New study: Cheapest forms of energy in the future

[Northstar1989]

AngelLestat, what happens in winter if you have a high-pressure system sitting over you for 2 weeks? Negligible winds, low solar irradiation, and even with clear skies, it gets dark before 1700hrs. How are people going to heat their homes in the evenings? Solar and wind do work well together, and do cancel out each others limitations to some extent, but it doesn't even come close to solving the problems with dispatchability either of them has.

Most people don't heat their homes in the winter using electricity. They do it using oil or natural gas.

We can actually manufacture any hydrocarbon as a long-term storage medium for the surplus energy during the warmer times of year. It's not hard to imagine large plants on the coasts extracting CO2 from seawater and using it to produce petroleum and natural gas with wind+solar+tidal energy. Then, come winter, people purchase that oil/gas just like they have always been doing, and use it to heat their homes...

Perfectly-efficient? No. But if the cost comes down for Wind in particular far enough, it more than justifies the extra expense. Especially when you consider that the next-cheapest alternative, Coal (in some areas Wind is already cheaper than Coal) produces a MASSIVE environmental impact, and those economic externalities are MUCH more expensive than the cost of the kind of system I just described. Enough to justify heavy subsidies for Wind, in fact.

Of course, in America, we don't seem to care much about that Coal-based pollution. Why? Because we typically build the Coal Power Plants upwind of poor or ethnic/racial minority communities, and politicians + rich people honestly don't care much what happens to "those people", just so long as it doesn't happen to them and they don't riot.

This whole topic relates to "Social/Economic Justice" which is a HUGE issue in America- we dump all our economic externalities on the poor and oppressed, and then laugh when they get cancer and can't afford healthcare because lobbyists OWN Congress and refuse to allow any halfway-decent healthcare law through (and the Affordable Care Act does NOT count- it was in many ways garbage WRITTEN by healthcare industry lobbyists...)

So, the NET costs of Wind are much lower than Coal, when you take the pollution into account (which by many estimates *TRIPLES* that *Actual Cost* of Coal compared to what you pay for the electricity- thanks to all the costs like pollution you DON'T pay for...) Wind/Solar in some areas, Hydroelectric, and yes even Nuclear (if you don't drive up the costs with over-regulation, which is a HUGE problem- we need Nuclear to be safe, but also not add to much to the cost with too much regulation- a balance we are finding hard to maintain...) *ALL* beat Coal on a REAL cost-basis...

Natural Gas is much less environmentally-offensive than Coal, though (which is either dirty+cheap, or expensive+clean with lots of filtering), and in many ways currently comprises the cheapest form of electrical power in real costs. Wind is coming down, though, and like the study showed, will eventually solidly beat even Natural Gas in 10-12 years for sure... Longer for baseload-competitiveness, though, as the storage costs exponentially increase the higher a fraction of your electricity you get from renewables...

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

I will love to see your math and sources behind these "estimations"

The math is simple, solar + wind + storage in 5 years will be chepear than nuclear (now is closely a tie), so remplace the same amount of energy with nuclear will be worst, also it will be like walk in a minefield.

You are talking as if solar and wind is not an alternative.. again read the prices and tends.

How many studies you need to understand that are in fact a very good alternative?

Dont worry, I will stay here to remind you each time something new come out

I love your optimism, AngelLestat, but there's a BIG piece of the puzzle you're missing...

While yes, it is true, Wind power *WILL* continue to come down in costs, and ALREADY is cheaper per kwH than other power sources in many areas (don't let anyone tell you otherwise, they are ignorant or stubborn and just trying to BS you), the STORAGE costs of an intermittent power-source like Wind go up EXPONENTIALLY the higher a fraction it takes up of current grid generation...

There's a reason Denmark is 30% wind, rather than 70 or 100% wind, and that's mainly it. The more variability you add to the grid, the more expensive it becomes to buffer the grid and store that excess energy during times of surplus generation for when it's needed during generation-shortfalls...

Yes, Wind will EVENTUALLY become cheap enough as to encompass a larger and larger market-share, as its low costs are able to compensate for higher and higher storage costs. But by that time, we might actually have cleaner+safer Nuclear power like Molten Salt Reactors burning Thorium, and be safely reprocessing most of our existing nuclear waste to boot (CANDU Reactors are great in this aspect, for instance).

Don't get me wrong- Nuclear is tricky, challenging to engineer, and in the wrong hands (lax operators or rogue nations) it can be highly dangerous. With current technology, it's just plain stupid to rely on it any more heavily than we already do (Solid Fuel Rod-based technology is very inefficient, produces a lot of waste, is harder to operate safely, etc.) and we're actually already starting to run out of easily-accessible Uranium reserves (which we need to keep for Space Programs and Nuclear Submarines, which have no viable replacement for some of the possibilities nuclear power enables!) at current consumption rates...

But Molten Salt Reactors (and several other next-generation reactor technologies) are great, and will enable us to not only utilize our existing Uranium (and Uranium-based waste) *MUCH* more efficiently, it will also allow us to switch to Thorium- which is MANY times more abundant than Uranium, poses much less of a nuclear-proliferation risk, and is *NOT* going to run out anytime in the next couple centuries- unlike our Uranium supplies...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited February 12, 2015 by Northstar1989

[78stonewobble]

1. Really? so the chances to the nuclear fuel leak and goes to the aquifers that we drink is low? Because already happen. And the remaning waste needs to hold by thousands of years more. You will be there to said the future people that they dont have nothing to worry about?

I guess not.

2. What happen if you drop a bomb in that american football field? That is a very good idea for any terrorist.

3. Also saying that are worst stuffs is not the way to defend that.

4. I will love to see your math and sources behind these "estimations"

5. The math is simple, solar + wind + storage in 5 years will be chepear than nuclear (now is closely a tie), so remplace the same amount of energy with nuclear will be worst, also it will be like walk in a minefield.

6. You are talking as if solar and wind is not an alternative.. again read the prices and tends.

How many studies you need to understand that are in fact a very good alternative?

Dont worry, I will stay here to remind you each time something new come out

Take a look here in my country, to see that not always a country decision means that was the best choice.

7.They will make 2 new nuclear plant, when we have the best wind conditions in the world. And not only that, there is already a power line to transfer the power, hydro reservoirs and a hydro plant to pump water as storage. We have enoght storage capacity to remove all our gas plants (50% of the country energy)

Even the rest of the world can not believe why we are not exploting that.

In addiction, the nuclear plants will take more than 5 years to be finish.

So we need to wait 5 years to get some energy of this huge investment?

The answer is easy, corruptions and arrangements.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/12/wind-power-in-argentina-ready-for-take-off

1. I'm saying it's a tiny insignificant local pollution problem. There are a gazillion tons of a gazillion dangerous things put into our environment and into our water supply. Radioactive waste is no different, except people usually take alot more care with that.

2. Noone is gonna let nuclear waste lie unprotected in a football field ffs. It was an example of the physical size of the problem. If terrorists can fly brazenly across X country and drop bombs, then they could just as well drop the bomb directly on the government of x country or any boatload of population centers. Rather than something encased in concrete.

3. What are the enviromental consequences of mining rawmaterials, produce, transport, deploy and maintain enough windmills and solarpanels to make a significant contribution to the worlds electrical use?

4. The world wide electrical usage was 22,126 TeraWattHours in 2011. A relatively modern solar powerplant with day to night storage was built for 900 mio. euro in 2009... which translates to... 45,581,571,454,545 $ Though I believe that my original calculation was for more recent solar panel cost, but including degradation over time. Remember you have to double or triple the production for future energy usage.

The other calculation I'm not as sure off... I looked at the worlds largest windmill farm in china and it's estimated costs compaired to installation costs of relative new japanese reactors. The reason china is investing heavily in windpower and even more heavily in coal power, is that they need power now... and nuclear power, as you point out, takes time to build.

5. Yes, mass production can improve anything. You could do the same for nuclear energy. I don't believe "moores" law to be able to continue indefinately, as processors has allready shown and at some point solar panel technology will definately run into some diminishing returns in terms of price lowering.

6. I will just recommend the documentary pandora's promise on netflix or youtube, even if it is dumbed down.

I call it a pipedream.

7. What happens when a terrorist drops a bomb on a hydrodam? What is the enviromental damage of a multitude of hydro plants?

But yes, hydro energy is a great thing. The problem being that it is very geographically dependent. It cannot work everywhere.

[peadar1987]

yeah those countries are doom with solar. However they use more solar than my country (we 34 latitude, they 57).

But I already said this is my previous post "Now in reality, there are countries which does not have so good solar energy or winds spot. Thats why it will be always a mix of energies"

If you implement something like that from one day to the other, yes it wil be caos.

But in reality it will take several years, if all had indicators on energy cost and automatic devices with smart grid + other stuffs. It can be done.

But it was just an example that even without storage can be possible.

But from all the companies that are trying to harvester the high winds, they are the ones that are more advance.

And we are talking about 20 different companies (included google) that are trying.

They are one of the oldest and with more experience, they even give some tips to the glenn research center when they was researching the same thing.

From all the data they have, they design their own kite shape that will be ideal for their conditions. It will cross the sky from size to size at 80 to 100 m/s at 2000m average altitud.

And yes, it was supercritic Co2, thanks

Don't get me wrong, I fully support the decarbonisation of the energy sector, and think your enthusiasm is great. I am a PhD student working on electricity generation from low-grade heat sources such as solar thermal, geothermal, and waste heat from industry (specifically the sub- and transcritical Organic Rankine Cycle). If we threw money at it, there's no reason all of the technologies you are talking about couldn't be on the shelf comfortably within a decade. The problem is, nobody's throwing money at them, because it is still cheaper just now to build and maintain fossil fuel and nuclear plants (especially when you consider that the stated cost of coal and nuclear includes dividing the capital cost over the predicted lifetime of the plant. If you shut down the plants and replace them with renewables, the lost offsetting of the capital cost is absorbed in the cost of the renewable build)

[Branjoman]

Lets not forget the promising idea of fusion power. Once we build a sustaining fusion reactor, our power problems will diminish by a fair amount.

[Dodgey]

Lets not forget the promising idea of fusion power. Once we build a sustaining fusion reactor, our power problems will diminish by a fair amount.

Fusion power has been 20 years away for how many years?

[Technical Ben]

Price per kilowatt doesn't count for much when you get an unusually calm day and the whole grid shuts down.

We also get oil and gas shortages. It's just another metric to keep in mind when designing a system (or checking costs).

[tadswana]

I guess it's price per Kw.hr we are talking about (energy), consumers don't really cares (or understand) what the capacity is. The old argument of "ittermitency" is a little misleading, as it assumes demand is static (which it isn't).

Smart grid are trying to get there with market-based pricing helps in these situations when supply drops by increasing prices. Imagine a future where people are basing their energy usage on wind/solar forecasts...

Course, I'm hugely biased - as I work in the wind industry!

[Bill Phil]

Fusion power has been 20 years away for how many years?

It's been 20 years away for 20 years, right?

Seriously, though, fusion power is a bit crazy, but it will help is along the way. Although we need to colonize space ( increase total power output by getting more resources than a single planet, while increasing the average standard of living by large margins) anyways, fusion power will be an important tool that will aow us to accomplish that goal.

[Rakaydos]

It's been 20 years away for 20 years, right?

more like 60 or so. commercial fusion power has been 20 years away since the first fusion bombs.

[tadswana]

Agree with that... fusion has always been "just over the horizon" as a smoke screen for inaction. The technical challenges for fusion are immense (as are the rewards).

However, even if cold fusion was developed - could it really compete on the cost of energy? Unsure... can imagine it would be very bloody expensive!

[Rakaydos]

Agree with that... fusion has always been "just over the horizon" as a smoke screen for inaction. The technical challenges for fusion are immense (as are the rewards).

However, even if cold fusion was developed - could it really compete on the cost of energy? Unsure... can imagine it would be very bloody expensive!

"Cold fusion" isnt exactly fusion, by my understanding. (it doesnt have elements fusing into new elements)

Tokomak fusion seems to be one of the more advanced, but there are scale issues- ITER needs to be over 50' talll to keep enough superhot fusion plasma to sustain additional fusion.

I know nothing about "polywell" fusion.

Inertial Containment fusion has its own problems.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Rakaydos

[Bill Phil]

But all fusion is containment, except cold fusion...

Sun uses gravity confinement.

Tokamaks use magnetic confinement.

Other types use inertial confinement...

[Rakaydos]

My bad, I meant intertial confinment. Fixed.

[m4v]

we need to get rid of fossil fuels in like 40-50 years (or something), fusion is not going to be real by that time. We'll have to do with the technologies we have now, solar, wind and nuclear fission.

[Kryten]

"Cold fusion" isnt exactly fusion, by my understanding. (it doesnt have elements fusing into new elements).

Sort of. On the one hand it is intended to have actual nuclear fusion, but on the other hand you're right that it doesn't, because it simply doesn't work.

[AngelLestat]

I guess that maybe in 10 years we will know how to make a fusion comercial plant, but it will take at least 10 or 15 years more to compete with other types of energy, more if their prices keep falling.

But fusion will have many utilities, does not need be profitable in all applications from the begining.

the STORAGE costs of an intermittent power-source like Wind go up EXPONENTIALLY the higher a fraction it takes up of current grid generation...

There's a reason Denmark is 30% wind, rather than 70 or 100% wind, and that's mainly it. The more variability you add to the grid, the more expensive it becomes to buffer the grid and store that excess energy during times of surplus generation for when it's needed during generation-shortfalls...

I am agree with your words on nuclear technology and some other things, but that only counts if we dont have good storage alternatives.

Right now on sale... we dont have. But there are many in development with huge potential and some other already in testing which it will come out to sale already at half price of today cost.

It is currently projected in this study:

These are some of the technologies that are already in testing phase and obtaining their licenses.

http://lightsailenergy.com/

http://www.eosenergystorage.com/technology-and-products/

http://redflow.com/redflow-products/zbm/

http://www.isentropic.co.uk/

If terrorists can fly brazenly across X country and drop bombs, then they could just as well drop the bomb directly on the government of x country or any boatload of population centers. Rather than something encased in concrete.

I dont wanna give ideas, but if you kill a president, it will be another in just 10 min.

If you manage to put a bomb in a waste storage, you will ignite all the radioactive waste which will go to the atmosphere, the ground, and a huge zone will be close to almost any kind of live.

Firing against a nuclear reactor close to a city is another bad possibility, In France there is the chance that the country would cease to exist economically speaking.

3. What are the enviromental consequences of mining rawmaterials, produce, transport, deploy and maintain enough windmills and solarpanels to make a significant contribution to the worlds electrical use?

Almost nothing... all the energy waste in a wind generator or solar cell is paid in the first or second month of activity.

None use danger or polluting materials.

4. The world wide electrical usage was 22,126 TeraWattHours in 2011. A relatively modern solar powerplant with day to night storage was built for 900 mio. euro in 2009...

2009?? When we speak on wind and solar energy you need to take the data from the current year.

5. Yes, mass production can improve anything. You could do the same for nuclear energy. I don't believe "moores" law to be able to continue indefinately, as processors has allready shown and at some point solar panel technology will definately run into some diminishing returns in terms of price lowering.

But nuclear energy is not something that you can mass produce.. Is not like a 2x3 silicon panel or hundreds of eolic generators.. The pieces of a nuclear plants needs a super quality control, not all factories can made these things, they need special licences (you dont want anybody making reactors parts) I highly doubt to see the price of nuclear go down after fukuhima and with so many emerging technologies.

6. I will just recommend the documentary pandora's promise on netflix or youtube, even if it is dumbed down.

I saw it, is just propaganda of an economic sector that is falling.

They had many twisted info, like said that solar produce more deaths than nuclear??

Death by cancer due radiation are difficult to prove, but you can see the growth on rate from people diagnose by cancer, but with such high poppulation, you can have 400000, but the normal is 360000.. How can you prove that those extra 40000 was due chernobyl or it was just higher number due chance.

They also said that you need 1 gas power plant for each wind farm..

The radiation close to fukushima and in the cities is real and you can not live anymore there.

The cleaning cost may rise to 600 billions, of course for now they will paid only 200 or 300 bilions.

But they can not retake that piece of country until many years and billions.

Who paid that? is include in the nuclear cost? Disasters, waste management and descomission cost are not included.

Meanwhile problems, accidents or relations with renewable energies are the same companies who paid the errors.

Let me said that I was a nuclear fan just 10 years ago. I like green technologies but I always use my head to know when is greenpeace stupidity or when something has real potential.

But few years back that was not more true. So I change my opinion. Is still the best option in some countries.

7. What happens when a terrorist drops a bomb on a hydrodam? What is the enviromental damage of a multitude of hydro plants?

I guess they destroy the hydrodam?

You are saying this from my Argentina Example about wind? Nobody lives down river in those locations.

Also we are talking on wind and solar energy. if you have a hydrodam close you use it, but is not really needed.

Don't get me wrong, I fully support the decarbonisation of the energy sector, and think your enthusiasm is great. I am a PhD student working on electricity generation from low-grade heat sources such as solar thermal, geothermal, and waste heat from industry (specifically the sub- and transcritical Organic Rankine Cycle). If we threw money at it, there's no reason all of the technologies you are talking about couldn't be on the shelf comfortably within a decade. The problem is, nobody's throwing money at them, because it is still cheaper just now to build and maintain fossil fuel and nuclear plants (especially when you consider that the stated cost of coal and nuclear includes dividing the capital cost over the predicted lifetime of the plant. If you shut down the plants and replace them with renewables, the lost offsetting of the capital cost is absorbed in the cost of the renewable build)

Heh I dint understand that last line.

How the money that a nuclear plant will not produce (in case shutdown before lifetime) will finance new renwable energy?

Nuclear energies had another advantage which is slowly changing now, the finance plans and capital strategies were a lot better than the ones used by wind or solar, that is starting to change now. Solar and wind start to take the same advantage of those economic strategic to help the investors in deal with initial costs.

One question not related to this discussion, how good are you with heat transfer calculations?

I want help to improve a ksp mod, but not sure if all my calculations on conduction, convective and radiation will be ok.

So I will like to have somebody with experience to check my logic and equations when I finish.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some data recopiled from the lazard 2014 study.

Take a look in the last table, what is the best technology to remplace coal... By far Solar.

Edited February 13, 2015 by AngelLestat

[RAINCRAFTER]

They take energy from the air. It affects weather. I never said how much...

I was referring to what the effect of an excessive amount of wind farming would be.

It it actually affects the weather in ways worse than buildings, it takes energy, which if unchecked could be a problem. Emphasis on the could.

This is your 1000th post.

Just saying.

Also, I'm guessing solar power will some how be made really cheap in the near future and be our main power source until the end.

[Bill Phil]

This is your 1000th post.

Just saying.

Also, I'm guessing solar power will some how be made really cheap in the near future and be our main power source until the end.

Hip hip hooray?

Solar power stations in large orbits that transmit the power could be a possibility... It would last for decades and can be built with HUGE SIZES... But it's insanely hard and requires a lot of infrastructure.

[Ralathon]

This is your 1000th post.

Just saying.

Also, I'm guessing solar power will some how be made really cheap in the near future and be our main power source until the end.

Why would we use solar power if we can figure out fusion technology? A fusion power plant doesn't blackout the city on a cloudy day. Also, solar power is really useless if we ever want to expand beyond Mars.

The way I see the future is that renewable energy sources slowly outcompete fossil fuels due to scarcity and government regulations. Then about halfway through the century we finally get fusion running at a commercially viable level. Over the next half of the century we slowly transition to a fusion based power net supplemented by renewables for peak demand coverage.

[magnemoe]

"Cold fusion" isnt exactly fusion, by my understanding. (it doesnt have elements fusing into new elements)

Tokomak fusion seems to be one of the more advanced, but there are scale issues- ITER needs to be over 50' talll to keep enough superhot fusion plasma to sustain additional fusion.

I know nothing about "polywell" fusion.

Inertial Containment fusion has its own problems.

None of the fusion projects ongoing now outside of Rossie is cold fusion, all uses high energy impacts too fuse the atoms.

Main difference is as you say ITER need to be on Whackjob scale to work, in short it might be to huge to be practical not to say economical.

Polywell, focus fusion and other tries various tricks to do this at manageable size. We don't know if this will work or they will get unsolvable problems then scaling up however if it work the result will be cheap energy.

[78stonewobble]

2009?? When we speak on wind and solar energy you need to take the data from the current year.

http://s20.postimg.org/4ykn7gm0t/Captura.jpg

Using average current numbers 22,126 TWh's is 1,305,634,000,000 $ of windenergy or 1,747,954,000,000 $ of solar energy.

Now add, atleast day to night storage for solar, backup storage for wind and other backup's necessary and everything else conveniently omitted from the diagram. Maintenance? Degradation over time of solar panels?

The global electrical usage of 22,126 TWh's is from 2011, it has obviously grown since then. It will also grow in industrialised nations as if ie. instead of central heating you now need to use electrical heating. Then developing nations will massively increase the electrical usage. Even the 1.3 billion chineese needs to use 3.75x as much energy to compaire to germany or a massive 7.125 x to use as much as the average american. It is 5,9 billion people needing to double, triple or many times more their electrical usage to get an equal standard of life.

So are the industrialized nations willing to pay for them not going cheap ass coal? We kinda should... it's been our usage of coal, oil and gas that's partially the reason we are rich and it's rather certainly the reason there's a problem now.

Also... I still haven't seen you give even an estimation of the enviromental or human health impact of digging enough ressources out of the ground, then reshape them into windmills, solarpanels and energy storage on a megaproject scale, then transport them around the globe and deploy them and then maintain a megaproject like that over 50-100 years, possibly to forever?

[Kulebron]

use low efficiency steam turbines - so a lot of the reactor's heat is lost (unless you can use cogeneration on that - which would require factories or cities built around it... naaah ) . (nuclear still remains a quite formidable source of heat though - requiring only minimal amounts of nuclear material to produce as much energy as a fossile fuel based power plant.)

Well, in cold countries this heat can be used as a free heating. Vapor turbines are exactly what's needed: water in the turbine cycle goes to heat exchangers as vapor or hot water and heats up the water in pipes. All the heat that you'd throw out of the window you use to heat houses and to get hot drinkable water for the water tap. This is the advantage of living in a cold climate: you get heating for free and rarely need cooling. In warm climate, you loose the free heat benefit and also need to use the expensive electricity to cool houses and to heat tap water.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Kulebron

[magnemoe]

Well, in cold countries this heat can be used as a free heating. Vapor turbines are exactly what's needed: water in the turbine cycle goes to heat exchangers as vapor or hot water and heats up the water in pipes. All the heat that you'd throw out of the window you use to heat houses and to get hot drinkable water for the water tap. This is the advantage of living in a cold climate: you get heating for free and rarely need cooling. In warm climate, you loose the free heat benefit and also need to use the expensive electricity to cool houses and to heat tap water.

This is true however its getting less relevant, modern houses are so well isolated and use heat exchangers so they don't use much more energy for pure heating unless its very cold.

This should be double true for apartments, know its already true for office buildings as both has low surface to floor space compared to houses and you can't use this much in semi rural areas.

Fun story, where I lived earlier they used it in a village, they got much of the gas needed from a gas field as the village was build on an old garbage dump, the gas was a problem so they turned it into an resource. Did not know before I read a sign at the small automated station managing this, sometimes they flared excess gas and this caused people to call the fire department.

[sgt_flyer]

@Kulebron - that's basically cogeneration - for cogeneration to work efficiently, the target needs to be close by - because the longer your steam pipes are, the more you'll lose heat. So you'll need to stick what people believe is 'nuclear' steam (and a nuclear power plant) next to drinking water or a city (especially regarding putting a nuclear power plant in close proximity to a city could cause all kind of security issues - and not necessarily for the people at first. (Just check out the ruckus that has followed greenpeace militants sneaking in french powerplants, or more recently drones flying over those)

Security (vs attacks or natural disasters) of nuclear sites remains something to be rightly concerned with - because either attacks or natural disasters could much more easily create containment breaches than a simple accident.

For containment breaches to follow an accident, you really need multiple human errors , bad reactors designs and / or safety systems to fail to respond correctly.

[peadar1987]

@AngelLestat:

My last sentence in that paragraph basically means, you have a coal power plant, or a nuclear plant, the cost of energy from it is going to be based on the lifetime of the plant, as the initial costs are quite high. If you close down that power plant before it was planned to be closed, and replace it with a wind turbine, those assumptions about the cost of energy are going to be wrong, and the effective price of the energy from that coal or nuclear plant will go up. Essentially you have to incorporate the capital expenditure that isn't being offset by the coal or nuclear plant any more into the cost of the wind or solar plant that replaces it.

For heat transfer calculations, it isn't really my area of research, especially not for space-based stuff, I'd mainly be looking at convective and conductive transfer inside heat exchangers, but I can have a look for you if you want, just PM me and I'll see what I can do.