From Guest Blogger Randy Carlson: Solar Osmosis–a Better Drought Solution for the Southwest
America’s Southwest is running out of water. Reservoirs are drying up, and our population continues to grow. Our cities, our high-value agriculture, our environment and our future all depend on water resources we don’t have. One abundant resource the Southwest does have is sun. What if we could create a climate-proof watershed by using the Southwest’s plentiful sunshine to create new, fresh water? Using solar osmosis, we can.
Solar osmosis is a process that combines renewable energy with reverse osmosis. Solar energy is used to power a desalination plant that filters the salt out of ocean water to produce new, fresh drinking water.
The Water Issue
For decades we staked our growth and future on having water from the Colorado River. We now face drought, climate change and shrinking supply. Lake Powell and Lake Mead, primary reservoirs on the Colorado River, are near record low levels. Reduced flows and lower allocations are imminent.
With a growing population and shrinking water supplies, we have a crisis. We need a solution. Our prosperity, our food supply, our very way of life depend on finding that solution, and finding it soon. We need a solution that protects our environment, economy, and way of life.
Weather records say our drought will get worse; climate models agree. Dams and pipelines do not produce one drop of water. Conventional water projects just move water toward money and push the drought off on farmers, fishes, forests and poor people. Water conservation is essentially putting a Band-Aid on the problem, rather than attacking the problem directly. It’s time to talk about real solutions to our water crisis, not just Band-Aids.
Desalination
There is an ocean of water – the Pacific – in our front yard. Just take out the salt. It has been practical for half a century and small desalination plants are here today – like the new Poseidon Reverse Osmosis Desalination Plant in San Diego. But water from small-scale desalination is expensive, and without careful planning desalination plants can damage the ocean.
We can do better. We can produce some new, fresh, clean water. We can protect all those important things that depend on water. But we need to think creatively, we think big picture.
Environmentally sound, economically viable desalination means taking advantage of existing infrastructure, building bigger plants, using renewable energy and protecting the ocean. If we do this right we can save our environment, enhance our prosperity and protect our culture from the drought and climate changes bearing down on us. So how do we begin?
Solar Farms
Energy produced by a solar farm sent through the power grid to a reverse osmosis desalination plant will produce enough fresh water each year to cover the solar farm to the height of a 6-story building! Think about that. Solar farms powering desalination plants generate twice the water per acre of the world’s wettest rainforest.
Over the coming decade 300,000 acres of irrigated Central California farmland will be removed from production due to naturally high amounts of selenium and boron in the soil. Solar farms on just this area of disused farmland would produce more fresh water than the Colorado River.
Solar electricity powering desalination delivers reliable water, unaffected by drought or climate change. This is a true climate proof watershed to meet our water needs.
Solar Osmosis at San Onofre
We might start with the decommissioned San Onofre nuclear generating plant. While this plant is done generating electricity and its reactors are permanently shut down, the seawater cooling system is still there, and of course there are a great set of power lines connecting the site to the grid. A desalination plant using the existing seawater intakes would produce 1.1 billion of new fresh gallons per day – as much water as Southern California cities take from the Colorado River. It only takes a short pipeline to the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) to distribute this water throughout Southern California.
Powered by solar electricity, and using a seawater inlet and discharge system that already meets environmental regulations, there will be minimal environmental impact. And when grid demand exceeds supply, the desalination plant can be throttled back, and the energy diverted to the grid, so the project backs-up both our water supply and our energy grid.
Once MWD’s Colorado River water is replaced with new, fresh water from desalination, it can be swapped to other Colorado River users. No additional plumbing needed.
Nobody has to give up water they have now so it can be moved somewhere else. And, compared to old-style storage and pipeline projects, large scale desalinated water will cost less.
The Solution to Drought is More Water – Simple as That
We call this combination of renewable energy and reverse osmosis desalination “Solar Osmosis”. It’s the way we can produce additional, fresh, clean water instead of fighting over our dwindling natural supply. But, to do this right we must work together, and that may be the hardest part.
The solution to drought is more water – simple as that. Turning sunshine we have into water we need is a vision for sustaining the environment, agriculture, cities and vibrant growth of the American Southwest in the face of drought and climate change.
Randy is an engineer and technical consultant with experience in environmental remote sensing and in alternative energy. Randy received his degree from the University of California, Santa Barbara where he studied semiconductor engineering and computer science. His hobbies include hiking and sailing.
Probably we need to do a lot more sea water desalination. Our aquifers are being depleted. It may be that solar osmosis is the best solution.
The problem with SOLAR osmosis is that it will work only when the sun is shining. That means that the osmosis system must be much larger to produce as much fresh water as if it had reliable continuous power. That of course increases the investment cost for the osmosis plant.
With nuclear power, an osmosis plant could run continuously and its investment costs would be lower. The decision on whether to use a nuclear powered osmosis plant that can run continuously and a solar powered osmosis plant which would run intermittently should be made on a cost basis. I do not have the figures available to do the cost analysis.
The proposal to use parts of the decommissioned San Onofre may be reasonable. However, I don’t have the data to determine whether or not it is the best way to go.
The article makes interesting reading, but unfortunately it is lacking in the data to do a proper analysis.
Frank,
It is very true that the sun doesn’t shine at night. But building a much bigger desalination plant and only running when the sun is up is only one solution.
An alternative, which we think would work better, is to use substantial amounts of grid-connected storage. In exchange for a smaller desalination plant, one buys batteries…
There is an important benefit to this latter approach. In places like California, critical sections of the electrical transmission grid operate at or near peak capacity some of the time. By distributing grid storage needed to run the desalination plant at night, we can ‘time’ when solar generated electricity gets transmitted through critical segments of the transmission grid. This is of course helpful for the grid operator.
More importantly, distributing energy storage at critical nodes on the transmission grid so that the considerable energy for desalination can move without overloading critical grid links avoids upgrades to the grid that involve environmental impact and are subject to lengthly permitting and approval processes.
Randy,
What about installing the batteries at the desalination plant? At least that would make it easier to evaluate the economics of battery storage.
Good System of System Engineering concepts as for using retired San Onofre Plant infrastructure. Maybe it will lead to a real feasibility study by the Powers that be???Be a good idea to do that.
If doable it resolves the complex and fierce politics over water allocations. Give Politicians a way out for sure. AZ money grubbing developers can keep over selling / developing the desert and making more water intensive golf courses ( Un Intended consequences) but if does keep some farmers on the land producing and provides some drinking water it could be a good solution.
Franks point about limitations of daylight only power is true but not a deal breaker. The new operating model for utilities and energy providers for the emerging new modern grid are explained below.
The economics of solar is so cheap now that a plant could over size the solar farm so the capacity of the Osmosis plant could be increased. So needed Throughput could be reached that way.
Comparing a solar single tracker plant capital cost of $1,500 per KW versus a new nuke at $ 6,000 to $8,000 per kw coupled with minimal marginal O & M costs for solar versus a high cost O & M of nuclear ????!!?? makes the solar option attractive.
In 10 to 15 years the price of Natural Gas should be at levels that make Solar CPS with 6 to 8 hrs of storage maybe more cost competitive so that addresses the running hour challenge and precludes any need for high cost nuclear options with its historically high back end costs on top of its much higher front end costs.
All it would take to have a 24 / 7 plant would be 2 or 3 GE LM 6000 PF units that provide nominal 98 megawatt capacity in combined cycle mode. ( 50 in simple cycle and add 48 in combined mode for 98 total)
In the interim build tracking solar and back it up with a series of IC gas engines ( like Warsilla or GE makes now) at 5 megawatts each Design a bank of lets say 20 so you get 100 megs and that runs the plant when the sun goes down. They are less costly, cleaner than most large gas turbines and don’t lose thermal or emission efficiency when cycled to load follow the solar output.
These systems are now being chosen Globally to integrate with Wind , Solar hybrid plants. They avoid the excessive capital and O & M costs of other systems.
Frank appreciate your enthusiasm for nuclear but until the technology reduces both its capital costs or the emerging SMR’s actually demonstrate reduced costs etc. That option is not cost effective.
Bear in mind that right now in the Midwest and in NY it is taking large $$$ per Mwhr subsidies to keep mid life nukes online as their operating and maintenance costs are too high and making them not cost competitive with Wind and gas combinations.
That is a matter of RECORD not false claims either!
When the Palo Verde nuke plant West of Phoenix closes in 25 to 35 years maybe sooner , the recycled sewer water that now cools the plant could be solar treated into drinking water – so that is a potential new source for thirsty Phoenix to tap into With Solar.
Randy Carlson deserves credit for conceptualizing a good approach to water challenges …this would be more vital to society than excessive rooftop dg with full retail ( subsidy net metering) is for openers.
Using solar for higher purpose higher value applications.Changing the Paradigm for the better!
I like solar dg but not the full retail net metering it penalizes the poor and middle class who lack the ability to use solar and is a rate subsidy for green bling upper income folks for the most part. If we had a shortage of energy or it was all coal based that we were deferring then maybe a different calculation and approach is worthy of consideration.
Silent,
Is the cost comparison of PV solar with nuclear actually realistic? It seems to me that some of the costs of PV are not being considered and that some of the costs of nuclear power are the result of regulation which does not actually improve safety.
I am including a (somewhat long) paper I wrote on the subject:
Comparing PV solar power with nuclear power
******************
Those who oppose nuclear power on the basis of cost assert that the cost of nuclear power is too high and rising thereby making it uncompetitive with the cost of solar PV power which is said to be dropping. It is true that the investment cost of nuclear power has risen, but it is important to determine the reasons and what can be done about them.
This linked to article explains why costs have escalated:
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html
And here is a quotation from the article:
“The increase in total construction time, indicated in Fig. 2, from 7 years in 1971 to 12 years in 1980 roughly doubled the final cost of plants. In addition, the EEDB, corrected for inflation, approximately doubled during that time period. Thus, regulatory ratcheting, quite aside from the effects of inflation, quadrupled the cost of a nuclear power plant. What has all this bought in the way of safety? One point of view often expressed privately by those involved in design and construction is that it has bought nothing.”
I suggest reading the entire article. It certainly looks as though, at least to a considerable extent, the rising costs could have been prevented.
Those opposing nuclear power often compare the cost on the bases of cents per watt. That sounds like a good and clear way to compare the costs, but is it really? Do they include all the relevant factors?
Let us suppose that the investment cost per watt of a nuclear plant is computed by dividing the investment cost by the rated power of the plant. Presumably that would include all the investment to generate power that is grid ready.
In computing the investment cost of a PV system, is the cost of three phase sine wave inverters included? They are quite expensive and have a shorter life than the PV panels. Is that being taken into consideration? Also, unlike nuclear power systems, PV power systems usually cannot be located where the grid is designed to accept power. Therefore, a power line has to be built thereby adding to cost. Is that being taken into consideration?
Nuclear plants will deliver power continuously regardless of weather; they fail to deliver power only while being refuled or repaired. Typically a nuclear plant will have an capacity factor of about 90%. So, when computing the investment cost per watt, the output must be multiplied by 0.9 thereby increasing the investment cost per watt by about 11%.. On the other hand, a PV system will have an capacity factor of about 20%, so when computing the investment cost per watt the rated out must first be multiplied by 0.2 thereby increasing the investment cost by about FIVE TIMES!
For more information on capacity factors, visit this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_factor
The same principals used to compute the per watt cost of PV power are also applicable to concentrated solar power and wind power.
Before reaching conclusions when comparing the cost of nuclear power with the cost of PV power, we must be sure that all these factors are considered. Are they? How can we be sure?
Perhaps you could explain what type of solar tracker plant you have in mind.
Tracking has been used for PV systems to maximize the output. However, there are those who say that it is more economical just to have more PV panels and not do any tracking. Although I don’t have the numbers, it should be easy to resolve that question.
Tracking is required for concentrated solar systems, generally solar thermal where a steam turbine drives a generator. However, unlike PV systems, their output drops to zero when clouds make focusing the sunlight impossible.
Regarding water desalination, it seems to be the most practical way to solve fresh water shortage problems even though it is energy intensive. And, unlike some processes which use power, power interruptions to desalination systems will not damage the equipment so some unreliability of the power source would be tolerable and could be accommodated by large reservoirs for the freshened water.
Frank thank you for your detailed information.
Some of what you point out is worthy of consideration but the part about siting solar plants and they need dedicated power lines is ….is not understandable I am trying to be Polite.
Frank when they build a nuke most of the time its outside a town and populated area it needs a dedicated substation and yes Transmission lines and usually a double circuit for redundancy as the risk of losing 1,000 plus megs on a utility grid needs to be minimalized.
Solar just needs a substation just like any other power plant and many are being built on site next to a gas plant. NO ENVIRONEMNTAL ISSUES . EPE and Tucson Elec and many others have done that. Florida P L has a solar thermal mated up to a big gas CC plant in Florida . They did that in 2008 !
The bottom line with nuclear is this
Fact.
There are only 22 or so being built Globally (large ones) so if they were such a Great deal why has the market place been so slow to Adopt them ?? Only a handful of SMR in works and the FEDs in US are subsidizing those to a half of Billion or more plus the 3 or 4 Billion or more for the 2 big projects in Georgia and S Carolina that are behind schedule and over cost. All those conservative morons that don’t believe in DOE and energy subsidies . No subsidies no nuclear period end of story. LOL LOL
The question begs asking and the answer is the marketplace, the banks, the regulators , the industry , the utilities and most of the public has preferences for other options. Nuclear is not the favorite choice.
Nuclear has to get its COST in Order and each year it falls further behind. The SMR fellas may have a shot but they better be around $ 3,000 KW over nite cost with 80 to 90 % capacity factor to compete.
Due to the need to leverage BREXIT, some needed local jobs and build on the relationshoip with China , two weeks ago UK PM T May finally approved the hotly debated Hinckley Point Nuclear Station in SW England. Around 3.200 megawatt plant. Around $18 to $ 20 Billion Pounds. Estimated Cost.
The project was hotly debated as the cost may rise and there are less costly options presented by the technocrat sector. But in the end the need for UK to leverage the China connection for trade as they exit EU and the jobs etc.influenced the decision not the plant attributes alone. Interesting how things work out.
So Big Nuke won one first nuke in UK in decades and yes the power is needed. The cost estimates do not include O & M or fuel and the plant may be very expensive power at the end of the day. EDF of France really needs the work.
The comparative cost of nukes versus solar is not EVEN Close no need to compare that. Solar cost will be around $ 1.00 per watt in 5 years or less.
Your approach is for a 1970’s ERA that is LONG GONE – gone with Globalization and downsizing and tremendous GAINS in End Use Efficiency , the emergence of RE technologies and soon batteries along with increased gas as a bridge fuel . Last BUT NOT Least and the De Industrialization of the United States.
The nuclear Genie supporters need to Sell the Marketplace Players if they want a bigger role. Market Test!
Brave new World let it go.
Silent,
Coal burning plants need to be replaced. Some are on large expanses of land where there is more than sufficient room to build a nuclear power plant. Also, there has been some consideration about keeping the steam turbines and generators from coal burning plants and replacing the coal fired boiler with a nuclear powered steam generator. Although because of various technical considerations I have doubts about how practical that would be, it has been proposed. Using either approach, the power generated could be fed into the grid where the grid is designed to accept power. That would be less likely to be practical with a solar system in which case new power lines would have to be constructed.
I am not the only one who sees advantages in locating nuclear plants where the grid is designed to accept the power. Very good arguments have been made to support that idea so it should not be dismissed out of hand.
From attending meetings at New Mexico Power, I have learned that constructing power lines is exceedingly costly. Unfortunately, I don’t remember the figures. Another problem with building power lines is acquiring the right of way and getting licenses to build the lines; that can take many years. In fact, some of the environmental organizations which most strongly oppose nuclear power also fight to prevent new power lines from being constructed. They may not succeeded in preventing power lines from being constructed, but their legal tactics can cause multi-year delays.
Moreover, it is by no means assured that adequate and practical means to store energy will be developed and without them, intermittent sources of power cannot do the job.
It may be that nuclear power will not be greatly expanded here in the U.S. until valiant attempts to get CO2 emissions down to near zero with intermittent sources of power fail.
In the following link, Dr. James Hansen, a highly respected climate scientist, asserts that, “Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change.”:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change
In the following link, Joe Romm strongly disagrees with Dr. Hansen:
https://thinkprogress.org/why-james-hansen-is-wrong-about-nuclear-power-44b486ed8a72#.55znqpu5o
I have studied far more viewpoints than the above two and, as a result, I agree with Dr. Hansen. But let us examine a quotation by Joe Romm from his link:
“Hansen and a handful of other climate scientists I also greatly respect — Ken Caldeira, Tom Wigley, and Kerry Emanuel — present a mostly handwaving argument in which new nuclear power achieves and sustains an unprecedented growth rate for decades. The one quantitative “illustrative scenario” they propose — “a total requirement of 115 reactors per year to 2050 to entirely decarbonise the global electricity system” — is far beyond what the world ever sustained during the nuclear heyday of the 1970s, and far beyond what the overwhelming majority of energy experts, including those sympathetic to the industry, think is plausible.”
But that statement by Romm seems very questionable when one compares the material inputs of concrete and steel required by wind and solar system with the amounts required by nuclear plants. I don’t have the figures readily available, but I have seen them and the results are astoundingly lopsided. With some searching I’m sure you can find the figures. From them, it seems clear that power generating capacity could be much more quickly expanded by building nuclear plants than by building wind and or solar systems. Expanding wind and solar systems as fast as required would be even more unprecedented than expanding nuclear systems that fast.
Romm also goes into costs. But earlier in this thread, I included a quotation from a site that explains the rising, and apparently at least partly unwarranted, increased costs of nuclear plants. I also included a link to the site. Although the site is several years old, it looks as though the data are just as valid today as when the material was published. Although my link is to a particular page of the site, I doubt that you’d have difficulty navigating to the first page and reading all of the material.
So, along with many respected scientists (and I am not a scientist), I agree that our best hope to prevent or mitigate a climate disaster is to expanded nuclear power at a very unprecedented rate.
Hi Frank
The reason I suggest single tracker either a East / West single or the traditional tilting type is so that the Capacity Factor can be higher. Trackers ( two types are built in Albq for that matter) have improved, become more reliable and the cost has come down considerably from 2009.
First Solar owns the utility scale market along with Sunpower.
First Solar is installing in the past year and half single trackers that are reaching 34 % to 36 % Capacity factor for right around $1.80 to $ 2.00 a Watt turnkey . They are reaching 17 to 18.5 % with efficiency w their Cad Telluride thin film panels.
Their R & D dept claims new STC Efficiency 21 % but not avaiable until 2017 sometime.
Their systems are simple and reliable. Their CEO has gone Public saying their target install price will be $1.20 per watt in 1 more year. With $1.00 per Watt their ultimate goal.
Sunpower has different design and uses Poly silicon panels and a new system that has some enhanced tracking and lensing. I forget the Model name. They tend to be slightly higher in price than First Solar but all these types of projects are contingent on the specifics of project and end user needs etc.
As I said they can be mated with small gas turbines w C Cycle or IC gas engines with heat recovery mode . This feature fits the systems of Systems concept.
Because Osmosis plants membrane filters performance can be enhanced
by warm water the heat recovery feature and the hot water stream byproduct would be a operating benefit for increasing the volume of water treated throughput.
Also this gives longer operating hours if that is needed.
The battery storage concept that Randy C mentioned of course would be another option.
In the SW desert of AZ , Nev, NM and West Texas the CPS option with long storage would be a good option once Natural gas prices reach a cross over point. I don’t know that price point.
In Chile or Peru and also in S Africa the CPS plants are going in for 12.5 cents per Kwhr which is good progress from the Ivanpah and related that were built for 18 to 22 cents range per kwhr , the lower figure is w tax credits. Morocco is planning a very large merchant CPS plant to export to Spain w undersea cables.
The driver is there is no natural gas there so the economics are much easier to attain as the options are less.
Then if the SMR nuclear developers can get their units operational for the strike price of $2,500 to $ 3,000 per KW – Hybrid solar with SMR plants could be built and the 100 % availability and very high capacity factors would result in a lower LCOE for energy cost and a lower per gallon treatment cost. This could happen. No gas cost inflation to worry about plus the plant would be carbon free.
Fixed angle solar with module and inverter enhancements are now reaching 28 to 30 % capacity factors. They cost 15 % ( rule of thumb) less than single tracker. But their production output of energy is 15 to 20 % less than single tracker.
Frank because the cost of single trackers is so low and the energy gain is in a good balance point with the added cost over fixed systems; they have pretty much crowded out the dual axis trackers which are more expensive and more prone to operational and maintenance issues so Dual axis is out of favor at this time.
I think Randy Carlson has a good concept and vision for higher purpose application for using solar to address a growing societal need in a Sustainable manner.
take care
Silent,
It looks as though more work has been done on PV trackers since I last read about them. Whether they would be the best way to go for roof-top installations I don’t know; the applications are somewhat different.
Somehow a post I made in response to your previous post got lost. Fortunately I use a word processor for composition and still have it. Therefore, I am including it here hoping that it won’t become lost again:
Silent,
Coal burning plants need to be replaced. Some are on large expanses of land where there is more than sufficient room to build a nuclear power plant. Also, there has been some consideration about keeping the steam turbines and generators from coal burning plants and replacing the coal fired boiler with a nuclear powered steam generator. Although because of various technical considerations I have doubts about how practical that would be, it has been proposed. Using either approach, the power generated could be fed into the grid where the grid is designed to accept power. That would be less likely to be practical with a solar system in which case new power lines would have to be constructed.
I am not the only one who sees advantages in locating nuclear plants where the grid is designed to accept the power. Very good arguments have been made to support that idea so it should not be dismissed out of hand.
From attending meetings at New Mexico Power, I have learned that constructing power lines is exceedingly costly. Unfortunately, I don’t remember the figures. Another problem with building power lines is acquiring the right of way and getting licenses to build the lines; that can take many years. In fact, some of the environmental organizations which most strongly oppose nuclear power also fight to prevent new power lines from being constructed. They may not succeeded in preventing power lines from being constructed, but their legal tactics can cause multi-year delays.
Moreover, it is by no means assured that adequate and practical means to store energy will be developed and without them, intermittent sources of power cannot do the job.
It may be that nuclear power will not be greatly expanded here in the U.S. until valiant attempts to get CO2 emissions down to near zero with intermittent sources of power fail.
In the following link, Dr. James Hansen, a highly respected climate scientist, asserts that, “Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change.”:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change
In the following link, Joe Romm strongly disagrees with Dr. Hansen:
https://thinkprogress.org/why-james-hansen-is-wrong-about-nuclear-power-44b486ed8a72#.55znqpu5o
I have studied far more viewpoints than the above two and, as a result, I agree with Dr. Hansen. But let us examine a quotation by Joe Romm from his link:
“Hansen and a handful of other climate scientists I also greatly respect — Ken Caldeira, Tom Wigley, and Kerry Emanuel — present a mostly handwaving argument in which new nuclear power achieves and sustains an unprecedented growth rate for decades. The one quantitative “illustrative scenario” they propose — “a total requirement of 115 reactors per year to 2050 to entirely decarbonise the global electricity system” — is far beyond what the world ever sustained during the nuclear heyday of the 1970s, and far beyond what the overwhelming majority of energy experts, including those sympathetic to the industry, think is plausible.”
But that statement by Romm seems very questionable when one compares the material inputs of concrete and steel required by wind and solar system with the amounts required by nuclear plants. I don’t have the figures readily available, but I have seen them and the results are astoundingly lopsided. With some searching I’m sure you can find the figures. From them, it seems clear that power generating capacity could be much more quickly expanded by building nuclear plants than by building wind and or solar systems. Expanding wind and solar systems as fast as required would be even more unprecedented than expanding nuclear systems that fast.
Romm also goes into costs. But earlier in this thread, I included a quotation from a site that explains the rising, and apparently at least partly unwarranted, increased costs of nuclear plants. I also included a link to the site. Although the site is several years old, it looks as though the data are just as valid today as when the material was published. Although my link is to a particular page of the site, I doubt that you’d have difficulty navigating to the first page and reading all of the material.
So, along with many respected scientists (and I am not a scientist), I agree that our best hope to prevent or mitigate a climate disaster is to expanded nuclear power at a very unprecedented rate.
Dear Frank great Post it did get lost and glad you re entered it. Thank you for your research and documentation efforts. Have some interesting reading to do later tonite.
There are many scientists etc out there that seem to concur that some sort of nuclear build-out is necessary to close the gaps on generation needs and the bigger need to displace carbon burning.
New EPA and DOE studies have uncovered what many scientists / researchers and concerned parties have Long Suspected – that is the total carbon footprint of the so called clean burning Natural Gas – For years the industry std line has been that GAS is 50 % less polluting ( CO2 carbon levels) howevr both the EPA and DOE have now identified significant emissions from leaking well heads , flaring, gathering and midstream pipelines aall thru the transmission lines and then into the secondary distribution lines. In addition their is leakage at the many natural gas storage facilities in the US. The figure that is now being used is 9 to 12 % in the aggregate.
The bottom line is that gas is only 38 % to 40 % cleaner than big bad coal! so we cant get too carried away with becoming dependent on it.
Secondly the greed within the natural gas sector ( Wall St underwrites the speculative drilling and land leasing real estate gold rush plus the rapid depletion rates for Shale gas – like 63 to 75 % over 5 years in most cases. The price pressure for gas will be felt.
The greed factor has led to 4 large pipelines under construction as I write in Texas headed South into Mexico. They need gas for all those American Plants that have fled their and now they get our so called cheap gas!
Where or where is the trumper when his minions need them right ?? LOL LOL LOL joking!
Gas pricing will increase once these pipelines start flowing volumes of gas.
I don’t blame the gas sector they are in debt and need to move volumes and the cumulative market impact on Solar, wind, end use efficiency and new thermal efficiency for CC gas turbines etc. in California and AZ has reduced Grid supplied electricity from older gas units etc. The pipelines that run West to California from Farmington NM have been at greatly reduced capacity for close to 10 years now.
One pipeline in Western Col has been reversed to send Gas north to the Wyoming Hub for either Pacific NW or Mid Western ( Eastern marketing) .
These Externals do create a market opportunity for SMR nuclear provided they get their ACT together.
It is this area that I see Opportunity for the Nuclear Genie to stop TAP dancing and start performing. ! As previously posted wind in Texas reduced wholesale electric costs on the ERCOT Grid by over $ 750 million dollars in 2015. 40 % of Iowa s grid electricity now.
So despite winds shortcomings it is producing low cost power into the major grids now and that is Fact accompli !!! Plug in growing solar utility scale and the impact on wholesale prices is greater.
So there could be market need for the new nuclear capacity and as you say and many others say that large scale battery deployment will not happen due to cost reasons, etc.
That is hotly debated in many circles. I remain on sidelines watching.
The new energy market is becoming or evolving into a Just in Time lean cycle market like modern manufacturing. That is why the future is with load tracking small nuclear units to back up RE like the newer gas turbines or IC gas engines can do as I explained. Meeting load in modular capacity levels is the name of the game for Power Generation Planners.
So for those of you and those in the scinetific community who back SMR technology get on your Lobbying Horses and get the demo unit installed Idaho National lab as the Idaho and Utah market place is ready they are reducing their coal units capacity down . The large Craig Col coal plant is reducing capacity by 50 % as is Colstrip in Montana. The Funeral Bells Toll louder for the fading king coal so nukes could pick up slack perhaps. Opportunity Its there ?
Yes trackers have come a long way Baby as they say.
Emerging and Coming Attractions for tracking solar
Much more reliable. In 2014 at the Inter Solar Show in San Francisco there were four simple concept trackers that could be installed in the $ 1.85 to $ 1.75 per watt plus There are some startups that are trying to present a custom dual tracker for commercial systems , this is new ground . One company has 1,000,000 claimed operating hours in a lab setting but field performance studies not done yet. A dual tracker East to West could enhance the economics for commercial roof top solar and actually improve the capacity factor so that high demand charges from utility are reduced better than fixed angle systems. Reducing demand charges is the Holy Grail for solar economics in a commercial setting – its a real barrier.
But objectively the results are to be determined solar is venturing into Brave New Waters w this technology. Making it robust to handle wind loading yet light weight enough to work on the cheap construction roofs common to the speculative commercial sector is a challenge Indeed !!! Batteries used to compliment a fixed angle system may prove a more cost effective and workable design.
Given all the scientists with good credentials who see some nuclear role going forward is something that warrants serious consideration but it requires Performance not theory so its up to the nuclear club to get into action. They been trying since the 1950’s .
Frank while the nuke club says wind and solar take too much concrete and steel , well it is just as doubtful that the World has the concrete / steel capacities needed for a real major large size nuke build out and the cost of large scale is not economic for the economy either.
So the only Pathway forward is SMR technology they use much reduced materials thus their attraction and positive competitive advantage.
But lets get it done. I stand Tall and Firm for RE energy and End use Efficiency that is my pathway. Yet I have recently aligned and introduced some associates who are sponsoring a International Uranium conference in Wyoming next year , I have hooked them up with 2 SMR
players. As of last week the two players have been very non nonchalant about participating.
This conference usually draws around 250 attendees and some come from Nigeria, Turkey, Europe and of course Canada and the US players.
What I am saying is that I don’t allow my deep 35 year affinity for Solar to blind me to sound energy solutions!
That is why I added a category for SMR for Osmosis water de sal.
take care
Silent,
Your post contained some information about gas which was new to me since I never carefully studied it. However, I never did see gas as a real solution since it does contain carbon (CH4). The leakage problem in California awakened the public to other problems. Fortunately methane remains resident in the atmosphere for less time than CO2. It’s interesting that Ralph Nader pointed out the risks of pipelines (both gas and petroleum) BEFORE serious accidents occurred. One would think that there could be ways to shut them down more quickly in case of rupture.
There is a problem with nuclear that I left out. The large pressurized water reactors require a forged container vessel. Although the U.S. previously had the capacity to make them, now only Japan can. Presumably that problem can be rectified. Check this to see a reactor vessel being forged: https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/3mzltj/a_nuclear_reactor_being_forged/
I expect that there will be types of reactors developed which are far better than our pressurized water reactors which have been made safe only by having multiple layers of safety devices, although that could take some time. Reactors which are inherently safe would be a big improvement. Also, our current reactors are able to use only about one percent of the energy in the nuclear fuel after which the fuel is discarded as if it were waste. The U.S. government, more than 30 years ago, stopped funding R & D for nuclear reactors, asserting that it was “unnecessary”. Had that unwise decision not been make, we would almost certainly be using better nuclear technologies now. That would include SMRs.
Even large nuclear plants can be designed for load following; France is doing it. However, regardless of the power technology, load following reduces equipment life to some degree because of thermal cycling. Power companies could be more clever in getting customers to level the load.
William Gates and others are funding SMR development. Liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) R & D is proceeding in China and elsewhere. The documents for the LFTR work, which was done decades ago here in the U.S., is public domain which helps. There is also work being done on gas cooled reactors.
Probably most of the public is unaware of the many possible types of nuclear reactors. At this time it is not clear which reactor technologies will be the winners, but I really think that our pressurized water reactors will eventually be phased out. We chose our nuclear technology too quickly and ended up with a mediocre technology.
I have been attending meetings at Power New Mexico. As a result I have become more aware of the need for smaller nuclear plants because, even though they may cost a bit more per KW, the large ones often provide too big an increment in the power produced. Probably a mix of small, moderate, and large size nuclear plants would make more sense. And, one which could be entirely factory made and shipped would result in more reliable quality and reduced fabrication costs. It seems that that is becoming more widely recognized.
I don’t remember the exact figures for the concrete and steel required for wind, solar, and nuclear power. However, I do remember that wind systems require something like 10 times as much concrete and steel as nuclear. Solar isn’t quite so bad.
A couple hours ago I looked up information on reverse osmosis to freshen sea water. Sources are not in total agreement, but it seems to require from 600 to 1800 PSI. It is the pumps which require most of the power. Therefore, where the right geography is available, it might work to pump seawater to a high enough reservoir to maintain the require pressure when pump power is not available. That might make it practical for an RO system to use intermittent solar power. Here in New Mexico, we are drawing down an aquifer at an alarming rate. We’re also far from an ocean, so it’s not clear what the solution is.
There has been considerable discussion about batteries. Regardless of what power generation technology is used, batteries would be helpful. However, battery requirements for vehicles are very different from battery requirements for stationary power so it is likely that the two applications will require different battery technologies.
From 1994 to 2004 I lived in Fiji. Fiji gets much of its power from a hydro system which has sufficient generating capacity but at times runs low on water. In such a situation, combining solar and hydro could make sense by conserving water to eliminate the need to switch to expensive Diesel power when the water level is too low. Also, micro hydro systems, where practical, are being installed in remote areas where connecting to the grid is not practical. Some villages have PV systems which provide sufficient power for a few LED lights and to recharge cell phones. These small renewable systems have improved the quality of life for many people.
If this post becomes lost I can re-enter it because it’s saved in a .doc file.
Frank the two links were interesting material and led to several other stories on the Pros and the Cons of the UK approval of the Big Hinckley Point nukes. The cost is staggering high , much more than the current wholesale cost of power in UK.
The decision which I mentioned earlier post seems to be very Political in that UK needs special relations with China for future trade becasue of Brexit.
EDF the French co is challenged now with massive cost over runs at the French plant Flammanville and also the Finish plant at Olkiluto . Both years behind Billions Billions over cost.
So the plant design that Uk has just bought into is Un proven and the Shadows of Nuclear Follies looms large over this UK govt Action.
Many people who are Pro nuke were against the design and the deal they advocate for SMR s and especially the IFR type which burns fuel much more efficiently. Much of this as you stated has been learned at our US taxpayer expense w R & D funding over the decades. We learned much of this but the powers that be were controlled ( my humble opinion) by the money.
Good Science in America is hostage to Monied interests thus the many short comings and market failures of a so called free enterprise system that is not free nor efficient.
We could have had a much better nuclear package it is apparent but science was trumped ( that ugly word again damn) by $$$ money $$4 appears PM T May was motivated by future trade doolars and more China investment in a second nuke plant in Bradswell England in 4 years.
As I said many technical types criticized the Hinckley decision they wanted nukes but SMR’s and modular ones.
Frank on load tracking the big nukes don’t do real load following at the levels and swings needed to integrate with RE or changing load.
They are too big and are designed for 65 % or greater operating levels. The whole SMR design is for rapid load changing and rapid dispatch etc. They tend to start at 40 megs up to 250 megs. But most likely will be small 40 and built in series with several units aggregating up to 250 or 300 megs.
So many in UK feel the country is making a White lephant economic decision that is going to REtard their shift away from Carbon and cost the ratepayers excessively higher rates and cannibalize needed Government funding of End use Effieicny and greater Soalr DG and other technologies. Many un happy people in UK.
The Irish Sea are severely polluted from the mis managed radioactive waste steams from the closed UK nuclear waste processing station at Sellafields. The negative Legacy environmental costs there are high as are the Billions of English Pounds needed to mitigate the damages done.
To all the nuclear boosters out there this is the Legacy Issues that Nuclear has whether you like it or not. The industry has not gained the trust of the public and this one of many reasons the industry is behind the 8 Ball. Did it to itself .
So we may need some nukes to get off of carbon the path forward is still Un determined and we need real scientists and their best decisions made. Not money motivated decisions. Science based I can live with that. .
As far as J Hansen who I admire, his forecast for over a 110 or so nukes a year being built is one every 3 days.
The world does not have tht level of industrial capacity if they are big nukes. Big nukes I think are out.
SMR only some form. It is not doable to build that many Big Nukes. Dont have the skilled manpower . The boys and girls in Georgia and S Carolina and even France with decades of experience are choking with the new designs.
Only a Zealot would see it otherwise. France is in fact reducing nuclear power in the future going to diversify more. Smart Move.
IFR’s can burn radioactive waste so that solves that problem also.
Its a Brave New World for sure All Bets are Off!
Thanks for sharing goo info