[Rematog]

Aeronaut,

1) The waste heat would be too “cold” to make steam usable in any existing turbine. Almost every machine still running has main and reheat steam temperatures of 1000 degree F. At the pressures the turbines are designed to run, (generally 2400 psi or more), the boiling temperature of water is roughly 650 F. Even if the FF module could run at these temperatures, I doubt the cost of the equipment needed to collect water/steam at these temperatures and pressures would be economically competitive with FF modules. And a new, low pressure/temperature turbine would certainly be more expensive then FF.

2) The grid is not crumbling. It will need additions and modifications to deal with future growth. It will take huge additions and modifications if we want to generate power in sunny/windy places and ship it to the east coast and other major urban areas a continent away. The existing fleet of coal/nuclear fission/hydro/gas turbine plants are well maintained, efficient and reliable. I see to that. We need more plant’s if people want to continue using more power per person and having more people live in the country. If you disagree, turn off your air conditioner, computer, microwave, refrig and half the lights. I work weekends, holidays and nights to make sure your lights are on, always on, when you want them.

3) Waste heat is NOT a moral issue. It is an economic and engineering issue.

[Rematog]

Aeronaut,

Using FF for process heat in industry, yes. District heat, very likely. In individual buildings….not anytime soon. I’ve posted many times my opinion about public and regulatory barriers to this.

AND…Why do it?

Your discussing energy effiency, but with FF, that effiency is no longer a pressing issue. Energy will no longer be a limited resource, or high cost. If FF is as inexpensive to build and operate as this board is assuming, and even I agree it will be much cheaper then current power plants, then…..

Just put in inexpensive resistance heating….the power is cheap enough.

By the way I don’t think I grossly underestimated mass production, as I had begun with the assumption the mass produced cost of the heat exchanger would be about 30% of the custom built cost, and agreed that Eric’s figure of 10% was not out of the question. This is couldn’t be too much of an underestimate then.

You have to keep the scale difference in mind. The scale differerence between the two items, the 17 million BTU industrial heat exchanger vs the Auto AC unit is like that between a 5,000 HP locomotive diesel and a 1.5 HP Briggs and Stration lawn mower engine. The FF heat exchanger would do on the order of 3,000 times the heat transfer, and last from 25 to 75 times the hours of operation. So, if you scale the $33,000 we are discussing for a FF module heat exchanger, $33,000/3000/25 = $0.44 for the cost of a 10,000 BTU exchager with 3,300 hrs life.

[Rematog]

The picture was from a card in the “Magic the Gathering” collectable card game. The creature gained power from “consuming” artifacts. I adopted him as my mascot in the early 90’s, as the RX-7 I drove at the time took a steady steam of spare parts…….

He was named the “ATOG”….guess the rest.

REMATOG

[Rematog]

Eric,

A major difference is the lifespan and reliability requirements.

Your auto example, A car cooling system has a reliable lifespan of, say 150,000 miles, @ avg operating speed of 45 mph, this equals 3,333 hrs, as an estimate.

For a FF module, design life of what, no less then 10 years. Operating with 90% capacity factor, this is 90% x 8760 hrs/year x 10 years, 78,840 hrs. So an almost 24 to 1 ratio of design life. By the way, utilities design for a 30 year life, and typically operate equipment for >50 years.

I agree that the mass produced cost will be much lower, but, even if we grant your $33,000 figure, this is just for the external heat exchanger. This doesn’t include blowers, ductwork, controls, power supply (to blowers), etc. So the cooling system alone would be at least 10% of a $500k/module figure.

And this assumes we are not building the FF module to current nuclear plant design standards.

What I am suggesting is that a DOR (Division of Responsibility) be drawn around the module. This determines exactly what is included in the module, and what inputs and outputs are to be expected. This includes all power, utilities, controls, foundations, etc.

Then, for the module, a complete system by system breakdown, with estimated materials and assembly costs. I’ve seen this referred to as the Bill of Materials, and in my brief experience working in manufacturing, I’ve seen that this is, in mass production, taken to the level of nuts and bolts (literally). Wikipedia has a good general definition of this. Obviously, that level of detail is not possible at this time, but a preliminary, high level, bill of material could be put together.

Rematog

[Rematog]

Eric,

I took the assumed heat load and assumed air to cool the FF module. I then got an estimate from a manufacture of industrial heat exchangers.

Quite an eyeopener.

This is what I sent them:

Dear Sir or Madame,

I would like to get a very rough cost estimate (order of magnitude) for a plate type gas to air heat exchanger. The hot gas will be clean air at 500F and be transferring the heat to clean ambient air (nom 100F). Fans will be sized as needed and gas/air side pressure drops should be normal for your equipments design. The duty would be 17 million BTU/hr. No special materials would be required. Most economical design is desired.

They requested additional information:

I have received your inquiry and have begun working on a HEX design. Can you provide me with the gas flow rates in lb/hr?

I responded:

Please don’t go to too much effort at this time. This is a very early, preliminary, Fatal Flaw, type of review. I only need an order of magnitude cost.

They sent me a formal bid. This means that you could actual order it and for the following price (plus tax and freight) get this heat exchanger for:

1 unit(s) at $334,000 each

Of course, this is the cost for a one off, custom design. If you were make a large number of identical items, the cost would be greatly reduced. But, I would belive that a min. estimated cost would be $100k. That is for the waste heat exchanger, without fans, etc.

This is why I am very disbeliving when a total assembled cost for a 5MW FF module of $300k or $500k is given.

I would really like to participate in a realistic effort to estimate what the cost of a FF module, with all necessary support equipment, controls, etc. would be.

Rematog

[Rematog]

Tasmo,

To start, I’d read the Wikipedia entry on Cap and Trade. It gives a reasonable description on how this emission control method works.

Cap and Trade is currently in use in the US in regulating NOx and SOx emissions. Generally, when additional reductions are required, the “allowances” held by industry are reduced across the board, say requiring two allowances per ton emitted instead of one allowance, etc. Then, individual plants either install equipment, shut down operations, or buy credits, depending on that sites economics. It works pretty well, really.

As to adding red tape, all regulated emissions, as well as some not yet requiring controls, have to be monitored and reported. So the cap and trade is no more burden than other emissions control regulations.

And yes, complying with governmental regulations is a “burden” on industry. The plant I work at has had to add a second environment engineer to deal with reporting and compliance with the literally dozens of different environment regulations and agencies with jurisdiction over air pollution, water pollution, radiation (we are not a nuclear plant, but have nuclear sources in some instruments, etc) , ground water, noise, toxic chemical usage, zoning, levy boards (we are located on a river), stack lighting (aircraft warning lights), etc.

These real world requirements are one of the reasons I don’t buy into the idea that FF modules will, within a few years of introduction, be allowed to be sited for unattended operation in urban areas.

[Rematog]

And, I’ve also heard of rants by vegans discussing using the contribution methane to global warming as a reason to push for a ban on beef. Really. You see, cows fart methane, so….

[Rematog]

The above article ends with:

The proposed endangerment finding now enters the public comment period, which is the next step in the deliberative process EPA must undertake before issuing final findings. It’s no surprise that climate change naysayers, including Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), have already spoken out against the finding, while environmental protection groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, have expressed their support for the move.

The proposed finding does not include any proposed regulations. Before taking any steps to reduce greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, the agency would conduct an appropriate process and consider stakeholder input. Notwithstanding this required regulatory process, both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy.

Congress begins hearings this week on the American Clean Energy and Security Act. At the end of last month, Chairman Henry A. Waxman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and Chairman Edward J. Markey of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee released a discussion draft of the proposed legislation and expressed the desire to have it moved out of committee by Memorial Day. Though its scope is broader than the purview of the EPA finding, the act’s draft includes a Global Warming Pollution Reduction Program that involves a cap-and-trade program.

Sources: U.S. EPA, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sen. James Inhofe, U.S. House of Representatives

[Rematog]

EPA Finds Greenhouse Gases Pose Threat to Public Health, Welfare
Source: POWERnews

After a thorough scientific review ordered in 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed finding on Friday that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare. 



The proposed finding, which now moves to a public comment period, identified six greenhouse gases that pose a potential threat. “This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations. Fortunately, it follows President Obama’s call for a low carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation,” said Administrator Lisa P. Jackson.

“This pollution problem has a solution—one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country’s dependence on foreign oil.” As the proposed endangerment finding states, “In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem. The greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.” 



[Rematog]

Enjoy it while you can.

The current administration is, judging by what I have seen, on a path to remove coal from the options available for power generation. If FF is not commercial in the near term, and no real crash program developed for replacement power, energy shortages ARE in our future. If the only “acceptable” options are wind and solar, energy supplies will be less reliable, and from 3 to 5 times more expensive. Currently, in the US, wind power receives an extremely large (on the order of 75%) subsidy from the government. We, as tax payers, are footing that bill (Or our children and grandchildren, unless we inflate our way out of the massive federal debt.).

I’m participating on this board looking for hope, like a passenger on a sink ship, looking for the distance sign of ship smoke on the horizon.

[Rematog]

Brian,

I would guess you’ve had little direct dealings with government regulators.

I’ve seen state environmental regulator departments require all roads on a plant site paved, to prevent dust (we were already watering roads twice a day to prevent dusting. This on a manufacturing plant surrounded by corn fields (which when plowed, harvested, etc., can create a lot of dust.). The reason for the requirement was that the computer model the regulator agency used to model pollution impacts from smokestacks automatically failed the stack, even with ZERO emissions, if there was an unpaved road inside the site “bubble”.

I’ve had an inspector require a plant to tear out a brand new underground pipeline and replace the brand new safety valves on an anhydrous ammonia tank because the wind blew his inspection paper work away while he was walking back to his car. It took petitions to the agency heads to get the inspector to accept replacement paper work.

My point is, regulators do NOT have to be logical, by outside (of their agency) standards. They only have to enforce the regulations, as the agency and the courts have interpreted them.

And remember, that if the utility is being “unfairly” hurt by the changes, they will go to the courts for re-dress. If the regulatory agency for political reasons is “taking” utility assets, they will have a strong case.

[Rematog]

“We need utilities for….”

Not to mention tax collection.

Utility taxes are a big source of revenue in most states. When I worked for a utility in a midwestern state, that utility was the biggest single tax collector for the state, after state income tax.

[Rematog]

Brian,

I don’t understand your point. I’ve always maintained that utilities would be in the FIRST wave of deployment of FF. And, as I’ve said twice, the avoided cost most likely to be used by a state for PURPA purposes would be the cost of FF generated power.

I’ll say it again, the first mass deployment of FF modules would be utilities and wholesale generators repowering fossil fuel sites with FF. Nuclear FISSION sites would only be repowered when the TOTAL cost of purchase and operation of FF is less then the operating cost of the fission plants (the capital cost of the fission plant is a sunk cost).

Hard on heels of the utilities would be heavy industry for both power and heat.

Load growth, caused by decreased price, fuel switching (electric heat replacing natural gas and fuel oil for heat and hot water) in residential, commercial and light industrial plants would require additional FF generation stations, likely installed at substations and other “nodes” of the transmission system. As this progressed these new FF stations would get smaller and closer to loads (urban areas). But I continue to maintain that true distributed generation would be a long time coming and never completely replace the “last mile” of electrical transmission/distribution.

NOTE: This assumes the “current” technology status of FF modules. If FF modules could be shrunk to the side of an AC unit, packaged and made to run for years without service, ALWAYS fail safe and be (externally) radiation free, then that “mature” technology might make the idea of power distribution obsolete. But I’d guess it would be a generation before we see “Mr. Fusion”.

As an example of this type of historical improvement in technology, the internal combustion engine was over 75 years old before an engine could be expected to run 100,000 miles in a car without a major rebuild. I date the IC engine from 1876, and it was the 1950s before lubrication, design and materials improvements would allow the engine to not need routine “de-coking”, and valves, bearings etc. last the way we now take for granted.

[Rematog]

Brian H wrote: Those cost comparisons aren’t in the same universe as the discrepancy between FF and current sources. It’s no longer a matter of a few 10s of percentage points. It’s around an order of magnitude. I think most of the sharpie fiddling would be burned away in that environment. Call me an idealist. :gulp:

Brian,
You seem to be neglecting my last statement regarding PURPA. The “avoid cost” if FF becomes commercial, would be the cost of new FF modules…. So an independent generator wouldn’t have any advantage under PURPA. In fact, an independent generator would have several likely disadvantages compared to the utility.

1) Cost of capital. A large utility generally has an investment grade bond rating. So they can borrow money cheaper then a small start-up company. People invest in start-up companies hoping for a high rate of return.

2) Physical infrastructure. The utility will likely own land (on which the old plants sit) that has good transmission access, a source of water (for cooling system make-up), roads, are graded and fenced and have office and maintenance buildings. These sites almost always have rail access, which would make shipping equipment easier and cheaper.

3) Human Resources. The utility already has management, engineering, accounting, etc. staff in place, and these are already being covered under the rates charged to customers.

One another subject. as previously stated, large power consumers, such as industry, would likely be second phase deployers, perhaps in a few cases, even first phase.

And, FF could, no, would, provide process heat, not just power. This would be of great value, as most process heat is currently generated burning natural gas, oil, or in very large facilities, coal. The process heat market represents a large fraction of the total energy consumption in the US and rest of developed world. One co-advantage of this on-site generation, would be freeing transmission systems of this load, freeing it up for almost certain increase in residential load.

Remember, if FF power is relatively cheap, home heating as well as cooling would turn to electric power. Either heat pumps or, with low enough power costs, simple resistive heating, would replace natural gas or fuel oil for home heating. And, quite simply, with power becoming cheaper, and perceived as no longer having a great environmental cost, people would not work nearly as hard to conserve power. Leave the lights on, FF power is “too cheap to meter”……

[Rematog]

The public knowledge is currently available. But the media is very bad at reporting technical issues. They often don’t understand, or even want to understand, technical issues. They see engineering and science as “mechanic’s work” that they, as members of the 4th Estate, are above. And they often (mis) report things for their own reasons.

Two examples from first hand experience.

1) A truck driver was burned when he tried (stupidly) to walk across the tarp on a truck load of ash, and fell in. Flight for Life was called to rush him to a hospital (he survived). The TV news reported an explosion at the plant. When I called and asked the reporter, she said she had assumed that if someone was burned, there must have been an explosion. I asked if she had called to confirm her assumption, and was told no, she “didn’t have time”. I got the impression that an explosion sounded “sexy” and she wanted her story to air.

2) Shortly after the TV movie “The Day After” aired, a local university’s Student government voted to stockpile poison in case of nuclear war. The local TV news reported on this legitimate story. Immediately after, nothing between, they reported that the local utilities nuclear (fission) plant had “Run at full power for the last 30 days.” They had NEVER, to my knowledge, reported on the air that any plant had run with no problems for the last month. To my mind, the station’s news staff had wanted to tie nuclear power to nuclear war and death in the minds of the public. I called and spoke to the stations News Editor, and was told “it was never their intention to do that, it was COINCIDENCE”. He would not admit that they had any agenda against nuclear power. I told him that they had every right to editorial opinion, but that it should be aired as such, not put forth as innuendo. He hung up on me.

[Author]

Posts