This special interest group is for professionals to connect and discuss all types of carbon-free power alternatives, including nuclear, renewable, tidal and more.

WARNING: SIGN-IN

You need to be a member of Energy Central to access some features and content. Please or register to continue.

Post

A ‘Greener’ New Deal Using Molten Salt and Hydrogen

image credit: Purchased Stock

This item is part of the Special Issue - 07/2020 - Energy Storage, click here for more

Energy storage is sometimes talked about as a holy grail solution to renewable energy intermittency. The simple reasons are that the sun doesn’t shine at night, and sometimes the wind doesn’t blow. Fair enough, and true. 

Others assert that battery storage, seemingly the fastest-growing, practical, and dispatchable technology is just too expensive, inefficient, and can’t be scaled to the extent needed to fully back up renewables. This latter group also seems to be enormously and perhaps inordinately fond of nuclear energy, decrying that we’ve only built one new unit in years, notwithstanding the enormous cost overruns, years of delays and reputed corruption involved in the faltering, four-unit Vogtle plant in Georgia, which is years behind schedule with a tab now said to be up to at least $20 billion. They also assert that the lack of safe, sufficient, and “permanent” nuclear waste storage isn’t actually a problem. Yet the newest reactor to go into commercial operation in this country is Tennessee Valley Authority’s Watts Bar Unit 2, which began operation in June 2016 and before that, one built 24 years ago.

To be sure, cost could be a critical factor. For example, NRG Energy wrote off $481 million in 2011 after permanently halting its South Texas Project with TEPCO and Toshiba. Nuclear plants can cost upwards of $5,500-$8,100 per kW, roughly eight times what a combustion turbine costs and nine to ten times the cost of a combined cycle gas turbine plant—and that’s when completed on time and on budget, which evidently never happens.

Then, there are concerns about security and the ability to evacuate population centers in case of an attack, certainly a partial holdover from 9/11, but also out of concerns about an accident (think Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima). These push back against new nuclear plants, and for many of the same reasons have resulted in closing existing plants, such as New York’s Indian Point plant on the Hudson, where one reactor was closed in April of this year, and the other is to be closed next April.  Yet elsewhere, things are different. According to Power Technology, between 2020 and 2026, 48 nuclear reactors will be built around the world with China in the lead, followed by India and South Korea.

So, I’d like to focus on two storage technologies, one getting very little press, and the other in a conceptual yet workable stage, which presents enormous and fascinating potential. In the meantime, we typically hear about batteries, pumped hydro, and compressed air.  Batteries, of course, are of obvious and intense interest because they make electric vehicles (EV) possible, and because of the market interest and popularity/notoriety of EV leader Tesla and its quirky and iconoclastic founder, Elon Musk. Among his many companies, today what’s getting more attention is his private, civilian space exploration and vehicle launch company, SpaceX.

Battery technology itself, beyond those for EVs, continues to make major advances. Battery storage companies in Q1 2020 raised $164 million in venture capital money, and lithium-ion batteries still lead the way, with lead-acid and flow batteries battling it out. But “some” say that life limitations, safety concerns, cost, regulatory and recycling concerns will limit the growth of even the most promising li-ion batteries. However, the EIA is much more bullish, predicting significant percentage increases over the next few years that could cumulatively reach more than 4,500 MW in just five years. But when the installed base is today still relatively tiny, even major percentage increases may not amount to world-class numbers.

So, I’d like to look at two other technologies, being discussed but often lost in the frenzied, overhyped suggestion that batteries are the only way forward for backing renewables, for emergency/backup power for home solar installations, and for commercial and industrial factory rooftop and parking canopy solar as well as community solar fields.  

The first is molten salt, which in its great simplicity is simple thermal storage. In general, it requires salt as a medium to absorb and retain heat, which can then be used to boil water to create steam and drive electric turbines. But it has the added benefit of being available for use directly for heating applications such as district energy systems, which can provide hot water, steam, and can also be converted to cold water using steam through absorption chillers. Molten salts are typically made up of 60% sodium nitrate and 40% potassium nitrate.

Molten salt systems, for the most part, are connected directly to steam turbine generators that either complement or replace fossil fuel-driven boilers. Since molten salt temperatures can exceed 600C (1,100F), they can be applied to boilers rated all the way up to supercritical. The typical two-tank molten salt system uses molten salt as the heat storage medium but also as a heat transfer medium, and includes both a hot and “cold” storage tank.

A thermocline system on the other hand, uses a single tank that separates hot and cold salt via a vertical temperature gradient, using the buoyancy differential force that prevents mixing. In this system, salt flows out of the cold side, is heated by the heat exchanger and flows into the tank’s hot side. To discharge, salt flows out of the hot side, transfers heat to the turbine, and then flows back into the tank's cold side. Using a single tank reduces costs and complexity.

Molten salt is currently the most common method to store heat in large concentrating-solar plants (CSP) with capital costs only a fraction of battery systems. And just this month (June 2020), a molten salt receiver was installed in the world’s tallest Solar Power Tower in Dubai.

The other energy storage technology I’d like to mention is very different in significant ways, and is built on the production and use of hydrogen, ironically from nuclear generation. It is not in wide use, but it’s certainly more than conceptual in nature and represents a vast departure from virtually every energy storage system in use.

Hydrogen (H2) can be produced by a number of methods, including the generation of power from nuclear fission reactors that are in wide use worldwide, and according to the World Nuclear Association and US EIA, represent about 20% of the existing supply of electricity in the United States and 10% worldwide. While hydrogen is by nature highly explosive, and must be created, handled, and stored with care, its great benefit is that it can be combusted without producing any CO2. Here, the concept is simple: hydrogen is produced on one end via an electrolyzer, and electricity produced on the other, with the H2 pipeline itself as the actual storage mechanism in between.

This method could effectively, over time, replace the vast majority of the existing bulk power grid, currently transmitted by expensive, intrusive, and high-maintenance conductors with an average age of 40+ years. Currently, best estimates from the Edison Electric Institute are that there are more than 600,000 cumulative miles of transmission lines, more than a quarter-million of which are high-voltage (>240 kV).   

According to POWER magazine, four U.S. nuclear generators—Energy Harbor, Xcel Energy, Exelon, and Arizona Public Service (APS)—are making headway on projects to demonstrate hydrogen production at nuclear plants.

In addition, Exelon, with support from DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, INL, Argonne National Laboratory, and the NREL are supporting a project to install a hydrogen electrolyzer at one of Exelon Nuclear’s boiling water reactors to “demonstrate ‘dynamic production’ of hydrogen from nuclear power.” This generated hydrogen can be put into the existing pipeline system and sent directly to existing fossil generating plants where it can used as a feedstock for combustion turbines and combined-cycle generators. All major gas turbine manufacturers offer, or are developing gas turbines that are capable of burning high volumes of hydrogen mixed in with natural gas. Hydrogen can also be used as feedstock for hydrogen-powered vehicles, district energy/heating, and in a number of commercial and industrial applications, as depicted here by the US DoE (Source H2@Scale):

 

There is one complication: while combusting hydrogen produces no carbon dioxide, it does produce nitrogen oxides that will require pre- or post-combustion controls.

Naysayers aside, energy storage will continue to move forward to advance, if not a “Green New Deal,” certainly a “Greener” one. And molten salt and hydrogen can play an important if not central role in getting us there.  #   #   #

Discussions

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Jun 30, 2020

David, I hear the "nuclear is expensive" meme so often, I almost want to believe it.

But it's not true. Let's compare two sources of clean electricity side by side:

Topaz Solar Farm
Capacity rating: 550 MW
Generation: unpredictable, average (with capacity factor): 147 MW
Cost: $2.4 billion
$/MW: 16.32

Plant Vogtle Units 3&4 (nuclear)
Capacity rating: 2,234 MW
Generation (with capacity factor): 2,122 MW
Cost: $26 billion
$/MW: 12.25

Nuclear plants are, per watt, 33% cheaper than solar farms. And land use? Fuhgeddaboudit!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc7rRPrA7rg

Joe Deely's picture
Joe Deely on Jul 1, 2020

Love your examples Bob.

Construction on Topaz solar farm began in Nov 2011 - in other words costs were from that time period.

Here's a chart from CPUC on cost over time for CA renewables. 

The puck has moved in the last 9 years and is continuing to move.

Renewable portfolio standard contract prices dropped to 2.82 cents/kWh in 2019, compared with 3.81 cents/kWh in 2018, for all RPS-eligible energy, the CPUC said in its 2020 Padilla Report. RPS contract prices dropped an average of 12.7% per year between 2007 and 2019, it said.

But why look at ancient solar in California for a comparison  - why not look at modern day solar in Georgia?

The PSC also unanimously approved Georgia Power's application for a certificate of convenience and necessity for its 2020-21 utility-scale Renewable Energy Development Initiative power purchase agreements with a total capacity of 558.5 MW, which have an average rate of 3.4 cents/kWh.

The PPAs are for the following facilities:

          Quitman II Solar, 150 MW, in Brooks County, Georgia

          Cool Springs Solar, 213 MW, in Decatur County, Georgia

          Broken Spoke Solar, 195.5 MW, in Mitchell County, Georgia

These PPAs were the result of a 2016 integrated resource plan, which was designed 1,050 MW of utility-scale renewable resources, with 525 MW through a 2018-19 requet for proposals and 525 MW through a 2020-21 RFP. These latest PPAs are a result of the second RFP.

Georgia Power  - with a nudge from state PSC - is looking to balance out its high future nuclear costs with some much cheaper solar.  The projects mentioned above will come online in late 2021. 

They are not stopping there.

Georgia Power on May 21 filed with the Georgia Public Service Commission final drafts of the company’s 2022/2023 Utility Scale Renewable Generation Request for Proposal (RFP) and pro forma power purchase agreements, for which the company requests commission approval.

According to the draft RFP, the company will issue two RFPs to meet the utility scale procurement requirements. This first Utility Scale Renewable RFP seeks renewable resources, with a total procurement of at least 800 MW up to a maximum total procurement of 1,200 MW, with in-service dates of 2022 or 2023

The second RFP is expected to be issued in 2021, and is expected to seek renewable resources with in-service dates of 2023 or 2024

Between the two Utility Scale Renewable RFPs, Georgia Power expects to procure a total of 2,000 MW, with at least 800 MW procured in each RFP

Let's see what the costs for solar ends up being on these new RFPs.

Finally, Vogtle may come online in 2021/2022. Hopefully. We'll also have to wait and see what the final costs are.

The puck keeps moving.

Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Jul 6, 2020

Just because government bureaucrats okay something does not mean it makes any financial sense. In the case of Georgia, neither Vogel or the recent solar adventures are sound for consumers. No doubt a bunch of investors are doing well, however.

David Gaier's picture
David Gaier on Jul 6, 2020

Bob, I didn't advocate or even mention solar farms. I compared nuclear costs per kW to combustion turbines and CCGT. All I can say is that we have vastly different data. We'll see if SMRs or other technologies and/or fuels change things, which is a very interesting prospect, and if any nuclear contractor can remotely keep to a schedule and a budget. Finally, perhaps you didn't see it, but in promoting the creation of hydrogen, I did so in conjunction with " ‘dynamic production’ of hydrogen from nuclear power.”

Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Jul 6, 2020

Producing electricity from hydrogen requires a lot of energy to initially create the hydrogen by breaking down water. Using energy from a nuclear power plant is an exceptionally unsound financial approach for creating hydrogen. Throw in the lack of a means to routinely use hydrogen and the whole thing degenerates into a monumental waste of money.

Reactors are exceptionally efficient at storing vast amounts of energy in the nuclear fuel. Use that energy when actually needed for something useful. That excludes hydrogen.

 

Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Jul 6, 2020

All the green energy approaches share a common flaw: energy is produced when not needed. In order to get around that flaw, attempts are made to store excess production for future use when actually needed. Roll-up all the costs and account for the underlying dismal capacity factors for green energy and the storage facilities. The net result is extremely expensive energy.

Financially, makes vastly more sense to only produce energy when needed and only build generating facilities when actually needed. That is precisely the opposite approach used by renewable energy. 

The green energy mafia wraps themselves in pious pronouncements about "climate change" while greedly lining their pockets with money forced from the poor and middle class. Utilities go along with the scam because the elites and politicians allow them make a big profit on investments that should never have been made.

Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Jul 6, 2020

Batteries and molten salt suffer from a number of serious shortcomings.

Molten salt will turn into a rock when cooled. That problem is exacerbated by thermal transients that are common when solar plants experience clouds and darkness. Parts of the plant have to be cut out and replaced. Unhelpful from a maintenance and operations standpoint. Everything must be kept hot all the time to avoid the problem. That is hard to do and a slip up costs a hell of a lot of money, including plant downtime.

The lithium based batteries favored for energy storage can (and do) catch fire with no way to stop the fire. Also unhelpful. Very large financial risk.

Audra Drazga's picture
Audra Drazga on Jul 26, 2020

David = great article.  Curious,  are there any estimated costs associated with Hydrogen or Molten salt or is it too early? 

Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Jul 27, 2020

Too early to get a handle on costs. However, the historical record does not bode well for the technology. The operational difficulties were very large and safety issues were significant. The were also significant material issues with the high temperatures. Using steam generators is also dfficult in terms of material and safety issues.

All of the earlier attempts at commercial products failed. Also, today's advanced combined-cycle natural gas plants are exceptionally difficult for most advanced reactor approaches to compete against.

Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Jul 27, 2020

As far as hydrogen is concerned, straightforward to determine costs. Invariably, fuel cost for the electolyzers is the key consideration. That is why using a conventional nuclear reactor to create hydrogen is economically dumb.

David Gaier's picture

Thank David for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »