On Mar 1, 12:32 pm, "nada" <dwalters...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Mar 1, 9:03 am, "bill" <ford_prefec...@hotmail.com> wrote:

I can't think of any city owned utilities here.

There are hundreds of Municipal Utility Districts...California has
about 20 of them. The biggest the Sacramento Utility Municipal Utility
District (SMUD). ALL MUDs provide power cheaper than privately owned
utilities because there is no need for a 'return on the investment'.

Joe is correct that nationalization is not on the agenda, although it
came VERY close in 2000 during the California energy crisis brought on
by deregulation... but movements for the take over of power companies
is very strong. In Nebraska, it's actually written into the State
constitution, a holdover of the New Deal.

I'm not against distributive generation and storage, but base load is
base load. I see the future where 90% of the power is nuclear
generated; where peaking power and emergency power is powered by
combination of wind, solar, and, mostly, gas turbine.

If, as a society, we decided that in the next 20 years we can replace
*most* fossil plants: coal and gas, with nuclear (closed fuel cycle/
breeder), there will be plenty of very cheap natural gas to use for
peak and emergency power (with close to 60% efficiency now, they are
the 'peakers of choice'). My only real concern is base load
application.

I am in total agreement about the nuclear for baseload, it's
really the only viable choice. I would however suggest wind with
pumped storage for peaking. It's only a little more expensive, and
with the storage it's reliable and non-consuming. Possibly forgo the
wind portion and just build a few extra nuc plants with pumped storage
for the overflow from baseload.

Pump storage is used now but there is not really that many places that
one can do this. The largest in the world is in California at Helms
pump storage facility run by PG&E (it equals the 2200 MWs from Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant) and can actually run for 14 straight days
at full load in an emergency.

No denying that it'll need a grid upgrade. I think there are
more available sites than you're giving it credit for, probably a
problem in the midwest, but the coasts are fairly mountainous, or at
least there are almost always mountains within 60 or 70 miles.

The problem is that there are few good places left for this sort of
peaking/pump storage..and the same environmentalists that push solar
and wind usually oppose pump storage because it means flooding a like
or construction in pristine areas. You can't win sometimes.

They also oppose the actual construction of wind or solar. they
support it in theory but when it comes time to build a large
installation it's all about fragile desert ecosystems and bird kills.

There is some suggestion that 'mechanical pump' storage might be
possible, that is, using a large man-made reservoirs with 50 foot head
pressures to store off peak nuclear power (or wind and solar) and then
run the hydro down during peak times or at night.

that's a pretty expensive way to go! what's the second choice
for electric storage?

Those of us who are pro-nuke understand the need for that last 10% can
be make or break for a grid system. Actually, "peak" (which usually
runs around 1700 to 1900 hours in California) is often triple the
lowest offpeak load. So, the ability to 'swing' the generation this
much is critical for any utility.

That's a painful number to hit, kinda mandates either a lot of
methane plants or a MAJOR grid upgrade. I've always kind of wondered
about the existing hydro plants, specifically if they could be
upgraded for daily variation. oversize the turbines and throttle them
back during offpeak time.

There really is no cheap way to store power yet. Down the road given
enough R&D, there is all sorts of ideas out there (NOT compressed air,
please!) but even creating "CHEAP" hydrogen might be a way to go. The
problem is not storing it only because we need it, but because it's
far more efficient and practical to keep nuclear power running at full
load than to cut back on the fission. Thus, using the "off peak"
nuclear for hydrogen makes a lot of sense (via high temperature
chemical cracking, not electrolysis). So, yeah, fuel cells, batteries,
etc.

I think batteries are very important. The more longer lasting
(batteries dies within a year or two of constant draining..as opposed
to car batteries which are used only for starting power) and longer l
a s t i n g...like 60mph for 300 miles, and more efficient...there is
a lost of putting power into a battery and taking it out, we will see
massive storage banks for peaking power. The idea too going back to
autos is that the most efficient would be to cutout the concept of
hydrogen power vehicles altogether and go from the grid to the
battery...that is highly reliable plug-in power...sort of 'nuclear
power automobiles'. Way down the road right now I think.

In California, I see a combination of wind (30%) and NG gas turbines
as the immediate way to meet demand for the next 5 years. GTs are the
cheapest, fastest and most reliable peaking power there is. In fact,
they are good for base load too if the price is down. They produce CO2
but not nearly as much as oil or coal (no one burns coal anymore in
California, thank the gods).

Wind is good especially during peak when it's windy out there and we
can use it to supplement our thermal plants and our nukes...I really
don't know how much it costs to run the wind turbines...maintenance
must be outrageous as I see *most* not actually running on windy days.
But because wind is so fickle, like a child with ADD on a bad day,
there is nothing one can do about it. It's simply not reliable. I know
the ISO in California detests relying on wind as it's never there when
you want it.

But the above only makes sense if they add the 8 to 12 new nuke
NOW...which they won't, so we're fucked.

Well, if they won't add the nukes, and won't burn coal, that
leaves no method for baseload production, so yeah, you're pretty well
fucked. I would suggest expansions to your existing nuclear
facilities, they're fairly modular and already permitted uclear sites,
so it's easier to get the permission to expand an old one than to
build a new one.

nada wrote:

Pump storage is used now but there is not really that many places that
one can do this....
The problem is that there are few good places left for this sort of
peaking/pump storage.....

How did you come to this conclusion?

There really is no cheap way to store power yet.

The
problem is not storing it only because we need it, but because it's
far more efficient and practical to keep nuclear power running at full
load than to cut back on the fission....

On Mar 1, 10:50 am, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:

nada wrote:


Pump storage is used now but there is not really that many places that
one can do this....
The problem is that there are few good places left for this sort of
peaking/pump storage.....

How did you come to this conclusion?


Because there are no good sites...

About 20 years ago, right after I started working for PG&E as a
control room operator, there were a few other pump storage sites, all
shot down by environmentalists. Oh well.

I think batteries are very important. The more longer lasting
(batteries dies within a year or two of constant draining..as opposed
to car batteries which are used only for starting power) and longer l
a s t i n g...like 60mph for 300 miles, and more efficient...there is
a lost of putting power into a battery and taking it out, we will see
massive storage banks for peaking power. The idea too going back to
autos is that the most efficient would be to cutout the concept of
hydrogen power vehicles altogether and go from the grid to the
battery...that is highly reliable plug-in power...sort of 'nuclear
power automobiles'. Way down the road right now I think.

nada wrote:
There really is no cheap way to store power yet.

Last time I looked, (less than two years ago), pumped storage was
running some $.65-$.99/watt.

The
problem is not storing it only because we need it, but because it's
far more efficient and practical to keep nuclear power running at full
load than to cut back on the fission....

I'm curious how you come to this conclusion. The last nuclear plant
decommissioned for $8.5/watt. With a 40% utility factor and $.80/watt
for pumped storage the effective savings would be some $2-$3/watt.

nada wrote:
On Mar 1, 10:50 am, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:

nada wrote:

Pump storage is used now but there is not really that many places that
one can do this....
The problem is that there are few good places left for this sort of
peaking/pump storage.....

How did you come to this conclusion?

Because there are no good sites...

The west is rich with sudden elevation changes. How is it that non are
suitable?

About 20 years ago, right after I started working for PG&E as a
control room operator, there were a few other pump storage sites, all
shot down by environmentalists. Oh well.

This is a political reason. Something else.

There really is no cheap way to store power yet. Down the road given
enough R&D, there is all sorts of ideas out there (NOT compressed air,
please!) but even creating "CHEAP" hydrogen might be a way to go. The
problem is not storing it only because we need it, but because it's
far more efficient and practical to keep nuclear power running at full
load than to cut back on the fission. Thus, using the "off peak"
nuclear for hydrogen makes a lot of sense (via high temperature
chemical cracking, not electrolysis). So, yeah, fuel cells, batteries,

On 1 Mar 2007 "nada" <dwalters...@gmail.com> wrote:

There really is no cheap way to store power yet. Down the road given
enough R&D, there is all sorts of ideas out there (NOT compressed air,
please!) but even creating "CHEAP" hydrogen might be a way to go. The
problem is not storing it only because we need it, but because it's
far more efficient and practical to keep nuclear power running at full
load than to cut back on the fission. Thus, using the "off peak"
nuclear for hydrogen makes a lot of sense (via high temperature
chemical cracking, not electrolysis). So, yeah, fuel cells, batteries,

I think there will be an easy way to both store
power off peak, and segment a distributed system
so that only a small portion goes down if overloaded.

Flow batteries can be put at sub-stations,
they are being installed in the 5-10 megawatt/
2 hour size now.

They can have a very large storage capacity,
with minimal added cost, it just takes more tanks for
electrolyte.

And this should also help emissions, possibly
reducing the need for ready online boilers that take
an hour or so to start up.

New technology like flow batteries takes a
while to develop, but is simple enough to rapidly
implement widely.

Joe Fischer

Joe, are there any good links on this "flow batter" you would
recommend? I'm sure you posted it here previously but I'm not going to
look through them all. They sound interesting.
David Walters

On Mar 1, 1:02 pm, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:

nada wrote:

There really is no cheap way to store power yet.

Last time I looked, (less than two years ago), pumped storage was
running some $.65-$.99/watt.


The
problem is not storing it only because we need it, but because it's
far more efficient and practical to keep nuclear power running at full
load than to cut back on the fission....

I'm curious how you come to this conclusion. The last nuclear plant
decommissioned for $8.5/watt. With a 40% utility factor and $.80/watt
for pumped storage the effective savings would be some $2-$3/watt.


Yes, a generation II power plant. The new ones being built all come in
way under this (decomp included). But do you mean running nuclear flat
out? I will be honest: I don't have a clue. From the little I've read
(and clearly the French do not have a problem with this) you use the
same amount of fuel burn-up at full load as you do at lower loads.

On Mar 1, 1:06 pm, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:

nada wrote:

On Mar 1, 10:50 am, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:

nada wrote:

Pump storage is used now but there is not really that many places that
one can do this....
The problem is that there are few good places left for this sort of
peaking/pump storage.....

How did you come to this conclusion?

Because there are no good sites...

The west is rich with sudden elevation changes. How is it that non are
suitable?


About 20 years ago, right after I started working for PG&E as a
control room operator, there were a few other pump storage sites, all
shot down by environmentalists. Oh well.

This is a political reason. Something else.


Just on costs...how did you get a cost for pump storage? I ask because
each place to build it is unique: elevation, kind of ground, length of
pen-stock (the pipe that carries the water down to the turbines), i
mean a whole host of unique attributes. Is number a US average? It
sounds like it. Well, it's good to know it's sow low.

I suspect that people don't want to fill up valley's with water and
concrete and that damns and pen-stocks create a tremendous amount of
displacement; that the sand-stone prevalent out west is to porous to
maintain storage. I don't know enough about it, but there clearly,
too, is little need for pump storage now otherwise the utilities would
want to build it to store surplus power, which there is little of,
apparently.