Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by Obamot » 22/10/22, 13:31

NCSH wrote:
Obamot wrote:Hello and thank you very much for this sharing and this vision of the future...
I share the idea that the best efficiency will be achieved by thermodynamic solar, because it can be stored directly in the form of heat for up to 5 days (which makes it possible to solve the load factor). The 15% for the EU seems low to me with direct current lines with few losses, see superconducting lines. Thus a belt of power stations taking over one after the other would provide a continuous supply that could partially solve the load factor that is lacking in renewables.


Thermodynamic solar still has many surprises in store for us, despite a chaotic journey for more than 50 years.
In particular, a new generation of power station with tower and adjustable mirrors is being prepared, with thermodynamic efficiencies close to 50%, reached at around 700/750°C associated with heat storage for around 16/18 hours.
But it will be above all to produce power at night, within the framework of integrated complexes, as in the Noor Ouarzazate projects in Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, ... that could be the future of this type of project.
The cost of production has finally also fallen and has now reached the threshold of $100/MWhe and should fall further in future projects.

You mention the possibility of storage for 5 days. In addition to the quantities of molten salts (or better particles of silica or alumina to be able to restore temperatures of 700°C), if the Chinese and others were to deploy nuclear reactors using Thorium, there would be the problem of the resource of molten salts; but above all, 5 days is not enough to compensate for episodes of lack of wind and sun in the winter period of our so-called temperate climate.
Perhaps that would be enough for the countries of southern Europe, but in the heart of Europe it is at least 15 full days: it is now, since the beginning of 2020, a quasi-official figure mentioned in the TYNDP 2020 and 2022 reports.
This constraint of being able to massively produce electricity during prolonged winter episodes called by the Anglo-Saxons "cold spell", "dark doldrum" and by the Germans "kalt dunkelflaute" has so far been totally neglected by almost all promoters. renewable electricity in temperate countries.
This will require, to clarify this poorly known subject during the coming decade, complex and long studies combining historical meteorological data and the operation of electrical networks in rare circumstances where electricity needs in cold weather involve the intensive operation of heat pumps. for more than 50% of homes, very high proportions of individual electrified vehicles, in addition to current levels of electricity consumption.

One and only solution: the massive underground storage of natural gas or synthetic methane or even hydrogen (for countries with a very significant geological potential to dig new salt cavities) can guarantee at the end of winter such amounts of energy. Synthetic methane will retain the incomparable advantage of being able to store summer production for the winter thanks to its volumetric density 4 times higher than hydrogen, which will make it 5 times less expensive than hydrogen in this type of case of inter-seasonal storage: €5/MWhth compared to 25 for hydrogen, according to a 2020 Bomberg NEF report.

I really appreciate your lighting of the field of possibilities which sets the record straight.

I indeed believe that you are right, I sinned by optimism (and idealism...) it is my minion sin. ( : Lol: )
Since we often talk about it, the solution will obviously be in an energy mix focusing on complementarity, and happy that the cost reductions in the hydrogen sector make it more and more attractive.
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9774
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by sicetaitsimple » 22/10/22, 15:59

NCSH wrote:...
Thermodynamic solar still has many surprises in store for us, despite a chaotic journey for more than 50 years.
In particular, a new generation of power station with tower and adjustable mirrors is being prepared, with thermodynamic efficiencies close to 50%, reached at around 700/750°C associated with heat storage for around 16/18 hours. ..
But it will be above all to produce power at night, within the framework of integrated complexes, as in the Noor Ouarzazate projects in Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, ... what could be the future of this kind of project....

I think we agree in estimating that a massive development of solar power (and wind power where relevant) can only be envisaged with the establishment of daily storage, then weekly, then inter seasonal, in one form or another.

For the daily, some forms already exist in some countries (STEP, domestic hot water). It will not be enough, but in the countries concerned, France for example, it can allow us to wait a while.
Then, in daily and weekly newspapers, electric transport, and in particular "vehicle to home" and "vehicle to grid" compatible electric vehicles, should make it possible to move on to a new stage. The cost of batteries could also drop, for stationary uses.
Finally, remains the inter-seasonal. Real problem... It leaves a little time to think about it... Nuclear power will perhaps be a cheaper solution than various electro-chemical conversions then storage then conversion into electricity, especially in countries which under our latitudes do not produce practically anything by solar energy in winter.
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9774
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by sicetaitsimple » 22/10/22, 20:09

NCSH wrote:Thermodynamic solar still has many surprises in store for us, despite a chaotic journey for more than 50 years.


Clarification concerning solar thermodynamics. "Chaotic" is indeed the right word, it might seem like a hassle, but in fact it is very complex. The results I had seen from the latest projects in the USA were very disappointing.
Especially since their only technical advantage (compared to the PV which without it completely crushes it now in terms of cost) is to be able to store a little for the night, by means of the establishment of a storage and of course a doubling or tripling of the collector surface and the receiver, we can only store the surpluses that we generate during the day to use them at night... The 100€/MWh with a consequent storage, I doubt it.

In short, in my opinion, there is little future, except perhaps in the rare areas where the DNI (Direct Normal Irradiation) is optimal throughout the year, and again....
0 x
NCSH
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 203
Registration: 17/11/21, 18:15
Location: Orbiting Venus
x 135

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by NCSH » 22/10/22, 23:52

sicetaitsimple wrote:
NCSH wrote:Thermodynamic solar still has many surprises in store for us, despite a chaotic journey for more than 50 years.


Clarification concerning solar thermodynamics. "Chaotic" is indeed the right word, it might seem like a hassle, but in fact it is very complex. The results I had seen from the latest projects in the USA were very disappointing.
Especially since their only technical advantage (compared to the PV which without it completely crushes it now in terms of cost) is to be able to store a little for the night, by means of the establishment of a storage and of course a doubling or tripling of the collector surface and the receiver, we can only store the surpluses that we generate during the day to use them at night... The 100€/MWh with a consequent storage, I doubt it.

In short, in my opinion, there is little future, except perhaps in the rare areas where the DNI (Direct Normal Irradiation) is optimal throughout the year, and again....


To get a clearer picture of cost developments over the past decade, IRENA has published a detailed report comparing all types of renewable electricity generation.
However, it weighs 44 MBytes and was refused!
So, to find on the internet, on the IRENA website: "Power Generation Cost 2021".

See graphs on pages 32, and 126, 133 for thermodynamic solar. To taste without moderation!

Maximum latitude of implantation: around 40°, including the south of Europe if one accepts to lose during the winter months. This loss is less strong for power stations with towers and adjustable mirrors.
0 x
To discover the parallel universe of non-fossil carbon energy carriers, take the time to browse (15 min) the website NCSH : http://www.ncsh.eu/language/fr/energie-et-matiere/
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9774
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by sicetaitsimple » 23/10/22, 00:18

NCSH wrote:See graphs on pages 32, and 126, 133 for thermodynamic solar. To taste without moderation!
Maximum latitude of implantation: around 40°, including the south of Europe if one accepts to lose during the winter months. This loss is less strong for power stations with towers and adjustable mirrors.


So basically not in Europe, except in the far south of Spain. The south of Italy is generally sunny, but due to the seas surrounding it does not benefit from a correct average DNI for CSP. As soon as there is a bit of mist or cloud, the performance drops.
Moreover, to my knowledge (I could be wrong, correct me with source) there is no significant CSP installation in Italy, which has nevertheless been quite generous in terms of solar subsidies.
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by Obamot » 23/10/22, 04:55

sicetaitsimple wrote:
NCSH wrote:...
Thermodynamic solar still has many surprises in store for us, despite a chaotic journey for more than 50 years.
In particular, a new generation of power station with tower and adjustable mirrors is being prepared, with thermodynamic efficiencies close to 50%, reached at around 700/750°C associated with heat storage for around 16/18 hours. ..
But it will be above all to produce power at night, within the framework of integrated complexes, as in the Noor Ouarzazate projects in Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, ... what could be the future of this kind of project....

I think we agree in estimating that a massive development of solar power (and wind power where relevant) can only be envisaged with the establishment of daily storage, then weekly, then inter seasonal, in one form or another.

For the daily, some forms already exist in some countries (STEP, domestic hot water). It will not be enough, but in the countries concerned, France for example, it can allow us to wait a while.
Then, in daily and weekly newspapers, electric transport, and in particular "vehicle to home" and "vehicle to grid" compatible electric vehicles, should make it possible to move on to a new stage. The cost of batteries could also drop, for stationary uses.
Finally, remains the inter-seasonal. Real problem... It leaves a little time to think about it... Nuclear power will perhaps be a cheaper solution than various electro-chemical conversions then storage then conversion into electricity, especially in countries which under our latitudes do not produce practically anything by solar energy in winter.
So there, no, the greatest "resource" is in the non-consumption of energy, it is above all in the building industry, the passivation of buildings and geothermal energy (for buildings for which this is not possible and that needs to be heated...) this represents >90% of the housing stock to be converted, this is where it would be worth a massive effort. Augmented geothermal is also available as a mode to tackle the load factor during peaks. And in terms of “security of supply” no one can dispute that it does not meet this condition. The problem is that nuclear power has partially diverted the investments that it was wiser to put in geothermal energy in part.
Because “heating with electricity” is heresy. We may one day be able to heat with hydrogen (NCSH could tell us?), but the best thing would still be to not need to heat at all...!
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by Obamot » 23/10/22, 05:40

*Error: “no one can dispute that it fulfills this condition completely"

For thermodynamic solar, redundancy is required, you put that as a disadvantage, but the nuke itself is redundant, so it is not a criterion, moreover for “security of supply” in the face of geopolitical problems , redundancy must be essential — the difference here is that the deposits are “free” and cannot be confiscated via blackmail, moreover the areas with the strongest sunshine have of course been duly identified, and each of these power stations should be coupled with deep drilling to exploit geothermal energy when necessary, so the thermal “buffer” would be double with the sodium* — we would still have to see how long the buffers would last, but in principle geothermal energy is quite inexhaustible, if you don't constantly pump and the deposit can recover its operating temperature after a heavy load — (and the surplus would be converted into hydrogen...). Could these drillings completely cancel out this chaotic aspect? I wonder why it hasn't been highlighted elsewhere... The cost of such drilling is not expensive at all, over an operating period counted in tens of years, half a century or more .

*(molten sodium or other processes given by NCSH)
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by Janic » 23/10/22, 08:17

and BOOOMM!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
NCSH
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 203
Registration: 17/11/21, 18:15
Location: Orbiting Venus
x 135

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by NCSH » 23/10/22, 09:56

Janic wrote:and BOOOMM!


And yes ! BOOOMM!

Hydrogen is much too dangerous to be trivialized in everyday life as gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons have been: the explosive thresholds are 15 to 20 times lower for comparison with Methane, on much lower ranges. wide, especially in confined spaces.
So to be reserved for a few thousand industrial sites (for Europe), which must respect drastic standards.

Should we also remember that sodium does not mix well with water?

Not great for waking up on a Sunday morning!
Reading a good report makes you more serene. Try the IRENA report instead.
0 x
To discover the parallel universe of non-fossil carbon energy carriers, take the time to browse (15 min) the website NCSH : http://www.ncsh.eu/language/fr/energie-et-matiere/
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9774
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by sicetaitsimple » 23/10/22, 14:41

Obamot wrote:*
For thermodynamic solar, redundancy is required, you put that as a disadvantage,...


Where did I mention redundancy?
I said that if you wanted to produce day and night with solar thermodynamics, you obviously needed a substantial heat storage but also, for the same power generated, a solar field and a receiver at least doubled in size, in order to produce during the day the heat which is necessary for the production of the day but also to produce and store the heat necessary to produce at night.

As for thermodynamic solar which would produce only the day, circulate there's nothing to see, the PV does that very well and very simply for a cost at least 3 times lower.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 265 guests