less than 3 pct.
VSC means we can puts the plants just about anywhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Water?
PostPosted: Aug 29, 2014 5:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sep 15, 2011 7:58 pm
Posts: 186
Thanks E Ireland. I was under the false impression that wiring serious amounts of electricity that far underwater was ludicrous. Instead, it seems that it just might be very expensive, and perhaps close enough that I should educate myself about it. Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Water?
PostPosted: Aug 29, 2014 5:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Posts: 219
Location: Newport Beach, CA
djw1 wrote:
The proposed NordBalt line between Sweden and Lithuania
is 400 km under water, 50 km land, 700 MW, VSC, +-300kV.
The budget is 580e6 euros of which 270 is the cable.
If they meet the budget, the capital cost of the line will
be less than 1 USD cents per kWh. Loss less than 3 pct.
VSC means we can puts the plants just about anywhere.



So the Canada-Ireland line would be something on the magnitude of 7.5 cents/kWh. Much more reasonable than I thought


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Water?
PostPosted: Aug 29, 2014 11:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2239
Canada-Ireland power cable may or may not be possible but desalting water in Canada from a power station in Ireland (or a desalted water pipeline) is just not a viable arrangement. It would be far better to have a floating power plant on Atlantic or Pacific coast.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Water?
PostPosted: Aug 30, 2014 7:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1502
Also I am apparently behind the times, ABB has released a press release that 1100kV HVDC development is complete. They say they now have a marketable product.
Here it is


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Water?
PostPosted: Aug 30, 2014 9:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 2:34 pm
Posts: 178
Location: Here and There
"Also I am apparently behind the times, ABB has released a press release that 1100kV HVDC development is complete."

Boy, ole Tom Edison must be looking down with a smile and saying, "Take that Tesla, so much for AC, eh?"

The idea of running cheap power from Canada to Europe seems a little silly when they could be building new plants there for their power and desalination. Seems like another high price to pay to eliminate fear uncertainty and doubt about nuke plants.

Easy to raise that fear: Some people are afraid about cell phone radiation. How much radiation is given off the EM field from the DC line? What's the line going to do to the fish?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Water?
PostPosted: Aug 30, 2014 11:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1502
The EM field won't penetrate the lead and steel cable armour. Also almost no fish on the abyssal plain. That's one of the reasons for the name.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Water?
PostPosted: Aug 31, 2014 10:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 2:34 pm
Posts: 178
Location: Here and There
Are today's undersea cables copper or Aluminum? That insulation has to be very very good to withstand the ultra high voltage. Will the cable use oil for the insulation? Armored cables get very heavy. I'd guess there would be a lot of undersea splices. Failures would be rather expensive to repair. This is kinda the part of the ocean where the Titanic went down. Cold water, choppy waves. Whoever estimates this one ought to throw in a lot of contingency for the bid.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Water?
PostPosted: Aug 31, 2014 5:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1502
I believe pretty much all are Aluminium - the cost differential really tells and aluminium is likely more resistant to corrosion from seawater exposure.
As to the insulation - Kraft Paper/Insulating oil, perhaps with some plastic film layers is really the only suitable technology that has a chance of reaching the right voltage range any time soon. GILs are useless underwater and XPLE cables are only in the 350kV range at the moment.

And sure it would be very expensive - but the point I was more trying to make was show that it was no longer inconceivable that such a project could occur - rather than trying to suggest it for immediate deployment.
The thing is that, especially on land, 1100kV HVDC effectively eliminates concerns about long distance power transmission.
It also makes the potential of "el-pipes" even more enormous.

Hell it might even be worth supplying parts of the Northern US with power stations positioned in the Canadian Arctic where they can get better efficiencies due to lower heat reject temperatures.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Water?
PostPosted: Aug 31, 2014 7:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 2:34 pm
Posts: 178
Location: Here and There
"Kraft Paper/Insulating oil, perhaps with some plastic film layers is really the only suitable technology that has a chance of reaching the right voltage range any time soon. GILs are useless underwater and XPLE cables are only in the 350kV range at the moment."

Sounds almost like the paper and lead cable that has been used for more than 100 years. I doubt whether you want either the aluminum or copper exposed to seawater as they are current carrying conductors. I expect they'd end up like the Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced (ACSR) used overhead all over, but sealed overall with some kind of jacket and some material to reduce the voltage gradient. It would not be a stock cable.

Building the plants in Northern Canada might be an easier sell. The population is lower. You would be building towers on permafrost. Same thing with the plant(s). Would the Canadians be more sensible about getting some long term well paying industries into their far North? Continuous cash flow is not a bad deal.

How much of a heat rate boost would you get with an Arctic climate?

Secondary benefits of the plants could re-open some old mines or open some new ones, although newer plants should be so much more efficient at using fuel, that this may not be a major benefit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_Canada


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Water?
PostPosted: Sep 01, 2014 6:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1502
Not sure about temperatures precisely but apparently peak water temperature at Churchill, MB is something like 5-6 Celsius in the height of summer.
The average air temperature there is -5C.

So I would imagine some significant (Several percent) would be obtainable. Which would almost certainly overcome the transmission losses with our new 1100kV thyristor systems that can manage transmission over thousands of kilometres with almost no loss.

10GW over 3,000+km - which would enable it to reach most of the United States.

EDIT:
Average summer air temperatures in Churchill can reach 30 degrees celsius - so in the summer water cooling is clearly preferable, but during the winter it might be worthwhile to use 'dry' cooling towers with an organic bottoming cycle as the average high in Winter is -15C.
This would likely allow input to increase significantly in winter but would prohibit the use of a simple LWR inspired steam cycle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group