Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The future of energy generation and storage

Jump to new
sptrawler said:
Victoria is going on about shutting down Loy Yang, then you look at the deployment of solar farms in Victoria and it all becomes confusing.
Click to expand...
Overall it's all happening too slowly meanwhile existing generation is wearing out.

That's the basic problem and it's not helped by "missing links" in the chain and various enthusiasts, perhaps well intentioned, who overstate what's being achieved and thus lead the public into thinking all's well.

As a case in point, and this has a lot of relevance to those solar farms in Victoria, is transmission development and the opposition to a new major line from the north to the south. The following map will highlight the situation.

Yellow = 500kV
Orange = 330kV
Blue = 220kV
Brown = 66kV

Pink = 275kV to / from SA
Light orange = 400kV DC to / from Tasmania
Red in NSW = 132kV

Note the building symbols on the map are major substations not necessarily power stations (eg many are supplying load).

1709140840563.png


Noting that the transmission in the north is already heavily utilised for hydro generation, that's what it was built for, and that includes both the Snowy scheme, with transmission on the 330kV lines, and the various AGL owned stations connected at 220kV.

On this map the symbols are generation only:

1709141225561.png


The 220 and 330kV lines were primarily built to connect hydro generation as well as supply to regional Victoria with the additional benefit that their construction brought about the interconnection of Victoria and NSW since 1959. That's the reason for the route of those lines crossing lakes and so on, it was simply to run past all the hydro sites.

So there just isn't a huge amount of spare capacity up there to be adding generation to. A bit of spare, since transmission did allow for future development of some hydro in the area that has never been built, but not a lot.

Hence the idea to build major new transmission north - south in Victoria but suffice to say there's plenty of opposition to it.

Separate to that, one of the 500kV lines west of Melbourne back in service and has been since Sunday evening. It's been put back up on temporary towers - not ideal but it returns one of the two damaged lines it to service until permanent rebuilding can be done. It's a temporary fix but will do for now. :2twocents
 
One of the things that pisses me off about the requirements of the power supply/retail companies is that during the night, when we use barely 0.3kw per hour, our battery system while adequately supplying our needs, is being drawn down by power cor as a feed in tariff.
There are days when we end up with 5 or 6% battery left in the morning because the they take out about twice the amount expected .
The whole point of getting the battery was to provide us with a seamless backup system in case of grid failure.
if the power companies are sucking out of the batteries during the night, it kinda reduces our bakup capacity.
Mick
 
mullokintyre said:
One of the things that pisses me off about the requirements of the power supply/retail companies is that during the night, when we use barely 0.3kw per hour, our battery system while adequately supplying our needs, is being drawn down by power cor as a feed in tariff.
There are days when we end up with 5 or 6% battery left in the morning because the they take out about twice the amount expected .
The whole point of getting the battery was to provide us with a seamless backup system in case of grid failure.
if the power companies are sucking out of the batteries during the night, it kinda reduces our bakup capacity.
Mick
Click to expand...
Can people opt out of the feed in tariff system and prevent the use of their battery by the power corps?
 
mullokintyre said:
One of the things that pisses me off about the requirements of the power supply/retail companies is that during the night, when we use barely 0.3kw per hour, our battery system while adequately supplying our needs, is being drawn down by power cor as a feed in tariff.
There are days when we end up with 5 or 6% battery left in the morning because the they take out about twice the amount expected .
The whole point of getting the battery was to provide us with a seamless backup system in case of grid failure.
if the power companies are sucking out of the batteries during the night, it kinda reduces our bakup capacity.
Mick
Click to expand...
That is a big stumbling block with the BEV V2G in the U.K apparently, the uptake has been dismal, or it was last time I read about it.
Here is a later article on the issue:
switchedon.reneweconomy.com.au

First vehicle-to-grid tariff in the UK will save drivers $1,640 per year

Australia is still developing rules & regs for bidirectional charging, but the UK is pushing ahead with new tariffs that will unlock massive amounts of battery storage in EVs.
switchedon.reneweconomy.com.au switchedon.reneweconomy.com.au
From the article:
Octopus Energy, partly owned by Australia’s Origin Energy, has launched the UK’s first vehicle-to-grid tariff, offering free charging for EVs if the customer allows the energy provider to utilise their vehicle’s battery to export electricity back to the grid during peak demand hours.

The company says the new smart tariff will save EV owners more than £850 ($A1640) a year in charging costs.

To qualify for the tariff, customers must have their EV plugged into the grid for 170+ hours each month (about 6 hours per day) and stay below the annual usage limit of 333kWh per month, which Octopus says represents about 12,000 miles (19,000 km) of annual driving.

For reference the average Australian passenger vehicle drives just 11,100km per year.

Octopus says its smart tariff platform, Kraken uses advanced data and machine learning to enable the new vehicle-to-grid tariff. The company says the platform has been licensed to support over 50 million accounts worldwide, including Origin Energy, which recently increased its holding in Octopus to 23%.

The new V2G tariff marks a milestone in the transition to clean technology and could be the key to unlocking massive amounts of battery storage, enabling a further acceleration away from fossil fuels.

It may also be coming to Australia, in time, with Origin already trialling different EV charging tariffs that have been successful in pushing demand to the midday sun, or low demand periods overnight.

‍
One of the main concerns with vehicle-to-grid in the past was that the additional charging cycles could accelerate battery degradation which aside from reducing EV lifespan also plays into negative misinformation campaigns around EVs, a potential reason why many EV makers have so far been reluctant to provide the hardware in their vehicles.

However, with the recent rapid improvements in EV battery lifespan and with smart V2G tariff platforms now reaching commercialisation, we may be about to see the technology convergence that enables a mass uptake of V2G.

A 2018 Model S recently clocked over 650,000 km with the same battery and CATL now provides 800,000 km warranties on its EV batteries. Last year Gotion High-Tech announced it would begin production of a battery with a lifespan of 2 million km which represents 130 years worth of average Australian driving.

What this means is that battery longevity is now at a point where EV batteries can absolutely be utilised for vehicle-to-grid applications without worrying about battery degradation.

And with most modern EV batteries now 50 kWh or more (roughly 4 times the capacity of a 13.5 kWh Tesla Powerwall), there is an enormous opportunity to unlock a massive energy storage resource in the form of millions of EV batteries, the utilisation of which would be a complete game changer for renewables rollout and grid stability.

Sturmberg thinks that V2G has the potential to provide a lot more financial benefit than free charging to EV owners.

“Our research shows that the potential income from V2G will in many cases far exceed the cost of EV charging, meaning drivers ought to receive more than just free charging.”

He also believes EV owners should be incentivised to keep their vehicles connected as much as possible.

“For the grid – and thereby for the reliability and affordability of all Australian’s electricity supply – the most important aspect of EV usage is that EVs are plugged in to chargers (or a regular power outlet) as often as possible,” he says.

“This provides the greatest flexibility in their charging, to reduce the cost of electricity generation as well as, critically, the costs of network maintenance and emissions. This requires a shift in drivers’ behaviours, to habitually plug in their EVs whenever parked.”

Sturmberg says he wants to see innovation and trials of tariffs that provide incentives for every minute that EVs are plugged in and available for managed (‘smart’) charging and says this has the potential to be very effective even before including V2G.

On the impacts of V2G to EV battery life Stumberg thinks provided systems are well managed, there’s no need for concerns around battery degradation.

“The impact of V2G (and driving) on batteries is primarily determined by the state of charge of the battery and the rate at which power is injected or drawn out of the battery,” says Sturmberg.

“Well managed V2G, that keeps the state of charge of vehicles within batteries’ comfort zone (generally 30-80%), will have a very modest impact – and in some studies has been shown to improve battery health compared to unmanaged charging by reducing the amount of time that batteries are at a very high state of charge.”
 
Here is a further article, for those interested in the development of V2G technology and the challenges it presents.

switchedon.reneweconomy.com.au

EVs are one step closer to becoming roaming grid batteries in the US

A new vehicle-to-grid (V2G) standard in the US could make it much easier for EVs to share data and power — and save money for drivers and utilities.
switchedon.reneweconomy.com.au switchedon.reneweconomy.com.au
From the article:
University of Delaware professor Willett Kempton is a pioneer of vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology. In fact, he and his team of EV researchers at the university have been turning electric vehicles into grid batteries since 2007, when they kicked off a first-of-a-kind experiment that’s since been replicated in V2G projects around the world.

But Kempton is well aware of the technology and policy gaps that are holding V2G back from mainstream adoption. That’s why he’s spent years working with colleagues and students on updates to a technology standard that he hopes will make mass-market V2G a realistic option for automakers, utilities and drivers alike.

The standard is called SAE J3068, and last month, automotive standards organization SAE International formally adopted key new V2G capabilities for it. Kempton calls them a “practical, low-cost and implementable” way to turn every EV into a roaming grid battery.

Now he’s hoping that automakers will quickly build these new capabilities into their EVs and that utilities will invest in the communications and control systems they’ll need to work with them. If the technology takes off, it could help millions of EV owners use their spare battery power to earn extra money — and provide what experts say would be a significant boost to an increasingly stressed power grid.

The big challenge, Kempton said, is providing utilities with all of the data points they need in order to feel comfortable receiving power from EVs. “When something’s pushing power onto the grid, they want to know what that is,” Kempton said. “They don’t want to be like, ‘We’re 95 percent sure which car it is.’”
To understand why V2G hasn’t taken off yet, it’s important to consider all the things that utilities need to know will happen for an EV battery to safely and seamlessly send power back to the grid. At present, the charging technologies in use in EVs and charging stations just aren’t set up to provide and manage that information, Kempton said.

V2G is particularly complicated when it’s the EV itself, rather than the charging station it’s plugged into, that needs to communicate with the utility. And that’s likely to be the most common arrangement. That’s because Level 1 and Level 2 chargers — the kinds of chargers that people use at home, at workplaces or in longer “dwell-time” locations like shopping mall parking garages — are the lowest-cost and most abundant chargers, but their alternating-current (AC) charging systems are not equipped to send utilities the data they need for V2G.

In contrast, direct-current fast-charging systems — the kind meant to top off EV batteries as fast as possible — contain inverters, devices that convert AC grid power to direct current. These inverters manage the interplay of the grid with the charger and vehicle. But with Level 1 and Level 2 charging, “the inverter is in your car,” Kempton said.

In essence, that makes every V2G-capable EV “a roaming inverter” — and it’s more complicated for utilities to certify an inverter to push power onto their grids when it moves from place to place, compared to one that’s permanently connected to the same point of the grid.

At present, the SAE technology standard used for Level 1 and Level 2 charging, J1772, is simply not capable of telling utilities everything they need to know, he said. The current standard “can say three or four things,” including whether it’s “connected to a charging station” and whether it’s “ready to charge.” It can also limit how much power an EV draws from the charging station.

“That’s the whole repertoire of signals,” he said. “That’s great if you want to plug in and charge — but not for much else.”

By contrast, EVs that comply with the newly adopted standard would be equipped with “about 200 signals,” he said. What’s more, instead of using the simple analog communications system used in the previous iteration, the new standard adopts technology that uses digital communications that can be carried via an existing wire in the power charging cord itself or via wireless signals.
 
I posted this in the RFX thread, but it is probably just as relevant in this thread,

The QLD government have given RFX 1.5 mill to investigate the possibility of creating large scale versions of its gen3 Z-cell batteries to be used in storage locations.
But probably more importantly, part of the deal is looking at making these batteries here in OZ.
Part of the press release sent to shareholders.
The Queensland Critical Minerals and Battery Technology Fund has allocated to Redflow up to $1.12m for the development and construction of a large-scale zinc-bromine flow battery prototype and a feasibility study for the establishment of a large-scale zinc bromine flow battery manufacturing facility in Queensland .
Redflow Limited (ASX: RFX), a global leader in clean energy storage, announced today that they have been awarded funding from the Queensland Critical Minerals and Battery Technology Fund (QCMBTF). The QCMBTF was created by the Queensland Government to support businesses to assist in economic growth in Queensland, create Queensland based jobs, support private sector investment, and manufacture advanced battery technologies in the state.
The QCMBTF is a $100m facility to support businesses investing in critical minerals and battery supply chain in Queensland. The fund provides two streams of financial assistance:
• grant funding for eligible projects; and
• government equity and/or debt investment up to $30 million for growth-stage businesses looking to scale-up activity. Redflow applied for grant funding in late 2023 to examine the potential to establish a large scale battery manufacturing facility in Queensland to support local and global demand and was successful in being awarded up to $1.12m under the QCMBTF.
The total cost of the project is expected to be around $3.2 million, of which up to $1.12 million will be reimbursed by the grant funding, subject to meeting milestones.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
It's a long way from having a battery manufacturing facility here, but it's a start.
 
This is a creative way to ensure competition amongst energy suppliers as well as diversifying our energy networks.
I wonder if the power companies will allow people to cherry pick their tariff offers ?

Turn on or drop out: new rules could give energy consumers more power on the home front​

Allowing people to use multiple electricity providers could unleash the potential of EVs, solar panels and even hot water systems to feed back into the grid
Peter Hannam
Thu 29 Feb 2024 01.00 AEDTLast modified on Thu 29 Feb 2024 10.19 AEDT

Got an electric car, solar panels or even a pool pump? In the near future, you will be able to sign different deals for key appliances so that you can be paid for turning them off or even supplying power back to the grid at peak times.
At least that’s the vision under draft rules aimed at changing how power companies and consumers interact.

The new draft electricity and retail rules, released on Thursday by the Australian Energy Market Commission for public feedback, are aimed at opening the way for households and businesses to sign up services for different power uses.. Competition would be expected to drive down power prices and foster innovation although more consumer protections would need to be in place before multiple suppliers could be tapped.
The proposed rule change would unleash the potential for households with solar panels, batteries, EVs and other loads that can be used flexibly such as hot-water systems to capture the benefits these assets offer the grid, said commission chair Anna Collyer.

www.theguardian.com

Turn on or drop out: new rules could give energy consumers more power on the home front

Allowing people to use multiple electricity providers could unleash the potential of EVs, solar panels and even hot water systems to feed back into the grid
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
The previous post should be considered along side this analysis. Essentially an EV could return many thousands of dollars a year to the owner if also used as an energy supply. It could offer particular value to fleet car owners.

Comments

Australian EVs could earn $12,000 in a single year with vehicle-to-grid tech​

nissan-1-800x534.jpg
Ballycroft winery V2G connection utilising Nissan Leaf. Image: Nissan

A new report from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) has found that a fleet of EVs used to supply Frequency Control Ancillary Services (FCAS) to the National Energy Market (NEM) could generate revenue of up to $12,000 per vehicle in a single year.

The staggering findings are outlined in a new report Insights from the Realising Electric Vehicle-to-Grid Services Project, that looked at the charging habits of EV drivers, the probable bidding capacity, and the potential business case for fleet operators to bid into FCAS markets using V2G.

The trial looked at some of the impediments to V2G technology and how new systems, such as operating envelopes, could help accommodate high local demands when overall network capacity allows;

It also looked at how a business case could be developed in the context of fleet operators accelerating the electrification of their fleet; and quantified the potential economic value and the user experience of V2G technology.

thedriven.io

Australian EVs could earn $12,000 in a single year with vehicle-to-grid tech

ARENA study on vehicle-to-grid technology reveals some astonishing financial benefits that could rapidly accelerate the rollout of the technology.
thedriven.io thedriven.io
 
mullokintyre said:
I posted this in the RFX thread, but it is probably just as relevant in this thread,

The QLD government have given RFX 1.5 mill to investigate the possibility of creating large scale versions of its gen3 Z-cell batteries to be used in storage locations.
But probably more importantly, part of the deal is looking at making these batteries here in OZ.
Part of the press release sent to shareholders.

It's a long way from having a battery manufacturing facility here, but it's a start.
Click to expand...
One small step in the right direction IMO.
But at least it is a step.
 
basilio said:
This is a creative way to ensure competition amongst energy suppliers as well as diversifying our energy networks.
I wonder if the power companies will allow people to cherry pick their tariff offers ?

Turn on or drop out: new rules could give energy consumers more power on the home front​

Allowing people to use multiple electricity providers could unleash the potential of EVs, solar panels and even hot water systems to feed back into the grid
Peter Hannam
Thu 29 Feb 2024 01.00 AEDTLast modified on Thu 29 Feb 2024 10.19 AEDT

Got an electric car, solar panels or even a pool pump? In the near future, you will be able to sign different deals for key appliances so that you can be paid for turning them off or even supplying power back to the grid at peak times.
At least that’s the vision under draft rules aimed at changing how power companies and consumers interact.

The new draft electricity and retail rules, released on Thursday by the Australian Energy Market Commission for public feedback, are aimed at opening the way for households and businesses to sign up services for different power uses.. Competition would be expected to drive down power prices and foster innovation although more consumer protections would need to be in place before multiple suppliers could be tapped.
The proposed rule change would unleash the potential for households with solar panels, batteries, EVs and other loads that can be used flexibly such as hot-water systems to capture the benefits these assets offer the grid, said commission chair Anna Collyer.

www.theguardian.com

Turn on or drop out: new rules could give energy consumers more power on the home front

Allowing people to use multiple electricity providers could unleash the potential of EVs, solar panels and even hot water systems to feed back into the grid
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

I think that there is a danger of the system becoming so complex that it would be beyond the comprehension of the average consumer.

There may be great deals out there but you would need to be a lawyer or a elco insider to understand and take advantage of them.
 
SirRumpole said:
Yes and the other side has to come up with some costed plans for nuclear instead of waving their own wand around.

Meanwhile , in the US, a leading SMR project has been cancelled.

www.theguardian.com

Small modular nuclear reactor that was hailed by Coalition as future cancelled due to rising costs

Opposition climate and energy spokesperson had pointed to SMRs as a solution to Australia’s energy needs, but experts raise questions over price tag
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

Ferret said:
Small nuclear reactors have been used for decades in naval ships and submarines.

Why is it so hard to develop an SMR for land-based civilian use?
Click to expand...

sptrawler said:
The two main issues facing SMR's are, licensing and efficiency.
There are huge amounts of safety and legislative issues with getting licensing permission.

Also they are having a lot of problems with getting reasonable thermal efficiency at the SMR size up to 300MW, with the military that isn't a problem, when you are trying to make money it is.
Nuclear is expensive to build but reasonably cheap to run, if they can't get the thermal efficiency up, they can't compete.

As IFocus says gas is the easiest and most practical way forward, even if they debate nuclear, they will still find gas is the way to go.
However as smurf has mentioned, there isn't a huge amount of that and it is still a fossil fuel creating emmissions, so there will always be a changing landscape on the energy mix IMO.
Click to expand...
I have been thinking on this issue recently, mainly because I worked in power generation my whole career and I don't think my answer was informative enough.
One thing this thread has done is try and give informative information, to those who are interested, @Smurf1976 has always gone above and beyond and I'm sure many members are grateful for his effort.
So I thought it is probably only right that I make an effort, ignore if already bored. 🤣

Right the basics of a steam power station, 100% pure water is pumped into a boiler which is basically a big box with tubes running up all sides and a huge fire ball happening in the centre of the furnace.
These wall tubes are all connected to a long cylindrical pipe at the top, because as the water reaches boiling point the steams rises to the top point where it is seperated off.

That long cylinder say 1m diameter is called the 'Drum' and it runs the full width at the top of the boiler, the Drum has to always be kept half full because the steam is drawn of the top and you don't want water getting drawn off (water through the turbine, means turbine goes to Sims metal as scrap).

Right this steam drawn off the top goes through a series of tubes called superheaters, these tubes raise the temp of the steam to about 540c which is right at the limit of safe operating temp for metal, at this point the steam is dry steam and basically a gas.
Then that steam leaves the boiler and is sent to the high pressure turbine and causes the turbine to spin.

As the steam passes through the turbine blades it cools and expands, which is changing the heat to work, the more work it does the more it cools and expands.

So another thing that should never happen in the turbine, is the steam should not cool enough that it condenses back to water, that would do a huge amount of damage as the blades are spinning at 3,000rpm. Another Sims metal moment.

So moving on the steam exhausts out of the turbine into a big tubed box below the turbine, it is called a condenser and its function is to turn the exhaust steam back to water so that it can be pumped back up to the boiler to repeat the process. They can use water filled condensers or air cooled condensers which are the huge towers that the media love to photograph all that is coming out is cooling steam.

Well that is the very early style steam generators, as time moved on they thought hang on if we can reheat the steam and re use it, we will increase the efficiency, as the work output of the turbine is the amount of heat given off through the expansion process.

So reheat boilers came about and what they did was to put more tube banks in the boiler exhaust system, so when the fire in the furnace left through the exhaust ducts it went over more tubes and added more heat.
To make this work they put another cylinder on the turbine called the intermediate pressure turbine, so now the steam leaves the drum goes through the superheater to the High pressure turbine and gives off heat as work.
It then returns to the boiler reheat tubes in the exhaust system and heat is again added, then it returns to the turbine and enters the intermediate turbine and does more work, then it exhausts from there into the low pressure turbine and then from there into the condenser, which is held at a vacuum to extract all the work out of the steam.
This advancement of reheating and reusing the steam added a huge amount to the thermal efficiency of the cycle.

Screenshot 2024-02-29 144413.jpg


Right now the point of all that, well we now move on to nuclear, which everyone seems to be an expert on but know very little about.

The nuclear power plant uses steam to drive the turbine, much as the the fossil fuel station does, the big difference is how it makes the steam.
Instead of having the fire in the furnace and the walls covered in water tubes, which collect the radiant and convected heat, it is more like a heat pump hot water system where it uses a heat transfer method.
The problem with this non direct heating of the steam it limits the heat that can be captured, they are working on trying to fit a reheat system into the circuit to gain the efficiency.
The other way is to increase the initial temperature of the steam, as work output increases as a function of the heat transfer.


Here is a block diagram of a pressurised water reactor or a boiling water reactor
Screenshot 2024-02-29 145312.jpg



the overall thermal efficiency of either PWR or BWR is set based on the practical upper temperature, TH. For light water reactors of either PWR or BWR design, the water is required to be in liquid form in the main fuel region to act both as an effective neutron moderator, for maintaining the fission reaction, and to effectively remove heat from the reactor core fuel region. The critical temperature for water is 375 oC.
Above this temperature, regardless of working pressure in the reactor, the sub-cooled liquid condition could not exist in the core fuel region. The fission process and effective heat removal would not be sustained. Therefore, the light water reactor TH is set by this fact.

The potential improvement opportunity is to increase the actual power cycle thermodynamic efficiencies of 30 to 35% for PWR/BWR power plants, to the range of 45 to 50% for modern fossil fuel power plants (Naidin 2009). The objective of this research is to determine the feasibility of capturing this thermodynamic power cycle efficiency improvement with the application of the HTGR reheat concept from a thermodynamic, heat transfer and fluid mechanics standpoint.

Now for the interesting bit, if you are still awake:
There are four generations of nuclear reactors:
Generation I
Gen I refers to the prototype and power reactors that launched civil nuclear power. This generation consists of early prototype reactors from the 1950s and 1960s, such as Shippingport (1957–1982) in Pennsylvania, Dresden-1 (1960–1978) in Illinois, and Calder Hall-1 (1956–2003) in the United Kingdom. This kind of reactor typically ran at power levels that were “proof-of-concept.” In the United States, Gen I reactors are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) pursuant to Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (10 CFR Part 50).

The only remaining commercial Gen I plant, the Wylfa Nuclear Power Station in Wales, was scheduled for closure in 2010. However, the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority announced in October 2010 that the Wylfa Nuclear Power Station will operate up to December 2012.

Generation II
Gen II systems began operation in the late 1960s and comprise the bulk of the world’s 400+ commercial PWRs and BWRs. These reactors, typically referred to as light water reactors (LWRs), use traditional active safety features involving electrical or mechanical operations that are initiated automatically and, in many cases, can be initiated by the operators of the nuclear reactors. Some engineered systems still operate passively (for example, using pressure relief valves) and function without operator control or loss of auxiliary power. Most of the Gen II plants still in operation in the West were manufactured by one of three companies: Westinghouse,3 Framatome4 (now part of AREVA5), and General Electric (GE).
Generation III

Gen III nuclear reactors are essentially Gen II reactors with evolutionary, state-of-the-art design improvements.7 These improvements are in the areas of fuel technology, thermal efficiency, modularized construction, safety systems (especially the use of passive rather than active systems), and standardized design.8 Improvements in Gen III reactor technology have aimed at a longer operational life, typically 60 years of operation, potentially to greatly exceed 60 years, prior to complete overhaul and reactor pressure vessel replacement. Confirmatory research to investigate nuclear plant aging beyond 60 years is needed to allow these reactors to operate over such extended lifetimes. Unlike Gen I and Gen II reactors, Gen III reactors are regulated by NRC regulations based on 10 CFR Part 52.9

The Westinghouse 600 MW advanced PWR (AP-600) was one of the first Gen III reactor designs. On a parallel track, GE Nuclear Energy designed the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) and obtained a design certification from the NRC. The first of these units went online in Japan in 1996. Other Gen III reactor designs include the Enhanced CANDU 6, which was developed by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL); and System 80+, a Combustion Engineering design.10

Only four Gen III reactors, all ABWRs, are in operation today. No Gen III plants are in service in the United States.

Generation III+

Gen III+ reactor designs are an evolutionary development of Gen III reactors, offering significant improvements in safety over Gen III reactor designs certified by the NRC in the 1990s. In the United States, Gen III+ designs must be certified by the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR Part 52.
Manufacturers began development of Gen III+ systems in the 1990s by building on the operating experience of the American, Japanese, and Western European LWR fleets. Perhaps the most significant improvement of Gen III+ systems over second-generation designs is the incorporation in some designs of passive safety features that do not require active controls or operator intervention but instead rely on gravity or natural convection to mitigate the impact of abnormal events. The inclusion of passive safety features, among other improvements, may help expedite the reactor certification review process and thus shorten construction schedules.14 These reactors, once on line, are expected to achieve higher fuel burnup than their evolutionary predecessors (thus reducing fuel consumption and waste production). More than two dozen Gen III+ reactors based on five technologies are planned for the United States (Table 2 lists applications and their status as of November 2010).
Generation 1V:

The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) was initiated by the US Department of Energy in 2000 and formally chartered in mid-2001. It is an international collective representing governments of 13 countries where nuclear energy is significant now and also seen as vital for the future. Most are committed to joint development of the next generation of nuclear technology. The original charter members of GIF are Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, South Korea, South Africa, the UK and the USA. They have been joined by Switzerland, China, Russia, Australia and, through the Euratom research and training programme, the European Union. The purpose of GIF is to share R&D rather than build reactors.
Most of the countries are party to the 2005 Framework Agreement, which formally commits them to participate in the development of one or more Generation IV systems selected by GIF for further R&D. Argentina, Australia and Brazil did not sign the Framework Agreement, and the UK withdrew from it.
Most of the six systems employ a closed fuel cycle to maximise the resource base and minimise high-level wastes to be sent to a repository. Three of the six are fast neutron reactors and one can be built as a fast reactor, one is described as epithermal, and only two operate with slow neutrons like today's plants. See also information page on Fast Neutron Reactors.
Only one is cooled by light water, two are helium-cooled and the others have lead-bismuth, sodium or fluoride salt coolant. The latter three operate at low pressure, with significant safety advantage. The last has the uranium fuel dissolved in the circulating coolant. Temperatures range from 510°C to 1000°C, compared with less than 330°C for today's light water reactors, and this means that four of them can be used for thermochemical hydrogen production. See also information page on Hydrogen Production and Uses.

The sizes range from 150 to 1500 MWe (or equivalent thermal), with the lead-cooled one optionally available as a 50-150 MWe 'battery' with long core life (15-20 years without refuelling) as replaceable cassette or entire reactor module. This is designed for distributed generation or desalination.

At least four of the systems have significant operating experience already in most respects of their design, which provides a good basis for further R&D and is likely to mean that they can be in commercial operation before 2030.


www.foronuclear.org

The world's first Generation IV nuclear power plant starts its commercial operation in China - Foro Nuclear

China's Shidao Bay-1 nuclear power plant has achieved commercial operation, marking the world's first Generation IV plant, according to China’s National Energy Administration.
www.foronuclear.org www.foronuclear.org

en.wikipedia.org

Steam turbine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Well there is a bit of a quick summary, it isn't meant to be a thesis it is just a roughed out write up of my understanding, so people can read up more on everything if they are so inclined.;)
 
Last edited:
I should have added for @finicky s info, the small modular reactors used in the ships and subs are Gen2 reactors, hence why I said they aren't very efficient, but that doesn't bother the military fuel economy and military equipment are mutualy exclusive. Lol

They are working to increase the steam temp on the smr's and reduce the waste, I don't think there is much information given out about the progress, my guess is China will crack it and everyone will have to buy off them, as usual. Lol
 
For those who've wondered what this all looks like from the inside:

It's an official company video so it's corporate propaganda to an extent but not hugely so, they've focused on how it works technically.

Note this is located in Canada.

 
Last edited:
sptrawler said:
Like I said, I agree with you, but when I look at the state of play regarding deployment in areas like W.A and Victoria, the rhetoric doesn't seem to align with the reality.
Victoria is going on about shutting down Loy Yang, then you look at the deployment of solar farms in Victoria and it all becomes confusing.


These in W.A have been in for quite a long time, so new large capacity solar in the SWIS doesn't seem to be ramping up as quickly as I would expect.
Click to expand...
Its not just Victoria and WA.
NSW seems to be failing as well,
From ABC News
1709246859742.png


1709246896111.png

1709246977851.png

Mick
 
mullokintyre said:
Its not just Victoria and WA.
NSW seems to be failing as well,
From ABC News
View attachment 171894

View attachment 171895
View attachment 171896
Mick
Click to expand...
Yes I think this is what concerns people, these days the general public is much better informed than previous generations, due mainly to the internet and access to information.

That's why I think there is a lot scepticism in renewables, the public are just more aware IMO and it is starting to show in polls where the younger generation aren't as anti nuclear as the older generation, the older generation tends to think with a backward looking perspective not a forward looking one.

I mentioned very early in the debate, that nuclear firming which alternated between firming the renewables and producing hydrogen when it isn't required for firming, is the obvious long term option IMO.

I still believe that will be the case, but that doesn't preclude getting the maximum out of renewables, that can logically be achieved.
Interesting times, hopefully the politicians can stop bitch slapping each other and work toward a sensible compromise.
Way too many political parties are operated like a cult, where everyone has to sing off the same song sheet, it stifles creativity and lateral thinking as can be seen even in this forum.

If my church says nuclear is the only way forward, the whole team and support base has to agree, the same goes for the the church that says renewables are the only way forward, in reality the only way forward is a compromise that works successfully and that is usually a mixture of everything.

For example, here is a great read for those who want to think outside the box, it kind of leads on from my earlier post about power generation.
The article is worth a read as it has a lot of links, but I have taken a couple of snips out of it, the article is just an overview of the concept.
As I said earlier many people especially old people think nuclear is standing still while all other technologies are moving on.
Well it isn't, people need to understand that and stop being recalcitrant, as Paul would would say.
People need to start and think what is better for Australia, rather than sing from the team song sheet, written by the team spin doctors. :2twocents

From the article:
There are dozens of hydrogen production methods and techniques from many sources such as fossil fuels, renewable energy sources and nuclear energy in the literature. Thermo-chemical methods are more efficient at higher temperatures to produce large quantities of hydrogen. In this study, a comparative overview of Generation VI nuclear reactor types for major hydrogen production methods have been researched in the literature and suggestions have been carried out.

This research work is addressing that both electric power cycle and hydrogen production based on nuclear technologies need to be developed. Generation IV nuclear reactors can provide hydrogen for a worldwide hydrogen economy. Both thermo-chemical and electrolysis (hybrid) processes in hydrogen production have a promising future, especially when integrated with Generation IV nuclear power plants. Efficient heat transfer is required for both high temperature thermodynamic cycles and the high temperature steam electrolysis. Hence, highly efficient heat exchanger designs are one of the key technologies for that purpose.

Only renewables and nuclear hydrogen production are reliably zero-carbon. Plans for increased hydrogen production are essentially based on electrolysis using electricity from intermittent renewable or interminable nuclear sources and direct use of heat from nuclear energy, using a thermochemical process enabled by high-temperature reactors. Both nuclear and renewable energies can be used together as the future demand will be basically zero carbon hydrogen [1]. Therefore, with the intermittent nature of renewable energies, R&D studies of a form of “load replacement” will also be of great importance to facilitate the work of making compatible nuclear power plants on the grid [2].

In conventional reactors, the constraint on the moderator and cooler temperatures reduces the reactor's energy efficiency, resulting in the unavailability of most of the energy obtained. About 2/3 of the nuclear energy will be lost as waste heat and is released to the environment. In order to use the nuclear fuel reserves more efficiently, it is necessary to increase the coolant temperature of the reactor. For higher energy efficiency six reactor types are being investigated and developed.

As I said a few years ago, IMO the obvious answer is huge solar wind farms in and around suitable locations, and a few of the next generation nuclear power plants for firming.
When they are not required for the grid their output is used to drive electrolysers and make hydrogen they can also make hydrogen through the thermal waste heat.
When they are required to firm up the renewables, the electrolysers are backed off and the output supplies the load, while still being able to making hydrogen from waste heat.
Obviously the process isn't there yet, but to not even discuss it and poopah it on the basis of using Gen 2 reactor knowledge, is just plain dumb and we will end up worse off for it IMO.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

System
SS1 - Sun Silver
2
Replies
23
Views
5K
Sean K
Sean K
Dona Ferentes
PGTX - Platinum Global Transition Fund
Replies
1
Views
527
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
System
ASK - Abacus Storage King
Replies
15
Views
3K
finicky
finicky
System
D3E - D3 Energy
Replies
2
Views
1K
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
ducati916
August DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
18K
ducati916
ducati916
Top