Post Al4QPlaQdYVionEl1c by icanbob@techhub.social
(DIR) More posts by icanbob@techhub.social
(DIR) Post #AkzNP1BfsRd5GDoIue by icanbob@techhub.social
2024-08-09T14:19:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Wind slump in Ontario continues. My 1GW 24/7 model now needs 375GWh of storage to level out this slump. Since 2024 July1 there have only been 5 days where wind production exceeded 24GWh in a day. Since my model prioritizes storage refill when there is “surplus” we get the flat line portion in the graph below.#wind
(DIR) Post #AkzNP23CfQRnwEr3Lc by icanbob@techhub.social
2024-08-14T10:33:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Looked like wind in Ontario was coming out of the slump for last few days, but 2024Aug13 was lowest daily wind production yet.#wind
(DIR) Post #AkzNP2diTfedlTwDGC by icanbob@techhub.social
2024-08-15T10:42:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
2024Aug14 was lowest daily wind total yet. As a result my 1GW 24/7 model had to resume a storage drawdown. We are now at 390GWh storage required to navigate this summer wind slump all at a time when Ontario’s air conditioning demand has driven gas generation to yearly highs.#wind
(DIR) Post #AkzNP3OVfh5K6bpaCG by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2024-08-15T10:59:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@icanbob In Manhattan, steam-heated absorption chillers have significantly cut summer peak air-conditioning loads on the electrical network. There is not much net saving in fuel from doing this, because the steam system has a substantial contribution from gas-fired boilers.In Metro Toronto, Pickering is the ideal source to deliver several GW of heat for summer cooling as well as winter heating. Bleed the heat off at night, store hot water in tanks, generate maximum power in daytime.
(DIR) Post #AkzbC5f7KLAijVJNzc by icanbob@techhub.social
2024-08-15T13:33:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@publius Seasonal storage of heat (and cool) will be an important tech for climate mitigation. In Canada they used to cut blocks of ice from Hamilton harbour and put them in sawdust insulated ice huts for summer refrigeration. Drake Landing demonstrated what is possible with seasonal storage design in Canada.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Landing_Solar_Community#:~:text=The%20Drake%20Landing%20Solar%20Community,and%20other%20energy%20efficient%20technologies.
(DIR) Post #AkzjE3JJqAWfeUYvOy by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2024-08-15T15:03:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@icanbob I don't put much stock in seasonal storage. It's practical in some circumstances, but in general the investment costs are excessive.Storage of hot water for a few hours, however, enables a great realization of economy in the employment of thermal (which for the future mostly means nuclear) power stations.
(DIR) Post #AkzkKQH5TQTqZ77Uwa by icanbob@techhub.social
2024-08-15T15:15:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@publius I agree. Costs need to come down. I just don’t think we will have a choice not to do seasonal thermal storage. Renewables and heat pumps, while in theory low carbon, don’t actually match load->supply in Ontario.https://energyasicit.ca/solarPVpaper2/
(DIR) Post #Akzly3r6LYESZTQjNQ by collectifission@greennuclear.online
2024-08-15T15:22:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@icanbob @publius A short question (maybe starting a big discussion) on this: the way I see seasonal storage happening is by thermal storage, molten salt being a prime candidate. It's cheap and we can do this today.So, why is it that I don't hear a great deal about this? I assume I'm missing something obvious. But what?
(DIR) Post #Akzly4piiAinbTn8rY by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2024-08-15T15:34:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@collectifission @icanbob The largest-scale actually-working example I know of high-temperature molten-salt heat storage is at Crescent Dunes, the solar-thermal power plant in Nevada, which is currently generating electricity almost exclusively at night.But frankly, I doubt there's much interest in realistic solutions among the people who shout loudest about the need to do something. No storage scheme proposed so far, including the new 30 GWh scheme in Scotland, approaches one day's worth.
(DIR) Post #Akzn424xxpCwkmKJ2O by icanbob@techhub.social
2024-08-15T15:46:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@publius @collectifission In Ontario the chasm that seasonal storage of renewables has to bridge is huge. This is why I’m beginning to lean towards a different climate optimization for our renewable resources: smart grid loads exactly matched to renewable supply in real time. Best example of such a load I can think of is a solid oxide electrolyser. My quick analysis appears to show this is often better than dumping renewables onto a gas peaked grid.
(DIR) Post #AkzqBccym7nFzqXwLg by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2024-08-15T16:21:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@icanbob @collectifission I guess the real question is, at what point is the investment required so large that it's more economical to do something else entirely?
(DIR) Post #Al1N1D46S7DJSuptdA by icanbob@techhub.social
2024-08-16T10:04:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@publius @collectifission What is you “vision” for a climate optimized energy system?
(DIR) Post #Al1N4kKJFBIrUb6QnQ by icanbob@techhub.social
2024-08-16T10:04:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@publius @collectifission What is your “vision” for a climate optimized energy system?
(DIR) Post #Al2Irgalc1MBUFHGUK by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2024-08-16T20:52:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@icanbob @collectifission Well, the first thing is to acknowledge that we will need, as a global civilization, a lot more energy.Providing fresh water for coastal cities by desalting, for instance, is partly climate adaptation and partly environmental protection. Correspondingly, air-conditioning is going to be something needed in more and more areas.Energy efficiency and energy conservation in this context mean making the maximum use of the energy we can produce — NOT austerity.
(DIR) Post #Al2ewhJAZhtg9CqDia by icanbob@techhub.social
2024-08-17T00:59:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@publius @collectifission Not disagreeing with this. Question remains; how can we achieve this extra energy in a climate neutral manner?
(DIR) Post #Al45lg9LQwYHI1Ayga by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2024-08-17T17:33:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@icanbob @collectifission Careful consideration leads me to conclude that any realistic approach must rely very heavily on nuclear fission. The many-fold increase of output required strongly implies, at least for the near to medium term, a system of efficient converters (of which CANDU is the leading example) supported by plutonium-fueled fast breeders.I go further into this concept, and the rationale for it, in my publication "blast" №1.https://blast.man-and-atom.info/pages/2023-12.html(cont'd)
(DIR) Post #Al46fEvzo3ph6EQSfI by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2024-08-17T17:44:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@icanbob @collectifission Trumpeted low costs and fast completion of wind and solar projects don't entirely hold up to scrutiny, and even to the extent that they do, are offset by short operating life, intermittency/curtailment, and increased system costs.In fact I think there's a good case that, even if they were absolutely free, dispersed intermittent sources would result in overall higher power costs than central-station nuclear. And that's before considering CHP/DH, covered in "blast" 2.
(DIR) Post #Al4GXBum9HjcxWeinI by collectifission@greennuclear.online
2024-08-17T19:35:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@publius @icanbob I agree with you in principle, but reality is a bit more complicated. Mainly that we still have to see the 20+ countries that signed up to the pledge to triple nuclear by 2050 to hold up to that.And tripling is still a far cry from what is needed. If we assume 400,000 TWh total energy consumption by humanity in 2050, that would be a 125x increase if we'd all do this by nuclear. Clearly impossible.That's why I'm of the "do everything, let's get nuclear in time" approach.
(DIR) Post #Al4Hc2YmSO1lLdFBTs by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2024-08-17T19:47:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@collectifission @icanbob I see two major problems.One is that wind and solar have always been pushed as reasons not to use nuclear, reasons why nuclear is not needed. Their whole purpose is not energy supply, it's simply to invalidate the case for nuclear.Second has to do with industrial production frontiers. To an extent, if you do one thing, you're excluded from doing another. Winding alternators is an obvious example. Factories for building 10 MW machines for wind turbines(cont'd)
(DIR) Post #Al4HsoZRioVesrYOuG by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2024-08-17T19:50:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@collectifission @icanbob can't go directly to winding 1000 MW machines for large steam (nuclear) plants, but the copper and other materials, and labour, required can be employed much more effectively on the large machines than the small ones. It doesn't take 100× as much copper or labour to wind the big machine as the small one.Nuclear power is industrially straightforward, using established steam-plant technologies for which there is a large manufacturing base. A 125× increase(cont'd)
(DIR) Post #Al4IHA3PV06ESmB8c4 by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2024-08-17T19:54:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@collectifission @icanbob is not as unattainable as it at first sounds, because it really only means 125× increase in a few very specialized nuclear components. 125× with LWR is out of the question because of RPV fabrication.In terms of the output of generic steam-plant components, it doesn't necessarily even mean tripling current output, especially assuming reactor types (such as HTR or the oil-cooled CANDU derivative) which can produce steam suitable for existing turbogenerators.
(DIR) Post #Al4JiLng2DLMfNLeqW by collectifission@greennuclear.online
2024-08-17T20:11:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@publius @icanbob Now, I'm a really big proponent of nuclear energy, so I hate saying this, but: this is nonsense.Let's just consider what 125x means with a though experiment on labour power:- 400,000 TWh divided by a 1 GWe plant is 50,000 reactors.- But no, let's say we're going with the SMR and only build BWRX-300 units. Now we need 150,000 units.- 150,000 units divided by 25 years (let's say we start next year) is 6000 units we have to start building every year, for 25 years.1/2
(DIR) Post #Al4MTV9BIiPpAq1A2a by collectifission@greennuclear.online
2024-08-17T20:11:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@publius @icanbob - Let's say we need 1000 people per build site and the build lasts three years.- That's 6000 projects x 1000 people x 3 years = 18 million people you have to have employed at any given time.If you think that's feasible, I really have a bridge to sell you.These numbers btw, the sheer scale of this energy transition, makes me pretty pessimistic about the feasibility of it, even if we employ all possible technologies.
(DIR) Post #Al4MTVjh6xcf056JxA by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2024-08-17T20:41:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@collectifission @icanbob You seem to be assuming that the workforce required for nuclear projects are not currently employed on something similar.Take a look at planned builds of fuel-burning power plants in the next couple of decades, and the workforces required for that. They, and the factories behind them, could be building nuclear plants instead with reasonably small incremental investments.Then look at what is necessary for TW-scale renewables installations. Insupportably larger.
(DIR) Post #Al4N4WkmI78cs2G5lg by collectifission@greennuclear.online
2024-08-17T20:48:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@publius @icanbob I really want to be wrong on this, but my gut says that 18 million people laying solar panels and 18 million people building nuclear reactors are two very different levels of skill sets.
(DIR) Post #Al4NkOax0xm7jJctrk by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2024-08-17T20:56:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@collectifission @icanbob Very few of them are building nuclear reactors, though, anymore than they're fabricating PV panels. They're pouring concrete, tightening bolts, that kind of thing. Standards of workmanship for solar installs are lower, sure. But, again, we don't even have to consider solar installers putting useless panels on north-facing roofs in Texas (as somebody tried to persuade my mother to do). Consider instead the workers building Germany's planned 35 GW of CCGT, and so on.
(DIR) Post #Al4QPj9lfhzpHWkRBw by icanbob@techhub.social
2024-08-17T21:26:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@collectifission @publius I agree with the idea that we need to move toward the highest density energy source which is nuclear. However I’m not convinced that we can get there fast enough (from a climate perspective) with existing nuclear technology. Hence I believe we need to climate optimize the deployment of all our energy technologies. At the moment we optimize on price/profits which won’t get us there./1
(DIR) Post #Al4QPkLrEFGEzJPbfs by icanbob@techhub.social
2024-08-17T21:26:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@collectifission @publius Deployment of renewables in Ontario are not optimized for climate goals. We have a very large CANDU nuclear fleet followed by a close second in gas. Currently we dump all our renewables onto the grid allowing gas to follow that. My calculations show that a better climate optimization would be to match renewable production in real time with solid oxide electrolysers with the H2 deployed to heavy transport./2
(DIR) Post #Al4QPlaQdYVionEl1c by icanbob@techhub.social
2024-08-17T21:26:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@collectifission @publius Meanwhile in Canada we have a molten salt reactor startup called Terrestrial Energy. There is great potential with this technology to reduce the cost per MWh and waste per MWh. We also have a startup in western Canada called ProtonH2 which has interesting tech to allow climate neutral exploitation of old oil fields./3
(DIR) Post #Al4Qs16YXBch3UjdhY by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2024-08-17T21:31:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@icanbob @collectifission Molten-salt reactors have great potential, but the path to realizing that potential is not yet even well marked out. In my opinion, a really successful MSR will only come when we have several years of experience using molten-salt chemistry for reprocessing discharged nuclear fuels outside a reactor. Closely coupling a reprocessing facility to a reactor adds a very high additional level of difficulty.Meanwhile we have CANDU and FBRs, which can definitely do the job.
(DIR) Post #Al4RGAMblGxEiml63c by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2024-08-17T21:35:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@icanbob @collectifission What I haven't seen is a plausible technology case for doing much of anything with hydrogen from electrolysis other than ammonia or hydrocarbon synthesis. In Germany there's a pretense that it's going to be mixed with pipeline gas, but the leakage even through steel pipe is horrendous, forget the plastic distribution pipe which has been deployed in many areas (including my neighborhood). It just diffuses right through that.
(DIR) Post #Al4RoVRVtctPwWQZma by collectifission@greennuclear.online
2024-08-17T21:41:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@publius @icanbob The way I understand it is that while moving H2 is relatively fine using existing infrastructure, storing it is causing many problems along the lines you're describing, embrittling the metal and causing security risks all over.
(DIR) Post #Al4SLO9c156ytSjZSq by icanbob@techhub.social
2024-08-17T21:47:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@collectifission @publius I don’t see any way to get to zero carbon with heavy transport, shipping or aircraft other than with H2. If I’ve learned anything in this journey so far it is that the only truely trustworthy result is from a real world experiment. I haven’t seen the data from those on adding H2 to existing pipelines. H2 embrittlement is a known but ultimately solvable problem.
(DIR) Post #Al4Sm6a7SUHUDDs7gu by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2024-08-17T21:52:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@collectifission @icanbob A friend of mine is a piping and pipeline engineer with decades of experience in and out of the oil industry. I trust his opinion on hydrogen gas, which is that it's simply too fugitive to handle reasonably except on very short distances. To this day there's simply no material to make a sealing gasket out of, so all joints have to be fully-welded, and even then, if they're at all porous, some escapes. That loss mounts up.
(DIR) Post #Al4XMkRp77mI63iguu by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2024-08-17T22:44:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@icanbob @collectifission Since most "net zero" discussion seems to come from people who either are insincere or genuinely have only the most superficial and non-quantitative idea of what they are talking about, I prefer to go after the low-hanging fruit. Coal-fired electric generation is definitely that — and there's a lot of it. Marine nuclear propulsion is at least a solved problem. Aviation bunkers are a small proportion of overall fossil fuels, difficult and unrewarding to decarbonize.
(DIR) Post #Al4l0XBJ9ju3wIIS24 by icanbob@techhub.social
2024-08-18T01:17:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@publius @collectifission Ontario did just that transition with our CANDU replacing all our coal power. However our grid is still not carbon free because it is exceedingly difficult to have CANDUs replace our gas generation. Some still believe that we can replace our gas with renewables but the data clearly says otherwise. Best renewables have been able to do in Ontario is lower the carbon intensity vs straight gas.
(DIR) Post #Al5H9qz26CisUf2hw8 by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2024-08-18T07:17:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@icanbob @collectifission Bruce was built with a truly fascinating mode of load-following : because the fueling cost of CANDU is so low, each unit is provided with a 100% dump condenser, and the intended operating mode is to simply bypass the turbines to match short-period load reductions. Operating reactivity limits make it undesirable to cut back reactor power for periods of less than about 3 days.But CHP operation at Pickering and Darlington could greatly advance Ontario decarbonization.
(DIR) Post #Al5VoUwQM2V9MX66Ge by icanbob@techhub.social
2024-08-18T10:01:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@publius @collectifission Back in 80s when Ontario was finishing CANDU buildout to baseload there where lots of discussions about extending beyond baseload and valley filling. At some point Ontario decided gas was the “better” way. I know FLIBE is now talking about using CO2 as working fluid in closed cycle gas turbine instead of steam.
(DIR) Post #Al6ADYBRQvmSp9ce1Y by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2024-08-18T17:34:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@icanbob @collectifission I'm with Rod Adams. A closed-cycle gas turbine with nitrogen makes the most sense because air turbines are highly mature. (It was a dictum of Sadi Carnot that the only working fluids worth considering are air and water, although the refrigeration people don't quite agree.)Some folks at UKAEA did some interesting work on closed-cycle gas turbines with CO₂ as working fluid, and you can get it here :https://man-and-atom.info/resources/atom-ukaea/index.html#issue-142