You are on page 1of 76

BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY FOR THE GLOBAL GENERATION INDUSTRY

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8


V
o
l
.

1
5
2


N
o
.

1
Vol. 152 No. 1 January 2008 www.powermag.com
Industry prognosis
for 2008:
Carbon paralysis
Applying water-stingy
technologies
Eliminate oil whip vibration
in steam turbines
Protect plant equipment
from voltage sags
vea a machIae aeeds to he amered
Your most valuable employees are your equipment, so it only makes sense to
treat them right. Conoco Hydroclear

Diamond Class

Turbine Oil is specially


formulated for the harsh conditions of the power generation industry-providing
superior rust, corrosion and oxidation protection while minimizing harmful
sludge and varnish deposits. t's the kind of service your equipment demands,
the kind of service you expect from Conoco lubricants.
'ETSIT$ONE
I0hes.coaoco.com 18002559556
Copyright 2005 ConocoPhillips Company. Conoco and the Conoco Logo are trademarks of ConocoPhillips Company or its subsidiaries.
CIRCLE 1 ON READER SERVICE CARD
January 2008
|
POWER www.powermag.com 1
Established 1882 Vol. 152 No. 1 January 2008
www.powermag.com
COVER STORY: 2008 INDUSTRY FORECAST
28 Regulatory risks paralyzing power industry while demand grows
As this issues cover announces, 2008 will be the year the generation industry grap-
ples with CO
2
emissions. Project developers are suddenly coal-shy, mostly flirting
with new nukes, waiting impatiently in line for equipment manufacturers to catch
up with the demand for wind turbines, and finding gas more attractive again. With
no proven greenhouse gas sequestration technology on the horizon, utilities will be
playing it safe with energy-efficiency ploys rather than rushing to contract for much-
needed new generation.
40 Greater fuel diversity needed to meet growing U.S. electricity demand
Oblivious to industry uncertainties, electricity demand is growing, and one of the
best ways to manage the uncertainty is to diversify fuel sources to ensure supply
reliability. Thats just one reason the outlook for renewables is rosy this year. Check
out Industrial Info Resources detailed data tables showing actual and planned gen-
eration projects of all fuel types.
SPECIAL REPORT
WATER MANAGEMENT
46 Costlier, scarcer supplies dictate making thermal plants less thirsty
The largest percentage of new U.S. generation capacity is anticipated to be located
in arid regions, where a gallon of water saved goes straight to the bottom line while
ensuring the sustainability of both future plant operations and a growing economy.
The author of an EPRI report on the subject provides a rundown of potential cost sav-
ings for several available conservation technologies.
FEATURES
STEAM TURBINES
51 Eliminating oil whipinduced vibration after a steam turbine retrofit
You cant anticipate the unexpectedlike vibration problems that cause a trip right
after a successful retrofit project. But you can learn from this case study how to
troubleshoot such situations.
POWER QUALITY
56 Protecting plant equipment from voltage sags
Voltage sag is a compatibility problem with at least two classes of solutions: You
can improve the power or you can make the equipment tougher. The latter approach
is called voltage sag immunity, and equipment manufacturers have several com-
pliance standards that you should be aware of when specifying future equipment
purchases.
MANAGEMENT
60 Workforce analysis: Replacing management by fad with management certainty
So how do you get your arms around the workforce challenges of your organization?
Start with a workforce analysis. Its relatively fast, affordable, andmost important
tailored to your team.
DEPARTMENTS
4 SPEAKING OF POWER
6 GLOBAL MONITOR
6 Dominion applies for new Virginia
reactor
6 ABB commissions worlds largest
SVC
8 Google Earth adds air quality data
8 Alstom supplies integrated solar/CC
project in Morocco
10 DOE updates coal plant database
10 Dam the Red Sea?
14 Complying with CWA Section 316
17 POWER digest
20 FOCUS ON O&M
20 Single-window control of CHP
plants energy converters
22 Safety stuffers entertain as they
inform
24 Doubling up for a heavy load
26 LEGAL & REGULATORY
62 NEW PRODUCTS
72 COMMENTARY
On the cover
How quickly CO
2
will become the most im-
portant emissions risk to manage is anyones
guess, but everyone anticipates that regula-
tors at all levels, plus public pressure, will be
turning up the heat on power producers to
mitigate this greenhouse gass risks. Cover
image by Mark Cavich.
www.powermag.com POWER
|
January 2008 2
Now incorporating and
EDITORIAL & PRODUCTION
Editor-in-Chief: Dr. Robert Peltier, PE
480-820-7855, editor@powermag.com
Managing Editor: Gail Reitenbach
Executive Editor: John Javetski
Contributing Editors: Mark Axford; David Daniels; Bill Ellison, PE; Steven F. Greenwald;
Tim Hurst; Jim Hylko; Kennedy Maize; Douglas Smith; Dick Storm
Group Art Director: Mark Cavich
Senior Designer: Leslie Claire
Designer: Danielle Jamar
Senior Production Manager: Tracey Lilly, tlilly@accessintel.com
Marketing Manager: Jamie Reesby
ADVERTISING SALES
North American Offices
Northeast/Mid-Atlantic/Eastern Canada: Matthew Grant, 832-242-1969, mattg@powermag.com;
and Catherine Ryan, 516-978-3150, catheriner@powermag.com
Midwest/West/Western Canada: Dan Gentile, 512-918-8075, dang@powermag.com
Southeast: Matthew Grant, 832-242-1969, mattg@powermag.com
South Central/Mexico/Central & South America: Myla Dixon, 832-242-1969, mylad@powermag.com
International Offices
UK/France/Benelux/Scandinavia: Peter Gilmore, +44 (0) 20 7834 5559, pgilmores@aol.com
Germany/Switzerland/Austria/Eastern Europe: Gerd Strasmann, +49 (0) 2191 931 497, info@strasmann-media.de
Italy: Ferruccio Silvera, +39 (0) 2 284 6716, ferruccio@silvera.it
Spain/Portugal: Tatiana Gana, +34 91 456 08 47, tatiana.gana@publistar-es.com
Japan: Katsuhiro Ishii, +81 (0) 3 5691 3335
Thailand: Nartnittha Jirarayapong, +66 (0) 2 237-9471, +66 (0) 2 237 9478
India: Faredoon B. Kuka, 91 22 5570 3081/82, kuka@rmamedia.com
South Korea: Peter Kwon, +82 2 416 2876, +82 2 2202 9351, gulfk@unitel.co.kr
Malaysia: Tony Tan, +60 3 706 4176, +60 3 706 4177, nmedia@tm.net.my
Classified Advertising
Myla Dixon, 832-242-1969, mylad@powermag.com
POWER Buyers Guide Sales
Matthew Grant, Account Executive, 832-242-1969, mattg@powermag.com
AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT
Audience Development Director: Stuart Bonner
Fulfillment Manager: George Severine
CUSTOMER SERVICE
For subscriber service: powermag@halldata.com, 800-542-2823 or 847-763-9509
Electronic and Paper Reprints: lyndsay.bahn@theYGSgroup.com, 717-666-3052
All Other Customer Service: 832-242-1969 extension 327
BUSINESS OFFICE
TradeFair Group Publications, 11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite 500, Houston TX 77042
Publisher: Brian K. Nessen, 832-242-1969, briann@tradefairgroup.com
President: Sean Guerre
ACCESS INTELLIGENCE, LLC
4 Choke Cherry Road, 2nd Floor, Rockville, MD 20850
301-354-2000 www.accessintel.com
Chief Executive Officer: Donald A. Pazour
Exec. Vice President & Chief Financial Officer: Ed Pinedo
Exec. Vice President, Human Resources & Administration: Macy L. Fecto
Divisional President, Business Information Group: Heather Farley
Senior Vice President, Corporate Audience Development: Sylvia Sierra
Senior Vice President & Chief Information Officer: Robert Paciorek
Vice President, Production & Manufacturing: Michael Kraus
Vice President, Financial Planning & Internal Audit: Steve Barber
BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY FOR THE GLOBAL GENERATION INDUSTRY
Visit POWER on the web: www.powermag.com
Subscribe online at: www.submag.com/sub/pw
POWER (ISSN 0032-5929) is published monthly by Access
Intelligence, LLC, 4 Choke Cherry Road, Second Floor,
Rockville, MD 20850. Periodicals postage paid at Rockville,
Maryland, and additional post offices. Canada Post Publication
Mail Agreement No. 41279020. RETURN UNDELIVERABLE
CANADIAN ADDRESSES TO DPGM Ltd., 2-7496 Bath Road,
Mississauga, ON L4T 1L2. E-mail: powermag@halldata.com.
Printed in the USA. ISSN 0032-5929 (print), ISSN 1936-7791
(online).
POSTMASTER: Please send address changes to POWER,
P.O. Box 2182, Skokie, IL 60076. Printed in the U.S.
Subscriptions: Available at no charge only for qualified
executives and engineering and supervisory personnel
in electric utilities, independent generating companies,
consulting engineering firms, process industries, and other
manufacturing industries. All others in the U.S. and U.S.
possessions: $59 for one year, $99 for two years. In Canada:
US$64 for one year, US$104 for two years. Outside U.S. and
Canada: US$159 for one year, US$269 for two years (includes
air mail delivery). Payment in full or credit card information is
required to process your order. Subscription request must
include subscriber name, title, and company name. For new
or renewal orders, call 847-763-9509. Single copy price: $25.
The publisher reserves the right to accept or reject any order.
Allow four to twelve weeks for shipment of the first issue on
subscriptions. Missing issues must be claimed within three
months for the U.S. or within six months outside U.S.
For customer service and address changes, call 847-763-
9509 or fax 832-242-1971 or e-mail powermag@halldata
.com or write to POWER, P.O. Box 2182, Skokie, IL 60076.
Please include account number, which appears above name
on magazine mailing label or send entire label.
Photocopy Permission: Where necessary, permission is
granted by the copyright owner for those registered with
the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive,
Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400, www.copyright.com,
to photocopy any article herein, for commercial use for the
flat fee of $2.50 per copy of each article, or for classroom
use for the flat fee of $1.00 per copy of each article. Send
payment to the CCC. Copying for other than personal or
internal reference use without the express permission of
TradeFair Group Publications is prohibited. Requests for
special permission or bulk orders should be addressed to the
publisher at 11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite 500, Houston TX
77042. ISSN 0032-5929.
Executive Offices of TradeFair Group Publications: 11000
Richmond Avenue, Suite 500, Houston TX 77042. Copyright
2008 by TradeFair Group Publications. All rights reserved.
www.powermag.com POWER
|
January 2008 4
SPEAKING OF POWER
Renew Indian Points
fission license
E
arly last month, Governor Eliot Spitzer and Attorney General
Andrew M. Cuomoboth New York Democratsasked the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to reject Entergy
Nuclears application to extend the operating licenses of Indian
Point Units 2 and 3 for 20 years. The units, each rated at about
1,000 MW, are a major source of power for New York City, 35
miles to the south, and points north. Unit 1 was decommis-
sioned in 1974.
Citing numerous potential safety issues and past safety prob-
lems at the nuclear plant, Spitzer and Cuomo said they dont just
want the two units to be shut down when their current licenses
expire in September 2013 (Unit 2) and December 2015 (Unit 3).
Cuomo said, Indian Point should . . . be closed now . . . in my
opinion, [it is] a catastrophe waiting to happen.
The Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB), comprising three
administrative law judges, is expected to decide by March 2008
whether New York State can intervene in the relicensing process
by raising issues it thinks the NRC should consider.
Bait the hook
The Cuomo-Spitzer petition was second-page news for most of
the country, but the announcement drove energy and environ-
mental bloggers on both sides of the political see-saw into a
frenzy. Opposing Indian Point is a perennial favorite for local and
state politicians pandering for votes. But I suspect Cuomo and
Spitzer know the ultimate fate of their 313-page petition.
Indian Point Energy Center, originally owned by Consolidated
Edison (Unit 2) and the New York Power Authority (Unit 3), was
purchased by Entergy Nuclear Northeast just over six years ago.
After Entergy submitted a relicensing application covering both
units in May 2007, Cuomos lawyers began working overtime.
But their efforts may have been in vain because the NRC has
approved every one of the 48 nuclear-unit relicensing requests it
has received to date. The process typically takes 22 to 30 months
and includes parallel-track reviews of whether the reactor can
continue to be operated safely and whether the plant can con-
tinue to protect the environment over the 20-year license term.
By law, those are the only two areas that the NRC is required to
review.
Although the agency prepares an environmental impact state-
ment (EIS) for each license renewal, as required by the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), its not a full-blown
EIS. The NRC has prepared a Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) that as-
sesses environmental issues common to all 104 nuclear stations
operating in the U.S. Entergy must assess environmental issues
at Indian Point that are at odds with the GEIS as well as other
site-specific issues.
Whats more, NEPA does not require the NRC to perform an
environmental review of a units existing operating license. It
does, however, mandate that the NRC make a studied assessment
of reasonable alternatives [including] those that are practical
or feasible from a technical and economic standpoint. NEPA
says this assessment must be developed using common sense
rather than [being] simply desirable from the standpoint of the
applicant and must include the alternative of no action. In
other words, the process takes into account how a unit will be
expected to perform in the future, not how it has performed in
the past.
Throw the line
This is where the review process begins to look murky to those
not familiar with nuclear plant relicensing. The safety of opera-
tions, a sites emergency preparedness, and potential acts of ter-
rorism are not considered by the environmental review process.
Nor are issues related to the storage or disposal of high-level
nuclear waste on plant property germane to the overall relicens-
ing process.
Because every one of the issues raised by Spitzer and Cuomo
is beyond the scope of the process, I expect the ALSB will deny
the request to have the NRC consider them. If that happens,
the New Yorkers could file in Federal Court to keep their stance
in the public eye, possibly improving prospects for Democrats
this national election year. But I suspect that they will lose in
that venue, too. Using the courts to stretch out the relicensing
process wont help get Indian Point shut down now. NRC rules
state that if a relicensing application is filed five years before a
units original license is set to expire, it can continue to operate
until the NRC rules on the extension request. New York politics
is a contact sport, and the tag team of Spitzer and Cuomo has
put on its game face.
Reel em in
Heres how you can tell the petition is just a political red her-
ring: No opponent of Indian Point has proposed concrete ways
to replace the plants 2,000-MW generating capacity, which sup-
plies 11.5% of New York States electricity demand.
Indian Point operated with a 93% capacity factor last year.
The Nuclear Energy Institute notes that the average wholesale
cost of nuclear power in the U.S. is a low 1.72 cents/kWh. In the
densely populated U.S. northeast and mid-Atlantic states, where
building anything that makes electricity is anathema, economic
baseload replacement power alternatives simply do not exist.
But then I have to remind myself that ensuring the region has
an affordable and reliable electricity supply is not part of the re-
actor relicensing process. Should it be? I invite your opinions.
Dr. Robert Peltier, PE
Editor-in-Chief
Opposing Indian Point is
a perennial favorite for local
and state politicians pandering
for votes.
Youll nd some of the best engineers on the planet at PSM. Which explains the innovation and
integrity of our product line. From ultra-low NOx combustion systems, to airfoils that improve life cycle costs,
we design, engineer and manufacture an array of industrial gas turbine hot parts that cost less and perform
equal to or better than the OEM components they replace. Available today for 6B, 7B/C/E/EA, 9E, 7FA,
501D5 and 501F machines.
psm.com
T h e P r o v e n A l t e r n a t i v e
1440 West Indiantown Rd. Suite 200 Jupiter, Florida 33458 Phone: 561-354-1100 Fax: 561-354-1199
WHETHER ITS
ABCS OR NOX.
WEVE ALWAYS BEEN AT THE
HEAD OF THE CLASS,
CIRCLE 4 ON READER SERVICE CARD
www.powermag.com POWER
|
January 2008 6
GLOBAL MONITOR
GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR GLOBAL MONI TOR
Dominion applies for
new Virginia reactor
In late November, Dominion became the
third power company to formally propose
building what would be the first new U.S.
nuclear unit in more than 30 years when
it filed an application for a combined
construction and operating license (COL)
license with the Nuclear Regulatory Com-
mission. The reactor would be construct-
ed on the grounds of Dominions North
Anna nuclear plant (Figure 1) in Louisa
County, Va. North Anna is already home
to two reactors with a combined capacity
of 1,834 MW.
If the approval process goes smoothly,
Dominion could break ground by 2010
and have the new unit on-line by 2015.
It would be based on the 1,520-MW GE-
Hitachi Economic Simplified Boiling Water
Reactor (ESBWR) design. With the filing,
Dominion becomes the first U.S. investor-
owned, regulated utility to submit a full
COL application.
Exelon Nuclear earlier announced plans
to use the ESBWR for a plant it is consid-
ering building in Texas. The company is
studying locations in Matagorda and Vic-
toria Counties as potential sites.
Like most utilities considering building
new nuclear capacity, Dominion has spread
the financial risk of the North Anna proj-
ect across several partners. Dominion will
pay only about $60 million of the $500
million needed to reach the construction
phase in Virginia. The balance will be
paid by project partners, which include
GE-Hitachi and Bechtel Corp., and by the
Department of Energy (DOE) under a coop-
erative agreement to have the North Anna
project serve as a reference application
for other utilities considering applying to
build an ESBWR.
A second utility consortium, NuStart
Energy Development LLC, is working with
the DOE under a similar agreement to
develop a reference COL application for
Westinghouse AP1000 reactors.
ABB commissions
worlds largest SVC
In early December, ABB announced that it
had completed work on what is now the
worlds largest static VAR (volt-amperes
reactive) compensator (SVC).
The SVC, which entered service on De-
cember 5, is at Allegheny Powers Black
Oak Substation near Rawlings, Md. (Figure
2). The unit will enhance the reliability
of Alleghenys 500-kV Black Oak-Bed-
dington transmission lineone of the
most congested on the Pennsylvania-New
Jersey-Maryland (PJM) Interconnection
networkby quickly changing reactive
power levels to stabilize line voltage. The
SVC also will boost transmission capac-
ity on multiple 500-kV lines in the PJM
region.
The Black Oak installation uses ABBs
MACH 2 control system both to manage
the operation of the SVC and to switch on
and off the 500-kV capacitor banks on the
lines entering and leaving the substation.
The project was initiated as part of
PJMs regional transmission expansion
plan to identify the upgrades and additions
needed to ensure reliability of its multi-
state transmission system. The Black Oak
SVC will benefit millions of customers by
providing a new level of reliability to a
critical transmission line serving the Mid-
Atlantic region, said David E. Flitman,
president of Allegheny Power. Further,
allowing more power to flow on existing
lines is an important step in keeping pace
with the regions increased demand for
electricity.
The Black Oak SVC turnkey project was
completed in just 14 monthsno mean
feat, given its size, complexity, and scope.
Collaboration was essential to meeting
the aggressive timeline, said Flitman.
If it were not for the Allegheny and ABB
1. Virginia is for nuke lovers. Dominion has applied for a combined construction
and operating license for a third unit at its North Anna nuclear facility in Virginia. Courtesy:
Dominion
2. VAR sets record. ABB recently com-
missioned the worlds largest static VAR
compensator at Allegheny Powers Black Oak
substation. Courtesy: ABB
Bringing energy output
to impressive new heights.
The equation in energy is simple: More productivity = More output = More prot. You cant afford downtime.
Or a supplier who doesnt share your vision of success. Just one reason why more equipment builders are
now recommending Mobil Industrial Lubricants. With a wide range of standard-setting products and unmatched
industry expertise, we dont just make things run. We make them y. Visit www.mobilindustrial.com for more.
2007 Exxon Mobil Corporation. Mobil and the Flying Horse Design are trademarks of Exxon Mobil Corporation or one of its subsidiaries.
CIRCLE 5 ON READER SERVICE CARD
POWER
|
January 2008 8
teams working so closely together, we simply would not have
been able to get the system on-line this quickly.
Google Earth adds air quality data
Weve all done itfired up Google Earth and zoomed in on our
home or a famous landmark to see how sharp satellite photos
have become. You still cant read license plates, but the view
from space is captivating, and flying from one target to an-
other is a trip.
Google recently integrated near-real-time scientific air qual-
ity information from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) directly into Google Earth. The program accesses the EPAs
AIRNow database hourly, enabling its new Air Quality Index to
display current air quality conditions at any U.S. location. Figure
3 shows two readings for Phoenix called up a month ago.
For more information on AIRNow, and easy instructions for
using it with Google Earth, go to www.epa.gov/region09/air
/airnow.
Alstom supplies
integrated solar/CC project in Morocco
In late October, Alstom was awarded a $234 million contract by
Spains Abengoa Group, on behalf of Moroccos Office National
dlectricit, to supply two GT13E2 gas turbine generators, one
steam turbine generator, and three air-cooled turbogenerators to
the An Bni Mathar power project. The deal includes a 21-year
service contract under which Alstom will maintain and help sup-
port the operation of the plant, 60 miles from Oujda.
The project seeks to become the worlds first integrated solar
combined-cycle power plant. It will have a generating capacity
of about 470 MW, 20 MW of which will come from energy col-
lected by a 1.97 million ft
2
array of single-axis-tracking cylindri-
cal parabolic mirrors in parallel rows. Abengoa Group received a
$43 million grant from the World Bank to develop the solar part
of the project.
On the solar side, each bank of mirrors is equipped with a lin-
ear parabolic reflector that aims reflected sunlight on a receiver
at the focus of the banks parabola. The energy delivered to the
receiver heats a working fluid thats circulated through it. A se-
ries of heat exchangers extracts the energy and feeds it to two
heat-recovery steam generators (HRSGs) into which the two gas
turbines exhaust (Figure 4).
As the figure shows, the two gas turbine generators are part
of a conventional 2 x 1 combined-cycle configuration. The two
3. Air Google. Thanks to a partnership with the U.S. EPA, users
of Google Earth can now call up near-real-time air quality data for any
location in America. Source: Google Earth
From
To
To Below The
Beam,
Hoi st ,
Hook.
Beam,
Hoi st ,
Hook.
T h a t s What
Complete Lifting Systems
A re All About.
Whether lifting steel beams or positioning delicate electronics
equipment, all of the necessary products are available from
a single source - CM Complete Lifting Systems. Jib cranes,
enclosed track systems, crane components, trolleys, and
beam clamps offer numerous options overhead, while hoists
are available in electric, air, and manual configurations.
Below-the-hook attachments like spreader beams, shackles,
chain slings, hooks, and clamps round out the most versatile
line in the industry. One authority that has it all.
www.cmindustrial.com
800- 888- 0985
GLOBAL MONITOR
CIRCLE 6 ON READER SERVICE CARD
Movers and Shakers
Since1903
Roberts & Schaefer leads the world in creating innovative
bulk material, coal preparation, and fuel handling/blending
systems. We provide total solutions for a wide range of fuels,
including PRB, bituminous, lignite and anthracite coal;
woodchips and petroleum coke; as well as limestone and
gypsum handling, and limestone grinding and transport
systems. For complete system development, upgrades or
modifications, call the original movers and shakers.
Roberts &
Schaefer Company
222 South Riverside Plaza
Chicago, Illinois 60606
312/236-7292
www.r-s.com
Offices also in
Australia,
Indonesia,
Poland and
Salt Lake City.
CIRCLE 7 ON READER SERVICE CARD
POWER
|
January 2008 10
GLOBAL MONITOR
systems are tightly integrated: Water used
in the solar sides steam generator is taken
from the HRSGs economizers, and steam
generated by the solar field is injected
into the superheaters of the same HRSGs.
Both flows of steam, generated by the so-
lar field and by the HRSGs, are expanded
together by the single steam turbine.
DOE updates
coal plant database
Interested in a comprehensive and current
list of U.S. coal plants and projects? Check
out the latest release of the DOEs 2007
Coal Power Plant Database. Available as an
8.6-MB Excel spreadsheet, a 20.8-MB Excel
pivot table, or a 24-MB Access database, it
is maintained by the Office of Fossil Energys
National Energy Technology Laboratory. The
database, covering more than 1,900 plants,
can be found at www.netl.doe.gov/energy-
analyses/technology.html.
Dam the Red Sea?
Building a dam across the Red Sea at Bab
al Mandab (Bab El Mandeb on Figure 5),
the 20-mile-wide strait separating Yemen
and Djibouti, and using it to generate
hydropower could help meet the growing
electricity demand of millions of people in
4. Technology fusion. A simplified block diagram of the 470-MW integrated solar com-
bined-cycle plant that Alstom is building in Morocco. Source: Alstom
Generator
Steam
turbine
Aerocondenser Water
reservoir
Stack
Bypass
stack
HRSG
Heat
exchangers
Cylindrical
parabolic
mirrors and
collector
Generator
Gas turbine
Generator
HRSG
Stack
Bypass
stack
Gas turbine
Note: HRSG = heat-recovery steam generator
Simplicity in safety
avoid accidents: keep cables and hoses out of harms way
Would you like more information about CABLESAFE

and its uses in making your


workplace safer? Then contact Westmark BV. Tel. +31(0)33 461 48 44,
Fax +31(0)33 461 24 61, E-mail westmark@cablesafe.com, www.cablesafe.com
CABLESAFE

contributes to a safe workplace. It is easy to suspend


cables, wires and hoses with the hooks simple, effective S-shape. By
clearing up the workfloor the number of tripping accident is reduced, Dutch
statistics report a 21%* reduction in industrial accidents in the workplace.
With CABLESAFE

you can create a tidy, structured workplace. Thats safety.
New glow-in-the-dark
hooks also available
Available in company colour
and with company name
West mar k BV
St at i onsweg Oost 281D
3931 ER Woudenber g - Net her l ands
Tel : +31. 33. 4614844 - Fax: +31. 33. 4612461
emai l : west mar k@cabl esaf e. com
West mar kUS
4212 San Fel i pe Rd. Sui t e 407
Houst on, TX 77027
Tel : +1. 832. 242. 5992
west mar kUS@sbcgl obal . net
www. cabl esaf e. com
Houst on Br anch:
E- Mai l : sal es@i nt r epi di ndust r i es. com
Int r epi d Indust r i es Inc.
2305 S. Bat t l egr ound Road
La Por t e, TX 77571- 9475
Web- si t e: www. i nt r epi di ndust r i es. com
Phone: +1 281 479- 8301 Fax: +1 281 479- 3453
West mar k BV
St at i onsweg Oost 281D
3931 ER Woudenber g - Net her l ands
Tel : +31. 33. 4614844 - Fax: +31. 33. 4612461
emai l : west mar k@cabl esaf e. com
CIRCLE 8 ON READER SERVICE CARD
Torque Tube Displacer Problems?
Eclipse

makes replacement easy.


2. Strip it.
Simply remove the upper
head from the existing
caged unit where the flange
connects to the lower cage.
Discard this portion, along
with the displacer and
other internals. Your cage
is now ready for an Eclipse
Guided Wave Radar retrofit.
3. Insert it.
Insert the mating flange,
the application-specific
Eclipse probe, and the two-
wire powered electronics.
Replacement flanges or
custom cages are available
as needed. Add HART

,
FOUNDATION fieldbus

or PACTware

as desired.
4. Believe it. Configuration takes only minutes. No calibration
is required. Accuracy is not affected by changing densities and dielectrics
or by high temperatures or pressures. For convenience the electronics
feature a quick connect/disconnect. Theres no moving parts to
ever wear out. Youll wonder why you waited so long.
For complete details on retrofitting torque tube displacers
with Eclipse Guided Wave Radar call 1-800-624-8765
or visit us online at magnetrol.com.
Worldwide Level and Flow Solutions
sm
5300 Belmont Road Downers Grove, IL 60515 630-969-4000 magnetrol.com
1. Retire it.
Having problems with
antiquated level controls?
Fed up with high mainte-
nance, recalibration shut-
downs or inaccuracies
caused by something as
simple as a specific gravity
change? Eclipse eliminates
these problems.
CIRCLE 9 ON READER SERVICE CARD
POWER
|
January 2008 12
5. Moses crossed another way, at the other end. Researchers at Utrecht Uni-
versity in The Netherlands suggest that 50 GW could be generated by a 20-mile-wide dam
across the Red Sea near its southern end. Courtesy: NASA
GLOBAL MONITOR
DELIVERS!
March 2008
Special report on the design,
operation, and maintenance
of gas turbinepowered
combined cycles
Next-generation FGD
systems gain acceptance
Time to go wireless at your
plant?
Harvey Research Ad-Q
readership study issue
Closing Date:
February 4, 2008
April 2008
ELECTRIC POWER 2008
Show Issue
Waste-to-energy plants
looking good again
Advanced plant maintenance
practices
Nuclear plant upgrades add
cheap capacity
Closing Date:
March 5, 2008
ACT NOW!
Reserve Your Ad
Contact your sales
representative
(listed on p. 2)
Your formula for water analysis.
To speak with a dedicated Industrial water expert, call 866-450-4248.
Or take advantage of our Live Help option at www.hach.com/power.
Innovative Process
Instrumentation
Expert Support
and Training
Integrated Lab Solutions
and Chemistries
Dependable Service
SOURCE CODE: M083AS HAC-0225
Products. Support. Expertise. Hach gives you the necessary tools to protect your critical components from
scaling and corrosion. With over 50 years of experience delivering the right solutions for boiler and cooling
water, Hach is your trusted partner in water analysis.
Manage your chemistry. Protect your assets.
Be Right
TM

CIRCLE 10 ON READER SERVICE CARD


POWER
|
January 2008 14
the Middle East without further depleting the regions oil and
natural gas reserves. But such a massive engineering project also
could take a ruinous toll on the local environment and displace
countless people from their homes.
Those are the overall conclusions of a research report recently
published in the International Journal of Global Environmental
Issues, from Inderscience Publishers. In the report, Roelof Dirk
Schuiling of Hollands Utrecht University and his colleagues dis-
cuss the costs and benefits of what could be the most ambitious
engineering project ever.
According to the authors, existing technology allows us to
shift and shape the earth on a relatively large scale, including
damming rivers to create artificial lakes big enough for mega-
watt-scale power generation. In the near future, it may even
be possible to dam the Red Sea. Such a barrier would stem the
flow of seawater from the Indian Ocean into the sea, which is
highly evaporative.
Schuiling, a geochemical engineer, says that a dam at Bab
al Mandab could be used to generate as much as 50 GW. By
comparison, the 33 hydroelectricity generators at Grand Cou-
lee Dam on the Columbia River in central Washington have a
peak summer capacity of 7.1 GW, making it the largest power
plant in the U.S., according to the DOEs Energy Information
Administration.
Such a project will dramatically affect the regions econo-
my, political situation and ecology, and the effects may be felt
well beyond the physical and political limits of the project,
the authors say of the dam. For example, it would cause major
disruptions to military and commercial ship traffic (Figure 6).
Schuiling and his colleagues wrote that the costs and time
frames of such a massive project are way beyond normal eco-
nomic considerations. However, someone is sure to at least
consider it, because 50 GW of hydro capacity would offer fu-
ture generations a sustainable, CO
2
-free alternative to the con-
tinued burning of huge quantities of fossil fuels.
Complying with CWA Section 316
In October 2007, more than 100 people met at the headquar-
ters of Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association in
Westminster, Colo., for an EPRI-sponsored workshop on Sec-
tion 316(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). This section of the
CWA regulates the thermal effluents of once-through power
plant cooling systems. It provides for variances from both
technology-based limits and water quality standards if a plant
can demonstrate that its thermal discharge will assure the
protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous popula-
6. Five acres of diplomacy. Building a dam that would put an
end to all ship traffic, including oil supertankers, into and out of the Red
Sea would definitely not be popular with the energy-hungry industrial-
ized world. Courtesy: DefenseLink
CIRCLE 11 ON READER SERVICE CARD
CIRCLE 12 ON READER SERVICE CARD
GLOBAL MONITOR
January 2008
|
POWER 15
tion of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on that body of water.
The 316(a) program was very active in the 1970s, when thermal
dischargers conducted studies to determine whether they quali-
fied for a variance.
Even if the Clean Water Act has not changed in 35 years, the
world has and continues to do so, said Dr. Robert Goldstein, a
senior technical executive of EPRI. Water issues such as thermal
discharge, impingement and entrainment, total maximum daily
loads, effluent guidelines, and availability are converging. We
have come together as a concerned community of power plant
employees, regulators, consultants, researchers, professors, and
students to consider a mixture of old and new topics that excite
the imagination and call out for creative scientific, technical,
and policy solutions.
It aint brokeits just stale. Over two days, attendees heard
more than 25 presentations on 316(a) from technical, legal, and
regulatory perspectives. Among the technical topics covered were
the development of water quality and thermal standards, thermal
response characterization, thermal modeling, recent advances
in cooling technologies, and the interplay between 316(a) and
316(b).
Some speakers discussed 316(a) from more than one perspec-
tive. For example, keynoter Chuck Coutant provided an overview
of the past 60 years of attempts to set temperature criteria and
standards to protect aquatic life. He pointed out that although
regulatory efforts to control potential adverse effects from ther-
mal discharges have been ongoing since the mid-1960s, there is
no consistent framework within which states develop and imple-
ment protective water temperature quality criteria.
Deborah Nagel, industrial branch chief of the EPAs Water Per-
mits division, discussed the specific requirements of applications
for a 316(a) variance. She also said that, from the agencys per-
spective, state permitting authorities are not implementing the
section consistently or correctly.
To improve the situation, the EPA expects to update its 316(a)
technical guidance document, originally drafted in 1977, soon.
The 316(a) guidance manual has served us well for 30 years, but
it is certainly due for updating, said Chuck Coutant. The basic
structure of using retrospective (no prior harm) and predictive
(thermal requirement data for organisms) approaches for demon-
strating a balanced community remains strong. But the guidance
needs to [reflect] a number of administrative and judicial deci-
sions [since 1977], such as including managed, non-indigenous
fish species and not expecting a return to pristine conditions.
Also, several indices of community health have been developed
that are very useful for evaluating the balance of aquatic com-
munities, which is the crux of Section 316(a).
While the EPA works toward updating the guidance document,
several states are making an effort to revise long-outdated wa-
ter temperature standards. Presentations by Erich Emery of the
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (whose members
represent Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Pennsylva-
nia, Virginia, and West Virginia), Lareina Wall of Colorado-based
GEI Consultants, and Mike Wenholz of Wisconsins Department
of Natural Resources discussed the status of updates to thermal
standards in their respective states.
Research updates. Several workshop presentations updated
scientific research on thermal response characterization. Rob
Reash of American Electric Power discussed the issues involved
in comparing laboratory and field tolerances for fish. Tamara
Pandolfo of North Carolina State University presented her data
on freshwater mussel sensitivity to a range of water tempera-
tures, which showed that the presence of a secondary toxicant
ASHROSS RUMig-Rail Car
Low prole, high speed railcar unloading system. In-ground system meant
for stationary use.
ASHROSS RUM-Rail Car
Railcar unloading machine,
train drives over the RUM,
walks off the track by itself.
Unloads anywhere, anytime
with speed and efciency.
ASHROSS RC-Reclaimer
Coal reclaimer. Use with dozer or other equipment. Moves the entire pile of
coal and reclaims the coal in a fast and efcient manner.
ASHROSS 1260 C-Truck
Self-propelled, mobile, towable drive over
unloading system for belly dump and end
dump trailers.
ASHROSS ST-Truck
Stationary drive over unloading system for belly dump and end dump
trailers.
530 South 250 West Pleasant Grove, Utah 84062
801-785-6464 Fax; 801-785-6486
www.ashross.com email: sales@ashross.com
Financing Available
COAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT
Unload railcars fast and inexpensively
C
a
ll to
d
a
y
!
8
0
1
-7
8
5
-6
4
6
4
GLOBAL MONITOR
CIRCLE 13 ON READER SERVICE CARD
CIRCLE 14 ON READER SERVICE CARD
POWER
|
January 2008 16
GLOBAL MONITOR
can make mussels more sensitive to tem-
perature stress. Telemetry and other state-
of-the-art tools for evaluating impacts of
thermal discharges on fish were presented
by Tim Brush of Normandeau Associates.
One-third of the presentations consisted
of recent, site-specific case studies. Terry
Cheek of Geosyntec Consultants and Bill
Evans of Georgia Power described the driv-
ers of Georgia Powers decision to retrofit
the cooling towers of three of its plants
to prevent fish kills under extreme condi-
tions, and the implications of doing so on
the viability of the 316(a) regulatory op-
tion. David Lee of We Energies shared the
316(a) demonstration process, including
thermal plume modeling, used to prepare
the Oak Creek Expansion Projects Wiscon-
sin Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys-
tem (WPDES) permit application.
The conference took on an interna-
tional flavor as folks from France, the
Netherlands, and New Zealand discussed
their countries plant cooling water poli-
cies. Yves Souchon of Cemagref, a French
public research institute focusing on land
management issues, and Cecile Delattre of
lectricit de France presented a summary
of the thermal discharge regulations in
their nation and some results of biological
monitoring at power plant sites. Maarten
Bruijs of the Dutch consultant KEMA de-
scribed a field study on the influence on
fish behavior of higher water temperatures
in the cooling water discharge of Claus
Power Plant in the Netherlands. Finally,
Jacques Boubee of the National Institute
of Water and Atmospheric Research sum-
marized New Zealands generation and en-
vironmental regulations and the challenges
in meeting them at Huntly Power Station,
the countrys biggest thermal plant.
Hot topic. A common theme of many
presentations was the effect of climate
change on plant environments. For ex-
ample, Yves Souchon and Cecile Delattre
explained that Europes heat wave of 2003
raised questions that Frances environ-
mental policymakers are still struggling to
answer. As for climate changes effect in
the U.S., Deborah Nagle of the EPA said
it was creating more areas with prolonged
dry and wet conditions and generally in-
creasing the ambient temperatures of wa-
terbodies.
The workshop closed with several pre-
sentations on emerging issues and future
research needs. E. Eric Adams of MIT dis-
cussed advances in thermal plume mod-
eling. Judson White and John Waddill of
Dominion Resources explained the per-
formance rationale for hybrid cooling,
called for in their companys recent COL
application for a proposed new unit at the
North Anna nuclear station (see p. 6). Tim
Hogan of Alden Research Laboratory dis-
cussed the benefits of colocating power
plants with desalination or liquefied natu-
ral gas facilities. In such arrangements,
the power plants discharge can serve as
the water supply for either type of facility,
thereby reducing costs and enabling the
sharing of research, construction, permit-
ting, and monitoring resources.
The workshop was organized by a steer-
ing committee consisting of Chuck Cout-
ant (retired); Doug Dixon and Robert
Goldstein of EPRI; Raymond Harrell and
Ron Lewis of Duke Energy; Chantell John-
son of the host (Tri-State); Christine Lew
and Bill Mills of Tetra Tech; Dave Michaud
of We Energies; and Rob Reash of Ameri-
can Electric Power.
EPRI will publish the workshop proceed-
ings early this year. For more information,
contact Robert Goldstein at rogoldst@
epri.com.
Christine Lew, PE, a senior environ-
mental engineer for Tetra Tech Inc.
(www.teratech.com).
I
n an unpredictable climate of economic
and environmental pressure, engineers in
industry face an ever increasing demand to
provide insight into standard processes.
CD-adapco's world leading CAE flow
simulation software and services provide a
unique insight into all aspects of Power
Generation, enabling a reduction in cost and
an increase in profitability. STAR-CD can
empower your engineers to achieve tangible
gains in energy efficiency, improve
performance within the plant or model "what
if scenarios" to optimize your designs. Talk to
CD-adapco to understand how you can aim
for growth, even in today's challenging
climate.
Full Spectrum CAE Solutions from CD-adapco
info@us.cd-adapco.com www.cd-adapco.com
Reduce costs and optimize designs with STAR-CD
CIRCLE 15 ON READER SERVICE CARD
January 2008
|
POWER 17
POWER digest
News items of interest to power industry
professionals.
Big CC plant coming to Texas. In early
December, Panda Energy Inc. announced
its intention to build, own, and operate
a 1,000-MW combined-cycle plant in an
industrial area of Temple, Texas, on Inter-
state 35 between Waco and Austin. The
area is one of the 10 densest and fast-
est-growing population centers in the U.S.
Nearly half of the states 21 million citi-
zens live within 50 miles of I-35.
This plant will help meet the future
energy needs of our growing state and
strengthen the economy of central Texas
said Robert Carter, Panda Energys chair-
man and CEO. With little or no power
plant construction having occurred during
the past five years, state and local offi-
cials are being farsighted in working now
to enhance the future reliability of the
regions power supply. We look forward to
working with them in bringing this project
to completion.
Panda told POWER that it is deciding be-
tween two different configurations for the
gas-fired plant. One option is a Siemens
Power Generation FlexPlant10, using
SCC6-5000F combustion turbine generators
in combined-cycle mode, with four 1 x 1
power blocks. The other is a General Elec-
tric Frame 7FA-based plant with two 2 x 1
power blocks. Panda noted that the choice
will depend on the units availability and
other market factors when the time comes
to specify major equipment.
Temple Generating Station will be locat-
ed on a 250-acre site at the South Temple
Industrial Park. It should take about two
years to build, assuming timely receipt of
regulatory approvals and financing. Panda
has already filed for an air permit with the
Texas Commission on Environmental Qual-
ity. The company says it is designing the
plant to maximize the use of reclaimed
water, thereby conserving the states fresh
water resources.
North Dakota to get new gasification
plant. The North Dakota Industrial Com-
mission and representatives of Great
Northern Power Development LP (GNPD)
and Allied Syngas Corp. have announced
a $1.4 billion coal gasification project at
South Heart that would produce pipeline-
quality syngas.
The South Heart project would be a
joint venture of GNPD and Allied. Both
companies have subsidiaries that bring
strategic value to the table. For example,
Great Northern Properties LP, a GNPD af-
filiate, owns a substantial amount of the
coal reserves that would fuel the plant.
Meanwhile, Allieds Envirotherm GmbH
affiliate is a co-owner of the advanced
British Gas Lurgi (BGL) gasification tech-
nology that the project would use. BGLs
other owner is Advantica Ltd. Advantica
and Envirotherm will provide the technol-
ogy license, design, and technical support
for the gasification process.
The project will use seven BGL gasifiers
to turn North Dakota lignite into as much
as 100 million cubic feet/day of pipeline-
quality gas that could be sold locally or
nationwide. According to the project
partners, the gasification plant will also
produce many of the chemical by-products
needed to manufacture fertilizers or serve
as feedstocks for chemical plants. This
project also will capture CO
2
, which could
then be sequestered in underground brine
or shale formations in and near North Da-
kota or used to enhance recovery of oil
from nearly depleted nearby fields.
Construction is slated to begin in late
2009 or early 2010 and wrap up in 2012.
NRG, Powerspan announce large-
scale CCS demo. In a recently announced
memorandum of understanding NRG En-
ergy Inc. and Powerspan Corp. agreed
to demonstrate at commercial scale the
latters ECO
2
technology for carbon cap-
ture and sequestration (CCS). (See POWER,
October 2007, p. 54, for details of the
ECO
2
process.)
ECO
2
is a post-combustion, regenerative
process that uses an ammonia-based solu-
tion to capture CO
2
from the flue gas of
a power plant. Once the greenhouse gas
has been captured, the solution is regen-
erated to release CO
2
and ammonia. The
ammonia is then sent back to the scrub-
bing process, leaving the CO
2
in a form
suitable for geological storage. Ammonia
is not consumed by the scrubbing process,
which creates no by-products. Powerspan
says ECO
2
technology is applicable to both
existing and new coal-fired plants and is
particularly economical for plants that use
ammonia to reduce their NO
x
emissions.
To date, CCS demos have only been
conducted on pilot-scale coal plants with
capacities between 1 MW and 5 MW. This
demo will take place at NRGs W.A. Parish
plant near Sugar Land, Texas, on quantities
of flue gas equal to those of a 125-MW unit.
The projects goal is to capture and seques-
ter about one million tons of CO
2
annually.
As at the South Heart project, the CO
2
captured by the Parish project may be used
to enhance oilfield recovery operations in
the region. The demonstration facility,
which is being designed to remove 90% of
the CO
2
from a flue gas stream, is expected
to be operational in 2012.
CALL FOR
NOMINATIONS FOR:
Power Plant of
the Year Award
Marmaduke Award
Top Plants
magazine's
AnnuaI Power
PIant Awards
Nominations are
due May 26, 2008.
Download entry forms from
www.powermag.com
GLOBAL MONITOR
Mltsublshl lcwer Systems ^merloas, lno. - 2287 lremler Rcw - 0rlandc, Flcrlda 32809, US^ - 14076886800 - www.mpshq.com
2001
Dedicated
Service in
the Western
Hemisphere
2008
Expanded
Worldwide
Supply of
Critical Parts
Power Generation Services - Blade and Vane Manufacturing Center of Excellence
Since 2001, MPSA has provided
OEM-quality power generation
equipment and maintenance service
support for both Mitsubishi and
non-Mitsubishi turbine users.
At our Orlando Service Center,
weve continually extended the
boundaries of repair and
manufacturing services for rotating
and stationary components
of advanced-frame turbines.
enhancing systems, and lean
manufacturing techniques designed
to ensure best-quality and rapid
availability of both gas and steam
turbine parts.
Te new facility will allow us to double
the size of the Mitsubishi team here to
support you, as well as to signifcantly
expand our parts supply inventory
standing behind your operating feet.
In fact, with expert turnkey project
management, engineering, outage and
O&M support coupled with an
expansive critical spares inventory for
advanced-frame D-, F- and G-Class
gas turbines, plus techniques to assess
and extend component life weve
redefned service expectations for
customers throughout the Americas.
Today, were taking the next step
forward with a dedicated blade and
vane manufacturing facility that will
double our part and component
manufacturing capacity.
Once online in the second quarter of
2008, our new factory will give MPSA
the most modern and comprehen-
sive manufacturing capability in the
hemisphere with highly automated
machining operations, productivity-
0ur new plant wlll alsc shcwoase an advanoed
Mltsublshl sclar phctcvcltalo generatlng system
supplylng 20 cf the faolllty`s peak eleotrloal needs.
Watch the vision unfold live at
www.mpsservice.com
Visit www.mpshq.com for
Rewarding Career Opportunities
OSC Spread.indd 1 12/21/07 5:25:26 AM
Untitled-2 1 1/2/08 12:39:16 PM
Mltsublshl lcwer Systems ^merloas, lno. - 2287 lremler Rcw - 0rlandc, Flcrlda 32809, US^ - 14076886800 - www.mpshq.com
2001
Dedicated
Service in
the Western
Hemisphere
2008
Expanded
Worldwide
Supply of
Critical Parts
Power Generation Services - Blade and Vane Manufacturing Center of Excellence
Since 2001, MPSA has provided
OEM-quality power generation
equipment and maintenance service
support for both Mitsubishi and
non-Mitsubishi turbine users.
At our Orlando Service Center,
weve continually extended the
boundaries of repair and
manufacturing services for rotating
and stationary components
of advanced-frame turbines.
enhancing systems, and lean
manufacturing techniques designed
to ensure best-quality and rapid
availability of both gas and steam
turbine parts.
Te new facility will allow us to double
the size of the Mitsubishi team here to
support you, as well as to signifcantly
expand our parts supply inventory
standing behind your operating feet.
In fact, with expert turnkey project
management, engineering, outage and
O&M support coupled with an
expansive critical spares inventory for
advanced-frame D-, F- and G-Class
gas turbines, plus techniques to assess
and extend component life weve
redefned service expectations for
customers throughout the Americas.
Today, were taking the next step
forward with a dedicated blade and
vane manufacturing facility that will
double our part and component
manufacturing capacity.
Once online in the second quarter of
2008, our new factory will give MPSA
the most modern and comprehen-
sive manufacturing capability in the
hemisphere with highly automated
machining operations, productivity-
0ur new plant wlll alsc shcwoase an advanoed
Mltsublshl sclar phctcvcltalo generatlng system
supplylng 20 cf the faolllty`s peak eleotrloal needs.
Watch the vision unfold live at
www.mpsservice.com
Visit www.mpshq.com for
Rewarding Career Opportunities
OSC Spread.indd 1 12/21/07 5:25:26 AM
Untitled-2 2 1/2/08 12:39:27 PM
www.powermag.com POWER
|
January 2008 20
FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M FOCUS ON O&M
FOCUS ON O&M
INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROL
Single-window control
of CHP plants energy
converters
In February 2005, APS Energy Services
and its Northwind Phoenix subsidiary to-
gether began building a gas-fired com-
bined heat and power (CHP) plant on the
campus of Arizona State University (ASU)
in Tempe. Northwind markets, develops,
designs, finances, constructs, and oper-
ates district-heating plants throughout
Arizona.
Phase I of the ASU plant is now on-
line. It has five 2,000-ton water chillers
(Figure 1) from York (www.york.com), a
7.2-MW natural gasfired combustion tur-
bine (CT) from Solar Turbines Inc. (mysolar
.cat.com), a 2-MW Murray steam turbine
(www.dresser-rand.com), an 80,000-lb/hr
heat-recovery steam generator (HRSG)
from Rentech Boiler Systems Inc. (www
.rentechboilers.com) equipped with a Coen
duct burner management system (www
.coan.com), and a pair of 2-MW diesel en-
gine generators from Cummins Power Gen-
eration Inc. (www.cumminspower.com).
Subsequent construction phases will
more than double the chilled water ca-
pacity and increase the power and steam
outputs of the cogeneration system to
levels suitable for supplying ASUs rapidly
growing research facilities. The CHP plant
will ultimately generate 160,000 lb/hr of
steam, 18.4 MW of electricity, and 24,000
tons of chilled water, making it perhaps
the largest university central plant in the
U.S.
The plant, which operates 24/7, re-
quired a state-of-the-art control system
that also is easy to use. So APS and
Northwind specified a Matrix Total Con-
trol unit from MTL Open System Tech-
nologies (www.mtlmost.com) that puts
all operator functions within a single
display window. According to Ray Tena of
ASUs facilities department, the systems
graphics and controls are easy to navi-
gate and provide an effective and respon-
sive operator interface.
The control system comprises four re-
dundant pairs of Matrix hybrid control-
lers, eight remote nodes, each with a
redundant pair of Ethernet bus interface
and I/O modules, two double-tier opera-
tor consoles, one remote interface termi-
nal server, and one engineering station
and industrial SQL server historian, all of
which communicate over a fault-tolerant
Ethernet network (Figure 2). The system
oversees the five chillers, the HRSG burner
management system, and the two diesels
and two turbines, and also operates the
facilitys primary circuit breakers.
Interfaces to multiple intelligent devic-
es (including Rotork smart valves, GE smart
relays, and ABB variable-speed AC drives)
were essential to providing the single-
window operator environment. More than
20 separate system interfaces enable more
than 75 devices to talk to each other. Ad-
ditionally, there are Ethernet interfaces to
the programmable logic controllers of the
combustion turbine and the HRSG duct
burner management system.
Working with the control system, an in-
dustrial applications server and a Factory-
Suite Model A2 human-machine interface
1. Keeping the kids cool. The combined heat and power plant on the campus of Ari-
zona State University includes five 2,000-ton chillers like this one. The plants chilled-water
capacity is currently being expanded to 24,000 tons. Courtesy: APS Energy Services
2. Tightly integrated controls. Parts of the control system communicate with each
other over a fault-tolerant Ethernet network. Courtesy: APS Energy Services
Benetech understands the complex challenges of todays competitive
fuel handling marketplace and is committed to helping you implement
progressive programs that will increase your ability to reduce cost while
improving safety of operations.
Risk Mitigation. Benetech identies and quanties risks with programs that
deliver sustainable mitigation results by successfully navigating through the
cost versus risk process associated with fuel handling operations.
Asset Optimization. By implementing best practices and proven technologies,
Benetech can assist your plant to enhance assets reliability through
optimization while extending the life cycle of your infrastructure.
Fuel Flexibility. To minimize future capital outlays due to environmental
and scal pressures that are driving fuel selection and blending, Benetech
provides the tools you need for proper planning for new fuel introductions.
Are you ready to fuel the future?
C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

2
0
0
7

B
e
n
e
t
e
c
h
.

BENETECH DELIVERS PROVEN SOLUTIONS that reduce O&M costs, lower risk profiles and increase efciencies. We have saved
our customers over $100 million through asset optimization, fuel exibility and P2 plant assessments.
With close to 100 PRB conversions and plant assessments completed, and over 900 million tons of coal transferred, Benetech has
the expertise to solve todays industry challenges.
www.BENETECHUSA.com
CIRCLE 17 ON READER SERVICE CARD
POWER
|
January 2008 22
FOCUS ON O&M
from Wonderware (www.wonderware.com),
a subsidiary of Invensys Systems Inc., pro-
vide the single control window to all areas
of the plant. The chillers and the combus-
tion turbine are operated separately by
the same operator from the facilitys only
control room (Figure 3). Different-color
backgrounds (blue for the chillers, green
for the CT) distinguish the two systems.
Significantly, the control system en-
ables all equipment of the CHP plant at
ASU to be monitored and controlled re-
motely by operators at another Northwind
site via the companys wide-area network.
That feature allowed operators of the ASU
plant to be trained onsite without disrupt-
ing operations on campus while the system
was operated from Northwinds downtown
Phoenix headquarters.
The Tempe plants control system also
shares information with ASUs energy in-
formation system (EIS) through a Modbus
interface. The EIS, which is maintained by
APS Energy Services, provides detailed in-
formation about individual buildings en-
ergy usage. The university uses that data
to develop building-specific invoices for
electricity, gas, chilled and hot water, and
steam usage.
Contributed by Ed Antone
(edmund.antone@apses.com), senior
project manager of APS Energy Services
and Tim Schweitzer
(tim.schweitzer@mtlmost.com), project
manager for the control system vendor.
SAFETY
Safety stuffers
entertain as they inform
Ordinary Coffee spilled on the stairs turned
them into a Deathtrap! Those stairs were
Deadly When Wet. Starring Slick DeMise.
Rated P for Perilous.
Is that an advertisement for the lat-
est direct-to-video horror movie? No, its
text from the front of a safety stuffer
published by the Mechanical Contractors
Association (MCA) of Chicago and United
Association Local Union (LU) 597. The
small flyers accompany the weekly pay-
checks of LU 597 workers employed by
member contractors of MCA Chicago (Fig-
ure 4). The one quoted above has its key
message on the back: Please, clean up
spills as soon as possible.
Twenty-six different stuffers are be-
ing distributed, each conveying its safe-
ty message in the form of a scary movie
ad, complete with eerie illustrations. The
safety stuffers are being paid for by the LU
597/MCA Joint Safety Committee.
The safety stuffers remind workers to
observe important safety measures on
the job, explained Stephen Lamb, execu-
tive VP of MCA Chicago. Its mechanical
contractors install and service heating,
ventilating, air conditioning, and refrig-
eration systems, as well as fire sprinklers
and plumbing and process piping. We
have the safest workforce in the industry,
and we hope that stuffers help keep it
that way.
The safety stuffers cover a wide vari-
ety of vitally important worksite issues,
added James Buchanan, LU 597s business
manager. There are stuffers that explain
appropriate lifting techniques, proper lad-
der usage, the need for personal protective
equipment, lockout/tagout procedures, er-
gonomics, fire safety, and more. There are
even stuffers covering sexual harassment
and workplace violence.
Nehlsen Communications, a marketing
and public relations firm, helped MCA Chi-
cago develop the safety stuffers. Safety
is a huge issue to all of our construction
clients, said Nancy Nehlsen, president
of the agency. We have to find ways to
get workers attention and make them
constantly aware of hazards on the job.
Todays younger workers are used to the
Internet and high-energy video games, so
they like their information quick and en-
3. Screening room. Color-coded back-
grounds differentiate the controls of the chill-
ers and the combustion turbine. Courtesy:
APS Energy Services
4. Always think safety. Chicago contracting unions have developed a series of unique
safety stuffers that are distributed in weekly paycheck envelopes to remind members about
the importance of safety. Source: Nehlsen Communications
6646 Complex Drive Baton Rouge, LA 70809 225-906-2343 info@orioninstruments.com
The Genuine Article. Developed and patented
by Orion, Aurora is the worlds first redundant
Magnetic Level Indicator. Its engineered for tough
applications.
More Powerful. Auroras Eclipse

Guided Wave
Radar transmitter uses advanced hardware and soft-
ware for greater reliability and performance. Eclipse
is now suitable for SIL 2 loops.
Unparalleled Ease of Use. Aurora is easy to set
up. Its unaffected by high temperatures and pres-
sures, steam, coating, aggressive acids or changing
specific gravities and dielectrics.
PACTware

PC Software. Monitor level and


perform advanced configuration, diagnostics and
troubleshooting from the convenience and safety of
a control room.
All the Options. Select from a wide range of MLI
configurations, materials, indicators, transmitters,
switches and thermal protection. A dual-chamber
Gemini

MLI is also available.


For more information, call 1-866-55-ORION
or visit orioninstruments.com
Orions Aurora magnetic level indicators take on the
worlds most demanding liquid level applications.
PATENTED DESIGN
Get Tough with Aurora

The MLI you can depend on to


meet your toughest challenges
CIRCLE 18 ON READER SERVICE CARD
POWER
|
January 2008 24
FOCUS ON O&M
gaging. If you cant excite their interest,
youve lost them. So for maximum impact,
we made each safety stuffer eye-catching
and entertaining, with little text.
The safety stuffers are just one of
many educational tools used by MCA Chi-
cago and Local Union 597 to increase
safety awareness, Buchanan emphasized.
For example, we also hold Toolbox Talks
at worksites. At the start of each workday,
workers gather so the foreman can share
the days prepared safety advice. Because
everyone hears the talks, everyone ends
up on the same page, safety-wise. Most
talks remind them to work together and
watch out for each other.
MCA holds numerous safety classes in
its own Construction Education Institute,
a learning facility with course offerings
for all levels in the mechanical construc-
tion industry. Lamb said, We now offer
classes in CPR and first aid, automated
external defibrillator training, electric
arc safety, as well as OSHAs 10-hour and
30-hour safety courses, and we add new
courses constantly.
Combined, these educational tools in-
still in MCA Chicagos member contractors
and their LU 597 workforce a high level
of safety awareness. Considering the high
costs that accident-related injuries and
lost work time can incurincluding lost
productivity, medical bills, administrative
expenses, workers compensation fees,
higher insurance premiums, the expenses
of training replacements, and overtime
for uninjured workersits clear that any
step to improve worker safety is worth the
time and effort.
For more information on MCA Chicago,
visit www.mca.org. For more
information on UA Local Union 597, visit
www.pf597.org. For more information on
attention-getting safety stuffers, contact
Mark McLaughlin (mark@ncpr.com),
a public relations specialist for
Nehlsen Communications.
TRANSPORTATION
Doubling up
for a heavy load
Last summer, Barnhart Crane & Rigging was
hired to receive one generator and one tur-
bine from a railroad, haul them more than 8
miles to a power plant rising near Emporia,
Kansas (Figure 5), and then set them on
their foundation. As part of the contract,
the company also was supposed to install
three transformers that it had hauled to
the site earlier and had placed on stands
and beams for temporary storage.
The major delivery challenge was a
bridge crossing. Fearing a collapse, the
bridges engineer would not allow the
generator and turbine to cross on a sin-
gle-wide Goldhofer. He insisted that Barn-
hart spread the load.
The solution was to begin the haul us-
ing a single-wide Goldhofer. Then, as the
bridge was approached, another Goldhofer
was brought alongside. The crew then slid
the generator over to the middle of the
now double-wide trailer (Figure 6). Once
the bridge was crossed, the operation was
reversed and the journey continued in a
single-wide configuration.
Contributed by Barnhart Crane &
Rigging (www.barnhartcrane.com)
5. Close quarters. Barnhart used a 14-line Goldhofer electronically steered trailer to ma-
neuver a new transformer into place at this combined-cycle plant being built in Kansas. Cour-
tesy: Barnhart Crane & Rigging
6. Double-wide load. Bridge load limits required Barnhart to double up single-wide trail-
ers. Courtesy: Barnhart Crane & Rigging
Babcock Power encompasses the knowledge, energy, and culture to drive the innovative development
of clean, efficient power generation worldwide. We integrate this knowledge with the expert
application of diverse fuels and technologies, providing excellence in advanced engineered
systems and energy services. Our tireless commitment to developing and applying the latest
technologies will protect our most precious environmental resources for future generations.
Babcock Power Inc.
Experience the full spectrum
www.babcockpower.com
Babcock Power Environmental Inc. Boiler Tube Company of America Thermal Engineering International (USA) Inc.
TEi Construction Services, Inc. Babcock Power Services Inc. Riley Power Inc. Vogt Power International Inc.
Images That Reflect Our
Commitment to Clean Power
CIRCLE 19 ON READER SERVICE CARD
www.powermag.com POWER
|
January 2008 26
LEGAL AND REGULATORY
One-size RPS does not fit all
By Roger Kranenburg, Edison Electric Institute
Roger Kranenburg
T
he U.S. Congress continues to debate proposals that would
mandate that a set amount of the nations electricity come
from renewable energy sources such as wind, the sun, or
biomass. These discussions about adopting a nationwide renew-
able portfolio standard (RPS) raise significant concerns for power
providers and customers alike.
Backers of a one-size-fits-all federal RPS believe it to be an es-
sential component of a broad national energy strategy to address
global climate change, improve air quality, and lower electricity
price volatility. But in reality, a national RPS could disrupt exist-
ing state renewable energy programs and put added pressure on
electricity prices and reliability.
Impact on state programs
States are moving forward with their own programs to promote
renewable energy sources. As of September 2007, 24 states and
the District of Columbia had established an RPS. Four other states
had nonbinding goals for adopting renewables, and 48 states
now support programs that offer consumers incentives, grants,
loans, or rebates to use renewable energy resources.
Each states RPS plan includes carefully considered timetables
and targets based upon its own unique circumstances and avail-
able energy sources. A federal RPS that imposes different targets
and timetables could undercut or preempt those efforts. This
would create uncertainty and drive up the cost of meeting renew-
able mandates even further for electricity suppliers and consum-
ers in those states.
Even among states that have an RPS, all have chosen to add
energy sources unique to their areas, such as geothermal power,
which are not included in the broad-sweeping federal RPS propos-
als. Many state programs also include technologies such as fuel
cells, as well as alternative means of compliance such as energy-ef-
ficiency programs, which are not recognized in the federal plans.
Higher power costs
Finally, not all regions of the country have abundant renewable
energy sources that they can turn to for generating electricity.
The cost for states in these regions to comply with a federal RPS
could be high, because many of the retail electric suppliers in
these areas will not be able to meet an RPS requirement through
their own generation. They will be required to purchase higher-
cost renewable energy from other suppliers or purchase renew-
able energy credits.
Thus a nationwide RPS mandate will mean a massive wealth
transfer from electric consumers in states with little or no renew-
able resources to the federal government or states where renew-
ables happen to be more abundant.
A federal RPS would also mean higher costs due to the need to
build high-voltage electric transmission lines. Renewable energy
facilities, especially wind farms, are usually located in remote
areas. To deliver their electricity to the populated areas where it
is needed, transmission lines would need to be built. To do so will
cost approximately $1 million to $3 million per mile.
Most renewable energy sources are intermittent, meaning they
do not generate power all the time. Consequently, conventional
power plants (most likely fueled by natural gas) need to be built
to support them, which accounts for costs in addition to the cost
of building the renewable energy facilities.
A better solution
There are better ways to expand the use of renewables. Federal
tax credits and increased funding for research and development
are key. A long-term extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC)
could be the single most effective thing Congress could do to
promote renewables.
Unlike the leading RPS proposals, the PTC is a proven means
of actually getting renewable generation built and brought on-
line. The current PTC is due to expire on December 31, 2008. In
the past, the short-term, start-and-stop nature of the tax credit
has dissuaded utilities, developers, manufacturers, and investors
from maximizing the potential of renewable technologies and
resources, where they are available. Extending the credit for at
least five years will give the private sector the stability necessary
to plan and finance renewable energy projects.
The nations electric utility companies support the develop-
ment and greater use of renewable energy sources. Renewables,
along with the full range of other climate-friendly technologies
including nuclear, energy efficiency, clean coal, carbon capture
and storage, and plug-in electric hybridsmust be a part of the
industrys long-term approach to meeting the countrys steadily
growing demand for electricity.
But renewables must be encouraged where they make eco-
nomic sense. For this reason, a federal mandate that forces all
states to generate an arbitrary amount of electricity from them,
regardless of states individual resources, is bad for electricity
customers and providers alike.
To learn more about the electric utility industrys efforts to
provide a reliable, affordable, and environmentally sensitive elec-
tricity supply, please visit www.getenergyactive.org.
Roger Kranenburg (rkranenburg@eei.org) is director, business
development for the Edison Electric Institute (www.eei.org).
A long-term extension of the
PTC could be the single most
effective thing Congress could
do to promote renewables.
With the new X-STREAMs low-maintenance design,
swapping out a core is...well...
The Emerson logo is a trademark and service mark of Emerson Electric Co. 2007 Emerson Electric Co.
CIRCLE 20 ON READER SERVICE CARD
www.powermag.com POWER
|
January 2008 28
2008 INDUSTRY FORECAST
Regulatory risks paralyzing power
industry while demand grows
In our second annual report on the state and future of the U.S. power genera-
tion industry, we combine the considerable experience of POWERs edito-
rial staff with the market savvy of Industrial Info Resources Inc. (see next
story) to preview the industrys direction in 2008. We anticipate that the
specter of carbon control legislation will hobble coal and make renew-
ables the hot ticket while nukes continue to inch forward in a generation
market that is basically treading water.
By Kennedy Maize and Dr. Robert Peltier, PE
P
redicting the U.S. power industrys
2008 performance requires under-
standing how utilities and other plant
developers respond to risk and uncertainty.
Three years ago, mercury controls had the
undivided attention of every coal plant op-
erator. Today, the imminent arrival of carbon
controls has caused a tectonic shift in the in-
dustry. In years past, builders of new power
plants focused on getting grandfathered out
of new regulations. Today, developers are
canceling plants before the climate change
debate in Congress has ended, already as-
suming the results will be bad for them.
Even the mere anticipation of carbon con-
trols, and the sea change they will bring to
the U.S. economy, has created strange bed-
fellows and stranger enemies. Environmental
groups are now embracing nuclear power be-
cause they perceive it to be the lesser of two
evilsafter coal. Proposed carbon cap-and-
trade regulations have executives of nuclear
and wind power utilities vilifying their coun-
terparts at coal-based utilities, who are asking
for need allowances to ease the transition.
Thirty years ago, Americas major utilities
faced common challenges arm-in-arm. That
time has passed.
PURPAs legacy
For example, 30 years ago utilities uniformly
opposed passage of the Public Utility Regula-
tory Policies Act (PURPA) as part of the Na-
tional Energy Act. The Iranian revolution of
1978 began a period during which world oil
prices doubled and some industry wags pre-
dicted $100/bbl oil. PURPA forced utilities
to diversify their generation resources and to
purchase power from privately owned quali-
fied facilities. The transition was difficult
for industrial plant owners and utilities alike
for several years, but market forces prevailed.
Today, non-utility generation provides 35%
of Americas supply, and more than 44 GW
of nuclear capacity is owned by independent
power producers (IPPs).
PURPA also was instrumental in creat-
ing the U.S. renewable generation market.
For example, PURPA-inspired revisions
to interconnection rules, long-term power
purchase agreements, and tax credits made
early solar thermal projects economic in
the 1980s. Some credit PURPA with open-
ing the door for 12,000 MW of nonhydro
renewable capacity.
As the IPP market matured, natural gas
fired combined-cycle projects became the
rage for their high efficiency, ease of permit-
ting, small footprint, and short construction
time. Gas-fired plants generating over 150
GW were built by 2006, when skyrocketing
gas prices demoted so many plants designed
for baseload operation to peaking service.
Some were even mothballed.
Which way forward?
PURPA was no longer needed once the U.S.
generation market had become more mar-
ket-driven and interdependent. Its death was
sealed by the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPAct), but PURPAs raison dtre remains:
to promote the use of renewable energy,
eliminate monopolistic market practices, and
improve Americas overall energy efficiency.
Although we all approve of those objec-
tives, the path forward remains uncertain.
At no time in U.S. history have the options
for generating power been so plentiful and
the opinions of what is environmentally ac-
ceptable so divergent. Never have regula-
tors and utility executives disapproved new
plants based on expected legislation, rather
than laws on the books. Financial uncertain-
ty slowed new projects after the gas bubble
burst in 2001. Future projects now must deal
with regulatory uncertainty and other threats
(see Top 10 strategic business risks facing
U.S. power generators) just as reserve mar-
Top 10 strategic busi-
ness risks facing U.S.
power generators
Ernest & Young (E&Y) examined the
principal risk factors facing the U.S.
power generation industry and oth-
ers worldwide in the recently released
Strategic Business Risk 2008the Top
10 Risks for Business. According to E&Y,
those top 10 risks, in descending order
of importance, are:
1. Regulatory and compliance risk
2. Global financial shocks
3. Aging consumers and workforce
4. The inability to capitalize on
emerging markets
5. Industry consolidation/transition
6. Energy shocks
7. Execution of strategic transactions
8. Cost inflation
9. Radical greening
10. Consumer demand shifts
The report also highlights the five
fastest-rising threats that could have a
significant impact over the next three to
five years (the war for talent, pandemic,
private equitys rise, an inability to inno-
vate, and the threat of a China setback).
The complete report can be downloaded
from www.ey.com/global/assets.nsf
/international/ey_strategic_business
_risk_2008/$file/ey_strategic_bus_risk
_2008.pdf.
January 2008
|
POWER 29
2008 INDUSTRY FORECAST
gins in some regions are declining to worri-
some levels.
Uncertain prospects for acceptable gen-
eration havent reduced Americas seemingly
insatiable appetite for all things electric. Two
months ago, the Department of Energys
(DOEs) Energy Information Administra-
tion (EIA) predicted that consumption would
grow 2.1% in 2007 but slow to a 0.5% in-
crease in 2008 (Figure 1) as the effects of
energy efficiency and other demand-side
reduction programs kick in (see Utilities
to invest more in energy efficiency). How-
ever, demand continues to rise at double-digit
rates in several regions that saw record peaks
last summer. Although residential electric-
ity prices are expected to stabilize at a 2%
growth rate in 2008 after a two-year spurt
(Figure 2), look for significant increases in
subsequent years due to more use of costlier,
cleaner fuels.
Nuclear projects inch forward
Will 2008 see the kickoff of the much-an-
ticipated U.S. nuclear power revival? The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
thinks so. According to the Associated Press,
the agency has hired 400 new employees to
handle what it believes could be a deluge this
year of applications for combined construc-
tion and operating licenses (COLs) for new
reactors. So many more paper-pushers will
be needed because the COL process is new
and has yet to have its efficacy and efficiency
tested.
Bill Borchardt, head of the NRCs new Of-
fice of New Reactors, told the wire service
that the regulator expects to receive 29 COL
applications over the next three years. We
1. Demand growth often down, but never out. Americas electricity consump-
tion continues its slow rise. Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
2. Moderate price hikes. Residential electric bills are expected to be 2% higher this year
than they were last year. Further out, they will certainly rise much faster if mandatory carbon
caps force power producers to use costlier, greener fuels. Source: U.S. Energy Information
Administration
C
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

(
b
i
l
l
i
o
n

k
i
l
o
w
a
t
t
-
h
o
u
r
s

p
e
r

d
a
y
)
13
12
11
10
9
8
A
n
n
u
a
l

g
r
o
w
t
h

(
c
h
a
n
g
e

f
r
o
m

p
r
i
o
r

y
e
a
r
)
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
1%
2%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
2.6%
1.8%
3.7%
1.7%
2.8%
2.1%
3.0%
0.5%
0.1%
1.2%
2.1%
0.8%
0.7%
Forecast
M
o
n
t
h
l
y

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

p
r
i
c
e

(
c
e
n
t
s

p
e
r

k
i
l
o
w
a
t
t
-
h
o
u
r
)
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
A
n
n
u
a
l

g
r
o
w
t
h

(
c
h
a
n
g
e

f
r
o
m

p
r
i
o
r

y
e
a
r
)
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
2%
4%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
0.9% 0.9%
2.0%
5.6%
2.2%
10.1%
2.6%
4.2%
3.2%
1.6%
1.2%
2.0%
0.5%
Forecast
Utilities to invest more in energy efficiency
Eight regulated utilities serving 22 states have committed to
spend 50% more on their energy-efficiency initiatives and to
form a new institute to support efficiency endeavors. Consoli-
dated Edison Co. of New York, Duke Energy, Edison International,
Great Plains Energy, Pepco Holdings, PNM Resources, Sierra Pa-
cific Resources, and Xcel Energy say they will seek the regulatory
reforms and approvals needed to increase their collective annual
investments in energy efficiency to $1.5 billion within a decade.
It is hoped that the spending will not only reduce U.S. CO
2
emis-
sions by about 30 million tons but also avoid the need to build
fifty 500-MW peaking power plants.
The eight power companies also promised to fund a national
institute for electric efficiency that would develop regulatory
models and convene conferences on efficiency that other utilities,
both foreign and domestic, would attend. The institute would be
overseen by the Edison Electric Institute, the industry organiza-
tion of U.S. investor-owned electric utilities. This commitment
would be part of the Clinton Climate Initiative.
One reason utilities are promoting energy efficiency is that
many states are setting regulatory standards and targets for it.
According to a report issued by the American Council for an En-
ergy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) in mid-September 2007, 15 states
had Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS) in place, com-
pared with only five states two years earlier. The report estimates
that existing standards could reduce annual national electricity
demand by more than 1% by 2013.
The most aggressive targets in place are those of Vermont, which
reduced its electricity use by more than 5% between 2000 and 2006.
The Green Mountain States 20072008 target is a further reduction
of 3.5%. An even more aggressive goal is being developed in New
York State, where reform-minded first-time Governor Eliot Spitzer
would like 15% less consumption by 2015. The states Public Service
Commission is now exorcising the devil in the details.
The six-page ACEEE report is available at http://aceee.org
/energy/state/utpolicy.htm. The site also includes a link to a two-
page summary of the EERS policies of the 15 states.
POWER
|
January 2008 30
2008 INDUSTRY FORECAST
have never had to do this many reviews at one
time in parallel, he said. The AP story said
Borchardts office is nearly as large as the
NRC unit overseeing the countrys existing
104 commercial reactor fleet.
The NRC decided it would need to hire
an army of application reviewers after re-
ceiving numerous expressions of interest in
building new reactors. EPAct contains a host
of goodies for new nukes, including protec-
tions against cost overruns, a 1.8 cents/kWh
production tax credit (previously limited to
renewables), and federal loan guarantees for
up to 80% of the cost of a new plant. By
the way, the loan guarantees apply to vir-
tually every type of generation under the
sun, including clean coal plants, factories
building fuel-efficient vehicles, cellulosic
ethanol plants (including the countrys first
commercial plant in Georgia, developed by
Range Fuels with a total DOE investment
of $76 million), and the full spectrum of re-
newable energy technologies.
But weve been here beforerecently.
Many in the U.S. nuclear industry were tout-
ing 2007 (technically, the start of Fiscal Year
2008, which began October 1) as the start of
their industrys renaissance. It didnt quite
happen. As this story was being researched,
in early December, the NRC had received
three COL applications and was expecting
seven more to be filed by the end of FY 2008
(Figure 3, p. 32).
How many new reactors?
At the ELECTRIC POWER Conference &
Exhibition in Chicago last spring, the mod-
erator of one of the nuclear sessions, Dennis
Demoss, of the contractor Sargent & Lundy,
asked each of the panelists representing re-
actor vendors to predict how many COL
applications would be under review by the
NRC when the trade show opens its doors in
Baltimore in May 2008. The forecasts ranged
from eight to none.
The prediction of none came from savvy
Tom ONeill of General Electric. Is realism
trumping marketing hype?
In September 2007, NRG Energy Inc.
(notably, not a nuclear utility) filed a COL
for two new units at the existing South Tex-
as Project. The application specified use of
GEs ABWR (advanced boiling water reac-
tor), a design that has already earned NRC
approval. A month later, Tennessee Valley
Authority applied for a two-unit COL to
build two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at
its Bellefonte site in Alabama, where 14 years
of construction left two Babcock & Wilcox
reactors unfinished and deemed unneeded by
a 1988 prediction of lower-than-expected de-
mand growth (see POWER, December 2007,
p. 6). Then, in November last year, Dominion
applied for a COL for a 1,520-MW General
Electric-Hitachi ESBWR (the ES stands for
economic simplified) to join two units at
its North Anna, Va., site.
Could 2008 be another bust for the nukes?
One wise veteran of the nuclear industry pre-
dicts that most of the action in Washington
and in the nuclear marketplace this year will
involve applications for license extensions
for existing plants, rather than for COLs for
new nukes.
Entergy Corp., an aggressive supporter
of new nukes, had been widely rumored to
be readying a COL application for 2007. It
didnt apply. According to a well-placed
source, the company will sit out 2008 as well.
Recently, news surfaced in the trade press of
a dispute between Entergy and GE over the
choice of the ABWR for a future plant. That
chatter may just be the cover for a strategic
Entergy decision to put its new nuclear plans
on hold.
Nor is the number of COL applications
a reliable measure of the nuclear rebound.
Though COL applications take millions of
dollars to prepare, that tiny ante only gets you
a seat at the nuclear regulatory poker table.
The big expenditures are still to come, and
companies that have submitted COLs may
change their mind without much financial
penalty.
Nuke market FUD
The market for new nukes in 2008 is beset by
the tactic IBM marketers used in the compa-
nys heyday to bewilder competitors: FUD.
That stands for fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
Theres a one-word explanation for the FUD
in the nuclear plant market: politics.
Nuclear is the most intensely political of
generation technologies (although coal is
making a strong bid for the lead), and the pol-
itics tend to be partisan. Democrats generally
are averse to the atom, while Republicans as
a whole are fond of fission.
This year well watch the quadrennial po-
litical Super Bowl as the nation elects a presi-
dent and vice president, all 435 members of
the House of Representatives, and one-third
of the U.S. Senate. At this early stage of the
game, most political pundits are predicting
that a year from now, the Democratic Party
will have power it hasnt had since 1993: one
of its own in the White House and control of
both the Senate and the House.
Thats not a given; plenty can happen be-
tween now and this November. But prospects
dont look good for the GOP, and that means
they dont look good for new nukes. The U.S.
nuclear industry decidedeven before the
2006 elections, which produced a Democrat-
ic majority in both houses of Congressto
bet the radioactive ranch on the GOP. The nu-
clear industry lobby was, to use a waterski-
ing and snowboarding term, goofy-footed
by the Democratic tsunamicaught with its
right foot in the forward binding.
Eight years of Republican control of the
Clinton, Obama agree:
Death penalty for Yucca
Mountain
The two front-runners for the Democrat-
ic presidential nomination have urged
abandonment of the Yucca Mountain
nuclear waste repository. They say that
Congress and the Department of Energy
should develop an alternative national
strategy for storing high-level nuclear
waste, given the absence of solutions
to safety and technical problems that
have arisen at the Nevada site.
By proposing to shut down Yucca
Mountain before it opens, Senators Hill-
ary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack
Obama (D-Ill.) may be eyeing the five
electoral votes allotted to Nevada. They
certainly have no need to persuade its
Democratic U.S. senator, Harry Reid, the
majority leader and one of Capitol Hills
staunchest Yucca opponents. Nevadas
residents overwhelming oppose the re-
pository, which is 90 miles northwest of
Las Vegas. Polls say its fate will be a
major issue for Nevadans in the Novem-
ber national elections.
Whatever their intentions, Clintons
and Obamas opposition to Yuccanow
clearer than everindicates that the
projects death warrant may be signed
if a Democrat wins the White House
next year.
Yucca Mountain is not a safe place
to store spent fuel from our nations
nuclear reactors, said Clinton. Instead,
she suggested U.S. policymakers should
start over and assemble our best minds
to identify alternatives.
Obama, who pointed out that his
home state of Illinois is home to more
nuclear reactors (11) than any other
state, said, I believe that it is no lon-
ger a sustainable federal policy for Yucca
Mountain to be considered as a perma-
nent repository. As alternatives, Obama
suggested Congress and the DOE could
try to find another state willing to serve
as a permanent national repository, or
create regional storage repositories.
Decision making is easy when you
have the right information at the
right time.
Answers for energy
No matter where you are, our solutions provide the decision-relevant information
you need.
Whether you want to know about in-market availability, optimizing performance,
leveraging your assets or your overall business success, the intelligent solutions from
Siemens provide all the information when and where you need it by intelligently
bundling all the plant data generated from various operations. With all the data you
need, you will be able to make the right decisions for your business.
So, rest assured. Intelligent power plants are a reality were making it easy for
you to achieve business success.
siemens.com/powergeneration
CIRCLE 21 ON READER SERVICE CARD
POWER
|
January 2008 32
2008 INDUSTRY FORECAST
3. Get in line. This estimated schedule by fiscal year shows new reactor licencing applications by site and technology. Many applications have
been submitted, but theres been little real progress so far. Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
January 2008
|
POWER 33
2008 INDUSTRY FORECAST
White House, and 12 of Congress, havent
delivered for nuclear power. As one nuclear
lobbyist, speaking anonymously for fear of
losing his job, told POWER, Weve had
the most pro-nuclear administration in 20
years. During its reign, not a spade of dirt has
turned on a new plant. The schedule for the
nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain
has slipped another 12 years. The Depart-
ment of Energy has been unable to turn the
promises of the 2005 Energy Policy Act into
realities. Its a failure of monumental propor-
tions. Put Yucca Mountain in that same cat-
egory (see Clinton, Obama agree: Death to
Yucca Mountain p. 30).
When Republican President Gerald R. Ford
faced a different kind of energy crisis in mid-
1970s (the result of the Arab oil embargo),
he and the Democratic Congress worked to-
gether to serve up an attractive plate of good-
ies for new nukes. When Democrat Jimmy
Carter took office in 1977, the menu instantly
changed to gall and boronated wormwood.
According to the anonymous lobbyist, the
U.S. nuclear industry began melting down in
1976 with Carters election, not in 1979 with
Three Mile Island. I was there, he said. As
soon as Carter made his selections for the
NRC, the industry crashed.
Nukes face stiff political wind
A new Democratic administration isnt likely
to push licensing of new nuclear plants. In-
deed, the nuclear industrys worst regulatory
nightmare is very much a political possibil-
ity: NRC Commissioner Gregory Jaczko be-
coming the agencys chairman. Jaczko, a very
bright and sharp-elbowed political player, is
considered Harry Reids guy at the NRC.
A PhD physicist, Jaczko came to Congress
as a science fellow working for Rep. Ed Mar-
key (D-Mass.), one of the most anti-nuclear
members of Congress over the past 30 years.
Jaczko decided he liked Washington and be-
came Reids chief advisor on nuclear waste is-
sues. Reid has vowed to kill Yucca Mountain,
and he may be able to keep his promise come
January 2009. Jaczko professes, no doubt
honestly, that he is not anti-nuclear power.
But Jaczko has every reason to be antinu-
clear industry. The Nuclear Energy Institute
tried, and failed, to block his initial appoint-
ment to the NRC when he won a recess ap-
pointmentas did Republican Peter Lyons,
a former advisor to former Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee Chairman
Pete Domenici (R-N.M.). That was a deal the
White House and Reid negotiated, over the
objections of the nuclear lobby.
Then the nuke reps tried to derail Jaczkos
nomination to fill a full term last year. They
failed. Recently, the nuclear lobby tried to
abort a second term for Jaczko. They were
unsuccessful. Said our lobbyist, Weve tried
to screw this guy three different times and
failed. How understanding and helpful is he
going to be when he runs the NRC? Theres
little doubt that if the Democrats reclaim the
White House, Jaczko, the only Democrat on
the commission, will become its chairman.
The industrys political support in Con-
gress has diminished substantially recently.
Domenici, the nuke lobbys leader in the Sen-
ate, is a spent force. Hes ill and sometimes
unfocused, and hes announced hes stepping
down at the end of 2008. The second-most-
ardent nuke supporter in the Senate is Idaho
Republican Larry Craig. His political career
is apparently in the toilet. In recent years,
the number-three supporter was Wyoming
Republican Sen. Craig Thomas, a buddy of
vice president Dick Cheney. Thomas died
last year. There are no important nuclear stal-
warts on the Democratic side of the House
or Senate.
The politics of nuclear power will mani-
fest themselves directly in financial markets.
It wont matter how badly a utility wants to
build new nuclear capacity if it cant convince
lenders their investment is a safe one. No one
is going to risk $5 billion or more on a new
plant without assurance of at least capital re-
covery plus a return. For most generators, its
a bet-the-company gamble.
So while the politics of new nukes look
bad, their short-term financing outlook isnt
very promising, either. An October study of
the U.S. industry by Moodys Financial Ser-
vices concluded that there can be no assur-
ances that tomorrows regulatory, political or
fuel environment will be as supportive to nu-
clear power as they are currently. The NRCs
42-month COL process, Moodys noted,
remains untested. Opponents of nukes are
likely to litigate NRC decisions, adding time,
money, and doubt to the process.
Most ominously, Moodys suggests that
the current estimate of the average cost to
build a reactor and start it up by 2015
around $3,500/kW of capacityis pie in the
sky. A more realistic all-in cost for a new re-
actor, says the bond rating agency, is in the
$5,000 to $6,000/kW range. Thats consid-
erably more than conservative estimates for
new integrated gasification combined-cycle
(IGCC) coal plants. American Electric Power
(AEP) estimates its planned 600-MW IGCC
plant will cost $3,500/kW.
Coals progress slowed
If nuclear has another losing hand in 2008,
will that make coal a winner? Maybe, maybe
not. Its another case of the political correct-
ness of generation. Coaland its link to CO
2

emissionshas become at least as un-PC as
nuclear power.
Last year opened with good prospects for
coal for three reasons: its superior econom-
ics, more-efficient ways to burn it (such as
supercritical boilers), and slowly improving
prospects for CO
2
-capturing IGCC plants.
TXU had an ambitious plan to build 11 con-
ventional coal-fired plants to serve the boom-
ing Electric Reliability Council of Texas
wholesale market (the same market NRG
is targeting with its nukes). Tampa Electric,
which already operates a DOE-subsidized
260-MW IGCC unit in Florida, was saying it
would build another of 630 MW valued at $2
billion by 2013.
Other coal-fired projects popped up con-
sistently during the early months of 2007.
Then the pace slowed in response to stepped-
up environmental opposition, concerns about
future greenhouse gas regulation, and spotty
support by state regulators.
By the end of the year, many of the early
ambitions for coal had faded. As part of a
leveraged buyout orchestrated by Kohlberg
Kravis Roberts & Co. to take the company
private, TXU agreed to scrap all but three
of its planned coal plants. Local activists
opposed to the utilitys coal-based strategy
persuaded KKR that green protests and liti-
gation would delay or derail the buyout un-
less the utility scaled back its plan.
The tactics used by environmentalists
against coal projects around the country were
clever. If a utility or IPP proposed a conven-
tional coal-fired plant, they argued to local
regulators that it shouldnt be approved unless
the developer promised to make it capable of
capturing carbon. If the developer agreed,
the plants opponents would demand that the
project abandon pulverized coal in favor of
the cleaner but untested IGCC technology.
IGCC reality strikes
Then, market realities took hold. A refinery-
like process, IGCC is inherently much more
expensive than conventional combustion of
coal or gas. Whats more, the economics of
capturing and storing carbon are as unknown
as the technologies are unproven; no current-
ly operating plant can do both.
Nor does anyone really know what to do
with the CO
2
. The multisyllabic buzzword is
sequestration, meaning put it somewhere
out of sight. Where? Theres no shortage
of suggestions: in salt caverns, in old coal
mines, into oil and gas reservoirs to boost
their output, under the seabed, under your
mattress. How about shooting the CO
2
into
outer space? If the gas isnt permanently
stored, it will eventually find its way back
into the atmosphere.
Veterans of prior decades energy debates
are reminded of the long, fruitless discus-
sion about what to do with spent nuclear
POWER
|
January 2008 34
2008 INDUSTRY FORECAST
fuel, aka high-level nuclear waste. Bury it
in salt caverns? Dig a hole in Nevada? Bury
it in seabeds? Shoot it into space? Yucca
Mountain notwithstanding, theres no real
answer yet, other than to keep the waste at
plant sites.
The question of CO
2
disposal, at least in
terms of volume and weight, is much bigger
than that of what to do with spent nuclear
fuel. Theres a heck of a lot more CO
2
com-
ing from fossil-fueled plants than fatigued
fuel from nukes. The nuke waste is solid,
making it easier to handle than gaseous
CO
2
.
Like nuclear safety and spent-fuel storage,
coals CO
2
emissions have become intensely
political, although not particularly parti-
san. Democrats (New York Governor Eliot
Spitzer), Republicans (California Gov. Ar-
nold Schwarzenegger, Florida Gov. Charlie
Christ, Arizona Sen. John McCain), and in-
dependents (Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connect-
icut) alike are telling gencos they cant use
coal if they cant hide the CO
2
somewhere.
In California, the state legislature, with
the governors backing, passed a law that not
only continues a decades-long ban on coal
burning in the Golden State but also puts an
end to utilities (including municipals) buying
power generated by coal in other states, as
they have done for generations. In Florida,
Christs contempt for coal led Tampa Electric
to scuttle its new IGCC project.
The New York Times reported in October
that in the Rocky Mountain West, where en-
ergy development has long been a favored
land use, An increasingly vocal, potent and
widespread anti-coal movement is develop-
ing as ranchers and farmers join with tra-
ditional environmentalists to resist coal-fired
projects. Also joining the no-coal coalition
are ski resort operators, retired homeowners,
and religious groups, the Times reported.
The Times article quoted Rick Sergel, CEO
of the North American Electric Reliability
Corp., the nations reliability watchdog. He
said, Its clear new coal-fired generation is
running into roadblocks. I dont believe we
can allow coal-fired generation to become an
endangered species. We simply must use all
the resources we have.
Thats not how environmental groups
see the constant battle to ensure that supply
matches demand. According to the Sierra
Clubs Bruce Niles, who runs the groups
national campaign again coal, his group and
others have worked together to file 29 ad-
ministrative actions and lawsuits against pro-
posed coal plants.
Not all have succeeded, of course. Pea-
body Energys Prairie State Energy Campus,
a proposed 1,500-MW mine-mouth project
in southern Illinois, has survived a withering
legal attack and now looks like it will indeed
get built.
Coal projects sidelined
A DOE report (www.netl.doe.gov/coal
/refshelf/ncp.pdf) released late last year con-
tained mostly bad news for coal generation.
Of 12,000 MW of new coal-fired capacity
announced in 2002 for expected commission-
ing in 2005, only 329 MW actually got built.
According to the report, during an average
year between 1997 and 2006, only 293 MW
of new coal-fired generation came on-line.
Still, the DOE says it believes a fairbut
unspecifiedshare of the 23,000 MW of the
coal plants it considers progressing (either
permitted, near groundbreaking, or under
construction) may get built. Said the report,
somewhat ambiguously, Progressing plants
have a higher likelihood of advancing toward
commercial operation, however there is still a
degree of uncertainty in these projects.
Last years trade press was full of reports
of such coal projects getting delayed and
cancelled:
In South Dakota, two of the seven ma-
jor partners in the 630-MW Big Stone II
project, representing 28% of its owner-
ship, have pulled out, while a major muni,
Rochester (Minn.) Public Utilities, has
said it will not be an equity partner. Roch-
ester may buy some of the plants output.
In 2004, Duke Energy proposed build-
ing two 800-MW supercritical coal units
to help meet growing regional demand.
Last February, the North Carolina Utili-
ties Commission (NCUC), not known as
a patsy for green groups, approved only
one, citing excessive costs. Duke is con-
sidering abandoning the entire project, ac-
cording to trade press reports.
In September, the Oklahoma Corpora-
tion Commission rejected a coal project
proposed by AEP and OGE Energy. The
utilities had proposed capturing its CO
2

and using it to enhance oil and gas recovery
from the states elderly fields. The rejection
caused Southern States Energy Board chief
Kenneth Nemeth to note a groundswell of
movement away from fossil energy, ac-
cording to the Foster Electric Report.
In Florida, a month before Tampa Elec-
tric pulled the plug on its $2 billion IGCC
plant, the state public service commission
gave a thumbs-down to a Florida Power
& Light Co. plan for a coal-fired plant in
Glades County. That led a municipal joint
action agency in the Sunshine State to
mothball plans for an 800-MW coal-fired
plant in north Florida.
In November, Idaho Power shelved the
portion of its integrated resource plan that
called for 250 MW of new coal capacity.
The utility cited rising costs and uncer-
tainty about greenhouse gas regulations as
the reasons.
Perhaps most disturbing to developers of
coal plants was an October rejection by the
Kansas Department of Health and Environ-
ment of an air permit for a $3.6 billion, two-
unit, 1,400-MW plant proposed by Sunflower
Electric Power, a rural electric generation and
transmission cooperative. The sole reason for
the rejection, said Roderick Bremby, head of
the state agency, was CO
2
. He said it would
be irresponsible to ignore emerging infor-
mation about the contribution of carbon di-
oxide and other greenhouse gases to climate
change and the potential harm to our environ-
ment and health if we do nothing.
The Kansas decision is ripe for litigation,
according to experienced Washington energy
lawyers. While the Supreme Court last year
ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency has the authority to regulate CO
2

emissions under the Clean Air Act, the EPA
has not issued regulations. So, according to
industry environmental lawyers, Kansas will
have a hard time arguing that it has authority
to regulate in the absence of an EPA regula-
tory regime.
Nonetheless, the Kansas ruling troubles
the generating industry, suggesting that the
assault on coal will continue and the ferocity
will increase. Washington energy consultant
Roger Gale told the Baltimore Sun recently,
Coal is a tough sell, and clean coal is get-
ting comparable to a nuclear plant in capital
costs.
The real growth in coal-fired generation in
2008 will take the form of plant upgrades and
efficiency improvements to extend plant life
and increase capacity factors.
If not coal, then what?
Gas-fired plants regain
the advantage
For the past five years or so, the big story
in U.S. power generation has been the re-
treat from natural gas, which was the fuel of
choice in the 1980s and 1990s. Gas, long in
surplus (remember the gas bubble?) and
featuring steady and declining prices, was the
ideal generating fuel for the end of the 20th
century. Generators could build low-capital-
cost units and arbitrage the different market
prices for gas and electricitythe spark
spreadat will. So build they did, because
the economics continued to favor gas.
With low plant upfront costs and short
construction times, natural gas dominated.
Though gas is costlier than coal on a $/Btu
basis, the low heat rates of combined-cycle
combustion turbine plants minimize the pre-
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOLUTIONS
FOR THE GREENER GOOD
Insurance underwritten by member companies of American International Group, Inc. AIG Companies refers to the insurance company subsidiaries of American International Group, Inc. The description herein is a summary only. It does not include all terms,
conditions and exclusions of the policies described. Please refer to the actual policies for complete details of coverages and exclusions. Coverage depends on the actual facts of each case and the specific terms, conditions and exclusions of the applicable
policy. Coverage may not be available in all jurisdictions. Issuance of coverage is subject to underwriting approval.
For more information, contact us at
aigalternativeenergy@aig.com
THE STRENGTH TO BE THERE.

As the alternative energy industry continues its rapid growth, the need for innovation across this complex
risk landscape has never been greater. AIG Global Marine and Energy has a long history of offering
non-traditional products and services that respond to evolving renewable energy and climate change issues.
Our Global Alternative Energy Practice is staffed with experienced energy specialists skilled in helping
companies develop sophisticated and cohesive risk transfer, loss control and financial solutions that meet their
specific business needs. So while the world of alternative energy continues to grow, we can help you grow with it.
SERVICES INCLUDE:
Insurance Loss Control Consulting
Risk Assessment Services Engineering Evaluations
Technical Services Financing and Investments
CIRCLE 22 ON READER SERVICE CARD
POWER
|
January 2008 36
2008 INDUSTRY FORECAST
mium as they operate. The emissions profile
of gas plants looked good, particularly com-
pared to coal. Through the 90s, environ-
mentalists gave gas a pass, seeing it as the
transition fuel to a renewables future.
That changed around the end of 2001
(about the same time as the fall of the House
of Enron). Gas inventories plummeted, in
part due to the collective demand of all those
new combined-cycle plants. Prices became
volatile. Generators that had dashed to gas
now fled from it. Scores of gas-fired projects
announced late in the gas boom never made
it off the drawing board.
Today, gas has regained some of its glit-
ter. As crude oil prices surged above $90/bbl,
the alleged linkage between the prices of oil
and gas proved to be a myth. Gas prices have
stabilized. They appear to have leveled off at
around $7 per thousand cubic feetwell be-
low the prices seen earlier this decade.
As a result, gencos are again considering
natural gas plants their least-risky option, in
light of gas plants low capital and construc-
tion costs and the political incorrectness of
the nuclear and coal alternatives. Randy
Zwirn, CEO of Siemens Power Generation,
told an industry meeting last year, By de-
fault, the only technology thats going to be
available is gas-fired generation.
Although attention recently has focused
on new nukes and cancelled coal, gas has
been showing stealth strength. A recent EIA
report noted that natural gasfired genera-
tion showed the highest rate of growth from
2005 to 2006 of the traditional energy sourc-
es, accounting for 20% of all new genera-
tion in 2006. Compared to 2005 figures, said
the EIA, gas-fired generation in 2006 grew
by 7.3%, while nuclear grew by 0.7% (due to
upratings and better plant performance) and
coal fell by 1.1%.
Increasing gas reserves
fuel optimism
Is enough gas available to supply new power
plants as well as residential and industrial
furnaces? Last October, the DOEs Potential
Gas Committee, a group of volunteer energy
experts, issued a new estimate of recoverable
domestic gas reserves that is 17% higher than
one made in 2004. The committee said the
U.S. has some 1,525 trillion cubic feet of re-
coverable gas, compared to its 2004 estimate
of 1,308 tcf.
Thats the largest increase since the com-
mittee started estimating reserves in 1964, ac-
cording to The Energy Daily (like POWER,
an Access Intelligence publication). The com-
mittee said new reserve estimates exceed the
36 tcf of gas that U.S. producers extracted be-
tween 2004 and 2006.
Meanwhile, the 20072008 winter as-
sessment by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) found, For the second
year, the prospects for natural gas markets
as we head into this winter are very good.
FERC staffers said gas storage is robust,
winter temperatures are forecast to be mild,
new pipelines and liquefied natural gas
(LNG) terminals are coming on-line, and
gas in storage should exceed record levels as
winter kicks in.
The FERC staff report concluded, Basi-
cally, we expect to see full storage this year.
Effectively full storage goes a long way to-
ward protecting the country from the disrup-
tions and price spikes associated with tight
supply/demand balances in the winter. If
the forecasts for a warmer-than-normal win-
ter are accurate, said the report, gas prices
could remain stable or even see some down-
ward pressure.
Last November, the EIA reported that
proved U.S. natural gas reserves grew by 3%
in 2006 to 211 tcf. Thats the highest reserve
level since 1976, the agency added. The driv-
er of that growth was the use of new drilling
techniques that have given explorers access
to unconventional gas, such as the Barnett
Shale in Texas. According to the EIA, addi-
tions to gas reserves in 2006 replaced 136%
of the gas produced that year. It was the
eighth straight year that proved gas reserves
have grown.
Concrete evidence that utilities are not shy-
ing away from natural gas comes from Duke
Energy, which last summer asked the NCUC
to approve up to 1,600 MW of new combined-
cycle gas-fired capacity after having its pro-
posal to build the same amount of coal-fired
capacity turned down. Florida utilities are also
looking seriously at new gas units, likewise
following rejection of coal-fired plants.
A most unusual gas-fired plant has been
proposed by Basin Electric Power Coopera-
tive, a large generation and transmission co-
op based in Bismarck, N.D. In late October
2007, Basin said it would like to build and
commission a 300-MW unit in the eastern
part of the state by 2012. At the heart of Deer
Creek Station would be a simple-cycle com-
bustion turbine generator and a heat-recov-
ery steam turbine generator. Both would run
about 12 to 16 hours a day in intermediate
service, following load on the systems of the
distribution cooperatives that Basin supplies.
Whats unusual about that? Nothing. How-
ever, Deer Creek would burn synthetic gas
(syngas), rather than natural gas. The supply
would come from Basins Dakota gasifica-
tion project, which uses Lurgi technology
to turn lignite into syngas that then can be
transported by the Northern Border Pipeline.
Developed in the 1980s, the Dakota project
is Americas only large-scale converter of
coal to gas. The fact that it has never been
replicated in the U.S. suggests that there are
cheaper ways to go.
LNG lags behind
Early last year, there was buzz about lique-
fied natural gas. By the beginning of 2008,
it had quieted to a murmur. Ambitious LNG
projects became stalled as a result of intense
local opposition and stabilization of the con-
ventional U.S. natural gas market.
According to FERC, five LNG receiving
terminals with a total capacity of about 6 bil-
lion cubic feet (bcf) per day operate in the
U.S. today. The agency has approved another
21 projects but acknowledges that most of
them will never be built.
For example, California Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger in May last year rejected a
plan for an $800 million LNG terminal off
the Southern California coast proposed by an
Anglo-Australian company. Earlier, the Cali-
fornia Coastal Commission had unanimously
rejected the project.
Nor does there appear to be a crying need
for LNG in todays market. A Reuters story
last October noted that LNG imports to the
U.S. were expected to continue a slide begun
several months earlier, as steady demand
from the Far East and early buying from Eu-
rope soak up more spot supplies.
According to the Houston-based consul-
tancy Waterborne Energy, U.S. LNG im-
ports in September 2007 were about 45 bcf,
or about half the 89 bcf imported in August
2007. The firms estimate for October was
less than 45 bcf. Weather was partially re-
sponsible, said Waterborne. While unseason-
ably cool weather in the UK raised natural
gas prices to about $9/mmBtu, a mild autumn
in the U.S. Northeast saw gas prices drop to
about $6/mmBtu at the Henry Hub market.
The LNG flowed to the UK.
In their forecast of natural gas markets for
2007 and 2008, FERC staff portrayed LNG
as a swing resource. According to FERCs di-
rector of gas market oversight, Steve Harvey,
LNG acts as insurance. Depending on in-
ternational gas prices, he said, supply may
or may not be available to U.S. markets. So
much for the LNG boom.
Renewables ahead by a nose
Wind power has been soaring for several
years, driven by state mandates (renewable
portfolio standards) and federal subsidies
(the production tax credit). But the boom
represents a start from a tiny base; wind
power remains a miniscule contributor to
the national electric supply. Considering its
inherent dispatchability problems (wind is
intermittent) and the need for backup genera-
tion if the resource is to be a major contribu-
REACH
more generating company
decision makers than at
ANY other power industry
event i n the U. S.
May 6 8, 2008 Baltimore Convention Center
www.electricpowerexpo.com
POWER
|
January 2008 38
2008 INDUSTRY FORECAST
tor to total U.S. supply, winds future could
be summed up as positive but limited.
In November, the American Wind Energy
Association (AWEA) upped to 4,000 MW
its earlier prediction that 3,000 MW of wind
power would be added to U.S. grids in 2007.
Either number would top the 2006 record of
2,454 MW. In its second-quarter report on
the state of the generation niche, Americas
biggest wind power promoter said 935 MW
of capacity were commissioned during the
quarter, bringing first-half 2007 capacity
additions to 1,059 MW. In the third quarter
alone, 1,251 MW of wind power were added,
including 600 MW in Texas alone.
But there is a supply-chain cloud on wind
energys horizon, according to AWEA. The
news release announcing the Q2 report
warned, Wind power developers report that
turbine availability is a limiting factorin
other words, there is demand for even more
wind energy but companies cant build more
projects because there arent enough manu-
facturing facilities for turbines and turbine
parts in the country because the U.S. govern-
ments intermittent policy toward renewables
has discouraged companies from investing in
manufacturing facilities.
If conventional economics holds, the short-
fall in the supply of wind turbines will raise
the cost of wind farm construction. However,
unmet demand for ingredients common to all
power projectsconcrete, rebar, steel, labor,
and other commoditiesare bidding up their
costs, too. Its a sellers market, which further
undermines the economics of wind power.
That highlights a policy problem for wind.
Congress refuses to make a long-term com-
mitment to the 1.8 cents/kWh production tax
credit for renewable energy plants. The view
of many legislators is that the credit should
be a short-term subsidy to help the industry
reach commercial viability, as opposed to a
permanent entitlement.
The wind industry sees the sop differently.
Said Randall Swisher, AWEA executive di-
rector, What is critical at this juncture is for
the U.S. government to put in place a full-val-
ue, long-term extension of the production tax
credit and a national renewable energy port-
folio standard requiring that utilities gener-
ate more electricity from renewable sources.
These policies will give the clear, big-picture
signal of support for renewable energy that
this country urgently needs.
Renewable resources technologies as a
whole arent proliferating nearly as quickly
as wind power. According to the EIA, wind
generation grew from 3,684 MW in 2001 to
8,706 MW in 2005. But the entire category of
renewable energy generation grew only from
95,096 MW in 2001 to 98,791 MW.
The vast majority of American renewable-
fueled power production (using the EIAs
definition) comprises conventional hydro
plants, the bane of most mainstream envi-
ronmentalists. Hydros heyday here seems to
have passed; no one is proposing new proj-
ects and old ones are fading away. In 2001,
big hydro generated 78,916 MW; in 2005,
the figure was 77,541 MW.
Other renewable generation tech-
nologiesphotovoltaic arrays, biomass
combustion, and geothermal energy extrac-
tionremain trivial and slow-growing. Na-
tionwide, solar electric generation accounted
for 392 MW in 2001 and 411 MW in 2005,
and just a handful of larger projects are on the
horizon. Biomass generationfrom plants
burning wood, wood waste, and municipal
solid waste (including landfill gas)made
the slimmest of gains: from 9,708 MW in
2001 to 9,848 MW in 2005. There is little
evidence to suggest that any of these proven
renewable fuel technologies will grow sub-
stantially in 2008. However, some of their
less-conventional brethren are enjoying ma-
jor development funding (see Google this:
Clean and cheap power ).
Your turn
There you have itour thoughts about what
to expect in 2008. Weve given you the best
information and data available, and we en-
courage you to use them to form your own
opinions about U.S. generation options. We
havent been shy about telling you what we
think, and we hope youll repay the favor.
Send your comments to editor@powermag
.com and well publish the most interesting
letters.
Google this: Clean and cheap power
Renewable energy has attracted the big-
gest cyber-gorilla of all: Google, which
has announced a crash program to develop
1,000 MW of generation capacity capable
of producing electricity more cleanly and
cheaply than burning coal.
The search engine giant said it is al-
ready hiring engineers and energy experts
and plans to invest hundreds of millions
of dollars in renewable energy projects,
starting with innovative solar thermal
technology.
The company suggested it could lever-
age its experience building complex, elec-
tricity-hungry data centers to help clean
energy entrepreneurs speed the deploy-
ment of utility-scale, green power tech-
nologies. Sergey Brin, Googles cofounder
and president of technology, put the com-
panys program in a broader context, say-
ing: Cheap renewable energy is not only
critical for the environment, but also vital
for economic development in many places
where there is limited affordable energy
of any kind.
Googles self-admittedly lofty goal of
1,000 MW of deployed, cheaper-than-coal
clean energy sets a new mark for ambi-
tion. How audacious is it? The U.S. wind
industry, using a proven technology and
subsidized by taxpayers, installed just
4,000 MW last year.
Google said it already is working with
two small renewable energy start-ups in
California. Their work, while still in the
early stages of development, illustrates
the potential of next-generation green
power technologies to change the eco-
nomic equation.
One is eSolar Inc., based in Pasadena,
which says it has developed a utility-
scale solar thermal technology that can
economically heat water to drive a power-
generating turbine. The companys modular
approach calls for deploying heliostats
moving mirrorsto track the movement of
the sun and direct solar energy to receiving
towers that generate steam. The company
says each of its modules can generate 25
MW, with multiple modules providing op-
erational redundancy and size.
The other company is Makani Power
Inc., based in Alameda. Makani (the Ha-
waiian word for wind) says it is develop-
ing high-altitude wind energy extraction
technologies. Though the companys Web
site provides few details, a fact sheet re-
leased by Google shows a large sail-like
structure that would presumably catch the
wind, which is much steadier worldwide
thousands of feet up than at the height of
even the tallest wind turbine towers.
The clean energy initiative will be led by
Google.org, the companys philanthropic
arm. That no doubt comes as a relief to
Google shareholders, especially in light
of company officials remarks about their
investment criteria for the program. But
its name, RE<C (an equation stating that
renewable energy is cheaper than coal),
reflects Googles geekiness and reinforces
its brand.
PRB
COAL 101
TOPICS
What makes PRB coal
different
Fire and safety risks of
PRB coal
Handling PRB coal
PRB coal in the boiler
Checklist for converting
to PRB coal
Information about the
PRB Coal Users Group
PRESENTERS
Robert Taylor, AEP
Corp., Chairman of
PRB CUG
Randy Rahm, COO
Ethanex Entergy, Inc.,
Executive Dir. of
PRB CUG
Greg Krieser, Plant
Manager, Omaha Public
Power District, Vice
Chairman-Generation of
PRG CUG
Edward Douberly,
President, FPE Group
Inc., Director of
PRB CUG
An overview of the requirements to
safely and efciently use Powder River
Basin coal.
Review the FREE archived webinar
This presentation is an excellent source of information for
those new to PRB coal (and its challenges) as well as for those
who have been using the fuel for some time and need to review
current best practices.
Thanks to industry sponsors, you can see the presentation
archived at the PRB CUG site, POWERmag.com, or the
sponsors web sites.
This event is presented by the PRB Coal Users Group (PRB
CUG) and hosted by POWER magazine to discuss basic
guidelines when using PRB coal, including fuel conversion.
SPONSORS:
International, Inc.

View at www.powermag.com/prb101
www.powermag.com POWER
|
January 2008 40
2008 INDUSTRY FORECAST
Greater fuel diversity needed to meet
growing U.S. electricity demand
Industrial Info Resources strengths are tracking capital projects and cost pro-
jections and providing intelligence about the power generation market,
among others. IIR has used its large industry databases and numerous
industry contacts to develop its outlook for 2008. Heres what you should
expect and plan for this year.
By Britt Burt and Shane Mullins, Industrial Info Resources
C
ontinued economic growth in the U.S.
over the next several years will inevi-
tably drive growth in electricity con-
sumption (Figure 1). Meeting the projected
40% increase in national demand by 2030
that todays double-digit annual growth rates
will produce will require building a lot more
power plantssome to replace the capacity
of retired units (Tables 1 and 2).
Who will use that new power, and for
what? Demand growth by the commercial
sector and its services providers will outstrip
that from the residential sector and industrial
users. Increases in population and disposable
income will whet the appetite for more prod-
ucts and services, in turn increasing the sizes
of residences and business floor space. More
electricity will be needed to heat and cool
those areas and to power appliances, comput-
ers, and other electrical devices.
As electricity demand grows, so does the
need to diversify fuel sources to ensure sup-
ply reliability. Until 2001, the U.S. power in-
dustry expected to rely heavily on natural gas
to meet growing demand. During the 1990s,
more than 300,000 MW of natural gasfired
capacity were built. Since then, natural disas-
ters and international politics have shed light
on the risks of relying too heavily on one
fuel source. So while power project devel-
opers still consider new gas-fired plants an
option, they and utilities are also implement-
ing strategies to build and better utilize coal-
fired units, construct more renewable energy
plants, and even develop a second wave of
U.S. nuclear reactors to meet growing elec-
tricity demand (Tables 3 and 4).
Coal: The king still gets no respect
Despite the best efforts of environmentalists
and renewable-energy advocates, coal still
fuels about 50% of U.S. electricity genera-
tion, and its share may rise. A boom in coal
plant construction is in full swing: 27 units
totaling 12,000 MW, collectively worth more
than $20 billion, are already past the ground-
breaking phase. Those 12,000 MW represent
34% of all capacity currently being built in
the U.S. Of the total, 1,174 MW are expected
to come on-line this year, to be followed by
5,888 MW in 2009 and 4,700 MW in 2010.
The near-term units signify only the be-
ginning of a longer-term expansion of U.S.
coal-fired generation. In addition to the 27
units that have already poured concrete, an-
other 243 units representing 74,000 MW and
worth $120 billion are on the drawing boards
of utilities and independent developers. Of
that total, 26,000 MW are scheduled to break
ground this year, with the rest following be-
tween 2009 and 2011.
Utilities have proposed building 84 of the
243 longer-term units to increase their gen-
erating capacity by 31,300 MW. They envi-
sion building 44 units with a total capacity of
16,300 MW as greenfield plants. The other
40 units, representing 15,000 MW, would be
additions to existing power stations.
In contrast, private energy producers have
proposed 159 coal-fired generating units able
to produce 42,700 MW. Of these, 120 units
and 31,900 MW are planned to be part of
greenfield plants while 39 units and 10,800
MW will be added to existing plants.
The vast majority of the projects in devel-
opment will rely on conventional pulverized
coal combustion. But an increasing number
plan to use integrated gasification combined-
cycle (IGCC) or circulating fluidized bed
(CFB) boiler technology. Specifically, 40
IGCC plants totaling 23,000 MW, and 22
CFB units totaling 6,600 MW have been pro-
posed nationwide.
New coal plants are being proposed not
just to meet future demand but also to re-
place coal plants scheduled for retirement.
1. Double digits across the board. New generation capacity is being developed that has
planned commercial start-up dates between 2008 and 2012. Source: Industrial Info Resources
2007 by Industrial Information Resources - Sugar Land, TX
54%
West Coast
39,319 MW
38%
Rocky Mountains
28,394 MW
4%
4%
25%
5%
15% 55%
40%
6%
10%
30%
33%
12%
25%
4%
42%
16%
20%
56% 44%
5%
34%
60%
40%
38%
5%
14%
47%
19%
Midwest
26,432 MW
Great Lakes
31,155 MW
New England
9,726 MW
Mid-Atlantic
28,348 MW
Northeast
21,028 MW
Southeast
25,582 MW
Southwest
44,218 MW
18%
Coal 28% Nuclear 20% Renewable energy 33% Project locations Natural gas 19%
50%
14%
18%
January 2008
|
POWER 41
2008 INDUSTRY FORECAST
Table 1. Actual and planned U.S. power generation resource growth (19982008) by state. Source: Industrial Info Resources
Operational
1998
Added
19992007
Retired/
mothballed
since 1999
Currently
operational
Actual growth
since
Jan. 1, 1999
Operating
fossil capacity
>40 years old
Generation
under
construction
Announced
commercial
start-up
in 2008
a
23,207 276 10,018 57 266 14 32,549 304 9,341 28 6,408 38 621 3
2,358 357 401 56 110 57 2,546 325 188 -32 125 23 50 8 50 11
15,601 162 11,140 91 351 17 25,951 211 10,349 49 1,687 26 606 7 308 8
10,481 139 5,921 52 1,541 40 14,817 143 4,336 4 507 8 940 6 60 3
57,184 1,142 16,951 285 5,034 121 64,825 1,252 7,641 110 10,994 65 2,083 16 2,164 28
8,472 194 4,441 88 131 10 12,375 253 3,903 59 1,276 47 1,639 21 563 20
8,382 114 2,004 31 428 19 8,188 108 -194 -6 991 15 0 0 121 7
2,612 40 935 9 17 4 3,392 43 780 3 663 19 0 0 0 0
44,681 572 18,078 157 2,533 90 59,273 575 14,592 3 5,587 59 2,598 20 1,239 15
26,794 316 12,115 103 1,634 57 37,876 363 11,082 47 2,938 28 0 0 21 2
1,847 83 423 13 11 4 2,256 91 409 8 500 14 0 0 80 2
2,471 89 629 10 17 4 3,086 96 615 7 7 4 223 4 604 14
39,544 550 14,559 262 4,410 123 45,784 630 6,240 80 9,209 139 2,198 5 2,618 22
25,248 217 5,108 73 880 19 28,731 256 3,483 39 6,467 85 131 1 231 3
9,222 327 3,717 149 103 25 12,609 425 3,387 98 1,730 122 463 8 905 13
10,746 328 1,649 66 448 46 11,673 303 927 -25 1,949 109 506 15 1,686 24
18,882 128 4,345 54 218 7 22,254 161 3,372 33 4,908 35 1,028 2 0 0
22,736 272 7,865 74 944 53 28,384 267 5,648 -5 3,790 47 803 9 83 6
3,583 251 1,721 17 229 30 4,017 214 435 -37 281 11 13 1 111 2
12,627 136 1,035 46 19 2 13,110 164 483 28 2,836 30 33 4 258 9
12,507 238 4,547 39 1,200 28 14,813 205 2,306 -33 1,644 30 30 4 347 10
28,016 450 6,351 104 847 72 31,843 477 3,827 27 5,853 114 54 2 245 5
10,683 314 3,818 104 315 25 13,694 349 3,011 35 2,452 69 1,612 19 1,310 21
7,675 79 9,600 89 1,912 36 17,045 176 9,370 97 1,643 23 1 1 18 5
17,760 290 4,544 96 108 13 21,650 347 3,889 57 3,098 83 1,322 5 126 10
5,097 82 492 15 17 1 5,506 93 409 11 50 1 20 1 402 5
5,696 99 1,187 31 4 4 6,766 116 1,070 17 953 44 797 3 130 2
7,545 116 4,397 52 1,837 6 10,106 163 2,561 47 354 6 1,488 18 1,533 21
2,890 91 1,325 14 78 10 4,142 98 1,252 7 274 7 0 0 24 1
19,426 285 3,813 54 2,694 69 18,895 247 -530 -38 2,370 24 3 1 1 3
6,035 121 1,839 22 171 14 7,410 102 1,376 -19 1,271 24 650 4 1,248 8
41,223 710 5,582 104 2,148 78 40,808 674 -415 -36 8,308 77 1,584 15 1,009 15
23,819 308 4,567 39 145 15 28,080 317 4,261 9 5,031 44 284 17 4 2
4,877 30 194 11 5,069 40 192 10 561 10 347 4 651 9
31,783 329 7,501 116 924 32 35,350 352 3,568 23 8,468 95 67 1 67 1
14,613 214 7,021 62 280 27 21,192 237 6,578 23 2,317 73 372 5 122 2
12,224 220 2,831 36 108 12 13,366 234 1,142 14 39 3 145 2 515 11
43,145 434 9,816 90 2,288 56 47,380 413 4,235 -21 6,900 78 701 22 304 21
1,581 37 798 15 1 1 1,889 48 308 11 0 0 0 0 0 0
19,273 245 5,279 43 155 11 24,175 268 4,901 23 1,845 29 580 1 4 2
3,049 50 372 11 75 1 3,333 58 284 8 47 7 185 2 710 8
20,565 209 2,812 54 185 12 23,035 252 2,470 43 7,334 47 0 0 0 0
80,025 804 35,497 294 13,529 207 100,238 826 20,212 22 8,441 105 5,689 30 3,524 29
5,944 85 1,962 52 180 25 7,788 109 1,844 24 545 12 75 4 395 10
986 41 6 4 9 5 965 35 -21 -6 44 3 0 0 35 1
20,163 255 4,380 81 320 18 24,227 313 4,064 58 3,862 39 360 2 541 5
26,525 314 2,863 73 254 18 28,234 363 1,709 49 0 0 1,074 9 1,303 11
1,136 30 162 9 706 9 -430 -21 0 0 0 0 0 0
15,678 102 1,350 22 8 1 16,989 116 1,310 14 4,833 45 864 2 600 4
13,451 349 3,897 68 463 29 16,209 362 2,758 13 2,870 62 2,794 10 1,699 20
6,473 65 721 21 0 1 7,196 85 722 20 709 17 482 2 436 5
859,467 12,735 263,538 3,518 49,741 1,578 1,035,937 13,728 176,470 993 147,055 2,109 36,010 320 28,402 436
0 0
0 0
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Washington, D.C.
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total U.S.
MW Units MW Units MW Units MW Units MW Units MW Units MW Units MW Units
Note: a. Approximately 70% of the total is expected to reach commercial start-up in 2008.
0 0
POWER
|
January 2008 42
2008 INDUSTRY FORECAST
Since the beginning of 2002, 102 coal-burning units totaling 5,200
MW have been decommissioned. Another 83 units representing 9,363
MW are scheduled to be shut down for good by the end of 2012.
Natural gas: Still a contender
During the past decade, an aggressive push to build gas-fired generat-
ing capacity resulted in 300,000 MW being added to U.S. grids. But
economic downturns, questionable industry business practices, and
closer scrutiny of demand forecasts combined to slow that boom. It
ended in 2005the worst Atlantic hurricane season on recordwhen
storms damaged many rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, driving gas prices
above $15/mmBtu. The price surge was a message to the U.S. power
industry that depending heavily on one fuel is risky business.
Despite the recent slowdown in activity, natural gas is expected
to remain a leading power plant fuel. Gas-fired combustion turbine
plants, operating either in simple-cycle or combined-cycle mode, still
run cleaner than coal plants (making their permitting easier) and are
much faster to build.
Construction kickoffs for gas-fired generating units began declin-
ing steadily from their peak in 2001, when units representing more
than 73,000 MW broke ground. The slide continued through 2004,
when only 5,600 MW of gas-fired capacity followed suit. Since 2005,
the pace has picked up, and it looks likely to accelerate. For example,
158 gas-fired units totaling 15,469 MW are currently in construction.
The latter number comprises 7,000 MW being built as part of green-
field units and 8,456 MW being added to existing plants.
To help meet longer-term demand, 438 gas-fueled units totaling
50,900 MW are in various stages of development. Of those totals,
18 units totaling more than 2,000 MW were scheduled to have bro-
ken ground before the end of 2007 (after this issue goes to press),
with the other 48,000 MW and change slated to follow by 2015. This
year alone will see construction kickoffs for at least 9,000 MW of
the 24,000 MW currently under development. The round numbers are
Table 2. U.S. power generation construction kickoff summary (20002008) by generation technology. Source: Industrial Info Resources
Unit type
Combined-cycle
combustion turbine
Combined-cycle
single-shaft system
Combined-cycle
steam turbine with
supplementary firing
Combined-cycle
steam turbine with
waste heat only
Hydraulic turbine
Hydraulic turbine,
reversible
(pumped storage)
Internal combustion
engine
Other (solar/fuel cell)
Simple-cycle
combustion turbine
Steam turbine
Turbo expander
Wind turbine
Total
2000 2004 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2002
Units
196
10
47
28
786
3
8
0
12
192
0
288
2
MW
29,260
2,678
8,758
4,359
69,026
44
410
0
753
337
0
22,422
5
Units
186
1
77
28
817
1
23
0
10
178
0
313
0
MW
30,954
13
15,904
4,741
77,309
8
1,282
0
666
453
0
23,288
0
71
0
15
21
361
0
8
0
3
108
0
135
0
Units MW
0
0
0
0
9,469
3,332
3,660
26,356
277
366
241
9,011
0
Units
46
0
16
8
265
5
26
1
5
104
0
54
0
MW
5,562
0
2,869
1,120
15,704
140
1,567
5
1,261
256
0
2,924
0
Units
24
0
5
10
223
4
19
1
13
107
0
40
0
MW
2,304
0
759
517
9,117
6
840
1
1,561
283
0
2,848
0
Units
17
2
4
6
221
6
30
12
22
89
0
33
0
MW
2,203
800
1,024
591
13,624
73
2,698
92
4,246
178
0
1,719
0
Units
20
0
5
7
227
6
48
2
17
93
2
25
2
MW
2,764
0
731
995
17,442
81
5,205
23
5,723
89
40
1,727
64
Units
26
0
7
4
290
11
79
6
29
57
0
65
6
MW
3,716
0
1,439
630
23,281
65
7,194
50
5,642
250
0
4,220
76
Units
99
0
21
31
731
39
203
26
89
89
7
118
9
MW
15,470
0
4,308
5,068
75,277
371
21,088
610
18,215
456
655
8,092
943
Note: a. Based on construction kickoff dates, not operational dates.
a
The 2008 Marmaduke
Surfaceblow Calendar
POWER
presents
Just $9.99 each ($8.99 plus shipping & handling)
(Orders ship via USPS and must be prepaid
via check or credit card.)
TradeFair Group Publications
11000 Richmond Ave., Suite 500
Houston, TX 77042
Phone: 832-242-1969
Fax: 832-251-8963
E-mail: books@powermag.com
Limited number of calendars
availableorder today:
January 2008
|
POWER 43
2008 INDUSTRY FORECAST
necessary because permitting and financing
difficulties could delay some projects.
Nuclear: Making a comeback
The drive to diversify generations fuel mix
may be helped by the possible licensing of
dozens of new reactors. They would be the
first ordered in the U.S. since 1978, one year
before Unit 2 of the Three Mile Island plant
in Pennsylvania partially melted down. Cur-
rently, nuclear generation supplies about 20%
of Americas electricity. Although nuclear
plants are more expensive than coal plants
(taking into account the costs of licens-
ing, decommissioning, and waste disposal),
nuclear fuel is half the price of coal, so the
plants total production costs are about the
same: about $30/MWh. Notably, unlike coal
plants, nuclear plants emit no CO
2
, a major
contributor to global warming.
Early this decade, reactor vendors and util-
ities began lobbying the federal government
to reduce the considerable financial risks of
building new plants. They succeeded by hav-
ing the Energy Policy Act of 2005 include tax
incentives and loan guarantees for up to 6,000
MW of new nuclear capacity. Earlier, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had
streamlined the lengthy processes for permit-
ting and licensing new reactors by creating a
new system for issuing combined construc-
tion and operating licenses (COLs) for plants
and approving reactor designs in advance.
The NRC says it expects to receive applica-
tions for 12 new reactors at seven sites within
the next few years and 15 more applications
over the longer term. Four consortia have al-
ready applied for early site permits, using a
separate process in which the NRC reviews
and approves the suitability of a site before its
prospective developers apply for a COL.
In all, developers are currently proposing
building 47 new reactors in the U.S. They
would be part of 33 projects totaling more
than 60,000 MW and would be valued at
more than $106 billion. Given the length of
the site permitting and COL processes, its
conceivable that 19 of the proposed reactors
could break ground in 2010, but thats a very
optimistic estimate. Until the timetables are
firmed up and financing issues are resolved,
the U.S. nuclear power industry will have to
be satisfied with incremental upgrades of re-
actor capacity. At present, 12 projects of that
type totaling $600 million are in the works.
Renewables: Finally
going mainstream
Citing the need to displace the use of fos-
sil fuels to reduce CO
2
emissions and help
lessen Americas dependence on imports,
24 states and the District of Columbia have
enacted renewable portfolio standards (RPS)
that require their regulated electric utilities
to get an increasing share of their supplies
from wind farms, solar cells, and biomass
and geothermal plants. The standards cur-
rently in place call for development of more
than 55,000 MW of renewable capacity by
2020. Nine other states have introduced RPS
bills, and several of the 24 states that have
imposed standards are considering moving
up the deadline to meet them.
In December 2007, the U.S. Congress
extended the federal production tax credit
(PTC) for renewable energy plants by one
year, through December 31, 2008. That was
the second time Congress approved extension
of the PTC just before it expired. From 1999
until 2004, the credit was allowed to expire
on three separate occasions, and each time
it put a damper on renewable energy devel-
opment. The PTC provides a 1.9 cents/kWh
tax credit for all electricity generated by a
renewable-fuel plant over its first 10 years of
operationif the plant qualified by entering
commercial service before the deadline.
With the RPS and PTC incentives in place,
investment in renewable energy projects is
expected to surpass that in gas-fired projects
for the third year in a row. More than 5,000
MW of renewables-fueled plants valued at
$7.7 billion broke ground in 2006. Thats a
67% increase over the prior year. For com-
parison, investment in new gas-fueled plants
covering both years totaled $5.9 billion.
More than 5,200 MW of renewable-fu-
eled units broke ground last year by Septem-
ber, and another 2,800 MW were scheduled
to follow suit by years end. All told, 8,000
MW, representing more than $11.7 billion
in investments, were expected to begin con-
struction in 2007, while over 4,000 MW
were scheduled to go commercial by New
Years Eve.
Table 3. U.S. power generation construction kickoff summary by primary fuel type (20002008). Source: Industrial Info Resources
Table 4. Total installed cost of generation by construction kickoff year (in 2006 dollars) by fuel
type, in millions of dollars. Source: Industrial Info Resources
Nuclear
Natural gas
d
Solar
Total
Fuel oil
c
Geothermal
Biomass
b
Coal
Wind
Hydro, tidal
Notes: a. Based on construction kickoff dates, not operational dates. b. Biomass includes biodiesel, wood, municipal waste, digestor gas, and landll gas.
c. Fuel oil includes petroleum coke and tire-derived fuel. d. Natural gas includes waste heat projects.
a
0 0
2008 2006 2003 2004 2005 2007 2002 2001 2000
Primary fuel
category Units
76
3
113
0
3
581
0
2
8
786
MW
241
510
1,203
0
44
66,614
0
5
410
69,025
Units
19
2
109
0
1
663
0
0
23
817
MW
42
611
573
0
8
74,794
0
0
1,282
77,309
Units
14
15
87
0
237
0
0
8
361
MW
112
544
309
0
25,113
0
0
277
26,356
Units
27
2
61
0
5
144
0
0
26
265
MW
84
1,208
220
0
140
12,485
0
0
1,567
15,704
Units
26
4
55
0
4
114
0
1
20
224
MW
176
1,314
611
0
6
6,170
0
1
843
9,121
Units
46
12
35
9
6
83
0
0
30
221
MW
152
4,195
564
132
73
5,811
0
0
2,698
13,624
Units
74
11
15
3
8
66
0
2
48
227
MW
112
5,377
47
34
121
6,482
0
64
5,205
17,442
Units
41
10
13
6
12
124
0
5
79
290
0
MW
637
4,637
324
50
67
10,249
123
7,194
23,281
Units
62
69
19
39
46
285
0
9
203
732
MW
1,208
21,981
820
1,098
1,026
27,073
0
983
21,088
75,277
Primary fuel 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Fuel oil
b
$602 $286 $155 $110 $305 $282 $24 $162 $410
Geothermal
$0
$0
$0 $0 $0 $329 $85 $125 $2,745
Hydro, tidal
$87 $16 $0 $280 $11 $146 $241 $134 $2,052
Natural gas
c
$33,307 $37,397 $12,557 $6,242 $3,085 $2,905 $3,241 $5,125 $13,537
Wind
$615 $1,922 $415 $2,351 $1,265 $4,047 $7,807 $10,791 $31,632
Total $35,473 $40,397 $13,891 $10,516 $6,421 $12,895 $18,091 $22,784 $86,521
Biomass
a
$241 $42 $112 $84 $176 $152 $112 $637 $1,208
Coal
$611 $733 $653 $1,450 $1,577 $5,033 $6,452 $5,564 $32,971
Notes: a. Biomass includes biodiesel, wood, municipal waste, digestor gas, and landll gas. b. Fuel oil includes
petroleum coke and tire-derived fuel. c. Natural gas includes waste heat projects.
POWER
|
January 2008 44
2008 INDUSTRY FORECAST
Dwarfing those annual totals are the more
than 82,000 MW of renewable energy proj-
ects being developed that have construction
kickoffs between 2008 and 2012. Signifi-
cantly, 87% of the planned capacity will be
wind power, a generation niche in which the
U.S. has long been far behind Europe.
Prospects for U.S. wind power have be-
come brighter for two reasons: renewal of
the PTC and the development of larger and
more-efficient wind turbines. Thanks to the
federal subsidy, wind farms at sites with fa-
vorable characteristics can now compete on
price with fossil-fueled plants. Noticing that,
investors pushed spending on wind power
projects in 2007 to record levels.
Last year in the U.S., new wind farms to-
taling more than 4,000 MW were expected to
come on-line. By September, 33 projects rep-
resenting 3,635 MW had done so. Another 41
farms in 20 states, totaling 3,600 MW, were
under construction; another 1,600 MW were
in advanced planning for start-up this year.
Even if some are delayed, bringing the total
for 2007 and 2008 below the expected 8,800
MW, new wind capacity still will represent a
significant increase over the 4,873 MW total
for 2005 and 2006.
Aside from the need for new or upgraded
transmission to link remote wind capacity to
the grid, the rising costs and tighter supply of
wind turbines remain the technologys big-
gest obstacles. Neither situation is likely to
improve for some time. For example, most
of the turbines that will roll off the assembly
line this year have already been purchased.
The worldwide equipment shortage has
spurred most of the leading wind turbine
manufacturers to boost supplies destined for
use in the U.S., where demand is set to peak:
Since 2001, Spains Gamesa has built
two state-of-the-art turbine factories in
Pennsylvania.
In 2005, homegrown Clipper Windpower
expanded the annual capacity of its factory
in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, from five turbines
to 150.
Last year, Siemens Power Generations
new plant in Fort Madison, Iowa, shipped
its first wind turbine blade; Acciona Wind-
power opened a new factory in the same
state; Suzlon Rotor Corp. inaugurated
a wind blade nose cone manufacturing
plant in Pipestone, Minn.; and Molded
Fiberglass Companies broke ground on a
factory in Aberdeen, South Dakota, that
will build blades for 1.5-MW turbines de-
signed and assembled by GE Energy.
This year, Vestas Wind plans to open a
turbine blade factory in Windsor, Colo.
Meanwhile, in Newton, Iowa (where the
legendary Maytag washer/dryer factory
is scheduled to close by years end), TPI
Composites will begin manufacturing
blades for GEs 1.5-MW machines.
Further out, TECO-Westinghouse and
Composite Technology Corp. have agreed
to build a plant in Round Rock, Texas, to
make turbines for the latters subsidiary,
DeWind Inc. Separately, Hendricks In-
dustries plans to open a big, $34 million
wind turbine tower manufacturing plant in
Keokuk, Iowa, creating 350 jobs.
The top three general contractors, which
together are building more than 80% of the
wind farms under construction, are M.A.
Mortenson, D.H. Blattner & Sons, and RES
American Construction.
Britt Burt is VP of Power Industry Re-
search and Shane Mullins is VP of Prod-
uct Development for the electric power
industry at Industrial Info Resources. The
company provides comprehensive mar-
ket intelligence about industrial process-
ing, heavy manufacturing, and electric
power generation. For more information
on IIRs products, call 800-762-3361 or
visit www.industrialinfo.com.
www.terrapinn.com/2008/powerza Tel: +27 (0)11 516 4026
10 Years of established business success
Annual gathering for over 1000 participants across the African power sector
Part of the global series of power events: Asia, Australia and New Zealand
Co-locating 6 power sectors under one roof: Power Generation World;
Transmission & Distribution World; Renewable Energy World; Energy
Efficiency World; On-site Power World and Billing and Metering World Africa
We have limited sponsorship and exhibition opportunities left. Reserve
your stand by contacting Brian Mallory on Tel: +27 (0)11 516 4079 or
email: brian.mallory@terrapinn.co.za.
In celebration of the 10th Annual Africa Power &
Electricity Congress, Terrapinn is proud to
introduce The Africa Energy Awards. For more
on how you can become involved in the awards,
go to www.terrapinn.com/2008/awardsza
Powering the African continent
15 16 April 2008, Sandton Convention
Centre, Johannesburg, South Africa
Platinum sponsor
Gold sponsors
India country partner & gold sponsors
Bronze sponsors
Breakfast sponsor Cocktail sponsor Luncheon sponsor
Official host utility Endorsed by Organised by
T
e
r
r
a
p
in
n
1
7
1
0
/
P
o
w
e
r
www.powermag.com POWER
|
January 2008 46
WATER MANAGEMENT
Costlier, scarcer supplies dictate
making thermal plants less thirsty
The Energy Information Administration estimates that U.S. thermoelectric gen-
erating capacity will grow from 709 GW in 2005 to 862 GW in 2030 to
help meet annual demand increases of 2%. The makeup and cooling water
needed by plants generating that increased capacity certainly wont be
available from withdrawal sources, so plant developers and owners will
have to apply water-stingy technologies plantwide. As is usually the case,
conservation saves money as well as the environment. Heres a thumbnail
economic analysis of some solutions to the water problem.
By Dr. John R. Wolfe, PE, Limno-Tech Inc.
W
hen the wells dry, we know the
worth of water, wrote Benjamin
Franklin in Poor Richards Alma-
nac (1746). Power plant owners are becom-
ing very familiar with that economic lesson.
The electric power industry requires reli-
able supplies of water in large quantities for
cooling andto a lesser extentfor flue gas
desulfurization and ash handling. Water use
remains a contentious issue for the U.S. in-
dustry, whose plants account for 40% of fresh-
water withdrawals nationwide but only 3% of
freshwater consumption, according to a 2004
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report.
As Americas population and electricity use
continue to grow, power plants are increas-
ingly competing with farms, factories, busi-
nesses, and households for limited supplies of
water. Because the growth of fresh water sup-
plies is limited, growth in electricity demand
can be met only by developing technologies
that reduce the volume of fresh water required
per kilowatt-hour of power generated.
Power generators have a vested interest
in conserving water to make local and re-
gional supplies last longer. Doing so helps
guarantee not only future plant operations
but also a growing economy with greater
electricity demand.
In a 2006 report, the National Energy
Technology Laboratory (NETL) projected
that the lions share of the new capacity in-
stalled between 2005 and 2030 will be in arid
regions, including southeast, southwest, and
western states. Those are the areas where
adopting new water-conserving technologies
will likely be most cost-effective for plant
operators, due to the shrinking availability
and the rising cost of water there (Figure 1).
The purpose of this article is not to review
all the available conservation technologies but
rather to introduce their potential cost savings
to power developers. Another aim is to chal-
lenge the original equipment manufacturing
community to produce engineered products
that minimize water consumption and/or use.
Though existing plants can benefit from
retrofitting new technologies, the greatest
potential cost savings lies in integrating new
technologies into new plant designs. The lon-
ger amortization period of investment in new
plants makes new technologies more attrac-
tive for those plants.
Open- vs. closed-loop cooling
Not all water withdrawals result in consump-
tive use, and this distinction is especially im-
portant for the electric power industry. Many
older plants use once-through cooling, which
heats large volumes of water and then returns
that water, with little volume loss, to a river,
a lake, or an ocean.
Projected thermoelectric cooling constraint indices in 2025
Highly constrained
Moderatly constrained
No existing generation, or constraints unlikely
1. Supply vs. demand. The Thermoelectric Cooling Constraint Index is based on the
Water Supply Sustainability Index (WSSI), which takes into account the amount of available
renewable water and sustainable groundwater use, limits on freshwater withdrawals needed
to protect endangered species, an areas susceptibility to drought, and its expected growth in
water use and power production. An area is considered highly constrained if its WSSI is 3 or
greater and moderately constrained if its WSSI is between 2 and 3. Source: NETL, 2006
January 2008
|
POWER 47
WATER MANAGEMENT
As a result of Clean Water Act Section
316(b) provisions and public pressures, most
jurisdictions now discourage or prohibit
construction of new once-through cooling
systems. A 2002 EPRI report found that a
typical system at a plant burning a fossil fuel,
biomass, or waste requires withdrawals of
20,000 to 50,000 gallons/MWh, although it
only consumes (loses) 300 gal/MWh. How-
ever, the large volume of water withdrawn by
a once-through system can entrain and im-
pinge aquatic organisms, and the discharge
of heat to surface waters may have adverse
ecological effects. Once-through systems
may be retrofitted with helper towers or use
groundwater to dilute discharge and mitigate
temperature problems.
For new installations, closed-loop (recir-
culating) cooling systems are increasingly
required. Because recirculating systems cool
by evaporation from towers or cooling ponds,
they consume more water than once-through
systems, but they withdraw a lot less. The
actual rates of water withdrawal and con-
sumption depend on the plants generation
technology and environmental conditions.
But for a typical plant, as described in the
previous paragraph, a closed-loop system
would require withdrawals of just 500 to 600
gal/MWh and lose 480 gal/MWh to evapora-
tion, according to the 2002 EPRI report.
The changing mix of once-through and
recirculating cooling systemsas well as
water-conserving improvements to them
enabled the electric power industry to re-
duce its water withdrawals per unit of power
generated by a factor of three over a 50-year
period: from 63,000 gal/MWh in 1950 to
21,000 gal/MWh in 2000 (Table 1). Over the
same period, power generation increased by
a factor of 15.
Clean water: No longer
abundant or free
The siting of new plants or the expansion of
existing ones is dictated by electricity de-
mand forecasts. The choice of cooling tech-
nology and other decisions affecting water
use are part of an overall siting and plant
design process, although location and fuel
availability are usually more powerful driv-
ers than water availability. Next on the list
of desirable features is a site that has suffi-
cient transmission access and transportation
facilities to supply fuel at an attractive price.
These selection factors should be familiar to
anyone following the number of large coal
projects under development in arid regions of
the western U.S.
Recent projects tend to assume that water
is available at some price. One developer in
the Southwest noted that, The cost of wa-
ter is not an important factor for us, except
when water is unavailable at any price. An-
other, in the Southeast, said, Water is more
and more critical, more in terms of availabil-
ity than cost. A third developer, who spe-
cializes in expanding existing plants rather
than building new ones, noted that The
cost of water is going up, and water from
watersheds is overappropriated. There is a
tendency to expand at existing sites where
water is available.
The cost of acquiring water depends on its
local abundance or scarcity, water rights, and
use rules. Where water is abundant and local
regulations permit, the cost of acquiring wa-
ter for a new plant may be limited to investing
in wells or surface water intakes. Preventing
fish entrainment and limiting impingement
mortality may be costly when surface water
is used. Water rights laws govern allocation
in the West, making water costly and possi-
bly unavailable during droughts. The cost of
acquiring water varies widely, from as low as
50 cents/1,000 gallons (kgal), where water is
abundant and regulations permit, to as much
as $3/kgal where water is very scarce and
rights must be acquired from existing owners
(Table 2).
The cost of delivering water depends on
distance and terrain but varies over a nar-
rower range than acquisition cost. Research
shows this component of water cost can
be as little as 13 cents/kgal or as much as
$1.20/kgal.
The cost to treat and dispose of cooling
water varies much more widely, depending
on the characteristics of the raw water. Sur-
face water may be suitable for cooling with
minimal treatment or may require removal
of suspended solids. Because effluent from
wastewater treatment plants is typically treat-
ed to make it suitable for discharge, it is usu-
ally of fairly high quality. However, nutrients
and bacteria may restrict wastewaters use
for cooling unless the power plant treats it
further (see POWER, May 2006, Recycling,
reuse define future plant designs).
Fresh groundwater has higher concentra-
tions of dissolved solids that can become
scale unless they are removed by pretreat-
ment in a closed-loop cooling system. Saline
water from the ocean or coastal areas also
requires treatment and/or the use of special
corrosion-resistant materials to make it suit-
able for plant use. Degraded waters from
coal and oil production may be available,
but they have much greater pretreatment re-
quirements. For example, low pH is an issue
for water pumped from spent coal mines,
and the effluent of oil and gas well opera-
tions can have high levels of salts, silica,
and hardness. And because recirculating
cooling water also concentrates dissolved
constituents in cooling tower blowdown,
it may need to be post-treated if it is dis-
charged to surface waters.
EPRIs Comparison of Alternate Cool-
ing Technologies for U.S. Power Plants
(2004) determined that the cost of pre- and
post-treating available water can range from
as low as 22 cents/kgal (where treatment re-
quirements are minimal) to as much as $4.28/
kgal (if the water left over from oil and gas
exploration is used).
As Table 2 shows, the sum of the medium
estimates of component costs is $2.82/kgal.
It is unlikely that a water source would be
used if the costs of acquiring, delivering,
and treating/disposing of it were all at the
high or low end of their ranges; a reasonable
range for the overall cost of water is $1/kgal
to $4/kgal.
Water withdrawals (billions of gallons)
Power generated (billions of MWh)
Water withdrawal efficiency (gal/MWh)
1950
14,500
0.23
63,000
1960
36,500
0.61
60,000
1970
62,100
1.28
49,000
1980
77,000
2
39,000
1990
71,000
2.68
27,000
2000
71,000
3.45
21,000
Table 1. Water use efficiency. These were the historical generation and water with-
drawal and efficiency values for closed-loop cooling systems serving U.S. coal-, biomass-, and
waste-fired power plants. Sources: USGS and EIA Activity Low Medium High
Acquisition $0.50 $1.25 $3.00
Delivery $0.13 $0.57 $1.20
Treatment/disposal $0.22 $1.00 $4.28
Totals $0.85 $2.82 $8.48
Table 2. Water costs. Here are recent
representative costs of acquiring, transport-
ing, and treating/disposing of 1,000 gallons
of water. A reasonable range for the overall
cost of water is $1/kgal to $4/kgal. Source:
EPRI, 2004
Water is more and more critical, more in
terms of availability than cost.
POWER
|
January 2008 48
WATER MANAGEMENT
This wide range of water costs has im-
portant implications for the sustainability of
supplies. Because costs vary widely from one
location to another, so does the attractiveness
of water conservation technologies across lo-
cations and regions. The development of new
technologies increases the options for plant
developers and decision-makers, enabling
them to reduce water-related costs and plant
profitability.
Better cooling options can even make it
easier to site a plant near its market and fuel
supplies, potentially boosting profits. Ideally,
water availability and cost should not be sec-
ond-tier considerations during the planning
of a power project; they should be as impor-
tant as electricity demand and fuel availabil-
ity. When more technological optionsplus
more-reliable information about water sup-
plies and costs and the economic benefits of
new technologiesare available, planners
can do a better job of planning and siting new
capacity to use water supplies wisely.
Recycling water
As mentioned earlier, closed-loop cooling
systems require less fresh water withdraw-
als than once-through systems, but they
consume more water due to evaporation. In
addition, water may be consumed by flue
gas scrubbing and be lost to cooling tower
blowdown. The development of new tech-
nologies could reduce losses from each of
these processes, as could the reuse of gray
water for cooling.
The 480 gal/MWh loss to evaporation
from a typical coal-fired power plant rep-
resents the greatest opportunity for sav-
ings. Evaporative losses can be reduced if
water vapor can be condensed and returned
to the cooling system. Small-scale tests of
one technology, which uses crosscurrents
of ambient air for condensation, show po-
tential for capturing 12% to 30% of evapo-
rative losses if engineered to full scale. A
2006 paper by Ken Mortenson argued that
this technology could cut losses by 60 to
140 gal/MWh, with the high end applying
to hotter climates.
This reduction in water losses can be trans-
lated into dollar savings at the plant level by
assuming a cost of water and a plant capacity.
Using the representative midrange total water
cost of $2.82/kgal developed earlier, the sav-
ings would range from $0.17 to $0.39/MWh.
For a 350-MW baseload plant operating
year-round, savings from reducing evapora-
tion from its cooling towers would amount
to between $500,000 and $1,200,000, with a
midrange value of $870,000. Increasing the
towers cycles of concentration and reducing
blowdown losses (see below) might save the
same plant another $300,000 to $1,200,000
annually.
Beware of blowdown
As water evaporates from a cooling tower,
the concentrations of dissolved and suspend-
ed solids in the remaining water increase. To
minimize scaling, fouling, and corrosion of
the cooling system, these concentrations are
reduced by blowdown. Blowdown is the term
for the discharge of water from the cooling
system and its replacement by fresh makeup
water taken from a river, lake, or well. The
term cycles of concentration describes the
proportion by which evaporation increases
constituent concentrations (assuming the
typical evaporation rate of 480 gal/MWh).
For example, at two cycles of concentration,
evaporation doubles constituent concentra-
tions, relative to intake water.
The development of cooling system mate-
rials that are resistant to scaling, corrosion,
and fouling may make it possible to operate
at higher solids concentrations, significantly
reducing blowdown losses. A study by EPRI
and the California Energy Commission
found that doubling cycles of concentration
from 4 to 8, which exceeds the usual allow-
able range, could reduce blowdown by about
100 gal/MWh (Figure 2). (See the POWER
articles, Southern California Public Power
Authoritys Magnolia Power Project in
September 2005 and High Desert Power
Plant in September 2003, for examples of
plants running high cycles-of-concentration
cooling towers with zero liquid discharge
systems.)
As we did for reductions in evaporative
losses, we can translate reductions in blow-
down water losses into dollar savings at the
plant level by assuming a cost of water and
a plant capacity. Using $1 to $4/kgal for the
total water cost range, savings from reducing
blowdown losses would come in at 10 to 40
cents/MWh. As mentioned earlier, for a 350-
MW baseload plant operating year-round,
the potential savings would be $300,000
to $1,200,000, with a midrange value of
$860,000.
Scrubbing water
The ratcheting down of emission levels for
sulfur dioxide has sparked a mini-boom in
the market for flue gas desulfurization (FGD)
systems, or scrubbers. NETL estimates that
the size of the U.S. FGD market is expected
to increase by more than 100,000 MW over
the next 10 years. Although water require-
ments for scrubbing are a fraction of those
needed for cooling purposes, FGD units re-
quire a significant amount of water to pro-
duce and handle the various process streams
(limestone slurry, scrubber sludge, and the
like). NETLs 2005 Power Plant Water
Usage and Loss Study found that makeup
water requirements for the FGD island at a
550-MW (nominal) subcritical coal-fired
power plant are about 570 gallons/minute
(gpm), vs. about 9,500 gpm for cooling wa-
ter makeup.
Flue gas scrubbing can be accomplished
with either dry or wet systems. Wet scrub-
bers entrain the flue gas in a water spray,
capturing sulfur dioxide and other pollutants,
which are then removed by creating an alka-
line slurry. Dry scrubbing injects the alkaline
particles directly into the flue gas stream, ob-
viating the need for water, but the more lim-
ited contact between reactants in the absence
of water results in lower pollutant removal
efficiencies.
230
162
66
W
a
t
e
r

u
s
e

(
g
a
l
/
M
W
h
)
Cycles of concentration
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2. Blowdown blowup. Typical water losses from cooling towers at various cycles of
concentration. Source: EPRI, 2007
January 2008
|
POWER 49
WATER MANAGEMENT
New technologies that reduce or recover
evaporative losses from scrubbing flue gas,
or increase the removal efficiency of dry
scrubbing, could reduce water use and as-
sociated costs. Another way to quantify the
water requirements for a typical wet scrub-
ber is to determine the amount of water that a
plant could save by shifting from wet to dry
scrubbing, or by capturing all of the evapora-
tion produced by wet scrubbing. NETL came
up with a figure of 25 gal/MWh. Again us-
ing $1 to $4/kgal as the range of total water
costs, the savings would amount to 2.5 to 10
cents/MWh. For our 350-MW baseload plant
operating year-round, the potential annual
savings from shifting from wet to dry scrub-
bing ranges from $75,000 to $300,000, with
a midrange value of $220,000.
If all three loss processes (evaporation
from cooling towers, blowdown, and flue gas
scrubbing) could be simultaneously reduced
at an existing 350-MW coal-fired plant, the
total annual cost savings would be $875,000
to $2,700,000 (depending on climate and
the cost of water), with a midrange total of
$1,950,000. Figure 3 shows the potential
savings for each process, assuming an in-
termediate cost of $2.82/kgal for total water
use. Most of the savings are from reducing
blowdown and evaporative losses, with the
elimination of losses from wet scrubbing a
minor contributor.
Other sources of water
Where clean water is unavailable at a reason-
able cost, lower-quality nontraditional water
supplies may be good substitutes, as long
as depreciation of cooling systems can be
minimized by limited pretreatment of intake
waters. Potential sources of degraded water
include treated urban wastewater, storm wa-
ter, mine drainage, quarry dewatering, and
water produced by oil and gas extraction (see
POWER, March 2007, Reclaimed cooling
waters impact on surface condensers and
heat exchangers).
Wastewater from public treatment works
can be very affordable, at the low end of the
treatment/disposal costs shown in Table 2,
because such water has already been treated.
This water source will also grow sustainably,
because growing populations that require
more electricity also generate growing waste-
water flows. New sewage flows, just from
domestic water use alone, can be expected at
a rate exceeding 40 gal/day per capita. About
16 gal/day per capita are sufficient for new
power generation, assuming current average
rates of 33 kWh per day of electricity demand
per capita and water consumption for power
generation of 480 gal/MWh.
Where population growth is insufficient
for increasing wastewater flows, advances
in technologies that enable the use of de-
graded waters may also present substantial
opportunities for cost savings. As Figure
4 shows, the cost of treatment required to
safely use degraded waters can exceed $4/
kgal for produced waters and agricultural
return waters, making it the largest compo-
nent of the cost of water. At such a high cost,
use of these degraded waters is not often
competitive. However, advances in the abil-
ity to use degraded waters without extensive
pretreatmentsuch as spray-enhanced dry
coolingcould reduce the overall cost of
cooling water, making degraded water com-
petitive with more traditional groundwater
and surface water sources.
To roughly estimate the potential saving
from advances in the use of degraded waters,
we can assume a reasonable decrease in the
cost of pretreatment, based on the range of
current costs. Water resulting from oil and
gas extraction, and agricultural return wa-
ters, cost $4/kgal or more to treatabout
four times what it costs to treat fresh water.
It is unlikely that treatment technologies
and/or the development of materials compat-
ible with degraded waters will eliminate the
gap. It is possible, however, that the differ-
ence in treatment costs could be significantly
reduced, by as much as 25 to 75 cents/kgal.
For our 350-MW baseload plant that requires
480 gal/MWh, the savings would amount to
$370,000 to $1,100,000, with a midrange
value of $740,000.
Other cooling options
Dry cooling eliminates a thermal power
plants dependence on cooling water. The
plants steam is condensed inside finned
tubes by blowing air across their exterior
surfaces. The challenges of dry cooling in-
clude much higher capital and installation
costs, a high efficiency penalty, increased
exhaust gas emissions, and load limitations
on hot days.
Currently, dry cooling is used, or viewed
as an option of last resort, where water is
very costly or limited in availability. There
are now several plants in operation or under
construction that use dry cooling; most are
gas-fired, combined-cycle units. As a result,
in the U.S. there is only limited experience
with dry cooling of baseload-scale plants.
Advanced technologies for dry cooling
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
A
n
n
u
a
l

w
a
t
e
r

c
o
s
t

(
(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s

$
)
Typical After potential
reductions
Blowdown Evaporative Scrubbing
3. Saving water, and dollars. Po-
tential savings from reducing three process
water losses at a 350-MW coal-fired power
plant, assuming a total water cost of $2.82/
kgal. Source: EPRI, 2007
4. The cost of using degraded water. Representative water treatment costs per
1,000 gallons from various sources. Source: EPRI, 2004
$4.50
$4.00
$3.50
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00
$
/
k
g
a
l
Recycled
wastewater
treatment plant
efuent (coastal)
Fresh water
(desert)
Fresh water
(valley)
Produced water
(valley)
Agricultural
return water
(desert)
POWER
|
January 2008 50
WATER MANAGEMENT
larger plants would be of great interest to
power project developers if the technologies
would reduce the efficiency and capital-cost
penalties.
One developer framed the problem suc-
cinctly as follows: We wouldnt go to dry
cooling unless we really had to, because of
enormous capital and operating costs, and
lower plant efficiency. Efficient air cool-
ing options must be expanded and made less
costly for future plants.
Hybrid cooling represents a middle
ground that may be more appealing and
feasible for baseload plants. Hybrid cooling
systems use a combination of both wet and
dry cooling technologies to conserve wa-
ter. Although they decrease the hot weather
penalty, they reduce but dont completely
eliminate the need for cooling water. Hy-
brid systems can limit annual water use to
2% to 5% of what wet recirculating cool-
ing systems use, although 20% to 80% is a
more typical range. Generation efficiency
and capacity generally increase with greater
water use.
It is only where the costs of water are
highest that air cooling is cost-competitive
with water cooling (Figure 5). For example,
if our 350-MW reference plant were in El
Paso, Texas, dry cooling would be cost-com-
petitive only when the cost of water exceeds
about $3/kgal. Above that level, dry cooling
would be preferred because its cost is unaf-
fected by the cost of water.
The magnitude of potential savings for
generators in warmer climates approaches
20% of cooling costs. Look at the cost curves
of Figure 5 for plants in El Paso, Texas, and
Portland, Ore. (see POWER, September
2007, Port Westward Generating Plant).
The difference is due entirely to El Pasos
hot weather penalty, which is on the order of
$1.5 million/year in cooling costs, according
to a 2004 EPRI report. The goal of ongoing
research into improved air-cooled and/or
hybrid technologies is to reduce costs for a
plant of this capacity by a significant share. A
reduction of 33% to 66% in the hot weather
penalty would produce annual savings of
$500,000 to $1,000,000.
Running the numbers
Potential cost savings have been estimated
above for several innovative applied technol-
ogies. To provide a consistent point of refer-
ence, Table 3 can be used to roughly estimate
the potential annual cost savings available to
a typical 350-MW coal-burning plant from
capturing evaporation, reducing blowdown,
using degraded waters, and adopting dry or
hybrid cooling.
Any of the estimated savings shown in
the table would be sizable enough to sig-
nificantly increase a power plants profit-
ability. For example, the production costs of
a 350-MW baseload coal-burning plant run
about $100 to $125 million annually, based
on a levelized cost ranging from $33 to $41/
MWh. With the exception of dry scrubbing,
each technology listed in Table 3 has the
potential to reduce annual production costs
by about 1%, increasing profitability by the
same percentage.
Because profit rates for generating plants
currently average about 7% to 8% of costs,
implementing these water-conservation tech-
nologies, alone or in combination, could
raise profit rates by 1 to 3 percentage points,
from 7% to 8% to an improved 8% to 11%.
Measured in millions of dollars, thats a sub-
stantial gain.
This article was based on the Limno-
Tech report, Program on Technology
Innovation: An Energy/Water Sustain-
ability Research Program for the Electric
Power Industry. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2007.
1015371.Dr. John R. Wolfe, PE (jwolfe
@limno.com), was the principal investigator
for Limno-Tech Inc. Paul L. Freedman, PE,
and M. Catherine Whiting were coauthors
of the report.
5. Breakeven points. Comparing the
costs of wet and dry cooling for two hypo-
thetical 350-MW plantsone in Portland,
Ore., and the other in El Paso, Texas. Source:
EPRI, 2004
C
o
o
l
i
n
g

c
o
s
t

(
$
M
/
y
r
)
8
6.5
Wet (all plants)
Dry
(El Paso)
Dry
(Portland, OR)
Cost of water ($/kgal)
1 2 3 4
Conservation technology
Capture evaporation
Reduce blowdown
Dry scrubbing
Use of degraded waters
Dry or hybrid cooling
Low
$500,000
$300,000
$75,000
$370,000
$500,000
Medium
$870,000
$860,000
$220,000
$740,000
$750,000
High
$1,200,000
$1,200,000
$300,000
$1,100,000
$1,000,000
Table 3. Cost savings. These are the estimated annual benefits for a typical 350-MW
coal-burning plant from using different water use reduction technologies. Source: EPRI, 2007
Water usage research
For more information about the subject of
power plant water usage, consult the fol-
lowing sources, which informed the writ-
ing of this article:
California Energy Commission. 2003.
U.S. Per Capita Energy Use by State in
2003. www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/
us_percapita_electricity_2003.html.
DeFillippo, M. 2003. Use of Degraded
Water Sources as Cooling Water in
Power Plants. EPRI and California En-
ergy Commission.
Energy Information Administration.
2004. Annual Energy Review 2003.
EPRI. 2002. Water and Sustainability
(Volume 1): Research Plan.
EPRI. 2004. Comparison of Alternate
Cooling Technologies for U.S. Power
Plants: Economic, Environmental, and
Other Tradeoffs.
EPRI. 2007. Program on Technology
Innovation: An Energy/Water Sus-
tainability Research Program for the
Electric Power Industry. Prepared by
Limno-Tech Inc.
Metcalf & Eddy Inc. 1991. Wastewater
Engineering, Disposal and Reuse, 3rd
ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mortenson, Ken. 2006. Use of Air2Air
to Recover Fresh Water in Evaporative
Cooling at Coal-Based Thermoelectric
Power Plants. Symposium on Western
Fuels. Denver, Colo.
National Energy Technology Labora-
tory. 2005. Power Plant Water Usage
and Loss Study.
National Energy Technology Labora-
tory. 2006. Estimating Freshwater
Needs to Meet Future Thermoelectric
Generation Requirements. DOE/NETL
2006/1235.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2004. Estimat-
ed Use of Water in the United States
in 2000. USGS Circular 1268. http://
pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1268.
January 2008
|
POWER www.powermag.com 51
STEAM TURBINES
Eliminating oil whipinduced
vibration after a steam turbine
retrofit
Nobody expected driveline vibration to occur after a flawless retrofit of a 200-
MW steam turbine. But when it did, Mitsubishi Power Systems and Exelon
vibration specialists identified the symptoms and rapidly narrowed the
list of possible causes. Confounding factors made the root cause difficult
to identify, but the experts pinpointed the problem, made necessary hard-
ware modifications, and placed the turbine back in service in a week.
By Craig C. Jennings, Exelon Power
E
xtending the economic operating life of
aging steam plants remains a priority at
many utilities, given the challenge of
obtaining permits for new generation and the
lower cost of life-extension projects. More
than half of U.S. coal-fired plants are over 30
years of age, and 10% are more than 50 years
old. These veterans still have a lot of fight
left in them, given an overhaul or two. But
such work can uncover unexpected ailments,
as operators at the aging Cromby Generating
Station (Figure 1) learned.
Exelons Cromby Generating Station, lo-
cated in Phoenixville, Penn., consists of two
units: Unit 1 is a coal-fired 144-MW plant;
Unit 2 is a 202-MW unit that burns gas or No.
6 fuel oil, depending on market conditions.
Unit 1 has accumulated more than 330,000
fired hours since it began commercial service
in 1954. Unit 2, commissioned in 1955, re-
mains a favorite dispatch unit in the Exelon
fleet and dispels the myth that its the miles
and not the age that determine when a unit
should be retired.
Rotor transplant
Unit 2, the focus of this case study, is a
conventional steam plant with a three-cas-
ing, single-driveline steam turbine (one HP,
one IPsingle-flow LP [IP-SFLP], and one
double-flow LP [DFLP]) originally built by
Westinghouse (Figure 2). Mitsubishi Power
Systems Inc. (MPS) was awarded a contract
to retrofit and upgrade the steam turbine to
extend its service life. Generating 4% more
power with the more-efficient turbine was a
welcome side benefit of the project.
Figure 2 also illustrates the units rotor
bearing arrangement. In this configuration,
bearing No. 4, between the IP-SFLP and
the DFLP (bearing No. 5), is shared by the
two cylinders. Figure 3 compares cross sec-
tions of the old and replacement HP steam
turbines.
The retrofit project replaced the HP rotor
and diaphragms but reused the existing out-
er casing. The original Curtis control stages
were replaced with a single, higher-effi-
ciency Rateau stage, and the reaction blades
were redesigned with the latest 3-D design
tools. The HP turbines inner casing, blade,
and dummy rings were replaced; the HP ro-
tor bearings were rebabbitted; and thermo-
1. Fifty years and counting. Exelons Cromby Station has been in commercial service
for more than 50 years. Upgrades to Unit 2s steam turbine should extend the plants life for a
couple more decades, at least. Courtesy: Exelon Corp.
Bearing
No. 1
High pressure
Intermediate pressure
single-ow low pressure
Double-ow
low pressure
Generator
2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Long driveline. The rotor arrangement of Unit 2 at Cromby Generating Station.
Source: MPS
POWER
|
January 2008 52
STEAM TURBINES
couples for bearing metal temperature were
installed. Farther down the driveline, one
row of LP L-0 blades and three rows of LP
L-1 blades were replaced. The addition of
orthogonal vibration measurement instru-
mentation completed the scope of work.
Plant engineers showed excellent foresight
in adding this new vibration instrumenta-
tionas youll appreciate in a moment.
The upgrades were completed without in-
cident, and the unit was started on Novem-
ber 17, 2003, for testing. Loading of the unit
and overspeed tests were also performed
without any major problems. However, vi-
bration instability, or oil whirl vibration, in
the HP bearings at low-load operating con-
ditions was soon observed. In the follow-
ing days, several field balancing runs were
performed to reduce the vibration levels of
bearings 3, 4, and 5. On November 20, af-
ter sustaining low-load operation for several
minutes, a rather sudden synchronous vibra-
tion increase was recorded in bearing 2 (and
in bearing 1 to a lesser extent) that prompted
a trip of the unit.
During the coast-down, a sudden subsyn-
chronous vibration spike was recorded at ap-
proximately 3,500 rpm with a filtered 0.5X
value in excess of 15 mils (with direct read-
ings of almost 20 mils).
Bad vibes
The old HP turbine had had a history of
unstable behavior before the retrofit and
had experienced sporadic subsynchronous
vibration. However, pre-outage detailed vi-
bration data were not available for precise
analysis because the unit was not equipped
with the instrumentation package found on
late-model turbines.
The rotor bearing system stability of the
HP turbine with the original partial center
slot type bearings (Figure 4) had been ana-
lyzed before the outage and was found to be
satisfactory with the heavier new rotor. The
option of making dimensional changes in the
center slot to improve the stability margin
was dismissed because of the relatively el-
evated drain temperature of the HP bearings
(180F for an oil supply of 104F).
Vibration data collected on November
19 (before the trip) still showed sporadic
subsynchronous vibration, which now ap-
peared during the acceleration ramp-up at
approximately 2,840 rpm and disappeared
at approximately 3,490 rpm (Figure 5). This
sporadic behavior continued during several
subsequent operational tests when loading
the unit to baseload operation. The only com-
mon thread was the unpredictable timing of
the vibration.
The team determined that the high syn-
chronous vibration recorded on November
20 was caused by a severe rubbing condition
between the shaft and the bearings experi-
enced during a normal shutdown, causing
3. Fits like a glove. Mitsubishi Power
Systems engineered a new direct replace-
ment HP steam turbine to fit inside the cas-
ing of the old steam turbine. Shown are cross
sectional drawings of the original (top) and
new (bottom) HP steam turbines. Source:
MPS
4. Recycled bearings. The HP turbines lower-half bearings with a partial center slot were
analyzed as part of the retrofit turbine design and were found to be adequate for the new,
heavier rotor. All bearings were rebabbitted during the project. Courtesy: MPS
5. Unexpected spike. Subsynchronous vibration during a start-up with the new HP tur-
bine is shown inside the red circle. Source: MPS
January 2008
|
POWER 53
STEAM TURBINES
the unit to trip on high vibration. The internal
rubbing was quickly identified by a large and
rapid increase in the synchronous vibration
component with large changes in phase angle
(Figure 6). At the moment of the trip, the
subsynchronous component was negligible,
but it suddenly increased during the coast-
down that followed the trip (Figure 7). Over-
all (nonfiltered) vibration during coast-down
after the instability was triggered approached
20 mils (Figure 8).
Flexible shaft
The original steam turbine design included
bearing vibration measurement in only one
direction. The upgrades scope of work
added additional, orthogonal vibration mea-
suring capability on all bearings. This new
instrumentation also allowed operators to
gather shaft average centerline data, which
was extremely helpful in diagnosing the new
HP turbines vibration problems.
Figure 9 illustrates the average centerline
of bearing 2 from cold start-up conditions
(bottom of the plot) to the relatively hot
shutdown conditions (last point to the right).
The plot clearly indicates a shift of the rotor
centerline toward the right side of the bearing
during operation. Additionally, the rotors
stationary position was displaced, relative to
its pre-starting position, by almost 5 mils af-
ter stopping, in both vertical and horizontal
directions.
The only explanation for this behavior is
either actual movement of the shaft center to
the right side of the bearing (in the opposite
direction of the expected shaft locus) or rela-
tive movement of the sensor with respect to
the bearing center.
Tracking sensor movement relative to
the shaft. Bearing No. 2s vibration sensors
were installed in the pedestal cover at a rela-
tively long distance from the rotor surface.
Thermal expansioncaused movement of the
pedestal cover relative to the bearing resulted
in the misleading indication that the rotor po-
sition at rest, before starting, and after shut-
ting down had changed.
Investigators determined that the induced
movement of bearing 2s pedestal cover did
result in the erroneous conclusion that the ro-
tor position at rest was different at cold and
hot conditions and that this was not part of
the root cause of the vibration increase.
Factoring in the steam turbine valve
sequence. Steam is admitted to the HP tur-
bine through eight different nozzles located
in the periphery of the HP turbines first
stage. The nozzles are designed to gradu-
ally open during start-up to carefully con-
trol steam flow into the turbines governing
stage. Investigators found that the order in
which the eight nozzles are sequenced af-
6. Rubbed the wrong way. A large synchronous vibration excitation in the HP turbine
was induced by a rubbing condition. The polar plot shown is for bearing No. 2. Source: MPS
7. Stuttering stop. A sudden increase in subsynchronous vibration during coast-down
was also caused by rubbing. Source: MPS
8. Shake, rattle, and roll. Overall vibration reached 19.7 mils peak-to-peak during the
coast-down after the trip. Source: MPS
If a variable isnt measured, trend analysis
isnt possible.
POWER
|
January 2008 54
STEAM TURBINES
fects the bearing loading as the direction
of the reaction force on the rotor changes
(Figure 10).
Whenever nozzle valve 3 opens (at around
60 to 70 MW), a bearing load increase is ob-
served. Bearing loading is clearly reduced
after nozzle valve 4 opens at approximately
50% load (about 100 MW). The governor
valve sequence related to 25% and 50%
steam admission flow corresponds to the
lightest load condition of the rotor, and it
unloads bearings 1 and 2. A moment is also
introduced that affects loading conditions
on bearings 1 or 2, depending on the nozzle
valve sequence.
Measuring the uneven movement of
bearings 2 and 3 thrust pedestals during
thermal expansion. The horizontal thermal
expansion of the bearing pedestal between the
HP and the IP-SFLP turbines was measured
by installing dial gauges at the base of the
pedestal base plate. Measurements revealed
uneven movement of the pedestal referenced
to the shaft centerline.
Measurements of the horizontal movement
of the pedestal between HP and IP-SFLP tur-
bines revealed uneven thermal growth dis-
placement. This movement induced angular
deviation between the rotor and bearings 2
and 3. This deviation caused movement of
the rotor at bearing 2, away from the normal
shaft centerline position on the right side of
the bearing.
Pedestal movement readings at the gen-
erator and governor ends of the driveline
were significantly different (Figure 11). The
relative end-to-end change in pedestal posi-
tion was a maximum of +6 mils and a mini-
mum of 5 mils. This displacement caused
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
Left direction
Right direction
B
a
s
e

m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
i
l
s
)
10 p.m. Midnight
Day 1 Time Day 2
10 p.m. Midnight
Day 1 Time Day 2
Base (generator side) Base (governor side) Governor side minus generator side
L
o
a
d

(
M
W
)
250
200
150
100
50
0
MW
10. Order matters. HP turbine bearing No. 2 loading was found to be a function of the
generator load and the sequencing order of the eight nozzle valves. Source: MPS
7.75
7.70
7.65
7.60
7.55
7.50
7.45
7.40
7.35
7.30
B
e
a
r
i
n
g

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
g
f
/
c
m
2
)
0 50 100 150 200 250
#5 valve opens,
and the vertical
downward
force increases.
#3 valve opens,
and the vertical
downward force
increases.
25% admission
#6 valve
open condition
50% admission
Generator output (MW)
9. Tracking shaft movement. Newly
installed instrumentation added the ability to
track the HP turbine shaft average centerline.
This chart shows the shaft movement inside
bearing No. 2. Source: MPS
Rotor at rest
11. Measuring movement. The horizontal thermal growth of the pedestal between the HP and IP-SFLP turbines was measured during a
typical turbine start-up, at full-load operation, and then at 25% load. Source: MPS
January 2008
|
POWER 55
STEAM TURBINES
the observed angular deviation of the bearing
with respect to the rotor centerline. The lower
chart in Figure 11 shows the loading condi-
tion of the unit during measurement of the
pedestals horizontal movement.
Inspired solution
The stability margin of the replacement rotor-
bearing system was analyzed throughout the
entire range of loading conditions. Particular
emphasis was placed at 25% load, where the
rotor bearing system has the lowest loading.
Bearing metal temperature data were also
collected during the turbine tests and revealed
additional clues to the root cause of turbine
vibration (Figure 12). The metal temperature
mirrors the changes in calculated bearing
pressure changes induced by the governor
valve sequencing. This is clearly confirmed
by a comparison of the trends in Figures 10
and 12.
The subsynchronous vibration experi-
enced by this plant for many years before
the upgrade project had been sporadic and
insignificant enough to have no appreciable
impact on total measured vibration. After
all, if a variable isnt measured, trend analy-
sis isnt possible. This dormant unstable
condition was theorized to be the cause of
the sudden increase in the subsynchronous
component due to an unknown and unex-
pected excitation. In this particular case,
investigators determined that the rubbing
condition (illustrated in Figure 6) was the
excitation source causing the sudden in-
crease in subsynchronous, or oil whip insta-
bility, vibration.
But what caused the original rubbing, es-
pecially given that the turbine was initially
started and loaded without any evidence
of rubbing? Evidence of the rubbing was
clearly seen in a photo of the labyrinth seals
taken after excessive vibration was observed
during the November 20 coast-down (Figure
13).
The solution to both observed problems
was to increase the stability margin of the ro-
tor-bearing system by modifying the bearing
geometry. This one modification increased
the stability margin of the HP rotor-bearing
system under rubbing conditions and nozzle
valve bearing-loading conditions.
The original HP bearings were of the
partial center slot type with a 0.96-inch
slot in the lower half. The HP bearings were
modified by increasing the slot width by 0.61
inchto 1.5 inchin order to increase the
HP rotor bearing systems stability margin.
Modification of the bearingsincluding
their removal, preparation of the drawing
with the modified geometry, machining of
the lower half, and reinstallationwas per-
formed in less than one week. The unit was
restarted on December 2 and demonstrated a
clear reduction in subsynchronous vibration,
which enabled the unit to return to commer-
cial operation.
Craig C. Jennings
(craig.jennings@exeloncorp.com)
is a senior rotating equipment engineer
for Exelon Power.
180
175
170
165
160
155
150
145
140
135
130
T
e
m
p

(
F
)
0 50 100 150 200 250
Load (MW)
Bearing #1 Bearing #2 Bearing #3 Bearing #4 Bearing #5
12. Temperature fluctuations. Bearing metal temperatures were also measured as a
function of load. The general shape of the curve is similar to the bearing loading shown in Figure
10. Source: MPS
13. Theres the rub. Evidence of rubbing found after the large vibration event. Courtesy:
MPS
www.powermag.com POWER
|
January 2008 56
POWER QUALITY
Protecting plant equipment
from voltage sags
Immunity from voltage sags is vital for reliable operation of our ever-more-
sophisticated electronic controls and equipment. Every electrical product
should be able to ride through typical voltage sags, but in many cases the
first sag test occurs after equipment is installed and in operation. Select
the appropriate sag immunity specification and equipment compliance
testing, and youll be glad you did.
By Andreas Eberhard, Power Standard Labs
M
odern equipment can be sensitive to
brief disturbances on utility power
mains. Electrical systems are subject
to a wide variety of power quality problems
that can interrupt production processes, affect
sensitive equipment, and cause downtime,
scrap, and capacity losses. The most common
disturbance, by far, is a sag: a brief reduction
in voltage lasting a few hundred milliseconds.
Sags are commonly caused by fuse or
breaker operation, motor starting, or capaci-
tor switching, but they are also triggered by
short circuits on the power distribution system
caused by such events as snakes slithering
across insulators, trenching machines hitting
underground cables, and lightning ionizing
the air around high-voltage lines. Many utili-
ties report that 80% of electrical disturbances
originate within the users facility.
A decade ago, the solution to voltage sags
was to try to fix them by storing enough en-
ergy somehow and releasing it onto the AC
mains when voltage dropped. Some of the
old solutions included an uninterruptible
power supply (UPS), flywheels, and ferro-
resonant transformers.
More recently, engineers have realized that
voltage sag is really a compatibility problem
with at least two classes of solutions: You can
improve the power or you can make the equip-
ment tougher. The latter approach is called
voltage sag immunity, and equipment man-
ufacturers have several compliance standards
that you should be aware of when specifying
future equipment purchases (Figure 1).
Standards developed
Three main primary voltage sag immunity
standards are discussed in the following
paragraphs: IEC 61000-4-11, IEC 61000-
4-34, and SEMI F47. There are others in
usesuch as IEEE 1100, CBEMA, ITIC,
1. Immunize your plant. Voltage sag immunity testing has been common in the semiconductor industry for years and has proved its
economic value. New IEC standards for voltage sag immunity will expand this kind of testing and certification to other industries. Courtesy: Power
Standard Labs
January 2008
|
POWER 57
POWER QUALITY
Samsung Power Vaccine, international stan-
dards, and MIL-STDbut the first three
seem to have the widest acceptance in the
marketplace. (IEC is the International
Electrotechnical Commission, SEMI is the
Semiconductor Equipment and Materials
Institute, CBEMA is the Computer Busi-
ness Equipment Manufacturers Association,
ITIC is the Information Technology Institute
Council, and MIL-STD is the U.S. Defense
Departments specification.)
IEC 61000-4-11 and IEC 61000-4-34 are
a closely related set of standards that cover
voltage sag immunity. IEC 61000-4-11 Ed. 2
covers equipment rated at 16 amps per phase
or less while IEC 61000-4-34 Ed. 1 covers
equipment rated at more than 16 amps per
phase. The latter was written after IEC 61000-
4-11, so it seems to be more comprehensive.
SEMI F47 is the voltage sag immunity
standard used in the semiconductor manu-
facturing industry, where a single voltage sag
can result in the multi-million-dollar loss of
product if a facility is not properly protected.
The semiconductor industry has developed
specifications for its manufacturing equip-
ment and for components and subsystems in
that equipment. Enforcement is entirely cus-
tomer-driven in this industry, as semiconduc-
tor manufacturers understand the economic
consequences of sag-induced failures and
generally refuse to purchase new equipment
that fails the SEMI F47 immunity require-
ment. SEMI F47 is currently going through
its five-year revision and update cycle.
All three standards specify voltage sags
with certain depths and durations for the
equipment under test (EUT). For example,
a specification may state 70% of nominal
for 500 milliseconds. The percentage is the
amount of voltage remaining, not the amount
that is missing. Each standard specifies pass-
fail criteria for EUT when a voltage sag is
applied; the IEC standards have a range of
pass-fail criteria, but the SEMI F47 standard
is more explicit (Figure 2).
Three-phase testing
For three-phase EUT, the sags are applied
between each pair of power conductors, one
pair at a time. If there is a neutral conduc-
tor, this implies that there are six different
sags at each depth-duration pair: three differ-
ent phase-to-phase sags and three different
phase-to-neutral sags. If there is no neu-
tral conductor, there are just three different
phase-to-phase sags at each depth-duration
pair in the standard.
Note that IEC 61000-4-11 and 61000-4-34
specifically forbid creating phase-to-phase
sags by sagging two phase-to-neutral volt-
ages simultaneouslyan approach that is
permitted in SEMI F47. Instead, you must
create phase shifts during your phase-to-phase
sagssomething that sag generators designed
for these standards do automatically (Figure
3). Typical suppliers of compliant sag genera-
tors include Keytek (www.keytek.com), Pow-
er Standards Lab (PSL, www.powerstandards
.com), and Schaffner (www.schaffner.com).
Test equipment required
A voltage sag generator is test equipment
that is inserted between the AC mains and
the EUT. It generates voltage sags of any
required depth and duration. Some, like the
PSL Industrial Power Corruptor, include pre-
programmed sags for all of the IEC, SEMI,
or MIL standards.
Because a common EUT failure mecha-
nism is a blown fuse or circuit breaker during
the current inrush after a voltage sag, the sag
generator must be specified for delivering
large peak currentstypically in the hun-
dreds of amps. This peak current requirement
in the IEC standards means that electronic
amplifier AC sources generally can only be
used for precompliance testing, not for certi-
fication (Figure 4).
The portability of sag generators is a key
consideration. It is often impossible to bring
larger room-sized industrial equipment to a
test lab. Instead, the test lab must travel to
the equipment. In general, the largest por-
table sag generators can handle no more than
200 amps per phase at 480 volts (Figure 5).
Some of the standards, such as SEMI F47,
offer specific advice about how to test EUT
that require more than 200 amps (usually by
breaking them down into subsystems).
0.01 0.02 0.1 1 10 100
Area included in specication
0.05 to 1 second
Duration of voltage sag in seconds
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t

n
o
m
i
n
a
l

v
o
l
t
a
g
e

(
%
)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2. Playing through. A typical example of a voltage sag ride-through curve compared
with the SEMI F47 specification commonly used in the semiconductor industry. Source: Power
Standard Labs

L2
L3
L1 100%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1

P
P
3
0

U
L
3

L
1
UL
1

N
Notes: P = the percent phase-to-phase dip, expressed
as a fraction of the nominal phase-to-phase voltage.
U
L1N
= the voltage from L1 to neutral (if a neutral
conductor exists), expressed as a fraction of the
nominal phase-to-neutral voltage.
U
L3L1
= the voltage from L3 to L1, expressed as a
fraction of the nominal phase-to-phase voltage.
3. One phase at a time. The IEC stan-
dards require phase shifting during sags on
three-phase systems, but sags on all three
phases simultaneously are not required.
Source: Power Standard Labs
4. Portable power. Portable voltage sag
generators like this Industrial Power Corruptor
from Power Standards Lab handle hundreds
of amps at three-phase voltages while remain-
ing portable. Built-in standards help speed up
testing; built-in digital oscilloscopes help the
test engineer diagnose equipment problems.
Courtesy: Power Standard Labs
POWER
|
January 2008 58
POWER QUALITY
Many conformance certification labs sub-
contract voltage sag testing to labs that have
engineers with the training and experience
both to perform sag testing and to help di-
agnose EUT failures. This is an especially
attractive approach when certifying large,
industrial loads.
For testing smaller commercial and indus-
trial loads, many labs rent a voltage sag genera-
tor from PSL or another supplier. Such a rental
often comes complete with over-the-phone
engineering support from an experienced sag
testing engineer. This can be the best way to
get started on voltage sag immunity testing.
A different kind of testing
In contrast to most other emissions and im-
munity testing, votage sag testing requires
the engineer to control and manipulate all of
the power flowing into the EUT. For smaller
devices such as personal computers, this is
not a great challenge. But for larger indus-
trial equipment, perhaps rated at 480 volts
three-phase at 200 amps per phase, with an
expected inrush current of 600 amps or more,
the test engineer must be prepared for serious
performance and safety challenges.
Certain software, such as the sag immunity
testing software from PSL, comes with exten-
sive safety checklists. Some of the checklist
items are obvious (Who on the test team is
trained in CPR? Where is the closest fire extin-
guisher?), but some are less obvious (How do
we get access to at least two upstream circuit
breakers? Where is the closest trash can?).
Common failure mechanisms
The most common failure mechanism is lack
of energy. This can manifest itself in some-
thing as simple as insufficient voltage to
keep a critical relay or contactor energized or
something as complex as an electronic sensor
with a failing power supply giving an incor-
rect reading, which would cause EUT soft-
ware to react inappropriately (Figure 6).
The second most common failure mecha-
nism, surprisingly, occurs just after the sag
has finished. In such cases, all of the bulk
6. Anatomy of voltage sag. To test a new device, a voltage sag is introduced in the
power source (a). The waveform, which was about 40 amps peak before the sag in this ex-
ample, then increases to 450 amps peak after the voltage sag (b). The same current, this time
expressed as an RMS value, is shown. The next graph shows the same current, this time as an
RMS value. Before the sag, it was about 23 amps RMS (this equipment was rated at 30 amps),
but after the sag the current increased to 175 amps RMS. This behavior is not unusual (c). The fi-
nal graph shows the output of a DC supply during this sag (d). Courtesy: Power Standard Labs
5. Potential for problems. The voltage
sag test engineer will insert a sag generator
between the AC source and the equipment
being tested. Often, high currents (200 amps)
and high voltages (480 volts three-phase) must
be handled. Courtesy: Power Standard Labs
a.
b.
c.
d.
January 2008
|
POWER 59
POWER QUALITY
capacitors inside the EUT recharge at once,
causing a large increase in AC mains current.
This increase can trip circuit breakers, open
fuses, and even destroy solid-state rectifi-
ers. Most design engineers correctly protect
against this inrush current during power cy-
cling, but many do not consider the similar ef-
fects of voltage sags. Be careful when the test
procedure is developed; if you use a sag gen-
erator that lacks sufficient current capability it
will incorrectly pass the equipment if there is
insufficient current available to blow a fuse or
trip a circuit breaker in a half-cycle.
Another common EUT failure mechanism
occurs when a sensor detects the voltage
sag and decides to shut down the EUT. In a
straightforward example, a three-phase EUT
might have a phase-rotation relay that incor-
rectly interprets an unbalanced voltage sag
as a phase reversal and therefore shuts down
the EUT. A more atypical example would be
if you had an airflow sensor mounted near a
fan, it detected that the fan had slowed down
momentarily, and the equipment software
misinterpreted the message from this sensor
as indicating that the EUT cooling system
had failed. In this case, a software fan failure
signal delay is the solution to improve sag
immunity.
Another common EUT failure mechanism
involves an uncommon sequence of events.
For example, in one case, a voltage sag was
applied to the EUT and its main contactor
opened with a bang. But further investigation
revealed that a small relay, wired in series
with the main contactor coil, actually opened
because it received an open relay contact
from a stray water sensor. That sensor, in
turn, opened because its small 24-VDC sup-
ply output dropped to 18 V during the sag.
The solution was an inexpensive bulk capaci-
tor across the 24-VDC supply.
Many other failure mechanisms can take
place during voltage sags. The question to
the test engineer will always be: How do we
fix this problem? Usually, there is a simple,
low-cost fix once the problem is identified.
Protect your equipment
There is no one best place to locate a protec-
tive device for all your plant equipment. An
equipment protection program should begin
with identifying specific equipment items that
are sensitive to voltage sags, either through
hard experience or with the support of the
manufacturer. The ubiquitous UPS may not
provide enough of the right protection.
However, there are areas where voltage
sags have a history of interfering with plant
operations by affecting programmable logic
controllers as well as relays and contactors
in sensitive equipment. The best approach to
handling those problems is to specify new
equipment according to a particular voltage
ride-through specification, such as SEMI
F47.
If you have recently upgraded to adjust-
able-speed drives (ASDs) in your plant, you
are in luck. ASDs can ride through voltage
sags because of the inertia of the motor and
the connected load. Some ASD manufactur-
ers offer an optional voltage sag ride-through
feature.
Very short sags can be tolerated with fer-
roresonant transformers, magnetic synthesiz-
ers, or active series compensators. Others
have employed static transfer switches and
fast transfer switches that can operate within
two cycles to protect overly sensitive loads.
At PSL, we believe that only in extreme cas-
es should devices that eliminate voltage sags
on the AC circuit be considered because this
is the most expensive possible solution. How-
ever, the final selection of a solution requires
weighing the cost of equipment and produc-
tion losses against the cost of protection.
Andreas Eberhard (aeberhard
@powerstandards.com) is
vice president of technical services
for Power Standard Labs.
with Platts new suite of Electric Power System wall maps for the US
New U.S. Electric Power Suite of Maps include:
Megawatt Daily Pricing Regions
U.S. Electric Power System Map & CD-ROM
U.S. Utilities Service Territories
U.S. Power Generation
U.S. Transmission System
Northeast Electric Power System
ERCOT Electric Power System
N. America Electric Power System Atlas & CD-ROM*
WECC Electric Power System
*Coming August 2007
Visit www.maps.platts.com or call the Platts sales office at 1-800-PLATTS8
Priority code: JSUDI0707A
Visualize the electric power industry
www.powermag.com POWER
|
January 2008 60
MANAGEMENT
D
espite all the hype over the past few
years about the potential devastation
caused by large-scale baby boomer
retirements, recent studies say that age is
responsible for only 15% of U.S. workforce
attrition. According to the Department of La-
bor, in 2006 retirements shrunk headcount by
a mere 4.4%.
But heres another statistic that should
give utility executives pause: Last year,
quits rose to 19.4%up one percentage
point from 2005 and the highest rate in
many years.
In other words, if youre focusing on re-
tirements, youre ignoring nearly 80% of the
employee loss problem. But youre not alone.
Surveys report that only one in eight compa-
nies has a goal of addressing nonretirement
attrition.
Should organizations pay less attention to
aging workforce issues and more to the causes
of nonretirement departures? Not necessarily.
Why? Because every industrial organization
has unique characteristics and needs.
Management by fad
That uniqueness, however, can open the door
to unusual, unworkable, and expensive solu-
tions. Over the past two decades, fad after
fad has infected the business world. Con-
cepts such as large-scale downsizing, Y2K,
Total Quality Management, ISO 2000, Qual-
ity Circles, and e-business have swept across
the organizational landscape. Sometimes
these movements brought necessary changes
in some sectors. But few found broad interest
and long-term use.
Remember the counterintuitive efforts of
some bricks-and-mortar stalwarts to set up
e-business units during the 1990s (exempli-
fied by Time Warner letting itself be acquired
Workforce analysis:
Replacing management by fad
with management certainty
The biggest problem facing industrial managers is ensuring that theyll contin-
ue to have a skilled workforce. With so many people nearing retirement,
organizational skills are at risk, which poses a direct threat to operations.
Many companies are making big investments to capture the unique knowl-
edge and experience of graybeards before they move on. But that is just
one aspect of a far more complex issue.
By Brad Kamph, Interliance Consulting Inc.
Will your plant have qualified staff to fill all skilled jobs five years from now? Courtesy: Progress
Energy
January 2008
|
POWER 61
MANAGEMENT
by AOL), the billions spent to inoculate IT
systems against an imaginary Y2K bug, and
the reverence still being paid to the manage-
ment techniques popular in the high-flying
Enron days? In many cases, unproven man-
agement strategies and methods were imple-
mented unnecessarily. Sometimes they only
wasted time and money. In other cases, they
wreaked havoc on firms that had been very
successful.
For another example more familiar to
power engineers, lets briefly examine the
consequences of downsizing by electric utili-
ties. Turbine generator maintenance used to
be done by large in-house crews with access
to huge in-plant parts and equipment invento-
ries. A 1,000-MW plant may have had a full-
time major maintenance staff of 75 to 100,
many with decades of overhaul experience
under their toolbelts. Day-to-day mainte-
nance was carried out by another team of 25
to 35 people. With such personnel resources
on hand, outage planners had the luxury of
long lead times and slow budgeting. Man-
agement could predict easily and plan with
certainty.
Outsourcing, prompted by Wall Streets
closer attention to utilities quarterly re-
sults, radically altered maintenance and
outage planning and execution. Those big
in-house crews are now gone, replaced by
just enough people to oversee the work of
outsourcing contractors. Inventories have
shrunk, too. As a result, utilities and plants
now operate in thrall to productivity, domi-
nated by short-term planning. Long-term
projects, such as vital regional transmission
upgrades, are rarely given the priority they
deserve. The new corporate culture doesnt
quantify the effects of employee dissatisfac-
tion, which may be why more experienced
hands are quitting. No one likes work that
isnt fun anymore.
The bottom line is that management by
fad just doesnt work. Lean manufacturing
and Six Sigma techniques may work for Gen-
eral Electric, but not for smaller firms with
limited resources.
Bringing certainty to management
Engineers know that you cant control what
you cant measure. Developing future busi-
ness strategies is pointless without an ac-
curate assessment of the current business
environment. Understanding the issues is
especially critical to forward-thinking work-
force management. Here are some questions
that any utility or plant manager should be
askingand be able to answer:
How deep is my organizations knowl-
edge, and where will wholesale employee
retirements create gaps in it?
Is my firm capturing the knowledge of
senior employees long before they give
notice? If so, how? Am I confident that
the processes in place are capturing and
transferring the right kind of knowledge?
Which metrics are being used to gauge the
capability of my workforce?
Are my organizations business processes
modern and adaptable to changes in busi-
ness climate?
What kind of personnel should I be look-
ing to hire?
Are company training programs instill-
ing the skills needed to improve business
performance?
These questions can be answered by a
workforce analysis. It helps organizations
identify and quantify existing workforce
challenges, forecast future workforce needs,
and correlate them to business needs.
A workforce analysis leverages strategic
and tactical tools for isolating the existing
skills of an organization and measuring the
depth of knowledge within it. The analysis
then relates specific skills to the business rea-
sons for each performance requirement of a
job position. A workforce analysis also pro-
vides the following information:
The strengths and weaknesses of a work-
force.
Trends in attrition numbers, and their im-
pact on mission-critical business skills.
Key areas in need of training, process im-
provement, and knowledge capture.
The depth of knowledge within each job
class, and the importance of each task per-
formed by workers to achieving business
goals.
The organizational learning ratea mea-
sure of a firms ability to boost its produc-
tivity through experience and to transfer
knowledge between locations.
A map of the strategic skills and knowl-
edge gaps that have the biggest impact on
accomplishing the organizations mission.
A workforce analysis delivers exactly
what management needs to act with certainty
and precision.
Heres the first of three examples. At
one company, an analysis that correlated
the companys skill levels to its attrition
rate concluded that if nothing were done to
reduce attrition, skilled workers would be
unavailable to perform 63% of employee
tasks within five years. In this case, the rate
of skills attrition outstripped that of retire-
ments. Interliance Consulting pinpointed
the nature of the problem, identified the
most-endangered skills, and delivered to
management a tailored program for solving
the problem.
At a second company, workforce analysis
revealed a connection between the organiza-
tions learning rate and loss of skills. It found
that high attrition rates in certain departments
would reduce skill levels within those depart-
ments by 31% over five years at the current
learning rate.
At a third firm, an electric utility, the chal-
lenge was worker uncertainty. Through in-
terviews, the workforce analysis found that
the average O&M employee was less than
50% certain of his or her ability to perform
all tasks required by the position. Interliance
took this workforce analysis one step further.
After breaking down employee uncertainty
by position, the consultant delivered a report
containing the following information:
The relative levels of certainty for every
plant department and job description.
How those certainty levels would change
over time.
Which skills were most vulnerable to
loss.
The department needing the most atten-
tion.
Those results were then correlated with
statistics on the frequency and location of
the reported problem. The exercise enabled
Interliance to suggest changes in the utilitys
knowledge capture, skills development, and
process improvement initiatives.
Workforce analysis to the rescue
The product of a workforce analysis is a
business case that quantifies the value of
knowledge and skills and the cost of losing
them. Some consultants are paid hundreds of
thousands of dollars for vaguely worded and
therefore unworkable strategic solutions to
general problems involving knowledge cap-
ture, training, or business processes. By con-
trast, a workforce analysis delivers specific
proposals and rigorous analyses. In many
cases, implementing the suggested plans has
saved companies millions over time.
Another big plus of workforce analysis:
It doesnt take an eternity. Some consultants
spend years dissecting the woes of a single
production line, racking up thousands of bill-
able hours in the process. By comparison, a
typical workforce analysis costs much less
because it takes only about six weeks from
start to finish.
Brad Kamph (bkamph@interliance.com)
is president of Interliance Consulting Inc.,
a 20-year-old developer of workforce,
knowledge management, process opti-
mization, and performance measurement
strategies for energy companies.
www.powermag.com POWER
|
January 2008 62
NEW PRODUCTS
TO POWER YOUR BUSINESS
New thermal imager measures at long distances
Wahl Instruments Inc. has added a long-distance model to its line of Wahl Heat Spy thermal
imaging cameras. The model HSI3003 offers narrow-angle 9.1 x 6.8 field of view optics,
which enables detection and temperature measurement of small objects over long distances.
This affordable thermal imager is light, compact, easy to operate, and designed for hand-held
use. It also features a tripod mount for remote use.
The camera is fully radiometric and measures the temperature of every pixel. Easy Report software
allows the user to easily insert multiple images (with data) taken during a site survey to produce an
inspection report. The imager features a 160 x 120 pixel, uncooled microbolometer array, capable of
displaying high-resolution, real-time, thermal images on a bright 3.5-inch color LCD display with LED
backlight.
Users can select from among four color palettes. The instrument has a temperature range of 32F to
482F and a trigger-activated, Class II laser that precisely identifies the problem hot spot shown on
the marked center of the display. Two measurement cursors, movable anywhere in the image, provide
temperature readings at each cursor location and indicate real-time differential temperature measure-
ment between the two points anywhere along the temperature range. High-quality images can be
captured and manipulated online, or problems can be resolved on the spot. (www.palmerwahl.com)
High-speed megapixel video camera
Photron Inc., a global high-speed imaging system and
image analysis software supplier, has released Phase II
of the ultra-light-sensitive high-speed imager, the Fast-
cam SA1. The high-speed CMOS sensor technology in the
next-generation Fastcam SA1 delivers up to 5,400 frames
per second (fps) at full megapixel (1,024 x 1,024) reso-
lution and an unequalled 675,000 fps at reduced resolu-
tion. With true 12-bit resolution for extraordinary color
fidelity, microsecond global shuttering, and inter-frame
timing, the improved imager is also DC powered and fea-
tures both SDI and RS-170 video outputs for easy inte-
gration. The camera has a user-controlled variable region
of interest and also supports IRIG/GPS when precision
time stamping and synchronization are required.
The camera is available with three memory options8
GB, 16GB, or 32GBfor the most demanding imaging
applications. Features include full control via Gigabit Ethernet or, for greater flexibility, remote control via the accompanying
LCD keypad. The system is extremely intuitive and requires minimal or no operator training.
An optional particle image velocimetry facility is available to study the flow of gas in a wind-tunnel environment or to
analyze flow in fluids, such as pump cavitation. (www.photron.com)
Get accurate measurements in low-flow-rate applications
The Extended Linearity (EL) 500 Series of electromagnetic flow meters from Flow Technology
Inc. are available in line sizes from
1
8 to inch and represent the state of the art for accurate
low-flow-rate measurement in a wide range of applications. The EL 500 Series creates a unique
electromagnetic field profile, ensuring accuracy not only in turbulent flow but also during the
transitional and laminar flow regimes.
These compact meters provide extended linearity and a wide measurement range of up to
1,000:1 without the aid of linearization software. The EL 500 has a bidirectional flow capabil-
ity with no moving parts and no pressure drop. The meters cover 4F to 320F.
These meters base their operation on the Faraday Principle, by which a conductor crossing
a magnetic field generates a potential. The resultant potential is directly proportional to the
flow velocity. Connections can be supplied in Hastelloy C or titanium. The standard liner mate-
rial is PTFE. The flow meters enclosure is stainless steel.
Electronics available for the EL 500 series consist of a base transmitter with optional panel-
mounted display as well as a multiple-output converter with an integral display. Electronics
can be mounted directly on the flow meter or remotely. When the electronics are remotely
mounted the flow meter meets Ingress Protection (IP) Standard 68, making it suitable for
permanent immersion in water up to a depth of 5 feet. (www.ftimeters.com)
FOR MORE DETAILS VISIT WWW.DARATECHPLANT.COM OR CONTACT KIM ARELLANO AT
832.242.1969 EXT. 313 OR KIMA@TRADEFAIRGROUP.COM
Organized by:
Media Partners:
12775
Achieving Max
Performance with
Limited Resources.
Who Should Attend:
CEOs CTOs CIOs
Why Should You Attend:
Participate in strategic
discussions
Network with and learn from
your peers from around the world
Discover innovative ideas and
best practices
See emerging technologies
Create strategic alliances
JANUARY 28-30, 2008
WYNDHAM GRE E NSPOI NT HOT E L
HOUST ON, T E XAS
Global Interaction Technology Solutions
Lowering Risk Total Execution
POWER
|


January 2008 64
Inclusion in New Products does not imply endorsement by POWER magazine.
Wide-temperature-
range wireless data
logger
TandD Corp.s RTR-52Pt wireless data
logger uses industry standard three-
wire Pt-100 RTD (resistance tempera-
ture detector) sensors, available from
many sources. With a temperature
measurement range from 328F to
+1,100F, the RTR-52Pt is ideal for
cryogenic applications, including
liquid NO
2
. In addition, it has an
IP-64 water resistance rating.
The RTR-52Pt is compact, portable, and battery operated. Sensors are attached
using a standard three-wire screw terminal block. The unit features a large liquid
crystal display for reading current values and the device status. The RTR-52Pt can
store 8,000 readings in either one-time or endless recording mode.
This new model is compatible with any TandD RTR-5x Series of wireless data
collectors. (www.tandd.com)
Compact SCADA system
RTU features
open programming
Semaphore, a CSE Global company, has intro-
duced its Kingfisher G30 compact remote ter-
minal unit, which features open programming
and many advanced features for SCADA sys-
tem applications. The G30 RTU also extends
the full capabilities of Semaphores Kingfisher
PLUS+ product line to small SCADA system ap-
plications requiring up to 32 I/O points. Like
Kingfisher PLUS+, the G30 RTU allows open
programming in all five languages specified
by IEC 61131-3 and supports IEC 61499. An
extensive library of function blocks that in-
clude applications such as AGA flow calcula-
tions is also provided.
The Kingfisher G30 RTU introduces ad-
vanced capabilities normally found only in
much larger products into a compact RTU
that is cost-effective for small installations.
The G30 RTU has been specifically designed
to meet the needs of customers with sig-
nificantly increasing demands for processing
power, data storage, and communications ca-
pabilities.
Integral communications include Ethernet,
USB 2.0, and an on-board module that pro-
vides flexible communications options.
By employing an ARM 7 processor on an in-
telligent I/O module, the Kingfisher G30 RTU
can process inputs and outputs on a 1-ms
interval with full sequence-of-events moni-
toring. It also provides high-resolution input
acquisition, failsafe output modes, high-
speed counting, and pulse generation.
Unlike the brick style products in its
class, the Kingfisher G30 RTU uses configu-
rable modules for communications, I/O, and
AC or DC power. The modules provide users
with considerable flexibility in meeting ap-
plications requirements and enable future up-
grades. (www.cse-semaphore.com)
New IR flammable
and CO
2
gas sensor
detects hazards
The Xgard IR from Crowcon is a
new, low-cost IR flammable gas
and CO
2
sensor designed for use
in fixed-point detection systems
where conventional detectors can
prove unreliable or suffer from in-
terference or damage.
Conventional flammable gas de-
tectors based on catalytic pellis-
tors are susceptible to poisoning
in some industrial atmospheres.
This can make their readings un-
reliable and even destroy the sen-
sor altogether. The new Xgard IR is
totally immune to poisoning and
will reliably warn of gas hazards in environments that are unsuitable for other
sensor types. Infrared sensing has other benefits too. Unlike catalytic pellis-
tors, IR sensors will fail to safety, detect flammable gas in inert backgrounds,
and are not damaged by high gas concentrations.
This new IR sensor can be specified with either of two types of enclosure:
polyester-coated aluminum or 316 SS for maximum corrosion resistance in
extreme environments. The sensor, which has a life expectancy of over five
years, is a simple plug-in module that makes replacement quick and easy.
(www.crowcon.com/usa)
65 January 2008
|
POWER www.powermag.com
GE
Energy
Global Power Plant Opportunities
GE is recognized as a world leader in the design and manufacture of power plant
equipment of all types. GE power plants have been constructed in virtually every
part of the world. GE brings a wealth of experience, knowledge, expertise, and
product offerings that have consistently set the industry standard for excellence.
Available career paths include:
Project Managers
Project Engineers
Contract Managers
Project Controls Specialists
Related experience in Power Plant, Petro-Chemical,
or Process Plant Engineering and Construction.
Locations:
Schenectady, NY
Belfort, France
Norcross, GA
Dubai, UAE
Visit www.gecareers.comto reviewthe current openings or apply for a specific opportunity.
Houston, TX
Montreal, Canada
Shanghai, China
Site Managers
Proposal Engineers
Mechanical Engineers
Project Cost Engineers
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
GENERAL MANAGER
HYDRO ELECTRIC GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION
NORTHERN QUEBEC, CANADA
Our client owns and operates two 5 MW and one 10 MW Hydro-Electric Generation and
Distribution operation in Northern Quebec, Canada. They need a General Manager to supervise
the operation, inspection, and maintenance of the system, hiring, training, safety, customer
service, budget, purchasing, payroll, contract administration, etc. Liaison with Quebec Hydro and
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro authority. The successful candidate will have a minimum
of 10 years in Electrical Utility Management, should be Bilingual (English/French) and have
Post-Secondary Education in Business Management, Accounting or Engineering or equivalent
in experience. The successful candidate may commute from Montreal, Quebec City, Sept-Iles or
Labrador City. Position may be a 3 year contract or permanent position. Our client also needs an
Operations Manager for the same operation. Very competitive remuneration package.
For further information, please call or e-mail Ernie Stoakley, President,
Stoakley-Dudley Consultants Ltd.
Tel: (905) 821-3455 or 1-888-226-6685 Ext.227
stoakley@stoakley.com
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
Management Technical Contract
Nuclear Fossil Renewable T&D
Sanford Rose Associates
265 Main St. Akron OH. 44308
888-333-3828 Fax 330-762-6161
resume@SROCPower.com
Best Recruiters in Power!
Opportunities in Operations and Maintenance,
Project Engineering and Project Management,
Business and Project Development,
First-line Supervision to Executive Level Positions.
Employer pays fee. Send resumes to:
POWER PROFESSIONALS
P.O. Box 87875
Vancouver, WA 98687-7875
email: dwood@powerindustrycareers.com
(360) 260-0979 l (360) 253-5292
www.powerindustrycareers.com
dom.com
Become one of our most exciting...
Energy sources.
We are Dominion. As one of the nations leading
energy companies with over 16,800 employees and
$45.54 billion in assets, we do more than deliver the
energy that meets the demands of life. We also
develop and maximize the potential of our most
exciting energy sourcesour people.
Mechanical Engineer
Somerset, MA
Use your knowledge base of electric power
production systems and processes to support the
operation and maintenance of a coal-fired power
plant.
We are seeking a mid- to senior-level engineer to
perform a wide variety of mechanical projects,
O&M support, and assessments. Will obtain project
requirements, engineering, costs, schedules, RFPs,
construction, startup, and documentation/reporting.
O&M experience will include carrying out
equipment/system assessments, inspections, and
root-cause analysis.
Seeking a highly motivated self-starter with a BS in
engineering, 5-15 years of related experience in
power generation, and strong communication,
computer, and organizational skills. PE license
required.
Dominion offers competitive salaries and a wide
array of employee benefits. To apply for either of
these opportunities, please visit the Career section
of our website at www.dom.com/jobs/index.jsp
Dominion is committed to diversity in its
workforce. EOE, M/F/D/V.
www.powermag.com POWER
|
January 2008 66
Classied Advertising
Myla Dixon
Phone: 832-242-1969 Ext. 311 Fax: 832-251-8963
mylad@powermag.com
January 2008
|
POWER www.powermag.com 67
POWER PLANT BUYERS MART
READER SERVICE NUMBER 206
READER SERVICE NUMBER 207
POWER
EQUIPMENT CO.
444 Carpenter Avenue, Wheeling, IL 60090
wabash
24 / 7 EMERGENCY SERVICE
BOILERS
20,000 - 400,000 #/Hr.
DIESEL & TURBINE GENERATORS
50 - 25,000 KW
GEARS & TURBINES
25 - 4000 HP
WE STOCK LARGE INVENTORIES OF:
Air Pre-Heaters Economizers Deaerators
Pumps Motors Fuel Oil Heating & Pump Sets
Valves Tubes Controls Compressors
Pulverizers Rental Boilers & Generators
847-541-5600 FAX: 847-541-1279
WEB SITE: www.wabashpower.com
FOR SALE/RENT
READER SERVICE NUMBER 204
READER SERVICE NUMBER 205
Need a Thorough Mix?
Ash, coal, sludges, what do You need to mix?
Get a thorough mix with:
Pugmill Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 60
Columbia, TN 38402 USA
ph: 931/388-0626 fax: 931/380-0319
www.pugmillsystems.com
READER SERVICE NUMBER 203
Norm Harty - The First and Last Word in Professional Dynamiting,
serving you since 1964. We have pioneered, perfected and proven
the methods of explosive cleaning the worst of s\lag or ash out in
a matter of hoursin all boiler areas. We specialize in Electric
Utility work and have over 4000 jobs to our credit. Call the
NUMBER ONE COMPANY for the quickest response and most
efcient job for your emergency needs and scheduled outages.
N.B. Harty General Contractors, Inc.
Phone: 573-624-4645 or 573-624-4588

Fax: 573-624-4589
E-mail: norm@nbharty.com

www.nbharty.com
READER SERVICE NUMBER 202 READER SERVICE NUMBER 200
George H. Bodman
Pres. / Technical Advisor
Ofce 1-800-286-6069
Ofce (281) 359-4006
PO Box 5758 E-mail: blrclgdr@aol.com
Kingwood, TX 77325-5758 Fax (281) 359-4225
GEORGE H. BODMAN, INC.
Chemical cleaning advisory services for
boilers and balance of plant systems
BoilerCleaningDoctor.com
READER SERVICE NUMBER 201
NEED CABLE? FROM STOCK
Copper Power to 69kv; Bare ACSR & AAC Conductor;
Underground UD-P & URD, PILC-AEIC; Interlock Armor to
35kv; Copper Instrumentation & Control; Thermocouple
BASIC WIRE & CABLE
Fax (773) 539-3500 Ph. (800) 227-4292
E-Mail: basicwire@basicwire.com
WEB SITE: www.basicwire.com
www.powermag.com POWER
|
January 2008 68 www.powermag.com POWER
|
January 2008 68
READER SERVICE NUMBER 209
READER SERVICE NUMBER 208
READER SERVICE NUMBER 214
STGUs - 15 MW GE condensing 850#
steam pressure 3/60/13,800 volts -
GTGUs - 20 MW Brown Boveri oil red cheap
BOILERS - 200,000#/HR Combustion Engineering
package - 600# steam pressure - gas red
- 25,000#/HR ABCO - 150# steam pressure -
natural gas and propane red
We buy and sell transformers, boilers, steam
turbine generator units, gas turbine generator
units, diesel engine generator units, etc.
INTERNATIONAL POWER MACHINERY CO.
50 Public Square - Terminal Tower, Suite 834
Cleveland, OH 44113 U.S.A.
PH 216-621-9514/FAX 216-621-9515
Email: kernx06@sbcglobal.net Web: www.intlpwr.com
READER SERVICE NUMBER 213
POWER PLANT
BUYERS MART
Demolition of Electric Power Generating
Plant and Paper Mill in Garfeld, NJ.
4 Steam Turbine Generators (GE & Westing-
house) and all related equipment: transformers,
pumps, panels, remaining switchgear, 200+ elec
motors (20 to 500+ HP, etc, etc. Walk-thru, make
an offer sale, Jan 30th.
RSVP jacss@rcn.com
READER SERVICE NUMBER 211
CONDENSER OR GENERATOR AIR COOLER TUBE PLUGS
THE CONKLIN SHERMAN COMPANY, INC.
Easy to install, saves time and money.
ADJUSTABLE PLUGS- all rubber with brass insert. Expand it,
install it, reverse action for tight t.
PUSH PULL PLUGS-are all rubber, simply push it in.
Sizes 0.530 O.D. to 2.035 O.D.
Tel: (203) 881-0190 Fax:(203)881-0178
E-mail: Conklin59@aol.com www.conklin-sherman.com
OVER ONE MILLION PLUGS SOLD
READER SERVICE NUMBER 210
READER SERVICE NUMBER 212
August 2007
|
POWER www.powermag.com 69 January 2008
|
POWER www.powermag.com 69 August 2007
|
POWER www.powermag.com 69 January 2008
|
POWER www.powermag.com 69
POWER PLANT BUYERS MART
<6ppmNOx
With CRI Catalyst/Shell DeNOx
components
FIeld Installation
On package boilers to 250,000 lb/hr
Simple Operation
No special facilities, permits, controls
or modifications required
Low Pressure Drop
2" WC means no fan changes
Call 1-800-227-1966
1-510-490-7100
Or Visit: www.nationwideboiler.com
CataStak

Brings Ultra Low NOx to package boilers


Rentals
Leases
Sales
San Francisco Baton Rouge Birmingham Calgary Charlotte Chicago Cleveland
Hamilton, Ont Houston Philadelphia Seattle
READER SERVICE NUMBER 218
Boiler Cleaning Professionals
Explosive Deslagging Services Camera Assisted On-line Blasting Detonating Cord and Overhead
Hazard Blasting Introducing On-line Video Inspection/Recording of Bundle, Pendant and Wall Deposits
Grit-Blasting Electrostatic Precipitator Field Cleaning UT and Boiler/Vessel Overlay Preparation
On-line Radiant Recovery with Shatter Blast Bead Impact Deslagging
Big Water High Pressure Washing Air Pre-heater Baskets, Furnace + Boiler Washing
Heat Exchanger/Condenser Hydro-Laze, Pipeline Cleaning
Vacuum Services, Wet + Dry Fly Ash, Sludges, Silo + Vessel Evacuation
Number One In Safety and Compliance. Privately Owned and Operated
24/7 Emergency Response From Many US Locations
800-866-6247 www.naisinc.com
e-mail: naisinc@naisinc.com
READER SERVICE NUMBER 217
Combustion, Energy
and
Steam Specialists Ltd.
Surplus Power Plant
Specialists in the Valuation,
Marketing, Sourcing, and
Relocation of Surplus Power
Plant & Auxiliary Equipment
Tel: +44 (0)1856 851177 Fax: +44 (0)1856 851199
E.mail: enquiries@cess.co.uk Web: www.cess.co.uk
READER SERVICE NUMBER 216 READER SERVICE NUMBER 215
CFB Boiler
Steaming Capacity: 700,000 lb/hr of
superheated steam
Pressure: 1250 psig
Temperature: 1000 F at main steam
stop outlet valve
Feedstock: PRB Coal
Fabrication is partially complete.
Reduce your project schedule by
purchasing the rights to this CFB Boiler.
For complete details please contact:
Keith Schick, 720-945-0641
For Sale
delivers headline
news for power
generators weekly
Subscribe now to get
your free subscription
to the electronic
newsletter from
POWER magazine. Just
visit our web site
www.powermag.com
to subscribe.
Start your free
subscription today!
READER SERVICE NUMBER 219
READER SERVICE NUMBER 222
POWER
Classifed {klas-uh-fahyd},
adj. The designated part of
a publication that contains
advertisements belonging to a
specifc group or category.
Dene your
advertising in
POWER
Recruit quality professionals
Buy and sell products
and services
Showcase your products
List RFPs and Renewable
Supply Credits
To designate your space,
contact Myla Dixon
832-242-1969
mylad@powermag.com
www.powermag.com POWER
|
January 2008 70
PRODUCT Showcase
READER SERVICE NUMBER 223
READER SERVICE NUMBER 220 READER SERVICE NUMBER 221
ADVERTISERS INDEX
Enter reader service numbers on the FREE Product Information Source card in this issue.
Page
Reader
Service
Number
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
Pages 6570. To place a classified ad, contact:
Myla Dixon, POWER magazine, 832-242-1969, mylad@tradefairgroup.com.
January 2008
|
POWER www.powermag.com 71
Africa Power Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
www.terrapinn.com/2008/powerza
AIG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35. . . . . . . . 22
www.aig.com
ARA Asia Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
www.coalgenchina.com
Ashross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. . . . . . . . 13
www.ashross.com
Babcock & Wilcox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cover 4. . . . . . . . . 3
www.babcock.com
Babcock Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25. . . . . . . . 19
www.babcockpower.com
Benetech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21. . . . . . . . 17
www.benetechusa.com
Cablesafe Hooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. . . . . . . . . 8
www.cablesafe.com
CD-Adapco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16. . . . . . . . 15
www.cd-adapco.com
Columbus McKinnon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. . . . . . . . . 6
www.cmindustrial.com
Conoco Lubricants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cover 2. . . . . . . . . 1
www.lubes.conoco.com
Emerson/Rosemount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27. . . . . . . . 20
www.raihome.com
ExxonMobil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. . . . . . . . . 5
www.exxonmobil.com
HACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . . . 10
www.hach.com/power
Hitachi Power Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cover 3. . . . . . . . . 2
www.hitachi.com
Magnetrol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . . 9
www.magnetrol.com
Mitsubishi Power Systems, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-19. . . . . . . . 16
www.mpshq.com
Orion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23. . . . . . . . 18
www.orioninstruments.com
Power Systems Mfg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . 4
www.powermfg.com
Roberts & Schaeffer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. . . . . . . . . 7
www.r-s.com
Schmidt Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . 12
E-mail: schmidtind@aol.com
Siemens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31. . . . . . . . 21
www.siemens.com/powergeneration
Turbine Energy Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. . . . . . . . 14
E-mail: sales@turbineenergysolutions.com
Zolo Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . 11
www.zolotech.com
www.powermag.com POWER
|
January 2008 72
COMMENTARY
U.S. nuclear powers time
has comeagain
By Bob Percopo
I
n the U.S. today, there are continual discussions about en-
ergy independence, energy security, and ways to slow climate
change. But meeting the nations projected 40% increase in
electricity demand by 2030, while reducing overall power plant
CO
2
emissions, will require much more than talk.
During the 1990s, American utilities increased their gas-fired
generating capacity because they believed that gas would always
be cheap and plentiful. Neither assumption proved true. At this
years G-8 Summit of the worlds economic and military powers,
President Bush committed the U.S. to develop a voluntary car-
bon abatement program, so developing new coal- and gas-fueled
plants will be challenging. On one hand, the U.S. is the Saudi
Arabia of coal, with more than 250 years of reserves; on the other
hand, burning coal releases twice as much CO
2
as burning natural
gas. Meanwhile, natural gas continues to become more expensive
and scarce in America.
Oil and gas imports by industrialized countries have weakened
their economies due to the increasing prices of those imports.
CO
2
abatement will create a greater drain on the West and Japan,
since they are the ones preparing to pay for it. Capturing and
sequestering CO
2
will increase the capital cost of a clean fossil-
fueled plant by 25% to 50%. Chinaabout to become the worlds
largest carbon emitterhas determined that carbon abatement
is an issue for wealthy countries, and therefore not its priority. In
the U.S., conventional coal plants, which fueled 49% of electric-
ity generation in 2006, produced 2,121 million metric tons of CO
2

that year. Natural gas, which fueled 20% of energy generation,
produced 1,169 million metric tons. In stark contrast, nuclear
generation has no carbon footprint.
Land and cost advantages, too
The average nuclear plant of 1,000 MW requires 2.3 square miles
of space. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, a wind farm
of comparable capacity, which also produces zero CO
2
, would oc-
cupy an area of 235 square miles.
This article is not meant to denigrate renewables, coal, or
natural gasall have a place in the generation mix. But renew-
ables role will be limited by land requirements and a shortage of
dependable resources and suitable sites. Development of fossil-
fueled plants will be limited by carbon caps.
Nuclear generations operating costs also give it an advantage.
If the cost of uranium were to double, the production costs of
nuclear plants would increase by only 7%. The doubling of the
cost of natural gas has increased the per-kWh cost of gas plants
by about 70%. Additionally, uranium is available from stable U.S.
alliesmost notably Canada and Australia.
U.S. positioned to lose
While the U.S. ponders the economics of building as many as
30 new nuclear plants, China, India, Russia, Brazil, Bulgaria,
Romania, and others are planning and executing aggressive
nuclear plant construction programs. Unfortunately, the U.S.,
Western Europe, and Japan are acting as if they have a choice
about increasing nuclear power production. The only country
with a different attitude is France, the poster child for success
in nuclear power on every frontdevelopment, O&M, fuel re-
processing, and safety. France gets 80% of its electricity from
nuclear reactors.
While the G-8 nations endlessly debate the risks of melt-
downs, spent-fuel storage, plutonium proliferation, and terror-
ist attacks on nuclear plants, developing economies are rushing
to add more reactors or join the nuclear generation club. If
its procrastination continues, the West will paint itself into a
corner and suffer the costs of energy dependence and carbon
sequestration.
Nuclear power is not an immature technology like integrated
gasification combined-cycle generation. Over its 40-year history,
nuclear generation has improved its efficiency from 50% to more
than 90%. Its two major perceived negatives are safety and the
need to manage spent fuels. Safety concerns naturally arose after
a partial core meltdown at the Chernobyl plant in 1986. But the
Chernobyl unit had virtually no containment. Modern reactors are
housed in containment vessels, and many new units are designed
to withstand a direct hit from a fully fueled aircraft.
With respect to spent fuels, most Americans believe that
somewhere theres an area the size of Texas filled with barrels
of oozing radioactive waste. However, all the spent fuel from
40 years of reactor operations in the U.S. would fit in a football
field 15 feet deep. If the U.S. were to recycle its nuclear waste,
the volume would shrink to that of one end zone 10 feet deep.
Compare those numbers to the volume of a single ton of CO
2
at
sea level (60 feet by 20 feet by 16.3 feet). The average 250-MW
coal plant emits 1.7 million metric tons of CO
2
every year.
Economics and common sense dictate less debate and more
action. Worldwide, there are four reactor manufacturers and only
one supplier of specialty steel, and they sell their products on a
first-come, first-served basis. Arriving too late for lunch will
have its consequences for the U.S.
Bob Percopo is executive vice president of AIG Global Marine
and Energy (www.aigglobalmarineandenergy.com).
If its procrastination continues,
the West will paint itself
into a corner and suffer
the costs of energy dependence
and carbon sequestration.
ONE HITACHI...
ONE HITACHI...
BOILERS NUCLEAR SCR TURBINES
AQCS
www.hitachi.us/hpsa power.info@hal.hitachi.com
Hitachi Power Systems America, Ltd. 645 Martinsville Road Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 Tel: 908.605.2800
... vertically integrated to meet your
total power and environmental generation needs.
CIRCLE 2 ON READER SERVICE CARD
We call these tangible
renewable energy credits.
Consider biomass as an energy source for electric power production. Energy from biomass is dependable,
dispatchable and readily available. In addition, biomass is CO
2
neutral and can reduce plant emissions.
Diversify your fuel portfolio and earn renewable energy credits.
Call 1-800-BABCOCK or visit www.babcock.com.
2007 The Babcock & Wilcox Company. All rights reserved.
CIRCLE 3 ON READER SERVICE CARD

You might also like