Hybrid power plant

Posted by David Roberts at 2:33 PM on 16 Apr 2007

Read more about: energy | hybrids | solar voltaic power

I guess as a blogger in good standing I should have some kind of instant opinion on this, but I don't:

California approves the first "hybrid power plant" -- 90% natural gas, 10% solar.

So why did Inland Energy decide to make solar a relatively small part of its plant rather than the main power producer? Reliability, says Barnett. "We really didn't like that idea because we wanted the ability to provide a baseload plant."

What do y'all think?

Update [2007-4-16 14:41:36 by David Roberts]: Oh, wait, now I remember the proper environmental line: given the coming peak in natural gas production, it's stupid to burn it to create electricity. We should be preserving it for heating purposes. Right?

For story: Hybrid power plant
18 Comments | Post a Comment

Well

They article doesn't supply detail, but the smart way to build a system like this would be to use the solar troughs to pre-heat the working fluid, before sending it to the gas boiler. Since heat transfer is a function of temperature differential, you'll get more useful heating from the solar concentrator -- which probably has a lower working temp than the natural gas fire -- by starting with a cool fluid.

The 50MW solar figure is no doubt a peak output rating for an average day. But it will get higher than that, on some days. So the plant may be able to produce more than 10% of its power from solar energy, when all is said and done. And perhaps once they get comfortable with the solar system, they'll expand it. Gods know they have the solar resource.

Another way of looking at this is to think of it as a solar peaker plant: output goes up (or gas consumption goes down) on hot sunny days, when you need it most.

And I'd rather they build natural gas infrastructure than oil or coal. Oil is peaking, and coal is evil. Natural gas is peaking domestically, but you can produce a pretty decent substitute from anaerobic digestion of various wastes.

by GreenEngineer at 3:14 PM on 16 Apr 2007

True,

heating a home with a 95% efficient gas furnace is a much more efficient use of the natural gas than using it to turn a turbine at something like 30%-40%. Displacing oil heaters also releases less CO2 and pollution.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 3:27 PM on 16 Apr 2007

Repowering not the best buy for solar.

That's what they once called it, displacing fuel at existing power plants with solar concentrators. I agree, a lot of info is missing, like 50 MW peak solar (or base load?), and cost numbers.

During the OPEC oil embargo, natural gas was not to be used for power production, and solar repowering was studied. The big risk here is that this natural gas power plant may shut down before the solar concentrators amortize, leaving an orphan in the desert.

The best buy for solar concentrators is natural gas displacement used for industrial process heat requirements. For a twisted example, an ethanol plant in California will use $10,000,000 per year in natural gas to make 230^o F. wet steam for cooking and distillation. Natural gas is not sustainable.

Natural gas home heating is also not sustainable. Something to think about.

by sunflower at 3:28 PM on 16 Apr 2007

Solar/Wind To Hydrogen Only Answer

If you're going to build natural gas power plants to have 24-hour coverage, you might as well subscribe to the idea of wind farms and solar used to product hydrogen -- that is then pushed through the existing grid.

by jabailo at 3:30 PM on 16 Apr 2007

Uhm

Hydrogen isn't going to happen.
It's just a bad energy carrier.

However I do agree that solar/wind with storage is the way to go.
http://electricitystorage.org/technologies.htm
http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=486

Particularly UltraCapacitors, like those from EEStor and the University of Arizona.
Since they have some amazing recharge speeds, energy density, and decades of wear and tear.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 3:42 PM on 16 Apr 2007
[ Parent ]

Well you also have to consider

Consider

Methane is 23x more potent than Carbon Dioxide as a green house gas. If it were going to escape anyways, we are better off burning it.
Biogas (Methane Produced from Natural sources) is perhaps the most sustainable form of using biomass for energy. Since it avoids the unnecisary step of turning it into a liquid (which loses a massive portion of the energy)

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/04/eu_coul ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6550000/newsid_65 ...

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 3:48 PM on 16 Apr 2007

Biomass district heating, not gas nor liquids

by sunflower at 3:58 PM on 16 Apr 2007

Not heating but fertilizers and chemicals

The pressing issue with natural gas is not use for electricity (which, ultimately, powers a lot of space heating and cooling) vs. use for heating--it's that most of our fertilizers and chemicals start with natural gas as feedstock.

Ultimately we need to avoid combusting anything fossil to the greatest extent possible--the return to the atmosphere of carbon sequestered millions of years ago is the bottom line problem, no matter whether coal or natural gas. If that's your goal, then you find non-fossil ways to do as much as possible, using fossil fuels as sparingly as possible where you can't find an adequate alternative.

That probably winds up looking like a completely electrified grid for surface transport, heavy emphasis on shipping goods by water wherever possible and rail for the rest, with very little flying (and much less overall moving stuff and people around in total), with the best hydrocarbons used to make the fertilizers and chemicals that will be needed in quantity for as long as we are in overshoot (population > carrying capacity). If we burn the natural gas (whether in turbines or combined-heat-and power plants or in home furnaces) then we're going to start getting the hydrocarbons for chemicals from coal, and then that's just another way of saying game over.

The 5% Project

by JMG at 4:34 PM on 16 Apr 2007

Lost Opportunity

We already put too many greenhouse gases into the air. Building a new plant that is not as low emission as technology allows is a wasted opportunity. It more expensive to shut down down an existing plant and replace it with a low emissions one than to just build a low emissions version in the first place. Increasing emissions more slowly is not going to cut it.

by Gar Lipow at 6:44 PM on 16 Apr 2007

Sunflower has it right

That would be the most efficient, low carbon method of all and very low tech to boot. This all seems like such a joke as our local politicians pass legislation to mandate food crop biofuel use while zero carbon cyclists dodge pot holes and cars.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 6:51 PM on 16 Apr 2007

Take heart

This all seems like such a joke as our local politicians pass legislation to mandate food crop biofuel use while zero carbon cyclists dodge pot holes and cars.

If the citizens lead, the leaders are bound to follow. And from this blog, I'm heartened that there are some real leaders about.

by gmunger at 7:00 PM on 16 Apr 2007
[ Parent ]

Peak soil and natural gas

http://www.energybulletin.net/28610.html

by sunflower at 8:46 PM on 16 Apr 2007

Or do both

Notice that in this video, they mention that you can get your methane, and then at the end of it all, have natural fertilizer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6550000/newsid_65 ...

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 6:01 AM on 17 Apr 2007

That said

Here's a good example to tell people whenever they tell you about biofuels.

Brazil is energy independant.

Brazil uses sugar cane, palm oil, and cellulosic processing. (Some of the best of the best of the best options from a performance standpoint)

Brazil still uses Oil for over 80% of their fuel.

Brazil is the second largest oil producing nation in Latin America.

Venezuela, the largest oil producing nation in Latin America, is thinking of following in their footsteps.

So why do they make ethanol?
To use it as a Fuel Additive. Not fuel.
Same as the US has been doing for decades with Ethanol and MBTE.

If they can't do Ethanol in the most favorable conditions possible, over 20 years of trying, and dramatic government subsidies.

Then that shows how slim our chances are.
From a Raw performance standpoint.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 6:35 AM on 17 Apr 2007
[ Parent ]

Now I could only speculate

But since Ethanol has to be TRUCKED whereever it wants to go.

And it's usually mixed onsite.

Then this probably means to me, the reason that Brazil made all those Flexfuel cars.

Is that it's easier to dummy-proof the cars, than it is to regulate every gas station.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 6:38 AM on 17 Apr 2007
[ Parent ]

Lastly

Another reason not to like biofuels.

Air Pollution Rules Relaxed for US Ethanol Producers

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 6:41 AM on 17 Apr 2007

Sorry

"...given the coming peak in natural gas production, it's stupid to burn it to create electricity. We should be preserving it for heating purposes."

No, natural gas ought to be used as backup fuel for renewables. In solid oxide fuel cell/turbines at 75% efficiency. With even the waste heat left over from the turbine used for heating/cooling. and the CO2 recycled through algae growing solar collectors.

All heating/cooling should be done with direct solar and geothermal heat pumps powered by renewables as backup. This allows renewable energy to be stored as heat or cold during times of peak solar and wind power availability.

Combustion as an energy source needs to end. For any use at all. Biogas and natural gas will be interchangeable under this energy scheme.

And biogas production prevents the release of huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere from manure and fertilizer runnoff boosting the nitrogen level in wetlands that store CO2 in biomass. Methane is 23 times worse as a GHG than CO2.

One clear voice.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 7:15 AM on 17 Apr 2007

Puts an interesting spin on this...

Texas passes California in installed wind capacity.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/07/texas_passes_ca.p ...

Common sense is an oxymoron...

by Engineer at 1:35 PM on 17 Apr 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.