By Teresa Hansen, Senior Editor
Carbon was the word of the week at POWER-GEN International 2007, held December 11-13, in New Orleans. “Whether you agree or disagree (with the global warming theory), carbon is in your future,” said Andrew Kruger, Evolution Market Inc.’s director of carbon markets and a Keynote Session speaker. Kruger urged the near-capacity audience to embrace carbon and begin participating in carbon regulation development. “You can affect the way things happen economically as well as environmentally,” he said.
Kruger said that debating issues surrounding carbon-related legislation rather than actively working with law makers to get reasonable regulations implemented could result in a patchwork of state initiatives, making compliance difficult for many generators. He said 36 states currently are working on some sort of climate initiative, each with its own unique regulations. As a result, a federal program providing consistency is needed.
 New Orleans proved an outstanding venue to welcome conference and exhibit attendees from all over the world to POWER-GEN International 2007. |
Mark Savoff, Entergy Corp.’s executive vice president of operations, opened the Keynote Session saying that Entergy is committed to addressing climate change concerns. He said Entergy Crop., POWER-GEN International’s host utility, believes a direct correlation exists between global temperature rise and CO2 emissions. “Burning fossil fuels has affected our climate,” Savoff said.
Savoff presented detailed statistics about the effects of greenhouse gases and discussed the events and issues that it may cause if left unchecked. He predicted that by 2040 climate change could end globalization as countries move to conserve their natural resources for their own citizens and limit what they share and with whom.
He said Entergy supports mandatory federal regulation and believes the world must reduce greenhouse gas emissions to less than 1960 levels by 2050. He said Entergy is not against renewable energy, but that a federally mandated renewable portfolio standard (RPS) is not a good idea. “A mandated RPS increases costs for customers. It amounts to the government mandating the use of technology,” he said. “The United States needs energy that is efficient and clean, but the government should not mandate technology that would be expensive and inefficient in certain regions.” He said with proper carbon-related regulations the economy will determine the best way to reduce CO2.
As the second-largest nuclear generator in the country, Entergy believes third and fourth generation nuclear technologies should be part of the CO2 solution. It also believes current coal assets must continue to be part of the generation mix. “We cannot have energy independence without coal,” he said.
Nicholas Akins, American Electric Power’s (AEP’s) executive vice president of generation, also spoke at the Keynote Session. As one of the largest coal burners in the United States—more than 25,000 MW of the company’s 38,388 MW total generation comes from coal—AEP’s perspective on how to meet the future generation demand while reducing greenhouse gases includes coal-fired generation. “AEP has an interest in ensuring that coal remains a fuel in this country,” he said.
Akins said AEP is implementing several new clean coal technology projects. These include the chilled ammonia carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) project that AEP and Alstom Power are implementing at AEP’s Mountaineer Plant. The equipment, which should be in place by 2009 and operational by 2012, is expected to capture and sequester 1.5 million metric tons of CO2 each year. He also discussed the parasitic load created by this technology, as well as the existing backend clean-up technology and how it affects plant efficiency. “With all the backend clean-up equipment and processes installed in these plants, especially if you add CO2 capture, they are becoming chemical plants that happen to produce electricity,” he said. “It is becoming much more difficult for operations personnel to control the thermal cycle.”
In addition to its work with CCS, AEP also hopes to build a super-critical baseload power plant by the summer of 2011. The plant, which would be located in Fulton, Ark., about 15 miles northeast of Texarkana, Ark., received its Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need from the Arkansas Public Service Commission in November. This put AEP one large step closer to breaking ground on the new plant.
Akins said, however, that AEP does not believe it or any other power generator will get a new baseload nuclear or coal plant permitted until the company proves to regulators that it is maximizing its existing capacity through customer demand-side management and energy efficiency programs.
Akins stressed that with more than 25,000 MW of coal capacity, it is important to AEP to keep coal in its generation mix. That is why the company is committed to developing and implementing new, clean-coal technologies. “The United States should look at its own economy and its ability to lead the world in clean coal technology development,” he said.
Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, followed Akins with a message favoring nuclear power. Moore explained that his goal in founding Greenpeace was to raise mass public awareness of the environment. He said he believes that goal was met and that sustainability is the next logical step to environmental awareness. Greenpeace, however, is not the organization to spread such a message. “I switched from politics of confrontation to consensus politics,” he said. “Greenpeace’s current zero tolerances are not the way to go.”
Moore criticized what he called “comprehensive rejection” of nuclear power simply because of the potential of nuclear weapons. “We were so fixated on the (atomic) bomb that we lump everything nuclear together,” he said. Assuming nuclear power is the same as nuclear weaponry is like “lumping nuclear medicine in with nuclear weapons.”
Moore said that from a policy standpoint, the issues of climate and energy are two sides of the same coin. Embracing nuclear power is the logical way to reduce the country’s dependency on fossil fuels, reduce CO2 emissions, address the need for additional capacity and reduce the potential for overdependence on other countries for energy resources.
Moore said the idea suggesting that wind and solar power technologies are sufficient—a theory perpetuated by anti-coal and anti-nuclear activists—is flawed. “Wind and solar cannot make baseload power,” he said. “Wind as baseload power must be coupled with natural gas, so you lose the ‘green’ quality.”
The public generally is not aware of the differences between nuclear and coal power and wind and solar power, he said. “The environmental movement is the biggest obstacle to reducing CO2. They oppose nuclear new builds and want to close existing plants. They oppose the only realistic and logical technology available for reducing greenhouse gases.”
Andy White, GE-Hitachi Nuclear’s president and CEO, concluded the POWER-GEN Keynote Session with what he called the “nuclear energy solution.” White said the nuclear power industry is enjoying record production with a 91 percent overall capacity factor in 2007. He said that despite rising uranium prices, the industry is also seeing economic growth. The anticipated average cost for nuclear power in 2007 is 1.68 cents per kilowatt-hour.
White presented a table (reproduced below) illustrating the economics of nuclear power as it relates to fuel prices.
 |
White provided forecasts to 2020, which show steady growth in nuclear power in the United States, Europe, Asia and India, and which predict 58 GW of nuclear production in Asia and India by 2020. Of course, such growth will face a number of challenges: limited resources and manpower, construction issues and the global supply chain.
Another well-known and often-debated challenge facing nuclear power is fuel recycling, to which White suggested these solutions: the PRISM recycling reactor, electrorefining and “next-gen” reactors, which provide simplified design, faster construction, enhanced safety and security, improved financing options and other benefits. White concluded with a sentiment likely shared by all five keynote speakers: power generation reform will come through a portfolio of generation solutions.
Keynote Q&A Focuses on CO2
During the question and answer period that followed POWER-GEN’s Keynote Session, Andy White said continued life extensions for the existing nuclear fleet will be critical if the United States is to meet projected power demand growth in the coming years.
 Keynote Q&A (l-r), Andy White, GE-Hitachi Nuclear; Nicholas Akins, AEP; Patrick Moore, former Greenpeace head; Mark Savoff, Entergy; Andy Kruger, Evolution Markets. |
Moore said wind and natural gas generation represent “an economic nightmare” and reiterated that the only way to reduce CO2 is to use more nuclear and hydroelectric generation. He said any other realistic scenarios result in producing more, not less, CO2.
When asked how a cap-and-trade approach for CO2 might work in a situation where one major U.S. utility is “long” on nuclear (Entergy) and another is “long” on coal (AEP), Andrew Krueger said such a variance shows the beauty of the cap-and-trade approach because it levels the playing field. Noting that Entergy’s generation mix is a nearly even mix of nuclear and natural gas, Mark Savoff said Entergy is against issuing all CO2 allowances for free. Instead, some should be auctioned to set a price signal. Entergy’s customers have been paying for “relatively clean” energy for many years and should benefit from that, he said. Their costs should not rise as much as costs for customers of power providers that elected to use less clean energy.
The view of AEP’s Nicholas Akins toward CO2 allowances differed greatly from Savoff’s. He said allowances should be given to the sources that create the CO2 because that is where the emissions can be reduced. He said it is important that carbon offsets “are real.”
When asked what he believed to be the “ideal” emissions trading structure, Krueger said that in an ideal world, credits would remain in short supply, thus encouraging an entrepreneurial spirit. Under the right kind of cap-and-trade process, “people will make money because they figure out ways to reduce emissions.”
Moore said he favors a “negative” or “reverse” carbon tax that reduces the opportunities for fraudulent offset activities. “All non-carbon sources should be rewarded equally,” he said. Nuclear and hydro should receive the same incentive benefits as solar, wind or geothermal.
Carbon Capture Mega-session Proves Popular
POWER-GEN International offered mega-sessions dealing with large frame gas turbines; disaster preparation; and gasification, synfuels and carbon capture. The latter session was presented to a standing-room-only audience.
Ram Narula, vice president and manager of technology for Bechtel Power, spoke first and said his company was technology-neutral when it comes to what kind of power plants customers build. Due to the much higher power cost from coal plants that would capture and sequester (CCS) CO2 (compared with today’s pulverized coal plants), he said pricing CO2 in the $20 range—a figure many on Capitol Hill are citing—is too low. Instead, he said CO2 needs to be priced around $50 for cap-and-trade incentives to encourage companies to build power plants with CCS technology. He said that using natural gas to make power “is a little like washing dishes with Scotch,” echoing Keynote speaker Patrick Moore who said that fossil fuels such as natural gas should be left in quantity for future generations because it is versatile, is in relative short supply and is non-renewable.
Assessing the legal landscape that a capture/sequester future portends, Bill Hughes of the Washington, D.C. law firm Alston & Bird, described just how unexplored that landscape is. He said legal uncertainties may impede CCS due to myriad legal liability issues ranging from property damage and property rights to health issues. In high enough concentrations, CO2 is poisonous and people have died from massive releases of it, as might happen should large amounts of stored CO2 suddenly escape. NUMBY—Not Under My Backyard—could be added to the list of other well-known obstructionist acronyms related to infrastructure deployment, he said. Furthermore, only a small fraction of costs associated with CCS can generate revenue, such as enhanced oil recovery. Most of the expense simply adds to the cost of power. Hughes said the United States could see climate change legislation by 2009, but not before.
In addition to the Keynote Session and mega sessions, more than 30 breakout sessions covering various generating technologies and issues were conducted. Several of the 1,120 exhibiting companies took advantage of the event to unveil new products and services and to conduct press conferences. The event offered many networking opportunities and a prime environment for the 17,000 plus attendees to learn about most any power generation related issue and/or technology.
Nuclear Power International
The POWER-GEN International Keynote Session speakers showed that the industry believes nuclear power will continue to play a role in meeting the United States’ and the world’s future energy needs. This relatively new renewed interest in nuclear power prompted PennWell to co-locate its newest power event—NUCLEAR POWER International.
One of the more popular nuclear sessions was the New Build Update session. Dr. Alan Levin of AREVA NP Inc. announced that AREVA submitted its design certification for the US EPR to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on Dec. 11. The company expects to have the design certification approved by the NRC in December 2010.
Levin said that the US EPR is an evolutionary design based on AREVA’s design experience and many years of feedback from reactor operators worldwide. The latest AREVA EPR design is currently under construction in Finland and will also be constructed in France before construction on the first US EPR begins. This will allow AREVA to gain recent experience that will be beneficial once construction begins in the United States. Through its partnership with UniStar Nuclear Energy, AREVA expects Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 to be the first US EPR constructed in the United States. Calvert Cliffs is expected to submit its completed combined operating and licensing application to the NRC in March 2008.
Akira Nagano of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. (MHI) updated the audience on Mitsubishi’s US APWR design. MHI is working with Washington Division of URS Corp. (formerly Washington Group) on licensing the design. He said 23 similar MHI reactor designs have been built in Japan. The 24th is currently under construction. Nagano said the 1,700 MW US APWR is not a “revolutionary” design but an “evolutionary” design based on the Japanese APWR. The US APWR will be slightly modified and will include a new low pressure turbine with 74-inch last stage blades, among other changes.
NUCLEAR POWER International’s mega-session was also well attended and included speakers from three companies that plan to build new nuclear plants. Doug McComb, Southern Co.’s Southern Nuclear Division engineering manager, said his company is preparing to build two new units (Units 3 and 4) at its existing Vogtle Station. Currently, Southern Co. plans for Unit 3 to be online in 2016 and Unit 4 in 2017.
George Vanderheyden, UniStar Nuclear Energy’s president and CEO, discussed his company’s progress in getting four units built and online. He said that UniStar, a Constellation Energy and EDF company (which has partnered with Bechtel and AREVA NP) plans to build no fewer than four identical US EPR plants, scheduled to come online in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. Vanderheyden said that the global supply chain will be one of the industry’s biggest challenges during plant construction. Any company that is serious about building a new nuclear power plant should have already begun working with global suppliers to acquire the necessary components, he said.
Jeff Richardson, Entergy Nuclear’s business development manager, said today’s environment is more favorable toward new nuclear plant construction than it’s been in the past three decades. He said challenges remain, such as commodity availability, cost escalation, manufacturing capacity, limited floor space and labor shortages. Choosing the right EPC and relinquishing much of the control to that EPC will also pose a major challenge to owners that built nuclear plants during the 1970s and 1980s,. The owners/utilities cannot be as involved in the construction activities with this construction phase as they were before, Richardson said.
Steve Blankinship, Power Engineering magazine’s associate editor, and Chris Posey, Power Engineering magazine’s online editor, contributed to this article.