33% is the limit of feasible efficiency for heat cycle power plants using water. This is based on fundamental physics, the very practical choice of water as material for the heat cycle, and the necessity of using Mother Earth as the heatsink.

So coal/oil/nuclear power plant thermal efficiency hasn’t improved for a long time, because the plants of generations ago were so well engineered, that they already were at the limit of what was possible.

At the same time conventional steam-cycle power plants were perfected, automotive engines were atrociously inefficient, operating far below their theoretical efficiency (which for a conventional Otto-cycle gasoline piston engine is poor to begin with). In recent generations, real progress has been made in moving them closer to their limit of efficiency.

The author’s thesis, that the failure to make progress follows from the regulatory scheme, seems deeply misguided. Getting electricity out at 33% is as good as they can do. And if the operators could sell more revenue-generating power for a dollar of capital investment, I expect they would!

It’s true that part of the 67% waste heat might be used for heating — but heating homes or offices by direct distribution is only practical in dense areas (urban centers), like the underground steam pipes in New York City, and the power plant must be very close to where the heat is needed. Steam power plants are most practical and cost-efficient at large scales. If you think you can site a 3000 MWt power plant (say, coal-oil or nuclear) in Manhattan, then I say go for it!

Probably the best way to make use of waste heat would be to site factories that need lots of heat energy — but not high temperature (the waste heat isn’t available very hot) next door to big power plants. These factories would have to accommodate the need for their associated electric generating plants to change power levels or completely shut down due to scheduled maintenance, occasional mishaps, and variations in electric grid load.

But there’s a bright side to all this (if you love fracking!). Natural gas plants, which are proliferating rapidly, use much higher temperatures in their heat cycles and so have higher limits of theoretical efficiency. They are currently claimed to operate as high as 60%.

Double the alternating current’s frequency, then half-wave rectify it at
the last distribution point before the consumer. The consumer will
receive rapidly pulsed, turned on and off electricity. This on and off
pulsing, of their electricity, uses 50% less electricity. This means
that the electricity generation power plants can be running 50% less,
which means less pollution. It should also mean a 50% smaller electric
bill.

There are several ways to convert alternating current to
pulsed current, which will use 50% less electricity, and will cause much
less pollution.

There are three current types: direct current,
alternating current, and pulsed current. Pulsed current uses 50% less
electricity.

This DOES NOT violate any conservation of energy laws of physics.

It’s like turning a light switch
on and off quickly. If it’s done quickly enough, you won’t see the
light flicker, because of human vision.

Verify the concept experimentally by using a variable frequency drive in
series with a diode. Start the experiments on lights and report back on
your results.

If an electric clock is powered at twice its frequency, then it will run
twice as fast. If the power is half-wave rectified, then it will run on
time using half of the electricity.

Entire islands like Bermuda, Jamaica, Hawaii, Guam, etc. are completely dependent on oil burning power plants. Others have only natural gas.

With niches like that, we think we have a good place to start. Of course, there is some competition in the space now. Hyperion Power Generation and NuScale have also recognized that there is a need for reliable power in somewhat remote places. I have been studying energy technology for nearly three decades and I only know one alternative to fossil fuel that will work.

I am excited by the fact that it actually works a lot better. As a guy who has lived the high energy, off grid life that fission can provide, I just need to figure out how to get over the first unit hurdle.

Entire islands like Bermuda, Jamaica, Hawaii, Guam, etc. are completely dependent on oil burning power plants. Others have only natural gas.

With niches like that, we think we have a good place to start. Of course, there is some competition in the space now. Hyperion Power Generation and NuScale have also recognized that there is a need for reliable power in somewhat remote places. I have been studying energy technology for nearly three decades and I only know one alternative to fossil fuel that will work.

I am excited by the fact that it actually works a lot better. As a guy who has lived the high energy, off grid life that fission can provide, I just need to figure out how to get over the first unit hurdle.

Yes, I’d agree with you that those economics work, but it’s a niche application. The efficiency & economics I’m doing really relate to grid-connected power supplies, whether centrally- or locally-sited that must compete against the relevant buss bar rate.

To some degree, that is admittedly a matter of marketing strategy (e.g., entry markets vs. long term markets), but I would caution you that many an emerging technology – from fuel cells to solar – have looked at the off-grid space as an entry spot, with only mixed results. I am by no means an expert in those markets, but my understanding is that the challenge has been more one of inertia & infrastructure than fundamental economics. The odds are good that within 20 miles of an off-grid application, there’s someone who knows how to fix an engine, keeps a supply of spare spark plugs on hand and can spare some fuel oil if you’re in a pinch. Not so for other techs, for better or for worse. This has made those hard to crack, notwithstanding the competing economics.

Anyway, that’s off topic here – just a word of caution.

Yes, I’d agree with you that those economics work, but it’s a niche application. The efficiency & economics I’m doing really relate to grid-connected power supplies, whether centrally- or locally-sited that must compete against the relevant buss bar rate.

To some degree, that is admittedly a matter of marketing strategy (e.g., entry markets vs. long term markets), but I would caution you that many an emerging technology – from fuel cells to solar – have looked at the off-grid space as an entry spot, with only mixed results. I am by no means an expert in those markets, but my understanding is that the challenge has been more one of inertia & infrastructure than fundamental economics. The odds are good that within 20 miles of an off-grid application, there’s someone who knows how to fix an engine, keeps a supply of spare spark plugs on hand and can spare some fuel oil if you’re in a pinch. Not so for other techs, for better or for worse. This has made those hard to crack, notwithstanding the competing economics.

Anyway, that’s off topic here – just a word of caution.

It is a pleasure to enter into a discussion with someone who can actually run numbers. I have no quibbles with your figures, but I neglected to provide a few more details about the specific context of my discussion with the financial types. We were not talking about 1000 MWe or larger machines. As you have accurately pointed out, those machines are not appropriate for heat recovery systems.

The power plants that are the right size to locate near heat customers are on the order of 5-50 MWe. They would not be remote, but close to customers in order to successfully transmit the waste heat.

In that size range, we are not trying to compete against utility scale plants that have access to cheap fuel like mine mouth coal. Instead, we are aiming to supply power in place where it is useful but either supplied by a 5-50 MWe diesel engine or not available at all.

At current prices for diesel fuel, assuming a very efficient machine with a heat rate of 8,000 BTU per kilowatt hour, the fuel cost alone is running at about 28 cents per kilowatt hour.

Large diesel engines will cost at least $1000 and probably more like $3000 per KW new and they need regular maintenance by well trained people. Besides, they are notoriously dirty and CO2 emitting.

I hope you can now see why we believe that the ROI might be high enough to attract private capital.

BTW – I just read an interesting article in Fortune about Bill Gates and his plans after leaving Microsoft. Apparently he has already made an investment with a VC that is working on a nuclear energy project.

It is a pleasure to enter into a discussion with someone who can actually run numbers. I have no quibbles with your figures, but I neglected to provide a few more details about the specific context of my discussion with the financial types. We were not talking about 1000 MWe or larger machines. As you have accurately pointed out, those machines are not appropriate for heat recovery systems.

The power plants that are the right size to locate near heat customers are on the order of 5-50 MWe. They would not be remote, but close to customers in order to successfully transmit the waste heat.

In that size range, we are not trying to compete against utility scale plants that have access to cheap fuel like mine mouth coal. Instead, we are aiming to supply power in place where it is useful but either supplied by a 5-50 MWe diesel engine or not available at all.

At current prices for diesel fuel, assuming a very efficient machine with a heat rate of 8,000 BTU per kilowatt hour, the fuel cost alone is running at about 28 cents per kilowatt hour.

Large diesel engines will cost at least $1000 and probably more like $3000 per KW new and they need regular maintenance by well trained people. Besides, they are notoriously dirty and CO2 emitting.

I hope you can now see why we believe that the ROI might be high enough to attract private capital.

BTW – I just read an interesting article in Fortune about Bill Gates and his plans after leaving Microsoft. Apparently he has already made an investment with a VC that is working on a nuclear energy project.

Re the wasted heat from powerplants, in Europe (darn them crafty Europeans) powerplant’s waste heat is often used to heat the homes near the facility.

In Germany and Denmark it is quite common for a community to own their own windfarm or powerplant cooperatively, so the motivation to have a clean efficient power source is high.

Re the wasted heat from powerplants, in Europe (darn them crafty Europeans) powerplant’s waste heat is often used to heat the homes near the facility.

In Germany and Denmark it is quite common for a community to own their own windfarm or powerplant cooperatively, so the motivation to have a clean efficient power source is high.