Climate Challenge Logo

Climate Challenge Options Workbook

DOE's Energy Partnerships for a Strong Economy

Rule

Climate Challenge Options Workbook

A Collaborative Effort of the
United States Department of Energy
and the
Electric Utility Industry


TABLE OF CONTENTS

END USE

RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES

OTHER GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES

TRANSMISSION

DISTRIBUTION

TRANSPORTATION

OTHER

APPENDIX - BIBLIOGRAPHIC MATERIALS

OTHER GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES

Activities within the electric generation sector can have substantial benefits on the overall emission of greenhouse gases. Changes in generation technology and in how generation is operated and maintained and where on the grid it is located can have measurable beneficial effects both on operating costs and on greenhouse gas emissions.

There are three broad strategies that utilities can pursue when contemplating reducing greenhouse gas emissions through changes in generation: (1) improve the efficiency of existing capacity; (2) repower or replace generation with more efficient generation; and (3) repower or replace generation with generation that uses lower-carbon or no-carbon fuels.

Undertaking cost-effective actions to improve the efficiency of existing generation not only makes good business sense but is encouraged by [[section]] 111 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992:

These [[section]] 111 efficiency improvements will frequently result in both lower-cost operations and decreases in greenhouse gas emissions.

Repowering existing generation or replacing it with more efficient generation can reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants compared to operating the original equipment without change. More efficient generation means less fuel consumed per kWh of electric output. Repowering or replacing generation with generation that uses lower-carbon or no-carbon fuels provides an additional greenhouse gas reduction benefit.

Another generation option is cogeneration in situations where thermal loads located near generating facilities could be met through extraction turbines. If utilities pursue this path, they should not be penalized if utility criteria emissions increase while total criteria emissions decrease.

EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS

Undertaking actions to improve the efficiency of existing generation will reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and is encouraged by [[section]] 111 of EPAct:

Improvements in efficiency of existing generation plants can take many forms: (1) repowering, i.e., replacement of the steam-producing equipment; (2) actions to maintain and improve heat rates such as upgrading plant instrumentation and control systems and plant equipment, e.g., using variable speed motors for fans and pumps; (3) improvements in coal preparation and handling; and (4) efficient use of cogeneration.

Go to OTHER GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Option Category:

Other Generation Efficiency Improvements

Name of Option:

Repowering

Description:

As power plants age, the efficiency of steam production equipment declines and/or the equipment becomes technologically obsolete, even with regular maintenance. Rather than replace aging steam production equipment in kind, some utilities have chosen to replace it with new technology. This process is called "repowering" and offers the opportunity to increase the efficiency of the process through the installation of new, improved equipment. Repowering with more efficient equipment can reduce net emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants compared to operating the original equipment. Repowering with equipment that uses lower-carbon fuels can further reduce net greenhouse gas emissions.

By the year 2000, about 1,200 electric utility generating units will be 40 years of age or older. Of these, 571 are coal-fired, 426 gas-fired, and about 164 oil-fired. Even if only a fraction of these are good candidates for repowering, the CO2 reductions that could be obtained would be substantial.

Repowering can take several forms. It can involve the replacement of the boiler with a new steam-producing facility, or it can involve a totally new steam production process involving a combustion turbine and heat recovery steam generator and additional generating equipment.

Repowering with a natural gas-fired combustion turbine and adding a heat recovery steam generator improves overall efficiency, and often increases the electrical output of the facility. Greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced as natural gas is lower in carbon than the fuel previously used. Repowering with a combustion turbine also has environmental benefits of more effective control of SO2, NOX, and particulate emissions.

Go to Repowering start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Barriers:

  • Repowering is usually only cost-effective when the existing plant has poor reliability and is at the end of its useful life, or if large environmental compliance costs are required at the plant.

  • Utilities may be reluctant to repower with natural gas if the price differential between gas and the fuel previously used is high.

  • Competition with generation options that may be given more favorable regulatory/financing treatment.

  • Under some EPA environmental regulations, repowering with a natural gas-fired combustion turbine and adding a heat recovery steam generator may be treated as an entirely new facility. Such treatment can subject such projects to very stringent technology-forcing emission and discharge standards which may threaten their economic viability and pose significant engineering difficulties. Present uncertainty about the applicability of such "new source" standards (NSPS) to repowering projects and the lengthy process presently necessary to obtain determinations from regulatory agencies are major barriers.

  • Lengthy permitting time (typically two years).

Go to Repowering start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Solutions:

  • Work with regulators to develop means for financial recovery of investment stranded to accommodate repowering.

  • Explore with EPA the possibility of exempting repowering projects from technology-forcing "new source" standards. For example:

      1. NSPS under CAA.

      2. BACT under PSD program, LAER under nonattainment New Source Review program.

      3. NSPS effluent limits under CWA; "new source" permitting requirement under NPDES program.

  • Work with regulators to develop an accelerated, consolidated permitting process for repowering projects that result in efficiency and/or environmental improvements to an existing power plant.

  • Demonstrate the various repowering options on the appropriate sized units.

  • Pursue research, development, and demonstration of advanced, higher-efficiency technologies for utilizing fossil fuels, such as the DOE Clean Coal Technology Program.

Industry-proposed solutions requiring legislative, policy, or regulatory action.

  • Legislation or other means which allow repowering without triggering NSPS or technology requirements under new source review without unit derating to maintain pre-repowering equivalent emissions.

Go to Repowering start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Partnerships:

  • DOE, EPRI, utilities, architect/engineering firms, and equipment manufacturers.

Case Studies:

  • Florida Power & Light Company recently repowered two older gas- and oil-fired electric generating units at its Lauderdale Station. By fully repowering the units, the units' generating capacity was increased from 274 MW to 846 MW while the CO2 emission rate (lbs.CO2/kWh) was reduced by approximately 46 percent.

  • Manchester Street Repowering Project, New England Electric System.

  • Repowering efforts are currently underway at Pennsylvania Electric Company's Warren Power Station. Through a cooperative agreement with DOE, under Clean Coal V, the Warren Unit 2 will be repowered using an Externally Fired Combined Cycle. Heat rate for this unit will improve from approximately 13,890 Btu/kWh to at least 9,725 Btu/kWh. This will provide a 30 percent reduction in CO2 being emitted per kWh.

  • The Ohio Power Company retrofit of a 70 MW pressurized, fluidized bed system at the Tidd plant in 1990, under the Clean Coal Technology program.

  • Destec Energy, Inc., and PSI Energy, Inc. are repowering PSI's Wabash River plant with a 265 MW IGCC facility. Construction is underway, and operation is scheduled for 1995.

Go to Repowering start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Option Category:

Other Generation Efficiency Improvements

Name of Option:

Upgrading Plant Instrumentation and Controls

Description:

Instrumentation and control systems are essential to all steam-generating installations for safe, economic, and reliable operation. Recent advances in control technology, on-line testing, and performance monitoring can help a power plant improve efficiency and maintain a high availability factor and, in general, improve the management of plant operations.

Upgrading the instrumentation and control systems of an older power plant can have the following benefits:

Upgraded instrumentation and control systems, used in conjunction with new sophisticated software programs, allow plant operators to identify factors affecting equipment performance more quickly and accurately. This, in turn, helps to keep the equipment performing at optimum efficiency.

Go to Upgrading Plant Instrumentation and Controls start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Barriers:

  • New controls can generally improve heat rate only 0.5 - 1.0 percent, and then only if the old controls were obsolete or in disrepair. For very old units with pneumatic controls, heat rate improvement could be up to 5 percent.

  • Existing plant permitting may have to be revisited or new source review may be required if operational flexibility improvements significantly increase capacity factor.

  • Typical costs of $1 million to $4 million per unit.

Case Studies:

  • Potomac Electric Power Company's experience with upgrading instruments and controls at the five 1950s units at the Potomac River Generating Station. Costs ranged from $2-$4 million per unit.

  • Pennsylvania Electric Company (PENELEC) implemented instrument and control changes at the jointly owned Conemaugh Generating Station, Unit 2. This amounted to an almost wholesale changeout of all controls from analog to digital with advanced control algorithms developed in a partnership with EPRI, Honeywell, and PENELEC. Increases in efficiency are expected after initial shakedown. Similar control work is scheduled at PENELEC's Keystone and Homer City units.

  • Florida Power & Light Company replaced old pneumatic instrumentation and control systems on eleven of its fossil fueled boilers with state of the art distributed control systems. The new controls provide better, more accurate use of fuel and air, resulting in reduced heat rates.

Go to Upgrading Plant Instrumentation and Controls start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Option Category:

Other Generation -- Efficiency Improvements

Name of Option:

Upgrading Plant Equipment

Description:

Upgrading of plant equipment can result in direct energy consumption savings, reduced maintenance costs, extended equipment life, and better power plant performance. Reducing the amount of fossil energy consumed in producing electricity will also result in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

A coal-fired power plant consumes approximately six percent of its electrical output for operating the fans, pumps, drive motors, and other electrical equipment associated with the plant. If there is an SO2 scrubber, the total electrical consumption may be as high as nine percent. Some of the techniques that can be used to reduce this electrical requirement are:

Replacing existing equipment, or portions of equipment, with new, improved designs can contribute significantly to an improvement in power production efficiency. An area where there has been considerable improvement is the steam turbine. Some utilities have replaced the entire steam turbine with a more efficient one. Other utilities have made changes to the turbine blade design or the path that the steam takes as it moves through the turbine.

Redesign of the path that the flue gas takes through the boiler, ductwork, and environmental control equipment can improve the efficiency of the production process by reducing the power requirements for fans, minimizing pluggage from fly ash, and increasing boiler output.

Go to Upgrading Plant Equipment start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Barriers:

  • Existing state plant operating permits may have to be revisited notwithstanding the fact that many upgrades that increase electrical output do not increase hourly emission rates.

  • Reluctance of environmental regulators to allow effective use of energy management systems on electrostatic precipitators.

  • Short remaining life of many existing components targeted for upgrade.

  • Federal New Source Review requirements may be triggered if such efficiency improvements are viewed as increasing annual utilization of units.

Go to Upgrading Plant Equipment start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Solutions:

  • Clarification from EPA that upgrading equipment which improves plant efficiency is now "routine" in the utility industry and therefore does not trigger new source requirements.

  • Work cooperatively with regulators to show the legitimacy of investments in equipment upgrades, both on good business basis and to comply with [[section]] 111 of EPAct.

  • Participate in DOE's Motor Challenge Program to install efficient motor systems.

  • Participate in DOE's Golden Carrot Programs for pumps, fans and drives.

  • Augment existing plant controls to allow greater integrated control of the entire plant, especially where such control can decrease net heat rate.

  • Use broadband communications technology for increased instrumentation and controls information transfer both within plant and to regional control centers.

  • Install variable speed motors where beneficial.

Go to Upgrading Plant Equipment start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Partnerships:

  • DOE, EPRI, UARG (Utility Air Regulatory Group), and equipment manufacturers.

Case Studies:

  • Tennessee Valley Authority Heat Rate Improvement Program.

  • GPU Corporation has undertaken research and demonstration projects for areas such as feedwater heater leak detection, waterwall tube coatings, feedwater heater acoustic monitoring, etc., which contribute toward greater efficiencies at the power plant.

  • Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) replaced motor driven boiler fuel pumps with steam driven boiler fuel pumps at two 800 MW units, improving unit heat rates.

  • At two 300 MW units and two 400 MW units, FPL replaced several rows of steam turbine blades with more efficient blades. The more efficient blades improved unit heat rates. FPL is planning additional steam turbine efficiency improvement projects at additional units.

Go to Upgrading Plant Equipment start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Option Category:

Other Generation -- Efficiency Improvements

Name of Option:

Improving Coal Preparation and Handling

Description:

About three quarters of U.S. steam coal (over 700 million tons annually) is cleaned to remove ash and sulfur impurities and to increase the coal's heating value. Utilities are burning more cleaned coal each year because they find that the saving it offers in fuel handling, plant efficiency, availability, and environmental controls compensates for the added cost. Coal cleaning techniques range from simple washing with water and mechanical separation of waste products to advanced chemical cleaning processes.

Coal water slurry technologies provide a means for generating a useful, cost-effective fuel from currently discarded coal fines that are created during cleaning operations. This technology also provides better control of combustion processes inside the furnace and offers the potential of reducing start-up costs by partially replacing oil. Reduced emissions are possible due to the composition of the slurry.

Improved coal quality can result in:

Go to Improving Coal Preparation start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Barriers:

  • Cost for coal benefication.

  • Waste product disposal (solid and liquid) from coal benefication.

  • Increased problems with fugitive dust.

  • Potential problems with collection of flyash using electrostatic precipitators due to changes in ash resistivity.

Solutions:

  • Use waste products as fuel in non-pulverized boiler, i.e., fluidized bed.

  • Participate in DOE's Clean Coal Technology Program.

  • Work with EPA on waste disposal issues.

  • Investigate cost-effective approaches to managing coal benefication waste.

  • Invest in development of low-cost, advanced coal cleaning methods.

    Go to Improving Coal Preparation start.
    Return to Table of Contents.

    Partnerships:

  • DOE, EPRI, utilities, coal suppliers, and equipment manufacturers.

Case Studies:

  • EPRI/DOE Research Advanced Physical Fine-Coal Cleaning: Spherical Agglomeration.

  • Pennsylvania Electric Company's (PENELEC's) Homer City coal cleaning plant, designed to process in excess of 5 million tons of coal annually, reduces the coal's ash and sulfur content, contributing to efficiency and pollution control.

  • PENELEC Seward Generating Station coal/water slurry fuel demonstration.

  • The "Rosebud SynCoal Project", part of the DOE Clean Coal Technology Program, is upgrading 1000 tons per day of Montana sub-bituminous coal to 11,000 Btu/pound fuel. Test burns will continue through 1994.

Go to Improving Coal Preparation start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Option Category:

Other Generation Efficiency Improvements

Name of Option:

Efficient Use of Cogeneration

Description:

Cogeneration, the simultaneous production of electricity and process steam, offers improved efficiency and reduced emissions when compared to the separate production of electricity and steam. In the more competitive generation environment, there will be greater incentives for investment by utilities and others in cost-effective, efficient cogeneration.

To the extent that cogeneration results in reduced use of fossil fuels, it will produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

Go to Efficient Use of Cogeneration start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Barriers:

  • Each application is unique, making replication of cogeneration plant design difficult.

  • In some areas, the number of host site opportunities which allow for cost-effective cogeneration is limited.

  • Requires some sort of alliance/contract between the electricity supplier and process stream customer beyond traditional electricity supply.

  • In some states, property tax laws require a utility-owned cogenerator to pay substantially higher taxes than a similar customer-owned project.

  • Time-of-use characteristics of electrical generation and thermal host needs must allow economic operation of both.

  • Opposition to power plants located in non-traditional locations such as campuses.

  • Utilities contracting for cogeneration suffer credit downgrading.

Go to Efficient Use of Cogeneration start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Solutions:

  • Utility-sponsored energy audits which can identify cogeneration opportunities.

  • Work with State legislators to achieve a "level playing field" for utility-owned cogenerators.

Industry-proposed solutions requiring legislative, policy, or regulatory action.

  • Ensure that utilities are not subject to the mandatory purchase obligation under PURPA for new facilities utilizing fossil fuels.

Go to Efficient Use of Cogeneration start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Partnerships:

  • Seek partnerships with customers.

  • Develop partnerships with vendors of cogeneration systems who will help market and financially support development costs in funding cogeneration projects.

  • State regulatory commission/utility collaboration to select and develop preferred cogeneration projects.

Case Studies:

  • Delmarva Power & Light's low NOX Gas Turbine Installation.

  • DOE Office of Industrial Technologies demonstrations of improved steam and gas turbine systems.

NATURAL GAS

Natural gas is a domestically produced fuel. It has the lowest carbon content of any fossil fuel. Substituting natural gas for higher carbon fuels can reduce carbon emissions by up to 40 percent.

Increased electric utility use of natural gas can take several forms: (1) use of natural gas in new generation; (2) repower existing generation with natural gas; and (3) switch to or co-fire with natural gas when possible.

Natural gas lends itself to existing (e.g., combined-cycle) and new (e.g., fuel cell) generation technologies, and to both central and dispersed applications.

Go to Efficient Use of Cogeneration start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Option Category:

Other Generation Natural Gas

Name of Option:

Increase Use of Natural Gas

Description:

Increase the use of natural gas for the production of electricity in lieu of other fossil fuels as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Natural gas has the lowest carbon content of any fossil fuel. Natural gas use can be increased in several ways:

Go to Increase Use of Natural Gas start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Barriers:

  • Price per Btu currently approximately double that of coal.

  • Seasonal availability of supply and pipeline capacity.

  • Gas prices tend to be very volatile compared to coal prices.

  • Some areas of the country lack the infrastructure to deliver the quantities of natural gas that would be needed to fuel base-load generation facilities.

  • Interstate pipeline tariffs and conditions as part of FERC Orders 636 and 563. Balancing requirements, time frame for nominations, the disparity between the gas and electric day (which affects the scheduling of gas deliveries before electric needs are known), and the ability to divert gas to other customers are operational issues for downstream power generators to consider.

  • The pipeline capacity release mechanisms in Order 636 and how well they work will determine the ability of natural gas to meet market requirements.

  • Difficulties associated with the use of electronic bulletin boards for capacity release, which affects the ultimate price paid for natural gas.

Go to Increase Use of Natural Gas start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Solutions:

  • Increased cooperation, coordination, and communication between gas and electric utilities.

  • Support greater standardization of operation practices and coordination among pipelines.

  • Development of a Gas Industry Standards Board to assist in resolving electronic information and EDI issues.

  • Support revision of the pipeline construction rule by FERC.

  • Participate in spot and futures markets to reduce price and supply volatility.

  • Support the development of new, high-efficiency, gas-fueled electric generation technologies.

  • Participate in the commercialization of fuel cells.

  • Support development of new natural gas supply and delivery technologies, which can lower the cost of natural gas and improve its market share.

Industry-proposed solutions requiring legislative, policy, or regulatory action.

  • Clarify that all natural gas conversion projects qualify under EPA's "WEPCO" rule as pollution control projects.

Go to Increase Use of Natural Gas start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Partnerships:

  • DOE, EPRI, GRI, gas companies, pipelines, and electric utilities.

Case Studies:

  • New England Electric System's conversions to natural gas at Brayton Point 4 and Manchester Street power plants. Purchase of "firm" pipeline capacity on Iroquois and other long-distance pipeline systems.

  • Virginia Power's Chesterfield 7 and 8 GE7001F combined cycle units.

  • Purchase and development of storage and pipeline capacity by Central and South West, Entergy, Houston Lighting & Power, and Texas Utilities.

  • Firm transportation requirements and gas trading floor developed by Southern California Edison to meet their operational needs.

  • Use of financial mechanisms, including hedging and derivatives, by Houston Lighting & Power as a means of mitigating price volatility and increases.

  • The Santa Clara, California, Municipal Electric Department is the site of the world's first 2 MW molten carbonate fuel cell power plant. The project will demonstrate the efficiency, reliability, and environmental performance benefits of carbonate fuel cell plants, provide a design basis for early production units, and promote technology transfer to the user community.

  • Energy and Environmental Resources, Inc., under the DOE Clean Coal Technology Program, demonstrated natural gas reburning to reduce NOX emissions from coal-fired powerplants at two Illinois powerplants and one Colorado powerplant. Use of 15-20 percent natural gas, in conjunction with other measures, reduced NOX emissions by 65-77 percent.

Go to Increase Use of Natural Gas start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Option Category:

Other Generation Natural Gas

Name of Option:

Fuel Switching

Description:

Adding gas burning capability to boilers designed for coal and oil to displace coal and oil Btus with gas Btus as opportunities arise. Because natural gas has a lower carbon content than coal or oil, carbon emissions will be reduced. Because natural gas has lower fuel nitrogen than other fossil fuels and because of its combustion characteristics, NOX emissions will also be reduced. SO2 and particulate emissions will also be less when burning natural gas.

Barriers:

Go to Fuel Switching start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Solutions:

  • Increased cooperation, coordination, and communication between gas and electric utility companies.

  • Support greater standardization of operation practices and coordination among pipelines.

  • Further research to overcome the operational constraints of co-firing natural gas with western low-sulfur coals. The Clean Coal Technology Program would be an excellent vehicle for this research, which could include such projects as (1) coal gasification in combination with natural gas combustion; (2) fluidized bed combustion of coal in combination with natural gas; (3) staged combustion of coal and gas; and (4) coal cleaning processes for removal of calcium before combustion.

  • Participate in regulatory proceedings to facilitate the construction of new gas transmission facilities.

  • Participate in spot and futures markets to reduce price and supply volatility.

Industry-proposed solutions requiring legislative, policy, or regulatory action.

  • Clarify that all natural gas conversion projects qualify under EPA's "WEPCO" rule as pollution control projects.

Go to Fuel Switching start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Partnerships:

  • DOE, EPRI, GRI, gas companies, pipelines, and electric utilities.

Case Studies:

  • New England Power's (NEES) addition of gas burning capability at its 450 MW Brayton Point No. 4 oil-fired unit, including co-firing capability and ability to switch fuels while in operation.

  • Research is being conducted at the jointly-owned Conemaugh station for co-firing with 18 percent natural gas. Natural gas has shown potential for reducing opacity during start-up and stabilizing the boiler during periods when wet coal is burned.

  • Northeast Utilities - Public Service of New Hampshire conversion of the 400 MW Newington Station to co-firing gas and oil.

  • Florida Power & Light Company's addition of gas burning capacity at its Sanford No. 4 & 5 oil-fired units, including co-firing capability and ability to switch fuels while in operation.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Nuclear energy currently accounts for approximately 20 percent of electric generation in the United States. Currently, it is the only major source of electricity beside hydro that does not emit greenhouse gases during operation. Nuclear energy has made up over 98 percent of new, zero-emission utility generating capacity additions since 1973.

The Climate Change Action Plan released by the White House in October 1993 recognizes that nuclear power will play a key role in limiting carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production. Since the plan is focused on efforts which will achieve reductions by the year 2000, no specific proposals were made to encourage increased reliance on nuclear energy as a source of electricity.

While few new nuclear plants will come on line prior to the year 2000, it is possible that a few currently operating plants may be forced to close before then for economic reasons, unless barriers to continued operation are removed. This capacity would likely be replaced with fossil plants which emit greenhouse gases.

As a result, there are a number of short-term activities which could be undertaken to assure the continued and improved operation of the current generation of U.S. nuclear plants in the United States. These include addressing issues related to operating and maintenance costs, improved capacity factors, and government and utility actions related to plant license renewal. In addition, there is the issue of radioactive waste disposal, both high- and low-level.

The Energy Information Administration's (EIA's) 1993 Annual Energy Outlook projected that by the year 2010, between 141,000 and 210,000 MW of electric capacity will be required to meet the nation's growing demand for electricity (net of the impact of utility DSM and efficiency improvements). Each 1,000 MW of installed nuclear energy capacity offsets approximately 1.3 million metric tons of carbon per year from fossil fuel.

Go to Fuel Switching start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Option Category:

Other Generation Nuclear Energy

Name of Option:

Renew Operating Licenses

Description:

The 40-year operating licenses for commercial nuclear energy plants built in the 1960s and early 1970s will expire in the first part of the next century. Seventy-two generating units, representing nearly 60,000 MW of capacity, will see their licenses expire between August 2002 and August 2022. These plants currently offset the annual emissions of 78 million metric tonnes (MMt) of carbon, and if they do not renew their licenses, comparable reductions in CO2 emissions from other means will be required.

Government actions taken in the nuclear regulatory, high-level waste disposal, and electric utility regulation areas over the next few years will affect the ability of these plants to continue offsetting greenhouse gas emissions. These actions primarily involve the regulatory and utility decision making process related to license renewal for existing nuclear plants.

Barriers:

Go to Renew Operating License start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Solutions:

  • Support continuing efforts of the NRC and nuclear industry to modify regulatory and inspection guidelines to ensure that: (1) the intended safety benefit is achieved at lower cost; (2) the safety benefit is commensurate with the required resources; and (3) the evolution of technology and maturation of the industry are appropriately considered.

  • Support ongoing efforts to review current NRC regulations and guidelines to assure that the regulatory program focuses on identifying and setting standards for acceptable levels of risk. Licensees should have the flexibility to identify appropriate steps for mitigating such hazards, subject to regulatory review and approval.

  • Continue to pursue effective management of nuclear units for cost competitiveness. Since the late 1980s, nuclear management has increasingly focused on reducing costs without a negative impact on nuclear safety or performance.

  • Develop a monitored retrievable storage (MRS) facility as an interim solution to the high-level waste disposal problem. Northern States Power is currently negotiating for such a facility to be built in New Mexico on the Mescalero Indian reservation and is seeking other industry partners.

  • Continue federal efforts to complete suitability characterization of the proposed permanent disposal facility at Yucca Mountain.

  • Work to develop the designated regional compact low-level radioactive waste storage sites.

  • Educate the general public about nuclear power risks.

Industry-proposed solutions requiring legislative, policy, or regulatory action.

  • Modification of the NRC rules in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations to provide for a stable regulatory process for renewing current nuclear plant licenses.

  • Cooperative NRC/industry work to increase participation in license renewal pilot projects.

  • Joint NRC/industry programs to identify, model, and manage the effects of component "aging" phenomena important to long term nuclear plant operation.

Go to Renew Operating License start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Partnerships:

  • The potential partnership among nuclear utilities and the Mescalero Indian tribe to build and operate a private MRS facility in New Mexico.

  • All affected low-level radioactive waste generators (not simply nuclear plants) working together to ensure that regional facilities are completed.

Case Studies:

  • By focusing on cost management, nuclear utilities have been able to slow the increase in O&M costs since the late 1980s.

  • The nuclear industry has several working groups, comprised of participants from EPRI, INPO, NEI, and individual utilities, defining ways the industry can become more cost competitive. For example, INPO has developed a team to look at these issues and the industry has developed the "Strategic Plan for Improved Economic Performance."

  • Northern States Power's efforts to start a private MRS facility.

  • Because attempts to site a low-level radioactive waste facility for the Midwest Compact failed, Midwestern nuclear plants must store their low-level radioactive waste on-site for at least five years, starting July 1, 1994.

  • The NRC asked the industry to identify regulations with marginal safety significance and is working to eliminate them.

  • GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN) is participating in ongoing industry license renewal activities at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) as well as specific activities in the GE BWR Owners Group and B&W Owners Group. Current activities include testing the feasibility of proposed modifications to the NRC rules for license renewal.

Go to Renew Operating License start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Option Category:

Other Generation Nuclear Energy

Name of Option:

Enhance Operational Performance

Description:

Performance indicators clearly demonstrate continuing improvement in the safe and reliable operation of nuclear power plants. Over the period from 1980 through 1993, nuclear plants have significantly improved their average capacity factor, the equivalent of eliminating the need for 15,000 MW of additional generating capacity with its associated greenhouse gas emissions. Further reductions of greenhouse gases associated with the operation of existing nuclear plants can be accomplished by continuing to increase the output (kilowatt-hours) from existing nuclear plants. A one percent improvement in the nation's nuclear plant capacity factor over the period 1994 to 2000 can reduce annual utility carbon emissions by an additional two MMt, further contributing to meeting the President's commitment of stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990 level by the year 2000.

As part of the industry programs both to achieve excellence and to implement the "Strategic Plan for Improved Economic Performance", individual utilities will be taking actions to improve the output from their existing plants. Examples of key actions that can enhance operational performance and increase production include:

heat rate improvements;

auxiliary load reductions;

maintenance improvements;

power uprates;

outage length reduction;

fuel cycle optimization; and

forced outage reduction.

Go to Enhance Operational Performance start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Barriers:

  • License revisions may be required to achieve some of the desired improvements.

  • A utility's ability to make and recover the investment necessary to achieve improved performance may be inhibited if the recovery period is limited by existing operating license expiration dates.

  • The imposition of regulatory requirements that go beyond those necessary for safety could both divert resources from performance improvement activities and also potentially directly decrease output from the plants as a result of the specific requirement.

  • There is a practical limit to the amount of increased output possible from the plants, given the need to refuel, perform maintenance, etc.

Go to Enhance Operational Performance start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Solutions:

  • Work to revise the NRC's license renewal rule to provide greater clarity and definition of the requirements that must be satisfied in order to renew an existing license.

  • Continue support of NRC activities to reform and improve their regulatory process, particularly with regard to using performance- or risk-based rather than prescriptive regulations. Also, continue support of the NRC's activities related to eliminating regulations marginal to safety and its activities aimed at acting expeditiously on licensees' requests under the cost beneficial licensing action program.

  • Implementation of the industry "Strategic Plan for Improved Economic Performance" will result in both improved output from the plants and more cost-effective operation of the plants.

Partnerships:

  • Through the industry's "Strategic Plan", a support structure was created to assist individual utilities in their efforts to improve the economic performance of their plants. This infrastructure involves EPRI, INPO, and NEI working with individual nuclear utilities.

Case studies:

  • Monitoring progress across the industry on implementation of the 1993 "Strategic Plan for Improved Economic Performance." Under this "Strategic Plan", utilities will be exploring ways to cost-effectively improve operational performance with support from EPRI, INPO, and NEI.

  • Monitoring the trend in improved output (capacity factor) for the nation's operating nuclear plants.

  • Both of GPU's nuclear units presently are operating on a two-year refueling cycle, thus reducing the number of refueling outages required and increasing overall plant capacity factor. In addition, enhancement of Preventive Maintenance and Surveillance programs and Pre-Outage and Outage Planning activities has reduced the duration of outages, thus increasing overall plant capacity factor.

Go to Enhance Operational Performance start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Option Category:

Other Generation Nuclear Energy

Name of Option:

New Nuclear Capacity

Description:

The "New Nuclear Capacity" option contains two separate areas of opportunity for adding new plants, and one for recognizing units brought on-line since the historic baseline period. First, in the near term, additional nuclear capacity may be added by completion and operation of the six generating units under construction by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The addition of all six of these units would bring over 7,000 MW of generating capacity onto the grid, resulting in avoided emissions of over 11 MMt of carbon annually if they are substituted for fossil-fuel fired plants. Together, these plants could provide over 10 percent of the carbon reductions needed to meet the President's commitment.

The second area of opportunity for new nuclear plants is related to the implementation of the industry's "Strategic Plan for Building New Nuclear Power Plants". This Strategic Plan was first issued in November 1990 and has been updated annually. The Strategic Plan outlines an integrated effort to address the range of institutional and technical issues on which significant progress must be achieved to make nuclear power attractive for the 1990s and beyond. The Plan:

Currently, four standardized advanced light water reactor (ALWR) designs are being reviewed by the NRC as part of their design certification process. It is currently expected that two of the designs will receive their certification by August, 1996, and the other two by December, 1997. The goal of the industry plan is to have cost-competitive, standardized ALWR designs available in the marketplace by the mid-1990s, allowing orders to be placed for generating capacity that would begin to come on-line after the turn of the century.

As with all utility activities that have been undertaken since the baseline period which tend to reduce, avoid, and sequester greenhouse gases, the final opportunity for new nuclear units is the recognition of installations that have come on-line since then. These units are contributing to reducing greenhouse gas emissions now and will continue to do so well into the next century.

Go to New Nuclear Capacity start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Barriers:

  • For the plants under construction or awaiting final regulatory approval, the major barriers include:

    • the potential for changing regulatory requirements before the existing units are completed, affecting the schedule and economics of the plants;

    • reduction or stabilization in demand for electricity, which delays and reduces the need for the units under construction; and

    • An IRP determination that the units should not be completed.

  • For the ALWRs, the major barriers include:

    • the competitiveness and "financability" of the new plants versus alternatives, such as coal;

    • uncertainties regarding the NRC new plant siting and licensing processes; and

    • uncertainties regarding regulatory stability and management of high- and low-level radioactive wastes.

Go to New Nuclear Capacity start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Solutions:

  • In general, successful implementation of the industry "Strategic Plan for Building New Nuclear Power Plants" would address all of the barriers/conditions, exclusive of the actual need for new generating capacity, required to create an environment within which the TVA plants could be completed and orders for new ALWR's could be considered and implemented.

  • Completion of the joint program between the industry and DOE to perform the first-of-a-kind engineering for two ALWR plants. The Advanced Reactor Corporation, which is managing the program for the utilities under a cooperative agreement with DOE, selected two ALWR designs on which to carry out the first-of-a-kind engineering. $276 million has been committed to the program by DOE, the utilities, and the design teams.

  • Development by 1998 of a private MRS facility and/or a DOE-MRS as an interim step in a DOE spent fuel management plan.

  • Continue federal efforts to complete suitability characterization of the proposed permanent disposal facility at Yucca Mountain.

  • Enhance/improve methods of performing IRP and cost-benefit analysis to provide a more complete picture of economic performance and alternatives.

Go to New Nuclear Capacity start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Partnerships:

  • DOE, nuclear utilities, and EPRI.

  • The Advanced Reactor Corporation/DOE jointly funded program for first-of-a-kind engineering.

  • EPRI-nuclear utility-reactor vendor activities.

Case studies:

  • Northern States Power's efforts to start a private MRS.

  • The ongoing monitoring of progress on the industry's "Strategic Plan for Building New Nuclear Power Plants."

  • Completion of construction of the TVA's Watts Bar Unit 1; restart of Browns Ferry Unit 3.

  • TVA's IRP process and its results concerning TVA's nuclear plants.


END USE

RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES

OTHER GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES

TRANSMISSION

OTHER

APPENDIX - BIBLIOGRAPHIC MATERIALS




Please send comments to:
Lawrence.Mansueti@hq.doe.gov