Power plants - cost of keeping them running

[atferrari]

For years I have been wondering what is, in different power plants, the relationship between the fuel you spend to keep it running ready for the consumers and the actual power consumption.

While I do not expect this to be explained here, what to google for?

Wondering what would be more expensive: the cost of keeping a portable Honda generator running continuously to feed my home with a minimal ammount of appliances, a power plant in a small city of maybe 100K people or the power plant(s) for a megacity?

I am used to the concept used in passenger vessels where in case of an emergency you shutdown non-essential services to avoid a general black out but here is the oposite; to cope with a somewhat unpredictible demand, you keep running a certain number of turbines or whatever, just in case.

Maybe all boils down to statistics and practical rules of thumb.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

As with most machines, the larger it is the more efficient it is - running a portable generator would be VERY expensive, and a VERY poor use of what fossil fuels we have left, not to mention FAR worse for the environment.

To cope with sudden demands you can use stored power stations, such as Dinorwig

https://www.electricmountain.co.uk/

 

[atferrari]

As with most machines, the larger it is the more efficient it is - running a portable generator would be VERY expensive, and a VERY poor use of what fossil fuels we have left, not to mention FAR worse for the environment.

To cope with sudden demands you can use stored power stations, such as Dinorwig

https://www.electricmountain.co.uk/

Wow! 16 seconds to cope with demand!

Gracias Nigel.

 

[killivolt]

I couldn't get that link to work for me?

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Wow! 16 seconds to cope with demand!

It's a VERY impressive place

They do tours round it, you drive in on a coach.

 

[alec_t]

Hi Nigel. Did the tour a few years ago. As you say, very impressive. And it doesn't intrude much on the scenic surroundings.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Hi Nigel. Did the tour a few years ago. As you say, very impressive. And it doesn't intrude much on the scenic surroundings.

I also visited CAT, and also the nuclear power plant that was been decommissioned - quite strange walking on top of a nuclear reactor

Plenty to do in North Wales!.

 

[alec_t]

Yup, done those too. For those not in the know, the nuclear place is Trawsfynydd and CAT is the 'Centre for Alternative Technology'.

 

[KeepItSimpleStupid]

at:

Each "fuel" has a purpose and demand and consumption are regulated.

And to some extend "demand side management" is in effect. Business utility rates are often tied to peak consumption. The utility, if you signed up, can turn of your air conditioner.

So let's look at a few fuels:
Nuclear: Bulk of the producers
Hydro: The bulk of the producers in some areas.

They are hard to throttle.

Wind: You pretty much have to grab the power when it's available.

Fossil fuel: Easy and fast to throttle.

Fuel cell: Not sure. Our state is allowed to use fuel cells for "renewable energy" primarily because it's "greener"

Solar electric: The cool part is that it's producing when the air conditioning is needed.

Inverter based technology (e.g. Solar): It can be used to locally regulate the power factor.

This is a good read: **broken link removed**
and this **broken link removed** one.

 

[Reloadron]

For years I have been wondering what is, in different power plants, the relationship between the fuel you spend to keep it running ready for the consumers and the actual power consumption.

While I do not expect this to be explained here, what to google for?

Wondering what would be more expensive: the cost of keeping a portable Honda generator running continuously to feed my home with a minimal ammount of appliances, a power plant in a small city of maybe 100K people or the power plant(s) for a megacity?

I am used to the concept used in passenger vessels where in case of an emergency you shutdown non-essential services to avoid a general black out but here is the oposite; to cope with a somewhat unpredictible demand, you keep running a certain number of turbines or whatever, just in case.

Maybe all boils down to statistics and practical rules of thumb.

While I can't speak for the entire planet earth I can speak for my modest location. I can't make electricity for less cost than I buy it for. Absolutely no way. Years ago, must be about 10 years ago we did major home renovations and I replaced my small 4,000 watt gasoline powered emergency generator with a much larger fully automatic generator. Here is what it looked like when I installed it.

The unit is a 20 KW power plant when run on propane and 18 KW running on Natural Gas. **broken link removed**. Now if you look at the data sheets for units like this they spell out the fuel consumption so it becomes easy to calculate in the cost of power. Then you figure in the cost of annual maintenance. I still have the gasoline powered 4 KW unit and the cost is much higher burning gasoline over natural gas.

Here in the US we still have a large number of coal fired power plants and many are shutting down because they can't meet the emission standards being set forth by the US government. Anyway, while this generator is great during a grid failure there is no way I can make my own electricity cheaper than I can buy it.

Ron

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Anyway, while this generator is great during a grid failure there is no way I can make my own electricity cheaper than I can buy it.

I would never have suspected you could

Power plants are something that improve efficiency the larger you make them, your small 'power plant' is far less efficient than a multi-megawatt one.

Obviously where it CAN be generated cheaper is if you have a suitable continuous source of running water to generate hydro-electric power, when it's free apart from install and servicing costs.

Interestingly I delivered a washing machine to a house the other year (the address was 'Mill Farm Close' - so there was a clue in the name), and they had a small turbine fed from the water that fed the original mill, shared with their neighbour as the water feed came in dead on the dividing line between the two. It was only 3 or 4KW, but it was cheap to install and made appreciable savings on their energy bills. Apparently it wasn't worth selling any surplus back to the power company, so unused energy was send to electric heaters (presumably storage ones?) upstairs in the two houses.

 

[Reloadron]

I would never have suspected you could

Power plants are something that improve efficiency the larger you make them, your small 'power plant' is far less efficient than a multi-megawatt one.

Obviously where it CAN be generated cheaper is if you have a suitable continuous source of running water to generate hydro-electric power, when it's free apart from install and servicing costs.

Interestingly I delivered a washing machine to a house the other year (the address was 'Mill Farm Close' - so there was a clue in the name), and they had a small turbine fed from the water that fed the original mill, shared with their neighbour as the water feed came in dead on the dividing line between the two. It was only 3 or 4KW, but it was cheap to install and made appreciable savings on their energy bills. Apparently it wasn't worth selling any surplus back to the power company, so unused energy was send to electric heaters (presumably storage ones?) upstairs in the two houses.

That's the key to it all. What I need is a river in my back yard. Then I could fuel my generator and make hydro-electric.

On a typical day this house ran fine on the 4 KW portable unit. That includes all the essentials and a few luxuries. One main concern was heat during the winters. Our heat is natural gas but you need electric for the forced air so no electric means no heat. I really hate cold. The 4 KW unit would not support the central air conditioning during the summers but I survived my younger life without air conditioning. Last major power outage was about 5 days. I was able to easily support my neighbors off the current unit. Lighting and their freezers so they wouldn't have food spoil.

Anyway, yeah, I need a river.

Ron

 

[Reloadron]

On another note, here is a breakdown of the US power generation:

In 2012, the United States generated about 4,054 billion kilowatthours of electricity. About 68% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 37% attributed from coal.

Energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation in 2012 were:

• Coal 37%
• Natural Gas 30%
• Nuclear 19%
• Hydropower 7%
• Other Renewable 5%
  • Biomass 1.42%
  • Geothermal 0.41%
  • Solar 0.11%
  • Wind 3.46%
• Petroleum 1%
• Other Gases < 1%

We can see how dependent the US is on coal and natural gas.

Ron

 

[cowboybob]

It's a mystery to me how many people are on the "kill fossil fuels" bandwagon and want to tax, divest funding or otherwise destroy that industry but have NO plans whatsoever or know of any reasonable method for replacing them, in a timely manner, with whatever could possibly be used to generate an equivalent amount of electricity or fuel our transportation system(s).

 

[Reloadron]

It's a mystery to me how many people are on the "kill fossil fuels" bandwagon and want to tax, divest funding or otherwise destroy that industry but have NO plans whatsoever or know of any reasonable method for replacing them, in a timely manner, with whatever could possibly be used to generate an equivalent amount of electricity or fuel our transportation system(s).

Currently a very hot button topic in Ohio. Several years ago our state legislature passed a law where the power companies serving Ohio would be providing 25% energy from renewable sources. Please direct your attention to the numbers for the US I posted earlier. They would also reduce consumer demand by 20%. All of this by 2025. Now it stands to reason looking at the US today this is an unrealistic and unreasonable goal. None of those responsible for this will be in office in 2025 nor do any of them have a clue what is involved or what it cost to produce electricity. Currently First Energy (a key power producer) has asked for at least a 2 year freeze and moratorium.

Currently I pay 6.13 cents per KWH. While "Green Energy" and "Renewable Energy" are lovely sounding and nice buzz words I wonder what my cost per KWH would be if this unattainable goal remains in place? Wind and Solar look good on paper but trying to get Ohio's power generation at 25% renewable is impossible let alone financially practical. This is what happens when people with no understanding of energy (career politicians) make legislation to govern energy.

Ron