UkNorthampton
TSLA - 12+ startups in 1
Just produce 20 times the power - export, cheap power for residents, encourage new industries
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.
- Thread starter nwdiver
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
They can't the whole playbook of ENRON was to restrict supply so they can jack up the price.
CNBC: Why oil giants like Chevron and BP are investing in geothermal energy.
www.cnbc.com
Got lots of this in N NV. Maybe we don't need WY expensive coal or even their cheap wind.
Why oil giants like Chevron and BP are investing in geothermal energy
Geothermal energy is poised to play an increasingly large role as a source of always-available, renewable power.
Got lots of this in N NV. Maybe we don't need WY expensive coal or even their cheap wind.
Pretty sure wind is still cheaper than geo, from a first principle approach- nowhere near the scale of wind (even in areas with both resources such as CA) and it usually runs full out even though in theory it should be able to ramp (maximize large capital investment by earning maximum return).
Cheap wind in the evening would likely find a buyer…
Coal though, is done.
Cheap wind in the evening would likely find a buyer…
Coal though, is done.
Coal, Geo, Nuclear and Solar thermal like Ivanpah all have the same problem. Heat. It's ridiculously expensive and absurdly inefficient to convert heat into electricity. Anything that needs to use heat as an intermediate step is a non-starter. Like you said. First principles.
Well, you say ridiculously expensive, but the EIA reports pipelined geothermal's unsubsidized LCOE as below $40/MWh and basically matching CCGT, so it's apparently not _that_ expensive, and is dispatchable.
I think water use is the bigger challenge. It needs a shift to closed loop, the way other generation technologies have changed.
Last edited:
That's also likely with a CF of ~90%. And if you need a CF of ~90% to be remotely cost effective you're not really 'dispatchable'. Dispatchable resources need to be cheap enough to sit idle for weeks or months until needed.
Well, 90% CF is not a bad thing as long as it's controllable to further support solar and wind.
It is if it's required to be viable. If a 1GW plant NEEDS to sell ~8,000GWh/yr to pay the bills. That's... that's a problem.
The ideal support for wind or solar is a generator that can economically sit idle until there isn't enough wind or solar. For example... South Texas Project is 2GW of nuclear and costs ~$600M/yr whether it produces 1GWh or 1TWh. While a gas turbine costs ~$20M/yr for a GW. Which is wiser to use to support wind and solar? The generator that costs $300M/yr for a GW or the one that costs ~$20M/yr?
Yeah, 90% is quite high but if that means an average of 2.4 hours a day. That could be 12-3pm each day. I guess until we find cheaper long term storage, this will have to do.
roblab
Active Member
I have 11 kw of solar plus 20 kWh of battery backup and wish I had more. I can heat or cool my living space of my home solely with solar and battery if need be. I use NatGas now for some heating, but I certainly don't need it and am thinking of turning it off more and more often.
It's not luck. It's smart planning. Easily do-able a little at a time. If NatGas became "difficult to procure", I think we'd survive quite nicely, thank you. Might use Tesla's free supercharging if on a trip, though.
Once CCS V2G comes out, you can expand your battery storage with an EV. Seems it's cheaper than home battery. LOL
??? No. 90% CF means you're at 100% 90% of the time. The other 10% is maintenance. Basically if they can be operating they are... at 100%. That's why expensive thermal plants like nuclear are having such a hard time. Over half are losing money. If they're not needed for a few hours just SOME mornings... they're screwed.
Certainly a generous CF estimate, but not that generous. Current average capacity factor for geothermal is 74.3%.
Dispatchable just means you can turn it on and off on demand. Dispatchable != peaker.
But why would it have to be idled? There's a chunk of steady demand, so the only economic reason not to use it is if there's already a cheaper combination of renewables, storage and NG peaker that can handle the same job. If that's the case, we're already done.
If you're curtailing generation you're curtailing generation. It's irrelevant whether it's curtailed due to lack to demand or because there's another generator meeting that demand. If it's not idle then it's not able to support wind and solar when needed. You still need another generator available to pick up if solar or wind drops off. 'Base load' generators that NEED to always to be operating to pay the bills increase the cost of the transition because they increase the curtailment of intermittent sources. Needing to pay ~$300M/yr per GW decreases flexibility.
Base load makes the Blue Pills feel more comfortable with renewables. You won't believe how many still believe solar cannot be used because when a cloud passes by their house, power production drops. I guess these are the same people who believe it's a good idea to put all solar panels in the Sahara. LOL
Gas turbines provide an equal amount of comfort at ~1/15th the cost per GW
The most important factor is $/GW. Emissions can be solved with more solar, wind and storage. Fuel cost can be solved with more solar, wind and storage. If you have 'base load' weighing you down the economic viability of wind, solar and storage is reduced because you have that $300M/yr/GW anchor weight.
Let me repeat: if it's a fixed renewable resource that's cheaper than meeting base requirements with variable renewables + storage + NG peaker, why do you care so much about idling it?
Because if demand increases or solar, wind drop... and it's already at 100%.... what meets demand?
'Base load' is just a marketing term invented by the nuclear industry to give them a purpose. Why have a costly, and artificial ceiling for wind and solar generation? If you can save $300M/yr by retiring a GW of nuclear and replace that lost clean energy cheaper with wind and solar and replace the GW of reliability with a GW of NG.... why not do that? The objective is GWh of clean energy and GW of power when needed. Spending $300M/yr on a GW of thermal generation doesn't help further either of those goals when gas is $1/w and renewables are $20/MWh.
Similar threads
