Just when you thought that the US had heaps of Gas

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,887
Location
'Stralia
Along comes a plan to use it all up in stationary power applications...

http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/penne...ion-plants.html

Quote:
In September 2013, EPA released its proposed Clean Air Act standards for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants. Under those proposed guidelines, new large natural gas-fired power turbines would need to meet a limit of 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) per megawatt-hour (MWh). New coal-fired power units would be required to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per MWh


Given the thermal efficiency of the US fleet (*) http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html (interesting that efficiency has dropped as time has gone on)

The limit is around half what the US coal fleet is running at, and requires a thermal efficiency more than double what is currently out there. (average looks to be 34.3, and to double it to 70% is at present a thermodynamic impossibility, even the best and newest in the world are 50% tops.)

(*) to convert heat rate, into efficiency, eff=1/(H.R./3.6)

Result...you will be paying a fortune for electricity, and using all of your newfound gas reserves for stationary power applications.
 
I have heard bad forecasts about the new regs, it will definitely send electric costs through the roof.

It will also cost us even more jobs...
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Along comes a plan to use it all up in stationary power applications...

http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/penne...ion-plants.html

Quote:
In September 2013, EPA released its proposed Clean Air Act standards for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants. Under those proposed guidelines, new large natural gas-fired power turbines would need to meet a limit of 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) per megawatt-hour (MWh). New coal-fired power units would be required to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per MWh


Given the thermal efficiency of the US fleet (*) http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html (interesting that efficiency has dropped as time has gone on)

The limit is around half what the US coal fleet is running at, and requires a thermal efficiency more than double what is currently out there. (average looks to be 34.3, and to double it to 70% is at present a thermodynamic impossibility, even the best and newest in the world are 50% tops.)

(*) to convert heat rate, into efficiency, eff=1/(H.R./3.6)

Result...you will be paying a fortune for electricity, and using all of your newfound gas reserves for stationary power applications.



I seem to remember reading in engineering school that the thermodynamic upper limit efficiency for a closed thermal cycle as defined by Sadi Carnot is 62%.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
I have heard bad forecasts about the new regs, it will definitely send electric costs through the roof.

It will also cost us even more jobs...


Yes to both points, unfortunately.
 
Curious what the generated cost of power is from NG plants in Germany and Japan. Also wonder what their thermal efficiency is, and if it is on par with these regulations in any way.
 
Depends on the materials being used, and their temperature/stress relationship.

Given that the rejected heat has to go into the environment, and that's (say) 300K, then the upper limit is determined by how hot you can let stuff get.

Take a reasonably standard cycle of 2,600psi, 1000F...exhausting into the environment at 80F, you are stuck at 63%....that's probably around where the "standard" US fleet is at...and they are 30% off the pace when it comes to actual versus theoretical.

Use the advanced metallurgy that's available, and some of the test stuff is at 1350F steam temperatures, 5,000psi..runs up to 68% (diminishing returns for sure, and materials that don't look anything like "steel")

You aren't going to retire the entire fleet, and build new ones of Nickel/Chrome alloys..and still not make the grade.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Curious what the generated cost of power is from NG plants in Germany and Japan. Also wonder what their thermal efficiency is, and if it is on par with these regulations in any way.


Look at the heat rate link, and you can see the trend, from NG "traditional" plants to GTs, and CCGT (Combined cycle GT)...improving efficiency.

Combined cycle is/can be 60 ish percent efficient fairly easily.

Given that the carbon/hydrogen ratio, and the inherent energy density is different between NG and other move viscous, through to solid fossil fuels, the CO2 per MWh changes.

As to cost, use the heat rate of 6 (MJ/KWh), and the gas price in $/GJ to see what the fuel cost for same is...
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Along comes a plan to use it all up in stationary power applications...

http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/penne...ion-plants.html

Quote:
In September 2013, EPA released its proposed Clean Air Act standards for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants. Under those proposed guidelines, new large natural gas-fired power turbines would need to meet a limit of 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) per megawatt-hour (MWh). New coal-fired power units would be required to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per MWh


Given the thermal efficiency of the US fleet (*) http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html (interesting that efficiency has dropped as time has gone on)

The limit is around half what the US coal fleet is running at, and requires a thermal efficiency more than double what is currently out there. (average looks to be 34.3, and to double it to 70% is at present a thermodynamic impossibility, even the best and newest in the world are 50% tops.)

(*) to convert heat rate, into efficiency, eff=1/(H.R./3.6)

Result...you will be paying a fortune for electricity, and using all of your newfound gas reserves for stationary power applications.



Yeah.

That's the idea.

Change you can believe in.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow

Result...you will be paying a fortune for electricity, and using all of your newfound gas reserves for stationary power applications.
Perhaps that will encourage alternative solutions?
 
It will, but solar and wind are energy harvesters, and feed what they can into the grid.

In order to ride through grid faults, and control system frequency, you need a significant (majority) of big thermal/hydro plant that operates under control of a governor (i.e. has something up it's sleeve) to prop the grid frequency up when needed.
 
Why not use natural gas to drive plants that capture and sequester or convert the CO2..............

Ducking the thrown objects......
 
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Why not use natural gas to drive plants that capture and sequester or convert the CO2..............

Ducking the thrown objects......


ummm. because then they waste even more energy...

Unless you've been reading my favourite's list.

http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2013_08/pr0101.htm

However drawing a pipe, and pointing it into the ground doesn't explain a lot of really high tech stuff that is dependent on geology...
 
I think this is likely going to be a forced "carbon trading" scheme to mandate those power into the grid, that's why a thermodynamically impossible deal. There's always those political bargaining in US as we frequently exclude certain amount of emissions into consideration (i.e. maybe those electricity for EV charging is not included and therefore forcing plants to give away electricity to meet quota).

Politics.....
 
There is so much wind power available to the grid in the Midwest that Excelon is thinking about shutting down some of it's nukes because they can't compete.

Ameren, who runs the grid and supplies the urban areas of central Illinois and already put a rate cut in effect and has another scheduled for this fall.
 
The part that is crazy about this program is we are totally ignoring the polluting China and numerous other countries are doing. The impact is driving more production with increased pollution to these countries. When I hear our leaders say what we need to do compete with China. How do you possibly ignore this problem? 20% of the air pollution in California is coming from Asia. Their impact on climate change is huge. We need to put tariffs on product from these countries until they do something. Then use that money to bring production back here. China plans on building 363 new coal plants. Obama needs to wake up and access the real world. This program will not make a dent in climate change if countries like China and India are allowed to run free.
 
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
There is so much wind power available to the grid in the Midwest that Excelon is thinking about shutting down some of it's nukes because they can't compete.

Ameren, who runs the grid and supplies the urban areas of central Illinois and already put a rate cut in effect and has another scheduled for this fall.


It will result in big plants being shut down, and soon after that will result in grid instability...wind and solar don't control system frequency, and need a large mass of spinning metal, with a governor and governing margin to keep it stable.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
There is so much wind power available to the grid in the Midwest that Excelon is thinking about shutting down some of it's nukes because they can't compete.

Ameren, who runs the grid and supplies the urban areas of central Illinois and already put a rate cut in effect and has another scheduled for this fall.


It will result in big plants being shut down, and soon after that will result in grid instability...wind and solar don't control system frequency, and need a large mass of spinning metal, with a governor and governing margin to keep it stable.

Surely the NG "backup" plants can be made with some extra mass quite cheaply though? Just run it hard enough to stabilize the grid? Or build a pumped storage site in an area without hydro electric already?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top