Wednesday, July 31, 2013

HPD cracking down on electric vehicle parking violators

(KHON) It’s one of the biggest complaints the state received from people who drive electric vehicles: others parking in their charging stations when they’re not supposed to.  But police are now cracking down on violators.  Anyone who parks there who’s not supposed to, could receive a citation between $50 and $100.


 


Click for news video clip


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Hawaii Solar Integration Study Reveals Grid Impacts of High Penetration Renewables

Date

(U.S. Department of Energy)  Hawaii has the most aggressive clean energy goals in the United States—and while the state has already deployed significant amounts of wind and solar power, the utilities on its islands need to know how their grids will operate with increasing amounts of renewable energy.


To shed light on the subject, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its partners have collaborated with local Hawaiian companies to complete the Hawaii Solar Integration Study—a first-of-its-kind detailed technical examination of the effects of high penetrations of solar and wind energy on the electrical grids on the Hawaiian islands of Maui and Oahu.


The National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL)’s recently released Hawaii Solar Integration Study Executive Summary highlights the key findings of the multiyear effort, which was jointly sponsored by the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, DOE, Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc., and Maui Electric Company, LLC, under the auspices of the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative (HCEI). General Electric conducted computer modeling and analysis of the Maui and Oahu transmission-level grid components. DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) formed a technical review committee to help guide the effort and leverage grid integration expertise from U.S. and international organizations.


The study included detailed computer modeling and simulations of the generation and transmission systems on each island to examine how future scenarios of high penetrations of solar and wind power will affect generator operations under normal system configurations. The distribution-level impacts were not assessed in the study.


The results provide a deeper understanding of the differences between distributed solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, centralized PV power plants, and wind power in terms of variability, ability to curtail power output, grid support functions, and characteristics relative to the load. The study found that adding large amounts of new solar power to the electric grids on Maui and Oahu—enough to achieve roughly 20% renewable energy penetration—will create operational challenges that could affect grid reliability, but those challenges are manageable for the scenarios studied with the recommended mitigation approaches and assumed system upgrades. However, the costs associated with the recommended mitigation approaches must be assessed relative to the identified benefits.


Ultimately, the insights from the Hawaii Solar Integration Study form a large body of knowledge for future grid integration studies, and the results can be used to further our understanding of grid integration in other island systems as well as in mainland U.S. systems with high regional solar and wind penetrations.


Hawaii Solar Integration Study Executive Summary


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Hawaii Sets EV Charging Prices To Alleviate Cost Anexiety

Date

(Gas 2) Hawaiian Electric Companies (HECO) and the state energy office have announced today that regulatory approval has been achieved for differential rates on EV charging stations. In other words, EV owners can charge at EV charging stations without worrying about what rate they’re paying for the electric, or about peak demand charge hours.


The rates are an attempt to encourage EV ownership in Hawaii, a place where range anxiety is limited by geographic barriers (that’s the techy term for “an ocean on all sides”).


In addition to benefits for the consumer, the new Commercial Public Electric Vehicle Charging Facility Service rate (Schedule EV-F) will provide financial incentive for business customers to open new public charging facilities, which can be metered separately from other uses. According to the press release,


This new rate will encourage businesses to provide direct current (DC) fast charging, which delivers a quicker charge but at a higher demand. A DC fast charging station can bring an “empty” EV battery to an 80 percent charge in about 30 minutes. (Demand charge represents the electric utility’s cost to maintain the capacity to meet a commercial customer’s highest demand for a fixed period.)


Also announced as part of the new set of tariffs is a second rate that will allow HECO to provide up to 25 publicly accessible DC fast charging stations in their service areas (Oahu, Maui, and the Big Island: Kauai has its own cooperatively owned utility, KIUC). It will allow HECO to offer drivers a “per session” charge fee, and will enable HECO to do more extensive research and data gathering on load control and demand response.


At the moment, according to the state Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT), there are just under 1500 electric vehicles in the HECO service area (not counting the new fleet of electric motorcycles the police have on the islands). The state is hoping to dramatically increase EV ownership on the islands, which will allow Hawaii to break its energy dependence on foreign oil, since EVs can be charged with domestically produced energy from wind and solar, which the state is working to increase as well.


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Rank 'Em: The Most Solar-Friendly States in the US

(Renewable Energy World)  A new report from the Environment America Research & Policy Center acknowledges what it deems are the top 12 U.S. states for solar energy ranked by several criteria, from new and cumulative installed capacity to actual electrical generation to a variety of solar energy-friendly policies. Most are unsurprising, but there are some worthy comparisons — and criticisms — to be made.

More descriptions will follow on the next few pages (ranked in reverse order, for suspense' sake), but nearly all of them share the same characteristics: clear renewable electricity standards with carve-outs for solar, strong statewide interconnection policies, strong net metering policies, and accommodation for creative financing options including third-party ownership and property assessed clean energy (PACE) financing.

These 12 states account for barely a quarter of the nation's population (28 percent), but almost all of its installed solar energy (85 percent). "The progress of these states should give us the confidence that we can do much more," stated Rob Sargent, energy program director with Environment America. More than half of U.S. states have the technical potential to generate more than 20 percent of their electricity from rooftop solar PV, and that jumps to 30 percent for sun-drenched California, Arizona, Nevada and Colorado.

Groups contributing to the report included the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Vote Solar, Clean Energy States Alliance, Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, Environment California Research and Policy Center, Frontier Group, the Tilia Fund, the John Merck Fund and the Energy Foundation.

Number 12: Maryland

Residential and commercial solar PV system prices in Maryland fell by twice the national rate in 2012, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). Environment America ranks the state toward the bottom of the top 12 in PV capacity installed in 2012 (8th, 74 MW) 10th in 2012 installed solar PV per capita (13 W/person), 12th in cumulative solar PV per capita (19 W/person) and 14th in cumulative solar electric capacity (109 MW).

Nevertheless, "building our state's solar market is a top priority," states Governor Martin O'Malley. "Today, we have more than 1,410 times more solar on our state's grid and 2,000 more solar installation jobs than in 2007," he said. And the state's goals for its RPS (20 percent by 2022) and reduction in energy consumption (15 percent per-capita reduced electricity consumption by 2015) "are among the most aggressive in the country," he added.

Number 11: North Carolina

North Carolina, ranked 11th, owes its presence on the list to several large-scale solar energy installations. Apple made a splash a year ago by building out a 20-MW solar project at its data center in Maiden, alongside several MW of biogas and fuel cells. Google, which has a data center in Lenoir, has called for the state to establish a renewable energy tariff for large business. The largest military installation of solar is at Camp Lejeune.

North Carolina was also one of the states highlighted by a broad effort to roll back RPS levels in two dozen other states — check out the awkwardly rushed voice vote that got North Carolina's motion out of a committee before it withered in the Senate. The trend hearteningly seems to have backfired, though.

And since much of its solar energy adoption has been in larger projects where net metering doesn't apply, North Carolina ranks well below the other states on the top 12 list in their adoption of net metering, with a grade "D."

Number 10: Massachusetts

Solar installations in Massachusetts were around 130 MW in 2012, one of the most in the country, and residential solar installations have quadrupled over the past two years. Not bad for a New England state better known for long winters and mud season than strong solar resources. But Massachusetts is already primed to achieve a goal it established several years ago: 250 MW of installed solar capacity, a goal not anticipated until 2016. The state has since proposed a new target of 1.6 GW of cumulative installed solar capacity by 2020. Massachusetts also has a 400-MW carve-out in its RPS which also will likely max out well ahead of its target (2014), so the state is trying to fast-track an expansion of that.

Massachusetts also recently adopted renewable heating as part of its RPS efforts, encompassing biomass, solar, and geothermal heating, allowing consumers to sell energy produced back to the utility, similar to an SREC market.

A recent 3.5-MW installation in the state's southeastern town of Dighton incorporates net metering, and a specific installation pattern around sensitive wetland areas.

Number 9: Vermont

Vermont won recognition in 2011 for its groundbreaking streamlined solar permitting rules, emphasizing residential and small solar installations, which it expanded in 2012. (The state's solar "registration" process, rather than "permitting," is described in an interview with AllEarth Renewables' David Blittersdorf.)

Interestingly, Vermont is also at the forefront of the net metering debate. A report earlier this year found that solar net metering is a net-positive for the state, even with a state incentive factored in, and not including any tangential economic multipliers. Similar reports, and conclusions, have been published for California, New York, and Texas.

Unlike the other top 12 states, Vermont does not have a formal RPS policy; rather it has "goals" of 20 percent of electricity retail sales from renewable energy and combined heat/power by 2017 as part of a Sustainably Priced Energy Enterprise Development (SPEED) program. Beyond that, the state has targets for each providers' annual electricity of 55 percent of retail sales in 2017, increasing 4 percent a year until reaching 75 percent by 2032.

Number 8: Colorado

Colorado is one state (California another) that limits permitting fees that local governments can charge for solar installations. The state has targeted 1 million solar rooftops by 2030, equal to about 3 GW of output out of a calculated potential of 16 GW across every available rooftop in the state.

Xcel Energy's Public Service Company of Colorado is expanding program capacity for its Solar*Rewards program, which had been fully subscribed for the year and was in danger of being suspended until the next one gets approved for 2014. The company needs to source 30 percent of electricity generation and 3 percent of retail sales from distributed generation by 2020.

The federal government is also taking a closer look at solar energy in Colorado, with the Bureau of Land Management seeking RFPs for 3,700 acres for solar energy development on its lands.

Number 7: Delaware

Delaware is one of several smaller eastern U.S. states where a comparative lack of solar resource is offset by higher electricity prices and demand for local clean energy sources. Delaware was fifth in 2012 installed solar PV capacity per capita (28 W/person), ahead of California and New Mexico and Colorado. "Delaware is aggressively working toward a clean energy future and demonstrating that we can have both a strong economy and a healthy environment," stated Governor Jack Markell.

Delaware has been reevaluating its SREC program after a 2012 pilot program, switching to a competitive bidding process. That's caused several newer projects entering the program to start with far lower prices than they would have.

Number 6: California

The granddaddy of solar energy adoption in the U.S., California has more than a third of the nation's cumulative capacity (2.9 GW). Two other states have added 1 GW of cumulative capacity; California did that in 2012 alone. Third-party-owned solar residential systems made up two-thirds of all residential PV installations in the first three months of this year, exceeding non-residential for the first time. California also owns one of the more robust RPS in the country, and studies indicate the RPS efforts haven't broken the bank. In fact California is on its way to achieving its 33 percent RPS well before its 2020 deadline, and efforts are already underway to determine what the next level should be. Similarly, the state's California Solar Initiative has been successful, and arguably it too should be expanded.

Here is home for good news for solar energy adoption in our country. In California, some major utility territories have arrived at a "retail rate" parity situation where a residential solar PV system can compete or beat retail electricity rates with just the 30 percent investment tax credits — i.e. no other incentives. In fact we've heard from installers that trying to obtain those extra incentives is actually less desirable because they make the process longer, wiping out much of the savings they'd provide. Two communities, Lancaster and Sebastopol, have mandated that new or renovated homes must incorporate solar energy. This summer California set a new benchmark of 2.071 GW output on a Friday afternoon, exceeding five percent of peak demand — and not all that far from the 2.25 GW that was lost when the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) went offline for good.

But again, the proliferation of distributed solar PV is causing concern among utilities and grid operators who struggle to understand and embrace so much "behind the meter" power generation. If the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) can't calculate the supply, it can't be applied to the state's RPS goals. Smart inverters and smart metering would help address this — and not just provide energy production but also voltage smoothing — which opens the door to the net-metering debate.

Number 5: New Mexico

New Mexico is among the sunniest states, but is the only one that does not compensate consumers, at full retail rates, for excess solar electricity fed back into the grid; instead it calculates the "avoided cost" (i.e., wholesale) rate which is lower than what consumers pay.

That hasn't stopped New Mexico from being at the forefront of the "grid parity" discussion with solar. Earlier this year the state approved a long-term power purchase agreement between First Solar and El Paso Electric Power for a 50-MW project, with a rock-bottom rate of 5.79¢/kWh, far below standard pricing for either other solar projects and even new coal plants. (First Solar also is building 23 MW of solar capacity for the Public Service Co. of New Mexico.) Conergy, meanwhile, is claiming it can install solar in New Mexico at parity with the grid.

Another noteworthy solar milestone in New Mexico: earlier this year, the U.S. Army dedicated its largest solar PV system, a 4.1 MW ground-mount plus 375-kW carport, at the White Sands Missile Range.

Number 4: New Jersey

New Jersey is another rising star in U.S. adoption of solar energy — and it's doing it not with a high solar resource, but with impressive legislative support and customer demand. The state was an early adopter of policies to support solar energy adoption, including an RPS with a solar carve-out that was recently doubled to 4.1 percent by 2028. Today it has the fourth-highest solar capacity per capita — more than California and New Mexico — and is the third state with 1 GW of cumulative solar installations. More than 15,000 homes, 3,000 businesses, 300 schools, and 200 government facilities in New Jersey now get at least part of their electricity from the sun, says Environment America.

New Jersey's Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) recently got the green-light for a $447 million expansion of solar energy projects, split between smaller distributed generation ones and larger-scale ones on landfills and brownfield sites. PSE&G also got approval for another 97 MW of loans for residential and non-residential solar projects, with an option to pay them off in SRECs.

Number 3: Hawaii

Ultimately solar energy has to be competitive on a "level playing field" with conventional energy sources, without help from subsidies. (Though defining "level playing field" comes with plenty of debate, and calculation of what benefits other energy production sources enjoy.) Part of that equation means solar will first gain adoption in areas where energy prices are already steep — and few places have higher energy prices than Hawaii, where solar energy is already proven to be cheaper than electricity from the grid, without incentives.

Hawaii does have an incentive program for small-scale residential solar projects ($0.21/kWh), and the state's legislature has voted to enact a "Green Energy Market Securitization" (GEMS) program to support financing for clean energy technologies including solar. Hawaii also has perhaps the most robust renewable portfolio standard of any state: 40 percent by 2030, and a greater target of 70 percent including energy efficiency measures.

Hawaii's recognition in this study "is encouraging and demonstrates our state's commitment to achieving its clean energy goals," stated Hawaii's Governor Neil Abercrombie. "Utilizing all facets of our diverse renewable energy landscape is key, and we are succeeding in removing barriers to allow a greater segment of our community to invest in and benefit from clean, alternative resources such as solar."

Number 2: Nevada

Nevada is another sun-soaked state in the U.S. Southwest where solar energy's share of electricity generation could exceed 30 percent. It was third overall in 2012 for installed solar PV per capita (72 W/person) and fourth in installed capacity (198 MW), and is fourth overall in cumulative installed solar PV (403 MW).

Earlier this spring Nevada's major public utility, NV Energy, committed to replacing 553 MW worth of coal plants with a mix of renewable energy and natural gas, including solar, wind, and geothermal. Nevada is a national leader in geothermal energy; Apple is adding 20 MW of solar energy to its Reno datacenter, following the company's 100-percent-renewables lead at its other facilities; and a 200-MW wind project recently received federal approval.

Number 1: Arizona

Arizona's 167 W of solar electricity capacity per resident is nearly 7× the national average, demonstrating the state's early and solid commitment to solar energy. The state also ranks 2nd behind California in utility-scale solar energy projects, with 633 MW in capacity and another 495 MW under construction. And the vast majority — 86 percent — of residential PV installations in Arizona are third-party owned.

Being at the forefront of solar energy deployment has also put Arizona at the head of several key debates about the future of solar energy. The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) has voted to eliminate incentives for both residents and businesses, and is one of a number of states to consider challenges to its renewable portfolio standard. And Arizona is ground-zero in one of the most contentious debates in all of energy: net metering. The fight against net metering — and to what extent the ACC is orchestrating it — has even drawn comparisons to the John Kerry/Swift Boat controversy.


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Why Hawaii Just Became An Even Better Market For Solar

Date

(Forbes.com)  Already one of the most attractive markets for solar power in the United States, Hawaii recently made it easier for underserved residents to invest in clean energy. Last month, Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed a bill authorizing the state Energy Office to establish a green infrastructure financing program.


Central to the program is the use of on-bill financing, which will enable property owners and renters in Hawaii to install energy-saving improvements without the upfront costs that are a burden for those without deep pockets.


Hawaii is an ideal market for solar power. There is the abundant sunshine, of course, but also important are the economic drivers. Because Hawaii burns expensive imported oil to generate over 75% of its electricity, residential customers pay the highest average retail electricity rates in the country ($0.37 per kilowatt-hour), double the rates in Alaska ($0.185/kWh), the runner-up.


The average monthly residential electricity bill in Hawaii, $203, is the nation’s highest. Because of the high retail electricity prices, Hawaii residents can install solar, without incentives, for less than the cost of grid electricity.


Combine the ample sun, high energy costs, state and federal tax incentives, and general U.S. market shift from solar ownership to leasing and it’s no wonder Hawaii ranks No.3 nationally for cumulative solar electricity capacity per capita.


But the solar bounty hasn’t been harvested equally. Some 40% of Hawaii residents are renters who have no incentive to purchase a PV system for a home likely to be left within a few years. Low-income homeowners may not be able to qualify for a conventional loan to invest in solar. And non-profits aren’t directly eligible to take advantage of solar tax credits.


Senate Bill 1087, which Gov. Abercrombie signed on June 27, makes solar photovoltaic systems, as well as solar thermal water heaters and big-ticket energy efficiency upgrades, available to all these underserved customers by eliminating the thorny issue of the upfront costs.


On-bill financing enables residential or commercial property owners or renters to avoid the initial out-of-pocket expense to install energy improvements. Upgrades are instead financed with loans paid back via a line item on the customer’s monthly utility bill. If the property is sold or transferred, the loan stays with the meter and would be taken over by the new property owner or tenant.


The Hawaii on-bill financing program, as with a South Carolina program I wrote about earlier this week, is designed to be “bill neutral” – that is, the monthly energy savings should at least match, and usually exceed, loan payments. Participants in the South Carolina program are saving an average of nearly $300 annually after loan payments now, and will pocket more than $1,100 on average each year after loans are repaid.


“GEMS’ [Green Energy Market Securitization] objective is to make clean energy improvements accessible and affordable,” Noreen Kam, Communications Officer, Hawaii State Energy Office, told me in an e-mail. “In the first phase, we will target financing for distributed solar, especially in the underserved markets (low to moderate income, renters, nonprofits), to bring cost savings to consumers and to contribute to the state’s clean energy goals.” Hawaii expects to meet 70% of its electricity demand with clean energy (40% renewables, 30% energy efficiency) by 2030.


When Hawaii’s on-bill financing program launches next year, interested customers will hire certified contractors to install energy-saving equipment. The projects will be paid for by private investors who have purchased state-issued bonds. Bondholders are repaid via the monthly loan payments collected from the utility bills of participating customers. This Blue Planet Foundation flowchart helpfully explains the on-bill financing framework.


To be sure, the steep upfront cost is not the only barrier preventing Hawaii residents from installing solar. In a recent report, John Farrell, a researcher with the Institute for Self-Reliance, described other barriers, including required electrical upgrades and interconnection study costs. But, if on-bill financing launches as expected next year, lack of means need not prevent Hawaiians from investing in solar power.


The Hawaii Public Utilities Commission must sign off on the GEMS program, said Kam, but the state expects to launch on-bill financing after the first quarter of 2014.


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

NELHA projects will generate 500 construction jobs

DateTuesday, July 30, 2013 at 11:47AM

(Pacific Business News)  Construction projects planned or underway at the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority in Kailua-Kona on the Big Island are generating about 500 jobs and nearly $5 million in tax revenue during the next two years. The 12 projects are scheduled to have a total value of more than $50 million.

Projects under construction include the West Hawaii Explorations Academy’s $8.5 million new charter school, Shrimp Improvement Systems’ $6 million new headquarters, NELHA’s $4.7 million deep-sea pipeline repair and Cyanotech’s new office building and extraction facilities, which total $4.5 million.

This year, NELHA, which is part of the state Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, has seven projects under construction that total almost $30 million and account for 319 jobs as well as $3.6 million in tax revenue, said Greg Barbour, executive director of NELHA.

“I think a lot of it is pent-up demand,” he told PBN. “We worked hard to negotiate some of these projects [and] I think for us, we’re just trying to be as positive as we can.”

Other projects currently going on include the $3.2 million Marine Mammal Center, Taylor Shellfish’s $1 million expansion and Destiny Deep Sea Water’s sublease to Encon, one of the bigger pre-form bottle makers in the United States, which contributes $2 million in construction spending.

Barbour says that there was some concern by the state with where NELHA was going, from an operational perspective, which included a scathing state audit about a year ago.

But with these projects under construction and five more in the pipeline to get underway next year, the tide is beginning to swing its way, he said.

“There’s more confidence in us,” Barbour said. “We are getting strong support from this administration.”

Upcoming 2014 projects include NELHA’s $9.7 million road construction project, which aims to ease access to the ocean science and technology park as well as $3.7 million for the creation of an alternative energy and biotechnology demonstration incubator and building renovation.

In total, 2014 construction projects account for about $21 million in construction spending as well as 175 jobs and $2.1 million in tax revenues.

Other projects happening in 2014 include Makai Ocean Engineering’s $2.2 million ocean thermal energy conversion project, Shrimp Improvement Systems’ $3 million second phase build-out and NELHA’s $2.3 million surface seawater project.


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

New Report Ranks Top 12 States Leading the U.S. in Solar Power

(Environment America)  Today, Environment America Research & Policy Center released Lighting the Way: What We Can Learn from America’s Top 12 Solar States, a new report highlighting a solar energy boom across the country. The top 12 solar states ranked by per capita solar are: Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii New Jersey, New Mexico, California, Delaware, Colorado, Vermont, Massachusetts, North Carolina and Maryland.

“The sky’s the limit on solar energy,” said Rob Sargent, energy program director with Environment America. “The progress of these states should give us the confidence that we can do much more. Being a leader in pollution-free solar energy means setting big goals and backing them up with good policies.”

The report emphasizes that it is not availability of sunlight that makes states solar leaders, but the degree to which state and local governments have created effective public policy for the development of the solar industry. States with more homeowners and businesses “going solar” share these strong policies:

• 11 of the 12 leading states have strong net metering policies, which allow customers to offset their electric bills with onsite solar and receive reliable and fair compensation for the excess electricity they provide to the grid.
• 11 of the 12 states have renewable electricity standards, requiring utilities to provide a minimum amount of their power from renewable sources; and nine of them have solar carve outs, which set specific targets for solar or other forms of clean onsite power.
• 10 of the 12 have strong statewide interconnection policies. Interconnection policies reduce the time and hassle required for individuals and companies to connect solar energy systems to the grid.
• The majority of the top solar states allow for creative financing options such as third-party power purchase agreements and property assessed clean energy (PACE) financing.

Strong commitment shows among the elected officials of leading solar states.

“Encouraging solar power is the right thing to do for the environment and our economy,” said Delaware Governor Jack Markell. “We are aggressively working toward a clean energy future in Delaware, demonstrating we can have both a strong economy and a healthy environment. That means creating a robust market for solar and other clean energy systems, creating clean energy jobs, expanding our solar industry, and improving air quality by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.”

“Building our state’s solar market is a top priority in Maryland. Our renewable energy portfolio standard and energy consumption reduction goals are among the most aggressive in the country,” said Governor O’Malley. "Today, we have more than 1,410 times more solar on our state’s grid and 2,000 more solar installation jobs than in 2007. Together, we can create a more sustainable future for generations to come."

“Environment America’s ranking of Hawaii as a leader in solar energy is encouraging and demonstrates our state’s commitment to achieving its clean energy goals,” said Hawaii’s Governor Neil Abercrombie. “Continuing our momentum, I recently enacted legislation to establish Hawaii’s innovative Green Energy Market Securitization (GEMS) program, which will provide a financing model to make clean energy improvements more affordable and within reach to underserved members of our community. This includes small businesses, nonprofits, community organizations and individuals. Utilizing all facets of our diverse renewable energy landscape is key, and we are succeeding in removing barriers to allow a greater segment of our community to invest in and benefit from clean, alternative resources such as solar.”

“Vermont is putting solar power to work and is leading the way to a clean energy future that tackles the threat of climate change while growing jobs and the economy,” Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin said. “We have more than doubled our solar energy in the last two and a half years, but we know our work is not done. We plan to keep Vermont at the forefront of this energy revolution.”

Solar is on the rise across the country. According to the U.S. Solar Market Insight: 2012 Year-in-Review report by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and GTM Research, America had more than three times as much solar capacity as it did in 2010, and more than 10 times as much as it did in 2007. To boot, SEIA also found that the price to install a solar system fell by 26 percent in 2012.

Rhone Resch, president and CEO of SEIA, underlined the report’s findings that solar energy deployment is skyrocketing. “There is now more than 8,500 MW of cumulative solar electric capacity installed in the U.S. – enough to power more than 1.3 million American homes,” Resch explained. “Solar now employs nearly 120,000 Americans at more than 5,600 companies, most of which are small businesses spread across the U.S.”

“More and more, homes and businesses are turning to solar as a pollution-free energy source with no fuel costs,” said Sargent. “With the increasing threat of global warming, these leading states must continue their momentum and other states must catch up.”

While these 12 states account for only 28 percent of the U.S. population, they make up 85 percent of the nation’s installed solar energy.

Environment America urges the federal government to continue key tax credits for solar energy like the Investment Tax Credit, encourage responsible development of prime solar resources on public lands, and support research, development and deployment efforts designed to reduce the cost of solar energy and smooth the incorporation of large amounts of solar energy into the electric grid.

“Right now, only a small fraction of our energy comes from solar,” concluded Sargent. “By setting a bold goal of getting 10 percent of our energy from the sun by 2030 and adopting strong policies to support that goal, the U.S. can follow in the footsteps of the 12 top solar states and put us on track to becoming a global leader in solar power.”

Lighting the Way: What We Can Learn from America’s Top 12 Solar States Report


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Hawaii looks to sun, wind to help beat oil addiction

(Asahi Shimbun)  The ridges of Maui's hills are punctuated by tall, white objects that rotate majestically in the gales blowing in from the sea.

These are wind turbines, and their leisurely movements mask an electricity generating capacity of 50 megawatts, enough to meet 10–15 percent of the island's demand and provide electricity to 20,000 households.

Once Maui's other wind and solar power facilities are added to the equation, natural energy should be able to meet the electricity needs of half the island's 140,000 residents. Maui has begun trialing a "smart grid" that efficiently integrates these facilities into actual transmission networks.

According to Leon Roose from the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, Hawaii is at the global cutting edge when it comes to the practical application of natural energies. Roose says Hawaii's energy structure is currently undergoing a "paradigm shift."

In autumn 2008, Hawaii announced a goal of meeting 40 percent of the state's electricity demand with natural energy by 2030.

In the latter half of the 2000s, soaring oil prices hammered home just how reliant Hawaii was on fossil fuels. "Simply stated, our current way is not sustainable. We must alter our course," said the website of the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, a project set up by the state of Hawaii and the U.S. Department of Energy.

Of the 50 states in the United States, Hawaii is by far the most dependent on oil. Oil-fired power plants supply more than 70 percent of the state's electricity, more than six times that of Alaska, the next state most dependent on oil. When cars and airplanes are included, fossil fuels account for 90 percent of the state's energy consumption.

This puts Hawaii in a precarious situation, a fact that became all too obvious when oil prices surged temporarily to around $150 a barrel (around 15,000 yen), with electricity bills subsequently ballooning to more than three times the U.S. average.

The 40 percent goal for natural energy use is actually the highest among all 50 states. This is not a mere non-binding target, either; the government and power companies are obliged to meet it, says Traci Ho Kim from the Hawaii State Energy Office. "It is actually law," she explains.

Japan's New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) is participating in Maui's smart grid, while Hitachi is constructing the grid system. An experiment will begin this autumn to integrate electric cars into the grid, too. Automobiles account for one-third of the island's energy use, says Roose, so Maui will remain addicted to oil unless this area is tackled too.

Sustainability is not just an issue for the energy sector, either. As tourist numbers swell, the problem of garbage disposal grows ever more urgent.

Hawaii produces just under three tons of garbage per person, more than twice the U.S. average. This is due to tourism, with five times more people visiting each year than actually live on the island. Most of these visitors flock to the island of Oahu, where 70 percent of the population live, too. As a result, Oahu is running out of landfill space to bury its mountains of trash. A last-ditch plan was cobbled together to export the garbage to Washington state on the U.S. West Coast, but this was eventually shelved on the back of local opposition. Talks are under way about building new disposal facilities within the island, but no concrete plans have emerged yet.

Trash from Asia or the U.S. West Coast also frequently winds up on Hawaii's beaches. Over the past 10 years, more than 700 tons of plastic bottles, plastic bags, fishing nets, buoys and other rubbish has been removed from the island’s shores. Plastic garbage is often found in the stomachs of seabirds or fish. Driftage from the tsunami that followed the Great East Japan Earthquake in March 2011 was also found last autumn.

"We have some of the best environment in the world ... so from a natural perspective, we have the most to defend," says Alan Arakawa, the mayor of Maui County. If Hawaii keeps expanding landfills, this may create more land, says Arakawa, but it will "sacrifice the ocean" by destroying the natural coastline and losing its beautiful scenery.

"The biggest issue we have is how to preserve the community and transfer it to the next generations," he says.


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Alaska Airlines to buy biofuel from Hawaii company

Date(Honolulu Star-Advertiser)  Alaska Airlines has signed a contract to buy biofuel for its aircraft from Hawaii BioEnergy LLC.

Neither the terms nor the value of the contract were disclosed, however, Hawaii BioEnergy plans to ramp up production to begin sales of sustainable biofuel possibly as early as 2018, according to a statement.

Hawaii BioEnergy plans to use locally grown feedstocks to produce biofuels, and comprises three of Hawaii’s largest landowners and three venture capital companies.

The biofuel will likely be based on woody biomass, consistent with sustainability standards set by the Roundtable for Sustainable Biofuels.

The airline is Hawaii BioEnergy’s second customer, but is the first to sign a contract, according to a statement.

Hawaiian Electric Co. previously announced an agreement to purchase 10 million gallons of fuel each year from Hawaii BioEnergy, under a deal pending approval by the Public Utilities Commission.


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Report: Hawaii leader in solar installations

Date

  A new report touts Hawaii as a leader in solar energy.


The report released Tuesday by Environment America ranks Hawaii third in the nation per capita for solar installations. The group says Hawaii's solar capacity last year grew by 57%, bringing it to a total of 191 megawatts.


Gov. Neil Abercrombie says the ranking demonstrates the state's commitment to achieving clean energy goals. He says barriers are being removed to allow more people to invest in and benefit from alternative sources of energy, such as solar.


There were 12 states profiled in the report. The group says they make up 85% of the nation's installed solar energy. Arizona was ranked first and Nevada ranked second.


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Commissioning of the construction of a new biomass-fuelled advanced gasification CHP system that is set to reduce its carbon emissions by a staggering 90 percent in Chatsworth


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

NEW 'COMPLETE' RENEWABLE ENERGY OFFERING REVEALED - wholesale supply and installation

Evergreen Energy Solutions, a one-stop shop for the wholesale supply and installation of the most innovative and efficient renewable energy products currently on the market, has opened for business.


With the Government?s flagship energy efficiency ?Green Deal? programme, and the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme (due next year), Evergreen Energy Solutions are looking to supply customers with the very best products/services available, so that they get the very best renewable energy deals possible.


James Woollard, managing director at Evergreen Energy Solutions explains: ?There?s been a lot of talk about the Green Deal, and the other schemes that are available or will soon become available, such as the RHI, The Warm Front Scheme, and of course the Feed-in Tariff. However when it comes to choosing the appropriate products/services, and getting the best prices, this can become a real minefield. So that?s why we?re here, to provide a ?complete renewable energy solution.?


Indeed, Evergreen Energy Solutions are already the UK?s largest independent supplier and installer of renewable energy products. Through it?s sister company, Evergreen PV, Evergreen Energy Solutions has built up vast experience in the sector, along with a fantastic network of quality suppliers.


James comments: ?We?ve partnered with some of the UK?s best manufacturers, ensuring that every product in our comprehensive range is the best in its class and backed by extensive warranties. Our solutions span both domestic and commercial applications, fully complement each other and meet the requirements for more energy-efficient ways to heat our buildings.


Evergreen Energy Solutions offer an array of renewable energy products/services. These include:


-Internal Wall Insulation
-External Wall Insulation
-Air Source Heat Pumps
-Air to Water Heat Pumps
-Thermovec Radiators
-Thermal Underfloor Heating
-LED Energy Efficient Lighting
-Double-glazing
-Bio-mass Boilers
-Wind Turbines
-Thermodynamic Hot Water Systems
-Solar PV


As well as providing a complete range of products/services, Evergreen Energy Solutions have also put together a highly experienced professional team who can advise customers on how best to practically and efficiently apply their renewable range of products ? especially where multiple technologies need to be employed to meet the Government?s increasingly demanding energy targets.


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Worldwatch Institute: Global Hydropower and Geothermal Growth Slow

Although the global consumption and installed capacity of hydropower and geothermal technologieshave increased steadily since 2003, both types of energy saw slower growth in 2011, according to new research conducted by the Worldwatch Institute for its Vital Signs Online service.Global installed capacity of hydropower reached 970 gigawatts (GW), only a 1.6 percent increase from the previous year, while geothermal cumulative capacity reached 11.2 GW, slowing to below 1 percent for the first time since 2002, writes report author Evan Musolino.


"Despite the recent slowdown in growth, the overall market for hydropower and geothermal power is increasing in part because these two sources are not subject to the variability in generation that plagues other renewable energy sources such as wind and solar," said Musolino, a research associate with the Worldwatch's Climate and Energy Program. "The greater reliability of hydro and geothermal can thus be harnessed to provide reliable baseload power."


Hydroelectricity accounted for almost 6 percent of primary energy consumption among members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). It played a more important role in other countries----at a little over 7 percent of usage----and these non-OECD nations accounted for 60 percent of worldwide hydroelectricity consumption. On a regional basis, South America and Central America are most dependent on hydroelectricity relative to total energy use.


Although hydropower plays the least important role in the Middle East, the region experienced the greatest growth in hydroelectricity consumption in 2011, at almost 22 percent. North America was next, with an increase slightly under 14 percent. In contrast, usage fell by almost 9 percent in Europe and Eurasia and by 0.6 percent in the Asia Pacific region.


Although some 150 countries produce hydropower, half of the global capacity was concentrated in just five nations at the end of 2011. China remains the leader, with 212 GW installed, followed by Brazil (82.2 GW), the United States (79 GW), Canada (76.4 GW), and Russia (46 GW).


Despite the potential for inexpensive, low-emission electricity from hydropower, large projects can bring significant negative consequences. The damming of rivers to create the reservoirs needed for large-scale power generation is severely disruptive to ecosystems and can harm both animal and human populations. And building hydropower plants has its own significant emissions impacts, including from the creation of reservoirs and the large amounts of concrete needed for construction. In many cases, hydropower projects have led to the displacement of local populations and the adverse altering of downstream conditions.


But hydropower continues to be one of the most cost-effective renewable energy generation sources. Typical costs are in the range of 2-13 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour for existing grid-connected hydropower plants and 5-10 cents per kilowatt-hour for new plants. Micro-hydropower installations (0.1 kilowatt to 1 megawatt), which are typically used in rural communities not connected to the national grid, generate at 5-40 cents per kilowatt-hour.


Like hydropower, geothermal resources are highly location-specific. Many countries with strong hydropower potential, including much of Latin America, the Caribbean, and Southeast Asia, have equally impressive geothermal potential. These resources have been exploited for power generation for over a century, with significant capacity being developed since the mid-1900s.


The costs associated with geothermal power also closely mirror those of hydropower. Varying by geothermal technology, generation costs are in the range of 5.7-10.7 cents per kilowatt-hour. High capital costs, associated primarily with the cost of drilling geothermal wells and the long lead time for project development, continue to challenge project developers.


 


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Global Hydropower and Geothermal Growth Slow

Although the global consumption and installed capacity of hydropower and geothermal technologieshave increased steadily since 2003, both types of energy saw slower growth in 2011, according to new research conducted by the Worldwatch Institute for its Vital Signs Online service.Global installed capacity of hydropower reached 970 gigawatts (GW), only a 1.6 percent increase from the previous year, while geothermal cumulative capacity reached 11.2 GW, slowing to below 1 percent for the first time since 2002, writes report author Evan Musolino.


"Despite the recent slowdown in growth, the overall market for hydropower and geothermal power is increasing in part because these two sources are not subject to the variability in generation that plagues other renewable energy sources such as wind and solar," said Musolino, a research associate with the Worldwatch's Climate and Energy Program. "The greater reliability of hydro and geothermal can thus be harnessed to provide reliable baseload power."


Hydroelectricity accounted for almost 6 percent of primary energy consumption among members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). It played a more important role in other countries-at a little over 7 percent of usage-and these non-OECD nations accounted for 60 percent of worldwide hydroelectricity consumption. On a regional basis, South America and Central America are most dependent on hydroelectricity relative to total energy use.


Although hydropower plays the least important role in the Middle East, the region experienced the greatest growth in hydroelectricity consumption in 2011, at almost 22 percent. North America was next, with an increase slightly under 14 percent. In contrast, usage fell by almost 9 percent in Europe and Eurasia and by 0.6 percent in the Asia Pacific region.


Although some 150 countries produce hydropower, half of the global capacity was concentrated in just five nations at the end of 2011. China remains the leader, with 212 GW installed, followed by Brazil (82.2 GW), the United States (79 GW), Canada (76.4 GW), and Russia (46 GW).


Despite the potential for inexpensive, low-emission electricity from hydropower, large projects can bring significant negative consequences. The damming of rivers to create the reservoirs needed for large-scale power generation is severely disruptive to ecosystems and can harm both animal and human populations. And building hydropower plants has its own significant emissions impacts, including from the creation of reservoirs and the large amounts of concrete needed for construction. In many cases, hydropower projects have led to the displacement of local populations and the adverse altering of downstream conditions.


But hydropower continues to be one of the most cost-effective renewable energy generation sources. Typical costs are in the range of 2-13 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour for existing grid-connected hydropower plants and 5-10 cents per kilowatt-hour for new plants. Micro-hydropower installations (0.1 kilowatt to 1 megawatt), which are typically used in rural communities not connected to the national grid, generate at 5-40 cents per kilowatt-hour.


Like hydropower, geothermal resources are highly location-specific. Many countries with strong hydropower potential, including much of Latin America, the Caribbean, and Southeast Asia, have equally impressive geothermal potential. These resources have been exploited for power generation for over a century, with significant capacity being developed since the mid-1900s.


The costs associated with geothermal power also closely mirror those of hydropower. Varying by geothermal technology, generation costs are in the range of 5.7-10.7 cents per kilowatt-hour. High capital costs, associated primarily with the cost of drilling geothermal wells and the long lead time for project development, continue to challenge project developers.


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Coyne et Bellier joint venture appointed on major hydropower plant scheme in Albania

A joint venture of Mott MacDonald and Coyne et Bellier has been appointed by Devoll Hydropower Sh.A (DHP) as owner?s engineer for the development of three hydropower plants in Southern Albania which will increase electricity generation in the country by 20 per cent.


Known as Devoll HEP, the project is a cascade of three hydropower plants on the Devoll River in southern Albania. Located at Banja, Kokel and Moglice, the hydropower plants will have a total installed capacity of approximately 280MW and their total annual production will be approximately 800GWh. Development of the schemes will be phased over a period of six years, with generation commencing at the end of 2015. Construction is due for completion in 2019.


The joint venture will review the designs and manage all aspects of the project implementation including construction supervision, as well as assist DHP with negotiation and award of the construction and supply contracts.


Mike McWilliams, Mott MacDonald?s project director, commented: ?Hydropower represents an excellent investment with substantial benefits for the population served. Hydroelectric power plants are a source of clean, renewable and reliable energy, which can be operated economically over extremely long periods of time.?


Yves F?lix, Coyne et Bellier?s deputy project director, added: ?It is a great opportunity for Mott MacDonald and Coyne et Bellier to provide services to DHP composed of EVN and Statkraft, two major companies in renewable and environmentally friendly energy. We are also proud to participate in the development of energy generation, improving the security and stability of Albania?s power system through this important project.?


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Let Gravity Store the Energy

Gravity Power LLC—a startup based in Santa Barbara, California—has developed a low-cost, quick-start, and fast dynamic response energy storage technology that competes with classical pumped storage hydro and gas turbines for peaking and intermediate duty power generation. The system is simple, yet its potential is profound.


Much of the power generation equipment now being installed is either for renewable energy (predominately wind and solar) or gas-fired combined cycles that leverage the historic low prices of natural gas. However, many of those gas-fired plants were built with an additional purpose: to serve as a fast-reacting source of electricity that can replace renewable generation when the wind stops blowing or the sun doesn’t shine. A better technology choice for “chasing” wind and solar is bulk electricity storage.


The system planning and grid operation complications posed by renewables were thoroughly discussed in an earlier article (“Energy Storage Enables Just-in-Time Generation,” April 2011, available at powermag.com). The key theme of that article was that utility-scale energy storage must be commercialized before renewable electricity can reach its full potential.


Today, most large energy storage projects appear to be little more than a shipping container filled with tens of thousands of small batteries. The value of energy storage is truly realized with utility-scale systems capable of “moving” bulk wind power produced chiefly during off-peak hours to on-peak hours when the value of the energy is significantly greater. The value is equally important to solar photovoltaic systems that wildly cycle when clouds pass overhead.


Several large-scale energy storage technologies in their early stage of development were discussed in the earlier article. Gravity Power LLC was identified as a company that stood out from the others, principally because its technology fully embraces the KISS principal (Google it) and should be deployable in the near term. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy took a look at the technology and was unable to fund development work because no research and development was needed.


In the time it takes to read this article, even nontechnologists will intuitively understand how the system works and appreciate its simplicity.


According to Gravity Power CEO Tom Mason, the final design concept took shape in 2008, which was immediately followed by the company’s first round of funding in early 2009 from The Quercus Trust, followed by a series of other small investments. The company is currently raising a Series B round to fund final design and testing of the system. The first Gravity Power patent covering its technology was issued by the U.S. Patent Office in May 2012, and other global patents are pending.


The Gravity Power Module (GPM) is a simple machine (Figure 1). At the heart of the system is a reversible pump-turbine and motor-generator, much like those used in conventional pumped storage hydro (PSH) systems for 70 or more years. Sitting 40 meters (m) below ground is the top of an underground “water circuit” where the pump-turbine is located. The circuit consists of two sealed water-filled vertical shafts. The first is a large-diameter vertically bored shaft called the “power shaft.” The smaller is the “penstock” shaft. Within the power shaft rests a large piston that stores or returns energy when hydraulically moved up or down by water. The water is simply a hydraulic fluid. The water flows in a circuit in both directions: Either water flows within the system loop, pushing the piston up, or the water is being pushed in the other direction by the piston as it drops.

1. Gravity works. The piston (shown in red) moves up and down in the power shaft, depending on its operating mode. Power from the grid is used to pump water (the pump is shown in green) into the power shaft and raise the piston. When electricity is required, the piston drops, forcing water through the pump that now functions as
a turbine, producing electricity from the motor that now functions as a generator. The penstock shaft is used to capture and return water to the system. Courtesy: Gravity Power LLC
This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

R&D Projects Target Cheaper Carbon Capture, Use, and Storage

In order to burn abundant supplies of coal globally while minimizing carbon dioxide emissions, cheaper methods of capturing, using, and storing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants are needed. A new federal agency is on the leading edge of identifying and supporting promising technologies.


The technology options available today for capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil-fueled power plants are limited and involve daunting energy penalties. They’re also expensive, adding up to 80% to the cost of power generation. Current options for using captured CO2 are mostly limited to enhanced oil recovery, which means this use of the captured, compressed, and transported greenhouse gas is limited geographically and practically. Other storage options are in their infancy and look expensive, if not cost-prohibitive. So where does that leave the power industry as it looks to a future that (especially given President Obama’s recently announced Climate Action Plan) is sure to include some sort of imperative to capture carbon emissions?


A few carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) research and pilot projects are under way around the world, but most have been on-again/off-again ventures, mostly because of uncertain regulatory, legal, and financing environments. But that doesn’t mean the issue is going away. In the U.S., the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) newest agency takes the challenge seriously and is encouraging innovative research and development (R&D) to solve the puzzle of how to keep CO2 from energy-production activities out of Earth’s atmosphere.


At the 4th Annual Energy Innovation Summit (EIS) in February, more than 20 Technology Showcase displays focused on carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS). The EIS is sponsored by the DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E), the four-year-old sibling of the Defense Department’s DARPA. As of this spring, the ARPA-E website listed a total of 15 projects that were part of the agency’s Innovative Materials and Processes for Advanced Carbon Capture Technologies (IMPACCT) program.


ARPA-E focuses on modest-size, short-term grants for projects that are at too early a stage to attract private, venture capital. And although the funding provided by ARPA-E may be its most visible role, at least as important are the partnerships it arranges for the projects it funds. By bringing a variety of researchers, national laboratory scientists, and corporate partners together, ARPA-E connects individuals and groups that might not have had access to each other or who wouldn’t have thought they could help solve each other’s problems. Such strategic partnerships are important not just for solving technical problems but also for making the transition to a stage where private investors become interested. (For more on the agency, search for “ARPA-E Plays Matchmaker for Innovative Energy Research Projects” at powermag.com.)


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Classic Marmaduke: Marmy’s First Lesson

Steve Elonka began chronicling the exploits of Marmaduke Surfaceblow—a six-foot-four marine engineer with a steel brush mustache and a foghorn voice—in POWER in 1948, when Marmy raised the wooden mast of the SS Asia Sun with the help of two cobras and a case of Sandpaper Gin. Marmy’s simple solutions to seemingly intractable plant problems remain timeless. This Classic Marmaduke story, published more than 50 years ago, reminds us that even the most modern steam plant is only as good as its operators.


“Something’s haywire,” observed young Marmaduke Surfaceblow when he reached the large cottonwood tree only a block from the village power plant. The young man automatically stopped to listen and look down the dusty road at the small, red brick plant near the river. The high steel stack belched a plume of thick grey smoke, which spread over the low evening sun’s embarrassed face. As the young man listened, he knew from the sound of the exhaust that the large compound engine was running. “Wonder why?” he crackled in his deep voice, clamping an unlighted cheroot between strong white teeth. Then, taking giant steps, he hurried downhill to the plant.


Milldew, Missouri, on that long-ago day shortly after World War I, had a scant 200 inhabitants. But the little Mississippi River hamlet would one day become famous for having been the hometown of the senior member of Surfaceblow & Associate, internationally respected New York consulting engineers. At age 15, Marmaduke was already an overgrown, rawboned country lad, 6 feet in height. And he had been rattling over the red-clay Missouri country roads in a model-T Ford ever since his legs were long enough to reach the floorboard pedals.


Fact is, since age 10, Marmy, as he was fondly called by the natives, had been helping Thaddeus McSpadden with his blacksmithing, overhauling farm machinery, Stanley steamers, and the “gas buggies” of the period. Then, during the hectic autumn harvesting seasons, the youthful embryo mechanical genius had fired and operated steam threshing engines, some fitted with straw-burning boilers, as well as any grownup.


Marmaduke had spent his 14th birthday, stripped to the waist, shoveling coal into the hungry boilers of the Mississippi River side-wheeler, the Great Republic. By the time the river queen returned to St. Louis from New Orleans, Marmy could handle a slice bar and keep steam on the line along with the burliest river firemen.


“If that young’un Marmy can’t fix it, better bury it,” was heard frequently around the Milldew countryside. And that included repairing everything from grandfather clocks to internal-combustion engines.


Now, with the war having claimed one of his shift operators, chief engineer Diogenes Bluer, an old friend of Thaddeus McSpadden, had put the youngster on as an operator at the “electric light” plant. Marmaduke had the night shift, starting at 6 p.m. It was a 12-hour “day,” and his pay was $100 a month. Not bad for the times, the job and the hamlet, no siree—not to mention for a youngster of only 15.


The small plant had four horizontal?return-tube (HRT) boilers, rated at 150 boiler hp, on that day’s basis of 10 sq. ft. of heating surface equaling 1 boiler hp. Although some backward areas still use this antiquated method, we rate boilers today on pounds of steam produced per hour.


Two horizontal Buckeye steam engines drove shaft-mounted alternators with belted exciters. The small single?cylinder engine, dubbed “Little Buck,” was rated at 75 kW; the larger, cross? compound “Big Buck” at 150 kW.


Sure, today those old timers sound insignificant in capacity. But to the youthful country lad, the large unit, especially, with its heavy flywheel spinning and its crosshead reciprocating steadily to and fro, seemed impressive enough. Each engine had one piston-type-valve, and the compound’s low-pressure side had a slide valve.


Usual practice was to run the small unit from midnight to around 7 a.m., the time when the load started climbing. Peak load was from 140 to 150 kW—except on Saturday nights, when it shot up to 175 or even 180 kW, and the compound needed help from the smaller engine.


On Saturday, farmers drove to town by buckboard, or with their Webber & Dame green farm wagons loaded with produce and children, or in their Tin Lizzies. The younger people would congregate around the ice-cream parlor next door to Enoch Fidley’s Feed & Grain Exchange. Smedley’s Tonsorial Emporium and the grand Pool Parlor next door would buzz with activity. And the new Lyceum Movie Palace, boasting 100 seats and recently completed in what had been Jastrow’s Livery Stable, would have standing room only, especially if Harry Carey starred in a cowboy picture and Charlie Chaplin added icing to the evening’s cake.


On Saturday evenings, merchants along River Road had their stores a blaze with electric lights, displaying merchandise stacked on the sidewalk beneath the wide veranda that extended along the storefronts from one end of the block to the other.


Yessir, while the biggest excitement on weekdays might be a dogfight or two on dusty River Road in front of Schwartz’s Butcher Shop, on Saturday the town always came alive. And this WAS Saturday.


Marmaduke opened the engine-room door and apprehensively stepped inside. He was enveloped by the warm, sweet aroma of steam in contact with cylinder oil. And the big compound was throbbing steadily away as it reciprocated majestically, hissing light feathers of steam from stuffing boxes at the end of each stroke. The spokes of the massive flywheel were a blur, and its vertical fly?ball governor spun in merry-go-round fashion. Beyond Big Buck, Marmy saw Cyrus Clooney, the day operator, through the blurred flywheel spokes, working away at something over Little Buck.


Stopping for a second, Marmaduke watched Clooney. What was he doing—fishing a piece of broken piston ring out of the smaller engine’s steam passage? The young man knew instantly what had happened. Yes, Little Buck had evidently taken a drink of water which knocked out her cylinder head, bent her piston rod, and broke the rings on her piston valve.


“Looks like a tornado’s been here. What a mess,” rumbled Marmaduke, lighting the cheroot and taking a drag on it. “Where’s Diogenes?”


“Idunno—reckon he’s gone home to supper,” came the unconcerned reply from Cyrus as he continued his fishing expedition. “And that’s where I’m heading, soon as I snare this last dagnabbed piece of ring out of this here port.”


Now, chief engineer Diogenes Bluer was of the old school. Like operating engineers of the day, he had got his “schooling” by starting out as a “boomer engineer,” firing HRT boilers and operating steam engines at whistle stops throughout the country. After satisfying his wanderlust and acquiring a first-hand knowledge of boilers and engines, from simple “side-winders” to the stately Corliss, he had returned to settle down back in his hometown.


Diogenes was a big, burly man of about 250 pounds, with a close-cropped grey mustache and a bald head, which was always covered by a ten-gallon hat, his trademark. Although on the quiet side while on the job, Marmaduke soon learned that the chief had all the right answers when the chips were down. Chief Diogenes, as he was respectfully known throughout the Ozarks, and young Marmaduke had a great deal of respect for each other.


“She’s all yours,” exclaimed Cyrus, dropping the last piece of piston ring on the workbench. He squirted lube oil on his grimy hands, rubbed them together to work off the dirt, then vigorously wiped them with waste. “I’m making tracks, taking Rosie Gerber to the bam dance out at Pevely’s new electrified farm,” he added as he signed the log book. Then, reaching the door, “I’ll be thinking of you when Bib Buck starts calling for help. And if the lights go out, me and Rosie won’t mind—ha, ha.” He was gone.


Marmaduke knew it was HIS time to start worrying. How was he going to get by with the smaller engine torn apart and the peak load sure to follow in another two hours?


Perhaps chief Diogenes thought leaving the young man by himself in a tight situation would be good for him. Or maybe he wanted to see exactly how Marmy would act in an emergency. Who knows? At any rate, the chief didn’t show up for two very, VERY long hours. By then, the load had been inching up steadily, and the youthful operator was extremely concerned. It was his first job as a shift operator in a steam power-generating station; he had started only three weeks ago! And this was the first time he had faced the peak load all by himself, with Little Buck’s anatomy scattered over the floor. Worst of all, if the breaker tripped, River Road would be thrown into darkness. And the entire Ozark countryside would remember only that the blackout occurred on Marmaduke’s shift. Now THAT would be something to carry to his grave.


Just as the embryo engineer, with eyes glued anxiously to the wooden instrument panel, was wondering WHAT he could do to prevent the breaker from tripping—lash it down? No, never—he felt a cool breeze flow in as the back door of the engine room opened. It was Diogenes himself. The big man never looked so big as he did to the young man at that moment.


“Gosh, Diogenes, am I glad to see YOU,” blurted the young man. “The load’s nearing one-fifty, and Big Buck’s about to start slowing down. What should I do?”


Diogenes didn’t answer, giving the impression he had had a very leisurely and satisfying dinner and now wanted only to enjoy a smoke. He walked slowly to the instrument board and glanced at the steam gage, then at the frequency indicator. The meter registered slightly below 60 cycles. Removing the corncob pipe from his mouth, he tamped down the tobacco with his little finger, struck a wooden match with one hand by scratching it with his thumbnail, lit the pipe and drawled. “Just you keep your shirt on, young feller.”


Then, glancing at the steam gage, “Go tell Alex to keep the water low in the glasses—maybe a half-inch above the nut—and his boiler pressure right up on the pop valves.”


The perplexed young operator looked on in disbelief as the chief lumbered over to his swivel chair, pulled it across the floor to the side of the compound painted base, pulled the brim of his hat over his eyes, and leaned back in his chair as if going to sleep.


“He’s blown all his gaskets,” thought the concerned young operator. “Peak load coming up, no reserve power, and he’s hitting the hay.” But now that the chief had returned, at least the problem was on HIS shoulders. Marmaduke walked into the fireroom.


The fireman has pushed a wheelbarrow of coal in from the outside coal pile, and was dumping it in front of a boiler. “Alex, chief Diogenes wants you to keep the water low, just above the bottom nut. No time for Big Buck to get a shot of water. And he wants that steam right up on the pops,” relayed Marmaduke.


The fireman glanced up at the steam gage, then quickly at the water level in the gage glasses. Hoisting one foot up on the empty wheelbarrow, he removed the sweat towel from his neck, and wiped the perspiration and coal dust from his neck, face and forehead. “Well, she’s right up there now, Marmy, old chum. If she goes any higher she’ll pop, that’s for sure.” With that, he opened a furnace door. The hot glare from the flames flooded Alex in a blaze of red light, magnifying into a giant shadow on the boiler front opposite. Alex got busy with the slice bar, breaking up a large clinker on the coal bed.


Marmaduke walked back into the engine room. Yep, the chief was still reclining in his chair, hadn’t changed his position. So the young man dismissed the immediate problem from his mind, and set to work routinely checking the oil cups on the compound. He felt the main bearings with the back of his hand, as Diogenes had taught him, then reached for the long-spouted oil can and started filling the cups. But all that time, he kept glancing at the chief.


Suddenly, Marmaduke realized that chief Diogenes wasn’t snoozing after all! He was quietly and comfortably observing the motion of the valve gear.


The engine had an inside traveling cut?off, and, as the load built up, the travel increased. Sure, that’s what the old fox was up to—observing the valve gear from where he sat, he could see when the valve’s travel was nearing its full?out position.


“Marmy, come here,” called the chief, as soon as he decided that the valve travel had reached the full-out point. The young man hurried to the chief’s chair. And it was at that point that Marmaduke Surfaceblow got his first important lesson in compound steam engine operation. Bluer pointed to the one-inch line tapped into the main steam line just above the throttle and low-pressure cylinder chests. A valved branch of the one-inch line extended down into the sewer.


Young Marmaduke knew the line was used to drain the main steam line in to the sewer before warming up the engine. He also knew it served to “goose” the engine on the low-pressure side when, on shutdown, the h-p piston came to rest at dead-center.


“You just eyeball that steam on the receiver, Marmy, and see what happens,” instructed the chief. Marmaduke glued his alert eyes onto the gage. It registered about 12 psi, which he knew was normal for the load.


The chief started cracking the valve on the one-inch line to the receiver. And Marmaduke observed the receiver pressure start building up, ever so gradually. As soon as it reached 15 psi, Big Buck perked up considerably, cranking away in earnest, and it came right up on the governor. The young man also observed that the frequency indicator was again riding smoothly at 60 cycles.


Chief Diogenes didn’t have to explain what he was doing, nor why. Young Marmaduke had the picture instantly, mentally kicking himself for not having thought of it before. All he had to do was observe that the one-inch line connected the main steam from the boiler to the steam chest of the l-p cylinder’s valve, thus bypassing the h-p cylinder and bleeding boiler pressure steam directly into the l-p cylinder.

Young Marmaduke had the picture instantly, mentally kicking himself for not having thought of it before. Source: POWER


From that day he never failed to study thoroughly every piece of equipment he operated, so he could take care of every mechanical hookup to keep his plant running.


In years to come, he would bring in several triple-expansion engine-powered ships on only one cylinder, and several others on two. Not only that, but right then and there young Marmy made up his mind to make a career of power-plant operation—that’s how impressed he was with the way chief Diogenes met the peak load with his ingenious one-inch piping.


Two weeks later, the needed parts for Little Buck arrived from the factory up?river in Dubuque, Iowa. Marmaduke and Cyrus spent their watches assembling Little Buck under the watchful eyes of Diogenes Bluer, with a few hours of help from Thaddeus McSpadden, the blacksmith. By the following weekend, the single-cylinder Little Buck was ready to assist Big Buck with the heavy Saturday night load.


Since that long-ago day back in Milldew, considerable bilgewater has been pumped over the sides of many ships. And Marmaduke has helped grind out kilowatts galore, not to mention solving numerous perplexing energy-systems problems in various corners of the globe. But chief Diogenes’ actions that day taught the youngster one important lesson he has made excellent use of many times since: Energy systems equipment, regardless of how sophisticated, is only as reliable as the operator in charge.


[Note: If you enjoyed this tale of Marmaduke Surfaceblow’s adventures, visit the POWER Store to purchase a compilation of stories that originally were published in POWER—Marmaduke Surfaceblow’s Salty Technical Romances. ]


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

The Case for Utility Boiler Fuel Delivery System Upgrades

A vital part of any coal-fired unit is its fuel delivery system (FDS). A newly formed subcommittee of the ASME Research Committee on Energy, Environment, and Waste has investigated potential FDS upgrades on three typical 500-MW wall-, tangential-, and cyclone-fired boilers. The subcommittee has produced a series of suggested upgrades that have a simple payback of no more than two years.


The American Society of Mechanical Engineers’ Research Committee on Energy, Environment, and Waste (RC EEW) was formed more than 40 years ago with a focus on industrial and municipal solid waste. The Fuel Delivery System Subcommittee was recently formed to expand the RC EEW’s original charter to include all fuels, including the energy and environmental aspects of those fuels. The first project undertaken by this subcommittee, begun in September 2011, was a feasibility and economic analysis of potential upgrades to Powder River Basin (PRB) coal-fired power plants. A summary of results of the subcommittee’s work to date follows.

The first step in the subcommittee’s analysis of fuel delivery systems (FDS) was to identify the family of plants of interest. A recent article (“Predicting U.S. Coal Plant Retirements,” May 2011, available in the POWER archives at powermag.com) noted that the U.S. coal-fired fleet consisted of 1,105 units with a total nameplate capacity of 342 GW at the time the article was published. A majority of those plants were between 20 and 85 years old; only 35 new plants had been added over the past 15 years.


As a group, the units 50 years and older constitute about 53 GW or 20% of the total fleet capacity and 40% of all coal-fired units—many of which may be retired due to either normal business decisions or the cost of mandated retrofits of new air quality control systems (AQCSs). The next age group, the 30- to 45-year-old units, represent 216 GW and 63% of the current coal-fired fleet. Many of these were built during the 1960s and are much more likely to invite investment in plant upgrades (Figure 1).


1. Coal fleet average unit nameplate rating. The average unit rating was calculated by averaging the rating all of the units within each age category. Data are from early 2011. Source: POWER and Burns & McDonnell


The boilers of the 30- to 45-year-old units are mainly of opposed wall-, cyclone-, and tangential-fired configuration with average capacity factors ranging from 61.8% to 73.3%, as shown in Figure 2. In this age group, there were about 226 opposed wall-fired, 143 tangential-fired, and about 15 cyclone-fired boilers in operation in the U.S. in 2011.


2. Coal fleet average capacity factor. The average unit capacity factor was calculated by averaging the reported capacity factor of all the units within each age category. Many of the units in the five years or less category did not have data available. A 75% capacity factor was estimated. In all categories, if capacity factor data was not available, that unit was omitted from the average. Data are from early 2011. Source: POWER and Burns & McDonnell


These units—the backbone of the baseload coal-fired fleet—will bear the burden of ensuring that the usual high standards of electrical grid performance, availability, and reliability are met in the future. Though most of these units have high-grade AQCSs, they will require upgrades to comply with maximum achievable control technology, but the cost is not forecast to adversely impact unit competitiveness in terms of generation cost. However, the additional AQCS upgrades required for environmental compliance will add additional complexity to plants now straining to maintain unit availability and capacity factor.


A vital part of any coal-fired unit is its fuel delivery system, as shown in Figure 3. For the purposes of the subcommittee’s analysis, the FDS consists of the feeders, pulverizers (mills), classifiers, coal piping, and burners. These systems are vital for efficient and reliable plant operations but also require substantial maintenance due to the abrasive nature of coal.


Table 1. A comparison of possible fuel delivery system upgrades and their benefits. Source: The Fuel Delivery Subcommittee of the ASME Research Committee on Energy, Environment, and Waste


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Contact Energy Ltd.’s Te Mihi Power Station Harnesses Sustainable Geothermal Energy


Te Mihi Power Station is a two-unit 166-MW geothermal plant currently undergoing commissioning on New Zealand’s North Island. It replaces the Wairakei Power Station constructed in 1958—but with a much smaller environmental footprint. The double flash technology selected produces ~25% more power from the same amount of geothermal fluid that is currently used at Wairakei. For its continuing commitment to renewable geothermal energy, Contact Energy Ltd.’s Te Mihi Power Station is the winner of POWER’s 2013 Marmaduke Award for excellence in power plant problem-solving. The award is named for Marmaduke Surfaceblow, the fictional marine engineer and plant troubleshooter par excellence.


Contact Energy Ltd. (Contact) is one of New Zealand’s leading developers of sustainable power generation systems, with a diverse portfolio of geothermal, natural gas, wind, and hydroelectric assets. In terms of revenue, Contact is one of five large New Zealand power companies. Contact owns and operates 10 plants located throughout the country, producing ~25% of New Zealand’s electricity demand. Four of its facilities are geothermal plants located in the Central North Island.

In early 2007, Contact announced plans to invest up to $1 billion in the construction of new geothermal plants in the Taupo region, located near the center of the North Island. (All amounts in US$; US$1 = NZ$1.28 at press time.) The latest addition to Contact’s renewable portfolio is the two-unit 166-MW (159-MW net) Te Mihi Power Station (Te Mihi).


Contact CEO Dennis Barnes says its investment in Te Mihi reflects the company’s view that geothermal is New Zealand’s most cost-effective new baseload generation. Barnes identified the importance of Te Mihi to ratepayers when he said, “The additional 114 megawatts is expected to be required by the market by 2013 as economic growth resumes and will also contribute to lowering Contact’s average cost of generation.” The total cost of Te Mihi is estimated to be close to $623 million. A second project at Tauhara is in the development pipeline, with other projects seeking permits or in the reservoir exploration phase.


To develop Te Mihi, Contact engaged the McConnell Dowell Constructors Ltd., SNC-Lavalin, and Parsons Brinckerhoff New Zealand joint venture (MSP JV) to build Te Mihi. The engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contract was signed with MSP JV in February 2011 for two 83-MW geothermal power units to be constructed 5 kilometers (km) from the existing Wairakei geothermal power station.


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

EPB Chattanooga Uses Smart Grid to Future-Proof Its Business Model



A municipal utility in the South may not be where you’d expect to find an exemplary smart grid implementation, but that’s just fine with EPB Chattanooga. Its leaders are raking in the kudos—including POWER’s 2013 Smart Grid Award—and their community is attracting new businesses in response to a fiber-optic-based system that has helped raise the profile of their city and bolster the sustainability of their utility.


Some utilities look at the process of installing smart grid technologies as a matter of necessary, partial or piecemeal upgrades. They may install smart meters in at least a portion of their service area to cut down on truck rolls, for example. Given the pushback on smart grid technologies that some utilities have faced from small but vocal minorities, and the difficulty others have had with regulators, undertaking smart grid projects can be fraught with controversy and delays. For others, including EPB (formerly Electric Power Board) Chattanooga (EPB), a smart grid project can be the lifeline to a sustainable future.


EPB, which does business under the brands EPB Electric Power and EPB Fiber Optics, was chosen as this year’s POWER Smart Grid Award winner for two main reasons. First, its technology choices, timing, and implementation have returned noteworthy benefits to the utility, its customers, and the community as a whole. Second, and more unusual, its smart grid work has enabled the utility to enter new business sectors that broaden and deepen its customer base, thereby giving it access to new revenue streams.


EPB has served the city of Chattanooga, Tennessee, since 1935 and is one of the largest municipal distribution companies in the country, serving 170,000 customers in a 600-square-mile area. As a community-owned utility, it aims to serve the community while providing reliable, low-cost services. Thanks to its smart grid, EPB has been able to deliver on that promise in unusual ways. Most notably, since September 2010, when EPB became the first company in the U.S. to offer 1-gigabit-per-second Internet speed, the high-speed communications it offers have been a distinctive selling point for city business leaders and developers. Of course, the fiber-optic cable enabling this new service was installed first and foremost to communicate with smart meters, smart switches, and all other smart grid devices.


Low-cost electricity is made possible in part by being a customer of Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), whose portfolio is roughly 32% coal, 34% nuclear, 9% hydro, and 11% gas, with the balance coming mostly from natural gas combined cycle merchant plants. EPB also has 12 MW of customer-owned renewable generation on its distribution system, which includes a solar farm at an automobile manufacturing plant, one at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport, and 68 individual customers with varying levels of solar generation. But the smart grid has also kept costs low, as you’ll see.


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Challenges Facing Power Generators in ERCOT

Although nearly all energy experts agree that demand for electric energy in Texas will outstrip supply in the coming years, developers of new power generation facilities are facing significant headwinds. The cause of the problems is a unique mix of circumstances.


The competitive energy markets managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) have been hailed by some as the best in the country for allowing the “free hand” of the wholesale generation market alone to send the appropriate pricing signals for new power plant construction. The following factors, however, pose challenges to ERCOT’s future energy supply:

An unwillingness on the part of suppliers to enter into long-term power purchase agreements.A related lack of liquidity in the term energy markets.A general reluctance on the part of lenders to provide financing for “merchant” projects.Regulatory changes affecting both existing generators and developers of new power plants.The absence of a capacity market.

Because the time needed to develop and complete an electric generating facility can exceed three years, Texans may face serious power shortages if some of these issues aren’t resolved in the near term.


Demand for electricity in ERCOT is rapidly approaching the level of existing supply. ERCOT has a target reserve margin (the percentage of available resources above peak demand) of 13.75%. Maintaining that reserve margin is critical to ensuring stability of supply and avoiding blackouts and brownouts. However, in each reporting year after 2014, ERCOT currently projects the reserve margin to fall below this target level.


Three main factors make adding new generation in Texas difficult: its deregulated market, regulatory issues specific to ERCOT, and weak market signals.

As of Dec. 31, 2001, investor-owned utilities (IOUs) in ERCOT were required to unbundle their operations. Following deregulation of the ERCOT electricity markets in areas served by IOUs, the provision of service to end-use retail customers became competitive, and electric providers no longer had a captive body of retail customers. Without a captive body of customers, it became extremely difficult for suppliers to predict prospective demands for power. As a result, they are now generally unwilling to commit to long-term wholesale power purchase agreements or to the construction of new projects.


Although the useful life of a thermal generation facility can exceed 40 years, the capital costs to complete those facilities are extremely high. Though a 40-year power purchase agreement is not necessary to induce investors to build a new power plant, some level of predictable cash flows for a significant period of time will likely be necessary.


Those investors having a larger appetite for risk may be willing to invest without a long-term contact, but in order to do so, these higher-risk investors would also expect higher returns on their investment and would need to see forward pricing fundamentals/signals that suggest that those higher returns are forthcoming.


In recent times, however, the low price of natural gas has depressed the forward market for power and, as a result (with limited exceptions), those higher-risk investors have yet to see sufficient potential returns at the level required to start construction.


Moreover, even if such investors are persuaded that their equity investment is warranted, in most instances, project debt will also be needed to finance construction.


As lenders tend to be risk-averse, securing financing for uncontracted projects is likely to be a challenge in the current debt markets.


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Repowering South Mississippi Electric Power Association’s J.T. Dudley, Sr. Generation Complex

Repowering two units at the J.T. Dudley, Sr. Generation Complex added 180 MW of high-efficiency capacity to South Mississippi Electric’s portfolio. Now the cooperative can self-produce more than 50% of its electricity needs.


The J.T. Dudley, Sr. Generation Complex, owned and operated by South Mississippi Electric (SME), is located in Jones County, Miss. Originally installed in 1968 at what was then called the Moselle Generating Station were Units 1, 2, and 3, nearly identical 60-MW conventional steam plants. Units 4 and 5, General Electric (GE) 7EA simple cycle combustion turbines, were added in 1997 and 2005, respectively.


Today, the complex consists of five units capable of generating more than 500 MW. The additional capacity will pay long-term dividends to SME’s customers in the form of increased system reliability and more control over its production costs. The cooperative forecasts that as of 2013 it can self-generate 51% of its power needs; it purchases bulk power for the remainder.


The repowering project converted Units 1 and 2 into two, independent 1 x 1 combined cycle units. Both original gas-fired boilers were retired in place and the steam source for each unit was replaced with a new GE 7EA combustion turbine (CT) and a Vogt Power International (VPI) heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). The new power block is located approximately 400 feet from the existing powerhouse, with piping and cable tray routed along a three-level pipe rack between the HRSGs and powerhouse (Figure 1).



Construction began in August 2010. The commercial operation date (COD) for Unit 2 and Unit 1 combustion turbines in simple cycle operation was November and December 2011, respectively. The COD dates for Unit 2 and Unit 1 in combined cycle operation were May and November 2012, respectively.


Burns & McDonnell provided consulting, detailed design, procurement, construction management, and startup services. SME designed, procured, and installed the CT generator step-up transformer and interconnection power line, as well as the existing plant switchyard expansion.


A multi-phase and multi-contract approach was used on the remainder of the project. Beginning in August 2010, James Construction Group kicked off construction with site civil work and foundations, plus electrical and mechanical underground construction. Next, PCL Constructors followed in December 2010 with the combustion turbine and simple cycle portion of the construction project. The Saxon Group handled the final two major construction contracts: electrical and HRSG erection plus the combined cycle balance of plant, beginning work in January 2011 (Figure 2).

2. Refurbish instead of rebuild. The existing three conventional units are shown in the background (outdoor boilers with a
single steam turbine building located behind the boilers) with the two existing 7EA simple cycle combustion turbines (CTs) to
the right of the existing units. The new 7EA CTs are visible in the foreground. Between the new CTs and the three existing
boilers are the two HRSGs being assembled. Each 7EA-HRSG combination supplies steam to a single, existing steam
turbine. The HRSGs are Vogt Power International’s Enhanced Constructability Smart design. The design incorporates pressure parts, pressure part support steel, interconnecting piping, casing, and structural steel into only six shop-fabricated module boxes per HRSG, significantly reducing erection labor expense. The photo was taken during constructionin October 2011.  Courtesy: Burns & McDonnell

The engineering and design of the repowering project was performed with two goals in mind: increased operational flexibility and reuse of existing equipment, where feasible, to minimize project cost. Reused equipment included the steam turbine, boiler feed pumps, condensate pumps, condenser, cooling towers, deaerator, plant air system, and flash evaporator. Details about the major components and equipment used on the repowering project follow.

Combustion Turbines. The two new natural gas–fired GE 7EA CTs are equipped with dry low-NOx technology (DLN1) and each is rated at ~85 MW. Each CT is also equipped with evaporative cooling technology, which increases summer capacity by ~8 MW. At full load, the combustion turbines will provide a flow of 2,225,000 pounds per hour of exhaust gas at 1,022F to each HRSG (Figure 3).

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.