YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[Arqane]

Whoa, are you sure that you know what you're talking about? To buy/sell on the wholesale market, you must qualify as a market participant. That includes many stringent requirements including bonding for credit risks. In my state, it also means connecting to the grid at transmission voltages (>75kV). That bar is too high for most businesses to qualify for, not to mention individuals.

What state are you talking about? Have you actually qualified to buy or sell wholesale electricity?

I'm in Florida, and ironically, the reason solar isn't big here is precisely because you can't sell electricity, even PPAs. There are certain interconnection requirements, but it's not really about that. We do have net metering, but any additional production is either paid off at the end of a year, or when the account is closed. The payoff date is some time in February. So if I'm producing 120MWh through the year, but the tenants only use 100MWh, then they will keep rolling it over through the year until February, when they pay off the remaining credit at the COG-1 level, which is basically just the average wholesale cost for that year. That's for everything under 2MW.

Even with larger complexes of 20 buildings/200ish units, I'll still be a bit under 2 MW. Anything above does have much more strict requirements, though, that are somewhat similar to running a commercial power plant.

EDIT: Oh, and if you're talking about the 6c equivalent, that stays on site. It's just wasting energy through pumped storage. The energy would be better used by someone else, but it might end up financially better for me to do that way. I'd rather be able to set up a well-regulated mini-grid with my neighbors, which would use the electricity well, and also give them a little backup in case the grid goes out from one of the many lightning strikes we get. But that type of system won't fly in Florida, even though it's potentially more robust for the grid.

 

[anorlunda]

There are certain interconnection requirements, but it's not really about that.

You should check those requirements carefully, they may be a bigger deal than you think.

On second thought, some states might allow residential customers to do net metering at wholesale rates. They are still retail customers but they sell at the wholesale rate and buy at the retail rate.

What I was thinking of was becoming qualified to buy/sell directly on the wholesale market. In my state, NY, anyone wanting to do that must meet the same financial requirements as a utility or a power plant, and to get wholesale electricity physically you basically must build your own transmission substation. But that could be different in different states.

Being able to sell to neighbors is very appealing, but safety requirements alone make it impractical. Also, for the government to have the authority to regulate the utility, it must first grant the utility a legal monopoly in their service area. That blocks you from competing with them.

 

[Astronuc]

Not sure if this belongs in this thread, but -

The Ten Biggest Power Plants In America -- Not What You Think (The metric is kWh/yr in 2014). The article has an interesting table on capacity factor (CF).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...merica-not-what-everyone-claims/#60e93b2d2107

Conca is pro-nuclear.

FYI - CCGT: Breaking the 60 per cent efficiency barrier (article from March 2010)
http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/print/volume-18/issue-3/features/ccgt-breaking-the-60-per-cent-efficiency-barrier.html

GE and Siemens have been in a race to provided CCGT with > 60% thermal efficiency.

April 2014 (Power Technology) - The 1,520MW Futtsu-4 was commissioned between 2008 and 2010, and consists of three GE 109H combined cycle systems with 58.6% design thermal efficiency.
http://www.power-technology.com/fea...atural-gas-power-plants-in-the-world-4214992/

 

[Astronuc]

A colleague showed me a site for Bonneville Power Authority, which provides data on wind, hydropower, and thermal generation (thermal = fossil and nuclear).

As with any transmission and distribution system, BPA must balance the supply (generation) with the load (consumption). It's trickier with the variability of the wind, which jumps or drops somewhat unpredictably.

https://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/
https://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx

https://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg3.aspx

 

[anorlunda]

As with any transmission and distribution system, BPA must balance the supply (generation) with the load (consumption). It's trickier with the variability of the wind, which jumps or drops somewhat unpredictably.

Thanks for sharing the data. It is trickier still because they are exporting a lot of power, thus balancing other people's grids. The third link shows an additional curve labeled interchange which accounts for those exports.

 

[mheslep]

...It's trickier with the variability of the wind, which jumps or drops somewhat unpredictably

One fairly certain outcome with wind, is that if one waits long enough, a several days long period will occur where there is no wind at all over a vast area. From the same BPA data, see two years ago in November where BPA wind dropped to nothing for 7 days. The hard to see flat green line at the bottom of the graff is wind. BPA states it has 5000 MW of wind capacity.

 

[mfb]

With so much hydro available, balancing the grid is quite easy.

 

[mheslep]

With so much hydro available, balancing the grid is quite easy.

Up to a point, say 20-30% share load from wind. But I doubt BPA could manage to ever use wind to eliminate all of its thermal fleet despite all that NW hydro. Hydro has a high capacity value, so if there's excess its going to find a full time buyer. In this case that's California. Wind's intermitent nature always seems to guarantee lifetime jobs for coal and gas plants (as in Germany: same coal capacity today as it had 14 years ago). Nuclear can permanently retire fossil though.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

I advocate nuclear power. Of course I am very interested in fusion research. I have been studying tokamak design. But for now fission is the way to go.

By way of education and motivation for people learning about this field, I would like to offer this link which shows where we already were in 1958. This is an old movie but it's fascinating from an educational standpoint and quite beautiful. Maybe students would enjoy it and get interested in nuclear power.



France has had a very successful program. I think France developed its nuclear energy program in a sensible way. I like their idea of starting out with a single reactor type and educating the technicians centrally on that one type. At least that is the information I have seen on their early systems. Maybe someone who knows about French nuclear power can comment.

In my opinion our current energy problems are not scientific or technical at all. They are political, social, and ultimately philosophical. But I don't want to get into that in a science forum.

 

[Michael Meehan]

For start, force people to switch from incadescent lightbulbs to fluorescent ones. In USA fluorescent bulbs are still BIG news.Small steps like this can make big difference.

Why would anyone use flourescent light bulbs when LED lamps are available?

 

[mfb]

LEDs are great, and they are now so cheap that I don't see an argument to buy anything else. They switch on instantly, last forever, their electricity consumption is negligible, and they are available with whatever color you want.How many physicists does it need to change an LED light?

Pointless question, you don't have to change it.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I replaced three 25W incandescents in a ceiling fan with three 3W LED's. They lasted maybe 500 hours. That's 1% of what the vendor claimed. Still under warranty, but I would have to pay shipping both directions, which is more than the cost of the bulbs.

The failure was clearly in the power supply. It was hot every time, and was actually discolored from the heat once.

 

[OmCheeto]

I replaced three 25W incandescents in a ceiling fan with three 3W LED's. They lasted maybe 500 hours. That's 1% of what the vendor claimed. Still under warranty, but I would have to pay shipping both directions, which is more than the cost of the bulbs.

The failure was clearly in the power supply. It was hot every time, and was actually discolored from the heat once.

Caveat emptor.
Also, according to Google translate:
"You get what you pay for" = "Quod pro vobis"

We had a similar discussion just a couple of years ago:

The 2014 Nobel Prize in physics

...Three CFLs from the last package of six I purchased failed in the first 3 days. Just sayin'

This also happened to me. I thought it was just a manufacturing fluke, so I didn't mention it.

A quick google search yields some people with similar stories:
...

I have LED lights that have been on almost continuously since I purchased them, years ago.

 

[anorlunda]

The failure was clearly in the power supply. It was hot every time, and was actually discolored from the heat once.

What power supply? Do you mean the base of the LED bulb?

Are you sure that you are feeding the bulbs with AC power and not half wave rectified DC?

Have you tried putting the same 25 w LED bulbs in an ordinary lamp socket rather than in the ceiling fan?

Since you had three similar failures at similar low-life hours, it suggests something funky and not just a simple case of bulb lifetime.

 

[jim hardy]

Since you had three similar failures at similar low-life hours, it suggests something funky and not just a simple case of bulb lifetime.

Electronics being in the base, and in a ceiling fan they're almost surely base-up, the electronics gets bathed in whatever heat accumulates in the glass globe.

CFL's suffered a lot from that and early ones said to not install them that way.

But a dimmer is certain death to them, every chopped half-sinewave cycle gives a startup-like inrush.

 

[Vanadium 50]

What power supply? Do you mean the base of the LED bulb?

Yes.

Are you sure that you are feeding the bulbs with AC power and not half wave rectified DC?

No, I'm a frigging moron. Yes, this is AC.

Have you tried putting the same 25 w LED bulbs in an ordinary lamp socket rather than in the ceiling fan?

Not for 500 hours. My house is a place where I live, not where I test LED bulbs.

Since you had three similar failures at similar low-life hours, it suggests something funky and not just a simple case of bulb lifetime.

My theory is "Crap from China" - i.e. it's possible to build such a bulb, but the vendor has chosen not to.

 

[gvlr96]

I'm not American but clues from your post indicate that you are so I will do this from an American Perspective. The way I see it, coal needs to be gone, nuclear and hydroelectric are the best options and a country which takes the risks to be a leader in new tech is at an advantage as it can sell that tech to other nations.

1 Introduce financial incentives for consumers and manufacturers of hybrid and electric cars, as well as (for manufacturers) mass production of carbon fibre cars bodied/chassis which are lighter so consume less energy in operation. (2017 onwards)

2 Install limited renewable sources which are not so developed, but make sure designs are easily upgraded. Fund research into improving efficiency especially in unfavourable conditions. (2018 onwards)

3 Take advantage of all locations where new hydroelectric generators can be installed. (2019 - 2025)

4 Build enough gen 3 power stations to cover current coal power stations so the coal plants can be decommissioned. (2020 - 2035)

5 Research and implement improvements in the grid in terms of capacity, automation, reducing losses and chemical OR mechanical storage methods. (an example of mechanical would be water pumped upstream so potential energy can be released through a hydroelectric dam) Also look into HVDC link with Canada and Mexico. (2020 - 2050)

6 Re evaluate the role of natural gas in the grid looking at the situation at the time. (2030)

7 Turn coal plants and mines into national parks and commit to afforestation in these areas to reduce the carbon content of the atmosphere. attempt afforestation as much as possible in all areas. (2030 onwards)

8 Fund experimentation with fusion and gen 4 reactors and where possible sell this technology to friendly nations. (2035 - 2060)

Predicted result - US becomes a net exporter of oil. Cars become greener and are no longer significantly affecting the planet. 90+% of energy production comes from nuclear and hydroelectric. Grid becomes more efficient lower losses and storage capability so the US spends less on energy production and power stations can be turned down. The US profits from exporting its new expertise to other countries. Carbon content of the atmosphere is under control and perhaps reducing.

 

[BoeingJet]

Here is my reply to the the question. (I'm just 12 years late)
Nuclear.
Go nuclear.
Go antimatter if you wish.
Go die if you think US has enough space for solar panels.

 

[mfb]

Go antimatter if you wish.

Where do you get the antimatter from?

Go die if you think US has enough space for solar panels.

It has more than enough space for that. Space is not the issue.

 

[gvlr96]

Here is my reply to the the question. (I'm just 12 years late)
Nuclear.
Go nuclear.
Go antimatter if you wish.
Go die if you think US has enough space for solar panels.

I'm not big on renewables, but your comment on solar panels is silly. The US has a low population density and plenty of empty desert space to build solar panels. Out of the way and somewhere they will be at their most efficient.

 

[Andy SV]

Hmm ok I'll try..
My thoughts on what can be done to improve the energy situation of, well the hole world.
First what do we do with the energy we move things we cool things we calculate and we heat things. And the more we can calculate, move, heat, and cool stuff
the better our lives seem to be.
So what's the most common form of energy electricity and after that is hydrocarbons.
So do you like being free to do whatever you want or would you like someone to tell you no you can't heat up the coffee and by the way you can't open your fridge again for another hour. I personally would tell that person to "notional expletive" right off. I think most people would. So it would be improbable to get people to do something like that voluntarily. We need more energy right now as it is so doing with less is counterproductive.
So I think LFTR liquid fluoride thorium reactors are what can handle that need
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou..._uC5eItSEVieIyQLg&sig2=Tjz2TO6_4Ey5azVv2UTY7g
What about cars though can't have a LFTR in a car?
No but if we can use that power to distill CO2 from the air and grow algae with it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_bioreactor
That can supply for the big trucks fairly directly, but cars! We need um.
Well if you dry the algae put in a big can and displace all the oxygen with hydrogen heat it up a bunch at high pressure (sorry can't remember the article)
You get something very much like crude oil . Just think how cooperative exon and shell would be if there was $$$ to be saved and made by them.

Ps I hope this is not I'll received it was a bit of work

 

[mfb]

How expensive will electricity from LFTR be? What are their risks? How to handle their waste?

Without at least a full-scale demonstration reactor, these questions will stay open. Advocates don't get tired telling everyone they will be the best ever, but they won't provide free energy either, and we don't even know how expensive it would be.

 

[Devils]

Renewable energy (wind, solar, etc) is now cheaper than coal and getting cheaper every day. The time for nuclear power, of any description, is over. Its not economically viable given the issues of waste disposal. Thorium reactors have been actively proposed for a decade, and they remain just that - proposals.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

Renewable energy (wind, solar, etc) is now cheaper than coal and getting cheaper every day. The time for nuclear power, of any description, is over. Its not economically viable given the issues of waste disposal. Thorium reactors have been actively proposed for a decade, and they remain just that - proposals.

Actually thorium's day may be coming at last.

http://fortune.com/2015/02/02/doe-china-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor/

 

[Andy SV]

How expensive will electricity from LFTR be? What are their risks? How to handle their waste?

Without at least a full-scale demonstration reactor, these questions will stay open. Advocates don't get tired telling everyone they will be the best ever, but they won't provide free energy either, and we don't even know how expensive it would be.

Ah ok so a demo LFTR was built in the 60s by Weinberg
Setup cost is is expected to be about 10 to 12 billion and then 200 million per 100MW reactor
The risk is very low compared to conventional nuclear power
And the one element that won't react can be sold to NASA as probe fuel
The rest of the nuclear waste stream will be inverted or in other words it will eat conventional reactor waist as fuel
Cost ...
Fuel costs for thorium would be $0.00004/kWh, compared to coal at $0.03/kWh.
If you want to fact check
http://energyfromthorium.com/pdf/

 

[mfb]

"energyfromthorium.com" is hardly a reliable source.

Fuel costs for thorium would be $0.00004/kWh

Fuel costs are not the point. Fuel costs for solar power are $0/kWh. The overall costs matter.

and then 200 million per 100MW reactor

That would be significantly below the cost of uranium reactors, and I don't see why. You have all the components of an uranium reactor, plus a more complex fuel preparation process.

The risk is very low compared to conventional nuclear power

Risk is more than the risk of releasing radioactive material.

 

[Andy SV]

I really don't feel like doing your homework for you so do a web search.
Whether or not you trust the website is irrelevant because that is a list of the papers and articles used by them. do you except the reliability of Oak Ridge National Laboratory?
You did not ask about over all cost you asked about the cost of electricity which is directly related to fuel
Thorium fluoride is not complicated. Dissolve thorium in hot fluoride.
And as to risk well I did not say release of radioactive material just risk.
But let's get into it.
It works at atmospheric pressure so a coolant containment vessel is not needed.
No hydrogen and oxygen dumping off the coolant (no coolant needed )
No rods to shoot through the roof so no missile shield. Processing of the thorium is safe you can hold the pure metal in your hand and is converted to fuel chemically not isotopicly
What else you got?

 

[mfb]

Whether or not you trust the website is irrelevant because that is a list of the papers and articles used by them.

The selection still matters. Do you pick only the papers with the most optimistic estimates? Do you show all?

You did not ask about over all cost you asked about the cost of electricity which is directly related to fuel

The cost of electricity is the overall cost. That includes everything necessary to get the electricity.

And as to risk well I did not say release of radioactive material just risk.

And where is the argument that all types of risk are low compared to uranium reactors?
Let's pick increasing construction costs as example. After decades of experience and hundreds of reactors built, they still can get much more expensive than planned. How can you expect that the costs of thorium reactors - without even a demonstration power plant - can be calculated more accurately?

Thorium fluoride is not complicated. Dissolve thorium in hot fluoride.

Seriously?

You have to remove fission products, for example. From a hot radioactive liquid. While the reactor is running. And without creating corrosive fluorine compounds.
You can also separate fission and breeding, but that makes the reactor design more complex, and you still need to get rid of the fission products.

It works at atmospheric pressure so a coolant containment vessel is not needed.

You certainly want to contain the fuel, although you don't have to design it for high pressures, fine. You have to be much more careful with leaks. A water leak in the primary cycle of uranium power plants is really problematic, but not directly a leak of reactor material. In LFTR it is.
If your salt freezes once in the reactor, you have a big problem - you need methods to keep it liquid all the time. That makes fixing leaks ... interesting.

And so on. LFTR comes with various advantages, but also with many disadvantages that all will need a lot of R&D to handle. And it is unclear how expensive that will make reactors because - as mentioned - there is not even a demonstration power plant.

 

[Andy SV]

What are you talking about? pick what? I have nothing to do with that site.
It was simply a place that had a collection of articles from Oak Ridge
And most of the points you bring up have been addressed or are though not to important by the OP this is a wish and dream thread with a side order of physics
If you want to learn about it watch this https://m.youtube.com/?tab=w1#/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4
Otherwise
go jump on someone else's day dream already

 

[mfb]

What are you talking about? pick what? I have nothing to do with that site.

"You" was not meant personally. A list of publications can be biased even if the publications are not.

And most of the points you bring up have been addressed

Not with a fully functional system. Writing publications based on simulations is great, testing things in the lab is better, but the final system will never look as simple as the initial designs.

I don't doubt that the power plants are possible. But making up cost estimates now is more wishful thinking than reality, especially if the estimates are way below the cost uranium power plants have for very similar components.

go jump on someone else's day dream already

There is no need to dream. We have a (nearly) CO2-neutral, proven power plant concept, tested hundreds of times, with acceptable costs.
If an alternative design or some other energy source turns out to be better in the future: sure, switch to that for new power plants. But don't set all hopes on something where we don't know if it will work out.

 

[Andy SV]

I have nothing against conventional nuclear power it's safety record is incomparable. Being held by your mama is more dangerous.
And compared to coal or crude there is no category in which it does not excel
With the exception of fuel availability.
conventional nuclear power is Excalibur.
I just happen to think LFTR is Excalibur with the magic sheath

 

[mfb]

With the exception of fuel availability.

Even at the current price and without reprocessing, the fuel will last for decades. Fuel costs are a small fraction of the overall costs - double it and the electricity price doesn't change notably, but suddenly much more uranium is available. Add reprocessing and we have enough for centuries even if we build many more power plants.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

I have nothing against conventional nuclear power it's safety record is incomparable. Being held by your mama is more dangerous.
And compared to coal or crude there is no category in which it does not excel
With the exception of fuel availability.
conventional nuclear power is Excalibur.
I just happen to think LFTR is Excalibur with the magic sheath

Nuclear power certainly beats coal or crude in its ability to render 1000+ square kilometers unfit for human habitation for thousands of years.

 

[mfb]

Coal makes life worse on all 510 million square kilometers. Coal ash kills more people every week than the use of nuclear power killed in all of human history combined. And that is not even taking global warming into account.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

Coal makes life worse on all 510 million square kilometers. Coal ash kills more people every week than the use of nuclear power killed in all of human history combined. And that is not even taking global warming into account.

I am against using fossil fuels. Of course global warming is one problem. But I was thinking about this issue today specifically because I was reading about the effects of coal mining operations, including the chemicals used, on the water quality in Appalachia. When there was a massive MCHM contamination of water in Charleston, WV, people could not drink their tap water for months. The authorities in Appalachia now seem to be trying to lower the water safety standards. Follow the money.

But the problem with nuclear power is that if a disaster occurs, such as Chernobyl, there is a very quick destruction of the ability of a region to support human life. This problem remains for thousands of years. I know people will say Chernobyl was an isolated incident. On the other hand, if the second explosion had not been prevented, according to Gorbachev and others, Kiev itself would have been destroyed, and much of Europe would have become uninhabitable.

I am basically pro-nuclear if we do it right. But I don't trust the people who are in charge today to do it right. Meanwhile we need to continue using fossil fuels and conserve energy, while we develop green energy. What is the alternative? Fusion reactors are not ready. Unless a safer fission reactor is available, perhaps based on thorium, it seems we are not going to be building lots of new ones.