Slashdot Mirror

The problem is that grid stability is compromised by renewables. And the more you bring on-line, the more unstable it gets as you get more and more spikes and surges.

The control system allows the plant to accept step load increases of 10 percent and ramp load increases of 5 percent per minute over the load range of 15 to 100 percent of full power subject to xenon limitations. Equal step and ramp load reductions are possible over the range of 100 to 15 percent of full power. Losses of reactor load up to 100 percent of rated power without reactor trip can be accommodated by steam dump to the condenser conjunct with the control system.

Hmmm, 5 percent per minute, from 15 to 100 percent? That would mean 17 minutes to ramp up or down between full-throttle and idle. Quite flexible, and quite quick! Most peaker plants take between 10 to 30 minutes to ramp up to rated output, so the nuclear plant - with power equal or greater than most natural gas peakers - responds as fast as the natural gas peakers. Imagine that!

Hmm... condensing the water and reusing it seems like a trivial solution to that specific problem of coal plants. GE says 99% efficiency for whatever it is worth:

http://www.powerengineeringint...

Gas and renewables are the future. Coal is dying. There have been a rash of nuclear plants that are asking for bailouts or shutting down.

On the battery front there is very good news as well:

The Southwest commercial story is particularly interesting: Our original analysis did not indicate that solar-plus-battery systems would be cost effective in the Southwest for several decades. However, as illustrated above, the Tesla announcement enables cost-effective deployment of systems for commercial customers throughout the Southwest in the near term.

Bottom line: Thanks to Tesla’s announcement, in the Northeast and Southwest, an additional 60 million annual customer megawatt-hours cost-effectively can defect from the grid to solar-plus-battery systems more or less immediately, resulting in an additional $12.5 billion in annual utility revenue erosion.

Another factor to consider, which was not included in this comparison, is what might happen should solar prices drop faster than expected. Current prices and updated forecasts are coming in lower than what we modeled as well, meaning the economics could further accelerate.

http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost
Most of the commercial-scale turbines installed today are 2 MW in size and cost roughly $3-$4 million installed.

so 9-12 million per 2MW (when you figure out a 33% usage) or 4.5 million - 6 million per MW

----

http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2012/07/chile-suspends-endesas-planned-14-bn-thermal-power-project.html
1.8 million per MW

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/LunChen.shtml
Each ton of coal consumed at an electric power plant produces about 2000 kilowatt hours of electricity (or 2 megawatt hours)

10*24*365/2=43800tons of coal in 10 years

http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=coal-australian&months=60
Seems to be $100 per ton of coal

43800*$100 = 4.38 million

Cost for a new coal power station(including the coal over 10 years) = 6.18 million per MW
----

For solar

http://www.lowenergydevelopments.com.au/index.php?route=product/product&path=69_75&product_id=138
$10,000 for a 5KW system (assuming $1,000 to install)

http://aussiervproducts.com.au/webcontent4.htm
Using 4.5 hours

5kw,10years,4.5 average,365 days
5*10*4.5*365=82,125KWh generated
12.17c/kwh($122/MWh)

Yes it is more then the $50/MWh the generators are getting here but a lot less then >$250/MWh we pay retail.

Using just 2KW locally with no money for the excess would cost you $307/MWh for the system.
The other 3KW that you export (at the $50/MWh) would get you to $229/MWh which is less then the price we pay for grid power.

On the other hand, there is simply no choice. Nuclear power will be increasingly used because there is simply no alternative.

Not if you're a company that wants to charge a lot of money for power...

Poland, the Czech Republic and Switzerland all point the finger at Germany for what they claim are uncontrolled surges in renewables, which are destabilizing their grids. In addition they contend that Germany’s behaviour is also reducing the profitability of conventional power firms.

The Institute recently published “Impacts of Germany’s nuclear phase-out on electricity imports and exports” (PDF), a 99-page study that discusses not only German power flows with its eastern neighbors, but also with its neighbors to the west.

This study comes at a time when Poland and the Czech Republic are both openly complaining about Germany using their grids to transport renewable power from northern Germany to southern Germany – because the German grid is allegedly overloaded.

Meanwhile, Switzerland recently argued that it’s conventional power firms were not able to generate as much power as they should because the Swiss grid is also sometimes filled up with German renewable power.

The study also examines why the Netherland has been less vocal, despite the Dutch grid being flooded with inexpensive renewable power, which has offset electricity production from natural gas turbines in the country.

http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2013/02/Study-assesses-Germanys-energy-policy-impact-on-angry-neighbours.html