Vol. 156 • No.

8 • August 2012

2012 Plant of the Year:

AES Coal-Hybrid Plant in Chile

Marmaduke Award: Combined

Solar Technologies Plant
Smart Grid Award: SDG&E
Flow Control Chutes Reduce
Fugitive Coal Dust
Small, Beautiful mPower SMR
Clear the MATS hurdle.

Preparing your plant or fleet to meet the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) rule may
seem like a challenge. B&W makes it easier. We provide advanced technologies and upgrades
to reduce emissions of particulate, HCl, mercury and other air toxics. Contact us today for
customized environmental compliance solutions.

www.babcock.com/MATS
1-800-BABCOCK (222-2625)
Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc.

© 2012 Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

CIRCLE 1 ON READER SERVICE CARD

 e n e rgy
Established 1882 • Vol. 156 • No. 8 August 2012 Integrated Maintenance
Solutions for the Power Industry

26

PROFESSIONAL & TECHNICAL

ON THE COVER SUPPORT SERVICES
Our 2012 Plant of the Year, the AES Gener Angamos coal-fired plant, looks cool in this night shot,
but it sits in a hot, dry Chilean desert. That locale made a unique hybrid design—incorporating a
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
seawater desalination system and battery energy storage—a necessity. Courtesy: AES
INTEGRATED MAINTENANCE
• Turbine Services
COVER STORY: 2012 PLANT OF THE YEAR • Valve Services
26 AES Gener’s Angamos Power Plant Earns POWER’s Highest Honor • Specialty Welding
The need for fuel diversity to supply reliable power to Chile’s important copper-mining
industry was a major reason that independent power producer AES developed this
innovative hybrid-coal power plant. The plant’s location in a desert next to the ocean
required the international project team to develop creative solutions to basic design
requirements. As a result, Angamos incorporates South America’s first seawater cool-
ing towers and is partnered with a battery energy storage system.

SPECIAL REPORTS
2012 MARMADUKE AWARD
34 Combined Solar Technologies’ Hybrid Plant: Using Wastewater and Olive Pits
to Produce Clean Water and Clean Energy
What may seem like a quirky, one-off application of using biomass to generate both
power and produce clean water could actually have broad application. For example,
treating wastewater to reduce total dissolved solids will soon become important in
regions where “frack water” is being discharged from gas fracking operations.

2012 SMART GRID AWARD

38 Customers Motivate San Diego Gas & Electric’s All-Inclusive Smart Grid Vision
San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) is one of the largest utilities in the U.S. and is
located in one of the most challenging electricity markets. Those are just two reasons
this utility has made, and continues to make, its mark as one of the most compre-
hensive smart grid ecosystem developers. From accommodating record numbers of
plug-in electric vehicles and rooftop solar installations to deploying grid automation
technologies and microgrids, SDG&E provides a model for how to modernize the
grid while keeping costs under control.

Connect with POWER

If you like POWER magazine, follow us online (POWERmagazine) for timely industry news
and comments.
Nuclear • Fossil • Wind • Hydro
Become our fan on Facebook Follow us on Twitter
www.bhienergy.com
Join the LinkedIn POWER magazine Group 800.225.0385
CIRCLE 2 ON READER SERVICE CARD
|
August 2012 POWER www.powermag.com 1
 48 FEATURES
PLANT DESIGN
48 Flow Control Chutes Reduce Fugitive Coal Dust
By now, everyone should understand why controlling coal dust in power plants
is of paramount importance. This article examines one recommended way of
controlling that dangerous dust. It details the features, benefits, and limitations
of flow control chutes and reports on the test results of a good application of
this technology.

ENVIRONMENTAL
58 New Environmental Rules Keep Pressure on Coal-Fired Generation
Here’s your guide to the latest set of environmental regulations governing coal-fired
power plants and what they mean, plus suggested ways to comply with them, in-
cluding projects that increase plant efficiency.

64 NUCLEAR
64 Small Is the New Big: The B&W Small Modular Reactor
Many in the U.S. nuclear industry are holding their breath and hoping that the new
generation of small modular reactors (SMRs) save the day for the industry. Our first
in a series of detailed looks at each SMR offering provides the low-down on what
appears to be the model most likely to reach commercialization first.

70 2011 Nuclear Industry Scorecard

Aside from Japan, performance metrics for nuclear power worldwide held their
own or improved slightly last year. We look at the numbers for existing units and list
the units under construction worldwide.

75 Too Dumb to Meter, Part 3

Whether you love nuclear power or hate it, you’ll find something interesting in our
latest installment of this book by Contributing Editor Kennedy Maize.

DEPARTMENTS
10
SPEAKING OF POWER
6 Tactical Advantage
GLOBAL MONITOR
8 Major Developments for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells
10 The Age of the Mammoth Wind Turbine Blade
12 THE BIG PICTURE: Mercury Regulations Rising
14 Tubular Turbine Hydropower Plant Comes Online
14 New Gas-Fired Technology Gains Backers
15 POWER Digest
FOCUS ON O&M
16 Breaking the Cycle of Reactive Maintenance
18 Safety Measurement: Culture Shaping or Failure Avoidance?
22 Women in Power Event Provides Networking Opportunities
More at
www.powermag.com LEGAL & REGULATORY
For all you Marmaduke fans, a reprint of 24 Proposed Cooling Water Rule’s Ripple Effects
By Angela Neville, JD
“Marmy’s Happy New Year” will be associ-
ated with this issue online. You’ll also find
78 NEW PRODUCTS
a Powerpoint supplement to our Smart Grid
Award story that details some of the work COMMENTARY
San Diego Gas & Electric is doing. 84 Wind Energy Blown Away by Natural Gas
By Kimball Rasmussen, president and CEO, Deseret Power

2 www.powermag.com |
POWER August 2012
 35,000 hours.
Zero varnish.

In the battle against time and varnish, next-generation Diamond Class® Turbine Oil is a clear winner, proven to resist varnish
formations for more than 35,000 hours in lab tests. Also monitored in severe-duty turbines in power plants in Texas and South
Carolina, reformulated Diamond Class Turbine Oil has produced no varnish deposits after 15,000-plus hours of continuous service.
And counting. Get long-lasting turbine protection. Call 877.445.9198 or visit phillips66lubricants.com to learn more.

© 2012 Phillips 66 Company. Phillips 66, Conoco, 76, Diamond Class and their respective logos are registered trademarks
of Phillips 66 Company in the U.S.A. and other countries. T3-TRI-14280B
CIRCLE 3 ON READER SERVICE CARD
 EDITORIAL & PRODUCTION Visit POWER on the web: www.powermag.com
Editor-in-Chief: Dr. Robert Peltier, PE Subscribe online at: www.submag.com/sub/pw
480-820-7855, editor@powermag.com
Managing Editor: Dr. Gail Reitenbach POWER (ISSN 0032-5929) is published monthly by Access
Executive Editor: David Wagman Intelligence, LLC, 4 Choke Cherry Road, Second Floor, Rock-
Senior Editor: Angela Neville, JD ville, MD 20850. Periodicals Postage Paid at Rockville, MD
Gas Technology Editor: Thomas Overton, JD 20850-4024 and at additional mailing offices.
Senior Writer: Sonal Patel
European Reporter: Charles Butcher POSTMASTER: Send address changes to POWER, P.O. Box
Contributing Editors: Mark Axford; David Daniels; Steven F. Greenwald; Jeffrey P. Gray; 2182, Skokie, IL 60076. Email: powermag@halldata.com.
Jim Hylko; Kennedy Maize; Dick Storm; Dr. Justin Zachary
Graphic Designer: Joanne Moran Canadian Post 40612608. Return Undeliverable Canadian
Production Manager: Tony Campana, tcampana@accessintel.com Addresses to: PitneyBowes, P.O. BOX 25542, London, ON
Marketing Director: Jamie Reesby N6C 6B2.
Marketing Manager: Jennifer Brady
Subscriptions: Available at no charge only for qualified ex-
ecutives and engineering and supervisory personnel in elec-
ADVERTISING SALES tric utilities, independent generating companies, consulting
Sales Manager: Matthew Grant engineering firms, process industries, and other manufactur-
Southern & Eastern U.S./Eastern Canada/ ing industries. All others in the U.S. and U.S. possessions:
Latin America: Matthew Grant, 713-343-1882, mattg@powermag.com $87 for one year, $131 for two years. In Canada: US$92 for
Central & Western U.S./Western Canada: Dan Gentile, 512-918-8075, dang@powermag.com one year, US$148 for two years. Outside U.S. and Canada:
Inside Sales: Amanda Wisian, 713-343-4018, awisian@powermag.com US$197 for one year, US$318 for two years (includes air
UK/Benelux/Scandinavia/Germany/ mail delivery). Payment in full or credit card information is
Switzerland/Austria/Eastern Europe: Petra Trautes, +49 69 5860 4760, ptrautes@accessintel.com required to process your order. Subscription request must
Italy/France/Spain/Portugal: Ferruccio Silvera, +39 (0) 2 284 6716, ferruccio@silvera.it include subscriber name, title, and company name. For new
Japan: Katsuhiro Ishii, +81 3 5691 3335, amskatsu@dream.com or renewal orders, call 847-763-9509. Single copy price: $25.
India: Faredoon B. Kuka, 91 22 5570 3081/82, kuka@rmamedia.com The publisher reserves the right to accept or reject any order.
South Korea: Peter Kwon, +82 2 416 2876, +82 2 2202 9351, peterhkwon@hanmail.net Allow four to twelve weeks for shipment of the first issue on
Thailand: Nartnittha Jirarayapong, +66 (0) 2 237-9471, +66 (0) 2 237 9478 subscriptions. Missing issues must be claimed within three
Malaysia: Tony Tan, +60 3 706 4176, +60 3 706 4177, nmedia@tm.net.my months for the U.S. or within six months outside U.S.
Classified Advertising
Diane Hammes, 713-343-1885, dianeh@powermag.com For customer service and address changes, call 847-763-
POWER Buyers’ Guide Sales 9509 or fax 832-242-1971 or e-mail powermag@halldata
Diane Hammes, 713-343-1885, dianeh@powermag.com .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.
AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT
Audience Development Director: Sarah Garwood
Photocopy Permission: Where necessary, permission is
Fulfillment Manager: George Severine
granted by the copyright owner for those registered with
the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive,
CUSTOMER SERVICE
Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400, www.copyright.com, to
For subscriber service: powermag@halldata.com, 800-542-2823 or 847-763-9509
photocopy any article herein, for commercial use for the flat
Electronic and Paper Reprints: Wright’s Media, sales@wrightsmedia.com, 877-652-5295
fee of $2.50 per copy of each article, or for classroom use
List Sales: Statlistics, Jen Felling, j.felling@statlistics.com, 203-778-8700
for the flat fee of $1.00 per copy of each article. Send pay-
All Other Customer Service: 713-343-1887
ment to the CCC. Copying for other than personal or internal
reference use without the express permission of TradeFair
BUSINESS OFFICE Group Publications is prohibited. Requests for special per-
TradeFair Group Publications, 11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite 690, Houston, TX 77042
mission or bulk orders should be addressed to the publisher
Publisher: Brian K. Nessen, 713-343-1887, briann@tradefairgroup.com
at 11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite 690, Houston, TX 77042.
President: Sean Guerre
ISSN 0032-5929.

ACCESS INTELLIGENCE, LLC Executive Offices of TradeFair Group Publications: 11000

4 Choke Cherry Road, 2nd Floor, Rockville, MD 20850 Richmond Avenue, Suite 690, Houston, TX 77042. Copyright
301-354-2000 • www.accessintel.com 2012 by TradeFair Group Publications. All rights reserved.
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
Vice President/Corporate Controller: Gerald Stasko

4 www.powermag.com |
POWER August 2012
 SPEAKING OF POWER
Tactical Advantage
three-judge panel of the U.S.
A Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit on June 26 unanimously
rejected all pending legal challenges
against the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency’s (EPA’s) interpretation of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) that allows the
agency to regulate greenhouse gases
(GHGs). What is the EPA’s future strat-
egy in its war on coal?
The court’s ruling went against 90-
some legal challenges, consolidated into
four separate lawsuits, claiming the EPA
erred in the science used to develop the
Endangerment Finding and in its inter-
pretation of the CAA. The court found
that the EPA was “neither arbitrary nor
capricious” in preparing the Endanger-
ment Finding and that the agency was
“unambiguously correct” in its interpre-
tation of the CAA giving it the power to
regulate GHGs. In boxing, this is called
a technical knock-out.
Comments on the final Carbon Pollu-
tion Standard (CPS) were due June 25.
This rule sets a GHG new source per-
formance standard (NSPS) at 1,000 lb/
MWh CO2e, roughly equal to emissions
from a gas-fired combined cycle plant.
An average coal plant in the U.S. emits
roughly 1,800 lb/MWh. Sequestering
the excess CO2 emissions is also an op-
tion under the CPS, although not prac-
tical, because the technology is still
unproven at the scale required. The CPS
is a de facto ban on the construction
of new coal plants. Another barrier to
new coal plants: CAA Prevention of Sig-
nificant Deterioration and Title V permit
regulations for GHGs became effective
in January 2011 for facilities that emit
100,000 tons per year or more of CO2e or
facilities that increase their CO2e emis-
sions by 75,000 tons per year.
Tactical Advantage
The CPS specifically exempts modified
coal-fired plants from meeting the new
CO2e performance standard, even though
Section 111 of the CAA requires modified
sources to be regulated as “new sources.”
Section 111(a) defines a “new source”
6 www.powermag.com
as “any stationary source, the construc-
tion, or modification of the plant” that
is regulated. A modification is defined
as any physical change in the plant that
increases emissions, which now includes
GHGs. Expect existing coal-fired plants
to be brought under the CPS post-elec-
tion, despite recent EPA protestations to
the contrary.
An image of the trap being set for the
power industry is now coming into view.
Plant owners must pay close attention to
the impact that physical environmental
upgrades have on increasing CO2e emis-
sions. Adding a new air quality control
system (AQCS) to a plant, such as a selec-
tive catalytic reduction or flue gas desul-
furization system, will reduce overall plant
power production (the draft GHG rules use
overall plant-level emissions), mostly due
to the increased auxiliary power required
to operate the AQCS equipment. Reduced
plant efficiency increases the CO2e pro-
duced per MWh. Meeting the Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), Utility MACT,
and the rest of the pending rules being
spawned by the EPA will only further re-
duce plant operating efficiency, producing
still more CO2e emissions per MWh.
Master Plan at Work
I believe that the EPA expects, once the
massive AQCS upgrades required by CSAPR
and Utility MACT are complete, that many
plants will produce sufficient “modified
emissions” to become “new emission”
plants, requiring compliance with the CPS,
as newly interpreted. Compliance with a
new coal combustion residuals rule, Clean
Water Act Section 316(b) updates, and
delayed ozone rules that are expected to
be released after the election will also in-
crease CO2 emissions. The similarities with
the judicial history of the New Source Re-
view (NSR) program, which surely inspired
this tactic, are uncanny.
Ironically, the designation of “new
emission” plants can only occur after
owners’ investment of billions of dollars
for new AQCS equipment to remove criteria
pollutants required by the CSAPR, Utility
MACT Rule, and the like.
Recall that plant owners have been
self-reporting data on plant modifications
since the 1970s by virtue of the NSR, CO2
emissions since Jan. 1, 1995, and further
CO2 records since October 2009. With this
information, the EPA could easily sepa-
rate out the “new emissions” soon after
new AQCS and other compliance equip-
ment enters service and quickly identify
self-reporting CPS offenders.
The EPA could then force immedi-
ate coal plant retirements when the full
weight of the Department of Justice is ap-
plied to a CPS infraction. Much like NSR
infractions, I would expect these infrac-
tions to be “negotiated” plant closures in
order to achieve much short-term gain for
little long-term legal pain. There is ample
legal precedent from other industries that
establishes a “modified emission” as a
“new emission,” after plant upgrades have
been completed. In those cases, the EPA
has enforced the NSPS rather than grant-
ing waivers.
Coordinated Attack Imminent
The EPA, by staunchly defending a
three-year compliance schedule for the
CSAPR and Utility MACT, is expecting
that most AQCS construction will be
completed during the next presidential
term, providing just enough time to hit
existing plants with a CPS citation for
their “new emissions.” Those citations,
much like the NSR citations, will then
be in the Justice Department, outside
the reach of a new president. President
Obama’s 2008 prediction of bankrupting
utilities that rely on coal-fired genera-
tion could then become reality during a
second term and beyond.
This war on coal strategy assumes three
independent events will occur: pending
court challenges to the EPA rules will
eventually be dismissed, the passive re-
sponse by Congress to the EPA’s actions
continues, and President Obama is re-
elected. The courts will determine the
first; you will decide the others in about
three months. ■
—Dr. Robert Peltier, PE is POWER’s
editor-in-chief.
|
POWER August 2012
GE
Measurement & Control

Take a walk with us.

With improved ergonomics for faster and easier walk-around data collection, GE’s Bently Nevada*
line introduces the SCOUT series, an amazing new lineup of portable vibration analyzers.
Based on a design with a proven track record of quality and innovation, the SCOUT platform has been
engineered from the ground up to deliver better reliability, accuracy, and usability. Its powerful combination
of intuitive operation, ease of use, up-to-the-minute data collection, and outstanding storage capacity
ensures a premium return on investment and one of the industry’s lowest total costs of ownership.
SCOUT portables bring our industry-leading Bently Nevada condition monitoring expertise to the world of
portable data collection and analysis. Backed by the powerful Ascent* software platform, they can be used
in conjunction with other Bently Nevada technologies to provide dependable, efficient, and cost-effective
condition monitoring across your entire plant.
Portable data collection has never been easier. Visit our website at:
www.ge-mcs.com/scout

*Trademark of the General Electric Company.

CIRCLE 5 ON READER SERVICE CARD

Major Developments for Solid Oxide
Fuel Cells
Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs), which oxidize a fuel to produce
electricity, have received much attention of late for the technol-
ogy’s myriad benefits, including high efficiency, long-term stabil-
ity, fuel flexibility, and low carbon emissions—all at a relatively
low cost. They have been used to date in a number of applications,
including as auxiliary power units in vehicles and for stationary
power generation with capacities ranging from 100 W to 2 MW.
Their high operating temperatures—between about 1,100F and
1,800F—make them suitable for applications with heat engine
energy recovery devices or to increase overall fuel efficiency at
combined heat and power plants. In May and June, SOFC research-
ers announced three significant achievements.
Reaching for 60% Efficiency
In a study published in May’s issue of the Journal of Power
Sources, scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) say they have developed
a small, 2-kW SOFC system that achieves 57% efficiency—much
higher than the 30% to 50% efficiencies conventionally reported
for systems of similar size—that could offer a “viable option of
highly efficient, localized power generation,” according to Vin-
cent Sprenkle, a coauthor of the study and chief engineer of
PNNL’s SOFC development program.
As PNNL explains, SOFCs—and other fuel cells—are like bat-
teries in that they use anodes, cathodes, and electrolytes to pro-
duce power. But unlike batteries, which stop working when they
use up their reactive materials, fuel cells can continuously make
electricity if they have a constant fuel supply. SOCFs offer the
added advantage of being able to run on a variety of fuels, in-
cluding natural gas, biogas, hydrogen, and liquid fuels.
SOFCs are typically made of up ceramic materials that form
three layers: anode, cathode, and electrolyte. As air is pumped up
against the outer layer—the cathode—oxygen from the air be-
comes a negatively charged ion, O2-, where the cathode and inner
1. New channel of innovation. A new small-scale solid oxide
fuel cell (SOFC) system developed by Pacific Northwest National Labo-
ratory that uses methane as fuel promises efficiency of up to 57%,
much higher than the 30% to 50% reported for other systems its size.
The SOFC uses microchannel technology and two unusual processes:
external steam reforming and fuel recycling. Source: PNNL
CH4
800C
SOFC
stack
Steam
reformer
Heat & steam
“Enriched” SOFC fuel gas
8 www.powermag.com
electrolyte meet. The ion moves through the electrolyte to reach
the final layer—the anode—where it reacts with a fuel and pro-
duces electricity and byproducts of carbon dioxide and steam.
PNNL scientists claim that SOFCs can convert up to 60% of the
chemical energy in fuel into electricity, making them much more
efficient than the combustion engines of portable generators,
which only convert 18%. Rather than focusing on larger systems,
Sprenkle and his PNNL colleagues have centered their research on
smaller systems, which they say could be placed closer to power
users and nix transmission losses. The pilot system they built and
tested generates about 2 kW of electricity and has been designed
to be scaled up to between 100 kW and 250 kW.
The lab-built SOFC system uses external steam reforming (Fig-
ure 1), a process that mixes steam with methane. The reaction
of these two components forms carbon monoxide and hydrogen,
intermediate products that then react with the oxygen at the
fuel cell’s anode. Although steam reforming has been used with
fuel cells before, external steam reforming, which completes the
initial reactions between steam and fuel outside the fuel cell,
avoids compromising the ceramic layers with the use of uneven
temperatures.
The process instead uses a heat exchanger to move hot gas ex-
pelled as a byproduct of the reaction inside the fuel cell to warm
up cooler incoming gas to temperatures needed for the reaction
taking place inside the fuel cell.
PNNL’s SOFC system is more efficient, the scientists say, because
it uses a lab-developed microchannel technology: Instead of hav-
ing just one wall that separates the two gases, PNNL’s microchan-
nel heat exchangers have multiple walls created by a series of tiny
looping channels that are narrower than a paper clip and which
increase the surface area, allowing more heat to be transferred.
Little additional pressure is needed to move the gas through the
looping channels. Efficiency is also boosted because the system
uses the exhaust (made up of steam and heat byproducts coming
from the anode) to maintain the steam-reforming process.
2. Triplets. Under the umbrella of the New Energy and Industrial
Technology Development Organization, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
said it would begin developing basic technologies for a triple combined
cycle power generation system integrating solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC)
and a gas turbine combined cycle (GTCC) power generation system.
As this conceptual drawing shows, the system would place the SOFC
system before the GTCC system. Source: MHI
Inverter
Steam turbine
Natural gas
SOFC
Condenser
Combustor
Gas turbine
Air
Flue gas
Heat recovery steam generator
|
POWER August 2012
 Leak

Scheduled maintenance,
RepaiRs
Leak

Scheduled
inspections,maintenance,
RepaiRs

emergency FieLd Heat

tReating

inspections,
response…Teamemergency
delivers
FieLd Heat
tReating

response…Team delivers
FieLd
MacHining
FieLd
MacHining
VaLVe
inseRtion
VaLVe
inseRtion
Hot taps /
Line stops
Hot taps /
Line stops
tecHnicaL
B oLting
tecHnicaL
B oLting
VaLVe
RepaiR
VaLVe
RepaiR
nde/ndt
inspection
nde/ndt
inspection
eMissions
contRoL
eMissions

T eam is a world-class service company with the right people,

technology and experience needed to keep your plants online
contRoL

T eam is a world-class service company with the right people, pipe RepaiR
and in production. Our highly skilled technicians work to earn seRVices
yourtechnology
continued and
trustexperience neededone
and conf idence to job
keepatyour plants online
a time. pipe RepaiR
and in production. Our highly skilled technicians work to earn seRVices
your continued trust and conf idence one job at a time.
Satisfying customer needs since 1973 tuRnaRound
True 24/7/365 availability seRVices
Satisfying customer needs since 1973 tuRnaRound
More than 100 worldwide locations
True 24/7/365 availability seRVices
3,200+ trained and certif ied service specialists
More than 100 worldwide locations pipeLine
Worldwide stock of in-house service equipment
3,200+ trained and certif ied service specialists seRVices
Bundled approach helps you realize cost savings
Worldwide stock of in-house service equipment pipeLine
Improved productivity meets or exceeds your goals seRVices
Bundled approach helps you realize cost savings
Improved productivity
+1-800-662-8326 meets or exceeds your goals
| www.teamindustrialservices.com
+1-800-662-8326 | www.teamindustrialservices.com

CIRCLE 6 ON READER SERVICE CARD

 PNNL test results show that the system’s net efficiency ranges
from 48.2% at 2.2 kW to 56.6% at 1.7 kW, and the team “calcu-
lates they could raise the system’s efficiency to 60% with a few
more adjustments.” Yet, as Sprenkle concedes, “There still are
significant efforts required to reduce the overall cost to a point
where it is economical for distributed generation applications.”
Generating Power Without Fuel
In June, material scientists at Harvard University said they had
demonstrated an SOFC that converts hydrogen into electricity
that can also store electrochemical energy like a battery—mean-
ing that the fuel cell can continue to produce power for a short
time after its fuel has run out.
“This thin-film SOFC takes advantage of recent advances in low-
temperature operation to incorporate a new and more versatile
material,” explained principal investigator Shriram Ramanathan,
associate professor of materials science at the Harvard School of
Engineering and Applied Sciences. “Vanadium oxide (VOx) at the
anode [as opposed to the platinum typically used] behaves as a
multifunctional material, allowing the fuel cell to both generate
and store energy.”
The researchers’ finding, published in the June issue of the jour-
nal Nano Letters, specifies that compared to a platinum-anode SOFC
that generates power for just 15 seconds after fuel runs out and
before the electrochemical reaction peters out, the new SOFC uses
a bilayer of platinum and VOx for the anode, allowing the cell to
continue operating up to 14 times as long (3 minutes, 30 seconds,
at a current density of 0.2 mA/cm2). The early result is only a proof
of concept, they say, though they predict that future improvements
to the composition of the anode could further extend the cell’s life
span. A more advanced fuel cell available for applications testing in
micro-air vehicles (unmanned aerial vehicles), for example, could be
available within two years, the researchers claim.
A Triple Combined Cycle Power Generation System
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) said it would develop basic
technologies for a triple combined cycle power generation sys-
tem integrating SOFCs and a gas turbine combined cycle (GTCC)
power generation system. The two-year study announced this
June to integrate existing SOFC technology with a GTCC system
focuses on generating power at three stages: the fuel cell, gas
turbine, and steam turbine (Figure 2). It could result in what the
Japanese firm calls a “fuel cell combined cycle (FCCC) system”
that is expected to “achieve the world’s highest power generation
efficiency exceeding 70% (lower heating value, LHV) for several
hundred MW-class power generation and over 60% (LHV) effi-
ciency for several tens MW class power generation.”
As part of the study, MHI plans to develop the basic technolo-
gies needed to combine SOFC and GTCC systems. It will test the
SOFC’s durability under pressures of up to 3.0 megapascal gauge
2 and study issues affecting conversion of the gas turbine and
combustor development. The study will result in a demonstration
of the FCCC and, ultimately, commercialization.
If it is successful, the new technology could become a “revolu-
tionary, epochal” achievement that would raise the power generation
efficiency of existing natural gas–fired systems by 10% to 20%.
The Age of the Mammoth Wind
Turbine Blade
Siemens Energy in June announced it had produced the first
batch of its new B75 Quantum wind turbine rotor blades, fiber-
glass components 75 meters (m) in length that were cast in one
10 www.powermag.com
piece (Figure 3). The blades were manufactured to be installed
this fall on Siemens’ second prototype of the German firm’s SWT-
6.0 6-MW offshore wind turbine at Denmark’s Østerild Test Sta-
tion. The wind turbine’s rotor diameter of 154 m will sweep an
area of 18,600 square meters—equal to the area of about two
and a half soccer fields.
The 75-m-long blade marks the tremendous progression of wind
turbine technology. According to a recent report in the journal
Environmental Science & Technology, the size of wind turbines has
increased 10-fold over the past 30 years: The first commercial
wind turbine had a capacity of just 30 kW and had 5-m-long rotor
blades and a 10-m rotor diameter. On the horizon are super-giant
wind turbines approaching 304.8 meters in diameter, the authors
of that study claim. “Thus, the energy capture area and the tur-
bine capacity have grown by a factor of 200 in the last 30 years,”
Siemens said in a press release in June.
The process to manufacture the first B75 blade posed several
challenges for the project team, requiring a mold of two parts so
it could be transported without hitches over a distance of 575
kilometers. Siemens also had to build the piece without glue
joints so it would withstand the tremendous force of winds, and
it did so using its patented IntegralBlade process. The firm says
that when operating at a wind speed of 10 m/second, a 154-m
rotor extracts energy from 200 tons of air per second. The aero-
dynamic and structural design of the blade for the massive rotor
also incorporates unique airfoil profiles and redesigned tip and
root sections, using Siemens’ “flatback” profiles to minimize root
leakage and provide higher lift.
In March, LM Wind Power’s 73.5-m blades became the first
70-plus-meter blades to be installed when Alstom inaugurated its
6-MW Haliade 150 direct-drive offshore turbine at Carnet in the
Loire-Atlantique region of France (Figure 4). Before development
of that turbine, LM Wind Power’s 61.5-m blade, the LM 61.5P, was
among the world’s longest series-manufactured rotor blades.
According to LM Wind Power, the composite structure developed
specifically for the Haliade wind turbine in close collaboration with
Alstom was designed for high energy capture while keeping loads
down. Materials technology was a decisive parameter in the design
of the fiberglass blade, and the two companies were able to re-
tain a 3.2-m root diameter, similar to the LM 61.5P, while limiting
blade mass to just 26 metric tons, LM Wind Power said.
The nacelle of Alstom’s 6-MW Haliade 150 wind turbine soars
100 m above the ground; the wind turbine and its support struc-
ture have a total combined weight of 1,500 metric tons. The first
Haliade 150 will now undergo a series of year-long tests on land
at the Carnet site before a second turbine is placed in the sea off
3. Cutting-edge blade. Siemens Energy in June produced the first
new B75 Quantum wind turbine rotor blades, fiberglass components that
are 75 meters in length and cast in one piece. Courtesy: Siemens
|
POWER August 2012
 G-FLANGE
ZIPPER!

4 Tool Bolt Load Precision +- 6%

Hands-free, Safe Assembly Time:

40 1-1/4” Studs in 13 Minutes

1-800-FOR-HYTORC WWW.HYTORC.COM
Since 1968

CIRCLE 7 ON READER SERVICE CARD

 THE BIG PICTURE: Mercury Regulations Rising
—Sonal Patel is POWER’s senior writer.

Countries with the Highest Mercury
Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion for
Power and Heating
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is preparing to
finalize and ratify a new global legally binding instrument on mercury
by next year that would target coal combustion, among other sourc-
es, for control and reduction. UNEP estimates that power plants ac-
count for about 25% of global anthropogenic mercury emissions to
the atmosphere and that industrial and residential heating account
for another 20%. The following countries had the highest mercury
emissions from coal combustion in 2005 (in metric tons).
Countries with or Considering Mercury Rules
Canada: The first country to establish mercury limits applying specif-
ically to control technologies and coal-fired power plants. The Canada-
Wide Standards set provincial caps for 2010 and beyond, requiring
85% mercury capture for bituminous coal and blends and 75% cap-
ture for subituminous and lignite coals at new units.
U.S.: Mercury and Air Toxics Standards promulgated by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) in December 2011 will require 1,100
coal-fired power plants to prevent 90% of mercury in coal burned
from being emitted by 2015.

China: Last year introduced a mercury emission limit of 30 mer-

cury grams (µg)/cubic meter and is investing more than $500 billion
on emission control technologies. The International Energy Agency
(IEA) says more than 560 GW (>86%) of Chinese thermal power
capacity is controlled by flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems, sur-
South Africa: 33.4 passing North America’s percentage.

EU: No current emission control requirements specifically for mer-

cury, though the Industrial Emissions Directive to align the Large
Russia: 46 Combustion Plant Directive and Integrated Pollution Prevention and
Control Directive (which govern SO2 and NOx) requires monitoring of
mercury emissions.

Japan: No specific mercury rules, but co-benefit rules to control

U.S.: 62 SO2 and NOx have prompted significant mercury reduction.

China: 387.4
India: 139.7

2011: 2015: 2015:

146 146 148
2015:
191
2015:
174
2011:
2011: 90
80
2015:
2015: 63 2015: 2011:
51 52 49 2015:
2011: 34
29 2011: 2011:
NA 2011:
9 0

Wet FGD Dry FGD FGD Dry sorbent Selective Activated Baghouse/ Electrostatic
upgrade injection catalytic carbon fabric filter precipitator
reduction injection

Installation of Control Technologies Anticipated Under the EPA’s Mercury Air Toxics Rule in 2015 (GW)
Sources: UNEP, International Energy Agency, EPA

12 www.powermag.com |
POWER August 2012
CIRCLE 8 ON READER SERVICE CARD
4. Heightened wind. Alstom erected its 6-MW Haliade 150 di-
rect-drive offshore turbine at Carnet in the Loire-Atlantique region of
France in March. The turbine features LM Wind Power’s wind turbine
blades, which are 73.5 meters long. Courtesy: Alstom
the Belgian coast this fall. Pre-series production is planned for
2013 with production in series scheduled to start in 2014.
Tubular Turbine Hydropower Plant
Comes Online
Albania this June inaugurated its first major hydropower project
since the early 1980s, bringing online Ashta I, the first of two
run-of-river plants with a combined capacity of 53 MW. At the in-
auguration ceremony, Albania’s Prime Minister Sali Berisha called
the plant “a novelty” because it is the largest in the world to use
advanced tubular turbines technology.
The twin plants are located on the Drin River near the northern
city of Shkodra. The tailrace of Ashta I consists of a 6-kilometer-
long canal connecting the two plants and a diversion channel con-
necting the plant with the Drin River. The Ashta II plant has a
similar arrangement, and its tailrace will be connected to the Drin
river by a short canal. Each plant is equipped with 45 ANDRITZ
Hydromatrix TG units—small steel turbine modules the size of a
telephone box—mounted in one row at the upstream face of a
concrete gravity dam structure (Figure 5). ANDRITZ describes these
axial-type propeller turbines as having bulb-style generators. They
can be raised individually for service purposes. The accompanying
draft tubes are embedded in the newly built dam structure.
14 www.powermag.com
5. Tubular turbine technology. The Ashta I and II run-of-river
hydropower plants in northern Albania, which will total 53 MW, feature
the largest array of Hydromatrix units, which are small steel turbine
modules mounted in a row at the upstream face of the concrete grav-
ity dam structure. This image shows Ashta I under construction in 2011.
Courtesy: Verbund
Austria’s largest utility, Verbund, which obtained the conces-
sion for construction and 35 years of operation of the €160 mil-
lion ($198 million) Ashta plant in 2008, says that the Hydromatrix
technology, used for the first time in Europe on a large scale at
Ashta, enables “an especially efficient utilization of water.” One
“outstanding” aspect of the Hydromatrix concept, says Verbund,
is its flexibility with regard to the plan arrangement due to the
compact size of the turbine generator equipment. “The resulting
minimization of the required civil services has significant advan-
tages in terms of space requirements, thus considerably reducing
the project’s environmental effects and construction costs.”
The project is significant for the region, as Albania’s Energy As-
sociation pointed out, because Albania uses just 40% of its hydro
potential, and though it imports much of its power, it aspires to be-
come a regional electricity powerhouse. Although hundreds of new
power plants are in the pipeline, several projects have been riddled
with tendering difficulties involving allegations of corruption.
All the power generated by Ashta will be purchased by Alba-
nian power company KESH, the state-run energy provider. The
contract term will then either be extended, or the electricity will
be sold on the open market.
New Gas-Fired Technology Gains Backers
A new gas-fired power generation technology that uses an oxy-
fuel, high-pressure, supercritical carbon dioxide cycle and pro-
duces pipeline-ready carbon dioxide for sequestration or use in
enhanced oil recovery (EOR), without reducing plant efficiency,
garnered the interest of three new partners in June. The Shaw
Group, Exelon Corp., and Toshiba Corp. said they would back Dur-
ham, N.C.–based NET Power’s efforts to develop a pilot natural
gas plant that could begin operating within the next two years.
NET Power spokesperson Walker Dimmig told POWER, “We did not
invent another carbon capture technology, but rather developed a
novel power generation technology that utilizes carbon dioxide as
a working fluid throughout the process, enabling us to inherently
eliminate atmospheric carbon emissions.” The technology burns nat-
ural gas or synthetic gas from coal gasification with pure oxygen; its
byproducts are mostly water and the carbon dioxide that is recycled
by the process.
The first two phases of the project will involve front end engineer-
ing and combustor rig testing, which are expected to be completed
|
POWER August 2012

6. A flexible technology platform. NET Power, The Shaw
Group, Exelon Corp., and Toshiba Corp. have partnered to develop a
new gas-fired power generation technology that they say produces
pipeline-ready carbon dioxide for sequestration or use in enhanced oil
recovery and are looking to put into operation a small-scale 25-MW
plant by mid-2014. The technology is called the “Allam Cycle,” after in-
ventor Rodney Allam. Courtesy: NET Power
Air separation unit Water
Air CO2 turbine separator
Combustor Heat exchanger Compressor
Natural
gas
EOR
later this year; Phase 3, to be completed in mid-2014, involves con-
struction and commissioning of a small-scale 25-MW natural gas plant
(at an undisclosed location) that will capture all emissions and gen-
erate revenue from the sale of electricity, and carbon dioxide for EOR.
Development of the first full-scale commercial 250-MW natural gas
plant is expected to begin thereafter, in late 2014 or early 2015.
NET Power, which developed the system and calls it the “Allam
Cycle” (Figure 6), after lead inventor Rodney Allam, is expected
to be responsible for overall project development and systems
engineering of the pilot project; Toshiba will design, test, and
manufacture a combustor and turbine for it; Shaw will provide
engineering, procurement, and construction services; and Exelon
is expected to support development and operation of the 25-MW
plant by selecting the site, obtaining permits, and commission-
ing the facility. Early in June, Shaw said it would provide up
to $50.4 million in cash and in-kind services to the effort and
acquire up to 50% of NET Power as certain milestones are com-
pleted during the four phases of the project.
The technology has “transformative applications” and can be
integrated into a variety of industrial processes, such as liquefied
natural gas, enhanced oil recovery fields, and concentrated solar
plants. “Although the initial system will utilize natural gas, future
applications of NET Power will use coal, integrating with current
gasifiers, and biomass,” the company said in a statement in June.
POWER Digest
FP&L to Increase Output at Turkey Point. Florida Power &
Light (FP&L) on June 19 received approval from the Nuclear Reg-
ulatory Commission to increase the power generating capacity of
Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4 by 15%. The power
uprate for the pressurized water reactors will increase each unit’s
capacity from approximately 700 MWe to 823 MWe.
ThermoEnergy, ITEA Partner on Pressurized Oxy-Com-
bustion Technology. Massachusetts–based ThermoEnergy
Corp. and Italian company ITEA SpA on June 14 said they would
collaborate to promote, finance, design, and construct a 50-MW
pilot plant and a 320-MW commercial facility in the U.S. using
a clean coal technology called pressurized oxy-combustion. The
technology could enable utilities to continue burning inexpen-
sive and abundant coal while virtually eliminating both the tradi-
tional pollution (such as sulfur dioxide) from coal plants and the
emissions of carbon dioxide, and it can be retrofitted to existing
coal plants, the companies said. The clean coal technology will
be developed and marketed by Unity Power Alliance LLC, a joint
venture of ITEA and ThermoEnergy.
|
August 2012 POWER www.powermag.com
EU Backs Construction of Lithuanian Nuclear Plant. The Euro-
pean Commission on June 8 issued a favorable opinion for the con-
struction of the Visaginas nuclear power plant in Lithuania, saying it
could fulfill the country’s goal to be energy independent. However,
it stressed that the plant should seek to remain economically vi-
able even though two new reactors could be built in the vicinity in
the near future. If built, the Visaginas plant will be the first nuclear
energy project in the EU’s Baltic region. Neighboring Belarus is plan-
ning to build a nuclear plant with Russian technology, and Russia
has begun building a nuclear plant in Kaliningrad, which also borders
Lithuania. According to Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy state
corporation, 49% of the shares of the Kaliningrad plant will be of-
fered to EU companies, making it the first Russian nuclear power
plant with foreign participation.
The €5 billion (US$6.2 billion) Visaginas plant will be built
at the site of the Soviet-era Ignalina nuclear station that was
shut down in 2009. The Visaginas plant will be equipped with a
Hitachi-GE advanced boiling water reactor. Construction is ex-
pected to start in 2015, and commercial operation is expected
between 2020 and 2022.
Black & Veatch Wins Series of Advanced Gas Turbine Projects
in China. Black & Veatch was in June selected by China’s Harbin
Electric Co. Ltd. to help deliver three combined cycle power plants
in China. Located in Zhejiang Province, Guangdong Province, and the
Beijing region, the plants will deploy advanced gas turbine technol-
ogy. Together, the three plants will produce approximately 3,000 MW
of gas-fired electricity and alleviate industrial power and steam sup-
ply shortages. The three plants will feature heavy-duty combustion
turbines. “The Gaojing combined cycle power plant will deploy a level
of combustion turbine technology that has yet to feature in mainland
China,” said Dr. Suqing Wang, senior project manager for Black &
Veatch’s global energy business.
Synthesis Completes Testing of Turkish Lignite Coals. Syn-
thesis Energy Systems on June 29 said it had completed testing
of three Turkish lignite coals and obtained positive data. The lignite
coal projects are being developed for clean coal–based power genera-
tion projects and are being developed by independent power project
development company TUTEN for an undisclosed local utility com-
pany. Synthesis Energy undertook the coal tests using its fluidized
bed gasification technology and indicated that each coal achieved
single-pass carbon conversions of between 96% and 99.5%. The test
results will be used by TUTEN’s project sponsor to proceed with its
project development activities using local, low-grade, low-cost lig-
nite that is unsuitable for conventional power generation.
Synthesis Energy has teamed with TUTEN and Slovakia-based
Istroenergo Group to build a conceptual-level design applica-
tion for 50-MW and 100-MW size power generation modules for
the lignite fuel project. The plant design employs coal gasifica-
tion and aeroderivative power generation, integrating Synthesis
Energy’s technology for synthesis gas production and would sup-
port a General Electric (GE) LM2500+G4 aeroderivative gas tur-
bine in combined cycle for 50 MW to 100 MW power capacity.
Iraq Commissions New Gas Plant. The Iraq Ministry of
Electricity (MOE) has commissioned the new 160-MW Taji power
plant featuring GE technology northeast of Baghdad. The plant
comprises four Frame 6B gas turbines delivered by GE, which is
also supplying similar equipment for two other new power plants
in Hilla and Karbala that are slated to be operational in 2012.
The company will also provide the MOE with an estimated 56 gas
turbines for projects across Iraq that are expected to enter ser-
vice beginning in 2012, adding more than 7,000 MW of electric-
ity to support the country’s energy infrastructure. ■
—Sonal Patel is POWER’s senior writer.
15
Breaking the Cycle of
Reactive Maintenance
Nobody can schedule unplanned events that will affect power
generation. And no one wants to start a day expecting an emer-
gency to occur. But when critical systems fail in the power sup-
ply system, it’s time to respond. That’s a given of power plant
maintenance.
For plant managers faced with economic constraints and regu-
latory mandates, a common topic of discussion is the need for
power plants to cut costs and improve maintenance. Yet a deeper
understanding of the advanced processes where true return on
investment (ROI) exists eludes many. There are plenty of enter-
prise asset management (EAM) webinars and analytics training
courses out there, but often it is the underlying attitudes—the
fears, presumptions, sheer crush of work to be done—that can
keep plants stuck in reactive maintenance.
For many plants, changing from reactive to proactive main-
tenance means challenging old norms, communicating change
management benefits, and correcting improper uses of the sys-
tem. These problems can include bad data; a system designed
and led by the information technology department instead of
functional users; and having no business analysts, business rules,
computerized maintenance management system expert, analyti-
cal reports, or long-term road map.
Too Busy to Be Proactive?
In every plant there are seasoned staff who know the equipment,
know the systems, and are quite capable of “putting out fires.”
Yet all too often, when asked how well they use their EAM sys-
tem, power plant maintenance managers concede they are too
busy maintaining with far “too little staff” to do much beyond
using the system to create tickets for items that need to be ad-
dressed. This forms the cycle of reactive maintenance.
As a business process improvement consultant, I am often
met at power plants by planners/schedulers with a common
complaint. It goes something like this: “We cannot perform any
advance planning; we’re fully utilized already. We have so much
emergency and urgent work, it requires our immediate attention.
On top of that, we are the main point of coordination when it
comes to EAM system input and output. It’s too much!”
Under the “tyranny of the urgent,” all work is treated the
same—although some of it gets done quicker. This also means
you could have self-inflicted reactive maintenance. The overall
result is mismanagement of the maintenance backlog, resulting
in unnecessary costs associated with reactive maintenance. The
primary benefit of creating a schedule is to align departments,
coordinate crafts, ensure job safety, minimize risk, and minimize
delays.
Without more staff, some planners/schedulers cannot visual-
ize a world in which they can proactively manage data to reduce
reactive maintenance. Rather than look for efficiency with “ad-
vanced processes,” they revert to “we need more staff.” But with
no budget for hiring, the situation is at an impasse.
Power plant workers have long-held misconceptions about
what an EAM system is or can be. Most see it as a work order
number provider that gives them a number “to charge time to.”
From this perspective, why should they look for failure trends
and worse offenders or reexamine preventive maintenance (PM)
frequencies (maintenance strategies)? When stuff breaks, they fix
16 www.powermag.com
it. Organizations have been operating like this for so long that
there is no memory of any other viable approach.
Create a Comprehensive Vision
My on-site customer observations confirm that there is a com-
mon problem: the general lack of a comprehensive road map to
clearly define the end game, link inputs to outputs, and pro-
vide clear business rules for roles and responsibilities. The plan-
ners are often consumed with reactive maintenance. Work orders
are initiated but not properly categorized or prioritized. Work
is performed but lacks proper feedback as to asset condition,
recommendations to prevent future breakdowns, design flaws,
and maintainability issues. Ownership of the backlog is lacking,
which leads to incorrect asset numbers, inaccurate statuses, du-
plicate tickets, and stale work. When basic processes and founda-
tion data are suspect, it is very difficult to take that next step to
fully leverage the EAM system.
Often, it isn’t the lack of staff or lack of time at all; it’s a
lack of knowledge—or even a lack of belief in the feasibility—of
how to put EAM to work to proactively manage assets across the
entire enterprise.
It’s commonly stated that reliability is everyone’s job. That
said, the maintenance and upkeep of the EAM system should also
be everyone’s job. For the EAM system to be a true knowledge
base, there has to be buy-in from all levels of the organization,
including maintenance, operations, engineering, supply chain,
and management. Ideal duties and roles are shown in the table.
Six Questions
It’s time for the power industry to move beyond theoretical dis-
cussions and take on the real-world problems faced by power
Enterprise asset management requires teamwork.
Source: Cohesive Information Solutions Inc.
Planner/ Fully believe in concept of work order planning.
scheduler Be a student of proactive maintenance, enterprise asset manage-
ment (EAM) system better/best practices, and advanced concepts.
Reduce percentage of backlog planned.
Reliability Be an active participant in the reliability process.
engineer Lead the Reliability Team.
Advise the Core Team on how to set up the EAM system to sup-
port analytics.
Maintenance Facilitate new work reviews, separating true emergencies from
manager work that can be planned/scheduled.
Support weekly schedule meetings.
Create long-term vision and roadmap for the future.
Maintenance Believe in, and work to, a weekly schedule.
supervisors Facilitate accurate work order reporting, especially at completion.
Encourage work order feedback in support of improved reliability-
centered maintenance.
Handle emergency/urgent work, as needed.
Operations Identify emergency/urgent work.
Perform first-level feasibility review of new/incoming work.
Identify work that can be properly planned and scheduled.
|
POWER August 2012
plant planners, operations, and maintenance managers. Answers Common Power Plant Assumptions
to the following six questions for the power plant maintenance Many power plant staff recognize that problems exist with their
manager can quickly identify the maturity of a plant’s mainte- EAM system, but there may be confusion over whether those
nance approach: problems are software, or data, or process related. Most man-
agers would embrace change, but their misconceptions and as-
■ Other than emergencies, do you plan work? For example, sumptions are entrenched. For example, consider the following
do you enter job steps and craft estimates on your work assumptions, which often go unchallenged:
orders? Are you tracking the amount of reactive mainte-
nance? Change is too hard. A power plant cannot change without ■
■ Do you have a way to mark work orders “fully planned”? a universal desire to become more proactive. The need for
If yes, what percentage is planned (>90%)? Are the work change needs to be understood.
order priorities valid? Are you conducting regular reviews ■ We have planners, therefore we plan. Planner positions may
of backlog? exist, but planners are not fully effective in their positions if
■ Do you have a work order feedback loop by which you con- they lack training in and understanding of proactive concepts.
tinually gather input from the crafts and improve asset perfor-
A job planner should not be asked to perform nonproductive
mance and reliability? tasks such as material expediting, picking up parts, getting in-
■ Does a reliability team exist that proactively looks at the worst
volved in emergency work planning, performing maintenance
offenders, initiates root cause analysis, and the like? Are re-
work, or entering actual labor hours.
curring problems being identified and managed within the EAM■ Business rules exist, but only verbally. Different work groups
system? may have different processes and procedures. For an EAM sys-
■ Have the planners/schedulers been trained on EAM system use tem to have full support and interaction, these rules must be
and proactive maintenance techniques? clearly defined and understood.
■ Has the power plant ever performed EAM system benchmark- ■ There are barriers against bad data. It’s common to assume that

RA RE
ing? (Have you visited other power plants to learn their ap- the EAM system, if set up correctly, will automatically prevent
proaches?) bad data from being entered. This is far from the truth.
■ Standard reports work. It is rarely true that the EAM system has
If most of the answers are “No,” then there is a problem; the all of the reports needed. You need to link up analytical report
majority of practices are stuck in reactive maintenance manage- needs to the goals and objectives of the organization.
ment. A formal
CHA-113 and thorough review is warranted.
RARE2012withSnipePowerMagazineMay:Layout ■ We don’t
1 4/2/12 need
2:31 PM more training.
Page 1 More often than not, training on

Within the nuclear industry, there’s a new and rare

R A
esponsive,
ccountabR
le, Effect
eliabl
e, ive
alternative for safety-critical needs...Chatham Steel.
With 97 years of business behind our name, we don’t
deliver anything short of responsive, accountable,
reliable and effective service for our customers. It’s

re
finem
e
nt.
what has earned us our reputation for excellence in
the metals service industry. That is what we believe
to be refinement at its best.
For more information on our extensive inventory
of steel products and processing services, call
1-
800-869-2762
and ask for a nuclear sales specialist,
email us at n
uclear@
cha
tha
m
steel
.comor visit
P
rovidi
n
gsafety-
criti
calst
e
e lproducts
to
the
nuclear us online at w
industry. ww.c
hath
amstee
l.com
.

ASME Quality System Certificate (QSC) applies to Chatham Steel’s Durham, North Carolina location.ISO 9001:2008 accreditation applies to all Chatham Steel locations except Ironton,Ohio, which is scheduled for certification in 2012.
Safety-critical steel products provided to the nuclear industry come from our Durham, North Carolina and Savannah, Georgia locations.
A member of the Reliance Steel and Aluminum family of companies.

CIRCLE 9 ON READER SERVICE CARD

|
August 2012 POWER www.powermag.com 17
 the EAM system is navigationally based. Key processes and
roles are left out of the discussion. This approach leads to bad
data on day two.
Facing Fears
Unspoken fears can also hinder proactive maintenance. Many
power plant managers and supervisors do not welcome criticism.
They may not be keen on setting up advanced key performance
indicators such as percentage of reactive maintenance, weekly
schedule compliance, and backlog growth trends. Similarly, man-
agers may fear that creating an EAM work order (and entering
actuals) for all their work means they will come under constant
and potentially crippling scrutiny. The best advice is to get 100%
on board and dive into the process. The primary purpose of mea-
surement is to find opportunities for improvement in a very com-
petitive world.
Getting Started
To institute proactive maintenance, power plants need to
clearly define their goals and objectives, and from this, all
of the prerequisites to reach those goals. It is important to
remember the EAM system is much more than software. Eighty
percent of all potential improvement lies in process and pro-
cedure. Be absolutely sure that working-level staff are on
board and fully committed. Verify key processes to be ad-
hered to via spot checks, auditing, work sampling, and EAM
system error checks. Tie all of these actions together using a
road map for the future. And remember that real ROI comes
with implementation of advanced EAM processes, which in-
clude work order feedback in support of reliability centered
maintenance, basic failure analysis, maintenance planning/
scheduling, and (major) project scope/cost control tracking
(including outages).
Gather up all of the representative user groups and form a
Core Team. From this team, create formal business rules and
EAM system operating procedures. Identify “sore points” in
the form of inadequate training, missing foundation data, or
missing reports. Even the meaning of planning and schedul-
ing must be defined. The definition of planning can be quite
involved, but for the purposes of this article it includes task
steps, craft/skills codes, number of workers, and estimated
hours and materials.
Reality Check: Key Points
Some power plants will only focus on emergency/urgent work and
never choose to plan any work. Some plants may plan work, but
never schedule work. Some plants might not have any records
in their maintenance backlog. In this case, a paradigm shift is
needed. Not all power plants have a full-time planner/scheduler
or reliability engineer. Yet, for an EAM system to contain ac-
curate data, someone must accept responsibility for data input
and analysis. Clever and efficient use of the system requires your
input.
The overall maintenance program needs to include a proper
balance of preventive, corrective, and emergency/urgent mainte-
nance. Worker feedback should be enabled and expected. Through
a formal feedback loop, the maintenance strategy should be
continually reviewed and refined. All PM templates should be
fully planned (including those for labor and parts). PM schedules
should be near 100% compliance. Emergency/urgent work should
have quick response times, but all other work should be planned
and scheduled. Key performance indicators should help identify
areas of (needed) improvement.
18 www.powermag.com
Operational Excellence Is the Goal
Power plant maintenance is necessarily complex and carries sig-
nificant risk and responsibility. Yet, much of the promise of an
EAM system in terms of efficiency and reliability gains has not
been realized by the industry. As the energy industry faces a
transformative 21st century, power plants that are not fully lever-
aging their EAM system risk falling behind the industry average.
Changing culture is hard and may take months (or years), but it
is never too late to start trying. To ensure success, power plant
leaders must begin with process improvement initiatives, care-
fully manage and implement changes, and follow up with periodic
audits. By creating a long-term strategic road map, power plants
can achieve operational excellence, optimize expenditures, and
provide a substantial return on investment.
—Contributed by John Reeve (jreeve@cohesivesolutions.
com), manager and senior consultant for Cohesive
Information Solutions Inc.
Safety Measurement: Culture Shaping or
Failure Avoidance?
“It is a new month. I want you all to work very hard to fail less
than previous months. I’ll be measuring. Failures will not be tol-
erated. Anyone caught doing so will be disciplined by his or her
peers and/or leadership.”
Leading and measuring with the approach characterized by
this comment creates malicious compliance, avoidance behavior,
a have-to mentality, and disdain toward the organization. Team-
work becomes a pointless buzzword, and fear of measurement
sets in. When organizations measure only incidents and establish
and reward incident reduction goals, “fail less” becomes the mes-
sage. Are your safety measurement systems focusing on motiva-
tion and excitement, or evaluation and reactive accountability?
Lagging Indicators Create Hope
Incident metrics are prescriptive when there are many kinds of
data. As safety improves, the data used to advance results lose
statistical significance, which leads to a multitude of random
data points. As an organization matures in its safety manage-
ment systems and culture, reported injury data often move from
prescriptive to descriptive, then to demotivating, and then be-
come borderline pointless. When you achieve zero incidents, how
do you continue to improve? Most importantly, are the results
due to purposeful initiatives and accountability, or luck? What
sense of comfort does the organization have that it can repeat
the same results next year?
An injury or incident is a failure in your prevention process.
When the strategy or measurements are focusing on reducing in-
juries, the culture is being motivated to avoid failure rather than
achieve success.
When a failure occurs and tactics are deployed quickly to pre-
vent recurrence, there is an impression that “leadership is reac-
tive when it comes to safety” or “someone has to get hurt for
safety to improve.” Rarely are high-performing cultures motivat-
ed by measurement of such an approach.
Measurement: Motivational or Demotivating?
Safety measurement is supposed to direct, align, and motivate
behavior. What percentage of employees in your organization are
motivated, or even excited, by safety measurement compared to
those who are fearful of it?
Executives deploy a multitude of measurement systems to vali-
date the health of operations. Safety is no different than any other
operational priority, yet few leverage balanced scorecards or trans-
|
POWER August 2012
 BECAUSE EXPERIENCE MATTERS
Since Bechtel’s founding in 1898 we’ve measured success against our ability to
repeatedly exceed customers’ expectations and deliver innovative solutions for unique
challenges. With over 65 years of experience in the power industry, we are continuing
to help customers provide power for the 21st century.

We have an unrivaled standard for performance in the industry, having developed a

diversified portfolio across six continents. When it comes to power projects, no one
offers greater teamwork, experience, service, and dependability than Bechtel.

BECHTEL San Francisco Houston London Brisbane

Frederick, Maryland USA
bechtel.com
formational measurement dashboards. If safety is such an important
priority or core value, how balanced and comparative are the average
measurements? Figure 1 shows a sample balanced scorecard. Figure 2
shows a sample transformational measurement dashboard.
Of course, measuring results is important; ignoring results
can be career-limiting. However, results alone do not identify
what actions must be taken to continue achieving them. Ap-
proach a sampling of employees, tell them what the current
incident rate is, and ask what they can do to affect it. How
aligned are the responses with the reality of what the focus
needs to be? Also ask employees if they know how the incident
rate is calculated. Unfortunately, you may be disappointed by
the answers you receive.
Identify Leading and Transformational Measurements
Working with many of the best safety-performing organizations
in the industry, I have created leading, comparative indicators
and overall transformational balanced scorecard safety measure-
ment systems. Consider collaborating with other leaders and in-
fluential followers in your organization to answer the following
five questions. The answers to such questions (Figure 3) can fa-
cilitate the transformation necessary for obtaining breakthrough
safety performance:

1. Balanced scorecard for safety excellence. If safety ■ What does excellence look like in behavioral terms? What would
excellence is defined in behavioral terms (what people need to do you see or hear the average employee, supervisor, manager, or
to create positive results), it is observable and feedback is pos- executive do or say that creates a sense of comfort that suc-
sible. When this happens, the organization is effectively coaching
cess is near, because you are effectively working your plan and
for performance, rather than managing results through a trial-and-
error strategy. Source: ProAct Safety
executing your strategy? If safety excellence is defined in be-
havioral terms (what people need to do to create the results),
it is observable. If it is observable, feedback is possible. When
Results this happens, the organization is effectively coaching for top
■ Reorderable rate
safety performance, rather than managing results through a
■ Severity rate
■ Cost
trial-and-error strategy.
■ How desirable are the current safety beliefs in the organiza-
tion? Beliefs influence decisions, behaviors, and stories told
Management Performance throughout the organization. Desirable perceptions are a com-
■ Training Transformational ■ Common practice mon leading indicator in the industry, and measuring those
■ Meeting safety focus ■ Compliance indicators through a perception survey is easier than many
■ Communications ■ Engagement realize. What would the desirable perceptions be, and what is
the current gap?
■ How does common practice compare to desired behaviors and
Culture experiences? What is the reality of day-to-day activities com-
■ Perceptions pared to what is desired?
■ Focus
■ How will you market safety at your facility? Yes, market safe-
■ Attitude
ty. Though it is often ignored, significant value is derived by

2. Transformational safety measurement dashboard.

For safety to become a core value, safety improvement cannot be
3. Developing leading transformational measure-
delegated. Key decision-makers need to be involved in the creation
ments. The answers to these questions can help promote a suc-
cessful safety program at your facility. Source: ProAct Safety
and continuous evolution of the safety measurement strategy. Source:
ProAct Safety

1. What does 2. How desirable

excellence look like in are the beliefs in the
behavioral terms? organization?

Safety culture Safety culture

excellence excellence
leadership score maturity score
92% 86%
3. How does common
4. How will you practice compare to
market safety? desired behaviors and
experiences?

Incident rate Safety culture

1.2% excellence
practice score
79%
5. What initiatives
will support the safety
excellence strategy?

20 www.powermag.com |
POWER August 2012
CIRCLE 10 ON READER SERVICE CARD
 focusing on branding, positioning, customer feedback, and
reinforcing buying decisions. How will measurement systems
encourage improved safety efforts?
■ What initiatives will support the safety excellence strategy? This
should be the last question of this series. Unfortunately, the
average organization makes many great attempts to improve
safety but has difficulty demonstrating how those efforts will
produce measurable progress.
Delegate Priorities, Not Values
For safety to become a core value, safety improvement cannot be
delegated. Values are created when, over time, beliefs are reinforced
by consistent behaviors. This requires key decision-makers to be in-
volved in the creation and continuous evolution of the measurement
strategy. Measuring the right things and celebrating leading indica-
tor progress is far too important to be the sole responsibility of the
safety department if sustainable excellence is your goal. Unless, of
course, you are okay with just failing a little less year after year.
—Contributed by Shawn M. Galloway (info@proactsafety.com),
president of ProAct Safety. He is an international consultant, pro-
fessional speaker and seminar leader, and has helped hundreds of
international organizations improve their safety performance. He
is also the host of the weekly podcast series Safety Culture Excel-
lence, available on iTunes.
Women in Power Event Provides
Networking Opportunities
From success stories to war stories, members of the Women in
Power Panel Discussion shared their insights about working
» www.dresser-rand.com
® group for women working in all aspects of power generation, in-
GIMPEL TRIP AND
THROTTLE VALVES & PARTS
Gimpel parts, service and new valves incorporate the
latest technology to provide safe, reliable throttling and
critical over-speed protection for marine, power
generation, oil & gas, and general industrial applications.
• Quality OEM parts
• Exact replacement parts
• Upgrades kits
• Valves for new applications or to replace old, unreliable valves
Call Dresser-Rand at Int’l +1 713-467-2221 or Int’l +49 208-65-6020
or visit: www.dresser-rand.com/products/gimpel/
CIRCLE 11 ON READER SERVICE CARD
22 www.powermag.com
4. Women in Power panelists. Left to right: co-chair Angela
Neville, JD, senior editor of POWER; co-moderator Erin Toelke, client
service manager of the environmental services business group, CH2M
HILL; Sheree Petrone, vice president, fuels & environmental trading,
Exelon Generating Co.; Verne Shortell, executive director of environ-
mental business, NRG Energy Inc.; Hilda Pinnix-Ragland, vice presi-
dent, corporate public affairs, Progress Energy Inc.; and Carol Dodson,
senior vice president, asset management services, Baltimore Gas &
Electric. Source: POWER
as women professionals in the U.S. electric power industry at
the 2012 ELECTRIC POWER Conference in Baltimore on May 16.
The gathering featured lively exchanges between panelists and
a large number of attendees (Figure 4). The panel discussion
was organized by co-chairs Angela Neville, JD, senior editor of
POWER, and Colleen Campbell, business development director at
CH2M HILL.
The event’s emphasis was to encourage attendees to share
career strategies, professional accomplishments, concerns,
and lessons learned. In addition, there were discussions
about how to foster more networking among women power
professionals and develop mentoring relationships for both
technical expertise and career development. The next Women
in Power Generation panel discussion will take place at the
2013 ELECTRIC POWER Conference, which will be held May
14 to 16 in Chicago. For more information about this event,
contact angelan@powermag.com.
The Women in Power Generation group was started by POWER
magazine as a professional development and industry outreach
clusive of all generation technologies. The need for such a group
emerged from response to a special report in our Nov. 2008 issue,
“Workforce Management Lessons from Women in Power Genera-
tion,” written by Dr. Gail Reitenbach, POWER’s managing editor
(available in the archives at www.powermag.com).
To connect with other women in the power generation in-
dustry, join the Women in Power Generation LinkedIn Group.
This group’s goal is to give the still-too-few women in the
industry a networking center for everything from job leads
to mentoring advice to brainstorming about how to encour-
age more young women to consider careers in all areas of the
power generation business.
Also visit the Women in Power Genera-
tion page on the POWER website (www.powermag
.com/WomenInPowerGeneration) for information updates, an-
nouncements, and links to resources. ■
—Contributed by Angela Neville, JD, POWER senior editor.
|
POWER August 2012
 www.SMA-America.com

VISUALIZE A HIGHER STANDARD IN POWER

Sometimes the solution you are looking for is right in front of you. As the need to meet more demanding
renewable energy standards increases, photovoltaic plants have emerged as a reliable, bankable
investment. With the industry’s best solar inverter technology and the experience to support utilities and
EPCs alike, SMA helps visionary power professionals conquer the challenges of utility-scale PV. When
it’s time for your next project, choose an SMA inverter and envision the possibilities.

SMA Power Plant Solutions

Call 888 476 2872

Energy That Changes

CIRCLE 12 ON READER SERVICE CARD
 Proposed Cooling Water
Rule’s Ripple Effects
By Angela Neville, JD
he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a long
T history of making waves with the electric power industry
because of its efforts to regulate the way thermal power
plants construct and operate their cooling water intake struc-
tures (CWIS). These structures divert billions of gallons of water
into power plants’ cooling systems and can injure or kill billions
of aquatic organisms.
The EPA’s mission is to enforce Section 316(b) under the Clean
Water Act, which requires facilities to adopt the best technol-
ogy available (BTA) to minimize adverse environmental impacts
from fish being drawn into CWIS (known as entrainment) or be-
ing trapped against screens at the front of an intake structure
(known as impingement), where fish may be harmed or killed.
EPA’s Possible Shift to a More Flexible Rule
For years industry representatives have complained that the EPA
was too rigid about considering more cost-effective CWIS options
suggested by power plant operators. Now the agency appears to
be moving to a less hard-line interpretation of Section 316(b)’s
BTA requirement for facilities that operate CWIS.
On May 31, the EPA posted a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) in
advance of forthcoming regulations that signals the agency may pro-
vide more BTA options. The NODA presents a summary of the signifi-
cant new information and data that the agency has received since its
April 2011 proposal was released as well as a discussion of possible
revisions to the final rule that the EPA is now considering. This rule
covers approximately 670 power plants, according to the EPA.
In its April 2011 proposed rule, the EPA recommended case-by-
case, site-specific determinations of BTA to prevent entrainment,
but it appeared to favor the installation of traveling screens as
the uniform national BTA standard for preventing impingement.
Traveling screens can be costly and challenging to install, de-
pending on the size of the facility and site conditions.
In contrast, the NODA provides several alternatives to this
one-size-fits-all approach to BTA used for dealing with impinge-
ment, including these:
■ In defining BTA, the new regulations may permit a facility to
adopt “any technology it chooses so long as it will achieve the
required impingement limitation.” The EPA is also considering
giving credit for impinged fish survivability and for fish that a
facility excludes from becoming impinged in the first place.
■ The EPA may also establish a “de minimis” impingement cat-
egory that would effectively eliminate BTA requirements for
facilities with very low impingement rates.
■ The EPA is considering whether to allow establishment of im-
pingement controls on a site-specific basis, either in all cases
or limited to those circumstances in which the facility dem-
onstrates that the national controls were not feasible. Under
such an approach, rather than meeting a specific, predeter-
24 www.powermag.com
mined standard, a facility could seek a site-specific BTA for
both entrainment and impingement mortality.
■ The EPA is suggesting a new “streamlined” regulatory process
for facilities that simply opt to employ modified traveling
screens with fish returns, which the agency considers to be
preapproved BTA. In this case, as long as the owner or opera-
tor of a facility complies with the specified operational condi-
tions, the impingement mortality limitations would be deemed
to have been met and the owner or operator wouldn’t have to
conduct any biological monitoring to show compliance.
Mixed Responses to the EPA’s Recent Actions
In the wake of the EPA’s NODA, many industry critics applauded
the agency’s attempt to take a more flexible approach to regu-
lating CWIS. For example, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), a
long-time critic of the EPA’s CWIS rule, commented that it was
“encouraged” by the agency’s openness to receiving feedback
from the regulated community. The EEI is the association of U.S.
shareholder-owned electric companies whose members represent
approximately 70% of the U.S. electric power industry.
“The NODA incorporates new information EPA received in com-
ments and during power plant site visits and seeks public com-
ment on vital concerns to the utility industry,” EEI President
Thomas Kuhn said on June 1. “These issues must be fleshed out
and appropriately addressed as the administration works toward
finalizing a rule this summer that protects aquatic life in a flex-
ible and cost-effective manner.”
Yet the EEI denounced the results that the EPA recently released
from its “willingness-to-pay” survey, which is intended to determine
the so-called non-use benefit of the CWIS regulation. In the case
of the proposed CWIS rule, that would be the price that people hy-
pothetically would assign to having a healthy fish population from
which they would gain no direct benefit. The EPA stated it would take
the survey into consideration in drafting the final rule.
“The very premise of the survey is misleading to the public,”
Kuhn said. “It infers without any solid justification that improve-
ments in fish populations and aquatic ecosystems can result from
regulating cooling water intake structures.”
Moving Beyond the Cross Currents
The U.S. power generation industry needs a sensible Section
316(b) policy that balances economic needs with protection of
our natural resources. The EPA should enact a CWIS rule that is
based on demonstrable costs and benefits. The agency needs to
consider both the costs borne by power plants to comply with
316 (b) permits along with the economic benefits of environmen-
tal protection. Hopefully, the new rule will encourage utilities to
find and use available, affordable technologies that prevent un-
necessary fish kills and damage to the environment. ■
—Angela Neville, JD is POWER’s senior editor.
|
POWER August 2012
CIRCLE 13 ON READER SERVICE CARD
 2012 PLANT OF THE YEAR
AES Gener’s Angamos Power Plant
Earns POWER’s Highest Honor

AES Gener recently completed construction of twin coal-fired, 260-MW units in

the electricity-starved desert of northern Chile that may serve as models for future
hybrid-fossil plant designs. For meeting an aggressive construction schedule, in-
tegrating a 20-MW battery energy storage system, embracing desalination, using
the first-of-its-kind seawater cooling tower in South America, and employing in-
novative financing methods, the AES Gener Angamos plant has earned POWER’s
2012 Plant of the Year Award.
By Dr. Robert Peltier, PE Courtesy: AES Corp

A
ES Gener S.A. is a Chilean publicly
listed power generation company
that has invested heavily in the fu-
ture of the Chilean economy. The sixth and
seventh most recent units to enter service
as part of AES Gener’s $3 billion, 1,638-
MW power plant expansion plan were the
two units at the Angamos Power Plant
(Angamos) on the Pacific coast of north-
ern Chile. Before examining the unique
design features of this coal-hybrid plant,
it’s useful to look at the Chilean electric-
ity industry and the important role that in-
dependent power producers (IPPs) play in
the country’s economy.
AES Gener, 71% owned by U.S.-based
AES Corp., is the second-largest electricity
generating company in Chile. Pension funds
(14%) and public investors (15%) hold the
remaining stock. AES, based in Arlington,
Va., is one of the largest global power com-
panies. It operates 13 utilities and 121 gen-
eration facilities in 28 countries.
The Chilean government contracts with
AES Gener for the supply of electricity in
two principal markets: the Central Inter-
connected System (SIC) and the Greater
Northern Interconnected System (SING)
in Chile. These separate regions were
formed with the privatization of the Chil-
ean electricity sector in the 1980s, when
all generation, transmission, and distribu-
tion systems were turned over to private
ownership. AES Gener, one of the largest
IPPs in Chile, operates 16 power plants in
the country, accounting for 3,821 MW of
capacity—2,241 MW in the SIC and 1,465
MW in the SING.
AES Gener enjoys a 22% share of the
Chilean electricity market based on in-
stalled capacity. In the SING, where
electricity consumption is dominated by
mining (90%), the company’s market
share is approximately 32%. Mining inter-
ests represent about half of the country’s
industrial infrastructure. In the SIC, which
covers over 92% of Chile’s population,
including the densely populated Santiago
metropolitan area, the company’s market
share is 19%. As of March 15, 2012, AES
Gener’s market capitalization was approx-
imately $5 billion.
In Chile, AES Gener’s diverse genera-
tion portfolio—consisting of hydroelectric,
coal, gas, diesel, and biomass facilities—
allows it to flexibly and reliably operate
under a variety of market and hydrological
conditions. The company’s power plants
are located near the principal electricity
consumption centers, including Santiago,
Valparaiso, and Antofagasta, extending
from Antofagasta in the north to Concep-
ción in south-central Chile.
Shifting Fuel Mix
The availability of low-cost natural gas
from Argentina delivered via pipelines
built across the Andes Mountains in the
late 1990s prompted construction of five
combined cycle plants that were used to
provide baseload generation to the SING.
In 2004, Argentina began to curtail gas de-
liveries to Chile. The interruptions became
increasingly severe over the next several
years until gas deliveries were essentially

26 www.powermag.com |
POWER August 2012
 PROTECTING POWER
PLANT CHIMNEYS

Tomorrow’s chimney
design: lighter, cheaper,
built to last

The New Chimney Design from Hadek is a revolution in power

plant chimney construction.
It’s slim and lightweight, but built to last – even in seismic
regions. It’s normally around five months faster and 20%
less expensive to build than traditional chimneys.
The design is simple: a smooth reinforced concrete shell, with
the Pennguard® Block Lining System applied directly to its
inside surface. So there’s no need for a separate internal flue.
Why is the New Chimney Design the future?
It’s low maintenance, with minimal risk of component failure.
It’s long-lasting – the Pennguard® lining has a projected service
life of at least 20 years. It has outstanding seismic tolerance. POWER's 2012 Plant of the Year
Also it is designed specifically for a wide range of operating
conditions including low temperature FGD operation.
AES Gener Angamos Power
Make the New Chimney Design part of your plans.
Station has chosen for a
Contact Hadek now: 412 204 0028, sales@hadek.com New Chimney Design chimney.
Pennguard® is a registered trademark of Henkel KGaA and is used with their permission
This advertisement is not to be considered a warranty concerning product performance
Hadek is the expert on power plant
chimney and ductwork protection,
and a global distributor of the
130ºc (266ºF) Pennguard® Block Lining System.
Flue gas stream Ambient temperature

Pennguard® Block Lining

System protects against acid
condensate, high temperatures
Concrete shell
and thermal shock
50ºc (122ºF) 44ºc (111ºF)

15ºc (59ºF)
23ºc(
23ºc(73ºF)

Tel: 412 204 0028

sales@hadek.com
PENNGUARD® Block Lining System www.hadek.com
CIRCLE 14 ON READER SERVICE CARD
 2012 PLANT OF THE YEAR
halted in 2007. Dual-fuel combustion tur- line and expansion of the Laberinto and the first power plant constructed in the
bines allowed generators to switch to more- Nueva Zaldívar substations, which were SING in more than 10 years. Table 1 lists
expensive fuel oil and continue to operate, necessary for startup of the plant’s trans- key project milestones.
but at much higher market prices. mission system. When completed in late The expected average generation of the
The mines in northern Chile, which pro- 2011, the $1.3 billion Angamos plant was plant is 3,500 GWh/year. Its primary cus-
duce about 35% of the world’s copper, were
struggling to find enough electricity to sup- Table 1. Key milestones for the AES Angamos project. Source: AES Corp.
port current operations at the time—never
mind support aggressive expansion plans Project milestones Date
to meet the rapidly rising global demand
Contract signed Oct. 17, 2007
for copper. Mining in Chile, though very
competitive globally, requires significant Limited Notice to Proceed 1, 2 Dec. 20, 2007
electricity, particularly for pumping water Limited Notice to Proceed 3 Dec. 30, 2007
to the mines, which are located in arid des- EPC contract commencement date Apr. 4, 2008
ert areas.
Boiler drum lift (Unit 1) July 2009
In sum, the loss of natural gas supplies
and rising demand for power by the mines Boiler drum lift (Unit 2) Nov. 2009
made construction of a new coal-fired pow- Receive backfeed power Jan. 2010
er plant complex a necessity. AES Gener Initial firing (Unit 1) Oct. 2010
set out to build a new, two-unit coal plant,
Initial firing (Unit 2) Mar. 2011
and so much more.
First synchronization (Unit 1) Dec. 2010
An International Project First synchronization (Unit 2) June 2011
In August 2008, AES Gener, through its Substantial completion (Unit 1) Apr. 2011
subsidiary Empresa Eléctrica Angamos
Substantial completion (Unit 2) Oct. 2011
S.A., began construction on the greenfield,
two-unit 520-MW (470-MWnet) Angamos Commercial operation Unit 1: Apr. 11, 2011
Power Plant (Figure 1). A critical part of the Unit 2: Oct. 10, 2011
project was construction of the 140-kilome-
ter (km) Angamos-Laberinto transmission Table 2. Key Angamos performance parameters. Source: AES Corp.

1. Treasure in the desert. AES Gener Parameter Details

recently completed construction of the $1.3 Net single unit output 230.7 MW guarantee. Test: Unit 1, 242.8 MW; Unit 2, 244.1 MW
billion, two-unit, 520-MW Angamos Power
Net plant heat rate (HHV) 10,478 Btu/kWh guarantee. Test: Unit 1, 9.849; Unit 2, 9,941
Plant in the desert of northern Chile. Located
near the ocean, the plant features a water Turbine throttle conditions 2,220.6 psig/1,049 F main steam
desalination plant and seawater cooling tow- 573 psig/1,049F reheat steam
ers. The coal-hybrid plant includes 20 MW of
electricity storage to stabilize local grid opera- Fuel Pulverized coal facility using blended coals: Bituminous (min. 54%)
tions. Courtesy: AES and subbituminous (max. 46%)
Emissions NOx 500 mg/Nm3
SO2 200 mg/Nm3
PM10 (filterable) 50 mg/Nm3
Boiler Type Subcritical
Steam pressure 2,220.6 psig
Steam temperature 1,049F
Maximum continuous rating 741.4 tons/hr
Turbine Rating 270 MWh
Type Single-flow high-pressure turbine, double-flow intermediate-pressure
(reheat) turbine, four flow low-pressure condensing turbines
Rotational speed 3,000 rpm
Condenser vacuum 2.3 inches HgA
Feedwater heaters 6 stages of feedwater heating, including deaerator
Generator Voltage 18 kV
Capacity 330 MVA @ 0.85 PF
Boiler feed pump configuration 3 x 50%-sized pumps
Cooling water system Seawater cooling towers
Water pretreatment system Desalinated water plant for service water; demineralized water plant
for boiler feedwater makeup

28 www.powermag.com |
POWER August 2012
 Powerplant Engineering
DESIGN & EPC CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES: CLIENTELE:
Detailed Design • EPC • CM Utilities • IPPs • Industry
Studies • Owner & Bank Universities • OEMs
Engineering Banks/Investors
PROJECTS (New, Retrofit & Modifications):
Biomass • Solar (Thermal & PV) • Simple & Combined Cycle
Wind • Fluidized Bed/PC/Stoker Boilers • Biofuels • MSW
Gasification • Landfill Gas • Pyrolysis • Plant Improvements
Air Pollution Control • CHP/Cogeneration • Energy Savings
Engine-Generators • Facilities/Buildings & Systems

A Few Examples of Our Recent Experience

• Five Biomass Powerplants Now in Detailed Design
• Owner’s Engineer Now for a 950 MW Combined
Cycle Repowering Project
• Detailed Design Now for a 1.2 MGPD Industrial
Wastewater Desalination Plant
• Completed Design and Startup of a 300 MW
Combined Cycle Repowering Project
• Completed Design and Startup of a Concentrating
Solar Thermal Power Tower Project
• Owner’s Engineer Now for a 4 x LM6000 Simple
Cycle Power Plant
• Various Power Plant Service Projects

Some of Our Management Team

Bob Bibb
Lou Gonzales
Dave Wiker
Matt Helwig Doug Franks
Rob Schmitt
ChairmanPresident
/ CEO VP
/ COO
Engineering
ivil/Structural
Mgr. C Mgr. Mechani
Mgr. Electrical

George Neill
Phil Peterson Rich Carvajal
Dean Andrisevic Chris Bramha
Nick Francoviglia
Sr. Project
Sr.
Mgr.
Project
Sr.
Mgr. Sr.
Project Project
Mgr. Chief Mgr.
Mgr.Mech. Bus. Dev
Eng.
For career opportunities e-mail a resume in confidence
CIRCLE 15 ON READER SERVICE CARD
 2012 PLANT OF THE YEAR
tomers are BHP Billiton of Australia sub-
sidiaries Minera Escondida and Minera
Spence—both large copper mines. A long-
term power purchase agreement was essen-
tial for obtaining long-term financing for
the project, which is discussed later.
South Korea’s POSCO Engineering &
Construction Co., Ltd. (POSCO) was the
engineering, procurement, and construction
(EPC) contractor. Doosan Heavy Industries
2. Clean air was a priority. A full com-
plement of air quality control system (AQCS)
equipment—an electrostatic precipitator, fab-
ric filter, and spray dryer absorber for remov-
ing SO2 from the stack gas—was included on
both units. It was the first use of this AQCS in
South America. Courtesy: AES
3. Ocean cooling. The desert location of
the Angamos plant did not allow using potable
water for the cooling tower. Instead, a seawa-
ter cooling tower was used, which runs at
about two cycles of concentration. Courtesy:
AES Corp.
30
& Construction supplied the two coal-fired
steam boilers outfitted with low-NOx burn-
ers, and Italian manufacturer Ansaldo En-
ergia provided the steam turbines and the
two 350-MVA air-cooled generators. (See
Table 2 for key performance characteristics
of the project.)
Other key components—such as the coal-
and ash-handling systems and air quality
control system (AQCS), including electro-
static precipitators (ESP) and fabric filter
(to remove particulates from the flue gas)
and spray dryer absorber flue gas scrubber
(to remove 95% of the SO2)—were sup-
plied by POSCO Plantec and other South
Korean manufacturers. The AQCS used
was the first of its kind in South America
and was designed to meet the latest emis-
sions standards, published in Chile in June
2010 (Figure 2).
POSCO received the notice to proceed for
construction of the plant on Apr. 7, 2008.
Earlier, on Oct. 17, 2007, AES Gener
had signed a turnkey EPC contract with
POSCO valued at $870 million. Although
POSCO started engineering the project
at contract signing, actual construction at
the site did not begin until June 2008. The
groundbreaking ceremony was held on Au-
gust 27, 2008, with more than 150 partici-
pating, including Energy Minister of Chile
Marcelo Tokman, Korean Ambassador to
Chile Lim Chang-Soon, POSCO E&C CEO
Han Soo-Yang, AES Gener Chairman An-
dres Gluski, and President Felipe Creron.
“Angamos coal-fired power station with
a generation capacity of a large scale will
contribute to Chile’s economic growth,”
said Soo-Yang in his congratulatory
speech.
Unit 1 was first synchronized to the
SING grid on Dec. 21, 2010, and entered
commercial service in April 2011, approxi-
mately two weeks ahead of the scheduled
completion date. The second unit entered
commercial service in October 2011, also
several weeks ahead of schedule. This rep-
resents a significant achievement, especial-
ly given that a magnitude 8.8 on the Richter
scale earthquake hit southern Chile in Feb-
ruary 2010 and delayed construction by
about a month because 70% of the workers
lived in the affected area. Even so, POSCO
completed both units early and earned a $7
million schedule bonus. In addition, unit
performance tests found that the net output
of both units was about 5% higher and the
heat rate about 6% lower than the contract
guarantee.
During the inauguration of Unit 1 in
August 2011, the subsecretary of energy
of Chile said, “This project meets the three
basic conditions of energy policies with
www.powermag.com
which we work in our country since it is
competitive, it gives energy supply security
and meets the highest environmental stan-
dards. Angamos complies with all environ-
mental standards promulgated by President
Sebastián Piñera last February and meets
the requirements of Latin-American and
are at the same level of the European Union
in terms of exigency.”
Unique Design Features
Fuel supply represented a special challenge
because coal deliveries for Angamos are
made by sea through a dry bulk terminal
that was constructed in Mejillones, north
of Angamos Port. Construction of the port
coal-handling facilities was completed in
January 2011. Bituminous and subbitumi-
nous coal, purchased on the global market,
is transported to the plant’s transfer tower,
from which it is distributed across the coal
pile. The port’s solids-handling capacity is
1,500 metric tons (mt)/hour. It can receive
cargoes up to 80,000 mt and has unloading
rates between 17,000 and 20,000 mt/day.
Ash collected from the ESP hoppers is
conveyed to a silo, where it is stored. The
ash is then removed by truck and deposited
in a special landfill or used in the construc-
tion industry as raw material for cement.
Although Angamos is located on the Pa-
cific coast of northern Chile, 55 km north
of Antofagasta and 1,300 km north of San-
tiago, it is situated in the 1,000 km–long
Atacama Desert, the driest desert in the
world, according to NASA. Annual rainfall
in this desert is less than 0.004 inches, and
some areas have gone hundreds of years
with no rainfall. That makes water supply
a major concern.
The Angamos plant is the first of its kind
in South America to use seawater cooling
towers (Figure 3). About 6,000 cubic me-
ters/hour of seawater are supplied from a
seawater makeup pumping station with si-
phon and submarine discharge pipe. This
pumping station also supplies seawater to
the thermal vapor compression (TVC) de-
salinization plants to produce boiler make-
up water, firewater, potable water, service
water, and water for other facility uses.
Demineralized water is produced by a
multiple-effect distillation system as well
as with the TVC unit. Desalinated water
is next treated in a new demineralization
plant using electro-deionization units to
produce boiler-quality makeup water. Giv-
en the arid location, this water system is
cost-effective and sustainable for a plant
located close to the ocean.
A containerized portable reverse osmosis
plant was shipped from South Korea to pro-
vide potable water during construction.
|
POWER August 2012
ENTERPRISE
ASSET
MANAGEMENT
AND AGILE
ERP.

BETTER TOGETHER.
Only IFS Applications offers class-leading enterprise asset management (EAM) as part of a
fully integrated enterprise resources planning (ERP) suite. So you can implement EAM with
components of ERP, an entire ERP package or even integrate EAM seamlessly with your legacy
ERP system. So your energy assets can be as agile as your thinking.

IFS—FOR AGILE BUSINESS

www.youragileenergy.com
CIRCLE 16 ON READER SERVICE CARD
 2012 PLANT OF THE YEAR
Table 3. Major contractors and equipment suppliers to the Angamos
project. Source: AES Corp.
What
Plant engineering and design
Plant construction
Steam generator
Steam generator erection
Steam turbine generators
BESS battery supplier
Cooling tower
Fabric filter
Material handling
Semi-dry flue gas desulfurization
Distributed control system
Sootblowers, furnace wall cleaning
Condensers
Feedwater heaters
Condensate pumps
Boiler feedwater pumps
Fuel handling
Auxiliary transformers
Large power transformers
Dry ash handling
Wet ash handling
Limestone preparation
Water systems
4. Battery storage lockers. Inside the Angamos BESS are about one million ad-
vanced lithium-ion battery cells, divided between 10 2-MW battery containers and five
4-MW power controls containers—plus the power electronics to manage the system opera-
tion. Courtesy: AES Corp.
Table 3 lists the major contributors to
the success of Angamos.
Because Chile is seismically active, the
Who plant was designed to withstand a medium-
intensity earthquake without tripping the
Hyundai Engineering Co., Ltd.
plant offline. Should a severe earthquake
Sigdo Koppers S.A. occur, the plant design includes features
Doosan Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. that will minimize the length of a forced
Ansaldo Energia/Sigdo Koppers S.A. outage.
Ansaldo Energia
Buy the BESS
A123 In close proximity to the Angamos plant,
Hamon Korea a 20-MW high-efficiency lithium-ion bat-
STX
tery energy storage system (BESS) was
installed. The advanced reserve capacity
Baekdoo
provided by the BESS enables Angamos
Gia Niro/STX to generate an additional 20 MW—that
Emerson Korea Inc. would otherwise be tied up to maintain
Doosan HHI
the plant’s grid spinning reserve—for up
to 15 minutes virtually any time of the
Bumwoo Eng. Co., Ltd. year. (Spinning reserve is used during an
Bumwoo Eng. Co., Ltd. unexpected transmission loss, the failure
Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. of a power generator, or another accident
Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.
that might otherwise necessitate reducing
power to customers.) This “hybrid” part
Posco Machinery & Engineering Co., Ltd. of the plant allows the plant to reduce the
Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. mandated spinning reserve, thus allowing
Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. the plant to operate at increased load. The
BESS increases generation from the Anga-
Baekdoo Industry Machinery Co., Ltd.
mos plant by 4%, or about 130 GWh each
Baekdoo Industry Machinery Co., Ltd. year. The BESS entered commercial ser-
Niro/STX vice in May 2012 (Figure 4).
GTF/GE The Angamos project built on the suc-
cess of an initial partnership between AES
Gener and AES Energy Storage, both sub-
sidiaries of AES Corp., to develop and in-
stall a 12-MW BESS associated with AES
Gener’s Norgener power plant, also in the
SING, 172 km from Angamos, in only 15
months.
“As one of the largest power generators
in Chile, we’re consistently looking for
ways to unlock [the] value of our existing
plants while maintaining grid reliability
and flexibility,” said Felipe Ceron, CEO
of AES Gener. “Since 2009, we’ve been
working with AES Energy Storage to free
up generating capacity at our Norgener
plant by employing a battery-based instal-
lation to meet the power system’s obliga-
tions for spinning reserve. That project has
been in commercial operation for nearly
three years, and we’re now applying the
service on a larger scale with Angamos.”
AES Energy Storage worked with AES
Gener throughout design, development,
and installation of the Angamos BESS.
Both entities worked with the CDEC-SING
operator and other partners to configure
the Angamos BESS to meet performance
requirements of the electrical system oper-
ator and enable it to respond autonomously
within established parameters. The BESS

32 www.powermag.com |
POWER August 2012

features system monitoring, SCADA, and
integration with other operational systems.
A123 Systems supplied the lithium-ion
batteries for the project. ABB provided the
power controls modules.
People First
Angamos is a significant contributor to the
development of Chile’s energy sector and the
entire country. It also benefited the region by
creating more than 3,000 jobs during the con-
struction phase. Hiring local manpower was a
priority, and some of the workers are staying
with the company as plant operators.
To integrate the project with the local
community, the company has developed
a cooperation agreement with municipal
schools to align students’ capabilities with
project needs. In addition, as part of the
company’s social responsibility program,
it committed to enhancing the infrastruc-
ture of the Municipal Sport Center to im-
prove the quality of life.
AES Gener maintains strict environ-
mental and safety standards at its opera-
tions. Maintaining a workplace free of
safety incidents was a remarkable chal-
lenge for a project that took around 14
million man-hours in a multicultural envi-
ronment. The project recorded no fatalities
and achieved 5 million man-hours without
a lost-time accident and without a fatality.
The achievement of that milestone dem-
onstrated the strength of the programs and
culture at the construction facility, such as
proactive AES actions that include safety
walks and work activity observations.
The development of 10 Safety Manage-
ment System action plans and complet-
ing each of them was a strong indication
of the company’s dedication to continuous
safety improvement. Making the construc-
tion safety requirements a priority and the
routine identification of workplace haz-
ards was certainly a key to the milestone
achievement.
Awards and Honors
AES Gener was named international re-
cipient of the 85th Annual Edison Electric
Institute’s Edison Award on June 4, 2012,
the electric utility industry’s most presti-
gious honor, for its “distinguished leader-
ship, innovation and contribution to the
advancement of the electric industry for
the benefit of all.”
“AES Gener made the completion of
the Angamos coal-fired power plant one
of its highest priorities, and in doing so,
illustrated the kind of contributions our in-
dustry is capable of making to customers,”
EEI President Thomas R. Kuhn said dur-
ing the presentation.
|
August 2012 POWER
“We are very proud of AES Gener for
winning this prestigious award. The Anga-
mos project combines low-cost, reliable
power with our innovative lithium-ion bat-
teries to increase available capacity and
efficiency,” said Andres Gluski, president
and CEO of AES. “By delivering innova-
tive projects such as Angamos, AES helps
meet a growing demand for affordable en-
ergy in the markets we serve.”
Financing the $1.3 billion Angamos
plant represented a significant challenge,
as the process was initiated in 2008 and
closed in the midst of the international
financial crisis. However, a syndication
of international banks, reassured by the
financial strength of AES Gener, the EPC
contractor, and the offtakers, allowed AES
Gener to secure nearly $1 billion under
a 72/28 debt-to-equity project finance
structure just months after the debt market
meltdown in September 2008. Notably,
$675 million was guaranteed by Korea Ex-
port Insurance Corp. Financing also was
guaranteed by two long-term contracts:
with Minera Escondida, for 340 MW for
18 years, and with Minera Spence, for 90
MW for 15 years.
The Angamos project was also rec-
Your trusted partner
for bolted joints
The Nord-Lock Group has provided
over 30 years of safe, reliable bolting
to the Power industry. With a wide
range of solutions, including wedge-
locking technology and Superbolt
tensioners, our engineers are ready to
solve your critical bolting challenges!
CIRCLE 17 ON READER SERVICE CARD
www.powermag.com
2012 PLANT OF THE YEAR
ognized as the Best Deal of the Year by
LatinFinance, Project Finance Inter-
national, and Infrastructure Journal in
2008.
Environmental Concerns
AES Gener, in partnership with several
companies in the nearby city of Mejillones,
formed the “Fundación para la Sustentabili-
dad del Gaviotin Chico” (Foundation for
Sustainability of the Small Tern) with the
aim of instituting measures that will preserve
bird migration. It was the first time in Chile
that the public and private companies joined
together to contribute to the conservation of
an ecosystem affected by the development of
large infrastructure projects.
The foundation has found that the popu-
lation of Gaviotin Chico has remained
stable in the area of Mejillones, where the
birds have found new nesting sites. With
input from specialists working for this or-
ganization, companies and private citizens
better understand the life cycle and migra-
tory patterns of this bird species and have
taken concrete actions to control the haz-
ards that might affect them. ■
—Dr. Robert Peltier, PE is POWER’s
editor-in-chief.
new catalog available:
www.superbolt.com
www.nord-lock.com
33
 2012 MARMADUKE AWARD
Combined Solar Technologies’
Hybrid Plant: Using Wastewater
and Olive Pits to Produce Clean
Water and Clean Energy

Courtesy: Combined Solar Technologies

Combined Solar Technologies (CST) has designed, built, owns, and operates a
water purification system located at the Musco Family Olive Co. facility in
Tracy, Calif., that burns olive pits to purify highly saline wastewater through
a distillation process while also producing electric power. For its pioneer-
ing approach, CST is the winner of POWER’s 2012 Marmaduke Award for
excellence in plant problem-solving. The award is named for Marmaduke
Surfaceblow, the fictional marine engineer and plant troubleshooter par
excellence, whose exploits were chronicled in POWER beginning in 1948.
By Angela Neville, JD

F
eatured in the Discovery Channel’s
recent television special “Powering
the Future,” the Combined Solar Tech-
nologies’ (CST) innovative water purifica-
tion system began operating in 2010. The
Musco Family Olive Co. hired CST to help
its plant—the largest olive-canning facility
in the U.S.—better meet the California Wa-
ter Board’s wastewater treatment standards.
The facility’s one-of-a-kind system vali-
dated CST’s concept of using biomass fuel
combustion for wastewater treatment. The
system was designed to generate 375 kWh
of electricity and operates year-round.
The Musco facility processes more than
13 billion olives per year, each with a pit
that is a source of energy. The combustion
system burns about 24 tons of olive pits
per day to power its onsite water purifi-
cation system; no pretreatment is required
to utilize the olive pits as fuel (Figure
1). This helps the olive company by both
eliminating a waste stream and providing
free fuel.
The $4 million CST plant has many com-
ponents of a modern biomass power plant
with the major exception of the SteamBoy
brine boiler system. Conventional biomass
plants consume large amounts of clean
water to produce electricity; in contrast,
the CST plant produces large amounts of
clean water in the process of making elec-
tricity. CST designed and built the unique
SteamBoy system, which includes a boiler,
condenser, and steam engine.
The creative force behind the invention

34 www.powermag.com |
POWER August 2012
 Energy Products of Idaho
is now Outotec

We know you have come to trust EPI for high quality and reliable fuel thermal oxidation and
gasification technologies to recover energy from biomass and wastes, and we are committed to
making sure that trust only grows stronger.

Under the Outotec umbrella, we increase our global presence and expand our capabilities allowing
us to even better meet customer needs worldwide. Now operating as Outotec Energy Products,
we can also grow our service offerings for our large existing base of installed technology only
further improving the overall quality of service and support you have come to expect.

Contact us: Tel. +1 208 765 1611

email: cda.sales@outotec.com

Outotec innovates, develops and delivers sustainable technology

and service solutions to minerals, metals, chemical and energy
industries. Outotec collaborates lifelong with its customers
in order to optimize the utilization of raw materials and
energy efficiency as well as to minimize the
environmental impact and operating costs.
Outotec Oyj is listed on the NASDAQ OMX Helsinki.

www.outotec.com/energyproducts
CIRCLE 18 ON READER SERVICE CARD
 2012 MARMADUKE AWARD
of the SteamBoy system is CST’s Frank
“The Rub” Schubert. He is a renaissance
man whose career ranges from working
on closed water systems for NASA’s man-
to-Mars effort to playing music with the
famous rock band Devo. Much like the
fictional Marmaduke Surfaceblow (see the
online reprint of a classic Marmaduke sto-
ry that will appear with this issue’s story
archive), he’s an inventive troubleshooter
who’s comfortable using his technical
prowess to improvise original solutions to
challenging situations.
Wastewater Treatment Technology
“The heart of the CST system is the Steam-
Boy brine boilers. The design of the boil-
ers allows for the use of wastewater as a
feedwater source without the normal foul-
ing that would be associated with standard
boilers,” said Robert Schmitt, PE, an en-
1. From pits to power. The CST system,
located at the Musco Family Olive Co. facility
in Tracy, Calif., uses about 24 tons per day of
olive pits to power its onsite water purifica-
tion system; no pretreatment is required to
use the olive pits as fuel. The tanks shown in
the background are where Musco stores and
cures its olives. Courtesy: Sam Burbank
3. Tough engine. Combined Solar Tech-
nologies’ Scott Mattson is shown in front of
the SteamBoy 1,200 hp steam engine at the
Musco facility. Unlike a steam turbine, it can
handle steam that would typically be consid-
ered too harsh to use for power generation.
Courtesy: Sam Burbank
36
gineer with Bibb Engineers, Architects &
Constructors who works on a number of
CST projects (Figure 2).
Victory Energy of Tulsa built the CST
SteamBoy brine boilers. All SteamBoy
products are inspected and ASME certified.
CST built the steam engine, combustion
unit, and condensing unit that are being
used at the Musco facility. The plant’s full-
scale system features a SteamBoy 1,200 hp
steam engine and three SteamBoy steam
generators that, on average, operate at a
little less than half of rated capacity. Kato
Engineering built the 750-kW generator.
The SteamBoy engine, while not as ef-
ficient as a modern-day steam turbine, is
robust (Figure 3). And unlike a steam tur-
bine, it can handle steam that would typi-
cally be considered too harsh to use for
power generation. The proprietary EcoPod
is CST’s negative pressure evaporation
2. Solving the salt problem. The
SteamBoy brine boilers are shown at the
Musco Family Olive Co plant. The facility has
a zero-liquid discharge system that cleans the
highly saline wastewater produced by pro-
cessing olives and generates electricity at the
same time. Courtesy: Sam Burbank
4. Brine busters. Combined Solar Tech-
nologies installed the SteamBoy evaporators
at the Musco plant during 2010. In the final
process phase, the waste brine is evaporated/
concentrated using the steam from the distil-
lation process, making the plant a zero–liquid
discharge facility. Courtesy: Sam Burbank
www.powermag.com
system that uses exhaust from the engine
to operate (Figure 4).
CST’s technology is an economically
viable solution for dealing with waste-
water salinity problems. Schmitt said,
“the SteamBoy process treats the Musco
facility’s highly saline effluent, which
can contain upwards of 20,000 ppm of to-
tal dissolved solids (TDS), and produces
treated water that almost achieves potable
water standards.”
The boilers evaporate the water under
pressure and produce clean steam (90% to
97%) and a blow-by stream (3% to 10%)
that contains some steam and a high con-
centration of the salts (contaminants). The
remaining salts and other contaminants
are deposited in the evaporator tubes,
from which they are easily removed as
dry solids. The resulting distilled water is
allowed to leave the top of the boilers as
clean pressurized steam that is then direct-
ed to electrical generation units before it is
condensed back into distilled water.
The distillation process purifies over
90% of the challenging wastewater re-
ceived from the plant’s olive processing
and removes the TDS. The process pro-
duces waste brine that is less than 10%
of the original wastewater amount. In the
final process phase, waste brine is evapo-
rated/concentrated using steam from the
distillation process, making the plant a
zero–liquid discharge facility. The plant’s
top priority is keeping salt out of the en-
vironment.
Bob Bibb, chairman and CEO of Bibb
Engineers, suggests that CST’s wastewater
treatment technology also has many other
uses. “Treating wastewater to reduce TDS
will soon become big business, particu-
larly within California and regions where
frack water is being discharged. CST ap-
pears to have one of the few proven treat-
ment systems that works.” Bibb suggests
that the CST system may also have future
application in power plant zero–liquid dis-
charge systems.
Using Biomass to
Generate Electricity
The Musco Plant produces clean water and
electricity by processing biomass fuel. The
biomass is fed into the combustion unit and
hot combustion gas gives up its heat to the
oil heat exchanger. The oil heat exchanger
delivers the heat transfer oil that is con-
tinually circulated though the SteamBoy
steam generators. The steam generators, in
turn, produce clean, pressurized steam that
is directed to the electric generation units
that produce electricity. The exhaust steam
is directed to drying pans, where its heat
|
POWER August 2012

5. Under construction. A worker is shown inside the shell of the CST Vector Jet combus-
tion system before the refractory bricks and vector nozzles were added. The system burns olive
pits, a former waste product, as fuel. Courtesy: Sam Burbank
is used to dry the remaining solids that are
extracted from the brine water.
In addition to purifying water, the plant’s
system generates electricity that it uses for
miscellaneous internal electrical needs. Schu-
bert said, “the Musco facility has no plans to
sell the energy to the grid, as it uses all the
electricity that it produces onsite.”
The plant uses a steam piston engine
operating at fairly low pressure (200 psig)
to produce electrical power. When the
plant is scaled up some time in the future,
a steam turbine generator configuration
will be used to get the highest possible ef-
ficiency and reliability possible for power
generation.
The Musco plant uses a modern pro-
grammable logic control system for
monitoring and controlling the various
combustion, hot oil, steam, and electrical
systems. Schubert said, “this system con-
trol philosophy can readily be adapted and
up-scaled for future plants.”
CST has trained some of the Musco staff
on operations of the facility. In addition,
Musco hired some specialized personnel
to operate and maintain the plant.
Successful Air Emissions Control
When CST installed the new wastewater
purification system at the plant, Musco
made a significant investment in state-
of-the-art emissions controls. The system
uses the CST Vector Jet combustion sys-
tem, which burns the olive pits as fuel, as
well as a Donaldson Torit baghouse, and a
Babcock Power selective catalytic reduc-
|
August 2012 POWER
tion unit (Figures 5 and 6).
The CST biomass burner system is
ultra-clean firing. The combustion stack
is monitored for emissions and is capable
of meeting the California Air Quality
Standards. Recent source testing of the
CST system located at the Musco facil-
ity showed that emissions from the CST
system are the lowest of any biomass-
fired facility in California (approximately
4 ppm of nitrogen oxides), according to
Schmitt.
The air quality permit was the first
permit the plant had to obtain. CST and
Musco’s environmental engineer worked
together to submit a permit application
to the California Air Quality Board, and
the permitting process took approximately
three and a half months. A water quality
discharge permit was not needed, as the
Musco facility already had one. The plant
did not need any federal permits.
Innovative Design with Versatile
Applications
Schubert said the important technologi-
cal innovations at the Musco plant are the
CST SteamBoy brine boilers, the Vector
jet biomass combustion system, the mod-
ern steam engine, and the Ecopod with its
drying pan technology.
The CST plant’s olive pit–powered re-
newable energy and wastewater system is
also known as RENEWS. In July 2011,
the CST RENEWS system was lauded at
the inaugural Agricultural Innovation con-
ference at University of California, Davis,
www.powermag.com
2012 MARMADUKE AWARD
6. Ultra-clean firing. The Combined So-
lar Technologies plant’s combustion and emis-
sion system is shown next to the silo and
auger feed system. Recent source testing of
the system showed that its emissions are the
lowest of any biomass-fired system in Califor-
nia. Courtesy: Olga Perry
where the plant received a “Game Chang-
er of the Year” award in the Innovation
in Energy and Agriculture category for
its unique water purification system that
solved its high-saline discharge problem.
“In addition to the olive processing in-
dustry, a number of other types of food
processors have combustible waste that
can be used to power the CST SteamBoy
system,” Schubert said. “Examples are
the wine industry, the dairy industry, the
cheese industry, and the tomato-canning
industry.”
With the successful demonstration of
the SteamBoy system at the Musco plant,
CST is now able to expand the use of its
technology to a number of new venues.
For example, the city of Tracy, Calif., re-
cently hired CST to improve its munici-
pal wastewater treatment plant’s (WWTP)
operations. The company has already in-
stalled its SteamBoy Jr. unit in the plant
and it is currently reducing salts from the
plant’s discharge stream by over 97%.
CST also has begun the design of a full-
scale system that will include such green
heat sources as the biogas currently com-
ing from the plant’s digester, a CST bio-
reactor for woody materials, and a solar
thermal array.
In addition, CST is in the design phase
for biomass plants for the Eastern Mu-
nicipal Water District east of Los Ange-
les; frack water processing facilities in
Pennsylvania and California; a municipal
WWTP similar to the Tracy project for the
city of Salinas, Calif.; and the conversion
of an existing biomass facility to Steam-
Boy technology in New York. ■
—Angela Neville, JD, is senior
editor of POWER.
37
 2012 SMART GRID AWARD
Customers Motivate San Diego Gas
& Electric’s All-Inclusive Smart
Grid Vision

“If you build it, they will come” has proven a risky strategy for some smart grid proj-
ects. One of California’s largest investor-owned utilities faced the opposite challenge—
customers whose behaviors necessitated a smarter grid. Customer involvement in
and support for smart grid plans is a major reason SDG&E’s smart grid efforts con-
tinue to garner accolades, including the 2012 POWER Smart Grid Award.
By Dr. Gail Reitenbach Courtesy: SDG&E

The People Led, the

W
hen POWER introduced its new
Smart Grid Award in early 2011,
money from the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act was still flowing, and
there was a lot of industry chatter about smart
grid projects, though the vast majority of them
just involved meter change-outs. Our inaugural
year Smart Grid Award went to Vermont Elec-
tric Cooperative (VEC), which demonstrated
how a small team of savvy professionals can
develop and implement a successful smart grid
vision with what many would consider meager
resources and industry visibility.
This year, the winner is at the opposite end
of the size spectrum and the other side of the
country. San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E),
a Sempra Energy company, serves 3.4 mil-
lion consumers through 1.4 million electric
meters and more than 850,000 natural gas
meters in San Diego and southern Orange
Counties—a service territory covering 4,100
square miles. SDG&E is making its mark as
one of the most comprehensive large-scale
smart grid ecosystem developers. The utility
has already garnered numerous smart grid
awards, but that’s not why we chose it for the
POWER Smart Grid Award.
Leaders Followed
Just as VEC proved that a small cooperative
can achieve benefits that many larger utilities
of all stripes have not, SDG&E’s smart grid
experience has also turned accepted wisdom
on its head. Large investor-owned utilities
(IOUs) in particular have been accustomed
to a top-down approach that might glibly be
called “Father Knows Best.” For SDG&E’s
smart grid plan, the motto is more like “When
the people lead, the leaders will follow.”
Obviously, like any other utility that an-
swers to shareholders, SDG&E doesn’t do
anything simply because customers ask for
it, whether the ask involves more renewable
generation or lower bills. Nevertheless, un-
like some utilities that have faced heated
opposition to the introduction of advanced
metering infrastructure (AMI, digital meters
with wireless communications capabilities),
SDG&E’s customers have largely welcomed
its smart grid efforts and are a major, if indi-
rect, driver of them.
SDG&E’s “Smart Grid Deployment Plan
2011–2020” (SGDP) notes that many utili-
ties are taking a wait-and-see approach to
smart grid technology deployment. “For the
San Diego region and SDG&E, however,
waiting is not an option,” it says, because:
■ Its customers and many stakeholders have
shown consistent support for new renew-
able legislation, generation technologies,
and projects.
■ Its customers have installed more mega-
watts of rooftop solar in San Diego than
utility customers in any other U.S. city. By
the end of 2011, more than 13,000—more
than 1%—of SDG&E customers had in-
stalled photovoltaic systems totaling over
100 MW of capacity. (As of June this year,
the total was 135 MW, and the forecast for
2015 is 300 MW to 400 MW.)
■ Its customers are already taking delivery
of Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt electric
vehicles, and more Leafs are being sold in
San Diego than anywhere else in the coun-
try. Ford, Mitsubishi, and BMW have also
targeted the San Diego region for their
plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) release in
late 2011 to early 2012.
■ Its customers already have access to in-
terval usage data, and thousands signed

38 www.powermag.com |
POWER August 2012

up for Google PowerMeter (before it was
killed by Google in 2011), and more than
7,500 are using the Green Button (see
sidebar, p. 44).
Integrating a large number of small, dis-
tributed renewable generation sources—
along with the utility-scale ones necessary
to meet state mandates—plus new load types
Adding Lots of Renewables Requires a Smarter Grid
With more than 17,200 rooftop solar in-
stallations (for a total capacity of 135 MW
as of mid-2012), San Diego has one of the
highest rates of solar panel installation in
the country. That’s a lot, but it won’t get
the utility to its 2020 goal, which is where
imports and new California renewable
projects come into play—along with new
transmission, like the Sunrise Powerlink,
which was brought online in mid-June.
Lee Krevat, SDG&E’s smart grid direc-
tor, said, “We are making great strides
in securing contracts with larger utility-
scale renewable projects, which will le-
verage the ideal solar, geothermal, and
wind resources that can be found in the
San Diego and Imperial Counties and Baja
California region. In 2011, SDG&E signed
17 new renewable energy contracts for a
combined total of 1,482 MW. These con-
1. Seeking to make renewables
a bigger piece of the pie. Although
its power supply mix varies from year to
year—and the closure during at least much
of this summer of the San Onofre Nuclear
Station will mean a lower percentage for
nuclear than anticipated—San Diego Gas
& Electric’s supply for 2012 is roughly 20%
renewables. Getting to 33% renewables by
2020 will require a set of robust and time-
sensitive information and communications
tools that are integral to a smarter grid.
Source: SDG&E
Natural gas Coal, 3%
cogeneration, 7%
Market
sources, 10%
Natural gas, 40%
Nuclear, 20%
Renewables
(mostly wind,
some solar, 20%
|
August 2012 POWER
that can also serve as energy storage devices
is difficult enough with aging infrastructure.
When you add the desire to use energy ef-
ficiently and provide incentives for doing so,
you’re going to need a smarter grid.
One reason SDG&E has garnered ac-
colades for its smart grid efforts is that the
scope of those efforts is broader than at most
utilities. Utility grid modernization goals
tracts range from 299 MW of wind from
Pattern Wind, to two contracts with Te-
naska Solar Ventures for 270 MW of pho-
tovoltaic (PV) solar power, all located
in the Imperial Valley. These efforts will
help us attain California’s mandates for
utilities to secure 33% of their energy
from renewable energy resources [Figure
1] and reduce greenhouse gas emissions
to 1990 levels by 2020 (SDG&E commit-
ted to the former goal in November 2008,
more than two years prior to it being
signed into law).”
As Senior Vice President for Power Sup-
ply James Avery told POWER, one way the
smart grid will “ensure continued power
quality despite the intermittent nature of
renewable energy sources [is] through new
technology that senses and accounts for
any variability in real time. For example,
we are adopting smart sensors that can tell
us if we have a drop in voltage or an excess
of energy anywhere on the grid. Smart in-
verters will then engage to keep the power
in a state of equilibrium.
“In order to do this, information has to
be conveyed and analyzed very quickly with
enhanced communications systems that
can then tell the inverters, capacitors, and
switches to make sure the grid maintains
a high level of integrity throughout. Let’s
say a cloud moves in front of the sun and
causes many solar panels to stop produc-
ing energy. Sensors would pick up the drop
in solar energy and immediately switch to
battery power to keep power flowing. If
the cloudy weather continues for a greater
length of time, perhaps natural gas peaker
plants would kick in and maintain energy
flow, while the batteries move into recharge
mode. This whole process needs to happen
within seconds. That’s why the smart grid
is crucial to integrating renewable energy
and will continue to be an operational fo-
cus of ours going forward.”
www.powermag.com
2012 SMART GRID AWARD
are bound to vary for a variety of reasons,
including generation portfolio options, exist-
ing infrastructure status, population density
and growth patterns, and more. That caveat
aside, the most basic smart grid plan would
entail equipping the system’s devices with
bidirectional communication capabilities and
integrating information technology into grid
operations and back office systems to en-
Energy storage is often mentioned as
an aid to integrating higher levels of re-
newables, but Avery notes that “Energy
storage has also posed several challenges,
including finding technology that can
pass quality tests, identifying proper lo-
cations for installation, and purchasing
it for a reasonable price. Energy storage
offers many potential benefits if we can
reduce the cost of this technology to en-
courage larger investments.”
In 2012, the utility is installing eight
energy storage devices—six small units
in the community and two large units at
SDG&E substations—designed to “smooth
out” renewable intermittency issues.
Avery noted that SDG&E is also deploy-
ing a dynamic VAR device that will soon
be installed on a circuit with a large PV
system that is already causing fluctua-
tions in that portion of the grid. “This
new system will inject energy to level
out the swings in supply caused by this
PV system.”
In addition, SDG&E was awarded a pat-
ent and is investing in smart transformers
(see the web supplement mentioned at
the end of this story) that can measure
the fluctuations of power on the grid and
control various loads to keep that power
within manageable levels. “An example of
how this technology can improve the grid
is electric vehicle (EV) integration,” Avery
explained. “EVs consume a large amount
of power when they are recharging. If
too many vehicles charge at the same
time, they can put stress on the grid. The
smart transformer will be able to receive
signals and manage this demand by com-
municating with the EVs or their charg-
ing equipment to charge at a later time,
when power is plentiful, or take turns in
charging. This will help integrate EVs into
the system and create a more flexible and
responsive grid overall.”
39
 2012 SMART GRID AWARD
able more timely, wireless, remote access to
and action on energy usage and grid health.
SDG&E is going beyond the basics.
The Challenge of Phased
Implementation
One conundrum any utility faces if it aims
to develop a grid modernization program
that touches end users’ premises is how to
balance a vision of the “end state” benefits
with necessarily phased implementation. Just
installing smart meters doesn’t enable access
to real-time energy usage data, for example.
Nor does it necessarily ensure faster outage
response. Getting customers on board to sup-
port each incremental step in developing a
smarter grid requires them to understand the
big picture while the utility delivers substan-
tive, incremental improvements.
One way SDG&E addressed this challenge
was to develop the SGDP. Its details include
spelling out what customer groups the utility
plans to equip with what tools and services
each year. Another strategy was to enlist cus-
tomer input from the start of the AMI plan-
ning process. Three areas of interest stood
out as the highest priorities in these discus-
sions: customer behavior/education, demand
response, and rate design. One finding that
emerged is that one size does not fit all when
it comes to educating customers about smart
grid technology changes.
To say that customers have supported
SDG&E smart grid efforts is not to suggest
that all customers have. As among any large
group of individuals, some are opposed to
any new ideas. For SDG&E’s smart meters,
2. Sun power for science center. SDG&E is contributing to the growth of renewable
generation in multiple ways, including through its Sustainable Communities program. These
solar panels were installed on the Reuben H. Fleet Science Center in Balboa Park as part of that
program. Courtesy: SDG&E
40
though, fewer than 1,000 customers have
opted out of its total 2.3 million installations
to date (0.0004%). The California Public
Utility Commission (CPUC) ruled in March
that state IOUs could charge up to $75 per
customer initially plus $10 a month for smart
meter opt-outs to compensate for the extra
labor required for meter reading, maintaining
two types of meters, and duplicating back
office systems. In the words of the CPUC,
“This opt-out option is a service because the
standard for metering has been transitioned
throughout the country and, for the most part,
the world” to wireless digital meters.
What’s Driving SDG&E’s
Smart Grid?
As noted earlier, drivers of PEVs and home-
owners with rooftop generation are among the
reasons SDG&E needs a modernized grid. But
California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard
(RPS) is driving the lead bus. Without a more
robust and responsive grid from end to end,
it will be virtually impossible for California’s
IOUs to feed 33% renewables onto the wires
by 2020 (see sidebar, p. 39).
The Southern California utility’s cus-
tomers have supported state policies that
help drive smart grid development. Beyond
the RPS, those policies include Senate Bill
17, Assembly Bill 32, the state’s distrib-
uted generation goals, its demand response
(DR) mandate, improved building and ap-
pliance efficiency standards, implementa-
tion of the electric procurement loading
order, and national security standards such
as the North American Electric Reliability
www.powermag.com
Corp.’s Critical Infrastructure Protection
program.
For the reasons already listed, SDG&E
was an early smart grid pilot program player.
Over the years, its early mover status and the
size of its customer base have made it a valu-
able contributor to the development of smart
grid standards and a highly visible member
of national smart grid organizations, includ-
ing the Gridwise Alliance, Open Smart Grid
users group, and the IBM Intelligent Utility
Network Coalition.
A Three-Part Vision
According to its SGDP, “The Smart Grid em-
powers customers, increases renewable gen-
eration, integrates plug-in electric vehicles
(PEVs) and reduces greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions while maintaining and improving
system reliability, operational efficiency, se-
curity and customer privacy.” Those may not
be the exact goals that every U.S. utility would
have for its smart grid efforts, but they’re smart
ones for the San Diego area’s realities.
SDG&E has a tripartite vision of:
■ A “smart customer” empowered with reli-
ability, choice, control, and convenience.
■ A “smart utility” capable of coordinating
resource operation from central station
generation to distributed energy and de-
mand resources sited on the distribution
system that can provide customers with
“more timely and relevant information on
their energy usage, market prices and sys-
tem conditions.”
■ A “smart market” for customers and all
grid stakeholders enabled “by creating a
utility platform that ensures reliability and
allows resources to respond to accurate
and timely price signals and system event
conditions” and strengthened efficiency,
transparency, and security of the grid.
Achieving some of these goals depends
upon future standards development and new
technology implementation.
Nine Program Areas
Both to serve its customers and meet the
state’s ambitious energy policy goals,
SDG&E’s smart grid plan focuses on nine
program areas: customer empowerment; re-
newable growth (Figure 2); electric vehicle
growth; reliability and safety; security; op-
erational efficiency; smart grid research,
development, and demonstration; integrated
and cross-cutting systems; and workforce
development.
SDG&E approaches each of these from a
cost-effectiveness perspective to determine
whether each project’s costs are outweighed
by its benefits. This analysis has been applied
|
POWER August 2012
Easy Call. Big Payoff.
Save Energy. Save Money.
Motor-driven equipment accounts for 63% of your
plant’s electricity consumption every minute of
every day. Your choices are to let your electricity
bills continue to grow or call in Baldor’s Installed
Base Evaluation Team to identify improvements
you can start making today.
The Baldor IBE Team uses advanced data
collection equipment and software to work with
your plant maintenance personnel to take an
accurate account of your motors, drives and
mechanical power transmission products, both in
operation and from spares inventory. The IBE Team
will produce a comprehensive report and plan,
©2012 Baldor Electric Company
CIRCLE 19 ON READER SERVICE CARD
targeting inefficient motors and mechanical drives
as well as identifying systems where adjustable
speed drives could be added to save even more
energy. This report will provide recommendations for
immediate action along with long term strategies…
all positively affecting your bottom line.
If you’re ready to do something about your growing
electricity consumption, email the Baldor IBE
specialists at IBETeam@Baldor.com or call
(864) 281-2100 to receive case studies with real-
world savings. It’s an easy call with a big payoff.
baldor.com
 2012 SMART GRID AWARD
to all projects in the SGDP, whether they are
required to meet state or federal policy re-
quirements or support customer choice and
preferences. SDG&E says in its SGDP that
it “will not request authorization for funding
of projects not necessary to comply with pol-
icy unless the benefits exceed the associated
costs or where they are required to effectively
communicate with customers.”
That position alone is worth adopting na-
tionwide. That’s not to say that the utility has
a crystal ball. SDG&E acknowledges that,
because much of the technology is new, fu-
ture costs could vary from initial estimates.
As Senior Vice President for Power Supply
James Avery told POWER when asked about
the biggest smart grid implementation chal-
lenges SDG&E has faced, “The nascent na-
ture of the technology continues to surprise
us. Whenever new technology is adopted for
the first time, a learning curve ensues. How-
ever, we expect our industry to continue its
transformation into a more technologically
focused one that embraces innovation.”
As the SGDP explains, “Where technology
innovations or energy markets are not mature
enough to support a full deployment of a new
or potentially promising Smart Grid investment,
SDG&E’s strategy is to leverage pilot and dem-
onstration projects to improve the utility’s un-
derstanding of likely costs and benefits before a
full deployment decision is proposed.”
Two examples of this approach are its care-
ful testing of home area networks (HANs),
discussed later, and the Borrego Springs Mi-
crogrid project (see sidebar below).
Many of the nine program areas, and the
smart grid project deployments that support
them, overlap. Later sections look at what
SDG&E has achieved to date with just some
of the more than 60 projects that support its
multiple goals.
The Cost/Benefit Bottom Line
SDG&E smart grid program cost estimates
for 2006–2020 are “approximately $3.5 to
$3.6 billion and include previously autho-
rized investments.” Overall estimated ben-
efits are higher, it says, “between $3.8 and
$7.1 billion,” including “estimated societal
and environmental benefits of $760 mil-
lion–$1.9 billion based on avoided emissions
through the integration of renewable energy
and PEVs as well as the estimated avoided
fuel costs PEV owners realize by the success-
ful integration of PEVs.”
Though such benefits may be a harder
sell in some parts of the country, they are
in a sense “mandated benefits” ultimately
deriving from state requirements. Utilities
without such aggressive RPS goals may be
able to invest less for comparable returns on
investment.
Avery said that “SDG&E will seek to fund
its Smart Grid effort primarily through the
normal CPUC and Federal Energy Regula-
tory Commission rate-making process. Other
funding opportunities through the Depart-
ment of Energy and California Energy Com-
mission or other avenues will be utilized on a
case-by-case basis.”
Addressing Security and Privacy
Concerns
Before looking at some of the actual projects
and their results, it’s worth noting SDG&E’s
attention to what may be the hottest hot but-
ton smart grid issues for end users: security
and privacy. SDG&E’s “Smart Grid Deploy-
ment Plan 2011–2020” runs 354 pages, and
20% of those pages are devoted to grid and
cybersecurity strategies, including customer
privacy.
Although most of the media coverage of
grid security focuses on the new challenges
that smart grid technologies pose, new tech-
nologies also provide opportunities. For
example, new communications and control
technologies can help “prevent or isolate the
impacts of any physical or cyber threats to
one or multiple portions of the Smart Grid
to maintain system reliability in the event of
a threat.”
As for consumer privacy, the Southern
California utility is using both the National
Institute of Standards and Technology’s four

Microgrid Puts the Pieces Together to Study Integration Issues

San Diego Gas & Electric is creating a new $25 million microgrid
in Borrego Springs with the help of $10 million in grants from the
Department of Energy and California Energy Commission. SDG&E’s
Borrego Springs Microgrid will be the largest project of its kind in
the nation and will integrate solar power, battery energy storage,
automated switching, and active customer participation. The mi-
3. Banking energy. A 1.5-MWh battery energy storage com-
ponent for the Borrego Springs Microgrid was installed in June.
The ability to store energy, from renewable generation sources in
particular, provides grid operators flexibility for handling unexpected
condition changes. Courtesy: SDG&E
crogrid will interconnect these elements to create a more robust,
self-sustaining grid that can better manage outages and enhance
local reliability.
Borrego Springs residents have installed numerous rooftop so-
lar arrays, and SDG&E has installed traditional generators for the
microgrid project. The utility also installed a 1.5-MWh battery
energy storage device at the local substation in June that is ex-
pected to be operational in July (Figure 3).
The utility is recruiting 125 residential and small commercial
customers in Borrego Springs to be part of the Microgrid Energy
Manager pilot program for testing home area networks. This new
technology will provide simulated real-time pricing signals and
“reduce your use” requests, and will offer incentives to custom-
ers for participating and actively managing their energy usage to
reduce peak load. That pilot is expected to launch in the second
half of 2012.
SDG&E also worked with the University of California at San Diego
as it developed a microgrid on the La Jolla campus (see “Smart
Power Generation at UCSD” in the Nov. 2010 issue of POWER). For
more information on the value of microgrids to larger smart grid
efforts, visit www.powermag.com and search for “microgrid.” In
particular, see “The U.S. Military Gets Smart Grid” in the Jan. 2012
issue and “The Smart Grid and Distributed Generation: Better To-
gether” in the April 2011 issue.

42 www.powermag.com |
POWER August 2012
 Power Plant Parts
and Parcel to go.

Engineered, Procured and Ready to Construct.

Fully designed as a nominal 600 MW GE steam turbine, this Unit 1 power block
is a coal-ired electric generating unit in waiting — making it or its equipment a
perfect solution for a utility that projects demand and demands eficiency.
Ready for re-siting and permitting, this plant design comes with complete
documentation of the power block speciications and calculations — and its
major equipment is 100% delivered. If you have interest in either the entire plant
design or the equipment, they are priced to move. Quickly.
For information, contact John Dills, Santee Cooper, at 843-761-8000, ext. 5772
or visit www.santeecooper.com/wpsale.

Download the MS Tag Reader App at http://gettag.mobi

to scan for design details and available equipment.

CIRCLE 20 ON READER SERVICE CARD

 2012 SMART GRID AWARD
dimensions of privacy and the seven “Pri- tomers. This includes home area network connected directly to smart meters. An ad-
vacy by Design” foundational principles as functionality, which will allow electric ap- ditional 500 devices were expected to be
guidance for its privacy program. Developed pliances, thermostats, and other devices to deployed in July in a second pilot program.
by Dr. Ann Cavoukian, information and pri- receive event and price signaling information SDG&E is working with the CPUC and the
vacy commissioner of Ontario, Privacy by and enable them to automatically conserve other California utilities on a common pro-
Design was recently made an international when electricity rates are highest and activate cess for integrating HANs into the retail
standard. when they are lower, such as at night. This market, which will allow this technology to
In March, SDG&E announced the incor- enhanced efficiency reduces stress on the become broadly available to customers.
poration of Privacy by Design into its smart grid and lowers emissions.”
grid initiative. This partnership is the first of Via the Zigbee HAN chip in the meter, Peak Load Reduction
its kind in the U.S. and, the company said, smart meters “are the most cost-effective way The new meters and HANs could be essential
“emphasizes the commitment of the compa- for customers to get near-real-time energy to energy conservation this summer, espe-
ny in designing, building and operating a se- consumption data,” said Krevat. The smart cially for as long as the San Onofre Nuclear
cure, reliable and trustworthy smart grid that meters provide the hourly data that makes Generating Station, located just north of San
safeguards customer privacy from the start.” Green Button (see sidebar) and other energy Diego, remains offline.
Specifically, that means, for example, ensur- efficiency efforts possible. One efficiency program that aims to be a
ing that privacy is the default position of all For example, the utility is developing its win-win for the utility and its customers is
programs and incorporating privacy end-to- own app that will provide usage information the “Reduce Your Use” campaign, which is
end throughout the life cycle of any personal and other options, such as texts that will in- offered to most residential and small business
information. form customers when they are going above customers. Eligible customers are encour-
a self-identified usage maximum. “We will aged to set up email or text alerts by visiting
Smart Meters Are the Foundation also offer customers a carbon footprint cal- the program website so that they can be noti-
SDG&E has nearly completed installation culator, which will provide even more infor- fied the day before a Reduce Your Use day
of all 1.4 million smart meters and advanced mation for customers interested in preserving occurs, enabling them to plan ahead for steps
communications upgrades to about 850,000 the environment,” said Krevat. “All of these that save the most energy and maximize their
gas meters in its service territory. As of June innovations would not be possible without reward. The utility and customers both win if
10, electric meter change-outs were 97.9% smart meters that provide the real-time ener- peak demand drops sufficiently to avoid local
complete. gy information that allows customers to save reliability issues. The smart meters provide
“Smart meters are foundational,” said money and/or conserve energy.” the real-time energy usage information that
the utility’s smart grid director, Lee Krevat, The utility has launched several pilot pro- allows SDG&E to see how much customers
“enabling technology that leads to greater grams with HANs. Currently, approximately conserved.
energy efficiency and more options for cus- 700 HAN devices supplied by Tendril are Participating customers who respond by
reducing their energy use from 11 a.m. to
6 p.m. on Reduce Your Use days will see a
Push-Button-Easy Energy Efficiency credit of $0.75/ kWh on their next energy
bill and can log on to the website to view
Enhancing communications with customers is an integral part of their conservation goal. The online tool will
the smart grid. To this end, SDG&E was an ardent early supporter also display how much energy they used and
of the “Green Button” initiative. By clicking on the Green Button— saved during the Reduce Your Use day.
Last summer’s Reduce Your Use Pilot for
an online energy usage data tool—customers can access up to 13
3,000 customers yielded the following results:
months of their detailed energy consumption data and learn when they use energy and
how much they are using. To date, more than 7,500 SDG&E customers have downloaded ■ Average load reduction for customers who
this data. reduced was 4.5 kWh per event (or 22.5
Customers can then provide the data to third parties or do research themselves to see kWh over the pilot period) for a $3.50
where they can conserve and reduce their energy use. Instead of waiting to get a bill at savings average per event date (approxi-
the end of the month, customers can access the information to be more proactive about mately 5% savings on the average bill).
how they use energy and, hopefully, take action to find new ways to conserve. ■ SDG&E rebated a total of $24,000 to
As with so many smart grid projects, the details evolve over time. Though SDG&E customers.
originally used Itron to help support the Green Button “and get it launched quickly, we ■ On average, customers who reduced got

now are using Aclara in this role as part of our broader enterprise focus to engage the $17.50 back over the course of the pilot.
■ On average, each of the 3,000 customers
customer,” said Lee Krevat, the utility’s smart grid director.
got $8 back over the course of the pilot.
Later this year, SDG&E intends to take the Green Button a step further and launch
“Green Button Connect,” a tool that will allow customers to share their energy usage Smart meters will also help if there is any
data with third parties of their choice on an automated and daily basis. This will open sort of outage. They will be able to send out-
up a new market for private companies to offer innovative services to customers that age notifications through the utility’s new
help them better manage their energy use and conserve. With access to this daily en- outage management system (OMS), which
ergy usage data, private companies may in the near future develop applications that will be operational this summer. The OMS
provide this information to customers in new ways, perhaps through a cell phone app or will help SDG&E “identify outages more
a personalized web portal. Third parties have already developed 64 Green Button apps, quickly and accurately by removing the need
according to the website Open Energy Information. for customers to call us about suspected
outages in most situations. We will already

44 www.powermag.com |
POWER August 2012
 is one of the
leading industrial
contractors serving today’s
Power industry. With over
44,000 MW of installed
capacity, TIC is differentiated
by its direct-hire capabilities,
financial strength and diverse
project experience, including:
EPC: Coal–fired units including
large utility boiler installations (in
excess of 750 MW)
IGCC: Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle for the Polk Power
Station project
CFB: Extensive Circulating
Fluidized Bed boiler experience
AQCS: Major scrubber, baghouse,
FGD, SCR and DCS installations and
retrofits

Renewable Power
experience includes:
WIND: Over 1,000 US wind
turbine units
HYDROELECTRIC: Powerhouse
structure and turbines, major
penstock installations and water
distribution systems
GEOTHERMAL: Nearly every
major geothermal project in the US,
including its first EPC and first
global projects
SOLAR: Large scale solar
installations, nitrate salt technology,
water/steam receivers and oil/rock
thermal storage systems

TIC is a
complete
Power
contractor.
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS OFFICE
PO Box 774848
Steamboat Springs CO 80477
2211 Elk River Road
Steamboat Springs CO 80487
970-879-2561
fax 970-879-5052

CIRCLE 21 ON READER SERVICE CARD

 2012 SMART GRID AWARD
know a problem exists and won’t need our
customers to be our ‘eyes’ on the ground,”
Krevat noted.
The OMS, Avery explained, includes smart
grid technologies such as sensors, switches,
and communications elements to restore ser-
vice to customers quicker “by moving load
throughout our system more efficiently. Our
new geographical information system con-
tains all of our assets with current location
data and other information.”
Multiple Returns on Investments
Avery said smart meters have provided the
best return on investment to date. They pro-
vide the data to implement energy-saving
programs and billing initiatives such as time-
of-use rates for PEVs that, he says, have
helped shift most charging for participants
to super-off-peak time periods. What’s more,
“We believe that we can leverage the meter
data for even more functionality and benefits
in the future, including greater understand-
ing of the grid through enhanced information
collection, demand response, and customer
direct savings and participation.”
Another benefit: “SDG&E has avoided
more than 250,000 truck trips to service
older meters and provide other customer
assistance and reduced related greenhouse
gas emissions due to the implementation of
smart meters.”
Other benefits are being realized, Avery
said, from the utility’s implementation of
condition-based monitoring for “large, ex-
pensive transformers and other equipment in
the field.” They are “already gaining benefits
in dollars and reliability.”
SDG&E also has installed supervisory
control and data acquisition (SCADA) sys-
tems throughout its electric grid, “which has
had a very positive impact on reliability,”
according to Avery. “This system provides
wireless connections that automatically con-
trol switches and circuit breakers and pro-
vides greater situational awareness of the
grid. We have installed SCADA systems on
98% of our transmission and 70% of our dis-
tribution infrastructure. This and many other
efforts have enhanced reliability and helped
SDG&E receive the ReliabilityOne award
from PA Consulting Group for six years in a
row for the Western region.”
Later this summer, SDG&E will complete
installation of its OMS, which uses SCADA
and smart meters to sense the condition of
the distribution system in real time, “which
eliminates redundancies and improves effi-
ciency,” said Avery. “This system will benefit
the entire region by reducing the length of
outages and improving restoration times.”
Avery noted that “widespread use of
SCADA for both the transmission and
distribution system, coupled with outage
management and energy managements sys-
tems, were crucial for the rapid restoration”
following the Southwest blackout of 2011,
which was triggered outside SDG&E’s ter-
ritory. “Widespread deployment of phasor
measurement units; the SDG&E wireless
‘grid communication’ system; improved vi-
sualization tools for both the SDG&E grid
and beyond that increase the transparency
of the current grid condition; and state-of-
the-art distribution management systems
would make our system less vulnerable to
large outages,” Avery added.
Charging Ahead with PEVs
There were more than 1,500 PEVs in San Di-
ego by mid-2012, and experts predict there
will be more than 200,000 in the greater San
Diego area by 2020. Charging at home is rel-
atively straightforward, but it’s not enough,

Potential is limitless.
An idea has no momentum until talented people start chasing it. It’s then that

one begins to glimpse what’s possible, and the future begins to take shape.

Today, we are thousands of people sharing ideas, dedicated to finding new

ways to meet the needs of an ever-demanding Power sector. Which is why,

when it comes to nuclear, natural gas, coal, renewables, hydroelectric and

electric delivery systems, more people are turning to us to get it done.

We are URS.

FEDERAL
OIL & GAS
INFRASTRUCTURE
POWER
INDUSTRIAL

For more information, please contact 609.720.2000. URS.COM

CIRCLE 22 ON READER SERVICE CARD

46 www.powermag.com |
POWER August 2012

so SDG&E is collaborating with ECOtality
and Nissan on The EV Project, the largest
U.S. electric vehicle charging infrastructure
build-out project so far. This effort will de-
ploy charging facilities in the greater San
Diego region to serve the needs of all PEV
consumers in the area.
The utility is also supporting the adoption
of PEVs by residential customers by offering
two experimental PEV rates that will save
customers money when they charge their ve-
hicles at off-peak time periods, when energy
costs are lowest and capacity is plentiful.
SDG&E has already installed 21 PEV
chargers for its fleet of 13 PEVs (see the
opening photo) and has five PEV chargers
designated specifically for the 30 electric
vehicles owned by employees. More than
1,500 metric tons of greenhouse gas emis-
sions are removed from the atmosphere
each year for every 1,000 passenger cars
replaced by PEVs.
Other Smart Systems
In addition to the SCADA, OMS, and other
smart-technology-enabled systems previous-
ly mentioned, SDG&E is blazing a trail with
other grid-related systems.
For example, SDG&E has what Avery
dubbed “one of the largest and most so-
phisticated weather sensor networks in
the nation. We have installed 128 weather
stations throughout our service territory to
measure everything from temperature and
humidity to wind speed and solar radia-
tion, all of which provides a greater aware-
ness of the state of our grid. This advanced
weather network provides SDG&E real-
time situational awareness for better oper-
ational decision making, thereby preparing
us for the wildfire season and enhancing the
reliability of our electric system overall.
The utility also is receiving information on
solar and wind generation capabilities at
specific sites throughout the region, which
assists us in planning for rooftop solar in-
tegration. We have invested approximately
$1.5 million in this program.”
SDG&E has received nearly $30 mil-
lion in state and federal grants toward
the creation of a powerful wireless com-
munications network to support the many
interconnected aspects of the smart grid.
As a key part of this effort, SDG&E has
purchased its own wireless communica-
tions spectrum to manage the increased
amount of data, which will form the com-
munications backbone of the smart grid.
“We are one of the first utilities in the na-
tion to make such an investment,” Avery
noted, “which will total approximately
$60 million upon completion of the proj-
ect. We have installed eight pilot sites in
|
August 2012 POWER
this network and will have 250 installed by
the expected completion date of 2014.”
SDG&E also has developed new smart
grid wireless sensors that are being deployed
to provide monitoring of important electri-
cal infrastructure. These new sensors en-
able, for example, wireless monitoring of
overhead and underground cables that allow
quick identification of failures and monitor-
ing of the condition of aerial warning lights
on electric towers and poles. These sensors
allow faster identification and location of
problems, resulting in improved reliability
for customers, fewer outages, and enhanced
safety, Avery explained. The new sensors will
leverage part of the wireless communication
system described above and represent an in-
vestment of approximately $16 million.
Smart People
“We must behave more like a competitive
company with a dedicated focus on our cus-
tomers and what they value and need and
less like a traditional utility provider,” Av-
ery acknowledged. In addition to an internal
initiative designed to spur innovation, the
company is recruiting new hires that have
“blended skill sets” that include information
technology and engineering.
abt. power april:Layout 1 3/2/12
Structural Bolting 101:
torque isn’t tight (what?)
tension is!
use S
quirter
® DTI
sto ensure proper bolt tension.
See why torque isn’t tight!
Scan with smartphone.
CIRCLE 23 ON READER SERVICE CARD
www.powermag.com
2012 SMART GRID AWARD
“We’ve increased our college recruiting
and intern program, including adding an in-
tern to our Borrego Springs Microgrid team.
This gets these students interested in the en-
ergy industry and channels them into posi-
tions at the utility at the ground level,” Avery
explained. “We are also working with univer-
sities to encourage them to develop and teach
smart grid–related curriculum.”
Get Smarter
There is far more detail about SDG&E’s
smart grid plans and achievements than we
can possibly present in a single article, so
anyone interested in smart grid programs
should download the pdf of its Smart Grid
Deployment Plan from http://bit.ly/KKBBsF.
Additional, more recent details and graphics
can be found in the web supplement Power-
Point file, “SDG&E Smart Grid Information
Graphics,” which can be downloaded from
www.powermag.com. It will be associated
with this issue in the archives.
Congratulations to everyone involved
in San Diego Gas & Electric’s smart grid
programs—the utility, its customers, and its
implementation partners. ■
—Dr. Gail Reitenbach is POWER’s
managing editor.
11:57 AM Page 1
T R A I N I N G
•
F I E L D
S U P P O R T
the best way to bolt!
1 800 552 1999
•
T E C H N I C A L
E X P E R T I S E
info@appliedbolting.com
www.appliedbolting.com
47
 PLANT DESIGN
Flow Control Chutes Reduce
Fugitive Coal Dust
Moving thousands of tons of coal per hour at high speeds through a complex
handling system is a main cause of airborne coal dust in a coal-fired plant.
Depending upon the coal’s characteristics, that dust can become explo-
sive when its concentration reaches 80 g/m3 and, hence, a threat to life
and property. The best option is to stop the dust from becoming airborne
in the first place.
By Daniel Mahr, PE, Energy Associates PC and Michael A. Schimmelpfennig, PE, Ameren Missouri

T
he dangers and causes of explo-
sions in power plants caused by fu-
gitive coal dust have been discussed
at length in POWER and have been ad-
dressed extensively by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration’s regu-
latory response. (See “Coping with Coal
Dust,” March 2012; “Proactive Strategies
for Dealing with Combustible Dust,” May
2011; and “A Burning Concern: Combus-
tible Dust,” May 2010, all available in the
archives at www.powermag.com.) Owners
of new or soon-to-be upgraded coal-han-
dling systems should be proactive in reduc-
ing fugitive dust emissions by using flow
control chute technology. In this article we
examine the features, benefits, and limita-
tions of flow control chutes and report on a
good application of this technology.
Identifying Dust Sources
High-capacity conveying systems handle
thousands of tons of coal per hour, and there
are a number of conditions, situations, and lo-
cations on a coal conveyor where dust can be
produced. Even when a small fraction of the
coal throughput becomes airborne as dust, it
can become an unacceptable safety hazard,
particularly when dust levels reach explosive
concentrations.
Any coal or other solid fuel that con-
tains small, dry particles is a prime dust
source. Moisture content and particle size
are important properties to consider when
controlling dust. The obvious control op-
tion is to add moisture. Coal stockpiles are
often sprayed by water cannons to control
windblown dust from the surface. Spray
headers at coal-handling system transfer
points also are used to wet coal as it is
discharged from one conveyor to another
or to the stockpile. Inevitably, some moist
coal particles will adhere to the surface
of the conveyor belt. These particles start
to dry as the belt travels along the return points to get the best return on the plant’s
strand. Flexing of the belt around pulleys investment dollar.
and over return idlers releases the bond, so
larger particles spill onto the floor below, Classic Chute Design
and the smallest particles become an air- Belt conveyors were once designed with
borne cloud. relatively low capacity and slow belt speeds.
Coal spillage from an operating conveyor The discharge of coal from the head pulley
increases the dust dilemma. Spillage can be of a conveyor fell (usually) vertically onto
caused by momentary overloads or surges, shallow sloped chute surfaces, which slowed
off-center loading of the belt, poorly fitted the speed of the falling coal stream. The ge-
seals, holes in worn plates, and inspection ometry allowed for a relatively low transfer
ports that are left open or are poorly fitted. height, which by default helped to minimize
Worn or inadequate belt cleaners can also dust. Historically, plants handled hard coals
cause spillage. This is most clearly seen rather than a product with a high percentage
behind the conveyor’s discharge, at verti- of small particles, such as today’s Powder
cal/horizontal take-up areas, and at the tail- River Basin (PRB) coals, which are more fri-
loading section of the conveyor. However, able and prone to spontaneous combustion.
the primary airborne dust sources in most Classically designed chutes on older plants
coal-fired plants are the conveyor transfer burning hard, washed coals had fewer dust
points. Therefore, the most economic de- problems because of higher surface moisture
sign approach is to first focus on the transfer and fewer small particles.
1. Classic discharge trajectory. For this 72-inch-wide belt operating at 760 feet per
minute, the stream of coal impacts a curved directional plate, which can slide and rotate to turn
the falling coal and better center it on the receiving belt. Courtesy: Energy Associates PC
Discharge head pulley Coal stream trajectory
Baffle plate
Top belt
pm
760 f
Return belt
Liner plate

48 www.powermag.com |
POWER August 2012
CIRCLE 24 ON READER SERVICE CARD
 PLANT DESIGN
Today, the discharge of coal from the
head pulley of a conveyor no longer falls
vertically down off the head pulley onto
shallow, sloped chute surfaces. At today’s
higher belt speeds, coal shoots forward
off the conveyor and impacts directly into
the vertical plate at the front of the head
chute (Figure 1). Some lumps fracture on
impact, which creates smaller, lighter dust
particles with newly formed dry surfaces.
The impact also splatters the coal stream,
and gravity accelerates other lumps into a
waterfall of particles.
The falling aerated stream of coal also
creates a draft at the entrance to the dis-
charge hood, continuously pulling ad-
ditional air into the chute. The slightly
higher pressure within the chute allows
floating dust to escape through poorly
sealed openings and flanges. The force
of the impact on chute plates allows some
particles to adhere to chute surfaces and
build up into hard layers. The result is to
slow the flow due to increased friction,
which creates chute-plugging problems.
To lessen coal accumulations within a
chute, design parameters have evolved
to require much steeper chute slopes and
low-friction liners.
Flow Control Chutes Introduced
In the mid-1980s, Australian engineers
and universities began examining transfer
designs using fluid flow principles as a
way to reduce the vexing production prob-
lems that high-capacity conveyor systems
were experiencing. Their efforts focused
on transfer chute design to control the flow
of material within the chute.
This technique avoids the direct impact of
the coal stream on chute surfaces. Instead,
the stream is guided. Its velocity and direc-
tion are controlled with intersecting, con-
2. Make a mess. Coal often sprays
from a flow control head chute if the design
doesn’t consider the trajectory of the coal
particles during the design. Courtesy: Energy
Associates PC
50
toured, and form-fitting plate surfaces so the
material’s speed, as it is being loaded onto
the downstream belt, closely matches the
speed of the receiving belt. This approach
also reduces turbulence and sliding friction
at the loading point, which is a primary cause
of belt cover wear.
Typical design features for a flow control
chute, discussed in detail in the following sec-
tions, address three stages of the process:
■ Inbound particles. A conveyor discharge
chute head section that is contoured as a
curved hood with plates that intersect the
particle trajectory at a 15-degree angle
centers the particles into a defined width
and quickly turns them downward into a
vertical stream.
■ Falling particles. Intermediate chute sec-
tions and gates, if needed, are sloped and
contoured to again intersect the vertical
stream at a modest angle, maintain the
particles in the defined width, quickly turn
the particles into the desired direction of
the outbound conveyor, and control the
speed of the stream.
■ Outbound particles. A conveyor-loading
chute is contoured much like a curved
spoon that maintains the coal particles in a
defined width and centers the particles for
belt loading, reduces its incidence angle
to the outbound belt, and discharges the
stream at a velocity close to that of the
outbound belt.
Inbound Particles: Discharge
Speed, Trajectory, and Spillage
The trajectory of coal from the inbound
belt is typically determined by finding the
stream’s velocity (speed and direction)
from the inbound conveyor coupled with
the effects of gravity. It’s a classic Physics
101 motion-in-a-plane problem for freely
3. Raise discharge pulley. The red arrows illustrate how the discharge direction for the
stream of coal deviates from the conveyor’s beltline. This situation is also called a transition flow
bump. Source: Energy Associates PC
Transition bump
Raised discharge pulley set at 1/2 trough depth
www.powermag.com
falling projectiles.
There is an additional 3-D component for
conveyor systems that shouldn’t be ignored.
As the stream of coal approaches the dis-
charge point of the inbound conveyor, the belt
and the stream of coal are changing shape. The
trapezoidal-shaped base of the coal stream (a
troughed contour formed by the conveyor’s
support idlers, typically fitted with 35-degree
inclined wing rolls) flattens into a horizontal
plane at the discharge pulley.
During the transition from troughed to
flat, lumps and particles on the belt slide
outward toward the edges of the belt. In
some cases, lumps and particles can spill
over the edge of the belt before reaching
the discharge chute. The belt is troughed
because that configuration can carry more
coal than a flat conveyor belt. As a result,
the width of the stream expands while its
height is reduced. The small sideways ve-
locity does cause some outward particle
spills and sprays. Also, as the coal stream’s
speed slows upon impact with the first
chute plate, the stream expands outward.
In one flow control chute, an expanding
coal stream spills backward over the dis-
charge pulley (Figure 2).
The discharge pulley can also be slightly
elevated above the normal beltline, reducing
the belt’s edge tension in the transition sec-
tion. The change of the belt’s contour from
troughed to flat stretches the edges of a belt,
like the hypotenuse of a right triangle. Con-
veyor belt manufacturers and some system
design firms favor elevated discharge pulleys
to reduce the duty experienced by the belt,
to stay well within its elastic limits. By el-
evating the discharge pulley, however, the
coal stream encounters a “speed bump” that
“bounces” lumps and sprays them slightly
upward (Figure 3).
Conversely, if the coal stream is some-
First full trough idler
Raised transition idler
1/2 trough depth
|
POWER August 2012
 If a job’s worth doing,
it’s worth doing with
Roberts & Schaefer.
WITH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THE LINE, WHY
TRUST YOUR PROJECT TO ANYONE BUT R&S?

Since 1903, Roberts & Schaefer has been a world leader in the
design, engineering, procurement and construction of bulk material
handling, coal preparation, and fuel blending systems. We provide
total solutions for fuel handling, as well as limestone handling
and grinding for CFB boilers, limestone and gypsum handling
for FGD scrubbers, and ash handling systems. We’ve successfully
completed projects in 40 countries, on six continents, and we’re
just getting warmed up.

Whether it’s complete system development, upgrades,

or modifications, it’s worth making a call to R&S.

222 South Riverside Plaza Offices also in Salt Lake City,

Chicago, IL 60606 Pittsburgh, Australia, Indonesia,
312.236.7292 Poland, India, Chile and Africa
www.r-s.com
CIRCLE 25 ON READER SERVICE CARD
 PLANT DESIGN
what damp and particles on the surface
of the belt are somewhat adhesive, they
will tend to cling to the belt as it starts to
wrap around the pulley and are flung and
sprayed into the chute at a slightly nega-
tive exit angle. This affects the trajectory
and vertical “spray” of the coal stream.
Flow control chutes that fail to adequately
consider the trajectory, physics, and horizon-
tal/vertical spraying will result in spillage
accumulating in unexpected places. In one
instance, maintenance personnel were show-
ered with coal particles when a chute inspec-
tion door was opened, even though it was
supposedly clear of the discharge stream.
This situation makes using the door difficult
and creates another cleanup problem (Figure
4).
One of the issues that can be more
challenging for the layout of a flow con-
trol chute is how to gently guide the coal
stream while accommodating the twists
and turns that are typical of many trans-
fers. The discharge from the head pulley is
a good example.
As seen in Figure 1, modern high-speed
conveyors throw the coal stream in a near-
ly horizontal path. As a result, the verti-
cal “drop” centerline for the coal stream
moves much farther away from the dis-
charge pulley. Good chute designers his-
torically have enclosed the head pulley,
belt scrapers, and bend pulley. This tech-
nique captures particles dislodged from
the belt by the scrapers and dribble from
the bottom of the return strand as it passes
over the bend/snub pulley.
Some plants that handle sticky coal
will even scrape the surface of the bend/
snub pulley—another reason to enclose it
within the chute. It becomes more diffi-
cult to enclose these dribble sources as the
shallow guide angles used in flow control
4. Falling on the floor. Coal particles
can build up in the flow control head chute
when it is not properly designed. At this plant,
the coal buildup falls on the floor when the
inspection door is opened. Courtesy: Energy
Associates PC
52
chutes move the vertical drop centerline
forward, horizontally farther away from
the discharge pulley. If 60-degree chute
slopes are used, every 1 foot forward in-
creases transfer height by 1.73 feet.
Figure 5 illustrates how dribble from
the belt scrapers and bend pulley might
be captured with a dribble chute, which is
fitted behind the main flow chute. Dribble
chutes are not a new idea, and this feature
can be an option for new installations. Be-
cause the particles being dropped into the
dribble chute are, by their nature, cohesive
and adhesive, the dribble chute should be
steeply sloped and fabricated from low-
friction materials. For a retrofit situation,
where the chute designer does not have
the option to alter transfer height, how
to gently guide the discharge trajectory
while capturing dribble from the scrap-
ers and bend pulley is an important design
consideration.
A solution that is sometimes employed
in some industries that handle adhesive and
cohesive bulk materials, like some mineral
products, is a scavenger conveyor. This is
typically a miniature drag conveyor fitted
beneath the head end of the belt conveyor.
It can extend fairly far behind the head
discharge pulley to capture dribble fall-
ing from the first 10 feet (from 0 inches to
10 feet) or more of the conveyor. Another
alternative adopted in Australia is a min-
iature vibrating conveyor, which is hung
beneath the head end of the conveyor. This
can work fine if the dribble is not adhesive
and cohesive slop.
The enclosed belt feeders below the
plant silos are equipped with scavenger
conveyors. If the feeder was not so de-
signed, it would soon fill with dribble and
cause horrific problems. Piles of coal ac-
cumulated beneath the return belt can jam
5. Backup chute. This is an example of
a flow control discharge chute with a dribble
chute. Source: Energy Associates PC
Discharge “hood” head chute
Coal stream trajectory
intercepts hood @ 15
degree angle
Transition
chute
section
Lower chute
section w/ Dribble chute
flow control
spoon
www.powermag.com
an idler or pulley. Friction from the mov-
ing belt on a stationary idler is a fire igni-
tion source.
For a belt conveyor application, the
scavenger conveyor might extend along
the farthest forward 10 to 12 feet at the
head of the conveyor. Depending upon
the severity of the problem, this scaven-
ger conveyor can cycle periodically, start
when needed as sensed via a level switch,
or run continuously during freezing con-
ditions, for instance. Some suppliers have
developed other options, like Martin En-
gineering’s hydraulically operated re-
ciprocating blade, called the Carryback
Capture System.
Falling Particles:
Guiding the Coal Path
The movement of coal through the interme-
diary chute sections is determined by evalu-
ating the stream’s speed as it:
■ Continues to accelerate due to gravity.
■ Is slowed by particle friction on chute and
liner surfaces.
■ Slows due to shallow impacts with chute
surfaces.
■ Slows due to particle-to-particle friction.
Though it is easy to determine the force
and speed due to gravity, it can be prob-
lematic to determine the forces due to fric-
tion and impact. A potential complication
is that friction and impact forces are not
coplaner. The width/height of the coal
stream varies and intersects chute surface
areas with variable contours and angles.
Computer modeling techniques, such as
discrete element modeling (DEM), have
been used to visualize flow along a series
of intersection chute sections.
Outbound Particles: Chute
Plugging Problems
A common problem experienced with coal
chutes is plugging. This is evidence that
the multifaceted issues that affect the flow
of bulk materials like coal are inadequately
understood by many in the industry who
design chutes. Overzealous use of DEM as
a solution, rather than an aid, by those who
lack knowledge and have poor understanding
of the design principles is partly to blame.
Chutes plug for a variety of reasons. The
more common include:
■ Gradual buildup of higher-moisture, cohe-
sive fines that pack into corners or adhere
to surfaces due to impact.
■ Erratic flow and surges that start to
overload some chute sections and slow
flow.
|
POWER August 2012
 I’m under pressure to improve plant
efficiency but our budget ends up going on
the repair and calibration of old technology.
I need reliable flowmeters that do away with
routine maintenance and contribute to the
performance of the plant.

YOU CAN DO THAT

Achieve more with accurate, reliable direct mass measurement. With no moving parts
and no routine calibration, Emerson’s Micro Motion Coriolis meters require minimal
maintenance and have virtually no performance degradation over the life of the instrument. For optimized
combustion control and minimized emissions, your plant needs measurement accuracy that is immune
to fluid changes, offers exceptional turndown, and requires no pressure, temperature or compressibility
compensation. Learn more at www.MicroMotion.com/Power

©2012. Micro Motion, Inc. All rights reserved. The Emerson and Micro Motion logos are
respective trademarks and service marks of Emerson Electric Co. and Micro Motion, Inc.

CIRCLE 26 ON READER SERVICE CARD

 PLANT DESIGN
■ Large or frozen lumps that lodge inside
the chute and partially obstruct the flow
channel.
■ Foreign objects that lodge inside the chute
and partially obstruct the flow channel.
■ Buildup of layers of frozen coal on
chute surfaces in unheated areas during
the winter.
The cohesive forces between liquid
molecules affect particle dynamics and ex-
plain how a sandcastle can be formed but
then disintegrates as its surface dries. A
particle’s surface area and mass are of pri-
mary importance when cohesive forces are
evaluated. As particle size decreases, these
Van der Waals, electrostatic, and capillary
forces become increasingly important.
These fine particles segregate, collect, and
become one of the key reasons for chute
plugging problems.
Over time, coal buildup and partial ob-
structions cascade in magnitude until the
chute fully plugs. Hopefully, plug chute
switches detect this and the upstream
conveyors stop. If they do not, and coal
fills the chute, coal spills over walkways
and through openings. The jammed chute
abruptly brakes the head pulley. The con-
veyor belt then loses tension, collapsing
like the bellows of an accordion. Its take-
up can then slam against the stop, and
structures can be damaged by the forces
unleashed by thousands of pounds of
Number of particles in 1 ton of coal
counterweight in a freefall. In more severe
cases, the coal-handling system is down
for an extended, emergency repair.
6. Physics review. Coal particles sliding
down a chute wall can be modeled as the fa-
miliar sliding block on a ramp problem. Source:
Energy Associates PC
Particle surface area, square feet per
By Newton’s First Law:
Fx = µN – w sine = 0
Fy = N – w cos = 0
Hence:
µN = w sine
N = w cos
Dividing the above equations:
µN/N = w sine / w cos
µ = tan
54
The Physics of Flow and Plugging
Ironically, flow control chutes have some-
times exacerbated the chute-plugging
problem. The stream of material on a
chute will accelerate or decelerate as a
function of the slope of the chute and its
coefficient of friction. The coefficient of
friction will vary for several reasons. Dry
coal has a lower coefficient of friction and
flows more freely than wet coal, until lu-
brication principles come into play. A new
liner can have a relatively rough surface
compared to one that has been polished by
wear. Coal buildup on some chute surfaces
will have a higher coefficient of friction
than a clean liner.
The forces on a particle of coal sliding
down an inclined plane is another classic
Physics 101 problem, where the coefficient
of sliding friction for a bulk material is the
tangent of the angle of the inclined plane
(µ = tan ), as seen in Figure 6. Chutes are
often specified with a minimum slope an-
gle, sometimes 55 degrees for an average
flowing coal or other bulk material, which
includes a typical 10-degree safety factor.
This angle represents a coefficient of 1.0,
7. Relationship between the num-
ber of particles in a ton of coal to
the particle size. Source: Energy Asso-
ciates PC
100,000,000,000
(specific gravity = 1.4)
1,000,000,000
10,000,000
100,000
1,000
10
0.001
Cubic-shaped particles
8. Relationship between particle
size and total surface area. Source:
Energy Associates PC
1,000,000,000
ton of coal (specific gravity = 1.4)
10,000,000
100,000
1,000
10
0.001
Cubic-shaped particles
www.powermag.com
typical of that found for aged, abrasion-
resistant plate.
Suppose a very slick liner is used so that
the coal will slide at a shallow angle. Tests
conducted by Jenike and Johanson for one
project reported that a given coal sample
on 304 SS with a No. 2B finish had a mini-
mum chute angle of 27 degrees, repre-
senting a coefficient of 0.51, a significant
improvement.
A 1-ton sample of coal with small par-
ticles can have an order of magnitude more
individual particles and a cumulatively
larger surface area than a 1-ton sample
with large particles (Figures 7 and 8). For
example, a 1-ton sample of coal with 0.01-
inch particles has 10,000% more surface
area than a ton of 1-inch particles (Figure
8)!
Because coal flowability across a sur-
face is largely determined by surface
moisture, particle size is very important.
If a sample of coal is screened into size
fractions, the percentage of moisture in the
distribution of particles will increase with
decreasing size. The moisture of the fines
fraction is higher than what’s reported in
the typical coal analysis.
These concepts are important for inter-
preting the results of laboratory testing
and for designing chutes. Coal samples
used for testing to determine design prop-
erties are typically the fine particle frac-
tion. The sample fines are often mostly the
soft/pliable or friable materials, because
9. Changing speed. The velocity of a
coal particle sliding down the surface of a coal
chute will change based on the angle of the
chute’s steel plate surfaces. Gradual angular
changes are usually preferable for velocity
control. Source: Energy Associates PC
0.01 0.1 1 10
(size in inches)
30 degree angular change in one step:
V2 = V1 (cos 30° – sine 30° x 0.50)
= 750 fpm (0.866 – 0.50 x 0.50)
= 462 fpm
30 degree angular change in two steps:
0.01 0.1 1 10 V2 = V1 (cos 15° – sine 15° x 0.50)2
= 750 fpm (0.966 – 0.26 x 0.50)2
(size in inches) = 524 fpm
|
POWER August 2012
 PLANT DESIGN
the harder lumps are less prone to attrition chute as four times the Conveyors Equip- for different approaches to minimize the ef-
and crushing. By testing and reporting the ment Manufacturers Association (CEMA) fect of air currents within a chute. Instead of
results of the finer fraction, however, the load area for the inbound conveyor. How- considering 400% of the CEMA belt area,
reported angle of wall friction is conser- ever, this guide does not consider the speed one supplier’s standard “fills” chute sec-
vative, as intended. The result is that the of the conveyor belt. Higher-speed convey- tions to 60% of the area. Effectively, this is
coefficient of friction for a representative, ors deliver a higher volume (volume = load a 167% (100%/60%) factor. An advantage
uncrushed sample is often different than area x belt speed). Air currents entrain dust for the supplier is that smaller chutes are less
laboratory test results. within transfer chutes, so large chutes that expensive to fabricate and easier to retrofit in
Angular changes in direction occur when disregard air currents can have a dust issue the available space. The disadvantage for all
the trajectory impacts a chute surface, two to handle. is that smaller chutes are easier to plug.
inclined plates at different angles meet, Flow control chute suppliers have opted Coal-fired plants naturally refuel at the
or as the coal follows a curved surface. In BREEN BOP - Power Mag Ad 4-10:Layout 1 4/11/12 8:38 AM Page 1
Figure 9, the downstream particle’s speed
(V2) is slower than the upstream particle’s
speed (V1) and can be calculated as: V2 =
V1 (cos – µ sine ). Using this equation, AcidGasExperts.com
we can compare making a 30-degree an-
F
gular change in one and two steps. In this EF
Y,
IT
example, a 0.50 coefficient of friction is IL
AB
used. So, as seen in the computation, it is IT
OF
PR
better to design a chute with gradual angle L,
changes in the chute when the objective TRO
N
CO
is to avoid slowing the coal stream speed. S
ON
On the other hand, if the speed is too high SI
IS
M
at the loading point for the receiving con- S,E
CT
veyor, a larger directional change can be PA
IM
advantageous. NT
LA
Particles near the edge of the stream will F-P
O
E-
rebound at odd and unpredictable angles NC
LA
due to the irregular, angular shape of each
, BA
particle. That is quite evident in Figure 4, NS
SIO
where coal is spilling through an opened IS
EM
inspection door. Coal particles are not NG
GI
nice little spheres, as considered in some A NA
, M
computer models. Bounce a tennis ball ES
SU

THE BALANCE OF POWER

and catch it—that’s child’s play. Bounce a
wooden block and catch it—playtime has
become much more challenging.
CO
There is another physical issue that af-
fects how quickly plugging conditions
can accelerate. Once the flowing, aerated
stream of coal within the chute starts to
fill the available chute volume, additional
forces come into play. The chute casing
exerts a compressive force that moves par-
ticles closer together. A good example is
a bend in the chute with some coal build-
up on the surface. The expanded flowing
stream slows significantly due to a direc-
tional change and starts to fill the chute.
The air between the particles seeks a quick
escape path, which is often countercur-
rent to the direction of flow. The escaping
air, therefore, becomes a drag force and a
brake on the coal stream, which can hasten
the formation of a plugged chute.
The dimensions of a chute are also im-
portant to control to prevent plugging.
Historically, chute designers would use
a factor based upon the load area of the
inbound conveyor. Design standards are
company specific. One company’s rule-of-
thumb was to size the sectional area of the
IS
E
NC
LIA
P
M
Operating a power generation are the result of our ability to
plant is a balancing act. discover, develop and apply
Compliance issues, managing products and processes that
emissions, Balance-of-Plant get results.
impacts from emissions
control... and the bottom line. No matter the issues, Breen
brings the knowledge, experience,
At Breen, we understand tools and processes to make an
this balancing act. We’re the impact and deliver results.
leader in bringing new ideas and
technologies to bear on the issues Some of Breen’s solutions
that give plant managers include: DSI (Dry Sorbent
sleepless nights. Injection) demonstrations and
operations, MATS (Mercury and
An innovator in acid gas Air Toxics Standards) compliance
management, Breen balances strategies, and Fuel Lean Gas
the concerns of compliance, Reburn for NOx and SOx
compliance.
environ- mental issues, efficiency
and profitability. Our technology-
and chemical-neutral solutions
To learn how Breen can help with your
“balancing act”, call 412.431.4499 or visit
www.breenes.com today.
CIRCLE 27 ON READER SERVICE CARD

|
August 2012 POWER www.powermag.com 55
 PLANT DESIGN
10. Discharge chute dust curtain and
belt seals. Source: Energy Associates PC
Entrance to head
Dust curtain discharge chute
Top belt
Rubber belt Rubber seals
start of the workday, when bunker levels
are low. At one retrofit location, the flow
control chutes plugged at such a time dur-
ing their first commissioning test. The
plant’s fueling operation degenerated with
the silos’ coal tonnage precipitously fall-
ing to near-empty levels before an emer-
gency silo-filling procedure could be
applied. This 1,500-MW coal-fired power
plant reportedly came within 30 minutes
of an emergency plant shutdown.
Inducing Airflow
Computational fluid dynamic computer
tools are used to predict the aerodynamic
drag, turbulence, and vortices that form as
coal flows along the surface of a flow con-
trol chute and the movement of air around
the stream of coal. These tools can be used
to understand aerodynamic forces and the
flow paths that dust-size particles will
take. DEM does not consider these forces,
nor dust-size particles, which would be too
numerous for analytical modeling, as seen
in Figure 7.
A falling stream’s bulk density (lb/ft3)
decreases as air becomes entrained around
the moving matrix of particles. This is an
indicator that a dust cloud is probably be-
ing formed. It is a reason why one of the
basic design techniques for flow control
chutes is to keep the moving stream of coal
in contact with chute surfaces.
Air is induced into the expanding stream
as gravity accelerates particle speeds. This
moving stream of coal particles and air
creates suction that pulls air into the head
chute. At the bottom of the chute, the in-
duced air is exhausted from the slowing
stream that is condensing as it loads on the
receiving conveyor. Depending upon the de-
gree of control at the loading location, large
56
11. Examples of dust/flow control skirtboard designs. On the left is a dust
curtain installed on the skirtboard exit. On the right is skirtboard with an adjustable flow gate.
Source: Energy Associates PC
Skirtboard exit
Dust curtain
Top belt
amounts of air can be exhausted from the
coal stream as it funnels onto the receiving
conveyor. Typically, this dust-laden air will
blow out through the skirtboard. This is a
reason that one of the primary objectives for
flow control chutes is to attempt to match
the speed of the coal at the loading point
with the speed of the belt. Another reason is
to minimize frictional belt wear, as particles
slide/accelerate onto the moving belt.
To reduce the amount of air that is
pulled into the head chute, dust curtains
and belt seals at the discharge are often
used and are Ameren’s standard. Figure
10 illustrates a typical arrangement. The
dust curtain is slit and cut to conform to
the surface contour of coal on the belt.
The belt seals are arranged to lightly con-
tact the bottom of the carrying strand and
both the top and bottom of the return belt
strand. The entrance to the discharge chute
is behind the conveyor’s head pulley, in
the zone where the belt transitions from a
35-degree trough to a flat, horizontal con-
tour at the head pulley.
To reduce the amount of air that is ex-
hausted at the loading point, skirtboards
are normally fitted with dust curtains at
the skirtboard exit. An additional method
that has gained a following is to add dust
curtains and flow control plates within the
length of the skirtboard.
Figure 11 illustrates an example of this.
The dust curtains provide additional barri-
ers to airflow, to reduce air speed and tur-
bulence. The flow control plate at the right
in Figure 11 also helps to control surges
and overflows, particularly following an
emergency stop, when the lower portions
of the transfer may fill due to differential
conveyor stopping times. If you see a large
pile of coal at the exit of a skirtboard,
chances are that it was caused by such a
spill event.
Reducing Chute Wear
Materials of construction are important
for flow control chutes. Because the coal
www.powermag.com
Adjustable flow gate
Skirtboard
Top belt
stream maintains contact with chute sur-
faces, chute and liner wear will increase
dramatically. In one case, holes were worn
through flow control chutes in a matter of
weeks, instead of years, due to errors in
selecting and inspecting fabrications and
the materials of construction.
Typically, chutes are constructed with
replaceable liners. Liners are a wear item.
For many chutes, replacement liners can
be sourced from local fabricators who can
follow the existing shape and attachment
patterns.
Because of the high wear rates associ-
ated with flow control chutes, some manu-
facturers and proponents like Weba Chute
Systems have adopted a design feature of
uniformly spaced micro-ledges that cap-
ture the bulk material being handled, like
a rock box that is used in some industries.
The spacing between ledges is a function
of particle size and the product’s rill an-
gle. The flow and impact forces can pack
the bulk material tightly. The bulk materi-
al wears on itself, rather than a liner plate,
so liner maintenance and replacement is
often reduced. That’s fine for minerals
like iron ore, but it can be problematic for
highly volatile bituminous and PRB coal.
Some suppliers have adopted complex
curved and circular shapes for chute sec-
tions. Their intricate patterns make the
design and eventual retrofit of worn lin-
ers difficult. Instead, the complete chute
section is fabricated from steel with a
hardened, finished surface. The chutes
themselves become a spare parts replace-
ment business. Special care is needed in
these cases, because welding steel with a
hardness gradient requires an atypical pro-
cedure during fabrication; uneven welded
joints become the wear locations. ■
—Daniel Mahr, PE (danmahr@energy-pc
.com) is a project manager with Energy As-
sociates PC. Michael A. Schimmelpfennig,
PE (mschimmelpfennig@ameren.com) is a
consulting engineer for Power Operations
Services, Ameren Missouri.
|
POWER August 2012
Get the best of both worlds

Increase your eficiency while decreasing your emissions

Fuel Tech is a leading technology company engaged in the worldwide development, commercialization and application
of state-of-the-art proprietary technologies for multi-pollutant control of air emissions, plant process optimization, and
advanced engineering services. These technologies provide customers lexibility in an age of uncertainty.

Our NOx reduction technologies include low NOx burners, over-ire air systems, NOxOUT® and HERT™ SNCR systems, ASCR™
Advanced SCR systems, ULTRA™ urea to ammonia programs, Rich Reagent Injection (RRI) and NOxOUT-SCR® processes.
Fuel Tech provides cost efective solutions, with installations on over 700 units worldwide where coal, fuel oil, natural gas,
municipal waste, biomass, and other fuels are utilized.

Our TIFI® Targeted In-Furnace Injection™ processes revolve around the unique application of chemicals to improve the
eiciency, reliability, and fuel lexibility of combustion units by controlling slagging, fouling and corrosion, as well as the
formation of SO3, ammonium bisulfate (ABS), PM2.5, CO2 and NOx. TIFI has also proven to be efective in reducing large particle
ash, ABS and associated air heater pressure drop on units with SCR systems installed.

In these demanding times, our team can provide integrated solutions to meet the regulatory and operational challenges
facing our customers.

www.ftek.com | (US) 800.666.9688

(China) 86.10.8487.1742 | (Italy) 39.0331.701110 27601 Bella Vista Parkway | Warrenville, IL 60555
CIRCLE 28 ON READER SERVICE CARD
 ENVIRONMENTAL
New Environmental Rules Keep
Pressure on Coal-Fired Generation
New U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations affecting the nation’s
coal power plants are routinely in the national news. The latest proposed
rule focuses on the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. With a
substantial amount of coal generation expected to be shut down (up to 40
GW to 50 GW in the coming years by some accounts), the new regulations
are increasing the likelihood that this lost capacity will not be replaced by
new coal generation.
By Brandon Bell, PE, KBR Power & Industrial
O n March 9, 2012, the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA)
formally released a proposed regu-
lation (Prevention of Significant Deteriora-
tion and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring
Rule Step 3, GHG Plantwide Applicabil-
ity Limitations and GHG Synthetic Minor
Limitations) to the Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Tailoring Rule. The proposal upholds limits
put forth in 2010 when the regulatory pro-
cess began. On April 13, 2012, the EPA for-
mally released a proposed rule (Standards of
Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
for New Stationary Sources: Electric Util-
ity Generating Units, the “Carbon Pollution
Standard”), pushing new pulverized coal
plants to move toward the efficiency of a
supercritical design with carbon capture and
storage (CCS) technology. Together, the pro-
mulgated GHG Tailoring Rule and proposed
new source carbon regulation will put a sub-
stantial strain on an already aging coal fleet
and will negatively impact the economics of
new coal power generation.
Industry found little relief from a federal
appeals court, which decided a case in late
June that consolidated dozens of challenges
to the EPA’s endangerment finding along
with its Tailoring Rule. A three-judge panel
of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington
ruled on June 26 that the EPA properly con-
cluded that greenhouse gases are pollutants
that endanger human health. The court also
found that opponents lack the legal right to
challenge rules determining when states and
industries must comply with regulations cur-
tailing emissions of those gases.
More than 90 lawsuits challenging the
regulations were consolidated into four, and
arguments were heard over two days in Feb-
ruary. The parties argued over the EPA’s find-
ing that GHGs are pollutants that endanger
human health. The judges also heard argu-
58
ments against a 2010 rule on motor vehicle
emissions that opponents said improperly
sets standards for stationary sources such as
steel mills and power plants.
The court considered challenges to the
EPA’s Tailoring Rule, which limits the num-
ber of businesses covered by carbon regula-
tion and phases in controls. The EPA argued
that the Tailoring Rule is acceptable under the
Clean Air Act and necessary to keep states
from being overrun with permit requests.
It was unclear whether industry would ap-
peal the ruling, either by asking the full Ap-
peals Court to consider the case or by seeking
Supreme Court review. An appeal could add
further delay and uncertainty to regulations
covering greenhouse gases.
Carbon Pollution Standard Limits
Exactly how the EPA has been able to affect
electric generating units utilizing coal as their
primary fuel and not natural gas combined
1. Carbon condition. Comparison of CO2 emission rates from various types of fossil-
fueled power plants. Source: EPA
2,000
1,800
1,600
CO2 emissions (lb/MWh)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
Supercritical
pulverized coal
boilers
www.powermag.com
cycle plants is described in the method the
agency used to calculate its proposed carbon
dioxide (CO2) limitation. In the proposed rule,
all new stationary sources will be required to
meet an emission standard of 1,000 pounds of
CO2 per megawatt-hour. This standard would
be applied to any new electric generating unit
larger than 25 MW. The EPA chose this limit
based on data analyzed from 2006 to 2010,
where 95% of all natural gas combined cycle
plants, not designed as a combined heat and
power facility, met this standard.
The EPA’s analysis also shows that it ex-
pected the most efficient large-scale commer-
cially proven steam cycle for a coal power
plant—a supercritical steam cycle—would
emit approximately 1,800 lb CO2/MWh. For
those wishing to invest in less-costly con-
ventional subcritical coal power plants, the
emission rate will worsen. Thus, the limit
for CO2 has been set very low, ensuring that
natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants
EPA CO2 emission standard
IGCC facilities Natural gas–fired 95% of all NGCC Supercritical
boilers pulverized coal
boilers with CCS
per EPA standard
|
POWER August 2012
In the race to compliance...
Make the winning choice
Select Natronx Technologies – the experts in air quality control.
Natronx proudly ofers the EnProve™ product line of sodium sorbents speciically developed
for the optimal removal of acid gases.
Count on Natronx to deliver reliable sorbents and optimize your Dry Sorbent Injection
system performance.

For removal of HCl,

SO2, SO3 and HF
emissions, Natronx is
the clear choice.
For more information,
call us today at
855.285.7652 and visit
us at our website at
www.natronx.com.

Natronx Technologies, LLC

469 North Harrison St. | Princeton, NJ 08543 | 855.285.7652

CIRCLE 29 ON READER SERVICE CARD

 ENVIRONMENTAL
will readily meet this rule while coal power
is left struggling to comply.
Even with CO2 emission rates for super-
critical pulverized coal plants much higher
than the rule allows, coal power plants can
still be constructed. Coal plants that obtained
preconstruction permits prior to proposal of
the regulation and that begin construction
before April 13, 2013, will not be affected.
However, for all other sources wishing to uti-
lize coal, additional control technology will
be required.
CCS technology—a feasible but not cur-
rently economically viable technology, nor
one used on the scale needed by the power
industry—will be required to be implement-
ed in order to meet regulatory standards. The
EPA in its proposal has provided the option
to operate at the higher supercritical emission
rate for a period of 10 years. However, emis-
sion rates for the following 20 years must be
no more than 600 lb CO2/MWh to make the
30-year average 1,000 lb CO2/MWh. Figure
1 offers a comparison of CO2 emission rates
for various types of power plants.
Although the purpose of this provision
may have been to provide additional time
to develop the technology required for coal
plants to comply, it ultimately results in capi-
tal equipment being more expensive than nec-
essary. That’s because the EPA assumes that
in a 10-year time frame, CCS will become a
readily available technology with costs lower
than what they are today. However, even if
this assumption were correct, the equipment
would need to be significantly oversized to
deliver emissions results at levels far below
the regulatory standard to maintain com-
pliance. This would result in a significant
amount of extra capital expenditure and a
higher operating cost in the form of auxiliary
load and maintenance.
From a permitting standpoint, this rule has
a direct effect on the technology selection for
pollution control through the best available
control technology (BACT) process. BACT
is an in-depth analysis applied to facilities
subject to Prevention of Significant Dete-
rioration (PSD) permitting on a case-by-case
basis that considers energy, environmental,
and economic impacts to control pollutants.
The process itself is performed in five steps:
identify all potentially applicable control
technologies, eliminate infeasible options,
rank remaining technologies by effectiveness,
evaluate the most effective technologies, and
propose BACT. Unless other technologies
move to gain commercial acceptance quick-
ly, the further development of CCS may be
the only technology to satisfy BACT.
This latest round of regulations also
will affect other power systems, such as
natural gas–fired boilers. A typical value
60
for CO2 emissions from natural gas–fired
boilers is estimated at 1,350 lb CO2/MWh.
The EPA justifies setting an emissions lim-
it below this type of power generation by
stating that “it seems unlikely that utilities
would choose a natural gas–fired boiler as
the generation technology of choice when
[natural gas combined cycle] is a much
more efficient, less expensive, and more
widely used technology.”
Although this broad statement may be true
for large utilities, it doesn’t necessarily apply
to other power generators. Independent pow-
er producers, agricultural cooperatives, and
industrial users are normally significantly
smaller in size. Any of these groups that wish
to generate 25 MW or more may no longer
consider a natural gas boiler without CCS to
generate steam. The EPA indicates that an
analysis was performed (but not provided for
review) considering the economic impacts
on these entities. The results concluded that
implementing this rule would impose no sig-
nificant impact on these power producers.
Integrated gasification combined cycle
(IGCC) plants convert a solid feedstock (coal)
into a gaseous fuel (syngas) that is used to
drive a combined cycle power plant. Already
an expensive option, this form of power gen-
eration also will not meet the proposed regula-
tion. It is expected that IGCC plants will emit
the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere
as a pulverized coal supercritical plant. Be-
cause its emission rates will not meet the stan-
dard, a precombustion system to separate CO2
in the high-pressure syngas to meet the 1,000
lb CO2/MWh standard will be required.
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
Closely related to the New Source Perfor-
mance Standards (NSPS) for electric gen-
erating units is the already promulgated
Table 1. Tight schedule. The deadline for implementing the GHG Tailoring Rule is coming
soon. Source: EPA
Date
June 3, 2010 Implementation of the GHG Tailoring Rule
Jan. 1, 2011 New source: N/A
PSD modification: Applies to sources increasing emissions by 75,000 tons/year CO2e
All sources already subject to Title V
July 1, 2011 New source: Potential to emit 100,000 tons/year CO2e
Existing sources: Sources emitting at least 100,000 tons/year CO2e now subject to PSD and Title V
Mar. 8, 2012 Evaluation of lower emission limits
July 1, 2012 Finalization of Step 3
July 1, 2013 Effective date of Step 3
www.powermag.com
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule. Announced
on June 3, 2010, the rule was put in place
to regulate GHG emissions in three phases.
Unlike the NSPS, which regulate only CO2
emissions, the GHG Tailoring Rule regulates
emissions of multiple greenhouse gases.
In addition to CO2, methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and
sulfur hexafluoride are grouped into the cat-
egory of GHGs and must be accounted for
as PSD pollutants, which are assigned a CO2
equivalency value (CO2e).
According to an EPA news release, GHG
regulations were to be implemented in a
three-stage process. Table 1 shows a time-
line for implementation and GHG limitations
of the various phases along with the antici-
pated final acceptance date of all portions of
the rule. The limits included in this regula-
tion are much higher than typical PSD lim-
its. Typical PSD limits are set at 100 tons/
year (t/yr) for sources falling under one of 28
listed source categories and 250 t/yr for all
other sources. Setting the CO2e limits much
higher than the existing PSD limits is due to
the inherent nature of GHGs emission rates
being significantly larger than all other PSD
pollutants. Because of this, the rule had to be
“tailored” to include GHGs in the PSD per-
mitting process. As part of the third stage, the
EPA was to reevaluate the limits imposed by
the original regulation and determine if any
benefit would be realized by further lowering
the limits.
The potential lowered limit would have
included all new sources emitting more than
50,000 t/yr CO2e to be categorized as PSD
sources. This would have forced a multitude
of sources that typically would have been
permitted as minor sources to be subject to
the PSD regulations. The EPA determined
that at this time there would be no additional
Tailoring Rule phase
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
|
POWER August 2012

benefit from a further reduction in emission
thresholds and that the rule promulgated in
2010 should be maintained.
Plants that currently fall under PSD per-
mitting and participate in Title V programs
of the Clean Air Act are affected by this regu-
lation. For the Title V program, this applies
to both new and existing operating permits.
Existing facilities will be required to address
GHGs if a modification to the facility triggers
a PSD review during the term of the permit.
From a GHG standpoint, a PSD modifica-
tion is one that increases the net emissions
by 75,000 t/yr CO2e. If it doesn’t, then GHGs
will have to be addressed when renewal of
the Title V permit occurs.
This is critical because the likelihood of
power generating facilities needing to ad-
dress GHGs at some point during their ser-
vice has greatly increased. Unlike the NSPS
for CO2, CCS has not been determined to be
the default technology of choice. For those
facilities that trip PSD thresholds, GHGs will
need to be addressed through the detailed
case-by-case BACT analysis outlined above.
Due to the sizable number of permits ex-
pected by the EPA that will be required to
address GHGs, the agency is currently de-
veloping presumptive BACT for GHGs. This
presumptive BACT as defined by the EPA is
a “standardized BACT for certain emissions
units.” As noted in the proposed update to
Step 3 of the GHG Tailoring Rule, very few
permits have been issued addressing GHG
emissions. In fact, as of Dec. 1, 2011, only
18 permits nationwide had been issued with
a GHG provision.
Because of the lack of permits that address
GHG emissions, there has not been a determi-
nation of presumptive BACT. Those permits
that have been issued to address GHGs have
held that plant efficiency is the most effec-
tive method for reducing GHGs, with some
permits requiring a minimum plant heat rate
to be maintained.
Achieving Emissions Targets
Through Plant Efficiency
For a coal plant, the requirement of a more
stringent plant maintenance program to up-
hold a minimum plant heat rate may be con-
sidered BACT at this time.
Congress established the New Source Re-
view (NSR) permitting program as part of
the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments. NSR
is a preconstruction permitting program that
serves two purposes:
any large new or modified industrial
source will be as clean as possible and that
advances in pollution control occur side
by side with industrial expansion.
NSR specifies three types of permitting
requirements. A source may have to meet one
or more of these permitting requirements:
■ PSD permits, which are required for new
major sources or a major source making a
major modification in a so-called “attain-
ment area.”
■ Nonattainment NSR permits, which are
required for new major sources or major
sources making a major modification in a
nonattainment area.
■ Minor source permits.
When Congress passed the Clean Air
Act, the electric utility industry argued that
its oldest plants should be exempt from new
limits, saying that those plants would likely
be replaced by newer plants built under PSD
and subject to BACT. Congress granted ex-
isting facilities “grandfather status” that
shielded them from the more stringent emis-
sion control requirements. This meant that
routine maintenance, repair, and replacement
activities were excluded in the regulations
24-hour Emergency Service 800-383-0313
MartinPLUS®
Tough,
Silo Cleaning
Silos | Bins | Hoppers | Bunkers
tested,
and Problem Indicators
• Off-center loading
innovative • Material discharges in chunks
• Shorter & more frequent
material fill cycles
handling
Benefits
solutions
since
1944
ENVIRONMENTAL
from being a physical change that could trig-
ger PSD.
But although PSD excludes routine main-
tenance, repair, and replacement activities
from triggering PSD, the regulations also
stopped short of defining “routine.” Industry
kept many older plants up and running and so
avoided the need to decommission and replace
them. Many of these older facilities remain in
operation today and have never been required
to meet Clean Air Act requirements.
The best guidance to define “routine”
maintenance came from the court case known
as Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (WEPCO)
vs. Reilly. The case came about after WEP-
CO planned a retrofit project on existing
coal-fired boilers. In 1988, WEPCO sued the
EPA for failing to grant a PSD exemption
under the routine maintenance, repair, and
replacement provisions. The court’s deci-
sion (known as the “WEPCO rule”) outlined
a test for routine that used five factors: na-
ture, extent, purpose, frequency, and cost of
an improvement project. But this outline still
stopped short of offering a clear definition of
“routine.” The effect is that NSR discourages
plant improvements that might increase effi-
ciency, which is the goal of the EPA’s recent
GHG rulemaking.
A second court case (U.S. et al. v. DTE Ener-

■ First, it seeks to ensure that air quality is

not significantly degraded from new and
modified factories, industrial boilers, and
power plants.
■ Second, it seeks to offer assurances that
visit martin-eng.com | call 800.544.2947 ext 586
email silocleaning@martin-eng.com
A Global Company
® Registered trademark of Martin Engineering Company in the US and other select locations. © 2012 Martin Engineering Company.
Additional information can be obtained at www.martin-eng.com/trademarks.
CIRCLE 30 ON READER SERVICE CARD

|
August 2012 POWER www.powermag.com 61
 ENVIRONMENTAL
Table 2. Plant improvement and potential increase in plant efficiency.
Source: Reducing CO2 Emissions by Improving the Efficiency of the Existing Coal-fired Power
Plant Fleet, NETL, 2008.
Plant improvements
Air heater surface increase
Coal drying
Combustion control improvement
Condenser optimization
Feedwater heater improvement
Reduction of slag and furnace fouling
Sootblower optimization
Steam leak reduction
gy Company and Detroit Edison Company)—
this one involving Detroit Edison’s Monroe
Station—led to still more requirements for
power plant operators. That utility made ef-
ficiency improvements to a steam turbine, but
because it was a non-routine modification, it
had to prove for five years after the changes
were made that actual emissions from the
combustion turbine did not increase above
PSD thresholds.
The result is that if efficiency improve-
ments enable a unit to be run more often,
PSD may be tripped. On the one hand, this
discourages many efficiency improvement
projects that could help reduce overall emis-
sions. On the other hand, it encourages the
seemingly perverse decision to maximize
emissions as much as possible in the years
before an efficiency improvement project.
By doing so, the operator improves the like-
lihood that its future emissions will be no
worse after the efficiency improvements than
they were before.
The bottom line is that since practically
nothing is considered by the EPA to be “rou-
tine maintenance,” almost any change at
a plant is potentially subject to PSD. This
makes operators justifiably wary of making
efficiency improvements. Environmental
groups benefit from the confusion because
the vague definition of “routine” and ac-
companying standards provides them with a
substantial stick to wield against a utility. So
although the EPA’s GHG rules view efficien-
cy improvements as BACT for compliance,
the longstanding record of often ambigu-
ous and sometimes hostile precedent works
counter to those goals.
Efficiency Improvement Gains
Table 2 lists some common improvement
projects along with typical efficiency gains.
For the hot gas path, increased sootblowing
or online furnace cleaning to minimize slag
formation will work toward this goal. Re-
ducing slag and furnace fouling also can be
62
Potential plant efficiency increase
2.10%
0.1% to 1.7%
0.15% to 0.84%
0.7% to 2.4%
0.2% to 2.0%
0.4%
0.10% to 0.65%
1.1%
achieved by magnesium hydroxide injection.
Maximum reductions in slagging and fouling
can increase plant performance by 0.4%.
A regenerative air heater with better seals
or new baskets will reduce air leakage and in-
crease heat transfer, resulting in better com-
bustion performance. Removal of excessive
ash buildup in the air heater also will increase
heat transfer while reducing the pressure
loss and saving on auxiliary power (Figure
2). The increase in effective surface area of
the air heater can lead to plant efficiency im-
provements up to 2.1%.
Increased heat transfer efficiency for
steam condensers, feedwater heaters, cool-
ing towers, and closed cooling water systems
all support increased plant efficiency. Opti-
mizing an existing condenser can increase
plant efficiency from 0.7% to 2.4% while im-
provements to the feedwater heating system
can add an additional 0.2% to 2.0% to plant
efficiency. Ensuring that rotating equipment
is operating at its best efficiency point and
that material-handling systems are optimized
help to reduce auxiliary plant loading. Ener-
gy losses through electrical equipment such
as transformers also should be evaluated to
minimize plant losses.
Reducing the amount of steam and en-
ergy lost through boiler tube leakage is an-
other critical plant improvement. Replacing
defective tubes can increase overall plant
performance by 1.1%. Analyzing combus-
tion performance and upgrading control sys-
tems to better measure and control fuel also
will result in increased plant performance.
Increases in plant performance of between
0.15% and 0.84% can be experienced by
this upgrade. Additionally, better combustion
controls can have the added benefit of reduc-
ing the formation of nitrogen oxides and car-
bon monoxide.
In case a more stringent plant maintenance
program is unacceptable as BACT, additional
measures may be taken to ensure a minimum
heat rate is achieved. These may include the
www.powermag.com
2. Plugged solid. Excessive ash buildup in a
regenerative air heater can severely reduce the
boiler combustion efficiency. Courtesy: KBR
addition of heat transfer area in the econo-
mizer section, additional sootblowers to re-
duce slag formations, or fuel switching to
a lower-moisture-content fuel, resulting in
better boiler efficiency. The addition of soot-
blowers or optimized sootblowing techniques
has the potential to add another 0.1% to
0.65% to plant efficiency. If possible, waste
heat from various sources could be utilized
to “dry” a fuel source to achieve better com-
bustion performance. Such fuel drying has
the potential to add another 0.1% to 1.7% to
plant efficiency.
In all these cases, however, maximum effi-
ciency and best heat rate is typically achieved
at full-load operation. During startup and
shutdown, provisions will be needed to ex-
ceed accepted plant efficiency. Upset condi-
tions that require the plant to operate at partial
load also will be problematic for achieving
maximum plant efficiency. It is quite undesir-
able and inefficient for large coal plants to be
required to shut down due to heat rates not
being met at part-load operation.
Under Pressure
Already under a substantial amount of
pressure from the EPA’s recently finalized
Mercury and Air Toxics Standard and the
litigated Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,
coal power has increasingly been the sub-
ject of much environmental scrutiny. With
another round of proposed environmental
regulations designed to implement CCS and
limit the release of CO2, the likelihood of a
new coal power plant being constructed in
the U.S. would appear to be minimal. The
GHG Tailoring Rule remains active and
ambiguous as to what BACT will be for
greenhouse gases. Combined, these regula-
tions leave coal-fired generation in a much
less attractive position than natural gas com-
bined cycle plants. ■
—Brandon Bell, PE (brandon.bell@kbr
.com) is a principal mechanical engineer
with KBR Power and Industrial, Chicago.
|
POWER August 2012
 & 28th
SYMPOSIUM

USERS SYMPOSIUM

George R. Brown Convention Center, Houston, Tx

• IN-DEPTH SHORT COURSES • HANDS-ON TUTORIALS

• SOLUTION-BASED CASE STUDIES • PIONEERING LECTURES

• INNOVATIVE DISCUSSION • OUTSTANDING EXHIBIT FLOOR

GROUPS

Our Technical Sessions are the best value for your training dollar and are taught by
leading industry experts!

Exhibits Open Free to the Public For more information

Call 979.845.7417 or email at inquiry@turbo-lab.edu
Tuesday & Wednesday 2:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Sponsored by: The Turbomachinery Laboratory
Texas A&M University • College Station
Thursday 9:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.

http://turbolab.tamu.edu
 NUCLEAR
Small Is the New Big: The B&W
Small Modular Reactor
Small reactors are big news, particularly the 180-MWe Generation III++ Bab-
cock & Wilcox mPower small modular reactor (SMR). This SMR has all
the features of its larger cousins, but the entire reactor and nuclear steam
supply system are incorporated into one reactor vessel, all about the size
of single full-size pressurized water reactor steam generator. Expect the
first mPower—and probably the first SMR—to enter service before 2022.
By James M. Hylko
D
uring the formative years of the nucle-
ar power industry, prototype reactors
(such as the 67-MWe Big Rock Point,
94-MWe Fermi 1, and 275-MWe Indian
Point Unit 1) were typically less than 300
MWe in size. Commercial reactors quickly
scaled up to 1,000 MWe as technology ma-
tured and energy demand soared. Economies
of scale soon made that size-class reactor the
norm for baseload capacity in the U.S. While
advances in new construction continue, small
appears to be back in style, as demonstrated
by the Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) mPower
small modular reactor (SMR).
The U.S. Department of Energy defines
SMRs as reactor designs with a nominal out-
put of <300 MWe. The term “modular,” in the
context of an SMR, refers to a single reactor
module that can be grouped with other reac-
tor modules to form a larger nuclear power
plant, sized according to demand. Although
the utility-scale advanced reactors currently
under construction incorporate factory-fabri-
cated modular components into their designs,
a substantial amount of field work is still re-
quired to assemble these modules into an op-
erational nuclear power plant. SMRs, on the
other hand, are envisioned to require limited
on-site preparation, and—other than loading
the nuclear fuel—be ready to operate when
they arrive from the factory.
POWER recently interviewed Christofer M.
Mowry, CEO of Generation mPower LLC and
president of Babcock & Wilcox mPower Inc.,
the B&W business group responsible for de-
sign, licensing, manufacture, and construction
activities for the B&W mPower modular reac-
tor (see sidebar). Mowry began by describing
the SMR as a 180-MWe Generation III++ in-
tegral pressurized water reactor (iPWR).
Mowry said the SMR evolved from B&W’s
first integral reactor prototype that was de-
signed and built for the NS Otto Hahn, one of
the first nuclear merchant ships, which sailed
64
under nuclear power from 1968 through 1979. tification application, which is expected to be
The reactor design, known as consolidated submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
nuclear steam generators, continued to evolve sion (NRC) in the fourth quarter of 2013.
over the decades to its current iPWR design. The Generation III++ designation is ap-
A formal program launch in terms of board propriate because of the integral design and
approval to pursue full-scale development was robust safety margins addressing “beyond
received in 2009. The next important mile- design-basis” accident scenarios. Although
stone is the B&W mPower reactor design cer- the reactor design is significantly smaller than
Table 1. Key features of the integral reactor coolant system (RCS) com-
pared with existing pressurized water reactors. Source: Babcock & Wilcox
mPower Inc.
Feature B&W 177a Typical Gen III PWR B&W mPower reactor
Rated core power (MWth) 2,568 3,415 530
Core average linear heat rate (kWth/m) 18.7 18.7 Lower
Average flow velocity through the core (m/s) 4.8 4.8 Lower
RCS volume (m3) 325 272 Smaller
RCS volume to power ratio (m3/MWth) 0.14 0.08 Consistent
Maximum loss-of-coolant-accident (LOCA)
1.3 1.0 Much smaller
area (m2); assumes double-ended break
RCS volume/LOCA area ratio (m3/m2) 250 270 Much larger
Note: a. Example of a B&W 177 is Duke Energy’s Oconee nuclear plant.
The Generation mPower Consortium
The joint company Generation mPower LLC advisory council of 29 utilities (both U.S. and
(www.generationmpower.com) was formed international), which demonstrates broad in-
in 2010 by B&W and Bechtel Power Corp. dustry interest. Members of this consortium
(www.bechtel.com) to design, license, and include the Tennessee Valley Authority, First
build B&W mPower reactors. B&W will focus Energy, Oglethorpe Power Corp., and others.
on designing and testing the reactor and The consortium is dedicated to addressing
submitting the design certification appli- the proper regulatory framework, design
cation. Bechtel is responsible for engineer- requirements, licensing infrastructure, and
ing the major structures, balance-of-plant cost/risk sharing necessary to support the
design, procurement, and construction. commercialization of the B&W mPower reac-
In support of the design certification and tor. The ultimate goal of the consortium is to
licensing goals, a consortium was established deploy one or more demonstration plants in
comprising 15 U.S. utilities and an industry the U.S. before 2022.
www.powermag.com |
POWER August 2012
 CONNECT with the
WORLD-WIDE LEADERS
Focusing on the
SAFE & EFFICIENT use of coal

Featuring Two World-Class User Group Meetings

Annual Meeting
May 14-16, 2013
Rosemont, IL
Donald E. Stephens Annual Meeting
Convention Center November 6-8, 2012
www.prbcoals.com Hong Kong
Harbour Grand Hotel, HK
www.asiansbcusers.com

become a member today!

Access a Robust Suite of Member-Only Benefits:
• Access to user guidelines and best practices written by experienced members. For more information,
• Access to e-media educational tools such as an impressive vented and unvented contact us at
dust collector explosion, PRB Coal basics, electrical practices, etc. prb@tradefairgroup.com
• Access to an archive of 12+ years of annual meeting presentations or 832-242-1969
• Targeted networking opportunities with generating companies and leading service
providers around the world
• Interact with your peers, share ideas, seek answers, and enhance communications
in the exclusive Member forum - www.prbcoalsforum.com
• Increased industry exposure through prominent logo placement on the user group
website, print and annual meeting signage

NEW! Combustible Coal Dust Awareness e-Learning Course

(for member/non-member contractors and employees)
 NUCLEAR
that of conventional PWRs, it incorporates
existing light water reactor technology; for
example, its fuel assemblies are just smaller
versions of the standard commercial 17 x 17
fuel assembly (Table 1). Several modules can
be combined into a larger-sized power sta-
tion, based on demand. Other unique features
include the plant’s safety design, its under-
ground installation, and spent fuel handling.
Integral Design Approach
Mowry said the B&W mPower reactor’s in-
tegral design means that the entire reactor
and nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) are
incorporated into one reactor vessel. It is ap-
proximately the size of a conventional PWR
steam generator, is rail shippable, and does
not require on-site NSSS construction. From
bottom to top the nuclear core/fuel assemblies,
control rod drive mechanisms, steam genera-
tor, reactor coolant pump impellers, and pres-
surizer all are inside the single vessel instead
of multiple vessels connected by large hot leg/
cold leg piping (Figures 1 and 2).
Mowry said removing the reactor vessel’s
primary cooling circuit penetrations below
the core eliminates the possibility of a worst-
case design-basis accident in which a large
loss of reactor cooling water is caused by a
break in the piping. In contrast to the larger
PWRs, this reactor’s small core combined
with low power density reduces fuel and clad
temperatures during accidents.
Furthermore, the low power density com-
bined with a large coolant water inventory re-
sults in operating and safety margins that are
significantly more robust than those required
by the NRC—two to three orders of mag-
nitude safer or about 10-8 compared to the
current NRC or EPRI Utility Requirements
Document core damage frequency (CDF)
benchmarks (10-5 to 10-6). The CDF expresses
the likelihood that, given the way a reactor
is designed and operated, an accident could
cause the fuel in the reactor to be damaged.
The reactor module is located inside its
own underground steel containment and nu-
clear island, effectively isolating the reactor
along with dedicated safety systems (there is
no sharing of safety systems) from external
man-made threats such as aircraft and pro-
jectiles, and from Fukushima-type natural
disasters. Small penetrations reduce the mag-
nitude of a design-basis loss of coolant acci-
dent and, therefore, the rate of energy release
to the containment. The watertight under-
ground nuclear island contains all emergency
cooling water sources needed to protect the
reactor core for an extended period of time,
including the refueling water storage tank.
The primary function of reactor safety
systems is to prevent core damage due to
overheating and to maintain reactor coolant
66
pressure boundary integrity. In a convention-
al PWR, this requires that the core remains
subcritical and covered with water. Cur-
rent PWRs perform these functions through
design features such as multiple high- and
low-pressure injection pumps; low-pressure,
closed-loop decay heat removal systems; and
active cooling systems to maintain contain-
ment pressure within design-basis limits.
Mowry said that because the B&W
mPower reactor employs conventional bal-
ance-of-plant systems, including the NSSS
arrangement and system components within
a single pressure vessel, most transients and
accidents described in NUREG-0800, Stan-
dard Review Plan for the Review of Safety
Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants:
LWR Edition are either identical or very simi-
lar to operating PWRs or the advanced PWRs
employing passive safety systems. He said no
unique thermal-hydraulic or neutronics phe-
nomena have been identified for this design.
The B&W mPower reactor’s inherent safety
features use gravity-driven or natural convec-
tion systems rather than engineered pump-driv-
en systems and thus do not require AC power
(either onsite or offsite) to power any safety
systems. For example, pumps are not required
to inject cooling water to the core. Instead, the
decay heat removal system serves as an emer-
gency core cooling system, is powered by grav-
ity, and maintains a minimum volume of water
on top of the core after a transient. Natural
circulation removes decay heat, and a gravity-
drained storage tank supplies makeup water to
cool the reactor core. This ultimate heat sink
provides at least 14 days of cooling without
the need for external intervention or AC power
to maintain reactor core cooling and safe shut-
down. This is attributable to the SMR having
a combination of a much lower level of decay
heat than larger plants and the unique ultimate
heat sink design. This allows operators to focus
on long-term event mitigation rather than im-
mediate emergency actions.
Unlike at Fukushima, no diesel generators
are required to provide power for any of these
safety systems to perform their intended func-
tions. However, Mowry said that in keeping
with mPower’s defense-in-depth philosophy,
two back-up diesel generators are provided
in seismically qualified structures for added
protection. A three-day battery supports all
plant monitoring and control without reli-
ance on AC power. Finally, passive hydrogen
recombiners prevent the buildup of hydrogen
either from the reactor core or the spent fuel
pool. All of the inherent safety systems, in-
cluding the ultimate reactor cooling water
source (the ultimate heat sink), batteries,
battery recharging system, and hydrogen
recombiners are housed inside the protected
underground nuclear island.
www.powermag.com
The B&W mPower design includes a fully
protected spent fuel pool located within the un-
derground nuclear island. As observed at Fuku-
shima, protection of spent fuel is most critical in
the first few years after it is removed from the
reactor core. Therefore, the spent fuel pool is de-
signed with a large heat sink to ensure that more
than 30 days of fuel cooling is available without
the need for external intervention and before
sufficient pool water is lost through boiling to
uncover the spent fuel. At Fukushima, sufficient
water loss may have been experienced within
one week of the March 2011 accident.
Instead of rotating the fuel for up to three
refueling cycles, as in conventional PWRs,
the mPower reactor fuel has a single four-year
run, and then the entire core is replaced in one
load. A gantry crane lifts off the top half of the
vessel, exposing the reactor core for replace-
ment. The spent fuel pool would store enough
spent fuel for a 20-year lifetime. It has been
suggested that potential customers consider
buying an extra steam generator that could be
swapped in during a refueling outage. The pre-
vious steam generator then could be inspected
once the reactor is back online and off the
critical path, saving time and money.
1. Familiar steam circuit. This drawing
shows the integral reactor arrangement and
primary loop (reactor coolant) flow through the
pressure vessel. The once-through steam gen-
erator is a vertical shell counterflow straight-
tube heat exchanger design, which directly
generates superheated steam as the feedwater
flows through the steam generator in a single
pass. Source: Babcock & Wilcox mPower Inc.
Pressurizer
Reactor coolant pumps
Steam generator
Riser
Mid flange
Control rod drive
mechanism
Upper reactor
vessel internals
Control rod
guide frame
Core barrel
Core
Reactor vessel
|
POWER August 2012

The Fukushima Effect
Critics of multiple-reactor sites are quick to Table 2. Multi-layer design features mitigate extreme beyond-design-
reference the events at Fukushima, where the basis and “Fukushima-type” events. Source: Babcock & Wilcox mPower Inc.
plant operator was forced to shift resources
from one unit to another, thus making these Events and
sites less attractive from a safety perspective. threats
However, the events at Fukushima were, more Earthquakes
than anything else, the result of plant and site and floods
configuration. This viewpoint also ignores Loss of offsite
the inherent differences between SMRs and power
the Fukushima plant, Mowry said. Table 2
summarizes the multi-layer design features Station
that mitigate extreme beyond-design-basis blackout
challenges and “Fukushima-type” events.
The Babcock & Wilcox Co. manufactures
naval nuclear reactors for submarines and Emergency
aircraft carriers. For security purposes, U.S. core cooling
military technology will not be transferred to
the mPower reactor project; however, the fac-
tories already exist and the additional invest-
ments for the initial stages of market adoption Containment
are minimal. Another advantage is that the integrity and
reactor is small enough for the reactor vessel ultimate heat
sink
head and bottom to be forged in North Amer-
ica. The B&W Nuclear Operations Group’s Spent fuel
Barberton, Ohio, and Mount Vernon, Ind., lo- pool integrity
cations specialize in the design and manufac- and cooling
ture of large, heavy components. These two
NUCLEAR
B&W mPower reactor design features
Seismic attenuation: Deeply embedded reactor building dissipates energy, limits motion.
“Water tight”: Separated, waterproof reactor compartments address unexpected events.
Passively safe: AC power not required for design basis safety functions.
Defense-in-depth: Two backup diesel generators for grid-independent AC power.
Three-day safety-related batteries: Safety-grade batteries support fully automated
mitigation of all design basis accidents for 72 hours.
Defense-in-depth non-safety-related batteries: Provide additional redundant power to
important systems and plant control functions for beyond–design basis accidents.
Gravity, not pumps: Natural circulation decay heat removal; water source in containment.
Robust margins: Low core power density and small core limit energy release.
No operator action required: For 72 hours to mitigate consequences of all design basis
accidents.
Passive hydrogen recombiners: Prevention of explosions without need for power supply.
Internal cooling source: Ultimate heat sink inside underground shielded nuclear island.
Extended performance window: At least 14 days without need for external intervention.
Protected structure: Underground, located within nuclear island.
Large heat sink: 30+ days before boiling and uncovering of fuel, and 20-year
storage capacity.

2. The B&W mPower reactor electric power generation cycle. Source: Babcock & Wilcox mPower Inc.

Primary containment
barrier RSB barrier
Moisture
separator reheater Extraction to deaerator
& LP FWH
MSIV MS stop valve TEWAC generator (3,600 rpm)

HP turbine LP turbine
Extraction to HP
FW heater
Main steam
turbine bypass
LP FWH LP FWH

LP extraction
Main condenser Gland seal
steam
Deaerator Gland steam
Main condenser hotwell condenser

MFWIV MFW
control HP extraction LP
valve extraction

HP FWH Condensate
LP FWH polisher Condensate
pumps

Reactor

Main feedpumps

|
August 2012 POWER www.powermag.com 67
 NUCLEAR
locations are ASME N-Stamp accredited, time before you evolve into the next level of
making them two of only a few North Ameri- design. This is a big departure in philosophy
can suppliers of large, heavy-walled nuclear from where people design to current regula-
components and vessels. tion. Then, when the regulations change, you
The construction process is equivalent to have to change the design. We do not think
that for a combined cycle gas turbine plant that is the path to success for mPower.”
rather than a standard large commercial nucle- Mowry said that by taking this bound-
ar reactor and is estimated to take about three ing, robust approach to the reactor design—
years. The plan is to build the power plant first for instance, achieving reactor safety levels
and then bring in and bolt together the inte- several orders of magnitude beyond existing
grated modules in parallel with field activities CDF requirements—he expects they will
to shorten construction time (Figure 3). not have to change the design as regulations
Mowry said the B&W mPower reactor evolve over the next 10 years.
is “plowing new ground as it relates to the
robustness of our seismic design.” For exam- Integrated System Test Facility
ple, the current reactor design addresses con- In September 2011, B&W opened the mPower
ditions covering the vast majority of the U.S. Integrated System Test (IST) facility, which is
He added, “We do not think that SMRs are located at the Center for Advanced Engineer-
going to be successful in the long term un- ing and Research (CAER) at the New London
less you have a stable platform and stable de- Business & Technology Center in Bedford
sign that can be replicated for some period of County, Va. (Figure 4).
The IST facility contains a scaled proto-
3. Clean plant layout. The B&W type of the B&W mPower reactor and all
mPower reactor “twin pack” site layout lacks important nuclear island systems, which
a prominent containment dome because the were installed in July 2011. All of the tech-
reactors are underground. Courtesy: Babcock nical features of the B&W mPower reactor
& Wilcox mPower Inc. are included in the IST, although the source
of reactor core power is electric rather than
nuclear. The reactor will undergo testing and
data will be collected to demonstrate the re-
actor’s thermo-hydraulic characteristics that
support the safety analysis methodology, the
protection systems, and the passive engi-
neered safety features used in the reactor’s
design certification application. The facility
is being used for developing test procedures
and simulations for operator training.
4. B&W testing facility. The Integrated System Test (IST) facility is located at the Center
for Advanced Engineering & Research (CAER). The CAER is an initiative of Virginia’s Region
2000 Partnership to develop an industry-focused regional research and development center that
drives the creation of innovative products and processes. Opened in August 2011, it provides ac-
cess to university and federal research and targets the growth industries specific to the region,
particularly nuclear energy and wireless technologies. The IST loop and emergency core cooling
systems are located in a 110-foot-tall tower visible in the photo. Courtesy: Babcock & Wilcox
mPower Inc. and CAER
68 www.powermag.com
TVA Leads the Way
A memorandum of understanding has been
signed by B&W, Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA), and a consortium of regional munici-
pal and cooperative utilities to explore the fu-
ture construction of a fleet of B&W mPower
reactors with operation of the first unit before
2022. In November 2010, TVA informed the
NRC of its plans to evaluate the feasibility
for one or more SMR modules at its Clinch
River site in Roane County, Tenn.
Mowry said that the first B&W mPower
construction permit application at Clinch
River would be prepared in accordance with
the two-part licensing process under 10 CFR
Part 50. “This is something that we have had
a lot of dialogue [about] with both the NRC
commissioners and the staff, and everyone
is comfortable with this approach.” From
a best practice/risk management commer-
cial perspective, the two-stage Part 50 pro-
cess—a construction permit (CP) followed
by an operating license (OL)—provides
the flexibility necessary to enable a quicker
construction start and support design modi-
fications, because the requirements for a CP
are relatively limited. The OL process would
benefit from the experience gained during
design and construction of the initial SMR
deployments. Experience with the initial CP/
OL framework could then be transferred to a
combined operating license (COL) structure
under the Part 52 process.
In accordance with the Part 50 licensing
process, TVA would develop a Preliminary
Safety Analysis Report (PSAR). The PSAR
would be prepared utilizing the guidance of
Regulatory Guide 1.70, Revision 3, Stan-
dard Format and Content of Safety Analy-
sis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR
Edition) and the organizational structure of
the standard review plan. In addition, the
application would include an environmental
report addressing the environmental standard
review plan guidance contained in NUREG
1555, Standard Review Plans for Environ-
mental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants:
Environmental Standard Review Plan.
TVA plans to use Generation mPower as
its vendor for developing the B&W mPower
reactors. Fabrication of major plant com-
ponents may begin before issuance of the
construction permits and may require NRC
inspection resources in advance of issuing
the construction permits. This will necessi-
tate close coordination and timely communi-
cation of manufacturing plans and schedules
to facilitate NRC inspection activities.
The SMR initial test program would be
developed using Regulatory Guide 1.68,
Revision 3, Initial Test Programs for Water-
Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to ensure that
all systems, structures, and components im-
|
POWER August 2012

portant to safety are tested and demonstrate
that the facility can be operated in accordance
with design requirements and in a manner
that will not endanger the health and safety
of the public. The scope of the inspection and
enforcement program—along with the initial
test program that encompasses site prepara-
tion inspections, construction inspections,
manufacturing inspections, and system tests
through hot functional testing—will inform
and demonstrate successful execution of fu-
ture inspections, tests, analysis, and accep-
tance criteria that may be specified in design
certification or COL applications.
SMR Cost-Sharing Program
In March 2012, the Department of Energy’s
Office of Nuclear Energy’s Small Modular
Reactor Licensing Technical Support pro-
gram issued a funding opportunity announce-
ment (FOA) on first-of-a-kind engineering
projects that promote the accelerated com-
mercialization of SMR technologies that can
be expeditiously licensed to achieve a com-
mercial operation date on a domestic site by
2022. The application submittal closing date
was May 21, 2012.
A minimum 50% industry cost sharing
(for example, by SMR vendors and utility
partnerships) on an annual basis is required
over the life of the cooperative agreements.
Also, the FOA states that proposed contribu-
tions greater than 50% is a selection factor in
evaluating program proposals. The total gov-
ernment funding available for two awards un-
der this FOA is a maximum of $452 million
over five years. The actual level of funding
will depend on congressional appropriations.
The cost-sharing approach is used to
offset the risks associated with developing
and deploying this first-of-a-kind nuclear
technology. Also, a public-private partner-
ship to develop SMRs is necessary to share
these risks and make the long-term invest-
ment justifiable to shareholders and investors
by showing the government’s commitment
to the future of nuclear power and SMRs.
In addition, broad market adoption of SMR
technology depends on a successful first-of-
a-kind project.
Mowry said he believes there is a critical
need for the DOE’s cost-sharing program to
spur market development and the viability of
SMRs in order to improve energy security sup-
ported by deployment of SMR technology.
A growing SMR industry creates the po-
tential to establish a large domestic manu-
facturing base building upon existing U.S.
NUCLEAR
manufacturing infrastructure, including un-
derutilized domestic nuclear component and
equipment plants. Therefore, a viable U.S.-
centric SMR industry would enable the U.S.
to recapture leadership in commercial nuclear
technology, which has been lost to suppliers
in France, Japan, Korea, Russia, and China.
Much Work Remains
Mowry said the B&W mPower NSSS design
has progressed well beyond the preliminary
stages. “The design teams have been very
disciplined about how much new technology
to inject into this effort. This is definitely not
a fourth-generation technology. This is all
about capturing best-in-class ideas. There
are some new technologies in the design, but
they are very focused and very limited.” For
example, the prototype internal control rod
drives are already being tested and validated.
Mowry added: “We are in a transition
phase with mPower, moving from a concep-
tual preliminary design into final design and
testing activities. The mPower development
program, as it relates to safety and economic
performance goals, is making very success-
ful progress.” ■
—James M. Hylko is a POWER
contributing editor.

Comprehensive Gas Turbine service solutions

TurboCare offers a single source for the complete range of

products and services for gas turbines, including field services,
rotor inspections and repairs, hot gas path and
combustion component repairs, and replacement components.

www.turbocare.com

CIRCLE 31 ON READER SERVICE CARD

|
August 2012 POWER www.powermag.com 69
 NUCLEAR
2011 Nuclear Industry Scorecard
The world nuclear industry experienced few substantial changes in performance
metrics for 2011—beyond Japan, that is. In the aftermath of Fukushima,
the once–world leading Japanese nuclear industry fell to the bottom of the
rankings, perhaps for good.
By Thomas W. Overton, JD

T
he big story for the world’s nuclear regain the level of nuclear capacity it had The remainder of the rankings held
power industry in 2011 was the dra- before the disaster. steady over 2011.
matic near-departure of Japan from
the nuclear club. The consequences of Total Electricity Generation, Average Capacity Factor
the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami, Capacity, and Fuel Share With power demand rebounding as the
which wrecked the Fukushima Daiichi The United States continued to hold its world economy recovers from the 2008–
nuclear plant and led to the radioactive wide lead in number of reactors, installed 09 crisis, most countries have shown
contamination of large areas of northern capacity, and total generation (Table 1). slight to moderate gains in capacity fac-
Japan, are reflected in Japan’s precipitous France, likewise, is still by far the most re- tor over the past three years (Table 2). The
drop in the worldwide rankings. Once one liant on nuclear power for its electricity. big exception, again, is Japan, which was
of the leading nations in total generation, In 2010, Japan’s fuel share from nuclear already near the bottom of the rankings
Japan shut down the last of its operating was 29.2%. The loss of nearly all its gener- but last year showed a precipitous drop
reactors in May 2012. One reactor re- ating capacity, which was shut down after
started at the beginning of July, but it is the earthquake and mostly not restarted,
questionable whether the nation will ever caused the nation’s share to fall to 18.1%. Table 2. National capacity factors
for the past three years and three-
year average. Source: IAEA
Table 1. Total generation and capacity, by country. Sources: Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 2009–
Country 2009 2010 2011 2011
2011 As of March 2012 Romania 95.2 93.9 95.2 94.8
Country Generation (thousand GWh) Fuel share (%) Plants Capacity (MW) Finland 95.7 92.5 93.6 93.9
United States 790.2 19.3 104 101,465 Lithuania 93.8 NA NA 93.8
France 421.1 77.7 58 63,130 Slovenia 90.8 89.3 99.2 93.2
Russia 161.7 17.6 33 23,643 Netherlands 95.1 89.1 92.9 92.4
Japan 156.2 18.1 50 44,215 Taiwan ROCa 92.2 92.5 92.2 92.2
Rep. of Korea 147.7 34.6 23 20,671 Republic of Korea 91.2 90.7 90.1 90.7
Germany 102.3 17.8 9 12,068 Switzerland 92.8 89.0 89.8 90.5
Canada 90.0 15.3 18 12,604 United States 90.1 91.5 89.8 90.5
PR China 87.4 1.9 16 11,816 Slovakia 88.0 88.8 92.3 89.7
Ukraine 84.8 47.2 15 13,107 Hungary 87.6 88.6 88.9 88.4
Sweden 58.0 39.6 10 9,326 Belgium 87.6 88.0 89.2 88.3
United Kingdom 56.4 15.7 17 9,703 Chinaa 88.4 88.9 87.8 88.3
Spain 55.1 19.5 8 7,567 Bulgaria 87.2 85.1 90.1 87.5
Belgium 45.9 54.0 7 5,927 Brazil 81.2 83.8 95.8 87.0
Taiwan ROC 40.5 19.0 6 5,018 Spain 78.7 91.2 84.8 84.9
India 28.9 3.7 20 4,391 Argentina 93.1 82.3 72.2 82.5
Czech Republic 26.7 33.0 6 3,766 Russia 82.2 81.7 80.7 81.5
Switzerland 25.7 40.9 5 3,263 Czech Republic 80.2 82.0 82.1 81.4
Finland 22.3 31.6 4 2,736 India 73.7 78.9 89.6 81.1
Bulgaria 16.3 32.6 2 1,906 South Africa 75.3 83.2 82.4 80.3
Brazil 15.6 3.2 2 1,884 Canada 79.2 78.2 81.0 79.5
Hungary 14.7 43.3 4 1,889 France 77.9 78.5 80.7 79.0
Slovakia 14.3 54.0 4 1,816 Ukraine 76.8 78.8 78.2 78.0
South Africa 12.9 5.2 2 1,830 Germany 74.2 77.5 82.2 77.7
Romania 11.7 19.0 2 1,300 Mexico 88.7 54.7 80.1 74.5
Mexico 9.3 3.6 2 1,300 Armenia 71.3 71.8 75.5 72.8
Slovenia 5.9 41.7 1 688 Pakistan 72.5 69.7 70.3 70.8
Argentina 5.9 5.0 2 935 Sweden 64.2 69.3 72.4 68.7
Netherlands 3.9 3.6 1 482 United Kingdom 71.1 63.7 71.4 68.7
Pakistan 3.8 3.8 3 725 Japan 64.6 67.5 46.3 59.6
Armenia 2.4 33.2 1 375 Average 80.9 82.0 80.2 81.0
Iran 0.1 0.0 1 915 Note: a. China’s numbers include Taiwan.

70 www.powermag.com |
POWER August 2012
 NUCLEAR
from 67.5% to 46.3% in the aftermath of
Table 4. U.S. nuclear unit power uprates, approved and under review
Fukushima.
(2009 to present). Sources: NEI, NRC
Most of the countries that had already
been achieving better than 90% capacity Approved
held steady over 2011. Reactor Percent uprate MWt Year approved Type
Calvert Cliffs 1 1.4 37.0 2009 MUR
Calvert Cliffs 2 1.4 37.0 2009 MUR
Availability by Country North Anna 1 1.6 47.0 2009 MUR
The availability rankings continue to be North Anna 2 1.6 47.0 2009 MUR
dominated by European countries (Table Prairie Island 1 1.6 27.0 2010 MUR
3). Worldwide, most availability ratings Prairie Island 2 1.6 27.0 2010 MUR
held steady or showed modest improve- LaSalle 1 1.6 57.0 2010 MUR
ments as demand returned. Japan, as LaSalle 2 1.6 57.0 2010 MUR
would be expected, showed a major drop Surry 1 1.6 41.0 2010 MUR
Surry 2 1.6 41.0 2010 MUR
in 2011.
Limerick 1 1.6 57.0 2011 MUR
Limerick 2 1.6 57.0 2011 MUR
U.S. Nuclear Power Uprates Point Beach 1 17.0 260.0 2011 E
Five U.S. reactors received power uprate Point Beach 2 17.0 260.0 2011 E
approvals from the Nuclear Regulatory Nine Mile Point 2 15.0 521.0 2011 E
Commission (NRC) in 2011, with three Turkey Point 3 15.0 344.0 2012 E
of them being significant enhancements Turkey Point 4 15.0 344.0 2012 E
Harris 1 1.6 48.0 2012 MUR
(Table 4). Units 1 and 2 at the Point Beach
Under review
plant in Two Rivers, Wis., received ap-
Reactor Percent uprate MWt Expected Type
provals for 17% uprates, while Unit 2 at Braidwood 1 1.6 58.4 Jun-2012 MUR
the Nine Mile Point plant in Scriba, N.Y., Braidwood 2 1.6 58.4 Jun-2012 MUR
was approved for a 15% uprate. Byron 1 1.6 58.4 Jun-2012 MUR
In June of this year, the NRC approved Byron 2 1.6 58.4 Jun-2012 MUR
a 15% uprate for Units 3 and 4 at the Tur- Oconee 1 1.6 42.0 Jun-2012 MUR
Oconee 2 1.6 42.0 Jun-2012 MUR
Oconee 3 1.6 42.0 Jun-2012 MUR
Table 3. National availability fac- Grand Gulf 13.1 510.0 Jul-2012 E
tors for the past three years and Crystal River 3 15.5 405.0 Jun-2013 E
three-year average. Source: IAEA St. Lucie 1 11.9 320.0 Q2 2012 E
St. Lucie 2 11.9 320.0 Q2 2012 E
2009– Browns Ferry 2 14.3 494.0 TBD E
Country 2009 2010 2011 2011 Browns Ferry 3 14.3 494.0 TBD E
Romania 94.8 93.5 94.6 94.3 Browns Ferry 1 14.3 494.0 TBD E
Lithuania 93.8 NA NA 93.8 Monticello 12.9 229.0 TBD E
Finland 95.2 91.9 92.8 93.3 McGuire 1 1.7 58.0 TBD MUR
McGuire 2 1.7 58.0 TBD MUR
Slovenia 90.8 89.3 98.6 93.0
Netherlands 95.1 88.9 92.1 92.0 Notes: E = Extended; MUR = Measurement Uncertainty Recapture.
Taiwan ROCa 91.5 91.4 92.4 91.8
Republic of Korea 91.1 90.6 90.0 90.5 Table 5. U.S. nuclear unit license renewals and applications (2009–2012).
United States 90.1 91.5 89.0 90.2 Source: NRC
Switzerland 92.2 88.6 89.5 90.1 Applicant Plant Application submitted Renewal approved
Hungary 87.6 88.6 88.9 88.4 AmerGen Energy Oyster Creek 2005 2009
Chinaa 88.4 88.8 87.7 88.3 Entergy Vermont Yankee 2006 2011
Slovakia 86.7 87.0 90.6 88.1
PPL Susquehanna Susquehanna 1 & 2 2006 2009
Belgium 87.3 87.5 88.7 87.8
Bulgaria 86.7 84.3 90.0 87.0 Southern Vogtle 1 & 2 2007 2009
Brazil 80.7 83.8 95.7 86.8 First Energy Beaver Valley 1 & 2 2007 2009
Spain 77.5 90.1 83.2 83.6 AmerGen Energy Three Mile Island 1 2008 2009
Argentina 93.1 81.9 72.0 82.3 Nuclear Management Prairie Island 1 & 2 2008 2011
Russia 82.0 81.4 80.3 81.2 Dominion Kewaunee 2008 2011
Czech Republic 79.6 81.6 81.8 81.0 Nebraska Public Power District Cooper 2008 2010
South Africa 74.0 82.9 81.3 79.4 FPL Energy Duane Arnold 2008 2010
Canada 78.7 77.6 80.4 78.9 Arizona Public Service Palo Verde 1, 2 & 3 2008 2011
Germany 73.6 76.7 82.0 77.2 PSEG Nuclear Salem 1 & 2 2009 2011
France 72.9 76.4 79.3 76.2 Pending
Ukraine 74.5 76.0 75.6 75.4 Entergy Pilgrim 2006
Mexico 88.5 53.6 80.0 74.0 Entergy Indian Point 2 & 3 2007
Armenia 69.8 69.7 73.7 71.1 Florida Power Crystal River 3 2008
Pakistan 72.5 69.7 70.3 70.8 PSEG Nuclear Hope Creek 2009
United Kingdom 70.8 63.4 71.2 68.5 Pacific Gas & Electric Diablo Canyon 1 & 2 2009
Sweden 63.4 68.2 71.3 67.7 Energy Northwest Columbia Generating Station 2010
India 47.7 57.6 76.2 61.2 FPL Energy Seabrook Seabrook 2010
Japan 63.3 66.9 41.8 57.5 First Energy Davis-Besse 1 2010
STP Nuclear Operating Co. South Texas Project 1 & 2 2010
Note: a. China’s numbers include Taiwan.
Exelon Limerick 1 & 2 2011

|
August 2012 POWER www.powermag.com 71
 NUCLEAR
key Point plant in Homestead, Fla. A num-
1. Still the leader. Despite slight increases in the cost of fuel, nuclear power remains the
ber of other uprates are pending for 2012,
least expensive source of electricity per kilowatt-hour. Coal and natural gas data reflect total
production cost. Nuclear data is shown in its components: fuel and operation and maintenance most of them fairly minor.
plus the total production cost. Data is for the period 1995 to 2011 in cents/kWh. Sources: NEI,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Applications for
License Extensions
Total nuclear Nuclear O&M Nuclear fuel Total coal Total gas Five U.S. plants received renewed licens-
9.00 es from the NRC in 2011: Vermont Yan-
kee in Vernon, Vt.; Prairie Island in Red
8.00 Wing, Minn.; Kewaunee in Carlton, Wis.;
Palo Verde in Tonopah, Ariz.; and Salem
7.00 in Lower Alloways Creek Township, N.J.
(Table 5).
6.00 Ten other applications for renewal are
Cost (cents/kWh)

pending, one of which was filed in 2011.

5.00
Nuclear Units Under Construction
4.00 China’s massive build-out of its power
generation capacity is reflected in its wide
3.00 lead in the number of nuclear plants under
construction (Table 6). Twenty-six Chi-
2.00 nese plants are reported to be in various
stages of development. Though data for
1.00
many of them are incomplete, the majority
of planned units are believed to be West-
0.00
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 inghouse AP1000 models, though China
has been working to localize design and
Year
construction of nuclear reactors.

2012 Combined-Cycle/Gas Turbine Dataset

Covering over 34.000 generating units from over 160 countries and territories

This unique database globally covers over 34,000 installed or projected generating units including details as geographic
location, capacity (MW), age, technology, fuels, boiler, turbine, generator and emissions control equipment. You also
gain access to over 4,200 plant management and support contacts including titles and job functions.
This data set comes in Microsoft Excel, an easy to use application that allows you to manipulate data and import
easily into your own database.

TO DOWNLOAD A FREE SAMPLE ONLINE, VISIT WWW.PLATTS.COM/PRODUCTS/UDICCGT

72 www.powermag.com |
POWER August 2012
 NUCLEAR

Table 6. Nuclear units under construction worldwide. Sources: NEI, IAEA 2. Safety first. The worldwide nuclear in-
Country Reactor name Reactor type Total MWe Estimated startup year dustry continued its substantial progress to-
Argentina Atucha 2 PHWR 692 2012 ward improving worker safety over the past
Brazil Angra-3 PWR 1,245 NA two decades. Source: WANO
Belene 1 PWR 953 NA Accidents per million
Bulgaria man-hours worked
Belene 2 PWR 953 NA
Changjiang 1 PWR 610 NA 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Changjiang 2 PWR 610 NA
Fangchenggang PWR 1,000 NA 5.2
1990
Fangjiashan 1 PWR 1,000 NA
Fangjiashan 2 PWR 1,000 NA
Fuqing 1 PWR 1,000 NA
Fuqing 2 PWR 1,000 NA 1995 2.9
Fuqing 3 PWR 1,000 NA
Haiyang 1 PWR 1,000 NA
Haiyang 2 PWR 1,000 NA
2000 1.63
Hongyanhe 1 PWR 1,000 NA
Hongyanhe 2 PWR 1,000 NA
Hongyanhe 3 PWR 1,000 NA
China
Hongyanhe 4 PWR 1,000 NA 2005 1.3
Lingao 4 PWR 1,000 NA
Ningde 1 PWR 1,000 NA
Ningde 2 PWR 1,000 NA

Year
Ningde 3 PWR 1,000 NA 2006 1.21
Ningde 4 PWR 1,000 NA
Sanmen 1 PWR 1,000 NA
Sanmen 2 PWR 1,000 NA 2007 0.96
Taishan 1 PWR 1,700 NA
Taishan 2 PWR 1,700 NA
Yangjiang 1 PWR 1,000 NA
Yangjiang 2 PWR 1,000 NA 2008 0.92
Yangjiang 3 PWR 1,000 NA
Lungmen 1 ABWR 1,300 NA
China, Taiwan
Lungmen 2 ABWR 1,300 NA
2009 0.78
Finland Olkiluoto 3 PWR 1,600 NA
France Flamanville 3 PWR 1,600 2016
Kakrapar 3 PHWR 630 2015
Kakrapar 4 PHWR 630 2015 2010 0.85
Kudankulam 1 PWR 917 NA
India Kudankulam 2 PWR 917 2012
PFBR FBR 470 NA
Rajasthan 7 PHWR 630 2016
Rajasthan 8 PHWR 630 2016 3. Holding steady. Average radiation
Ohma ABWR 1,325 NA exposure levels have been largely unchanged
Japan since the mid-2000s. Source: WANO
Shimane 3 ABWR 1,325 NA
Chasnupp 3 PWR 315 2016
Pakistan
Chasnupp 4 PWR 315 2017 Collective exposure (man-rem per unit)
Akademik Lomonosov 1 PWR 32 NA
Akademik Lomonosov 2 PWR 32 NA 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Beloyarsky 4 FBR 804 NA
1990 276
Kursk 5 LWGR 915 NA 174
Leningrad 2-1 PWR 1,085 NA
Russia 157
Leningrad 2-2 PWR 1,085 NA 1995 137
Novovoronezh 2-1 PWR 1,114 NA
Novovoronezh 2-2 PWR 1,114 NA 2000 126
85
Rostov 3 PWR 1,011 NA
Rostov 4 PWR 1,011 NA 2005 136
65
Year

Mochovce 3 PWR 391 2012

Slovak Republic
Mochovce 4 PWR 391 2013 2006 101
Shin-Kori 3 PWR 1,340 NA 60
S. Korea Shin-Kori 4 PWR 1,340 NA 2007 112
Shin Wolsong 2 PWR 960 NA 55
Khmelnitski 3 PWR 950 2015 120
Ukraine 2008 59
Khmelnitski 4 PWR 950 2016
Watts Bar 2 PWR 1,165 NA 104
2009
United States Vogtle 3 PWR 1,154 2016 55
Vogtle 4 PWR 1,154 2017
2010 91
54
Notes: ABWR = Advanced Boiling Water Reactor, FBR = Fast Breeder Reactor, LWGR = Light-Water-Cooled, Graphite-Moder-
ated Reactor, PHWR = Pressurized Heavy-Water-Moderated and Cooled Reactor, PWR = Pressurized Water Reactor BWR PWR

|
August 2012 POWER www.powermag.com 73
 NUCLEAR

Russia (with 10 reported projects) and Safety Stats Remain High

India (with seven) are also forging ahead
with ambitious nuclear plans, though not
quite on the Chinese scale.
Russia (with 10 reported projects) and
India (with seven) are also forging ahead
with ambitious nuclear plans, though not
quite on the Chinese scale.
In the U.S., the NRC issued a construc-
tion and operating license (COL) for Vog-
tle Units 3 and 4 (also AP1000 designs),
which are currently under construction
in Georgia. The long-delayed Tennes-
see Valley Authority Watts Bar 2 project
in Tennessee is currently projected to
be completed in late 2015, though some
sources expect further hold-ups. The Vir-
gil C. Summer Nuclear Station in Fair-
field County, S.C., was issued a COL by
the NRC for its proposed Units 2 and 3 on
March 30, but work has not yet begun.
Japan had two projects under way prior
to Fukushima, but these are now on hold.
Average U.S. Production Costs
The costs of producing electricity at the
nation’s nuclear plants, which had pla-
teaued through much of the 2000s, contin-
ued the slight increase that began in 2009,
largely driven by higher fuel costs (Figure
1). Total costs, however, remained below
those for coal and gas.
Worldwide, the substantial gains in nu-
clear industry safety since the 1990s held
steady through the late 2000s.
In 2010, the most recent year for which
full data are available from the World As-
sociation of Nuclear Operators (WANO),
there was a slight uptick in the number
of accidents per million man-hours from
the all-time low achieved in 2009, but the
2010 rate was still the second-lowest ever
achieved (Figure 2).
Overall levels of radiation exposure at
pressurized water reactors plateaued in
the 2000s, and the 2010 rate was consis-
tent with levels achieved across the decade
(Figure 3). For boiling water reactors, af-
ter a slight increase in exposure from 2007
to 2009, exposure levels fell to an all-time
low of 91 man-rem per unit in 2010.
The 2011 numbers, when available, are
likely to increase as a result of the Fuku-
shima disaster, though to present an accu-
rate picture, one would need to segregate
the Japanese data. ■
—Thomas W. Overton, JD is POWER’s gas
technology editor.

RETECH...Where REAL Business Opportunites

Exist for Renewable Energy Companies

Bioenergy
Wind
Solar octoBer 17-19, 2012
OMNI SHOREHAM | WASHINGTON D.C.
Hydro www.retech2012.com

geotHermal RETECH is expanding.

New focuses include:
» National Defense & Security
» Power Generation & Infrastructure
WaSte to energy » Transportation
» Technology & Markets

ocean
Organized by: Content Partner:
REGISTER TODAY at www.retech2012.com
with VIP code PWR8 to receive the best rates!

74 www.powermag.com |
POWER August 2012
 NUCLEAR POWER
Too Dumb to Meter, Part 3
As the book title Too Dumb to Meter: Follies, Fiascoes, Dead Ends, and
Duds on the U.S. Road to Atomic Energy implies, nuclear power has
traveled a rough road. In this POWER exclusive, we present the third
chapter, “Micro-Mismanagement by Committee.” During the frenzy to
manage atomic power after World War II, Congress created an execu-
tive branch agency that threatened to be too independent, too power-
ful, and too isolated from the rest of government. Compounding their
errors, perhaps in recognition of what they had created, the solons
also developed a way to insert their own power into the action. This
proved to be a major mistake—blurring the lines between executive
and legislative authority—causing no end of problems for the nation’s
nascent atomic energy venture.
By Kennedy Maize

T
o protect its interests in the postwar
jockeying over atomic energy, Con-
gress in the 1946 law established
the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
(JCAE), made up of eighteen members,
nine from the Senate and nine from the
House. Its mission, as stated in the law,
was to “make continuing studies of the ac-
tivities of the Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC) and of problems relating to the de-
velopment, use, and control of atomic en-
ergy.” The move to erect a special commit-
tee to keep Congress involved in atomic
energy reflected, in part, ambiguity about
the powers that had been given to the AEC.
During the debate over the legislation,
Rep. Clare Booth Luce, a Connecticut
Republican, commented that the represen-
tatives were “torn between a distaste for
the vast dictatorial domestic powers [the
legislation] confers on the five-man com-
mission, and our fears that without it we
shall endanger our national security in a
troubled world.” The legislation gave the
joint committee—the only congressional
committee established by law, not by the
internal rules of the House and Senate—
“exclusive jurisdiction” over atomic power.
One analysis concluded, “While the JCAE
was certainly a committee of Congress,
in many ways it did not resemble a con-
gressional committee, or at least few other
congressional committees before or since,
serving as almost a unicameral legislature
within the bicameral Congress.”
In the normal order in Congress, various
committees generally compete with each
other, bringing greater debate and diver-
sity of views and interests to consideration
of legislative issues. In today’s House, for
example, while the Ways and Means Com-
mittee has jurisdiction over taxes, other
committees also have concurrent authority
over aspects of tax policy, tempering the
power of the tax panel. It’s messy, but it
usually works. Congress, with the Atomic
Energy Act, made an end-run around tra-
ditional structures and power thereby em-
powering an atomic autocracy.
The 1946 law also set up a political fight
between the conventional appropriations
committees, which had evolved into major
power centers in Congress, and the new
group on the block, the JCAE. In 1951,
the Senate essentially ceded the power of
the purse to the joint committee, providing
that three members of the joint committee
would be ex officio members of the appro-
priations committee for all matters atomic.
That didn’t happen in the House, where a
stormy relationship between the nuclear
power barons and the legacy powers of the
appropriators prevailed.
Because Congress—which controlled
the federal government’s purse—gave the
joint committee extraordinary authority
over the AEC, the committee quickly be-
came the political sun around which the
other atomic institutions revolved. The
JCAE was, in its time, the most power-
ful committee in Congress—arguably the
most powerful in congressional history. It
was also one of the most powerful insti-
tutions of government in Washington, of-
ten eclipsing the executive branch. These
(mostly) guys had radioactive muscles,
and they flexed them often—and often on
behalf of half-baked, irrational nuclear
schemes.
Examining the unique powers of the
committee, one of the histories of the AEC
notes, “Moreover, it was the only joint
committee of Congress authorized to re-
ceive proposed legislation and recommend
it to the Congress.” In the wacky world of
Washington, that’s a powerful proposition:
a joint committee can write bills that large-
ly trump the work of the other substantive
committees in the House and Senate.
What’s more, the JCAE developed such
expertise, and based its decisions on se-
cret testimony, which it could reveal and
conceal at will, that it was able to dictate
national policy to Congress and the execu-
tive branch. Also, when it was adding to
the powers of the committee in 1951, Con-
gress gave it the authority to wield a leg-
islative veto. The committee could review
proposed actions of the AEC, the White
House, or other executive branch agencies,
including the military, and nullify them.
This set up monumental battles between
both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, most
often won by the joint committee.
The AEC quickly realized where the
real power on atomic policy in the United
States could be found, and used the joint
committee to protect the agency against
moves by the White House to implement
administration policy that the AEC found
threatening, particularly on budget mat-
ters. A symbiotic and sycophantic rela-
tionship soon developed between the AEC
and the joint committee.
The intimate relationship between the
congressional overseers and the agency
it oversaw caused some heartburn, even
on the committee. California Republican
Craig Hosmer, who served on the joint
committee, and who had been a young

|
August 2012 POWER www.powermag.com 75
 NUCLEAR POWER
AEC lawyer earlier in his professional life,
was troubled by the close relationship. In
a 1960 speech on the House floor, he said:
“I sometimes feel that as between mem-
bers of the Joint Committee and members
of the Atomic Energy Commission, there
exists only a shadowy and blurred under-
standing of which policy matters are to
be decided by the committee and which
by the commission, even sometimes as to
what are matters of policy and what are
CALL FOR PARTICIPATION
celebrating
15 years
DONALD E. STEPHENS
CONVENTION CENTER
May 14-16, 2013
Flexibility & Adaptability: The New
Hallmarks for Power Generation
Share Your Experience with Thousands of Power
Generation Professionals from Around the Globe
Don’t Miss Your Chance to Speak -
Submit your session ideas and industry solutions for consideration
at www.electricpowerexpo.com/speak before September 25, 2012
76
matters of administration. This needs clar-
ification by force of law rather than force
of personalities and customs.” Also, com-
mittee staff—who wielded extraordinary
power—often moved over to the AEC,
where they again exercised exceptional
power due to their back channel relations
with the JCAE. There was similar move-
ment in the other direction, from the com-
mission to the committee. James Ramey’s
career exemplified this revolving atomic
| ROSEMONT, IL
www.powermag.com
door. In 1946, Lilienthal brought Ramey—
at the time, a young lawyer on the staff
of the Tennessee Valley Authority—with
him to Washington as an assistant general
counsel. Ramey then transferred to the
AEC’s Chicago office, where he worked
with Adm. Rickover on the contract with
Westinghouse Electric Corp. for the first
nuclear submarine, the Nautilus.
In 1956, Ramey moved to the joint com-
mittee, where he was executive director,
the most important staff job on the com-
mittee. It was a plum job in many ways,
including pay. The joint committee was
not bound by staff pay directives for other
congressional committees, or by the spe-
cial pay schedule that applied to the AEC
(which was already higher than that of the
rest of the civil service). Ramey became
a powerful and influential presence, par-
ticularly on matters related to the AEC’s
military programs and its dealings with
the Pentagon. He helped develop the in-
formation on the presence of Soviet mis-
siles in Cuba that led to the 1962 Cuban
Missile Crisis.
In 1962, President Kennedy nominated
Ramey as an AEC commissioner, where he
served from September 1963 to July 1973.
During that period, most of it served un-
der AEC chairman Glenn Seaborg, Ramey
emerged as a major power at the AEC.
Seaborg, a Nobel Prize–winning nuclear
chemist, was largely a hands-off admin-
istrator during his ten years as chairman,
preferring to make speeches and presenta-
tions on the wonders of the atom. Ramey
stepped into that vacuum. His 2010 obitu-
ary in the Washington Post said, “He was
described in a 1974 New York Times arti-
cle as the ‘single most influential member
of the commission in the past decade,’ who
for many years was the ‘power behind the
throne’ of the AEC’s chairmen.”
On the JCAE, no more than five of the
nine members from each house could be
from the same party; the leadership rotated
by chamber and party control of Congress.
Members of the committee tended to have
safe electoral seats, so they spent years and
decades on the committee. The member-
ship of the JCAE was remarkably stable.
Over the years, the same names dominated
the committee. From the Senate: Demo-
crats Richard Russell of Georgia; Clinton
Anderson of New Mexico; John Pastore
of Rhode Island; and Republican Bourke
Hickenlooper of Iowa regularly served
on the committee. During the first eight
years of the committee’s life, control of
Congress shifted back-and-forth between
the two parties, and Hickenlooper moved
repeatedly from ranking minority to lead
|
POWER August 2012

Republican. He served as chairman of
the committee in the Eightieth Congress
(1947–1948) and the Eighty-third Con-
gress (1953–1954). Pastore was a three-
time chairman (1962–1964, 1967–1968,
and 1970–1972).
On the House side, two men dominated
the joint committee: Democrats Chet Holi-
field of California and Mel Price of Illi-
nois. Holifield served in the House from
The joint committee represented the stron-
gest arm of an iron triangle of interests that
included the AEC, industry, and Congress. The
administration, decidedly not part of that
arrangement, was often its enemy and occa-
sionally its foil.
1943 through 1974, becoming a nuclear
lobbyist for General Electric after his
congressional service. Under an informal
agreement that alternated the chairman-
ship of the joint committee between the
House and Senate, Holifield chaired the
committee three times (1960–1961, 1965–
1977, 1969–1970). A friendly and garru-
lous cigar-chomping former sports writer
from East St. Louis, Price chaired the joint
committee only once, serving from 1973
through 1974. First elected to Congress in
1944 after Army service, Price was also a
long-serving member of the House Armed
Services Committee and combined his in-
terest in atomic energy with his position
on military affairs. Price became armed
forces chairman in 1975, following his ser-
vice on the joint committee. House Demo-
crats purged him from the armed services
committee in 1985, believing his age and
his unwavering support for all things mili-
tary rendered him no longer fit to lead the
committee.
While often critical of the AEC and
its programs, all of the members of the
JCAE were enthusiastic about the big
prospects for nuclear energy. A Congres-
sional Research Service analysis of the
joint committee written in 2004 described
the committee’s “unswerving dedication
to the development of nuclear power.” The
piece goes on to note: “The members of
the JCAE had a pro-nuclear power phi-
losophy; definite objectives which they
believed should be achieved; and specific
|
August 2012 POWER
policies which they worked to have imple-
mented.” When the members of the joint
committee were angry with the AEC, it
generally meant they didn’t believe the
agency was moving fast enough. Partisan-
ship was not a major factor in the JCAE’s
legislative life—pork was. The committee
took great care to assure that spending on
AEC programs put money into their states
and congressional districts.
Industry lobbied the joint committee
when it thought the AEC wasn’t serving
their needs or when it wanted to mold AEC
policies. If an administration (of either par-
ty) wanted to redirect or shut down a failing
AEC program, the commission invariably
enlisted the JCAE on its side, along with
industry. The joint committee represented
the strongest arm of an iron triangle of in-
terests that included the AEC, industry, and
Congress. The administration, decidedly
not part of that arrangement, was often its
enemy and occasionally its foil.
The concept of the joint committee and
its unprecedented powers has prompted
some admiration over the years and recom-
mendations that it be duplicated for other
More to Come
In the next installment of Too Dumb to
Meter, by 1952, when the Republicans
under Eisenhower recaptured the White
House, the House of Representatives,
and the Senate, civilian control of nu-
clear energy—at least on paper—was
well established. The AEC was up and,
if not running, at least lurching ahead.
However, the military was pushing to
expand the U.S. arsenal with bigger and
more deadly weapons, while the AEC was
recommending smaller bombs with more
bang-per-pound and -dollar, including
battlefield tactical nukes.
www.powermag.com
NUCLEAR POWER
matters of national priority. Most recently,
the national Commission on Terrorist At-
tacks upon the United States (the so-called
9/11 Commission) looked fondly on the
JCAE and its approach to governance. The
9/11 Commission’s July 2004 final report
called for “centralizing and strengthening
congressional oversight of intelligence and
homeland security issues,” with the joint
committee as a model. The report said,
“Either Congress should create a joint
committee for intelligence, using the Joint
Atomic Energy Committee as its model,
or it should create House and Senate com-
mittees with combined authorizing and ap-
propriations powers.” Fortunately for the
cause of limited government and diversity
of policy views in the process of running
a government, Congress ignored the 9/11
Committee on this recommendation (and
most others, as well).
As the nation’s views of nuclear power
soured in the mid-1970s, mostly as a result
of under-delivery on the promises made in
the preceding decades, Congress complete-
ly restructured the government’s atomic
enterprise. In October 1974, President
Gerald Ford signed the Energy Reorgani-
zation Act. The Atomic Energy Commis-
sion was split asunder like a fissioning
uranium atom: The production and energy
research and development aspects became
the province of a place-holder agency
called the Energy Research and Develop-
ment Administration, later transmogrify-
ing into the U.S. Department of Energy.
The puny and often conflicted regulatory
function of the AEC, which licensed new
power reactors, became the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
died a lingering death alongside the AEC.
Shortly after Ford signed the reorganiza-
tion law, the House adopted a proposal
from Richard Bolling of Missouri, a senior
Democrat on the House Rules Committee,
which began chipping away at the joint
committee’s expansive jurisdiction. The
Bolling Amendment gave authority for
non-military aspects of nuclear power to
the House Interior Committee. In August
1977, both the House and the Senate for-
mally abolished the joint committee, fol-
lowing a scathing report the year before by
the reformist group Common Cause, titled
“Stacking the Deck,” and outlining how
the committee had become a “huckster for
the nuclear power industry.” ■
—Kennedy Maize is a POWER contribut-
ing editor and executive editor of MAN-
AGING POWER. Too Dumb to Meter is
available on Amazon.com and is serialized
by permission.
77
 TO POWER YOUR BUSINESS
NEW PRODUCTS
Sensors for Detecting Corrosion Under Insulation
Rohrback Cosasco released three types of Cosasco corrosion under insulation (CUI)
corrosion sensors for detecting corrosion under insulation: continuous insulated braid
“corrosion fuse” wire (Type 1), inserted “corrosion fuse” probe array (Type 2), and
the CUI Corrosometer Probe (Type 3). The three techniques offer direct corrosion
detection and a much lower cost per monitoring point than existing methods and
may be customized to meet individual requirements and applications to fit with any
plant integrity management program. The sensors offer savings on inspection and
repair costs plus simple and low-cost installation (Types 2 & 3 do not require removal
of insulation). (www.cosasco.com)
Rotary Screw Air Compressor
Ingersoll Rand is offering a newly improved single-phase
control scheme for its 5 and 7.5 versions of the small
UP6 5-15c line of air compressors. It has added a run-on
timer and load/unload and
blowdown solenoids to
improve the reliability and
performance of single-phase
units in general industrial
applications up to 28 cfm.
The company says that
a compressor that does
not include an enhanced
control scheme can easily
be misapplied and fail in
an environment where the
compressor starts and stops
too many times per hour. Its
enhanced control scheme
allows the compressor to
operate unloaded with the
motor continuing to run for
the appropriate length
of time, ensuring
that the reliability
and performance of
the system is protected.
(ingersollrandproducts.com)
78 www.powermag.com
Non-Discharging
Synthetic Media
for Pulse Systems
Camfil Farr Power Systems
added two new products
for dusty environments to
its Campulse product line:
Campulse GTC and GTD. Both
have new, non-discharging
fiber media, which are
sturdy, durable, and offer
high dust-holding capacity.
The Campulse GTC’s smooth
synthetic fibers offer low
resistance to airflow and
maintain a low pressure
drop throughout the filter
life. The filter is designed to
withstand harsh conditions,
including high humidity and
wet tropical environments.
The Campulse GTD’s layer of
nanofibers over the synthetic
substrate significantly
increases dust collection on
the media surface, resulting
in improved dust release
when pulsed. Ideal for high-
dust environments, such as
deserts and arid areas. (www.
camfilfarr.com)
|
POWER August 2012
 NEW PRODUCTS

Compact Electric Pump

A new compact electric pump designed for bolt tensioning applications in the wind turbine
industry is now available from specialist bolt tensioner manufacturer Boltight Ltd. The
standalone power pack is lightweight (19.5 kg) and portable, as the pump, reservoir, and motor
are combined into one easily handled package. The 0.75-kW rated pump is driven by a 220-240 V
single-phase electric motor and delivers a maximum operating pressure of 1500 bar. A 110-V motor
is available as an option. Located in a frame for added protection, the pump is easy to handle and
carry. The power pack is matched to Boltight’s Typhoon and Tempest ranges of bolt-tensioning tools
but may be used with any Boltight bolt tensioning tools operating at 1500 bar. (ww.boltight.com)

Flowmeter for Utility Gases

Endress+Hauser released the Proline t-mass 150 thermal mass flowmeter for measuring
gases such as compressed air, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and argon. The flowmeter measures
mass flow, gas temperature, free air delivery, and corrected volume—all without the need
for pressure or temperature compensation. The t-mass 150, with its high turndown of
100:1, can reliably measure small gas quantities at very low operating pressures, making
it suitable for applications such as leak detection, process control, cost allocation,
analysis of flow profiles and energy management. The flowmeter operates in temperatures
from –40F to 212F and pressures up to 580 psi. It measures mass flow up to 2.4 million
pounds/hour with negligible pressure loss. The stainless steel flowmeter has CSAus and ex
approvals for use in Class 1, Division 2 areas. (www.us.endress.com/t-mass-150)

Comprehensive Spectrophotometer
Hach Co.’s new DR 6000UV-Vis spectrophotometer was designed to fulfill any water
testing needs using one spectrophotometer. It is equipped with RFID technology,
integrated QA software, and more than 250 testing methods and guided procedures. The
instrument is programmed to take absorbance readings of a single sample at different
wavelengths or over a specific period of time and allows high-speed wavelength scanning
across the UV and visible spectrum. RFID technology helps operators track their samples
and manage their labs. When the DR 6000 is paired with Hach’s TNTplus reagent vials, it
detects and alerts users to expired reagents, ensuring chemistries are used within their
shelf lives. In cases where changes to a stored program are required to use a new lot of
chemistry, it prompts the user to perform the update. The RFID technology allows the
DR 6000 to update the program’s calibration factors automatically when the TNTplus
reagent box is placed near the instrument. Results are analyzed and outliers—caused by
scratched, flawed, or dirty glassware—are eliminated. (www.hach.com)

Tray Cable Connectors

Appleton, a manufacturer of products for hazardous location electrical systems, now
offers a versatile line of tray cable connectors engineered for use with TC, ITC, PLTC, and
other commonly used types of tray cable. Key to the success of the new connectors is a
compensating displacement seal that provides ingress protection to NEMA 4X and IP68
standards, allowing use in highly caustic or harsh environments. The connectors also
feature a seal insert that lets each gland terminate the broadest cable range available
in a single hub size. Made of aluminum, stainless steel, and nickel-plated brass, the new
connectors offer a wide continuous operating temperature range of –76F to 230F and
come in trade sizes ranging from 0.5 inch to 4 inches. NPT threads are standard; metric is
an option, as are an adaptor/reducer and earth tags. (www.appletonelec.com)

Inclusion in New Products does not imply endorsement by POWER magazine.

|
August 2012 POWER www.powermag.com 79
 POWER PLANT BUYERS’ MART

POWER PROFESSIONALS
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:
P.O. Box 87875
Vancouver, WA 98687-7875
email: dwood@powerindustrycareers.com
(360) 260-0979 l (360) 253-5292
www.powerindustrycareers.com

Need help? Need a job?

Contact Lisa Lineal in confidence

LINEAL RECRUITING
SERVICES
www.Lineal.com • LisaLineal@Lineal.com
Toll free 877-386-1091
Electric Power Systems & Service Specialists
Se habla Español

READER SERVICE NUMBER 203

GAS TURBINES FOR SALE

READER SERVICE NUMBER 201
GEORGE H. BODMAN, INC.
Chemical cleaning advisory services for
boilers and balance of plant systems
George H. Bodman
Pres. / Technical Advisor
• LM6000
• FRAME 9E
• FRAME 5
50/60Hz, nat gas or liq fuel,
installation and service available
Available for Immediate Shipment
Pumps • Motors • Fuel Oil Heating & Pump Sets
Tel: +1 281.227.5687
Fax: +1 281.227.5698
John.clifford@woodgroup.com
FOR SALE/RENT
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
Valves • Tubes • Controls • Compressors
Pulverizers • Rental Boilers & Generators
847-541-5600 FAX: 847-541-1279
WEB SITE: www.wabashpower.com

BoilerCleaningDoctor.com Ofice 1-800-286-6069

Ofice (281) 359-4006
wabash POWER
EQUIPMENT CO.
444 Carpenter Avenue, Wheeling, IL 60090
PO Box 5758 E-mail: blrclgdr@aol.com
Kingwood, TX 77325-5758 Fax (281) 359-4225
READER SERVICE NUMBER 205

READER SERVICE NUMBER 202 READER SERVICE NUMBER 204

To Advertise in POWER
CLASSIFIEDS

C O N T A C T Diane Hammes
PHONE 713-444-9939 FAX 512-213-4855 dianeh@powermag.com

80 www.powermag.com |
POWER August 2012
 POWER PLANT BUYERS’ MART PRODUCT Showcase

OFF Switch
Safely breaks
load, UL listed

Arc Flash Chambers

Prevents Exposure
to Arc Flash
Safety Shutter
Simplifies NFPA 70E
compliance

Enables quick connect

disconnect of equipment

FREE SAMPLES
available

meltric.com • 800.433.7642

READER SERVICE NUMBER 206

READER SERVICE NUMBER 213

NEED CABLE? FROM STOCK

CONDENSER OR GENERATOR AIR COOLER TUBE PLUGS
THE CONKLIN SHERMAN COMPANY, INC.
Copper Power to 69KV; Bare ACSR & AAC Conductor
Turbine Controls
Easy to install, saves time and money.
ADJUSTABLE PLUGS - all rubber with brass insert. Expand it,
Underground UD-P & URD, Substation Control – Shielded
and Non-shielded, Interlock Armor to 35KV, Thermocouple
Woodward, GE, MHC
install it, reverse action for tight fit.
PUSH PULL PLUGS- are all rubber, simply push it in. BASIC WIRE & CABLE Parts and Service
TurboGen • (610) 631-3480
Sizes 0.530 O.D. to 2.035 O.D.
Tel: (203) 881-0190 • Fax:(203)881-0178 Fax (773) 539-3500 Ph. (800) 227-4292
E-mail: Conklin59@aol.com • www.conklin-sherman.com E-Mail: basicwire@basicwire.com
OVER ONE MILLION PLUGS SOLD WEB SITE: www.basicwire.com info@turbogen.net
READER SERVICE NUMBER 207 READER SERVICE NUMBER 208 READER SERVICE NUMBER 209

READER SERVICE NUMBER 210 READER SERVICE NUMBER 211 READER SERVICE NUMBER 212

|
August 2012 POWER www.powermag.com 81
 Are environmental rules
posing some of the most
vexing challenges for
your power plant?
The alphabet soup of rules (CSAPR, MACT, NSR and
so on) impact everything from daily operations to
long-term capital planning and outage management.

Join POWER for the latest webinar ‘Clearing the Air

on Air Emission Regulations’ where you will hear
from four industry experts as they discuss current
Environmental Protection Agency regulations and
their impact on the electric power industry.

August 30th at 3 pm EDT Frank Prager, Vice President,

Environmental Policy and Services,
Xcel Energy
Register for this FREE webinar at
www.powermag.com/emissionregulations/
Jay Holloway, Partner,
Winston & Strawn, LLP
What viewers will learn:
• How a major utility approaches compliance Block Andrews, Director of Strategic
Environmental Solutions, Burns &
• What documentation you must maintain
McDonnell - Energy Division
• How court challenges will impact compliance
timelines David Wagman, Executive Editor,
POWER magazine
• Best Practice approaches to compliance

ALL REGISTERED ATTENDEES WILL RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION

FOR ONE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT HOUR!

Sponsored by:
Organized by:
 ADVERTISERS’ INDEX
Enter reader service numbers on the FREE Product Information Source card in this issue.
Reader Reader
Service Service
Page Number Page Number
Applied Bolting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 . . . . . . . . . 23 Kiewit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 . . . . . . . . . . 8
www.appliedbolting.com www.kiewit.com
AES Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 . . . . . . . . . 13 Martin Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 . . . . . . . . . 30
www.aes.com www.martin-eng.com
Babcock & Wilcox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cover 2 . . . . . . . . . . 1 MTU. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 . . . . . . . . . 10
www.babcock.com www.mtu-online.com
Babcock & Wilcox mPower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cover 4 . . . . . . . . . 33 NatronX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 . . . . . . . . . 29
www.babcock.com www.natronx.com
Baldor Electric.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 . . . . . . . . . 19 Outotec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 . . . . . . . . . 18
www.baldor.com www.outotec.com
Bechtel Corp.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Paharpur. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 . . . . . . . . . 24
www.bechtel.com www.paharpur.com
BHI Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . 2 Roberts & Schaefer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 . . . . . . . . . 25
www.bhienergy.com www.r-s.com
Bibb Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 . . . . . . . . . 15 Santee Cooper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 . . . . . . . . . 20
www.bibb-eac.com www.santeecooper.com
Breen Energy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 . . . . . . . . . 27 SMA-America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 . . . . . . . . . 12
www.breenes.com www.sma-america.com
Chatham Steel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 . . . . . . . . . . 9 Superbolt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 . . . . . . . . . 17
www.chathamsteel.com www.superbolt.com
Dresser-Rand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 . . . . . . . . . 11 Swagelok. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cover 3 . . . . . . . . . 32
www.dresser-rand.com www.swagelok.com/connection
Emerson Process Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 . . . . . . . . . 26 TEAM Industrial Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . 6
www.emersonprocess.com www.teaminc.com
Fluke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . 4 TIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 . . . . . . . . . 21
www.fluke.com
www.tic-inc.com
Fuel Tech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 . . . . . . . . . 28 TurboCare. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 . . . . . . . . . 31
www.ftek.com
www.turbocare.com
Phillips 66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . 3
www.phillips66lubricants.com URS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 . . . . . . . . . 22
www.urs.com
GE Energy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . 5
www.ge-energy.com
Hadek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 . . . . . . . . . 14
www.hadek.com CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
Hytorc Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . . 7 Pages 80-81. To place a classified ad, contact
www.hytorc.com
IFS North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 . . . . . . . . . 16 Diane Hammes, 713-343-1885, dianeh@powermag.com
www.ifsworld.com/en-na

SUBSCRIBE TO POWER MAGAZINE

REPLY ONLINE AT www.submag.com/sub/pw or Fax to: 832-251-1709
Do you wish to receive a FREE* subscription to POWER? o YES o NO
Would you like to receive your magazine
digitally (email required) or in print? o Digital o Print
ALL questions MUST be answered to qualify for a FREE subscription.
Signature ______________________________________ Date ___________________________
Name _______________________________________________________________ Title _______________________________________________________
Company _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Company address ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
City______________________________________ State ___________________Zip/Post Code ___________________ Country ______________________
Phone No. ________________________________ Fax No. ______________________________Mobile/Cell No. ____________________________________
E-mail__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. DESCRIBE YOUR COMPANY’S BUSINESS PROCESS MANUFACTURING 2. PRIMARY JOB FUNCTION 3. FOR POWER PRODUCERS
(check one): o Chemicals – 3A (check one) (check all that apply)
ELECTRIC POWER PRODUCER o Petroleum – 3B o General or Corporate What forms of energy are used at your
o Food – 3C Management – A power plants?
o Investor – Owned Utility – 1A
o Paper – 3D o Engineering, Operations or For non-power producers, what forms of
o IPP/Cogen – 1B
o Rubber, stone, glass, clay – 3E Maintenance – B energy is your company interested in?
o Rural Electric Co-op 1C
o Metal producing – 3G o Library or Company – C o Coal – A
o Municipal Utility – 1D
o Mining – 3F o Other o Oil – B
o Federal/State
o Metal fabricating – 3H o Natural Gas – C
Electric System – 1E
o Machinery (electrical mechanical) – 3I o Nuclear – D
o CONSULTING ENGINEERING FIRMS, o Transportation equipment – 3J o Hydro – E
INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION, ARCHITECT- o Lumber, wood products – 3K o Waste – F
ENGINEER FIRMS – 2A o Textiles – 3L o Renewables – G
o Other ___________________________ o Other________________________
o If you prefer not to receive promotional mailings from other companies, please check box.
* Publisher reserves the right to determine qualifications for free subscription. HA2009

|
August 2012 POWER www.powermag.com 83
 COMMENTARY
Wind Energy Blown Away
by Natural Gas
By Kimball Rasmussen
he environmental push for renewables and mandates to
T force them into existence are rightly facing some seri-
ous headwinds. The American Renewable Energy Produc-
tion Tax Credit Extension Act of 2011 foundered in Congress,
and more states are experiencing significant power rate in-
creases to cover renewable energy production costs. While
renewables are generally not ready for prime time in large
quantity on today’s power grid, that doesn’t mean environ-
ment concerns ought to be trashed, especially when a more
effective off-the-shelf solution is available.
Wind Energy vs. Natural Gas
Suppose we weigh the environmental pros and cons of a de-
cision to add a new generation resource. The two “finalists”
are a 100-MW wind farm and a 100-MW combined cycle gas
plant. Our goal in selecting a new plant is to offset carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions from an existing 100-MW coal-fired
plant that is nearing retirement.
Currently, our target coal plant operates at less than 67%
of the time because it is “dispatched” or operated to con-
form to load requirements. Our plant runs about the same
rate as the entire U.S. coal fleet. It normally runs at very
high availability rates—in excess of 90%—but is “sched-
uled” to match consumer load requirements. Our prospective
gas plant can easily take the place of the retiring coal unit,
as the new gas unit will perform with similar characteris-
tics. It can be sited flexibly and is fueled by a combustion
process that can be operated to match the consumer load
requirements at any time.
In contrast, our prospective wind resource’s schedule is
based on the operator’s best estimate of future weather pat-
terns. The primary challenge of wind is the intermittency
of the supply. Unless it is backed up with another peaking
resource (usually gas turbines), we cannot use the wind re-
source by itself as a complete coal replacement.
Intermittency: Wind Energy’s Major Drawback
The obvious allure of wind energy is the promise of electric-
ity with lower emissions of CO2 and other contaminants. So,
how well does wind energy perform? The national average
output efficiency for wind is slightly less than 30%. This
means that a 100-MW wind farm will average only 30 MW of
output. This might come in the form of near 100% output for
30% of the time and zero output during nearly 70% of the
time, with numerous iterations in between. But over time
the average will be about 30 MW. Thus, the ability of wind
farms to displace coal plants is “energy limited” because of
the intermittent actual output.
Although our target coal unit averages 67 MW in output,
84 www.powermag.com
the maximum replacement that we can get from the wind
resource is approximately 30 MW, which is about a 45% dis-
placement. Consequently, we are unavoidably left with an
average 37 MW of coal-fired generation that must operate
when the wind is not blowing.
Wind energy generation tends to be strongest during off-
peak periods (probably about 30% of the time)—the same
periods when the coal plant is most likely to be scaled back
to the minimum load. And if the wind energy comes on during
these periods, the coal plant cannot be further reduced un-
less it is taken completely off-line, which would subsequent-
ly incur restart costs and ramping challenges. Therefore, the
wind farm will most likely displace some other resource, such
as gas or possibly hydro. Obviously, the carbon reductions
from wind energy will be much lower, or even nonexistent,
in this circumstance. So the range of coal displacement that
wind energy can achieve is somewhere in the range of 20%
to 45% and averaging 30%.
Natural Gas’s Efficiency Provides an Environmental Edge
Now let’s consider the gas alternative. Natural gas combus-
tion produces about 45% fewer CO2 emissions than coal com-
bustion. Furthermore, gas units are more efficient than their
coal counterparts because they use less fossil fuel to gener-
ate the same amount of electricity. When the increased ef-
ficiency is accounted for, a combined cycle gas plant can be
expected to produce about 60% less CO 2 than a coal plant.
Because gas can run essentially all of the time and can eas-
ily ramp up or down to match consumer loads, it’s a natural
operational substitute for coal. Therefore, if we were to in-
stall a new 100-MW combined cycle gas-fired plant instead
of the 100-MW wind farm in our earlier example, there would
be a net 60% CO 2 reduction compared to coal.
With the same installed capacity, a combined cycle gas
turbine can provide net CO2 reductions that are greater than
wind energy sources—probably about double the environ-
mental benefit. In addition, a new wind farm can be expect-
ed to have an installed cost that is about double the price of
a new combined cycle gas turbine.
As we gather increasing real-world data on renewables’
performance, it is apparent these resources have a long way
to go before becoming viable contributors to the world’s en-
ergy needs. Still the environmental community can take heart
there is an alternative that’s ready to go at half the cost. ■
—Kimball Rasmussen (info@deseretpower.com) is presi-
dent and CEO of Deseret Power based in South Jordan, Utah.
His recent works that are available at no cost upon request
include A Rational Look at Climate Change, A Rational Look at
Green Jobs, and A Rational Look at Renewable Energy.
|
POWER August 2012
 Make the unpredictable
totally predictable.
Swagelok® Pressure Regulators are now an even better choice for all
your pressure regulator needs. Why? Well, alongside our proven experience
and expertise, our range now covers sizes from 1/8 to 4 in. and all your
regulator needs – high-flow capability, two-stage, back-pressure and
vaporizing models. With our regulators you get accuracy, sensitivity and
pressure stability. In short– total predictability. Exactly what you would expect.
Visit swagelok.com/pressure.
© 2012 Swagelok Company

CIRCLE 32 ON READER SERVICE CARD

 mPowering America

B&W is leading the nuclear industry in the development, licensing and

deployment of B&W mPower™ small modular reactor technology.

We’re creating new opportunities for Americans and putting people

to work designing, testing and manufacturing advanced nuclear
components across our established North American infrastructure.

B&W is delivering a clean energy solution that positions America

at the forefront of nuclear technology around the world.
We’re mPowering America.

Babcock & Wilcox mPower, Inc. Scan this QR code with

your smartphone.
Learn more at www.generationmpower.com
© 2012 Babcock & Wilcox mPower, Inc. All rights reserved.

CIRCLE 33 ON READER SERVICE CARD