Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
How much combined cycle natgas plant has been built recently, and how much planned? What's the capital outlay picture on this, compared to other sources? Is it as cheap to build as gas-fired peaker plant?

Wikipedia seems to have faith in gas:

Combined cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The turbines used in Combined Cycle Plants are commonly fuelled with natural gas , which is found in abundant reserves on every continent.[citation needed] Natural gas is becoming the fuel of choice for private investors and consumers because it is more versatile than coal or oil and can be used in 90% of energy applications.

Heh.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Mar 19th, 2011 at 12:44:08 PM EST
was in the 90s:

(that's for the US)

In Europe, there's been a constant flow of new plants, with 5-10GW installed per year, and a peak last year:



Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Mar 19th, 2011 at 01:18:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I wasn't very clear. If natgas proponents want to replace nukes, they can't do it by rolling out just peaker plants. They need plant that can do baseload.

Is there a significant difference in capital costs between gasfired baseload and gasfired peaker? How much of the increase in gasfired that we see above is peaker?

In other words, how capable is natgas of replacing nuclear, and at what capital cost? And what are (more detailed) current trends in gasfired construction?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Mar 20th, 2011 at 04:34:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the capital costs are not that different, and the costs quoted in studies like the ExxonMobil one are costs for baseload plants - ie the lowest possible for a gas-fored plant. Even if capital costs are low, it's still cheaper to allocate them on more kWh...

Gas is capable of providing full baseload, and even these plants have quite a bit of flexibility. In Europe, quite a few baseload plants have been built.

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Mar 20th, 2011 at 05:55:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
OK, so there's not much anti-gas argument to be got from that.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Mar 20th, 2011 at 06:31:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
baseload plants need a reliable supply of gas - long term, permanent
peaker plants produce more expensive electricity

Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Mar 20th, 2011 at 07:08:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes. But I was wondering if capital costs for baseload gas might be significantly higher, thus making it a less attractive proposition for quick-buck investors.

That not being the case, there are the other arguments you cite, concerning fuel supply. Baseload needs reliable, stable, long-term supply, which may not be easy to get in the volumes needed. Peaker picks up the going market price (unless too high for a profit margin to be made), which makes it expensive.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Mar 20th, 2011 at 07:19:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Given the low capital cost of the wind turbine upstream in the combined cycle plant, I wonder whether the design envelope lines up for the second stage to be the primary power recovery from a thermal solar system.

That seems like a strategy to reduce capital cost to be recovered from the thermal solar plant while stretching  natural gas supplies in the event that the "lets pretend that the conventional natural gas supplies are not dwindling nor in politically volatile regions" strategy does not pan out as the natural gas enthusiasts hope.

Indeed, if the capital cost of the gas turbine stage can be recuperated during the transitional period, it could be replaced by some more renewable thermal power source ~ biogas, biocoal, etc.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Mar 19th, 2011 at 05:06:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series