Wind energy

[RCgothic]

3 hours ago, Nuke said:

storage backed solar is a non starter. what solar does is cover your daytime peak, you still need something to cover your baseload. nuclear doesn't throttle well, solar doesnt throttle at all, you can make up for that with gas, i think phoenix used hoover dam for deep throttle capability (they had nuclear when i lived there too).

i see no reason why air cooled nuclear cant be a thing, that's what britain used for its nuclear weapons program. but that was a plutonium generation facility, not a power plant. i didnt know of any air cooled commercial power reactors. thats a thing i thought about post fukashima.

Nuclear actually throttles brilliantly. Far faster than normal variation in demand. At a push the plant can go from 100% electrical output to zero near enough instantly by diverting steam to vents instead of turbines, as HY1 recently demonstrated when its grid connection failed and it had to protect itself from overload.

Steam venting works for both directions of ramp - to ramp up in advance of an expected demand or to ramp down quickly.

Any thermal cycle plant can do this, but it's particularly effective in nuclear plants because fuel is such a small proportion of the operating costs and reactors can in fact ramp very quickly, faster than all types of coal:

This image illustrates typical electrical output variation without steam venting, though the New CCGT does have to turn off a turbine to throttle to under 25%.

What this means is a nuclear plant wastes very little fuel whilst venting as the reactor quickly adjusts to the new power level, and the fuel it does waste doing so costs far less than the equivalent amount of coal. It's therefore comparatively cheap to operate a nuclear plant this way.

France does with most of theirs.

When is a reactor has to hold at 50% for a while whilst the electrical output is less than this, for nuclear that's not necessarily cost prohibitive. A third of the fuel comes out after 18 months whether it's fully burnt or not. It's usually more cost effective to have outages to schedule than to try and stretch out a power schedule just to use the fuel more efficiently. And actually, as 2/3rds of the fuel goes back into the reactor, if it's not sufficiently burnt in the previous power cycle, that can make it difficult to achieve a thermally uniform core in the next power cycle. It can be beneficial to idle a reactor at high thermal power if that would be the case.

 

No plant loves big thermal swings, but the only additional consideration for nuclear is that a reactor has to be a little careful how low it throttles if there's a prospect it might have to ramp up again soon, due to the effects of xenon-poisoning. Throttle too low and it could be incapable of throttling up again until the short-lived xenon decays away. If it won't have to throttle up again soon, it can go to very low throttle very quickly. And at under 20% rated power the ramp rate is twice as fast as illustrated.

 

On a side note, thermal plants are a very cheap source of district heating for industry and domestic applications, bizarre they're not more often used for that. This low-grade heat is available basically for free and can near-triple a plant's useful energy output. But that would require a level of central planning and connected thinking.

2 hours ago, tater said:

I wonder if the inflection point varies much as a function of geography. The UK is substantially smaller than just my state, NM, for example (~315k km² vs ~244k km²). I have to imagine grid differences, and different climates (changing peak demand times/dates across the multiple climate zones of the US) makes this more complicated. Wind and solar are both too unreliable without having to also build a 100% capacity backup, IMO (or batteries capable of dealing with an X-hundred year windless/cloudy/whatever event where supply doesn't exist for some number of days). Having enough batteries for night with a little margin doesn't help if it's cloudy for a week across much of the country (in the case of solar).

We need nukes.

The UK is also much more densely populated, with many more major centers and few sparsely populated regions. 

A few major trunk routes connecting major locations doesn't work here, the grid has to be able to distribute power pretty evenly no matter whether it's windy in Scotland or Cornwall, imported from France or elsewhere.

It's extremely challenging, and the system wasn't designed for it. Power used to be produced close to the point of use, with long-distance only really used for balancing purposes.

Edited Thursday at 12:55 AM by RCgothic

[RCgothic]

15 hours ago, tater said:

I wonder if the inflection point varies much as a function of geography. The UK is substantially smaller than just my state, NM, for example (~315k km² vs ~244k km²). I have to imagine grid differences, and different climates (changing peak demand times/dates across the multiple climate zones of the US) makes this more complicated. Wind and solar are both too unreliable without having to also build a 100% capacity backup, IMO (or batteries capable of dealing with an X-hundred year windless/cloudy/whatever event where supply doesn't exist for some number of days). Having enough batteries for night with a little margin doesn't help if it's cloudy for a week across much of the country (in the case of solar).

We need nukes.

The largest battery facilities in the world are 3.3GWh and 3.7GWh. They cost about $400M per GWh, and in researching this post I discovered one of them actually spontaneously caught fire on 16th Jan, destroying a substantial portion of the station. (Moss Landing fire).

The UK's peak demand is about 60GW, so the world's 2 largest battery farms costing in the region of $2.8B would bridge about 7 minutes of UK peak demand.

In the UK it's not unusual to have dead calm in winter if a high pressure comes over, often coinciding with very low temperatures, dark days, and therefore peak demand. Lulls like this lasting a couple of weeks or more occur more often than 1/50y which is the typical planning metric. 

The tech gap between a facility that can bridge 3.7 minutes of peak use and over 20,000 minutes of above-average use (winter) over 2+ weeks is very large indeed, about 3-4 orders of magnitude, and assuming they don't burn themselves down would cost in the region of about 5 trillion dollars to build.

Quick note - UK's entire annual GDP is approx $3.4T in total.

That's on top of whatever the wind turbines with low utilisation factors cost.

Battery farms are for smoothing purposes, not gap bridging.

Edited Thursday at 01:15 PM by RCgothic

[tater]

2 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

Battery farms are for smoothing purposes, not gap bridging.

So we need Gen IV nuclear.

[darthgently]

The best energy chain is food turned into physical and mental activity.  We don’t have to automate everything we are out of existence.  Being a human being I am justifiably biased in this viewpoint.

The more physical tasks I do, the more I solve problems with my brain, the less I need a more powerful grid to do it for me.  And I get stronger, not weaker.

I’m just throwing out a little counterbalance into this because I just remembered how many times I’ve seen electricity-dependent exercise treadmills and other stuff like that at the curb on its way to the dump

 

 

Edited Thursday at 03:02 AM by darthgently

[farmerben]

10 hours ago, RCgothic said:

Nuclear actually throttles brilliantly. Far faster than normal variation in demand. At a push the plant can go from 100% electrical output to zero near enough instantly by diverting steam to vents instead of turbines, as HY1 recently demonstrated when its grid connection failed and it had to protect itself from overload.

Steam venting works for both directions of ramp - to ramp up in advance of an expected demand or to ramp down quickly.

Any thermal cycle plant can do this, but it's particularly effective in nuclear plants because fuel is such a small proportion of the operating costs and reactors can in fact ramp very quickly, faster than all types of coal:

 

I don't quite understand that.  Steam venting machinery should be identical for coal and nukes.  Modern coal plants turn the coal into dust and blow it into the combustion chamber.  If you cutoff fuel the fire dies down quickly.  You can also cutoff air input to turn it off quickly.   But if you're looking for fine throttle control you could use steam venting.

 

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, farmerben said:

I don't quite understand that.  Steam venting machinery should be identical for coal and nukes.  Modern coal plants turn the coal into dust and blow it into the combustion chamber.  If you cutoff fuel the fire dies down quickly.  You can also cutoff air input to turn it off quickly.   But if you're looking for fine throttle control you could use steam venting.

 

Or even just temporary rerouting of the steam to some other lower priority purpose.  Like pumping water up into a reservoir or heating a drying shed where risk of overtemps are negligible 

Edited Thursday at 11:59 AM by darthgently

[farmerben]

26 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Or even just temporary rerouting of the steam to some other lower priority purpose.  Like pumping water up into a reservoir or heating a drying shed where risk of overtemps are negligible 

You are on to something.  The problem is investing capital into low priority purposes that only run part of the time.  I'm looking at the 500% capacity wind and solar example again.  If you could adjust the demand side to take all the excess power using cheap pumps that you didn't need to run all the time then maybe it could work.  Desalinating sea water, and pumping water long distances through pipes are examples I can think of.  For instance, a huge pipe could divert some of the Mississippi river to reservoirs in west Texas and New Mexico where the water would be very valuable.  You would be happy if the flow of water was reasonably predictable over long time frames and don't care if your expensive pumps only work on the days of excess. 

[RCgothic]

2 hours ago, farmerben said:

I don't quite understand that.  Steam venting machinery should be identical for coal and nukes.  Modern coal plants turn the coal into dust and blow it into the combustion chamber.  If you cutoff fuel the fire dies down quickly.  You can also cutoff air input to turn it off quickly.   But if you're looking for fine throttle control you could use steam venting.

 

I have to admit I'm not hugely familiar with why coal plants aren't especially responsive.

A quick review of literature suggests:

1) A time consuming combustion process (positively glacial by fission standards)

2) A high thermal inertia (e.g. the boilers are proportionately much bigger for coal plants as the heat transfer properties of combustion products are a lot poorer than for primary circuit coolant)

3) An aversion to large temperature swings which can cause severe thermal fatigue cycling. Nuclear primary circuit temp doesn't actually change much off-load, just the rate of circulation comes right down. 

 

There isn't really any difference in the rate coal and nuclear can vary electrical output with steam venting. Their stream plants are more or less identically able to adapt to rapid demand variation.

But in nuclear it costs less to load follow because the core achieves a new thermal equilibrium a lot faster, and the unit price of nuclear fuel is so low anyway that it occasionally gets deliberately burned for no electrical output. 

 

 

I could look a bit more into why coal dust doesn't just burn instantly, sounds intriguing. I'd guess something to do with moisture content and minimising ash production.

Although the image I posted in my previous post only included a comparison with coal plants, I'd expect 2 and 3 to be applicable to other combustion-fired plants like gas and oil as well.

Edited Thursday at 01:25 PM by RCgothic

[Fizzlebop Smith]

I do not work in energy per se but have worked in various capacities building and installing power plants ans wind farms most of my life. 

The nuclear scare is very similar to those that won't fly. Statistically it is the safest power to scale and operate.

Those instance that do happen, are so bad that there is an irrational perception. At least IMO.

There are some amazing gains in wind. As batteries, capacitors and Conductor science improves we see similar Strides In the design of wind generators.

There are some super tiny wind generators that power a house pretty well. Living in the mid west USA .. they can at least.  HUGE  Scaling issues though.

There are some cool mat like devices that lay on the ocean and generate power in a much better way than previous buouy styles.

The single greatest benefit of AI.. IMO.. is it's greedy demand for power spurring us beyond fossil fuels. 

I'm convinced the new push for materials science and containment for the next generation of micro Suns is because of how power hungry most modern cpu reasoning is.

Thermal conversation is so highly inefficient in most fuel related processes, not to mention the tons of scrubbers needed to remove emissions.

 

30 minutes ago, farmerben said:

You are on to something.  The problem is investing capital into low priority purposes that only run part of the time.  I'm looking at the 500% capacity wind and solar example again.  If you could adjust the demand side to take all the excess power using cheap pumps that you didn't need to run all the time then maybe it could work.  Desalinating sea water, and pumping water long distances through pipes are examples I can think of.  For instance, a huge pipe could divert some of the Mississippi river to reservoirs in west Texas and New Mexico where the water would be very valuable.  You would be happy if the flow of water was reasonably predictable over long time frames and don't care if your expensive pumps only work on the days of excess. 

There has to be a fifty year water plan for new development where I live. Water is a huge conversation with some ideas like you are suggesting using isolated renewable to power the booster stations.

[farmerben]

38 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

I have to admit I'm not hugely familiar with why coal plants aren't especially responsive.

A quick review of literature suggests:

1) A time consuming combustion process (positively glacial by fission standards)

2) A high thermal inertia (e.g. the boilers are proportionately much bigger for coal plants as the heat transfer properties of combustion products are a lot poorer than for primary circuit coolant)

3) An aversion to large temperature swings which can cause severe thermal fatigue cycling. Nuclear primary circuit temp doesn't actually change much off-load, just the rate of circulation comes right down. 

I could look a bit more into why coal dust doesn't just burn instantly, sounds intriguing. I'd guess something to do with moisture content and minimising ash production.

Although the image I posted in my previous post only included a comparison with coal plants, I'd expect 2 and 3 to be applicable to other combustion-fired plants like gas and oil as well.

4) Relatively difficult to do cold starts (they usually rely on gas or oil, so that's a whole extra fuel delivery system that's rarely used.  )

Point number 3) is especially correct.  Because coal plants use steam tubes with 3000 psi steam where the boiler tubes touch directly onto the furnace.  You don't want pipes to change temperature all that radically or often.

 

Inside a modern coal furnace they blow pulverized and dried coal into a 50m tall furnace.  The hottest part of the furnace is well above the floor where you want to collect all the ash.  

 

 

[farmerben]

Here is an excellent video showing what modern furnace and boilers really look like to scale.  I worked on one in real life, and this is accurate.

[farmerben]

1 hour ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

 

There are some super tiny wind generators that power a house pretty well. Living in the mid west USA .. they can at least.  HUGE  Scaling issues though.

 

All over the Midwest we have those attic vents.  Imagine how it would be if instead they had a 500W vertical axis recycled aluminum turbine.  

[ColdJ]

@RCgothic

Hi, very interesting reading, but like all the governments gets caught in a narrow band of thinking. The idea that it must be this way or that way.

Same problem we are having with this push to have all electric vehicles. You already know just how many fires have been started by large Lithium Batteries not being regulated properly and overheating, which causes a cascade failure. The more stacked cells the bigger the boom.

Nuclear, is not practical in many ways, from initial build costs to having to be able to safely store it's waste product. Just because it doesn't put carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide into the air, doesn't make it green.

You mentioned the rather short sighted way in which they currently get hydrogen. Which shows just how short sighted the people who are meant to be smart are. The term "Green Hydrogen" is a joke.

The future for power generation and vehicles is Hydrogen and Oxygen. People tend to be lazy, so say, "There is Oxygen in the air, why should I need to carry it too?" But as you know, Nitrogen Oxides being created in the combustion process is just as bad as carbon monoxide, if not worse. Hydrogen fuel cells require elements that are rarer and harder to come by.

So hybrid cars with a hydrogen and oxygen powered generator that tops up a battery/ultracapacitor combination and powers an electric drive train, is much more economical/safe. The generator can be tuned to run at it's most efficent and does not need to vary with load, that is handled by the storage combo. Electric drive trains are far more efficent, with much less loss due to heat and friction.

Now to grid generation. The Coal and gas powered electrical generators can be converted to run on Hydrogen/Oxygen without too much effort. It is after all heating water into steam to push turbines.

Now people are probably asking, where is all this H and O gas coming from?

This is where the 4 types of renewable energy come into play. Those being Wind, Solar, Wave and Tidal. A large part of the land masses of the world are surrounded by oceans. You build the equivalent of oil refineries off the coasts. Far enough out not to be seen from the land. You power them with these 4 free (once set up) renewables, and you pump sea water through reverse osmosis filters to get pure water, which you then electrolise in to the 2 gases. You then pump back in separate pipes, or send by tanker if needed, the gases, where they can go to power the power stations and go the fuel stations to fill up the hybrid cars.

The argument that it requires more energy to split the water, than what you get back, is moot because you are using free renewables.

The power stations get to keep running, range problems for cars is addressed. Large electric car fires should become history. We aren't pumping polution into the air or ground.

Hope people will contemplate this.

[MinimumSky5]

1 hour ago, ColdJ said:

@RCgothic

Hi, very interesting reading, but like all the governments gets caught in a narrow band of thinking. The idea that it must be this way or that way.

Same problem we are having with this push to have all electric vehicles. You already know just how many fires have been started by large Lithium Batteries not being regulated properly and overheating, which causes a cascade failure. The more stacked cells the bigger the boom.

Nuclear, is not practical in many ways, from initial build costs to having to be able to safely store it's waste product. Just because it doesn't put carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide into the air, doesn't make it green.

You mentioned the rather short sighted way in which they currently get hydrogen. Which shows just how short sighted the people who are meant to be smart are. The term "Green Hydrogen" is a joke.

The future for power generation and vehicles is Hydrogen and Oxygen. People tend to be lazy, so say, "There is Oxygen in the air, why should I need to carry it too?" But as you know, Nitrogen Oxides being created in the combustion process is just as bad as carbon monoxide, if not worse. Hydrogen fuel cells require elements that are rarer and harder to come by.

So hybrid cars with a hydrogen and oxygen powered generator that tops up a battery/ultracapacitor combination and powers an electric drive train, is much more economical/safe. The generator can be tuned to run at it's most efficent and does not need to vary with load, that is handled by the storage combo. Electric drive trains are far more efficent, with much less loss due to heat and friction.

Now to grid generation. The Coal and gas powered electrical generators can be converted to run on Hydrogen/Oxygen without too much effort. It is after all heating water into steam to push turbines.

Now people are probably asking, where is all this H and O gas coming from?

This is where the 4 types of renewable energy come into play. Those being Wind, Solar, Wave and Tidal. A large part of the land masses of the world are surrounded by oceans. You build the equivalent of oil refineries off the coasts. Far enough out not to be seen from the land. You power them with these 4 free (once set up) renewables, and you pump sea water through reverse osmosis filters to get pure water, which you then electrolise in to the 2 gases. You then pump back in separate pipes, or send by tanker if needed, the gases, where they can go to power the power stations and go the fuel stations to fill up the hybrid cars.

The argument that it requires more energy to split the water, than what you get back, is moot because you are using free renewables.

The power stations get to keep running, range problems for cars is addressed. Large electric car fires should become history. We aren't pumping polution into the air or ground.

Hope people will contemplate this.

A few issues here that I can see:

You complain about electric vehicle batteries bursting into flames, and while that certain is a sub optimal outcome, we don't actually have an epidemic of this happening. All vehicles will need some sort of high density energy storage solution, which by it's nature will be volatile. Your suggested solution of tanks of hydrogen and oxygen hardly strikes me as non-volatile.

Nuclear waste is a problem, but a solved problem. We currently deal with pollution from energy by pumping it into the air we breathe, by comparison a solid form of pollution we can safely store in an underground vault seems like a far better solution.

Hydrogen from oil is not environmentally sound, sure, but at least here in the UK, green hydrogen specifically refers to hydrogen generated by fully renewable sources. Hydrogen from oil is normally called either blue, grey, or black, depending on how much emphasis one wants to put on the source unsustainability.

As a car fuel, there are also several issues. First, I'm not aware of an issue with nitrogen oxide production in a fuel cell, but I would like other commenters to chime in here for that one? Even without that:

• Batteries are twice as efficient as hydrogen fuel cells
• Batteries do not require an entirely new type of fuel distribution system to be built out
• The range and power advantages of fuel cells have rapidly eroded as batteries have improved
• requiring average members of the public to pump highly pressurized flammable gases to refuel their vehicles is terrifying.
• Hydrogen itself is a greenhouse gas, not as potent as CO2, but at this scale enough to be a major concern from incidental leaks

Electric drivetrains are *more* efficient than ICE drivetrains, but not 100%. Nothing is 100% efficient.

No from of power is free. There may be no fuelling cost, but you do need to pay people to build and maintain the infrastructure.

The efficiency gains of a nuclear grid with some renewables powering battery electric vehicles will mean far less cost due to far lower infrastructure needs.

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, ColdJ said:

The future for power generation and vehicles is Hydrogen and Oxygen

I agree with all your points but this one.  Hydrogen is horrible for mobile applications.  Too hard to contain and the pressure vessels are too big and have to vent as they warm.  Parking garages with tanks venting hydrogen not good.  Collisions become problematic.  And refilling becomes an industrial operation.  For static power generation hydrogen could make sense

[StrandedonEarth]

37 minutes ago, MinimumSky5 said:

You complain about electric vehicle batteries bursting into flames, and while that certain is a sub optimal outcome, we don't actually have an epidemic of this happening.

Also, lithium ferrophosphate (LFP) batteries, while not as energy dense (that’s improving), don’t have the thermal runaway problem of other chemistries. They can also cycle a lot more over their lifetime. 

One advantage of base load plants with EVs is that charging at night keeps the plants more utilized. On the flip side, daytime charging can absorb the glut of peak solar power. With V2H, the vehicle can power a house at least until baseload power is cheaper at night. Although I don’t know how the economics will actually work out with such a complex combination. 

I’ve also pondered how solar works at higher latitudes, with the winter shortfall. Could solar-powered summers reduce hydro reservoir demand, saving the water for winter? But they can only store so much, need minimum flows for fish, etc. Very complex and probably not do-able…

[Terwin]

A few points:

Renewables are not 'free once set up' and you would need grid-scale storage of hydrogen.

Hydrogen storage is notoriously difficult even for short-term usage(like single-use rockets)

Hydrogen quickly destroys any container that holds it through embrittlelment, and is hard to store long-term because it can slip between the atoms of the storage container.

Hydrogen is highly flammable and can explode when mixed with air.

In short, even using 'cheap' petroleum sourced hydrogen is completely untenable for consumer use.

Hydrogen is a (very bad) storage medium, not an energy source. 

Even in rocketry, hydrogen is only used by the government and only because it is easier to throw money at the problem instead of finding other solutions.

 

Evidence: MRI machines could be cooled by hydrogen just as well as very expensive helium, but hydrogen just causes too many problems to be cost-effective.

 

[ColdJ]

59 minutes ago, MinimumSky5 said:

You complain about electric vehicle batteries bursting into flames, and while that certain is a sub optimal outcome, we don't actually have an epidemic of this happening.

Just Teslas alone have had 232 confirmed fires in the last 10 years. Sure you can say that there have been more ICE fires in that time, but we are trying to get away from fossil fuel powered cars.

https://www.tesla-fire.com/

1 hour ago, MinimumSky5 said:

Your suggested solution of tanks of hydrogen and oxygen hardly strikes me as non-volatile.

Of course they are volatile, if they weren't then you couldn't use them, but only if released suddenly together with an ignition source. Tank technology used in storing Cryogenic fuels for rockets has come a long way and can be used in the auto industry. Both Carbon wrapped metal and newer types that also addressess @darthgently's concerns.

https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Future_space_transportation/Tough_tests_no_problem_for_carbon-fibre_cryo_fuel_tanks

1 hour ago, MinimumSky5 said:

Nuclear waste is a problem, but a solved problem. We currently deal with pollution from energy by pumping it into the air we breathe, by comparison a solid form of pollution we can safely store in an underground vault seems like a far better solution.

This is more expensive and more difficult then you might realise.

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2024/ph241/cranmer2/

1 hour ago, MinimumSky5 said:

As a car fuel, there are also several issues. First, I'm not aware of an issue with nitrogen oxide production in a fuel cell, but I would like other commenters to chime in here for that one? Even without that:

• Batteries are twice as efficient as hydrogen fuel cells

I ruled out fuel cells in my post.

1 hour ago, MinimumSky5 said:

Batteries do not require an entirely new type of fuel distribution system to be built out

No. Just upgrading of the seals of gas pipelines that already exist.

1 hour ago, MinimumSky5 said:

requiring average members of the public to pump highly pressurized flammable gases to refuel their vehicles is terrifying.

They have been pumping LPG into cars since 1940. It is actually safer than pumping petrol because you screw the delivery system to your input seal and the system won't pressurise the tank until this is secure. Cars would have a standardised input system with inbuilt safety that won't allow for gas to escape between car and pump.

1 hour ago, MinimumSky5 said:

Hydrogen itself is a greenhouse gas, not as potent as CO2, but at this scale enough to be a major concern from incidental leaks

I understand the concern on this, but with a regulated system that makes sure that the hydrogen is bonded with oxygen to make water vapour before reaching the atmosphere it is unlikely to be a factor.

Hydrogen is present in our air and has been since the planet formed. Natural reactions in the atmosphere generally bond it to something faster than it can end up bonding with Methane. Otherwise it would have made our kind of life impossible, billions of years ago.

1 hour ago, MinimumSky5 said:

Electric drivetrains are *more* efficient than ICE drivetrains, but not 100%. Nothing is 100% efficient.

Of course. Never said it was. I don't believe in free energy machines or perpetual motion engines.

1 hour ago, MinimumSky5 said:

No from of power is free. There may be no fuelling cost, but you do need to pay people to build and maintain the infrastructure.

As with all systems of creating electricity.

1 hour ago, MinimumSky5 said:

The efficiency gains of a nuclear grid with some renewables powering battery electric vehicles will mean far less cost due to far lower infrastructure needs.

The table below shows a breakdown of costs to build a nuclear power plant*: 

Factors	Estimated Costs
Licensing and permits	$700 million - $1.5 billion
Land	$28 million - $60 million
Engineering	$2.34 billion - $5.00 billion
Construction	$1.48 billion - $3.18 billion
Reactor equipment	$2.93 billion - $6.27 billion
Turbine equipment	$2.45 billion - $5.25 billion
Structure and improvements	$2.31 billion - $4.95 billion
Electric equipment	$854 million - $1.83 billion
Heat rejection system	$420 million - $900 million
Miscellaneous equipment	$294 million - $630 million
Other costs	$196 million - $420 million

*Costs in the table are calculated based on power plant capital investment cost estimates published by the Department of Energy and considering the reported costs of building new nuclear reactors by the Vogtle power plant in Georgia. Vogtle is the first and only nuclear power plant approved to be built in the US since the 1970s. The estimates above don’t include financial costs, such as interest or return rates on investments and loans. 

Be wary of those who push nuclear without giving you a well researched cost breakdown at the same time.

I am not saying that creating the infrastructure I speak of is cheap, but in the long run, properly managed it will be. You were talking of needing to adjust power output up or down as conditions require. This does that. The power input is where they are while producing, so maintenance and turning things off and on is easier and will not impact on the general public. And if something horrible like Tsurnami hits, you won't end up with the nuclear nightmare they got in Japan.

[ColdJ]

@Terwin

57 minutes ago, Terwin said:

Renewables are not 'free once set up' and you would need grid-scale storage of hydrogen.

Only at the power stations and fuel stations. As it will be in constant use it will not be long term storage and tank rotation to ease long term stresses can be done.

57 minutes ago, Terwin said:

Hydrogen storage is notoriously difficult even for short-term usage(like single-use rockets)

Covered in the post I was writing when you responded.

57 minutes ago, Terwin said:

Hydrogen quickly destroys any container that holds it through embrittlelment, and is hard to store long-term because it can slip between the atoms of the storage container.

Pipelines will not need to be under high pressure, only tanks at the end of the line. Pressure sensors will let the refineries know if they need to pause production.

57 minutes ago, Terwin said:

Hydrogen is highly flammable and can explode when mixed with air.

As with any volatile, but unless you purposely introduce an ignition point then it will be spread out into the greater atmosphere fast enough so that the ratio will not be enough. Hence why with our current levels of O2 in the atmosphere, it is not igniting every time lightning strikes.

57 minutes ago, Terwin said:

Hydrogen is a (very bad) storage medium, not an energy source.

Don't even know how to respond to that statement.

57 minutes ago, Terwin said:

Even in rocketry, hydrogen is only used by the government and only because it is easier to throw money at the problem instead of finding other solutions.

Generally only private companies will and can afford to research more exotic methods of propulsion because they see a payoff if they can make it work.

57 minutes ago, Terwin said:

Evidence: MRI machines could be cooled by hydrogen just as well as very expensive helium, but hydrogen just causes too many problems to be cost-effective.

Also as you have stated, hydrogen is highly flammable and an MRI is full of ignition sources. I am guessing there are also reasons not to use liquid CO2 or liquid Nitrogen.

Edited Thursday at 06:17 PM by ColdJ

[Terwin]

Nuclear plants Are cost-prohibitive in the US because the department of energy is both authorized and encouraged to tighten safety requirements any time nuclear becomes cost-competitive with any other power generation system in common use(like when fuel prices spike for existing plants of other types)

And they cling to their no-threshold metrics in spite of the substantial and confirmed evidence against them.

If the department regulating nuclear power were not incentivized to block future development, it would be much more affordable (but that could undermine the stock value of important donors)

9 minutes ago, ColdJ said:

@Terwin

Also as you have stated, hydrogen is highly flammable and an MRI is full of ignition sources. I am guessing there are also reasons not to use liquid CO2 or liquid Nitrogen.

CO2 and nitrogen are frozen at MRI temperatures.  You need something that can get much colder than those can.

You suggest that a hydrogen fueled motorway is not full of ignition sources?

How about the enclosed garage where the car is stored over night or while the family is away on holiday?  Does hydrogen have a strong scent like spilled petrol does to warn away from turning on the lights?

[Fizzlebop Smith]

Aside from legislators being heavily invested in fossil fuels I don't understand why there hasn't been a drive toward equilibrium.

There are always going to be situations where combustion engines are optimal. 

We have an EV for our commutes and city driving with a fuel efficient gas drinker for cross country / off road scenarios.

Why hasn't there been more progress toward a blended infrastructure.

It went from "let's decrease our reliance on fossil fuels" to "we have to be green by tomorrow!"

I read something the other day about using diamond lattice around carbon to create a low grade RTG power source...or low density organic batteries that are supposed to me ideal for affordable housing type solutions.

that stuff should have come out 20 years ago.

 

[ColdJ]

11 minutes ago, Terwin said:

You suggest that a hydrogen fueled motorway is not full of ignition sources?

How about the enclosed garage where the car is stored over night or while the family is away on holiday?  Does hydrogen have a strong scent like spilled petrol does to warn away from turning on the lights?

It is not in a light strength tank like petrol. And if by some very rare chance you managed to split the type of tank I pointed to it would come out as a cryo liquid that would boil off straight away, not sit around like petrol with a vapour layer waiting for a spark to set it off.

As for getting ignited by other vehicles. If petrol which is far less contained doesn't get set off by passing vehicles then the highly sealed pressure system isn't going to.

Assumptions keep being made that it is going to be constantly leaking out of containment. This is not the case with tanks that have been developed.

Also the Hybrid using a small generator is only going to have minute amounts per ignition.

As to the garage, We are not talking a gas that will stay around and build up. Remember when you said.

1 hour ago, Terwin said:

and is hard to store long-term because it can slip between the atoms of the storage container.

If by some very remote chance it could get out of the pressurised system then it is going to be long gone by the time your family returns home.

8 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

Why hasn't there been more progress toward a blended infrastructure.

This annoys me too. Nissan have had great Hybrids with all electric drive trains for over a decade but only sell them in ASIA.

https://www.nissan-global.com/EN/INNOVATION/TECHNOLOGY/ARCHIVE/E_POWER/

[Terwin]

Are you suggesting that zero-boiloff technology has advanced to the point that we can store an unpowered, liquid hydrogen fueled vehicle in an unair-conditioned  garage in a southern state for days without a need to vent?

That should make storing cryogenic hydrogen all the way to Mars pretty simple in comparison.

[ColdJ]

1 minute ago, Terwin said:

That should make storing cryogenic hydrogen all the way to Mars pretty simple in comparison

https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Future_space_transportation/Tough_tests_no_problem_for_carbon-fibre_cryo_fuel_tanks

[RCgothic]

Hydrogen also burns basically invisibly & with little radiant heat so the very high temperature flames can be encountered with very little warning.

And breached pressure vessels tend to fire through solid walls like torpedos.

So those are fun little extras to stick on vehicles.