Reader Beware: apples and oranges alert

When rhetoric edges toward demagoguery, techniques to beware of include selective use of data and misleading statements that may sound appealing but actually perpetuate misconceptions. And when an author’s own numbers don’t support their broad conclusions, it’s time to be even more wary about going along for the ride.

Enter Robert McCullough’s latest faulty comparison of the cost and value of various forms of power generating resources (Renewables Cost Report, published by McCullough Research on Oct. 5).

The primary focus of McCullough’s report is on declining costs for new renewable resources such as wind power and solar photovoltaic generation, relative to other types of power supplies, including new hydroelectric power plants. The report begins by reiterating the conclusion reached in an earlier McCullough Research report:

“This assessment only reinforces the conclusion I reached in my report last year – renewables such as solar and wind are less than half the cost of hydro.”

Immediately following this statement, the McCullough report presents a table comparing the average levelized (life-cycle) cost in Canadian dollars per megawatt-hour (MWhr) for the following generating resources:

mr-lcoe

Careful readers will quickly note that the numbers simply do not support McCullough’s claim that hydro is double the cost of other forms of renewable generation. According to his own comparison, the levelized cost of power from the Site C hydro project is estimated to be 15.6 percent higher than the cost of onshore wind power, and 41.5 percent higher than the cost of utility-scale solar photovoltaic generation. So right out of the gate, McCullough’s rhetoric is unsupported, even by the cost comparison he prepared himself.

But wait, it gets worse. McCullough’s simplistic comparison of the cost of power from these types of power resources totally ignores the practical reality that they have very different characteristics and capabilities. As a result, the value of the power produced by different types of power generation varies dramatically.

This is not a small point.

U.S. News and World Report made sure its readers were aware of LCOE drawbacks, the exact drawbacks McCullough chooses to ignore.

Despite the strengths of LCOE as a metric – it is easy to understand and widely used – it has some shortcomings, too. Namely, it leaves out geographic variability, changes with seasons and usually ignores the cost of environmental impacts such as the cost of carbon emissions. This metric is a bit too simple when comparing variable wind and solar generators to power plants that you can turn on and off at will, such as those fueled by uranium, coal and natural gas.

And one could add water.

For example, consider solar photovoltaic generation. As the McCullough report (correctly) notes, solar PV in the Pacific Northwest only produces at a 19 percent to 26 percent capacity factor. But what the McCullough report does not mention is that solar PV generation occurs primarily during the spring and summer months between mid-morning and late afternoon. Meanwhile, consumption of electricity in most of the Pacific Northwest is typically highest during earlier and later parts of the day, and during the winter season. This means that other, less intermittent forms of generation are needed when consumers use the most electricity. It also means that a significant share of solar generation occurs when the market value of power is low – further reducing the value of solar PV compared to other types of generation. These realities are not acknowledged in the McCullough report. (He does reference the potential use of energy storage to partially mitigate the daily mismatches between solar PV generation and consumer use of electricity, but conveniently neglects to include the additional costs that would be incurred for storage.)

Anyone living in the Pacific Northwest has felt the bite of Old Man Winter of late, with temperatures falling into the single digits for extended periods. How are people staying warm? Mostly from baseload, or full-time, electricity resources like hydro, fossils and nuclear.

BPA Source Graph.png

Is that value worth something? We think so.

Diversity is key

One of the information sources quoted in the McCullough report is Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis 9.0, which was published in 2015. The Lazard LCOE analyses are actually a good source of information about costs for various types of power generation. But unlike McCullough, Lazard is realistic about how a diversified mix of resources is needed to keep the lights on. Toward this point, here is a key quote from Lazard’s press release for their latest LCOE Analysis 10.0, issued December 15, 2016:

“Even though alternative energy is increasingly cost-competitive and storage technology holds great promise, alternative energy systems alone will not be capable of meeting the baseload generation needs of a developed economy for the foreseeable future. Therefore, the optimal solution for many regions of the world is to use complementary traditional and alternative energy resources in a diversified generation fleet.”

We could go on with identifying flaws in the McCullough report, but will close by observing that it improperly compares the cost of generating resources with the market value of wholesale power, and does so only when it supports false conclusions. For instance, the McCullough report once again trots out a previously-debunked and overly-simplistic comparison of the operating cost of nuclear power with “the low market cost of electricity.” Meanwhile, the report refrains from comparing the cost of new renewable resources with “the low market cost of electricity.”

When it comes to biased, inconsistent and misleading “analyses” like those presented in the latest McCullough report, reader beware.

(Posted by John Dobken)

Sharing, learning and acting for continuous improvement

Columbia Generating Station recently hosted a Japanese delegation from the Hokuriku Electric Power Company, including the chief nuclear officer and the engineering manager for Shika Nuclear Power Station in Shika, Ishikawa.

The visit is part of a partnership between U.S. and Japan CNOs to exchange information and operating experience. During this meeting, hosts and visitors discussed probabilistic risk analysis (a method to determine station risk), risk management and risk communication.

japan-visit-1

Corey Olivier, Operations Support manager (center) shows FLEX equipment to visitors from the Hokuriku Electric Power Company in Shika, Ishikawa, Japan. The six-member delegation spent two days at Columbia as part of a partnership between U.S. and Japan nuclear plants. (Kevin Shaub photo)

“This was tremendously valuable,” said Brad Sawatzke, Energy Northwest chief nuclear officer. “We all understand that nuclear power is a global industry, and that our performance is linked. A challenge to any plant in the world is a challenge to our entire industry.”

“We appreciate your team coming here and spending time with us,” Sawatzke told the six-member delegation at the conclusion of the visit. “We are very impressed with the actions you have taken to improve the protection of your safety equipment.”

During the two-day visit the delegation toured Columbia and EN’s new FLEX facilities. flexFLEX is a nuclear industry response to the events at Fukushima Daiichi that adds to the industry’s defense-in-depth safety at nuclear plants across the U.S. (See more about EN’s response here.)

Akizumi Nishino, chief nuclear officer for Shika Power Station, noted the additional seismic support on plant equipment, calling it “impressive.” Toshihiro Aida, manager of engineering at Shika, said he was struck by the cleanliness of the plant. If you’ve been to Japan, you know that’s saying something.

The delegation also saw preliminary work for the hardened containment vent system that will be installed during Refueling and Maintenance Outage 23, which begins in May. The system is part of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s post-Fukushima actions, and will include a 164-foot vent pipe running up the south side of the reactor building. The system will provide a direct means of venting an area of the primary containment, known as the wetwell, to outside the secondary containment structure during beyond-design-basis accident conditions.

hardened-vent-en-news

Diagram showing where Columbia Generating Station’s hardened containment vent will be located.

The tsunami at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant eliminated any onsite power at the plant after an earthquake removed all offsite power. Subsequent fuel melting led to hydrogen explosions that destroyed the reactor buildings (secondary containment) at three of the Fukushima Daiichi units. The loss of the various fission product barriers led to the release of radioactive materials, which further hampered operator efforts to mitigate the accident. The disaster claimed no lives, nor is it expected to, but today more than 80,000 people are still displaced from their homes.

One of the lessons directly taken from that series of events is the need for licensees with Mark I and Mark II containments to either upgrade or install a hardened containment venting system that will remain functional during beyond-design-basis severe accident conditions. Mark II containment systems were not designed with a “hardened” containment venting system, though the current design can employ other methods for reducing containment pressure. Columbia has a Mark II containment and, therefore, must design and install such a venting system to build-in additional protections in the event of a beyond-design-basis severe accident.

What is a “hardened” vent? From the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

“Hardened” means these vents must withstand the pressure and temperature of the steam generated early in an accident. The vents must also withstand possible fires and small explosions if they are used to release hydrogen later in an accident.

The vent will provide a reliable method to ensure continued operation of reactor core isolation pump cooling operation and removal of decay heat during a beyond-design-basis event where all onsite and offsite power is lost. Along with our added FLEX safety equipment stored on site, it will further enhance Columbia’s safety margins.

As a continuous learning industry, the U.S. nuclear reactor fleet has put a lot of effort into reviewing what happened at Fukushima to make U.S. plants even safer. For Columbia, the NRC declared the plant “safe” regarding seismic hazards. New evaluations are taking place and will be completed soon. The Army Corps of Engineers recently completed its flood hazard evaluation and found that Columbia remains a “dry site,” in other words, the facility will not experience flooding to a level that would impact its safe operation should one or more Columbia River dams fail upstream of the station.

This continuous learning is making the industry safer – and more efficient. Nuclear energy is a full-time, or baseload resource. Capacity factors for the industry as a whole are rising; Columbia has operated at a more than 92 percent capacity factor over the past four years. As the threat of climate change becomes more real, carbon-free nuclear energy will become more relied upon to provide the clean-air energy that benefits the global environment while powering our homes and businesses, and sustaining our national standard of living.

(Posted by Kevin Shaub/John Dobken)

Shameless in Seattle

If the committee entertains such a resolution, Energy Northwest will be invited to participate in the discussion, (committee staffer Ted) Virdone said. At that point, “it will be essential for both sides to get a fair hearing.”  –Clearing Up, 2014

The Seattle City Council is set to vote today on a resolution that challenges the city’s reputation to be both progressive and environmentally friendly.

The resolution restricts the use of new nuclear energy by the city’s utility, should new nuclear become available (see below for more on that). The city currently receives more than 4 percent of its power (carbon-free) from Columbia Generating Station (which is more than it gets directly from wind power). Two years ago, a version of the resolution that called for shutting down Columbia would not fly so the council’s Energy and Environment Committee encouraged anti-nuclear groups to go back to the drawing board and focus on the future.

What was staged last week was another lesson in a strangely anti-democratic (and anti-science) process that grips this committee every time nuclear energy is the topic. The committee invited representatives from anti-nuclear energy groups to the table – but did not want to hear from any opposing views. Yet, like daisies growing through cracks in a cement sidewalk, several pro-nuclear voices were heard during the legally required public comment period (thank goodness for the law).

What the supporters said was informative and truthful – and the snickering heard in the background during one such statement spoke volumes.

So, sitting around a table with no opposing voices, committee members laughed and joked while discussing the prospect of nearly 1,000 Washington residents losing their jobs (including hundreds of union members and veterans).

Those jobs aren’t in Seattle, after all. Even State Rep. Gerry Pollett joined in, though making clear he was wearing his “other” hat, as head of anti-nuke Heart of America Northwest, and seemed to have no issues participating in such a one-sided hearing.

Where the power comes from

The resolution doesn’t mention Columbia by name, but Columbia was the focus of the entire meeting regardless. No one from Energy Northwest received an invitation to present any facts, unfortunately, because facts were sorely needed especially surrounding the clean air benefits of nuclear power.

Would it have mattered?

One councilwoman summed it up thusly when talking about moving the climate change discussion in a more “progressive” manner:

“…which is a hard thing to do given who we’re dealing with in terms of folks out in Central Washington…”

Well.

Had the Seattle form of “progressive” not been so exclusionary, she might have heard about the growing number of world organizations, governments and environmentalists embracing nuclear energy. Even from some of us here in the hinterlands. Yes, we consider ourselves environmentalists and walk the walk to boot.

All reputable organizations involved in the global climate discussion have come to the same conclusion. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, International Energy Agency and Energy Information Administration, as well as many individual scientists and environmental advocates, have said that the U.S. and world cannot achieve meaningful reduction in carbon emissions without nuclear energy.

In President Barack Obama’s 2011 Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future he writes, “…beyond our efforts to reduce our dependence on oil, we must focus on expanding cleaner sources of electricity, including renewables like wind and solar, as well as clean coal, natural gas and nuclear power – keeping America on the cutting edge of clean energy technology so that we can build a 21st century clean energy economy and win the future.”

Last year, Gov. Jay Inslee issued a proclamation during Nuclear Science Week in Washington. The proclamation reads in part, “…nuclear energy in our state and nation is helping to reduce carbon emissions and plays a vital part in the state’s diverse mix of environmentally responsible energy generating resources…”

Last month Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., weighed in during a Department of Energy summit in Washington, D.C. on the need to keep our existing nuclear fleet going. “Nuclear energy provides critical baseload power [and] more than 60 percent of our nation’s carbon-free electric generation. Most Americans don’t realize that and I was one of them. When it comes to carbon-free, baseload power, nuclear is it,” Booker said.

Our own Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., understands the issue as well. “It is vital that the United States continue to lead the world in clean energy, and nuclear may prove to be a key a component in this effort,” Cantwell said during a hearing of the Senate’s Energy committee on advanced nuclear technology in Washington, D.C.

Eco-warrior Stewart Brand, author of 2009’s Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto and founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, in 2010 said, “I surprised myself. I used to be, you know, pretty much a knee-jerk environmentalist on this particular subject. And then because of climate change I re-investigated the matter and discovered that I’d been misled in many of the details on how nuclear works.”

How about Michael Shellenberger, co-founder of the Breakthrough Institute and Time Magazine’s 2008 “Hero of the Environment.” He is one of the contributors to The Ecomodernist Manifesto, which was written last year in collaboration with Brand and 17 other notable scholars, scientists and environmentalists. (One of those was Robert Stone, the Oscar- and Emmy-nominated director of the “fiercely independent” documentary, Pandora’s Promise, which tells the anti- to pro-nuclear conversion stories of leading environmentalists.) While acknowledging the cultural barriers to nuclear power, the authors assert that nuclear “represents the only present-day zero-carbon technology with the demonstrated ability to meet most, if not all, of the energy demands of a modern economy.”


Think about this. World-renown climate scientist James Hansen would not be able to get a seat at the table of the Seattle City Council Energy and Environment committee because of his pro-nuclear energy position. And he’s not even from Central Washington!


At a time when the world’s leading scientific institutions and many here at home are telling us climate change is a real and immediate threat – and that humans are a significant cause of that threat – Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Sierra Club et al. are asking the Seattle City Council to denounce the technology that currently provides more than 60 percent of our nation’s carbon-free electricity (20 percent of total U.S. generation). Is that the national leadership role Seattle – the city that championed the Kyoto Protocols – is seeking to establish?

Leading from behind?

Seattle wants to dramatically reduce city sources of greenhouse gases to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. The city hired experts from the Stockholm Environmental Institute to see if it could be done. They said it could, so the city is aggressively going after that goal. One of those experts at SEI is Karl Hallding, a co-author of Beyond Paris: Using Climate Change Scenarios to Manage Risk. In 2014 Hallding, an expert on China’s oppressive energy pollution problem, said “an interesting sign in the sky is that … the share of thermal power, most of which comes from coal … that came on line in China in 2013 fell to around half for the first time thanks to the growth in alternative energy sources – hydro, wind, solar and nuclear.” Perhaps an SEI business card is still lying on someone’s desk at Seattle City Hall. Now would be a good time, prior to today’s full council vote, to give SEI a call for a brief education on nuclear energy’s important role in achieving a clean energy future.

It’s always refreshing to see city governments do right by their citizens. In this case, Seattle, make some phone calls to people who have higher-education degrees and have published on this topic – a proper balance of pro and con – and ask them to come speak to you. Include them in the public dialogue. Then decide.

Energy Northwest has a vision for nuclear power in our region, but this vision does not include new nuclear generation in Washington during the foreseeable future. Our state simply doesn’t need the power, let alone the massive amounts of power that would come from a new single nuclear reactor (the Columbia Generating Station reactor is the third largest producer of electricity in Washington, behind Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph dams).

The Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, however, is looking for clean, baseload (think “always on”) power to replace coal plants in their service territory, and that power may come from a small modular nuclear facility in Idaho. Their only other option for baseload power is natural gas, but “clean” natural gas emits 60 percent as much carbon as coal, so not nearly as attractive as carbon-free nuclear. We’d like to see the manufacturing portion of this project (a first-of-its-kind facility with global orders to follow) – and the thousands of associated jobs – end up here in Washington.

Fairness is fine

We are very happy to be contributing to Seattle’s boast as “The Nation’s Greenest Utility” and truly do not want any special favors from the committee or anyone else. The power from Columbia Generating Station goes to 92 utilities in six states. Seattle is one of them.

We are proud to be part of a Northwest energy mix that is among the cleanest in the world. Nuclear energy, as a safe, reliable and cost-effective generation resource, fits nicely with this mix. But that’s a common sense view, not an ideological one.

(Posted by Mike Paoli and John Dobken)

Analysis finds EN has lowest nuclear fuel costs

An analysis published this week in Platts’ Nuclear Fuel found Energy Northwest’s Columbia Generating Station had the lowest nuclear fuel cost of 28 plants surveyed across the country. Columbia’s fuel cost for fiscal year 2013 was 5.99 mills per kilowatt-hour of generation. A mill is a 10th of a cent. The average for the 28 plants surveyed is 8.16 mills per kwh, according to Platts.

Fuel Receipt 2

New nuclear fuel assemblies are inspected as they arrive at Columbia Generating Station.

“The plants reported their fuel costs either on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Form 1 or to Platts. These costs take into account such fuel-related expenses as the cost of uranium, conversion, enrichment services and the fabricated cost of the fuel, as well as the amortized value of all fuel in the reactor core that year and payments to the Nuclear Waste Fund,” Platts wrote in the article.

Energy Northwest financial data shows even lower nuclear fuel costs for Columbia in fiscal 2014 and fiscal 2015, 5.45 mills and 3.39 mills per kwh, respectively.

Columbia Generating Station, an 1,190-megawatt boiling water reactor, produces enough electricity to power a city the size of Seattle and is the third largest generator of electricity in Washington state. All of Columbia’s electricity is sold at-cost to Bonneville Power Administration. Ninety-two Northwest utilities receive a percentage of its output.

Energy Northwest’s historic low fuel costs can be directly attributed to the management of the nuclear fuels program, which looks for innovative ways to reduce costs.

Brent Ridge edit

Brent Ridge, EN chief financial officer.

“The Platts analysis confirms that the strategic moves we have made as an organization regarding our fuel management program are paying off for Northwest ratepayers,” Energy Northwest chief financial officer Brent Ridge said. “The uranium tails transaction completed in 2012 will only serve to continue this industry-leading trend in low fuel costs for Columbia.”

Energy Northwest began looking at the pursuit of recycling depleted uranium contained in the Department of Energy’s stockpiles in 2003 and the initial efforts led to the Uranium Tails Pilot Program, a demonstration program designed to determine if the DOE stockpiles could be successfully reused. The pilot program ran from May 2005 through December of 2006 and was successful in every aspect. Energy Northwest received 1,940 metric tons of natural uranium from the pilot, which was placed into inventory allowing the agency to avoid purchasing uranium during the historic price run up in that period.

The 2012 tails program was a larger follow-on program that again will help Energy Northwest control costs for the region’s ratepayers. The benefits of that program – less financial risk due to future fuel cost uncertainty, and lower fuel costs on an expected-value basis – are being achieved.The transaction increased rate stability by removing eight years of cost risk from Columbia’s fuel budget, and the transaction continues to have positive value, resulting in lower rates.

EN Uranium Product

EN uranium tails product when it was stored at Paducah, Ky.

Prior to the recent uranium tails program, Energy Northwest had enough fuel in inventory or under contract to meet its fuel reloading requirements through 2019. With the additional fuel, Columbia’s fuel costs will be reduced and predictable through 2028.

Platts, a division of McGraw Hill Financial, is an independent provider of information and benchmark prices for the commodities and energy markets. More information can be found at their website: http://www.platts.com.

(Posted by John Dobken)

Deep Dive: What is Resource Adequacy?

Electricity is something many take for granted, except in those rare instances when the power goes out. It’s not an overstatement to say that electricity is an invisible, ubiquitous and essential part of modern life; it keeps our homes and businesses well-lit, comfortable and safe, and it powers the various devices we use for work and leisure.

Whenever we flip a switch, adjust the thermostat, go online, recharge our smartphone, or drive through an intersection with a traffic light, we are counting on the power system to always be ready and able to reliably meet our needs.

20131018-detail-custom-towers-grand-coulee

Courtesy BPA

Highly dependable utility service is no accident – instead, it is provided by complex and sophisticated power grids that are the largest machines in the world. These electric utility systems consist of multiple parts, including power plants, transmission lines, local distribution facilities, and associated control and communication systems.

As our consumption of electricity fluctuates from moment to moment, hour to hour, day to day, and month to month, an equal amount of power needs to be produced and delivered to match the load. If at any given point in time not enough juice is being produced, the stuff we’re using starts to shut down. Conversely, if there’s too much juice, things start to overheat. So a continuous re-balancing of loads and resources takes place, like an intricately-choreographed, ongoing dance that enables modern life.

What is resource adequacy?

Simply defined, resource adequacy means having sufficient power resources available when needed to reliably serve electricity demands across a range of reasonably foreseeable conditions.

Electricity consumption is measured using two metrics – peak demand and energy load. Peak demand is the maximum amount of power used at a specific point in time, such as in the evening during very cold or very hot weather after people have arrived home and are using multiple power-consuming devices. The second metric, energy load, is the amount of power consumed over a period of time, such as the monthly energy amount shown on your electric bill.

To keep the lights on, the utility system has to do three things. First, it needs to have enough generating capacity available to meet the peak demands when they occur. Second, it needs generating resources that can produce energy to serve loads across time, from day-to-day, month-to-month, and season-to-season. Third, the utility system needs to have enough operating flexibility to follow upward and downward fluctuations in electricity demands. If the system has sufficient resources to do all of these things reliably, then it is deemed to have resource adequacy (including additional resources to protect against sudden unplanned outages).

What types of resources contribute to resource adequacy?

Traditionally, utilities have used three basic types of generating resources to perform the load-resource balancing act described above. The three types of power plants are known as baseload, peaking and midrange generators. All three types are needed to achieve resource adequacy.

Baseload generators can produce power at a constant rate for extended periods of time, and usually have a relatively low variable cost of production. Examples of baseload generation include nuclear power plants, as well as coal-fired plants. Baseload generators
are the workhorses that produce large amounts of energy, along with steady, dependable capacity.

cropped-columbia-for-web.jpg

Columbia Generating Station near Richland, Wash.

At the other end of the spectrum are peaking generators, which can quickly provide capacity to help meet peak loads and to follow short-term fluctuations in loads. Peaking generators also tend to have higher variable operating costs. A common type of peaking generation is single-cycle combustion turbines. These are basically large jet engines that can burn either natural gas or liquid fuels. Peaking generators are good sources of capacity and flexibility, but due to their relatively high operating costs, they are not used to produce large amounts of energy.

Midrange generators have more operating flexibility than baseload generators but less than peaking generators. Midrange generators also have variable operating costs that are higher than baseload generators but lower than peaking generators. The most prominent example of midrange generation is combined-cycle combustion turbines, which produce power in two stages. In the first stage, natural gas is burned in a combustion turbine and used to turn a generator. In the second stage, exhaust heat from the combustion turbine is used to make steam and turn a steam turbine-generator. Typically, midrange generators are used to help supply moderate amounts of capacity, energy and flexibility.

Okay, by now you are probably wondering: What about all the hydroelectric power we have in the Northwest? Traditionally, hydro generation has helped meet the region’s needs for all three types of power. It is a particularly effective, low-cost resource for meeting peak demands and following fluctuations in demand. As a result, the Northwest has historically not needed as much fossil-fueled peaking and midrange generation as other regions of the U.S. Our Northwest hydro power also produces significant amounts of annual energy, but not as much as could be produced from an equal amount of baseload generating capacity.

How do utilities decide which resources to use?

When deciding how to operate their resources to meet consumers’ demands for electricity, utilities seek to provide reliable service at the lowest possible cost.

The resources that a utility normally decides to use, or “dispatch,” first are its resources that have the lowest variable operating cost. These include baseload resources such as Columbia Generating Station. Next, the utility dispatches its resources that have the next highest variable operating cost; often these are midrange generators. Finally, if its loads are relatively high or may be subject to rapid fluctuations, the utility will dispatch its more expensive peaking resources.

Columbia Generating Station is one of the key resources that BPA uses to deliver clean, reliable power to public power utilities across the Northwest. Columbia produces 1,190 gross megawatts of baseload power, including both firm energy and capacity.

For wind power to produce the same amount of energy on an annual basis, more than 3,500 megawatts of wind turbines would be needed. Also, Columbia is not subject to the fluctuations that affect generation from wind and solar-PV. As a result, Columbia provides capacity that is much more firm, and does not require other forms of generating capacity to be held to provide incremental and decremental reserves to integrate wind and other intermittent forms of generation.

How do renewables and other alternative forms of resources fit In?

During the last 15 years, large amounts of new renewable resources have been developed in the Northwest. To date, the predominant share of renewable resource additions in the region have been wind power, totaling over 8,000 megawatts of installed capacity. In more recent years, falling costs and government incentives have also begun to make solar photovoltaic power more attractive.

Nine Canyon Wind Farm

Nine Canyon Wind Farm, located south of Kennewick, Wash.

Wind and solar-PV differ from other existing power resources. In particular, wind and solar-PV produce power intermittently. This limits their ability to contribute to resource adequacy. However, both also have very low variable operating costs. This means that to the extent they can be integrated into the system, it is economically desirable to dispatch them early in the utility’s stack of resources.

To date, the Bonneville Power Administration has integrated over 5,000 megawatts of wind power onto its system. To do so, BPA has dedicated significant hydro resources to mirror changes in production from the wind fleet. BPA maintains 900 megawatts of generating reserves that can be rapidly increased or decreased to offset wind resource fluctuations. This illustrates how a portion of BPA’s hydro generating resources that could be used for other resource adequacy purposes are diverted and used to integrate wind power.

Other steps are being taken to deal with the greater variability created by renewable resources. These include implementing shorter, intra-hour scheduling and dispatching practices, as well as developing new energy imbalance markets.

Demand response is another type of resource that has potential to contribute to resource adequacy. Demand response is not a generating resource; instead it works by adjusting customer use of electricity to help maintain the overall supply-demand balance on the power system. For example, if overall electric loads are increasing rapidly toward peak levels, a demand response can be used to reduce certain loads of customers who have volunteered to participate, typically in exchange for compensation.

Energy Northwest partnered with the City of Richland, Cowlitz County Public Utility District, Pend Oreille County PUD and BPA on the Aggregated Demand Response Pilot Project. This project is using 35 megawatts of aggregated fast-response demand-side resources to test their use to help meet capacity needs as well as flexibility needs on the BPA grid.

Tools – We need them all

Maintaining resource adequacy requires responsible energy policy decisions, at the local, state and federal levels, policy not driven by whims and fads. For instance, having a resource like Columbia Generating Station during the Western U.S. Energy Crisis of 2000 and 2001 saved the region approximately $1.4 billion according to the Public Power Council. That could not have been anticipated in 1999.

(Post by Charlie Black)

Columbia in NRC’s highest performance category

(From Nuclear Regulatory Commission news releases)

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued letters to the nation’s 99 commercial operating nuclear plants about their performance in 2015. All but three plants were in the two highest performance categories.

“These assessment letters are the result of a holistic review of operating performance at each domestic power reactor facility,” said Bill Dean, director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. “In addition to ensuring that the nation’s nuclear power plants are safe by inspecting them, the NRC continuously assesses performance. The purpose of these assessment letters is to ensure that all of our stakeholders clearly understand the basis for our assessments of plant performance and the actions we are taking to address any identified performance deficiencies.”

columbia-nuclear-plant 600xx2400-1600-0-100

Columbia Generating Station.

NRC assesses plant performance through the use of inspection findings and other indicators that can trigger additional oversight if needed. Overall, (Columbia Generating Station) operated safely in 2015 and the plant is currently under the NRC’s normal level of oversight.

“By assessing each plant’s performance in a comprehensive manner, we are able to focus our inspection resources on those areas most in need of attention,” NRC Region IV Administrator Marc Dapas said. “Because Columbia Generating Station did not have any safety or security issues above very low significance in 2015, we are not currently planning any inspections above and beyond our normal reviews.”

The NRC’s normal level of oversight at each U.S. nuclear power plant involves thousands of hours of inspection. In 2015, the agency devoted about 6,000 hours of inspection and review at Columbia.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public open house on March 17, in Richland, Wash., to discuss the agency’s annual review of safety performance at the Columbia Generating Station nuclear power plant. The plant is operated by Energy Northwest.

NRC staff will be on hand from 5 to 7 p.m. at the Richland Public Library, Conference Room B, 955 Northgate Drive in Richland. While there are no formal presentations during the open house, the public will have an opportunity to ask about NRC’s assessment of the plant’s performance in 2015 and the agency’s oversight plans for 2016. Among the NRC staff in attendance will be the Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant on a full-time basis.

Of the 96 highest-performing reactors, 85 fully met all safety and security performance objectives. These reactors were inspected by the NRC using the normal “baseline” inspection program.

Celebrating National Engineers Week

Engineers are a vital part of the nuclear energy industry. So to commemorate EWeek, we asked a few of the engineers at Columbia Generating Station to answer this question:

Why did you become an engineer?


Denise Brandon, Columbia Generating Station Plant Support Engineering manager

Good question. I guess it started with my dad in his garage. I was by his side fixing things, denise-weblearning how they work. One of my favorite teachers in 5th grade got me excited about math and in college my math teacher was able to make it all click. I was in college during the dot.com boom and the electrical engineers were all on their way to great things. I jumped in. I worked at Ford Motor Company and Boeing during college and had the time of my life. That road led me to Energy Northwest and I feel very fortunate to be able to use my training as an engineer to solve issues daily.

So in a nutshell, I like solving problems and seeing how things work. It’s still exciting.


 

Orlando Bolet, Columbia Generating Station Engineer senior

It’s an interesting question. The word “Engineering” is derived from the Latin word “ingeniare,” which is a military term for constructor of engines or/and military war machines.

orlando-webEngineering is a career for a person with a technical aptitude able to analyze and see what others don’t see. An engineer is able to analyze a condition and come up with concrete creative solutions.

When I first started college, I started in the physics department of “Universidad de Puerto Rico” which is the public college. As I was studying physics and I wanted to align myself with a career of real world applications more than theoretical investigations. I changed to civil engineering after taking an aptitude test and switched colleges to Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico. While in college, I discovered I had a better aptitude with electrical engineering concepts and the science behind electrical engineering fascinated me more than static physics and structural analyses. I also discovered an aptitude to jump from different electrical engineering classes and was able to learn from different topics.

If I had to summarize “why I became an engineer” it was through trial, error and the love of science in the field of electrical engineering.

Last year, I completed my master’s degree in engineering management in order to earn an understanding of business needs while maintaining the engineering aspect of data analysis.


 

Jamie Dunn, Columbia Generating Station Engineer seniorJamie-web

I became an engineer because I have always been interested in design; this evolved from graphic design to interior design to architecture to civil engineering. My strength in math and my consistent curiosity to understand how things work motivated me to pursue a career in engineering.

I now proudly work as an engineer in an industry that makes clean power for the world.

Visit our Careers page at http://www.Energy-Northwest.com to learn more about the opportunities at Energy Northwest.

To learn more about Engineers Week, click here.

From Navy to Nuclear – Ricky Mendoza’s Story

 

Ricky Mendoza CU

Ricky Mendoza

Ricky Mendoza is an equipment operator at Energy Northwest’s Columbia Generating Station, the Northwest’s only commercial nuclear energy facility. We asked Ricky to share his story of transitioning from the military to the utility sector.

 


 

I went to work for Uncle Sam right out of high school. After Boot camp, the remainder of my first two years in the Navy was spent in Charleston, S.C. and Ballston Spa, N.Y., as a student of the Navy’s Nuclear Power Training program. This was a rather intense/fast paced program, which has been compared to MIT regarding its level of difficulty and the dedication needed to graduate. After making it through the Nuclear power training pipeline, I went on to serve the next four years on the U.S.S. Alabama as a submarine electrician.

130403-N-GU530-060

The Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine USS Alabama (SSBN 731) at Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor. (U.S. Navy photo by Lt. Ed Early/Released)

My training didn’t end once on board the Bama, but it did take on a new facet. The training now focused on combating engineering (equipment-related) casualties; firefighting; tracking and evading (and destroying) enemy submarines, and launching nuclear ballistic missiles. As a submarine electrician, I was responsible for maintaining the boat’s electrical distribution system and maintaining and repairing all electrical equipment on board, from washing machines to steam driven turbine generators. Quite often, I would be entrusted with the responsibility of controlling the boat’s speed, while standing watch as the “Throttleman.”

Transition

With my last duty station being Bremerton, Wash., I was fortunate enough to find Columbia Generating Station only a short four hour drive to the east. Luckily, I had former shipmates who had recently found their way into commercial nuclear power.  Their opinions of the industry, with an ability to advance within the company, persuaded me to seek out a career in commercial nuclear power.

My Navy experience paralleled my current position at Columbia in many ways. First, itRicky Mendoza 2 gave me the technical expertise needed to quickly become a contributing member of the Operations team. In addition to technical skills and knowledge, the most important attribute gained from my military service was the solid establishment of the “honesty and integrity” culture. This attitude and way of thinking is an absolute essential cornerstone of the nuclear power industry.

What I do

Ricky Mendoza

Ricky Mendoza on the Refueling Floor at Columbia.

Equipment operators are the “eyes and ears” of the main control room (and the licensed operators) in a commercial nuclear power plant. We fulfill this role by continuously monitoring plant parameters. At least once every 12 hours, equipment operators walk down nearly every piece of equipment in every building of the power plant, to verify equipment is operating as expected. That means the EOs must have a solid understanding of the many different systems’ functions to help us identify degraded equipment performance or abnormal conditions. Equipment operators also perform all equipment manipulations in the field necessary to support surveillance testing, system start-ups and shutdowns and the tagging process, which prevents work on certain equipment.  Additionally, EOs are members of the on-site fire brigade.

The most challenging aspect of the job for me is the never ending pursuit for system knowledge and experience. Every shift presents an opportunity to enhance our knowledge of plant systems and their safe operation.

Having said that, and despite my best efforts, I think my job is still a bit of a mystery to most of my non-Navy friends. But, I think if I had to sum up their feelings about my career choice I would use the word “proud.”

Career choices

I would highly recommend a career in commercial nuclear power to anyone with prior Navy nuclear experience.  A career in the Operations department of a commercial nuclear plant will provide years of fulfilling challenges. Once you master the skills of one position, there is always an opportunity to advance into new positions that provide new perspectives and new responsibilities.

Ricky Mendoza is an equipment operator at Energy Northwest and a member of IBEW Local 77.

Energy Northwest is designated a Military Friendly® Employer. To learn more about the Troops to Energy Jobs Initiative, visit: www.troopstoenergyjobs.com

To learn more about career opportunities at Energy Northwest, visit our website.

Reality: less nuclear means more natural gas

When nuclear plants close, natural gas replaces them.

In the past few years, several nuclear plants have closed, including California’s San Onofre and Vermont Yankee. Both were located in states in which the official policy is to move to renewable energy: Vermont’s entire energy use (including heating and transportation) is supposed to be 90% renewables by 2050, with intermediate goals of 35% renewables by 2035 (for all energy). See the plan here: 2016CEP_Final.

So, when these nuclear power plants closed down in these renewable-friendly states, they were replaced by renewables, right? Not quite. They were replaced by natural gas.

Looking first at Vermont Yankee, a power plant close to my house and close to my heart, we can see that 5.3 million MWh of nuclear power on the grid was replaced by 5.3 million MWh of natural gas on the grid. See the two charts below and blog post.

METHANE POST 2014 Pie Chart

METHANE POST 2015 Pie Chart

 

Mike Twomey of Entergy used ISO-NE data to write this blog post: The replacement for Vermont Yankee … was natural gas.

So what happened to the renewables?

Renewables are growing, but they aren’t making much of a dent in the natural gas. As Twomey states about the New England situation: “The contribution of wind and solar remained vanishingly small in both years (wind was 2.4% in 2015 and 1.7% in 2014, while solar was 0.4% in 2015 and 0.3% in 2014).”

As we can notice about the California situation: between 2011 and 2012, nuclear output fell by 18.1 million MWh, gas output rose by 30.6 million MWh, while a rapid increase in renewables brought solar PV solar from 0.2 to 1.0 million MWh and wind from 7.6 to 9.2 million MWh. In 2012, for example, wind power was less than 10% of the power generated by natural gas, overall.

Though wind energy continues to increase year to year in California, as of 2014 it was still only about 10 percent of natural gas use. Meanwhile, California natural gas use has stayed pretty much the same, ever since the San Onofre shut down, despite the increases in wind.

Just to have a little perspective, when Vermont Yankee closed, the new use of natural gas meant putting 3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the air, per year, and is the equivalent of putting 650,000 passenger vehicles on the road. For San Onofre, the natural gas usage is the equivalent of approximately nine million tons of carbon dioxide, and putting 2 million cars on the road.

The graph below shows the huge carbon impact potentially created by closing California’s remaining nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon. It would be a huge step in the wrong direction.

Diablo Closing Lost Clear Elec

(For local perspective, clean nuclear energy from Columbia Generating Station near Richland, Wash. prevents about 3.6 million metric tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere, compared to a natural gas equivalent output.)

Closing a near-zero-emission source of power and replacing it with natural gas-fired generation is not good for the environment.

The studies keep on coming

Almost every week, there is some new study showing that the world can go to 80 percent, 90 percent, 100 percent renewables.

I reviewed Mark Jacobson’s untested vision for Washington State in an earlier blog post: If more wind is the answer, what was the question? 

Rod Adams has a recent blog post that reviews a NOAA study about keeping existing nuclear and hydro, but moving to wind and solar for everything else.

Recently, Mark Cooper of Vermont Law School claimed that the conclusion of the Paris COP21 conference is that renewables can do it all and we don’t need nuclear.

Mark Cooper, the author of that paper, was a fierce opponent of Vermont Yankee. It’s not often that the New York Times has to apologize for something it printed. See editor’s note on earlier work involving Cooper.

Should’a, would’a, could’a

Okay. So, we have it. When a nuclear plant closes in the U.S., the use of natural gas increases. Meanwhile, new paper after new paper exclaims about the great new world of renewables.

It took me a while, but I finally “got it.” These are papers, not reality.

What woke me up was a comment on my blog by a well-known local nuclear opponent. I didn’t publish his comment: the tone was nasty and truculent. (My blog, my rules, baby.)

But one part of his comment struck me very forcibly. The opponent claimed he never said Vermont Yankee would be replaced by renewables, merely that it could be replaced by them. And you know, he’s probably right. He didn’t say the power “would” be replaced by renewables. His rallying cry, if fully expounded, should have been (see, I can do the “should’a, would’a, could’a” stuff, too):

“We COULD replace Vermont Yankee with renewables, but of course, we won’t! We’ll use natural gas!”

I could’a won the lottery recently. However, I didn’t. I live near the Connecticut River, but I have to drive several miles to get to a bridge over the river. They could’a put a bridge nearer my house, but they didn’t. And so it goes. “Could” is quite a word, when you think about it.

We need to treasure our low carbon power

Reality is not just “could.” Reality is reality.

Physicians for Social Responsibility in the Northwest talk about replacing the firm capacity of Columbia Generating Station with … well even that is fuzzy. One would think natural gas, but they are opposed to natural gas. So renewables. But while PSR likes to commission studies, the one study they haven’t commissioned is how much it would cost ratepayers to replace Columbia’s generation with that from renewables.

We need to keep Columbia Generating Station and all other sources of low-carbon power. Because if we don’t, despite should’a, would’a, could’a … our current low carbon power will be replaced by natural gas.

(Post by Meredith Angwin)

Heart of America Northwest, PSR Petition Rejected by NRC

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission delivered a lump of coal to two anti-nuclear energy groups last week by rejecting a petition the groups filed in May.

The petition from Heart of America Northwest and Physicians for Social Responsibility sought to prevent Columbia Generating Station from re-starting following its spring refueling outage because of a “crack indication” in a weld on one of its jet pump risers.

The groups said the indication should be repaired (not necessary); the NRC should take into account seismic information post-Fukushima (already doing so); and that the indication would (somehow) prevent the core from being cooled if there were some seismic event (not true).

We are talking about an indication that is an inch and a quarter in length that doesn’t affect Columbia’s operation.

Jet Pump Indication edit

Some history from our earlier post:

In April, Energy Northwest sent a (courtesy) letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission informing them of our assessment of potential crack growth rates on a single indication (the one in the photo above). The industry normally applies the same standard growth rate to both ends of a crack. The letter simply explains to the NRC that we are applying a slightly lower crack growth rate to one end of the potential crack and provided sound engineering support, including: the material condition at the potential crack tip; mitigation of cracking through effective hydrogen water chemistry; and, industry and plant experience which shows low crack growth rates for similar indications.

In fact this letter is similar to the 2011 letter to the NRC on the same issue.

Additionally, in 2005 we proactively installed slip joint clamps since these are designed to limit vibration and fatigue stresses.

The anti-nuclear groups stumbled on the publicly available courtesy letter and away they went…

 What the NRC Found

On May 27, the NRC’s petition review board denied the HOANW/PSR request for immediate action because their “petition did not provide new information demonstrating an immediate safety concern to the plant or to the health and safety of the public.” The NRC letter went on to say Energy Northwest used a more robust standard from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code in the evaluation of the weld with the flaw and that EN is monitoring the indication and will re-inspect it during the 2017 refueling outage.

Not good enough for HOANW/PSR. They wanted a teleconference.

During the call, two more issues were raised: the groups wanted access to proprietary information from an EN vendor so it could be reviewed by other anti-nuclear energy groups; and that the NRC “Consider the location of this plant and the fact that it sits in the middle of the Hanford Reservation.”

In August, the NRC rejected these points as well.

The NRC Letter sent to the groups last week provides an education on nuclear reactor core cooling and puts a cork in the anti-nuclear hyperbole.

Highlights of what the NRC wrote:

“The jet pumps are designed and built to withstand a seismic event.”

“…Licensees (Energy Northwest) have demonstrated seismic margins supportive of continued plant operation while additional risk evaluations are conducted.”

“The NRC staff further emphasized in a June 4, 2015, public meeting that ‘the staff notes that Columbia continues to operate safely including consideration of new seismic hazard information.’”

“…jet pump failure has no impact on the structural integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary. Therefore, jet pump failure will not cause the reactor to depressurize and result in loss of coolant.”

The issue raised about the location of Columbia Generating Station “in the middle of the Hanford Reservation” is telling. As the NRC wrote in rejecting this part: “…fails to provide sufficient facts to support the petition…” There’s defense nuclear waste at Hanford and Columbia has spent nuclear fuel so… what? The NRC knows we have spent nuclear fuel on site. They regulate its existence.

Beyond that, a quick Google search would find Columbia not even located “in the middle” of the Hanford Site. It’s sloppy stuff. Shouldn’t one’s raison d’etre demand a little more precision and rigor? (We lease the land from the Department of Energy, to which the NRC sent the anti-nuclear groups for any issues they have with Hanford).

Hanford Map

Just the Facts. Well…

Facts, as the saying goes, are stubborn things. Which is probably why this entire petition filed by Heart of America Northwest and Physicians for Social Responsibility contained very few of them. But if the purpose was to waste the time and money of two organizations, mission accomplished.

That’s what happens when one is driven by ideology alone – facts don’t matter, and responsibility is the worry of the other guy.

The anti-nuclear energy activists have been wrong about Columbia 221mil-lifetime-generationGenerating Station for 31 years. Who else gets to be wrong that much and still have anyone pay attention to them? More than 221,000,000 megawatt-hours of carbon-free generation later, the men and women of Energy Northwest continue fulfilling the promise, working safely and effectively to provide electricity to homes and businesses throughout the Northwest.

We think that’s something to be proud of.

(Posted by John Dobken)