Ken Silverstein | Nov 18, 2010

As Thanksgiving and the holiday season approaches, it is time to say just how much we appreciate our readers and your participation in our forums. I'm a very lucky fellow to be able to write an energy column to a highly educated audience that is able to challenge me at every turn. It's made me better - and better able to prod the audience.

As our new forum is evolving, the online comment section is becoming a venue for more immediate reactions to the columns while the letter section such as this one are more of an avenue for op-ed type letters. In this grouping, we've picked some that are diverse on a few different stories we've done.

I'm going to take a little breather and so you will see the writings of my colleagues for a short period. Please know that on behalf of Energy Central, I wish you the happiest and safest of holiday seasons and that we so very much appreciate your involvement with us.

Ken

Restructuring Electricity Markets, Texas Style

RTOs and competition are not any more perfect than monopoly regulation.  Both have strengths and weaknesses.  I'm not sure we know which is superior, and in any event, the answer may depend in large measure on what we expect to accomplish.

In the industry's early years, monopoly regulation may have been the right answer.  Today, we have different expectations, a better and more diverse technology base, and changed attitudes.  A Smart Grid won't work well without some form of market pricing.  Demand response and technologies like storage and distributed generation also need market signals of some form to operate beneficially and without subsidies.  And, of course, none of this stuff makes sense when generating capacity is abundant.

Until we address conflicting goals and objectives, we will continue to struggle with both models.

Jack Ellis
Resero Consulting
Tahoe City, California

KS: Jack has been following my writings for more than a decade and I particularly want to say how much I appreciate him. He is always a gentleman - whether he agrees or disagrees.

Coal Ash Debate Ripples Throughout Utility World

The agency's proposal, and its approach to risk assessment, has left them with little out, as far as designating coal ash as a hazardous waste. Yet, the record, I am sure, is replete with evidence and research studies to the contrary. One hopes that EPA, in its decision making, will weigh carefully the future of not only coal combustion product utilization, but all byproduct utilization in this country. It would be a gigantic setback to present and future resource conservation if we start saddling more and more byproducts with the hazardous waste icon. Our landfill capacity will quickly exhaust itself, as fewer and fewer byproduct generators will risk the tort liability of recycling any waste in America.

W. Corey Trench
Williamsburg, Va.

The TVA Kingston TN ash pond spill never should have happened. As I wrote over a year ago, TVA ignored geo-technical engineering consultants' recommendations to strengthen dike walls(1). Since May 2009, the EPA has been conducting on-site assessments of coal ash impoundments and ponds at electric utilities. The EPA on Thursday, Feb. 4, 2010, released action plans developed by 22 electric utility facilities with coal ash impoundments, describing the measures the facilities are taking to make their impoundments safer. The action plans address recommendations from assessments of 43 impoundments and many of electric utilities have begun implementing the recommendations. For instance, one electric utility used a grout consisting of FGD sludge and fly ash to strengthen a dike wall; USEPA and state regulators accepted this methodology - demonstrating the beneficial use of Coal Combustion Residues. Many of the electric utilities hired consultants to assist in developing their action plans. Now that these plans have been implemented, the issue of future regulations impact proposed coal-fired plants and those in construction - seeking applicable permits.

Land-filling Coal Combustion Residues offer a more manageable site option to achieve optimal geo-technical properties i.e. achieve liner-like permeabilities by capitalizing on the material's inherent pozzolanic properties. Ponding of Bottom Ash requires a more rigorous geo-technical design and monitoring program. Beneficial Use of FGD By-Product Gypsum and fly ash for building materials are on-going commercial successes.

Politics aside, sound engineering judgment supports the non-hazardous classification of Coal Combustion Residues - based upon decades of operating experience.

(1)Goodwin, R.W.; "Land Disposal of Coal Combustion Byproducts - Upsets and Implications (Part 1)"; Energy Pulse Weekly; October 6, 2009

Dr. Richard Goodwin
Environmental Engineering
West Palm Beach, Fla.

The Keys to Energy Storage

I have to agree with the person who commented that there is a lot of difference between power storage and energy storage.  If 200 flywheels can deliver 20MW that is 100KW per flywheel.  That matches the Beacon Power Corp. Smart Energy 25 flywheel.  Each of these flywheels stores 25KWh of energy which they can deliver as 100KW for 15 minutes. Then it would take 20MW of power for 15 minutes to get them back up to full speed (full charge).  At $2,300 per KW for something that delivers 20MW for only 15 minutes, that is pretty expensive.
 
Flywheel energy storage is nothing new.  In fact, there are some non-generating power plants which have generators that were disconnected from their prime movers and the generators are used as flywheels by running their large masses as motor-generators.  When frequency sags upon a sudden load increase, the rotating mass helps hold the system frequency because its inertia resists slowing down.  It has the same function in the other direction upon a sudden load loss because its inertia resists speeding up.  Years ago, when computers were much more frequency sensitive, flywheel systems were commonly used as power conditioners.  When I was in college (long, long ago) one of my classmates designed a flywheel powered go-cart with a variable ratio transmission system from a lawn tractor.  We built the cart for Engineering Day.  We would accelerate the flywheel up to about 4000 rpm over the space of a few minutes and drive the go-cart around for probably 15 minutes or so before recharging.
 
The system Beacon has seems very similar to a system used for the late 1980's rail gun concept which came out of President Reagan's Star Wars ABM program.  A generator was spun up at very high speeds.  The device stored energy from a 5000 horsepower gas turbine over the course of about 4 minutes (roughly 250KWh) which it discharged in 4 milli-seconds (62,500 KW of power).  The kinetic energy of the high speed generator rotor was converted to electrical energy when the stator was shorted through the rail gun projectile sending it out the "barrel" at very high speeds.  The portion of the rotors which carried the mechanical loading of the high speeds were carbon fiber products.

Byron Wooldridge
AES Deepwater
Pasadena, Texas

Subsidizing Fossil Fuels and Green Energy

Ok, here's my attempt to put a chart here. If it does not work right, devoted reader Ron Corso submits the following link. (My loyal buddy Jim Vess, who helps make this column, could not help me today.) http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/energy_subsidies.cfm

Table ES5. Subsidies and Support to Electricity Production: Alternative Measures
Alternative Measures of Subsidy and Support
	FY 2007 Net
	Generation	FY 2007 Subsidy and	Subsidy and Support per
	(billion	Support	Unit of Production
Fuel/End Use	kilowatthours)	(million 2007 dollars)	(dollars/megawatthour)
Coal	1,946	854	0.44
Refined Coal	72	2,156	29.81
Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids	919	227	0.25
Nuclear	794	1,267	1.59
Biomass (and biofuels)	40	36	0.89
Geothermal	15	14	0.92
Hydroelectric	258	174	0.67
Solar	1	14	24.34
Wind	31	724	23.37
Landfill Gas	6	8	1.37
Municipal Solid Waste	9	1	0.13
Unallocated Renewables	NM	37	NM
Renewables (subtotal)	360	1,008	2.8
Transmission and Distribution	NM	1,235	NM
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration.
NOTES: Unallocated renewables include projects funded under Clean Renewable Energy Bonds and the Renewable
Energy Production Incentive.
NM=Not meaningful. Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding.

 

Some notes like this one also followed:

 

Good article on EnergyBiz Insider ... I still favor a scenario in which power generation becomes cost effective and operates free from subsidy.

Harry Valentine

You rarely see anyone in the electrical industry (production, deliver) comment on the virtues of wind energy. Laudatory comments spring forth from the unknowing public and the promoters.

Meanwhile, the electric industry has to deal with the intermittency of wind and a source of energy that destroys decades of efficient energy management.

We are condemned as insiders working for big oil and coal. But I have to speak out against an energy source that is totally unsuitable for the industrial production of electricity. As more wind generation is added to the national grid, reliability will decrease and prices will increase. You cannot escape these facts just as you cannot escape the laws of physics.

Ken Langford
Chief Dispatcher
Anchorage Municipal Light and Power

The arguments as related to wind and solar over look several points.  The first point is that wind and solar are not reliable forms of energy.  Second, the need is for reliable baseload power of which virtually no units have been build in the US for 20 years.  And finally, although subsidized the subsidy per kwh for wind and solar have by far exceeded the support for coal, nuclear and gas fired units. With 50% of generating capacity coal related, 20% nuclear and about 20% gas wind and solar are still struggling to reach 2% at a cost to tax payers of over $40 billion per year.  Al Gore did a major disservice to the American public by convincing people that the world could spin on wind and solar.

Its time for the US to develop a sane and sensible energy policy that stresses energy security and energy independence.  The one bright spot I see is that the recently minted senator, Joe Manchin from West Virginia comes to Washington with a wealth of energy expertise and the courage to deal with reality versus rhetoric.  Hopefully he can join the ranks of people like Karen Harbert and Tom Donahue and develop a program that brings jobs and respect back to the United States.

Bob Percopo
Executive Vice President
Project Finance Advisory Services
Global Marine & Energy

 

 

Nuclear Renaissance Has Begun

 

The latest push for new nuclear plants is a recipe for yet another economic disaster at least on scale with the S&Ls and mortgage collapse. 

The fact that the industry cannot push forward without taxpayer loan guarantees is a sure sign that after 50 years, this technology can't compete.

Taxpayers are already on the hook for virtually unlimited liability in the horrifying event of a reactor disaster by terror or error.  With the Government Accountability Office and Congressional Budget Office both predicting 50% failure of reactor loans, nuclear energy paints a very ugly picture, with no upside for anybody except the corporations building these boondoggles.

The problems of nuclear waste, health and ecological impacts, uranium shortages and so much more should have eliminated the "nuclear option" a long time ago.  But leave it to the "free market" advocates to demand government money for yet another unsustainable rip-off.

The so-called "renaissance" is all about the predicable hype from corporate PR departments with huge budgets to blow.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserman/americas-eggshell-nukes_b_783424.html

Meanwhile, the industry is being outstripped by the constant flow of breakthroughs in renewables, by increased efficiency brought on with technological advancement, and by conservation forced by a bad economy.

It's time we face the simple fact that with every passing day, nuclear power is less able to compete with true green power.  Another plunge down the reactor rabbit hole could sink us all. 

Thankfully, the real world has seen the light, and it's a solar-powered LED.

Harvey Wasserman

Harvey Wasserman edits the www.nukefree.org website and is author of SOLARTOPIA!  OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH, at www.solartopia.org, where Pete Seeger sings the "Song for Solartopia!"

Liked the article but was surprised that you have not yet grasped some basic concepts regarding power generation. What the article refers to as "efficiency rate" is really annual capacity factor, which has nothing to do with thermal efficiency. It is true that nuclear has reduced planned and forced outage durations, thereby increasing capacity factor over the years, which maximizes generation for the investment in capacity. This not only helps the economics of nuclear plants but distinguishes nuclear from intermittent renewables like wind and solar with capacity factors in the 20-40% range. Ken

Kenneth L. Bean, P.E.
Vice President Pace Global
Development, Engineering and Carbon Services

The author of this article makes a fundamental mistake regarding the difference between efficiency and availability.  The article talks of efficiencies in the 90-95 percent range, when this is really the plant's availability.  If the efficiency of a nuclear unit was that high, it would clearly put nuclear ahead of all energy technologies.  Even though the efficiency of a nuclear unit is much lower, the low fuel cost allows a nuclear plant to be very competitive in the long term.  The relative fuel price stability of nuclear compared to gas or coal is also a key benefit in the shorter term. 
 
The successful completion of TVA's Bellefonte Unit 1 will deliver a 1250+ MW plant for approximately half of the cost of a brand new unit.  If TVA achieves their goals for Unit 1, it will likely lead to the completion of Unit 2 as well.  Thus, what was once a stranded asset may end up being a 2500 MW station producing base load, carbon-free energy for another 40-60 years.  That would be a very positive result for both TVA, its customers, and the industry overall.
 
Mark Gake
Engineering Manager
Black & Veatch Corporation

Thank you for your timely report on the "nuclear renaissance."  It is timely in that TVA, the entity your article credits with the purported renaissance is in the midst of finalizing an Integrated resource plan that will determine its energy development strategies for the next 20 years or more.  However, you failed to include several salient facts in describing a nuclear renaissance at TVA.  First, you quoted the $1.8 billion dollars to restart the Browns Ferry plant, but this is not the same as building a nuclear plant.  While still a hefty sum, it pales in comparison to the cost of building a new nuclear plant from scratch.  Second, you failed to provide any cost estimate at all for TVA's plan to resume construction of Watts Bar 2.  It is currently estimated it will cost 2.5 billion to complete construction of this already 80% constructed plant.  Commissioning is expected to occur in 2013.  As you pointed out, the nuclear industry is known for its cost overruns and construction delays, so both of these projections are likely optimistic. 

TVA's recently published Integrated Resource Plan clearly favors nuclear for base load, with natural gas peaking plants, and a nod to efficiency and conservation efforts over other new generation options.  While it is encouraging that they are acknowledging the need to move away from coal, there is systematic bias in the assumptions they used in their analysis of generation options.   For example, They project costs and completion dates for bringing on-line mothballed nuclear facilities as though these are virtually risk free estimates, while not factoring in almost certain cost reductions of developing renewable and storage technologies over similar time frames.

For example, the current cost estimate to bring the 80% constructed Watts Bar plant on-line by 2013 is 2.5 billion dollars, or over $2 per watt.   Many objective analysts question  the accuracy of this cost estimate and the proposed timeline, let's assume both are accurate.  The current installed cost of photovoltaic is about $6 per watt.  Obviously, photovoltaic is not a base load generating resource, but much of the load growth projected by TVA is in peak load requirements for which solar photovoltaic is well suited.  TVA argues that it does not qualify for federal tax incentives that for profit power providers qualify, and that is why it is not inkling significant additional solar generation in its Integrated Resource Plan.  However, this obstacle could be overcome through power purchase agreements with private PV project developers.  There are several important points to make about the seeming cost discrepancy between TVA's choice to emphasize nuclear instead of pursuing more renewable such as solar PV.

Remember, these cost estimates are for plants that TVA has already invested billions of dollars.  TVA's cost estimates to complete these nuclear plants are likely optimistic based on its own history of underestimating them.  On the other hand, the $6 per installed watt estimate for solar is conservative and steadily declining.  The Watts Bar reactor is not projected to come on line until 2013 and this too is likely optimistic.  At that time the installed cost of solar may well be below $5 per installed watt.  Perhaps not cheaper than whatever the final cost to complete construction of Watts Bar comes in at, but certainly a much narrower difference.  Remember, we are only comparing construction costs here and not even including the billions already invested in the Watts Bar plant prior to its mothballing.  Once constructed, the Watts Bar reactor will have fuel costs while solar has none, and it certainly much more expensive to operate and maintain a nuclear facility than a comparable solar facility.  Another factor to consider is that the relevant cost point comparisons between nuclear and solar power purchase agreements between TVA and private PV generators is not wholesale price, but the retail price the private PV developer avoids.  Using that measure, solar will certainly be profitable, and attractive, to most retail customers in the Tennessee Valley by 2013 compared to the retail cost of nuclear generated power.  After Watts Bar, TVA wants to complete the 55% constructed Bellefonte 1 by 2017 at a current estimated cost of $4.2 billion.  It is almost certain that the installed cost of solar will be lower than this cost by 2017, yet TVA seems oblivious to this fact.  In addition, any dollar invested in solar today begins producing power almost immediately, not at some uncertain time in the future.

The real issue here is the inability of TVA to relinquish an outdated paradigm of large centralized generation facilities over which they exercise complete control in favor of a distributed generation paradigm in which they function as facilitators and organizers.  The fact is, TVA employs a lot of nuclear engineers and almost no renewable energy experts.  Over almost a century of operation they have developed a paternalistic, top down institutional culture that has impaired their ability to objectively evaluate energy options in the 21st century.  If you want to assess the prospects for a nuclear renaissance, I would suggest you consult with experts outside of TVA and the nuclear industry.  I believe the above facts provide stronger evidence for a nuclear demise than a nuclear renaissance.

Joe Schiller

Copyright © 1996-2010 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.

To subscribe or visit go to:  http://www.energycentral.com

To subscribe or visit go to:  http://www.energybiz.com