Is Hovensa Power Pl...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Is Hovensa Power Plant More Efficient Than WAPAs?

Page 2 / 2
 
DaChief
(@DaChief)
Advanced Member

Now the PSC is having a Public Hearing to talk about the LEAC. They BETTER not think about raising the LEAC until a new contract is inked- then PUBLICALLY show the rates we are paying for fuel...Damn WAPA is starting up already. This will not help matters- Everyone push for TOTAL transparency in WAPA Billing....

ReplyQuote
Posted : January 23, 2012 2:20 pm
cayennita
(@cayennita)
Advanced Member

I read somewhere in one of my engineering magazines that 60% of the imported LNG comes from Trinidad. Shipment costs to here would be minimal. The storage and refrigeration would be the expensive part. I worked for Potomac Electric in Quality Control and Inspections and we were always going to the LNG terminal in the Cheseapeke. It was very well maintained and preventive maintenance was excellent.
Never had any problems there. Could we expect the same here? Only with a new regime.
I would prefer one or two of the new Mitsubishi (Made in the USA) mini reactors. Size of a container, bury it and replace it every 20 years. No maintenace required. Only costs about 25-30 million per unit.

ReplyQuote
Posted : January 23, 2012 10:50 pm
CareDriver
(@CareDriver)
Active Member

Wouldn't a NR in SJU serving all the down islands make the most sense? Having to xport LNG or any other mass fuel so far ultimately seems cost prohibitive; not to mention the storage thereof in the interim. The elephant in the room with a NR appears to be the spent rods; and maybe an earthquake. The former could be boated to Chavez with a card that reads, "Cigars complements GHW Bush"; the latter would take some engineering.

ReplyQuote
Posted : January 24, 2012 6:04 am
Lucy
 Lucy
(@Lucy)
Advanced Member

A nuclear plant does make sense and would be the least cost option. Westinghouse just got final approval for 2 latest generation AP-1,000 units at plant Vogtle in Georgia, so they will be coming back. The plants are designed to withstand earthquakes and those loads are combined with loads from a guillotine pipe break (... and the pipe break loads normally exceed the seismic loads). Spent fuel is a manageable issue. Currently the plants in the US mainly store the SF in "dry" storage canisters that sit on concrete pads ... letting it deplete naturally over time. However, I suspect that the NIMBYs will be crawling out of the woodwork in the islands AND then there would be the issue of national security for fear of a terrorist attack coming from the water.

Here is the current status of small nuc plant development. The Russian design is the only one ready for deployment now.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html

Chief - here is a good comparison of the available engine and turbine technologies. Slow speed diesel has the highest 'thermal" efficiencies. And the electrical efficiency 45% to 52% is similar to that of the medium speed diesels (ie., similar heat rates or amount of BTUs to create one kWh). The 2nd web page has all the available MAN diesel products (slow and medium speed).

http://www.mandieselturbo.com/files/news/filesof16119/tech_paper_low_speed.pdf

http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/d427c46f#/d427c46f/1

From all the research that I have done. Remote locations are going with slow or medium speed diesel; some of which are duel fuel (oil and NG).

ReplyQuote
Posted : January 24, 2012 2:08 pm
stiphy
(@stiphy)
Trusted Member

For those who don't think Nuclear is possible in STX or SJU it was already done in SJU apparantly although the Triga reactor has since been dismantled: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#Puerto_Rico

It was very small though, 2 megawatts apparantly: http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=21217752

I'd be interested to know more but the articles I find are usually something you have to pay for. I think these reactors were mostly experimental, anyone out there know more about them?

Sean

ReplyQuote
Posted : January 24, 2012 2:24 pm
DaChief
(@DaChief)
Advanced Member

Not to worry- with the way things are going in our territory, the Feds will be here soon I think- Look at the latest headlines- $120MM to borrow- $60 MM going to WAPA- this is ridiculous; $60MM to the most inefficient government entity- look at the facts- WAPA IS IN TROUBLE- not just yet- but more so for oil deliveries after 7/1, WAPA doesn't have money to buy fuel- no private supplier will give them much credit I think-

That means this rogue agency will probably pursue a large rate in the LEAC. This will be met by disasterous result...

ReplyQuote
Posted : January 24, 2012 2:37 pm
blu4u
(@blu4u)
Trusted Member

Wouldn't a NR in SJU serving all the down islands make the most sense? Having to xport LNG or any other mass fuel so far ultimately seems cost prohibitive; not to mention the storage thereof in the interim. The elephant in the room with a NR appears to be the spent rods; and maybe an earthquake. The former could be boated to Chavez with a card that reads, "Cigars complements GHW Bush"; the latter would take some engineering.

Good one! After the melt-down in Japan, Nuc's are a hard sell, especially in PR. The citizens are still steaming over the US Navy's "occupation" of Vieques.

ReplyQuote
Posted : January 24, 2012 3:06 pm
Lucy
 Lucy
(@Lucy)
Advanced Member

But did any of the citizenry ever think about all the Nuc's that around our islands as we speak? They're called US Navy Submarines. A lot of testing and maneuvering just north of SJU and STT in the deep trench. I guess what you can't see won't hurt you.

ReplyQuote
Posted : January 24, 2012 5:32 pm
blu4u
(@blu4u)
Trusted Member

Don' t get me wrong...not trying to "poopoo" any of your good ideas. I LOVE the idea of lessening our "dependence on foreign fossil fuels". Call me crazy, but I just don't trust WAPA to run/manage/maintain a nuc plant......

ReplyQuote
Posted : January 24, 2012 5:48 pm
Lucy
 Lucy
(@Lucy)
Advanced Member

Who said anything about WAPA running a Nuc? That would be crazy. We need a real utility to step in that has Nuc experience AND has all the approved NRC Quality Plans and Procedures. Getting NRC approval costs big time money, which WAPA has none; let along the right management skills.

TRIGA was a test reactor. Far from commercial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIGA

A colleague on mine mentioned to me just today, that he read that Westinghouse just got a fresh batch of money to advance the SMR.

ReplyQuote
Posted : January 24, 2012 6:11 pm
noOne
(@noOne)
Trusted Member

Concerning nuke power:

The reactor is cooled by an inert, fireproof gas, so it cannot have a steam explosion as a light-water reactor can. The coolant has no phase transitions—it starts as a gas and remains a gas. Similarly, the moderator is solid carbon; it does not act as a coolant, move, or have phase transitions (i.e., between liquid and gas) as the light water in conventional reactors does.

A pebble-bed reactor thus can have all of its supporting machinery fail, and the reactor will not crack, melt, explode or spew hazardous wastes. It simply goes up to a designed "idle" temperature, and stays there. In that state, the reactor vessel radiates heat, but the vessel and fuel spheres remain intact and undamaged. The machinery can be repaired or the fuel can be removed. These safety features were tested (and filmed) with the German AVR reactor.[6] All the control rods were removed, and the coolant flow was halted. Afterward, the fuel balls were sampled and examined for damage and there was none.

Pebble bed reactor

ReplyQuote
Posted : January 24, 2012 7:46 pm
DaChief
(@DaChief)
Advanced Member

Fast Reactors? Lead Bismuth Fast Reactors were used in the Russian Alpha Class Submarines- At least one Nuke Plant was irreparably damaged as a result of a loss of shore steam that kept the reactor media liquid. Solidified the whole unit- Scrapped.

The Sodium type I believe is the same- this occurs usually when the reactor is secured and not properly maintained at minmum temperature. Those of you that don't like heavy water reactors- and like light water (such as the RBMK type) read the INSAG-7 Report regarding to Chernobyl. Neutron excursions, core poisoning, steam void pockets and reactivity.

I AM AN ADVOCATE OF NUCLEAR POWER- However, responsible power generation and operation. This is clearly out of WAPA's realm of reality. WE DESPERATELY NEED a Private Utility to accomplish the replacments, renewals and upgrades required.

Listen to the Senate online now- WAPA threatening that the lights are going to go out..This is the ONLY place in the USA that this permitted to even be suggested...

ReplyQuote
Posted : January 24, 2012 8:29 pm
DaChief
(@DaChief)
Advanced Member

Luicy- I agree- definitely Slow Speed or Medium Speed. Let WAPA buy 5 of these and enter into an operating agreemnet which removes them from the operation...

ReplyQuote
Posted : January 24, 2012 8:35 pm
Lucy
 Lucy
(@Lucy)
Advanced Member

FYI, the 4th generation Westinghouse reactors for AP-1000 and SMR use passive cooling (no mechanical systems) during an emergency trip. Operations and maintenance would still be a huge challenge for WAPA.

ReplyQuote
Posted : January 24, 2012 8:35 pm
Page 2 / 2
Close Menu