Gas Turbine Power Plant - Low Cost and Renewable Friendly

Subtitle: CCGT at One-tenth That of Nuclear

A few weeks ago, Siemens AG announced the award of an $800-plus million turnkey contract to supply a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) power plant to produce 940 MW for Lordstown, Ohio.   The new power plant is to have a 2-1 configuration, with two gas

Aerial view of a CCGT near Houston, TX
with 2 gas turbines (upper right) and 1 steam turbine
Dedicated cooling tower is at lower left

turbines supplying heat to a heat recovery steam generator that provides steam to a steam turbine.  Each gas turbine and the steam turbine have their own generators.  From the news release (see link):

"Siemens will deliver a complete power plant solution for the (Lordstown) facility, which will feature the record-breaking H-class (gas turbine) technology designed for fast, flexible operation to support renewable integration. The scope of supply includes two gas turbines, one steam turbine and three generators. Slated for operation in summer 2018..."

A bit of math shows that the plant's capital cost is approximately $900 per kW, which is less than one-tenth that of a new nuclear power plant (those costing upwards of $10,000 per kW).   The construction time is also a bit more than two years, which compares more than favorably to a nuclear power plant that typically requires ten years or more.    This power plant is essentially the same size as a new nuclear power plant, with 940 MWe compared to a Westinghouse AP-1000 of 1100 MWe.  


And importantly, the CCGT plant will achieve a bit more than 60 percent thermal efficiency.  The heat rate (LHV) is 5690 Btu/kWh.  

Also, the plant will have design and control system features to provide load-following so that renewable energy systems can be more easily integrated into the grid.    In the Ohio-Pennsylvania region, the renewable energy is mostly wind-turbines. 

The plant is located between Cleveland, Ohio and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania near the states' border.  The local grid is the PJM, a major grid on the US East Coast.  PJM has wind-turbine resources that can produce in excess of 5,000 MW.  see link to PJM website.

This is exactly as predicted on SLB. (see link)  This is the future of Midwest and East Coast generation, as coal power plants are retired, nuclear power plants are retired, and CCGT with wind-turbines are installed.  

UPDATE:  The installation of CCGT for power production is nothing new; that is not the point of this article.  Such plants have been built for decades, including the one in the photo above, which was built in 1980 in a chemical plant near Houston, Texas.  The pictured CCGT actually has a much higher thermal efficiency of more than 80 percent because the steam to the chemical plant is provided from the steam turbine.    

This article is primarily a reference to show to the nay-sayers (and they are legion) that modern CCGT plants are being ordered and built, they cost less than $1000 per kW, they do have 60 percent or higher efficiency, and they are specifically designed to complement the variable output of wind-turbines.  

One minor point was corrected in this update: the CCGT for Lordstown's construction period is a bit more than 2 years, not a bit less.  --- end Update. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyrignt © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

The Truth About Nuclear Power - Part Seven

Subtitle: All Nuclear Grid Will Sell Less Power

In an all-nuclear-powered grid, self-generation systems become much more attractive because the grid prices go up very high.  Part Two in this series on nuclear power showed that power prices with an all-nuclear-grid will increase by 5 to 8 times their current rates.   The reason for discussing an all-nuclear grid is the oft-made statement that the entire world must shift, someday, to nuclear power because fossil fuels will eventually run out.  This series on nuclear power is, in part, a response to those who believe nuclear power is the best option forward.  Nuclear is probably the worst of all options for the long term.  Future articles in this series will discuss viable alternatives for future power generation, alternatives that do not include nuclear power.  

However, if such an all-nuclear-grid were to be built, and when prices escalate dramatically as they will, power customers can then afford to self-generate because doing so will be much cheaper than purchasing power from the grid.  They can afford to install solar or wind power, even with storage; time-shifting usage systems such as make ice at night, or hot water depending on the season on off-peak power; cogeneration or tri-generation systems that burn natural gas and make electricity, ice water for cooling, and hot water for domestic use; install new items or retrofit buildings and houses to be much more energy efficient such as insulation, triple glazed windows, seal air leaks, heat recovery heat exchangers for hot water leaving the house.  Businesses can also afford expensive conservation measures: insulation, more efficient motors, modern equipment of more efficient designs, time-shifting power consumption.  Industry can then install much more self-generation or cogeneration to remove load from the grid as was done along the US Gulf Coast in the 1970s and 80s.   

Cogeneration, or combined heat and power (CHP), has grown dramatically in the US since

CHP Capacity Growth in US
source: DOE

1983.  See photo at right.   Total installed capacity has grown from about 25,000 MW to more than 90,000 MW today.  The rapid increase in electricity prices stimulated that growth, as nuclear power plants came on-line.   If and when an all-nuclear-grid is built, much more CHP will be installed.  In some circles, removing load from the grid by self-generation is known by the clever name of “nega-watts.” 

Currently in the US, a new twin-reactor nuclear power plant is under construction in Georgia at the Vogtle power plant.  This will be an opportunity for customers in that area to produce nega-watts and generate a portion or all of their power for themselves.   The southeast states do not have substantial wind onshore, so wind generation is probably not an option. However, off-shore wind along the coast is fairly good.  Wind from that resource can certainly beat the power prices from an all-nuclear grid. Also, the frequent cloud cover and rain make solar power generation unfeasible.  However, small generators powered by natural gas are certainly an attractive option.   For commercial or industrial operations, burning bio-mass from the forest product industries will be even more attractive than it is today. 

Removing load from the grid by self-generation, or by alternative generation from off-shore windturbines, will create a serious problem for the utility that builds nuclear power.   Ideally, for customers, but problematically for the utility, such self-generation would occur at night and be stored in storage systems for use the next day.   Removing load from the grid at night will reduce the baseload, and force the nuclear power plants to reduce rates or stop generating.  Stopping a nuclear power plant is not what utility operators want to do.    The interesting consequence of reducing power output from a nuclear plant is the plant’s owners receive less money, yet their fixed costs from building the plant must be paid.  Their only alternative is to seek a rate increase from their public utility commission.  This further increases prices to customers, which gives them more incentive to install CHP.

As stated just above, rapid growth in CHP occurred after 1983.  This was primarily accomplished by industrial users who built gas-fired cogeneration systems to produce power and steam for their industries.   I had a hand in building just such a plant (see photo) at my

CCGT Plant in LaPorte, TX
Cooling tower at the bottom left
Turbine Building at upper right

employer at that time, Diamond Shamrock Corporation, at their chlorine-caustic plant in LaPorte, Texas, near Houston.   This plant is still in operation, although it has a different owner now.  The plant suffered a few price increases for electric power in the late 1970s, and determined that it was attractive to build our own combined-cycle gas turbine plant, or CCGT.   The CCGT plant has two gas turbine-generators, each of which feeds the exhaust gas into a separate heat recovery steam generator, HRSG.  Steam from the HRSGs is let into a steam turbine that drives a third generator.   The steam turbine has steam extraction for supplying the chlorine plant, so the existing boilers were shut down.  Exhaust steam from the turbine is condensed in a condenser, which is cooled by a new cooling tower. 

In contrast to the 1980s, today there are more alternatives for self-generation or CHP.  As mentioned above, wind and solar are commercially available.  Also, for commercial and small home-use, gas-powered generation systems with heat recovery for hot water are available. 

Conclusion

Customers will very likely never pay the preposterous power prices that would result from an all-nuclear-grid.  Instead, they will install and operate various forms of CHP, or cogeneration plants and remove all or a part of their demand from the grid.   The all-nuclear-grid will sell less power.  The utility will see its revenues shrink, and be left with an installed asset base with little way of producing revenue to pay for it. 

Update: 4/6/2014, Germany also is installing CHP in response to their increased power prices.  see link   (end update)

Update: 8/21/2014, Goldman Sachs installed a water freezing system in their huge skyscraper in Wall Street.  This avoids purchasing power the next day for running air conditioning.  see link  (end update) 

Previous articles in The Truth About Nuclear Power series can be found at the following links.

Part One – Nuclear Power Plants Cannot Compete

Part Two – Preposterous Power Pricing if Nuclear Power Proponents Prevail

Part Three – Nuclear Power Plants Cost Far Too Much to Construct

Part Four – Nuclear Power Plants Use Far More Fresh Water

Part Five – Cannot Simply Turn Off a Nuclear Power Plant

Part Six --  Nuclear Plants are Huge to Reduce Costs

Part Seven – this article

Part Eight – No Benefits from Smaller Modular Nuclear Plants

Part Nine -- Nuclear Plants Require Long Construction Schedules

Part Ten - Nuclear Plants Require Costly Upgrades After 20 to 30 Years

Part Eleven - Following France in Nuclear Is Not The Way To Go

Part Twelve - Nuclear Plants Cannot Provide Cheap Power on Small Islands
Part Thirteen - Nuclear Plants Are Heavily Subsidized
Part Fourteen - A Few More Reasons Nuclear Cannot Compete
Part Fifteen - Nuclear Safety Compromised by Bending the Rules
Part Sixteen - Near Misses on Meltdowns Occur Every 3 Weeks
Part Seventeen - Storing Spent Fuel is Hazardous for Short or Long Term
Part Eighteen - Reprocessing Spent Fuel Is Not Safe

Part Nineteen - Nuclear Radiation Injures People and Other Living Things
Part Twenty - Chernobyl Meltdown and Explosion
Part Twenty One - Three Mile Island Unit 2 Meltdown 1979
Part Twenty Two - Fukushima The Disaster That Could Not Happen
Part Twenty Three - San Onofre Shutdown Saga
Part Twenty Four - St. Lucie Ominous Tube Wear

Part Twenty Five - Price-Anderson Act Protects Nuclear Plants Too Much

Part Twenty Six - Evacuation Plans Required at Nuclear Plants

Part Twenty Seven - Power From Nuclear Fusion
Part Twenty Eight - Thorium MSR No Better Than Uranium Process
Part Twenty Nine - High Temperature Gas Reactor Still A Dream
Part Thirty - Conclusion

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

The Truth About Nuclear Power - Part Four

Subtitle: Nuclear plants use far more fresh water than other power plants

Nuclear power plants, as currently designed and built, consume prodigious amounts of water for cooling.  Compared to combined-cycle gas turbine plants (CCGT), nuclear plants use 4 times as much water for the same output of electricity.   Some plants use cooling towers, and others use once-through cooling where the water is pumped through the plant once, then sent off usually into a lake, river, or ocean.   

South Texas Nuclear Plant with Cooling Reservoir
source: Texas Water Development Board

For this article, the example of the South Texas Nuclear Project is used.  This power plant is a twin-reactor, pressurized water reactor design built near the mouth of the Colorado River in Texas, USA.  The photo nearby shows the location, just north of the small town of Matagorda, on the Gulf of Mexico.  The plant is roughly 50 miles northeast of Corpus Christi, and 100 miles southwest of Houston.   The photo shows the nuclear power plant in the middle foreground, the 7,000 acre cooling reservoir at center, and the Gulf of Mexico at the top.  The Colorado River can be seen, barely, at the left center. 

The plant, known as STNP, is designed to use approximately 50,000 acre-feet (AF) of river water per year for cooling.  The reservoir receives water pumped from the nearby Colorado River, plus any rain that happens to fall.  Rainfall is important in this case, as it averages 30 inches per year over the long term.  Recently the rainfall has been much less due to a prolonged drought.  However, in an average year, the rainfall provides approximately 17,000 AF per year for the plant.   That then, requires the river to provide 50,000 - 17,000 = 33,000 AF per year.  

The water requirements for various types of power plants are shown below, in AF/yr/1000 MW of electrical output.  These are based on the design where hot water that is discharged from the plant evaporates in the cooling reservoir to lose its heat.  

1.  Nuclear power.........................20,300 AF/y/1000 MW
2.  Gas powered steam plant......12,700
3.  CCGT plant................................5,070

From this, it can be seen that nuclear power requires 4 times as much water (20,300 / 5,070 = 4) compared to a modern CCGT plant.  In areas where fresh water is scarce, this is an important consideration when selecting power plant technology.  

Lake Travis and Mansfield Dam, TX
source: LCRA

For the STNP, the Colorado River water is impounded far upstream by Mansfield Dam and held in Lake Travis, a 1.1 million AF reservoir north of Austin, Texas.  Lake Travis is near historic low levels as this is written (March, 2014) due to an extended drought.  The lack of water could cause the STNP output to be reduced. 

For some perspective, had a CCGT design been used along with the 7,000 acre reservoir, the plant would be more than self-sufficient in water needs.   In fact, a much smaller reservoir could have been constructed, approximately one-third the surface area.  

Conclusion:   Nuclear power plants consume 4 time as much water for cooling compared to a modern CCGT power plant.  

Previous installments in The Truth About Nuclear Power can be found below:

Part One - Nuclear Power Plants Cannot Compete
Part Two - Preposterous Power Pricing if Nuclear Power Proponents Prevail
Part Three - Nuclear Power Plants Cost Far Too Much to Construct
Part Four  -  This article
Part Five - Cannot Simply Turn Off a Nuclear Power Plant
Part Six –  Nuclear Plants are Huge to Reduce Costs

Part Seven -- All Nuclear Grid Will Sell Less Power

Part Eight – No Benefits from Smaller Modular Nuclear Plants

Part Nine -- Nuclear Plants Require Long Construction Schedules

Part Ten - Nuclear Plants Require Costly Upgrades After 20 to 30 Years

Part Eleven - Following France in Nuclear Is Not The Way To Go

Part Twelve - Nuclear Plants Cannot Provide Cheap Power on Small Islands
Part Thirteen - Nuclear Plants Are Heavily Subsidized
Part Fourteen - A Few More Reasons Nuclear Cannot Compete
Part Fifteen - Nuclear Safety Compromised by Bending the Rules
Part Sixteen - Near Misses on Meltdowns Occur Every 3 Weeks
Part Seventeen - Storing Spent Fuel is Hazardous for Short or Long Term

Part Eighteen - Reprocessing Spent Fuel Is Not Safe

Part Nineteen - Nuclear Radiation Injures People and Other Living Things
Part Twenty - Chernobyl Meltdown and Explosion
Part Twenty One - Three Mile Island Unit 2 Meltdown 1979
Part Twenty Two - Fukushima The Disaster That Could Not Happen
Part Twenty Three - San Onofre Shutdown Saga
Part Twenty Four - St. Lucie Ominous Tube Wear

Part Twenty Five - Price-Anderson Act Protects Nuclear Plants Too Much

Part Twenty Six - Evacuation Plans Required at Nuclear Plants

Part Twenty Seven - Power From Nuclear Fusion
Part Twenty Eight - Thorium MSR No Better Than Uranium Process
Part Twenty Nine - High Temperature Gas Reactor Still A Dream
Part Thirty - Conclusion

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

Saudis to Build Nuclear Plants at $7 Billion Each

"[T]he kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] will build 16 nuclear reactors by 2030 at a cost of around $7 billion each." - source.


In an ever-growing list of countries that either are building, or plan to build, nuclear-powered electric power plants, none are building at an affordable cost.  The USA, Finland, China, now Saudi Arabia all publish numbers that indicate a new, 1,000 MW reactor costs anywhere from $7 to $11 billion.  China is building a six-reactor plant for $66 billion, or $11 billion apiece.   The recently-cancelled South Texas Nuclear Project Expansion in the USA was to cost $17 billion, but that was just a dream; no shovel had been turned and no delays had yet started, with the inevitable increase in financing costs.  Fully costed, the STNP expansion would be at least $22 billion, more likely $25 billion.  


At these price levels, electricity must be sold for at least 35 cents per kWh, just to pay for the investment and provide a reasonable return.  


The Saudis indicated that their growing economy requires a 7 percent per year increase in electric power production.  They don't want to burn oil for making power, they would rather sell the oil.  Thus, the need for nuclear power plants.  The Saudis are smart, as I've written before, but they are mistaken on this one.  No economy grows, nor can it grow, at much above 3 percent per year for very long.  A temporary growth spurt might occur of 7 or 8 percent for a year or two, but this is not sustainable.  


Thus, there is no need for the nuclear power plants. The Saudis should, instead, do what the rest of the world does where economics are important: build combined-cycle gas turbine power plants (CCGT).  The Saudis have access to natural gas in the Middle East, and could easily purchase what they don't self-produce.  These CCGT power plants are much more efficient than conventional steam-based power plants, at 59 percent compared to approximately 35 percent.  They also do not use nearly as much water, which is a huge consideration for nuclear power plants.  Where, and how, will the Saudis obtain sufficient cooling water for 16 nuclear power plants?  Nuclear plants require at least twice as much water for cooling, compared to the CCGT plants.  Of course, the nuclear power plants could be built on the coast and use seawater.  This greatly increases the cost of the plant because seawater is more corrosive than fresh water. 


Perhaps the Saudis have another motive, from watching what the Iranians have done in the past several years with their nuclear "power" program.  Perhaps, just perhaps, the Saudis are in a race for parity and do not want the Iranians to have the upper hand, even in nuclear power plants. 


Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 
Marina del Rey, California

Nuclear Plants Delayed Again

More news this week from the dismal world of building a new nuclear power plant. As if the AREVA-designed project in Finland is not having enough troubles, now the same design is having serious problems and delays in France, at Flamanville. (on the Normandy coast near the English channel). see this link for one of several stories.

New nuclear power plants are routinely plagued by costly delays, and cost over-runs. The recent news states a two-year delay, from 2014 to 2016, and a cost over-run of 1 billion Euros (from 5 billion up to 6 billion). As always with these monstrosities, it is very likely that neither target will be met. Startup will likely be later than 2016, and the final cost much more. How much more, it is difficult to say.

In a perfect world, governments would require each nuclear power plant to be a self-contained business entity, responsible for its own profits and losses. If this were the case, the true costs of nuclear power would be transparent and available for all to see. Would the new reactor in Finland sell power for 3 cents per kWh, as so many pro-nuclear advocates insist is the true cost of nuclear power? That is very unlikely, since approximately 25 to 3o cents per kWh is required just to pay off the capital costs, and the operating costs. How about the new reactor at Flamanville? Same thing holds true.

In the USA, the South Texas Nuclear Project Expansion has been scrapped, which is a shame actually. It would have been very instructive to have that project proceed, with massive cost over-runs, and lengthy schedule delays so that the true cost of nuclear power from it would be at least 30 cents per kWh. In a world literally running over with natural gas at $4 per million Btu, and technology easily available to build efficient Combined Cycle Gas Turbine power plants that produce almost 60 units of electrical power for each unit of natural gas input, 30 cents per kWh puts nuclear power plants out of the running.

Still, there are a couple of other candidates for demonstrating the nuttiness of new nuclear power plants in the USA, in particular the Vogtle proposed plant. Perhaps it will be the new poster-boy for why the USA cannot afford any more nuclear power plants, and inflict high utility bills on the good customers in the South.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.