Court reserves judgement in climate activists' case against 3,000MW gas power plant

[Johnatan56]

To be fair mate, I'm not surprised. You turned what could have been a nice discussion into a typical MyBB schit fest by being rude in the first instance. You've nowhere to go with this.

Everything you have said you backtracked/changed what you've said.

You said gas responds in seconds, it does not, it's minutes, even the stuff you've linked is measured in minutes, most gas peakers are turned on an hour or so before they're needed and then ramped up just before estimated spikes, so you're hoping you're right rather than supplying exact (which is why batteries would be better as near-instant response), this increases the cost.
You said random hundreds of percent in terms of capacity for stuff with no baseline percentage to measure against (100% of baseload for evening's peak hour demand is not the same as 100% baseload for a week).
You quote pieces that directly contradict what you've said right before it (the engines are primed to get that under 2 minute start, it's not measured in seconds as you stated).

You're doing the typical rvZA/narrowMind/Lupus stuff, you make a claim that's not very specific, run around the claim when the most probable interpretation of what you've said is wrong, then say we're all trolling/schitposting you.

Everyone has a duck curve, truly the only reliable clean efficient energy is nuclear, made expensive by the over regulatory measures and of course the misplaced myths of waste disposable and it's apparent deadly nature.
Yet coal kills more people, hell people don't seem to be to worried of the waste left over from other energy sources, they'll moan that radition lasts thousands of years, but don't realise that arsenic, lead, cadmium are deadly longer.

Don't bother arguing with him, he's a renewable zealot, who will still push for wind and solar even when we're all standing in load shedding at night due to no stable base loads.

And you keep harping on about nuclear, disproved so many times as to the cost-effectiveness of such a solution, never mind the timelines and other safety aspects (and storage, etc.).

My comments have always been a mix of:
- hydro (production and storage, South Africa has developed about 90% of it based on estimates, more is not going to work there)
- solar (PV and CSP)
- wind (on-shore and off-shore)
- battery (if cost effective, including recycling/re-use)
- gas peakers (if cost effective, right now they're not)

I have been against:
- coal -> not cost effective for a while now the world over (will also impact trade rating), issues of pollution
- nuclear -> not cost effective, most expensive way to produce power, safety issues (nuclear storage, sabotage, lack of skills, etc.)

And I have linked you, so many times, things like the Lazard report regarding the cost difference.

Other stuff like your nonsense on possible fusion reactors (don't exist), SMR (why would making a nuclear power plant smaller make it more cost effective when what makes it so cost effective is the scale?), "Gen IV reactors" and whatever else are not viable options within this decade at least.

 

[Spizz]

Would like to see that power point, and whether that's nameplate capacity, and that would differ quite a bit if you're talking about wind on-shore vs off-shore, solar, etc.
100% baseload in terms of what, two hours, an entire day, three days? Also that's not only battery, there's hydro. And 400% doesn't matter if the cost of it all together is still cheaper.
That said, solar/wind + battery is also getting cheaper (or has already achieved being cheaper) than gas\, so it's the natural route for most energy systems to go.

Sorry, it's internal.

 

[Spizz]

Everything you have said you backtracked/changed what you've said.

Really?

You said gas responds in seconds, it does not, it's minutes, even the stuff you've linked is measured in minutes, most gas peakers are turned on an hour or so before they're needed and then ramped up just before estimated spikes,

Yep, I've built a few peakers.

so you're hoping you're right rather than supplying exact (which is why batteries would be better as near-instant response), this increases the cost.

The links were for fast start plants to supply power immediately, not peakers. As I mentioned, these fast start in the UK needs to be on line in a certain time frame otherwise the energy provider get fined. There is no warming up in advance (edit: should clarify before I get shot down again,there is no notice to warm up in advance, the engines are kept on standby, the gas is ready to use immediately) . The links I provided all said under two minutes. This is seconds. Not sure why you'd argue this? I even linked the spec sheet for the specific engines.

You said random hundreds of percent in terms of capacity for stuff with no baseline percentage to measure against

It wasn't random, it was a figure I'd seen in a report.

(100% of baseload for evening's peak hour demand is not the same as 100% baseload for a week).

Eh? Base load to me and anyone in the industry is the minimum demand over a 24 hour period. I guess as a layman you might not have missed this while googling for your 'facts'.

You quote pieces that directly contradict what you've said right before it (the engines are primed to get that under 2 minute start, it's not measured in seconds as you stated).

No, they are not primed. How can they be given notice to be primed when they have to be ready to be online at any given time at any given day within a couple of minutes?

You're doing the typical rvZA/narrowMind/Lupus stuff, you make a claim that's not very specific, run around the claim when the most probable interpretation of what you've said is wrong, then say we're all trolling/schitposting you.

I'm truly sorry you think that, but I'm not arguing with you, I'm telling you as it is while you continue with your 'mansplaining'.

And you keep harping on about nuclear, disproved so many times as to the cost-effectiveness of such a solution, never mind the timelines and other safety aspects (and storage, etc.).

My comments have always been a mix of:
- hydro (production and storage, South Africa has developed about 90% of it based on estimates, more is not going to work there)
- solar (PV and CSP)
- wind (on-shore and off-shore)
- battery (if cost effective, including recycling/re-use)
- gas peakers (if cost effective, right now they're not)

I have been against:
- coal -> not cost effective for a while now the world over (will also impact trade rating), issues of pollution
- nuclear -> not cost effective, most expensive way to produce power, safety issues (nuclear storage, sabotage, lack of skills, etc.)

And I have linked you, so many times, things like the Lazard report regarding the cost difference.

Other stuff like your nonsense on possible fusion reactors (don't exist), SMR (why would making a nuclear power plant smaller make it more cost effective when what makes it so cost effective is the scale?), "Gen IV reactors" and whatever else are not viable options within this decade at least.

 

[itareanlnotani]

Can you 2 either get a room, or stop it.

 

[Lupus]

Really?



Yep, I've built a few peakers.



The links were for fast start plants to supply power immediately, not peakers. As I mentioned, these fast start in the UK needs to be on line in a certain time frame otherwise the energy provider get fined. There is no warming up in advance (edit: should clarify before I get shot down again,there is no notice to warm up in advance, the engines are kept on standby, the gas is ready to use immediately) . The links I provided all said under two minutes. This is seconds. Not sure why you'd argue this? I even linked the spec sheet for the specific engines.



It wasn't random, it was a figure I'd seen in a report.


Eh? Base load to me and anyone in the industry is the minimum demand over a 24 hour period. I guess as a layman you might not have missed this while googling for your 'facts'.



No, they are not primed. How can they be given notice to be primed when they have to be ready to be online at any given time at any given day within a couple of minutes?



I'm truly sorry you think that, but I'm not arguing with you, I'm telling you as it is while you continue with your 'mansplaining'.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

I'll bow to your knowledge with the specifics. As I said I'm not a mechanical engineer. But here is the spec sheet and details for the engines we are discussing, it will give you a better understanding than I ever could.

Wärtsilä 34SG gas power plant

Wärtsilä 34SG is a four-stroke, spark-ignited, lean-burn gas engine generating set for your power plant.

www.wartsila.com

Wartsila is an excellent engine, no doubt about it. But still, nowhere does it say that it reaches full output from a starting cold start, I will believe the claimed ramp up from spinning with no load on line to full power ramp up from spinning on line within 2 minutes.

 

[Spizz]

Wartsila is an excellent engine, no doubt about it. But still, nowhere does it say that it reaches full output from a starting cold start, I will believe the claimed ramp up from spinning with no load on line to full power ramp up from spinning on line within 2 minutes.

The engines are off. They are not spinning or idling or anything else. They are kept at a constant temperature though so that when they are switched on they hit full load within two minutes.

The word ‘cold’ in cold start seems to be the sticking point here. Are the engines cold? They are certainly switched off so yes, they are.

Edit: of course they won’t spin they have pistons.

 

[Johnatan56]

There is no warming up in advance (edit: should clarify before I get shot down again,there is no notice to warm up in advance, the engines are kept on standby, the gas is ready to use immediately)

That's not a cold start, cold start is from ambient temperature. Again, all I am saying is that it is measured in minutes, not seconds.

Eh? Base load to me and anyone in the industry is the minimum demand over a 24 hour period. I guess as a layman you might not have missed this while googling for your 'facts'.

No, because base load can be 24 hours or it can be 7 days depending on context (since weekend demand can differ substantially depending on a country's economy), or it can even be the continuous output averaged over a month if talking about plant output, I do not know what basis you are arguing from.

I'm truly sorry you think that, but I'm not arguing with you, I'm telling you as it is while you continue with your 'mansplaining'.

Again, you're just talking around the statements you made.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

The engines are off. They are not spinning or idling or anything else. They are kept at a constant temperature though so that when they are switched on they hit full load within two minutes.

That is possible but entails a constantly running oil pump the size of a swimming pool pump circulating oil that is kept heated at close to 100C. It also means that any fault encountered requires many hours of cooling down before a maintenance or repair team can go to work. Then the many hours of heating again.

The word ‘cold’ in cold start seems to be the sticking point here. Are the engines cold? They are certainly switched off so yes, they are.

Your definition of a cold start meaning the engines are off is incorrect. A truck stopping to refuel and restarting once refueled does not need to stand for the half hour or so a cold diesel engine does before driving away. A cold start literally means the engine is too cold to take full load without damage. Diesels are well known for this.

Edit: of course they won’t spin they have pistons.

The end result of a diesel engine is a spinning output shaft. The reciprocation of the pistons and valves results in the crankshaft spinning.

Here is a 3 min video of a diesel locomotive doing a cold start. It won't be ready to move for about half an hour, never mind deliver full load.

 

[Spizz]

That is possible but entails a constantly running oil pump the size of a swimming pool pump circulating oil that is kept heated at close to 100C. It also means that any fault encountered requires many hours of cooling down before a maintenance or repair team can go to work. Then the many hours of heating again.

They are not diesel engines, they are gas.

Your definition of a cold start meaning the engines are off is incorrect. A truck stopping to refuel and restarting once refueled does not need to stand for the half hour or so a cold diesel engine does before driving away. A cold start literally means the engine is too cold to take full load without damage. Diesels are well known for this.

They are not diesel engines, they are gas.

The end result of a diesel engine is a spinning output shaft. The reciprocation of the pistons and valves results in the crankshaft spinning.

Here is a 3 min video of a diesel locomotive doing a cold start. It won't be ready to move for about half an hour, never mind deliver full load.

They are not diesel engines, they are gas.

I don't know what else to tell you bud, you keep talking about diesels but I've pointed out many times in all of my replies that they are gas engines. They run on natural gas, not diesel. And they go from switched off to full load in less than two minutes.

Read the things I'm posting please.

https://www.wartsila.com/docs/default-source/power-plants-documents/downloads/product-leaflets/w34sg_leaflet.pdf

"It also offers a unique fast-starting capability, which enables rapid response to fluctuations inherent to renewable generation"

 

[Cosmik Debris]

They are not diesel engines, they are gas.

Lets' get this sorted. Gas turbine or reciprocating engines running on gas?

 

[Spizz]

Lets' get this sorted. Gas turbine or reciprocating engines running on gas?

Reciprocating engines running on gas. As per the links and specs I’ve posted

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Reciprocating engines running on gas. As per the links and specs I’ve posted

So those are the same as diesel engines then. The fuel is immaterial. The start sequence and cold start will be the same. What makes you think running a diesel engine on diesel, gas, hydrogen or biodiesel makes it any different from a normal diesel engine except for small tweaks? Are you aware that diesel fuel is turned into gas before being ignited in a diesel engine cylinder? You can put a match out in a tin of room temperature diesel.

 

[Spizz]

So those are the same as diesel engines then. The fuel is immaterial. The start sequence and cold start will be the same. What makes you think running a diesel engine on diesel, gas, hydrogen or biodiesel makes it any different from a normal diesel engine except for small tweaks? Are you aware that diesel fuel is turned into gas before being ignited in a diesel engine cylinder? You can put a match out in a tin of room temperature diesel.

Okay. I’ve kind of lost your point now. I joined this thread to say that the starting time of gas is not tens of minutes but seconds and that is what I’ve done. I’m really not sure why you are arguing with me because that is what I have demonstrated.

The gas engines I have repeatedly linked to are quick start meaning they go from off to full load in less than 2 minutes.

It really is as simple as that but I don’t think you’ve read a single thing I’ve linked to otherwise you wouldn’t be arguing (about what I’m still not sure).

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Okay. I’ve kind of lost your point now. I joined this thread to say that the starting time of gas is not tens of minutes but seconds and that is what I’ve done. I’m really not sure why you are arguing with me because that is what I have demonstrated.

The gas engines I have repeatedly linked to are quick start meaning they go from off to full load in less than 2 minutes.

It really is as simple as that but I don’t think you’ve read a single thing I’ve linked to otherwise you wouldn’t be arguing (about what I’m still not sure).

You've lost the point because you fail to understand that even a diesel engine runs on gas.

Because you keep calling Internal Combustion Engines gas engines. All engines run on gas, ICE or turbine. You need to make the distinction as their operating parameters and principles are completely different.

I read what you posted and stated the conditions that would be required to achieve an ICE start to full load in 2 minutes - Oil heated to close to 100C being constantly pumped around the engine. There is no way you start a cold diesel as the locomotive video showed and run it up to full power in 2 minutes.

 

[Spizz]

You've lost the point because you fail to understand that even a diesel engine runs on gas.

Lol. Where did I miss that point and who is talking about diesel engines except you, and why god only knows?

Because you keep calling Internal Combustion Engines gas engines. All engines run on gas, ICE or turbine. You need to make the distinction as their operating parameters and principles are completely different.

Did you actually read anything I posted? I mentioned natural gas more than once and the links to the spec sheets of the 34SG engines. You keep talking about diesel every single reply and I have no idea why?

I read what you posted and stated the conditions that would be required to achieve an ICE start to full load in 2 minutes -

You clearly never read what I posted or you would not be saying this about the engines I posted about.

Oil heated to close to 100C being constantly pumped around the engine.

No, water at 60 degrees. THESE ARE NOT DIESEL ENGINES. They are engines designed to run on natural gas and tailored in this case to meet a specific criteria which is to supply power almost immediately at a moments notice

There is no way you start a cold diesel as the locomotive video showed and run it up to full power in 2 minutes.

Diesel again

Why are you failing to realise that these engines are designed specifically to be quick start and that they run on natural gas?

And besides, diesel?? Who would run any kind of grid tied power plant on diesel apart from the incompetent fscks in Eskom? Wartsila dual fuel, completely different engines (DF, not SG) can take diesel of course, but that would not be used in a quick start scenario such as this, they would be used normally for base load and HFO would be the preferred fuel. Diesel is for emergencies and most certainly not quick start as required in the Centrica example I've now quoted 100 times.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Lol. Where did I miss that point and who is talking about diesel engines except you, and why god only knows?



Did you actually read anything I posted? I mentioned natural gas more than once and the links to the spec sheets of the 34SG engines. You keep talking about diesel every single reply and I have no idea why?



You clearly never read what I posted or you would not be saying this about the engines I posted about.



No, water at 60 degrees. THESE ARE NOT DIESEL ENGINES. They are engines designed to run on natural gas and tailored in this case to meet a specific criteria which is to supply power almost immediately at a moments notice



Diesel again

Why are you failing to realise that these engines are designed specifically to be quick start and that they run on natural gas?

And besides, diesel?? Who would run any kind of grid tied power plant on diesel apart from the incompetent fscks in Eskom? Wartsila dual fuel, completely different engines (DF, not SG) can take diesel of course, but that would not be used in a quick start scenario such as this, they would be used normally for base load and HFO would be the preferred fuel. Diesel is for emergencies and most certainly not quick start as required in the Centrica example I've now quoted 100 times.

OK. I give up. You're no mechanical engineer but know it all. Have it your way.

 

[Geoff.D]

Yes, I agree. I hear the guavamint is going to import wind for us.

No need - they generate enough hot air to run a turbine.

 

[Big Rat]

Okay. I’ve kind of lost your point now. I joined this thread to say that the starting time of gas is not tens of minutes but seconds and that is what I’ve done. I’m really not sure why you are arguing with me because that is what I have demonstrated.

The gas engines I have repeatedly linked to are quick start meaning they go from off to full load in less than 2 minutes.

It really is as simple as that but I don’t think you’ve read a single thing I’ve linked to otherwise you wouldn’t be arguing (about what I’m still not sure).

I think i can get to the bottom of this easily.
Everybody says 20 minutes and up, you are 2 minutes or less from startup / cold.
And everybody is fighting about what constitute a cold start.
By everything i read, these engines are warm, they are not running, but the oil in the engine is kept warm at 60 degrees, with oil cirulating. Is this correct? WIth this in mind i can see that it can be ramped up withing 2 minutes. The engine is warm, so no biggie.

But for argument sake, what if the circulating oil was switched off. The engine stand there, switched off, no oil circulating, so at 10 degrees. Surely from this point on it cannot be <2 minutes?

An engine, whether petrol, diesel, gas, rotary or what ever, it needs to be warm, oil circulating, otherwise you will break it. You do not start your Ferrari and rev the crap out of it first thing in the morning. However after it is nice and warm, you can stop at garage, get a pie and some rennies, when you get back in the car give it a few seconds to make sure oil is where it is suppose to be, and you can give it horns. this i gther is the same as your engines. Warmed up but switched off.

 

[Oldfut]

I think i can get to the bottom of this easily.
Everybody says 20 minutes and up, you are 2 minutes or less from startup / cold.
And everybody is fighting about what constitute a cold start.
By everything i read, these engines are warm, they are not running, but the oil in the engine is kept warm at 60 degrees, with oil cirulating. Is this correct? WIth this in mind i can see that it can be ramped up withing 2 minutes. The engine is warm, so no biggie.

But for argument sake, what if the circulating oil was switched off. The engine stand there, switched off, no oil circulating, so at 10 degrees. Surely from this point on it cannot be <2 minutes?

An engine, whether petrol, diesel, gas, rotary or what ever, it needs to be warm, oil circulating, otherwise you will break it. You do not start your Ferrari and rev the crap out of it first thing in the morning. However after it is nice and warm, you can stop at garage, get a pie and some rennies, when you get back in the car give it a few seconds to make sure oil is where it is suppose to be, and you can give it horns. this i gther is the same as your engines. Warmed up but switched off.

I will have a go; guessing 4 to 6 hours for oil heating etc. Interlocks will not allow the engine to go into the starting procedure unless oil temp etc (gas purging to get air out of the system) is all within spec. A relatively small engine (1MW) has around 650 litres of oil dependent upon configuration. It is quite a lot to warm up; safely anyway.