Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
31. What does the term "operational characteristics" mean to you?
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 06:46 PM
Feb 2012

In this case it refers to the way the limitations and advantages of a power source cause it to be operated. It is a combination of technical and economic factors that define when a grid operator decides to put energy from the resource onto the grid.

Those factors for coal and nuclear are very similar. Addressing your question specifically, economically coal and nuclear both have large, up front capital costs and both require fuel, therefore both have fuel costs.
In comparison geothermal has a much smaller up front capital cost and no fuel cost at all.

The technological characteristics of these sources are shaped by economics. Coal and nuclear are most profitably built by making individual generators very large. The size of a geothermal generator is limited by the less concentrated nature of underground heat. A geothermal facility is made larger by building multiple smaller units (it is similar to hydro in this respect). What happens as a consequence is that the shafts of the generating turbines for coal and nuclear plants are very large while the shafts for geothermal and hydro plant generators are much smaller.

These "characteristics", in turn, affect how each of the energy sources are best used from the grid operators point of view. Coal and nuclear are designed to run 24/7 at a constant speed. Their large individual size has the consequence of making them poorly suited to ramping up and down quickly, or shutting down and restarting quickly.

That is why natural gas has been exploited for electrical generation. Its smaller size makes it more nimble and able to respond to the variability in demand. Since the variability we see with wind and solar presents itself operationally as the same problem we see with variable demand, the natural gas that is already in place now is sufficient to handle a much higher level of renewable penetration.

The smaller size of natural gas turbines also means that the up front capital costs are far, far lower than that of nuclear and coal, but it has traditionally had far higher fuel costs than coal and nuclear, a fact that limited its economic viability. Fracking has changed that and made NG competitive with coal and nuclear; but even with fracking, there is still a significant fuel cost relative to renewables. If fracking is severely curtailed it will, at this point in time, probably benefit renewables more than it would nuclear or coal.

Due to past high per unit manufacturing costs determined by limited deployment, the zero fuel cost advantage of renewables is only now beginning to be felt. The amount of new generation capacity installed last year is most significant in that it is a leading indicator of future price declines brought about by a growing manufacturing base.

Each resource in the renewable portfolio has its own set of characteristics. As renewable penetration increases, the needs that grid operators are meeting when they select the power source required at the moment is going to be increasingly determined by the zero-fuel cost of renewables instead of the merely low fuel costs of nuclear and coal.

That also applies to natural gas. While there is currently a glut, no one expects that to continue. As the backbone renewable manufacturing continues to ramp up, their zero fuel costs will to some degree displace all sources that have fuel costs. The degree that each specific fuel will be a loser will vary by region.

I hope this helps make the situation more clear. It will take decades but we are in the process of building a distributed grid based on the operational characteristics of renewables. This is why I reject spending money to build or extend the life of nuclear plants. The larger the percentage of renewables on the grid, the more the decision-making of grid operators is guided by the needs of renewables and the more zero-fuel cost renewables are deployed to meet those needs.


A report documenting the way nuclear (or coal if it were supported like nuclear) crowds out renewables can be downloaded here:
http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Documents/IEE/20100909_cooperStudy.pdf


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Greece would be perfect for solar energy. Lots of sun. JDPriestly Feb 2012 #1
An even better graph from the same article ... Nihil Feb 2012 #2
Nuclear and coal are two sides of the same coin kristopher Feb 2012 #3
Actually, coal and gas *are* two sides of the same coin ... Nihil Feb 2012 #5
The determinant is the operational characteristic within a generation and delivery system. kristopher Feb 2012 #6
You need to look at the entire system, including production OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #7
What is the significance of that, OK? kristopher Feb 2012 #8
Nihil said, “coal and gas *are* two sides of the same coin” OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #9
This shows why explicit statements are important. kristopher Feb 2012 #10
Uh huh… OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #11
Uh huh... You're arguing by insinuation yet again. kristopher Feb 2012 #12
The facts of the matter are OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #13
"The facts of the matter"? kristopher Feb 2012 #14
The issue we are confronted with is anthropogenic climate change OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #15
You clearly don't appreciate the meaning of the word "strategy" kristopher Feb 2012 #16
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever XemaSab Feb 2012 #25
"If we're going to go with the restaurant analogy" kristopher Feb 2012 #27
I read post 26 XemaSab Feb 2012 #30
What does the term "operational characteristics" mean to you? kristopher Feb 2012 #31
I understand that from a grid perspective they're similar XemaSab Feb 2012 #32
You are not correct. kristopher Feb 2012 #33
If "fracking is severely curtailed" then I don't see much NG for electrical generation. joshcryer Feb 2012 #36
No, it doesn't. kristopher Feb 2012 #37
Since you seem to demand it of us XemaSab Feb 2012 #38
I want data, I want to see that it's actually being pursued, not fantasy plans that... joshcryer Feb 2012 #40
Why don't you make a meaningful response to post 31? kristopher Feb 2012 #41
I did. I showed that greenwashing natural gas is not going to transition us away from fossil fuels. joshcryer Feb 2012 #52
No one said it was. kristopher Feb 2012 #71
Fracking is absolutely necessary to "meet the needs we might have during a transition." joshcryer Feb 2012 #39
Lots of sniping and ranting; absolutely devoid of substance related to the topic of transition kristopher Feb 2012 #42
I already told you, we don't. Convince me we do. We don't. The evidience is we don't. I gave it. joshcryer Feb 2012 #49
Really? kristopher Feb 2012 #53
Yep, a nice reduction. joshcryer Feb 2012 #55
And how does that change? kristopher Feb 2012 #58
Yes, they will be replaced, when the coal is getting all used up. joshcryer Feb 2012 #59
Still unwilling to provide a proper citation? kristopher Feb 2012 #61
A Farewell to Fossil Fuels: Answering the Energy Challenge kristopher Feb 2012 #43
Not reflected in the data and projections I showed. Just fantasy talk. joshcryer Feb 2012 #50
How do we transition? kristopher Feb 2012 #44
Not the route we're taking. joshcryer Feb 2012 #51
The OP and your own charts from WEO show you're wrong kristopher Feb 2012 #54
You haven't read WEO. joshcryer Feb 2012 #56
Don't just hurl accusations, give details. kristopher Feb 2012 #57
The chart is not flawed, the chart is specific. The EU and US will reduce coal consumption. joshcryer Feb 2012 #60
Provide a citation in the TEXT. kristopher Feb 2012 #62
My interpretation of data is perfectly fine, as you've provided no evidence I am wrong. joshcryer Feb 2012 #63
Just as I thought. kristopher Feb 2012 #64
You're the one quoting Lovins saying Congress isn't needed. joshcryer Feb 2012 #65
*Why* does Lovins say that Congress isn't needed? kristopher Feb 2012 #66
Because he has a fantasy solution that isn't reflected in any real world trajectory. joshcryer Feb 2012 #68
WTF is a "real world trajectory"? kristopher Feb 2012 #70
Yes, we are discussing how we have the wrong energy policy and planning. joshcryer Feb 2012 #76
You and your robot factories show that you are completely clueless kristopher Feb 2012 #78
Not at all, I think the magical robot factories are just as useful as any other "future planning"... joshcryer Feb 2012 #80
You haven't got a clue about how economics work kristopher Feb 2012 #82
Can you establish where I am wrong that we will export the coal? joshcryer Feb 2012 #83
If fossil fuels are replaced by better. cheaper renewables... kristopher Feb 2012 #85
Countries that have other industries that use coal? joshcryer Feb 2012 #89
You've acknowledged we can do it in advanced countries with subsidies kristopher Feb 2012 #90
Erm, right wing garbage. Making people pay externalized costs is not a subsidy. joshcryer Feb 2012 #93
Because he's a greenwashing capitalist? joshcryer Feb 2012 #77
You've shown nothing, Josh. kristopher Feb 2012 #79
Please stop insulting me, I showed graphs with regards to natural gas. joshcryer Feb 2012 #81
That is a perfect example of why my remark isn't an insult. kristopher Feb 2012 #84
Uh, you do realize those electronics are so cheap because they're built in unregulated sectors... joshcryer Feb 2012 #86
Sorry but you are still not getting it. kristopher Feb 2012 #87
You aren't substantiating anything. Did or did not coal exports go up? joshcryer Feb 2012 #88
Are you seriously saying that a snapshot of today supports your assertions about the future? kristopher Feb 2012 #91
Yes, because the data I provided is a "snapshot of today," it's not years of trending. joshcryer Feb 2012 #92
just curious backwoodsbob Feb 2012 #34
Like many things, it depends on how it is done OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #35
Ah, so we've got to the "waffle and smear" stage from you (again)? Nihil Feb 2012 #17
Explain how nuclear power enables a transition to a noncoarbon energy infrastructure. kristopher Feb 2012 #18
Why? As stated many times before, humans are not to be trusted with nuclear power. Nihil Feb 2012 #24
In other words you can't answer the question without showing you are being misleading. kristopher Feb 2012 #26
In other words you can't reply without lying. Nihil Feb 2012 #28
??? kristopher Feb 2012 #29
So you have no problem with the ramping up of coal & gas? Nihil Feb 2012 #45
Why do you have so much trouble just making an honest argument? kristopher Feb 2012 #46
I'm not the one who is dodging the facts by constantly raising the "nuclear" red herring. Nihil Feb 2012 #47
I already replied to your quesiton kristopher Feb 2012 #48
No, you've just concentrated on dodging it (and did it again there) Nihil Feb 2012 #69
You seem to be laboring under the impression that you're the only one being coherent here XemaSab Feb 2012 #67
"clean natural gas" joshcryer Feb 2012 #19
Similar challenge to you kristopher Feb 2012 #20
Heh, I'm too cynical to express that right now. joshcryer Feb 2012 #21
That's an evasion... kristopher Feb 2012 #22
I don't think it will. There will be no tangible transition. We will use up almost all fossil fuels. joshcryer Feb 2012 #23
"We're going to burn almost all of it up. That's what I think." ellisonz Feb 2012 #94
NNNOOOOOooooo !!!!11111 jpak Feb 2012 #4
Why solar...... jcs0007 Feb 2012 #72
Why "Why solar..."? kristopher Feb 2012 #73
Way to roll out the welcome mat, dude. nt Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #74
Welcome to DU and E/E Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #75
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»More than 68% of New Euro...»Reply #31