powermag--2012 (5)

Vol. 156 • No. 5 • May 2012

Vogtle Gets Green LightEU and UK Coal Power

McIntosh Upgrades Controls

10 Smart Grid Trends

CT Fleet Catalyst Management

Unlike a phony cowboy who is all hat with no

cattle, a boiler from RENTECH will pass muster.

Each boiler is designed and built to meet its demanding specifications and operate in its unique

conditions in a variety of industries, including refining, petro-chemical and power generation.

Our quality control system assures you that RENTECH boilers are safe, reliable and efficient.

For a real, genuine, original boiler, you can depend on RENTECH. Honestly.

WWW.RENTECHBOILERS.COM

CIRCLE 1 ON READER SERVICE CARD

May 2012 | POWER www.powermag.com 1

ON THE COVER“New life for nuclear power” could well be an alternate headline for this issue’s cover story about the all-important combined construction and operating licenses for the first new U.S. nuclear units in decades and the work that is now under way at Plant Vogtle in Georgia. Our cover photo, taken Jan. 30, 2012, captures the construction site for Units 3 and 4, with Units 1 and 2 in the background. Courtesy: Southern Company Inc.

COVER STORY: NUCLEAR POWER36 Vogtle Gets Green Light

Folks in the U.S. nuclear industry are smiling more than they have in decades thanks to Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval in February of construction and operat-ing licenses (COLs) for two new units in Georgia and March approval of two more COLs for new units in South Carolina—all using the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design. We look at the progress made to date at the Plant Vogtle site, long expected to be home to the first new U.S. reactors in over three decades, as well as safety measures that are part of the new design.

SPECIAL REPORTS

FOSSIL FUELS

46 Europe: More Coal, Then LessIt’s the paradox of shifting energy policies: Even as European countries aim to de-crease their carbon emissions, they have plans to build new, high-efficiency coal plants in the short term to compensate for retiring nuclear plants and coal plants that are more polluting. Our report looks at the new balancing act Europe is learning.

INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROL

54 Upgraded Controls Position McIntosh Plant for Efficient OperationsThe operating profile of combined cycle plants has changed since this Florida plant’s Unit 5 went into service in 2001. This case study of a distributed control system upgrade traces the process to improved reliability and includes a dozen lessons learned that could save you headaches and dollars if your plant is considering a similar project.

FEATURES

AIR EMISSIONS

60 Managing the Catalysts of a Combustion Turbine FleetIn an era when gas plants are running baseload instead of cycling seasonally, deter-mining the most economic way to manage NOx reduction catalyst systems is more important than ever. Here’s a life-cycle management plan for fleetwide selective catalytic reduction.

WATER MANAGEMENT

66 Think Water When Designing CSP PlantsOne of the conundrums of siting renewable generation is that regions where solar resources are plentiful tend to be regions where water resources are scarce. This article presents a water treatment system design approach for concentrating solar power (CSP) plants that minimizes complexity and cost while providing reliable and sustainable plant performance.

36

Established 1882 • Vol. 156 • No. 5 May 2012

60

46

www.powermag.com POWER | May 20122

SMART GRID

80 Ten Smart Grid Trends to Watch in 2012 and BeyondMany smart grid initiatives have gotten through the initial stages of piecemeal tech-nology deployment (smart meters, primarily) and are now facing the more complex challenges of integrating multiple devices, programs, and functionalities. Pike Re-search offers its list of the top trends to watch globally in the near future.

ENERGY STORAGE

86 Getting Bulk Storage Projects BuiltSeveral recent developments have paved the way for easier development of bulk storage projects in the U.S., but the technology still faces often daunting obstacles. The industry group championing utility-scale energy storage makes the case for a policy framework that could help bring more such projects online faster.

NUCLEAR POWER

94 Too Dumb to Meter: Follies, Fiascoes, Dead Ends, and Duds on the U.S. Road to Atomic EnergyIn this POWER exclusive, the first chapter of Too Dumb to Meter, by Contributing Editor Kennedy Maize, begins a serial presentation of the book about the history of nuclear power.

DEPARTMENTS

SPEAKING OF POWER6 Abundance of Minerals

GLOBAL MONITOR8 India Revs Up Capacity with Massive Coal Plants10 Ukraine Looks Beyond Russian Gas12 THE BIG PICTURE: Coal Demand Surges16 As Small Gas Turbine Segment Grows, Alstom Launches E-Class Upgrade16 Technology Converts Flue Gases to Jet Fuel 18 Technique Generates Salinity Gradient Power and Cleans Wastewater 20 Powered by Felt20 POWER Digest

FOCUS ON O&M22 Partnership Develops Innovative CCP Project26 What Are the Safety Rules for Anyway?30 Predictive Maintenance That Works

LEGAL & REGULATORY34 States Promote Clean Energy Programs

By Angela Neville, JD

106 NEW PRODUCTS

COMMENTARY112 Ensuring the Best Use of Federal Energy Subsidies

By Keith B. Hall, attorney with Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann LLC

Connect with POWERIf you like POWER magazine, follow us online (POWERmagazine) for timely industry news

and comments.

Become our fan on Facebook Follow us on Twitter

Join the LinkedIn POWER magazine Group

22

16

8


Visit POWER on the web: www.powermag.com

Subscribe online at: www.submag.com/sub/pw

POWER (ISSN 0032-5929) is published monthly by Access

Intelligence, LLC, 4 Choke Cherry Road, Second Floor, Rock-

ville, MD 20850. Periodicals Postage Paid at Rockville, MD

20850-4024 and at additional mailing offices.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to POWER, P.O. Box

2182, Skokie, IL 60076. Email: [email protected].

Canadian Post 40612608. Return Undeliverable Canadian

Addresses to: PitneyBowes, P.O. BOX 25542, London, ON

N6C 6B2.

Subscriptions: Available at no charge only for qualified ex-

ecutives and engineering and supervisory personnel in elec-

tric utilities, independent generating companies, consulting

engineering firms, process industries, and other manufactur-

ing industries. All others in the U.S. and U.S. possessions:

$87 for one year, $131 for two years. In Canada: US$92 for

one year, US$148 for two years. Outside U.S. and Canada:

US$197 for one year, US$318 for two years (includes air

mail delivery). Payment in full or credit card information is

required to process your order. Subscription request must

include subscriber name, title, and company name. For new

or renewal orders, call 847-763-9509. Single copy price: $25.

The publisher reserves the right to accept or reject any order.

Allow four to twelve weeks for shipment of the first issue on

subscriptions. Missing issues must be claimed within three

months for the U.S. or within six months outside U.S.

For customer service and address changes, call 847-763-

9509 or fax 832-242-1971 or e-mail powermag@halldata

.com or write to POWER, P.O. Box 2182, Skokie, IL 60076.

Please include account number, which appears above name

on magazine mailing label or send entire label.

Photocopy Permission: Where necessary, permission is

granted by the copyright owner for those registered with

the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive,

Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400, www.copyright.com, to

photocopy any article herein, for commercial use for the flat

fee of $2.50 per copy of each article, or for classroom use

for the flat fee of $1.00 per copy of each article. Send pay-

ment to the CCC. Copying for other than personal or internal

reference use without the express permission of TradeFair

Group Publications is prohibited. Requests for special per-

mission or bulk orders should be addressed to the publisher

at 11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite 690, Houston, TX 77042.

ISSN 0032-5929.

Executive Offices of TradeFair Group Publications: 11000

Richmond Avenue, Suite 690, Houston, TX 77042. Copyright

2012 by TradeFair Group Publications. All rights reserved.

EDITORIAL & PRODUCTION Editor-in-Chief: Dr. Robert Peltier, PE

480-820-7855, [email protected]

Managing Editor: Dr. Gail Reitenbach

Senior Editor: Angela Neville, JD

Gas Technology Editor: Thomas Overton, JD

Senior Writer: Sonal Patel

European Reporter: Charles Butcher

Contributing Editors: Mark Axford; David Daniels; Steven F. Greenwald; Jeffrey P. Gray;

Jim Hylko; Kennedy Maize; Dick Storm; Dr. Justin Zachary

Graphic Designer: Joanne Moran

Production Manager: Tony Campana, [email protected]

Marketing Director: Jamie Reesby

Marketing Manager: Jennifer Brady

ADVERTISING SALES Sales Manager: Matthew Grant

Southern & Eastern U.S./Eastern Canada/

Latin America: Matthew Grant, 713-343-1882, [email protected]

Central & Western U.S./Western Canada: Dan Gentile, 512-918-8075, [email protected]

UK/Benelux/Scandinavia/Germany/

Switzerland/Austria/Eastern Europe: Petra Trautes, +49 69 5860 4760, [email protected]

Italy/France/Spain/Portugal: Ferruccio Silvera, +39 (0) 2 284 6716, [email protected]

Japan: Katsuhiro Ishii, +81 3 5691 3335, [email protected]

India: Faredoon B. Kuka, 91 22 5570 3081/82, [email protected]

South Korea: Peter Kwon, +82 2 416 2876, +82 2 2202 9351, [email protected]

Thailand: Nartnittha Jirarayapong, +66 (0) 2 237-9471, +66 (0) 2 237 9478

Malaysia: Tony Tan, +60 3 706 4176, +60 3 706 4177, [email protected]

Classified Advertising

Diane Hammes, 713-343-1885, [email protected]

POWER Buyers’ Guide Sales

Diane Hammes, 713-343-1885, [email protected]

AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT Audience Development Director: Sarah Garwood

Fulfillment Manager: George Severine

CUSTOMER SERVICE For subscriber service: [email protected], 800-542-2823 or 847-763-9509

Electronic and Paper Reprints: Wright’s Media, [email protected], 877-652-5295

List Sales: Statlistics, Jen Felling, [email protected], 203-778-8700

All Other Customer Service: 713-343-1887

BUSINESS OFFICE TradeFair Group Publications, 11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite 690, Houston, TX 77042

Publisher: Brian K. Nessen, 713-343-1887, [email protected]

President: Sean Guerre

ACCESS INTELLIGENCE, LLC 4 Choke Cherry Road, 2nd Floor, Rockville, MD 20850

301-354-2000 • www.accessintel.com Chief Executive Officer: Donald A. Pazour

Exec. Vice President & Chief Financial Officer: Ed Pinedo

Exec. Vice President, Human Resources & Administration: Macy L. Fecto

Divisional President, Business Information Group: Heather Farley

Senior Vice President, Corporate Audience Development: Sylvia Sierra

Senior Vice President & Chief Information Officer: Robert Paciorek

Vice President, Production & Manufacturing: Michael Kraus

Vice President, Financial Planning & Internal Audit: Steve Barber

Vice President/Corporate Controller: Gerald Stasko

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 1.877.445.9198 or visit phillips66lubricants.com to learn more.

© 2012 Phillips 66 Company. Phillips 66, Conoco, 76, Diamond Class and their respective logos are trademarks of

Phillips 66 Company in the U.S.A. and other countries. T3-TRI-10630B



SPEAKING OF POWER

Abundance of Minerals

What do iPads, flat screen TVs, Chevrolet’s plug-in Volt, and Ray-theon’s Tomahawk cruise missiles

have in common? Each uses one or more of the 17 rare earth elements in their man-ufacture, and over 95% of those elements come from China.

President Obama, in a new tough-on-Chi-na policy, announced on March 13 the fil-ing of a request for consultation (cosigned with the European Union and Japan) with the World Trade Organization (WTO) over China’s imposition of unfair trade restric-tions on the exports of rare earth elements. These elements are used in the manufac-ture of many familiar products: neodymium and lanthanum are essential for building batteries for hybrid and electric cars; scan-dium is used in lighting; dysprosium and neodymium are critical in building specialty magnets used in wind turbines; gadolinium and terbium are used in video screens; and tellurium is used in solar panels. If there is no voluntary agreement after a 60-day consultation period, the complaint goes to a WTO panel, which may take years to reach a decision.

In spoken remarks, Obama cited the rea-son for the WTO claim: “We want our com-panies building those products right here in America, but to do that American manu-facturers need to have access to rare earth materials which China supplies.” Referring to the need for a properly functioning glob-al market in rare earths, Obama said, “Now if China would simply let the market work on its own, we would have no objections.”

Consistently Poor PoliciesThe president’s statements suggest that he remains committed to a policy of rely-ing on the purchase of raw materials criti-cal to our national security from countries that do not support U.S. interests. Do you see the striking resemblance between Obama’s rare earth minerals policy and his energy policies? Instead of enacting poli-cies designed to increase domestic sources of fossil fuels or minerals on public lands, his approach is to blame foreign producers for rising prices while at the same time asking those same producers to increase production (see my editorial “Abundance

of Energy” in the March 2012 issue). Filing this complaint will do nothing to safeguard rare earth supplies to U.S. manufacturers in the future. More definite action is re-quired, beginning with opening public lands to mining of rare earths.

China strips these raw materials from the earth at rock bottom costs and makes a tidy profit on their sale. China also won’t hesitate to use its market muscle as a tool of its foreign policy. In September 2010, a Chinese fishing vessel’s captain was ar-

rested after a collision with a Japanese boat in disputed waters. Japan’s refusal to release the captain caused a diplomatic uproar that was followed by a complete embargo on exports of rare earths to Ja-pan. Days later, Japan capitulated, the captain was released, and the embargo was lifted. To paraphrase an old saying, “He who has the rare earths makes the rules,” and China enjoys making the rules.

Rare Earths Not Exactly RareChina may have the market cornered on rare earths today, but it has only 36% of known reserves; U.S. reserves are about a third to one-half of China’s, depending on the data source. From the mid-1960s through the mid-1980s, the U.S. led the world and was self-sufficient in rare earth element production. A seismic shift in the global market occurred just as demand for rare earths began to soar. China saw a market opportunity in rare earths where it could be the low-cost supplier, coincident with the strengthening of U.S. open-pit mining health and safety and environmental rules, and the closing of millions of acres of pub-lic lands to future mining. By 1999, the U.S. was importing 90% of its needed rare earth elements. The last rare earth mine in the U.S. closed its doors in 2002.

Prices for rare earth elements began skyrocketing on the global market in 2007 when China began restricting exports. The price of rare earths spurred the February reopening of Colorado-based Molycorp Inc.’s Mountain Pass Mine located on pub-lic lands in southeast California, near the Nevada border, after the company spent $781 million on environmental and tech-nology upgrades. The mine is expected to produce 20,000 tons per year of selected rare earth metal ores (a fraction of that

produced by China) suitable for processing into pure metals beginning later this year. However, the U.S. does not have the ca-pability to refine the oxide ores into pure elements. One source says the ores will be shipped to China to be refined.

Defense in Depth DesiredIn my opinion, Obama should be worrying about the effect on manufacturers should China embargo rare earth exports to the U.S. in the future, as it did with Japan. China knows it wins, even if it loses the WTO decision, because the final decision is years away. Whether minerals or fossil fuels, placing the country’s economic well-being in the hands of unpredictable and unreliable global trading partners is poor policy. Materials critical to our economy and national security must have substan-tial domestic supplies. When a country corners the market of any critical mate-rial that cannot be produced domestically, America is vulnerable.

Much as with fossil fuels, the U.S. doesn’t have a shortage of rare earth met-als. We have a shortage of leaders whose vision of America’s economic safety and security is beyond the present. ■

—Dr. Robert Peltier, PE is POWER’s

editor-in-chief.

Do you see the striking resemblance between Obama’s rare earth minerals policy and his energy policies?

Power Magazine8.125 x 11

www.etaproefficiency.com e-mail: [email protected] • 716.799.1080

O f f i c e s i n : N o r t h A m e r i c a • L a t i n A m e r i c a • E u r o p e • A s i a

The Harrison Power Station, operated by a subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp., evaluated

EtaPRO APR™ and its unique localized modeling approach on ten critical pieces of

equipment being monitored by their legacy system. In late March 2011, EtaPRO

APR™ initiated an alarm, while no alarm was initiated by the legacy system. After

investigation, Harrison staff found a control system fault in a hydrogen cooler bypass

valve. Had this problem continued undetected, Harrison would have been forced to

shut down for repairs.

™

GPA-002013 EtaPRO_APR_PowerMag_8.125x11.indd 1 3/28/12 11:50 AM

Power Magazine8.125 x 11

P E O P L E P R O C E S S E S T E C H N O L O G Y

www.etaproefficiency.com e-mail: [email protected] • 716.799.1080

Plant Reliability: EtaPRO APR™

O f f i c e s i n : N o r t h A m e r i c a • L a t i n A m e r i c a • E u r o p e • A s i a

The Harrison Power Station, operated by a subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp., evaluated

EtaPRO APR™ and its unique localized modeling approach on ten critical pieces of

equipment being monitored by their legacy system. In late March 2011, EtaPRO

APR™ initiated an alarm, while no alarm was initiated by the legacy system. After

investigation, Harrison staff found a control system fault in a hydrogen cooler bypass

valve. Had this problem continued undetected, Harrison would have been forced to

shut down for repairs.

™

GPA-002013 EtaPRO_APR_PowerMag_8.125x11.indd 1 3/28/12 11:50 AM



India Revs Up Capacity with Massive Coal PlantsIndia, a country that plans to fuel its current level of gross domes-tic product growth of between 8% and 9% with massive, mostly coal-fired power capacity additions over the next decade, in March commissioned an 800-MW supercritical unit at the first of India’s government-envisioned ultra-mega power plants (UMPP). Tata Pow-er, the country’s largest integrated private utility, put online Unit 1 of the five-unit 4,000-MW Mundra UMPP in Gujarat State, just 48 months after construction began on the project (Figure 1).

The unit had been ready for grid synchronization since last June, the company said in a statement, but it was awaiting a transmission system connection from India’s national grid opera-tor, the Power Grid Corp. of India Ltd., a project that was com-missioned on Sept. 29. Work on Units 2, 3, 4, and 5 was all on track and “progressing well,” Tata said. The project located south of Tunda Wand village in Mundra Taluka, Kutch district of Gujarat, will be operated by Tata subsidiary Coastal Gujarat Project Ltd. and is expected to supply five power shortage–stricken Indian states: Gujarat, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Haryana, and Punjab.

In 2006, India announced it would fast-track a series of 16 ambitious supercritical coal-fired projects, each with a capacity of 4,000 MW, to help boost power capacity by at least 100,000 MW by the end of the five-year 11th plan (which ends this year). Each UMPP is expected to require an investment of about $4.5 billion or more, it said.

Only four projects have been awarded so far on a build, own, and operate basis. In addition to Tata’s Mundra in Gujarat, three are being developed by Reliance Power: the Sasan UMPP in Mad-hya Pradesh, Krishnapatnam UMPP in Andhra Pradesh, and Tilaiya UMPP in Jharkhand. The first 660-MW unit at Sasan is expected to come online in January 2013, just as the last Mundra units will be commissioned. At Krishnapatnam, however, where Reliance had planned to build six 660-MW units, work has been paused since last June. Reliance cited a new regulation from Indonesia—from which it imports its coal—that prohibited sale of coal, including to affiliate companies, below benchmark prices.

The Tilaiya project, which would also comprise six 660-MW units and is expected to come online between May 2015 and June 2017, is being built at a coal pithead (mine mouth) and has dedicated captive coal blocks—unlike the other three projects, which will rely on imported coal.

Future UMPP projects may be sited in this way, or closer to ports, as India battles chronic coal shortages. Though the coun-try has large coal reserves, domestic mining companies are strug-gling to keep up with demand needed to sustain its existing coal plants, which account for 55% of India’s generation.

India’s capacity frenzy extends far beyond UMPPs, and even bigger coal plants are slated to come online over the next decade. This March, international business conglomerate Adani Group’s power arm, Adani Power, synchronized the fifth supercritical unit of its 4,620-MW coal-fired power plant, also in Mundra, Guja-rat, making it one of the biggest privately owned coal plants in the world (Figure 2). The plant was developed in four phases and comprises four units of 330 MW each and five supercritical units of 660 MW each. Construction began in 2008 and full com-missioning is expected later in 2012. Like Tata’s Mundra UMPP, Adani’s plant will also use imported Indonesian coal.

The Mundra plants are two of India’s first supercritical units in an existing 105-GW coal fleet, though dozens more advanced coal plants aiming for reduced fuel consumption are in the pipe-line. In late February, national generator NTPC, for example, announced it would build India’s first coal-fired 800-MW ultra-supercritical thermal power plant project by 2017. Meanwhile, India’s 12th plan calls for 60% of coal capacity additions to come from supercritical plants.

And India is not alone: According to the International Energy Agency’s (IEA’s) recently released World Energy Outlook, the past five years have seen increased shares of both supercritical and advanced coal generation technologies, such as ultrasupercritical and integrated gasification combined cycle technology. In 2010, roughly three-quarters of coal-fired capacity worldwide was sub-critical, compared with close to 85% in 1990. About 20% was supercritical, and only 3% consisted of advanced technologies. The agency projects that advanced technologies will make up a much larger share of future coal plants, which are expected to account for around 27% of the total new additions to generating capacity worldwide between 2011 and 2020, and around 22% between 2011 and 2035.

One key factor that impedes the deployment of more efficient coal-fired generation is the “often relatively expensive” levelized

1. The start of something big. India’s Tata Power put online

Unit 1 of the five-unit 4,000-MW Mundra ultra-mega power plant

(UMPP) in Gujarat State. The project is the first of a series of 16 UMPPs

envisioned by the Indian government to ramp up power capacity and

address chronic power shortages. Some projects will have dedicated

captive coal blocks while others will be built closer to ports and will rely

on imported coal. Courtesy: Tata Power

2. Clash of the titans. In March, Adani Power put online the fifth

supercritical unit of its 4,620-MW coal-fired power plant that is sited in

Mundra, Gujarat State, adjacent to Tata Power’s recently commissioned

800-MW supercritical unit of its ultra-mega power plant. This image

shows fishermen walking in front of the Tata Mundra plant (left) and

Adani Power project (right). Courtesy: Bank Information Center Trust

F L E X C O . C O M

Dan relies on Flexco because he knows lost material is lost revenue.

Dominion Terminal Associates, the second-largest coal exporter in the U.S., was

experiencing problems with spillage at its transfer points. As Dan put it, “We looked

into it and we saw we were losing a lot of time and money with cleanup and lost

coal.” He decided to talk to Flexco.

Our team designed and installed transfer chutes that worked within Dominion’s

existing stacker-reclaimer units. The new systems not only cut down on spillage and

delivered soft, centered loads to the belts –– they also reduced dust, plugging and

wear. Today, reclaimed tonnages are up and transfer issues are down.

“We feel comfortable moving more tons per hour now,” Dan says. “Two million tons

have gone through the Flexco system, and it’s worked very well.” To increase the

performance of your system, call 1-800-541-8028 or visit our website today.

Name:

Dan Wagoner, Superintendent

Engineering & Maintenance,

Dominion Terminal Associates

On Partnering With Us:

“I don’t think you can do any better than Flexco.”

Dave Wood - Flexco - North American Sales Manager; Dan Wagoner - Dominion Terminal Associates - Superintendent Engineering & Maintenance;

Steve Kaluzny - Flexco - Project Manager; Wesley Simon-Parsons - Dominion Terminal Associates - Civil & Environmental Supervisor

Transfer Chute Systems

With over 25 years of design

experience, Flexco’s solutions

optimize material transfer for

reliable throughput.

VISIT US AT ELECTRIC POWER 2012, BOOTH #1231, MAY 15–17, BALTIMORE, MD



cost basis, the IEA says. “The thermal efficiency of an ultra-super-critical plant is typically up to 50% higher than that of a conven-tional subcritical plant. But the capital and maintenance costs are higher, which can make the subcritical plant the cheaper option at low coal prices, where there is no penalty for CO2 emissions or when regulated electricity rates result in losses for the producer.”

Agency data showed, for example, that in China, a typical ultra-supercritical plant today had capital costs only 15% higher than those of a supercritical plant, yet subcritical plants continued to make up a substantial proportion of new coal-fired capacity. Oth-er factors that markedly affect which technology is used in new plants include fuel quality (local coal may have high moisture, ash content, or impurities); the technical capability and experi-ence required to construct and operate such plants; the longer planning and construction lead times of more complex plants; the size of the unit; and local conditions such as the availability of water. “Taken overall, the best-available technology may not be the cheapest or most practical solution,” it notes.

Ukraine Looks Beyond Russian GasFor years, tensions have been brewing between Russia, which pro-vides about a quarter of the natural gas consumed in the European Union (EU), and neighboring Ukraine, a country through which 80% of those exports travel via pipeline. Ukraine, which depends on Rus-sia for all its gas supplies, has protested what it considers Gazprom’s inflated gas price hikes and unfair fines; meanwhile, it too has raised tariffs for gas shipped across its territory. Russia has accused Ukraine of not paying its gas-incurred debt and of illegally siphoning off sup-

plies destined for Europe. This March, in an effort to diminish its reliance on Russian gas, Ukraine found a new supplier.

Erupting disputes have twice left parts of Europe in the cold, with countries such as Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ro-mania, and Slovakia enduring a total natural gas shutoff from pipelines running from Russia through Ukraine. In 2006, Russia turned off all gas exports to Ukraine for three days; in 2008, it cut shipments by 50%; and in 2009, a renewed debt spat led to a total disruption of supply, which lasted more than 13 days.

A resolution was temporarily reached, as former Ukraine Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and former Russian Prime Minister (and now President) Vladimir Putin negotiated a new contract covering the next decade—until the Ukrainian 2010 presidential election.

Stemming from the political storm that ensued in Kiev af-ter that 2009 agreement, Tymoshenko was charged with abusing power for ordering Ukraine utility Naftogaz to sign the gas deal with Russia in 2009, which was allegedly detrimental to Ukraine’s interests, and subsequently was sentenced in October 2011 to seven years in jail. Current Ukraine president and former Tymosh-enko ally Viktor Yushchenko testified against her in a trial that was bemoaned by the EU and the U.S. as “politically motivated.” Tymoshenko’s release from prison for medical treatment was be-ing discussed in early April this year, a move analysts saw as a weak effort by the Ukraine to mend relations with the EU.

Meanwhile, a new spat arose between Ukraine and Russia in 2010: Ukraine disputed how much gas it would import from Russia, citing diminished demand as a result of the economic

Comprehensive Gas Turbine service solutions

www.turbocare.com

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.


value chain—from repairs, coatings and design engineering, to machining, fi eld services and the world’s most

Continued, p. 14

Chromalloy extends engine life like no other company can, by providing the industry’s most complete independent

value chain—from repairs, coatings and design engineering, to machining, fi eld services and the world’s most advanced independent castings facility. These unrivaled in-house capabilities represent over 60 years of

innovation—and they can make an impact today.

Engine life can stretch beyond the horizon.

chromalloy.comLong live your engine.



A s the world leader in f ield heat treating, Team now brings the benef its of Wireless Heat Treating to

the power industry. Lower costs, higher quality, greater safety…you get all the advantages of Wireless Heat Treating in a highly advanced system. Team’s Programmable Logic Controller and SCADA® sof tware provide the brains for its Wireless SmartHeat 400® system. Driven by interchangeable, Internet-enabled laptops, one Team technician controls multiple heat cycles from a single remote location. Real-time temperatures can be monitored via PDA or PC, giving you the peace of mind that the process is being executed exactly as required. From small, complex f ittings to massive turbines, Team Wireless Heat Treating delivers reliable, documented results that save you time and money. For complete information visit w w w.te amindus t r ia ls e r v ice s .com.

Scan code with QR reader app

on smart phone

See Us at Electric Power

Booth 1354

China2009: 88

2020: 188

India2009: 61

2020: 178

Japan2009: 144

2020: 158

EU2009: 156

2020: 155

Middle East2009: 1

2020: 2

THE BIG PICTURE: Coal Demand SurgesPatterns of coal trade have been shifting in recent years as demand surges in Asian countries. Whereas Japan and the European Union

(EU) have long been the world’s largest hard coal importers, China and India are now emerging as top importers. This surge has

shifted the center of gravity in international coal trade to the Pacific Basin market, as estimates from the International Energy Agency

(IEA) show. All projections are per the IEA’s New Policies Scenario, which assumes cautious implementation of policy commitments

and plans announced by countries around the world. Note: All figures in million tonnes of coal equivalent.

—Sonal Patel is POWER’s senior writer

EXPORTERS IMPORTERS

Australia

2009: 256

2020: 310

Indonesia2009: 191

2020: 288

Russia

2009: 77

2020: 96

South Africa

2009: 63

2020: 66

U.S.

2009: 32

2020: 65

A s the world leader in f ield heat treating, Team now brings the benef its of Wireless Heat Treating to

the power industry. Lower costs, higher quality, greater safety…you get all the advantages of Wireless Heat Treating in a highly advanced system. Team’s Programmable Logic Controller and SCADA® sof tware provide the brains for its Wireless SmartHeat 400® system. Driven by interchangeable, Internet-enabled laptops, one Team technician controls multiple heat cycles from a single remote location. Real-time temperatures can be monitored via PDA or PC, giving you the peace of mind that the process is being executed exactly as required. From small, complex f ittings to massive turbines, Team Wireless Heat Treating delivers reliable, documented results that save you time and money. For complete information visit w w w.te amindus t r ia ls e r v ice s .com.

Scan code with QR reader app

on smart phone

See Us at Electric Power

Booth 1354



recession, and Gazprom insisted Ukraine fulfill its contractual ob-ligations and buy quantities of gas agreed upon in 2009.

In the latest development, Ukraine announced plans this March to sign a contract with Germany’s RWE energy firm to im-port Russian gas through Slovakia using reverse-flow technology. Rejecting allegations that the plans are a ploy to force Gazprom to discount supplies, Ukraine Prime Minister Nikolay Azarov told German newspaper Die Welt that even though Ukraine buys much more gas than Germany does, it has to pay a much higher price, as negotiated in the 2009 contract. Buying Russian gas from a German company would be cheaper than buying it directly from Russia, he said.

The amount Ukraine proposes to buy from RWE is an estimated 3 million cubic meters of gas per day—miniscule compared to the 100 million cubic meters per day it consumes from Russia, analysts note, but it is the first, critical attempt by Ukraine to reduce its dependence on imports from Gazprom, they say.

Over the rest of Europe, countries hard-hit by interruptions in gas supply have also been seeking ways to wean themselves from reliance on the Ukraine trade route. The future of European gas markets is generally dependent on three new gas pipeline projects. Two, the Nord Stream and South Stream pipelines, are majority owned by Gazprom, and the third, the Nabucco project, is supported by Europe and Turkey.

Despite some European hostility to the project owing to increased European energy dependency on Russia, the first of the two Nord Stream 1,224-kilometer (km) offshore pipelines directly connecting Russian gas reserves and energy markets

in the EU began transporting gas in mid-November last year (Figure 3). The second line, which runs parallel to the first, is expected to come on stream in the last quarter of 2012. Each line has a transport capacity of roughly 27.5 billion cubic me-ters (bcm) of gas a year.

Completion of the Gazprom and ENI South Stream pipeline—which proposes to carry 63 bcm of gas per year through the Black Sea to Bulgaria, and farther, to Greece, Italy, and Aus-tria—is expected by 2015, though there are many doubts about its feasibility.

Some analysts view the €10 billion project as a direct competitor of the EU-backed Nabucco line. The Nabucco line has been planned to run from the eastern border of Turkey to Baumgarten in Austria via Bulgaria, Romania, and Hun-gary. Preliminary analyses had cited Iran and Turkmenistan as sources of gas supplies for the conduit, but it was later decided the pipeline would carry gas from the Caspian region, notably from the Shah Deniz field in Azerbaijan, to Europe by 2017. This pipeline was intended to diversify Europe’s current natural gas suppliers and delivery routes and create a south-ern corridor free from Russian interests.

The 3,900-km Nabucco pipeline—whose shareholders include Austria’s OMV, Hungary’s MOL, Romania’s Transgaz, the Bulgar-ian Energy Holding, Turkey’s Botas, and Germany’s RWE—would reach a capacity of 31 bcm a year, meeting just 5% of Europe’s gas needs. In mid-March, however, developers proposed a route half the length of the original project, running from the Turkish-Bulgarian border to Austria.

3. First in line. The first line of the two Nord Stream 1,224-kilometer gas pipelines running in parallel through the Baltic Sea from Vyborg,

Russia, to Lubmin, near Greifswald, Germany, began transporting gas in mid-November last year. The route crosses exclusive economic zones of

Russia, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Germany. The second line will come on stream later this year. Interest in the €15 billion project surged

following the Russian-Ukraine gas crisis of 2009, which shut off gas delivery to Europe for almost two weeks. Courtesy: Gazprom

www.rolls-royce.com

A natural fit for any environment.

...support today’s energy markets with outstanding adaptability

and flexibility making it a natural fit for any environment. It is

the most efficient and powerful aeroderivative gas turbine

designed for cyclic operation, fast starting and restarting,

unsurpassed load rates and environmental performance.

The Trent 60 with its unrivalled availability and reliability

combines these formidable traits to blend seamlessly and profitably

into your operating conditions.

Trent 60 attributes...

Trusted to deliver excellence



As Small Gas Turbine Segment Grows, Alstom Launches E-Class UpgradeClose on the heels of its recent upgrades of the GT26 and GT24 gas turbines for 50-Hertz and 60-Hertz power markets, Alstom in March launched its next-generation GT13E2 gas turbine, a medi-um-sized gas turbine of the 200-MW class (Figure 4).

The E-class turbine first began operation two decades ago in 1993. It has already been upgraded twice: In 2002, which pushed perfor-mance from 166 MW at 35.7% gas turbine efficiency to 172 MW at 36.4%, and in 2005 to improve flame stability, lower NOx emissions, and increase performance to 185 MW and 37.8% gross efficiency. The newest upgrade boosts simple cycle performance to 202.7 MW at 38% gross efficiency as well as net combined cycle plant performance to 565 MW at 53.8% efficiency. Alstom boasts that the upgrade also has improved part-load efficiency and fast-start capability, promising more than 200 MW available in 15 minutes.

A general trend in the gas power sector shows that large gen-eration plants need to be designed for the highest efficiency and operational flexibility to save fuel cost over a broad range of op-erating conditions and to match swiftly changing power demand. But Alstom says in a recent conference paper that another market segment exists outside of the one covered by combined cycle power plants based on large gas units. This will require “solutions based on smaller gas turbine units, sometimes in multi-unit con-figurations” to meet specific project requirements, adapt to plant configuration, and offer the highest reliability without compro-mising on performance and environmental issues. If “flexibility” is key for the large gas turbine market, “versatility” is what is required for the smaller turbine segment, it says.

The company cites International Energy Agency forecasts that natural gas generation will grow to 7,900 TWh in 2035 from 4,300 TWh in 2009. Nearly one-fifth of this growth is anticipated in China, another fifth in the Middle East, and a 10th in India. More than 60% of this growth will be produced by combined cycle gas turbines, but simple cycle gas turbines are also forecast to more than double.

Alstom expects the upgraded GT13E2 gas turbine will meet the needs of these countries as well as others, like Russia, which is boosting power capacity to meet growing demand spurred by economic growth and a mass of plant retirements. The French company has already been awarded eight GT13E2 units for proj-ects in Russia. One reason is that nearly half of the installed

gas power capacity in Russia is more than 30 years old, and a majority of that consists of inefficient gas-fired steam plants. Meanwhile, more than 60% of new capacity that will come online in Russia over the next decade will be gas-fired, but new turbines will still be required to meet the steam needs of existing com-bined heat and power systems, Alstom says.

Technology Converts Flue Gases to Jet Fuel A new technology promises major advantages for coal-fired power plants, steel mills, and other industries that produce flue gases—and it could quell concerns about the increased use of arable land and food prices related to the production of ethanol. That’s be-cause the technology developed by New Zealand–based startup firm LanzaTech uses a proprietary gas fermentation process to con-vert readily available industrial gases into fuel and chemicals.

Essentially, the firm’s process promises to convert carbon monoxide–containing gases produced by steel mills, biomass gas-ification, and coal combustion into fuel and chemical products (Figure 5) using microbes. The process is flexible to the hydrogen content in the input gas and tolerant of typical gas contami-nants, says LanzaTech.

“Because our microbe is feedstock agnostic and completely tolerant to the extreme levels of contaminants found in steel mill and other industrial off gases, our process can use the lowest cost, most readily-available resources, including hydrogen-free gases,” the firm claims.

LanzaTech CEO Dr. Jennifer Holmgren says on the firm’s web-site that efforts to prove that the fermentation process produces “high-value” chemicals are also paying out. “Those chemicals include the building blocks for the production of polymers and plastics as well as hydrocarbon fuels, like jet fuel, that are com-patible with existing fuel stocks and jet engines, so [they] can be ‘dropped in’ to the existing fuel supply,” she said, noting that LanzaTech is working with the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s)

4. The happy medium. Alstom in March launched its latest

GT13E2 gas turbine upgrade. The medium-sized turbine of the 200-

MW class has a 21-stage compressor with a variable inlet guide vane,

an annular combustion system with closed-loop combustor cooling,

and a five-stage turbine. Courtesy: Alstom

5. From flue to fuel. The LanzaTech process to convert carbon

monoxide–containing gases to fuel and chemical products involves

sending those gases to the bottom of a bioreactor, where they are dis-

persed into a liquid medium. This liquid is then consumed by proprietary

microbes as the reactor contents move upward in the reactor vessel.

After being withdrawn, the net product is sent to the recovery section,

which uses a hybrid separation system to recover the valuable product

and co-products from the fermentation broth. Courtesy: LanzaTech

Resources

Industrial Syngas: biomass coal methane

COG, chemical Power

Customized catalysts

Native

Synthetic

Engineering control chemistry

Product suite

Product suite

C2

•Ethanol•Acetic acid

C3

•i-propanol

C4

•BDO•n-Butanol•i-Butanol•Succinic acid

C5

•Isoprene

Other•PHB

Thermochemical approachesHydrocarbon

fuels (diesel, jet,

gasoline)Chemical

intermediatesOlefins

Chemicals

He doesn’t know how steam

atomization improves turbine bypass

performance. He just knows that he’s able to read past his bedtime.

To learn more, please visit www.tyco.com/sempellturbine

Copyright © 2010 Tyco Flow Control. All rights reserved.

Tyco Sempell turbine bypass valves play a vital role in powering peoples’ everyday

lives. Our unique design uses central pipe steam atomized water spray to eliminate

annual pipe and nozzle inspection and extend the life of your bypass pipe - which

can save over $300,000 every fi ve years. That should help you rest easy.

Tyco709-025_Power_Caucasian Boy Reading_FINAL_080411.indd 1 1/31/2012 11:14:27 AM

He doesn’t know how steam

atomization improves turbine bypass

performance. He just knows that he’s able to read past his bedtime.

To learn more, please visit www.tyco.com/sempellturbine

Copyright © 2010 Tyco Flow Control. All rights reserved.

Tyco Sempell turbine bypass valves play a vital role in powering peoples’ everyday

lives. Our unique design uses central pipe steam atomized water spray to eliminate

annual pipe and nozzle inspection and extend the life of your bypass pipe - which

can save over $300,000 every fi ve years. That should help you rest easy.

Tyco709-025_Power_Caucasian Boy Reading_FINAL_080411.indd 1 1/31/2012 11:14:27 AM



Pacific Northwest National Laboratory on converting some of its chemicals to drop into jet fuel. British airline Virgin Atlantic, which has partnered with LanzaTech, is already committed to begin trials using LanzaTech-produced jet fuel on its Shanghai-New Delhi-London route within a few years. “The biofuels that will succeed must be compatible with existing engines, pipelines and refineries,” Holmgren said.

Auckland-based LanzaTech has been operating a pilot plant at a New Zealand Steel plant since 2008 that it says is capable of generating 16,000 gallons of ethanol made from carbon monoxide a year. Recently, LanzaTech agreed to allow the steel company and its Australian parent company Bluescope Steel to use the technol-ogy commercially. Meanwhile, the 2005-founded company has be-gun building demonstration projects in China, working with major steel manufacturers Baosteel and Capital Steel to turn waste gases into ethanol. The 100,000-gallon demonstration plant to convert waste flue gas at Baosteel is expected to begin production later this year. A full-scale commercial facility—which LanzaTech antici-pates will be the “world’s first steel waste to ethanol and chemi-cals plant”—is planned to be operational by 2013.

Last November, LanzaTech also announced plans to work with Chinese coal producer Yankuang Group to produce fuels and chemicals from synthesis gas produced by gasification. A more recent deal with Indian Oil and Jindal Power and Steel will result in a facility to convert plant gases into ethanol in India.

The company also recently bought the old Range Fuel site in Georgia—a project now renamed “Freedom Pines”—that had been awarded millions in federal funding under the Bush and Obama administrations—to convert regionally sourced waste wood into renewable fuels. It is also working with the DOE, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the Federal Avi-ation Administration to adapt its technology to produce aviation fuels for commercial and military use. Separately, the company is also working with the Chinese Academy of Sciences on research, development, and commercialization of related technologies.

This process to convert flue gases to fuel has garnered much attention from investors. In addition to racking up clean tech-nology accolades (it was Global Cleantech “Company of the Year” for 2011), LanzaTech is being backed by Malaysian national oil company Petronas, Malaysian engineering firm Dialog Group, and investing groups Khosla Ventures and Qiming Venture Partners.

Technique Generates Salinity Gradient Power and Cleans Wastewater Exploiting the difference in salt concentrations between the fresh-water runoff from river mouths at the point where they meet salt-water reservoirs such as seas and oceans to harness power isn’t a new thing. Salinity gradient power has been recognized since the 1950s. Its massive global potential was estimated in the 1970s on the basis of average ocean salinity and annual global river discharges at between 1.4 TW and 2.6 TW. The most prominent technique to exploit the salinity gradient at river mouths is called reversed elec-trodialysis (RED), and it basically entails letting a salt solution and freshwater flow through a stack of alternating cathode and anode exchange membranes. The chemical potential difference between the freshwater and saltwater generates a voltage.

In a new article in the journal Science, however, researchers at Pennsylvania State University argue that RED’s potential applica-tions are limited to coastal areas, and are impractical, owing to the need for a large number of membrane pairs (a RED module with a capacity of 250 kW, for example, is almost the same size as a shipping container). But the researchers say that the RED

process could be improved using salt solutions that could be continuously regenerated with waste heat (of more than 40C) and conventional technologies that would allow a much wider application of salinity-gradient power. One possibility is to use the method on water containing food waste, domestic waste, and animal waste—which, the researchers claim, could represent a 17-GW power capacity in the U.S. alone.

Their proposed technique essentially combines the use of mi-crobial fuel cells—which use exoelectrogenic bacteria, or bac-teria found in wastewater that consume organic material and produce an electric current—and RED to create what they call a “microbial reverse-electrodialysis cell” (MRC, Figure 6).

MRC can work with natural seawater, but the organic matter in seawater will foul the membranes in RED stacks without exten-sive precleaning and treatment, the researchers found. So, rather than relying on seawater, the researchers used an ammonium bi-carbonate solution, which mimics seawater but will not foul RED membranes. “The ammonium bicarbonate is also easily removed from the water above 110 F,” they suggest. “The ammonia and carbon dioxide that make up the salt boil out, and are recaptured and recombined for reuse.”

In tests using the ammonium bicarbonate MRC, the researchers reached a maximum power density (using acetate) of 5.6 watts per square meter of cathode surface area—five times greater than that produced using just the bacteria, and without a dialysis stack—and nearly 3 W per square meter with domestic wastewater. Maxi-mum energy recovery with acetate reached 29.5% to 30.5%.

The researchers tested the MRC only in a fill-and-empty mode, but eventually a stream of wastewater could be run through the cell, they say. Not having to process wastewater was a major en-ergy saver, said article co-author Bruce Logan, Kappe Professor of Environmental Engineering. “The bacteria in the cell quickly used up all the dissolved organic material,” he added. “This is the por-tion of wastewater that is usually the most difficult to remove and requires trickling filters, while the particulate portion which took longer for the bacteria to consume, is more easily removed.”

According to Logan, MRCs can be configured to produce elec-tricity or hydrogen, making both without contributing to green-house gases such as carbon dioxide. “The big selling point is that it currently takes a lot of electricity to desalinate water and using the microbial desalination cells, we could actually desalinate wa-

6. Power from salty water. A new technique engineered by

Penn State researchers that combines bacterial degradation of waste-

water with reverse electrodialysis—a method to extract power from a

saltwater-freshwater gradient—promises to produce power anywhere.

This image shows the researchers’ microbial reverse dialysis test cell,

which produced 5.6 watts per square meter. Courtesy: Penn State

WE

ST

IN

GH

OU

SE

E

LE

CT

RI

C C

OM

PA

NY

L

LC

Great things do come in small packages.

Satisfying the world’s demand for electricity without emitting any

greenhouse gases is a complex problem, but part of the solution

is now becoming a reality. Introducing the next innovation in

reliable and clean nuclear energy — the Westinghouse small

modular reactor.

he Westinghouse small modular reactor is a 200 MWe class,

integral pressurized water reactor that features enhanced safety

systems. hese factory-built, modular reactors will also reduce

construction time and costs, powering energy independence and

global economic growth. Always looking ahead, Westinghouse

nuclear technology will help provide future generations with

safe, clean and reliable electricity.

Check us out at www.westinghousenuclear.com

THE NEXT INNOVATION FROM WESTINGHOUSE



ter and produce electricity while removing organic material from wastewater,” he said.

The article authored by Roland D. Cusick, Younggy Kim, and Bruce E. Logan appears in the March 2012 issue of Science and is titled “Energy Capture from Thermolytic Solutions in Microbial Reverse-Electrodialysis Cells.”

Powered by FeltIt promises to be the most widely and easily distributed power generation technology to date: heat, captured in fabric. Work at Wake Forest University in North Carolina has led to the cre-ation of a thermoelectric fabric called Power Felt that can turn theoretically any form of heat (body heat, waste heat from a car, or heat from any other source to which the material can be at-tached) into sufficient electrical current to help power devices or the systems the material is in contact with (Figure 7).

As the abstract of an article about this research in the Febru-ary issue of Nano Letters explains, “Thermoelectrics are materials capable of the solid-state conversion between thermal and elec-trical energy. Carbon nanotube/polymer composite thin films are known to exhibit thermoelectric effects.” Although such compos-ite thin films are not very powerful, when layered into modules resembling felt fabric, power output increases.

“Since these fabrics have the potential to be cheaper, lighter, and more easily processed than the commonly used thermoelec-tric bismuth telluride, the overall performance of the fabric shows promise as a realistic alternative in a number of applications such as portable lightweight electronics.”

Researchers suggest that potential uses for Power Felt include lining automobile seats to boost a car’s battery power and service its electrical needs, insulating pipes or collecting heat under roof tiles to lower buildings’ gas or electric bills, lining clothing or sports equipment to monitor an athlete’s performance, or wrap-ping IV or wound sites to better track patients’ medical needs.

“Imagine it in an emergency kit, wrapped around a flashlight, powering a weather radio, charging a prepaid cell phone,” says David Carroll, director of the Center for Nanotechnology and Mo-lecular Materials and head of the team leading this research. “Literally, just by sitting on your phone, Power Felt could provide relief during power outages or accidents.”

The university is exploring options to produce Power Felt com-mercially. Although even widespread application of this clean

and energy efficient power generation technology likely would not threaten the existence of utility-scale generating stations, it could contribute to lower demand increases. That may be seen as a loss for power companies in developed countries with ample generation options, but it could be a boon for both generators and consumers in capacity-stretched nations. Then there’s the convenience of knowing that as long as your body is alive (that is, warm), you’ll never worry about a dead cell phone battery.

POWER DigestThree South Korean Firms Opt for MHI’s J-Series Turbines. Japanese firms Marubeni Corp. and Mitsubishi Heavy Indus-tries (MHI) on March 22 said they had been jointly awarded or-ders for three large-scale combined cycle electric power projects in Korea totaling 3,800 MW. The plants are the 950-MW 2nd Pyeo-ngtaek Combined Cycle Power Plant, the 1,900-MW Dongducheon Combined Cycle Power Plant, and the 950-MW Ulsan 4 Combined Cycle Power Plant. All three plants are to use MHI’s newly devel-oped M501J, a 60-hertz J-Series gas turbine model.

The 2nd Pyeongtaek power plant is being built in Gyeonggi-do by Korea Western Power Co., Ltd. (KOWEPO), a subsidiary of Korea Electric Power Corp. (KEPCO). Marubeni has received an order, jointly with MHI, for two J-Series gas turbines, one steam turbine, and generators for the plant. For the Dongducheon pow-er plant, the two companies received an order consisting of four J-Series gas turbines, two steam turbines, and generators. Dong-ducheon Dream Power Co., Ltd., an independent power pro-ducer jointly established by KOWEPO, Samsung C&T Corp., and Hyundai Development Co., is building the plant in Gyeonggi-do. Marubeni and MHI will deliver the core components to Samsung C&T and Hyundai Development.

For the Ulsan 4 power plant, operated by the Korea East-West Power Co., a subsidiary of KEPCO, in Ulsan Metropolitan City, Marubeni received an order jointly with MHI and Daelim Industrial Co. for engineering, procurement, and delivery of the equipment, including two J-Series gas turbines, a steam turbine and generators, and the construction and installation work, on a full turnkey basis.

MPSA to Outfit 1,300-MW VEPCO Gas Plant. Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas (MPSA) on March 20 announced that it received an order from Dominion Resources subsidiary Vir-ginia Electric and Power Co. (VEPCO) for three M501GAC gas turbines and one steam turbine to be installed at VEPCO’s Bruns-wick County Power Station some 60 miles south of Richmond, Va. The three gas turbines will be partially manufactured and fully assembled at MPSA’s Savannah Machinery Works in Georgia for scheduled plant completion in the summer of 2016. The new gas turbine combined cycle power plant will have more than 1,300 MW of generation capacity. Under a separate long-term service agreement, MPSA will provide comprehensive turbine mainte-nance, repair, and outage services, replacement parts supply, and dedicated remote monitoring for the gas turbines.

Summit, National Grid, Petrofac Propose Full-Chain CCS in UK. Seattle-based Summit Power Group on March 20 an-nounced it entered into an agreement with UK grid operator Na-tional Grid and international oil and gas service provider Petrofac to seek funding for development in the UK of a low-carbon power plant—including full-chain, commercial-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS). The project, to be named the Caledonia Clean Energy Project, will be submitted to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change for funding under the UK’s Carbon Capture & Storage Delivery Competition. The proposed Summit power plant

7. Power. Felt. A thermoelectric fabric called Power Felt, shown

here conducting a charge, was developed in the nanotechnology labo-

ratory of Wake Forest University. Its physical and operational flexibility

promises to be useful in a wide array of applications. Courtesy: Wake

Forest University


will be based at the Port of Grangemouth, west of Edinburgh on the Firth of Forth, Scotland. Along with more than 90% carbon capture, the coal feedstock plant will also produce hydrogen gas for commercial use. The carbon dioxide captured will be trans-ported via pipeline to St. Fergus by National Grid Carbon and then transferred offshore for geological sequestration deep under the North Sea by Petrofac subsidiary CO2DeepStore.

Siemens to Supply Gas Turbines for Australian Combined Cycle Plant. Siemens Energy in March secured a €150 million turbine order for the proposed 242-MW Diamantina combined cycle power plant in Mount Isa in Queensland, Australia. The company’s scope of supply encompasses two power islands each comprising one SST-400 steam turbine, two SGT-800 gas turbines, and two heat-recovery steam generators. Siemens will also be responsible for the overall plant design and will provide techni-cal advisory services during the construction and commissioning phases of the project. The plant will power local mines operated by Xstrata. The first block of the plant is expected to go online in late 2013 and the second will start up in early 2014.

Emerson Automates Two Ultrasupercritical Plants in China. Emerson Process Management is automating two new 1,000-MW ultrasupercritical power generating units at the Ji-angsu Xinhai power plant in China with its Ovation expert con-trol system, the company said on March 13. The technology will monitor and control boilers and turbines at the units built by Jiangsu Guoxin Investment Group, which replace two old, less-efficient 220-MW units that have been decommissioned. The Ova-tion system will perform data acquisition as well as manage each unit’s flue gas desulfurization system, modulating control sys-

tem, sequence control system, electrical control system, furnace safety supervisory system, feedwater turbine control system, and balance-of-plant processes.

Algonquin Power Acquires Four Major U.S. Wind Proj-ects from Spain’s Gamesa. Ontario-based Algonquin Power & Utilities in March entered into an agreement to acquire a 480-MW portfolio of four wind power projects in the U.S. from Spanish wind turbine manufacturer Gamesa for about US$900 million. The projects include 240 units of Gamesa G9X-2MW wind turbines. They include the Pocahontas Prairie (80 MW), Sandy Ridge (50 MW), Senate (150 MW), and Minonk (200 MW) projects in Iowa, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Illinois respectively. Gamesa is to provide operation and maintenance and asset management services for 20 years for each of the wind farms.

Siemens Puts Energy Storage Pilot Online in Italy. Sie-mens Infrastructure & Cities put an energy storage pilot plant with an output of 1 megavolt-ampere and a capacity of 500 kWh into operation in Italy at the end of February 2012. With a compact battery and converter cabinet as the smallest unit, the capacity of the Siestorage energy storage system can be expand-ed to up to 2 MWh, says Siemens, which developed the system with an unnamed lithium ion battery manufacturer as part of its Siestorage series. The plant was installed in Italian utility Enel’s medium-voltage distribution network. Enel will use it to study new smart grid solutions for voltage regulation, the integration of renewable energy sources into the medium-voltage network, the integration of an electric vehicle charging station into the medium-voltage network, and black-start capabilities. ■

—Sonal Patel is POWER’s senior writer.

RARErefinement.

Responsive, Accountable, Reliable,Effective

Within thenuclear industry, there’s a new and rare

alternative for safety-critical needs...ChathamSteel.

With 97years of business behind our name,wedon’t

deliver anything short of responsive, accountable,

reliable and effective service for our customers. It’s

what has earned usour reputation for excellence in

themetals service industry.That iswhatwebelieve

to be refinement at its best.

For more information on our extensive inventory

of steel products and processing services, call

1-800-869-2762and ask for a nuclear sales specialist,

email us at [email protected] or visit

us online atwww.chathamsteel.com.Providing safety-critical steel products to the nuclear industry.

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.

CHA-113 RARE2012withSnipePowerMagazineMay:Layout 1 4/2/12 2:31 PM Page 1

circle 12 on reader service card

04_PWR_050112_GM_p8-21.indd 21 4/13/12 3:38:56 PM


Partnership Develops Innovative CCP Project

In 2009, the North Carolina Asheville Regional Airport Author-ity (Airport), with partners Progress Energy Carolinas Inc. and Charah Inc., began development of the Westside Development Fill Project (Westside Project), a long-term infrastructure strat-egy located in the southwest quadrant of the Airport’s property. The project included phased construction of a developable pad for general aviation and commercial use, a new taxiway running parallel to the existing runway, and a major expansion of the existing runway.

The Airport’s Westside Project encompasses over 53 acres of partially wooded land. When the partners determined that it would require nearly 2 million cubic yards of suitable engineered fill material to construct a developable pad for both general avia-tion and commercial use (Figure 1), coal combustion products (CCPs) emerged as an appropriate solution because of the poten-tial cost savings over conventional fill materials.

Many Design ChallengesCharah began development of the Westside Project by completing an environmental assessment and an environmental due diligence audit. As part of this audit, Charah characterized the physical and engi-neering properties of the proposed CCPs by referencing the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard’s Guide for Design and Construction of Coal Ash Structural Fills E 2277-03.

Charah also investigated the geologic and hydrogeologic conditions within the 53-acre area with borings and the instal-lation of groundwater wells and piezometers. Subsequently, it obtained the information necessary to characterize the sub-terrain and input data required by the Environmental Protec-tion Agency’s (EPA’s) Industrial Waste Management Evaluation

Model to model the groundwater. Additionally, the company surveyed for and delineated any preexisting environmental re-sources (including jurisdictional streams, wetlands, and cultural resources).

As development of the project continued, Charah incorporated lo-cal, state, and federal permitting procedures for project design and construction; coordinated the design and implementation of erosion, sediment, and pollution prevention controls and activities; and fol-lowed the testing, engineering, and construction practices for CCP engineered fill projects.

Layered EngineeringWhen the environmental assessment was completed, engineering began on this state-of-the-art engineered fill project. The project features environmentally conscious controls such as a compre-hensive liner and cap system, drainage collection system, and storm water management system.

State regulations do not require use of a comprehensive liner system or an high-density polyethylene (HDPE) cap liner when using CCPs as an engineered fill; however, Charah and Progress Energy considered the application of these design elements en-vironmentally responsible and the only method suitable for this project. Progress Energy’s project manager, Rob Reynolds, noted, “As a group, Progress Energy, Charah, and the Asheville Airport agreed to utilize only state-of-the-art designs, products, and ma-terials for this project. We worked hard to design and construct the first-of-its-kind, next-generation facility utilizing the latest in environmentally sound engineering.”

The Westside project was engineered with a layered bottom and cap liner system. The bottom liner system includes a compacted in situ soil subgrade overlain with a bentonite geocomposite clay liner (GCL) and a 60-mil HPDE liner. Both the GCL and HDPE lin-ers act as a barrier layer preventing any CCP material or related moisture to pass through the comprehensive liner system.

To convey any contact water generated on top of the HDPE to the drainage collection system, Charah proposed the use of a geocomposite drainage liner placed on top of the 60-mil HDPE liner. The drainage collection and conveyance system consisted of a perforated 8-inch HDPE pipe encapsulated by #57 washed stone wrapped in geotextile fabric. This system will convey any generated contact water from the CCP fill to grit chambers. Col-lected water is recycled within the CCP active working area as dust control or transported to and treated by an approved waste-water treatment facility.

The engineered fill needed for the Westside Project was acquired by excavating CCPs from the ash basin at Progress Energy’s Asheville Plant in Skyland, N.C., approximately 1.5 miles from the airport. CCPs are carefully excavated using long-reach excavators and loaded into tri-axle dump trucks. The CCPs are then placed in a decant stockpile adjacent to the ash basin so that an acceptable level of moisture can be achieved. When the moisture content drops to the desired level, the CCPs are transported to the project site for placement and com-paction as an engineered fill.

Excavating ash from the Asheville power plant’s ash storage basin also provides additional wet ash storage volume for the 376-MW plant.

Upon completion of CCP placement, a 30-mil HDPE cap liner is used to encapsulate the material. In addition to the HDPE cap liner, a minimum of 6 feet of compacted soil is placed across

1. Coal byproducts get new life. Aerial view of Asheville Re-

gional Airport Authority’s Westside Project, which made use of coal

combustion products. Courtesy: Charah Inc.

Your machinery drives your business. Downtime, high maintenance costs, or unexpected stoppages will all slow your ascent.

So Mobil Industrial Lubricants help you get the most out of your machinery. We have an exceptional product range, a history

of proven performance, and more than 5,000 equipment builder recommendations. Just a few reasons why we don’t simply

make industry run. We make it fl y. Visit mobilindustrial.com for more.

© 2011 Exxon Mobil CorporationThe Mobil logotype and the Pegasus design are trademarks of Exxon Mobil Corporation or one of its subsidiaries.

Why settle for an operation that runs, when you can have one that fl ies?


POWIDSymposium2012

3–8 June 2012

Renaissance Austin Hotel

Austin, Texas USA

Power Generation: Automation Today and TomorrowPOWID is ISA’s unbiased power generation automation event that covers the latest technical innovations in power, nuclear power, and power instrumentation and controls, including:

• Controls• Instrumentation• Cybersecurity

• Smart Grid• Regulatory issues and variable

energy technologies

Gold Champions

Event SponsorSilver Champions

Hear From These Industry Experts:

• Sudipta Bhattacharya, Former Presidentand CEO, Invensys Operations Management

• Christopher Guith, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

• Jason Makansi, Pearl Street

• Dr. Robert Peltier, POWER RegisterToday!

www.isa.org/powersymp

+1 919-549-8411


the CCP fill limits at a compaction rate of at least 95% percent modified Proctor. This specification meets Federal Aviation Ad-ministration fill placement requirements for the development of utilities, aviation facilities, and infrastructure (Figure 2).

Airport director Lew Bleiweis observed, “In addition to the fill requirements, the site presented a drainage challenge, which in-volved the preservation of the existing runway storm water drain-age patterns, while still allowing the engineered fill material to be placed. Significant drainage improvements were constructed along the eastern side of the engineered fill project to re-direct runoff around the work area and continue to maintain storm wa-ter drainage as needed to maintain safe maneuvering, takeoff, and landing of airplanes.”

CCPs have been beneficially utilized for airport construction projects in Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. However, this project is unique in one very important way. According to Scott Sewell, Charah’s vice president of operations, “This project is the first of its kind, being an ‘encapsulated’ engineered fill meeting stringent protective features as found in the EPA’s proposed rules for the reuse of coal combustion products.”

Construction Under WayConstruction of the Westside Project commenced in August 2010 (Figure 3). During all phases of construction, Charah relied on

Soil cover (6 ft min)

30 mil HDPE liner (textured)

Compacted fly ash fill

#57 stone wrapped in 12 oz geotextile

8-in perforated drainage pipe

Geocomposite drainage liner

60 mil HDPE liner (textured)

GCL-bentonite geocomposite liner

Existing soil subbase

2. Multi-layer construction. This cross section shows the

complexity of the engineered fill design. Source: Charah Inc.

SOME THINK LONG-DISTANCE TRANSPORT IS INFRASTRUCTURE- INTENSIVE. WE THINK DIFFERENTTransporting materials from remote locations has tradition-ally required signifi cant infrastructure investments in road or rail links, vehicles, personnel and fuel. BEUMER o ers an economical, e cient and environmental alternative – long-distance overland conveying. This gives you a dedicated, around-the-clock transport link at the fraction of the cost of infrastructure development. The reduced noise and air pollution minimises environmental impact and improves personnel safety. Add to that a high degree of design fl exi-bility and customisation and you can see why overland conveying makes a big di erence to operational e ciency and environmental protection.For more information, visit www.beumergroup.com


3. Construction progress. This photo shows the HPDE liner

being installed. Courtesy: Charah Inc.

•••

••

•

•••


a third-party construction quality assurance (CQA) firm to en-sure that construction and environmental controls met the strict environmental provisions set by the jurisdictional agencies, the Airport, Progress Energy, and Charah.

The first construction steps were to clear, grub, and excavate ex-isting soils and establish the design subgrade surface. Next, Charah began installing the bottom liner and drainage collection systems.

Afterward, decanted CCPs were hauled by tri-axle dump trucks equipped with tarped beds from Progress Energy’s Asheville Plant. Charah utilized dozers to spread the CCPs in uniform even lifts to meet the specified elevation tolerance of ±0.25 feet. Compac-tion of the CCP material was achieved using a vibratory smooth drum roller making passes as needed to achieve the compaction requirement of 95%, based on the modified Proctor compaction test. Compaction was confirmed as part of the CQA program.

Development of the project will require nearly 2 million cubic yards of CCPs to establish the rough grade elevations across the site. The use of CCPs as an alternative to traditional fill materials (such as soil and rock) provided the airport with an environmen-tally safe and economically valuable opportunity. Cost savings to the airport from using CCPs instead of conventional fill are estimated at nearly $16 million dollars.

As Bleiweis explained, “The partnership between the Air-port, Progress Energy, and Charah was beneficial for all of us. Progress Energy found an environmentally sound and economi-cally prudent way to reuse the coal combustion by-product, and the Airport saved millions of dollars in costs that traditional fill methods would have required.”

Charles Price, Charah’s president and CEO, said that “the uniqueness of this project not only lies in the site’s characteris-tics and design, but also in the partnership between the Airport, Progress Energy, and Charah. The [Westside Project] is a great example of how CCP engineered fills should be constructed.”

The project, expected to be completed in 2014, will ultimately create more than 15 acres of aeronautical land use.

—Contributed by Bobby Raia ([email protected]), project con-trols manager for Charah Inc.

What Are the Safety Rules for Anyway?It’s quite simple: Following safety rules is the foundation to elimi-nating injuries. Commonly, a safety presenter will say that safety rules are “written in blood.” At one time, such dramatic statements were a way to get attention and illustrated the seriousness of fol-lowing safety rules. Today, more highly educated workers demand less drama and more facts. Let’s face it, safety rules are in place because hazards exist and people were injured. Whether the site is a coal-fired, gas-fired, or a nuclear power plant, hazards are part of the work and must be controlled to prevent injury.

The General Duty Clause of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Act holds employers responsible for providing employees with a workplace free from recognized hazards, and employees are required to follow the rules that protect them from the haz-ards. To create a safe workplace, employers and employees must be able to recognize, evaluate, and control hazards in the work-place. Empirical research of incident reports and interviews with hundreds of workers show that employees who were injured on the job did not “see” the hazard that injured them. Observation-ally, employees and employers, operational leaders, and safety specialists often walk by recognizable hazards without control-ling or fixing them.

For these reasons, identification of workplace hazards must be a constant task of employers and employees who are directly connected to the work. A formal hazard identification process en-

sures no hazard goes uncontrolled. This formal process guides the creation of safety rules that act as controls to prevent injuries. In the process, two types of hazards must be considered: those that are inherent in the work (such as steam, pressure, heat, cold, and height) and those created by performing work.

During the work, employees often pull hoses, string power cords, wash equipment, make repairs, turn valves, and create potentially unrecognized hazards. Such hazards are the top rea-

4. Slip and slide. Floors at power plants that are covered with

grease and other oily substances, or powders, can be significant causes

of accidents. Courtesy: Potter and Associates International Inc.

5. Don’t get hosed. A forgotten hose left in a walkway can cause

unsuspecting employees to fall and injure themselves. Courtesy: Pot-

ter and Associates International Inc.


sons for workplace injuries, and the means of controlling them is trained employees who will “find and fix” them. Employees trained in the importance of situational hazard recognition (SHR) are less likely to become complacent about hazards.

Employees responsible for planning work may walk to a job location and pass hazards such as spills, hoses across walkways, or damaged equipment because they are focused on the hazards to be assessed for the next job, not the current situation (Figures 4 and 5). When employees practice SHR in the workplace, they understand that hazards change with every task.

In the past, safety training was focused on teaching employees to look for pinch points, rotating equipment, sharp edges, and oth-er such potential hazards. A different training approach is needed to sharpen workers’ ability to see the hazards, enable them to take action when they see them, and teach them the fundamentals of making the workplace safe. This simple, straightforward approach can be applied by everyone at the job site.

Four Simple Categories of HazardsMany methods exist to identify hazards. Some are quite complex. Four simple categories are presented below.

Employee (EM). Employees become a hazard when they fail to follow safety procedures and fail to wear personal protective equipment. Poorly trained employees are also a hazard. Training has become a target of the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and other regulating bodies. For example, the NRC requires on-time training attendance and high levels of participation, with man-agement and employees held accountable.

New employees pose a different hazard, as they are often unaware of what can hurt them. An in-depth experiential orientation focused on educating new employees on known hazards is essential.

Equipment (EQ). Equipment introduces recognized and un-recognized hazards. Safety engineers and professionals work to identify and train users in safe handling of equipment and of-ten the operational hazards such as rotating equipment, pinch-points, and hot parts are included on job briefing forms. Other factors create additional equipment hazards.

Equipment that is poorly maintained in the workplace is a hazard. Such equipment is not only a physical hazard but also a mental one. Operators who have inspected the equipment, found it unsafe, and reported it—only to be told, “go ahead and run it this time”—tend to just check the boxes on the inspection form. Equipment operators then begin to have the attitude that their organizations are not serious about safety. The result is a declin-ing safety culture.

When equipment is purposely operated outside of the manu-facturer’s specifications, another hazard is introduced.

Environment (EV). Standard environmental hazards such as rain, snow, ice, heat, cold, and wind are obvious and easy to identify but are not always recognized as the compounding fac-tors to injuries. When combined with employees or equipment, this category becomes important.

Energy (EN). Energy sources such as electricity, steam, pressure, and hydraulic and stored energy are readily recognized by workers in the utility industry. An often unrecognized source of energy is a moving piece of equipment being operated in adverse environmental conditions.

Lighting the way for the great American experience

www.zhi .com

ENGINEERING | CONSTRUC TION | NUCLEAR | INDUSTRIAL SER VICES

Think of usas part of the

Eight decades of engineering, constructing and

maintaining America’s energy infrastructure—

on-spec, on-time and on-budget.

Vis

it u

s at Electric Power Expo

ST

OP BY BOOTH

EN

TER

TO W IN B A SEB ALL MEM

OR

AB

ILIA

1113


We both have a reputation to uphold. Yours.The Cat® team shares your focus on protecting your customers – and your good name. You’ll have a total power solution with the flexibility to meet your specific requirements. Temporary or long-term. Gas or diesel power. 2 MW or 100 MW+. And no matter how remote your location, we’re always close by to provide the support you need. We keep the power on, while keeping your owning and operating costs down.

www.catelectricpowerinfo.com/pm

CAT, CATERPILLAR, their respective logos, “Caterpillar Yellow,” the “Power Edge” trade dress, as well as corporate and product identity used herein, are trademarks of Caterpillar and may not be used without permission.

© 2012 Caterpillar. All Rights Reserved.

CAT35607 UtilitiesSegmentAd.indd 1 4/4/12 2:30 PM

05_PWR_050112_OM_p22-33.indd 29 4/13/12 3:56:45 PM


The collapse of the “Big Blue” heavy lift crane is a prime ex-ample. In 1999, the Big Blue crane, which was almost 600 feet tall, collapsed during construction of the Miller Park baseball sta-dium in Milwaukee, Wis., with a load of 450 tons on the hook. Three people were killed. A subsequent investigation revealed that although the crane operator tried to calculate the effects of side winds on the crane, he had failed to take into account the winds’ impact based upon the load the crane was lifting. In this case, employee, equipment, environment, and energy combined for catastrophic failure that killed three people.

Empowering EmployeesA brief article cannot cover all the hazards that must be con-trolled in the power generation industry. A 30-minute safety meeting on the subject is insufficient. Hazard recognition and control requires time to ensure understanding and appropriate application related to each task. It is the cornerstone of an ef-fective safety process.

Enabling every employee to “find and fix” the hazards found in each situation is critical. Hence, if all employees follow the rules, they are likely to be injury-free. The mindset shifts from one of ”safety is about luck” to one where individuals understand that they have significant control over their own safety. The outcome is that nobody gets hurt.

—Contributed by Carl Potter ([email protected]), a certified safety professional and certified management consultant (www.hazardrecogntionworkshop.com) who has spent more than 17 years in the electric utility industry and has consulted to high-

risk industries for more than 20 years.

Predictive Maintenance That Works

This is the fifth in a series of predictive maintenance (PdM) articles that began in the April 2011 “Focus on O&M” in which the essen-tials of PdM were introduced. In the May and June 2011 issues, we explored specific PdM techniques, such as motor-current signature analysis and oil analysis. In the November 2011 issue, we intro-duced the value of thermographic analysis and its routine use. This installment focuses on ultrasonic and vibration analysis.

Ultrasonic (UT) Analysis Most machines emit consistent sound patterns under normal op-erating conditions. These sound patterns—sonic signatures—can be defined and recognized, and changes in these signatures can be identified as components begin to wear or deteriorate. This enables technicians to identify and locate bearing deterioration, compressed air or hydraulic-fluid leaks, vacuum leaks, steam-trap leaks, and tank leaks.

Evaluation of long-term UT analysis trends can identify poor maintenance practices such as improper bearing installation or lubrication, poor steam-trap maintenance, and improper hydrau-lic seal or gasket installation. Long-term UT analysis can also identify machines that are being operated beyond their original design limitations, inadequately designed machines, or consis-tently poor-quality replacement parts.

If you want to know what a poorly operating steam trap sounds like, an excellent sound analysis library can be found at http://tinyurl.com/73ylgyp.

Ultrasounds are defined as sound waves that have frequency levels above 20 kHz—higher than what the unaided human ear can normally hear. Airborne ultrasound operates in the lower UT spectrum of 20 to 100 kHz. Small objects easily block airborne ultrasounds, and ultrasounds will not penetrate solid surfaces (though they will go through cracks). Because airborne ultra-

sound radiates in a straight line, its source can be relatively easy to locate. Though they do not travel a great distance, airborne ul-trasounds can be readily differentiated from audible plant noise.

A compressed gas or fluid forced through a small opening cre-ates turbulence with strong ultrasonic components on the down-stream side of the opening. Although most of the audible sounds of a pressure leak may be masked by ambient noise, the ultra-sound will still be detectable with a scanning ultrasound device. Therefore, when the PdM technician scans the side of a pressure vessel, a leak will produce a definite increase in ultrasound vol-ume. Scanning is most effective when the UT instrument is close to the surface being inspected; however, it can also be done at a distance by increasing the sensitivity setting. This is particu-larly useful when the pressurized gas is dangerous, or when the technician must inspect overhead pipes or locations that are not readily accessible.

Vacuum leaks produce turbulence similar to pressure leaks; however, the ultrasound is generated within the system. Some of the sound escapes through the opening, though the amplitude is much lower than that of a pressure leak. This is not a problem, because the instrument can be placed closer to the vacuum leak or the sensitivity can be increased. Poorly seated valves can also be detected. When the technician touches the contact probe to the body of a leaking valve, the sound of dripping or squirting fluid will be heard in the earphones. Also, the noise from a leak-ing valve will be more evident on the downstream side of the valve (Figure 6).

Spot-checking a point is used primarily when personnel detect unusual noises or reduced equipment performance and want to know if a problem exists. Spot-checking can be cost-effective for less-critical equipment, particularly when budgets or man-power are limited. Its effectiveness relies heavily, however, on someone detecting unusual noises or performance problems, a practice that may not be reliable on large or complex machines or in noisy parts of a plant. Monitoring machinery on a periodic basis (once a month or once a quarter) can provide a more subtle indication of seal or packing wear, steam-trap contamination or deterioration, or cracks in tanks or piping. This allows personnel to project acceptable performance into the foreseeable future.

Advance notice of problems means that they can be repaired during normal shutdowns, rather than resulting in a catastrophic failure that causes unscheduled down time. If problems are detect-ed when they are minor, they are often less expensive to repair.

6. Expensive leaks. The cost to repair a leaky valve is often many

times the cost of the additional fuel consumed to produce the lost

steam. Courtesy: Valvtechnologiessignal distortion due to the installation. Overill Safe in operation and Overill Proof certiied, the Model 705 does not rely on algorithms

exceptional overill protection and Safety Integrity Level (SIL) 3 capable certiication, Eclipse Model 705 offers you reliable, accurate

1-800-624-8765 • [email protected] • [email protected]

MAGNETROL

ECLIPSEMODEL 705

First in guided wave radar.

Foremost in true level detection.

Get True Level Assurance and SIL 3 Certified Performance from the Eclipse Model 705

and Magnetrol, the level control experts. www.magnetrol.com

Why settle for an educated guess, when you can get true top-of-probe level readings from the Eclipse Model 705? The level transmitter that introduced guided wave radar technology to industrial control applications offers probes that detect true liquid levels without signal distortion due to the installation. Overill Safe in operation and Overill Proof certiied, the Model 705 does not rely on algorithms that compensate for loss of signal that can occur at the top of typical guided wave radar probes.

With exceptional overill protection and Safety Integrity Level (SIL) 3 capable certiication, Eclipse Model 705 offers you reliable, accurate performance in your safety-critical environments.

1-800-624-8765 • [email protected] • [email protected] 18 ON READER SERVICE CARD


UT analysis is one of the less-complex and less-expensive pre-dictive techniques. Its simplicity is directly related to the size and ease of use of handheld detectors as well as the relatively straightforward presentation of measurement data on meters or digital read-outs. The cost of the equipment is moderate, as is the amount of training required for its use. The technique is limited to applications that produce measurable ultrasounds: hy-draulic, compressed air, steam, or vacuum systems.

Some companies report saving thousands of dollars in com-pressed air costs by reducing or eliminating relatively minor leaks. Identifying more substantial leaks can provide savings of tens of thousands of dollars. Another company estimates that a single steam-trap failure in the open position can cost up to $2,000 a year in excessive energy consumption. With savings of this magnitude, an investment in UT analysis can have a payback period of a year or less.

Vibration Analysis Vibration analysis is used to determine the operating condition of rotating equipment, identifying incipient problems before they cause serious failures and unscheduled downtime. This can in-clude deteriorating or defective bearings, mechanical looseness, and worn or broken gears. Vibration analysis can also detect mis-alignment or unbalance before these conditions result in bearing or shaft deterioration. Evaluation of long-term vibration analysis trends can identify poor maintenance practices such as improper bearing installation, inaccurate shaft alignment, or imprecise ro-tor balancing. (See “A Permanent Solution to Generator Vibra-tion Problems,” April 2006; “Solving Plant Vibration Problems,” May 2006; and “Restraining Torsional Vibration,” March 2010 in POWER’s archives at www.powermag.com.)

All rotating machinery produces vibrations that are a function of the alignment and balance of the rotating parts. Measuring the intensity of vibration at specific frequencies can provide valuable information about the preciseness of shaft alignment and bal-ance, the condition of bearings or gears, and the effect on the machine of resonances from housings, piping, and other struc-tures. It is an effective, nonintrusive method to monitor machine condition during startup, shutdown, or in normal operation.

Vibration analysis is used primarily on such rotating equipment as

steam and gas turbines, pumps, motors, compressors, paper ma-chines, rolling mills, machine tools, and gearboxes. Recent advances in the technology now allow limited analysis of reciprocating equip-ment such as large diesel engines and reciprocating compressors.

A vibration-analysis system usually consists of five basic parts: signal pickup(s), a signal-recording device, a signal analyzer, analysis software, and a computer for data analysis and storage. These basic parts can be configured as a continuous online system, a periodic analysis system using portable measurement and diagnostic equip-ment, or a multiplexed system that samples a series of points every few minutes. Hard-wired and multiplexed systems are more expensive per measurement point, so the determination of which configuration is more practical and economical will depend on the critical nature of the equipment and the value of continuous or semi-continuous measurement data for that particular application.

Spot-checking is used primarily when maintenance or opera-tions personnel detect unusual noises or vibrations and want to determine if a serious problem actually exists. If a problem is detected, additional spectral analyses can be made to define the problem and estimate how long the machine can continue to operate before a serious failure occurs (Figure 7).

Another application for spot-checking is as an acceptance test to verify that a machine repair has been done properly. This anal-ysis can verify proper bearing or gear installation and alignment or balancing to the required tolerances.

Additional information can be obtained by monitoring machin-ery on a periodic basis—for example, once a month or once a quarter. Periodic analysis and trending can provide a more subtle indication of bearing or gear wear, allowing personnel to proj-ect machine condition into the foreseeable future. This advance notice means that equipment can be repaired during normal ma-chine shutdowns rather than after a machine failure has caused unscheduled downtime.

Though the costs have been reduced and the ease of use im-proved significantly over the past five years, vibration analy-sis is still one of the more complex and expensive predictive techniques. The complexity stems in large part from the rela-tively subjective nature of interpreting vibration spectra and the difficulty in setting effective alarm limits for a wide variety of rotating-machinery configurations. The relatively high cost per measurement point is a result of the need for sophisticated elec-tronic instruments to collect, analyze, and store the data; the cost of personnel to collect the data; and the cost of personnel and training to interpret the data.

For those companies that are willing to make a commitment of manpower and resources, the payback can be considerable. Some companies report being able to accurately identify specific gears within a gearbox that are failing, substantially reducing the amount of downtime required for troubleshooting and repair. Others have been able to identify and solve complex resonance problems that were causing damage to shafts, bearings, and couplings.

In spite of the higher cost and complexity, the investment in vibration analysis equipment and manpower is often paid back within the first 18 months to two years. And, for companies with limited budgets, there are a variety of service companies that will perform vibration analysis on a contract basis.

More ComingIn the next segment of “Predictive Maintenance That Works,” we’ll continue our discussion of specific nondestructive testing–related condition-monitoring techniques used at power plants and why each should be a part of your PdM program. ■

—Dr. Robert Peltier, PE is POWER’s editor-in-chief.

7. Hand-held vibration instruments. Examples of hand-held

vibration meters are the Columbia Research Laboratories’ VM-300 general

purpose instrument that measures acceleration, velocity, and displace-

ment (left) and Ludeca’s VIBXPERT II portable route-based vibration data

collector, which is capable of vibration spectrum analysis and display on a

VGA screen (right). Courtesy: Columbia Research Laboratory, Ludeca

Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas, Inc. • 100 Colonial Center Parkway • Lake Mary, FL 32746 USA • 1-407-688-6100 •

Catalysts andSystems Designs...

that Optimize Emissions

Compliance for Industrial

Process & Power Plants

Over 40 years of experience

with more than 600 systems in

commercial operations around

the world...validates the quality

and reliability of Mitsubishi’s ISO

9001 Accredited SCR technology

for application in the Americas.

Applications

Coal Fired Boilers FCCU (Re� nery) Simple Cycle Gas Turbines Oil & Gas Fired Boilers Combined Cycle Gas Turbines Natural Gas & Diesel Engine Generator Sets Process Heaters

Capabilities

Feasibility Studies Conceptual Design Detailed Engineering with

3D Design Procurement Fabrication Project Execution & Mgmt. Aftermarket Service & Support

Catalyst Samples

Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas, Inc. • 100 Colonial Center Parkway • Lake Mary, FL 32746 USA • 1-407-688-6100 • www.mpshq.com

SCR



States Promote Clean Energy Programs

While the proposed federal renewable portfolio standards (RPS) continue to be caught in Washington gridlock, a number of states are aggressively enacting programs

that promote renewable energy, such as wind and solar power.

States Move Ahead with Renewables InitiativesLori Bird, senior analyst at the National Renewable Energy Labo-ratory, told POWER in March that RPS policies currently exist in 29 states and the District of Columbia, and seven more states have nonbinding clean energy goals. In February, Bird presented a webinar titled “State Renewables Policies—Lessons Learned Af-ter a Decade of Success.”

An RPS is a requirement that retail electric providers supply a minimum percentage or amount of their retail load with eligible sources of renewable energy, Bird explained. Typically, an RPS is backed with penalties of some form and is often accompanied by a tradable renewable energy certificates (REC) program to facilitate compliance. Most policies have been established through state legislation, but some initially were implemented through regula-tory actions (New York and Arizona) or ballot initiatives (Colorado, Missouri, and Washington). Currently, California represents the largest RPS market since it increased its RPS goal to 33% by 2020. (However, Maine’s RPS percentage goal is higher, sooner, at 40% by 2017, and Alaska’s nonbinding goal is the highest: 50% by 2025.)

In contrast, at the federal level there is a strong possibility that Congress will allow the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) to expire at the end of the year, which is causing anxiety among renewable energy proponents, such as the American Wind Energy Association. Under current law, the PTC is an income tax credit of 2.2 cents/kWh that is allowed for the production of electricity from utility-scale renewable energy facilities. Many PTC oppo-nents argue that the federal government should not subsidize re-newables, but rather force them to compete on their own merits in the private sector.

Setting up State Clean Energy ProgramsSome states have more than a decade of implementation experi-ence with RPS policies, while others are just beginning imple-mentation. Bird pointed out that “even though the enactment of new RPS policies is now waning somewhat, many states continue to hone existing RPS policies.”

In their presentation at the 2011 National Summit on RPS titled “The State of the States: Update on the Implementation of U.S. Renewables Portfolio Standards,” Ryan Wiser and Galen Barbose of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory explained how state RPS policies often have significant design differences. Examples include, but are not limited to: renewable purchase tar-gets and timeframes, the eligibility of different renewable tech-nologies, the treatment of out-of-state generators, methods of enforcing compliance, contracting requirements and the degree of regulatory oversight, the allowance for RECs and REC defini-tions, and the role of state funding mechanisms.

State RPS policies are being designed to support resource di-versity and often use specific mechanisms to help achieve that goal. For example, some RPS standards use set-asides, which are requirements that some portion of the RPS come from certain technologies, technology types, or applications. Another tool is the use of credit multipliers that mean selected technologies or applications can qualify for more credit than other forms of gen-eration as far as meeting the RPS. In addition, some RPS policies use resource-specific contracting targets, which are requirements that regulated utilities enter into long-term contracts for mini-mum quantities of specific renewable resource types. Currently, 16 states and D.C. have solar or distributed generation set-asides, which in some instances are combined with credit multipliers.

Not surprisingly, many state RPS programs face a variety of imple-mentation challenges. These include obstacles such as rate impacts and cost concerns; transmission access for remote renewable facili-ties; problems related to siting projects; procurement and viability issues; project financing that involves the need for long-term con-tracts, particularly in restructured markets; and REC price volatility.

Positive DevelopmentsState RPS programs appear to be motivating substantial renew-able capacity development. Though not an ideal metric for RPS’s impact, 61% of the 44 GW of non-hydro renewable additions from 1998 to 2010 (27 GW) have occurred in states with active or impending RPS compliance obligations, according to Wiser and Barbose.

Despite the slow U.S. economy and other obstacles, the states—and not the federal government—are becoming lead-ing catalysts in promoting the development and deployment of renewable energy technologies. “Total state RPS demand in the U.S. is set to increase from approximately 55,000 GWh in 2010 to more than 250,000 GWh in 2020,” Bird said.

The National Governors Association recently released a report titled “Clean State Energy Actions: 2011 Update” showing that in 2011, 28 states developed policies and made investments to ad-vance green economic development, including clean electricity. For example, Michigan and local governments in that state offer tax credits, property tax exemptions, and payroll credits to busi-nesses that participate in NextEnergy, a comprehensive econom-ic-development plan to position Michigan as a world leader in the research, development, commercialization, and manufacture of alternative-energy technologies, including renewables. Likewise, since 2010, Arizona has budgeted $70 million per year for tax incentives to attract renewable energy companies to Arizona.

State officials are becoming increasingly focused on the in-tersection of policy, energy technology, and business econom-ics. Many of these officials are motivated because they see the attractive economic and environmental benefits that new clean energy projects are bringing to their states, often as part of state economic recovery strategies. ■

—Angela Neville, JD, is POWER’s senior editor.

Energy Products of Idahois now Outotec

www.outotec.com/energyproducts

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.

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 1611email: [email protected]

Energy Products of Idahois now Outotec

www.outotec.com/energyproducts

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.

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 1611email: [email protected]



NUCLEAR

Vogtle Gets Green Light

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) voted 4-1 to approve two com-

bined construction and operating li-

censes (COLs) for Southern Nuclear’s Alvin

W. Vogtle Electric Generation Plant (Plant

Vogtle) Units 3 and 4 on February 9. Receipt

of the COLs concluded a regulatory process

lasting almost four years and officially autho-

rizes Southern Nuclear to build and operate

two 1,100-MW Westinghouse AP1000 pres-

surized water reactors (PWRs) at the Georgia

plant. Unit 3 is expected to begin operating in

2016 and Unit 4 in 2017. (See sidebar “What

Is NuStart?”)

Plant Vogtle is one of Georgia Power’s two

nuclear facilities and one of three nuclear fa-

cilities in the Southern Co. system. Southern

Nuclear, a subsidiary of Southern Co. since

1990, is the licensed operator of Plant Vogtle,

which is located about 25 miles south of Au-

gusta, Ga. The plant is jointly owned by Geor-

gia Power (45.7%), Oglethorpe Power Corp.

(30%), Municipal Electric Authority of Geor-

gia (22.7%), and the Dalton Utilities (1.6%).

Units 1 and 2 consist of Westinghouse four-

loop PWRs rated at 1,109 and 1,127 MW re-

spectively, and are shown at the top of the artist

rendering above. Unit 1 began commercial op-

eration in 1987; Unit 2 followed in 1989. The

two new Generation III+ nuclear reactors that

are expected to enter commercial service in

2016 and 2017 are shown in the foreground.

POWER first visited Southern Nuclear’s

Vogtle Units 3 and 4 site in Waynesboro, Ga.,

to report on construction progress of the two

nuclear plants in late 2009 (see “Plant Vogtle

Leads the Next Nuclear Generation” in the

November 2009 issue or in the archives at

www.powermag.com). At the close of that

article, we said, ”We expect Plant Vogtle to

be the first of the next generation of nuclear

plants to enter commercial service during

2016.” Southern Nuclear is on track to prove

our prediction correct.

Just prior to that 2009 visit, the NRC had

issued an early site permit (ESP) and limited

work authorization (LWA) approvals to begin

site clearing and safety-related excavation

activities in anticipation of the NRC issuing a

COL for each of the two new reactors.

The COL is a one-step licensing process

that was designed to reduce NRC regulatory

red tape by simultaneously issuing a license to

construct and to operate a new nuclear plant;

it replaced the delay-prone two-step process

used in the 1970s and 80s (see “Second Set of

COLs Approved” sidebar, p. 40). In the past,

it was common for licensing requirements to

change in the middle of construction, resulting

in costly redesigns and delays, thus dramati-

cally escalating construction costs. NRC re-

cords indicate that the last construction permit

issued using the old two-step process was in

1978 for the Shearon Harris 1 nuclear plant in

North Carolina.

In addition to the one-step COL pro-

Courtesy: Southern Company Inc.

In February 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved two combined construction and operating licenses for Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia. They were the first licenses ever approved for a U.S. nuclear plant using the one-step licensing process and the first allowing construction in more than three decades. Now the real work begins.

By James M. Hylko

NUCLEAR


cess, companies are selecting preapproved

NRC standardized reactor designs, such

as the Westinghouse AP1000 PWR, that

incorporate vendor-designed skids, equip-

ment packages, and modular construction

techniques that are expected to prevent the

rampant construction cost escalation expe-

rienced in the past. The AP1000 is a modu-

lar design that uses passive safety systems

that rely on gravity, natural circulation,

and convection to maintain safe operation

and to shut the plant down safely during an

off-normal event. These features increase

reliability and reduce maintenance and op-

erating costs.

Got COLs. What’s Next?With the COLs in hand, Southern Nuclear

is fully authorized to construct and oper-

ate two 1,100-MW Westinghouse AP1000

PWRs at the Vogtle site, adjacent to the

company’s existing Units 1 and 2. Westing-

house has partnered with Shaw to provide

engineering, procurement, and construction

services (see “Construction Is a Coopera-

tive, Global Effort,” p. 44).

POWER recently visited with Cheri Col-

lins, general manager and nuclear liaison for

Vogtle Units 3 and 4, for an update on the

work completed since our visit in late 2009.

Collins noted that most of the work over the

past two years has been in subsurface soil

preparation: “The LWA allowed for the ex-

cavation and selection of soil that met the ap-

propriate strength and stability criteria to be

used as backfill, and the compacting of that

soil for the foundation for the nuclear island

and reactor. It was important for this nuclear

grade soil to be free of clay to meet these cri-

teria.” That work has been completed.

“The next series of milestones could not

have occurred until the COL was received—

the pouring of safety-related concrete. The

next series of steps consists of pouring a

6-foot-thick reinforced concrete base mat

that will be underneath the containment ves-

sel. Following the pouring of the concrete

base mat, we will place a concave basket

made out of rebar that is being fabricated as

the pouring is taking place. The containment

vessel bottom head will be placed inside this

concave rebar basket, and more concrete will

be poured around it to secure the containment

vessel bottom head in place.”

Figures 1 and 2 illustrate construction

work in progress.

Looking to the future, Collins empha-

sized that even with the COLs in hand,

a few significant milestones must be

achieved before the NRC will authorize

Vogtle to load fuel into the reactor. “We

have the COL, permission to build plant,

but the NRC will not allow us to load fuel

What Is NuStart?

Obtaining approval of the Vogtle combined

construction and operating license (COL)

was a joint effort with NuStart Energy De-

velopment LLC (NuStart), a partnership of

10 power companies created in 2004 to

obtain a COL using the new streamlined

licensing process and to complete design

engineering for the selected reactor tech-

nologies. Southern Nuclear had submitted

its original and supplemental COL appli-

cations in 2008 and 2009, respectively.

Also in 2009, NuStart named Plant Vogtle

the reference plant for the Westinghouse

AP1000 technology.

The NuStart consortium includes South-

ern Nuclear, which worked as part of the

DOE Nuclear Power 2010 Program to de-

velop the licensing strategy necessary to

develop and receive the first COL from the

NRC. Members of NuStart are: DTE Energy,

Detroit, Mich.; Duke Energy, Charlotte,

N.C.; EDF Inc., Chevy Chase, Md.; Entergy

Nuclear, Jackson, Miss.; Exelon Generation,

Kennett Square, Pa.; Florida Power & Light

Co., Juno Beach, Fla.; Progress Energy, Ra-

leigh, N.C.; South Carolina Electric & Gas,

Columbia, S.C.; Southern Nuclear, Birming-

ham, Ala.; and Tennessee Valley Authority,

Knoxville, Tenn. For more information on

NuStart, go to www.nustartenergy.com.

1. From the ground up. Construction of Vogtle Unit 3 turbine building foundation base-

ment is under way. Photo was taken on March 5, 2012. Courtesy: Southern Company Inc.

2. Modular assembly. Welding of the Vogtle Unit 3 containment vessel bottom head as-

sembly is under way. Photo was taken on January 30, 2012. Courtesy: Southern Company Inc.

NUCLEAR


until we have enough licensed operators

that have passed all the tests and are ready

to run the plant. Also, we must success-

fully pass all the inspections, tests, and

analyses that are a part of verifying that

this plant was built according to design,”

Collins added. “There is an entire group of

people focused on well over 800 inspec-

tions, tests, analyses, and acceptance crite-

ria (ITAAC) work packages for both units.

When the ITAAC packages are satisfacto-

rily completed and the NRC has reviewed

and approved these packages, then they

will allow us to load fuel.”

Receipt of the COL is also an important

milestone for financing of the projects. On

June 18, 2010, Southern Co., on behalf of

Georgia Power, accepted the first condi-

tional commitment for federal nuclear loan

guarantees of approximately $3.4 billion,

or 70% of Vogtle Units 3 and 4 eligible

project costs. The loan from the Federal

Financing Bank includes a first lien to the

Department of Energy (DOE) for Georgia

Power’s ownership in Vogtle Units 3 and

4 secured by Georgia Power’s 45.7% in-

terest in the two new units and was con-

tingent upon receipt of the COL from the

NRC. The entire project is estimated to

cost about $14 billion. Georgia Power’s

share of the construction cost is currently

forecast to be about $6.1 billion, including

$1.7 billion of financing costs to be col-

lected during construction.

The loan for Units 3 and 4 was autho-

rized by Section 1703 of the 2005 Energy

Policy Act’s Title XVII, which allows fi-

nancing of clean energy technologies (in-

cluding nuclear, advanced fossil energy

coal, carbon sequestration, and projects

promoting industrial energy efficiency)

that are unable to obtain conventional

private financing due to high technology

risks. Collins reminded us that “Southern

Company is on record that we do not need

the loan guarantee to build the plant. It

allows us to get capital at a lower inter-

est rate. This reduces financing costs, and

those savings are passed directly to our

customers. The savings translate back to

customer at about $25 million a year for

the 30-year life of the bond.”

NRC Involvement ContinuesOn March 11, 2011, the Great East Japan

Earthquake—rated a magnitude 9.0—and

subsequent tsunami decimated the Fu-

kushima Daiichi nuclear plant site and

produced widespread devastation across

northeastern Japan. (“Nuclear Power in

the Shadow of Fukushima,” July 2011 and

“The Fukushima Fallout: Six Months Af-

ter the Nuclear Crisis,” September 2011

are examples of the extensive coverage

of the accident available in the POWER

archives at www.powermag.com.) That

event clearly affected the NRC’s vote on

the first COLs.

Four NRC commissioners (Kristine L.

Svinicki; George Apostolakis; William D.

Magwood, IV; and William C. Ostendorff)

voted to grant the COLs, while Chairman

Gregory Jaczko cast the only dissenting vote.

According to the Augusta Chronicle, Jaczko

said he could not support issuing the license

as if Fukushima had not happened.

The commissioners agreed in spirit with

Jaczko that the NRC’s responsibility is to

make the best decisions for nuclear safety.

There opinions divide.

“There is no amnesia, individually or col-

lectively,” Commissioner Svinicki said of the

NRC’s attention to lessons learned from Fu-

kushima. Commissioner Magwood agreed.

“Plant Vogtle’s units 3 and 4 will represent a

new era of nuclear safety,” he said.

The four commissioners recognized

24“The Best Of The Best®”

www.picworld.com

YEARS EXPERIENCE

READY TO MANAGE

YOUR NEXT POWER PROJECT.

Founded i

n 1

98

8

Founded in 1988, PIC has been a leader

in the power generation industry for over

20 years. We are experts at managing

multi-faceted projects including start-

up and commissioning, operations and

maintenance, installation, turbine outages,

mechanical services and technical services.

Combine these capabilities with our

responsive approach and global resources,

and it’s easy to see why those who know

choose PIC.


NUCLEAR


that Jaczko’s proposed COL conditions

would necessarily lack sufficient details

to impose meaningful design requirements

and would be largely symbolic. The com-

missioners agreed that there was no com-

pelling reason to depart from the NRC’s

existing regulatory processes and ex-

pressed confidence that safety recommen-

dations made since the Japan crisis will be

properly implemented. Svinicki added that

NRC staff did not recommend nor support

Jaczko’s idea of an across-the-board li-

cense condition requiring implementation

of “all” Fukushima-related requirements

prior to operation of the Vogtle nuclear

plant, given the myriad regulatory tools

available to the NRC to implement post-

Fukushima-related requirements as they

emerge, including those applicable to new

plants like Vogtle.

Whereas the NRC’s Operating Reactor

Oversight program focuses on monitoring

and evaluating the performance of exist-

ing nuclear power plants, regulatory over-

sight for new reactors is controlled by the

Construction Reactor Oversight Process

(cROP) that focuses on the construction

period between licensing and initial opera-

tion of new reactors.

In the cROP, the staff determines the

scope and then implements the construc-

tion inspection program (CIP) that consists

of four phases. The first and second phases

support a licensing decision for an ESP and

COL application. Inspections will initially

be conducted to verify effective implemen-

tation of the quality assurance program, as

described in the application for an ESP

and/or COL, to provide reasonable assur-

ance of the integrity and reliability of the

application data or analyses that would af-

fect the performance of safety-related sys-

tems, structures, and components (SSCs).

The third and fourth phases support con-

struction activities and preparations for

operation.

Prior to and during plant construction,

inspections will be conducted to review

vendor activities and licensee oversight

of these activities. During plant construc-

tion, inspections will be conducted to ver-

ify satisfactory completion of the ITAAC,

confirm adequate development and imple-

mentation of construction and operational

programs, and review the transition to

power operations.

The core of the CIP is carried out by con-

struction resident on-site inspectors (CRIs)

assigned to the site by the Region II Center

for Construction Inspection (CCI). At least

two inspectors are assigned to each site

once significant construction activities are

under way. The CRIs will be supplemented

with additional personnel from CCI, other

regional offices, and headquarters technical

staff, as needed, to provide reasonable as-

surance that the as-built facility conforms to

the conditions of the COL.

Safety Measures In October 2011 the NRC directed staff

to begin implementing seven safety rec-

ommendations from the Near-Term Task

Force on lessons learned from the Japa-

nese event. The recommendations affect-

ing all U.S. nuclear reactors are expected

to be completed by April 2014. The seven

recommendations, in general, cover loss of

all AC power at a reactor that could prompt

a “station blackout”; seismic and flooding

hazards; protection for equipment from

design-basis external events; emergency

equipment and severe accident manage-

ment guidelines; and training.

In addition to these new NRC require-

ments derived from lessons learned from

Fukushima, U.S. nuclear plants are designed

to withstand seismic events, high winds—in-

cluding flying debris produced by tornadoes,

and flooding. The following information de-

scribes how the AP1000 plant would react

when faced with each of these severe acci-

dent conditions.

Seismic Events. As with every U.S.

nuclear power plant, all of Southern Co.’s

existing plants were designed, licensed, and

constructed to withstand a maximum cred-

ible earthquake for their site location based

on historical seismic activity and tectonic and

geological data for that location, as will be

Units 3 and 4.

Plant Vogtle Units 1 through 4 are

equipped with seismic monitoring systems

that are set at extremely low triggering

levels, although there are no active faults

in the area. If a seismic event triggers the

seismic monitoring system, it would pro-

vide seismic ground motion data to the

control room so the operators could de-

termine the severity of the event and, in

accordance with established procedures,

make appropriate decisions concerning

plant safety. Physical inspections supple-

ment the recordings to evaluate the impact

of an earthquake and the condition of plant

structures, systems, and equipment. In the

event of an earthquake, plant staff will an-

alyze the recordings and inspection results

before restarting the reactor.

A plant’s seismic design is based on a

specified ground motion that represents

the maximum credible earthquake for

that particular site location. This level of

ground motion is called the Safe Shutdown

Earthquake (SSE) and is set for 0.3g peak

Second Set of COLs ApprovedOn March 30, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) approved, in another 4-1

vote, the second set of combined construc-

tion and operating licenses. These COLs

will go to two more Westinghouse AP1000

reactors for Units 2 and 3 at the V. C. Sum-

mer Station in Jenkinsville, S.C., which is

operated by South Carolina Electric & Gas

Co. (SCE&G), a subsidiary of SCANA Corp.,

and Santee Cooper, South Carolina’s state-

owned electric and water utility.

In its announcement of the decision,

the NRC noted that its “findings impose

two conditions on the COLs, with the

first requiring inspection and testing of

squib valves, important components of

the new reactors’ passive cooling system.

The second requires the development of

strategies to respond to extreme natural

events resulting in the loss of power at

the new reactors. The Commission also

directed [the NRC’s Office of New Reac-

tors] to issue to SCE&G and Santee Coo-

per, simultaneously with the COLs, an

Order requiring enhanced, reliable spent

fuel pool instrumentation, as well as a

request for information related to emer-

gency plant staffing.”

A plant’s seismic design is based on a speci-fied ground motion that represents the maximum credible earthquake for that par-ticular site location.

dayzim.com

In the 21st century, the power sector finds

itself facing unprecedented operational

pressures, shifting priorities, and increasing

regulatory scrutiny. With our comprehensive

industry experience and seasoned professional

staff, Day & Zimmermann is uniquely

positioned to partner with our customers

to deliver the value-added solutions they

require in order to thrive in this environment.

Our field-focused operations teams have

delivered industry best-practices and continuous

improvement innovations in every phase of project

delivery. Safety is our number-one core value, and

it permeates everything we do in optimizing the

performance of our customers’ plant assets. You

can depend on us to be your trusted value partner.

SAFETY, INTEGRITY, DIVERSITY, SUCCESS

VALUE YOU CAN HANG YOUR HAT ON


NUCLEAR


ground acceleration (PGA), about equal

to an earthquake of magnitude 6.6 on the

Richter Scale at the epicenter (Figure 3).

The AP1000 design is also evaluated for

a seismic margin analysis, which is 67%

above the SSE with a 0.5g PGA. This condi-

tion is called the Review Level Earthquake

(RLE). Seismic margin analysis assumes a

95% probability that the SSCs will retain

structural integrity after an RLE.

Furthermore, an independent seismic

peer review submitted to the NRC con-

firmed that Plant Vogtle is capable of

sustaining an earthquake ground motion

representing an earthquake magnitude of

about 7.0. As a comparison, the magnitude

of the Fukushima Daiichi seismic event

was 9.0 on the Richter Scale at the epicen-

ter with an observed maximum 0.52g PGA

at 109 miles. The Vogtle site has recorded

no earthquake ground motion in the past

20 years.

AP1000 Response to a 0.3g SSE.

Should an SSE occur, the analysis conserva-

tively assumes that the seismic event causes

general infrastructure damage leading to a

loss of offsite power (LOOP) event concur-

rent with a reactor and turbine trip. All Seis-

mic Category 1 structures remain intact and

functional, and damage done to other struc-

tures on site will not prevent the functional

performance of Category I SSCs.

For the first 72 hours, reactor core de-

cay heat is removed via natural circulation

from the passive heat exchanger and the

in-containment water tank to the contain-

ment vessel and the passive containment

cooling system water tank on top of the

shield building (Figure 4). The passive

core cooling methods occur automatically

without operator action and without the

use of AC power. Boiling off existing wa-

ter inventory cools the spent fuel pool. Mi-

nor operator action is eventually required

for a one-time valve alignment to provide

makeup water to the spent fuel pool from

the cask washdown pit.

From 72 hours to seven days, makeup

water for decay heat removal from the

spent fuel pool and containment (the reac-

tor core) is provided by the ancillary water

tank located at grade level. Ancillary diesel

generators are small (80 kW) and rugged,

and they support a few specific plant power

needs, such as the makeup pumps used to

move water from the ancillary water tank

to the spent fuel pool and to the top of the

containment vessel.

The ancillary diesel generators also pro-

vide power to support main control room

displays and lighting as well as selected

ventilation systems. In addition, offsite

portable diesel generators and diesel-pow-

ered pumps from prearranged sources may

be brought to the site to provide backup for

the ancillary diesel generators and water

transfer pumps.

After seven days, the plant continues to

function in the same manner, except that

additional water supplies are required, ei-

ther from plant storage tanks, raw water

3. Targeted seismic design. The AP1000 is composed of systems, structures, and com-

ponents (SSCs) that are designated as Seismic Category I, II, or Non-Seismic. Seismic Category

I SSCs are designed to withstand the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) and continue to per-

form their safety-related function. Seismic Category II SSCs are designed to withstand the SSE

without damaging a safety-related SSC. Seismic Category II SSCs are not required to remain

functional after the earthquake. Non-Seismic SSCs are designed to the typical industry building

codes. Source: Westinghouse

Turbine buildingTurbine building first bayShield

building

Auxiliary building

Radwaste building

Annex building

Diesel building

Seismic Category I Seismic Category II Non-seismic

4. Efficient heat rejection. Transfer of reactor decay heat to the atmosphere is via natural

circulation through a passive heat exchanger located on top of the shield building. Courtesy:

Westinghouse Electric Co.

Water film evaporation

PCS gravity drain water tank Natural convection air discharge

Inside containment refueling water storage tank

Outside cooling air intake

Shield building

Steel containment vessel

Air baffle

Reactor core

Internal condensation and natural recirculation

Containment condensate

®

FD-PwerguardAd-8.125x11.125-Bleed-March2012-final.pdf 1 2/3/12 7:17 PM

“No Injuries to Anyone, Ever!”800-537-4483

Fenner Dunlop’s PowerGuard® was developed to

combat the harshest above ground coal handling

and power generating environments. PowerGuard

consistently delivers reduced cost, less downtime,

higher pro�ts and greater safety. Fenner Dunlop's

Guardian® compounds are speci�cally formulated

to �ght the e�ects of dust suppression chemicals

that deteriorate belt covers. Use Fenner Dunlop and

you have a belt that will keep your energy �owing!

Guardian®

Guardian® AR

Guardian® CA

Fire retardant compound that delivers increased resistance to abrasion

and cover wear. Meets ARPM Class 2 requirements.

High quality Grade II compound with excellent abrasion and cover wear

properties. Meets ARPM Class 2 requirements.

Compounded as Halogen (chlorine) free.

High quality Grade II fire retardant compound.

Conveyor Beltletting you down?

Let PowerGuard®

keep your energy flowing!

FD-PwerguardAd-8.125x11.125-Bleed-March2012-final.pdf 1 2/3/12 7:17 PM


NUCLEAR


(from, for example, a lake, river, or ocean),

or other offsite supplies. The diesel fuel

supply for the ancillary diesel engines will

also need to be replenished.

The design basis for containment cooling

utilizes continuous water distribution on the

vessel steel shell. In the highly unlikely case

of an operator not being able to supply wa-

ter to the top of the containment after seven

days of cooling, the vessel shell would be-

come dry and the flow of air through the

annulus region would provide heat remov-

al. Pressure within the containment vessel

would slowly increase but would not reach

the normal design pressure for over two

days. Even in the case of this very unlikely

event, the steel containment vessels have a

very large design margin and will not ex-

ceed the ASME Service Level C pressure

limit. Therefore, even “air-only” cooling

decay heat removal for the containment ves-

sel steel shell following seven days of water

cooling will prevent damage to the fuel in

the reactor core.

Design-Basis Flood. Because the Vogtle

site is about 130 miles from the coast and

220 feet above sea level, its location is not

vulnerable to floods, tsunamis, dam breaks,

or other events on the Savannah River, in-

cluding the failure of all upstream dams.

Nuclear power plants are designed to

effectively manage flooding levels up to

the design-basis flood with some degree

of margin beyond the design level as part

of the plant’s standard design. The maxi-

mum flood level assumed for the AP1000

is the plant design grade elevation. Flood-

ing of intake structures, cooling canals, or

reservoirs or channel diversions does not

prevent safe operation of the plant. In the

instance of a design-basis external flood,

the AP1000 standard plant response is to

stop all unnecessary plant evolutions (such

as maintenance or testing) and close exter-

nal portals. In the unlikely scenario that an

AP1000 suffers a severe flood that exceeds

the design-basis elevation, the reactor core

and spent fuel pool remain protected.

The two most important features of the

AP1000 that provide defense against flood-

ing and other external hazards are that safe

shutdown and core cooling are provided

by systems located inside the containment

vessel that are designed to “fail safe” upon

loss of power, loss of instrumentation and

control, and loss of instrument air. The

containment vessel is a 1.75-inch-thick

steel pressure vessel that is not affected by

flooding. The spent fuel cooling is from

water stored in pits that are at least 35 feet

above the grade elevation.

High Winds and Tornados. Severe

winds, such as those generated by hurri-

canes or tornados, pose a threat of wind

loading on a structure that may cause dam-

age or collapse; damage may also result

Construction Is a Cooperative, Global EffortLarge safety-related and non-safety-related components are being

shipped in from suppliers located all over the world, including

Japan, South Korea, and Italy.

To be clear, the term “safety-related” is a classification applied

to items that must function during or following a design-basis

event, such as an earthquake. Specifically, a safety-related func-

tion protects the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure bound-

ary, the capability of the reactor to shut down and stay in a safe

shutdown condition, and the capability to prevent or mitigate off-

site exposures based on NRC guidelines. Safety-related also ap-

plies to documentation and quality assurance requirements during

manufacturing, in accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B quality

assurance requirements.

In 2010, the first critical components for the new plants start-

ed arriving from Japan at the Port of Savannah. That shipment

brought massive plates for the bottom head of the Unit 3 contain-

ment vessel; each bottom head consists of 62 plates. There will be

close to half a million inches of weld on the bottom head alone.

The Chicago Bridge and Iron Co. (CB&I) was awarded the contract

to fabricate and assemble both the Unit 3 and 4 containment ves-

sels. CB&I supported Westinghouse for over 10 years in the design

of the containment. Here are some interesting statistics pertain-

ing to the pressure vessels:

■ Each containment vessel weighs ~4,000 tons.

■ Each 1.75-inch-thick containment vessel is approximately 130

feet in diameter by 215 feet tall.

■ The vessels have approximately 70 penetrations ranging from ½

inch to 16 feet in diameter.

■ The containment vessels will be enclosed inside the shield

building with a 4.5-foot annulus area between them.

■ Each containment vessel is subassembled into five major sec-

tions and transported to the nuclear island for placement and

welding in-place.

Toshiba, located in Japan, and South Korean engineering

company BHI Co. Ltd., for example, designed and manufac-

tured the steam condenser for Unit 3. The assembly, weighing

about 3,600 tons, left BHI’s plant in Sacheon on November

21, 2011, to begin its journey by sea from the port of Masan,

South Korea, through the Panama Canal, to the Port of Savan-

nah in Georgia, where it arrived in early December. Fortunately,

none of the major component fabrication facilities in Japan or

South Korea was damaged by the March 2011 earthquake and

tsunami (Figure 5).

Components manufactured in the U.S. are shipped either by

truck or rail. For instance, moisture separator reheaters are being

shipped from Oklahoma, and reactor control instrumentation is

coming from Westinghouse facilities in Pennsylvania.

5. Taking the long way. Condenser components arrived at

Plant Vogtle in late January via railcars after the long trip from South

Korea. Courtesy: Southern Company Inc.

NUCLEAR


from tornado missiles that have the po-

tential to penetrate buildings and damage

components. The AP1000 protects safe-

ty-related SSCs by placing them inside

Seismic Category I buildings (the nuclear

island) designed to withstand extreme

wind loads and tornado-born missiles.

The AP1000 design-basis wind speed

for tornados is 300 mph, composed of 240

mph rotational and 60 mph translational.

The AP1000 operating basis wind speed

is 145 mph, which will not challenge the

non-safety-related structures. The tornado

missile analysis for the AP1000 nuclear is-

land considers the effects of:

■ A 4,000-pound automobile with a hori-

zontal velocity of 105 mph and a verti-

cal velocity of 74 mph. This evaluation

bounds sites with vehicles parked within

a half-mile radius of the site.

■ A 275-pound, 8-inch armor-piercing artil-

lery shell with a horizontal velocity of 105

mph and a vertical velocity of 74 mph.

■ A 1-inch-diameter solid steel sphere with

a velocity in any direction of 105 mph.

Transportation and Nearby Facility

Accidents. The AP1000 has been success-

fully evaluated against the impacts from a

variety of marine accidents, gas/oil pipeline

leaks, railroads, industrial and military fa-

cilities, and a malevolent large commercial

aircraft. The assessment considers damage

associated with structural impact, shock-

induced vibrations, and fire effects. The as-

sessment concluded that an aircraft impact

would not affect the plant’s core cooling

capability, containment integrity, or spent

fuel pool integrity based on best-estimate

assessments established by the NRC. Also,

the layout of the nuclear island prevents si-

multaneous damage of key locations.

Fires. The AP1000 design provides ro-

bust protection from postulated fires. This

robustness comes from effective separa-

tion of redundant features both inside and

outside of the containment as well as from

the use of passive safety features. The fire

protection design provides separation of

the alternate safety-related shutdown com-

ponents and cabling using 3-hour-rated

fire barriers. Areas containing safety-re-

lated cabling or components are physically

separated from one another and from the

areas that do not contain any safety-related

equipment by 3-hour-rated fire barriers.

This design approach reduces the prob-

ability of a fire affecting more than one

safety-related shutdown system.

Because the passive safety-related sys-

tems do not require AC power and other

plant services such as cooling, they are

less susceptible to a fire than earlier de-

signed plants. The impact of fires on the

safe shutdown capability is significantly

reduced.

Learning from OthersThe first Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear re-

actors are currently under construction in

Sanmen, in China’s Zhejian Province, and

are about two years ahead of the Plant Vogtle

project. Two more units are under construc-

tion at Haiyang in Shandong Province. These

lead units give Southern Nuclear an unprece-

dented opportunity to experience the start-up,

operation, and even refueling of the AP1000,

thanks to a learning exchange agreement be-

tween Southern Nuclear and Shandong Nu-

clear Power Co. As with Plant Vogtle Units

3 and 4, Shaw is providing engineering, pro-

curement, commissioning, information man-

agement, and project management services

for these projects. ■

—James M. Hylko ([email protected]) is a POWER contributing editor.



FOSSIL FUELS

Europe: More Coal, Then LessEurope’s continuing drive toward sustainable energy does not rule out a

new generation of coal power plants to replace those scheduled to close by 2015.

By Charles Butcher

In Europe right now, coal-fired power gen-

eration poses a paradox.

The years up to 2020 are forecast to see

many new coal power plants being built in

Europe, even as coal’s share of the generating

mix continues to shrink and its perception as

a dirty fuel becomes more firmly fixed in the

minds of the public. Anti-coal protests are

loudest in Germany, where the need for new

coal capacity is arguably the greatest.

And though these new plants will boast

high thermal efficiencies, they will not in-

clude carbon capture and storage (CCS).

This seems odd in view of the European

Union’s (EU’s) commitment to rapid and

deep cuts in carbon emissions, but not

even Europe’s political determination and

high energy prices seem able to push CCS

to full-scale projects. In several other EU

countries, the push is toward multipurpose

plants that can supply electricity and dis-

trict heat while burning combinations of

fuels (Figure 1).

In short, Europe’s citizens do not like coal,

but for the moment they cannot do without it.

Does that sound familiar?

Coal Capacity ClosingEurope needs new coal-fired capacity because

many aging coal and nuclear plants will be

closing in short order. Economics, poor plan-

ning, and air pollution all play a part in the

shutdowns. In Germany, the political winds

changed direction a year ago, forcing eight of

the country’s 17 reactors into immediate retire-

ment and scheduling the remainder for closure

by 2022, regardless of age or condition.

For more than 20 years the European

Commission’s Large Combustion Plant Di-

rective (LCPD) has required furnaces and

boilers above 50 MWt (the thermal input

expressed in equivalent megawatts) to limit

their emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides.

Equipment for flue gas desulfurization and

NOx control has been installed as a matter of

course on new coal-fired power plants and

has been retrofitted to many existing ones.

The operators of some old coal plants,

however, decided that adding SOx and NOx

control was not economically justified. In

these cases the LCPD allows plants to run for

an additional 20,000 hours or until the end of

2015, whichever comes soonest.

In 2009, Reuters reported that in terms of

capacity, Britain topped the LCPD opt-out

league. Poland opted out 37 plants, repre-

senting 32% of that country’s total generat-

ing capacity. Romania opted out 22% of its

capacity and Spain 10%. Even nuclear-dom-

inated France will lose 5% of its capacity by

the 2015 deadline. In total, 17 of the EU’s 27

member states opted out a total of 205 facili-

ties, though not all are power plants.

New Coal Rush ForecastA new study by German energy consul-

tancy ecoprog GmbH forecasts that coal’s

share of electricity generation across Eu-

rope will decrease slightly over the next

decade. But, says ecoprog, loss of existing

nuclear and coal capacity, falling subsidies

for renewables, and volatile gas prices will

trigger a large amount of new coal capac-

ity in the next few years.

In late 2011, according to ecoprog, Europe

had about 330 coal-fired power plants with a

combined capacity of 200 GW from almost

950 units. Between 2012 and 2020, the firm

says, approximately 80 new coal units will be

built, with a capacity of about 50 GW (Figure

2). From 2003 to 2011, by comparison, only

40 units totaling 10 GW were built.

An important driver for this new capac-

ity is the need to replace old equipment,

ecoprog says. The average age of Europe’s

coal power plants is 34 years, and by 2020

around 55 GW to 60 GW of coal capacity

will have reached the end of its operating

life. The LCPD alone will account for the

loss of 35 GW by 2016. The loss of nuclear

power plants in Germany and Switzerland,

oil-fired plants in Italy, and gas plants in the

UK will further add to the pressure.

1. Multifuel cogen plant. The Avedøre power plant south of Copenhagen, Denmark, is

operated by the state-owned company DONG Energy. It has a generating capacity of 810 MWe

plus 915 MWt for district heating, which is widely used in Denmark. The coal-fired Avedøre Unit

1 was built in 1990 and generates only power. Unit 2, which dates from 2001, can use a wide

variety of fuels—gas, oil, straw, and wood pellets—for power and district heating. Unit 2 has an

electrical efficiency of 49% and an overall efficiency of 94%. Courtesy: DONG Energy A/S and

Jasper Carlberg

PENNGUARD® Block Lining System

PROTECTING POWER

PLANT CHIMNEYS

Tel: 412 204 0028

[email protected] www.hadek.com

Hadek is the expert on power plant chimney and ductwork protection, and a global distributor of thePennguard® Block Lining System.

We deliver:

• Research and feasibility studies

• Detail engineering

• Installation supervision

• Lifetime Performance Monitoring System

• 10 year limited warranty

Tomorrow’s chimneydesign: lighter, cheaper,built to last

The New Chimney Design from Hadek is a revolution in powerplant chimney construction.

It’s slim and lightweight, but built to last – even in seismicregions. 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, withthe Pennguard® Block Lining System applied directly to itsinside 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 servicelife of at least 20 years. It has outstanding seismic tolerance.Also it is designed specifically for a wide range of operatingconditions including low temperature FGD operation.

Make the New Chimney Design part of your plans. Contact Hadek now: 412 204 0028, [email protected]

Pennguard® is a registered trademark of Henkel KGaA and is used with their permissionThis advertisement is not to be considered a warranty concerning product performance

Concrete shell

Ambient temperature

15ºc (59ºF)

44ºc (111ºF)

23ºc(73ºF)

Pennguard® Block Lining System protects against acid condensate, high temperatures and thermal shock

Flue gas stream

44ºc

23ºc(

130ºc (266ºF)

50ºc (122ºF)



FOSSIL FUELS

Germany’s TransformationGermany faces considerable challenges

in abandoning nuclear power (the Atom-

ausstieg) and moves its energy production

to sustainable sources (the Energiewende).

With indigenous lignite (brown coal) and

hard coal already fueling one-third of Ger-

many’s 155 GW generating capacity, coal

could be seen as an obvious choice to fill

the 20-GW hole left by the nuclear exit.

Despite much media talk of money ear-

marked for climate protection being diverted

to build new coal plants, a 2011 report for the

German federal ministry of economics and

technology suggests that this is an oversim-

plification. Yes, Germany is likely to build

several new coal plants in the near future, but

the country’s share of coal-fired generation

will decline rapidly—with or without an exit

from nuclear power.

The report was prepared by two research

organizations in Germany and one in Swit-

zerland: the Institute of Energy Econom-

ics (EWI) at the University of Köln, the

Society for Structural Economic Research

(GWS) in Osnabrück, and Prognos AG of

Basel. As far as coal and lignite are con-

cerned, it suggests that generating capac-

ity will fall from 55 GW now to 20 GW

by 2030, even if the Atomausstieg decision

were somehow to be reversed. Instead, the

gap created by growing demand and loss

of coal and nuclear capacity will be made

up by gas, offshore wind, and especially

solar photovoltaics. Similar predictions

have been prepared by BNerzA, Germa-

ny’s Federal Network Agency (Table 1).

Other work by the Prognos/EWI/GWS

consortium suggests that ecoprog’s fore-

cast coal boom may be overstated. A sce-

nario study published by the consortium

in August 2010 showed around 14 GW of

new coal capacity planned or under con-

struction. In another study published a

year later, however, the researchers low-

ered this estimate to less than 11 GW and

suggested that no investment in new coal

capacity was likely before 2020.

Acting against investment in new Ger-

man coal capacity is public opinion in

favor of the Energiewende, backed by the

country’s strong coalition of politicians—

including conservatives—and environ-

mental activists. BUND (Friends of the

Earth Germany) sets up highly organized

protests against new coal plants and claims

to have halted 11 coal power projects in

the past three years.

British IndecisionBritain is similar to Germany in its depen-

dence on coal, which accounts for around

one-third of current generating capacity.

Operators in the UK chose six coal-fired

and three oil-fired power plants to opt out

from the LCPD. With a total capacity of

around 11.5 GW, these nine plants accounted

for around 15% of UK generating capacity at

the time of the decision in 2001 (Table 2).

2. Coal rush begins. Coal-fired power plant construction in Europe is forecast to rise

sharply in the years up to 2017 following the closure of old coal plants and nuclear plants, nota-

bly in Germany. Source: ecoprog GmbH

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

Nu

mb

er

of

un

its

pe

r ye

ar

Inst

all

ed

ca

pa

cit

y p

er

yea

r (M

W)

Units Capacity

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Table 1. Nuclear exit strategy. Germany is considering several approaches to fulfilling en-

ergy demand in the absence of nuclear power. Shown are three suggested scenarios for Germany’s

energy future developed by BNetzA, Germany’s Federal Network Agency. Scenario A assumes all of

the German government’s priorities for climate and energy policy will be implemented and includes

a moderate rise in coal-fired energy production. Scenario B starts with the assumptions for Scenario

A but assumes a larger portion of renewable power, as well as more natural gas–fired energy pro-

duction. This would make the system more flexible and reliable, due to a diversified mix of energy

sources. Scenario C, the least realistic scenario, assumes Germany will have explosive growth in

renewable energy, nearly tripling such resources between 2010 and 2022. It assumes that Germany

will not continue to build new fossil fuel–fired power plants through 2022. Source: BNetzA

Technology

2010

Baseline

2022

Scenario A

2022

Scenario B

2032

Scenario B

2032

Scenario C

Nuclear 20.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Brown coal 21.2 20.1 20.4 15.8 17.7

Black coal 29.5 33.4 26.2 21.9 26.2

Natural gas 22.1 23.3 37.0 37.0 23.3

Pumped storage 6.7 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1

Oil 3.3 2.1 2.1 0.6 2.1

Other 3.0 4.0 4.0 8.0 4.0

Total conventional GW) 106.1 92.3 98.8 92.4 82.4

Hydro 4.5 5.6 4.7 4.9 4.6

Onshore wind 27.0 33.4 44.0 61.0 69.9

Offshore wind 0.2 11.3 13.0 28.0 18.0

Photovoltaic 16.9 34.1 54.0 65.0 46.8

Biomass 4.9 7.4 9.1 10.0 8.7

Other 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.8 2.0

Total renewables (GW) 55.0 93.5 126.6 171.7 150.0

Total production (GW) 161.0 186.0 225.0 264.0 232.0

Energy consumption (TWh) 548.0 500.0 550.0 600.0 550.0

Peak demand (GW) 83.0 75.0 83.0 83.0 83.0


FOSSIL FUELS

FESSENHEIM - Feedwater Heater for CNPE - France

TAVAZZANO - HRSG for Power Plant - Italy

Porto CORsini - hrsg for Power Plant - Italy

SIDI KRIR - Steam Surface Condenser - Egypt

Heat Recovery Steam GeneratorsIndustrial BoilersHeat Transfer Products for Nuclear PlantsFeedwater HeatersSteam Surface CondensersPower Plant Service

Utility BoilersUSC BoilersBiomass Fired BoilersLow-NOx BurnersRegenerative Air Preheaters and Gas-Gas HeatersPower Plant Service:• inspections•recommendations•engineering solutions

STF S.p.A. Via Robecco, 20 20013 Magenta (MI) Italia Tel: +39 02 972091 Fax: +39 02 9794977 www.stf.it e-mail: [email protected]

BWE

Burmeister & Wain Energy A/S Lundtoftegårdsvej 93A DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby - Denmark Tel: +45 39 45 20 00 Fax: +45 39 45 20 05 www.bwe.dk e-mail: [email protected]

BWE Energy India Pvt. Ltd No. 43, KB Dasan Road Teynampet Chennai - 600 018 TamilNadu, India Tel: +91 44 24 32 8101/2 Fax: +91 44 24 32 8103 e-mail: [email protected]


Plant MW Operator LCPD closure? Notes

Aberthaw 1,560 RWE npower No

Cockenzie 1,200 ScottishPower By March 2013

Cottam 2,000 EDF No

Didcot A 1,960 RWE npower By end 2015 Cofires gas and biomass

Drax 3,870 Drax Group No

Eggborough 1,960 Eggborough Power No

Ferrybridge (Units 1 and 2) 980 SSE By end 2015 Cofires biomass

Ferrybridge (Units 3 and 4) 980 SSE No Cofires biomass

Fiddlers Ferry 1,960 SSE No Cofires biomass

Ironbridge 970 E.ON By end 2015

Kingsnorth 1,940 E.ON By March 2013 Cofires oil

Longannet 2,400 ScottishPower No

Lynemouth 420 Alcan No Cofires biomass

Ratcliffe-on-Soar 2,000 E.ON No

Rugeley 1,000 IP No

Tilbury 1,130 RWE npower By end 2015 Since 2011 fires 100% biomass at 750 MW. Serious fire in February 2012.

Uskmouth B 390 SSE No

West Burton 1,970 EDF No

Wilton 200Sembcorp Utilities

UKNo

Total 28,890

Table 2. Coal plants closing in the UK. At 29 GW, total coal-fired capacity in the UK is almost one-third of total UK generating capac-

ity, around 89 GW. LCPD refers to the EU’s Large Combustion Plant Directive, under which 7 GW of coal capacity will close by the end of 2015.

Source: Department of Energy and Climate Change


FOSSIL FUELS

Because the 20,000 hours allowed by

the LCPD opt-out represent less than three

years’ continuous operation over the eight

years from 2008 to 2015, operators have been

managing their old coal plants carefully, but

the end is now in sight.

In the UK, an exceptionally cold winter in

2010–11 put coal plants under heavy load. In

March, operators E.ON and ScottishPower

announced that two UK opt-out plants will

close in March 2013, and it is not clear that

all of the remaining four plants will stay op-

erational until the December 2015 deadline

(Figure 3). One of the original coal plants

(Tilbury) has since converted to 100% bio-

mass, though it is still due to close as a result

of the LCPD.

On top of this loss of coal capacity, the

closure of nuclear and gas-fired plants will

put Britain’s energy security at risk, many

experts believe.

Government reluctance to plan for re-

placement of the UK’s aging nuclear fleet

will mean the loss of seven plants by 2020. A

new reactor at the existing Hinkley Point site

is now being discussed, but it is unlikely to be

online before 2020, and the degree of public

opposition suggests that overall nuclear ca-

pacity will fall.

Even gas-fired generation is struggling in

the UK. In March, energy company Centrica

announced that it will close combined cycle

gas turbine plants at King’s Lynn and Barry

because they are not profitable. Even the new

London Array offshore wind farm, with its

record 1 GW installed capacity, will barely

offset the loss of the 325-MW King’s Lynn

plant.

Sam Laidlaw, chief executive of Cen-

trica, told the Daily Telegraph newspaper

in February: “It is vital that the Government

provides the clarity and assurance that will

be needed if the industry is to step up and

deliver the massive investment—an estimat-

ed £200 billion in total by 2020—that the

country requires.”

Consultancy Frost & Sullivan is less pes-

simistic about a UK energy gap. In a study

published in March, the firm’s Jonathan

Robinson pointed out that UK electricity de-

mand fell by 3.4% in 2011 and that indus-

trial demand fell by 4.1%. The firm suggests

that while light industry has seen modest re-

covery from the recession, energy-intensive

industries such as chemicals and steel are

continuing to suffer from UK power prices

that are high compared with those in many

other European countries.

This fall in demand is one reason why

Frost & Sullivan believes a UK capacity

crunch in 2015–16 is unlikely. Around 1.5

GW of gas capacity was added in 2011, an

additional 5.5 GW is under construction, the

firm says, and 7 GW of new wind capacity

will be online by 2015.

Also acting to damp down prospects for

new UK coal plants is their lack of popular-

ity with green-minded British citizens. A

prime example is the ill-fated Kingsnorth site

in the county of Kent, where operator E.ON

proposed to build a 1,600-MW supercritical

plant—the UK’s first new coal generation in

three decades—to replace the existing plant,

which will close by 2015.

Despite the fact that the new Kingsnorth

plant was to feature demonstration-scale

CCS, the site was the focus of sustained

protests by environmentalists. In October

2010, E.ON announced it was abandoning

the project.

Not unreasonably, the green movement

fears that after permits have been awarded to

new coal plants, any requirements to include

CCS will later be dropped on grounds of cost.

The only other UK demonstration-scale CCS

project at the time, at Longannet in Scotland,

collapsed a year later.

Beyond UltrasupercriticalIf Europe’s short-term coal boom does mate-

rialize, as ecoprog has forecast, what kind of

plants will it produce?

Next year is scheduled to see the open-

ing of the Trianel coal power plant in Lünen,

Germany. With a forecast 46% efficiency, the

€1.4 billion (US$1.9 billion) project will be

one of the world’s most advanced conven-

tional coal plants.

But European power companies and tech-

nology suppliers are aiming higher, with

several research and development projects

shooting for 50% efficiency through steam

conditions of 700C and 350 bar.

® 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.

A Global Company

visit martin-eng.com | call 800.544.2947email [email protected]

Tough,

tested,

and

innovative

material

handling

solutions

since

1944

IMPROVE YOUR PLANT’S

EFFICIENCY & REDUCE COST

Discover how at the Electric Power

Conference. Our experts will be

presenting on:

• Conveyor Safety

• Fugitive Material Control

• Dust Control

• SCR Effi ciency Improvement

Visit

martin-eng.com/electricpower

for more information

Visit us

at booth

# 1105


3. Moving to gas. The 1,960-MW Didcot

coal-fired power plant in the UK dates from the

late 1960s. Now converted to cofire gas and

a small amount of biomass, it operates infre-

quently because of the limit on operating hours

imposed by the Large Combustion Plant Direc-

tive. Operator RWE npower is due to close the

plant by the end of 2015. A 1,360-MW gas-fired

combined cycle plant on the same site will con-

tinue to operate. Source: Nufkin/Flickr

• • •• •

P.O. Box 162 • 2300 AD Leiden • the Netherlands • Tel: +31 71 5792444

Fax: +31 71 5792792 • E-mail: [email protected] • Website: www.nem-group.com

NEM specializes in Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSGs), Industrial

and midsize Utility Boilers, Process Boilers, Once Through HRSGs and

components for Power Plants like Dampers and Diverters. We are capable

of meeting all of your requirements. From small units to large units, from

new units to after market support, for any location on the globe.

Innovation

Specialist Know-how

Quality and Reliability

Dutch Design

Tailor-Made Products

Wide International Experience35,000 MWe installed on 6 continents, 25 agencies world-wide, offi ces in 6 countries, and 800 passionate specialists.

Visit us at Powergen Europe 2012, booth 7B206

The Power of

…from Design to After Sales Service



FOSSIL FUELS

At its headquarters in Mülheim an der

Ruhr, Germany, the fossil power genera-

tion division of Siemens aims for a 700C

steam turbine by 2015. The nickel alloys

required are expensive, and experience

gained with high-temperature gas turbines

is largely irrelevant. Nonetheless, as far

back as 2008 the company said it was con-

fident of achieving a 200,000-hour lifetime

at 700C (Figure 4).

Industry consortia focused on 700C

technology include the EU-supported

COMTES700 component test facility,

based at E.ON’s Scholven coal-fired power

plant in Gelsenkirchen, Germany, and the

North Rhine-Westphalia 700C Power Plant

(NRWPP700) pre-engineering study by 10

European energy suppliers.

E.ON plans to start up a 500-MW 700C coal-

fired plant in 2014. The “Kraftwerk 50plus”

project is located at the German port of Wil-

helmshaven, where seawater cooling and com-

bustion air preheating will help to achieve the

planned 50% efficiency. Average European coal

plant efficiency is 36%, E.ON says.

According to Siemens, the €1 billion

(US$1.3 billion) 50plus project will cost

around 18% more than a conventional coal

plant of the same size. Series production

could reduce the cost premium to 10% to

15%, which might be acceptable if prices for

coal and CO2 rise. ■

—Charles Butcher ([email protected]) is a UK free-lance writer specializing in the energy and chemical industries and a POWER

contributing editor.

Contact us today for

a personalized quote.

651.780.8600

[email protected]

www.nol-tec.com

Sorb-N-Ject ® Technology

Dry Sorbent Injection

Need a road map toEPA MATS compliance?

Nol-Tec Systems can navigate the

regulations with you, with our

Innovative solutions, based on

proven technology, to help you

plot a course to success in

meeting new EPA standards.

Mitigation of SO2, SO

3, Hg, HCl, HF


4. Pushing the limits. Siemens of Germany is at the forefront of research and development to

build a 700C, 350 bar steam turbine. The company is aiming for 50% efficiency from a non–integrated

gasification combined cycle coal plant by 2015. Courtesy: Siemens AG and Rupert Oberhaeuser



Upgraded Controls Position

McIntosh Plant for

Efficient OperationsLakeland Electric’s C.D. McIntosh, Jr. Power Plant is a microcosm of the entire

power generation industry. On a single site is a once-baseload coal-fired plant that is now operating fewer hours plus a peaking gas-fired combined cycle plant that has swung to baseload operation. A complete controls up-grade of the gas-fired plant last year prepared the plant for its expanded role in producing electricity for this 108-year-old public power provider.

By Dr. Robert Peltier, PE

Lakeland Electric, the public power

arm of the City of Lakeland, Fla.,

since 1904, serves 100,000 customers

in a 255-square-mile area surrounding the

central Florida city, located between Or-

lando and Tampa. Low-cost electricity is

the name of the game for Lakeland. The

utility features the lowest rates for small

and big businesses in Florida and has the

third-lowest residential rates in the state.

Lakeland relies on two power genera-

tion complexes for most of its electricity:

the 130-MW Larsen Power Plant and the

982-MW C.D. McIntosh, Jr. Power Plant

(MPP). Both plant sites are located on

Lake Parker in Polk County.

Lakeland is a member of the Florida Mu-

nicipal Power Pool (MPP), along with Or-

lando Utilities Commission and the Florida

Municipal Power Agency’s All-Requirements

Project. The MPP is not a capacity pool but

an energy pool that centrally commits and

dispatches all the pool members’ generating

resources in the most economical manner

to meet the pool’s total load requirements.

However, each member of the MPP remains

responsible for planning and serving the

electricity needs of its service territory and

for maintaining system reserves sufficient

to meet the Florida Reliability Coordinating

Council reserve requirements.

Technology TrifectaMPP features three different power genera-

tion technologies. Unit 3 is a nominal 365-

MW coal-fired conventional steam plant that

burns blends of Central Appalachian and Il-

linois Basin coals; it has also burned small

amounts of refuse-derived fuel mixed with

coal in past years. The unit, 40% owned by

the Orlando Utilities Commission, was one

of the first scrubbed, zero-discharge coal

units in the nation when it entered service on

September 1, 1982. Gas- and oil-fired Units

1 (90 MW) and 2 (110 MW) were commis-

sioned in February 1971 and June 1976, re-

spectively (Figure 1).

Advanced combined cycle technology

is also used at the MPP. In 1999, construc-

tion of the simple cycle combustion turbine

(CT) portion of Unit 5 began, and the unit

was released for commercial operation in

May 2001. You may recall that the 501G

uses 1,050F steam from the heat recovery

boiler to cool the ceramic barrier coated

transitions at the exit of each combustor. A

temporary package boiler supplied steam

for the turbine’s steam needs during initial

simple cycle operation (Figure 2).

The conversion from simple cycle to com-

bined cycle began in September 2001 with the

addition of the waste heat boiler and a 120-MW

steam turbine. Construction was completed in

the spring of 2002 with the fully operational

combined cycle plant declared commercial in

May 2002. To meet emerging air emissions

rules, during 2009, Lakeland Electric installed

an ammonia injection system and selective

catalytic reduction on Unit 3. The rating of the

completed combined cycle plant is 346 MW

summer and 365 MW winter.

The third power generation technology

used at MPP is the diesel-fueled peaker en-

gine. Lakeland Electric uses 20 remotely

operated EMD 20-cylinder reciprocating

engines driving 2.5-MW generators during

system emergencies.

MPP Unit 5 features the first Siemens

Power Generation W501G combustion

1. Three technologies. The 982-MW

C.D. McIntosh, Jr. Power Plant consists of

coal-fired Unit 3 (right), the gas- and oil-fired

Units 1 and 2, a 365-MW combined cycle

plant (left), and (not visible) 20 2.5-MW EMD

diesel engines used for emergency peaking.

Courtesy: Lakeland Electric

2. New lease on life. With low gas

prices, the combined cycle unit has assumed

baseload responsibilities from the coal-fired

units. To the right of the concrete stack is the

heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) with

selective catalytic reduction and ammonia

injection. At a right angle to the HRSG and

W501G combustion turbine is the bypass

stack. The 125-MW steam turbine is located

in the building in the background. Courtesy:

Lakeland Electric

4G LTE is available in more than 200 cities in the U. S. Network details & coverage maps at . © 2012 Verizon Wireless.

Start making a difference for your operations.

Verizon enables innovative machine-to-machine solutions, including Smart Energy Management, to help increase awareness and facilitate responsible energy consumption by your customers. Verizon technology can help your customers use energy more wisely and effi ciently, which can mean reduced costs for you and a more sustainable environment for everyone. With a suite of utilities solutions and the security and reliability of America’s largest 4G LTE network, Verizon helps your grid run more effi ciently than ever before.

4G LTE is available in more than 200 cities in the U. S. Network details & coverage maps at vzw.com. © 2012 Verizon Wireless.

Start making a difference for your operations. Visit: verizonwireless.com/utilities

VERIZON HAS THE EXPERIENCE, NETWORK AND STRATEGIC ALLIANCES TO HELP YOU MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR YOUR BUSINESS.

Verizon enables innovative machine-to-machine solutions, including Smart Energy Management, to help increase awareness and facilitate responsible energy consumption by your customers. Verizon technology can help your customers use energy more wisely and effi ciently, which can mean reduced costs for you and a more sustainable environment for everyone. With a suite of utilities solutions and the security and reliability of America’s largest 4G LTE network, Verizon helps your grid run more effi ciently than ever before.

VERIZON SOLUTIONS FOR UTILITIES

SMART ENERGY MANAGEMENT

DISTRIBUTION GRID AUTOMATION

SMART METERING

ASSET MANAGEMENT

FIELD FORCE MANAGEMENT




turbine (CT) installed in the U.S. Today,

the fleet totals 24 units. When purchased,

the W501G was configured with a West-

inghouse Distributed Processor Family

(WDPF) distributed control system (DCS).

The WDPF system was subsequently ex-

panded when the steam bottoming plant

was added in 2002.

By the time Unit 5 was built, the WDPF

system, first released in the mid-1980s

and updated to WDPF-II in the mid 1990s,

was a mature product that was rapidly ap-

proaching obsolescence. Replacing cards

that were no longer manufactured was

problematic, and the cost of parts when

available was quickly rising. Just as signif-

icant, some of the processors were operat-

ing at maximum capacity. By 2010, WDPF

was in need of immediate replacement. The

operating reliability of the entire plant now

hinged on the performance of a 25-year-old

control system.

Project Gets Commission ApprovalApproval was received from the City Com-

mission in early 2010 to replace the obso-

lete Unit 5 control system with a modern

DCS. Siemens, the CT original equipment

manufacturer, was the natural choice, giv-

en its intimate knowledge of the W501G

and its integrated plant operating require-

ments and strategies. The Siemens SPPA-

T3000 is also the only control system that

has been retrofitted to an existing W501G.

With City Commission approval in hand,

plans were quickly made for Siemens en-

gineers and technicians to install the new

DCS during the already scheduled Octo-

ber/November 2010 Unit 5 outage.

The DCS replacement strategy took

two paths: upgrade the software and mini-

mize the hardware changes required. The

software upgrades began by ensuring that

the entire list of Siemens turbine techni-

cal advisories and function logic software

upgrades were installed with the new

DCS. For example, the new DCS includes

2-out-of-3 logic improvements for the CT

speed signals that were not available with

the old DCS.

The Siemens engineers began the soft-

ware upgrade by using the latest reference

functional software release for the W501G

and the steam turbine governor control.

Next, a one-to-one logic conversion was

completed based on the actual balance-of-

plant equipment and steam turbine auxil-

iary systems managed by the old WDPF

software. To ease the hardware transition

in the field, the controls engineers reused

the existing tagging system for all hard-

wired input and output (I/O) signals and

those signals transferred to the existing PI

plant historian.

Unlike the software upgrades that are in-

visible to the operator, the monitor screen

graphics used by the technicians to oper-

ate the plant are personalized to meet the

3. Operator interface upgraded. The

DCS upgrade used the graphic designs from

the earlier system to accelerate operators’

familiarity with the new system. Suggestions

from the staff, based on almost a decade of

operation, were also used in the upgraded

DCS design. Source: Lakeland Electric

©2

01

2 B

ran

d S

erv

ice

s, L

LC

All R

igh

ts R

ese

rve

d.

BRAND -

YOUR SINGLE

SOURCE.

Providing you access to

the safest, smartest and

most efficient specialty

services.

Brand is the leading provider of integrated specialty services to the power industry.

Our unique multi-craft approach delivers significant savings to our clients on their

maintenance, outages and capital projects by reducing manpower requirements,

improving communication through a single point of contact, and ultimately, delivering

enhanced productivity.

For more information contact us at:

281.404.5154 or www.beis.comVisit our booth #1837 at the

Electric Power Show in Baltimore, MD.

SCAFFOLDING | COATINGS | ABRASIVE BLASTING | INSULATION | REFRACTORY | FIREPROOFING

CUI MANAGEMENT | HOT TAPPING | CATHODIC PROTECTION | FORMING AND SHORING




plant’s unique needs. Siemens duplicated the dozens of existing graphical screens of the human-machine interface so well that it took a sharp eye to recognize the differ-ences. Many additional graphic monitor-ing and alarm screens on 24-inch monitors were added once the operators became fa-miliar with the significantly increased ca-pabilities of the T3000 DCS (Figure 3).

Field hardware upgrades began with Siemens technicians removing all the old cards and then stripping the remaining equipment from the cabinets, with the ex-ception of the original card-edge connec-tors and card-edge connector wiring. The hardware upgrades were configured such that the new processors, I/O, and other PROFIBUS modules could be used in con-junction with the original card-edge con-nectors to minimize wiring changes from the field instrumentation to the cabinets. The new I/O modules were tied to the original field wiring by plugging the exist-ing card-edge connectors onto a Siemens-designed interface card.

A subcontractor simultaneously ran the new cabling between cabinets and the control room and all the (thin client) HMI control stations. A web browser installed on each thin client provides the user in-terface hosted by the DCS Application Server. Each management, maintenance, operation, or engineering station has a view of all aspects of plant control and monitoring, although access can be deter-mined by role. SPPA-T3000 applications are hosted by a fault-tolerant application

server with a dual-redundant architecture that eliminates single points of failure and safeguards data integrity (Figure 4).

With the field wiring updated and new

4. DCS overview. The DCS upgrade can be visualized as consisting of three layers. The field terminal cabinets retained their original WDPF card-edge connectors and field device wir-ing. A central application/automation server was added that communicates with the HMI user interfaces in the control room via redundant Ethernet cables. Thin client workstations connect to the server using a web interface. Courtesy: Siemens Power Generation

5. Quick cabinet retrofit. The existing field termination cabinets were stripped and restocked with new control hardware, signifi-cantly reducing the time required for the retro-fit. Electrical & Controls Engineer Scott Fowler noted that a new optical cable was run across the plant to link all the remote cabinets togeth-er with the control room. Source: POWER

Structural Bolting 101: TR

AI

NI

NG

•F

IE

LD

SU

PP

OR

T•

TE

CH

NI

CA

LE

XP

ER

TI

SE

[email protected]

See why torque isn’t tight!Scan with smartphone.

1 800 552 1999

the best way to bolt!

to ensure proper bolt tension.use Squirter® DTIs

torque isn’t tight (what?)

tension is!

abt. power april:Layout 1 3/2/12 11:57 AM Page 1

circle 34 on reader service card

09_PWR_050112_SR_I&C_p54-59.indd 57 4/13/12 4:46:04 PM



Twelve Lessons Learned

In a discussion with POWER during a plant visit in January,

Power Production Operations Manager Kevin B. Robinson, Elec-

trical & Controls Engineer Scott Fowler, and Senior MCO Mark

Penix (Figure 6) suggested a number of lessons learned that

will surely be of interest to those considering a similar DCS

upgrade project in the future:

■ Don’t underestimate the amount of work required to start up

the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) controls. It was

our experience that the hardest part of the field retrofit was

the HRSG, particularly tuning of its control loops and pro-

cesses. The drum bypasses were also particularly difficult.

■ Three people were assigned to the factory acceptance test

(FAT) checkout team: Fowler, Senior MCO Russ Horne, and Se-

nior Controls Specialist Joe Ferro. That was sufficient during

the five-day combustion turbine (CT) control system design

review at Siemens’ Orlando facilities and five days at the

Siemens Alpharetta, Ga., T3000 DCS facility that covered the

remainder of the plant equipment and systems integration.

However, the three-man startup team was insufficient when

the checkout of the controls became the construction critical

path.

■ Ensure that you have compiled lists and setpoint settings

for all the existing trips, unloads, and runbacks (TURs) of

the original control system prior to the FATs. Because the CT

vendor begins with a “generic” specification, you may find

that you have more TURs than you had with the original sys-

tem. You may not want all the suggested TURs, and you can

usually have them removed in advance of the FAT. We also

had to remove/override a few modified runbacks during the

commissioning process.

■ Compile a list of all your steam drain valve setpoints and

dead-bands. During steam plant startup, cycling drains can

wreak havoc on drum levels and plant stability.

■ Perform loop checkouts from the field through the control

system to the human-machine interface (HMI), and validate

proper response and ranges for every input and output (I/O).

We found several reversed analog loops and digital I/O points

during plant commissioning.

■ Ensure your engineers or technicians work with the distrib-

uted control system (DCS) supplier while calibrating the hy-

draulic servo valves and the inlet guide vanes. You will not

be able to do this in the future unless you develop proce-

dures during commissioning checkout.

■ Ensure that the startup work schedule is agreed to in ad-

vance, as hot commissioning of the DCS is likely to occur at

the end of the outage. For example, will commissioning be

a 24-hour-day process or limited to 12-hour days? If longer

than 12 hours each day, you may want two crews of vendor

engineers and two crews of owner engineers/technicians.

Mirror commissioning shift-change with the production de-

partment’s schedule, or there will be dead time during mul-

tiple shift changes.

■ Purchase enough site licenses. We have five HMI stations,

and when all HMIs are in use, we are unable to remotely log

in to our system via the Microsoft Terminal Server. Also, if

the vendor fails to properly “log out” from the system after

remotely dialing in, our personnel are unable to utilize our

fifth operating station. I recommend that you purchase one

or two extra licenses in addition to the number of HMIs

purchased.

■ Keep the same basic graphical display on the HMI as you

currently use to quicken operator transition to the new sys-

tem. One way to do this is to screen copy each of your cur-

rent graphic screens and provide copies to the DCS vendor

early in the project. Include a plant master screen and the

switchyard, if not already included in the original DCS screen

design. Require the vendor to return samples of the new HMI

screens as soon as possible in order to correct errors prior to

the FATs. Finally, get copies of the AutoCAD system files for

your files.

■ Send those members of the operations and controls staff

with the deepest understanding of plant operations, who are

proficient in reading logic diagrams, to each FAT. Empower

that team to make control and graphic changes to fit your

operations culture and preferences. Encourage the team to

customize the menus, add navigation shortcuts, or do what-

ever will improve the efficiency of operations.

■ Check and confirm that alarm designations and priorities be-

tween the combustion turbine portions of the DCS design are

consistent with those used on the remainder of the plant.

This would have been confusing to the plant operators had

it not been caught and corrected during the FATs.

■ Check and confirm that the labels and colors used to designate

valve and controller position are consistent between the CT and

remainder of the plant portions of the HMI design.

—Contributed by Power Production Operations Manager

Kevin B. Robinson

6. Learn from the experts. In a January discussion with POWER,

Electrical & Controls Engineer Scott Fowler (left), Power Production Oper-

ations Manager Kevin B. Robinson (center), and Senior MCO Mark Penix

(right) shared a number of lessons learned. Source: POWER


DCS cards and components in place,

Siemens personnel efficiently made the

hardware conversions and performed I/O

andloop checks on the combustion and

steam turbine trip and protection systems.

The subsequent plant startup of the com-

pleted DCS was completed without inci-

dent (Figure 5). However, the team had to

overcome a number of challenges to com-

plete the project on time (see sidebar).

Also completed during the “double

major” outage of the combustion and

steam turbines was a major inspection

of the W501G gas generator (at 47,468

hours) so the heavy mechanical portion

of the outage was the outage critical path.

However, as the mechanical work reached

about the 80% completion point, the criti-

cal path predictably shifted to the con-

trols upgrade work, forcing the controls

team to work around the clock for several

days to maintain the aggressive outage

schedule.

Highly Anticipated ResultsOne year after the DCS upgrades were

completed, Unit 5 is now operating base-

load as the utility’s lowest cost generator,

rather than cycling offline every three

days or so, as in past years.

A new low-load turndown capability was

also added during the DCS retrofit. The

combined cycle plant, originally able to op-

erate within emissions limits down to 50%

of CT baseload, now has the capability to

operate down to 30%. Unit 3 (the coal-fired

unit) is able to cycle down at night to about

50% load. Together, the wide operating

range of both units provides Lakeland Elec-

tric considerable operating flexibility when

meeting its MPP commitments.

During the summer of 2011, Unit 5 op-

erated continuously for 122 days until it

was knocked off-line by a lightning strike

that damaged the voltage regulator, air

emission monitor, and other equipment.

After a one-week outage for repairs, the

combined cycle plant resumed baseload

operation. As of mid-April, the 2012 YTD

equivalent availability factor was 82.7%,

which includes a combustor inspection

outage, and the equivalent forced outage

rate was only 1.43%.

The plant heat rate is much improved

with the installation of a new CT turbine

rotor and DCS in 2011. During and prior

to 2010, the plant heat rate was approxi-

mately 7,000 Btu/kWh. The plant heat

rate today is about 6,740 Btu/kWh. The

2011 gross average heat rate was 6,606

Btu/kWh. ■

—Dr. Robert Peltier, PE is POWER’s

editor-in-chief.

Hi, my name is Bob, Senior Marketing Support Specialist at Atlas Copco Compressors. Talkabout sustainability... for the last 38 years, I've been part of the team taking care of our valuedcustomers in the United States.

At Atlas Copco, our culture is built around the customer’s needs and minimizing our impacton the environment. Sound too good to be true? Let us prove it. We’ve been named one ofthe top 100 most sustainable companies in the world for the past five consecutive yearswhile continuing to invest in growing our local support and service for the U.S. market.For instance, just this past year, we’ve built a new131,000 sq. ft. distribution center in Charlotte, NCincreasing our spare parts stock by 80%, all tobetter serve our customers.

Oh, and did I forget to mention ourproducts? Whether you need aircompressors, low pressureblowers, dryers and filters,compressed air piping, or nitrogengenerators, we have the perfectproduct for you. Just log on towww.atlascopco.us/bobusa or call866-688-9611 to learn more about us, ourproducts, and how we have earned andwill continue to earn our reputation.

Imagine howyourproductivity could soar

© Copyright 2011 Atlas Copco Compressors LLC. All rights reserved.

Atlas Sustainability Ad 4.5625 x 10:Layout 1 2/16/11 12:01 AM Page 1




AIR EMISSIONS

Managing the Catalysts of a Combustion Turbine FleetNatural gas–fired fleets comprising diverse turbine unit types are operating

their units more these days because of the historic low price of natural gas. With increased operating hours, fleet owners are challenged to find the best ways to manage their SCR catalyst systems.

By Terry McTernan, PE, Cormetech Inc.

The majority of gas-fired combustion

turbine (CT) fleets have made broad in-

vestments in selective catalyst reduction

(SCR) systems in order to meet emerging air

emissions regulations. Low natural gas prices

have moved these plants to first in the dispatch

queue in many regions of the U.S., displac-

ing coal-fired plants. In fact, U.S. demand for

natural gas is projected to grow 2.5% per year

through 2035, effectively doubling the amount

of natural gas used for power generation.

Many utilities are responding to the predic-

tions that the relatively low natural gas prices

we are now experiencing will become a “new

normal” by either retiring selected coal-fired

plants, thereby avoiding billions of dollars in

environmental upgrades, or replacing those

same plants with natural gas–fired equipment.

Some utilities have negotiated with regulators

a “refueling”—the replacement of a coal plant

with a new gas-fired plant (a more efficient

plant with much lower emissions). Others have

“repowered” a plant, where the steam turbine

side of the old plant is retained but the boiler

island is removed and replaced with CTs and

heat recovery steam generators (HRSG). Other

utilities have not experienced load growth over

the past few years and are able to defer the “re-

tire or reuse” decision, for now.

One of the emerging operational decisions

utilities and merchant generators with a large

fleet of gas-fired combustion turbines must

face in an era when gas plants are running

baseload instead of cycling seasonally is de-

termining the most economic way to manage

NOx reduction SCR catalyst systems. In this

article we discuss the process of economical-

ly managing a fleet of SCR-equipped CTs.

Diversity of Units and SCRCTs burning natural gas are able to achieve NOx

emissions and ammonia slip as low as 2 ppm

when using an SCR catalyst with ammonia in-

jection. In addition to baseload CTs used in the

combined cycle plants discussed above, CTs are

also used in simple cycle plants that are usually

only called on to operate during periods of high

electrical demand. Both, when outfitted with an

SCR, present unique plant design challenges.

A more recent trend is to build combined cycle

plants with the capability to operate as either

a baseload or peaker unit, thus presenting new

challenges for both the steam generator design

and the NOx emission control system.

In a combined cycle plant, the SCR mod-

ules are housed within an inner section of the

HRSG at an optimized temperature location,

typically 600F to 800F. A typical SCR cata-

lyst bed housing appears as just another sec-

tion within an HRSG (Figure 1).

For simple cycle gas turbine applications, the

SCR reactor is located in an expanded outlet duct

immediately downstream of the turbine (Figure

2). The duct size is optimized to accommodate

the SCR catalyst reactor performance. The short

transition section from the turbine outlet to the

SCR inlet poses challenges with the system de-

sign. The turbine exhaust flue gas temperature

is often too hot to be efficiently treated by the

SCR system. Many units rely on the injection

of tempering air to cool the flue gas down to

exhaust temperatures below 900F (±25F). An

economic evaluation considering a number of

design and operational parameters is performed

to determine if tempering air or a high-tempera-

ture catalyst is the best selection. The evaluation

must consider factors such as the capital and

operating costs, operating hour limits, volume

of catalyst, duct size and back pressure, purge

fan versus tempering air fan cost, cost of the air

distribution equipment, and so on.

For both systems, the SCR catalyst system

requires ammonia to be injected into and thor-

oughly mixed throughout the flue gas stream

(Figure 3). To deliver a uniform supply of am-

monia into the flue gas stream, a piping network

or an ammonia injection grid (AIG) is installed

upstream of the catalyst. The rate of ammonia

flow is then regulated across the grid via a se-

ries of control valves. It is critical that the am-

monia concentration within the exhaust gas be

homogenous as it enters the SCR catalyst bed to

prevent excessive slip of unreacted ammonia or,

inversely, areas starved of ammonia, resulting

in localized incomplete NOx reduction. Based

on analyses of SCR operating data and catalyst

samples, AIG and duct modifications may be

1. Typical combined cycle SCR. The

SCR is a separate section located within the

HRSG assembly where gas temperatures are

optimal for SCR performance, typically 600F

to 800F. Courtesy: Cormetech Inc.

2. Typical simple cycle SCR. The SCR

used on a simple cycle combustion turbine

(CT) is located in an enclosure attached to the

CT exhaust. Courtesy: Cormetech Inc.


AIR EMISSIONS

warranted (see “Improving SCR Performance

on Simple-Cycle Combustion Turbines” in the

June 2010 issue of POWER or the archives at

www.powermag.com).

Plan Plant Maintenance Site environmental management for air and

water systems is important to the ongoing op-

eration at any power plant. These systems need

routine oversight and must be maintained. Fail-

ure to properly manage them may result in per-

mit violations and associated fines, operating

restrictions, and bad publicity for the site.

Historically, many gas plants have been op-

erated cyclically with extended dormant peri-

ods due to high natural gas prices and a varying

demand for the electricity the plant provides.

For plants with an SCR system, stopping and

laying up the equipment may accelerate aging

of the catalyst system components, increasing

the importance of inspections and preventative

maintenance planning.

SCR catalyst systems may run with little

attention for three to five years and gradually

begin to show signs of performance loss and

system wear and tear. It is important to monitor

the equipment condition and evaluate the perfor-

mance demands against system capabilities to

ensure reliable operation and avoid emergency

outages. HRSG tube leaks, blinding of the cata-

3. Typical HRSG ammonia injec-tion grid. Ammonia reacts with the NOx

in the exhaust gas stream over a catalyst to

form molecular nitrogen and water vapor. If

too much ammonia is used, unreacted ammo-

nia may also leave the stack (ammonia slip).

Courtesy: Cormetech Inc.

4. Keep your catalyst clean. Ash and other contaminants can blind the insulation layer

around the catalyst. Shown are the catalyst modules when clean (right) and when the catalyst

performance is reduced by blinded insulation (left). Courtesy: Cormetech Inc.

Specify Superior Metalfab Bin Activated CarbonInjection (ACI) Systems vs. Air Fluidization SystemsMetalfab Bin Activated ACI Systems incorporate the company’s unique bin activators, activatedPosibins™, “Better-Weigh®” gravimetric feeders, process controls, instrumentation, gate valves, andpiping into a PAC storage and handling system that is more accurate and economical than typical airfluidization systems.

Advantages of our Bin Activated PAC system over air fluidization technology include:

• No additional capital cost for compressors

• Virtually no use of expensive compressedair over system life

• Flow on demand with a first in, first outdischarge pattern

• Delivery of consistent bulk density forbetter accuracy with less PAC waste andlower PAC cost annually

Demand the Best from YourEnvironmental/Boiler OEM…

P.O. Box 9, Prices Switch RoadVernon, NJ 07462

Dry Solids Processing Made Better by Design

For more information contact your OEM or call 800-764-2999, in NJ 973-764-2000,e-mail: [email protected] or visit www.metalfabinc.com.

• Less material leakage to keep worker house-keeping to a minimum

• No tunnel through of densified PACafter outages

• Availability of increased vibrator force to break up packed material and get it to flow after extended outage periods

3266 MetFab 4c ad_Layout 1 11/3/11 10:03 AM Page 1



AIR EMISSIONS

lyst inlet by dislodged liner insulation, plugged

ammonia injection lances, seal integrity, or ab-

normal turbine conditions may trigger a change

in the capability of the NOx emission control

system to perform adequately (Figure 4).

Catalyst materials, by far the largest invest-

ment component of the SCR, can vary widely

in their performance lifetime. The achievable

useful catalyst life is a function of many inter-

dependent and site-specific factors. The best

approach to stretching catalyst life is to develop

a responsible catalyst audit program to give

routine feedback on catalyst perform and re-

maining life. Responsible planning and auditing

can effectively reduce SCR operating costs and

avoid large, unbudgeted expenditures. Your best

approach is to make estimates of the SCR life-

cycle cost as a management tool.

SCR Fleet Life-Cycle ManagementFor plant owners and operators, a baseline

survey of each SCR unit within the fleet

is the logical starting point for the overall

catalyst management process and strategy.

This fleet approach is a comprehensive

and efficient way to provide an overall

management plan that will surely lead to

a lower cost structure and a more effective

approach to decision-making than if each

plant were to take on SCR system manage-

ment independently.

A fleet SCR manager should be ap-

pointed who would be responsible for reli-

able compliance with all environmental air

permitting requirements. That manager’s

first responsibility would be to develop

a comprehensive performance and mate-

rial status baseline at each site and then to

develop an ongoing preventative mainte-

nance strategy (Figure 5).

One of the major challenges for the fleet

SCR manager is to balance performance and

operating costs. SCR equipment is custom

5. Survey says. A fleetwide baseline survey of SCR performance and material status is the

first task that should be performed by a fleet SCR manager. Source: Cormetech Inc.

Collection of

unit history

and operating

requirements

and goals

Physical

inspection and

documentation

of plant

equipment and

function

Audit of

catalyst as

installed and

operating via

laboratory

tests

Performace

analysis

of system

capacity

and lifecycle

projection

Recommendations

for maintenance

and modifications,

as applicable

6. Take a quick sample. A sample tray

installed on a catalyst module enables tak-

ing a catalyst sample very quickly. Courtesy:

Cormetech Inc.



AIR EMISSIONS

manufactured for the unique demands of each

plant, taking into account permit conditions

and operating demands as envisioned for fu-

ture years. SCR systems can achieve greater

than 95% NOx reduction; however, when the

efficiency of the SCR is pushed beyond 85%

NOx conversion, and/or if outlet emissions

are less than 5 ppm, it becomes much more

sensitive to a number of independent system

parameters.

These parameters include overall cata-

lytic potential, effective ammonia injection/

mixing into the flue gas stream, flue gas

characteristics for inlet NOx, velocity, and

temperature distributions. High-efficiency

SCR catalyst system designs can success-

fully address these concerns through system

modeling, flow correction devices, enhanced

catalyst volumes, and robust ammonia injec-

tion grid design.

As plants upgrade, repair, or otherwise

modify plant equipment in the future, the

performance environment for reliable emis-

sion control can be affected. Understanding

these potential impacts to the SCR system

is essential and should be carefully studied

before a modification is approved. For ex-

ample, components of the ammonia delivery

system may deteriorate over time or lack suf-

ficient functionality to meet the demands of

running with aging catalyst or tighter emis-

sion criteria.

A properly executed baseline survey con-

ducted by a qualified catalyst management

provider will serve to fully assess the current

condition of each SCR unit in the fleet. These

SCR system surveys must be site-specific, as

each location will have its unique history and

permitting requirements. The survey should

begin with each site’s air permit requirements

and goals (which can vary significantly, based

on the age of the unit, geographic location,

cost of ammonia, and more), identification of

the SCR system supplier and equipment, and

site operating history. Next, site maintenance

records, catalyst test reports, and control room

feedback should be assembled. Finally, a doc-

umented physical inspection of the SCR cata-

lyst systems is recommended to help verify

the historical records and equipment status.

SCR Management PlanFollowing data collection and physical inspec-

tions at the plant, diagnostic laboratory per-

formance testing may be needed to determine

whether or not the catalyst condition is suf-

ficient to meet performance requirements in

view of field operating data and system require-

ments. It is important to verify that the testing is

completed under conditions that closely match

actual SCR system operating conditions and not

under a set of theoretical or standardized design

conditions. The sample should represent a typi-

cal cross section of the SCR, and the operating

history should be known. A convenient method

for sampling purposes is to incorporate an eas-

ily removable sample tray within the catalyst

module (Figure 6).

The samples in the tray are quickly re-

moved when the unit is off-line or during

outages. This avoids rigorous drilling of

the catalyst to extract core samples that are

typically not required for units with homoge-

neous honeycomb product but may be recom-

mended for units with alternate products and/

or those that have localized impacts such as a

tube leak. Tests are conducted in a controlled,

laboratory environment on custom-built, val-

idated SCR catalyst test equipment, allowing

accurate determination of performance and

comparisons of the sample catalytic potential

with that of previously tested elements.

The assessment of field operating data

determines the performance requirements

of the SCR, the SCR operating conditions,

the test conditions for the laboratory perfor-

mance test, and the performance threshold.

Changes in the field operating data relative to

previous evaluations may warrant changing

the test conditions or the performance thresh-

old. An analysis of the field operating data CIRCLE 39 ON READER SERVICE CARD


AIR EMISSIONS

in conjunction with results of the laboratory

testing can determine if flue gas bypass and/

or an ammonia to NOx imbalance is adverse-

ly affecting performance of the SCR.

Predicting the remaining life of a catalyst

is tricky business. The usual approach is for

an analyst to analyze the trends found with

the laboratory test samples taken during a

series of audits and field operating data over

time and then compare those results with

data from similar units, selected on the ba-

sis of operating history. From this compari-

son, a prediction is made of the remaining

life of the catalyst during which the SCR is

reasonably expected to meet performance

requirements.

If the factors that affect catalyst deacti-

vation do not remain consistent throughout

the estimated remaining life, the future rate

of deactivation will differ from the current

observed trend. For this reason, periodic au-

diting to measure potential changes in the de-

activation trend is recommended to improve

the accuracy of the projected remaining life.

Other Recommendations Some system improvements may be possible

in systems nearing an end-of-life condition

but with meaningful catalytic capacity re-

maining. For example, ammonia injection

systems may be redesigned, modified, ret-

rofitted, and/or repaired when performance

gains are identified. In redesigning ammonia

injection systems and associated ductwork,

the catalyst management organization may

employ computational fluid dynamic model-

ing as part of the optimization process. This

optimization process can result in a reduc-

tion of ammonia usage and improved overall

emission performance.

If survey results and diagnostic testing

reveal that catalyst bed remedial measures

or catalyst replacement is required, the fleet

SCR manager has several options to recom-

mend. SCR systems that contain catalyst

with substantial remaining catalytic activ-

ity may be candidates for refurbishment of

the SCR catalyst bed. This is a good option

for a plant that has deteriorated seals and/or

module wear and distortion that cannot prac-

tically be repaired by maintenance.

When the SCR catalytic potential has de-

graded and can no longer meet the plant’s

needs, the entire SCR reactor bed must be

addressed. In that situation, the options are

usually full replacement, partial replacement,

integrated reuse with new, or regeneration.

Each method has its advantages and disad-

vantages that must be considered within the

context of a given unit, plant, and fleet.

Logistics of individual unit replacement

and integration within a given outage period

must be considered at each plant. Early tri-

als to prove long-term durability and appli-

cability are recommended. Partial reuse may

be applied by integration with an advanced

module design, which can result in lower

total pressure loss. Regeneration is the pro-

cess of cleaning catalysts that are fouled by

contaminants that are removable by a special

aqueous-based chemical solution. This op-

tion may be considered if the catalyst deacti-

vation mechanism indicates reliable recovery

by the regeneration method and proven long-

term performance can be guaranteed.

Every plant’s operations are unique, so a

single catalyst cost estimate is not possible.

Instead, take a fleetwide view and manage

the life-cycle cost of SCR catalysts. This

approach will keep catalyst costs low over

the operating life while reliably meeting air

quality limits. And don’t forget that routine

audits and inspections will help ensure a long

catalyst life. ■

—Terry McTernan, PE ([email protected]) is manager of project

management for Cormetech Inc.

A conveyor does not know or care how old you

are or how much experience you have.

® 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.

A Global Company

Martin Engineering has been designing safety

into our products since our founding in 1944.

Visit martin-eng.com/safetysolutions?pwa

for information on our safety products,

training, and solutions.

Don’t lose sight of safety.

visit martin-eng.com | call 800.544.2947 | email [email protected]

you shouldn’t lose sight of safety.Regardless of age and experience,



WATER MANAGEMENT

Think Water When Designing CSP PlantsThe operation of solar thermal power plants differs substantially from that of

fossil-fired plants, as the sun determines the generation rather than mar-ket demand. However, design of the power island to minimize water usage is very similar to that of a fossil plant. This renewable technology requires renewed thinking of its water systems’ design.

By Dan Sampson, WorleyParsons

Solar thermal plants exhibit many

unique design features that provide

both advantages and challenges to

water systems designers. One advantage

is that the plant operating profile is gener-

ally more consistent and predictable than

that of a fossil-fueled plant. On the other

hand, obtaining water is a challenge for

any power plant, particularly for concen-

trating solar power (CSP) plants that are

usually sited in arid regions. Special con-

veyance and treatment systems may also

be required if the water quality is poor in

those regions, increasing both capital cost

and system complexity.

Wastewater treatment presents an addi-

tional challenge for the plant designer. Most

CSP designs include evaporation ponds.

Although minimizing pond size minimizes

capital cost, doing so also tends to increase

treatment system complexity. Complete or

partial zero liquid discharge (ZLD) systems

may be required. (See “Fundamentals of Zero

Liquid Discharge System Design” in the Oc-

tober 2011 issue of POWER or the archives at

www.powermag.com.)

Air-cooled designs present special chal-

lenges as well, primarily with wastewater

treatment. There’s no large cooling tower

available to accept oil/water separator efflu-

ent, boiler blowdown quench water, or other

waste streams that are typically recycled in

the cooling tower. While of relatively good

quality, these waste streams present reclama-

tion challenges and again add complexity to

the treatment system design. Auxiliary cool-

ing towers may be available, but they may

not be large enough to accept the full volume

of these waste streams.

There are no easy fixes or rules-of-

thumb that apply to the design of a CSP

water system. This article presents a water

treatment system design approach for CSP

plants that minimizes complexity and cost

while still providing reliable and sustain-

able plant performance.

Predicting Water UsageThe amount of water used in a CSP plant,

much as in a conventional power plant, is

based on the number of operating hours.

Calculating solar thermal plant operating

hours is relatively straightforward. Several

computer programs are available that will

compute an estimated plant dispatch pro-

file based on the incident solar energy at

a specific geographic location. Table 1 il-

lustrates typical solar energy collected at a

site and an estimate of the electricity gen-

eration potential from a CSP plant.

The operating profile lists plant operat-

ing hours for a typical day for each month

of the year. In January, for example, the

operating profile indicates that the plant

begins producing power at approximately

8:30 a.m. and ceases power production at

approximately 3:30 p.m., a total of 7 hours.

The plant produces 765 MWh during the

operating period, assuming the power out-

put is averaged over each 1-hour period.

Ambient temperature during the operating

period averages 73F.

Thermal design data allows accurate

calculation of the plant general water de-

mands (cooling tower evaporation, boiler

blowdown, and other uses) but rarely pro-

vides sufficient granularity to accurately

model water usage for the typical solar

plant operating profile. Rather, a thermal

design case usually provides expected

plant output and general water demands

for a given set of ambient conditions and

a specific plant configuration, assuming

steady-state operation.

The typical thermal design process

would take the following design approach.

Table 2 lists the thermal design cases stud-

ied for this 255-MW design output proj-

ect, a design point that reflects the gross

maximum system generation at any time

of the year. So the “typical winter” design

case for this example would take the de-

sign output of 255 MW each hour at an

ambient temperature of 50F and a wet bulb

temperature of 41.7F.

There are two problems with this ap-

proach to determining this thermal design

case. First, it’s the wrong temperature for

January operation: The average ambi-

ent temperature during January operating

hours (not the daily average) is 73F. Sec-

ond, it assumes a continuous plant power

output of 255 MW during each hour of

operation.

The temperature issue can be resolved

simply by running additional thermal de-

sign cases. The traditional design cases

(hot day, annual average, winter, and so

on) are important, but they should be sup-

plemented with additional thermal design

cases that model the average ambient con-

ditions for a typical day for each month of

the year during plant operating hours, not

24-hour temperature averages. Although

this may seem excessive, this data granu-

larity is critical for accurately predicting

plant water usage. Using the average annu-

al case or some mixture of the traditional

thermal design cases increases the uncer-

tainty in water usage calculations.

The power production calculation can

also be easily resolved. Remember that the

thermal design case in this example lists

steady-state plant power production at

255 MW based on the maximum possible

generation at any time of the year (Table

1) and the design data at that design point

(Table 2). However, the plant never actu-

ally reaches this level of power production

in January. The amount of energy from the

sun is relatively low, and the sun doesn’t

shine long enough.

As Table 1 indicates, plant power output

on a typical January day begins at about 32

MW, peaks at about 128 MW, and then de-

creases. Calculating water usage associated

with 7 hours of operation at a power output

of 255 MW would significantly overesti-

mate water usage for a typical day and, thus,

Every Baldor generator set,

standard or custom, is designed

and engineered to meet the

individual needs of your application.

Whether it’s a 2,000 kW genset to

keep your industrial facility up and

running, or a 30 kW generator for

your remote agricultural needs,

Baldor has the right products to

meet your need.

Engineered to the highest

performance standards and built

with unmatched quality, Baldor

gensets give you the power you

need, when you want it.

baldor.com 479-646-4711

©2011 Baldor Electric Company

Standby for Big Power



WATER MANAGEMENT

for the month. Rather, equivalent full power

operation should be calculated. The equiva-

lent full power operating hours can then be

used in conjunction with the thermal design

cases to accurately model water usage.

The operating profile predicts total pow-

er production for a typical January day of

765 MWh. The conventional thermal de-

sign approach assumes power production

of 255 MW during steady-state operation

over a 7-hour period. So, on a typical Jan-

uary day, the plant effectively operates at

255 MW for a period of 3 hours. Multiply

by the number of days in January (31) and

the plant effectively operates at full power

Table 1. A typical CSP plant operating profile. The yellow regions indicate no solar energy is recovered. The green areas are the

hours during which solar energy is recovered. The average power in kilowatts is shown for each hour. Because the time period is 1 hour, the

power in kilowatts is numerically the same as the energy generation, in kilowatt-hours. Source: WorleyParsons

Average power per hour (kW)

Hour of the day Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Average

0.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.53 101.08 131.06 64.85 22.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.56

7.5 0.00 0.00 87.43 158.97 219.44 246.16 191.70 161.74 149.05 84.80 15.32 0.00 109.55

8.5 31.99 68.58 192.95 217.86 228.29 245.46 211.16 195.35 210.71 168.11 104.42 32.06 158.91

9.5 90.31 111.04 192.43 221.84 236.94 244.02 208.88 211.39 218.00 171.63 113.85 84.57 175.41

10.5 93.53 100.74 193.28 219.01 227.01 243.23 231.61 206.25 214.74 164.56 110.04 86.54 174.21

11.5 94.64 90.38 184.90 222.30 228.71 239.21 227.69 201.96 210.36 160.59 104.67 76.33 170.14

12.5 100.05 78.77 183.84 233.23 229.59 243.22 214.19 213.95 201.12 173.66 113.59 87.39 172.72

13.5 109.41 94.48 195.57 233.31 225.48 243.40 222.68 215.15 202.24 189.09 124.11 103.88 179.90

14.5 128.18 120.94 183.71 198.64 223.52 242.63 216.50 215.38 194.99 191.88 135.09 122.53 181.17

15.5 116.99 154.20 178.15 190.90 220.48 234.58 223.37 212.59 199.80 168.90 77.83 92.84 172.55

16.5 0.00 43.16 133.38 154.84 187.48 207.83 196.66 173.42 134.70 10.02 0.00 0.00 103.46

17.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.02 112.35 97.28 42.82 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.65

18.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

19.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

20.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

21.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

22.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

23.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Other operating parameters

Avg. temp. (24 hours) 67 73 79 86 92 98 101 102 98 90 77 65

Avg. temp. (operating hours) 73 80 86 95 98 106 107 108 105 97 84 73

Total MWh produced 765 862 1,726 2,074 2,382 2,633 2,307 2,072 1,937 1,483 899 686

Number of days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31

Total energy produced (MWh) 23,718 24,144 53,495 62,233 73,843 78,994 71,504 64,238 58,110 45,981 26,968 21,270

Table 2. Three thermal design cases for the typical CSP plant described in Table 1. This design program defines the

water flows for the 255-MW CSP project for the three design cases normally used for a conventional thermal plant. There are problems with using

this standard approach for CSP plant design. Source: WorleyParsons

Thermal

case Configuration

Dry bulb

temperature

(F)

Wet bulb

temperature

(F)

Ambient

pressure

(psia)

Net

power

(MW)

Tower

evaporation

rate

(gpm)

Total demin-

erallized

water usage

(gpm)

Boiler

blowdown

quench

water (gpm)

Boiler blow-

down (gpm)

Quenched

boiler blow-

down (gpm)

High

pressure

blowdown

(lb/hr)

Total steam

flow (lb/hr)

1 Hot day 112.90 78.60 14.67 250 113.13 164.48 61.98 98.38 116.19 49,168 2,409,248

2 Annual average 83.20 57.80 14.67 254 83.76 164.48 61.98 98.38 116.18 49,168 2,409,248

3 Winter day 50.00 41.70 14.67 255 35.82 164.45 61.97 98.35 116.16 49,153 2,408,534

513_R&S_Worth_Doing_Ad_PM_PE.indd 1 1/18/11 10:40 PM

If a job’s worth doing, it’s worth doing with Roberts & Schaefer.

222 South Riverside PlazaChicago, IL 60606312.236.7292 www.r-s.com

Offices also in Salt Lake City, Pittsburgh, Australia, Indonesia, Poland, India, Chile and Africa

W I T H M I L L I O N S O F D O L L A R S O N T H E L I N E , W H Y

T R U S T Y O U R P R O J E C T T O A N Y O N E B U T 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.

513_R&S_Worth_Doing_Ad_PM_PE.indd 1 1/18/11 10:40 PM



WATER MANAGEMENT

for a total of 93 hours in January. Water

usage for the month can be calculated from

the thermal design data based on this num-

ber of operating hours. Water usage for the

other months of the year can be similarly

calculated. Total annual water usage can

then be calculated by summing water us-

age for each individual month.

This method of estimating CSP plant

water usage significantly lowers uncer-

tainty in calculating both average and peak

water usage.

Now the plant water systems can be de-

signed based on the maximum water us-

age for the maximum operating day rather

than the “hottest day” thermal design case.

The judicious use of water storage also al-

lows for smaller water treatment systems

that still support the plant in all operating

scenarios.

Simplify the DesignPlant design is always a compromise. Simple

designs tend to use more water, while com-

plex designs tend to increase both operating

and capital costs. The most economic alter-

native often lies somewhere in the middle.

The trade-off is always project specific, but

there are some general design guidelines that

can be applied.

Figure 1 provides a relatively simple

solar plant water system process flow dia-

gram. It demonstrates that even “simple”

water systems for a CSP plant can be ex-

traordinarily complex.

In general, no special pretreatment is

needed, provided that the plant makeup

water quality allows cooling tower op-

eration at six cycles of concentration or

higher and also allows reverse osmosis

(RO) systems to operate at 60% recovery

or higher. Operation as low as four cycles

of concentration in the cooling tower may

be acceptable, depending upon land avail-

ability for evaporation ponds and the cost

of such ponds.

If influent treatment is required (lime

softening or ion exchange softening, for

example), then the plant capital and oper-

ating cost estimates should be adjusted to

reflect the increased manpower required

to operate these systems. Industry experi-

ence has clearly found that one full-time

operator must be dedicated solely to water

1. Conceptually simple, practically complex. A relatively “simple” CSP water treatment system can still be complex. These

water treatment systems, because of their typical location in arid climates with poor makeup water, are often much more complex than

systems for a typical thermal power plant of like rating. The average annual water balance of the example CSP system is illustrated. Yellow

boxes represent water flow rates; orange boxes represent water losses from the system. Source: WorleyParsons

is one of the

leading industrial

contractors serving today’s

Power industry. With over

44,000 MW of installed

capacity, TIC is differen tiated

by its direct-hire cap a bilities,

financial strength and diverse

project experience, including:

EPC: Coal–fired units includ ing

large utility boiler instal lations (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 scrub ber, 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 geo thermal project in the US,

including its first EPC and first

global projects

SOLAR: Large scale solar

installations, nitrate salt technology,

water/steam re ceiv ers and oil/rock

thermal storage systems

TIC is acomplete Powercontractor.

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



WATER MANAGEMENT

treatment systems if makeup pretreatment

or any form of ZLD is used.

Membrane filtration (microfiltration,

ultrafiltration, or nanofiltration) should be

used any time plant makeup water is pro-

vided by either surface or recycled water.

These waters typically contain large con-

centrations of extremely small particles

that do not coagulate well. Traditional

multimedia filtration cannot consistently

remove these particles. Membrane filtra-

tion can remove these particles and protect

downstream equipment. Potable and well

waters typically do not require membrane

filtration.

Influent demineralization, which is cost

prohibitive for most fossil plants, may

make economic sense for CSP plants with

an evaporation pond. Demineralizers are

generally reliable and relatively simple to

operate. They remove all cations and an-

ions, unlike simple softening with ion ex-

change or lime. The waste stream produced

by demineralizers is concentrated and can

be sent directly to the evaporation pond.

Demineralizing half of the incoming water

would lower the concentration of all ions

by half, thus doubling allowable cooling

tower cycles of concentration and increas-

ing allowable RO recovery. A detailed eco-

nomic analysis should be performed, but

up-front demineralization usually provides

an excellent option for air-cooled plants.

Most of the water used in air-cooled plants

is for steam cycle makeup and mirror

washing, so the majority of water required

has to be demineralized in any case.

Always try to avoid complicated serial

water treatment processes. Lime softening

followed by RO followed by demineral-

ization may make sense in a fossil plant,

but it may be more trouble than it’s worth

in a CSP plant. CSP plant water usage is

generally lower than in a similarly sized

fossil plant (because dispatch is lower), so

operating cost doesn’t increase as much as

might be expected when simpler but less-

efficient processes are used. Simpler de-

signs normally have a lower capital cost.

New and emerging technologies often

show great promise with significant poten-

tial savings in water and dollars, but the

process risk can be extremely high. Though

new approaches may provide benefit, any

design that incorporates new technology

should include redundancy or contingency

to mitigate the higher process risk.

Balance Water Quality and AvailabilitySolar thermal plant locations exhibit remark-

able commonality. They’re typically located

in extremely hot and arid environments far

from urban areas and other infrastructure.

Water is universally scarce. Groundwater

and/or surface water may be available, but

neither may available in sufficient quantity to

meet plant water consumption needs. Water

quality data is often nonexistent, particularly

its potential for scale and corrosion. Often,

the only option for water is drilling new wa-

ter wells. Water sources and supplies may

have to be mixed and matched.

New groundwater supplies must be

sampled early and often. At least one and

preferably multiple test wells should be

drilled and sampled monthly for at least a

year. Too many water systems have been

designed based on a single unrepresenta-

tive sample only to result in deficiencies in

the water treatment plant operation. Fur-

ther, the aquifer must be modeled to deter-

mine the potential for change over the life

of the plant.

For example, at one CSP plant location

groundwater quality was relatively good,

but other businesses held significant water

rights that had not been exercised in recent

years. Aquifer modeling determined that

groundwater quality would remain stable,

assuming that the current extraction rates

were maintained and the new CSP plant

demands were added, but water quality

would deteriorate significantly if other us-

ers began to withdraw at their maximum

allowable rates. If such situations occur, a

plant can be designed for the current wa-

ter quality, but provisions must be made

to add additional treatment equipment in

future years if other users increase extrac-

tion. That includes additional building

space, underground piping, evaporation

pond space, and so on.

Recycled water or degraded surface

water (usually agricultural run-off or

something similar) may also be available.

Though data may exist for the original

source water, data rarely exists for the

actual recycled water or degraded surface

water. Sampling becomes even more criti-

cal in such cases because these waters of-

ten exhibit significant seasonal variability.

The design water quality for each water

source should be determined by calculat-

ing the average and standard deviation of

all sample results. The design water qual-

ity becomes the average (mean) plus two

standard deviations for each constituent.

This approach provides the additional de-

sign margin necessary to account for his-

torical variability.

In addition, water chemistry must be

modeled for each potential water source

and for mixtures if the plant intends to

use more than one water supply. Mineral

solubility and chemistry modeling must

be performed. As stated earlier, accurate

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0130

120110

10090

8070

7

7.25

7.5

7.75

8

8.25

8.5

F°

pH

Op

era

tin

g r

an

ge

pro

file

at

7.00

cyc

les

2. Calcite saturation at seven cycles of concentration in a cooling tower. The blue columns indicate that no scale should form; red indicates a significant risk of scale

formation. When the same water is treated with a calcium carbonate dispersant, all of the bars

are blue. Source: WorleyParsons

With more than a decade building power operations with safety, quality, and

efficiency, Baker is emerging as a leader in the power construction market.

We’ve built that muscle the hard way.

www.bakerconcrete.com

Efficient

operations

backed by

serious

muscle.

With more than a decade building power operations with safety, quality, and

efficiency, Baker is emerging as a leader in the power construction market.

We’ve built that muscle the hard way.

www.bakerconcrete.com

Efficient

operations

backed by

serious

muscle.



WATER MANAGEMENT

prediction of water usage is especially

important in thermal solar plants. Mineral

solubility and chemistry modeling deter-

mine key water quality constraints that

significantly impact plant water usage.

Watch That Water ChemistryDetailed mineral solubility analysis and a

detailed plant chemistry model are criti-

cal during the water system conceptual

design phase. Water balances too often

focus on simply balancing mass or water

flow. Chemistry creates many operating

and design constraints, including cooling

tower cycles of concentration, RO system

recovery, and equipment materials of con-

struction. Simply balancing mass is an in-

vitation to disaster because it doesn’t point

to the increased risk of corrosion, scale

formation, and fouling.

There are many mineral solubility pro-

grams available in the marketplace, and

most specialty chemical suppliers have

been trained in their use. Designers must

either educate themselves or get expert

advice early in the design process. There

are also a number of computer programs

available that can evaluate the risk asso-

ciated with corrosion and scale formation

based on makeup water chemistry, cycles

of concentration, pH, and product dosage.

Most of these programs also include treat-

ment options for specific scales. Figure 2

shows the potential for calcite formation

of a typical recycled water source without

treatment.

Calcite is just one of many scales that

should be modeled to determine treatment

requirements and operating constraints.

Once all of the common scales have been

modeled, the mineral solubility analysis

sets the broad range of operating condi-

tions and chemical treatments required.

Table 3 provides an example of the op-

erating constraints based on the mineral

solubility analysis of the makeup water

profiled in Figure 2.

There’s still risk if the mineral solubil-

ity analysis is based on nonrepresenta-

tive samples. As stated earlier, potential

makeup waters should be sampled mul-

tiple times if no historical data exists. The

mineral solubility analysis should be per-

formed initially, but it should also be up-

dated as more data becomes available.

Minimize Wastewater TreatmentThere are a host of possible options for any

power plant wastewater discharge: direct

discharge to some outside receiver, such

as a publically owned treatment works

(POTW); direct discharge to the environ-

ment (Clean Water Act National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System [NPDES]

permit required); deep well injection;

direct discharge to evaporation ponds;

wastewater concentration with discharge

to evaporation ponds; and wastewater con-

centration to dryness (ZLD).

The lack of local infrastructure usu-

ally eliminates the POTW option for CSP

plants. Likewise, the lack of suitable re-

ceiving water often eliminates the NPDES

option. Deep well injection, however, is

often overlooked as a viable option. This

option requires a suitable aquifer for

wastewater reinjection. The capital cost

is moderate—more expensive than POTW

but less expensive than ZLD or evaporation

ponds. The process risk is moderate (mul-

tiple injection wells lower process risk,

but there’s no absolute guarantee that the

well will work), but the simple technology

requires very little operator involvement.

Deep well injection should also be investi-

gated if ZLD or evaporation ponds in any

combination are anticipated.

As mentioned earlier, CSP plants tend

to be located in hot, dry locations. The

evaporation rate tends to be very high

and annual precipitation low. Evaporation

ponds are an attractive option provided

that land is available. Evaporation pond

size decreases as wastewater influent flow

to the pond decreases, so wastewater con-

centration systems can significantly lower

pond size and cost. However, larger ponds

may actually cost less than the wastewater

concentration equipment. Pond cost varies

widely, depending on environmental con-

straints, location, and pond type.

If the cost of larger ponds is within

20% of the cost of wastewater concentra-

Limiting constituents

Calcium phosphate, calcium carbonate, and silica generally limit cycles of concentration to approximately 7.

The extremely high ammonia in the recycled water will require the use of activated bromine for microbial

control. This chemistry must be provided and detailed by a qualified water treatment vendor. In general

terms it requires the use of sodium hypochlorite (bleach) to "activate" bromine. The resulting bromine

compound ("bromamine") is a more effective biocide than is available from the use of bleach alone. Non-

oxidizing biocide may be required from time to time to combat microbial growth if loss of oxidizing biocide

feed occurs. Most cooling systems control microbial growth with a free halogen residual. The extremely

high ammonia concentration would require excessive feed of chlorine and/or bromine to reach a free re-

sidual. Total halogen must be used with a target range established based on microbial test results. Daily

microbial testing (using "dipslides" or similar media) is essential.

Amorphous silica deposition risk increases at low temperatures (<80F) but is treatable.

High chloride concentration precludes the use of stainless steel. Titanium is recommended.

Mild steel corrosion can be controlled through the addition of pyrophosphate.

Recommended cooling tower limits

pH 7.0–7.4, not to exceed 7.6

Specific conductivity <10,000 uS/cm

Cycles of concentration <7 (operation up to nine cycles can be tolerated for short periods of time)

PO4 (unfiltered) <9 mg/l

PO4 (filtered) <9 mg/l

Delta PO4 (UF-F) <2 mg/l

Pyrophosphate <11 mg/l

Calcium hardness <1,100 mg/l as CaCO3

Total hardness <2,000 mg/l

Silica <150 mg/l

Total iron <3 mg/l (typical, depends on form of iron in makeup water)

Free halogen High ammonia concentration precludes chlorination to a free residual. See above.

Cooling tower chemicals required

Sulfuric acid: pH control

Sodium hypochlorite (bleach): microbial control

Sodium bromide (bromine): microbial control available in a single blend

Calcium carbonate: dispersant/scale inhibitor

Pyrophosphate: corrosion inhibitor

Table 3. Summary of cooling tower water treatment operating con-straints. Source: WorleyParsons

Your Single-Source System Provider

www.williamscrusher.com

Your Single-Source System Provider

Impact Dryer Mill Systems &

Direct Injection Roller Mills for

Producing Limestone Sorbent

for Fluidized Bed Combustors

Roller Mills for Fine Grinding

Activated Carbon to 325 mesh to

Reduce Mercury Emissions

Wood Hogs & Shredders

for Biomass Fuel

Direct Fired Roller Mills for

Coal & Petroleum Coke

Reversible Hammer Mills for

Crushing Coal & Petroleum Coke

for Fluidized Combustors

Roller Mills for minus 325 mesh

Limestone for New / Existing Scrubbers

Single Roll Crushers for

Reducing Bottom Ash

2701 North Broadway

St. Louis, Missouri 63102 USA

Phone: (314) 621-3348

Fax: (314) 436-2639

Email: [email protected] 45 ON READER SERVICE CARD


WATER MANAGEMENT

tion equipment, then discharge directly to

ponds. Wastewater concentration systems

are complicated, suffer from high operat-

ing cost, use significant auxiliary power,

and require additional manpower.

If wastewater concentration is neces-

sary, then keep the wastewater concentra-

tion system as simple as possible. Avoid

wastewater softening, filtering, and RO

systems. These technologies can be won-

derful options, but they always increase

complexity. Simple concentration systems

tend to be more reliable and easier to op-

erate. No plant manager or operator has

ever complained that water treatment is

too simple.

Simple wastewater concentration sys-

tems generally consist of one or more

evaporators (brine concentrators). These

systems can typically increase total solids

(the sum of dissolved and suspended sol-

ids) in wastewater to approximately 20%

to 25% with total dissolved solids of 12%

to 17% and total suspended solids of 3%

to 8%. Cooling tower blowdown total sol-

ids typically average 0.3% to 0.8%, with a

maximum of about 1.0%.

Evaporators recover almost all of the un-

concentrated plant wastewater and return

relatively pure water. The concentrated

water decreases in volume and increases

in total solids. Increasing total solids from

1% (the maximum in cooling tower blow-

down) to 20% (in evaporator blowdown)

reduces wastewater volume by a factor of

20. For example, sending cooling tower

blowdown with a flow of 100 gallons per

minute (gpm) through an evaporator would

result in a concentrated wastewater flow of

just 5 gpm and would also provide 95 gpm

of high-purity distillate suitable for reuse.

That means an evaporation pond sized for

100 gpm could decrease in size by a factor

of approximately 20.

Evaporation pond size can decrease

further through the judicious recycling of

low–total dissolved solids (TDS) waste-

water. Any wastewater stream with a lower

TDS than the cooling tower circulating

water should be returned to the tower

as makeup provided that it’s acceptable

for that use. Oil-water separator effluent

and quenched boiler blowdown are com-

monly discharged directly to an evapora-

3. An air-cooled CSP plant water management system, winter design case (monthly average data). In winter, the two air-

cooled towers can’t process design boiler blowdown flow rates. The addition of an air cooler allows this low–total dissolved solids water to be redirected to

the reverse osmosis system. Yellow boxes represent water flow rates; orange boxes represent water losses from the system. Source: WorleyParsons

Don’t let visual indicationbe your weakest link.

Oヴｷﾗﾐ Iﾐゲデヴ┌ﾏWﾐデゲイﾏ;ｪﾐWピI ﾉW┗WﾉｷﾐSｷI;デﾗヴゲ ;ヴW H┌ｷﾉデデﾗ┌ｪｴ aﾗヴデｴW ┘ﾗヴﾉSげゲﾏﾗゲデｷﾐデWﾐゲW Wﾐ┗ｷヴﾗﾐﾏWﾐデゲ ;ﾐS ;ヮヮﾉｷI;ピﾗﾐゲく

┗ｷゲｷデ ┘┘┘くﾗヴｷﾗﾐｷﾐゲデヴ┌ﾏWﾐデゲくIﾗﾏ aﾗヴﾏﾗヴW ｷﾐaﾗヴﾏ;ピﾗﾐ

ひ SI

;ﾐデﾗ

ﾉW;ヴﾐﾏﾗヴW ;Hﾗ┌デ REVEALゥひ SI;ﾐデﾗﾉW;ヴﾐﾏﾗヴW ;Hﾗ┌デ RE

VEAL

ゥ

┘┘┘くﾗヴｷﾗﾐｷﾐゲデヴ┌ﾏWﾐデゲくIﾗﾏひヲヱヰヵ O;ﾆ Vｷﾉﾉ; Bﾗ┌ﾉW┗;ヴS ひ B;デﾗﾐ Rﾗ┌ｪWが Lﾗ┌ｷゲｷ;ﾐ; ひ ΑヰΒヱヵひ ΒヶヶくヵヵくORION ひヲヲヵくΓヰヶくヲンヴンひ aぎヲヲヵくΓヰヶくヲンヴヴ ISO 9001

N ﾗ ┘ aW ; デ ┌ ヴｷﾐｪ

┘ｷSW ｷﾐS ｷI;デﾗヴヮ;デWﾐデヮWﾐSｷﾐｪ

Don’t let visual indicationbe your weakest link.

Oヴｷﾗﾐ Iﾐゲデヴ┌ﾏWﾐデゲイﾏ;ｪﾐWピI ﾉW┗WﾉｷﾐSｷI;デﾗヴゲ ;ヴW H┌ｷﾉデデﾗ┌ｪｴ aﾗヴデｴW ┘ﾗヴﾉSげゲﾏﾗゲデｷﾐデWﾐゲW Wﾐ┗ｷヴﾗﾐﾏWﾐデゲ ;ﾐS ;ヮヮﾉｷI;ピﾗﾐゲく

┗ｷゲｷデ ┘┘┘くﾗヴｷﾗﾐｷﾐゲデヴ┌ﾏWﾐデゲくIﾗﾏ aﾗヴﾏﾗヴW ｷﾐaﾗヴﾏ;ピﾗﾐ

ひ SI

;ﾐデﾗ

ﾉW;ヴﾐﾏﾗヴW ;Hﾗ┌デ REVEALゥひ SI;ﾐデﾗﾉW;ヴﾐﾏﾗヴW ;Hﾗ┌デ RE

VEAL

ゥ

┘┘┘くﾗヴｷﾗﾐｷﾐゲデヴ┌ﾏWﾐデゲくIﾗﾏひヲヱヰヵ O;ﾆ Vｷﾉﾉ; Bﾗ┌ﾉW┗;ヴS ひ B;デﾗﾐ Rﾗ┌ｪWが Lﾗ┌ｷゲｷ;ﾐ; ひ ΑヰΒヱヵひ ΒヶヶくヵヵくORION ひヲヲヵくΓヰヶくヲンヴンひ aぎヲヲヵくΓヰヶくヲンヴヴ ISO 9001

N ﾗ ┘ aW ; デ ┌ ヴｷﾐｪ

┘ｷSW ｷﾐS ｷI;デﾗヴヮ;デWﾐデヮWﾐSｷﾐｪ



WATER MANAGEMENT

tion pond, but both can be used as cooling

tower makeup.

Evaporation to dryness without an

evaporation pond requires at least two ad-

ditional steps: thermal crystallization and

liquid/solids separation. These systems

exhibit extremely poor reliability and ex-

tremely high operating cost, and they re-

quire heavy operator involvement. They

should be avoided if possible.

Air-Cooled Plants Are SpecialAir-cooled plants use much less water,

but they also present some special chal-

lenges. Quenched boiler blowdown, dis-

cussed above, is approximately 116 gpm

in the model shown in Figure 3. This rela-

tively pure water would normally be used

as cooling tower makeup. Lacking a large

cooling tower, the Figure 3 model instead

routes this flow to the auxiliary cooling

system wet surface air coolers (wet SACs).

(For more information on the design and

application of wet SACs, see “Wet Surface

Air Coolers Minimize Water Use by Maxi-

mizing Hear Transfer Efficiency” in the

September 2008 issue.)

During summer operation the wet SAC

evaporation rate is relatively high. The

wet SAC can receive virtually all of the

quenched blowdown as makeup. During

winter operation (as shown in Figure 3),

however, the wet SAC evaporation rate

lowers, and it cannot receive all of the

quenched boiler blowdown. This is good-

quality water, low in TDS, and could be

used as RO system feedwater. Quenched

blowdown is hot, however, so routing it

directly to the RO feed tank would cer-

tainly cause damage to the mixed bed ion

exchange resin downstream of the RO and

could cause damage to the RO itself. The

blowdown must be cooled before it’s used

as RO feed. An air cooler was added for

winter operation. Ambient temperatures

are lower, so the air cooler provides ad-

equate cooling of the blowdown during the

winter. Summer operation doesn’t require

an air cooler because the wet SACs can

receive all of the quenched blowdown as

makeup.

Although this seems like a small change,

it’s important to remember that small wa-

ter volumes are extremely important in

air-cooled plants—much more important

than in water-cooled plants. The evapora-

tor in this design is sized to process ap-

proximately 100 gpm of wastewater. The

evaporator would have to be twice that size

if boiler blowdown were not reused within

the plant.

It’s important to note that modeling the

average annual thermal design case would

not detect this unique design requirement

that occurs only during the winter months.

Wet SAC evaporation rate is high enough

to allow the use of all boiler blowdown as

wet SAC makeup during average annual

ambient conditions, obscuring the prob-

lems during winter operation. Once again,

the traditional “annual average” thermal

design case should not be used to estimate

water usage in an air-cooled plant; instead,

use the month-by-month method.

A water balance and thermal design is

case specific to each month of the year,

so avoid design and water plant sizing

problems by estimating water usage and

wastewater discharge for each month of

the year. ■

—Daniel C. Sampson ([email protected]) is a water/waste-

water engineer in the WorleyParsons Sacramento Office.

The SERVOTOUGH FluegasExact gas analyser maximises effi ciency in your combustion process

Combining high-performance Zirconium Oxide and Thick Film catalytic sensors within an extractive heated sensor head, the FluegasExact sets new standards for the reliable and low-maintenance measurement of O2 and CO/COe.

Alongside the industry-standard SERVOPRO 1440 emissions analyser and the improved analysis of ammonia slip processes offered by the SERVOTOUGH LaserSP, the FluegasExact saves valuable time and reduces cost for power plant operators.

TO FIND OUT MORE, CALL OUR EXPERT TEAM TODAY.

SERVOMEX CONTROLS COMBUSTION SO

YOU CONTROL COSTS.Incorporating Servomex’s patent fl ow sensor technology and a new Sulphur Resistant Thick Film sensor custom designed for coal-fi red plants, the FluegasExact delivers:

Up to 5% fuel savings

Reduced process down time

Reduced analyser maintenance

Complete sensor protection via extractive probe head

WWW.SERVOMEX.COM

FLOWCUBE SENSOR TECHNOLOGY

CalorimetryZirconia


Up to 70% less water consumption…

Diamond Power’s

HydroJet®-Retractable Boiler Cleaning Systemthe next generation in furnace wall cleaning

This fully-retractable system provides 3X more cleaning coverage per

device, up to 70% less water consumption, improved heat rate performance

compared to previous water cleaning systems and lower installation costs.

Contact your Diamond Power representative or visit us online to learn more.



SMART GRID

Ten Smart Grid Trends to Watch in 2012 and BeyondThe year 2012 represents a turning point for the smart grid. Many foundation-

al elements have been tested; several have been successfully deployed. Now the serious work of integration and value-generation begins, even though the challenges remain substantial.

By Bob Gohn, Pike Research

Smart grid technologies—particularly in

the U.S. and Europe—are at a pivotal

point. Sufficient initial steps have been

made on the part of both technology suppli-

ers and utility implementers that we are start-

ing to see some payoffs—small, to be sure, in

some cases, but significant in terms of prov-

ing technical and economic value.

Given that most elements of the smart grid

sit “downstream” from power generators, one

might ask why those on the generation end of

the industry should care (other than because

we are all electricity consumers). One reason

is that smart grid technologies will both chal-

lenge the operation of utility-scale generation

and become valued partners with traditional

generation. For example, sophisticated peak-

leveling programs can reduce the need for

fast-responding peaker plants with low ca-

pacity factors. Advanced forecasting, auto-

mated load-shifting capabilities, and other

communication and information technology

tools all along the transmission and distribu-

tion grid can make it easier for fossil-fueled

generators to integrate renewable generation

to maximize efficiency, lower overall emis-

sions, and balance portfolios.

In the medium to long term, smart grid

technologies—which include myriad de-

vices and tools to strengthen and secure

power delivery systems—will inevitably

affect the business models and operating

practices of both utilities and independent

power producers.

This article, based on the recent Pike Re-

search white paper “Smart Grid: Ten Trends

to Watch in 2012 and Beyond,” sums up the

current status of the smart grid industry and

identifies the top trends.

1. Smart Meters Will Shift from Deployment to ApplicationsFor the past few years, utilities have been la-

ser-focused on getting smart meters into the

field. Federal stimulus money has fueled this

effort to a great extent in the U.S. But that

money is drying up, and a shift to making use

of all that data is under way.

Smart meters have reached (or are near)

critical mass. By Pike Research’s estimates,

some 200 million smart meters have been

deployed worldwide, and 40 million of those

are now installed at premises in North Amer-

ica. Utilities have begun to realize internal

cost savings from these new meters thanks to

features such as remote disconnect capabili-

ties and more efficient meter reading. How-

ever, new challenges will surface in the near

term as utility managers build out consumer-

facing services, such as web portals and use-

ful apps that flow from smart meter data.

It is time for the new meters to start de-

livering on some of the promises to help

consumers reduce consumption, lower their

spending on energy, and deepen their en-

gagement with utilities. Our expectation is

that this shift from deployment to applica-

tions will take longer than anticipated be-

cause utilities have never seen this volume of

data from meters, and no one has fully mined

the complexities. Eventually, some clever ap-

plications will surface from forward-thinking

companies that can see beyond the obvious

use of the data. However, that is likely to oc-

cur in the years beyond 2012.

2. Dynamic Pricing Debates Will EscalateMultiple studies show that dynamic pric-

ing does indeed reduce peak loads and that

its effects are enhanced with the application

of smart grid technology. However, variable

rates have some legitimate strikes against

them and, interestingly, opposition to dy-

namic pricing can be found on both ends of a

politically polarized spectrum. Those toward

the right fear Big Brother taking control of

their thermostats and appliances (here, utili-

ties = government). Those bent leftward see

the social good of universal electricity being

corrupted, leaving the vulnerable unprotected

(here, utilities = big business).

What has been missing from the broader

debate is this question: Who wins/loses in the

status quo of average rates? Heavy peak users

are effectively being subsidized by everyone

else. Efficient users are subsidizing ineffi-

cient users. In this context, consumer advo-

cates should be clamoring for the energy hog

consumer “peakers” to “pay their fair share.”

More capitalistic types should welcome sys-

tems that make energy a free market with

more consumer choice and effective pricing

mechanisms.

Programs are likely needed for disadvan-

taged groups, but this is not a new challenge

for policy makers. Regardless, there is grow-

ing evidence that even low-income consum-

ers are often able to respond to dynamic

pricing incentives and therefore share in the

economic benefits. Ultimately, regulators and

legislators armed with better data from pilot

programs and carefully considered consumer

protections integrated into service offerings

will need the courage to drive dynamic pric-

ing implementation forward.

3. “Architecture” Will Be the New Buzzword“Silo-busting”—integrating previously in-

dependent functions, technologies, and peo-

ple—has been a widely recognized attribute

of smart grid deployment. The better integra-

tion of substations, the distribution network,

and metering systems is key to the improved

grid management assumed to be required for

the future growth of electric vehicles and dis-

tributed renewable energy generation. Silo-

busting is easier defined than done.

Recent smart grid standards initiatives

around the world have accelerated the move-

ment toward a common architectural vision

(Figure 1). The fruit of these efforts will

emerge throughout 2012 with a tangible ven-

dor solution offering. Cisco’s formal articula-

tion of its GridBlocks architecture this past

January provides perhaps the most compre-

hensive framework for considering specific

system implementations. Although focused on

the communications network, it offers a con-

sidered approach for broader systems interac-

tions. At a subsystem level, most of the major

smart meter manufacturers have just launched

more open and flexible metering platforms.


SMART GRID

The adoption of an architectural filter for

smart grid systems evaluation similarly ap-

plies to smart grid software (both informa-

tion and operational technology) systems and

is especially important for smaller utilities.

4. Cyber Security Failure Risks Will Near InevitabilitySmart grid cyber security at the end of 2012

is likely to look much as it did at the begin-

ning of 2012. This “non-development” owes

its existence to the continued non-existence

of enforceable cyber security standards. The

situation is dire enough that a recent Pike Re-

search blog post on cyber security standards

used Waiting for Godot as its graphic.

The details of the conundrum are too many

for full consideration here, but one thing

is clear: While some deride cyber security

standards as irrelevant, that is far from real-

ity. Utilities hesitate to invest in cyber secu-

rity that is not required for compliance with

something. That may sound cynical, but it is

pragmatic. Utilities do not know what cyber

security to buy, as they have no idea what

some as-yet-unwritten regulation will require

of them. An industry plagued by stranded as-

sets will be loath to voluntarily sign up for

more.

The lack of standards hinders vendors,

as well. In order to decide which technolo-

gies to develop and which to leave untapped,

vendors must predict what regulations will

be enacted around the globe. That is nearly

impossible, but vendors cannot be seen as in-

active in their market, so they have to build

something. Therefore, 2012 will most likely

see new cyber security products targeted at

smart grids. Unfortunately, not all vendors

see the same market. Cyber security prod-

ucts from different vendors thus often do not

integrate well. This adds further obstacles

to smart grid interoperability—a feat that is

challenging in the best of cases.

A recent Pike Research report forecasts that

cumulative investment in smart grid cyber se-

curity through the end of 2018 will total nearly

$14 billion. But without any standards, all that

investment may not yield any meaningful im-

provements in smart grid protection. The con-

tinued lack of standards could also dictate a

continued lack of protection.

5. Consumer Backlash Will Not Go AwayHealth concerns, fears of privacy invasion

and hacking potential, and general conspir-

acy theories continue to slow down smart

meter deployments. Despite strong evidence

to the contrary, vocal minorities will continue

to push against these deployments. No matter

how much utilities try to blunt the protests,

they can expect to have to deal with this issue

for the near term at least.

In California, to deal with the pushback

problem, PG&E asked for and was granted

permission by state regulators to let custom-

ers opt out of having a smart meter installed;

instead, customers can keep their old analog

meters if they agree to pay a monthly fee. A

similar opt-out option is available in Maine.

In Michigan, Consumers Energy is taking a

proactive approach. While it has not yet de-

ployed smart meters, the utility has decided

to offer an opt-out program in advance of its

planned rollout.

Though opt-out offers look necessary, sav-

vy utility managers will acknowledge cus-

tomer fears and work to directly engage them

on this and other smart grid–related issues.

Pecan Street, for example, is a public-private

initiative in Texas that is looking at smart me-

ters and the smart grid from the consumers’

perspective.

6. DA and AMI Will IntersectThe past year has seen distribution automaton

(DA) projects and technologies emerge to the

forefront of smart grid applications. Com-

pared to the higher-profile smart meter and

advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) de-

ployments, DA investments often have clearer

paybacks, can be deployed gradually with a

tighter focus on problem areas, and (perhaps

most attractively) do not require any consumer

involvement (that is, behavior changes).

Consequently, AMI networking technol-

ogy suppliers seem to be thinking that it

should be easy to piggyback DA device com-

munications on the same network. This may

or may not be as easy as it seems, and there

are plenty of competing technologies for the

DA network (Figure 2).

DA applications are now becoming in-

creasingly complex, including recent efforts

at advanced, dynamic optimization of the

distribution grid. This is especially important

as distributed generation and plug-in electric

vehicles (EVs) edge toward widespread de-

ployment. (See POWER’s March 2012 issue

for more on EV integration issues.)

Beyond the sharing of network infra-

structure, the more important intersection

between AMI and DA is occurring at the IT

and operational technology (OT) application

level. Smart meters, the endpoints of every

1. Layers of smart grid architec-ture. In a fully integrated smart grid, individ-

ual technologies are able to interact with each

other seamlessly. Source: Pike Research

Note: AMI = advanced metering infrastructure, DA = dis-

tribution automation, HAN = home area network, LAN =

local area network, NAN = neighborhood area network,

WAN = wide area network.

2. Competing communication options. Distribution automation communications

options include both private and public systems and come in a range of bandwidths and prices.

Source: Pike Research


SMART GRID

distribution network, can be very effective

sensors for dynamic voltage monitoring.

Capturing the smart meter data in a timely

way may be a challenge for the AMI net-

work. Often, however, the greater challenge

is making that information available to dis-

tribution management systems and other OT

systems in a complete, accurate, and timely

way. Also required are the analytics to iden-

tify the required “information” within the

pile of “data.”

Dominion Virginia Power is doing very

interesting pilots that use basic analytics to

identify “sentinel meters” to act as voltage

sensors for a simple but robust conservation

voltage reduction implementation. This novel

approach is delivering significant distribution

network optimization with relatively little ad-

ditional field equipment deployment.

It may not be obvious at first, but this line

blurring between different smart grid applica-

tions represents one of the key promises of de-

veloping a smart grid. By breaking through the

traditional application silos, a more general-

ized smart grid infrastructure can be leveraged

to deliver new applications and value beyond

the original, more narrowly focused business

cases. Pike Research believes 2012 will be the

year utilities—especially those completing

AMI rollouts—will take a long, hard look at

these wider application possibilities.

7. Microgrids Will Move from Curiosity to a RealityPike Research has been monitoring and ana-

lyzing the world’s microgrid market since

2009, developing the world’s only database

on microgrid projects segmented into five ap-

plications and four major geographies. Based

in part on this data, Pike Research’s 2012

global microgrid market forecast shows that

North America will continue to lead in terms

of overall capacity (Figure 3). However, by

2017, the Asia Pacific region will lead in

terms of revenue.

3. Major microgrid capacity growth. Pike Research anticipates total microgrid capacity

(under its average scenario) to more than double in the next five years. Source: Pike Research

5,000

4,500

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

MW

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Rest of world Asia Pacific Europe North America



SMART GRID

There are two reasons why Pike Research

sees microgrids moving from a curiosity into

reality in 2012 and beyond, especially in the

U.S. The first is the adoption of the Insti-

tute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

(IEEE) P1547.4 safe islanding standards in

July 2011. These standards should acceler-

ate the shift from pilot validation projects to

fully commercial microgrid ventures. The

second is a series of recent Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission orders (719, 745,

and 1000), which all take steps toward har-

monizing innovation occurring independent-

ly at the wholesale and retail market levels.

Demand response (DR) is seen as a stop-

gap resource whose role will expand in mar-

kets characterized by volatility, high demand

peaks, and lack of new transmission-level

generation capacity. Microgrids are now be-

ing viewed as the ultimate reliable DR re-

source, since islanding securely takes load off

of the utility grid. (Also see POWER’s Janu-

ary 2011 article on the U.S. military’s use of

microgrids to ensure supply reliability.)

There are other drivers in other global

markets. Interestingly enough, the entire

European Union is reportedly abolishing the

standard utility protocol of requiring invert-

ers of solar photovoltaic installations and

wind turbines to disconnect from the grid

during a disturbance. This action removes

one of the largest stumbling blocks to micro-

grid implementations, maximizing the value

of these distributed resources.

The Asia Pacific market may become

more robust in 2012 if the commercial/in-

dustrial segment—currently the smallest

microgrid segment globally—takes off due

to recent interest in data center microgrids,

many operating on direct current. Rumors are

swirling about projects as large as 500 MW

in one Asia Pacific country.

8. The Freeze on HANs Will Thaw—Just a LittleThe freeze on smart meters connected to

home area network (HAN) interfaces will

thaw—just a little bit. While the original

notion of a thriving market for AMI-driven

HANs has never materialized, there is evi-

dence that some utilities are keeping the

idea alive.

In the United Kingdom, for example, Brit-

ish Gas is in the midst of a huge rollout of

smart meters, with plans to install 2 million

of them in homes by the end of 2012. The

company is also providing a Landis+Gyr in-

home display and a communications link to

go along with the meters. The ZigBee-based

system transmits data among the various de-

vices and back to British Gas.

In the U.S., HAN deployments and trials

continue among several utilities. NV Energy

in Nevada has rolled out a DR program using

HAN technology that has more than 60,000

customers enrolled. The utility plans to dou-

ble that number over the next several years.

In Texas, AEP Energy has installed 450,000

smart meters and offers those customers the

choice of buying a companion HAN device

to manage electricity usage and control ap-

pliances. Similarly, Texas utility Oncor

makes in-home monitors and HAN devices

available to its residential customers who

have smart meters installed.

The question remains: Will these systems

be enough to spur consumers to alter their

energy consumption? Many more consum-

ers may choose instead to use other net-

worked devices, such as laptops, tablets, and

smart phones, to monitor and control their

energy usage.

9. Asia Pacific Smart Grid Adoption Will Accelerate Even MoreSmart grid technology can provide so-

lutions for Southeast Asia’s developing



SMART GRID

countries, as well as for the more advanced

economies in China and Japan. In the case

of all three of these Asian markets, it is

clear that investments in smart grid tech-

nologies will as a whole radically increase

in 2012 and beyond.

Though quite small in scale, initial smart

grid rollouts in Southeast Asia (which will

be consuming over half of all Asia Pacific

electricity by 2020) are focusing on remote

or smart meters, investments in SCADA sys-

tems, and small steps toward automation.

In contrast, China is investing big in the

smart grid, with estimates of $250 billion

(about ¥1.6 trillion) by 2016, according to

government sources. The prime goal is to

upgrade the intelligence network by 2020 to

help solve power imbalance issues and en-

hance transmission efficiency. China’s trans-

mission capabilities lag behind those of other

industrialized nations, with line losses of 8%

compared to 2.5% in Europe and the U.S. As

POWER has noted in previous articles (see,

for example, “China’s 12th Five-Year Plan

Pushes Power Industry in New Directions”

in the January 2012 issue), China is empha-

sizing ultra-high-voltage transmission line

construction—including high-voltage direct

current—to stretch transmission all across its

huge mainland. Though China is also invest-

ing in smart meter deployment, we believe

the capability of these meters barely meets

the standard definition for smart meters in

terms of the data quality they will provide.

Japan had not seen much value in smart

grid technology in the past, but that changed

in March 2011 due to the disaster at the

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station.

Along with bolstering its own power infra-

structure, Japan is looking to create business

opportunities by tapping its technology lead-

ership with the so-called “smart community”

concept, which embraces renewable energy

sources and central energy management sys-

tems for monitoring and controlling power

flows. Along with smart homes and EVs,

smart communities apply IT and sensor net-

works to create intelligent transportation sys-

tems. Social healthcare systems are also part

of this effort to make cities smart.

Interestingly enough, Japan will deploy

this new “smart city” concept in the Tohoku

region, which was affected by the tsunami

disaster in 2011. Constructing a more ener-

gy-efficient power infrastructure also less

vulnerable to natural disaster is a crucial goal

for Japan, and smart meter deployments have

increased accordingly.

10. Stimulus Investments Will Bear Mixed FruitMuch hoopla surrounded the Obama ad-

ministration’s investment of taxpayer dol-

lars into the smart grid back in 2009. A

total of $4.5 billion was invested under the

broad umbrella of the smart grid under the

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

of 2009 (ARRA). The Obama administra-

tion deserves some kudos for at least rec-

ognizing the value of government’s role in

stimulating innovation with new technol-

ogy for the power grid.

The original plan capped individual

grants at $20 million, which would have

fostered many small projects distributed

among many technologies, business mod-

els, and geographies. Due to political pres-

sure from utilities (and large vendors) that

cap per grant award was increased to $200

million before the final RFPs were re-

leased in May of 2009. Looking back, that

may have been a critical mistake.

Raising the cap encouraged large utili-

ties to focus largely on the deployment of

smart meters. While this was a necessary

step in the development of a smart grid,

utilities tend to become preoccupied with

rate-basing opportunities. Too many of

these ARRA project awards were therefore

cookie-cutter generic smart meter deploy-

ments that may have happened anyway. As

a result, stimulus funds deployed on behalf

of the smart grid have, in some cases, been

frittered away on poorly designed rollouts

of smart meters and AMI, underwriting

utility overhead charges instead of creat-

ing new green jobs.

Studies show that smaller, community-

based distributed energy projects generate

two to three times as many jobs as large-

scale renewable energy projects. One can

assume a similar multiplier for distributed

smart grid experiments focused less on

utility data collection and more on pushing

the envelope with renewables integration

and other problem solving. Thus, smaller

projects with municipal utilities may have

been a better employment gains bet.

The key role for government is to fund

research and development that would not

occur in the private sector. Requiring a

matching fund commitment for ARRA

awards was wise. But one wonders what

could have been if more of these ARRA

funds had been steered toward more cut-

ting-edge ideas such as microgrids, virtual

power plants, and renewables integration—

elements of the smart grid that offer the

greatest utility to utilities, power produc-

ers, and consumers. ■

—Bob Gohn is vice president, research at Pike Research.

Reduce Steam & Gas

CENTRALIGN® UltraWireless Laser Alignment System

305-591-8935 • www.ludeca.com/centralign

Turbine Outage Time

Single laser setup spans up to 133 feet. Extend the measurementrange with the ‘Splice’ function. An automatic correction factor isapplied if laser drift is detected.

CENTRALIGN Ultra calculates true bore center position and revealsbore out of roundness. Instant display of shim corrections for eachbore.

Brackets can be installedin tops-on or tops-offconfigurations andin magnetic ornon-magnetic bores.

CIRCLE 51 ON READER SERVICE CARDPENNGUARD® Block Lining System

Tel: [email protected] www.hadek.com

Hadek is the expert on power plant chimney and ductwork protection, and a global distributor of thePennguard® Block Lining System.

We deliver:

• Research and feasibility studies

• Detail engineering

• Installation supervision

• Lifetime Performance Monitoring System

• 10 year limited warranty

Tomorrow’s chimneydesign: lighter, cheaper,built to last

The New Chimney Design from Hadek is a revolution in powerplant chimney construction.

It’s slim and lightweight, but built to last – even in seismicregions. 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, withthe Pennguard® Block Lining System applied directly to itsinside 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 servicelife of at least 20 years. It has outstanding seismic tolerance.Also it is designed specifically for a wide range of operatingconditions including low temperature FGD operation.

Make the New Chimney Design part of your plans. Contact Hadek now: 412 204 0028, [email protected]

Pennguard® is a registered trademark of Henkel KGaA and is used with their permissionThis advertisement is not to be considered a warranty concerning product performance

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-fl ow 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.

Make the unpredictable totally predictable.

© 2

012 S

wag

elo

k C

om

pany



ENERGY STORAGE

Getting Bulk Storage Projects BuiltUnpredictable periods of operation are one of the disadvantages of wind and

solar technologies. If there were an economic means of storing the energy from the time of production to the time of demand, the value of renewable energy sources would greatly increase. Here are some ideas for how to bridge that gap.

By Jason Makansi, The Coalition to Advance Renewable Energy through Bulk Storage

Bulk energy storage technologies (typi-

cally larger than 50 MW and grid con-

nected at transmission level voltages)

add needed flexibility to grid operations and

enhance the reliability and security of electric-

ity supply. Unlike traditional generation and

transmission assets, bulk storage facilities re-

spond within minutes to add or absorb small

or large increments of capacity to and from

the grid. These technologies also represent

an economic development and export oppor-

tunity. Such attributes are now widely recog-

nized by the industry. Thus, it is not our intent

here to review these attributes, which can be

found in many respected references, but rather

to focus on the policy framework necessary to

monetize these attributes (Figure 1).

Over the past year in particular, many con-

ditions necessary for bulk energy storage to

play a larger role in U.S. electricity grid man-

agement and operations have converged.

First, the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC) implemented FERC

Order 755, which supports the use of energy

storage facilities for ancillary services, and

FERC Order 1000, which allows “multi-

value” transmission projects to recover costs

from ratepayers on a regional basis. FERC

also issued a Notice of Inquiry on Electric

Energy Storage Technologies and Ancillary

Services to determine how storage assets

should be treated for accounting purposes.

Second, two states with the largest elec-

tricity systems in the country—California and

Texas—are implementing state-level policies

conducive to storage. Not surprisingly, these

two states are also among the most aggres-

sive in developing renewable energy.

Third, the distributed energy storage sector

is suffering from a variety of issues related to

scale-up, operational safety, under-capital-

ized firms, private sector (venture capital and

private equity primarily) funding levels, and

general disenchantment with government-

sponsored research and development. History

suggests that at least a few of the companies

pursuing these technologies will ultimately

navigate the arduous path to a grid-scale

commercial product. However, the sector as

a whole, not unexpectedly by any means, has

clearly suffered setbacks this past year.

Finally, it bears repeating that bulk storage

technologies—primarily underground cavern-

based compressed air energy storage (CAES)

and pumped hydroelectric storage (PHS)—

have consistently exhibited the best econom-

ics on a life-cycle cost basis, compared with

virtually all of the scaled-up distributed stor-

age technologies, with the possible exception

of lead acid battery chemistry.

The Policy GapWith dozens of active PHS and CAES projects

around the country, a fair question to ask, giv-

en this convergence of conditions noted above,

is, What’s the problem in getting commercial

bulk storage projects online? The answer is

that there are still several widely acknowl-

edged benefits and value streams associated

with bulk storage for which cost recovery/fi-

nancial return is elusive under current policy

and electricity market mechanisms.

In largely regulated jurisdictions, storage

isn’t a “sanctioned” asset class like genera-

tion, transmission, or distribution assets for the

purposes of recovering costs either through

regulated rates of return or through contracts

between utilities and third-party or merchant/

independent project developers. In market-

oriented jurisdictions, monetizing the costs of

bulk storage through energy, capacity, renew-

able energy credits, and/or ancillary services

typically still leaves substantial benefits unpaid

for. The most notable of the ancillary services

important to storage is frequency regulation, for

which tariffs and products have been developed

in many organized electricity markets.

Whether in regulated or competitive regions,

the grid still must absorb shocks to the system,

and the intermittency/variability of renewable

energy has magnified this need. Thus, grid own-

ers/operators need “shock absorbers,” flexible

options that can respond quickly to system up-

sets, assets that can add load to the system when

necessary, assets that can absorb load from the

system, customers that will reduce their load de-

mand from the system, and so on.

Attractive(IRR~30%)

Medium(IRR~10%)

Not attractive(Negative IRR)

Profitability of the business case

Difficult Easy

Feasibility of implementation

Global market size to 2030

Conventional stabilization

T &D deferral Island/ off-grid storage

Black-start servicesBalancing

energy

Industrial peak shaving

Price arbitrage

Residential storage

Centralized

Decentralized

Mixed

> €50 billion

€20 – €50 billion

< €20 billion

1. Good business case. Four or five energy storage technologies are expected to exhibit

an attractive internal rate of return (IRR) in the near future, based on an analysis of the availability

of technical alternatives, the technical complexity of the implementation, its match with long-

established business models, and other supporting business and industry trends. Calculations

are based on estimated storage prices for 2015 to 2030. Source: The Boston Consulting Group,

“Revisiting Energy Storage: There Is a Business Case”

A Direct Path to Compliance

Call 1.888.882.2314 or email [email protected]

Getting through all the new Utility Boiler MACT and Cross State Air Pollution requirements can be disorienting or even catastrophic. Clyde Bergemann Power Group offers a streamlined solution to

get you completely through this maze of levels, dates and regulations. Let us make it easy for you.

Clyde Bergemann Power Group offers a single source compliance solutions guarantee.

With over 60 years experience and hundreds of installations across all industries, we are the single source to address your emission control requirements on an equipment-only or full turnkey basis. Let us help you optimize capital, maximize the value of operating and maintenance expenses, while meeting required emission standards.



ENERGY STORAGE

The electricity grid is described as the

world’s largest machine, or a just-in-time inven-

tory system, because electricity per se cannot

be stored, although it can be stored as energy

in other forms. It bears noting that 22,000 MW

of PHS already operates throughout the U.S.,

and one CAES facility has been operating for

almost 20 years. However, virtually all of these

facilities were built by vertically integrated utili-

ties before policies encouraging competition in

electricity supply were enacted.

In practice, the benefits and value streams as-

sociated with balancing, or “shock absorption,”

vary greatly, depending on the location within

the transmission or distribution system (and the

differing voltage levels) where balancing is con-

ducted. Now that electricity supply and delivery

has been disaggregated, the value and benefits

accrue to different stakeholders. However, the

problem is similar to the inability of certain

transmission projects to move forward because

it was simply too difficult to apportion the val-

ue, and recover the costs, to/from each class of

ratepayer that would benefit from having the

transmission line in place. Thus, through the

leadership and initiatives of several independent

system operators (ISOs), FERC instituted Or-

der 1000, which allows approved “multi-value”

projects to recover costs through an adder on

transmission tariffs across the region. Method-

ologies have been developed and approved that

quantify the value of these regional benefits.

Proposed Solutions and CAREBS’ Functional ApproachAt the federal and state levels, myriad poli-

cy solutions have been proposed, and some

instituted, to support the addition of energy

storage facilities, including:

■ Creating markets for grid ancillary servic-

es, the most accepted thus far being fre-

quency regulation (for example, in PJM,

MISO, CAISO, and NE-ISO).

■ Creating new market products, such as

ramping or flexible ramping in the orga-

nized markets to reflect the response val-

ue and flexibility of storage (in CAISO,

MISO, and others).

■ Allowing an investment tax credit for stor-

age facilities (Storage Technology for Re-

newable and Green Energy Act of 2011,

S.1845, pending before Congress).

■ Reducing the interval for bids into the

market to sub-hourly to accommodate so-

called “Limited Energy Storage Resourc-

es” and creating a “real-time” regulation

market (New York).

■ Mandating or encouraging a minimum

level of storage capacity in the market, that

utilities procure a minimum level of stor-

age, and that methodologies be developed

to assign a “resource adequacy” value to

storage, as is common for generation and

transmission resources, and institute pay

for performance and forward procurement

of flexible capacity (California).

■ Defining electricity used to charge storage

devices as wholesale not retail (Texas).

■ Creating a “national interest value” tar-

iff that would support distributed storage

(National Alliance for Advanced Technol-

ogy Batteries proposal).

As a complement to these initiatives, The

Coalition to Advance Renewable Energy

through Bulk Storage (CAREBS) advocates

a functional policy solution that:

■ Simplifies the task of integrating renewable

energy into grid operations without further

distorting existing ratemaking or market

mechanisms, or sacrificing reliability.

■ Avoids picking winners and losers and pro-

tecting existing or future asset classes by

focusing on the grid or market functional

need and not the technology or the asset.

Generation technology

ServicesBulk storage (PHS, CAES)a

Distributed storageb

Gas turbines, combined

cyclescCycling older fossil plantsd Hydroelectric

Demand managemente

Synchronous condensersf

Traditional

ancillary

services

Regulation Y N Y Y Y N Y

Energy imbalance Y N ? Y Y N N

Spinning/operating reserve Y N N Y Y N N

Black start Y N N N N N N

Reactive power Y N N N ? N Y

Reliability reserves Y N Y N Y Y N

Supplementary reserves Y N Y N Y Y N

Additional

“balancing”

services

Absorbing load, decremental reserves Y N N N N N Y

Transmission line loading optimization Y N N N N N N

Shifting on-peak to off-peak Y N N N N N N

Other

desirable

attributes

Avoiding transmission upgrades, investment Y N N N N N N

Weekly balancing Y N N N N N N

Seasonal load shifting Y N N N N N N

Notes:

a. Bulk storage is the only solution set capable of providing all the components of regional balancing for grid management.

b. Technologies not yet scalable and economical for large-scale regional balancing service, but appropriate for distribution-level balancing.

c. Fast-acting (or “flex”) gas turbines respond faster than earlier models but are less efficient and have worse emissions profiles at part load.

d. Cycling older coal-fired plants can provide some ancillary services, but under aggravated emissions profiles and typically significant metallurgical damage to major components

and high operating costs.

e. Interrupting customer load through demand management programs can help balance the system, but typically for regional balancing, a substantial amount of load must par-

ticipate at the same time.

f. Synchronous condensers can absorb load from the grid but can’t return it.

Conventional generation technologies cannot produce all the ancillary, balancing, and other services re-quired by a modern grid. Source: CAREBS

how you can beneit from clean, reliable energy within days, visit us at

✔

✔

✔

Whether you need supplemental power during maintenance outages or

extra capacity to meet seasonal peak requirements, APR Energy delivers

scalable customized power solutions that help you meet your high MW

demands. And through our turnkey approach, we can handle everything

from installation to operation and maintenance – worry free. To learn

how you can beneit from clean, reliable energy within days, visit us at aprenergy.com/gasturbines

✔ 25MW Mobile Dual-Fuel Gas Turbines

✔ Fast-track Delivery and Installation

✔ Flexible Turnkey Solutions

Fast-Track Rental PowerGas Turbines. When You Need Them Most.



ENERGY STORAGE

■ Minimizes government intrusion into the

marketplace while supporting core objec-

tives of expanding access to renewable

energy without sacrificing reliability or

further burdening ratepayers.

■ Leaves the determination of the need

for investment to those who own and

operate the grid, who can make judg-

ments about present and future need for

balancing.

The solution CAREBS proposes builds on a

strategy already moving forward for transmis-

sion and current practices in grid management.

First, grid balancing isn’t new, although

the higher penetration of renewable energy

enlarges its importance generally and re-

quires that balancing be conducted within

shorter time intervals. Grid balancing (Table

1), part of which involves traditional ancil-

lary services, today is done with the gener-

ating assets that are the most flexible (that

is, those that can reduce or increase load

quickly), including hydroelectric plants (in

the Pacific Northwest), older and smaller

fossil-fired units (in much of the Midwest

and in Western states) that can cycle, demand

side management (especially California, and

fast-response gas turbine generators (most

everywhere). Unfortunately, the holistic

costs for grid balancing—many of which are

not routinely quantified by utilities, or which

impose externalities (emissions penalties, re-

liability impacts, and so on) that do not show

up in costs—are not transparent or known

with any degree of precision on a real-time

basis. Therefore, better ways of providing

the balancing service, such as with bulk en-

ergy storage, are difficult to evaluate properly

(Figure 2).

Time resolution of service/control

Days

Daily/hourly scheduling

Tens of minutes to hoursLoad following

Seconds to minutesRegulation

Unit govenor response

Load frequency

control

Economic dispatch

Real-time operator actions

Unit commitment

2. Timing is everything. Operations planning timeframes dictate the required resources.

For example, frequency regulation may require a response of 1 to 2 seconds following a sys-

tem disturbance, 5 to 10 seconds for primary frequency response, and 10 seconds to several

minutes for normal regulation. Load following requires ramping synchronous loads during the

shoulder hours on either side of the daily peak load. A system of units is dispatched on an hourly

or daily basis through automatic generation controls. Source: MISO

Find cogen power plants in South India, list new coal-fired projects in Germany, track hydroelectric projects in Brazil, and more ...

The Platts UDI World Electric Power Plants

Database (WEPP) is an inventory of generating

units covering plants of all sizes and

technologies operated by regulated utilities,

private power companies, and industrial

autoproducers (captive power).

This unique database is the largest global

power plant information resource available.

To purchase the UDI World Electric Power Plants Database, visit www.udidata.com or call your nearest Platts office.

North America Europe/Middle East/Africa Latin America Asia-Pacific

1-800-PLATTS8 (toll-free) +44-20-7176-6111 +54-11-4804-1890 +65-6530-6430

+1-212-904-3070 (direct)

For more information about Platts UDI databases and directories, visit www.udidata.com.

UDI World Electric Power Plants Database – The Original Global Reference


ENERGY STORAGE

Most notably, bulk energy storage has

one attribute critical for load balancing that

the other options do not: the ability to ab-

sorb load from the system and then return

it at a later time (the round trip efficiency

between the energy input to charge the stor-

age facility and the energy output must be

built into the system economics). Genera-

tors can only put load onto the system. Syn-

chronous condensers (rare in the U.S.) can

absorb load but cannot return it. Reducing

demand through agreements with custom-

ers can quickly reduce the need for supply

but isn’t necessarily dependable or avail-

able in large capacity increments; nor does

it serve as a regional balancing solution. In

addition, some options, such as relying on

gas-fired generators, could add vulnerabili-

ties by stressing allied infrastructure, such

as natural gas pipelines.

Second, FERC, several ISOs, and a few

states have already solved a similar set of

issues facing transmission by allowing

“multi-value” projects to recover costs on

a regional basis. A new transmission line

not only delivers renewable energy from

one area to a dense load center, for exam-

ple, but it also strengthens the stability and

reliability of the electricity grid generally.

The positive environmental impact of con-

necting a wind-rich area with an urban load

center accrues to the region as a whole.

Bulk energy storage is no different. In

addition to bringing more renewable en-

ergy to more people more of the time, it is a

3. MISO wind curtailments 2008 to 2010. Wind generation grew to 3.8% of total

U.S. generation in 2010. However, there were also 2,117 wind curtailments in 2010 caused by

grid congestion or because the wind generation was surplus to requirements because it was

produced during off-peak hours when demand for electricity is low. Energy storage technologies

have the potential to absorb the surplus off-peak energy and release it to the market during peak

periods when prices are high. Energy storage has the potential to alleviate wind curtailment and

the need for additional transmission and generation to meet peak demand. Source: MISO

08 09 10 J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J F A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

Avg. 2008 2009 2010

240

210

180

150

120

90

60

30

0

Ave

rag

e c

urt

ail

me

nt

pe

r in

terv

al

(MW

)

Ave

rag

e d

ura

tio

n p

er

cu

rta

ilm

en

t (h

ou

rs)

24

21

18

15

12

9

6

3

0

Average curtailment per interval Average duration per curtainment

We don’t just convey coal. We convey expertise.

taggart Global designs, builds and operates coal

preparation plants and material handling systems

worldwide. We provide clients with the industry’s best

engineering resources, and our procurement services

are second to none. Additionally, our plant operation

services ensure coal preparation and material handling

facilities run in the safest, most cost-eficient manner.

When clients in coal production, power generation and

material handling demand turnkey solutions, they count

on Taggart to convey our unmatched expertise.

World Leader in Material Handling and Coal Preparation

724.754.9800 I www.taggartglobal.com

North America I South America I Africa I Asia I Australia



ENERGY STORAGE

“grid optimization” tool. Utilities that oper-

ate a bulk storage facility today are happy

to recount how invaluable the facility is to

guaranteeing reliability of electricity supply

and solving grid management problems as

they arise in real time. Every ISO/regional

transmission organization (RTO) that in-

cludes one or more bulk storage facilities

understands how valuable that facility is

to managing the grid and the market. Keep

in mind, however, that the investment was

recovered under a different vertically inte-

grated business model (Figure 3).

Thus, CAREBS advocates a straightforward

set of policy steps to quickly realize the benefits

of adding regional bulk storage by defining and

monetizing the balancing function:

■ Acknowledge the growing importance of

“balancing” in grid operations, especially

under high renewable energy penetrations,

by formally defining a balancing (or com-

pensating) function.

■ Acknowledge that the benefits of this bal-

ancing function accrue to all ratepayers in

the jurisdiction.

■ In the organized competitive markets,

separate and distinguish those aspects of

balancing that are not already covered by

existing market mechanisms—these value

streams can be recovered through existing

market mechanisms for energy, capacity,

renewable energy credits, and ancillar-

ies—so that double-dipping is avoided.

■ Ensure that utilities and ISO/RTOs make

the full costs of balancing transparent to

all market participants.

■ Require that all integrated resource plan-

ning exercises, capital budgeting, cost

evaluations, forecasting, and grid model-

ing and simulation evaluate the need and

costs for the balancing function separately

from the need for generation, transmis-

sion, and distribution assets.

■ Allow all assets that can provide such “bal-

ancing” services to compete—including bulk

energy storage, hydroelectric, gas turbine/

generators, demand management programs,

and fossil plants that can cycle—for the priv-

ilege of providing the services.

■ Allow investment recovery for provid-

ing the balancing or “shock absorption”

function through a mechanism similar to

multi-value transmission projects since

the concept is the same.

This set of policy steps will work in

regulated jurisdictions, organized markets,

and can be considered by FERC and the

state governments. In practice, it may be

best in some situations to consider ancil-

lary services as included in the balancing

function. In other situations, especially in

markets where components of ancillary

services are already procured by the ISO/

RTO through market mechanisms, it may

be best to define balancing as those ser-

vices, attributes, or benefits that are not

already available through other means.

Some jurisdictions would contract for ca-

pacity, energy, and balancing, while oth-

ers might contract for capacity, energy,

ancillaries, and balancing. Fully regulated

markets with largely unbundled utilities

could independently contract for balanc-

ing services or provide them through tra-

ditional means.

The ultimate goal is to lower the cost of

electricity to ratepayers, not to create new

protected classes of assets or continue to pro-

tect those that already exist.

Final ThoughtsBulk energy storage has unique attributes

for providing balancing or “shock absorp-

tion” for grid management: It is truly

large-scale (individual systems run from

50 MW to 700 MW); it manages the grid

on a regional, or wide-area, basis; it can

absorb large increments of capacity from

the grid and return that capacity at a later

time; the CAES and PHS technologies

are fully commercial, with warranties and

guarantees necessary for financing and

the comfort of grid owners/operators; and

it represents the only large-scale storage

technologies that are economically com-

petitive in today’s marketplace, especially

against low natural gas prices.

Under a formal and transparent process for

evaluating the need and costs for grid balanc-

ing, CAREBS believes that bulk storage can

compete without new subsidies or mandates,

because it is the only solution set capable of

providing all components of the balancing

function. The policy steps outlined here will

create the playing field necessary for grid

owners/operators to leverage the benefits

bulk storage brings to their stakeholders. ■

—Jason Makansi (jmakansi@ pearlstreetinc.com) is president of Pearl

Street Inc., a technology deployment ser-vices firm and executive director of The Coalition to Advance Renewable Energy

through Bulk Storage, a public policy and outreach organization. CAREBS members

include Dresser-Rand Corp., Haddington Ventures LLC, HDR Engineering, TetraT-

ech, Magnum’s Western Energy Hub, Eagle Crest Energy Co., WindSoHy, and

Hydrodynamics Group LLC.

Bringing together two of the most innovativeand trusted bolt securing technologies

The combination of Nord-Lock and Superbolt

is unique in the bolt securing industry.

Together we are able to serve our global

customers with an impressive line-up of safe

and cost-efective bolting solutions. Trust your

critical applications to the bolting experts.

To learn more visit:

www.nord-lock.com • www.superbolt.com


6118 7_875x10_75 PowerMag_v1.indd 1 10/14/10 1:18:23 PM

DO YOU MANUFACTURE

OR PROCESS OR

REFINE OR PRODUCE

OR PROVIDE ?

With a full line of complete Cleaver-Brooks boiler systems – from

burner to stack – available in any size and any capacity, there’s

a Nebraska boiler that will fulfill your needs and exceed your

expectations. Industrial watertubes, HRSGs, waste heat boilers –

we do it all. Whether you need 10,000 lb/h or 1 million lb/h, we

offer the only single-sourced, boiler/burner system in the world.

With Nebraska boilers, NATCOM burners and ERI Energy Recovery

Systems, Cleaver-Brooks provides all the steam you need.

WE MAKE A BOILER FOR THAT.

Visit cleaverbrooks.com/engineered or call 1.402.434.2000

©2010 Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.

6118 7_875x10_75 PowerMag_v1.indd 1 10/14/10 1:18:23 PM



NUCLEAR POWER

Too Dumb to Meter: Follies, Fiascoes, Dead Ends, and Duds on the U.S. Road to Atomic EnergyThe commercial development of nuclear power began immediately after the

Second World War ended and the Manhattan Project secrets were released to the public. As the headline—also the title of a new book—implies, the development path was not always straight or even clearly marked. In this POWER exclusive, the first chapter of Too Dumb to Meter begins a serial presentation of the book.

By Kennedy Maize

On September 16, 1954, a dapper and

double-breasted U.S. Atomic En-

ergy Commission Chairman, Lewis

Strauss, stepped to the microphone at the

Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York City. He

was addressing a dinner meeting of the Na-

tional Association of Science Writers. An

ebullient Strauss bragged,

Transmutation of the elements—unlimited

power, ability to investigate the working of

living cells by tracer atoms, the secret of

photosynthesis about to be uncovered—

these and a host of other results all in fif-

teen short years. It is not too much to expect

that our children will enjoy in their homes

electrical energy too cheap to meter—will

know of great periodic regional famines in

the world only as matters of history—will

travel effortlessly over the seas and under

them and through the air with a minimum

of danger and at great speeds—and will

experience a lifespan far longer than ours,

as disease yields and man comes to under-

stand what causes him to age. This is the

forecast for an age of peace.

It didn’t quite work out that way. Much of

the story of the atom focuses on the well-known

course of development of newer, bigger, stron-

ger bombs, and of the birthing problems and

maturation of civilian nuclear power plants.

Whereas most histories of technology

catalog success, this book details failure: ex-

plosive, expensive, repeated failure. This is

a less well-known story, but often more in-

teresting and more amusing. It also serves as

a cautionary account of the perils of govern-

ment hubris, public hysteria, and centralized

planning gone wild: misguided policy, mis-

understood history, misapplied engineering,

and mistaken economics.

This book brings to light some of the

things that went wrong—often terribly

wrong—from conception through failed im-

plementation. It is a tale of the stubborn and

mistaken belief in the ability of big science,

big engineering, and big government money

to solve any technical problem.

This story begins not with the well-known

history of the Manhattan Project and its in-

trepid bomb builders, but with what came

next—immediately after August 1945.

Chapter 1. The Madness of NukesMost Americans reacted joyously to the initial

news of the atomic bombs falling on Japan

in the summer of 1945, as the vast destruc-

tion spread by the atom spelled the end of the

Empire of the Rising Sun. Whatever these

mysterious bombs were, they did the job—

and most were glad. Sen. Brien McMahon, a

young Connecticut Democrat who would seal

his brief place in history by becoming a chief

architect of the postwar Atomic Energy Com-

mission, was fond of saying that the bombing

of Hiroshima was the greatest event in world

history since the birth of Jesus Christ.

Yet, there was also a twinge of guilt in the

public sentiment after the first atom bombs fell,

particularly as the scope of the devastation in

the two Japanese cities became known. Writer

John Hersey captured the ambiguity beauti-

fully in an article titled “Hiroshima,” published

in the New Yorker in August 1946, a year after

the U.S. bomb destroyed that metropolis.

Hersey’s 36,000-word article, which oc-

cupied the entire edition of the magazine and

was immediately published as a book, per-

sonalized the effects of the atomic bomb in

spare, calm language that made the horror of

nuclear war accessible to any reader. It had

a profound impact on the way many people

viewed atomic energy for decades to come.

Hersey—who had won a Pulitzer Prize for

fiction the year before with A Bell for Adano,

a tale of the U.S. military occupation of a

town in Italy—described six survivors of the

nuclear inferno in Japan and how it changed

their lives. When the article appeared, the

magazine’s editors began the edition with

this introduction:

TO OUR READERS The New Yorker this

week devotes its entire editorial space to an

article on the almost complete obliteration

of a city by one atomic bomb, and what

happened to the people of that city. It does

so in the conviction that few of us have yet

comprehended the all but incredible destruc-

tive power of this weapon, and that everyone

might well take time to consider the terrible

implications of its use. -The Editors.

“Hiroshima” was a publishing sensation. The

magazine quickly sold out on newsstands (at fif-

teen cents an issue), and copies were soon being

scalped to collectors for ten dollars and more.

Reprint requests poured in to the New Yorker,

and Knopf produced a book that hit the stores in

October. The Book of the Month Club distrib-

uted copies to its members for free. It became

one of the most influential books of the last half

of the twentieth century.

Soon after, many Americans began to

wonder incredulously at those two terrible

pieces of blast and fire that fell out of the sky.

Just what were they? Clearly, a new force

had been unleashed, one that even most well-

educated Americans didn’t understand and

couldn’t quite comprehend.

Time magazine, in its July 1, 1946, cover

story on Albert Einstein and the bomb (the third

time Einstein had appeared on the magazine’s

cover), captured that feeling of combined awe

and befuddlement, writing in its signature style:

June 19-21, 2012BOSTON, MA | Doubletree’s Coco Key Hotel

wind | wave | tidal | current | thermal | solar | hybrids

www.energyocean.com

9TH ANNUAL

CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION

Uniting All Segments of the Offshore Renewable Energy Industry

Register online with VIP code: PWRMAY

EnergyOcean International Will Unite:h Developers

h Utility Companies

h Investors

h Researchers

h Component and System Manufacturers

h Government Of� cials

h Policy Makers

h Academic & Educational Organizations

50+ Exhibiting Companies | 450+ Attendees

3 Days of Conference Content | One Event!

2012 KEYNOTE SPEAKER CONFIRMED:

Tommy Beaudreau, Director of the Bureau

of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)


NUCLEAR POWER

It is typical of the dilemma of this civiliza-

tion that masses of men humbly accept the

fact of Einstein’s genius, but only a handful

understand in what it consists. They have

heard that, in his Special and his General

Theories of Relativity, Einstein finally

explained the form and the nature of the

physical universe and the laws governing

it. They cannot understand his explana-

tion. To a small elite of mathematicians and

physicists, the score of equations in which

Einstein embodied his picture of the uni-

verse and its functioning are as concrete as

a kitchen table. To the layman they are as

staggering as to be told, when he is strain-

ing to make out the smudge which is all he

can see of the great cluster in the constella-

tion Hercules, that the faint light that strikes

his eye left its source 34,000 years ago.

Time concluded that most people would

never understand much about Einstein’s the-

ories—the fundamental ideas behind nuclear

energy—beyond this limerick:

There was a young lady called Bright,

Who could travel much faster than light;

She went out one day, in a relative way,

and came back the previous night.

Much of this wonder and incredulity grew

out of the secrecy of the atomic adventure. As

it emerged after the war, the story of the Man-

hattan Project was a revelation. The largest

engineering and military production effort in

history had occurred in the United States over

a period of nearly five years, completely under

the unknowing noses of the American public.

It had all been hidden in veils of secrecy, and

now the story was beginning to unfold.

Just how secret? The vice president of the

United States, Harry S. Truman, didn’t know

about the atomic bomb until after his boss,

President Roosevelt, died in April 1945. Four

months before the two bombs fell on Hiroshima

and Nagasaki and only three months before the

successful Trinity test at Alamogordo in the New

Mexico wilderness, Truman listened in astonish-

ment when he got his first briefing. With only

sketchy understanding of what had been going

on, he soon had to make the fateful decision to

let the atomic demon loose on the world.

Gen. Leslie Groves, the career military

man who ran the project, describes in his 1962

memoir, Now It Can Be Told, how the military

bamboozled Congress on the program through

1943. The enormous atomic bomb project was

buried in a series of War Department sub-ac-

counts within the impenetrable military budget.

Even the War Department bureaucrats respon-

sible for allocating the money were largely in

the dark. Groves talks about a “bad moment in

late 1943,” when Rep. Albert J. Engel (R-MI)

got wind of a major construction project in the

Tennessee woods at a place called Oak Ridge.

Engel wanted to make a trip to Oak Ridge to

see what was going on. “In reply,” Grove writes,

“he was told that this work was highly secret,

and that the information he wanted could not be

given to him; eventually, he was persuaded to

forget his contemplated visit.”

Ironically, while Groves and his atomic bomb

babysitters were able to keep most of Congress,

the vice president, most of the war and for-

eign policy bureaucracy, and all of the Ameri-

can people in the dark, that didn’t work with

our sometimes ally and long-term adversary

throughout the twentieth century—the former

Soviet Union. Stalin and his spymasters knew

a great deal about the secret endeavor and were

quickly able to demonstrate their own explosive

prowess with atomic science.

The Manhattan Engineering District—the

cover name for the atomic bomb program—cre-

ated what Groves called the “country’s greatest

single scientific success.” It also created a cou-

ple of enduring myths. First, the bomb builders’

success fed the notion that large, government-

directed and -funded scientific and engineering

programs can overcome almost any technical,

political, or social obstacles. The later success of

the Apollo moon project reaffirmed that belief.

The residue of that notion of government-driven

science can be seen in the subsequent history of

public policy in the twentieth century, and today.

The Nixon administration’s hopelessly hubristic

War on Cancer in the early 1970s exemplified

the lingering paradigm of the Manhattan Proj-

ect, as did the Carter administration’s support

for creating a giant synthetic fuels industry in

the 1980s, which turned into a colossal flop.

Today, in the bowels of the Department of En-

ergy, the Manhattan mentality remains, fueling

research and development in such areas as: how

to capture and stuff into the ground carbon di-

oxide from coal-fired power plants; how to eco-

nomically turn sunlight directly into electricity;

and how to midwife a new generation of nuclear

power technologies.

Almost immediately after the atomic

bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the

United States went nuts over nukes. The shad-

owy world of the atom, rumored in technical

journals and occasional “gee-whiz” newspa-

per or magazine article in the pre-war press,

burst onto the scene in 1945. The result was a

tidal wave of enthusiasm for anything and ev-

erything atomic. Anyone associated with the

atom was a rock star; the atom was the future

of the universe; and the United States seemed

the master of that universe. The nation was

enthralled by hyper-optimistic notions about

what the atom could do, beyond blowing

up enemy cities and spreading radioactive

fallout around the globe. Trains, boats, and

planes would be atom-powered. Tiny atomic

reactors would sit in our basements and heat

our houses. Government would beat into

peaceful plowshares the most terrible sword

humankind had ever developed.

Writer Daniel Ford, who covered nuclear

energy for the New Yorker twenty-five years

after Hersey, described in his book, Cult of

the Atom, a “general euphoria” about atomic

energy. Ford linked that feeling to the un-

dercurrent of guilt left from the bombings.

“Instead of reflecting on the horrors visited

upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki or on whether

the bombs should have been used in the first

place,” Ford wrote, “news reports helped to

alleviate the nation’s feelings of repulsion

and guilt by focusing public attention on the

more congenial aspects of ‘the new force.’”

A mere two weeks after bombs fell on Japan,

Newsweek gushed that “even the most conser-

vative scientists and industrialists were willing

to outline a civilization which would make the

comic-strip prophecies of Buck Rogers look ob-

solete.” In December of 1945, just four months

after the attack on Japan, Popular Science maga-

zine proclaimed in a cover story headline “We

can harvest the Atom.” The article went on to say,

“you will soon see mobile engines running on

U235, and cities heated by steam from stationary

graphite piles.” A 1953 Look magazine article by

Gordon Dean, one of the original members of

the postwar Atomic Energy Commission, was

titled “Atomic Miracles We Will See.”

Over the years, the hyperbole rolled on.

The military, the civilian government, and

the popular press touted nuclear power as a

panacea to many of the military and domestic

problems that faced the nation. Bizarre notions

of the prospects of nuclear energy for enriching

civilian life took hold in these influential circles.

Take the family sedan. Ford Motor Co. in 1958

created a concept car, called the “nucleon,” de-

signed to be powered by a tiny nuclear reactor. It

existed, of course, only on drawing paper and a

3/8-scale clay mockup. But the Ford nucleon is

evidence of how the atom was the dream of the

age in the 1950s and 1960s.

Even comic strip characters were enlisted in

the army of atomic acolytes. One was Dagwood

Bumstead, the harried and harassed, suburban,

. . . misguided policy, misunderstood history, misapplied engineering, and mistaken economics.


NUCLEAR POWER

sandwich-loving salary-man who was the ever

flappable hero of the Dagwood and Blondie

strip. The strip has been a fixture on newspaper

comic pages for more than 70 years and was the

prototype for generations of television sitcoms

from the Honeymooners to Ozzie and Harriet

and Ricky and Lucy to Mad Men.

In September 1948, Popular Science maga-

zine carried an episode titled “Learn How

Dagwood Splits the Atom,” a piece of pure

propaganda, but with considerable educa-

tional content. The following year, King Fea-

tures, the syndicate that distributed the strip to

newspapers around the country, published the

Dagwood atomic energy strip as a free-stand-

ing comic book. The Dagwood comic book

featured a foreword by well-known journal-

ist Bob Considine and a formal endorsement

from Gen. Leslie Groves. Although it is not

clearly stated in the document nor is there any

evidence to support the conclusion, it is hard

to believe that the book did not have Atomic

Energy Commission funding.

In 1951, the A.C. Gilbert Company of Fair

Haven, Connecticut, maker of toys for budding

scientists and engineers came out with the “U-

238 Atomic Energy Lab,” a briefcase-sized case

full of radiation goodies for inquisitive kids.

The fifty-dollar kit (very expensive for the day)

included four different types of uranium ore, a

Geiger counter for measuring radiation, a spin-

thariscope for seeing atoms split naturally, and

a miniature cloud chamber for tracking differ-

ent sub-atomic particles. The lucky child also

received a government-issued pamphlet titled

“Prospecting for Uranium” aimed at aiding

would-be prospectors (with the possibility of

a ten thousand dollar reward from the govern-

ment for a good discovery of uranium ore), and

a copy of the Dagwood comic book.

While the bombs were bad, the atom was

good. That was the message the government

was pitching in the aftermath of the war. The

popular president, Dwight Eisenhower, touted

what he dubbed Atoms for Peace in 1954

(partly to overcome widespread feelings that

the atomic scientists and bureaucrats were not

delivering on their hyperbolic claims), and the

Post Office issued a three-cent Atoms for Peace

first-class stamp in 1955. Some 133 million

stamps came off government printing presses.

Even Disney, the juggernaut of popular cul-

ture, got into the act of promoting the benefi-

cial atom. Working with publisher Simon and

Schuster in 1956, Disney produced the large-

format book Our Friend the Atom, written by

expatriate German physicist Heinz Haber. Dis-

ney artists illustrated the work. In the foreword,

Walt Disney himself (or a ghostwriter) wrote,

“Atomic science began as a positive, creating

thought. It has created modern science with its

many benefits for mankind. In this sense our

book tries to make it clear to you that we can

indeed look upon the atom as our friend.”

In 1954, New York publishing house Grosset

& Dunlap relaunched a series of books aimed

at ten- to fourteen-year-old boys intrigued with

technology. The books were the second genera-

tion of Tom Swift kids’ science novels, named

the Tom Swift Jr. line. Both the original Tom

Swift books, which began in 1910 and saw

distribution until 1941, and the post-war itera-

tion of the 1950s through 1971, were aimed at

similar generations of young readers, primarily

boys, hooked on technology.

The putative author of the second run of

books was Victor Appleton II: a concocted

moniker for a group of writers working on a

rigid formula that carried the series through

a dozen books. Their inspiration was the

phenomenal advancement of nuclear and

military science that characterized the end of

the war, as the public became drunk with the

prospects of science and technology in the

aftermath of the Manhattan Project.

When Tom Swift Jr. stepped onto the fic-

tional stage, everything seemed possible.

THE BALANCE OF POWERCOMP

LIANC

E ISSUES,MA

NAGING

EMISS

IONS, BALAN

CE-OF-PLAN

T IMP

ACTS, EMISSIONS

CONTROL,PROFITA

BILIT

Y,EFF

AcidGasExperts.com

To learn how Breen can help with your“balancing act”, call 412.431.4499 or visit

www.breenes.com today.

Operating a power generationplant is a balancing act.Compliance issues, managingemissions, Balance-of-Plantimpacts from emissionscontrol... and the bottom line.

At Breen, we understandthis balancing act. We’re theleader in bringing new ideas andtechnologies to bear on the issuesthat give plant managerssleepless nights.

An innovator in acid gasmanagement, Breen balancesthe concerns of compliance,environmental issues, efficiencyand profitability. Our technology-and chemical-neutral solutions

are the result of our ability todiscover, develop and applyproducts and processes thatget results.

No matter the issues, Breenbrings the knowledge, experience,tools and processes to make animpact and deliver results.

Some of Breen’s solutionsinclude: DSI (Dry SorbentInjection) demonstrations andoperations, MATS (Mercury andAir Toxics Standards) compliancestrategies, and Fuel Lean GasReburn for NOx and SOxcompliance.

BREEN BOP - Power Mag Ad 4-10:Layout 1 4/11/12 8:38 AM Page 1



NUCLEAR POWER

The original Tom Swift series—also writ-

ten, under the Victor Appleton pseudonym,

by a collection of authors writing to formu-

la—articulated a similar reverence for scien-

tific advancement and its purported solutions.

Tom Sr. invented the picture telephone, ver-

tical takeoff aircraft, and a giant military

tank—all prescient, though not all of his in-

ventions eventually saw the light of day.

Tom Sr. also gave us the delightful Tom

Swifties puns, which remain a parlor game

among some aging pop literature raconteurs. In

the game, one is asked to come up with adver-

bial, adjectival, or other puns with Tom quotes,

mimicking the original Tom. For example:

■ “Who would want to steal modern art?”

asked Tom abstractedly.

■ “Fire!” yelled Tom alarmingly.

■ “It’s a unit of electric current,” said Tom

amply.

■ “Why invade Iraq?” Tom said ironically.

■ “Another batch of shells for me!” Tom

clamored.

■ “George W. Bush?” asked a dumbfounded

Tom.

Tom Swift Jr.’s escapades continued the

tradition and exemplified the technologi-

cal optimism of the nuclear world after the

end of World War II. Tom was the son of the

original, who by that time had made a fortune

from his inventions.

An ebullient eighteen-year-old, Tom Jr.

and his friends, relying on their own inven-

tiveness, his father’s advice, and the money

from his father’s engineering enterprises,

were able to conceive and develop a series of

new technologies, without the use of govern-

ment funds and in astonishingly short time.

These inventions inevitably saved the na-

tion from the nefarious plots of foreign gov-

ernments. Our adversaries in the Swift books

invariably were bogeymen from Eastern

Europe or South America. They were dark-

skinned, secretive, and motivated by hatred

of the United States and a desire to supplant

American power with their own.

All this played into the fears of the day. In

the wake of the war, Soviet power advanced

to conquer central and eastern Europe. Com-

munism captured China. “Who lost China,”

was the refrain of right-wing Congressional

Republicans, as if Harry Truman and the

Democrats—not U.S. support for the corrupt

government of Chiang Kai-shek, which led

to Mao Tse-tung and his agrarian Commu-

nists—were responsible.

But while the alleged traitors in our govern-

ment, proclaimed by Republican Sens. Joseph

McCarthy of Wisconsin and John Bricker of

Ohio and others in both parties, were said to

be selling the nation down the drain, technol-

ogy would rescue us. No one was as good as

the United States at turning basic science into

useful weapons, goods, and services. That

the godless Commies had managed to de-

velop their own nuclear weapons (which they

thankfully never used) was solely a result of

espionage and theft. This was the gospel of the

friendly atom circa 1954.

The Tom Swift books represented the tech-

nological illusions of the post-war period. Tom

was lanky, sporting a blond crew-cut, and al-

most always wearing a T-shirt with blue and

white horizontal stripes, and blue jeans. True

to formula, he had a heroic sidekick, Bud Bar-

clay, who was darker, shorter, and stockier

than Tom. A good athlete, Bud was not nearly

as intellectually gifted as Tom (who was?). He

often came to Tom’s rescue when the hero was

captured by the enemy. Also in sync with the

formula, Tom had a comic sidekick, Charles

“Chow” Winkler, a former cowboy chuck-

wagon cook who had become the Emeril

Legasse of Swift Enterprises. He was prone

to loud clothes and bizarre outbursts such as

“brand my space biscuits” that are as charming

as the earlier Tom Swifties. The infectious op-

timism of Tom Swift and his crew carried over

to government policy makers, such as Lewis

Strauss (pronounced “Straws”). A former

shoe salesman, he became a wildly successful

and rich investment banker. Appointed to the

newly created Atomic Energy Commission by

President Truman in 1946 and President Eisen-

hower’s choice as chairman in 1954, Strauss’s

optimism characterized the times.

Strauss also symbolized the shift from the

military to civilian control over the power of

the atom in the United States. The Manhattan

Engineering Division became the Atomic En-

ergy Commission after a politically conten-

tious battle, which in the end created a formal

structure outside the military for the develop-

ment of nuclear energy. The new structure,

however, did little to dilute the power of the

military over nuclear energy. The organiza-

tional chart changed, but the mind-sets of the

masters of the atom remained militaristic.

More to ComeIn the next chapter, “Manhattan Transfer,” an

open fight for control of the development of

nuclear power explodes between the newly

created Atomic Energy Commission and the

military services, with the politicians playing

both sides against each other. ■

—Kennedy Maize is a POWER con-tributing editor and executive editor of MANAGING POWER. Too Dumb to

Meter is available on Amazon.com and is serialized by permission.

To subscribe, visit www.powermag.com/subscribe

or call 847-763-9509.

IN PRINT, IN PERSON, AND ONLINE

POWER magazine • POWER news • COAL POWER • GAS POWER

MANAGING POWER • POWER Handbook • powermag.com

POWER connect • Careers in POWER • ELECTRIC POWER

www.powermag.com

If you need information on the

global power generation industry,

look to first.

IS YOUR PLANT OR

SMART GRID PROJECT

A WINNER?

2011 MARMADUKE AWARD:

CFE’s CTG Universidad Unit 2

2011 PLANT OF THE YEAR:

Kansas City Power & Light’s Iatan 2

Nominate it for a Award today!

The Plant of the Year award will be presented to a plant that leads our industry in the successful deployment of advanced

technology—maximizing effi ciency while minimizing environmental impact. In short, the Power Plant of the Year, featured in the August issue of POWER, is the best of class over the past year.

If you know of a power plant or upstream smart grid

project that’s worth bragging about, nominate it for

one of POWER magazine’s annual awards. Projects

anywhere in the world are eligible.

For award criteria details, see the online nomination forms. Award fi nalists and winners will be selected by the editors of POWER

based on nominations submitted by you and your industry peers—suppliers, designers, constructors, and operators of power

plants and smart grid projects.

The Marmaduke Award, named after the legendary plant troubleshooter whose exploits have been chronicled in POWER since 1948, recognizes operations and maintenance excellence

at existing power plants. The Marmaduke Award winner will also be profi led in the August issue.

Top Plants Awards recognize the best in class over the past year in each of four generation categories: gas (September), coal-fi red

(October), nuclear (November), and renewable (December).

The Smart Grid Award will go to the project that best demonstrates the benefi ts of smart grid technology implementation upstream from the end user. The winning project will be profi led in the August issue.

NOMINATIONS ARE DUE MAY 21, 2012.

Read about all the 2011 winners and

download entry forms from www.powermag.com

(under “Also from POWER Magazine”).

14TH ANNUAL

BALTIMORE CONVENTION CENTER

MAY 15-17, 2012BALTIMORE, MD

Register with VIP Code PWRT2 for the best

rates at www.electricpowerexpo.com

CO-LOCATED WITH:

LEAR . NE WORK. EXPLORE.Come and discover what the future holds for the power generation industry.

» Access Exclusive Educational Opportunities Filled With Industry Coverage.

» Continue the discussion! Share your ideas and lessons learned with 5,000+ of your closest friends - make connections with leading industry professionals.

» Looking for ways to improve safety performance? Tasked with creating operational efficiencies? Upgrading your facilities? Find all of the products, services and technologies that you need in one location!

LAST CHANCE…SECURE YOUR

FREE EXPO PASS TODAY!

Womenin

Europe 2012

Pho

to: N

EM E

NEr

gy

bv

SPECIAL

ADVERTISING

SECTION


Europe 2012SPECIAL

ADVERTISING

SECTION

Curved belt conveyors: customized and efficientFor sustainable solids handling, BEUMER is a leading manufacturer of intra-logistics systems for conveying, loading, palletizing, packaging, sorting and distribution

The BEUMER Group, with headquarters in Beckum, Germany, and subsidiaries

around the world, manufactures advanced products and systems for the efficient and environmentally friendly transport of bulk materials over rough terrain or obstacles. The group supplies open troughed belt conveyors for higher throughputs and closed pipe con-veyors for tight-radius curves.

“Not short-term gain but long-term suc-cess” is the guiding principle of BEUMER, founded in 1935 by Bernhard Beumer and still a family business. Employee involvement in all its business processes, innovation, communication, and ongoing dialog between sales, engineering, and R&D are all key.

The company bases its long-term success on controlled growth, a global presence, and a wide range of services in three areas: conveying and loading; palletizing and pack-aging technology; and sorting and distribu-tion systems. The BEUMER Group employs around 3,000 people and generates annual sales of around €500 million.

As a system provider BEUMER not only supplies standard products but also designs, builds and installs systems matching the individual requirements of customers down to the smallest detail.

BEUMER is a technology leader in curved belt conveyors, in both open (troughed belt) and closed (pipe conveyor) designs. These efficient and sustainable bulk trans-port solutions can span long distances and large changes in elevation, thanks to their sleek lines and ability to follow tight curves. Rugged terrain, rivers, roads, rails and build-ings are no obstacles, so transport with belt conveyors is much faster than via trucks, for example, as well as being less labor-inten-sive. High-efficiency electric motors and low-friction conveyor design help to save energy.

For all its products BEUMER offers a com-prehensive service: maintenance, trouble-shooting, repairs, spare parts, modernization and expansion. The BEUMER Group also places emphasis on sustainability, as mea-sured by a special index. www.beumer.com

The BEUMER Group is known for its expertise in belt conveyor systems

European vendors fill power plant needs worldwideFrom coal conveyors to technology for smart grids, European firms provide a huge variety of products and services of value to the global power generation industry

Europe’s variety of natural resources and political persuasions has given rise to an

extremely diverse power generation industry. While all the major energy sources are widely used, a number of European countries rely heavily on one in particular, whether that be coal, nuclear, hydro, or even geothermal. State-owned power producers operate along-side some of the world’s most open markets.

As an article elsewhere in this issue explains, new coal-fired power plants and coal technology are likely to have a strong future in Europe over the next decade. At the same time, countries including Germany and Denmark are moving purposefully and credibly toward a carbon-free future based on wind and solar power. New nuclear is under construction while other European nations vow to go nuclear-free for good. The European gas market and gas pipelines from Russia are always in the news, while pros-pects for shale gas continue to tantalize.

This second annual Europe Special Advertising Section showcases a wide spread of products and services for the power indus-try. Elsewhere in this issue of POWER you will find these companies’ advertisements; in the next few pages, the same vendors tell their stories at greater length. Read on to find out more about what Europe has to offer. ■

InsideAlcatel-Lucent 105BEUMER 102Hadek Protective Systems 103KIMA 103NEM Energy 104Servomex 104Tyco 105

Not always tranquil: a planned new unit at E.ON’s Datteln power plant in Germany has been a focus for anti-coal protests

eutr

oph

icat

ion

&h

ypo

xia

/ F

lick

r


EUROPE SPECIAL ADVERTISING SECTION

Dedicated fill-level measurement for coal millsSmartFill is a fail-safe, high-precision, fill-level and temperature measurement system for coal mills that helps ensure uniform grinding and optimum combustion properties

KIMA specializes in high-performance analog and digital closed-loop controls,

innovative sensor systems and databases for the coal, minerals, cement and chemi-cal industries. The company’s central aim is to optimize industrial processes towards greater efficiency, higher productivity and less environmental pollution.

To help achieve these targets in power plants KIMA has adapted its technologies for use in coal mills. In contrast to the traditional methods of measuring fill level in ball mills, KIMA’s SmartFill is the only system which takes all the necessary information directly from its source: on the mill shell.

Classical methods such as microphones and base- or bearing-mounted sensors strug-gle with problems such as interference from noise created by other mills and machinery, ambiguities in locating the sources of sound, and dust. None of these problems affect the SmartFill solution. By providing plants with previously unavailable information, SmartFill thus brings many advantages. These include:

interference-free measurement – no influ-• ence from other mills or machines nearby;

significantly enhanced precision of • measurement;reliable and precise measurement of the • fill level;independent measurements are pos-• sible on both sides of the mill, or in two chambers;better level measurement allows the mill • to operate with greater stability, with con-sequent higher throughput, less wear and more consistent particle size; and

self-powered system with integrated gen-• erator means that it is not necessary to stop the mill to change batteries.

SmartFill has been used successfully in many different types of ball mills in the cement and mining industries. Within the last seven years the system has been successfully sold and installed in more than 450 applications.

KIMA also provides the next logical step towards process optimization: the MillMaster predictive control system for grinding pro-cesses. Working unattended, MillMaster controls grinding circuits in fully automatic mode. A single MillMaster system keeps up to six mills operating with optimum performance. As well as improving grinding performance, the system also increases plant availability thanks to its ability to protect against overfilling and similar malfunctions.

Keeping the fill level at a constant opti-mum level makes for a more homogenous product, which improves the combustion properties of the coal. This, in turn, leads to a reduction in unburnt carbon and, conse-quently, better energy efficiency.

www.kimae.de

Attaching directly to the coal mill, the SmartFill level measurement system does not suffer from acoustic interference

Borosilicate lining protects chimneys from corrosionCoal, oil and lignite firing gives chimneys a tough time, but Pennguard lining technology from Hadek offers reliable performance for 20 years or more

Hadek Protective Systems is a specialist in the internal protection of power station chimneys and flue gas ducts. Coal, oil and lignite

firing power stations need chimneys that will operate under low-temperature, corrosive and sometimes variable conditions. In spite of their severe operating environment, these chimneys are expected to perform reliably for many years, with minimum downtime. The Pennguard Block Lining System offered by Hadek can take it all.

The Pennguard Block Lining System forms an impermeable, acid-resistant barrier inside chimney flues. The lining is based on closed-cell borosilicate glass technology. Lightweight borosilicate glass blocks manufactured under highly controlled conditions are attached to the internal steel, concrete or brickwork surface of power plant chimneys using a durable, flexible adhesive. The Pennguard Block Lining System is used in new chimneys and is also frequently retrofit-ted to existing chimneys.

A properly installed Pennguard lining offers a service life of well over 20 years. Just as importantly, it requires virtually no mainte-nance. Any small repairs or alterations can be performed quickly, with minimum preparation and equipment. In addition to the Pennguard lining system itself, Hadek provides a range of services, including fea-sibility studies, engineering, on-site quality assurance and long-term guarantees and performance monitoring.

The Pennguard Block Lining System has been installed all over the world. Ongoing projects include:

3 x 626 MW lignite-fired Hongsa Power Station, Laos: one 250 m • concrete chimney with three steel flues will be Pennguard lined during 2013;1 x 1,300 MW coal-fired W.H. Zimmer Generating Station, Ohio, USA: • one 174 m concrete chimney with one free standing brick flue will be Pennguard lined during spring 2012;6 x 800 MW coal-fired Kusile Power Station, South Africa: two • 220 m concrete chimneys, each with three steel flues, will be Pennguard lined during 2012/2013. www.hadek.com

The acid-resistant Pennguard lining is applied to the inside surface of the existing brick liner



Gas analyzers aid efficiency at UK coal power plantServomex’s world-leading expertise in monitoring combustion gases has been recognized at the giant Drax facility

Operator Drax Power has installed eight SERVOTOUGH FluegasExact 2700 gas

analyzers from Servomex at its 3,960 MW coal-fired power plant in Selby, UK. Drax is the UK’s cleanest and most coal-efficient power plant, as well as the largest.

The FluegasExact is designed for tem-peratures up to 1,750°C (3,182°F) in process heaters, utility boilers, thermal crackers and incinerators. It uses a zirconium oxide cell to measure oxygen and a patented thick-film catalytic sensor for combustibles.

Zirconia technology measures oxygen on a “wet” basis, meaning that there is no need to condition the sample gas first; thick film technology monitors CO levels to ±25 ppm. With response times (T90) better than 20 seconds for O2 and 30 seconds for combus-tibles, the combustion process can be closely controlled and “breakthrough” detected extremely rapidly.

Both sensors operate in a heated, insulated sensor head installed in a single low-flow extractive probe. Manufacturing to the highest quality standards ensures excep-tional performance in tough environments with the minimum of maintenance.

The installation has been a success, with Drax engineers able to operate the combus-tion process much closer to the optimum air-fuel ratio. This has saved fuel, reduced process downtime and further improved emissions quality compared to a previous, obsolete, analyzer installation.

Performance has been subsequently improved by installing a new sulfur-resistant combustibles sensor upgrade kit. This improves the performance and longevity of

Servomex thick film technology in applications where SO2 levels exceed 1,000 ppm.

Servomex has also provided full ser-vice and support including installation and commissioning for the SERVOTOUGH FluegasExact analyzers.

“The performance, accuracy and reli-ability of the SERVOTOUGH FluegasExact has established it as the industry choice for mon-itoring combustion processes, so with this installation Servomex is proud to actively contribute to Drax’s status as the UK’s most efficient coal-fired power station,” says Chris Cottrell, Managing Director, Servomex.

“Servomex has been a pleasure to work with and the contract was professionally project managed with a flexible approach,” concludes Peter Muff, Project Manager, Drax Power. www.servomex.com

Drax Power Station (above) and the Servomex FluegasExact analyzer (right)

Record contract for HRSGs at Saudi power plantNEM’s distinctive know-how and continuous technological innovation have brought the steam generation specialist a big order for a combined cycle plant conversion

NEM Energy b.v., with a staff of over 550 dedicated employees, supplies custom

solutions and services for industrial, utility and heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs) in power generation and industrial applica-tions throughout the world. NEM has now powered over 3,500 MW worldwide.

A recent contract for the PP10 combined cycle power plant in Saudi Arabia is the larg-est project in the firm’s history. NEM’s order from Arabian Bemco Contracting Co. Ltd. in Jeddah is for 40 unfired dual pressure heat recovery steam generators. These steam generators with integral deaerator are of the vertical gas flow natural circulation type. With a value of several hundred million dol-lars the complete PP10 project is one of the largest in history, and will create the world’s largest combined cycle power plant. For NEM it represents an entry to one of the most promising HRSG markets globally.

The first phase of PP10 is already run-ning as an open cycle power plant. The gas turbines are site-rated at 55.9 MW per unit and operate mainly on Arabian crude oil. The conversion to combined cycle will increase

capacity from 2,200 MW to 3,500 MW, pro-viding around 20% of the power needs of the city of Riyadh, which has over 5.2 mil-lion inhabitants. PP10 will have ten blocks arranged in 4-on-1 configuration.

NEM is a global leader in steam gener-ating equipment. The company supplies HRSGs, direct fired boilers, process boilers and power plant components such as divert-ers and dampers. NEM also offers engineer-ing and maintenance services.

HRSGs take up the largest portion of NEM’s activities. With over 80 years’ experi-ence, the firm is driven by its distinctive know-how and continuous technological innovation, with an eye for new applications such as steam generation for enhanced oil recovery and solar power applications. Services for HRSGs range from custom design through to aftermarket services.

Being a global leader means maintaining high standards in the quality of products and services, and in the know-how and dedica-tion of staff. Every detail of how NEM con-ducts its business is managed with care and meets strict quality standards.

NEM operates through business units in the Netherlands, Germany, US, Dubai and Malaysia. The main office is in Leiden, the Netherlands. www.nem-group.com

NEM supplied two HRSGs for a combined cycle plant in Portugal, which started up in 2011



Desuperheaters for extreme temperaturesTyco Valves & Controls delivers robust solutions for hard-worked plants, says Martin-Jan Strebe, director for global product management control valves

In the last 10 years, mod-ern power plants have

increased their operating temperatures and moved to higher cycling in order

to generate energy more efficiently. Tyco Valves &

Controls is meeting these requirements with an advanced extension to its

range of TempLow steam desuperheat-

ers. Designed for high cycling applications, Tyco’s

TempLowHT desuperheater provides precise and economical

steam temperature control.At steam temperatures around

500°C (932°F), mechanical issues and thermal deterioration can occur in conventional desuperheater designs. The TempLowHT product

operates within 6°C of set pressure in elevated temperatures up to 621°C (1,150°F) and features an innovative design that relo-

cates all moving and welded components to an upper air-cooled portion of the valve. This eliminates the need for sliding trim parts within the hot zone of the steam pipe, prevents component fatigue, and delivers extended lifespan.

TempLowHT incorporates the latest spray nozzle technology and is engineered to reduce frictional losses. Internal contours optimize water swirl action to achieve consis-tent droplet size. The high-quality machined surface of the nozzle is available with a vari-ety of configurations, enabling the product to be customized to specific system require-ments. This design increases the velocity and rotating effect of the water before it is sprayed into the pipeline, ensuring that the water is injected in a fine, symmetrical hol-low cone spray.

Tyco has engineered and constructed the product with low maintenance in mind. A Stellite seat provides long life and tight shut-off, while a forged body with stainless steel internal components significantly reduces the risk of corrosion. The product is also adaptable to changing needs with an injec-

tion probe that can be unscrewed from the body for easier capacity changes, without the need to replace the stem or seat.

Developments in power plant design and the emerging trend for higher cycling increase the risk of thermal shock and equip-ment fatigue. Operators must consider the demands placed on critical components. The TempLowHT desuperheater has been designed for high-load cycling applications in combined cycle and heat recovery steam generator (HSRG) plants, and provides an innovative solution for precise steam tem-perature control and prevention of thermal stress fatigue failures.

Tyco Valves & Controls remains com-mitted to supporting the power generation industry with new innovations in product design, engineering and construction. Research and development into new and more resilient materials is at the core of Tyco’s strategy in the power industry, draw-ing on the business’s global experience and capability to provide local support for cus-tomers’ operations.

www.tycoflowcontrol.com/valves

Field area networks are key to smart grid successHigh wiring costs mean that wireless field area networks are often essential to connect smart grid devices

Smart meters and intelligent network sensors are hailed as core elements

in the smart grid success formula, provid-ing unprecedented visibility, control and efficiency for consumers and power opera-tors. Yet there is another powerful, if less heralded, technology that is essential for these revolutionary tools: wireless field area networks (FANs).

Leading utilities are leveraging distribu-tion automation (DA) and substation auto-mation (SA) technologies to assure greater efficiency and reliability. DA and SA provide for much greater visibility and control of the grid by the addition of intelligent sensors and communications technologies at many points within the control network.

In many cases, these intelligent sensors are frequently difficult or prohibitively expen-sive to reach using wired or fiber technolo-gies. They may also require more bandwidth availability than can be achieved cost-effectively with technologies such as power line carrier (PLC) or telephone services. As a result, more utilities are turning to wireless FANs to reach these devices.

More than just a wireless solutionAlcatel-Lucent’s wireless FAN solution is a pre-tested, preintegrated set of open-stan-dard wireless technologies designed to sup-port mission-critical utility operations. Often deployed in conjunction with Alcatel-Lucent’s award winning IP/MPLS, microwave and fiber optic backhaul solutions, it provides a highly reliable, secure, ubiquitous and cost-effective architecture.

Solution components include:802.16e/WiMAX: Alcatel-Lucent has • become the utility industry’s leading inte-grator of 802.16e/WiMAX-based systems, partnering with leading manufacturers to provide mission-critical wireless broad-band connectivity to substations and field assets. Utilities such as OG&E, PECO/Exelon, and PPL have turned to Alcatel-Lucent’s solutions for their Smart Grid.LTE: Alcatel-Lucent is the leader in bring-• ing Long-Term Evolution (LTE) to the util-ity industry. An alternative technology to WiMAX, LTE is the natural evolution of cel-lular and WiMAX technologies. It provides robust and highly scalable broadband con-

nectivity for both fixed and mobile appli-cations that allow the utility to converge its mobile data needs to a single network technology.lightRadio™: Alcatel-Lucent lightRadio • portfolio includes a small 6 cm x 6 cm x 6 cm form factor cube that combines the functionality of both an antenna and base-station device. It enables advanced wireless solutions to be mounted on power poles and buildings. This greatly reduces the expense and regulatory hurdles of building new communica-tions towers that often accompany FAN solutions.

Technology to trust

Alcatel-Lucent has provided the highest level of technology and service to the world’s leading utilities for more than 20 years. Its wireless smart grid communications solu-tions, deployed on electrical grids around the globe, are enabling utilities to respond rapidly to new demands and plan smarter strategies for the future.

www.alcatel-lucent.com/smartgrid


NEW PRODUCTSTO POWER YOUR BUSINESS

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

Explosion-Proof Halogen LightMagnalight.com announced the addition of the EPL-QP-1X150-100—a quad-pod mounted light tower designed to provide operators in hazardous locations with a powerful lighting solution—to its extensive line of explosion-proof lighting equipment. The portable tower and removable lamp assembly design of this tower provides versatile operating options, and a simple halogen lamp provides effective yet economical illumination. Providing 1,500 square feet of work area coverage with 1,520 lumens of light output, the tower light provides reliable illumination and convenient portability in an easy-to-deploy lighting package. Equipped with a 150 W halogen bulb that produces illumination in a wide flood pattern, the lamp housing on this unit is suitable for wet areas and marine environments and tested to 500 hours of salt spray exposure in accordance with MIL-F-8115C military specifications. (www.magnalight.com)

New Burner Management System Siemens Industry Inc. introduced two new SIMATIC Burner Management Systems (BMS) to give end users greater flexibility to cost-effectively comply with revised 2011 burner standards. Designed with TUV-certified hardware and customizable software, the compact BMS300F and BMS151F systems comply with NFPA, IEC, and ANSI/ISA standards for single- or dual-fuel applications with single or multiple burners. The models are also capable of meeting up to SIL-3 with appropriate field devices.

The BMS models are designed in accordance with the technical requirements listed in both NFPA 85 and 86 standards for programmable logic solvers (section 4.11 of NFPA 85 and section 8.3 of NFPA 86). All critical BMS functions are managed via IEC 61508 compliant components up to SIL-3, thereby ensuring safety metrics are met. These systems are also compliant with ISA S84.00.01-2004 and IEC 61511. An optional TUV-certified burner blocks library is also available. (www.usa.siemens.com/fa-bms)

Easy-Use Spade Drill BitSpade drill bits are routinely used by electricians who do wiring and cabling, especially for drilling holes in wood for conduit runs. But traditional spade bits sometimes vibrate badly and dull after just a few uses. The new IDEAL Power-Spade spade bit helps eliminate these problems to provide an increased level of performance, whether the user is boring through wood, cement board, composite enclosures, or ceiling tile. Sporting a unique full-cone threaded tip, the Power-Spade operates fast, requiring up to 50% less force to achieve faster cuts than other leading competitors’ spade bits. Self-feeding action promotes smoother, vibration-free drilling while the contoured paddle quickly removes chips from the hole, preventing lockup. This contoured paddle also creates a more aggressive cutting blade angle than traditional straight spades, resulting in faster penetration and removal for optimum hole finish. Breakouts are virtually eliminated by the bit’s spur and reamer that perfectly scribes the outside of holes. The bit is available in a range of sizes from 0.5 inch to 1.25 inches. (www.idealindustries.com)

Need help? Need a job?

LINEAL RECRUITING SERVICES

Contact Lisa Lineal in confidence

www.Lineal.com • [email protected] free 877-386-1091

Electric Power Systems & Service Specialists Se habla Español

Opportunities in Operations and Maintenance,

Project Engineering and Project Management,

Business and Project Development,

First-line Supervision to Executive Level Positions.

Employer pays fee. Send resumes to:

POWER PROFESSIONALS

P.O. Box 87875Vancouver, WA 98687-7875

email: [email protected]

(360) 260-0979 l (360) 253-5292www.powerindustrycareers.com

READER SERVICE NUMBER 202


Plant Engineers

New Madrid Power PlantAssociated Electric Cooperative Inc. (AECI) is owned by and provides

wholesale power to six regional and 51 local electric cooperative

systems in Missouri, northeast Oklahoma and southeast Iowa that

serve more than 875,000 customers. AECI’s mission is to provide an

economical and reliable power supply and support services to its

members with the vision of being the nation’s lowest-cost wholesale

power supplier. AECI is a Touchstone Energy Cooperative.

AECI’s New Madrid Power Plant is an electrical power generating facil-

ity that utilizes coal for combustion in the boilers to furnish steam to

the turbine/generator that produces electrical power for distribution

to our member cooperatives.

AECI is seeking applicants for a Plant Engineer with an emphasis on

instruments and controls and a Plant Engineer with an emphasis

on mechanical at its New Madrid Power Plant.

To learn more and apply for a position, please visit www.aeci.org and

complete your profile. You will be able to upload additional applicant

documents (i.e. resume, cover letter) and apply for a position.

AECI is fully committed to the concept and practice of equal oppor-

tunity and affirmative action in all aspects of employment. Please

reference the contact information below if you require assistance in

filling out an application. Individuals with disabilities should request

reasonable accommodations in accordance with the Americans with

Disabilities Act prior to an appointment.

(573) 643-6285

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/D/VE-Verify Participant

POWER PLANT BUYERS’ MART


GAS TURBINES FOR SALE

• LM6000 • FRAME 9E • FRAME 5

50/60Hz, nat gas or liq fuel,installation and service available

Available for Immediate Shipment

Tel: +1 281.227.5687

Fax: +1 281.227.5698

[email protected]


POWER PLANT BUYERS’ MART

CONDENSER BRUSHES-PLUGS-SCRAPERS

IN STOCK-SHIP TODAY-MADE IN THE USA

JOHN R. ROBINSON INC. Since 1907

Condenser and Heat Exchanger Tools & Services

Ph. 718-786-6088 Fax: 718-786-6090

Email: [email protected]

www.johnrrobinsoninc.com

CLIENT: ExelonAD SIZE: 1/4 pg.(3.375 X 4.875)INSERTION #: HI-3636PUBLICATION: Power MagazineDATE: May IssueCONTACT: Dan / Diane

Complete plant closure, assets of

For more information or to subscribe to our email/mailing lists, visitwww.hgpauction.com • www.maynards.com

www.hilcoind.com

hILCO WEBCAST / ONSITE AUCTION

Major Assets Are Available Immediately For Pre-Sale

Available at a Later Date: Two Complete Combined 588MW Power Generating Units Located in Eddystone, Pennsylvania

• (2) Steam TurbineGenerator Units

• (3) Exciters• (2) Surface Condensers• Feedwater System• (14) Feedwater Heaters• Cooling Water System• Circulating Water System• Steam Generators

(Boilers)• (12) Coal Pulverizers• (9) Draft Fans• Coal Handling & Delivery

System• No. 6 Fuel Oil

Delivery System• Air Compressors• (2) Vacuum Pumps• Scrubber Plant• Waste Treatment /

Ash Handling• (8) Centrifugal Pumps• Diesel Generator• (13) Outdoor Transformers• Electrical Distribution• Railroad Track• Locomotive• Mobile Equipment• Maintenance Equipment• Plant Support

Location:Township Lines & Cromby Rd.

Phoenixville, PA 19460

Please contact Mark Reynolds at 205 595 5999 or email [email protected]

Prev. Info:Mon. & Tues., June 4 & 5, 2012 from 8 AM to 4PM ET each day

Pennsylvania Auctioneer & License: Taso Sofikitis License #AU004074 • PA License #AY000292 HILCO Industrial, LLC PA License #AY002121

A Complete 2 Unit 345MW Power Generating Facility, Featuring Core and Noncore assets to the Production of Power

WED. & ThURS., JUNE 6Th & 7Th • 9AM


READER SERVICE NUMBER 204READER SERVICE NUMBER 203


READER SERVICE NUMBER 208 READER SERVICE NUMBER 209 READER SERVICE NUMBER 210


CONDENSER OR GENERATOR AIR COOLER TUBE PLUGSTHE CONKLIN SHERMAN COMPANY, INC.

Easy to install, saves time and money.

ADJUSTABLE PLUGS-all rubber with brass insert. Expand it, install it, reverse action for tight fi t.

PUSH PULL PLUGS-are all rubber, simply push it in. Sizes 0.530 O.D. to 2.035 O.D.

Tel: (203) 881-0190 • Fax:(203)881-0178E-mail: [email protected] • www.conklin-sherman.com

OVER ONE MILLION PLUGS SOLD

NEED CABLE? FROM STOCK

Copper Power to 69KV; Bare ACSR & AAC Conductor

Underground UD-P & URD, Substation Control – Shielded and Non-shielded, Interlock Armor to 35KV, Thermocouple

BASIC WIRE & CABLEFax (773) 539-3500 Ph. (800) 227-4292

E-Mail: [email protected] SITE: www.basicwire.com



24 / 7 EMERGENCY SERVICEBOILERS

20,000 - 400,000 #/Hr.

DIESEL & TURBINE GENERATORS50 - 25,000 KW

GEARS & TURBINES25 - 4000 HP

WE STOCK LARGE INVENTORIES OF:Air Pre-Heaters • Economizers • Deaerators

Pumps • Motors • Fuel Oil Heating & Pump SetsValves • Tubes • Controls • CompressorsPulverizers • Rental Boilers & Generators

847-541-5600 FAX: 847-541-1279WEB SITE: www.wabashpower.com

FOR SALE/RENT

POWEREQUIPMENT CO.

444 Carpenter Avenue, Wheeling, IL 60090

wabashREADER SERVICE NUMBER 214

PRODUCT Showcase

www.meltric.com800.433.7642

4 Simplifies NFPA 70E® compliance4 Protects from arc flash

Qualified technicians can quicklydeenergize and service equipment.

Rated up to 200A, 600V, NEMA 4XDead Front

Safety Shutter

OFFButton

LOTO

Cost-effective, industry-standard performance test procedures and

calculation templates (Excel)•

ASME Steam Properties Add-In (‘67/’97, SI/English)

•Real Gas Properties Add-In (EOS Based)

•Gas & Steam Properties Calculators

Only $595*

Version 6.0

Free Trial!Try GPCALCS v6.0 free

for 30 days. If you’re not completely satisfied,

simply uninstall the software.

www.gpworldwide.com/gpcalcs

™GPcalcsTHE PERFORMANCE ENGINEER’S TOOLBOX

™

™

GPCALCSTHE PERFORMANCE ENGINEER’S TOOLBOX

GPCALCSTHE PERFORMANCE ENGINEER’S TOOLBOX

Only $595*

™CALCS™CALCS™

THE PERFORMANCE ENGINEER’S TOOLBOX

For More Information 800.803.6737 • 716.799.1080

[email protected]

* VISA, MasterCard, AMEX Accepted

GPA-002045 Showcase ad_PowerMag.indd 1 3/30/12 3:49 PM

READER SERVICE NUMBER 213READER SERVICE NUMBER 212

Model A100Plug Resistant Orifice for critical drain lines

CU Services LLC725 Parkview Cir,

Elk Grove Vlg, Il 60007Phone 847-439-2303

[email protected]

When a plugged drain line would mean disaster...


CLIENT: GWFAD SIZE: 1/4 pg.(3.375 X 4.875)INSERTION #: HI-3693PUBLICATION: Power MagazineDATE: May IssueCONTACT: Dan / Diane

AVAILABLE IMMEDIATELY

Partial Listing Only. For more information or to subscribe to our email/mailing lists, visit

Hilco Industrial LLC, IL License #444.000215

On Behalf Of Preview:By appointment only.

LocationMultiple Locations

in California

For More information please contact:

David Barkoff at [email protected] or +1 650 649 0147

Mark Reynolds at [email protected] or +1 205 595 5999

www.hilcoind.com / www.hgpauction.com

Onsite turnkey Or fOr relOcatiOn

with Large Inventory of Spare and Replacement Parts

Five (5) Complete 22 MW and One (1) 30 MWFluidized Bed Petroleum Coke Power Plants

May 2012 | POWER www.powermag.com 109READER SERVICE NUMBER 216


George H. BodmanPres. / Technical Advisor

Office 1-800-286-6069 Office (281) 359-4006PO Box 5758 E-mail: [email protected], TX 77325-5758 Fax (281) 359-4225

GEORGE H. BODMAN, INC. Chemical cleaning advisory services for boilers and balance of plant systems

BoilerCleaningDoctor.com

17_PWR_040112_Classifieds.indd 109 4/16/12 1:00:53 PM


Meet the EditorThomas Overton, JDGas Technology Editor

Meet the founding editor of GAS POWER. Tom has over 15 years of experience in scientific and professional publishing,

and is a licensed California lawyer specializing in copyright and intellectual property issues. As gas technology editor, he will provide GAS POWER Direct readers the latest technical data through blogs, commentary, webinars and more.

Visit www.powermag.com/gaspower/ and sign up for the GAS POWER Direct e-newsletter to get the latest gas-fired generation technology news.

As gas market opportunities continue to flourish, trust the newest POWER brand, GAS POWER, to deliver the latest global gas-fired generation industry news.

We’ll have exclusive gas-fired generation industry coverage of ELECTRIC POWER 2012 & the Combined Cycle Users’ Group Annual Meeting!

» ELECTRIC POWER Track 2: Gas Turbine/Combined-Cycle Power Plants

» The Combined Cycle Users’ Group Annual Meeting

www.powermag.com/gaspower

Power Plant Buyers’ Mart


Available For Immediate DeliveryPratt & Whitney FT8-1 Gas Turbine Generator

• 25,490KWBaseLoadISODualFuel• HeatRate:8950Btu/Kw-Hr• 50HZ,11KV,Convertibleto60HZ• GasGeneratorandPowerTurbineoverhauledbyOEMwith12monthshopwarranty

• TotalHour55,093sincenewin1992

Contact: Energy Capital Pte. Ltd.

JamesA.NaplesDirect(518)587-6643Fax:(518)587-1146Cell:(518)495-3596Email:[email protected]:www.Energycapital.net




Advertisers’ indexEnter reader service numbers on the FREE Product Information Source card in this issue.

Alcatel-Lucent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . 2 www.alcatel-lucent.com/smartgrid

Applied Bolting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 . . . . . . . . . 34 www.appliedbolting.com

APr energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 . . . . . . . . . 54 www.aprenergy.com/gasturbines

Atlas Copco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 . . . . . . . . . 35 www.atlascopco.us

Baker Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 . . . . . . . . . 44 www.bakerconcrete.com

Baldor electric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 . . . . . . . . . 41 www.baldor.com

Beumer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 . . . . . . . . . 14 www.beumer.com

Brand energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 . . . . . . . . . 33 www.beis.com

Breen energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 . . . . . . . . . 58 www.breenes.com

BrUKs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 . . . . . . . . . 49 www.bruks.com

Carboline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 . . . . . . . . . 25 www.carboline.com

Caterpillar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 . . . . . . . . . . . www.catelectricpowerinfo.com/pm

Chatham steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 . . . . . . . . . 12 www.chathamsteel.com

Chromalloy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . . 7 www.chromalloy.com

CleaverBrooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 . . . . . . . . . 57 www.cleaverbrooks.com/engineered

Clyde Bergemann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 . . . . . . . . . 53 www.clydebergemannpowergroup.com

ConocoPhillips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . 3 www.philips66lubricants.com

day & Zimmerman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 . . . . . . . . . 23 www.dayzim.com

diamond Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 . . . . . . . . . 48 www.diamondpower.com

exxon/Mobil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 . . . . . . . . . 13 www.exxonmobil.com

Fenner dunlop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 . . . . . . . . . 24 www.fennerdunlopamericas.com

Flexco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . 5 www.flexco.com

Fluor Corp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 . . . . . . . . . 15 www.fluor.com

General Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . 4 www.etaproefficiency.com

Hadek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 . . . . . . . . . 52 www.hadek.com

Harco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 . . . . . . . . . 39 www.harcolabs.com

Kiewit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 . . . . . . . . . 21 www.kiewit.com

KiMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 . . . . . . . . . 37 www.kimae.de

Ludeca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 . . . . . . . . . 51 www.ludeca.com

Magnetrol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 . . . . . . . . . 18 www.magnetrol.com

Martin engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 . . . . . . . . . 28 www.martin-eng.com

Martin engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 . . . . . . . . . 40 www.martin-eng.com

Matrix service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 . . . . . . . . . 31 www.matrixservice.com

Membrana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 . . . . . . . . . 50 www.liqui-cel.com

Metalfab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 . . . . . . . . . 36 www.metalfabinc.com

Mitsubishi Power systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 . . . . . . . . . 19 www.mpshq.com

nalco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cover 3 . . . . . . . . . 59 www.nalcomobotec.com

neM energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 . . . . . . . . . 29 www.nem-group.com

nol-tec systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 . . . . . . . . . 30 www.nol-tec.com

Orion instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 . . . . . . . . . 46 www.orioninstruments.com

Outotec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 . . . . . . . . . 20 www.outotec.com

Paharpur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 . . . . . . . . . 38 www.paharpur.com

PiC Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 . . . . . . . . . 22 www.picworld.com

Proenergy services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cover 4 . . . . . . . . . 60 www.proenergyservices.com/experience

rentech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cover 2 . . . . . . . . . . 1 www.rentechboilers.com

roberts & schaefer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 . . . . . . . . . 42 www.r-s.com

rolls-royce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 . . . . . . . . . . 9 www.rolls-royce.com

servomex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 . . . . . . . . . 47 www.servomex.com

stF s .p .A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 . . . . . . . . . 27 www.stf.it

superbolt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 . . . . . . . . . 56 www.superbolt.com

swagelok . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 . . . . . . . . . 26 www.swagelok.com/connection

taggart Global . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 . . . . . . . . . 55 www.taggartglobal.com

teAM industrial servce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 . . . . . . . . . . 8 www.teaminc.com

tiC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 . . . . . . . . . 43 www.tic-inc.com

turboCare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . . 6 www.turbocare.com

tyco Flow Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 . . . . . . . . . 10 www.tycoflowcontrol.com

verizon Wireless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 . . . . . . . . . 32 www.verizonwireless.com/utilities

Westinghouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 . . . . . . . . . 11 www.westinghousenuclear.com

Williams Patent Crusher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 . . . . . . . . . 45 www.williamscrusher.com

Zachry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 . . . . . . . . . 16 www.zhi.com

Page

Reader Service Number Page

Reader Service Number

CLAssiFied AdvertisinGPages 107-110 . to place a classified ad, contact

diane Hammes, 713-343-1885, dianeh@powermag .com



COMMENTARY

Ensuring the Best Use of Federal Energy Subsidies By Keith B. Hall

The U.S. uses a combination of direct expenditures, tax breaks, loan guarantees, and research funding to promote various energy goals. We could rely solely on the free mar-

ket and avoid using federal subsidies, but we do not do that now and appear unlikely to do so in the future. Accordingly, we must decide how we will use subsidies. The complexity of the en-ergy challenges we face makes it impossible to produce a precise blueprint for the best use of subsidies, but we can outline some general principles.

Implementing a Successful National Energy PolicyFederal subsidies should support a national energy policy that balances three key objectives: achieving greater energy inde-pendence, protecting the environment against accidents, and operating in a sustainable manner.

Fairness. We should minimize the use of federal expenditures and loan guarantees that are directed to specific companies. Such subsidies are more likely to produce an unfair windfall for a few lucky recipients and are more prone to actual or perceived conflicts of interest and cronyism. Further, notwithstanding oc-casional successes, the government has a poor track record of picking economic winners and losers. Solyndra provides an ex-pensive example.

Balance. A primary challenge relating to fossil fuels is sustainability, while a primary challenge relating to renew-able energy is practicality—its inability to affordably supply most of our energy needs. It is not clear whether we will have greater success at making fossil fuels more sustainable or at making renewables more practical. For this reason, we should pursue a balanced approach that supports research on renewable energy while also promoting research on carbon capture and sequestration, coal gasification, and other ways that decrease fossil fuels’ environmental impact and increase their sustainability.

Another reason to take a balanced approach is that even though renewables might become our primary source of energy someday, that is unlikely to happen anytime soon. At present, about 45% of our nation’s electricity is generated by coal and another 24% is generated by natural gas. The U.S. Energy In-formation Administration (EIA) projects that by the year 2035, coal will generate 39% of our electricity and natural gas will generate 27%. If both electrical and non-electrical energy uses are considered, our dependence on fossil fuels is even more pro-nounced. They currently provide about 83% of our total energy, and in 2035, they will supply about 77%. Thus, for at least a generation, our continuing dependence on fossil fuels will make it important to decrease our use of imported oil while working to reduce fossil fuels’ environmental impact and increase their sustainability.

At present, we aren’t taking a balanced approach in using

subsidies and instead are strongly favoring renewables. The EIA reports that, during 2010, approximately 55.3% of all federal subsides relating to electrical power were directed toward renew-able energy, while 21.0% were directed to nuclear power, 10.0% to coal, 8.2% to electricity transmission and distribution, and 5.5% to natural gas.

When subsidies are compared based on the relative amount of electricity generated by particular energy sources, the tilt toward renewables is even more pronounced. Subsidies di-rected toward coal and natural gas amounted to about $0.64 per 1,000 kWh of electricity generated by those sources. In contrast, subsidies for renewable energy were approximately $15.43 per 1,000 kWh.

Renewables also received the largest share of federal subsi-dies for non-electrical power. Biomass, biofuels, and other re-newables received 77.7% of those subsidies in 2010, compared to 20.7% for oil and gas. And again, renewables fare even better when subsidies are compared based on the amount of power generated. Subsidies relating to oil and gas were approximately $75.83 per million Btu of power generation in 2010. In contrast, renewables’ subsidies were about $2,011. We should work toward a more balanced approach.

Strategic Action. World trade generally benefits our country, but we should decrease our dependence on oil that is imported from countries that are unstable or hostile to the U.S. Our de-pendence on foreign oil already has decreased—from 60% of our total consumption in 2005 to 49% in 2010—and that percent-age is still dropping. Furthermore, our largest foreign supplier is now Canada, a friendly and stable neighbor. But the EIA projects that imported oil still will account for 36% of consumption in 2035, and some of that will be from nations much less stable and friendly than Canada.

In contrast, the EIA projects that the U.S. will be a net export-er of natural gas by 2021 because of rapidly increasing domestic production. A strategic move would be to use more cars that run on natural gas, thereby decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. But there is a chicken and egg problem: Most consumers will avoid buying natural gas cars if there are few natural gas fueling stations, and entrepreneurs will avoid opening fueling stations if there are too few customers. We should give incentives for consumers to buy natural gas vehicles and for entrepreneurs to open fueling stations.

Federal energy subsidies will yield the maximum benefit if we use them to promote a national energy policy that balances the objectives of energy independence, environmental protection, and sustainability, and if we use subsidies in a way that is fair, balanced, and strategic. ■—Keith B. Hall ([email protected]) is an attorney with

the law firm of Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann LLC in New Orleans, La.

Nalco Comprehensive Solutions for Cost Effective

Mercury Control Customized for Your Plant

Introducing MerControl® 8034 Technology – Mercury Re-emission Control in W-FGDsWhile w-FGDs will capture the oxidized form of mercury, some w-FGDs convert oxidized mercury back to its elemental form (known as Mercury Re-emission) resulting in reduced capture eficiency and increased stack emissions. MerControl 8034 technology can reduce up to 100% of mercury re-emissions in w-FGD scrubbers while preserving gypsum quality and decreasing emission rates.

MerControl® 7895 Technology – Mercury Oxidation CatalystMerControl 7895 technology augments oxidation of mercury released during the combustion of coal and can remove over 90% of mercury when used in conjunction with a w-FGD or SDA/FF. When applied with activated carbon injection, the addition of MerControl 7895 technology signiicantly reduces total mercury control costs while maintaining ly ash resale value.

Predict Hg Technology – Mercury Removal in FGD WastewaterNalco signiicantly improves the performance of FGD wastewater systems by using innovative products and services. We model our customers’ waste treatment plants, allowing us to accurately predict the results of various mechanical, operational and chemical changes. We quantify potential gains in inancial terms, allowing our customers to make decisions based on data, not guesswork.

Visit us at Electric Power, Booth #1841 Hear Nalco’s Dr. Bruce Keiser present at Electric Power: “Simple and Effective Method to Control Mercury Re-emissions from w-FGDs” Wednesday, May 16, 1:30 – 3:00, Room 327.

For more information or to schedule a demonstration, call 630-305-1328 or email [email protected].

www.nalcomobotec.com

©2012 Nalco Company Nalco, the logo and MerControl are trademarks of Nalco CompanyEcolab is a trademark of Ecolab USA, Inc.

An Ecolab Company


Nalco Comprehensive Solutions for Cost EffectiveMercury Control Customized for Your Plant

Introducing MerControl® 8034 Technology – Mercury Re-emission Control in W-FGDsWhile w-FGDs will capture the oxidized form of mercury, some w-FGDs convert oxidized mercury back to its elemental form (known as Mercury Re-emission) resulting in reduced capture eficiency and increased stack emissions. MerControl 8034 technology can reduce up to 100% of mercury re-emissions in w-FGD scrubbers while preserving gypsum quality and decreasing emission rates.

MerControl® 7895 Technology – Mercury Oxidation CatalystMerControl 7895 technology augments oxidation of mercury released during the combustion of coal and can remove over 90% of mercury when used in conjunction with a w-FGD or SDA/FF. When applied with activated carbon injection, the addition of MerControl 7895 technology signiicantly reduces total mercury control costs while maintaining ly ash resale value.

Predict Hg Technology – Mercury Removal in FGD WastewaterNalco signiicantly improves the performance of FGD wastewater systems by using innovative products and services. We model our customers’ waste treatment plants, allowing us to accurately predict the results of various mechanical, operational and chemical changes. We quantify potential gains in inancial terms, allowing our customers to make decisions based on data, not guesswork.

Visit us at Electric Power, Booth #1841 Hear Nalco’s Dr. Bruce Keiser present at Electric Power: “Simple and Effective Method to Control Mercury Re-emissions from w-FGDs” Wednesday, May 16, 1:30 – 3:00, Room 327.

For more information or to schedule a demonstration, call 630-305-1328 or email [email protected].

www.nalcomobotec.com

©2012 Nalco Company Nalco, the logo and MerControl are trademarks of Nalco CompanyEcolab is a trademark of Ecolab USA, Inc.

Equipment & Parts

Field Services

EPC Services

TurbineServices

Operations & Maintenance

Technical Services

Aero Depot Solutions

Fabrication Services

Professional Services

Controls Solutions

Renewable Energy Services

PackagingSolutions

High Voltage Solutions

Process Services

www.proenergyservices.com/experience UNITED STATES l PANAMA l VENEZUELA

ARGENTINA l BRAZIL l PAKISTAN l ANGOLA

Experience That Really Stacks Up.If you’re building, operating, overhauling, refurbishing

or staffing a power plant, let’s talk. We’ve put together an impressive team of power industry veterans who work together to provide safe and reliable solutions for every phase of a project’s life cycle.

Please contact us to talk about how our services can help you achieve maximum return on investment.

221.29376 2012 May Power Mag.indd 1 4/5/12 3:17 PMCIRCLE 60 ON READER SERVICE CARD

powermag--2012 (5)

Documents