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  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sep 30, 2015 2:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
If you haven't heard about Tesla Energy you really need to look into it.
100kWh energy storage modules @ US$ 25k each or US$ 250/kWh
Modules can easily installed in up to 10MWh groups, with unlimited scalability (series/parallel configuration).
Tesla introduced this about 6 months ago, reportedly receiving US$ 1 billion in reservations in the first few weeks. They're sold out until mid 2016.
Elon Musk stated very clearly that while he designed this to help solar+wind, he doesn't mind it being used to optimize the dirtiest coal powered region in the world.
He stated that with enough Tesla PowerPacks (the 100kWh pack) half of the worlds generation capacity could be shutdown since the remainder of generation capacity could operate at higher capacity levels. New plant construction could be deferred. Storage could be deployed close to consumers, taking advantage of daily excess generation and transmission capacity.
And conventional nuclear which is very bad at load following could see its excess capacity at low demand hours be stored and used at peak times.
Let's think about this, 5GWh worth of storage for US$ 1.25 billion, or less than 10% of the expected cost of an AP1000 with all of the regulatory insanity in USA/Europe.
5GWh is about 5hrs of full generation capacity of an AP1000.
The big difference is the PowerPacks are expected to last 10 years, while the plant is expected to last 60-80 years, but the packs are reportedly easy to install and require next to no maintenance.
A single Texas electricity utility is quoted to have ordered 250MWh worth of storage alone.
The solution is also very popular with Data Centers, since the packs can be directly charged/discharged in DC energy, better for solar panel generation and better for traditional Telecom/Datacenter 48VDC users.

There has been a lot of lunatic pro solar / anti nuclear folks quoting the power pack will make solar+tesla energy cheaper even than hydro, I doubt that...

Finally, I wouldn't be surprised to see US$ 200/kWh prices in the early 2020s and US$ 150/kWh by late 2020s. The price trend is down...

I think Tesla will eventually sell one trillion dollars worth of stationary energy storage alone.

There is also the powerwall, which is oriented towards residential demands, with a daily cycle model using one type of Li Ion chemistry (to maximize charge/discharge cycles) and UPS optimized model with another type of Li Ion chemistry (to maximize power / US$ at the cost of less charge cycles until the battery is worn out). I assume the Powerpack uses the daily cycle optimized chemistry.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 30, 2015 4:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1330
Location: NoOPWA
Did the math a while back. Adds about 10¢ to 12¢ per kWh to the cost of your power and that is without the losses, installation costs, interest, and waste fees.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 30, 2015 5:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 28, 2011 10:44 am
Posts: 247
Spending 25,000 dollars to store 10 dollars worth of electricity only makes sense
where there are massive diurnal swings in electricity price.

But with enough subsidies, feed-in tariffs, and most importantly mandates
for intermittent power,you can create those swings,

Another way of assuring that only the wealthy of the world have
reliable power.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 30, 2015 6:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
djw1 wrote:
Spending 25,000 dollars to store 10 dollars worth of electricity only makes sense
where there are massive diurnal swings in electricity price.

But with enough subsidies, feed-in tariffs, and most importantly mandates
for intermittent power,you can create those swings,

Another way of assuring that only the wealthy of the world have
reliable power.


The idea isn't having storage as a UPS for when the power plant suffers an unplanned stop, but rather daily cycling.
It comes down to having/not having peaking generation coupled to the reactor baseload.
Over 10 years, that's 36500 dollars of energy coming and then leaving the storage facility, assuming a daily full cycle for 10 years.
And price will come down... That's just the beginning.
We need nuclear power cheaper than coal, cheaper than natural gas. Without it nuclear is dead anyways.
Old Li Ion cells will be recycled into new ones and replaced at cheaper prices.
Hopefully we'll have flow batteries even cheaper in less than 10 years.

I keep forgetting that most guys here don't care about fixing climate change. Burning coal is ok for them... For me it's sacrilege. It outta be 100% outlawed.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Last edited by macpacheco on Oct 01, 2015 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 01, 2015 7:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1502
If we can get LWR prices back within reason its pointless as it would be better to overbuild.
If we can't it's all academic anyway


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 01, 2015 12:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2239
Li-ion and later the flow batteries are good for storage close to customer, like the derogatory reference to its use as UPS. The nuclear energy will be best stored as heat in molten salt.
Used LWR fuel is already choking up the growth of nuclear energy. It is best recycled in fast reactors, preferably the fast MSR. Costs at various points of globe vary more than th e various reactor types.
Mixing Tesla energy and nuclear is comparing chalk and cheese.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 01, 2015 1:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1330
Location: NoOPWA
jagdish wrote:
Used LWR fuel is already choking up the growth of nuclear energy. It is best recycled in fast reactors, preferably the fast MSR.
It can be consumed in a thermal reactor too. I kind of prefer the 2.2+ Fluid LFTR.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 02, 2015 8:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2239
And what do you do to the bulk, the recovered uranium?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 02, 2015 11:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Dec 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Posts: 219
Location: Newport Beach, CA
KitemanSA wrote:
Did the math a while back. Adds about 10¢ to 12¢ per kWh to the cost of your power and that is without the losses, installation costs, interest, and waste fees.


I don't doubt it, but in the US this has very little to do with whether or not the product will succeed. Regulated utilities have some pretty perverse perspectives, at least if you think they should be optimizing the trade-offs between end-user costs and pollution. Regulated utilities' profit margins are tied to their CapEx spending, which is nominally limited by their ability to pass on costs to rate payers by the Public Utility Commission (PUC).

tldr; Regulated utilities can spend a boatload on PowerPacks, boosting their allowed profit margins, and will likely be able to recover much of the cost through rate hikes.

At least that is my understanding of the rules.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 03, 2015 5:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Sep 02, 2009 10:24 am
Posts: 507
Would it make sense to use industrial scale batteries as dark start and emergency power sources for nuclear plants?

A battery pack and electric pumps can be made much more rugged than diesels, can work under water (under a Tsunami) and aren't reliant on fire-prone diesel tanks.

In reality, it might make sense for an independent diesel generation system and a battery electric system. A battery electric system - perhaps linked to solar power - could have kept the cooling pumps going at Fukushima. (Though water proofing the diesel and electrics would have had the same effect).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 03, 2015 12:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2239
The used fuel could be cooled in a higher boiling coolant like an organic fluid or a molten salt and the heat could be converted by thermo-electric (RTG) or other generation as a stand-by power source. This could be followed by air or dry cooling when the right temperature is reached. Diesel may not be needed after first five years or so when a stock of used fuel at site materialises.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 04, 2015 1:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 265
macpacheco wrote:

I keep forgetting that most guys here don't care about fixing climate change. Burning coal is ok for them... For me it's sacrilege. It outta be 100% outlawed.


What climate change? And why?

The easiest way to fix greenhouse gas emissions is reduce the total energy consumption of the worlds population. Make gasoline 100$ a gallon and make electricity 1 dollar per KWH. This will happen if "wind and solar" are the only energy sources.

Let us never forget, renewable energy also means BURN ALL THE TREES DOWN. (which happens in wildfires every single year)

(catastrophic wildfires only occur because the trees were not harvested)

I have enough money, so really I don't care how expensive gasoline and energy get. Rich people do not care either, as energy is such a small part of disposable income for the wealthy.

Before we outlaw coal, let us stop wildfires.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 05, 2015 12:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2239
How do you stop wildfires? I can make a hazy guess/suggestion.
At public cost, collect all the combustible forest and farm waste. Locally convert it to pellets which could be burnt in efficient burners as fuel.
If the quantities grow large, covert it in central plants to gas and downstream products.
I am open to better ideas.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 07, 2015 2:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1330
Location: NoOPWA
jagdish wrote:
And what do you do to the bulk, the recovered uranium?
Burn it too.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 09, 2015 7:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
NicholasJanssen wrote:
macpacheco wrote:

I keep forgetting that most guys here don't care about fixing climate change. Burning coal is ok for them... For me it's sacrilege. It outta be 100% outlawed.


What climate change? And why?

The easiest way to fix greenhouse gas emissions is reduce the total energy consumption of the worlds population. Make gasoline 100$ a gallon and make electricity 1 dollar per KWH. This will happen if "wind and solar" are the only energy sources.

Let us never forget, renewable energy also means BURN ALL THE TREES DOWN. (which happens in wildfires every single year)

(catastrophic wildfires only occur because the trees were not harvested)

I have enough money, so really I don't care how expensive gasoline and energy get. Rich people do not care either, as energy is such a small part of disposable income for the wealthy.

Before we outlaw coal, let us stop wildfires.


Even if there were NO climate change. I think coal is bad enough it shouldn't be used. When a tree burns, it doesn't throw uranium, thorium, radium, arsenic, mercury and sulphur into the air.
I do understand that the pro coal guys will tell us that better have coal electricity than no electricity at all. They have a point, but, why does it has to be coal ? And when it gets out of control, like in China and india ?
Have you seen the air pollution numbers in Beijing and Shanghai ? Air pollution from China is sooo bad that it making the air very polluted a thousand miles downwind (South Korea and Japan).
That air pollution is nothing to do with climate change. It's just CO/NOX/Sulphur/... levels in the air.
Estimates is that pollution in China is killing one million people prematurely every year.
Perhaps the issue is coal powerplants being allowed to operate without proper exhaust filtration systems.
But even in the USA where the standards are far higher, coal is estimated to kill 13 thousand yearly.
The story of people burning animal dong is very sad. Perhaps coal is better. But wouldn't it be so much better to skip coal altogether ?

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group