Installing scrubbers can run as high as $500 million depending on how much modification is required to the plant. Plants weren't laid out with the idea of adding on to them in the future, so sometimes you have to move a lot of stuff around. You can probably build a nat gas plant for not much more than that, so thus the coal plants are getting shut down.
EPA announces historic rule to clean or shut coal-burning power plants
- Thread starter Capt Worley PE
- Start date
Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:
Master slacker
Something awesome.
My old plant had four GE 7FA gas turbines with HRSGs and a 200 MW steam turbine for ~$600M. That's ~900 MW.
Yep, and that's a biggie. For comparative purposes only, you're looking at roughly $2.5B cradle to grave for an 1100MW coal-fired supercritical unit with scrubber that would meet present emissions requirement. It should also be noted that utilities aren't seeing the lifespans they'd hoped for out of their scrubber units, in part due to the difficulty of welding duplex stainless steels and subsequently seeing a significant loss in corrosion performance associated with wet FGD absorbers.
Capt Worley PE
Run silent, run deep
^What's cradle to grave on a 1100MW nuke?
Last edited by a moderator:
Realistically in the $7B-$10B mark per unit. $7B is along the lines of what it was bid at, but there's no way the first few units will come in on budget while they sort out design and regulatory issues, plus the cost of rework.
Capt Worley PE
Run silent, run deep
Sounds like NG is the way to go, then...
Until the prices on that spike.
Until the prices on that spike.
And even then, factor in the money the utilities are making by bringing it online. 2 years for NG, 7+ for nuclear when you factor in 2 years just for licensing and suitability studies (seismic, etc.) One requires hiking up the rates to offset costs during construction, one doesn't.
Flyer_PE
Jr. PE / Sr. Company Pilot
Capt Worley PE
Run silent, run deep
Why the heck do they keep going nuke then?
Capt Worley PE
Run silent, run deep
Flyer_PE
Jr. PE / Sr. Company Pilot
Two reasons Come to mind. The first is that they are ideal for supplying base load. The other is that NG is next on the EPA hit list for CO2 production.
Ble_PE
I need a beer.
This is why we need fuel diversification. We need to have coal, NG, nuclear, and some renewables thrown in for good measure. That way, we don't get screwed over by a spike in NG or any other fuel shortages.
Higher baseload, relatively low operating costs (about on par with coal), and a life expectancy of 40-60 years vs. 30 max for gas.
Capt Worley PE
Run silent, run deep
PeonPE
Peon, 2nd Class
Interesting. I am not in this industry so all of this is educational. I definately agree with diversifying your means to generate energy.
My understanding with nukes is you tend to get more service life out of your turbines and other mechanical because there are fewer starts / stops when you compare them to more traditional means of boiling water to make steam. But that's just what I have been told - I claim no real knowledge about anything.
My understanding with nukes is you tend to get more service life out of your turbines and other mechanical because there are fewer starts / stops when you compare them to more traditional means of boiling water to make steam. But that's just what I have been told - I claim no real knowledge about anything.
