View source for RS-14-029, Employment and Land Requirements for Alternatives to Byron Units 1 and 2 and Braidwood Units 1 and 2 - Lr Chapter 7 Energy Alternatives

{{Adams
| number = ML14030A296
| issue date = 09/18/2012
| title = Employment and Land Requirements for Alternatives to Byron Units 1 and 2 and Braidwood Units 1 and 2 - Lr Chapter 7 Energy Alternatives
| author name = Conrad C
| author affiliation = Tetra Tech, Inc
| addressee name = 
| addressee affiliation = Exelon Nuclear, NRC/NRR
| docket = 05000454, 05000455, 05000456, 05000457
| license number = NPF-072, NPF-077
| contact person = 
| case reference number = Braid-633, RS-14-029, Tetra Tech 2012e
| package number = ML14030A308
| document type = Environmental Report
| page count = 12
}}

=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:6-ea;d- &-33 License Renewal Application Employment and Land Requirements Calculation Package Employment and Land Requirements for
.Alternatives to Byron Units 1 and 2 and Braidwood Units 1 and 2 LR Chapter 7 Energy Alternatives September 18, 2012 Prepared for:
Exelon Nuclear Prepared by:
Chuck Conrad Tetra Tech Aiken, South Carolina

License Renewal Application Employment and Land Requirements Calculation Package Approval Page Employment and Land Requirements for Alternatives to Byron Units I and 2 and Braidwood Units I and 2 September 18, 2012 Author:                                                  Date:
tQm&~'~-      lO2a~L Reviewed Bn:
i/gA VrPoject Manger:.

License Renewal Application Employment and Land Requirements Calculation Package Employment and Land Requirements for Alternatives to Byron Units I and 2 and Braidwood Units I and 2 This discussion supports the alternatives analysis in Chapter 7 of the Environmental Report.
Spreadsheets were used to estimate (1) the number of full time employees needed for construction and operation of hypothetical coal- and gas-fired and nuclear electric generation units that could be built to provide the same net generating capacity as the existing units (rounded up to 2,400 megawatts electric (MWe) to be the same for both Byron and Braidwood), (2) the amount of land required for a variety of alternative electric generation technologies (e.g. coal- and gas- fired electric generation units, nuclear, hydropower, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, wind, and geothermal) that could provide approximately the same net generating capacity as the existing units. For the coal- and gas-fired alternatives the net generating capacity was based on available standard-size units (four 600 MW units for coal and six 400 MW units for gas).
All estimates are based on data from recent studies and projects constructed within the past eight years. The available data was normalized by determining the amount per MW for each alternative technology. To estimate the number of employees or amount of land needed, the analyst inputs the size (in MW) of the alternative technology into the spreadsheet. The spreadsheet multiplies the size of the plant by the amount per MW and enters the result in a summary table. Figure 1 is the summary table from the spreadsheet. Figure 2 shows the calculations for the gas-fired alternative. Figure 3 show the calculations for the pulverized coal-fired alternative. Figure 4 shows the calculations for the new nuclear power alternative. Figure 5 shows the land requirement calculations for renewable alternatives (e.g., hydropower, solar, wind, and geothermal technologies).
3

Assumed Facility Characteristics           Renewable Fueled Land Requirements 0
Square miles reqirdwo tomptace capaciry Fossil Fueled Employment and Site Characteristics I                                        I Ararqiedt       elcecpct Full Tim m   I       Rulred Peak Constructioni Workcforce 11,7831 Average Construction Workftorce 1 991    1 Acres Required for Facllity New Nuclear Employment and Site Characteristics Main page

Figure 2 - Gas-Fired Alternative Combinea Cycle Natural Gas Full time         Acres     Acres per    Peak      Peak Const. Average    Ave. Const Full time    employees       required for  MW for   Construction workers per Construction workers per Facility                Net MWe employees      per MW            facility   facility   workers         MW       workers        MW Deer Creek Station (DOE 2010)                      300       30         0.100              40        0.133       360         1.200         -            -
Chouteau Power Plant (AECI 2009)                   540       33         0.061              22        0.041       340         0.630       225         0.417 McIntosh Peaking (PSEC 2009)                       360        -             -              12        0.033       120         0.333       100         0.278 Jack County Power Plant (PBS&J 2008)               600                                    10.9       0.018 Hardin County (GDS 2007a)                          150                                     2.7       0.018       100         0.667        75         0.500 San Jacinto (GDS 2007b)                            150        -             -              3.2       0.021       100         0.667        75         0.500 Toquop Energy Project (BLM 2007)                  1100       25         0.023              50        0.045      1200         1.091       500         0.455 Chula Vista Upgrade (CH2MHiII 2007)                100        2         0.020              3.8       0.038       147         1.470        79         0.790 Vernon Power (COV 2006)                            914       20         0.022             13.7       0.015       499         0.546       266         0.291 South Bay Project (LSPSB 2006)                     620       22         0.035             12.9       0.021       401         0.647       193         0.311 Wellton-Mohawk (DOI 2005)                          620       25          0.040             23        0.037       300         0.484          -           -
West County Energy Center (FPL 2005)              2200       50         0.023              82        0.037      1000         0.455       350         0.159 COB Energy Facility (BPA 2004)                    1160       30          0.026            50.6       0.044       543         0.468       352          0.303 Wanapa Energy Center (DOI 2004)                   1200       30         0.025              47        0.039       600         0.500         --
BP Cherry Point (EFSEC 2004)                       720       30         0.042              33        0.046       706         0.981       372          0.517 Catoctin Power (Golder 2004)                       600       25         0.042              20        0.033       450         0.750       175         0.292 Faribault Energy Park (MEQB 2004)                  250       13          0.052              12       0.048       250          1.000       138         0.552 Average                         0.039                        0.039                   0.743                   0.413 Calculations Desired Net Output                                         2,400    MWe Gross Capacity (assume 4% used on site)                    2,500    MWe 2500 MWe x 0.039 Employees/MW =                              94     Employees 2500 MWe x 0.039 Acres/MW =                               93.600    Acres 2500 MWe x 0.743 Cons. Workers/MW =                        1,783    Peak Construction workers 2500 MWe x 0.413 Cons. Workers/MW =                         991     Ave. Construction workers CC N. Gas

Pulverized Coal Boilers Peak                    Average Full time         Acres     Acres per    Peak      Construction   Average    Construction Net  Full time  employees       required for MW for    Construction workers per  Construction workers per Facility                  MWe  employees    per MW           facility    facility   workers         MW        workers        MW Ely Energy Center (DOI 2008)                         1500    214        0.143              694       0.463      2342          1.561       1221         0.814 Nelson Dewey (ACE 2008)                               300     26        0.087               30       0.100       425          1.417          -            -
Highwood Generatoin Station (USDA 2007a)              250     65        0.260              14.8      0.059       550         2.200         350         1.400 Mesaba Energy (NETL 2007)                            1212     185       0.153              200       0.165      1617          1.334       1078         0.889 Toquop Energy Project (BLM 2007)                      750     110       0.147               132      0.176      1100          1.467        450         0.600 White Pine Energy Station (DOI 2007)                 1590    135        0.085              239       0.150      1200         0.755        760          0.478 Desert Rock Energy (SGP 2007)                        1410    200        0.142              149       0.106      1700         1.206        1100         0.780 AECI Carroll County (USDA 2007b)                     660     139        0.211             165.3      0.250      1281       - 1.941        444          0.673 Jamestown (JBPU 2006)                                  43      6        0.140               7.1      0.165       200         4.651         120         2.791 Dry Fork Station (EDAW 2006)                         385      75        0.195              31.8      0.083      1019         2.647        496          1.288 Seminole Generating Station (Golder 2006)            750      50        0.067               96       0.128      1500         2.000        600          0.800 Pee Dee Station (MACTEC 2006)                        1200    200        0.167             128.1      0.107      1400         1.167          -            -
Cliffside Project (Duke 2005)                        1600     80        0.050                           -       1000         0.625          -            -
Big Stone II (OTPC 2005)                             600      35        0.058               67       0.112      1400         2.333        625          1.042 Average                      0.136                        0.159                   1.807                     1.050 Calculations Desired Net Output                                          2,400    MW Gross Capacity (assume 6% used on site)                     2,550    MWe 2550 MW x 0.136 Employees/MW =                               326     Employees 2550 MW x 0.159 Acres/MW =                                   382     Acres 2550 MW x 1.807 Cons. Workers/MW =                          4,337    Peak Construction workers 2550 MWe x 1.05 Cons. Workers/MW =                          2,520    Ave. Construction workers Pulverized Coal 0     -

Nuclear Generation Units Peak                     Average Full time          Acres     Acres per    Peak      Construction   Average    Construction Net  Full time  employees        required for MW for    Construction workers per  Construction workers per Facility               MWe  employees    per MW             facility   facility   workers        MW         workers        MW Turkey Point (FPL 2012)                            2200     806       0.366               218       0.099      3950         1.795        2184         0.993 South Texas Project (STPNOC 2011)                  2600     888       0.342               300       0.115      5950         2.288        3340         1.285 Comanche Peak (LGC 2011)                           3200    412        0.129               400       0.125      4953         1.548        1906         0.596 Fermi (DTE 2011)                                   1585     900       0.568               123       0.078      2900         1.830           -            -
Calvert Cliffs (UniStar 2011)                      1562     363       0.232               320       0.205      3950         2.529        2727         1.746 Shearon Harris (PEC 2011)                          2399     773       0.322               118       0.049      3150         1.313           -            -
Vogtle (SN 2011)                                   2234     660       0.295               376       0.168      4400         1.970        3152         1.411 V.C. Summer (SCE&G 2011)                           2214     800       0.361               240       0.108      3600         1.626        2120         0.958 North Anna (Dominion 2010)                         1500     500       0.333              128.5      0.086      2500         1.667           -            -
PSEG (PSE&G 2010)                                  2214     600       0.271               240       0.108      3600         1.626        2120         0.958 Bell Bend (UniStar 2010)                           1600     363       0.227              178.9      0.112      3950         2.469        2727         1.704 Levy County (PEF 2009)                             2399     773       0.322               300       0.125      3300         1.376        1794         0.748 William States Lee III(DE 2009)                    2399     957       0.399               141       0.059      4512         1.881        2000         0.834 Average                      0.321                         0.111                   1.840                     1.123 Calculations Desired Net Output                                        2,400    MW Gross Capacity (assume 6% used on site)                   2,540    MWe 2540 MW x 0.321 Employees/MW =                              770    Employees 2540 MW x 0.111 Acres/MW =                                  266    Acres 2540 MW x 1.84 Cons. Workers/MW =                         4,416    Peak Construction workers 2540 MWe x 1.123 Cons. Workers/MW    -                    2,695    Ave. Construction workers Nuclear

Figure 4 - Combination of Gas and Coal Alternatives Combination of Gas and Coal Coal fired portion 1,200 MWe      x   0.159        Acres                                  = 190.8   acres MWe 1,200 MWe      x   0.136     Employees                                 =  163  Employees MWe Gas fired portion      0.039        Acres 1,200 MWe      x                                                       =  46.8   acres MWe 1,200 MWe      x   0.039     Employees                                 =   47  Employees MWe Total Acres         =    190.8    acres (coal)    +    46.8   acres (gas)   = 237.6   acres Total employees     =      163 Employees (coal)   +     47  Employees (gas) =  210  Employees Combination is

Figure 5 - Land Requirements for Renewable Technologies and Oil Hydropower                                                                                                Sources:        Sl units 2,400 MWe      x    1,544 square miles                                     =     3,707  square miles (NRC 1996b)      9,600 square kilometers 1,000 MWe                                                                        (NRC 1996b)
Solar Photovoltaic 2,400 MWe      x     5.40 acres        x  0.90  nuclear capacity factor    =    30,695 acres                          12,422  hectares 1 MWe            0.38    solar capacity factor                              (PMJ, 2010) 30,695 acres     x 0.00156 square miles  =                                           48  square miles                     124   square kilometers acre Solar Thermal 2,400 MWe      x     9.40 acres        x  0.90  nuclear capacity factor    =    53,432 acres                          21,623  hectares 1 MWe            0.38    solar capacity factor                               (PMJ, 2010) 53,432 acres     x 0.00156 square miles  =                                           83  square miles                     216   square kilometers acre Wind (present capacity factor)
Total Area Occupied 2,400 MWe      x      29.9 acres       x  0.90 nuclear capacity factor     =   439,347 acres          (NREL 2009)    177,798 hectares 1 MWe            0.147   wind capacity factor                                (MISO 2011 b)
Structure Footprint 2,400 MWe      x      0.25 acres       x  0.90 nuclear capacity factor     =     3,673 acres          (NREL 2009)      1,487  hectares 1 MWe            0.147   wind capacity factor                                (MISO 2011 b)
Wind (future capacity factor)
Total Area Occupied 2,400 MWe      x      29.9 acres       x   0.90 nuclear capacity factor    =   131,804 acres          (NREL 2009)     53,339  hectares 1 MWe             0.49   wind capacity factor                                (DOE 2008a)
Structure Footprint 2,400 MWe      x      0.25 acres       x   0.90 nuclear capacity factor    =     1,102 acres          (NREL 2009)       446   hectares 1 MWe             0.49   wind capacity factor                                (DOE 2008a)
Geothermal 2,400 MWe      a       4.5 acre        x   0.90  nuclear capacity factor    =   10,232 acres          (Shibaki 2003)   4,141  hectares 1 MWe             0.95    geo capacity factor                                (NRRI2007) 10,232 acres     x 0.00156 square miles  =                                           16  square miles                      41   square kilometers acre Renewables

Land/
electricity Solar Radiation available                                          (acre/MWe)
(kWhr/m 21day)                                           [hectares/MlWe]
ROI: IL, IN, IA, MI, MO, WI PV                              Average                   5.4 4.06                                4.49                  [2.2]
4.92 Thermal                                                        9.4 3.25                                3.91                  [3.8]
4.56 Source: NREL 2012 Southwestern US PV                              Average                   4.0 5.79                                6.29                  [1.6]
6.78 Thermal                                                        5.7 5.24                                6.45                  [2.3]
7.65 Source: NREL 2012                                                         Source: DOE 2012 The average solar radiation available for the ROI as well as for Southern California (where solar technologies are most promising) was derived from NREL maps of solar photovoltaics (PV) resource potential and concentrating solar power (CSP) resource potential for the United States. The land requirement per MWe was used to calculate the land requirement for a solar plant.
Solar acre per MW

==References:==

References numbers are for Byron - same references for Braidwood Natural Gas Combined Cycle 266 AECI (Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.) 2009, Environmental Assessment, Proposed Combined-Cycle Power Plant, Mayes County, Oklahoma, March, Available at http://vw.rurdev.usda.gov/UWP-EA-AssociatedElectricCoop.html 267 BCW (Benton County, Washington) 2003. Final EIS Plymouth Generating Facility Plymouth. Washington. June 2003.
268 SLM(Bureau of Land Management) 2007. Toquop Energy Praject DEIS. Ely Field Office, Nevada, October 2007.
269 BPA(Bonneville Power Administration) 2004. FinalEISforCOBfEnergyFacility DOE/EIS-0343. June 2004.
270 CEC (California Energy Commission) 2003. Pico Power Project:Application For Certification (02-AFC-3) Santa Clara County. September 2003.
271 CH2MHiII2007 Application for Certification: Chula Vista Energy Upgrade Project August 2007.
272 COV (City of Vernon) 2006. Application for Certification: Vernon Power Plant. Docket Number 06-AFC-4. Jun 30, 2005.
DOE (Department of Energy) 2010 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Deer Creek Station Energy Facility Project, 273 Brookings County, South Dakota, DOEIEIS-0415, January, Available at http:l/.wwrurdev.usda.gov/UWP-0 Deer /%20Creek%20Power.html 274 DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior) 2004. Wanapa Energy Center FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0342, December 2004.
275 DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior) 2005. Weliton-Mohawk Generating Facility Draft EIS. DOEJEIS-0358. July 2005.
276 EFSEC (Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council) 2004. BP Cherry Point Cogeneration Praject: Volume 1- Final EIS.
DDE/EIS-0349. August 2004.
279 FPL (Florida Power & Light) 2003. Turkey Point Expansion Project Volume 1 of 3. November 2003.
280 FPL (Florida Power & Light) 2005. Site Certification Application for West County Energy Center April 2005.
281 GDS Associates, Inc, 2007a, Rural Utilities Services, Hardin County Peaking Facility Enviommental Assessment, December, Availiable at http://w.rurdev.usda.gov/UWP-East-Texas-Electric-Hardin.html 282 GDOS   Associates, Inc, 2007b, Rural Utilities Services, San Jacinto County Peaking Facility Enviornmental Assessment, December, Availiable at hftp://wwwmrdev.usda.gov/UWP-East-Texas-Electric-SanJacinto.html Golder (Golder Associates) 2004. Sempra Energy Resources Environmental Report in Support of OPCN Application 284 Catoctin Power Project Frederick County, Maryland. February 2004.
278 LSPSB (L.S. Power South Bay LLC) 2006 Application for Certification:South Bay Replacement Project. Docket Number 06-AFC-3. June 30, 2006.
283 MEQB (Minnesota Environmental Quality Board) 2004. Draft EIS FaPrbaultEnergy Park Project EQB Docket Number 02-48-PPS-FEP. February 2004.
284 PBS&J 2008. Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Jack County Power Plant Expansion Project. Jack County, Texas, June, Available at hntp:lfiww.mrdev.usda govlUWP-Brazos-Electric-Assessm.html 285 PSEC (PowerSouth Energy Cooperative), 2009, Environmental Assessment Proposed Peaking Load Generation Unit, McIntosh, Alabama, March, Available at http:l/wrurdev.usda.gov/UWP-EA-PowerSouthEnergy.html Pulverized Coal ACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) 2008, WP&L 300 MWPower Plant Volume 1 FEIS, July, Available at 249 http:/lpsc.wi.gov/apps35/ert_search/content/SearchResult.aspx 250 BLM(Bureau of Land Management) 2007. Toquop Energy Project DEIS. Ely Field Office, Nevada, October 2007.
DOI (U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management) 2007. Draft EIS for the White Pine Energy Station 251 Project April2007 Available at http:llww.blm'gov/nv/stlen/f/tyjely-eo ffice/blm programs/energy/egar&#xfd;_energy-prmjectstwhite-pine&#xfd;-energyO/white-pi ne_energy0.html DOI(Department of the Interior) 2008, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the ElyEnergy Center, NV-040-09-001 252 EIS,December, Available at http://wwwblm'govlnv/st/en/fo/ely-ield-officeblbm-programs/energy/orn-line-_transmission/ely-energy-center'html Duke (Duke Power) 2005. Preliminary Application For Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Cliffside 257 Project May 2005.
253 EDAW (EDAW Platte) 2006. Request for Waiver of Permit Application for the Dry Fork Station. Prepared for Wyoming department of Environmental Quality Industrial Siting Division. May 2006.
277 Golder (Golder Associates Inc.) 2006. Site Certification Application for Seminole Generating Station Unit 3. March.
JBPU (Jamestown Board of Public Utilities) 2006, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Jamestown Clean Coal 255 Project, Jamestown, Chautauqua County, New York, October, Available at http:/www.jamestownbpu.corVdeis/Jamestown%20CIean%2OCoal`%2Project%20DEIS-Section%205.pdf 256 MACTEC (MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.) 2006. Draft EIS Santee Cooper Pee Dee Electrical Generating Station. October 31, 2006.
261 MDEQ(Montana Department of Environmental Quality) 2002. Roundup Power Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. November 15, 2002.
References

NETL (National Energy Technology Laboratory) 2007, Mesaba Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 262 Vol 1, DOEiEIS-0382D, November, Available at http:l/ww.netL.doe.govltechnologieslcoalpowerlcctclEISleis_mesaba.htmi 258 OTPC (Otter Tail Power Company) 2005. Application for an Energy Conversion Facility Sibng Permit Big Stone It Project. July 2005.
259 PSCW (Public Service Commission of Wisconsin) 2003. FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement Elm Road Generating Station. Docket 05-CE-130. July 2003.
263 SGP (Sithe Global Power LLC) 2007 Desert Rock Energy Project Draft EIS. May 2007.
264 USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) 2007a, Final Environmental Impact Statement Highwood Generating Station, January, Available at htp:/ltw     .rurdev.usda.gov/UWP-Southern-Montana-Electric.html USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development) 2007b. Final EIS Proposed Baseload Power Plant 265 Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. July 2007.
Nuclear 286 DE 2009 Duke Energy, William States Lee Ill, Units 1 & 2 COLA, April, Available at http:l/ww.nrc.govlreactorslnew-reactorslcollleeldocuments.html#application Dominion 2010, Dominion Virginia Power, North Anna Unit 3 COLA, Part 3, Environmental Report, Rev 3, June, Available at http:/www.nrc.govlreactorstnew-reactorsfcotnorth-anna/documents.html~application 053 DTE 2011 Detroit Edison Company, Fermi 3 COLA, Part 3, Environmental Report, Rev 2, March, Available at http:li     .nrc.govlreactors/new-reactorslcollfermitdocuments.html#application 287 STPNOC 2011 STP Nuclear Operating Company, South Texas Project Units 3 and 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Available at http:llpbadupws.nrc.govldocslML1 103/ML110340962.html 288 FPL 2012 Florida Power & Light, Turkey Point Plant, Units 6 & 7, COL Application, Part 3, Rev 3, January, Available at http://w   .nrc.govlreactorslnew-reactorslcol/turkey-point/documents.html LGC 2011 Luminant Generation Company LLC , Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 & 4, COL Application, 289 Part 3 Environmental Report, Available at http:llwww.nrc.govlreactorslnew-reactorslcollcomanche-peakldocuments.html#application 290 PEC 2011 Progress Energy Carolinas, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, COL Application, Part 3, Environmental Report, June, Available at http:ll//   .nrc.govlreactorslnew-reactors/col/harris/documents.html#application PEF 2009 Progress Energy Florida Levy Units 1 and 2 COLA, Part 3, Rev 1 Available at 261 http:ll/w.nrc.govlreactorslnew-reactorslcolllevyldocuments.html#application 054 PSE&G 2010 Public Service Electric and Gas Company, PSEG ESP Application, Part 3, Environmental Report, Rev 0, June, Available at http:llm.nrc.govlreactorslnew-reactorslesplpseg.html 292 SCG&E 2011 South Carolina Gas & Electric, V.C. Summer COL Application, Part 3, Environmental Report, Rev 2, August, Available at http:liwww.nrc.govlreactorslnew-reactorslcollsummerldocuments.html#application 293 SN 2011 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 & 4, COL Application, Part 3 Environmental Report, Available at http://l.nrc govlreactors/new-reactors/colvogtle/documents.html#application 057 UniStar 2010, UniStar Nuclear, Bell Send Nuclear Power Plant, COLA, Part 3 Environmental Report, Rev 2, July, 05 Available at http:lww.nrc.govlreactors/new-reactrslcUbell-bend/documents.html#application 294 UniStar 2011, UniStar Nuclear, Calvert Cliffs Power Plant Unit 3 COLA, Part 3 Environmental Report, Rev 7, January, Available at http:ll&#xfd;.nrc.gov/reactrs/new-reactrscoVtcavert-cliffs/documents.htmWapplication Renewables 062 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2012. SunShot Vision Study, Chapter 7, "Solar Power Environmental Impacts and Siting Challenges." Available at http:/Iw      l.eere.energy.gov/solarlsunshotlvisionstudy.html.
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) 2009, Denholm, P., M. Hand, M. Jackson, and S. Ong. 2009. Land-Use 205 Requirements of Modem Wind Power Plants in the United States, Technical Report NRELITP-6A2-45834. August.
Available at http:ll/I.nrel.govldocs/fyO9ostil45834.pdf DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2008a. 20% Wind Energy by 2030, Increasing Wind Energy's Contribution to U.S.
206 Electricity Supply. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. DOE/GO-102008-2567. July. Available at http:llww.nrel.govldocslfyO~osti/41869.pdf MISO (Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator) 201 lb, Wind Capacity Credit Update with CPnode Results, Item 2 LOLEWG, November, Available at https://w.midwestiso.orgLibrary/Repository/Meeting%2OMateriaVStakeholder/LOLEWG/2011120111109/20111109%2 0LOLEWG%201tem%2002%20%2OWind%2OCapecity%2OCredit.pdf NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 1996b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 167 Nuclear Plants. NUREG 1437. Washington, DC. May.
199 NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2012. Solar Maps, Available at http:llm.nrel.govlgislsolar.htmi NRRI (National Regulatory Research Institute) 2007. What Generation Mix Suits Your State? Tools for Comparing 240 Fourteen Technologies across Nine Criteria. Febmary 14, 2007. Available at http://vl         .nrri.ohio-state.edu/dspacelhandle/2068/1045.
PJM (PJM Interconnection, LLC). 2010. PJM Manual 21, Rules and Procedures for Determination of Generating 244 Capability. Revision: 09. May. Available at http:llpjm.coml-lmedia/documentslmanualslm2l.ashx Shibaki, Masashi, 2003. Geothermal Energy for Electric Power, Renewable Energy Policy Project, Washington, D.C.,
296 December 2003.
References}}