Tag Archives: CWIP

All U.S. east coast electricity could come from offshore wind 3 seasons out of 4

Why build nukes when wind can provide 3/4 of our power? While Southern Company claims to be “a company that is engaged in offering solutions, not just rhetoric”, yet does nothing about wind off the Georgia coast, researchers in far California have demonstrated we can get 3/4 of all needed east coast electricity from offshore wind.

Bjorn Carey wrote for Stanford Report 14 September 2012, Offshore wind energy could power entire U.S. East Coast, Stanford scientists say

A new analysis by Stanford researchers reveals that there is enough offshore wind along the U.S. East Coast to meet the electricity demands of at least one-third of the country.

The scientists paid special attention to the Maine-to-Virginia corridor; the historical lack of strong hurricanes in the region makes it a favorable site for offshore wind turbines. They found that turbines placed there could satisfy the peak-time power needs of these states for three seasons of the year (summer is the exception).

“We knew there was a lot of wind out there, but this is the first actual quantification of the total resource and the time of day that the resource peaks,” said Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford who directed the research. “This provides practical information to wind farm developers about the best areas to place turbines.”

Mark Z. Jacobson already worked out a framework for powering the entire world from wind, water, and sun alone. The late John Blackburn, Ph.D., showed us how to power North Carolina with sun, wind, and hydro, plus less natural gas than NC uses now. Now Jacobson is working out the details of implementation.

-jsq

PS: Owed to Seth Gunning.

Change the Atomic Energy Act? How about change the Georgia Electric Territorial Act?

In reaction to the NRC denying a nuclear permit for Calvert Cliffs, some nuclear backers suggest changing the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to permit majority foreign ownership of nuclear reactors. What will they suggest next? Asking Iran to invest in U.S. nukes?

Steve Skutnik wrote for http://theenergycollective.com 5 September 2012, A cost-free way to open up nuclear investment,

If this seems entirely backward in a world of global production and investment, that’s because it is. The current regulation is an artifact of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which first authorized private ownership of nuclear facilities. (Prior to this—per the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, all nuclear technology was considered a state secret, during the short time in which the U.S. enjoyed a monopoly on the technology.)

Is there any real compelling reason for restrictions on foreign ownership and investment in nuclear facilities to exist at a time when the U.S. holding a monopoly on the technology has long since passed? Issues of safety here of course are irrelevant—the facilities would be licensed and regulated by the NRC, just as any other nuclear facility is now. About the only salient objection is the political one—i.e., the implications of a foreign entity maintaining controlling ownership in key infrastructure. (Although it’s hard to see anyone getting particularly upset about the reverse—U.S. entities owning a controlling stake in infrastructure in other nations.)

Yeah, sure, strict regulation will deal with that, just like it prevents fracking from setting drinking water on fire, or BP from poisoning the Gulf. The new NRC head is maybe well-meaning, but it’s the same NRC that gave Vogtle 1 a clean bill just before it had to shut down and the same NRC that’s ignoring cancer in Shell Bluff.

Oh, by the way, the article gets to the main point eventually:

Continue reading →

NRC rejects nuke permit for EDF in Maryland

French nuclear operator Électricité de France (EDF) was denied a license last week for the proposed Calvert Cliffs nuclear reactor in Maryland, because the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 prohibits majority foreign ownership of nuclear plants. EDF now has 60 days to find a U.S. partner, or give up the project. Who could the possible suitors be? Hint: think southeast.

The handwriting was on the wall two years ago when Constellation Energy pulled out of the project. Jim Polson and Alan Katz wrote for Bloomberg 10 October 2010, Constellation Drops Nuclear Plant, Denting EDF’s U.S. Plans,

Constellation Energy Group Inc. pulled out of negotiations on a $7.5 billion loan guarantee to build a nuclear reactor in Maryland with Electricite de France SA, potentially damaging the French utility’s U.S. expansion plans and the companies’ partnership.

The cost of the U.S. government loan guarantee that the companies’ joint venture, UniStar Nuclear Energy, would need to build the Calvert Cliffs 3 reactor is too high and creates too much risk for Constellation, the Baltimore-based utility said in a statement yesterday. The statement said the next step is up to EDF. Enlarge image U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman

In a letter Oct. 8 to Daniel Poneman, deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, Constellation said it received a government estimate that the venture would have to pay about $880 million to the U.S. Treasury for the loan guarantee, “dramatically out of line with both our own independent assessments and of what the figure should reasonably be.”

Constellation’s decision may make it more likely that the U.S. utility will exercise a put option forcing EDF to buy as much as $2 billion of Constellation’s non-nuclear power plants, said Ingo Becker, head of utilities sector research at Kepler Capital Markets.

“EDF very clearly said if they exercise the put, this thing is over,” Becker said. “Constellation may have just turned around the calendar and pulled out of the new build before exercising the put, anticipating EDF’s reaction.”

In a letter Oct. 8 to Daniel Poneman, deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, Constellation said it received a government estimate that the venture would have to pay about $880 million to the U.S. Treasury for the loan guarantee, “dramatically out of line with both our own independent assessments and of what the figure should reasonably be.”

Meanwhile, Southern Company is still trying to reduce what it has to pay for its $8.3 billion federal loan guarantee.

Back in Maryland, the news got worse for the nuke last year. EDF asked for the state’s help, but didn’t get the answer it wanted. Scott Dance wrote for Baltimore Business Journal 16 December 2011, EDF: Constellation-Exelon settlement hurts Maryland nuclear industry,

Continue reading →

Where would Georgia Solar Utilities Inc. get enough land for 80 MW solar generation?

Plant Branch in Georgia Where will Georgia Solar Utilities Inc. get the 2,200 acres it says it needs to build 80 MW of solar generation? Well, it’s supposed to be “adjacent to Georgia Power Co’s coal-burning Plant Branch near Milledgeville, Ga.”, so let’s look there.

Plant Branch Location Map A brochure on Plant Branch by Georgia Power (undated, but last date mentioned is 1998, so I’m guessing 1999) says:

Located on 1,900 acres on Lake Sinclair in Putnam County between Eatonton and Milledgeville, Plant Branch was the first million-plus-kilowatt electric generating station to operate on the Georgia Power system. It is named for Harllee Branch Jr., former chairman of the board of Southern Company and president of Georgia Power. Construction on the plant began in 1961, and by the summer of 1969, Coal pouring onto pile four units were in operation. The 1,539,000 kilowatts generated by Plant Branch provides enough electrical power for 342,000 households.

And now Plant Branch will be among the first to close coal-generating units. According to Melissa Stiers for GPB News 12 July 2011, Georgia Power Closing Three Plants,

Two coal fired units at Plant Branch in Milledgeville will close in 2013. That’s a result of federal regulation tightening air pollution controls. The company has said it’s too costly to upgrade those units.

Plant Branch across Lake Sinclair As we know, Georgia Power’s parent The Southern Company claimed it was incompetent to deal with the new EPA regulations even though it had already announced the Plant Branch closures (amounting to about 770 MW), and later SO announced 4,000 MW of coal plant closures.

While the various news stories keep saying Plant Branch is in Milledgeville, actually, it’s on the other side of Lake Sinclair, closer to Eatonville, Plant Branch site in Putnam County qpublic map and in Putnam County. A quick glance at the Putnam County Tax Assessor database maps shows that the land parcel containing Plant Branch is 913.87 acres, much of which isn’t actually used by the plant. And Georgia Power owns a total of more than 3,000 acres adjacent to that site. So I’m guessing the 2,200 acres figure is simply around 3,100 total Georgia Power acres minus 913 acres for the present Plant Branch site.

Estimates for land needed for a megawatt of solar power generation range Continue reading →

Company to build 90 MW solar and become a utility

What to do if you can’t interest Georgia Power in building solar? Do it yourself, and do enough so you can be a utility yourself. That’s the loophole in the 1973 Electric Territorial Act that FPL and JEA use to burn coal at Plant Scherer in Georgia and export the power to Florida. Now Georgia Solar Utilities Inc. is using the loophole for a better purpose: building almost twice as much solar generation as Georgia Power’s meager 50 MW.

Georgia Solar Utilities Dave Williams wrote for the Atlanta Business Chronicle yesterday New Georgia utility pitches solar plant: A new utility is planning to build a $320 million solar power plant on 2,200 acres adjacent to Georgia Power Co’s coal-burning Plant Branch near Milledgeville, Ga.

Georgia Solar Utilities Inc. initially approached Georgia Power, a unit of Southern Co. (NYSE: SO), with a proposal to build the plant and sell it to Georgia Power through a power-purchasing agreement.

Georgia Power is retiring two coal-fired units at Plant Branch, part of a move to reduce the Atlanta-based utility’s reliance on coal.

But when Georgia Power officials declined to take part in the project last May, Georgia Solar Utilities executives decided to build the plant on their own and operate it as a new utility independent of Georgia Power.

Once cost prohibitive, solar energy has become competitive with fossil fuels because of the rising costs of coal and tighter government regulation of coal emissions, said Robert Green, founder of Georgia Solar Utilities.

“When you don’t have to buy coal or worry about environmental hangovers, it overwhelms the costs of fossil fuels, Green said Thursday after presenting the proposal to the Georgia Public Service Commission’s Energy Committee.

Some say the PSC can’t approve such a utility because of that 1973 law. I suspect that if they don’t approve this proposal, the next one will be even harder to turn down, and the next one, as they become even more competitive.

How competitive?

Continue reading →

Vogtle circular firing squad delaying opening

Southern Company and the other owners of Plant Vogtle are blaming the contractors (who are suing them) for further delays in construction. How much money will they waste before they never open?

Kristi E. Swartz wrote for the AJC yesterday, Disputed costs at Vogtle rise,

Georgia Power and a group of municipal and cooperative electric companies are building twin 1,100-megawatt reactors, the first in the United States to win permits in 30 years. The total expected cost of the project is $14 billion, but potential cost overruns at Vogtle, located in Waynesboro in east Georgia, continue to grow, according to the recent Southern Co. regulatory filing.

Delays in getting federal licensing approvals for the new reactor design and then for the entire project have been cited as the chief culprit.

Because of the dispute with contractors over the additional costs, “the owners are evaluating whether maintaining the currently scheduled commercial operation dates of 2016 and 2017 remains in the best interest of their customers,” the filing said. The total amount of the cost overruns could be well over $900 million; Georgia Power owns 45.7 percent of the project, so its share is $425 million, the latest filing said. Originally the overrun was projected at $400 million when the issue was first made public in April.

Up another $25 million since April? How long until it gets into billions of cost overruns? Which will be paid by whom?

Continue reading →

CWIP for SO’s Kemper Coal Plant in Mississippi

Southern Company (SO) is playing the CWIP game of charging customers for electricity they won’t for years with coal in Kemper, Mississippi, not just with nuclear at Plant Vogtle in Georgia. Maybe we should elect some new Georgia Public Service Commissioners so we won’t see the kind of behavior Mississippi’s PSC has turned to.

Cassandra Sweet wrote for Dow Jones and WSJ 25 July 2012, 2nd UPDATE: Southern Co. Second-Quarter Profit Up as Economy Improves,

The company is proceeding with construction of a $2.88 billion advanced-coal plant in Mississippi, despite a decision last month by state regulators to deny a $55 million rate increase the company requested while a related court case is pending. The company’s Mississippi Power unit has filed an appeal of that decision with the state Supreme Court, and argues that without the rate increase it won’t be able to cover certain project expenses that could boost its customers’ future costs.

Mississippi’s Public Service Commission actually denied that rate increase, partly due to opposition from AARP, Sierr Club, and other concerned organizations and citizens. Imagine Georgia’s captive PSC doing that! Mississippi Power took it all the way to the MS Supreme Court, challenged by MS Sierra Club, and that Supreme Court also denied the rate increase. According to MS Sierra Club:

Continue reading →

Incumbents win GA PSC primary, face general election challengers

At least they had primary opposition, and there’s still the general election in which to challenge the Georgia PSC incumbents. Even the incumbents aren’t defending coal anymore. Keep up the pressure and maybe they’ll finally get us solar and wind energy, or, even better, we’ll elect someone who will. Steve Oppenheimer and David Staples are running in the general election.

GA PSC primary results

Ray Henry wrote for AP today, Chuck Eaton, Stan Wise win Republican primaries for Ga. Public Service Commission

Continue reading →

Who will let the sun shine on Georgia?

Someone asked who to vote for who will represent the people more than the electric utilities, on Elect Georgia legislators and Public Service Commissioners who will let the sun shine on Georgia! OK, here’s my opinion.

Sec. State provides you with a sample ballot.

For PSC, vote for somebody who isn’t an incumbent (the incumbents are marked on the ballot). The election today is a primary, so you need to select a Democratic ballot (Steve Oppenheimer District 3 is not an incumbent) or a Republican ballot (Pam Davidson District 5 and Matt Reid District 3 are not incumbents).

For the legislature, here is a list of who voted for the nuke stealth tax as a charge on Georgia Power bills for electricity nobody will get for years if ever. On your ballot, see if somebody else is running against them. Around here, somebody is: Bikram Mohanty for State Senate District 8, Teresa Lawrence for State House District 174, and JC Cunningham for State House District 175, all Democrats, since the incumbents switched parties after being elected last time.

So, if you want solar and wind energy for jobs, energy independence, and profit in the state of Georgia, instead of Georgia Power’s bet-the-farm nuclear risk at Plant Vogtle and Southern Company’s natural gas fracking, that’s who I would vote for.

If, like me, you didn’t already vote early, today is the final day to vote in this primary, and you and I’ll be going down to the precinct polling place to cast a ballot. Today’s the day!

-jsq

Solar feed-in tariff in Georgia?

To make up for lost time in getting Georgia in the lead in solar power for jobs, energy independence, and profit, how about we elect legislators who will implement a feed-in tariff? If we can afford massive subsidies to Georgia Power and Southern Company for electricity nobody will get for years from their nuke boondoggle, we can afford a feed-in tariff that costs nobody until solar (and wind) power is actually generated.

According to last month’s Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2012,

Support for renewable power generation remains the most popular policy option with at least 65 countries and 27 states now having feed-in-tariffs (FITs).

Fred wrote for ReVision Energy 10 August 2010, NREL: Feed in Tariffs Drive Competition, Costs Down for Renewables, While Increasing Growth,

“The arguments in favor of a FIT policy are primarily economic in nature. These include the ability to … stimulate significant and quantifiable growth of local industry and job creation … [and] only cost money if projects actually operate”

Get that last part? “…only cost money if projects actually operate” unlike Southern Company’s Plant Vogtle nuke boondoggle, which is costing Georgia Power customers right now on their bills, even though they won’t get any electricity from those nukes for years, if ever, plus they’re on the hook for cost overruns, too, already $400 million and climbing.

Look at that map: the big blank space in the southeast is mostly Southern Company’s “Competitive Generation Opportunities”, minus Florida. Translation: where Southern Company holds us back from leading the world in solar energy.

Dear Thomas A. Fanning, CEO of Southern Company, and Paul Bowers, CEO of Georgia Power: how about turn that ship around and get in the lead of the convoy?

Well, they may not listen, but we the voters have an opportunity right now to elect Georgia legislators and Public Service Commissioners who will put a lid on the power utility smoke and let the sun shine on Georgia!

-jsq