An Industry In Decline
World Atomic Output Falls by Record in Fukushima’s Aftermath
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-06/world-atomic-power-output-fa...
By Kari Lundgren on July 06, 2012 Bloomberg News
World nuclear power production dropped by a record 4.3 percent last year as the global financial crisis and the Fukushima disaster in Japan prompted plant shutdowns and slowed construction of new sites. Reactors generated 2,518 terawatt-hours of electricity, down from 2,630 terawatt-hours in 2010, according to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012 published today. Atomic power accounted for 11 percent of all electricity generation.
Seven reactors began operating in 2011 and 19 were shuttered, the report shows.
At least five nations, including Egypt, Italy and Kuwait, have suspended plans to build their first reactors.
Even countries such as the United Arab Emirates, intent on using nuclear power to meet a third of electricity demand by 2020, can’t get the financing they need. “If banks don’t want to lend the money then where is this supposed to come from?” “The financial situation has dramatically worsened since Fukushima.”
There are 59 nuclear reactors being built globally and at least 18 are experiencing “multiyear” delays, according to today’s report. Nine have been listed by the International Atomic Energy Agency as “under construction” for more than 20 years.
Exorbitant electrical prices
Who is getting bonedthemost? What is that all about?
USA fuel prices for electrical generation, (natural gas, LPG, oil & coal) have plummeted. The USA is actually exporting ‘Coals to Newcastle’, in a turnabout of an old adage. The USA is moving from a fuel IMPORT nation to a fuel EXPORT nation across the board.
http://www.bls.gov/ro9/cpilosa_energy.pdf
The 23.2 cents per kWh Los Angeles households paid for electricity in January 2013 was 79.8 percent more than the nationwide average of 12.9 cents per kWh. Last January, electricity costs were 59.4 percent higher in Los Angeles compared to the nation. In the past five years, prices paid by Los Angeles area consumers for electricity exceeded the U.S. average by more than 42 percent in the month of January. (See chart 2.)
http://www.bls.gov/ro9/cpisanf_energy.pdf
The 21.2 cents per kWh San Francisco households paid for electricity in January 2013 was 64.3 percent more than the nationwide average of 12.9 cents per kWh. Last January, electricity costs were 61.7 percent higher in San Francisco compared to the nation. In each of the past five years, prices paid by San Francisco area consumers for electricity exceeded the U.S. average by at least 53 percent in the month of January. (See chart 2.)
http://www.bls.gov/ro2/avgengny.pdf
The 20.2 cents per kWh New York households paid for electricity in January 2013 was 56.6 percent more than the nationwide average of 12.9 cents per kWh. Last January, electricity prices were 47.7 percent higher in New York compared to the nation. In the past five years, prices paid by New York area consumers for electricity exceeded the U.S. average by between 47 and 57 percent in the month of January. (See chart 2.)
http://www.bls.gov/ro9/cpiseat_energy.pdf
The 9.3 cents per kWh Seattle households paid for electricity in January 2013 was 27.9 percent less than the nationwide average of 12.9 cents per kWh. Last January, electricity costs were 30.5 percent lower in Seattle compared to the nation. In the past five years, prices paid by Seattle area consumers for electricity were less than the U.S. average by over 27 percent in the month of January. (See chart 2.)
http://www.bls.gov/ro3/apwb.htm
http://www.bls.gov/eag/
http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.tx.htm
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1301.pdf
Enlighten
Perhaps ...
Perhaps someone will enlighten us upon why California consumers and businesses are paying such exorbitant rates for their electricity.
Californians are gettingtotallyhosed, MTIMHO (More Than In My Humble Opinion).
TTFN
To discourage electricity use...
The California Public Utility Commission is attempting to discourage the use of electricity. California consumers have a "base usage" which is about half of what the average person uses. Usage below this base usage is charged at a competitive rate. If you exceed "base usage" and get into the 2nd tier; the cost is doubled. If you get above another level, the 3rd tier, the cost is tripled; and so on.
The idea is to discourage the use of electricity and make California more efficient by using market forces.
It's the State that's doing it; but the utilities still love it.
Market Forces?
What market forces are present in a dead economy?
1) Black Market
2) Theft
3) Extortion
4) Smuggling
5) Underground Economy
6) Mass Migration ... out
7) Barter System
8) Subsistence existence
9) Multi-Generational Family Dwellings (This may be a plus)
10) High occupancy 'single family homes' (50 - 60 people)
Other than that; 'the plan' looks 'do-able'. I suppose the wave of Californians will continue to crest toward the east. The Nevada housing market could BEGIN recovery, with this 'stimulus plan'.
Twice the fuel
Buring roughly TWICE the fuel as EFFICIENT electrical power plants is doing no favors to the USA environment.
Twice the fuel burn is twice the CO2, NOX and all the rest.
Gross levels of fraud and waste are contrary to a clean environment and an economically competitive economy.
The USA waste and fraud government and economy are harming the citizenry AND businesses.
TTFN
Grossly inefficient
The USA national average of 12.9 Cents per KWH is based upon the grossly inefficient, thermodynamic designs of USA power plants.
USA power plants have full load thermal efficiencies on the order of 30% to 42%. The COMPETITIVE world is moving from that antiquated range to OVER 70% thermodynamic energy conversion efficiency levels.
No electrical utility in the USA provides service at a competitive efficiency level. Thus ALL the cost of goods produced in the USA are not competitive, going forward. And the USA consumer cost of living is jacked-up, to unsustainable levels due to overpriced electrical power costs.
San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York residents and businesses are getting 'double-hosed'. Seattle is better than average, but NOT good enough for a competive global marketplace, going forward.
TTFN
Ummm .... we debunked that
Ummm .... we debunked that .... remember?
Page 2, Overview:
Thermal to Electrical efficiency of one turbine = 37.5%
Page 3, Combined-cycle power with SGT-800:
Thermal to Electrical efficiency using a three turbine CCLC system composed of 2 SGT-800 turbines and one SST-700 steam turbine = 54.4%
Diemos
Lying by the unknowing
No thermodynamic 'tools' whatsoever.
Diemos is web-surfing in an ignorant circle. He cannot even accurately elucidate, much less derive a single thermodynamic formula. Such is the fate of those who have no demonstrated ability even at the algebra or plane geometry level. Yet that utter FOOL persists in throwing words about; upon subjects that are FAR beyond his depth. Diemos has no more understanding of 'Waste Heat' and its uses than does a garden slug.
Diemos demonstrated gross ignorance of the fundamental principles of operation of a gas turbine; the prime mover in the Siemens high efficiency electrical generation plants.
Rather obviously, Diemos does not have ANY functional conceptual understanding of what single stage, two stage or three stage (H2O) steam turbines are; the secondary mover for the above referenced plants. Or that EACH progressive stage uses the Waste Heat of the stage before.
The notion of the various available tertiary and quartenary methods of producing electricity from 'Diemos weak-conception-of' Waste Heat is way beyond his depth. And Diemos deliberately lies about these matters. That is particularly STUPID on an engineering blog, where most of the readers understood these matters in High School or certainly before completing their freshman year in college.
TTFN
NOT
LYING
The non-engineer, math illiterate, pompous, nescient, non-technical Diemos IS CLUELESS, regarding the thermodynamic discussion.
Further, Diemos now deliberately misrepresents, his already abysmal understanding of the subject matter. That deliberate logical flaw, officially EARNS Diemos the title of ... LIAR.
That drops Diemos to one level above the utterly stupid, completely ignorant, habitual and compulsive LIAR, the Rude Dog.
TTFN
Demons
Specific applications
Perhaps the nescient Diemos and his disingenious counterpart liar Rude Dog, will next presume to lecture Engineers upon the interrelationships of: quantum physics, heat rejection ratios, electron tunneling, energy barriers, Maxwell’s Demon and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
... And all without the 'burden' of advanced mathematics ...
Rude Dog and Diemos are as dumb as a bucket of rocks.
TTFN
The now defunct TEPCO
“the now-defunct plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co., or TEPCO”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57573526/two-years-later-japan-seeth...
AP/ March 11, 2013, 6:56 AM
Two years later, Japan seethes at tsunami recovery
About half of those displaced are evacuees from areas near the nuclear plant. Hundreds of them filed a lawsuit Monday demanding compensation from the government and the now-defunct plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co., or TEPCO, for their suffering and losses.
"Two years after the disasters, neither the government nor TEPCO has clearly acknowledged their responsibility, nor have they provided sufficient support to cover the damages," said Izutaro Managi, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs.
The lawsuit filed by a group of 800 people in Fukushima demands an apology payment of 50,000 yen ($625) a month for each victim until all radiation from the accident is wiped out, a process that could take decades. Another 900 plan similar cases in Tokyo and elsewhere. Managi said he and fellow lawyers hope to get 10,000 to join the lawsuits.
Sounds like Justice
"The Now Defunct TEPCO"
The expression, "The Now Defunct TEPCO" has a cathartic ring to it.
It sounds like justice!
100% Bond Default
A 100% TEPCO Default on ALL Corporate Indebtedness is APPROPRIATE.
The 'Investment Bankers', Wall Street, Commercial Lenders, Bond Underwriters and other lenders of EVERY SORT; were 'At the Table' when these 'Man Made Disasters' were planned and executed.
The lenders did or did not perform an adequate level of 'Due Diligence' with respect to the various aspects of TEPCO Risk Analysis', They did or did not factor an appropriate level of RISK into the price of their loans. They did or did not properly discount the bonds.
NONE of that matters to anybody but the debt holders. They willingly made the loans. Let them 'take the hit'.
Any debt payments since 311 should be subject to recall by Japan, as an undue preferential payment. Such actions will assist lenders across the earth, more properly price their future dealings with commercial NPP operators and nuclear A&E firms.
TTFN
Damages
TEPCO has DESTROYED a developed region, roughly similar in size to New Hampshire, New Jersey or Connecticut.
What would a willing buyer and willing sellers agree as a fair price for New Hampshire? The agreed on figure would be a 'take only your family photos and toothbrush' with you. The price would include businesses, inventory, hospitals, city utilities, fishing wharves, schools, city halls and the state capitol complex, employment contracts and so forth. Let's just assume a nominal figure of $1M dollars per resident for damages related to personal health, future medical treatments, pain, suffering, stress and distress.
Then there are the turn-key, salvage costs to completely remove the nuclear reactors, fuel and contamination.
You broke it. You bought it!
IFF there is any money left over; after paying ALL the damages, oh and after repaying the costs of the Japanese and USA taxpayers ...
When it is 'all spic and span', safe, decontaminated and ready for habitation; the lenders can BEGIN to recoup their losses, by selling off the aquired and remediated properties. That might begin to occur, optimistically, in the outlier regions, in oh say about the year 3857 give or take a few centuries.
It will be a long-term loan workout arrangement for the TEPCO lenders. Perhaps they set aside adequate loan loss reserves, maybe not. Again that is their concern, not a taxpayer burden.
The lender can also look to the makers, ALL the former TEPCO Board Members, and/or their estates, since about 1950. Again, these guys made the decisions and took the earlier gains and profits. Now it is time to 'Pony Up'.
TTFN
Stockholders & Lenders
The TEPCO Board of Directors and their LENDERS made some REALLY bad decisions.
The Damage has been done and is increasing with time.
The TEPCO stockholder EQUITY and ALL the lenders and their debts should be written off to ZERO. They called the shots. Let them pay the price 1st.
It is poor form when 'For Profit' enterprises to grovel and beg for government handouts.
The stockholders and lenders went into this business to MAKE money and they scrudup.
Write Off time for the lenders. Mark the TEPCO debt down to ZERO. Next time take better care of business.
Put the DAMAGED population FIRST IN LINE. Put the FAILED PROFITEERS at the bottom of the list.
TTFN
Looming Taiwan nuclear referendum
Taiwan Power Corporation is over-budget and behind schedule.
http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=2158133
Taiwan News, Staff Writer 2013-02-26 03:04 PM
In a surprise move, Premier Jiang Yi-huah said Monday he was willing to put the future of the contested fourth nuclear plant to a nationwide referendum expected in July at the earliest.
DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang called again for an immediate stop to construction work on the plant in Gongliao, New Taipei City, and to a stop to requests for additional budgets. He also said that any referendum on the project could not take place under the existing referendum law because it was too restrictive.
The nuclear issue had been expected to come to the forefront of the political agenda again because of state utility Taiwan Power Corporation’s plan to ask for extra money and to work toward the installation of the first fuel rods next year. At the same time, anti-nuclear activists have been gathering signatures for a local referendum on the issue in New Taipei City.
The DPP wants Taiwan to phase out all of its existing three nuclear plants by 2025 and to stop work on the new fourth power plant immediately before Taipower asks for more money. The total budget, including five extra demands for funding, is expected to exceed NT$300 billion (US$10 billion). Anti-nuclear activists are preparing for massive nationwide protests on March 9, just before the second anniversary of the Fukushima disaster.
Technical spec for the
Technical spec for the SGT-800 gas turbine:
http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/pool/hq/power-generation/gas-turbines/S...
Page 2, Overview:
Thermal to Electrical efficiency of one turbine = 37.5%
Page 3, Combined-cycle power with SGT-800:
Thermal to Electrical efficiency using a three turbine CCLC system composed of 2 SGT-800 turbines and one SST-700 steam turbine = 54.4%
Presentation from Siemens:
http://www.siemens.com.au/files/Events/aog/aog_06_ReducingCO2FootprintWi...
Page 3: Second main bullet:
Best in class Combined Cycle Efficiency, 2 + 1 configuration, Net power output 135.1MW, Net efficiency 54.4%
Page 3: Third main bullet:
Can achieve >75% overall energy efficiency in Cogeneration configurations
Keywords in that statement, Cogeneration and "energy efficiency" not "electrical efficiency". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration
"Cogeneration (also combined heat and power, CHP) is the use of a heat engine[1] or a power station to simultaneously generate both electricity and useful heat.
All thermal power plants emit a certain amount of heat during electricity generation. This can be released into the natural environment through cooling towers, flue gas, or by other means. By contrast, CHP captures some or all of the by-product heat for heating purposes, either very close to the plant, or—especially in Scandinavia and eastern Europe—as hot water for district heating with temperatures ranging from approximately 80 to 130 °C. This is also called Combined Heat and Power District Heating or CHPDH. Small CHP plants are an example of decentralized energy.[2]"
Bottom line, exactly what I said.
In the future please:
1. Learn how to read.
2. Provide links to what you have read so that we can more easily find your mistakes.
3. Remember that I sign my posts. Unsigned posts are most likely from your favorite arch-nemesis rude dog.
Now I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but any real engineer would be familiar with the Carnot cycle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle, which defines the theoretical maximum efficiency for converting heat to work.
Efficiency_max = 1 - T_c / T_h (temperature in kelvin)
Since the exhaust gas of this turbine is at 544C the best electrical efficiency it could have at room temperature is 1 - (544C+300C)/300C or 64%. So their three stage cascade is actually doing pretty good at 54.4%
To get to 90% efficiency the exhaust would need to be at least 2700 C or five time hotter. That's why every real scientist and engineer laughed their asses off when you blithely stated that 90% thermal to electrical efficiency was possible and why we know that you are not an engineer.
Diemos
Ignorance
Diemos,
You are precisely ignorant enough, to not be deliberately lying. That makes you a vast improvement over the Rude Dog, who is equally ignorant, and deliberately lying, to boot.
You apparently IGNORANTLY refer to the secondary H2O water/steam cycle electrical generation stage, NOT to the optional/add-on tertiary (CCLC) generation system powered by the heat engine based on circulating propane (liquid).
There are alternate tertiary fluids. Propane is a near-optimal selection. The worthy engineering students in your class section already know how to select appropriate fluids, for basic applications. You never will, in all likelihood, due to a total lack of basic background skills and aptitude.
The water/steam turbine, to which you IGNORANTLY refer, can have 1, 2 or 3 stages for increasing efficiency.
TTFN
Conversion of Low Grade Heat to electricity
This is an interesting CLAIM for converting Low-Grade (WASTE) heat to a small scale DC electrical source application.
I have not conducted any test or technical evaluation of this particular technology/application, which purports to convert low-grade (WASTE) heat to useful electricity. I have used solid-state thermo-electric to cool electrical control equipment, which is inefficient. I have used compressor/condenser/evaporator technology for the same purpose, which is quite efficient. Most of what I know about Stirling Engine capabilities, came from Dean Kaymen of Segway. So this is NOT a product or investment endorsement. This is NOT my field of expertise. It is merely an ‘Oh by the way’.
According to the Gadget Girls: http://gadgetgirlsreviews.blogspot.com/2013/02/epiphany-one-puck-coaster...
“This little onE Puck coaster has a stirling engine powered solely by heat changes, such as a hot or cold drink, a candle, ice etc. Stirling engines were invented in the early 1800's but modern technology means that modern materials and electronics can now use them in different ways. Epiphany Labs are a group of technologists that just love to tinker with modern technologies and existing ones and they have done just that.”
“The Epiphany onE Puck is a small coaster with a nice modern design in which a USB cable connects your device; this can be your phone, ipod, MP3 player anything that is USB powered drawing 1000 mA or less. You then place your hot or cold drink on top and the heat disparities are turned into a charger using a stirling engine; no wires, no batteries, just carry on working or resting just enjoy your drink while this clever coaster charges your device.”
http://www.kicktraq.com/projects/epiphanylabs/epiphany-one-puck/
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/epiphanylabs/epiphany-one-puck
Bill Duff
Yes Bill, Sterling engines
Yes Bill, Sterling engines are real. They can extract work from any temperature differential, just not very much. They obey the Carnot efficiency law just like everything else.
Diemos
Ignorance
Diemos,
Engineers do not require technical clarifications from math challenged individuals.
You are useless, at any level that would be of assistance, to us.
You could run to Starbucks for a hot coffee or ice drink, to test such a device. Other than that, you have no practical contribution to make.
We ALL know Thermodynamics and Dynamics. You do not, and can not.
TTFN
Welcome to Page 1
Diemos,
Welcome to Page 1 of Thermodynamics.
Thermodynamics will be difficult for you, due to your obvious lack of background in calculus, numeric methods, linear algebra, ODE and engineering physics. There are several other prerequisites, but suffice it to say. All the other kids in the room are ready for the first class.
In most engineering programs, half of those prepared students will fail Thermo 1 and/or their engineering intro class. You are scrude, totally scrude. With luck your 1st quiz score will be a single digit integer, larger than 0, but it is doubtful.
You are like the fat-kid ... trying to 'walk-on' the olympics or a Pro Football team. It ain't happnin.
TTFN
Thermo Lesson 1
Diemos,
A heat engine efficiency example for non-technical readers follows. Lesson 1, Thermodynamics for Poets and Lovers.
Your car engine burns gasoline. The fuel explodes or more accurately, it expands rapidly in a controlled deflagration. This expansion pushes the cylinder and turns a crank. This push can be called mechanical energy, or more accurately kinetic energy. In 1970 your car would get about 12Mmiles Per Gallon (MPG) from this kinetic energy. By 1973 the new cars dropped to about 8 MPG, due to some poorly crafted government anti-pollution requirements. Today, the smaller, lighter vehicles can achieve higher MPG. Increased MPG is efficiency.
The buring fuel in your automobile cylinder also gives off heat. The heat is absorbed by the circulating oil and the circulating water. Some of the heat is conducted away from the cylinder by the metal of the engine. The automobile engine is not hot enough to make H2O steam, so all the engine heat is waste heat. The radiator, oil cooler and exhaust pipe move this waste heat to the environment. All the other kids in your introductory thermodynamics class already know this.
However that automotive waste heat CAN BE used to do useful work.
Oh, and Diemos, you are again cautioned to skip over that part of yourweakBS, where engineers do not know about thermodynamics. It makes you look like a bigger fool than you already are. This is especially OBVIOUS on ANY engineering blog.
TTFN
Evidently you don't understand "work"
Contrary to your insults above; you don't understand thermodynamics.
"Work" has a scientifically defined meaning in terms of thermodynamics. It doesn't mean just that you can do something useful. Waste heat is NOT work and although it can be used to do something useful like heating.
Your problem is you don't understand the meaning of "work" in a thermodynamic sense. Work is energy without entropy. That waste heat has entropy; so it is not work.
Go back to a high school physics text and study.
NOT Again
Diemos,
See - NOT - below on this page at the following link.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/industry-decline.2012-10-10#commen...
You have no more background, insight, intuition or understanding of these matters than a Rhesus Monkey.
And that conclusion is PAINFULLY obvious to every engineer that EVER glances at ANY of your thermodynamic comments.
TTFN
An internal combustion engine
An internal combustion engine has about a 25% efficiency for converting fuel into useful work.
The amount of work that it takes to move a car one mile is the product of force times distance:
W = F x D
The force that needs to be overcome is a combination of rolling resistance and air resistance.
The increase in MPG over the last few decades has come from changes in the design of cars to reduce the resistance and thus the work that is required to move the car. There hasn't been any noticeable change in engine efficiency.
The waste heat from the engine isn't used for anything except to heat the passenger compartment. Cogeneration!
Diemos
NOT
Diemos,
You are IGNORANTLY taking up the class time, with yet another formula, that you neither understand nor accurately define. It is based on terms and operators that are out of your math background limited capabilities.
The engineers on this blog are not amused by your IGNORANT and incomplete ramblings, on subjects that are entirely out of your 'pay grade'. Those subjects would include all the math and physics topics that you just negligently, and half-wittedly side-swiped.
TTFN
I really have to beg to differ
I really have to beg to differ. After lurking here, I have to say that it is the "TTFN" poster that doesn't understand. He disparages Diemos for using the formula W = F x D. What engineer, and this is an engineering forum; doesn't understand work = force times distance? What further definition is needed for engineers? It is one of the most basic of all engineering equations, and this clown thinks further definition and elaboration is required.
Once again, it is this "TTFN" poster that is blowing smoke in his repartes with Diemos and Rude Dog. His understanding of this material is infantile at best. One can clearly see that he is no engineer, inspite of his continual lies that he can out-engineer the fine German engineering firm of Siemens.
The casual reader is advised not to waste any precious time reading the posts of "TTFN".
Actually
Actually,
None of us.
No engineer is LIMITED to the definition of TERMS & OPERATOR definitions that you and/or Diemos are employing here. We ALL KNOW what that GENERAL formula ACTUALLY says, (in English, physics & math terms) while you, just as obviously, do not. Your words betray you, while we are ALL familiar with the proper terminology and the names of the math operators.
Your clumsy attempts at discussing basic concepts of Engineering Mechanics and thermodynamics, represent a Pre-Trigonometry background. You mangle the subject with each ignorant comment. Your abject poverty of knowledge is far too glaring to further continue any semblance of a discussion on BASIC thermodynamics. Thermodynamics requires a calculus and TECHNICAL physics background at the absolute minimum. You ain't got it.
TTFN
Faking it!
The above poster, "TTFN", is totally clueless here. Evidently he didn't know the classic formula that Diemos posted, W=FxD; which any real engineer would know. When his infantile knowledge, or lack there of; is pointed out to him; he goes off on one of his tangents about how engineers are not limited to terms; blah, blah, blah.
Do you really think you are fooling anybody? Really? All the engineers here know that in spite of your dispariging remarks about others not knowing math and calculus; it is you that continually demonstrate that you don't have the math skills of a high school student. I would guess that you are a high school student and a very poor one at that. That's why you won't post your math. If you posted your math, Diemos and Rude Dog would cut you to ribbons like they always do.
Please, little boy; go back and study you school work, and leave the big University forum for grownups. You are just wasting bandwidth.
In the Know
You prove the point, again and again, over and over, that you (two?) collectively have ZERO understanding of the subject matter of these posts.
Every engineer on earth understands perfectly well, the limits of your understanding.
The harder you struggle, the faster you sink into the quicksand of your ignorance.
Every word you have written has been mentally tossed into circular file-13.
A few may question the source of your mindless agenda. Most do not.
At least Diemos does not DIRECTLY claim the benefit of a technical background. He does not, and that is obvious. He does INDIRECTLY, by presuming to dictate his mental mush to engineers.
Siemens is advertising for sale, and has delivered into international service, HIGH Efficiency natural gas fired electrical power plants. Meanwhile USA consumers and businesses are knee-capped with waste and fraud from their electrical power supplier.
Local, State and National politicians and the various regulatory agencies are ON THE TAKE. They are ROBBING USA citizens of their money, jobs and national security, in the process.
Nothing new about any of that, hence a RAPIDLY declining American Empire.
TTFN
TOTALLY WASTED ENERGY
Fuel efficiency:
So is your LOCAL electrical utility wasting 1/2 to 2/3 of their fuel, and sticking you in the backside for their indifference?
Similarly are their so-called 'Greenhouse Gas' emissions and TOTALLY wasted heat, in the same percentage range.
It does appear to be a distinct possibility.
Since the USA uses about the same amount of energy for electricity as for transportation; we are talking some MAJOR Quads here.
And in an era of long-term economic collapse, the USA economy could USE a booster shot, of some kind.
IMHO
Proposition
The rebuttable proposition IS:
The USA electrical power consumer is getting BONED by their electrical generation station and the slovenly manufacturers of the horribly inefficient power plant equipment. And that, USA politicians at the local, state and national level have their hands out and their brains off in response. And that the boning is scheduled to continue into the indefinite future.
I agree with EVERY aspect of the proposition.
Diemos et al are WELCOME to SHOW otherwise.
TTFN
Hmmm.... So the power
Hmmm....
So the power companies have the option to increase their electricity production by 45% (1-54.4/37.5) and all it requires is for them to triple their capital spending on turbines.
If natural gas is cheap, that's not an economic trade-off.
If natural gas is expensive enough, it is.
Currently in the US natural gas is cheap.
Diemos
The Waste & Fraud Economy
Diemos,
So you advocate continuation of the USA economy of Waste & Fraud. No change there. The pandemic waste and fraud have created a massive national debt, growing structural unemployment, increased poverty, increased cost of living and environmental degradation.
You fit right in.
The willful inefficiency in power plants, transmission, distribution and energy conversion has been going on for decades. There is a time lapse in construction of equipment. The USA natural gas glut literally happened last year.
Apparently Diemos prefers to wait for the next energy price spike, rather than to practice economy as a virtue.
TTFN
When I bought my last car I
When I bought my last car I considered buying a Prius. I sat down and calculated how high the price of gas would have to be in order for the savings from increased efficiency to breakeven with the additional capital cost of getting a hybrid. $8/gallon was what I calculated. So instead I bought the smallest conventional car that would serve my needs.
A calculation of energy efficiency needs to consider the energy that goes into creating the device as well as the energy it will consume due to its operation. It's easy to fall into the trap of being penny wise and pound foolish if you neglect to consider the embedded energy in the infrastructure.
Diemos
Diemos, Your decision to
Diemos,
Your decision to avoid the hybrid auto disaster was appropriate. Batteries are garbage, at best a necessary evil. Must have them, but NOT suitable for use on a large scale energy/power basis.
All your other points have been uninformed.
TTFN
An economy of Waste & Want
The USA electrical power grid represents an economy of ‘Waste and Want’.
Electrical power generation stations in the USA range in thermo-electric efficiency from 30% to 42%. This is the energy conversion range for USA thermal generation, whether the prime mover is nuclear, oil, coal or natural gas. Meanwhile Germany, Japan and the rest of the world are busily converting to thermo-electric efficiencies of up to 90%. The USA electrical transmission, distribution and electro-mechanical conversion efficiency numbers are similarly atrocious. It is folly to focus upon the (possible) anthropomorphic climate effects of ‘the smoke’, while ignoring the more direct contribution of the waste heat.
The industrial world is implementing CCLC and the other efficiencies in order to reduce waste of fuel, heat, water, money and oxygen. The USA would be well advised to ‘get with the program’, in order to have a competitive forward-looking economic picture.
Fraud, inefficiency and waste are not a proper basis for a viable national economy.
IMHO
Bill Duff
Damn Bill, once again you
Damn Bill, once again you demonstrate your uncanny ability to get all of the technical details wrong.
1. There is no technology that can convert thermal energy to electrical with 90% efficiency. Most co-generation technologies that tout 90% efficiency are using the 60% waste heat from the electricity generation to heat buildings and hot water.
2. The electricity that is produced is consumed somewhere and winds up as ... wait for it ... waste heat. Unless you're using the electricity to shine lasers into space all the primary energy in the fuel winds up as waste heat in the environment no matter what the efficiency for converting thermal into electrical energy. The first law of thermodynamics is not mocked.
Higher efficiency is good, don't doubt that. But only because it allows us to do more for the same amount of carbon into the atmosphere.
3. The earth's energy balance:
89.000 petawatts is constantly being absorbed from sunlight
89.000 petawatts is constantly being radiated into space as infrared
00.016 petawatts is being added as waste heat from human activities
The power given off by black-body radiation scales as the fourth power of absolute temperature. So that waste heat will change the average temperature of the earth from:
273K to (89.016/89.0)^0.25 * 273K = 273.012 K about 2/100 th's of a degree farenheit change.
It's not the waste heat. It's the change in the composition of the atmosphere affecting the balance between sunlight absorbed and infrared radiated.
Diemos
So your sky is still falling
Diemos:
I am NOT making these claims. They seem rather on the high side.
For example: The alternator (generator)
http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/power-generation/generators/sgen-400...
Generators with water-cooled stators and hydrogen-cooled rotor windings are optimal for the highest output ranges. Their compact design coupled with our unique direct water-cooled stator is suitable for large steam power plant applications ranging up to 2,235 MVA. Besides being designed to have this high capability, the generator is also designed to be very efficient (tested generator efficiency is nearly 99% at the 1,992 MVA nameplate rating), and it is designed to exhibit very low mechanical vibration levels.
The design of the 4-pole SGen-4000W turbo generator is fundamentally based on the 1,500-1,700 MVA Siemens “Konvoi” turbo generators.
-------------------------
This kind of turbine efficiency is outside my personal experience; but I am willing to consider the possibility.
Also
The PLANT thermal efficiency, with CCLC goes up dramatically. Siemens product literature says with 'Refiring' (if memory serves, they are achieving the rather fantastic efficiency gains.
Without any doubt MUCH greater thermo-electric efficiencies, on the order of 60%) ARE available, but NOT to USA consumers.
Germany is DUMPING the NPP industry and concentrating on Energy Conversion EFFICIENCY. Perhaps Siemens is LYING, it would NOT be the 1st time.
Bill Duff
GEESH!!!
Bill,
It's NOT the efficiency of the generator that is the problem. The electric generator converts "work" to "work". It converts "mechanical work" to "electrical work". Work has zero entropy; so you don't get the efficiency limit from the 2nd Law. That's why both motors and generators are very efficient - they just convert one form of work to another form of work.
The inefficiency dictated by the 2nd Law shows up in the efficiency of the turbine. That's where heat energy which has entropy is converted to work which doesn't have entropy.
Because the 2nd Law says that the change in entropy has to be non-negative. As an ideal, if the change were zero; i.e. entropy was conserved, that is the best you can do. In practice, entropy increases.
So the thermodynamic cycle has an input of heat which carries in entropy, and it has a work output, mechanical work, that carries out zero entropy. That doesn't balance. You have entropy in, but no entropy out. Therefore, there HAS to be waste heat rejected to carry out the entropy.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c2
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is impossible to extract an amount of heat QH from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work W . Some amount of heat QC must be exhausted to a cold reservoir. This precludes a perfect heat engine.
See if you can find a high school physics text at your local high school.
Unwarranted Pretensions WRT Thermodynamics
Diemos,
If you are ready to quit pretending an expertise in Thermodynamics that is well, unwarranted …
http://www.siemens.com.au/files/Events/aog/aog_06_ReducingCO2FootprintWi...
SGT-800 regional successes, Australia, South Korea and Thailand; but not in the US of A. The USA continues to spiral ever downward into economic ruin; based upon pandemic waste, socialism, corporate welfare and open fraud. Germany does not wish to have a nuclear disaster, so they are ‘pulling the plug’ on their NPPs. They began, appropriately by closing the GE Mark-1 systems 1st. The GE Mark-1 is the most dangerous design in human history, by virtue of placement of the MASSIVE spent fuel pool in the blast radius, (over the reactor no less, and slightly shifted laterally) of the explosion prone nuclear reactor.
So Diemos, IF you are STUCK with an H2O steam turbine-generator only, then ~ 42% is probably about the limit for a combined cycle plant. But Gas Turbines are like a FAN-JET Engine and the expanding, burning GAS is MUCH hotter than a conventional combined cycle H2O steam plant. The 3rd stage, closed loop cycle reduces the exhaust temperatures (waste heat) below the condensation point of water steam. Thus an additional stage of electrical power generation is GAINED and water cooling of the condensing steam is unneeded. This improves overall efficiency as well as decreasing the need for water in cooling the H2O steam to the condensation point.
Do the MATH!!
Do the math and you don't get the efficiencies that you claim.
BTW - did you remember to convert your temperatures to an absolute scale, like Rankine or Kelvin where the zero degree mark is at absolute zero.
That is a common mistake that non-technical amateurs make when they do these calculations.
You will find that percentage-wise; even gas turbines are not that much hotter on an absolute scale.
Do the math correctly next time.
Back of the Envelope
No hand waving
With quick, back of the envelope calculations and standard assumptions, I come up with 80.49% achievable efficiency for such a system.
90%, well that might be a stretch, but that reheating, to optimal temperature, @ each stage, is prolly the secret.
Siemens has convinced South Korea and Australia. I have done more projects in South Korea than Australia. The Koreans can do the math, in my experience. Spect that the Down Under engineers are capable enough to verify such a simple Y/N question.
Why don't you show WHY Siemens is wrong or lying? We can follow the math, if you can do it.
TTFN
Actually
Actually, Siemens is doing the math
I know how to do the math, as do the other engineers, physicists, mathmaticians. So, this being an engineering blog, are you suggesting that Siemens is doing the math wrong?
That IS one possibility ... Siemens can't add and the German national energy initiative is BOGUS.
Are those your conclusions?
TTFN
We covered this....
Seimens is OK with what they are saying.
YOU are the one that doesn't understand what they are saying.
Write this down 100 times: Seimens is correct, the error is mine...
Maybe that way you will learn it.
Actually
Actually, I HAVE personally out-engineered the Siemens global team enough times already. So IFF I tell Siemens that a rooster dips snuff, they look under his wing, for the can.
However, IFF Siemens can, as advertised, produce a 90% thermo-electric generation efficiency power plant, then I will personally salute the generally ovcr rated pieces of …
I consider their story as being at the absolute LIMITS, or slightly beyond the limits of physically realizable heat engine performance. Oh, and I KNOW that they did NOT come up with the big breakthrough, internally. They are big, but they are NOT particularly gifted. Still it is an impressive construction accomplishment, for any bunch of sodbusters.
Do the derivation
Show us the error of our ways
Do the mathamatic proofs and SHOW US why you think that a CCLC system will not beat the crapola outofa 42% energy conversion efficiency performance.
We know how to set the problem up and solve it. Do you?
The proposition:
Natural Gas Turbine primary stage with an H2O steam turbine/generator 2nd stage and a closed loop propane tertiary turbine/generator ...
Can produce enormous efficiency gains over the conventional combined cycle thermo-electric plant.
We are waiting for the personal attack logical flaws to cease and the MATH to begin.
TTFN
Doesn't matter what the system is
Evidently you don't understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It doesn't matter what the machinery is; you can't beat the maximum efficiency limit of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
It's a typical test question that one might find on an exam in Thermodynamics. The exam question gives you the temperature of the hot and cold reservoirs, which is what you need. It also gives a bunch of extraneous information, like how many stages of reheat, and how many high pressure turbines, how many low pressure turbines, ..... all this extra information is extraneous because the answer only depends on the reservoir temperatures.
Again, your understanding of Thermodynamics is so bereft and cartoonish that you are gullibly impressed by a bunch of minutia in the Siemens ad copy. You are exactly the type of gullible buffoon that the German analog of the Madison Avenue types are targeting. Courtesy of Georgia State University:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/carnot.html
The most efficient heat engine cycle is the Carnot cycle, consisting of two isothermal processes and two adiabatic processes. The Carnot cycle can be thought of as the most efficient heat engine cycle allowed by physical laws. When the second law of thermodynamics states that not all the supplied heat in a heat engine can be used to do work, the Carnot efficiency sets the limiting value on the fraction of the heat which can be so used.
Do you see where it states above that:
The Carnot cycle can be thought of as the most efficient heat engine cycle allowed by physical laws.
That means a Carnot cycle beats anything from Siemens that you are so gullibly impressed with. It is physically impossible for the Siemens system to be better than the efficiencies we calculate for a Carnot cycle.
Fortunately, you are not in a position to influence the purchase of power generation equipment. We don't need small brains that swoon over glossy ad copy.
Trivial Pursuit
Keep surfing
You are simply NEVER going to get past page 1 in Thermodynamics, Engineering Mechanics or ANY OTHER engineering topic without a comprehensive math & physics academic background.
You don't have that MINIMUM essential background. You don't speak the language. You do not understand what you are reading or your own cut/paste jobs.
And you do not appear to understand the implications of the FACT that WE DO.
TTFN