I was just talking about Boundary Dam yesterday. The fishing there is excellent as the 'waste heat' from the power plant prevents a hard freeze of the lake in winter
It's a very good point that arguing for affordable nuclear is a lot bigger deal than against wind and solar. If a high renewables grid is 50% cheaper or 50% lower carbon with some expensive nuclear icing on it, it's not much of an accomplishment
The Sask Energy utility owning the same Boundary Dam site projects net zero electricity alone to be 170% more expensive, including BWRX-300 nuclear SMRs. Should cost nuclear is the only serious option
2 bcm/year is roughly 70 bcf. Which is significantly less than 1 day’s worth of US natural gas production. If natural gas consumption falls (like in these scenarios), we should have at least some infrastructure that might be able to be repurposed?
Pressure. Gas production is measured at std conditions, about 1 bar at which point the gas density is about 0.8 kg/m3. The cubic meters of CO2 is at pipeline pressure of over 140 bar
at which point the CO2 density is about 800 kg/m3. Shouldn't we ban English units from polite conversation?
The components of the Net Power gas plant have been demonstrated at small scale. They use oxycombustion of gas to produce a concentrated CO2 stream instead of a post-combustion scrubber. They claim to have nearly zero plant emissions and attractive economics.
In my opinion, the scariest risk for a nuclear energy company is fusion. Maybe their physics problems get solved faster than fission's regulations get rationalized? There's billions of dollars deployed to solve their physics as quickly as possible - and lots of players working on approaches that maybe have easier paths to commercialization.
Pls see the The trouble with Fusion piece. Fusion unlike fission is not self-supporting. Even if you somehow solve all the daunting technical problems, you must feed most of the electricity that you produce back into the process. That will not be cheap.
I probably should have mentioned the Allam cycle. It is an interesting project with real substance. But given the CAPEX disadvantage I just dont see how it will ever be able to compete with a gas turbine for peaking. Even if I'm wrong, that solves only the collection problem. We still have to put gargantuan amount s of CO2 somewhere.
90% CCS at coal plants captures well less than 70% of emissions. The mining, transportation, and storage of coal also have emissions. The most important might be methane leaks from the coal. Gas plants have similar upstream gas leak problems. Using them primarily as peakers might increase the leak rates, as the large leaky gas infrastructure leaks the same amount but delivers fewer bcf per year. Using either fuel in a net zero scenario means taking a perspective on gas leak rates.
However, I do have some experience in the design of amine systems for SO2 and I believe the CO2 systems are very similar. The systems should be easier to operate on a gas plant, lower CO2 concentrations in the off-gas are not a major issue, it is just a matter of sizing the equipment correctly.
The off-gas from a gas plant is cleaner than a coal plant (fewer particulates). It will mean less fouling of equipment, which has been a problem at Boundary Dam, and less deterioration of the amine. It should work better with gas than coal.
Fascinating substack- just discovered and will keep me occupied for long! I don't understand one thing(being a chemist)- why only "one scheme" of CCS is considered as practical and it is the one (or one category) that is very hard to implement and scale. Capturing CO2, purifying to some degree, compression, transport and then permanent storage is concocted out of several complex, high energy steps and final storage is hard to accomplish. It is fight against thermodynamics with high tech additions. It is unnecessarily complex.
There are alternatives and one is particularly attractive IMHO- enhanced weathering of alkaline minerals. It skips the energy intense(it could even produce useful heat if done in certain way) parts of the process, and at the same time deals with "permanent storage" when CO2 is converted into quite stable mineral form. Not fighting with thermodynamics, but using it and fighting with naturally slow kinetics of reactions. Fairly reactive minerals (best example is Olivine) are being "mined", crushed to optimal size for reaction to happen in reasonable time under use condition (smaller size for low temperature zones, larger particles for hot climate) and distributed. The rest happens by the forces of thermodynamics- silicates dissolve, releasing Mg, Ca and binding CO2 reducing the acidic nature of water dissolved CO2. Prof RD Schuiling was strong promoter of the method and if keeping minimal transportation (KISS principle), using "high energy ocean" areas to facilitate grain movement it could be cheap- the only way of doing something. What am I missing(maybe there is less money to be made with it- less patents to be made, subsidy and VC funded startups opportunities)?
Weathering as CO2 storage is something I have looked at only very briefly. I think the issue is the energy required for mining and grinding the rock. You much produce that energy with a cheap, very low CO2 source to come out ahead and, given the CAPEX of the mining and grinding operation that energy must be 24/7. IOW, you must have cheap nuclear. (Seems like I'm preaching this line over and over.)
The same thing is true of Direct Air Capture and just about any CO2 capture scheme.
But I agree weatheringis more attractive than high pressure CO2 storage, which is not only prohibitively expensive but dangerous. Google Sartartia leak. CO2 is heavier than air. A release spreads out along the ground. We came very close to wiping out a poor, rural community. See also Lake Nyos. 1700 people there were not so lucky.
When it comes to mining and grinding Olivine(and similar) from what I tried to figure out from literature- even using diesel gives pretty good "capture/expanded CO2" ratio. Unlike CCS with 25% energy tax on coal or gas. But sure- it should be electrified as much as possible and IMHO with cheap nuclear for good capacity factor uncoupled from weather.
What is interesting is how wide the costs per tone of CO2 capture can vary. It can be very expensive if done with "industrial facility approach" or it can be done cheaply with minimal costs of mining(close to shore), minimal grinding needed, and minimal transportation and relying on rivers, high energy disposal areas (grinding by forces of nature, power of biosphere). RD Schuiling was very optimistic about costs and I think that he was "informed optimist"- if wanting to have impact on CO2. This is one another field that suffers from "precautionary principle" thinking, similarly to NP with ALARA/LNT weaponized against progress.
I was just talking about Boundary Dam yesterday. The fishing there is excellent as the 'waste heat' from the power plant prevents a hard freeze of the lake in winter
It's a very good point that arguing for affordable nuclear is a lot bigger deal than against wind and solar. If a high renewables grid is 50% cheaper or 50% lower carbon with some expensive nuclear icing on it, it's not much of an accomplishment
The Sask Energy utility owning the same Boundary Dam site projects net zero electricity alone to be 170% more expensive, including BWRX-300 nuclear SMRs. Should cost nuclear is the only serious option
What am I doing wrong…
2 bcm/year is roughly 70 bcf. Which is significantly less than 1 day’s worth of US natural gas production. If natural gas consumption falls (like in these scenarios), we should have at least some infrastructure that might be able to be repurposed?
Mitchell,
Pressure. Gas production is measured at std conditions, about 1 bar at which point the gas density is about 0.8 kg/m3. The cubic meters of CO2 is at pipeline pressure of over 140 bar
at which point the CO2 density is about 800 kg/m3. Shouldn't we ban English units from polite conversation?
Very helpful! Thank you.
The metric unit of pressure is the Pascal, a bar is a place where you go to drink.
Touche.
The components of the Net Power gas plant have been demonstrated at small scale. They use oxycombustion of gas to produce a concentrated CO2 stream instead of a post-combustion scrubber. They claim to have nearly zero plant emissions and attractive economics.
In my opinion, the scariest risk for a nuclear energy company is fusion. Maybe their physics problems get solved faster than fission's regulations get rationalized? There's billions of dollars deployed to solve their physics as quickly as possible - and lots of players working on approaches that maybe have easier paths to commercialization.
V
Pls see the The trouble with Fusion piece. Fusion unlike fission is not self-supporting. Even if you somehow solve all the daunting technical problems, you must feed most of the electricity that you produce back into the process. That will not be cheap.
I probably should have mentioned the Allam cycle. It is an interesting project with real substance. But given the CAPEX disadvantage I just dont see how it will ever be able to compete with a gas turbine for peaking. Even if I'm wrong, that solves only the collection problem. We still have to put gargantuan amount s of CO2 somewhere.
90% CCS at coal plants captures well less than 70% of emissions. The mining, transportation, and storage of coal also have emissions. The most important might be methane leaks from the coal. Gas plants have similar upstream gas leak problems. Using them primarily as peakers might increase the leak rates, as the large leaky gas infrastructure leaks the same amount but delivers fewer bcf per year. Using either fuel in a net zero scenario means taking a perspective on gas leak rates.
I agree with most of what you have said.
However, I do have some experience in the design of amine systems for SO2 and I believe the CO2 systems are very similar. The systems should be easier to operate on a gas plant, lower CO2 concentrations in the off-gas are not a major issue, it is just a matter of sizing the equipment correctly.
The off-gas from a gas plant is cleaner than a coal plant (fewer particulates). It will mean less fouling of equipment, which has been a problem at Boundary Dam, and less deterioration of the amine. It should work better with gas than coal.
Point taken.
Fascinating substack- just discovered and will keep me occupied for long! I don't understand one thing(being a chemist)- why only "one scheme" of CCS is considered as practical and it is the one (or one category) that is very hard to implement and scale. Capturing CO2, purifying to some degree, compression, transport and then permanent storage is concocted out of several complex, high energy steps and final storage is hard to accomplish. It is fight against thermodynamics with high tech additions. It is unnecessarily complex.
There are alternatives and one is particularly attractive IMHO- enhanced weathering of alkaline minerals. It skips the energy intense(it could even produce useful heat if done in certain way) parts of the process, and at the same time deals with "permanent storage" when CO2 is converted into quite stable mineral form. Not fighting with thermodynamics, but using it and fighting with naturally slow kinetics of reactions. Fairly reactive minerals (best example is Olivine) are being "mined", crushed to optimal size for reaction to happen in reasonable time under use condition (smaller size for low temperature zones, larger particles for hot climate) and distributed. The rest happens by the forces of thermodynamics- silicates dissolve, releasing Mg, Ca and binding CO2 reducing the acidic nature of water dissolved CO2. Prof RD Schuiling was strong promoter of the method and if keeping minimal transportation (KISS principle), using "high energy ocean" areas to facilitate grain movement it could be cheap- the only way of doing something. What am I missing(maybe there is less money to be made with it- less patents to be made, subsidy and VC funded startups opportunities)?
msxc,
Weathering as CO2 storage is something I have looked at only very briefly. I think the issue is the energy required for mining and grinding the rock. You much produce that energy with a cheap, very low CO2 source to come out ahead and, given the CAPEX of the mining and grinding operation that energy must be 24/7. IOW, you must have cheap nuclear. (Seems like I'm preaching this line over and over.)
The same thing is true of Direct Air Capture and just about any CO2 capture scheme.
But I agree weatheringis more attractive than high pressure CO2 storage, which is not only prohibitively expensive but dangerous. Google Sartartia leak. CO2 is heavier than air. A release spreads out along the ground. We came very close to wiping out a poor, rural community. See also Lake Nyos. 1700 people there were not so lucky.
When it comes to mining and grinding Olivine(and similar) from what I tried to figure out from literature- even using diesel gives pretty good "capture/expanded CO2" ratio. Unlike CCS with 25% energy tax on coal or gas. But sure- it should be electrified as much as possible and IMHO with cheap nuclear for good capacity factor uncoupled from weather.
What is interesting is how wide the costs per tone of CO2 capture can vary. It can be very expensive if done with "industrial facility approach" or it can be done cheaply with minimal costs of mining(close to shore), minimal grinding needed, and minimal transportation and relying on rivers, high energy disposal areas (grinding by forces of nature, power of biosphere). RD Schuiling was very optimistic about costs and I think that he was "informed optimist"- if wanting to have impact on CO2. This is one another field that suffers from "precautionary principle" thinking, similarly to NP with ALARA/LNT weaponized against progress.