Once-Through Versus Evaporative Cooling for Power Plants

..."Winds are light during the late evening and early morning, then pick up during the morning hours....

The increase of wind speed from early morning into the day is related to the warming of the air. .."

ref...

https://weatherspark.com/y/1705/Average-Weather-in-Los-Angeles-California-United-States-Year-Round

California becomes a little more like a third world country every year....

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pge-power-company-ceo-says-california-blackouts-could-continue-for-another-decade-angering-regulators/

It looks like they are going to force all the conventional generating facilities to eventually close up and everybody will just have to learn to live with it....Solar and wind, when they are available....and no power when they aren't....

Solar and wind, when they are available....and no power when they aren't.

This is a reason I think nuclear generation will have to be used. Preferably fast reactors. Remember that they can use as fuel the "waste" from thermal reactors.

Well I agree, but nuclear power in California? surely you jest?

..."California’s last nuclear power plant — Diablo Canyon, whose contentious birth helped shape the modern environmental movement — will close in 2025, state utility regulators decided Thursday."...

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/California-regulators-vote-unanimously-to-close-12491203.php

Something that uses latent heat, as opposed to sensible heat, is going to be smaller because the numbers involved in latent heat are larger.

True but the source of once through water is important in a state like California with water shortages. If they are using river water then I would think that once through is better. Evaporative cooling would reduce the flow in the river taking river water and evaporating to atmosphere. Warmed river water will cool by some evaporation and some conduction / convection but most of the water will be available for downstream users. If the cooling is sea water (direct or indirect) I wonder what the impact on materials would be of going to evaporative cooling.

IMHO, any new developments, (residential, commercial and industrial), should be required to include a fuel cell power unit(s) capable of handling the needs of the development plus, perhaps, 25% for future increase in demand. The size of the fuel cell could be augmented with the addition of solar panels on all buildings within the project. Customers in the development would share in the cost of power generation. This would eliminate additional demand on surrounding power infrastructure and should lower the cost of power, since there is no cost for distribution and no corporate profits.

Yeah that should raise the electric bill about 50%, or more....sorry no sale

..."Electricity produced by fuel cells costs $0.14 to $0.15 per kilowatt-hour, the most commonly used measurement of energy prices. In contrast, coal-generated power costs between $0.07 and $0.15 while natural-gas power is cheaper yet at between $0.06 and $0.09."Oct 17, 2013

Since 2013 Fuel Cell Energy's stock has gone from $300+ to $0.24...

FCEL ebitda -$40 million

https://qz.com/135032/fuelcell-energy-fuel-cell-profit/

Cost of production is only a small portion of the delivered cost. Living in a town that has had two major high voltage expansions forced upon us that benefit not us, but the mansions being built in the "gold coast" of Connecticut I stand by my initial post. Generate the power where it is needed. As for coal, we've had to deal with the soot from coal fired plants to the west for far too long, happy to see them being retired.

https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-ct-wins-court-suit-to-halt-brunner-pollution-20180208-story.html

Well the initial cost is roughly equivalent to solar, so you need to add that as well....although the fuel cell would be more productive than the solar system, it only lasts a fraction of the time until it needs to be rebuilt 5 - 10 years...so it would end up costing 2 to 3 times what a solar system would cost, by my estimate...

"Nobody in the fuel cell industry has ever made a profit"

That should tell you something...

Remember Bloom Energy...?

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BE/financials?p=BE

SE: Did you also find the cost per kwh for nuclear? I would subdivide that into thermal nuclear and fast nuclear. For further comparison, it would be great to also have costs for wind and solar electric generation. Thanks.

Well the nuclear industry is over regulated and that drives the price up, on the other hand solar and wind get government subsidies, further obfuscating the true cost...and pv solar and on-shore wind prices do not include storage, which would be necessary for reliable grid power...So a true comparison cannot be made...add to that the utilization stats and wind turbines sit dormant most of the time.....If you want an estimate I would say solar and wind costs about 4 times as much as nuclear on a level playing field...about the same as combined gas turbine generation at present natural gas prices....The future right now points to natural gas as the cheapest producer...there is an almost endless supply of natural gas....off-shore wind and thermal solar probably the most expensive....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source