Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Home Buyers Demand Short Commutes, Efficient Homes (with Backyards, Parking, lots of Square Feet)
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
TOD:Europe
- The 2008 IEA WEO - Fossil Fuel Ultimates and CO2 Emissions Scenarios
- The IEA WEO 2008: Will coal usage be phased out?
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“It takes as much energy to wish as it does to plan.”
—Eleanor Roosevelt
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
What I have heard about single or small groups of MW power wind powerplants is that they increase the quality of power for the neighbours connected to the same distribution line buy giving a source of reactive power and voltage stability when there is wind. When there is no wind it gets as bad as it use to be anyway.
But the grid feeding the distribution line must be solid enough to not care much about sudden additions or withdrawals of a few MW.
I do not know how different grids are run. The spinning reserves and grid in the nordic countries are built to handle a sudden loss of the largest generator, busbar or powerline, about 1200 MW. The 1600 MW EPR being built in Finland means that this has to be uprated. I have not heard anything about costs for adding more spinning reserve only new high tension lines. I guess we have unused margins in the hydro powerplants. There is a non spinning reserve in gas turbines and hydro powerplants that can be started within 15 minutes to absorb another worst case fault after 15 minutes. ( These margins do however no loger exist if it gets realy cold due to too little investments, "greens" closing two reactors and two few spare thermal powerplants since the deregulation of power production. )
These kind of margins seems to be the prudent ones to have. They should enable the use of a fair ammount of wind power before needing enlargement.
If sudden loss of all wind production occur seldom you could have as much wind power as your largets single producer or rather spinning reserve wich is your point. If if is possible to forecast for 15 minutes or longer it gets even better.
The grid bottlenecks for more wind power is over here usually in the 20-130 kV network. Its not built to handle large loads/inputs in the areas where the wind is good and few people are disturbed by the turbines. The cost for strenghetening the grid can be a large part of building a group of wind turbines and there is a debate on who should pay for it.
The economical bottleneck is roughly that they need to get half as expensive to build or electricity at least twise as expensive to buy.
EVERY well-designed grid ensures that its largest unit is less than 10% of total capacity - that's an old rule of thumb.
Systems also have to have "blackstart" units. Most power plants require major external power supplies (usually from the grid) to start or restart after a trip.
A lack of adequate numbers of blackstart plants made recovery from the last Northeast North American grid collapse much more difficult and lengthy. I hope someone is fixing that.
Here in California, the utilities maintain hydro units with some resevoir capacity that will automatically start spinning and come up to voltage when the connected grid goes dead. Then the system dispatcher can use it to bootstrap the other tripped plants. In our case, the nukes get first call to backup the diesels.
In addition, one can design the plant for what's called "net load rejection" where the output breakers to the grid can open but the plant keeps running supplying its own "hotel loads" so that it can immediately be reconnected to the grid. However, this is a difficult trick and doesn't always work. It's really difficult for a nuke!
But when the percentage of wind power becomes so large that you need more spinning reserve you need to build a MW of reserve for each MW of wind power and keep is spinning wich is very bad for the economy. You can work around this if you have large loads that can be shed quickly like hydrogen production or heating of houses with a large thermal mass.
Nuclear net load rejection: (I have have gotten it right, I have not worked with it. )
When the load disappears the turbine runs like a vacuum cleaner with a clogged pipe, it overspeeds due to lack of resistance to its movement. If you quickly close the steam valve to the turbine you get a preassure spike in the steam lines due to the living energy in the steams movement, as in the "thud" noice in a water pipe when you quickly close av faucet. You have to close the valve and get rid of the steam so you dump it directly to the condenser thru another valve. But the condenser is built to get rid of the left over heat and condence the steam to water after the turbine has taken all that it can so this is marginal for the condensers capacity. The preassure in the condencer rises and this is not good for the turbine. You quickly have to get the reactor to deliver less steam. Closing the valves helps partly since it gives a higher preassure and with a higher preassure you get less boiling and more of the energy stays in the hot water. Then you need to get the nuclear reacton from adding so much energy to the water. In a BWR you slow down the recirculation pumps that forcing water into the reactor core. This gives a smaller percentage of liquid water in the core, less moderation, neutrons dissipate out of the core and the power output goes down. Phew!
I do not know how it is done in a PWR. In a BWR the control rods are mostly used to form the active region in the core and I think it is the same with a PWR and the power output is regulated by adding a neutron absorbent to the water, boron. Inserting the control rods untill power output falls and then withdrawing them about as much must be the quickest to do. Whitehall, is this correct?
This is obviously a tricky procedure where all parts of the control system has to do the right things within fractions of a second or you get overspeed on the generator or overpreassure somewhere in the system and then an automatic shutdown, it also shuts down if you overcompensate.
There has been two large grid failures in southern Sweden since I started to learn about different kinds of engineering. During the latest the nuclear reactors had about 75% success with the net rejection.
Another problem is that you cant run the reactor on two low power our you will get an accumulation of neutron absorbing substances that hinders a power increase even if you withdraw the control rods. Then you have to shut down and wait for them to deacy naturally, you get the same need for a pause after an emergency shutdown. So a nuclear powerplant leaving the grid can not come back immediately.
You seem to have a pretty good handle on these issues!
Yes, net load rejection is a difficult transient for a big nuke. BWRs with this capacity have to have oversized condensers and integrated and anticipatory control systems on the reactor, the turbine control valves, the generator, and the turbine bypass valves.
On PWRs, they can blow off steam to the atmosphere and dump heat into the condensate system. The first time we tried this transient in a test at Diablo Canyon, when the relief valves opened, the jets of steam were so strong that the siding panels on the turbine building got sucked off and flew a mile through the air! Imagine dumping 3500 megawatts of thermal energy into the air - a million pounds/hr of high pressure steam (850 psig) - talk about loud!
For both designs, xenon buildup is accomodated with initial excess reactivity. It can be a problem if one is near the end of a fuel cycle and is in coast down mode. One may have to start a refueling outage early but this sensitivity is limited to the last month or so of an 18 month fuel cycle.
As to the success rate, it's definitely not 100%.
One can have lots of wind on a grid - you just have to pay for it in spinning reserve, grid remote controls, and transmission line upgrades. Above a few percent, it is definitely has declining marginal utility.
I got what I concider technical general knowledge and since most things are built with the same physical building blocks its only to piece together the puzzle och perhaps put togheter an new one with the pieces on hand. I can bet you a beer on being able to describe the overall function of more then 50% of any random system in a powerplant. But I might need a dictionary to do it in english.
Understanding a process, its components and how everything is interrelated is the easy part. The hard part is to describe it in math and then optimise it.
A PWR can have as large a condenser as a BWR but why build it if you can dump non radioactive steam to the atmosphere? Its not acceptable for a BWR since there is no heat exchanger between the reactor core and the turbine island. (I dident think about that option for PWR:s, this is not a throughly overworked texts. )
Perhaps you can tell med why PWR:s dont have a steam condensing pool?
BWR:s have steam dump pools where steam from an insulation vale closure of the get blown thru overpreassure alves into a pool of cold water inside the containment where it condenses. (I write this to keep it intresting for the general reader. Did you get my email? )
As far as I know PWR:s have a larger containment withouth such a pool and dump the steam inside the containment. The containments preassure can then be lowered by pumping sump water from the bottom of the containment thru sprinklers in the roof. The size of the containmnet is probably due to the need to have the heat exchangers, that is steam generators inside it and to be able to lift components for service.
Do this automatically give enough volume to make blowdown into a pool unneceserry? It seems like it would be a nice passive system to keep the preassure buildup down and give less wear on installations inside the containment.
A BWR has a much larger volume of water within the vessel so the added complexity of a "suppression chamber" is worthwhile and much cheaper than a pressure containment. That allows the flashing steam bubble through an internal pond of water and condense.
Note that these are separate from the steam condenser under the main turbine which is part of the power production cycle. We can make use of it for safety issues like net load rejection.