Rice University engineers can turn sunlight into hydrogen with record-breaking efficiency
The beauty of this is that it solves the intermittency problem. The hydrogen is used in a fuel cell, as needed, at night or when it is cloudy. You have to store the hydrogen. The other advantage is you can send the hydrogen long distances via a pipeline. I believe this is more efficient than transmitting electricity long distances. It used to be, anyway.
The Largest And Most Powerful Wind Turbine Ever Built Is Now Operational
News about switching to greener energy sources is always good news, and this certainly counts: The world's largest wind turbine constructed to date is now up and running and contributing to the power grid in China.
The Largest And Most Powerful Wind Turbine Ever Built Is Now Operational
This is a 16 MW offshore turbine. The capacity factor of offshore turbines is around 40%, compared to 35% onshore. So this produces ~6.4 MW. The average nuclear plant is ~1 GW with a 93% capacity factor, so that's 930 MW. So it would take 145 of these turbines to produce about as much as one nuke.
I believe these turbines cost about $26 million to manufacture and install. 145 * $26 million = $3.8 billion. Or $4 million per megawatt of actual power (not nameplate). Compare this to the two new nukes being built in Georgia. They have cost $30 billion so far, with another year and several more billion to go. Nameplate capacity 2,200 MW, actual 2,046. That's ~$15 million per megawatt actual power. 3.8 times more. Plus you have to pay for uranium fuel (28% of operating cost) and decommissioning (which they charge the customers for each kilowatt hour, but I do not know how much).
You can see that only an insane power company executive would build a nuclear plant in a place where abundant wind or solar resources are available. Even with the extra cost of battery storage, no one pays 3.8 times more for electricity than they need to. You do not need 100% storage to cover wind intermittency or as backup during turbine maintenance. In a wide enough area, the wind always blows somewhere. For maintenance, wind turbines can be taken offline one at a time, so you do not need 100% wind farm capacity for backup. Whereas you do need 100% backup capacity for a nuclear plant. The entire plant shuts down for maintenance ~7% of the time, for several days, including peak hours. You need 100% of the nuke plant capacity standing by ready to replace it, with things like peak natural gas generators.
Wind turbines seldom go offline in accidents or at unexpected times. You can usually predict days ahead of time when wind will be low (or when there will not be much sunlight for a solar array). Output is more predictable and controlled than with a nuke plant. Nukes often shut down abruptly in SCRAM events.
https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/scrams.html
Most of these are caused by plumbing problems. Plumbing problems destroyed Three Mile Island.
An entire coal plant or natural gas plant can also also go offline abruptly. ~1 GW of power is lost suddenly. Nothing like that happens to a wind or solar installation. They are far more reliable than conventional fossil fuel or nuclear plants. It does not seem that way, because of intermittency. Right wing commentators who know nothing about energy often claim they are less reliable, but those people do not know what they are talking about. They blamed the 2021 Texas winter power outages on wind. In fact, the outages were caused by nukes and natural gas plants going offline because they were not winterized. Wind held up better in the end. There is not much wind in Texas in winter.
Display MoreThis is a 16 MW offshore turbine. The capacity factor of offshore turbines is around 40%, compared to 35% onshore. So this produces ~6.4 MW. The average nuclear plant is ~1 GW with a 93% capacity factor, so that's 930 MW. So it would take 145 of these turbines to produce about as much as one nuke.
I believe these turbines cost about $26 million to manufacture and install. 145 * $26 million = $3.8 billion. Or $4 million per megawatt of actual power (not nameplate). Compare this to the two new nukes being built in Georgia. They have cost $30 billion so far, with another year and several more billion to go. Nameplate capacity 2,200 MW, actual 2,046. That's ~$15 million per megawatt actual power. 3.8 times more. Plus you have to pay for uranium fuel (28% of operating cost) and decommissioning (which they charge the customers for each kilowatt hour, but I do not know how much).
You can see that only an insane power company executive would build a nuclear plant in a place where abundant wind or solar resources are available. Even with the extra cost of battery storage, no one pays 3.8 times more for electricity than they need to. You do not need 100% storage to cover wind intermittency or as backup during turbine maintenance. In a wide enough area, the wind always blows somewhere. For maintenance, wind turbines can be taken offline one at a time, so you do not need 100% wind farm capacity for backup. Whereas you do need 100% backup capacity for a nuclear plant. The entire plant shuts down for maintenance ~7% of the time, for several days, including peak hours. You need 100% of the nuke plant capacity standing by ready to replace it, with things like peak natural gas generators.
Wind turbines seldom go offline in accidents or at unexpected times. You can usually predict days ahead of time when wind will be low (or when there will not be much sunlight for a solar array). Output is more predictable and controlled than with a nuke plant. Nukes often shut down abruptly in SCRAM events.
https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/o…ps-experience/scrams.html
Most of these are caused by plumbing problems. Plumbing problems destroyed Three Mile Island.
An entire coal plant or natural gas plant can also also go offline abruptly. ~1 GW of power is lost suddenly. Nothing like that happens to a wind or solar installation. They are far more reliable than conventional fossil fuel or nuclear plants. It does not seem that way, because of intermittency. Right wing commentators who know nothing about energy often claim they are less reliable, but those people do not know what they are talking about. They blamed the 2021 Texas winter power outages on wind. In fact, the outages were caused by nukes and natural gas plants going offline because they were not winterized. Wind held up better in the end. There is not much wind in Texas in winter.
the US is now building it's first offshore wind farm off the cost of Cape Cod
A Giant Wind Farm Is Taking Root Off Massachusetts
I believe these turbines cost about $26 million to manufacture and install.
I admit, that is a rough estimate. I cannot find any info on this particular turbine. Here is the basis for my estimate:
The 14 MW GE Haliade-X 14 costs between $11-$13 million for equipment. That's $0.929 million/MW. I guess the 16 MW one costs $0.929 * 16 = $14.9 million.
The cost of installation of offshore turbines has economies of scale, as shown in this graph:
It would appear large turbines cost ~$800/kW to install. That's 16,000 kW * $800 = $12.8 million.
$14.9 + $12.8 = $27.7 million. I assume there are some additional economies of scale, so it is more like $25 million. If there were no additional economies of scale, they would not build them any larger than 14 MW. There would be no point. Why make it bigger, with all the problems that causes, if that does not lower the cost?
Graph source:
I thought this image very interesting, this is the nacelle for a new 14MW turbine for an offshore installation. The two guys in the foreground are either very small children or this thing is bigger than you imagine. I guess those are cooling radiators on top. I think I mentioned that they now have lifts and in more remote sites or offshore some basic living accommodation in them - now you can see they have room inside for a whole busload.
Here is the latest news of the Georgia Vogtle nuke #4:
The completion of a series of tests and inspections on Unit 4 means fuel could soon be loaded into the reactor
Georgia Power announced Friday that it has completed an extensive battery of safety tests and inspections on Unit 4, the second of the two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle that are needed before fuel can be loaded into the unit.
The announcement is a sign of significant progress on the unit, which is years behind schedule and billions over budget. But for Georgia Power customers, the milestone means that additional rate hikes could be looming, with the exact amount yet to be determined.
The company said it notified regulators at the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that it has completed all 364 of the “inspections, tests, analyses and acceptance criteria,” also known as ITAACs, that must be completed before fuel load. Once the NRC has verified that the unit has met all safety and security standards, it could authorize Georgia Power and Southern Nuclear to begin loading nuclear fuel into Unit 4. . . .
Once complete, the two units will be the first commercial nuclear units built from scratch in the U.S. in more than three decades. But the project has been dogged by delays and swelling costs.
Unit 3 is more than seven years behind schedule and Unit 4 is more than six years late. The total cost of both reactors has climbed above $35 billion, more than double what was initially forecast. . . .
Georgia Power customers have already been paying for the units in their monthly bills for years. Expert witnesses for the Georgia Public Service Commission’s (PSC) staff recently estimated that by the time Unit 4 enters service, the average customer will have paid about $926 for Vogtle construction.
Once Unit 3 is complete, customers will begin paying even more. Georgia Power estimates the average customer could see their monthly bills jump by $3.78.
After fuel is loaded into Unit 4, another evaluation process will begin to determine how much more of the project bill ratepayers will have to foot.
Georgia Power estimates that if it is allowed to collect $7.3 billion of its construction, capital and financing costs from ratepayers, the average customer’s bill could rise by 9%.
But recent testimony filed by PSC staff witnesses indicates the total amount the company could ask to collect could be nearly $13 billion. If recovery of that amount is allowed, rates would jump even more. . . .
Compare this to the two new nukes being built in Georgia. They have cost $30 billion so far, with another year and several more billion to go. Nameplate capacity 2,200 MW, actual 2,046. That's ~$15 million per megawatt actual power. 3.8 times more.
Ah, ha. Today's Atlanta Journal news says the cost went up to $35 billion. I haven't checked lately. Every time you check it is a billion dollars higher. It goes up about $0.3 billion per month, I think. They say the plant should be finished this year, but I expect it will be a year from now. Anyway, at $35 billion, the numbers are: ~$17 million per megawatt actual power, 4.24 times the cost of wind turbines. You might argue that wind needs batteries or gas peaking. True, but nukes need uranium fuel, standby gas peaking, and decommissioning costs (charged during operation), so they too have associated costs beyond the cost of the reactor and generators.
However, let's cut the Georgia Power execs and engineers some slack. When they decided to build these nukes, the situation was quite different. The decision seemed more reasonable. At the time, wind and solar were very expensive. The initial projected cost of the nukes was less than half the final cost, and it would be reasonable to think cost overruns would not be so severe. Safety was less of an issue because this was before Fukushima.
Onshore wind is not an option in Georgia. They might have constructed 2,200 MW of solar in the last few years. The EIA says Solar PV with Storage costs $1,748/kW "overnight cost" (meaning without regard for the cost of borrowing money). See:
Cost and performance characteristics of new central station electricity generating technologies
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf
I think that $1,748 is for actual average production, taking into account the capacity factor. So that would cost 2,200,000 kW * $1,748 = $3.8 billion, about 9 times less. To put it another way, the total generating capacity of Georgia is 14,541 MW. Hypothetically, they could have replaced the entire system with solar + battery storage for $25 billion, less than the cost of these two nukes. The nukes will produce 15% of Georgia's electricity. They could have gotten 100% for 70% of the what they are paying for the nukes.
I say "hypothetically" because as a practical matter you cannot use only solar power and batteries. You need some natural gas and other generators. However, without much trouble using today's solar plus batteries, for ~$4 billion they could have built about as much capacity as these two nukes, and saved the ratepayers $31 billion, which comes to $12,000 per customer spread out over many years.
This tech can produce hydrogen on-demand by using more efficient Zinc batteries
It promises 50 percent efficiency when storing power and 80 percent when producing hydrogen – with an estimated life expectancy of ten years.
The U.S. Could Leapfrog The World In Producing Clean Hydrogen—But Only If Treasury Encourages Diverse Investments
Increasing electrolyzed clean hydrogen production is key to the clean energy transition, long recognized for its potential to replace fossil fuels to decarbonize heavy industries, power vehicles and airplanes, generate electricity, and more. Producing it entails running an electric current through water to separate its constituent elements, hydrogen and oxygen, via a process called electrolysis, which takes place in an electrolyzer. If the electricity for the electrolyzer comes from zero-carbon resources like nuclear, hydropower, wind, solar, or fossil fuels with carbon emissions captured, the result is clean hydrogen, regardless of the technology deployed.
The challenge is, with the technologies available today, electrolyzed clean hydrogen is extremely expensive, costing about $4-8/kg to produce compared to about $1/kg for hydrogen produced from natural gas via steam methane reforming, which currently accounts for 95% of U.S. hydrogen production.
Israeli Researchers Produce Green Hydrogen With 90% Efficiency Without Electrolysis
There are two main arguments against hydrogen use in transportation. The first is that it is mostly generated from fossil fuels, which does not make it helpful against climate change. When it is genuinely green, it is obtained through electrolysis, a process that is only 70% to 80% efficient. That's not bad compared to internal combustion engines (ICEs), but fuel cell detractors use that to bash them anyway. Scientists at Tel Aviv University plan to kill that argument with a method that is over 90% efficient in generating green hydrogen
H2 tomorrow in green Poland..
staying free of the 'lebensraum' is probably a higher priority today
External Content
www.youtube.com
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
Unit 3 becomes the first new nuclear unit built from scratch in the U.S. to enter service in more than three decades
NEWS
By Drew Kann
WAYNESBORO --- The first of the two new units at Plant Vogtle, in east Georgia, officially entered commercial service Monday, making history as the first nuclear reactor built from scratch in the U.S. in more than three decades.
The reactor, Unit 3, produces 1,100 megawatts of electricity at full tilt, enough to power roughly 500,000 homes and businesses. Georgia Power has said the unit and its twin, Unit 4 — which is expected to be finished by the end of the first quarter of 2024 — will be in service for the next 60 to 80 years.
The two reactors south of Augusta were pitched as part of a nuclear revival that would usher in vast amounts of carbon-free electricity. But both units will finish years behind schedule and billions over initial cost estimates. The main contractor on the units fell into bankruptcy and some of the project’s co-owners have sued Georgia Power over the rising costs.
Still, completion of Unit 3 is a major step for the country’s nuclear industry, which federal officials say must be revived for the U.S. to achieve its climate goals and reclaim energy independence. And though work continues to bring Unit 4 across the finish line, it marks the beginning of the end of a tumultuous quest to bring the reactors online. . . .
The book "Tomorrow's Energy, revised and expanded edition: Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and the Prospects for a Cleaner Planet" discusses John Bockris and quotes him at length.
https://www.amazon.com/Tomorrows-Energy-revised-expanded-Prospects-ebook/dp/B08BSR9NWR
Electrified Cement' Could Turn The Foundations of Buildings Into Giant Batteries
Scientists are constantly searching for better ways to store renewable energy, and MIT researchers have now found a way to turn cement and an ancient material into a giant supercapacitor.
FM
Same story started10 years ago. but nothing was attempted that I read.
Probably not. Just leave more people carless, which is probably the end game, anyway.
Everyone I know, it was the same.
