tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post2574203498843656381..comments2024-02-16T17:52:44.944-06:00Comments on The Nuclear Green Revolution: Texas Wind Still More Expensive with CAES than NuclearCharles Bartonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-56362201646275791402009-02-08T19:39:00.000-06:002009-02-08T19:39:00.000-06:00The Smart Grid would be more efficient, faster and...The Smart Grid would be more efficient, faster and more reliable at shuttling power from different sources, at longer distances, but it will by no means even come close to solving the peak or intermittency power issues of renewable energy. You still need major energy storage and with Wind or Solar at over 20% of Electrical Demand, you are going to need Electricity to Liquid Fuel production - there is no escaping that. At 50% efficiency that will at least double the cost of Wind & Solar Energy at levels much beyond 20% of Grid Supply.<BR/><BR/>Nuclear doesn't have significant intermittency or peak power issues, with a reliable 90% capacity factor and that 10% is usually planned maintenance when power demand is low.<BR/><BR/>The Smart Grid will also be extremely vulnerable to major environmental disasters, such as Ice Storms, Earthquakes, Solar Storms and Tornados. Even worse Iran is known to be planning to have the capability to sea launch a cheap missile from a freighter with a nuclear warhead that will explode at 100-300 miles above central US, effectively destroying the U.S. power grid due to EMP (and also all Wind Turbines and Solar Panels).<BR/><BR/>Much safer to have small nuclear reactors, buried underground, located close to major demand centers, invulnerable to environmental disasters or EMP, the pinnacle of decentralized power production.<BR/><BR/>Charles, I agree, LFTR's would be excellent as post fossil fuel back-up generators, but the #1 priority should be replacing baseload fossil fuel energy with nuclear, and also city transportation with electricity, freeing fossil fuels up for their most economically advantageous capability as a cheap means of energy storage.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-78221848306558293782009-02-08T17:53:00.000-06:002009-02-08T17:53:00.000-06:00Wareen, it is my contention that LFTRs can be buil...Wareen, it is my contention that LFTRs can be built cheaply enough that they can serve as post-fossil fuel back up generators.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-55614735501843234152009-02-08T13:38:00.000-06:002009-02-08T13:38:00.000-06:00If and when the Smart Grid solves the intermittenc...If and when the Smart Grid solves the intermittency and peak power production problems for electric power production in general, that solution will apply equally to both renewable power production and nuclear power production. The Smart Grid will have placed both these forms of power generation on an equal footing to compete on a total cost basis in the power production marketplace. <BR/><BR/>AxilAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-46273921625905234462009-02-08T12:34:00.000-06:002009-02-08T12:34:00.000-06:00I don’t get the point of this. You need the Fossil...I don’t get the point of this. You need the Fossil Fuel backup power anyways, since Wind Energy typically almost disappears during summer heat waves, and for frequent long intervals of days and weeks. With combined cycle gas turbines @ 60% efficient and $1200 per kw, and regular gas turbines @ 50% efficient and $900 per kw – who needs CAES @ 54% total efficiency and $765 per kw. <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage" REL="nofollow"> Wikipedia </A>lists maximum practical efficiency of CAES of 70% not including NG supply. For the <I>“ McIntosh CAES plant requires 0.69kWh of electricity and 1.17kWh of gas for each 1.0kWh of electrical output (a non-CAES natural gas plant can be up to 60% efficient therefore uses 1.67kWh of gas per kWh generated).</I> That’s total efficiency of 54% vs batteries @ 90% efficiency. For 16 hrs storage you might as well use the NG backup power plant which you need anyway. The only advantage would be batteries in the 1-4 hrs storage range to reduce cycling on the NG power plant and give rapid system response to extreme power fluctuations, reducing the likelihood of Wind Power induced power outages.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com