California Governor says state needs 5 million zero-emission vehicles by 2030
Rolls-Royce opens autonomous ship research and development center in Finland

California Governor orders 5M ZEV target for 2030; more hydrogen fueling and EV charging stations

California Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today signed executive order B-48-18, directing all State entities to work with the private sector and all appropriate levels of government to put at least 5 million zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) on California roads by 2030. Brown had mentioned the 5-million target in his State of the State address earlier this week. (Earlier post.) The state’s current target, set by Brown in 2012, is 1.5 million ZEVs by 2025.

Brown is also proposing a new eight-year initiative to continue the state’s clean vehicle rebates and spur more infrastructure investments. This $2.5-billion initiative will help bring 200 hydrogen fueling stations and 250,000 zero-emission vehicle chargers, including 10,000 direct current fast chargers, to California by 2025.

ZEV technologies include hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) and plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), which include both pure battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). According to the Auto Alliance ZEV sales dashboard, as of the end of October 2017, California had 176,681 battery-electric and fuel-cell vehicles—i.e., fully zero tailpipe emissions vehicles—on its roads. When plug-in hybrids are added, that brings the total to 337,483 units.

The order also directs State entities to continue to partner with regional and local governments to streamline zero-emission vehicle infrastructure installation processes wherever possible. As part of this effort, the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development will publish a Plug-in Charging Station Development Guidebook and update the 2015 Hydrogen Station Permitting Guidebook.

Other specified actions for the state in the executive order include:

  • Updating the 2016 Zero-Emission Vehicle Action plan to help expand private investment in zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, particularly in low income and disadvantaged communities.

  • Recommending actions that boost zero-emission vehicle infrastructure to strengthen the economy and create jobs in the State of California.

  • Recommending ways to expand zero-emission vehicle infrastructure through the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program.

  • Supporting and recommending policies and actions that make it easier for people to install electric vehicle chargers in their homes and businesses.

  • Ensuring electric vehicle charging and hydrogen fueling are affordable and more accessible to all drivers.

This latest action builds on past efforts to boost zero-emission vehicles, including: legislation signed last year and in 2014 and 2013; adopting the 2016 Zero-Emission Vehicle Plan and the Advanced Clean Cars program; hosting a Zero-Emission Vehicle Summit; launching a multi-state ZEV Action Plan; co-founding the International ZEV Alliance; and issuing Executive Order B-16-12 in 2012 to help bring 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles to California by 2025.

The Governor also detailed the new plan for investing $1.25 billion in cap-and-trade auction proceeds to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve public health and the environment.

California Climate Investments projects include affordable housing, renewable energy, public transportation, zero-emission vehicles, environmental restoration, more sustainable agriculture and recycling, among other projects. At least 35% of these investments are made in disadvantaged and low-income communities.

Comments

Engineer-Poet
A California bill would make the state 100 percent renewable by 2045

We know that's not going to happen because it's not physically possible.  California will do as it has always done:  import power from elsewhere and greenwash it.

In order to keep selling electricity to California, Utah’s Intermountain Power Project is expected to convert to natural gas by 2025.

Which achieves maybe a 50% emissions cut over coal.  After that, you're done; you've got no further route for improvement.

new renewables will be cheaper than existing coal plants by the early 2020s.

Non-dispatchable power does not and cannot replace dispatchable power.  In part because wind power went close to zero during parts of the recent New England cold snap, the largest share of generation was taken over by oil for 11 out of the 14 days.  In-front-of-meter PV generation never exceeded 30 megawatts.

Had New England been forced to use only renewables this month, millions of people would be dead now.

CheeseEater88

Trucking in hydrogen is no different than any other shipment. Heck, it could be piped in.

Also, if the base load was near near our typical consumption during our peak day hours, we wouldn't need much standby generation. Hydrogen makes a lot more sense for standby generation than solar or wind, diesel, natural gas, or even an all battery solution.

We can design a grid where >90% of our consumption is met by a few, large carbon neutral plants. Our surplus can go to hydrogen, or other things. We need to match supply to demand, we now are trying to match supply to demand, but what if we try and match demand to supply? Over generate parts of the day, and in turn use that surplus as a means to store energy as hydrogen( or pumped hydro)to back feed into the grid at times of unexpected demand.

CheeseEater88

I'm not a nuclear scientist, so what is the projected cost of using previous spent radioactive fuel in a modern reactor? Would this not be almost free source of fuel? I've been told we have the technology to utilize older spent fuel in new reactors.

What's the fuel cost of geothermal?

Does it cost more to run geo or nuclear at higher output if the fuel is cheap, ordering on free?

The most expensive thing to is an asset never used.

We don't have to have a minimalist approach when it comes to supply, we can oversupply, and come up with ways to best use that surplus. Making fuel alternatives for the road could be one, one of many.

What California should do, since thier power market is a bit in line with what the poet said, is to build out geothermal, because nuclear is a hard sell. They have assets, and could essentially provide enough for thier whole state and avoid this offsiteing of pollution.

sd

eci

I read the articles you referenced. I know that some of the new wind turbine energy is being quoted at or below the cost of coal energy. However, there is a problem that somewhat reminds me of the old joke of having a customer complaining that the store owner's bananas are more expensive than the price across the street. When asked why he does not just buy the bananas across the street, it is because the other store is out. The first store owner simply states that if he did not have any bananas to sell, he could also sell them at that price.

Not quite the right analogy but unless you have adequate storage, you also need to factor in the cost of having the backup power source. What is adequate probably depends on the location and how critical it is to have no outage or the cost of having an outage. Maybe it is 12 hrs, maybe 3 days, maybe 2 weeks.

My personal opinion is that we should build modern nuclear power plants which are safer and more reliable than any of the renewable power sources. If we had enough nuclear power we could start to rip out the ugly wind turbines :^)/2. :^)/2 because I am half serious. Nupower is starting to scale up to build small modular reactors that are walk away safe and they have an initial customer for the first 12 units and approved siting. I am hoping that TerraPower's traveling wave reactor works out. It is designed to burn about anything -- existing reactor waste, depleted uranium, natural uranium. Apparently, we currently have enough stored depleted uranium to supply the entire US power needs for 700 years. See http://terrapower.com/ and http://www.nuscalepower.com/

CE88

I am not sure about the cost of geothermal but there is not much that is being used in the US as the cost of the infrastructure is too high and the available temperature is too low for efficient power generation. There are not that many places in the US where geothermal is practical. Iceland uses geothermal for most of their heating and domestic hot water.

CheeseEater88

http://www.energy.ca.gov/geothermal/background.html
they could add in an alleged 4000MWs. It's a seismically active state, they are bound to have some more resources.

Yellowstone National park, not only is expected to erupt sometime soon( within the span of 200,000years) and potentially wipe life off this planet, but is appearently a very possible source of geothermal heat. We could build out a geothermal plant and take advantage of all that heat. We could put in 50,000MWs, 100,000MWs or more on the nameplate. Something big enough to really dent our carbon footprint as a nation. While it isn't in the most central area of the country, it probably is feasible to sell to several regions, heck even California could buy from it. Build it there, and high tension DC it to every other grid sector they can feasibly reach. If they can build it big enough and get enough planned utilization they can offline several other base load plants and save the world.


My region uses 10,000mw and >50% of that is from coal, and we have hydro and nuclear. We don't have geothermal sources.

CheeseEater88

Infrastructure will be an issue no matter what SD our grid is some hodgepodge of wires and transformers.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1113610_nasa-looking-at-geothermal-energy-from-yellowstone-supervolcano

I'm saying take this idea, and make it huge. They predict $0.10/kwh cost. But if they could amortize it over a larger customer base, and utilize it to its max potential, let's say 25%-50% of the population in the US, it could be lower.

This would have to be scared up in time to reach any such numbers as i was suggesting, but if it's planned out from the beginning, it can be cheaper in the long run. Power companies are monopolies, let the government subsidize power for most Americans via clean baseloads.


Again, we could shutter, our aging coal plants, and clean up our grid with a few billion dollars; which is a drop in the bucket, and if played right,could be very profitable.

CheeseEater88

https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/geothermal-faqs#cost_to_develop_geothermal_power_plant

"The initial cost for the field and power plant is around $2500 per installed kW in the U.S., probably $3000 to $5000/kWe for a small (<1Mwe) power plant. Operating and maintenance costs range from $0.01 to $0.03 per kWh. Most geothermal power plants can run at greater than 90% availability"

But 250billion dollars, could get us cheap near limitless geothermal. (100,000MW)

Geothermal is very cheap compared to other new generation sources. Almost half that of nuclear.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/archive/aeo15/pdf/electricity_generation_2015.pdf

There is a 2016 report too, but my thumb was fat and hit the 2015.

If we planned it, and offline power plants as this caldera powered one came online in stages, we could pay for the project with electricity rates, because the generation cost is almost half of coal. The consumer might not feel the cost of this project if done right.

Engineer-Poet
Trucking in hydrogen is no different than any other shipment.

Except you need 3-4x the number of trucks.  The density of LH2 is about 0.07, gaseous H2 much less.  The density of gasoline is around 0.75.

Heck, it could be piped in.

You'd need 3x the pipeage as natural gas to move the same energy.  This.  Isn't.  Happening.

if the base load was near near our typical consumption during our peak day hours, we wouldn't need much standby generation.

Peak day hours are typically hot summer evenings in summer in the south, and winter cold snaps in the north.  They can get VERY high, much too high to serve with base load unless you've got massive amounts of load you can defer for hours or even days.  That's a tall order.

We can design a grid where >90% of our consumption is met by a few, large carbon neutral plants.

What's your obsession with LARGE plants?  Over-centralization means more long transmission lines and all the problems involved with them, and they're vulnerable to disruption as well.  Also, the bigger a plant is generally the longer construction times are and the harder it is to apply experience gained to the next plant.

Engineer-Poet
I've been told we have the technology to utilize older spent fuel in new reactors.

The French and Japanese have been recovering plutonium by reprocessing spent fuel and burning the majority of it in MOX (mixed-oxide) fuel.  This only works for a couple of cycles before the neutron-eating higher isotopes accumulate too much and the fuel can no longer go critical in light-water reactors.  The transuranics can be consumed almost completely in fast-neutron reactors, of which we have none any more.  The Russians have one BN800 that's been in commercial operation for 15 months now.

Heavy-water reactors like CANDU can use "spent" light-water reactor fuel almost as-is.  This scheme is called DUPIC, Direct Use of PWR fuel In CANDU.

what is the projected cost of using previous spent radioactive fuel in a modern reactor? Would this not be almost free source of fuel?

Uranium is too cheap to make any of this attractive.  Handling spent fuel isn't cheap or easy.

Engineer-Poet
What is adequate probably depends on the location and how critical it is to have no outage or the cost of having an outage. Maybe it is 12 hrs, maybe 3 days, maybe 2 weeks.

Note that the recent New England cold snap (a) forced lots of electric generation over to oil (oil went from 2% to 36% of electric generation) and (b) depleted fuel-oil stocks from 68% of full to just 19% in 2 weeks, and that was WITH a whole lot of idle coal plants coming on-line and staying there.  The minimum inventory given weather events like this should be a month.  The 90-day rule that the FERC rejected suddenly looks like a really good idea.

Here's the ISO report on the cold snap.  Read the WHIOLE thing:

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2018/01/20180112_cold_weather_ops_npc.pdf

Arnold

The internet ate my homework.

Arnold

After much redaction of bad words etc lets see how this goes.
"It may take these amateurs a while to get the results they are looking for.
What a joke -Artificial Neural networks.Why don't they follow the clean green fossil fuel industry experts and get with the program?"
I can tell you " Don't worry," "It's cake news."
https://www.thelocal.de/20180131/vw-hid-devastating-result-from-diesel-exhaust
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42858668

I'm so sick and tired of all the cake news that my doctor has ordered some time out. Being a good patient and wishing so much to comply the kids have thrown in to send me on a round world trip fishing and hiking in the wilderness.
I'm sure you'll want to know where the best fishing and hiking spots away from the paparatzi (is that like press azi?) who have been distracting my game ar a ago.
I can tell you the intrusion into my personal affairs and those of members of my associates has become so problematic that even the $200,000 initiation fee which is so obviously an incredible bargain may need to be changed.
I can't say whether it will be up or down - that will depend on whether people still want membership after my meeting with god gets reported by the fake news as collusion with the devil or Russia or something. But we are working on that - we may need to lock them all up for a while untill they can see reason sacking them has become ineffective and soon no one will have a job and that would be bad for membership and bad for the economy.
As valued subscribers to my daily thoughts I can say I have narrowed down the options to two secret fishing spots and one wilderness experience theme park.
Areas 61&67 are fishing hot spots with so many fish I hardly need a lure but if I get bored with catching all those fish I can just throw any lure in and it will glow and flash even without the battery . How goods that?

http://radioactivechat.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/Food-Label-Will-Tell-You-If-You-Are-Eating-Fuku-Radiation-FAO-Major-Fishing-Areas.html

After that I will be meeting with my friend Vlad who like me enjoys nothing more than a hike thru the re - natured wilderness park for some organic wild food gathering.
I can't tell you right now where that is for security reasons ( and difficulty getting visas) we are keeping this very quiet .

https://aeon.co/essays/ukraine-s-berry-pickers-are-reaping-a-radioactive-bounty.

HarveyD

The current USA e-energy facilities, composed of CPPs, NPPs, NGPPs, Hydro and many other REs production sources are not the real reasons for increasing price, associated pollution and GHG.

The existing and current construction codes have to many loopholes and most of our private residences and industrial/commercial structures are badly built and consume way too much energy. Very high efficiency (SSER 32+) all weather heat pumps could supply all the hot water, heating and cooling required with about have the energy used by conventional resitive heaters and A/Cs.

The last few years have seen a return to oversized SUVs and Pick-ups gas guzzling polluting machines in USA and Western Canada. Those awful machines consume up to 5 more than a Toyota Prius and many available PHEVs and should be banned from city cores.

CheeseEater88

The reason for the large plants are scales of economy. For construction, staffing, fueling, etc.

Nuclear reactors, coal boilers, just as other things can be made very modular. If you plan on future expansions from the beginning you can scale out over time at a much lower cost.

I'm not saying these things should launch with crazy high name plates, but over a span of 50 years they should be growing to offset our carbon use.

Hypothetically, let's say that 28% of transportation goes full electric, and while we see an overall 14% reduction in CO2, we will see a jump in electricity usage. What is going to come online to replace it?

Most of our plants in my area were built in the 70s and 80s, with 70s and 80s technology. Even our nuke plant is showing its age. I'm surrounded by coal.

Something needs to happen. Geothermal is highly geographically limited, and out best source is probably Yellowstone. Geothermal is cheap to run, and fairly cheap to build out.

Also, for the hydrogen, it likely doesn't need to be stored at 700bar for stationary applications, so we can plant large tanks for a weeks supply. We could use silos like we have for natural gas, storing it onsite, producing it from electrolysis, or from natural gas onsite.

I know nuclear isn't dispatchable, per se but Geothermal has the potential to be somewhat dispatchable. For instance if you had 100,000Mw on the name plate, you run at the typical 90% of rated capacity, and you use that power to do power intensive things like H2 from electrolysis, or mining aluminum, or something that can utilize power.Until one such artic cold snap comes along, then we divert that rainy day power to other regions.

My idea is wrought with inefficiency, especially having H2 from electrolysis, but it's one that could work to provide a realistic, cheap, and mostly carbon free future.

H2 has to be made some how. We need power. We have square miles of a magma chamber right below our land, that is actually due to go off in a spectacular way. Geothermal is a cheap reliable way to produce power, even is carbon neutral.

Our country like everyone else's runs on energy. If we have cheap, reliable energy people start to exploit that resource. This designed surplus energy could be tied to anything energy intensive. The production of H2, pumped hydro, if we have it, we can probably find a use for it, if we plan for it.

The big things in our future are computers. They are sensitive to power outages, but super computers can likely be throttled down to a sleep state/low power state if needed. Facilities that use megawatts of power might be able to take advantage of this.

It not ideal for sensitive loads, but that cheaper surplus power could be matched with private backup generation, in addition to public grid backups.

I'll pull up an article i found on tidal energy, there was a proposed project to capture the energy in the tides, and they figure they could capture so much they would need to find customers to use it. This is sort of how I'm envisioning the use. There will be surplus, but that can be swiftly met with some sort of planned demand.



Roger Pham

sd stated:
"The problem I have with "clean hydrogen" is than it uses electric power that otherwise could be used more efficiently. The round trip efficiency for electrolysis, compression and back to electricity via fuel cell is 25-30% and with battery storage, it is probably around 90%, so the efficiency is about 1/3."

1) For combined power and heat or for just heating, Hydrogen's efficiency is 100%. With Electrolysis at 87% efficient on Higher Heating Basis (HHV), then we can look at a round-trip efficient of around 83%, subtracting losses during transportation and storage. Not bad!

2) A strategy for maximize efficiency would be to use battery for storage of excess Solar and Wind energy for immediate re-use (daily basis), while use Hydrogen via electrolysis when all the grid-utility batteries are all maxed out, use the Hydrogen for seasonal-scale e-storage at very low cost per kWh of energy capacity. Able to store otherwise-wasted grid-excess Solar and Wind energy will give new meaning to EFFICIENCY. Nothing can be more efficient than be able to use otherwise WASTED energy.

3) When stored in deep underground reservoirs, it only costs around $1 per kWh of Hydrogen storage capacity, vs $300 to $500 per kWh of grid-utility battery for e-storage. Do you see the whole picture now?

4) WE are NOT ruling out battery for e-storage of grid-excess RE, we are simply using Hydrogen ADDITIONALLY, to augment the capacity of the grid-utility battery. It not the question of battery VERSUS hydrogen, it is battery AND hydrogen.

CheeseEater88

Nicely summed up, I concur Rodger.

We as a nation need to install 1TW of new clean power to replace our dependence on non renewables, and to lower our emissions. Wind, and solar would be a blight at that level.

We will likely need to install 2TWs over the next 50years. The first to replace the near 1TW of existing non renewable combustion plants, the second to meet the demand of a growing connected world, and an electric vehicle fleet.


Things are limited, land, wind, sunshine, fuel, money.

If we do exploit the caldera, and we should, this could in the future, lower power rates for the whole nation, ultimately wiping out petroleum based power plants which pay tremendous costs for fuel and maintenance.

It's the cheapest option, and it could also be the greenest, and safest ways of going about reducing our dependence on limited and volatile resources.

Wind and solar generation mean we have to have great dispatchable power. Batteries likely will only give us mins in time of peak needs, but diesel and natural gas, or that idled coal plant will come on line and take over. Hydrogen will never get a footing as these backups will remain in play indefinitely.

If we do something destruptive, that will pay dividends in the long run, we can bank on that lower cost, and level it out over time. Take out bonds, raise capital, and use falling rates to pay for the project and the interest.

If we bring something like this online, and several large Nukes, like 10, to prop up our grids, and provide a safe reliable means of electricy, with abundance. We can get away from hydro carbons, and we can possibly provide electricity at such a low rate that it enables economic growth in areas of commerce/technologies, industry, and affordability for the populous. Energy and it's cost play a huge role on the economy. If energy cost go up, the cost of living goes up more than just a heating bill, or that fill up at the gas station, it affects the food on the table and nearly anything you can imagine.

Imagine if we sold cheap electricity, 100% of the time, and contracted out our surplus to industry with conditions to curtail use as demand rose. We could safely over provision our grid to spur on our economy in ways that would otherwise be impractical.

Like the poet mentioned, peak demand versus the base load is huge. If we were to bring the baseload much higher like I am wanting, we'd need to have people take it up. If we plan our demands, and bring online huge demands to balance out the rise and fall, to allow smaller dispatchables to take over, we could easily live in a carbon free society, even of it meant the electrolysis of water powering transportation. Industry could flourish as a result.

I'm not saying we should be reckless, that gigawatt geothermal plant should be able to adjust load to meet demand too, just that we should also consider changing our paradigm.

We have all this new technology. We are learning from our current uses, how we are using this electricity. If such a project were undertaken, we could use AI to plan and map our loading of the power plants, in conjunction with consumers like cars, industry, who ever need a lot of power. We can accurately predict, it's not some shot in the dark. Sure there are anomalies, but given enough data, even the outliers are predictable.

The grid can self level with batteries, pumped hydro, and hydrogen production. It can also extend its grasp to its consumers, cars can charge and faster rates as surpluses come, industry, compute sectors, everyone can add information and benefit.

Engineer-Poet
If we plan our demands, and bring online huge demands to balance out the rise and fall, to allow smaller dispatchables to take over, we could easily live in a carbon free society

I wouldn't say "easily".  None of this will be easy or cheap.  It's doable, but absolutely not the way the Greens want to do it.  Their ideal (which was drafted by others) is quite deliberately designed to be impossible.

even of it meant the electrolysis of water powering transportation.

Electrolysis of water is probably the last thing you should do.  There are far more effective means of powering transport with zero net emissions, and everything else too.  I have literally spent the last 6 months working on the numbers for this.  Hydrogen has uses but no economy can be based on it.  It's too costly and finicky to handle in bulk.

Further, it looks like the need for the FCEV is passing.  The Achates engine has already broken 50% thermal efficiency and would probably do better on methanol fuel.  You could reform trucked-in methanol to hydrogen and CO2 to fill FCEVs, or burn methanol directly at similar net efficiency.  Hydrogen has no advantages and a bunch of disadvantages.

that gigawatt geothermal plant should be able to adjust load to meet demand too, just that we should also consider changing our paradigm.

You'd need literally hundreds of gigawatt geothermal plants.  Average US electric demand is around 450 GW.  Total nameplate generating capacity is well over 1000 GW now (including lots of unreliables and energy-limited generators like hydro).

The grid can self level with batteries, pumped hydro, and hydrogen production.

I've run the numbers on those things and, save maybe for hydrogen, it's far more difficult than you think.  The costs and other impacts would be literally astronomical.  Imagine having to use the entire water volume of Lake Erie for pumped storage; yes, it is THAT staggeringly large.

Engineer-Poet
If you plan on future expansions from the beginning you can scale out over time at a much lower cost.

That planning has been made impossible by the current politico-legal-regulatory environment.  That can be changed but it will take political will.  For instance, if units require no electric power to shut down completely (as in walk-away safe) will the nuclear regulator get rid of the hyper-specific requirements on all the electrical gear in the plant?  Do you even need a full-time on-site inspector for such a plant?  SWAT-level security 24/7?

What we really need is a radical reduction in the mandated costs, but the Greens have a strategy of driving those costs up to put nuclear out of business.  They've been very good at it.

let's say that 28% of transportation goes full electric, and while we see an overall 14% reduction in CO2, we will see a jump in electricity usage. What is going to come online to replace it?

The fossil fuel companies have NG targeted for that, with fuel-oil backup.  We should do better.

Geothermal is cheap to run, and fairly cheap to build out.

Is it?  I understand that things like mineral deposits in well pipes are a problem, and most places the wells cost too much to make any profit.  Perhaps you have some references you could point us to.

I know nuclear isn't dispatchable, per se

Nuclear is 100% dispatchable and can be ramped almost as much as you want it to; you just have to design the capability in ahead of time.  It only makes sense to do so when you approach French-level nuclear penetrations, because almost everything else has higher variable costs so makes more sense to do the ramping.

For instance if you had 100,000Mw on the name plate, you run at the typical 90% of rated capacity, and you use that power to do power intensive things like H2 from electrolysis, or mining aluminum, or something that can utilize power.

You mean "smelting aluminum".  Mining bauxite isn't terribly energy-intensive.

The problem you find when you dig into such seeming-panaceas is that they don't work very well as dump loads.  Take aluminum.  The electrolytic cells which convert Al2O3 to metal plus CO2 from the sacrificial graphite anodes don't take well to being turned off, or even turned down very far.  My understanding is that they use a layer of frozen slag to protect the cell walls and can be damaged by letting them freeze.  Heating them up too much so that the protective layer melts is also bad.

Until one such artic cold snap comes along, then we divert that rainy day power to other regions.

And how do you deal with power lines downed by ice storms, tornadoes... or sabotage?

You really need to read Road Map to Nowhere.  The best form of energy storage is "fuel", and while Conley and Mahoney make a solid case for uranium fuel it's not the best thing for every purpose.  Regardless, the proposed fuel reliability standard proposed by the Trump administration and rejected by the FERC has just been proven sensible and even essential by last month's New England cold snap, when fuel oil stocks fell from 68% full to just 19% in barely 2 weeks.

1) For combined power and heat or for just heating, Hydrogen's efficiency is 100%.

When heat pumps can hit 350% you're at a serious disadvantage.  That's really your problem; direct use of electricity is by far the most efficient, but far too costly to build out for peak demand.  Meanwhile, the capacity that's cheap to leave idle against peak need is quite inefficient.

Engineer-Poet
We as a nation need to install 1TW of new clean power to replace our dependence on non renewables, and to lower our emissions. Wind, and solar would be a blight at that level.

US transportation demand comes to about 180 GW of electric power equivalent (ignoring improved efficiencies at the point of use), so the net average demand for electric plus electrified transport probably comes to about 600-650 GW.  The problem is that this average may be hard to average.  If you can't move weekday peaks to nights and weekends things are far more difficult, because capital costs in general track peak capacity.

If we bring something like this online, and several large Nukes, like 10, to prop up our grids, and provide a safe reliable means of electricy, with abundance.

10 large nukes?  Try 600 AP1000s, or more than 10,000 NuScales.  That's what it would take.

Seriously, if you can't even do the math to understand the scale of this problem you should bow out of the discussion.  You need to have a clue before you can contribute anything.

Imagine if we sold cheap electricity, 100% of the time, and contracted out our surplus to industry with conditions to curtail use as demand rose.

This is one of the things you refuse to understand.  Industry cannot do that and meet payroll and capital payments on facilities.  You can't have people praying for the weather to be favorable so they'll get a paycheck.

CheeseEater88

This probably goes most against my core values, but building out a large, government backed power plant with 20 year bonds wouldn't seem irrational.


Installed cost is around $2500 per kw/hr on the name plate. A stupid large geothermal plant with a name plate of 100,000Mw at $250,000,000,000 would take potentially 8-16years to pay back based on electrical rates. Assuming they can get $0.05/KwH If its $0.04/kwh then its verging on 11-31 years. Lower at $0.03/kwh would put it at 16years - never paying back.


This is based on the governments data. cost of 2,500/kw, maintenance cost of $0.01-0.03/kwh and 90% capacity factor.

This is green power, it also has reasonable payback periods. This plant could probably operate for >50 years. So payback, and expansion would be possible.


You will likely never get approval for 600 nukes anywhere in the US, if you're lucky you might be able to build out 50. Its not popular. Towns and people would likely not want them in the backyard.

I'll let you in on a secret. If you want Republicans to build out Nukes or geothermal. Make it an issue of energy independence/ national security. The Left will likely fight you on Nukes, its not a popular or understood power type, that and recent human memory of Japan, Russia, the USA, North Korea and every significant nuclear disaster or test that has ever made the news.


We need to see our development of said power plants as a investment in our country. Investments that could easily pay back.

I believe this would be a better use of money than wind our solar subsidies.

Cost of coal is high, cost of natural gas is high, and nuclear is up there. This could lower our carbon output, and possibly make our power cheaper.

Engineer-Poet
Installed cost is around $2500 per kw/hr on the name plate. A stupid large geothermal plant with a name plate of 100,000Mw at $250,000,000,000 would take potentially 8-16years to pay back based on electrical rates.

At 100 GW you are talking roughly 22% of the average electric generation of the entire country.  This will require a massive capital investment in transmission lines.  HVDC is the cheapest over long distances, but you're still talking about $400k/mile for a 2 GW connection.  Moving 100 GW requires 50 such connections, or $20 million per mile plus converter stations at $250 million per endpoint ($25 billion total)..  But the real killer is going to be finding rights-of-way, which will be fought tooth and nail.  NOBODY wants a line in their back yard, and lines going thousands of miles have to pass through lots of back yards.

This is based on the governments data. cost of 2,500/kw, maintenance cost of $0.01-0.03/kwh and 90% capacity factor.

You can buy a nuclear power station from KEPCO for $2500/kW and put it wherever you want.  You just have to be like the UAE and not have the NRC meddling with everything.

This is green power, it also has reasonable payback periods.

I sympathize with your desire to cool off the Yellowstone magma chamber and forestall a supervolcano eruption, but nobody has managed such a feat yet.  Water is "the universal solvent" and will deposit scale on pipes which will (a) have to be controlled or removed, and (b) is certain to contain radionuclides like radium which willl have to be handled as radioactive waste (this is a problem in the oil industry also).  I'm afraid there is no free lunch.

You will likely never get approval for 600 nukes anywhere in the US, if you're lucky you might be able to build out 50. Its not popular.

They're very popular with their immediate neighbors.  Besides, 50 sites with 12 GW apiece would just about do it.

If you want Republicans to build out Nukes or geothermal. Make it an issue of energy independence/ national security.

Congress is in the pocket of the gas industry (which is the oil industry) and Big Gas wants nuclear and coal out of the way so it can jack up prices.  The current flood of oil from fracking the best deposits won't last (depletion rates on those wells are sky-high) so the industry is buying their way into a monopoly position while it can.  Congress is paid off and won't stop them.

The comments to this entry are closed.