2020: T-Point 2. A not-yet-online fossil demonstration.
Quote: "It requires a lot of engineering to ensure a natural gas-fired combustion turbine will operate reliably //and last for decades// without major component failure."
Cool, cool, yes, innovating fossil fuels in 2020.
2019: the Egypt Megaproject. 14.4 GW of fossil capacity.
Sure. People need power, it's pretty efficient...being like "oh hey this was awesome because Siemens got a big contract" is a little :/
2018: Watts Bar 2. US nuke. Ground broken in 1973, online in 2016.
From Wiki: Startup was rough, with a bunch of offlining due to things like a structural failure in a component installed 40 years earlier.
(This is a participation award.)
(The plant setting is very pretty.)
2017: Petra Nova. US CCS.
"[Petra Nova] is distinctively both a globally significant environmental breakthrough and a trailblazing revenue-generating facility."
Pictures are dope but I'm still not that excited about new fossil, even in 2016. Tbf they built this instead of a new coal unit.
2015: Boundary Dam (CCS)
Hilariously, Power Mag link redirects to the Petra Nova article.
Wiki: "In 2015, internal documents from SaskPower revealed that there were "serious design issues" ...that led the unit to only be operational 40% of the time."
2015 pic of nearby Shand
2014: Ivanpah (solar CSP)
Oh, no.
From Power Mag: "The first renewable plant to receive POWER’s Plant of the Year Award." -- and last, so far.
Anyway we know how that story went -- for a plant based on noncombustible fuel, it sure burns a lot of things (natural gas, birds,..)
2013: John Turk (coal)
Ok this one received the award "For overcoming numerous legal and regulatory obstacles" (and being ultrasupercritical) that I kind of wish it had not overcome.
Also noted: "the most expensive project ever built in the state of Arkansas"
Is that...good?
Describing the overcoming: "Shortly after SWEPCO announced the project, it became a target of a national anti-coal campaign and of organized opposition from local groups with land holdings near the plant."
and they were allowed to build on the condition they never did it again!
2012: coal, 2011: coal, 2010: coal, 2009: coal, 2008: coal, 2007: coal, 2006: coal, and I don't care to go further back.
In conclusion: I recommend not trying to make Power Mag Plant of the Year if you're a power plant!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Ok I’m going to live my dream: a living thread of Google reviews of power plants. These are hilarious to me because they are completely unsolicited and often rule. Will post as the spirit moves me…kicking off with —
On the occasion of the @IPCC_CH Synthesis Report (coincidentally!) -- if you'd like to spend 8 minutes with me on a journey about fossil phaseout & why we need to plan it carefully & righteously (#midtransition), have I ever got a TED talk for you.
Fossil fuels support ~80% of commercial energy consumption, which means we have an enormous amount of stuff to retire over the next couple of decades, while simultaneously building a replacement system /and/ dealing with worsening climate change effects.
🚨new paper🚨 on the water consumption of electrolytic hydrogen 🫧 that I have literally been working on since before modern hydraulic fracturing was a thing
Under deep decarb electrolytic H2 could consume ~15% of today's water for energy
Big headlines: 1) a lot of processes we think we might need for deep decarb (sustainable aviation fuels, various kinds of CDR, hydrogen) might use a LOT of water
(and electrolytic hydrogen is probably on the low end for water intensity of proposed ways to make hydrogen)
2) decarbonization also dewaters the grid (see doi.org/10.1016/j.jhyd…) so we should think about both what the water needs are /now/ and what they would be for a mature industry
this new piece uses NZA and ZCAP scenarios for both H2 production & grid mix projections
As many of you know I'm obsessed with physical infrastructure & want to invite you on this journey re: fossil fuel supply chains in a decarb'd future with me.
Basically: examine claims of future small fossil use critically. A lot of these systems have minimum viable scale.
The ("the") neat thing about flow renewables like wind & solar is that they do fuel harvesting & conversion at the same place, with the same equipment.
Not so for fueled systems (e.g., fossil). You need multiple industries, mostly private in the US, to keep operating.
If I have one wind turbine I can just run it or not (ofc there are construction supply chains -- but I'm talking once it's built). If I have one gas plant I need a gas well, a processing plant, pipelines, safety inspectors, reservoir engineers, educational infrastructure...
Re: CCS in the IRA 1) emissions cuts model suggests ~1b tons of CO2 sequestered 2024-2031 due to IRA 2) Senate finance committee suggests ~0.04b tons of CO2 claiming 45Q credit 2022-2031 (0.05b if it's all tied to EOR, or 0.3b if EOR & no multiplier)
These cannot both be true.
Plus, the lack of requirement to capture on an entire plant (it's unit only) means the CCS part could effectively subsidize the uncontrolled units if the math works, which it might--particularly if the capture is coupled to $90/bbl EOR.
🔥🏭 NEW from your methane attribution dream team, Diana Burns & me🏭🔥
How much do CH4 emissions contribute to GHG footprint of US natural gas-fired power, CCS, and DAC?
*Unit, utility, BA, & NERC region-level #s for power
*AR6 GWPs. Doc drop-->pub'd in 40 hours ain't bad!
HEADLINES: methane matters, a lot, and emissions are spatially variable. We used our state-level consumer-attributed emissions estimates (iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…) + the usual EIA & EPA data suspects to see what's up. What's up is CO2e: +13-48% of CO2 ems for utility gas fleets.
The top 10 utilities with highest methane burden are largely out West, and the lowest methane burdens are heavily associated with the low-leakage Marcellus. (Btw: if people claim a low CH4 emitting supply, ask: are you blessed with Marcellus gas, or did you do something?)