Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Small Modular Reactors

Discussion in 'Europe & Russia' started by BMD, Sep 16, 2017.

  1. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    5,692
  2. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,111
    Likes Received:
    2,915
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    I've done extensive studies on solar and the load factor of monocrystalline Si PERC with daul-axis tracking is typically 25% for a hot climate like India. That's equivalent to full power 25% of the time but it continue to improve, as does the capacity per unit area. Furthermore, newer devices extract the excess heat and use it to drive absorption chillers for air-con and water coolers.
     
  3. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    212
    Yes, but that is an annualized average.

    In actual use (ignoring its highly erratic nature even in said actual use) solar starts producing a small trickle of power from about 7am which continues to rise to full power(in good seasons) for a couple of hours at noon then falls again to die by 7-8pm. Which means that besides those few hours of nameplate production, you need some backup all the time and for 18 hours everyday, you need full backup. Backup also needs to be turned of during solar peak or kept on as spinning reserve, either of which make it too expensive for other power sources except gas or hydro.

    Then you have the seasonal variations. Even a small decrease in available sunlight causes a massive dip in solar production. In India we regularly see a cloud cover for 2 months of monsoon. Obviously winter has less sun than summer.

    Just too many factors that go against it.


    http://euanmearns.com/hinkley-point-c-or-solar-which-is-cheaper/

    Hinkley Point C or solar; which is cheaper?


    Blowout week 105 linked to a recently-completed study from the Solar Trade Association which reached the following conclusion:

    …. solar together with storage and flexibility would cost roughly half that of (Hinkley Point Unit C) over the 35 year lifetime.

    And a comment posted by robertok06 had this to say about the Solar Trade Association study:

    I have hardly read more BS in one single document…
    Here we take a closer look at these contrasting viewpoints.


    With a capacity of 3,200MW and at the 91% capacity factor assumed by the Solar Trade Association Hinkley Point C will generate a constant 2,912 MW of power and 2,912 * 8760 = 25,509,120 MWh in a year of operation. So to compare solar directly with Hinkley we need 25,509,120 MWh of annual solar generation. What does the annual solar generation curve look like at this level?

    We begin with Figure 1, which plots hourly embedded solar generation in UK during 2014, the last year for which complete records are available and one which I assume will be representative of solar output in coming years. The data are from the “UK Grid Graphed”data base and were supplied by Neil Mearns:

    [​IMG]

    Figure 1: UK solar generation, 2014, hourly data

    Solar in UK generated only about one-seventh as much power in 2014 as Hinkley will generate in a year, so to match solar to Hinkley output we have to factor 2014 solar generation up by seven. Then another adjustment is necessary. Figure 1 is right-skewed because installed solar capacity doubled from 2,691MW to 5,131MW between the beginning and end of 2014, as reported in solar PV statistics. To remove this skewness I normalized all the 2014 generation data to 3,911MW, the average installed solar capacity in that year. Figure 2 compares the solar generation curve after application of these adjustments with the baseload generation from Hinkley (note that all the solar peaks are separated by nighttime periods of zero generation, although this is difficult to see at this scale):

    [​IMG]

    Figure 2: UK solar generation factored up to match annual generation from Hinkley Point C and adjusted for the increase in installed solar capacity during 2014, hourly data. Approximately 27GW of installed solar capacity is needed.

    The question that now arises is how to compare the baseload generation from Hinkley with the highly irregular solar generation, which varies over day/night ranges approaching 20GW. The Solar Trade Association assumes that with storage and “flexibility” the solar curve can be flattened out to the point where it can be considered dispatchable , but because no specifics are given I have had to make my own estimates of what would be needed to flatten it. I did this by calculating how much energy storage would be needed to convert the solar generation into baseload generation at the same level as Hinkley, which is the only way I could see of making an apples-to-apples comparison. I ignored potential contributions from “flexibility” partly because I had no way of estimating how large they might be and partly because I doubt they would be significant.

    First I estimated the amount of storage needed to remove the diurnal variations. Figure 3 plots the data for July 24, 2014, which having the largest day-night generation change can be considered the worst case. Average generation during the 24-hour period is 7,100MW, and storing the surplus power generated in the day for re-use at night to obtain 24 hours of continuous 7,100MW output requires 3.4GWh of storage capacity. This isn’t a prohibitive amount, and because demand is higher during the day than at night the actual storage requirement would probably be lower. So we can reasonably assume that diurnal variations in solar output can be smoothed out without a large cost penalty.

    [​IMG]

    Figure 3: UK solar generation on July 24, 2014, showing the storage and release requirements needed to smooth out diurnal variations, half-hourly data.

    But after removing the diurnal variations we are still left with the daily solar generation curve shown in Figure 4. The large variations between winter and summer generation must also be smoothed out to convert solar into year-round baseload generation, and a substantial amount of energy storage will obviously be needed to do it:

    [​IMG]

    Figure 4: Average daily UK solar generation needed to match Hinkley annual generation, 2014

    To estimate how much would be needed I calculated the daily solar surpluses and deficits relative to a constant 2,912 MW baseload level. These are shown in Figure 5:

    [​IMG]

    Figure 5: Daily solar surpluses and deficits (GWh) relative to the constant 2,912 MW baseload level.

    Then I accumulated the surpluses and deficits to calculate how much energy would have to be in storage at any time to obtain 2,912MW of constant output throughout the year. The results are plotted in Figure 6. There is a requirement for 7 terawatt-hours of storage, roughly the equivalent of eight hundred more Dinorwigs, or if you like two hundred and thirty Coire Glases.

    [​IMG]

    Figure 6: Energy in storage needed to maintain a constant 2,912MW of baseload solar output throughout the year

    How much will this 7 TWh of storage add to solar costs? I didn’t bother to make an estimate because the question is academic. There is no way this much additional energy storage capacity could possibly be installed in UK by the time Hinkley begins operations, if ever.

    Yet the Solar Trade Association comes up with cost numbers that allow for storage. How much seasonal storage do they allow for? None. They simply assume that seasonal solar variations will be “complemented” by wind, which blows more strongly in the winter, to the point where they “more closely match electricity demand”:

    “Our analysis does not include inter-seasonal storage to match Hinkley’s winter output. The storage and balancing aims to both smooth and shift the solar output to more closely match electricity demand. From a broader renewable energy perspective, solar generation can be complemented by wind power whose output peaks in the winter months.”

    Now let us see what adding wind to solar does. I began by taking daily wind generation data for 2014 (again from UK Grid Graphed), factored them by 0.9 to make annual wind generation equal to annual solar generation and combined the two. Figure 7 shows the results in a stacked bar chart. Adding wind to solar indeed reduces the winter/summer range but the daily generation curve is now much more erratic than before, which will make it more, not less difficult to match generation to electricity demand:

    [​IMG]

    Figure 7: Solar generation plus an equal amount of wind generation, 2014 daily averages.

    And how much difference does the reduced summer range make to storage requirements? Using the Figure 7 data I accumulated the surpluses and deficits to calculate how much energy would have to be in storage at any time to maintain 2,912MW of baseload solar output (plus an equal amount of wind) throughout the year. The results are shown in Figure 8. Combining solar with wind halves the storage requirement from 7 TWh to 3.5 TWh, but 3.5TWh is still more than 100 times current installed UK energy storage capacity and the equivalent of roughly four hundred more Dinorwigs:

    [​IMG]

    Figure 8: Energy in storage needed to maintain a constant 2,912MW of baseload solar output throughout the year with wind contributing.

    So what to make of the Solar Trade Association’s claim that solar is cheaper than Hinkley nuclear? Well, robertok06 was right, it’s BS. Barring miraculous breakthroughs in energy storage technology within the next few years or a populace that is willing to freeze in the dark when the sun doesn’t shine it is simply not possible to replace baseload generation from Hinkley with intermittent solar power.

    A final point. The UK Solar Trade Association is in the business of selling solar systems, and its claim that solar is cheaper than nuclear is clearly designed to help it sell more solar systems. This I believe makes its report a marketing document subject to UK Advertising Standards regulations, one of which is:

    “You must describe your product accurately. This means if you make a claim about your product, you must be able to prove what you say.”

    In this case the Solar Trade Association is unable to prove what it says. Does this put it in violation of UK advertising standards? Feedback is requested.
     
  4. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,111
    Likes Received:
    2,915
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    What you need is batteries. If your country is large enough you could run on solar wind and batteries but it would require a different transmission/distribution network architecture to the centralised type currently used.
     
  5. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    212
    Just to put things into perspective for our math challenged friends
    @Flyboy! @proud_indian @Ghanta @BMD

    Hinkley is a 3200MWe plant and is estimated to cost $26.71 billions to construct.

    We need about 7TwHr's of storage to make solar provide the same amount of levelized power accounting for its absence in winter and night.
    According to Mr. Elon Musk, his batteries cost the Aussies about $250/kw-hr (Mind you the brand new Gigafactory will have an annual output of only 35GW-hrs).

    That leaves us with battery procurement costs of $250 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 x 7.

    Shipping, installation, land acquisition and other assorted costs extra. In 10 years buy them all over again. All this for Hinkley. And ignoring the needed solar capacity to charge said battery up.

    My 12 digit calculator refuses to accept this input. I am sure @randomradio can figure it out.

    Of course, batteries will get cheaper, economies of scale, advancement in tech etc. etc.

    But at least you now have a good point of reference when you think about magic solar battery powering countries.
     
  6. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    5,692
    Not for at least 10 to 15 years.

    The only real benefit to solar power right now is rooftop installation where the power company buys excess power from you.

    That way you are insulated from increasing tariffs while exporting excess power will eventually pay for initial cost of setup.

    Until battery tech improves, solar power is far too unreliable.
     
  7. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,111
    Likes Received:
    2,915
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
  8. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,111
    Likes Received:
    2,915
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Way to half-arse the calculation. How much will Hinkley cost to operate? What about POCO and decommissioning, waste management, fuel reprocessing?

    And no, assuming 25% load factor and £1/W installed cost for solar and 80% load factor for nuclear and £0.25p/W wind and 35% load factor.

    3200MW x 8760 x 0.8 = 22.4TWh/annum at £20.5bn + same again for decommissioning = £41bn, plus waste management and operations = >£50bn. Plus insurance costs = LOL.

    At 25% load factor, 5.1GWGW solar would give 11.2TWh/annum. Cost = 5.1 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 = £5.1bn.

    At 35% load factor, 3.65GW wind would give 11.2TWh/annum. Cost = 0.25 x 3.65 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 = £0.9bn.

    Need to store up to say 18 hours electricity for use during still nights = 184GWh = 190 x 1000 x 1000 x 184 = £35bn, so £41bn total. Operational, insurance and decommissioning costs negligible.
     
  9. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    212
    Hahahaha
     
  10. Flyboy!

    Flyboy! Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    771
    Likes Received:
    493
    Country Flag:
    India
    Your estimation is for general energy production (big power plants) which does not make sense with respect to off grid installations. The fact is that any form of energy generation is highly optimized towards the source where it is in abundance (Whether fossil fuels or renewables). You dont expect solar to be a hit in places where the winter is severe and lasts for more than 3 months at least. The same goes for wind/biomass. For example, the central part of USA has wind farms that contribute up to 30% of total electricity because of plains and high wind speeds all year round. In rajasthan, gujarat and andhra pradesh, you have above average solar insolation all year round. Almost all the agricultural small-medium scale industries can easily integrate solar thermal devices for their heating needs at least, taking massive loads off the main grid.

    Big solar plants may not necessarily be viable.

    http://www.dnaindia.com/india/repor...ld-biggest-solar-power-project-in-leh-2287933
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2017
  11. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    212
    Bhai mere, itni badi post likhne ke pehle ek dafa gour kar lete ke pehle hi kagaj se hum kis vishay ki charcha kar rahe hain.

    We are talking about alternative sources of energy to power entire nations. India produced 1160 TWh of power last year. Chunnu munnu in MP, Raj. are practically irrelevant.

    In the context of my post, we are exploring the replacement of a 3200 MWe nuclear plant. Which would require 27GWe of installed solar capacity, alongside 7TWh of storage capacity. Do you get the scale now?

    That is exactly what is happening around the world. Solar and Wind are being passed off as the holy grail of clean energy and are claimed of being capable of powering entire grids. In most countries solar and wind capacity have been doubling annually for the past couple of years.

    Germany Breaks A Solar Record — Gets 85% Of Electricity From Renewables
    https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/08/germany-breaks-solar-record-gets-85-electricity-renewables/


    Post #48 study was in response to the laughable claim by solar makers that they could replace a nuclear plant.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2017
  12. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    212
    There's Less To Tesla's Big Australian Battery Deal Than Meets The Eye
    megahype-over-tesla-battery-capable-of-providing-nameplate-power-for-less-than-80-minutes​

    It should surprise no one to learn that Elon Musk, a master of promotion, is capturing worldwide media attention Friday for Tesla's selection as the winning bidder for a project to install "the world's largest grid-scale battery"in South Australia.

    It also shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who pays attention to claims made by promoters that the details are not as exciting as the headlines and are substantially more difficult to discern.



    Where Did The Story Begin?


    Four months ago, during a crisis in which South Australia's wind-heavy power grid repeatedly failed to deliver, Lyndon Rive, the head of Tesla's energy products division, bragged that his company could provide a quick fix to the Australian state's power supply problems.


    South Australian grid operators had indicated that their system woes could be alleviated by adding fast reacting electricity storage capable of providing 100 MW for somewhere between one and three hours. Supposedly, that amount of stored electricity would be sufficient to smooth out fluctuations produced by variations in wind speed.


    Stating the obvious, there is a factor of 3 difference in size between a 100 MWhr battery and a 300 MWhr battery. However, Rive seemed to indicate during an interview with the Australian Financial Review that Tesla was interested in supplying the high end of the range.

    "We don't have 300MWh sitting there ready to go but I'll make sure there are," Mr. Rive said.

    Rive's confidence in his company's ability to deliver was supported by the recent opening of Tesla's famous battery production facility, the massive GigaFactory 1, near Sparks, Nevada. It was reinforced by the fact that Tesla had recently installed a 20 MW, 80 MWhr battery in Southern California.

    That project was completed in less than three months. It was part of Southern California Edison's response to electricity reliability concerns associated with the loss of local natural gas storage as a result of large, difficult to stop leak at the Aliso Canyon storage facility.

    [​IMG]
    Tesla Inc. Powerpacks and inverters stand at the Southern California Edison Co. Mira Loma energy storage system facility in Ontario, California, U.S., on Thursday, June 1, 2017. The Mira Loma substation houses nearly 400 Tesla Powerpack units, produces 20 MW of electrical power and stores 80 MW-hrs of energy. Photographer: Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg

    Unsurprisingly, there was some skepticism among observers about Tesla's ability to deliver a system with five times the power rating and more than three times the storage capacity in the same period of time to a location approximately 8,000 miles farther from the company's Nevada production facility than Southern California.

    Rive has an established history of making visionary claims, but his record of delivery on those promises isn't spotless. Before Tesla purchased the financially struggling SolarCity in August 2016, Lyndon Rive had been its CEO for 10 years. He and his brother co-founded the company with financial backing from their cousin, Elon Musk.

    Musk stoked intense interest in Tesla's desire to help South Australia – while generating publicity for its new line of grid-connected batteries – by publicly standing behind his cousin's offer. The real attention-getter was the payoff if their company fails to meet the deadline – Musk promised that the system will be free if it is not operational within 100 days after the contract has been signed.

    Tesla will get the system installed and working 100 days from contract signature or it is free. That serious enough for you?

    — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 10, 2017



    How Much Power Will A Fully Charged Battery Return To Grid? How Much Energy Will It Store?


    As the initial flurry of excitement generated by Musk's offer began to dissipate, serious people attempted to determine exactly what Musk and Rive had promised to do and to estimate how much the project would cost.

    On Twitter, Musk had made an attractive, but guardedly qualified price estimate of $250/kw-hr for installations larger than 100 MWhr. He quickly admitted that price does not include shipping, installation, taxes or tariffs. He failed to state that the price likely does not include site specific engineering, site appropriate cooling systems or site specific grid connection infrastructure.

    Adequate cooling systems are important for high power, energy-dense battery installations. High discharge rates generate enough heat to damage the battery and its supporting electronics. Fires and explosions are more frequent occurrences than desired and are a high risk for improperly cooled or controlled systems.

    With those additional installation investments, an estimate of $500-$600 per kilowatt-hour of storage is probably closer to reality. An installed 100 MW/300 MWhr lithium-ion power station would cost somewhere between $150 million -$180 million (200 million Australian dollars to A$240 million)

    Within the context of addressing South Australia's electric power system stability needs, a 300 MW-hr installation appears to have been unaffordable. Premier Jay Weatherill has a total of A$550 million available, and Tesla's massive battery is only a part of the necessary capability.

    As Gizmodo has reported, the system that Tesla will be installing will provide 129 MW-hr of energy storage capacity, less than half of what Rive originally hinted could be delivered. At a discharge rate of 100 MW, the battery will be totally depleted in less than 80 minutes:lol:. As all cell phone, tablet or laptop computer owners should know, it isn't advisable to fully discharge a Li-ion battery. It can dramatically reduce battery lifetime.



    Are Tesla Type Batteries Renewable Energy Saviors?


    The system will not solve South Australia's grid woes by itself.

    The response plan also includes a new government funded, A$360 million, 250 MWe fast reacting gas turbine power plant, a bulk electricity purchase contract designed to encourage construction of a new privately owned power plant, a taxpayer financed exploration fund for additional natural gas supplies, special powers granted to the SA energy minister to order plants to operate, and a requirement for electricity retailers to purchase a fixed portion of their power from SA generators.
    :hula

    The South Australian government and Tesla have declined requests to provide details about the total project cost for the "world's largest grid-connected battery." Musk admitted that Tesla could lose in excess of $50 million if it is unable to meet its promised deadline.

    Lyndon Rive, the executive whose promise evolved into this potentially game-changing project, was not part of the final negotiation and will not be involved in the project execution. He announced in May that he was leaving the company in June to spend more time with his family and to perhaps start a new business venture next year. That decision might have nothing to do with the South Australian project.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/rodada...-power-for-less-than-80-minutes/#21084c5e4919

    PS: Rod Adams is definitely an author you must follow if you want to know anything about anything w.r.t to nuclear energy and the renewables scam.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2017
  13. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,111
    Likes Received:
    2,915
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
  14. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    212
    Solar sucks!
    Wind blows!
    Biomass passes more flatulence than the animals that lived millions of years ago!
    :surrender:

    Nuclear rocks!
    Small Modular Reactors are the best!
    :BVICTORY:

    Rest all is :blah:

    :chilli:
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2017
  15. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,111
    Likes Received:
    2,915
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Nuclear produces waste that lasts millions of years.
     

Share This Page