Coal plant cost estimates rise to $1.3 Billion

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Coal plant cost estimates rise to $1.3 Billion

Postby Aero » Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:30 pm

The cost of the proposed new 300 Megawatt coal fired power plant in Cassville, Wisconsin, has risen to $1.3 Billion. Initially proposed at $777 million, the plant costs have gone up to $433 million per 100 Megawatts. See details here: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=563358. This is a base load plant with 90 to 100 employees. The village of Cassville is solidly behind the proposal. It makes one wonder what the support from the village would be if it were a three 100 Megawatt BFR facility. How many employees do we expect would be required to operate that BFR facility?
Aero

alancj
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:15 am

Postby alancj » Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:29 am

Where did you get the 1.2 B figure? If true that's a terrible, $4333/KWe, which seems to be about as bad as fission nukes. They'd be better off getting in line for a new nuclear plant. I'd go for a couple PBMR's.

-Alan

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Coal plant cost estimates rise to $1.3 Billion

Postby MSimon » Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:16 am

Aero wrote:The cost of the proposed new 300 Megawatt coal fired power plant in Cassville, Wisconsin, has risen to $1.3 Billion. Initially proposed at $777 million, the plant costs have gone up to $433 million per 100 Megawatts. See details here: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=563358. This is a base load plant with 90 to 100 employees. The village of Cassville is solidly behind the proposal. It makes one wonder what the support from the village would be if it were a three 100 Megawatt BFR facility. How many employees do we expect would be required to operate that BFR facility?


Once we get regular black outs enviro resistance will be ignored.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Postby Aero » Thu Sep 11, 2008 1:16 pm

Simon- My remark was badly stated. The village currently has a small, old coal plant that provides ~50 jobs to the community. It was inferred that the village is solidly behind the new plant because it will double the jobs from power plants. The implication being that if the power plant provided fewer jobs, the support would be weaker. Of course there will be the environmental objections but how do those objections compare between BFR and Coal?
Again, how many employees do you estimate will be needed to operate a BFR? Will BFRs take jobs from the communities? If so, how many jobs nationwide are we talking about? Will that be a point of public resistance to BFRs? Don't forget security personnel when counting the jobs.
I forgot to mention the construction jobs. The community wants those construction jobs, too, and BFRs will be a lot cheaper to build if we can get direct conversion working. Not to mention if we mass produce and deliver the core machine to a prepared site. BFRs may be cheaper to build even if they include a steam plant but I expect the steam plant will be mainly built on site.

alancj- It's $1.3 billion, $433 million per 100 megawatts, (WB-100 equivalent) and it came from a newspaper article picked up by the Internet. I found it with a Google search on "Cassville Power Plant" after the lead popped up on my home page.
Aero

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Thu Sep 11, 2008 2:56 pm

I'd estimate that 5 continuous operation WB-100s could be operated by 10 people (i.e. 24/7 vacation sickness etc) add another 10 for radiation safety. etc. Another 10 for admin.

So 30 to 50 for 500 MW.

Plant cost $500 per KW. Including shielding etc.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:17 pm

MSimon wrote:Plant cost $500 per KW. Including shielding etc.


Scary if true.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

pstoller78
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:45 am

Why scary? n/t

Postby pstoller78 » Thu Sep 11, 2008 11:42 pm

Why scary?

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:49 am

TallDave wrote:
MSimon wrote:Plant cost $500 per KW. Including shielding etc.


Scary if true.


That is what gas turbines cost. Which are the lowest capital plants. If you go combined cycle they are $1,000 per KW
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

alancj
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:15 am

Postby alancj » Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:28 am

Aero wrote:alancj- It's $1.3 billion, $433 million per 100 megawatts, (WB-100 equivalent) and it came from a newspaper article picked up by the Internet. I found it with a Google search on "Cassville Power Plant" after the lead popped up on my home page.


Must not be the one you linked to because that one says 880 million. I always thought coal was supposed to be the cheapest base load. Is steel and concrete really that expensive now?

$500/kw would be great. Same capital as the cheapest fossil plants but a tiny fraction of the operating cost. I don't know where I read this but I thought Bussard had a long term goal of $60/kw of installed capacity. Unless that was for the Focus Fusion device... at that cost you'd be tripping over them in a few years.

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Postby Aero » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:44 pm

Yes, it is the one I linked. It started out at that estimated cost, and the cost estimate has gone up. I used that link because it includes the generating capacity of the plant. If you think they may be building two plants is Cassville Wisconsin, find the links to show it, that would be real news.
Aero

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:22 pm

alanjc,

You are correct about long term estimates. My estimate of $500/kw is absolute worst case and about 2X of what I think a reasonable estimate for the first production run would be.

One thing that happens is that as these plants go on line - raw materials like steel and concrete get cheaper.

Take low quality steel ores which now predominate in the USA. If you set up BFR plants at the mines you can reduce the amount of slag that needs to be transported. That is a huge saving. You also reduce the amount of coal that needs to be transported. If you use coal as a reducing agent.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Jboily
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:50 am

Postby Jboily » Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:08 pm

MSimon wrote:Plant cost $500 per KW. Including shielding etc.
Simon, since the fusion reactors fuel cost is negligible, a higher cost of the plant still would be competitive.

Even when assuming a carbon fuel cost of $0.01/Kw-Hr today (I think it is currently more then that), cost going up at 6% per year over a 20 years operation period, would justifies a $1.7K/Kw power plant initial investment (at a cost of money of 10% interest, present value). Again, that is if the fusion fuel cost is negligible and operation cost is similar. So, you do not have to have a so low initial cost.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests