Where the natural gas from PA is going to be used

2»

Comments

  • BB.
    BB. Super Moderators, Administrators Posts: 33,613 admin
    #32
    Re: Where the natural gas from PA is going to be used

    I agree--in this environment (lots of oil wells with gas, large desolate area, few existing natural gas pipelines/processing facilities, low prices paid for natural gas) flaring is probably the most cost effective/least damaging method (at least until pipelines are put in--their own issues).

    Interestingly, they had similar issues on the North Slope of Alaska, and there the "government" made them re-inject the natural gas rather than flare... Wonder if that is practical here or not (conserve gas for later harvesting seems to be a possibility--cost of re-injection is probably not cheap either).

    -Bill
    Near San Francisco California: 3.5kWatt Grid Tied Solar power system+small backup genset
    · Share on Twitter
  • solarvic
    solarvic Solar Expert Posts: 1,071 ✭✭✭✭
    #33
    Re: Where the natural gas from PA is going to be used

    It seems like we are going from an energy shortage to now see how we can waste it. I was reading on Ohio,s drillong standards. Pennsylvania is working on thirt standards also. At the landowners meeting they told us they usually flare the wells to clear out the well after fracking. Just like Most waterwells get some water pumped to clear the well after drilling. I let my waterpump run a whole day when I had it drilled.
    Maybe the trouble in N orth Dakota they didn,t build the extra processing plants and satelite business that they need to suport the wells.
    In the eastern region of our country Ohio, Pa, west virginia will have or have a lot of companys that will process the wet gas. Marithon oil has a refinery in West Virginia to refine the oil. They are putting rail siding in Ohio to transport the oil to W.Va. AT first the oil will be delivered to a depot in Eastern Ohio and be trucked to WVA. refinery till the rail line is built. They are building a chemical plant towards pittsburg to process all the chemicals out. I heard talk of a couple small ng electric
    power plants to burn the excess gas. Here is local tv story about how to reuse some of the fracking water. http://www.wkbn.com/content/news/local/story/Frack-Water-Recycling-Operation-Launched-in-E/R10MitubbUy8osI5UI88pg.cspx
    · Share on Twitter
  • Lee Dodge
    Lee Dodge Solar Expert Posts: 112 ✭✭
    #34
    Re: Where the natural gas from PA is going to be used
    solarvic wrote: »
    ...snip...

    Now, let's take a look at these two projects:

    TVA NGCC Plant:

    880 Megawatts ( enough to power 500,000 homes)
    2 years construction time
    Projected Cost: $790 Million
    Actual Cost: $760 Million (30 Million UNDER BUDGET)
    Completed: one month ahead of schedule
    Cost per watt: $897

    Southern Company Nuclear Project: Vogtle Units #3 and #4
    2,200 Megawatts
    10+ years construction time
    Projected cost: $14 Billion
    Actual cost: $913 million over budget already (with 7 years of building to go)
    Completed: Anticipated to be years past original estimated 2017 completion date
    Cost per watt: $6,818

    ...snip...

    I believe there is an error by a factor of about 1000x in these numbers. I think that the construction costs should read:

    TVA NGCC Plant: $0.86/Watt rather than $897/Watt
    Southern Company Nuclear Project: $6.78/Watt rather than $6,818/Watt
    These compare to solar as
    Solar PV: ~$4.75/Watt

    The zero fueling costs, zero greenhouse gas emissions during operation, and zero nuclear waste to be guarded for 10,000 years make solar attractive relative to the alternatives. Perhaps more important, solar will still be available after fueling sources for these other electrical generators will be exhausted.
    · Share on Twitter
  • solarvic
    solarvic Solar Expert Posts: 1,071 ✭✭✭✭
    #35
    Re: Where the natural gas from PA is going to be used

    Lee, I didn,t come up with those figures about the cost of the gas generating and nucular plant. I admit I didn,t check anyones math!That Knapp blog is probably slanted toward drilling. Mr Knapp does have a lot of interesting info to look at. If you dig further into his blog there is a map that shows where the Utica shale is suposed to be located. Mercer county PA. the 3rd county south of lake Erie in western pa bording Ohio is where I am located.
    I still believe in conservation and think solar is a good altenitive energy and I also have a Grid tied system. The NG generating plants should interact with solar for night time electric generating. Solarvic
    · Share on Twitter
  • peakbagger
    peakbagger Solar Expert Posts: 341 ✭✭✭
    #36
    Re: Where the natural gas from PA is going to be used

    The standard values for power plant installed cost is dollars per net KW output. If you look around on the EIA website there is s 2010 report on the estimated installed costs for different types of power plants. $897 per net KW for a CC natural gas plant is just about right and the nuclear plant cost also lines up with $/kw.

    The solar industry sometimes plays tricks and uses $ per installed KW. At a glance it looks the same, but $/installed KW doesnt take into account the conversion efficiency of the plant. (I.E. if you install a 1000 watts of PV panels and use a 70% conversion efficiency, the plant net output to the grid is 700 watts, if you dont factor in conversion efficiency its a 1000 watt plant. Makes a big difference.
    · Share on Twitter
  • Lee Dodge
    Lee Dodge Solar Expert Posts: 112 ✭✭
    #37
    Re: Where the natural gas from PA is going to be used
    peakbagger wrote: »
    The standard values for power plant installed cost is dollars per net KW output. If you look around on the EIA website there is s 2010 report on the estimated installed costs for different types of power plants. $897 per net KW for a CC natural gas plant is just about right and the nuclear plant cost also lines up with $/kw.

    The solar industry sometimes plays tricks and uses $ per installed KW. At a glance it looks the same, but $/installed KW doesnt take into account the conversion efficiency of the plant. (I.E. if you install a 1000 watts of PV panels and use a 70% conversion efficiency, the plant net output to the grid is 700 watts, if you dont factor in conversion efficiency its a 1000 watt plant. Makes a big difference.

    Units make a difference, peakbagger. Normalized costs may be expressed as $/Watt or as $/kiloWatt, but it is NOT accurate to take a value that would be accurate in $/kW and put units of $/W on it. It is in error by a factor of 1000! You cannot make intelligent decisions based on data that are off by a factor of 1000.

    What is your reference for the 70% conversion efficiency for PV systems? PVWatts uses 0.77, and I am tracking three different systems here and their output is much higher than PVWatts predictions, implying a higher conversion efficiency than 77%, or abnormally sunny weather for the last two years (http://www.residentialenergylaboratory.com/comparison_of_pv_systems.html). It is true that in the comparison I provided for solar PV, I should have converted it into AC power rating, which using the 0.77 factor would be $6.17/Watt AC.

    Natural gas makes a relatively clean fuel due to the high hydrogen content, but burning it certainly adds to the CO2 burden in the atmosphere. Also it is a great feedstock for plastics. Can you imagine the irritation a few generations down the road when your offspring are talking, "It is too bad we can't afford to make plastics, but great grandpa and his generation just burned natural gas for heat instead of using solar for heating. Those selfish bas****."
    · Share on Twitter
  • peakbagger
    peakbagger Solar Expert Posts: 341 ✭✭✭
    #38
    Re: Where the natural gas from PA is going to be used

    Not sure what you are talking about on the units. A local 70 MW net output biomass powerplant using an existing brownfield site with an old boiler is estimated at 230 million dollars. Convert 70 MW to KW = 70,000 KW. Divide 230 million dollars /70,000KW = $3,285 $/KW which lines up with the EIA numbers.

    I used 70% as an illustration not as specific figure. Like anything else your actual conversion effiiency will vary depending on effective insolation, panel cleanliness outdoor temperature and other factors.
    · Share on Twitter
  • TheBackRoads
    TheBackRoads Solar Expert Posts: 274 ✭✭
    #39
    Re: Where the natural gas from PA is going to be used

    Random thought... But I hope we see a boom in natural gas powered cars. Local fuel, Local cars!
    · Share on Twitter
  • SolaRevolution
    SolaRevolution Solar Expert Posts: 410 ✭✭
    #40
    Re: Where the natural gas from PA is going to be used
    Lee Dodge wrote: »
    I believe there is an error by a factor of about 1000x in these numbers. I think that the construction costs should read:

    TVA NGCC Plant: $0.86/Watt rather than $897/Watt
    Southern Company Nuclear Project: $6.78/Watt rather than $6,818/Watt
    These compare to solar as
    Solar PV: ~$4.75/Watt

    The zero fueling costs, zero greenhouse gas emissions during operation, and zero nuclear waste to be guarded for 10,000 years make solar attractive relative to the alternatives. Perhaps more important, solar will still be available after fueling sources for these other electrical generators will be exhausted.

    I'd like to see a 20 year cost per Watt Hour comparison.

    Try to compare the cost of a 6000 Watt pv/battery system with a 6000 Watt genset. The comparison does not make sense until you factor in operating costs.

    -Alex Aragon
    · Share on Twitter
  • Lee Dodge
    Lee Dodge Solar Expert Posts: 112 ✭✭
    #41
    Re: Where the natural gas from PA is going to be used
    peakbagger wrote: »
    Not sure what you are talking about on the units. A local 70 MW net output biomass powerplant using an existing brownfield site with an old boiler is estimated at 230 million dollars. Convert 70 MW to KW = 70,000 KW. Divide 230 million dollars /70,000KW = $3,285 $/KW which lines up with the EIA numbers.
    ...snip...

    So, you are quoting a cost for a powerplant of $3,285/kW. solarvic quoted a price for a natural gas plant of $897/W or $897,000/kW, or 273 times the cost of the biomass power plant. solarvic quoted a price for a nuclear plant of $6,818/W or $6,818,000/kW or 2075 times the cost of the biomass power plant. Are we to conclude that we should build biomass power plants because they are about a thousand times less expensive than natural gas plants or nuclear plants? No, we should correct solarvic's numbers that are off by a factor of 1000.

    I don't know how I can make it more clear for you peakbagger.
    · Share on Twitter
  • Lee Dodge
    Lee Dodge Solar Expert Posts: 112 ✭✭
    #42
    Re: Where the natural gas from PA is going to be used
    SolaRevolution wrote: »
    I'd like to see a 20 year cost per Watt Hour comparison.

    Try to compare the cost of a 6000 Watt pv/battery system with a 6000 Watt genset. The comparison does not make sense until you factor in operating costs.

    -Alex Aragon

    Alex,

    I am more interested in solar PV grid-tie applications than in off-grid applications that are much more expensive to operate. I am tracking three grid-tie applications in a mountain valley in Colorado, and based on past and projected energy gathered for 25 years, the costs in present dollars for these three systems are $0.064/kWh, $0.080/kWh, and $0.082/kWh. These values compare to present electric rates of $0.108/kWh for the first two systems, and $0.130/kWh for the third system. All of the measurements and assumptions are spelled out at http://www.residentialenergylaboratory.com/comparison_of_pv_systems.html

    If you have an interest and data for off-grid applications, I will let you present that.

    Lee Dodge
    · Share on Twitter
  • Lee Dodge
    Lee Dodge Solar Expert Posts: 112 ✭✭
    #43
    Re: Where the natural gas from PA is going to be used
    TheBackRoads wrote: »
    Random thought... But I hope we see a boom in natural gas powered cars. Local fuel, Local cars!

    Natural gas fueled trucks in fleet operations are already in use. That application can afford the expensive and time consuming process of refueling to high pressures. You know how CO2 gas is very cold when expanded out of a high-pressure tank. The same is true for other gases. The opposite occurs when you pressurize natural gas into a high-pressure tank, with the heat causing an increase in pressure, limiting the fill. Therefore, it takes a while to let the tank cool to get a full fill. Add to that the great expense of high-pressure natural gas compressors, and the limited range for vehicles with thick-walled, high-pressure tanks, and you can see the economic issues.

    There is current interest in liquified natural gas (LNG), but this is cryogenic so you better be burning a lot of fuel fast. That is the reason that LNG interest is in long-haul trucking.
    · Share on Twitter
  • solarvic
    solarvic Solar Expert Posts: 1,071 ✭✭✭✭
    #44
    Re: Where the natural gas from PA is going to be used
    Lee Dodge wrote: »
    So, you are quoting a cost for a powerplant of $3,285/kW. solarvic quoted a price for a natural gas plant of $897/W or $897,000/kW, or 273 times the cost of the biomass power plant. solarvic quoted a price for a nuclear plant of $6,818/W or $6,818,000/kW or 2075 times the cost of the biomass power plant. Are we to conclude that we should build biomass power plants because they are about a thousand times less expensive than natural gas plants or nuclear plants? No, we should correct solarvic's numbers that are off by a factor of 1000.

    I don't know how I can make it more clear for you peakbagger.
    Lee Dodge. I distinctly told you the numbers and calculations are not mine. My post was cipyy,d and pasted from Mr Knapps blog. I mostly put his blog there so people could get a lot of information.
    If you read the Knapp blog there is a posting about Honda releasing thier Honda civic for purchase in most states. Also farther back to older post is a story about the differen pickup trucks they are going to have on the market in the 2013 model year.
    If I tryed to use solar to heat my home what would I be? COLD, because I have too much cloudy weather. The reason I need more Solar panels to get the same amount of electric as people that live where there is more sun. :Dsolarvic:D
    · Share on Twitter
  • peakbagger
    peakbagger Solar Expert Posts: 341 ✭✭✭
    #45
    Re: Where the natural gas from PA is going to be used

    For general reference, this link to the EIA plant cost data may be of value

    http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/beck_plantcosts/

    Table 2 is quite handy showing the costs of various technologies on a $/KW basis. No worry that the units are at a different basis.

    I agree units are important but trying to shoot the messenger, solarvic for a typo on a report he linked to isnt the way to make friends.

    At least I get to use a feature of VB, "Ignore this poster"
    · Share on Twitter
  • solarvic
    solarvic Solar Expert Posts: 1,071 ✭✭✭✭
    #46
    Re: Where the natural gas from PA is going to be used

    My US congressman has townhall meetings by phone sometimes and you might get called on phone to participate. People call in and ask questions and he trys to answer them. So yesterday I got invited. Someone was concerned about the coalminers losing thier jobs because of coalfired generators bieing shut down because of polution. He doesn,t think all of them will get shut down as we don,t have enough electric generating capacity without using them. Thinks some of them will be cleaned up. Also he said that even though our governmernmental policys are against using coal because of polution that there are plenty other countrys that don,t mind a bit and buy our coal. 66% of our coal gets exported to them countrys that don,t mind poluting. So He thinks the coalminers will still have thier jobs. That is good for coalminers that depend on coal mining for thier livlelyhood.
    Just another tidbit. Pennsylvania and West Virginia have unicque laws about leases for coal and gas. When oil and coal were first mined or drilled for early in the discovery of oil the coal and gas companys had lawsuits about what oil rights and what mineral rights were. So they seperated them. If you have a coal lease the oil co cant retrive the gas from underground coal seams because it devalues the coals value. So coal leases are separate from oil and gas leases. In most other states a lease is usually for mineral rights which includes oil and gas and I guess gas companys can get gas from the coal seams. :Dsolarvic:D
    · Share on Twitter
  • ggunn
    ggunn Solar Expert Posts: 1,973 ✭✭✭
    #47
    Re: Where the natural gas from PA is going to be used
    Lee Dodge wrote: »
    Can you imagine the irritation a few generations down the road when your offspring are talking, "It is too bad we can't afford to make plastics, but great grandpa and his generation just burned natural gas for heat instead of using solar for heating. Those selfish bas****."
    Or worse, they just burned the gas out in the open and didn't even use the light and heat it generated.
    · Share on Twitter
  • erne
    erne Solar Expert Posts: 41 ✭
    #48
    Re: Where the natural gas from PA is going to be used

    In Colorado coal mines aren’t allowed to harvest the methane gas they pump out of the mines. (only coal) the gas is dumped into the air.The power companies and mines were supporting using this resource, but the law allowing this was defeated.The green movement kept it from being voted on. So much for common sense. house bill H13-12-1160
    · Share on Twitter
  • ggunn
    ggunn Solar Expert Posts: 1,973 ✭✭✭
    #49
    Re: Where the natural gas from PA is going to be used
    erne wrote: »
    In Colorado coal mines aren’t allowed to harvest the methane gas they pump out of the mines. (only coal) the gas is dumped into the air.The power companies and mines were supporting using this resource, but the law allowing this was defeated.The green movement kept it from being voted on. So much for common sense.
    It really makes no sense to me if it were defeated for environmental concerns. Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than is the CO2 that would result from burning it.

    EDIT: From Wikipedia: "...the 20 year GWP of methane is 72, which means that if the same mass of methane and carbon dioxide were introduced into the atmosphere, that methane will trap 72 times more heat than the carbon dioxide over the next 20 years."
    · Share on Twitter
  • icarus
    icarus Solar Expert Posts: 5,436 ✭✭✭✭
    #50
    Re: Where the natural gas from PA is going to be used
    erne wrote: »
    In Colorado coal mines aren’t allowed to harvest the methane gas they pump out of the mines. (only coal) the gas is dumped into the air.The power companies and mines were supporting using this resource, but the law allowing this was defeated.The green movement kept it from being voted on. So much for common sense.

    Citation please???

    Tony
    · Share on Twitter

Categories