TVA has Big Plans for the Future

TVA is conducting a comprehensive study of resource options to meet the region’s needs for electricity and to help achieve environmental sustainability for the next 20 years. This Integrated Resource Plan or IRP is called TVA’s Environmental and Energy Future. The draft plan is available for public comment.

http://www.tva.com/irp/

The Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) Baseline need for additional generating capacity, or energy efficiency and demand response (EEDR), programs is 9,600MW in 2019 and growing to 15,500MW in 2029.

New generation:

1.     Coal

Note:  (TVA currently operates 59 coal fired generating units at 11 generation plants with a total capacity of 14,500MW)

Two configurations of new supercritical pulverized coal (SCPC) plants are considered in the IRP evaluation:

a.     Single-unit 800-MW SCPC plant with carbon capture and storage (CCS)

b.    Two-unit 1600-MW SCPC plant with CCS

2.     Natural gas

Note: (TVA has 87 combustion turbines (CT) at nine power plants, with a combined generating capacity of approximately 6,000 MW)

a.     The IRP evaluation includes both simple and combined cycle natural gas fueled options. In a simple cycle unit, natural gas is used in the fueling of combustion turbines, where it is combusted with air at high pressure and temperature, then expanded to drive a shaft

3.     Nuclear

Note: (The capacity of TVA’s existing nuclear units is 6,900 MW, which includes three reactors at TVA’s Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, two at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, and one at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant)

a.     On August 1, 2007, the TVA Board approved the completion of the 1150 MW Unit 2 at the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. The project is included as a current resource in TVA’s generating portfolio and is scheduled for completion in the fall of 2012.

b.    TVA has included Bellefonte Units 1 and 2 as well as Units 3 and 4 in the IRP evaluation. In addition to the four Bellefonte units, a non-site specific option based on the Advanced Passive 1000 reactor is also included in the IRP.

                                          i.    Located at the Bellefonte site in northeast Alabama, Bellefonte Units 1 and 2 are the two partially completed Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) pressurized light water reactors with a capacity of 1,260 MW each.

                                         ii.    In October 2007, TVA submitted a Combined Construction and Operating License Application to the NRC for two new Westinghouse Electric Co. designed Advanced Passive 1000 reactors. These reactors are to be located at the Bellefonte site and designated as Bellefonte Units 3 and 4 to demonstrate the feasibility of NRC’s then new combined construction and operation licensing process.

Solar Energy Plants Planned for California--Does It Make Sense?

Two large solar plants were approved Tuesday for construction on federal lands.  Department of Interior (DOI) post.  See analysis of the proposed plants below the position statements.

Position Statements:
1. Solar thermal is more cost effective than PV solar.
2. Construction per kW is extremely high while operating expenses are low for solar installation relative to other sources of energy generation.
3. Capacity factor for solar is 18-25% and therefore is useful for peak power only.  Given the high cost of construction it is not a generation source which can offset current baseline power generation methods (Coal, Hydro, Nuclear).  It can offset peaking power provided by gas turbine and diesel generation. If it is to be used for sustainable power than it must be supplemented with other generation sources to cover the low capacity factor.
4. Do projects like these make business or financial sense?  If the goal is to have renewable generation at any expense than yes.  If the goal is to reduce dependence on CO2 emitting baseline power generation (Coal, gas turbine, diesel, natural gas) than I submit there are more efficient and cost effective ways.

5. The large footprint of solar and wind generation requires remote siting and challenges with energy transmission.
6. A carbon tax and solar efficiency gains coupled with a transmission network will be required to make solar cost competitive.

Proposed Projects
The projects approved will employ two different types of solar energy technology. The Imperial Valley Solar Project, proposed by Tessera Solar of Texas, will use Stirling Energy System's SunCatcher technology on 6,360 acres of public lands in Imperial County, California. The plant is expected to produce up to 709 megawatts from 28,360 solar dishes, enough to power 212,700 – 531,750 homes (my note: 20% of the time). Estimated cost $2.1 Billion. The initial installation will include 300MW. The rest would require a new line, like San Diego Gas & Electric’s 123-mile proposed Sunrise Powerlink, which has been approved but faces challenges in federal and state courts.

The Chevron Lucerne Valley Solar Project, proposed by Chevron Energy Solutions of California, will employ photo-voltaic solar technology on 422 acres of public lands in San Bernardino County, California, and will produce up to 45 megawatts from 40,500 solar panels, enough to power 13,500 – 33,750 homes (my note: 20% of the time).

Let's break down the various technologies that will be used:

Tessera Solar and the Stirling Energy System SunCatcher
The SunCatcher is a 25 kWe solar dish that automatically tracks the sun.  It collects and focuses solar energy on a power conversion unit which is a closed loop high efficiency four cylinder reciprocating solar Stirling engine.  Closed loop in that it uses an internal working fluid that is recycled through the engine.  The solar energy heats and pressurizes the fluid and turns the Stirling engine. 

A generator is connected to the Solar Stirling Engine; this generator produces the grid-quality electrical output of the SunCatcher. Waste heat from the engine is transferred to the ambient air via a radiator system similar to those used in automobiles. The gas is cooled by a radiator system and is continually recycled within the engine during the power cycle. The conversion process does not consume water, as is required by most thermal-powered generating systems. Data and picture Source.

Mega Watt to Mai Tai--How Hawaii Uses Energy

Grab your sunglasses and your sun tan lotion because we are headed to the Hawaiian islands..oh don't forget your calculator.

Energy production in HI sparks the imagination.  Think of all the natural resources available: Wind, Solar, Geothermal (big island), Hydro, biomass, ocean thermal, and tidal.  So where then does all the energy come from?  The vast majority is from petroleum, shipped in and refined locally.
Here is a breakdown of power production from this HI government source:

 If we make a quick calculation and solve for the equivalent MWe plant size we can get an idea of the size of plant to cover an entire Island's production or to cover the production from oil import.  See also the annual cost (2007) of the imported oil. (Assumes 100% availability of the plant and average power use (no peaking))

A couple of notes as we take a look at the data.  Existing plant capacity seems adequate especially considering that energy use is down since 2007.  This may be the reason why there is not a big driver to radically change how HI produces energy.  Notice that the use of municipal solid waste in Honolulu produces energy equivalent to a 35MWe plant.  Trash is a big deal in HI and it is getting worse.

Municipal Solid Waste
Honolulu makes up 80 percent of Hawaii's population and generates nearly 1.6 million tons of garbage a year. More than a third of the trash is incinerated to generate electricity. The remaining garbage is sent to the 21-year-old Waimanalo Gulch landfill on the island of Oahu's southwestern coast. Monday's agreement between the city and Chutz' firm requires the garbage that cannot be burned to be sent to the Waimanalo Gulch landfill, which must close by July 2012. Around that same time, the city hopes to start operating a third trash furnace at its electricity-generating plant in Kapolei, allowing the burning of about 902,000 tons a year.

Read more: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/08/24/1312754/honolulus-long-standing-trash.html#ixzz0y2J8POym

Plans for the Future
A 2007 energy study showed a potential of 180MW from wave energy production with Oahu having the most favorable waters.  According to this study wave, biomass, and Photovoltaic (PV) adoption depend on oil prices. Wind, geothermal, and MSW are assessed to be robust.  

The state has a goal to meet 70% of its energy needs with clean energy by 2030.  Learn more about the Hawaiian Clean Energy Initiative  HCEI.

Hawaiian Clean Energy Initiative data shown below (link)

Oahu Data

Ocean Energy

Although not currently commercial, ocean energy projects, particularly ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC—steam generation by means of temperature differential between warm surface waters and cold waters at depth) could potentially be an additional energy source for O‘ahu and for Hawai‘i generally. One company is pursuing a 5- to 10-megawatt OTEC pilot plant on O‘ahu, which it hopes will serve as a model for building 100-megawatt plants.

Biofuel

To help meet its ground transportation fuel needs, O‘ahu could readily develop biofuel production facilities. O‘ahu has some biomass and waste resources that could serve as biofuel feedstocks. Although it is not yet commercially available, algae-to-biofuel technology could also contribute to O‘ahu's clean energy portfolio in the future. As with electrical generation, however, O‘ahu would likely need to import biomass from neighboring islands to supply a significant portion of its transportation fleet with clean energy. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and electric vehicles could also play a role on O‘ahu once they become commercially available, and studies are under way to determine how such vehicles could be best integrated with the island's grid and infrastructure. In addition, developing renewable energy resources to power alternative-fuel vehicles is essential if such vehicles are to become a part of O‘ahu's clean energy future.

Wind

Castle & Cooke, Inc., which owns the majority of Lana‘i, has proposed a 200-megawatt wind farm for providing power to O‘ahu via undersea cable. The proposal remains under discussion. Approximately 30 megawatts of wind power are currently proposed for O‘ahu. 

Big Island Data

The biggest potential renewable resource on Hawai‘i is geothermal, which provides baseload electricity generation at all hours of the day. In fact, according to one study the island has an estimated 750 megawatts of potential—nearly three times its current electrical use. Hawai‘i's 30-megawatt geothermal plant may expand to add an additional 8 megawatts of capacity.
In addition to meeting the Big Island's electricity needs, geothermal could eventually help power a number of electric vehicles to help the meet the island's ground transportation energy needs.
In addition to the substantial geothermal resource available on the Big Island, other potential renewable resources that have been identified include

• Hydroelectric power—20 megawatts
• Wind power—55 megawatts
• Municipal solid waste combustion—13 megawatts
• Solar power—25 megawatts
• Biomass combustion—25 megawatts.

So there are initiatives in place.  I for one would think that the islands are good candidates for continued renewables and even small modular reactors.  Who knows, but I am sure there are many people who would be okay traveling to HI to help the cause no matter what the type of production is!!

Nuclear Computer Systems--Complex but it has been done before

Dan Yurman recently featured a New York Times report on NRC and other regulators concern about the complexity and independence of computer systems for new reactor designs, specifically Areva.  Such concern is not unexpected.  It seems that the NRC and the nuclear industry is facing some of the same issues encountered by the FDA and regulated Biotech and Pharmaceutical manufacturing.

Clearly Biotech and Nuclear are different.  When it comes to automated systems there are plenty of similarities across multiple industries:
-Data Integrity
-System Access and Security
-Hardware and Architecture Infrastructure
-Human Machine Interfaces
-Virtual Machines and/or servers (a key area for separation of systems and functionality)
-Operational or functional requirements
-Alarms and warnings with reporting and automated actions
-Electronic signatures, audit trails, and record keeping

Another similarity is the CFR requirement to verify and validate computer systems in both industries with plenty of regulatory oversite to go around for all.  Biotech and Pharma has had many years to embrace very highly automated manufacturing practices. (Note: glossary of terms at end of article) PLCs and VSCs interact with the DCS and BAS/BMS.  The DCS interfaces with the MES.  The MES exchanges information with corporate IT networks. Most of that data is GMP and is therefore subject to regulation.  A risk based approach (nothing new for Nuclear) is emphasized for determining critical functionality in order to best apply QA scrutiny to Engineerings plans and testing, but in the end everything is tested via commissioning and qualification.  Call it validation or call it verification, the computer systems must be verified.

I should clarify the statement that everything is tested....Software functionality is verified, but not every aspect of every automated system can be tested.  That would be a poor application of our Engineering and Quality expertise.  Use of Vendor quality assessments and commercial off the shelf designations allow us to focus on project or system customization and configuration.  Software coding standards and design documentation allow for consistent software design.  Clear user and functional requirements allow for design and code review to ensure that the design meets the intended purpose, is per design standards, and is testable.

Biotech and Pharma have done a masterful job working with industry and the regulators to develop consensus standards such as the ISPE GAMP (Good Automation Manufacturing Practices) Guides.  NQA-1 might not be our only answer.  Consensus or best practice guides should be available to help the Nuclear industry navigate through the use and verification of automated systems and even digital instrument and control conversion.

System complexity and the differentiation between Safety and Non-safety systems should be addressed in a cooperative manner between the regulators and the multiple reactor and automated system vendors.  Clearly concerns such as touch screen control and "smart" systems that automatically point to alarms or out of tolerance parameters and events will be a recurring theme across all new builds and conversions.   Whether it is Safety or not does not alleviate the requirement for the automated system to work.  Therefore good requirements and good standards are required to handle the control room of the future...one without individual or dedicated switches, lights, knobs, and control wires.


See my previous posts on Digital Instrumentation and Control Upgrades and Electrical and Water Cyber security-- Time to innovate

See a related post on Securing critical digital assets at nuclear power plants

over at  at Cool Hand Nuke, a nuclear energy jobs portal and a whole lot more.

Glossary:
PLC-Programable Logic Controller
VSC-Vendor Supplied Controller
DCS-Distributed Control System
BAS-Building Automation System
BMS-Building Management System
MES-Manufacturing Execution System
GMP-Good Manufacturing Practices (Designated as Critical or Safety systems for nuclear)

Small Modular Reactors--Fun and Exciting--What are the Options and Timelines?

Small modular reactors were a hot topic at the American Nuclear Society (ANS) annual meeting.  Attendance was good and people were interested.  The designs are fun and use various technology. From LWRs to liquid sodium to liquid metal PbBi cooled reactors.  LWRs have the advantage of known technology and known regulations which should lead to faster regulatory approval, but suffer from shorter refueling times.  Liquid metal reactors operate at low pressure and do not need refueling for decades, but may require additional design and regulatory time.  

Much has been said regarding small modular reactors.  My goal is to list the players with highlights of each design and some estimated timelines.

What is the need?
Most of the world's electrical grids are small.  One single source of power generation should not exceed 10-15% of the grid size or risk stability and power concerns when the one large plant goes offline.  The "standard" reactor produces 1 to 1.6 GWe and cost and estimated $5B+ and 84 months to build.

There is a an application for small modular reactors that can be built quickly and delivered onsite with fuel intact and ready to go.  The small size could be used for power or for desalination. Most designs are modular in that you can add more than one to increase output slowly as needed.  Construction of the "standard" reactor includes large forgings and significant resources for movement and construction of the large components.  Small reactors are mostly skid built at the factory and shipped in using existing US or small factory construction and forging capabilities.

Information from Rod Adams in his post from the Platts Modular Reactor Meeting.

"Three vendors - NuScale, B&W, and Westinghouse Electric Company - each with a variation of integral Pressurized Water Reactors (iPWR), provided some details about their design concepts and the maturity of their technology. There is a general agreement that these three designs - the 45 MWe NuScale, the 125 MWe mPower^TM, and the 300 MWe IRIS - are the ones that are closest to being ready to move through an NRC licensing process."

BP vs. Nuclear Industry-there is no comparison (Repost from Rod Adams)

A couple of key points that I thought really hit home from this post by Rod Adams from the Energy Collective:

http://theenergycollective.com/rodadams/38613/nuclear-energy-safety-different-deepwater-horizon-oil-drilling-safety

--start of original post--

The situation in well-run nuclear energy production operations is far removed from that of an exploratory well drilled in deep water by a group of people who were driven by short term concerns about daily expenditures that totaled a few million dollars - at most. Of course, there are perpetual doubters who ask - how can we be certain that the operations will be well run, but those doubters need to understand that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a strong, independent and effective regulator that provides the suspenders that add a third layer of checking to the belt (INPO) and snug pants (careful design, effective quality control and trained operators) that the industry already provides to itself.

There is a lesson from the Deepwater Horizon that should be applied to nuclear energy; we need to continually remind ourselves of the importance of taking the long term view and refusing to go along with people who focus on short term profits produced by cutting costs without full recognition of the associated risks. Even with all of the existing processes and systems in place, eternal vigilance is needed to guard against human foibles like greed, even if those weaknesses find their way into the executive suite.

I cannot imagine how stupid the folks responsible for influencing and directly making the decisions on that drilling rig must feel as they watch tens of millions of dollars per day worth of oil spew out into uncontrolled areas. Not only is that revenue producing material failing to be captured, but it is causing billions of dollars of damage that their very large, well established and formerly profitable company is responsible for fixing.

I hope they keep asking themselves - what was our hurry? Why did we push so hard to cut so many corners and ignore so many warning signs that we were approaching dangerous territory? Was saving a million or two million dollars per day worth the damage that we did to a reservoir that was pretty obviously an "elephant" and to a region that was a paradise on earth for many of its inhabitants?

(By the way - in any kind of fair world, those decision makers who encouraged the cost cutting behavior would end up penniless and wiling away the rest of their lives in jail.)
--End of original post--

First US Reactor Construction Update--Southern Co. Vogtle 3/4

Southern is building the first nuclear reactors in the US.  I was wondering how construction was going so I did a little research on the Southern Co., Shaw Group and NRC websites.  Pictures from Southern Co. Website.

In August 2009, Southern Nuclear received the ESP for Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4. The Vogtle ESP is the first one in the industry to reference a specific technology, Westinghouse AP1000. Additionally, Southern Nuclear's ESP comes with a Limited Work Authorization (LWA). The LWA allows limited safety-related activities to begin at the site prior to the COL being issued.

Construction began in Aug 2009.  Currently there are 700 employees working on the site preparation with 150 earth movers excavating 50,000 yds^3 per day.  Plans are for a peak of 3000 employees in 2014 during major construction.

AP1000 construction update Vogtle 3/4:
-Commenced excavation of Unit 3 on February 5 and on track to complete readiness reviews and commenced placement of 1.8 million cubic yards of nuclear safety related backfill on March 8.
-Equipment procurements continue on schedule with 79 POs placed of 79 planned
-Issued first of approximately 165 Construction Engineering packages for the First Nuclear  Concrete placement


Shaw group and the AP1000 in China:

Two AP1000s are set for the Sanmen site in Zhejiang province and two for the Haiyang site in Shandong province. Shaw celebrated major milestones in 2009 at the Sanmen site with the successful placement of first nuclear concrete and then successful placement of the world's first major AP1000 structural module. The feat is considered a tremendous engineering, design, fabrication and construction accomplishment. Placement of the 1,020-ton CA20 module ranks as one of the heaviest and largest on record for the nuclear energy industry.

Sanmen AP1000 completion is scheduled for June 2014.  As of June 2009 the project was reportedly 6 weeks ahead of schedule.

Turns out that the AP1000 has its own Facebook page.  Here is the latest news on Sanmen from April: The AP1000™ Containment Vessel first ring was successfully set in place earlier this month at the Westinghouse AP1000™ site in Sanmen, China.
China's nuclear vision and plans.

Permit process and status for Vogtle 3/4 and AP1000 Design: 

Source of Part 52 Licensing Process

NRC schedule shows completion of the Combined Operating License in mid 2011 (COL is a combined construction permit and operations liscense.  AP1000 Design Certification shows a EOY 2010 completion. A month ago I was told that the ITAAC (Inspections, Tests, Analyses, And Acceptance Criteria ) for AP100 has not been completed.  The ITAAC is required to be completed and verified as satisfactory before the licensee is authorized to load nuclear fuel.

Detailed Review Schedule for COL Application: On June 30th, the staff issued the revised safety review schedules for Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC)'s combined license (COL) application for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4. The NRC revised the safety review schedule to reflect (1) the revised review schedule for the AP1000 design certification amendment and (2) the change in the referenced combined license (RCOL) designation for the AP1000 design center from Bellefonte Nuclear Plant (BLN) Units 3 and 4 to VEGP Units 3 and 4, The original projected completion date for the Vogtle final safety evaluation report (FSER) was December 17, 2010. The new projected completion date for the Vogtle FSER is April 12, 2011.

What if 25% of the Cars were plug in...How much power is needed?

Last week Toyota announced a partnership with Tesla motors backed by $50M in investments. Tesla is the manufacturer of the trendy $100K all electric plug in sports car and has a model for us all in the works, the Model S. Toyota wants the technology and I can just imagine a Tesla/Prius in every garage. Gov. Schwarzenegger hailed the joint venture as the future and asked us all to imagine CA with more plug ins.

“What we are witnessing today is an historic example of California’s transition to a cleaner, greener and more prosperous future. We challenged auto companies to innovate, and both Tesla and Toyota stepped up in a big way, not only creating vehicles that reduce emissions and appeal to consumers but also boosting economic growth,” said Governor Schwarzenegger.

How will all these plug ins be powered? Everyone seems to think that electricity comes from a plug in the wall. Power has to come from somewhere.  How will we make a green lifecycle from source to vehicle?  Wind turbines? Coal? Gas? Solar? Nuclear? 

Lets break it down.

136,000,000 registered passenger vehicles in 2007. Lets say 25% of the cars suddenly become plug ins. Therefore: 34,000,000 vehicles.

16.8 KW = 56miles charged per hour per the Tesla website.

Assume 12,000 miles per year driven we have 214 hrs of charge at 16.8 KW or 3600 KW-Hrs per car.

with 34M cars we have 1.2 x 10^11 KW-Hrs
A new nuclear power plant generates 13 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) or 1.3 x 10^10 (assuming 1600MWe and 92% availability).

So the final answer is: 9.4 new nuclear plants would be required to keep all those vehicles charged.  One plant charges 3.6M vehicles. There were 16,153,952 new vehicles (cars trucks and SUVs) sold in 2007.

Conclusion: We need one new 1600MWe plant a year if 25% of the new cars are all electric using the numbers and 2007 sales rates above.

Electric vehicles are great, we just need to remember that the power source is part of the equation and that conservation and alternative energy will not be enough to account for future energy demands.

3 billion barrels of gasoline were refined in 2006 out of 5.5 billion barrels of crude oil.   1.6 x10^9 gallons or 3.8 x 10^7 barrels of gasoline would be removed per year if 25% of new cars were all electric.  Using the ratio of gas to oil equates to  7 x 10^7 barrels of crude oil saved per year (2006 refining and 2007 car sales and 30mpg).

Numbers and calculations are for illustrative purposes.  I am hoping for credit for error carried forward--ECF.

Good points raised from readers comments:
1. The number of cars calculation I used omits trucks and SUVs reducing the overall number of cars.  
2. What about reduced electricity demand off peak at night?  Good question.  I did not take that into account, however smartgrid technology and offpeak charging will mitigate the effects of EV.  There is also talk of VTG or vehicle to grid where the electric vehicle could actually supply power during peak or the most expensive time of day and then charge during off peak or cheaper times of day.

Sources:
http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/15219/
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simulation/GREET/pdfs/energy_eff_petroleum_refineries-03-08.pdf

http://www.teslamotors.com/electric/charging.php

Safety is designed into US Reactors--The Power of a Negative Temp. Coefficient of Reactivity

Let's step back and explore one of the fundamental concepts of reactor theory and the FACTS that make reactors in the US inherently safe. I am talking about the temperature coefficient of reactivity. Oh sure everyone knows about that. Well I think if they did know it would help to alleviate some of the concern with reactors supposedly being able to "blow" up or melt down in some China Syndrome event.

The sad news for the nay Sayers is that reactors are safer than ever and US reactors are designed such that they shutdown when something goes wrong. Current reactor technology uses less equipment and less automation, focusing on passive systems. When something goes wrong in a nuclear reactor temperature is likely to rise in the reactor core. A negative temperature coefficient of reactivity means that as temperature goes up...reactivity goes down. When reactivity goes down the reactor is essentially turning itself off like pulling your foot off the gas of your car.

Reactivity is the engine of fission in a reactor. Reactivity equals more neutrons per unit time (neutron density) and therefore more fission, therefore more energy released, therefore an increase in temperature. That increase in temperature is harnessed as steam to drive a turbine and create 20% of the power in the US.

A negative temperature coefficient of reactivity makes a reactor inherently stable. Example: As power demand increases on the turbine, more steam is used, the coolant circulating through the steam generator and the reactor is cooled slightly. As the temperature goes down the reactivity....goes up! So we push on the gas pedal and get more neutrons and energy as we increase fission and compensate for the temperature drop by increasing reactivity and reactor power to match steam demand.

As you can see this stability allows for a mitigated emergency response for a major casualty leading to an increase in temperature. If I lose reactor coolant and cannot cool the core as effectively the reactor will shutdown (to a point see emergency cooling below).

Contrast this with Chernobyl. Russian designed reactors had essentially a net overall positive temperature coefficient of reactivity (graphite moderator with water coolant thus positive steam void reactivity and positive reactivity of initial control rod motion [Ref1]). See where we are going here?!? Temperature goes up and reactivity goes up. Therefore power goes up and therefore temperature goes up.... leading to disaster. Chernobyl also did not have sealed containment. It also had an enormous reactor core which lead to fluctuating reactivity and flux..essentially three or four different reactors all within the same core behaving independently yet as a whole. All of this lead to a difficult to control reactor that was not inherently stable.

When the casualty hit, the reactor essentially was unable to be controlled (There are multiple factors) and fission products and gases were released to atmosphere (no containment) NRC analysis http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/chernobyl-bg.html. When disaster struck three mile island, containment was in place and there was very little release to the environment (maximum offsite radiation dose 0.1 rad and total population dose was approximately 10 person-rems [ref1]and NRC analysis http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html) plus an overall mitigated reactor response due to the negative temp. coefficient of reactivity.

US reactors have containment and inherently stable reactors. Other safety systems such as the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) ensure that the reactor is cooled even with a loss of coolant. Without emergency cooling the temp. coefficient of reactivity will not help as the uncovered fuel rods melt due to fission product heating leading to various exothermic chemical reactions between the molten material and the water steam mixture.

Test to follow next Tuesday........

For extra credit: I would be remiss in not clarifying that we are talking about the moderator (water coolant) temp. coefficient of reactivity above. The prompt temp. coefficient of reactivity describes the affect of the change of temperature of the fuel itself and determines the first response of a reactor to changes in either fuel temp or reactor power. The NRC requires all reactors to have a negative prompt temp. coefficient of reactivity.

Ref 1 Intro to Nuclear Engineering, John Lamarsh and Anthony Baratta

Digital Instrumentation and Control Upgrades

A computer system hardware or software upgrade can be a daunting challenge.  Multiple industries both regulated (nuclear, biotech, pharma, food, medical device, etc.) and unregulated are facing aging hardware and software which is no longer maintainable or supported by vendors.

In most cases there is an entering project requirement to make the upgrade with minimal down time.  Down time is affected by two critical phases of the project:  Equipment and software installation sometimes referred to cutover and system testing including validation.

Natural gas as a replacement for Diesel/Gas..transition to renewables?

Natural gas is considered to be a cleaner alternative to other fossil fuels like coal, diesel or gasoline. In countries like India, in order to combat air pollution, local governments are making it mandatory for public transport vehicles to use natural gas.

At a recent conference co-hosted by the U.S. Energy Information Administration and Johns Hopkins University, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu noted there has been a sharp rise in U.S. natural gas reserves in recent years: "That's a big deal because gas will be a transition fuel as we go to renewables."

A recent report on natural gas by The Economist magazine concluded "a gasified American economy would have profound effects on both international politics and the battle against climate change. Displacement of oil by natural gas would strengthen a trend away from crude in rich countries … the unearthing of vast new supplies of gas could bring further upheaval."

The U.S. Congress,  appears to be on track to pass the National Gas Act.  Iincreased subsidies for converting trucks to natural gas. Compared with diesel, natural-gas engines produce much less nitrous oxide and particulate matter, and about 20% less greenhouse gas.

The emission standards for heavy- and medium-duty diesel engines will become more stringent, and fleets are already switching to natural gas engines to avoid the higher costs of environmental compliance required of diesel engines.

http://www.pickensplan.com/
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1835

Carbon Capture Technology News

"Rapid commercial development and deployment of clean coal technologies, particularly carbon capture and storage, will help position the United States as a leader in the global clean energy race." President Barack Obama Presidential Memorandum February 3, 2010

Impact of Coal power: acid rain on forests and watersheds. In the 21st century, additional environmental concerns have emerged - the potential health impacts of trace emissions of mercury, the effects of microscopic particles on people with respiratory problems, and the potential global climate-altering impact of greenhouse gases.



Secretary Chu Announces $3 Billion Investment for Carbon Capture and Sequestration

$979 Million to Support New Commercial-scale CCS Technologies  On Dec 4, 2009

Projects announced demonstrate advanced coal-based technologies that will capture and sequester or put to beneficial use carbon emissions. The selections demonstrate technologies that:

• make progress toward a target CO2 capture efficiency of 90%;

• make progress toward a capture and sequestration goal of less than 10% increase in the cost of electricity for gasification systems and less than 35% for combustion and oxycombustion systems;

• capture and sequester or put to beneficial use an amount of CO2 emissions in excess of the minimum of 300,000 tons per year required by CCPI.

Clean Coal Power Initiative Round III selections announced include:

• American Electric Power Company, Inc. (Columbus, OH):
  Project Title: Mountaineer Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage DemonstrationAmerican Electric Power (AEP) will design, construct and operate a chilled ammonia process that is expected to effectively capture at least 90 percent of the CO2 (1.5 million metric tons per year) in a 235 megawatt flue gas stream at the existing 1,300 megawatt Appalachian Power Company (APCo) Mountaineer Power Plant near New Haven, WV. The captured CO2 will be treated, compressed, and then transported by pipeline to proposed injection sites located near the capture facility. During the operation phase, AEP plans to permanently store the entire amount of captured CO2 in two separate saline formations located approximately 1.5 miles below the surface. The project team includes AEP, APCo, Schlumberger Carbon Services, Battelle Memorial Institute, CONSOL Energy, Alstom, and an advisory team of geologic experts. (DOE share: $334 million; project duration: 10 years)

• Southern Company Services, Inc. (Birmingham, AL)
  Project Title: Southern Company Carbon Capture and Sequestration DemonstrationSouthern Company Services (SCS) will retrofit a CO2 capture plant on a 160 megawatt flue gas stream at an existing coal-fired power plant, Alabama Power’s Plant Barry, located north of Mobile, AL. The captured CO2 will be compressed and transported through a pipeline, and up to one million metric tons per year of CO2 will be sequestered in deep saline formations. Southern Company Services will also explore and utilize potential opportunities for beneficial use of the CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. In addition to SCS, the project team includes Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Schlumberger Carbon Services, Southern States Energy Board, Advanced Resources International, the Geological Survey of Alabama, EPRI, Stanford University, the University of Alabama, AJW Group, and the University of Alabama at Birmingham. (DOE share: $295 million; project duration: 11 years)
• http://www.southerncompany.com/corporateresponsibility/environment/climateChange.aspx
• Chilled Ammonia Carbon Dioxide Capture Pilot - Southern Company is a charter member of an Electric Power Research Institute-led consortium working with Alstom to demonstrate carbon dioxide capture from power plant exhaust gas using chilled ammonia.

• Summit Texas Clean Energy, LLC (Bainbridge Island, WA)Project Title: Texas Clean Energy Project (TCEP)Summit Texas Clean Energy, LLC will integrate Siemens gasification and power generating technology with carbon capture technologies to effectively capture 90% of the carbon dioxide (2.7 million metric tons per year) at a 400 megawatt plant to be built near Midland-Odessa, TX. The captured CO2 will be treated, compressed and then transported by CO2 pipeline to oilfields in the Permian Basin of West Texas, for use in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations. The Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) at the University of Texas will design and assure compliance with a state-of-the-art CO2 sequestration monitoring, verification and accounting program. (DOE share: $350 million; project duration: 8 years)
• http://texascleanenergyproject.com/
• TCEP is currently scheduled to achieve financial closing and commence construction in December 2010.  Commercial operation is scheduled for mid-2014.  The project will begin sequestering carbon during startup and testing in 2013.

Source:  DOE Clean Coal Technology http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal/

Nuclear "Waste"

Yucca Mountain is off the table and the blue ribbon panel meetings are starting to discuss long term solutions for waste storage. Will waste reprocessing be a viable option? Seems like a huge waste of potential energy to simply bury the spent fuel. On the other hand, the US has a lot of catching up to do to get into the waste reprocessing game.

Currently weapons grade fuel and reprocessed spent fuel is converted into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for use in power reactors in several countries. The US has dedicated a significant amount of government research, but there is no current reprocessing or plans for future reprocessing.  There is a new facility in the works to convert weapons grade fuel into MOX fuel.  This is a new facility construction partnered by AREVA and Shaw Group.  http://www.moxproject.com/

History of reprocessing and associated technology

The main reason for reprocessing used fuel has been to recover unused uranium and plutonium in the used fuel elements completing the fuel cycle, gaining some 25% more energy from the original uranium in the process and thus contributing to energy security. A secondary reason is to reduce the volume of material to be disposed of as high-level waste to about one fifth. In addition, the level of radioactivity in the waste from reprocessing is much smaller and after about 100 years falls much more rapidly than in used fuel itself.


The recovery of all long-lived actinides together including plutonium can be then be used in fast reactors as they then end up as short-lived fission products. Long-term radioactivity is reduced in high-level wastes, and reducing the plutonium proliferation of the fuel cycle.

An Areva study (pdf) concludes that reprocessing and recycling would reduce U.S. waste volume by a factor of four for the same cooling period as once-through spent fuel -- about 50 years. Cooling period refers to the storage timer prior to internment in a long term waste storage site.  Such a cooling period allows radioactivity levels to be reduced to allow transport and storage.

Excellent article detailing the French process and state of US policy as of 2009:
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/05/18/18climatewire-is-the-solution-to-the-us-nuclear-waste-prob-12208.html

I will add some additional technical data soon

Electrical and Water Cyber security-- Time to innovate

Clinton: Cyber Security and Energy Security as NATO Priorities

During her NATO strategic concept speech, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton argued that "threats to our networks and infrastructure such as cyber attacks and energy disruptions" should be considered an Article 5 action, in which an attack on one is an attack on all.

The world is starting to realize the vulnerability of our automated and IT utility infrastructure.  The future may very well hold a wave of infrastructure and control system modernization.  Most of these systems will require a renewed and much more intense focus on data integrity, security, and control. 

DOE Office of the Chief Information Officer

http://cio.energy.gov/index.htm

The DOE CIP has created a new Qualified IT Project Management designation for work on government IT projects for both government employees and contractors working as PMs.  There is also a renewed focus on project management and PM certification.  IT quality assurance and systems engineering are specifically called out.

Top 50 VC-Funded Greentech Startups

Greentech Media announces the top 50 startups in greentech

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Top-50-VC-Funded-Greentech-Startups/

Who has the best chance of survival as a new Green tech startup?  The following business areas were reviewed and the top candidates selected:





Solar
Smart Grid and EV Infrastructure
Green Buildings, Lighting
Biofuels and Biochemicals
Batteries, Fuel Cells, Energy Storage
Transportation
Other Energy -- Wind, Nuclear, Cleaner Coal, Geothermal
Water
Green IT

Nuclear market surges in 2008 and then dips in 2009--2010?

Seems like the "Nuclear Renaissance" was in full steam in 2008 with plans for many reactors and the announcement of new reactor component manufacturing facilities.  The vendors were ready to roll!  Then the economy had trouble, oil prices and energy demand dropped to the floor, and the uncertainty of loan guarantees cast a shadow on the Renaissance.  Our colleagues at the EPCs suffered some layoffs or slow downs.  Now we are focused on getting the first couple reactors kicked off, hoping to build momentum for the rest of the industry.

See previous post: http://powertrends.blogspot.com/2010/03/first-nuclear-plants-to-be-built.html


GlobalData's new report "Nuclear Energy Quarterly Deals Analysis Q4 2009"

Investments In The Nuclear Energy Industry Declined By 70% In Q4 2009
Global investments in the nuclear energy industry witnessed a huge decrease in deal value, reporting $12.5 billion in Q4 2009, compared to $41.4 billion in Q3 2009. The number of deals also declined from 186 deals in Q3 2009 to 141 deals in Q4 2009. On a year-on-year basis, the nuclear energy market declined by 39% in the number of deals and 72% in deal value in Q4 2009, when compared 233 deals worth $44.7 billion in Q4 2008. The difficulty in raising finance and start-up expenses, coupled with the global economic downturn, led to an overall decline in investments in Q4 2009.
The authors expect the industry to flourish in 2010 because the WNA energy index registered positive signs in Q4 2009, which will certainly boost investments in the near future. Meanwhile, new reactor projects are in progress in the US, the UK and other established nuclear countries. In the coming three to five years, however, Asia will likely dominate new reactor construction, led by China and India. Around 18 reactors were under construction at the end of 2009 in China and India signed the nuclear cooperation agreement.
The year 2009 ended with some positive news for the industry, as one of the potential countries in the nuclear energy market, the United Arab Emirates, awarded a contract for four nuclear reactors to Kepco of Korea, while the Canadian Government signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement with India.

Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Research-and-Markets-Nuclear-bw-2328486093.html?x=0&.v=1

The price of Carbon Dioxide Emissions

A single nuclear reactor will cut carbon dioxide emissions by 16 million tons a year compared to a coal fired plant with similar electricity output. As stated by President Obama, building one of the new reactors will have the equivalent impact of taking 3.5 million cars off the road.

Many companies and countries are holding their breath for an international price on carbon.  Such a price would make carbon offsets possible.  A price on Carbon would put low or carbon free technologies at an immediate advantage, including nuclear.  Wasman Markey legislation includes carbon capture for coal plants and carbon offsets.



Waxman Markey legislation

This bill has been passed in the House. The bill now goes on to be voted on in the Senate. Keep in mind that debate may be taking place on a companion bill in the Senate, rather than on this particular bill. [Last Updated: Feb 28, 2010 6:05PM]
source--http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454

Good summary of major points of the legislation:  http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-03-waxman-markey-bill-breakdown/

Relative comparison of energy production methods

A 1000-MW coal plant – our standard plant - is fed by a 110-car
“unit train” arriving at the plant every 30 hours – 300 times a year.
Each individual coal car weighs 100 tons and produces 20 minutes of
electricity. We are currently straining the capacity of the railroad
system moving all this coal around the coun...try. (In China, it has
completely broken down.) A nuclear reactor, on the other
hand, refuels when a fleet of six tractor-trailers arrives at the plant
with a load of fuel rods once every eighteen months. The fuel
rods are only mildly radioactive and can be handled with gloves. They
will sit in the reactor for five years. After those five years, about
six ounces of matter will be completely transformed into energy. Yet
because of the power of E = mc2, the metamorphosis of six ounces of
matter will be enough to power the city of San Francisco for five
years.

Author William Tucker

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2469

http://pronucleardemocrats.blogspot.com/2010/02/10-benefits-of-nuclear-energy.html

www.cleanenergyinsight.org


Is baseload power really required?  Can conservation, solar and wind solve the problem...
This article says yes to baseload power and no to a future without new nuclear, coal, gas power plants:  http://www.theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/61753



Operating Expenses

The following graph from NEI shows the breakdown of fuel costs.  Nuclear is expensive upfront requiring large investments and loan guarntees to minimize the risk of investment.  Once built Nuclear is cheap and the KWhr costs are less than that of other utilities.  Hence the large profit that can be made with a reactor.  For example CT attempted to enact a windfall profit tax on utilities for the profit derived from cheap reactor operating costs.

Short term Power Generation Industry action--What Technologies are up and Coming

With the first Nuclear plants coming online in 2016/2017 and major construction, startup and testing in 2013/2014 what will we focus on in the next three years? 

Perhaps we will put our money on Advanced Biofuels and Carbon Capture Technology (CCT) or carbon-capture-and-sequestration (CCS) technologies.

Lets take a deeper look:

Algae Biofuel

Algae Bioreactor from: http://algaefuel.org/ shown in pic on right is a lab scale photo bioreactor.

DOE initiative-July 2009
Department of Energy (DOE) announced that they would offer up to $85 million in funding for the development of algae-based biofuels and advanced, infrastructure-compatible biofuels. The funding comes as part of the funds released from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The goal of the monies is to bring together a group of leading algae and advanced biofuels scientists and engineers from both universities and private industry in an attempt to bring new technologies and fuels to market in an accelerated time frame.

The trick is getting CO2 and light to a bioreactor and then control the growth and harvest the algae and protein.  Some are using light tubes others natural light.  CO2 can be harvested from smokestacks.  Some (Old Dominion University) are using sewage for growth media.


How an algae bioreactor works:

CO₂-rich gas streams are introduced to the bioreactor, in which algae are suspended in a media with nutrients added to optimize the growth rate. A portion of the media is withdrawn continuously from the bioreactor and sent to dewatering to harvest the algae. The dewatering operation uses two stages of conventional processing. Primary dewatering increases the algae concentration by a factor of 10-30. Secondary dewatering further increases the algal solids concentration to yield a cake suitable for downstream processing. Water removed from the dewatering steps is returned to the bioreactor, with a small purge stream to prevent precipitation of salts. Make-up water is added to maintain the media volume. A blower pulls the flue gas through the bioreactor. Using an induced draft fan provides several operating advantages, including ensuring minimal disruption to power plant operations, simplifying retrofits to existing facilities.

The “downstream” unit operations for algal oil extraction and conversion of the dewatered algae into final fuel products, in contrast to the ”upstream” unit operations, are conventional technologies currently practiced on a large scale, e.g. biodiesel is currently produced from vegetable oils via transesterification (several algae species have lipids, starch, and protein compositions similar to soy and canola beans). Consequently the same facilities can be adapted to produce biodiesel from algae and conventional agricultural feeds. Some downstream processing options are listed below:

Final Product	Primary Processing Steps
Biodiesel	Extraction and transesterification
Ethanol	Fermentation
Methane	Anaerobic digestion
Hydrogen, synthesis gas	Gasification
Solid biomass	Drying

Source: http://www.warren.usyd.edu.au/bulletin/NO47/ed47art4.htm

Work at KU

University of Kansas November 2009
The Lawrence (KS) Journal-World & News reports University of Kansas scientists are working on one of just a few in the world functioning, pilot-scale bioreactors connected to a municipal wastewater treatment plant, where they’re turning sewer waste into the green fuel:
“From the point of view of the EPA, this should be like heaven,” said Val Smith, a KU professor of ecology and evolutionary biology. “We’re harnessing a waste, making it do work for America, and purifying it all at the same time.
“It’s like a win-win-win-win-win.”
The KU effort is being financed by the university’s Transportation Research Institute, using money from the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Bob Honea, the institute’s director, is confident that the work of KU researchers — collaborating on a “Feedstock to Tailpipe” program that includes a wide variety of biofuel efforts — is on the right track. Gasoline prices eventually will return to $4 a gallon or more, he said, and the world will continue to seek ways to lessen a reliance on petroleum.
Using algae to make biodiesel simply makes sense, Honea said, given the aquatic organisms’ built-in advantages compared with traditional crops: higher yields on less land.
KU officials believe they are the verge of a major breakthrough.

Active BioAlgae company- Sapphire Energy


http://www.sapphireenergy.com/
 Sapphire has already developed breakthrough technology to produce fungible, drop-in transportation fuels—including 91 octane gasoline, 89 cetane diesel, and jet fuel—all out of algae, sunlight, and carbon dioxide (CO2). Or, what we like to call Green Crude.

In 2008, Sapphire successfully produced 91-octane gasoline from algae that fully conforms to ASTM certification standards. In 2009, we participated in a test flight using algae-based jet fuel in a Boeing 737-800 twin-engine aircraft. That same year, we provided the fuel for the world’s first cross-country tour of a gasoline vehicle powered with a complete drop-in replacement fuel containing a mixture of hydrocarbons refined directly from algae-based Green Crude. In 2010, we will break ground for our Integrated Algal Bio-Refinery in Southern New Mexico, a project that was awarded more than $100 million in federal grant money from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act through the U.S. Department of Energy and a loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Bio-refinery Assistance Program.

Advanced Biofuels (Biomass) 

BP Initiatives

In April 2008, we acquired a 50% stake in Tropical BioEnergia SA, a joint venture with Santelisa Vale and Maeda Group, to produce bioethanol from sugarcane, the most efficient and lowest-carbon biofuel available today. Tropical’s first facility in Edéia, Goias State, Brazil, began production of bioethanol in September 2008 and is expected to have a capacity of 115 million US gallons.

Tropical BioEnergia

In August 2008 we announced a $90million investment and strategic alliance with Verenium Corporation, US to develop lignocellulosic bioethanol, an advanced biofuel. Lignocellulosic ethanol is expected to have many advantages over first-generation ethanol including the use of non-food feedstock, such as miscanthus and energy cane, greater yield per acre of feedstock and potentially greater greenhouse gas emissions reductions compared with conventional fuels.

We have been working with DuPont since 2003 to explore new approaches to the development of biofuels. The first product from this collaboration will be a new fuel molecule called biobutanol. Biobutanol can be blended at higher concentrations than bioethanol, potentially providing further reductions in GHG emissions. We have also partnered with ABF (British Sugar) and DuPont to construct a $400 million world-scale bioethanol plant in Hull, UK. The plant will use some of the UK’s surplus of feed-grade wheat as its feedstock.

Research
We are investing in a number of research programmes to develop advanced biofuels. These include:

• A $500 million investment over 10 years in the US-based Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI), at which expert biotechnologists are investigating many applications of biotechnology to energy, including advanced fuels.
• A $9.4 million project in India to examine the possibilities of using jatropha, an inedible oil bearing crop which can be grown on marginal land, as a biofuels component.
• A research partnership with Arizona State University and Science Foundation Arizona to develop a renewable source of biofuel. One of the feedstocks being investigated is algae.
• A collaboration with Mendel Biotechnology to develop energy grass feedstocks for the production of cellulosic biofuels.

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9027827&contentId=7050732