Posted on 06/02/2016 10:25:43 AM PDT by DUMBGRUNT
But its chief problem today, says Exelon, is that it can't be price competitive with other forms of electricity generation. The Clinton plant, Exelon says, has lost more than $453 million over the last six years, primarily because its costs to operate are greater than other power plants in the Midcontinent Independent System Operators region, which includes a lot of low-cost natural gas, wind and coal-fired power plants.
(Excerpt) Read more at news-gazette.com ...
It's a Clinton thing.
I thought nukes were cheaper ?!?
No Nuke Engineer here, but it doesn’t sound right to me. Tempted to call BS on this one.
I used to live within sight of the Byron, IL nuke plant. When we moved to WI, rates went up.
I think you’re on to something. Nuclear power is more expensive than Wind ? Wind generators are playing “Hide the Sausage” with their numbers then.
Coal and NG are no-brainers. Even on long term analysis, Nuclear power brings BIG problems to the table with disposal.
For some France does not have the same problems?
Yes, France!
Now this is a western Iowa thing. There are all sorts of windmills in Iowa, Iowa gets the highest percentage of its power from wind. The problem is, there is no transmission to get it out of Western Iowa to higher population areas like Chicago. They are attempting to build a large transmission line across Iowa, but it is running into the usual environmental issues.
Wind is generally right at about 2 cents per KWH. That coal plant I mentioned can't be profitable when the market rate is below about 2.5 cents, and the nuke plant in Omaha had costs of around 4 cents I think.
Believe it or not (and I have the links to the wholesale electric costs), frequently overnights, the wholesale costs of electric in western Iowa go negative, meaning producers have to pay people to take the electric off their hands.
Google and Facebook have built huge server facilities in Iowa because of this. They demand huge amounts of electric, and it is super cheap here (or at least they can negotiate their rates, consumers still pay rates much above 2 cents per KWH.)
Of course, the farmers are happy to rent out their land for windmills, and the enviromentals haven't got too freaked out about the "ugliness" of them, or the bird kills. So Iowa has lots of windmills.
Nice area, and summer fun at the drag strip!
When you factor in de-commissioning cost, natural gas prices, and subsidies to wind and solar you can understand the costs. Also keeping aging nuke plants certified and licensed is a major factor in p/kw costs.
Wind generators are heavily subsidized. IIRC they’re profitable without selling power.
When the purchase of wind power is mandated and is subsidized, it is difficult to compete.
i thought the nuke proponents said nuclear power would be ‘too cheap to meter’
Fracking has changed many things in this business, along with combined cycle technology which allows natgas to convert 50% of its energy to electric power. That is high. Efficient coal is in the 30s, nukes are in the 30s as well.
Nuke plants require hoards of highly paid people to keep them licensed and safe. A combined cycle plant probably has 5-10 persons per shift.
Low natgas prices sealed the deal.
Biggest risk: no fuel stored at the plant site.
What’s the topping cycle - Brayton?Frank Whittle initially used a centrifugal compressor and a centrifugal turbine to extract power from the gas. This design has problems for aircraft propulsion from which the axial-flow design does not suffer, but the centrifugal turbine has the advantage that the portion of the rotor which is subjected to the highest temperature is not subjected to the highest stress. In consequence, there still exists a flyable Whittle-powered jet which was built during WWII - whereas the Me-262 engines reportedly were used up after 30 hours of flight time.
Is the centrifugal gas turbine design still viable for stationary applications, notwithstanding the decisive advantage axial-flow designs enjoy in the huge aircraft propulsion market?
Adding in district heating and absorption cooling, and still most of the heat produced is unused.
Without the temperature differential, the turbines just won’t spin.
They have to send the surplus heat somewhere.
NYC is the last of the big district heating systems in the US.
My first power plant start up was any early combined cycle in 1977. The gas turbines (oversized jet engines)are GE rated at 60 MW each, which exhaust at 900 DEGF. This makes for some reasonably dry steam.
The advantage is that the blades of the gas turbine can withstand temperatures far hotter than steel boiler tubes starting the heat extraction delta from a gas flame temperature down to river water temperature.
Cicero, also called "Co-Gen" units if I am not mistaken. Back in the day when I was studying this stuff their was a plant in the State of MA that claimed 59% Thermal Efficiency, a bit off the mark, or is that obtainable? I was under the assumption 60% Thermal Efficiency was obtainable....
Co-gen is when you have a steam host. Combined cycle is the brayton and rankine cycles. The brayton cycle is about 35% effecient and the rankine cycle takes that to around 60% using the waste heat through the HRSG (Heat Recovery Steam Generator).
Ah, thanks. Gas Turbine spins the generator and then a boiler gets a 2nd pass at spinning the generator.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.