navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address. Following continuous spam/hack attempts on the forum, "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: Navitron Partners With Solax to Help Create A More Sustainable Future | Navitron Calls for Increased Carbon Footprint Reduction In Light of Earth Overshoot Day | A plea from The David School - Issue 18
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Lichterfelde Combined Heat and Power Plant, Berlin, Germany  (Read 4530 times)
billi
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9038



WWW
« on: June 24, 2015, 05:07:43 AM »

http://www.power-technology.com/projects/lichterfelde-combined-heat-and-power-plant-berlin/


Quote
Construction of the new plant began in May 2014 and is expected to be completed by 2016. It will produce around 300MW of electricity and 230MW of heat, which will be sufficient energy for approximately 100,000 Lichterfelde homes.

The estimated investment on the combined heat and power plant (CHP) is €500m (approximately $648m). The cogeneration plant is expected to operate at a fuel efficiency rate of 85% and will offset 100,000t of CO² emissions per day.

Oh.... , so fast to built , so flexible to run and so cheap to built .....    , and then use the Gas Grid  more and more  with gas from Bio , Water ,  Wind and PV power


Sounds like a Plan to me

Billi


ok  small , with about 500 MW  ....., but is it 70 times  cheaper than  the £25bn of state aid for Hinkley Point C  costs ?
Logged

1.6 kw and 2.4 kw   PV array  , Outback MX 60 and FM80 charge controller  ,24 volt 1600 AH Battery ,6 Kw Victron inverter charger, 1.1 kw high head hydro turbine as a back up generator , 5 kw woodburner, 36 solar tubes with 360 l water tank, 1.6 kw  windturbine
pdf27
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1736


« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2015, 09:38:51 AM »

Umm... it isn't quite as good as it's cracked up to be. For starters, you only get the 85% efficiency rating at times of peak heat demand from the plant - if you size it to meet peak total demand (unlikely, given it's replacing a plant which used to supply 720 MW of heat with one which supplies 230 MW of heat) then you have to dump heat for the rest of the year cutting the efficiency down to that of any other gas plant. If you don't, then you're going to have additional boilers to make up the peaking load, which as a system will be less efficient than the UK system of individual gas boilers in every home - transmission losses in the German system will be higher.

The other issue is that this is locking us into burning gas for heat in Berlin for the next 25-30 years, and in quite large quantities too. Right now it's some of the best plant on the grid - but if things go as planned in 20 years or so it'll be some of the dirtiest, unless fed with synthetic methane or fitted with a CCS system. In that case it wouldn't be bad, but you'd really need to combine it with a compressed/liquid air storage system for the best economy - something Berlin is poorly located for.

Edit: just noticed the grey writing at the bottom, you're comparing apples to oranges again. Lichterfelde is quoted as upfront cost to build it, Hinkley C is quoted as cost to build it and then operate it for ~50 years and should have anticipated electricity sales deducted from that figure to some extent (can't tell how much as I have no idea how you've calculated it). As such it's a meaningless comparison.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 09:43:26 AM by pdf27 » Logged
dhaslam
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6775



« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2015, 10:48:55 AM »

It wouldn't be very difficult to build a seasonal store  for excess heat produced in summer.   If gas power stations are increasingly going to be mainly used  to balance  generation from wind and sun  the  output will need to be buffered to some extent anyway.     
Logged

DHW 250 litre cylinder  60 X 47mm tubes
Heating  180,000 litre straw insulated seasonal store, 90X58mm tubes + 7 sqm flat collectors, 1 kW VAWT, 3 kW heatpump plus Walltherm gasifying stove
billi
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9038



WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 24, 2015, 10:53:20 AM »

Quote
Hinkley C is quoted as cost to build it and then operate it for ~50 years

Sure ?  Then i should not trust Wiki  or other reports ?  
Quote
The construction cost are estimated to be £24.5 billion.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Economics

Quote
According to the Commission announcement, Hinkley Point C will have a capital cost of about £34 billion including £24.5 billion construction costs, and require debt financing of £17 billion.
  http://namrc.co.uk/industry/ec-ok-hpc/

and  donot forget , a gas powerstation  emits  about 1/3 of  CO2  of  a coal powerstation  even without the use of the heat .....
Logged

1.6 kw and 2.4 kw   PV array  , Outback MX 60 and FM80 charge controller  ,24 volt 1600 AH Battery ,6 Kw Victron inverter charger, 1.1 kw high head hydro turbine as a back up generator , 5 kw woodburner, 36 solar tubes with 360 l water tank, 1.6 kw  windturbine
pdf27
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1736


« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2015, 01:03:41 PM »

It wouldn't be very difficult to build a seasonal store  for excess heat produced in summer.   If gas power stations are increasingly going to be mainly used  to balance  generation from wind and sun  the  output will need to be buffered to some extent anyway.     
Has been done, in Sweden I think, but is rather dependant on the geology to work well. Winter demand (in Europe anyway) is so vastly higher than summer demand that I think inter-seasonal storage of heat is probably impractical simply down to the immense amounts of energy needed to be stored and hence the huge volumes of material needed for decent efficiency. I think we're better off doing interseasonal storage with synthetic methane (very energy dense and the storage/distribution infrastructure already exists). Heat storage still has a place though - current demand is very, very peaky and smoothing that out saves you a lot on capital costs.

Sure ?  Then i should not trust Wiki  or other reports ?
Trust but put into context - the two forms of generation have very different cost structures. For a gas fired plant, running (staffing) costs are low as are construction costs, but the fuel is pretty expensive. For a nuclear plant, the fuel is exceptionally cheap for the amount of energy you get out, but the staffing costs are somewhat higher and the capital costs are huge. This is reflected in their typical operating profile - a nuclear plant runs continuously since in building it you've pretty much already paid for the electricity, and it costs much the same to run whether or not it's generating. Gas plants typically run as peaking plant, only turning on at times of higher demand as electricity prices rise (there are also technical issues about how fast the two types of plant can respond to changes in demand, but fortuitously they operate in the same direction).

The other thing you're doing is mixing up build cost, cost/kWh and subsidy due to the difference in operating cost. For nuclear, build cost is very high, cost/kWh is set at an inflation-adjusted 9.25 p/kWh for Hinkley C over its life, and the subsidy is the difference between the market price of electricity and the guaranteed price to Hinkley C - currently around 4p/kWh.
Build cost for a gas-fired power station is very low - the gas turbines themselves are naturally well suited to off-site fabrication and they can make use of the economies of scale in the aviation industry. Natural gas currently costs around 2p/kWh wholesale (which doesn't take into account the cost of CO2 emissions to the rest of the world), and can be converted into electricity at ~50% efficiency. Add in a bit to cover plant costs, staff and the like and you get a market price for gas-fired electricity of about 5p/kWh. Those forms of energy which cost more than this need some form of subsidy to keep going - nuclear, wind, gas, PV, etc. This subsidy is currently paid separately from the cost of power, for instance at ~13p/kWh for solar or ~4.2p/kWh for onshore wind.

and  donot forget , a gas powerstation  emits  about 1/3 of  CO2  of  a coal powerstation  even without the use of the heat .....
That's rather like saying you'd prefer to have an angry ferret down your trousers than a hungry wolverine. Both are pretty bad - CCGT does 365-500 g/kWh depending on how you count other emissions (leaking methane associated with the drilling process and the like). The Committee on Climate Change reckons 100 g/kWh is the maximum we can accept for ~20 years time - which means only gas with CCS is acceptable. As a quick fix for dealing with the fact that we've still got coal fired power stations in operation then gas is acceptable, but celebrating the building of new ones is unwise - particularly when you're opposing other low-carbon sources of electricity.
Logged
billi
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9038



WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2015, 09:03:39 PM »

Quote
Edit: just noticed the grey writing at the bottom, you're comparing apples to oranges again. Lichterfelde is quoted as upfront cost to build it, Hinkley C is quoted as cost to build it and then operate it for ~50 years and should have anticipated electricity sales deducted from that figure to some extent (can't tell how much as I have no idea how you've calculated it). As such it's a meaningless comparison.

Hi PDF ,     i compared construction costs  , and  they are   expected to be £24.5 billion for  Hinkley C    , ok  ? Not subsidies involved ! So i compared Apples with Apples !

The  fact , that a powerplant  driven by  Gas ,  can react rapidly  fast , built fast  ,  to meet  renewable  fluctuations  , makes those very viable  to  work in parallel   with PV and Wind  for the time being , and than there is a Gas power network  that can last for months as a storage  ....  for green Gas also

The fact that  Nuclear  cannot adopt  that  attitude ,   leads to the conclusion , that they  will not work in harmony with those ...... renewable ideas  


Billi
« Last Edit: June 25, 2015, 05:22:28 AM by billi » Logged

1.6 kw and 2.4 kw   PV array  , Outback MX 60 and FM80 charge controller  ,24 volt 1600 AH Battery ,6 Kw Victron inverter charger, 1.1 kw high head hydro turbine as a back up generator , 5 kw woodburner, 36 solar tubes with 360 l water tank, 1.6 kw  windturbine
pdf27
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1736


« Reply #6 on: June 25, 2015, 10:21:45 AM »

Hi PDF ,     i compared construction costs  , and  they are   expected to be £24.5 billion for  Hinkley C    , ok  ? Not subsidies involved ! So i compared Apples with Apples !
You did, but at the same time it's asking the wrong question. The output of a power station isn't a large concrete building capable of generating power, it's kWhs of electricity over the lifetime of the plant. Therefore, the really valid metric is cost/kWh rather than construction cost, and there gas is still cheaper but the difference is rather closer.

The  fact , that a powerplant  driven by  Gas ,  can react rapidly  fast , built fast  ,  to meet  renewable  fluctuations  , makes those very viable  to  work in parallel   with PV and Wind  for the time being , and than there is a Gas power network  that can last for months as a storage  ....  for green Gas also

The fact that  Nuclear  cannot adopt  that  attitude ,   leads to the conclusion , that they  will not work in harmony with those ...... renewable ideas
And the fact that gas plants produce 3-5 times more CO2 than we can accept means that they won't work in harmony with the atmosphere. Look at the fluctuation in demand and compare it to the generation fluctuation in renewables and you'll find it makes very little difference at the moment - it's the classic argument of those who hate wind power, but actually the fluctuation is much slower than that in demand. PV is even better, as production closely matches demand up to a pretty huge level of PV.
Don't get too excited about green gas - we need hundreds of terawatts of very low carbon generation for it to be significant (the fraction of gas used for power generation is pretty low), and  we aren't getting close to having enough low carbon generation for electricity yet, let alone decarbonising the gas system. Just for heating the UK uses 30 MTOE of gas per year (350,000,000 MWh - equivalent to ~60 nuclear reactors going full time once conversion efficiencies are included), and a lot more is used by industry.
The suggestions you're throwing out are like trying to put out a house fire with a water pistol. Great on a small scale, but they just don't go far enough and can't be scaled up enough. Like I said before, if we're going to succeed we need to do everything at once and cross our fingers that it's enough. Personally, I don't think it will be.
Logged
billi
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9038



WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2015, 01:58:10 PM »

Quote
And the fact that gas plants produce 3-5 times more CO2 than we can accept means that they won't work in harmony with the atmosphere.

PDF , you are missing my point here  Germany and the UK  are different.....   Germany  produces only about 31TWh (2014)  of electricity with Gas powerplants   , the UK  does over 170 TWh (2008),

but about 240 TWh  with coal ( 2014 )  that emits  about  3 times more CO2  than Gas would .... ,  so  replacing  a big portion of Germany s coal plants  with Gas powered ones , sounds like an acceptable  compromise , while keep on installing more renewables ...

Billi







Logged

1.6 kw and 2.4 kw   PV array  , Outback MX 60 and FM80 charge controller  ,24 volt 1600 AH Battery ,6 Kw Victron inverter charger, 1.1 kw high head hydro turbine as a back up generator , 5 kw woodburner, 36 solar tubes with 360 l water tank, 1.6 kw  windturbine
dhaslam
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6775



« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2015, 05:14:36 PM »

I don't think that seasonal storage is all that difficult.    The water filled one  in Friedrichshafen  is just 32 metres in  diameter and 20 metres tall,  a power station would need one  something like ten times  wider.  Also  the power station would be functioning all year so only part of the seasons heat requirement would be needed.      A store of that size would store about eight hours  maximum heat output per degree.      It would be bigger than Germany's  largest building, constructed to build airships in 2000,  but it shouldn't be any more difficult or expensive to build.   

 
http://www.itw.uni-stuttgart.de/dokumente/Publikationen/publikationen_04-13.pdf
Logged

DHW 250 litre cylinder  60 X 47mm tubes
Heating  180,000 litre straw insulated seasonal store, 90X58mm tubes + 7 sqm flat collectors, 1 kW VAWT, 3 kW heatpump plus Walltherm gasifying stove
pdf27
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1736


« Reply #9 on: June 25, 2015, 06:59:30 PM »

I don't think that seasonal storage is all that difficult.    The water filled one  in Friedrichshafen  is just 32 metres in  diameter and 20 metres tall,  a power station would need one  something like ten times  wider.  Also  the power station would be functioning all year so only part of the seasons heat requirement would be needed.      A store of that size would store about eight hours  maximum heat output per degree.      It would be bigger than Germany's  largest building, constructed to build airships in 2000,  but it shouldn't be any more difficult or expensive to build.
Have a read of http://intraweb.stockton.edu/eyos/energy_studies/content/docs/effstock09/Session_11_1_Case%20studies_Overviews/107.pdf - the Swedes have been doing this for a while, and have got some very much larger facilities in operation. The real issue is that for something of that size you need to be very, very big - 200 MW is over 3000 cubic metres/hour of water, enough that even the big rock caverns they're talking about would be charged up in a day or two. For even a small gas cogeneration plant like that, you've got to have interseasonal stores sized in terms of cubic kilometers. It's practical for small sizes, but as soon as you start to scale it up you run into problems.

Personally I think storage is looking at the problem backwards - various governments are trying to encourage the uptake of electrical heating, particularly in the form of heat pumps. This has the rather nice property of aligning maximum heat and electrical demand - meaning you can just run your district heating system to match heat demand and not worry about the electrical output too much.  That's also one of the reasons I think there's a place for fuel cell boilers like the Ceres Power one should they ever get it to work - it fits very nicely into the existing infrastructure (something district heating does not, at least in the UK), helps match load and demand and is compatible with what I think the only way of dealing with the winter peak heat demand problem is (synthetic methane). Not my favourite technology (compressed air energy storage feeding gas turbines with heat recovery for district heating wins there because it has half the CO2 emissions of even the best plants like Lichterfelde), but much easier to implement.

Billi - careful there, you're basically praising Maggie as an environmental hero and saying that the current UK government policy is working better than the German one! As it happens, by the only sensible metrics (cost, CO2 and air quality) I think it is, but that's pretty much heresy around here.  stir
Logged
billi
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9038



WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 25, 2015, 11:15:52 PM »

Quote
Billi - careful there, you're basically praising Maggie as an environmental hero and saying that the current UK government policy is working better than the German one!

 ... bike  the nuclear industry will fight the renewable idea in the UK as the coal industry does in Germany ... 

Its not my industry , both of them  , does not matter  , what country ....
Logged

1.6 kw and 2.4 kw   PV array  , Outback MX 60 and FM80 charge controller  ,24 volt 1600 AH Battery ,6 Kw Victron inverter charger, 1.1 kw high head hydro turbine as a back up generator , 5 kw woodburner, 36 solar tubes with 360 l water tank, 1.6 kw  windturbine
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!