The ancillary benefits of large steam turbine generators tend to get lost in the minutia of fuel cost conversations. The long shaft 3600 rpm generators coupled with the direct connected steam rotor deliver massive amounts of stabilizing inertia to the power system. The generators tend to have a more robust D curve with a rich negative MVAr operating region. Most coal stations tend to use cross compound steam turbines.
The gas turbines in a CC plant simply do not match up to steam turbines in this area. They are lighter, smaller, and often have more restrictive D curves with almost no negative MVAr capability. The companion steam turbines arw also small and equally limited.
As we have we have discussed many times, renewables provide virtually zero ancillary services of any kind to the power system.
The vocabulary and abbreviations are beyond me, but I think you're saying coal steam turbine generators are bigger than gas and thus have more stabilizing inertia?
And yes, the wind and solar renewables lack that stabilization and increase the unreliability and vulnerability of a grid.
Correct, they are bigger pieces of iron, often spinning at higher speed. Many smaller gas turbines are 1800 rpm powered through a gearbox, the larger 100MW+ units tend to 3600 rpm direct connect generators. The reality is there are no single unit gas turbines over 450MW in the USA. GE Verona makes some single shaft combined cycle units where they put the steam turbine and the gas turbine on the same shaft, but they are the only ones. The other piece is the generator ends are just better engineered because there is more money in the project. It takes special steel lamination configuration, more damper windings, and flux shielding to make a unit absorb MVArs. Typical CC and peaker turbines get more of a budget generator end rated for .95 power factor at full load. Those generator ends just don't have the design capability to provide the reactive power the coal plant generators tend to have. Of course we stopped building coal plants, so who knows what they are supplying now.
I recently read about the China's choking off most of yttrium exports, which are needed for the best heat protection coating on turbine blades. Your thoughts on that?...and the backlog on gas turbine orders?...
It fits with retaliation from China over the tariffs. It also fits with China trying very hard to control world manufacturing markets by any means possible. Ham fisted heavy handed efforts almost always backfire in the end. Pearl Harbor was retaliation for the US oil embargoes on Japan leading up to WWII. The US was trying to limit the expansion of imperial Japan, Japan believed they had a right to rule the Pacific. Many believe it was a tactical mistake on the part of the US, but war with Japan was unavoidable.
The backlog is simply a result of market momentum, power system expansion stalled, production cut-back, expansion returned, it takes time for industry to retool. The possibility of a far left swing in government remains which would kill momentum, and leave manufacturers holding the bag, so investment is cautious.
“NOTE — UNDEREXCITED OPERATION AND GENERATOR DESIGN
The ability of a generator end to operate in the underexcited region is a function of its design. Utility scale generators are often constructed with robust underexcited operating areas because the underexcited region is used to absorb reactive power and control power system voltage under light load conditions. These machines incorporate stator core end-region design features (stepped end laminations, flux shields, enhanced end-region cooling) and lower synchronous reactance to extend the stable underexcited operating boundary. Amortisseur (damper) windings provide additional dynamic stability margin when operating near the underexcited limit. These are not typically specifiable options on an industrial standby generator, but the information is included for reference.”
We don't know what percentage of grid generation must provide inertia to assure stability or how that inertial must be distributed on the grid. With luck, we will learn painlessly.
More great analysis with supporting data. I pray it’s not too late to preserve the original intent of the grid. You guys nailed it again! I know Secretary Wright knows this and is probably working extra hard to protect the grid from being diminished from parasitic forms of electricity like wind and solar. The data you shared is outstanding, the apathetic and greeniacs just need to read this to get informed. This article would make an awesome infomercial if it could be produced and edited to about 10 minutes with key visuals matching the actual data. It would go over big time on YouTube. Just mho, but I think you have an opportunity here to promote and expand your audience in a massive way. The EBB brand and logo……
Yes, an easy to understand version, simple and shorter, would reach a much bigger audience. The longer, more detailed article could be given as a link for reference.
Excellent analysis. Last winter coal was important, next winter (December-Feb. 2027) coal will be even more important. Especially if gas prices are above $4.00/million BTU. Thank you for your outstanding work!
I would love to see an analysis of earthjustices’ report “ The Cost of
Federal Mandates to Retain Fossil-Burning Power Plants” from energy bad boys. The claim that keeping the J. H. Cambell plant open costs ratepayers one million dollars a day has to be based on absurd assumptions
I operated a professional Machine Shop from my home for 30+ years in Southern California. I saved 30+ years of power bills that started out almost cheep but as the Green Monster grew then the Smart Meters came and they charged different rates for different times of day and for over usage of allotments. The Green Scam is just that. Today I do not even occupy that house, I visit and occasionally I do some stuff in the shop, I get notices that I'm cruising for a high power bill and I only used the shop for a couple hours. I thank all of you that put up the truth and I curse all those who ignore it. Nothing I read if Mr. Bryce's I read 20+ years ago has shown false, everything he said is so. It's one thing for a discussion but the failed Green policies are so evident yet completely ignored.
Great report.. but I can not believe that the Nuke O&M costs are as low as shown on the LCOE Table. BTW, I have personally filled out FERC Form 1s, for an IPP's coal and nat gas plant. A lot of the figures were rounded up or rounded down and in many cases aggregated/pooled to preserve confidential information from competitors
It's cruelly ironic that the out of work coal miners were told to "learn to code" and now without coal generation there won't be enough affordable electricity to power the computers on which they code.
Isaac and Mitch, very nice analysis – I believe you’re right on target that extending the life of existing coal plants can mitigate future rates increases and enhance grid reliability. Given the trajectory of customer rates, this is much needed.
An alternative way to look at the coal plant costs, that may further increase their attractiveness, would be to focus on just the incremental costs for the anticipated plant operational life. Given, this data may not be available externally to the plant owner.
The FERC Form 1 data, O&M + Depreciation + Return on Rate Base, may contain a significant amount of sunk costs (un-recovered capital costs from the initial plant construction and or sustaining capital). These costs and their return on rate base will be recovered in most situations even without continued operation of the plant. Therefore, from a utility and customer perspective, these costs should be omitted from the analysis.
These sunk / un-recovered costs may be substantial for one of more of the following reasons:
Commissions and or utilities' willingness to accept cost recovery beyond the plant’s anticipated life – to reduce rate increases.
Recent plant investments in environmental equipment (SCRs for one of the plants on your list cost ~$630M).
Substantial increases in Coal Combustion Residual (CCR / aka coal ash) pond closure costs based upon both stricter interpretation of environmental regulations and civil cost increases. Closure of one pond I’m familiar with increased to ~$170M from $70 in the 2023 timeframe.
Ironically, the higher cost coal plants have the lower utilization rates because they have to back down operations to accommodate variable wind and solar. It seems "renewables" make everything more expensive.
Great stuff, Boys.
Iron Law of Infrastructure: Support infrastructure must be operational before its support is required.
That Law is being violated frequently in the "energy transition", though that is hardly the only situation in which it is violated.
Virtual Power Plants and rolling blackouts are not support infrastructure.
The ancillary benefits of large steam turbine generators tend to get lost in the minutia of fuel cost conversations. The long shaft 3600 rpm generators coupled with the direct connected steam rotor deliver massive amounts of stabilizing inertia to the power system. The generators tend to have a more robust D curve with a rich negative MVAr operating region. Most coal stations tend to use cross compound steam turbines.
The gas turbines in a CC plant simply do not match up to steam turbines in this area. They are lighter, smaller, and often have more restrictive D curves with almost no negative MVAr capability. The companion steam turbines arw also small and equally limited.
As we have we have discussed many times, renewables provide virtually zero ancillary services of any kind to the power system.
The vocabulary and abbreviations are beyond me, but I think you're saying coal steam turbine generators are bigger than gas and thus have more stabilizing inertia?
And yes, the wind and solar renewables lack that stabilization and increase the unreliability and vulnerability of a grid.
Correct, they are bigger pieces of iron, often spinning at higher speed. Many smaller gas turbines are 1800 rpm powered through a gearbox, the larger 100MW+ units tend to 3600 rpm direct connect generators. The reality is there are no single unit gas turbines over 450MW in the USA. GE Verona makes some single shaft combined cycle units where they put the steam turbine and the gas turbine on the same shaft, but they are the only ones. The other piece is the generator ends are just better engineered because there is more money in the project. It takes special steel lamination configuration, more damper windings, and flux shielding to make a unit absorb MVArs. Typical CC and peaker turbines get more of a budget generator end rated for .95 power factor at full load. Those generator ends just don't have the design capability to provide the reactive power the coal plant generators tend to have. Of course we stopped building coal plants, so who knows what they are supplying now.
"special steel lamination configuration"
I recently read about the China's choking off most of yttrium exports, which are needed for the best heat protection coating on turbine blades. Your thoughts on that?...and the backlog on gas turbine orders?...
It fits with retaliation from China over the tariffs. It also fits with China trying very hard to control world manufacturing markets by any means possible. Ham fisted heavy handed efforts almost always backfire in the end. Pearl Harbor was retaliation for the US oil embargoes on Japan leading up to WWII. The US was trying to limit the expansion of imperial Japan, Japan believed they had a right to rule the Pacific. Many believe it was a tactical mistake on the part of the US, but war with Japan was unavoidable.
The backlog is simply a result of market momentum, power system expansion stalled, production cut-back, expansion returned, it takes time for industry to retool. The possibility of a far left swing in government remains which would kill momentum, and leave manufacturers holding the bag, so investment is cautious.
Regarding laminations, from this piece https://kilovar1959.substack.com/p/reactive-load-bank-testing-the-missing
“NOTE — UNDEREXCITED OPERATION AND GENERATOR DESIGN
The ability of a generator end to operate in the underexcited region is a function of its design. Utility scale generators are often constructed with robust underexcited operating areas because the underexcited region is used to absorb reactive power and control power system voltage under light load conditions. These machines incorporate stator core end-region design features (stepped end laminations, flux shields, enhanced end-region cooling) and lower synchronous reactance to extend the stable underexcited operating boundary. Amortisseur (damper) windings provide additional dynamic stability margin when operating near the underexcited limit. These are not typically specifiable options on an industrial standby generator, but the information is included for reference.”
We don't know what percentage of grid generation must provide inertia to assure stability or how that inertial must be distributed on the grid. With luck, we will learn painlessly.
Sadly, it's more likely that our learning will be painful.
Learning was painful in the Iberian Peninsula.
Right - I almost mentioned that too.
ERCOTT has a hard 20% floor
More great analysis with supporting data. I pray it’s not too late to preserve the original intent of the grid. You guys nailed it again! I know Secretary Wright knows this and is probably working extra hard to protect the grid from being diminished from parasitic forms of electricity like wind and solar. The data you shared is outstanding, the apathetic and greeniacs just need to read this to get informed. This article would make an awesome infomercial if it could be produced and edited to about 10 minutes with key visuals matching the actual data. It would go over big time on YouTube. Just mho, but I think you have an opportunity here to promote and expand your audience in a massive way. The EBB brand and logo……
Yes, an easy to understand version, simple and shorter, would reach a much bigger audience. The longer, more detailed article could be given as a link for reference.
“ Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” (Albert Einstein)
Excellent analysis. Last winter coal was important, next winter (December-Feb. 2027) coal will be even more important. Especially if gas prices are above $4.00/million BTU. Thank you for your outstanding work!
It's nice that coal has a friend in Trump. But, I fear that is through an Executive Order. EOs are as good as the next election.
That’s a fair concern. Frankly they need to dish out cash to build new plants now to derisk them if they want to get more new plants built
I would love to see an analysis of earthjustices’ report “ The Cost of
Federal Mandates to Retain Fossil-Burning Power Plants” from energy bad boys. The claim that keeping the J. H. Cambell plant open costs ratepayers one million dollars a day has to be based on absurd assumptions
I operated a professional Machine Shop from my home for 30+ years in Southern California. I saved 30+ years of power bills that started out almost cheep but as the Green Monster grew then the Smart Meters came and they charged different rates for different times of day and for over usage of allotments. The Green Scam is just that. Today I do not even occupy that house, I visit and occasionally I do some stuff in the shop, I get notices that I'm cruising for a high power bill and I only used the shop for a couple hours. I thank all of you that put up the truth and I curse all those who ignore it. Nothing I read if Mr. Bryce's I read 20+ years ago has shown false, everything he said is so. It's one thing for a discussion but the failed Green policies are so evident yet completely ignored.
Fantastic and informative write up, Bad Boyz!!!
Excellent report
Great report.. but I can not believe that the Nuke O&M costs are as low as shown on the LCOE Table. BTW, I have personally filled out FERC Form 1s, for an IPP's coal and nat gas plant. A lot of the figures were rounded up or rounded down and in many cases aggregated/pooled to preserve confidential information from competitors
Excellent work.
It's cruelly ironic that the out of work coal miners were told to "learn to code" and now without coal generation there won't be enough affordable electricity to power the computers on which they code.
Isaac and Mitch, very nice analysis – I believe you’re right on target that extending the life of existing coal plants can mitigate future rates increases and enhance grid reliability. Given the trajectory of customer rates, this is much needed.
An alternative way to look at the coal plant costs, that may further increase their attractiveness, would be to focus on just the incremental costs for the anticipated plant operational life. Given, this data may not be available externally to the plant owner.
The FERC Form 1 data, O&M + Depreciation + Return on Rate Base, may contain a significant amount of sunk costs (un-recovered capital costs from the initial plant construction and or sustaining capital). These costs and their return on rate base will be recovered in most situations even without continued operation of the plant. Therefore, from a utility and customer perspective, these costs should be omitted from the analysis.
These sunk / un-recovered costs may be substantial for one of more of the following reasons:
Commissions and or utilities' willingness to accept cost recovery beyond the plant’s anticipated life – to reduce rate increases.
Recent plant investments in environmental equipment (SCRs for one of the plants on your list cost ~$630M).
Substantial increases in Coal Combustion Residual (CCR / aka coal ash) pond closure costs based upon both stricter interpretation of environmental regulations and civil cost increases. Closure of one pond I’m familiar with increased to ~$170M from $70 in the 2023 timeframe.
Hey Bad Boys, It can't be easy being wonderful and all.
Haha it’s terrible 😉
Isaac, what is your best e-mail address?
Long live coal!
Ironically, the higher cost coal plants have the lower utilization rates because they have to back down operations to accommodate variable wind and solar. It seems "renewables" make everything more expensive.