ML20072K726
| ML20072K726 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1983 |
| From: | Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072K706 | List: |
| References | |
| 82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, E-100-SUB-35, E-100-SUB-46, E-7-SUB-358, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8307060391 | |
| Download: ML20072K726 (150) | |
Text
. . -
'y-
^
] N [pft4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA June 30, 1983 l NUCLEAR BEGULATORY COMMISSION l BEFORE THE A'!OMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOABD Glenn O. Bright Dr. James H. Carpenter Janes L. Kelley, Chairman In the Matter of
) Dockets 50 400 OL CABOLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. et al. ) 50-401 OL (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units i and 2) ) ASLBP No. 82-h68-01
} OL AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF 2.758 PETITION l by Wells Eddleman I
l I. INTRODUCTION This affidavit summarizes the economic and environmental superiority of an alternative to operation of the Harris nuclear power plant. That alternative is described in greater detail in the 3 accompanying affidavits of Dr. G. George Reeves.
Section II explains what Dr. Reeves' affidavits show, and tabulates the economic effects of the alternative in constant 1982 dollars. CP&L's claimed Harris fuel savings are compared 2
with these results, again on a constant 1982-do11ar basis. Fuel savings are the only possible benefit of running Harris since its capacity will not be needed under the alternative. Drs. John o88 Blackburn and E. Moy Wei.ntraub nrovided economic advice used here'_n.
ggt Phay w*11 nvovida affidavits later.
1 hko Reeves affidavits #1 (July 1h, 1982, re capacity savings), #2 (Februar gg 1983, $ benefits y 11, 1983, $ benefits of of additional kWhcanacity savings savings), and #3 (June beyond affidavits #2) 28, gg are included with this petition and affidavit, and incornorated co herein by reference. Dr. Reeves reviewed and approved the summaries R*
or and numbers from his affidavits herein.
2 QQ o All calculations and derivations of numbers are in the Appendix hereto, to simplify the narrative, excent for those in the two Tables.
l Four separate scenarios in Section II show the economic advantages of the alternative compared to operating the Harris plant.
That advantage is over $2.5 billion 1982 dollars for the scenario that assumes a 70% lifetime capacity f actor for both units, that CP&L's production cost savings estimates (Environmental Report Amendment 5) are correct, that there is no price elasticity effect on demand (from rate-basing $h.5 billion of Harris plant) beyond what CP&L estinated in its forecastsh and that the full cost of both Harris units is sunk.
Section III exnlains how the load-shif ting, solar, and energy-saving components of the alternative to Harris are unusually benign even for " soft technologies". They have minimal environmental impacts. Nuclear energy has generally greater env$ronnental imnacts than do typical " soft technologies" alternatives. Thus, the alternative to Harris is environmentally sunerior.
Emissions from modern CP&L coal-fired nower plants (which might be cvoided were Harris available to generate electricity) are compared to the emissions for the nuclear fuel cycle in NRC's Table S-3 Nuclear enerEy has no great advantage here, and the lesser overall effects of the alternative, which reduces the need for electrical generation overall, prevail. Not.onerating the Harris plant also guarantees against a catastrophic reactor accident in the Research Triangle area, a vital part or W6rth Camlina which includes the state governnent and the sites of h major universities, several large hospitals, and many people.
Section IV sums up the open-and-shut case for not operating l
the Harris plant.
3References are given in the Anpendix, numbered according to the footnote that refers to each The same numbering system is used for calculations and derivations of numbers.
h,6 See Appendix. 5See scenario 2 of Section II, why HP eg g not
r, II. ECONOMIC COMPARISONS A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE The alternative to the Harris plant presented here is a combina-tion of load-shifting (to save canacity), energy-storage, solar energy and energy saving measures.1 Dr Reeves' first affidavit (1h July 1982) denonstrates how neither Harris unit is needed to meet neak load on the CP&L Erstem.
Anpropriate conservation and load management measures beyond those in CP&L's present conservation / load management prograr can reduce CP&L peak loads by 2600 MW in the year 1995. (R #1, Fig h, p.30; seealsopp456(CP&Lforecastload 1995 = 9300 MW) and 31, load held to 6700 MW by the measures discussed therein.
These measures have no net cost to consumers: all interest and capital costs of each neasure is repaid from the savings in electricity use that result, or from the savings (on a time-of-day rate) obtained by shif ting load off-peak. The rates used to figure these savings were CP&L's . rates in effect in suring 1982.
'The conditions under which all of Reeves' affidavits were made include: CP&L "
load forecast is assumed correct as a baseline before the additional conservation and load management Reeves shows; only ontions beyond CP&L's current olen for conservation and load management are considered; electric rates are assumed to stay the same in'real terms (i.e. be the same in constant dollars); and only t
l 1 Developed by Dr. G. George Reeves, former assistent professor l of electrical engineering at NC State University, and described in j his three affidavits (listed in Appendix under 1.) Dr. Reeves' professional qualifications-are attached to his third affidavit.
7 No-n t cost loan concept stora ditioners,kresidential, bin an ,efficient commerc,ial, ikedustrial residenti"kr coSve act solar (air systen, new hones' and retrofits on old ones), water heating off peak,' and winter solar / fuel and heat storage substitution for L electricity. See Appendix under item 7 for citations.
4
-h-conservation and load management measures that exist today are used to lower CP&L peak loads and requirements for electricity generation.
Under those conditions, Reeves affidavit #1 shows a reduction of P600 MW in CP&L peaks in the year 1995. This reduction exceeds the combined capacity of both Harris units (1800 MW total), plus Mayo 2 (720 MW). (Reeves #1, en30-31) .
The total system load on the most severe heating or cooling day is held to 6700 MW. This is within CP&L's 1982 canacity allowing for 20% reserves. (Reeves Fig. h, p.30, Affid #1) CP&L has since added the Mayo #1 plant, 720 MW, in spring 1983 If we assume that the Reeves conservation measures continue in effect, CP&L peak load growth will be at most half of the 2.9%/yr 8
CP&L has predicted. That is because the cooling load, the hardest one to reduce, is cut in half by thermal storage (Reeves #1, p.17).
Thus CP&L peak load af ter 1995 will grow at nost 1.5% ver year, or 100 MW per year. Thus, to need the capacity of Mayo 1, added in 1983, will take until the year 2001. Harris capacity would not be needed at all undtil after that year.
l At CP&L's growthrate for peaks under Dr. Reeves' peak-reducing progran, it would take at least 15 more years to fully utilize the 1800 MW canacity of 2 Harris units. That brings us to the year
' 2016, 2 years af ter the end of the life of the Harris oroject according to CP&L's environmental renort. (ER amendment 5, p. 8.2.1-1, last paragraph, gives Harris project termination in the year 201h. )
This completes the explanation of why the Harris plant isn't needed for capacity in the foreseeable future. Power company planning horizons are rarely as long as 20 years, and Harris is 8CP&L 1981 and 1982 forecasts are nearly identical: Seeappendix.
9 Calculation in anpendix, under #9.
c
-g -
off that horizon, as far as need for capacity is concerned.
Reeves affidavit #1 also Maows why Harris would not be a sensible choice to provide additional capacity af ter the year 2001.
Figure h, n.30, shows that CP&L's weather-indenendent neak load will only be about 6200 MW in the yeaw 1995. .True base load (around-the-clock load) will only be about 3600 MW dnen.
CP&L's existing canacity is over 5000 Mw for. base load, and includes 3500 MW of baseload coal plants that will sts11 be around in the year 2000. (See R#1, p.5). Thus, there is no base load (year-round) for the Harris units to meet.
Duke Power Co. president Bill Lee has recently explained why you don't build nuclear units for other daen base load, in testimony to the NC Utilities Commission. He said one consideration in Duke's decision to cancel the Cherokee nuclear vlant was that you " don't build a Cherokee for peakinF or intermediate load." Similarly, you don't build a Harris unit for peaking or intermediate load.
In sum, a Harris baseload unit (or both units) simuly isn't needed to meet CP&L peak loads through the year 201h. This is the principal conclusion of Reeves affidavit #1 (p.31) and is used in the scenarios connaring costs and benefits below.
Reeves affidavit #2 (2-11-83)1 details the net costs and benefits of the Leadeshifting and efficiency improvements described in his first affidavit. The results are summarized in Table 1 on page 6.
10 Copy attached; Docket E-7 sub 358, June 1983, reference in full in the Appendix.
11 Recommended for cancellation along with Herris P by Public ,
i in anpendix. j I
Staff of NCUC, 1983 renort. Reference, details
r . 7 Tdhie I Table of Dr. Reeves' program benefits f' '
(from his 2d affidavit, Feb.1983)
Million Dollars For Year i
Year Constant Dollars TOTAL .
(10.78) (2.18) (51 91) l 1983 (8.31) (6.58) (22.68) (1 38)
(,47) (8.17) (0.90) (32.72) 1984 (4 74) (18.42)
(5 57) +0 37 (13 52) 1985 ( 1.17) +6.57 (14 15) +.45 (2.97) +1.55 + 5.67 1986 +2 40 +13 15 ( 9.89) +1 36
(.36) +2.92 + h.87 1987 +5.97 +19.72 (5.62) +2.28 2
+2.2h +h.19 +44.07 1988 +9 54 +26.30 (0.36) +3 19
+h.8h +5.h7 +63 26 1989 +13 10 +32.87 +2.91 +4 11 5
+5 02 +7.45 +5.7h +82.46 1990 +16. 67 +39.45 +7 18
+F.9h +10.05 +8.01 +101.65 1991 +20.24 +46.02 +11.44
+6.85 +12.65 +9.27 +120.85 1992 +23.41 +52.60 +15 71
+19.97 +7/77 +15.26 +12.56 +140.00 1993 +27 38 +59.17
+24.2h +8.69 +17,86 +11. 8h +159.th 1994 +30.95 +65.75
+28.51 +9.60 +20.56 +13 11 +138.hk 1995 +34 52 +72 32 1053 7h 226.10 6h2.96 2h9.09 +n529.22 1996-2014 732.68 1623 93 any year +13 11 +238.38 ofter 1995 +38.68 +85 47 +55.h6 +n .90 +33 8h STORAGE STOMGE WATER TOTAL HIGH ACTIVE ACTIVE SOLAR BIN BIN A/C HEATING RER SOLAR RETROFITS A/C C0"MERCIAL OFF (p.8)
A/C NEW PEAK HOMES (p.7) (typo (p.2) (p.3) (p.h) (p.5) (p.6) corrected gives 2h.87 in 1986 Source: Reeves affidavit of 2-11-83, tables therein.
The above net costs and benefits assume that the real trice of electricity stays the same; if it rose, the constant-dollar benefits above would be larger.
i
C, Table 1 shows the savinEs from Reeves affidavit #1 measures in constant 1982 dollars, assuming the price of electricity does not rise. Numbers in parenthesis are negative. Note that the conservation program commences in 1983 Since its components are available to go on-line inmediately, it should not wait for the Harris plant to becene operable. The earlier a nrogwan to implement these measures starts, the more consumers will save. Consume *s are the ones who nay the costs (and receive any benefits, i.e. electricity and canacity that is needed, plus any fuel savings) of the Harris plant. All economic comparisons herein use the costs and benefits seen by the consumer (assuning the real price of electricity is constant at 1982 levels) for this reason.
For the years 1983-201h, the measures in Table 1 produce a net saving to the consumer of $5.252 billion (1982 dollars). If the year 1983 is omitted, the 198h-201h benefits are still over $5 billion, net of all costs of implementing and maintaining the measures.
Details are in Reeves' second affidavit.
This number, developed under the assunctions described above12 is used in comparisons of costs and benefits which follow.
Dr. Reeves' third affidavit 1 (June 28, 1983) descwibes the costs and available savings from the use of neasures beyond those in his first 2 affidavits. These neasures are also snecifically beyond those included in CP&L's cuarent conservation / load mgt. plan.
1 Assumptions are given on page 1; high efficiency air condit* oners costs and benefits, pp 1 -1, Table I thereof; active solar new homes p.3, Table II thereof; Active Solar Retrofits, Table II, p.k; Residential Storage Bin Air Conditioning (without solar) n.5, Table IV.
i Non Residential (i.e. Commercial Industrial) Storare Air Conditioning, I p.6, Table V; Water Heater Load ontrol n.7 Table VI; summary table l VII,p.8, additional savings p.9 (no dollars calculated).
IOQryhttd ud f ub\(c SWP [90 qf C Q C% Y N' W
1 The costs and net benefits (compared to purchasing electricity at 1982 prices) are set forth in Table 2 below, which covers only the kilowatt-hour savings fron measures in Reeves 3d affidavit that are not included in his other affidavits. The net benefits are in constant 1982 dollars, assuming that the real price of electricity does not rise beyond 1982 levels. If it did, bene *its would be greater.
TABLE 2 Net 1982 Dollars Cost Savings from Reeves Affidavit #3 Measures beyond CP&L Cons ervati.on/ Load Management Plan and Beyond Reeves' affidavits #1 and #2 Source GWH/yr Cont / Net Saving Saved kWh v. 5//kWh real Real 8/ year saved Solar HW (net of CP&L) 800 1.98g 3 02g $2h,160,000 Solar Oain 192 0.87g h.13/ 7,8h0,000 (nonsolar homes)
Shading 78 0.91d 4.09g 3,190,000 Lighting 185 1.25g avg. 3 75g 6,768,000 Motors 143 1.h3g 3.57/ 5,100,000 TVs 4h4 5g 22,200,000 Bath Water 152 5g 7,600,000 TOTAL 199h GWH/yr $75,658,000 Source: Reeves Affidavit #3, 6-28-83, pph-5 solar HW (adjusted to renove CP&L plan GWH),5-7 shading and solar gain, 7 Lighting, 7-8 Motors, 8 Bath Water Snace Heat, 8-9 TVs, Sumnary v.10 for all measures.
~3 1
1 The costs and net benefits (connared to purchasing electricity at 1982 prices) are set forth in Table 2 below, which covers only the kilowatt-hour savings fron measures in Reeves 3d affidavit that are not included in his other affidavits. The net benefits are in constant 1982 dollars, assuming that the real price of electricity does not rise beyond 1982 levels. If it did, bene *its would be greater.
TABLE P Net 1982 Dollars Cost SavinFs from Reeves Affidavit #3 Measures beyond CP&L Cons ervati.on/ Load Management Plan and Beyond Reeves' affidavits #1 and #2 Source GWH/yr Cost / Net Saving Saved kWh v. 5//kWh real Real 8/ year saved Solar HW (net of CP&L) 800 1.98g 3 02g $2h,160,000 Solar Oain 192 0.87g 4.13/ 7,8h0,000 (nonsolar homes)
Shading 78 0.91d 4.09/ 3,190,000 Lighting 185 1.25g avg. 3 75g 6,768,000 Motors lh3 1.h3/ 3.57v 5,100,000 TVs kh4 5( 22,200,000 Bath Water 152 5g 7,600,000 TOTAL 1094 GWH/yr
$75,658,000 Source: Reeves Affidavit #3, 6-28-83, pph-5 solar HW (adjusted to renove CP&L plan GWH),5-7 shading and solar gain, 7 Lighting, 7-8 Motors, 8 Bath Water Space Heat, 8-9 TVs, Sumnary n.10 for all measures.
m Reeves affidavit #3, p.10-11, shows a total saving of Eh52 GWH per year (equal to a Harris plant at 56% canacity factor) fro, the measures inchaded in all 3 of his affidavits. This amount of canacity displaced, and GWH generation displaced, are used in sone of the scenarios below.
Assuming the measures of Table 2, which do not overlan prev!ous affidavita' measures in Table 1, were adonted unifornly ever the 12 years 198h-95, and then rennined in effect for the years 1995-201h, the constant dollar benefit of these GWH savings over the neriod 198h-201h is $1.891 billion 1982 dollars.
The sun of Table 1 and Table 2 constant dollar savings, 198h-201h, is $6.905 billion in 1982 dollars. This figure is used in economic comparisons with the Harris plant below.
To sunnarize: The alternative to the Harris nlant is a combination of load-shifting (mainly energy-storage and load control),
solar energy, and energy-efficiency-increasing neasures. As described in Section III, these have minimal environmental impacts among the alternatives nossible to nuclear nower generation.
Dr. Reeves' affidavits show that the Harris nlant 3 s not needed for capacity, that $6.9 billion can be saved by using the alternative fron 198h until the end of Harris plant life in 201h, and that the kilowatt-hours generated by a Harris unit at 56% canacity factor can be displaced by the alternative.
Details of calculation, in Anpendix. The Table 2 figure is basis.
i l
l B. FOUR COMPARISONS OF HARRIS vs. THE ALTERNATIVr 1.As shown above, there is no need for Harris canacity. Thus the only benefit of the Plant is its ability to generate nower at economic costs below that of coal. See NRC rule, h7 F9 12ohl and 12942. Using CP&L's assunntions of 70% canacity factor and 25-year unit life, with the maximum $ savings from nroducing power from Harris instead of other CP&L units, all as given in EP Amendment 5, I compute a 1982 constant-dollar benefit of $h.03 billion from both Harris units in the period 1986-201h.1b The alternative not only eliminates need for Harris capacity (through 2001 at all, and through 2016 as a baseload plant); it saves $6.9 billion 1982 dollars by the year 201h. This comnletes 1
l the first comparison,6 in which all Harris construction costs are considered sunk.
- 2. Harris 2 really isn't a sunk cost. This connarison and #3 below denend on that fact. Here's why Harris 2 isn't a sunk cost now:
(a) The unit is only 3 or 4% comnlete (NUREG-0030 6/8217; transerint of 2-2h-83 prehearirs conference). (b) CP&L hasn't invested any money in actively constructing it during 1982 or 1983 (c) CP&L will reassess it this fall (cony of relevant article attached) ; (d)
The NCUC Public Staff recorriended cancelling it in its 1983 renort.17 Cherokee 1, on which the Public Staff took a similar nosition, is already cancelled.W(e) DOE has identified Harris 2 as a candidate 15 The details of the connutation are in the anvendiX, item 15.
Cost to customers is larger than the cost to CP&L, so benefits are adjusted upward accordingly in the calculation.
6 As shown in an even if CP&L's claimed fuel savings at 70%pendix itemfactor capacity 15, 2dwere page, not discounted at all from their 1986-do11ar basis to 1982 dollars, the alternative wins by
$6.9 billion to $6.3 billion in savings delivered to customers. QED.
17 A list of sources and citations is in Anpendix item 17. Copies of documents are attached excent for NRC transcript and DOE renort.
e for cancellation albng with Cherokee 1 and other units. ( DOE /tIA-0392," Nuclear Plent Cancellations" April 1983). (f) Harris P is a hole i in the ground today. McGuire, the leading NaC case on sunk costs ,
identifies units 52 and 69% complete, or more, as "substantially comnleted." There is no way a hole in the ground is a "substantially completed" nuclear plant. (g) Finally, consider the nosition of having ruled that Harris 2 is a sunk cost, and then Maving CP&L cancel it.
AcceptinF dhat Harris 2 is not a sunk cost, it's easy to show that Harris 1 shouldn't be allowed to onerate. McDuffie Figure 6 from CP&L shows that to connlete Harris 2, $1,721,17h,000 must be spent af ter the end of 1983 Adding this sum, appropriately discounted, to the alternative's benefits gives about $8 billion 19; the benefits of Harris 1 cperation vs. coal sud to about $2 billion nlus in the constant 1982 dollars used for comparison.
Why not complete Harris 2? It isn't needed and it's not cost-effective if it were needed, according to the Public Staff 1983 20 report, copy attached, see cover letter, pp 1-11 and Table III-5 underlying discussion pp3h-35 This connletes the second scenario, in which Harris loses out by about $6 billion $ n 1982 dbila rs.
3 The third scenario is similar, but relies on the Public Staff's construction schedule (sae Annendix ref. 20) at pages 32-35.
18 Full citation in arpendix, Fron recent 1983 NC rate case.
copy attached.
19Connutation into 1962 dollars not performed. Ce.n be done on request.11.7% is anoropriate discount rate (CP&L's cost of funds, see Appendix at iten 15). This should be added to savings since it is a cost consumers don't have to pay if Harris 2 isn't built, l
I
i l
The Public Staff determined, based on cost-effectiveness and need for power, that Harris 1 should be delayed until 1992 and Harris 2 should never be built. (Ref. 20 at i, ii, 32-35)
If we delay Harris 1 until 1992, it still will produce its
$ 2 billion in 1982-do11ar fuel-cost savings fron production by nuclear instead of coal or sone other f uel source. But now, bv the end of Harris l's operatinF life, the alternative has had 6 more years to work.
21 From Tables 1 and 2 above, each year adds $31h nillion to the alternati ve 's benefits. So the alternative gains another $1.9 billion in 6 years for economic benefits of about $8.75 billion versus a bit over $2 billion for Harris (1982 dollars). According to the Public Staff, not building Harris 2 saves money, even if a coal plant has to be built to substitute for it (af ter the year 2000). (ibid. )
And of course, Harris isn't needed for canacity.
This completes the third scenario,
- b. All the above scenarios assume that crice elasticity of demand has less effect than it actually nay. According to Profs.
John Blackburn and E. Roy Weintraub22,the lone-term price elasticity of demand for electricity is -1. That means that adding Harris units to rate base could sharply reduce electric denand, given their cost of $h.5 billion for 2 units, per CP&L.
This is no idh acadenic concern. LILCO chief engineer Adan l Madsen, commenting on the results of rate-basing the 83.2 bil? ion l
Shoreham plant, said "If we realy did this, sales would go down."
(NY Times,6/7/83 " Easing Utility ' Rate Shockf" by Matthew L. Wald, p.1 of business section ). (Reference supplied by Dr. Blackburn 6/30/83).
Of course, such a sales reduction would not affect CP&L's fixed costs (including fixed charges and depreciation on $h.$ billion of Harris)
See Appendix iten 21. 22 Testinony to NCUC, see Aup iten 22.
so CP&L rates would then rise even more, suppressing sales further, l Wells Eddleman connuted additional costs to ratepayers 1486-95 based on CP&L ER Amendment 5.23 The 1986-do11ar added cost is
$3 368 billion. (ibid).
CP&L's 1982 revenues were $1.538 billion (1982 annual report).
If revenues hit 4 2 billion a year in 1986 and then stay constant in real terms, CP&L will have revenues of $20 billion (1986%)
fron 1986-95 The $3.368 billion is about a 16.8% increase therein.
It thus will produce a denand (1-1/1.165) or .86 as large.
This lh% decrease in electricity salaes connared to 1986 base, works out to be about 5 billion kWh a year (output of a Harris unit a t 63$ C .F. ) .
This price-caused reduction may overlap Dr. Feeves kWh-savers in his third affidavit, which amount to a Harris unith outuut at 56% C.F.2h It doesn't matter. If both units are there and saving fuel costs at CP&L's naximum assunctions, the alternative is still more cost-effective and no Harris capacity is needed -- see case 1 above, p. 10. If demand is reduced the fuel savings will be less because the fuel displaced vill be cheaner fuel. (Chesner fuel is used first in the loadinE of rational power-generatfng systens, meeting and more exnensive fuel is then used for additional demand).
kWh If, on the other hand, Dr. Reeves' savings do not overlap wi th 1
the elasticity-induced drop in demand, the output of neither Harris unit is needed, They are displaced at about 60% C.F.
This completes the 4th scenario, with elasticity effects.
23 Cited in Aupendix item 23 23A Calculation in Appendix i
2h See Appendix. It turns out this is an underestinate, but no credit for the underestimate is taken in this affidavit.
-lh-III. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS (DMPARISONS ' 2b Comparing the environmental effects of different energy sources can be like comparing apples and oranges. Nevertheless, it is nossible to choose. This section describes the environmental effects of the alternative to Harris set out in Section II.A above, and connares them to nuclear energy's risks via the work of Holdren, Beyea, & von Hippel, as well as by conparison of effluents with Teble S-3 for the case where nuclear generation is used to displace coal-burning vower generation. Simply put, the environmental effects of dbe Harris alternative are much less than those of average renewable energy alternatives. The risks of such average an ernatives, in turn, are less than the risks of nuclear energy, both for accidents and for environmental and human health effects.
The Harris alternative does not add to insulation levels or reduce the air circulation through houses. Thus, indoor air vollution is avoided. As discussed below, it can be nitigated if it arises.
As a worst case, adding an air-to-air heat exchanger (cost $200,1982) to affected houses would only cost $1h5 million for every home on the CP&L system in 1995. The running cost would be about the sane as for existing fans and heating system blowers. This would not tip l
25 This section is based on extensive research by Wells Eddleman.
The most important references on environmental effects of renewables used herein' are " Side Effects of Renewable Energy Sources" Dec.1982,by Dr. Larry Medsker for National Audubon Society (Med 82 as cited herein) and Holdren et al, Risk of Renewable Energy Sources (FRG-79-3 from Energy & Resources Group, U. Calif. Berkeley,1979. Copies of these documents are included conolete in the naterials served on Judge Kelley (who will evaluate this petition / affidavit), Applicants, Staff OELD, and the 3 copies to NRC Docketing and Service. I will suuply (continued next page)
r
_1g-the cost-benefit balance in Section II above. Substituting the heat exchanger blower fo'r' another blower has no net cost, and the heat "h*e b"a's'ic *co'nck*u"skon" is at Ye total envNonm' ental effects of a combination of renewables (especially those discussed in Peeves' affidavits 1,2 and 3, ". . -) are less than the total environmental effects of nuclear energy production, on the basis of useful energy made available (by production, load-shifting or savings). See Holdren et al, pp i-ii and 68. (Referenced here-after as ERG 79-3)26 .
Even among these renewables, those with large land recuirements such as wind power, and photovoltaics, are not included here.
(See Medsker, hereinafter "Med 82" at 9). No additional biomass is included -- though nearly 16% of all CP&L residential customers were already using wood as their primary heating fuel in 1982, according to CP&L's anpliance saturation survey. (See Med 82 at 13-15 for effects thus avoided). Since the solar systems included by Dr. Reeves sit on existing roofs (or roofs of new buildings), they do not involve additional land use except for storage bins.
If all r/95000 CP&L residential customers in 1995 had 10' x 10' storage bins for heating and cooling, this would add up to r/$million square feet or about lstU acres. Each bin would be a bit larger than a typical outbuilding. If all the CP&L commercial customers then had footnote continued fron page lh:
copies of them to any other party who requests then. Due to their voluminous size (ERG-79-3 is 232 pages, Side Effects is 73pp) it was not considered cost-effective to serve the other parties without detemining whether they needed them. Trees being a renewable
- resource, I wanted to conserve them.
26 The only possible exception is the steel tank, oversized solar technology for Canada. ERG-79-3 at 191-205 critiques this choice.
It is simply not comparable to the fiberglass-g1 zed, air-handling system with masonry block storage bin used by Dr. Reeves.
I ,
-g-storage bins for thermal energy also, each 10 feet by h0 feet, there would be around 150,000 h00 souare foot bins, or 60 million
~
square feet -- about 1h00 acres. This totals 3100 acres. More land than that would be freed by not oneratinF the Harris plant, which has over 4000 acres of woodland on its site. The storage bins could be integrated into the design of new buildings, without necessarily taking up additional space, so the 7100 acres is a maximum.
Other than this, there are no other significant land-use effects of the proposed combination of alternatives to Harris ("the alte~ native")
as detailed above and in Reeves' 3 affidavits. This is important because (see Med 82 p. 9) land use is one of the most significant side effects of renewable energy sources. The alternative to Harris minimizes this side effect, given its energy delivery.
Of course, load-shifting, efficient applizances, solar water heating, moving screens, growing shade plants, and hanging onto heated water have minimal direct environnental impact. Only the solar water heaters, solar space heaters and storage bins affect the apnearance of things. Since these methods do not generally involve adding insulation, tightening houses for air leakaEe (inf11tration), additional heat pumps or f orest nroduct use, the side effects of energy efficiency improvements discussed (Med 82 at 2P-24) are minimized.
There may be some radon exoosure risk associated with the storage bins (using rocks) and the tendency of peonle to try to i
l increase their energy savings by reducing air infiltration in their p $dhba l W S ainhop ov- red l iS G E W ed h The most straightforward migccl W 11tvatw) gation strategy is to useyf hones.g rocks low in the precursors of radon (eg. radium, thorium, uraniun) and test each rock bin for radon. As to housing, the method
r .
pronosed by Anthony Nero and Jan Beye cory of Feb.1981 Bullet!n of the Atomic Scientists pp61-614 attached) is best: equip the residence auditors (e.E. in CP&L's own program and the Residential C
onservation Service) with raden-detection equinnent. Dr. K.Z.
Morgan, former director of health physics at Oak Ridge, has pointed out that covering the earth under hones with plastic sheeting (current cost 1.5//ft 2 or $214 for a , ___ NC house of 1600 ft ,
assuning larger houses are more likely candidates for solar sys tens) can usually reduce radon exfiltration to levels such that indoor air quality in the house above is not adversely affected. The extra cost of such programs is modest if intergrated into energy-auditing programs that exist. In extrene cases, vapor sealers (e.F.
Hypalonb ) can be used to seal off radon-emitting stone, brick or earth from access to living spaces. The result is that a good energy-saving program will detect those hones with higher levels of radon, and provide mitigation measures to reduce its harmful effects. Thus, the energy-conservation orogram will reduce radiati on exposure. For rock beds, any found to be enitting too much radon can simply have the rocks replaced. The rocks can be re-used outdoors, or as highway fill, or be landfilled, if they emit radon in quantities enough to be raising the indoor radon concentrations l above normal levels as cited by Beyea (5 x outdoor normal concentratiflN). l It would certainly be possible to set " trigger" radon levels lower than this, thus reducing radon exnosure below its present general l 1evel for average houses, by a conservation orogram as dese-ibed above.
Since the alternative to Harris does not assume Ay. change l in infiltration of air (it sinply supplies the needed heat from solar l energy instead of electricity in most cases), the radon issue is not significant with respect to it. In conjunction with good energy O See AfW'X NY
7
-1$-
conservation practices, it wot'1d reduce radon exposure at nodest cost.
Assuming it cost $1 million to set up house energy auditors to detect radon and get readings on radon levels in rock beds, and that half of homes reauired a mitigation measure, the cost of plastic would be (for h50,000 hodes) about $10.8 million and the cost of coatings
($10/500 ft tynical price) for 10% of the homes would be $3.6 million.
These costs are very modest conpared to the multi-billion dollar benefits delivered to cusboners by the alternative to Harris, and do not significantly change the $1 billion or more advantage of that alternative versus operating the Harris units at 70% canacity factor.
Medsker (Med 82 at $7-29) discusses the risks of solar heating and reconnends the radon mitigation measures noted above.
l The solar collectors recommended in the alternative to Harris do not use glass glazing iso no breakage hazard); air is the working fluid, and the system minimizes use of toxic materials. These systens do use blowers and electronic controls, and rock storage is an option.
However, the effects of the systems for solar energy in the alternative to Harris are less than those on nages 27-29 of Med 82 because the effects of glass, toxies, and working fluids are avoided in general.
In summarizing the high-risk side effects of direct solar heating /
cooling, and of conservatirn (Med 82 n.60), construction materials and insulation manufacturing hazards, glass breakage, working fluid leaks, toxic chenicals released, radon release, disposal of working fluids, storage conds , indoor air pollution, and aesthetics of solar systems are listed. All of these excent materials manufacturing, trJ u s Wo m s cilhacfhe aesthetics, and radon are eliminated4by not using thematerials involved, or not tightening up houses. Radon mitigation is discussed above. The result is that only materials impacts and aesthetics are left as significant side-effects. Since the materials of
1 l
the alternative's solar heating system include ducting and blowers i like any conventional forced-air system (including heat numns),
the only additional materials required are the collector (fiberglass glazing and aheet metal) some additional ducting to and from the collector, and the storage bin (masonry, rocks and insulation, plus roofing material). Allergy problems can be reduced by filtering (as in a conventional system) or by electrostatic air-cleaning if necessary.
Minimizing radon effects from rocks has been covered above.
dwelling Rock mining, assuming 10 tons of rocks for each - in CD&L's service area in 1995, would be 7,750,000 tons. That sounds like a lot, but compare it to the mining required to run Harris.
Each Harris core contains the U-235 from about $50 tons or natural uranium; each unit takes about 8 cores (full) to run 25 years.
Thus both units need 5600 tons of natural uranium to be dug un to run for 25 years 28 Uranium orea have a content of about 1 lb U per ton, so 2000 tons of ore make 1 ton of nure uranium metal.
That means 11.2 million tons will be mined to run Harris.
More efficient air conditioners involve more conner and frame metal (compared to inefficient air conditioners of the same size),
but they only need to be half as big in capacity (9eeves affidavit #1, p.17). This more than offasets the extra materials in the high-EFR (high-efficiency) but smaller sized air aonditioners. Efficient motors also involve more copppr. Again, the savings of not building the bigger inefficient air conditioners ' connressor motors frees up most of the copper required for more efficient motors on the smaller units. .
In sun, then, the environmental effects of the materials used in the alternative are minimal connared to Harris or existing appliaances, and readily mitigated.
^
(
-20 "
Since the Harris plant is not needal for peak loads, the only positive environmental effect of onerating it would be to reduce the amount of coal burned on the CP&L system. (The Harris pisnt uses more water and more O&M material than a connarable sized coal burning plant, so it has no other environmental advantages.
Harris also produces more waste heat per unit of electricity than a coal plant would.) The hazards of coal pollution are significant.
Here, a comparison with Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.20 is useful.
That table includes a h5-Mwe coal plant (for enrichment of uranium, mostly ) emitting tons per year of particulates, hh00 tons of sulfur dioxide,1190 tons of nitrogen oxides, lh tons of hydroca-bons and 29.6 tons of carbon monoxide (all metric tons). If one of CP&L's modern coal plants (Roxboro 3 or 4, or Mayo 1), able to hold emissions to 0.03 lb/hBTU for particulates, produced the 5.5 billion kWh that a Harris unit at 70% capacity factor could nroduce, it would emit (10,000 BTU /kWh x 5.5 x 10 9 kWh x 0.03 lbN. BTU) or 1.62 million 1b or 730 metric tons of narticulates a year. Likewise, burning {%
sulfur coal (which CP&L gets from captive mines), the coal plant would burn 2.25 million tons of coal a year to equal a Harris unit at 70% C.F. , and thus emit 22500 tons of SO 2 a year (SO2 Per mole weighs twice what sulfur does, so the sulfur oxide emissions is 2 x )% of the coal tonnage burned, or 1% of it). The nitrogen oxide limit for the new coal plant is under 2000 tons a year.
Since particulates in conjunction with sulfur and nitrogen oxides case the illness effects of coal, whereas the particulates themselves cause cancer, the effects of the new CP&L coal unit's emissions are not significantly worse than those included in Table S-3 for l l the nuclear plant. Thus if the Table S-3 emissions' effects are not sufficient to avoid licensing a nuclear plant (NRC's past licensing decisions certainly accord with this view), then the
_2i -
nsw CP&L odditional cmiss3cns from a coal plant ,
.. Are also not significant enough to turn the NEPA balance against an alternative that eliminates the use of the Harris nuclear plant and allows the new CP&L coal plants to generate the energy instead. Indeed, this is what CP&L has been effectively doing with its Brunswick and Robinson nuclear plants in recent years. For 1962, CP&L's nuclear performance was 35% of design canacity (35% DE9 canacity factor) see Baseload Power Plant Performance Renort to NCUC, Eddleman testimony docket E-2 sub h61. That's half of the 70% CP&L assumes for Harris. In effect, li of CP&L's 3 nuclear units were thus "not used" and the other 1( ran at the expected 70% capacity factor.
Coal units, particularly those at Roxboro, made up the outnut of the
" missing" nuclear units. From this exannle, it is clear that licensing a nuclear plant to operate does not avoida the environ-mental effects of coal burning to nroduce nower. If the nuclear plant bbeaks down, the coal will staill be burned .
To summarize, if the Harris plant is solely used to displace coal combustion, the coal emissions fron CP&L's modern coal plants will be camparable to the emissions associated with coal-burning for the nuclear fuel cycle in NRC's Table S-3 Thus, there is no significant environmental gain from running the nuclear plant.
The additional fission product emissions of the nuclear plant would be avoided, however, if the nuclear olant did not run.
Thus, running the Harris plant is not environmentally superior to the alternative discussed above. This is particularly so since Harris is not needed for peakinE capacity, and most of Harris's output can be disulaced entirely by the alternative and by the economic effects of amortizing Harris 1 (a sunk cost). Thus, the l
real situation is that less electricity will be reouired with the l alternative in place, and thus Harris's output can only be used to l avoid coal combustion. As snown cbove, this gain is not significant 1
because the Harris operation entails the coal effluents in Table S-3 associated with the nuclear fuel cycle.
One other environmental difference between garris and the alt ernative is worth noting. Although many systems have been designed to help reduce the chance of a catastronhic nuclear reactor accident, only not having a reactor near you is a guaranteed method of keening it from hanpening in your area. Exnensive mitigad on methods have been proposed for such an occurrence, but the siternative is an absolute preventative since Harris won't operate if the alternative is used instead. That would leave the Research Triangle " safely" over 100 miles from any other onerat$ ng reactor.
Whatever the likelihood of nuclear reactor accidents, the loss of the seat of NC government, h major universities (Duke, NC. Central, NC State and UNC), Duke Hospital, NC Memorial hosnital, , .
and the entire Research Triangle Park, a center of cornorate research, all within the danger area desevibed for serious accidents in reference 29, is just unacceptable. Precluding this possibility is clearly another point in favor of the alternative.
IV. CONCLUSION The alternative is $2.8 billion 1962 dollars better than the maximum savings from Harris at 70% capacity factor, on economics, t
It avoids the need for Harris capacity, has less environmental imnact, and eliminates the chance of a nuclear reactor catastronhe in the Research Triangle area of NC, The alternative is clearly bette*,
1 both environmentally and economically.
29 Beyea and von Hipnel, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Aug-Sent 1982 at $2-58. See particularly "an area the size of Connecticut", box and charts of risk.
APPENDIX TO AFFII%VIT IN SUPPORT OF 2.758 PETITION BY WELLS EDDLEMAN June 30, 1983
- 1. #1, Conservation and Load Management Substitutes for CP&L Generation, July 1h,1982; #2, Costs and Savings from Conservation and Load Management Substitutes for CP&L Generation, 2-11-83;
- 3, Additional 1995 CP&L Conservation Energy, June 28, 1983 2.1982 dollars are used daroughout because those were the dollars Dr. Reeves used in his studies cited in note 1 above. The only exception is the elasticity case II.B.4 where both CP&L and Eddlenan used 1986 dollars, so conversion to 1962 dollars was sunerflaucus since the dollars were of conoarable year (the same one: 1986) and thus the same value. The elasticity effect denends only on the relative increase of cost due to the Harris nlant, not on the year of the constant dollars.
- 3. SHNP" Environnental Renort, Amendment 5, December 1982, at 8.1.1-3; see also at 8.1.1-1
- h. Dr. Reeves used CP&L's 1981 December forecast in develoning affidavit #1 above. The December 1982 forecast (cur-ent forecast) is virtually identical. Both have a 2.8% ner year increase in sales and 2.9% per year increase in peak denand.
- 5. See discussicn of Harris a costs not really being sunk now, pp 10-11 of affidavit, and note 17 of this Aupendix.
- 6. T O CPR 51.20 Table S-3, Summary Table of Effluents from Nuclear Fuel Cycle.
- 7. Reeves lat affidavit, 7/1h/82, ref. 1 above, includes the following measuresa used to cut peak load:
efficiency improvements vs. new capacity (discussion of relative advantages of efficiency improvenents) n.10 no-net-cost loan (ef ficient air conditioner exannle ) 12-15 no-net-cost load anplicability to rental and leased nronerty, 16 Storage Bin Air Conditioning,17-19, 2h-25 Active Solar New Homes, 20-21 Active Solar Retrofits (existing homes) 22-23 Connercial and Industrial Storage Bin, 26 (cooling)
Air Conditioner Efficiency Improvement, 27, 12-15 Winter Peak Reduction (heatinF) 28 Water Heating Off-Peak, enhanced storage, 29
- 8. CP&L growth projected forecasts of December rates. '81 and 2.9%/2 is about Decenber 1.5%. See note'82 have identica h above.
growth, Reeves #1, p. 17, air conditioner half as big does the same job.
- 9. CP&L 1995 peak 6700 MW (Reeves n.31 #1 affidavit) x 1.55/yr growth (this affidavit, p.h, Reeves #1, p.17; note 8 above) 1.5% x 6700 MW is 100 MW per year. Add 20% reserves, 120 MW/yr growth.
720 MW for Mayo 1, divide by 120/yr, gives 6 years. 1995 + 6 = 2001.
Harris 1 and 2, 900 MW each,1800 MW total (ER 5, 8.1.1-1), divide i by 120 MW/yr gives 15 years to ne ed capy of both of dien. 2001 +15
= 2016.
APPENDIX, PAGE 2
- 10. Sunplemental testinopy of W.S. Lee , chairnan , Duke Dowa= Co.
N" UC docket E7 sub 358, filed June 1983 Cony attached.
- 11. Public Staff 9ennrt 1983, Analysis of Long-9ange Needs for Electric Generating Canacity in North Carolina. Two excerpts are attaheed. One inclu des the connarison of coal vs. nuclear costs ,
Table III-5, with the conclusions of the reno-t to scran En=ris P.
The other includes the canacity addit' on schedule and Cut L's conservation / load nanagement nrogram as it is now. Cha=okee I and Harris 2 are nushed off the pinnning horizon, see at 32-35 Nuclear units are not nreferred as subst!tutes for Ha"ris 2, see at 1-2 (1-11) and 32-35
13 CP&L plan is Table II-1 of 1983 "ublic Staff ve o-t, cory attached, see note 11 above.
Ih. Calculation: snnothly innlement savings over 1P yearr Fives equivalent of 6 years of full savings (12/P) sinca ave-aFe sav'nn will be half the 1995 total. Add to thi s 19 full yea *s ,1906-?olh.
Total is 25 yeara x 75.658 n'11 inn a yea = (Table e, dottn,v5ght).
This is 1891.h million dollars, ccnstant 198? dellavs. See Deeves #P, p.1 for constant dollar assumnt!on.
l l
l
APPENDIX -
15 Conputation of constant-dollar production savings fron operating Harris: based on Environmental Renort Amendment 5, Sec. 8, December 1982: CP&L's numbers.
ER section 8.1.1 (page 8.1.1-1) gives $2.J021 billion (19868) fuel / production savings for operating the CP&L system with both Harris units (one 1986-95, 10 year, the other 1989-95, 7 years) at 70% capacity factor. At 70% 0.F. , each unit produces 5.52 billion kWh a year, or in 17 reactor-years, 93.8 bil1$ on kwH.
Dividing the constant dollar benefits by total kWh, we get 2.15/
per kWh (CP&L used a slightly highen numbe= or kWh in Attachment B to their answers to W.F. interrogatories, 9h.7 billion for the 10 years. That produces a lesser figure new kWh).
It turns out that 2.15(/kWh is the largest 1986 dollar saving claimed in ER Amendment 5. Calculating as above for the other cases (total kWh for unit-years at given capacity f actor) yields lower ngmbers for 2 units at 60% C.F., 2 at 50% C.F. , and slightly less for 1 unit at 70% 0.F.
To convert this cost per kilowatt-hour into 1982 dollars, we must use a discount rate. In NCUC Docket E-100 sub h1 (Dec.1982).
CP&L used 11.7% (its cost of funds) to discount fuel costs from f uture periods. Using this rate for h years means dividing by (1.117)b or by 1.565, which yields a 1982 dollar figure of 1 373d per kilowatt-hour.
What the customer sees is the fuel savings (assuminF they are nassed through at full value -- no higher value is reasonable since it would mean CP&L was deliberately losing money) times the tax factor for gross receints tax - 1.06383 This yields a customer cost of 1.146//kWh in 1982 d:>11ars.
Not having rel* ' 'e data on fuel costs beyond 1995, (not to say L
APPENDIX P 'I TH4T CP&L's is), the safest assunction is that the censtant-dollar fuel savings would be the sane in the futu e. (This assumntion nay connensate somewhat for CP8 L's ove -ontimistic 70% Dr" carac
- ty factor used herein; then aga*n, it nay not connensate cn o it.)
At 70% capacity factor, each Har=1s unit n-oduces 5.52 b511 *on kWH ner year (.70 x 8760 hours0.101 days <br />2.433 hours <br />0.0145 weeks <br />0.00333 months <br /> / year 7 900,000 kV/ unit). Multinly this by 1.h6/ per kWh and you get a censtant-dollar nroductinn savinE (1982 $) of 80.6 nillion ner unit-year.
Taking 2 units onerating 25 years at 70% canacity factor, then, is 50 unit-years tines $80.6 nillion ner unit / yea *. The total Harris benefit over its onerating life (ner ED Anendment 5, which uses 25-year lives, see p.8.P.1-1, last naragranh) is thus th.03 billion in 1982 dollars.
It tu*ns out, based on the savings shown frn ,the Deeves affidavits and sunnarized on p.9, that the discount rate used j to convert Harris 1986 dollars from r# Amendnent 5, into 1982 dollars, 1
doesn 't na tter. To see th 's , assune the discount vate !s zerc
$1.e that it costs nothing to borrow noney, and futu=e costs and benefits are ammettyninxteday.mnantimms in dolla*s wi th th e sane value as today's dollars. This is the same as undo *ng the division by 1.565 above. (That took the 11.7% discount for the h years 1482-86) l $k.03 billion times 1.565 is about 86 31 billion. This is less than the $6.9 billion (1982 dollars) saved by the alternative.
l However, I use the $h.03 billion number to be consistent with 1 CP&L's assumptions in fuel-related natte s before NCUC (discount rate) and NRC (ER Anendnent 5 clained sav* nrs ) . This enti=e calculet?on is made according to CP&L's assumntions of canseity factor, li*etime, and discount rates, then, and yields a $h.03 billion 1982-do11a=
benefit from running 2 Harris units (f nstead of coal, etc. on_the CD&L system) for 25-year onerating lives.
APPENDIX, p.5
- 16. See second fren last paragraph under item 15, Annendix p.h.
- 17. NUREG-0030 6/82 is the latest version. Annlicants agreed HP was only 3 or h percent complete at the 2/2h/83 conference in this case. Charlotte Observer article "CP&L To Rule This Autunn on Nuclear Unit" tells of scranning of Cherokee 1 and CP&L plan to reassess Harris in October 1983, cony attached. Public Staff report, at up 1-2 and 32-35, see also Table II-5. cited above in note 11.
McGuire case NRC .
- 18. CP&L witness McDuffie (in charge of all construction for CP&L) profiled testimony, NCUC Docket E-2 sub h61 (1983) Fig. 6 is between pages 22 and 23. Copy attached. This gives year by year costs for Harris and is the basis for Dr. Reeves conclusion at the end of his affidavit 3 that if you didn't consider the cost to finish Harris 1 (from 198Sh on) to be sunk, the alternative could be bought for just that cost and disniace Harris l's generation (and twice its capacity) at a capacity factor greater than the Staff used in NRC's Harris DEIS of May 1983 I 19. Computation not performed, can be done on reouest.11.7% is ear-by-year numbers are in reference 18 anpropriate discount above (the Figure 6). rate, L1.7y% is the discount rate CP&L used for future cost discounting in NCUC Docket E-100 sub h1 in late 1982, for the purpose of comnuting present values of future avoided fuel costs -- exactly the type of computation done for Harris fuel in note 15, and ER amendment 5, and the comnutation being done for capacity where this note appears.
- 20. Public Staff 1983 renort at cover letter, 1-2, 32-35, Table II-1.
See note 11 above for more info.
- 21. 475 658,000 -- Table 2 of this affidavit, right column at bottom
$38,380 000 -- Table 1 of this affidavit, right colunn at bottom
$31h,038,,000 : sum of the above numbers, is total savi ng of the alternative for any year after 1995, net of all its costs.
- 22. Blackburn and Weintraub testimony, NCUC Docket E-100 sub 35,1979, cooy attached. Dr. Weintraub reconfirmed the present validity of the
-1 lone-tern price elasticity for electricity demand, and -0.2 for the short-run,6/26/83 He can execute an affidavit to that effect.
- 23. W.E. testinony Docket no. E-100 sub h6, NCUC,1983, copy of relevant pages and Table I thereof attached. The table Maows how the
$3 368 billion in 1986 dollars was computed.
23A. 35 billion kWh sales (CP&L forecast) x.1h reduction is h.9 billion kWh a year. Harri s a t 60% C .F . , I uni t , is 4.7 billion.
h.9 billion is about 63% C.F. for a Harris unit. See note 2h below.
- 24. Actually, a kilowatt-hour saved at the customer's noint of use saves more than a kilowatt-hour of generation, because transmission and distribution losses are avoided too. This is true for neak and total generation, but sales are after-loss numbers. Loss factor for CP&L is about 5% on average, see FERC Form is, pph01 1981-82 and h31 1978-80. NO CREDIT FOR LOSSES IS ASSUMED IN THIS AFFIDAVIT OR IN DR REEVES ' AAVITS. This is a conservatism.
d APPENDIX, p.6 25 These appear to be the most concrehensive treatments available, usough as they point out, all studies to date are inconolete.
This is not surprising considerinE the amount of informati on involved in assessing environmental inoacts of widely farying technologies throughout their production, inclu ding innuts into then like materials and energy from other sources.
- 26. See discussion on page 19: The alternative systen actually adds only a controller, some docting, sheet metal, fiberglass, and the rock bed to a conventional heating systen. It is not at all the oversized Canadian water-storage monster of Inhaber's recort.
It handles air only.
- 27. Beyea and Nero, letters re radon issue, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Feb 1961, pp 61-6h, cony attached.
28.100 tons U9 / core, 88% U, 88 tons U/ core, enriched to h t*nes natural, thus 332 tons U metal needed per full core. Full cove lasts 3 years, plant life is 25 years. 25/3 rives 8 cores.
2 plantsfa for 25 years, thus 16 cores, consevvatively.
16 x 352 tons = 5612 tons U metal. 1 lb U netal ner ton of U ore, or 1 ton U metal per 2000 tons ore. 2000 x 5600 2 = 11.2 million -
tons mined for Harris plant. Of course, U tailings are harder to handle than ordinary rocks, also.
- 29. See Beyea and von Hinnel, Bull. At. Sci. 8/9-1982 at 52-58, re meltdown mitigation, cony attached. Particularly relevant are the area at risk (see charts and granhs), and the box "An area the size of connecticut".
i
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF DURHAM Today Wells Eddleman anpeared before me and affirmed!
(1) That the affidavit in suonort of his 2.758 netition was written by him in consultation with Drs. G. George Reeves and John O.
Blackburn and the same is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief; (2) That Dr. Reeves examined said affidavit in' draft form and verified the statements concerning his affidavits and the conditions they were made under, and also verified the calculations of net constant dollar costs and benefits, contained in said affidavit in sunport of 2.758 petition, and Dr. Reeves _
will later supply an affidavit to that effect; (3) That Dr. Blackburn verified the validity of the energy-economics and elasticity anproaches used in said affidavit in suonort of 2.758 netition, and will supply an affidavit to that effect; (h) that said netition is being filed with the Nuc1 car Regulatory Commission under its rule in le C.F.R. 2.758.
This 30th day of June,1983 // rw Wells Eddleman
@ contr.ission expires July 14, 1987 .
Notary l
l l ,
l l t
l, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i .. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Dockets 50-400 In the matter of CAROLIKA POWEP. k LIGHT CO. Et al. ]) and 501.h01 0.L.
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2
> CEICIFICATEOF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of 2.756 Detition and affidavits and sunocrting documents **, and of " Contention 15AA" re canacity factor HAVE been served this 30 day of June 198),,, by deposit in the US Mail, first-class postage prepaid, upon all parties whose names are listed below, except those whose nanes are parked with
,- an asterisk, for unom service was accomplished by
- The extensive documents ERG-79-3 and " Side Effects of Renewable Enenry So tuw ei are servec nerewitn on Judge Kelley, Annlicants, Staff, and 3x to NRC Docketing & Service; available on request to all other parties}
Judges Ja9as Kelley, Glenn Bright and Janas Carpenter (1 e g y each Atonic Safety and Licensirg Board US Nuclear 9egulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 GeorEe F. Trowbridge (attorney for Applicants)
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge ILuthanne G. Miller i 1800 M St. NW ASLB Panel l Washin6 ton, DC 20036 USNRC Washington DC 2055 5 Office of the Executive Legal Director Phv111s Lotchin, Ph.D.
Attn Docke ts 50-400/401 0.L. 10b sridle Run USNRC Chanel Hill NC 2751h
' Washington DC 20555 ajgcludes M Dan Read Docketing and Service Section x) CF.AfLT/ELP sox 52h Attn Docke ts 50-h00/h01 0.L. Chapel Hill NC 2751h Office of the Secretary USNRC Wasnington DC 20555
~
D John Runkle Karen E. Long Box 991 CCNC 307 Granville Rd Raleigh NC 27602 -
Chapel Hill Ne 2751h Bradley w. Jones USNRC Region II Travia Payne 101 Marietta St.
Edelstein & Payne Atlanta GA 30303 N x 12609 Raleigh NC 27605 Richard Wilson, M.D. Certified by h 729 Hunter St.
Apex NC 27502
i l
,4 !
(' . .
i +.
xC
$ tate of piortij Carolina public $taff
)ltilitics Commission 5.@. %ox 991 ynicigl] 27602 Lbert Jischbach Office of "lExecutiuc lixecutive Director Dircefor
[919] 733-2435
Dear Chairman Koger and Commissioners:
On behalf of the Public Staff, I am pleased to submit the 1983 7 report on the long range needs for electric generating facilities in J North Carolina. This report covers Carolina Power & Light Company and Duke Power Company, which together account for approximately 95% of
- the electricity sales in the State.
~
This report projet.ts load growth through the year 2000 for both CP&L and Duke of below 2% per year, substantially less than our 1981 '
forecast of 4.0 to 4.5% per year. Proposed construction schedules have been adjusted ac:ordingly, with significant delays recommended for certain units in the late 1980's and 1990's. In addition, our analysis indicates that no new nuclear units are justified after Harris 1 for
- CP&L and Catawba 2 for Duke.
We consider this report a marked improvement over prior years' efforts. Our forecasts represent our best evaluations of electric power requirements in the future based on a continuation of existing and
- anticipated policies and regulatory activities. We continue to encourage conservation and load management activities to achieve the
~
projected reductions in growth while at the same time providing low cost and reliable electric service for the continued economic development of the State of North Carolina.
The Public Staff stands ready to discuss this report at the appropriate time.
4
- obert Fischbach ,
j RF/ lab .
cc: Governor James B. Hunt, Jr. .
]
] j
- 4. .
ANALYSIS OF LONG RANGE NEEDS FOR ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITIES
- IN NORTH CAROLINA t
1-pSTATE d v za
/ 'l A 9
? (kflf 4..., ; -
7
%w/
- PublicStaff Report
- 1983 m
aumem
n, ,%
l 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1
Summary 3
Introduction
~
Chapter I. Economic Forecast of Electricity Sales and Peak Demand A. Methodology 6 i -
I B. Results - CP&L 12 C. Results - Duke 13 D. Further Comment 14 Chapter II. Impact of Conservation and Load
~
Management Measures on System Demand A. Introduction 19 B. Discussion 21
- C. Further Comment 22
~
Chapter III. Plant Construction Schedules A. Introduction 29 B. Capacity Reserve Margin 29 C. Capacity Mix 31
~
D. Construction Schedules 32 e
O e
6 I
!* l
. l l
1
s . .
SUMMARY
- This is the fourth report by the Public Staff to the Utilities Commission on the long. range needs for electric generating facilities in
] North Carolina. This report covers the two largest electric utilities in the state, Carolina Power & Light Company and Duke Power Company
_ which, together account for 95% of the electricity sales in North Carolina.
~
By our analyses the expected annual growth rates in demand for
'l '
electricity to the year 2000, including the effects of conservation and 20 % 2-2%:c 1,'> $y 2000 load management programs, are 1.9% for CP&L and 1.5% for Duke. These l _] results are substantially lower than our 1981 forecast. Based upon this growth, CP&L and Duke will need to add only three generating facilities
'~
apiece between 1983 and 2000 in order to provide electricity in the most
~
economic and reliable manner. The Public Staff's construction schedule calls for the addition of CP&L's Mayo 1 coal fired unit in 1983, Harris
_ 1 nuclear unit in 1992 and Mayo 2 unit in 1998. For Duke, the schedule
.-- calls for the addition of three nuclear units: McGuire 2 in 1984, l -
Catawba 1 in 1996 and Catawba 2 in 1999. Even at demand growth greater than our forecast, our analysis shows no justification for nuclear units af ter Harris 1 for CP&L and Catawba 2. for Duke.
_ In developing our economic forecasts (Chapter I), our approach has been somewhat diffe' rent and improved over past studies. Peak load
~
has been forecast independently; an end use model has been used to estimate industrial sales; quarterly data have been used where possible; I_.
SD l
. ,w i
l ,
and most equations have been based on data from 1973 forward. As in -
past studies, reductions to the economic forecasts have been made to account for conservation and load management effects believed not to be captured by the economic model. In past years such reductions relied upon results from studies performed by outside consultants working under Federal grants. For this year's report we have used the utilities' own -
projections for conservation and load management with only modest refinements (Chapter II). Plant construction schedules (Chapter III)
{
were developed using our load impact and supply model, as has been the .
case for previous reports. .
It should be noted that the development of the Public Staff's -
load forecast and capacity expansion plans is an iterative process.
First the econometric/ structural models are developed, the results of which are then modified by the load management / energy conservation ,
deductions, and a capacity expansion plan is produced. The results of .
the analysis is then fed into a price forecasting model to see the impact of the construction schedule on the price of electricity. If the resultant price growth is different from that assumed in the fl econometric/ structural models, these models are run again. The entire process is repeated until a construction schedule produces a price of electricity equal to the input to the econometric/ structural models.
I I
I f
<o. .
.(-.
Table III-5 COST ESTIftATES New Coal Units Capital Cost $300/Kil (1982 $)
Capital Inflation 6.8%
Production Cost 24.2 mills /KWH Production Inflation 9%
Heat Rate 10,500 Stu/KWH (CP&L) 9,665 Btu /KWH (Duke)
New fluclear Units Capital Cost $1350/KW (1982 $)
- Capital Inflation 6.8%
Production Cost 11.7 mills /KWH .
- Production Inflation 9.5%
I O e
e e
L L
e -
l-O L
m S'
m' S
. 1 1 .
l-l.
es l_ ANALYSIS OF LONG RANGE NEEDS
_ FOR ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITIES
_ IN NORTH CAROLINA 1
.. dby
?
in[)Ah f,lf a ._ %J 1
- g*%q PublicStaff Report 1983 1-e e
o
- Il 1
i curves, determined that the proper mix for the two utilities would be
{,
approximately 50% base, 30% cycling and 20% peaking. Another commonly ,
used technique sets daily standard operating conditions for type of ,
capacity and requires an hourly load curve for the utility's peak week.
- This approach generally assumes that peaking capacity cannot operate for more than twelve consecutive hours on any day and that base capacity operates continuously. Using the hourly loads for the peak week through ,
the summer of 1981 yields a capacity mix of approximately 50% base, 35% .
cycling and 15% peaking.
From the aforementioned analyses, we conclude that the two major utilities in North Carolina should maintain a capacity mix of
(
approximately one-half base, one-third cycling, and one-sixth peaking, ,
This is consistent with earlier conclusions of the Public Staff.
As shown above, the determination of the proportion of each operational mode is based upon a load pattern. The utilities in North Carolina are involved with load management programs which are expected (
to decrease the amount of required peaking capacity and incraase the amount of required base capacity to provide adequate and reliable service.
l
- 0. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULES f Our determination of construction schedules was based on the [
goal of providing electricity in the most economic and reliable manner.
Data used for determination of the construction schedules was obtained from major utilities in North Carolina and the Public Utility r L
F 4.
33 Commissions of other states. Parameters required by the ICF program to perform the economic comparison include estimates by the Public Staff of capital cost, production expense, escalation rate for capital cost and escalation rate for production expense (Table III-5). The factors included in the formulation of these plans are projected reserve margins (Table III-6), loss of load probability (Table III-7) and operational mix.
The construction schedules presented below are the result of this study. They reflect our best economic evaluation and judgments but do not attempt to address questions concerning financial integrity of a specific utility and environmental or safety problems associated with a particular type of unit.
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE CP&L Duke 1982 1983 . . . . . . . . . Mayo 1 (720) 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... McGuire 2 (1180) 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 . . . . . . . . . Harris 1 (900) 1993 1994 1995 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catawba 1 (1145) 1997 1998 . . . . . . . . . M ayo 2 ( 7 20) 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catawba 2 (1145) 2000
- a. .
3d-These construction schedules display the absence of a need for the capacity of CP&L's Harris 2 and Duke's Bad Creek 1 & 2 and Cherokee 1 to meet system peaks.
The possibility of our forecasted system peak being on the low side has to be considered. Therefore, we have run a sensitivity analysis to check our construction schedules. The analysis uses the peak demand forecast, shown on Table I-8 for CP&L and Table I-17 for Duke, and the respective company's own conservation and load management [
peak reductions. Since the company's own conservation and load management reductions are less that that of th? Public Staff, a higher demand results. The results show CP&L first requiring a plant other This plant and others than those in our construction schedule in 1995.
that might be required by the year 2000 should be fueled by coal and not (
Results for Duke show no new plants required beyond those uranium.
shown in our construction schedule.
Since the analysis for Duke l
resulted in a demand similar i.o our forecasted demand , an analysis {
based on a higher growth rate indicates that any other power plant required by the year 2000 should also be fueled by coal and not uranium. (
Our conclusion is that no nuclear units can be economically justified L
after Harris 1 for CP&L and Catawba 2 for Duke.
NRC "ratcheting" of nuclear plant design specifications and {
out-dated design technology make Harris 2 and Cherokee 1 less of a viable alternate than a plant of new design. Consideration should also k be given to the effect of carrying these plants on the books for long L
periods of time while no work is being performed and AFUDC is being
.j L
,: 6
. u I
-- I The companies should 4
] accrued and/or CWIP is being paid by ratepayers.
perform studies on this matter, if they have not already done so, and present such studies to the Commission to justify continued construction 1
delays and funding of these plants.
emmu
$U wmu t
m se J .
]
M 2
1, i
min 4muni SE 1
J M
e emit t
e 4 -
d mae
~ , - - ~ . . - ., ,, ..n. - - -, . ~ - - , , . - - , , . , - - , , , - , , , , ,r,-r .
Table II-1
}
] CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPAtlY CONSERVATI0ft AND LOAD MANAGEMENT PROGRAll
] Summer 1995 Demand Reduction (3)
Residential Programs
) Water heater load control 69 ft1 Air conditioning load control 100 Time-of-usage rate 31 1 Insulation loans 67 Common sense program 99 Passive solar home construction 38
] Efficient air conditioners and heat pumps Efficient water heaters, refrigerators and other appliances 93 46 Reduce strip heaters in heat pumps and tune-up 4 Solar water heaters 29 1 Home audits 50 Apartment audits 4 630 iM 1 Commercial Programs Energy management review for new and remodelled buildings 68 tN Energy management development programs 7 1 Commercial energy audit program 24 Agricultural research and development 5 a Time-of-use rate 43
!j CP&L field facilities program Energy saving lighting program 12 1
1 Connercial standby generation progran 35 Cooperative commercial load curtailment program 4 1 Commercial thermal storaae 51 250iM
']
,J Industrial Programs Reschedule plant shutdowns program 12 fM Time-of-use rate 126 HVAC optimization 14 1 Industrial energy audit program 90 1 Large load curtailment program 40 Cooperative industrial load shedding program 38 Energy efficient industrial plants 29
.} )
}
Emergency generation 10 j Hydroelectric generation 18 Cogeneration 480
,1 Industrial thermal energy storage 13 E76 MW Total Programs 1750 fM
,}
(1) CPSL, Conservation and Load !!anagement Strategy for l] Insuring Reliable Electric Supply in the 1990's, January 1982 l
..o Table 11-2 DUKE POWER COMPANY ~
C0flSEP.VATION AND LOAD MANAGEfiEflT PROGRAF 1 Summer 1994 _
Demand Reductions U)
Residential Programs "RC" Rate and energy efficient structure 691.6 fM -
. Energy efficient appliances 543.4 Central air conditioning load control 409.8 ..
Improved insulation in "R" and "RW" structures 244.6 Conversion of existing structures to "RC" 150.0 -
Time-of-usage rate 125.0 High efficiency central cooling systems 117.0 Water heater load control 113.8 -
Improved insulations in "RA" structures 70.8 Commercial Programs ~
Energy generation 75.0 MU Reduced lighting levels - existing buildings 67.0 _
Conservation rate 61.1 Chain store accounts 56.0 -
Others - individual custom designed programs 42.8 Removal of large existing loads at peak 42.2 Additional insulation - new buildings 35.0 -
Reduced lighting levels - new buildings 33.0 Time-of-usage 40.0 -
Improved HVAC design - existing buildings 19.0 _
Interruptible rate 17.0 Improved HVAC design - new buildings 10.0 _
Additional insulation - existing buildings 8.0 _
Industrial Programs ~
Load control 229.0 MW Base load reduction 147.0 -
HVAC load reduction 130.0 Cogeneration 100.0 -
Emergency generation 100.0 _
Conservation rate 100.0 Interruptible rate 79.0 -
Time-of-usage rate 60.0 _
l Resale Programs _
Central air conditioning load control 165.0 ffW General conservation 124.4 -
Time-of-use rate 30.0 Water heater load control 28.8 -
Emergency generation 7.0 _
Total Programs _
Conventional 3313.0 MW Emergency 995.0 4508.0 MW -
(1) Duke Power News, June 1981 -
i
o.. o
.{- -
Table III-5 COST ESTIf1ATES New Coal Units Capital Cost $800/KU (1982 $)
Capital Inflation 6.8%
Production Cost 24.2 mills /KWH Production Inflation 9% -
Heat Rate 10,500 Stu/KWH (CP&L) 9,665 Btu /KWH (Duke) ~
New Nuclear Units -
Capital Cost Capital Inflation
$1350/KW (1982 $)
6.8% -
Production Cost 11.7 mills /KWH Production Inflation 9.5%
oW W
m M
M e
m m
eeke m
m m
D m
i l
ELII[aAUJLIR aO b"
....., .. ,~,r m m.aa won aauvisui 20 i
.ufJ saatoldma oog s,aJntuaa mau ay1 Jo; , t 8u jy a
~
al,till 1saJalui.
,, _-.. mot put saninant p".pm /" -
I Bhc Gharlotte Observer Page 8B Thursday, May 19,1983..... .'
But, he added, they differed with Lawri-
"over emphasis in the graphic department," Q Q '3
. person graphic-design operation that is run wrimore s wife, Elizabeth. e e will not have a graphic department," said "We feel we can better serse our clients by 1Q 10 {ggg
- individuals to do that work."
trimore said he will operate as the sole - - -
e g it executive until a second counselor is this summer. He said the departures arose n
11 . .
thg{
O g 5 his plans to restructure the firm using a -
. building approach." That would involve '
lors more in each others' accounts, he said. By PgR ARNES
'nore's firm had been structured as a pro -
ial practice, with counselors handling cli- RALEIGH - Carolina Power & Light Co. (CP&L) dividually. said Wednesday it likely will decide this fall the fate D of a partially built nuclear reactor that consumer t and the other departing executives will averal Lawrimore clients with them. open- advocates contend is unnecessary. p
'k e new firm with annual billings of about At the company's annual meeting, CP&L Chair- .,#.
)0, he said. man Sherwood Smith didn't indicate whether the
- 8" rimore, with a total of six employees, said utility intends to cancel the reactor, the second unit will have about 20 clients and billings of of its two-unit Harris nuc! car station near Raleigh.
360,000. But he told shareholders, "As we continue to as-sess our needs for future generations, we will evalu- * *m- *',
rimore said the loss of his management _,
the beginning step in a redirection of the ate later this year whether Harris 2 should remain on n
> wing agency he founded as a one person its presen ,,, ig changed. ,t schedule or whether plans for it should be iimore 1980" had said last year, after hiring In February, the N.C. Utility Commission's Public Staff, which represents consumer interests in utility hy om a public relations job at Springs Indus-matters, said energy conservation efforts have made e I
- . In Fort Mill, S.C., that he planned to add i to his staff every six months, the second unit unnecessary. p' I he said, he wants a smaller firm. "You . In the same report, the Public St J3 certain point of awareness and you real-similar position on Duke Power Co.,aff had taken s Cherokee unit a e are more important things in life than 1, about 10 miles east of Gaffney, S.C. Though Duke of your billings and number of employ- dispated the recommendation, at its annual share- 3 iwrimore said. " Personally, I was con- holder meeting in Charlotte last month the company ,
that I was spending 80% of my time in announced it would cancel Cherokee.
CP&L, which serves 770,000 residential and com-trative work. I c'idn't start the business to mercial customers in Piedmont and Eastern North g
ministrator of a large firm."
Carolina, already has scrubbed four unbuilt nuclear g, reactors because of slowing demand for electricity "
, p and climbing construction costs. They were two pi )
g ,,
{ g gg units of the Scuth River plant near Fayetteville, can-celed in 1978, and Harris units 3 and 4, scrapped in g;, go
-ergqs
)
late 1981. Cost of cancellation amounted to abotit lant manager in Charlotte for six yean, said $200 million.
moq qns yspecially heartened by one caller who saw The company says it has invested about $280 mil- ,um ednesday morning. lion in Harris 2, which is 4% complete, and further a aid, *! always see criticism of industry. This construction has been postponed. The first Harris hing changes my opinion.'I though that was unit is 78% complete and scheduled for operation in mos ice," Gill said. 1986. 881' S I i*
O
1983 CONSTRUCTION BLDGET EXPEtolTURES FLOW III (5000'S) l l
l l Prfor Total l To 1983 1963 1984 1965 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Pro luct Itarris tinit No. 1 Cross Hudget Est i mate 1,378,423 384,693 397,376 329,012 98,481 - - - - 2,58 7,985 Less: CWIP in t40tRB I23 42,864 29,506 47,650 52,537 9,266 - - - - 181,823 l Poww Agency's Share 222,891 62,205 64,25 6 53,201 15,924 - - - - 418,477 l Not Cost to CP&L I,112,668 292,982 285,470 223,274 73,291 - - - -
1,987,685 liar ris Uni t No. 2 l
Cross Budjot Est i mate 272,931 37,472 149,884 238,736 314 ,14 3 331,805 310,275 295,720 80,611 2,031,577 l Loss: CWIP in NWHb I2I 4,959 - - - - - - - -
4,959 Power Aguncy's Share 44,133 6,059 24 ,2 36 38,604 50,797 53,653 50,171 47,818 13,035 328,506
, Not Cost to CP&L 223,839 31,415 125,648 200,132 263,346 278,152 260,104 247,902 67,576 1,698,112 l
l Tota l Uni ts Ho,'s I & 2 Gross Dudjet Est Imate 1,651,354 422,165 547,260 567,748 412,624 331,805 310,275 295,720 80,611 4,619,562 l Less: CWIP in NOIRH I I 47,823 29,506 47,650 52,537 9,266 - - - -
186,782 Powar Agency 's Shara 267,024 68,264 88,492 91,805 66,721 53,653 50,171 47,818 13,035 746,9ts 3 Not Cost to CP&L 1,336,507 324,395 411,118 425,406 336,637 278,152 260,104 247,902 67,576 3,685,797 1
III Expun di tu ru Flow is based on 1983 Construction Buitget data.
l I M CWIP - Construction Work in Progress r oo NWRB - North Carol Ina Retal 1 Rate Base C N
! if l @
1
-m- .n a ~ - ww_ee y
SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIM 0h7 0F WILLIAM S. LEE l FOR DUKE POWER COMPAhi NCUC DOCKET NO. E-7, SUB 358 1 Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
2 A. My name is William S. Lee. My business address is 422 South 3 Church Street, Charlotte, N. C. 28242.
4 Q. ARE YOU THE SAME WILLIAM S. LEE WHOSE DIRECT TESTIM 0hi WAS PRE-5 FILED ON FEBRUARY 1, 1983, IN THIS CASE?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIM 0hT?
8 A. This testimony will discuss the cancellation of Cherokee Nuclear Station, 9 Unit 1 (Cherokee 1) which has occurred since the filing of my direct 10 testimony and the circumstances surrounding that cancellation.
11 Q. IS THE COMPAh7 ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL REVENUES OVER AND ABOVE THAT 12 ORIGINALLY REQUESTED IN THIS PROCEEDING BECAUSE OF THE CANCELLATION 13 0F CHEROKEE 1 AND THE PROPOSED RECOVERY OF THE ABANDONMENT COSTS 14 ASSOCIATED WITH THAT CANCELLATION?
15 A. No. Our total revenue request as well as our requested 15.5 return 16 on common equity are exactly the same as originally filed. As Mr.
17 Stimart will demonstrate in his supplemental testimony, we have made 18 changes in the filing to provide for the amortization of Cherokee 1 19 abandonment costs over a ten-year period on a basis that represents a 20 sharing of these costs between our stockholders and our customers.
21 Q. _WHAT WAS THE STATUS OF CHEROKEE 1 WHEN YOUR FEBRUARY 1, 1983, 22 TESTIMONY WAS FILED?
23 A. In that testimony, I indicated that the new generation capacity 24 represented by Cherokee I was needed, but we may not be able to pro-25 vide the generation necessary to meet our customers demands by the
i i
1 mid-1990s. At that time Cherokee was under limited crnstruction 2 without a completion schedule because there were uncertainties as 3 to whether the additional funds could be raised to complete con-4 struction and whether the inclusion of construction work in progress 5 (CWIP) in rate base would be assured to completion.
6 Q. WHAT ALTERNATIVES DID THE COMPANY HAVE WITH RESPECT TO COMPLETION 7 0F CHEROKEE 1?
8 A Construction of Cherokee 1 was undertaken when we all, including 9 the regulatory commissions of both states, thought it would be 10 needed to supply electricity to consumers. The load forecasts for 11 this decision were based on a dynamically growing economy and the 12 construction and operation of Cherokee 1 would have been cost effec-13 tive. Subsequent forecasts continued to support the need for Cherokee 1 14 generation through the early 1990s. Current forecasts now show that 15 with the construction of the Bad Creek Pumped Storage Project, Cherokee 1 16 will not be needed until the mid-1990s. The Company as a result of 17 these changing conditions realistically had three alternatives:
18 1) The Company could stretch out construction and bring the plant 19 on line as needed, which would have the impact of dramatically 20 increasing the total cost.
21 2) The Company could accelerate construction and complete the 22 plant by 1990 at a much lower cost /kw; however, the plant would 23 not be needed as a base load unit at time of initial operation.
24 3) The Company could cancel the construction of the plant.
25 Q. IN EXAMINING THESE ALTERNATIVES, WHAT MAJOR FACTORS DID YOU CONSIDER?
26 A. 1) The uncertainty in North and South Carolina about the treatment 27 of carrying costs for large investments in any major generating 28 project adds grave risk to a long-term undertaking. Cherokee 1 2
l
1 could not be financed without CWIP in rate base.
2 2) Uncertainties about nuclear regulation could increase 3 Cherokee Unit l's cost, but a decrease is highly unlikely.
4 3) Discussions with other electric companies in the region 5 told us that we could not expect major sharing of the costs 6 of completing Cherokee 1.
7 4) For alternative types of needed generating capacity, we 8 have about five years before we need to commit, giving us 9 time to see more of the future unfold with respect to economic 10 development, electricity usage, regulatory commission treatment, 11 and alternative choices.
12 5) Although new generating capacity represented by Cherokee 1 13 will be needed in the mid-1990s, that capacity can be more 14 inexpensively provided in that time frame by other types of 15 generation.
16 6) Because of lower than previously forecast growth in electric 17 usage, our 'round-the-clock, base-load generation from the 18 highly efficient Marshall and Belews Creek coal plants plus 19 Oconee, McGuire and Catawba nuclear stations will probably 20 cover our base-load requirements for the balance of this 21 century.
22 7) Alternative generating capacity that can meet fluctuating 23 daily and seasonal demands will cost half or less to build 24 than Cherokee Unit 1, will have hourly fuel costs much 25 higher than Cherokee, but on balance could provide the type 26 of generation needed at lower overall cost.
27 Q. WHAT ALTERNATIVE DID THE COMPANY SELECT?
3
1 1 A. At a meeting of the Executive Committee in October, 1982, we 2 reviewed our 1982 long-range peak load forecast and determined 3 that the generating capacity represented by Cherokee Unit 1 4 would not be needed until the mid-1990s time frame; and that 5 the financial strain would be severe if that unit were built 6- in that time frame.
7 It was then clear that Cherokee Units 2 and 3 would not i
8 be needed until beyond the mid-1990s and those two units were 9 cancelled by our Board of Directors at its meeting concluded on 10 November 2, 1982. In view of the postponement of need for 11 Cherokee 1 to the mid-1990s, we launched the development of up-dated 12 estimates of its cost of completion in that time frame and the cost of
( 13 alternatives. -We also undertook discussions with other utilities 14 to determine the extent of their need for capacity that might 15 be helped by Cherokee 1. We expected our complete evaluation to be 16 finished by July, 1983. However, in late April, 1983, review of 17 initial results intended as input to on-going evaluations made it 18 clear that Cherokee 1 should be cancelled. Our Board did this 19 on April 29, 1983.
20 Q. ON AN OVERALL BASIS, WHAT EFFECT WILL THE CANCELLATION OF CHEROKEE 1 21 HAVE ON RATES?
22 A. We expect rates in the long run to be lower, not higher, as a 23 result of the cancellation. This is because alternative forms l
24 of generation will have a cost advantage because of shorter 25 construction time and the fact that alternative generation construc-26 tion will not need to be commenced for several years. This' decision, 27 therefore, will benefit our customers.
4
1 Q. WHAT DOES THIS DECISION REFLECT ABOUT YOUR CONFIDENCE IN NUCLEAR 2 ENERGY?
3 A. Cancellation of Cherokee in no way diminishes our confidence 4 in the continuing outstanding contribution of nuclear energy 5 to our region for many years to come. For base-load, round-6 the-clock operation, nuclear generation is preferred and our 7 Oconee, McGuire and Catawba plants will produce electricity at 8 lower costs than any other choice. In the years ahead, with 9 higher public understanding of its importance and low risk, I 10 believe our nation can resume its essential commitment to 11 nuclear power.
12 Q. DO YOU HAVE A FIRM FIGURE FOR THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN CHEROKEE 1 13 TO DATE?
14 A. As of March 31, 1983, the North Caroina retail allocated investment, 15 net of taxes, was $199,637,000. There will be additional cancel-16 lation costs, as well as some salvage value, but neither can be 17 determined until negotiations are complete.
18 Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN FURTHER THE FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT CONTRIBUTED 19 TO THE DECISION TO CANCEL CHEROKEE 1.
20 A. Cost was the major, and decisive, consideration. For some time 21 we have been concerned about the Company's ability to attract the 22 necessary capital to complete construction of Cherokee. At the 23 root of this financial concern is the fact that for several years 24 the Company's earnings have been insufficient to support a common 25 stock price equal to its book value. This, coupled with uncertainty 26 about whether construction work in progress would be allowed in
[
27 rate base, has reduced the odds that Cherokee could have been 5
L
1 financed on reasonable terms. In short, in addition to its 2 greater cost, the financial risk of Cherokee was becoming 3 intolerable.
4 Q. WHAT HAPPENS TO THE CHEROKEE SITE AND THE PURCHASED MATERIAL?
5 A. We will conduct a study to determine the best use of the site.
6 It is still a potential generating site and we will sell all 7 salvageable material.
8 Q. ON WHAT BASIS ARE YOU SEEKING TO RECOVER YOUR INVESTMENT IN 9 CHEROKEE 1 IN THIS CASE?
10 A. When we undertook to build Cherokee, the need for that generating 11 capacity was fully documented. Initially, the Cherokee Nuclear 12 Station was part of what we called the "six-pack" -- three units I
13 of 1280 MW each at Cherokee and three identical units at the l
14 Perkins Nuclear Station in Davie County, North Carolina. The 15 Company applied to the North Carolina Utilities Commission for 16 a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for construction 17 of its Perkins Nuclear Station on July 16, 1975. Substantial 18 opposition arose and several parties intervened in this proceeding.
19 Hearings were held in October 1975, January 1976 and February 1977.
20 Based on the Commission's and Duke's analyses of the need for 21 future requirements, the Commission issued the Certificate on l 22 March 4, 1977, finding that the public convenience and necessity 23 required Duke to construct 3840 MW of additional generating capacity 24 before 1989. The intervenors appealed this decision to the courts.
25 In July 1978, three years after. making the Application, the North 26 Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission's action in i
I 6
l
1 granting this Certificate. Because of the long delay in 2 receiving regulatory authority to proceed with Perkins, we 3 elected instead to begin construction of Cherokee, which represented 4 the same generating capacity as Perkins, in July 1976. In its 5 1977, 1978 and 1979 " Analysis of Long Range Needs for Electric 6 Generating Facilities in North Carolina," adopted after hearings 7 under G.S.62-110.1, this Commission determined that Cherokee 1 8 was needed in the mid-1980s. Although the forecasted peak load 9 demand was dropping, the Commission in each of the orders resulting 10 from these hearings reaffirmed its belief that nuclear was the 11 most economical baseload generation for the future. As late as 12 April 20, 1982, in its latest analysis of the need for electric 13 generation in North Carolina, this Commission determined that 14 Cherokee 1 would be needed in the early 1990s. As I have stated, 15 our long-range peak load forecast now indicates that Cherokee 1 16 will not be needed until the mid-1990s and I have previously 17 explained our decision to cancel that unit.
18 The Company believes that the facts support that it is entitled 19 to recover its investment in Cherokee since it was a prudent decision 20 to commence planning and construction in view of the early 1970 load 21 growth forecasts of the future demands upon its generating system 22 and the need to construct generating facilities to adequately serve 23 its present and future customers. It was also reasonable to select 24 nuclear generation due to environmental advantages and lower fuel costs.
25 The Company's initial decision to stretch out its construction and its 26 ultimate decision to cancel Cherokee 1 were both reasonable and prudent 27 in view of revised load growth forecasts, the likelihood that we would 7
. .,~
1 be unable to raise the huge amounts of tequired capital at reasonable 2 costs, and the financial condition of the Company. The cost-based 3 methodology of utility ratemaking generally precludes investors in 4 regulated companies from receiving any of the benefits of improved 5 service or reduced cost. For this reason, the Company believes that 6 under cost-based methodology it is entitled to recover its costs, at 7 least to the point of not assessing the common stockholder further, 8 Q. WHAT PROCEDURE DOES THE COMPANY PROPOSE TO USE TO RECOVER ITS INVEST-9 MENT IN CHEROKEE?
10 A. The Company proposes to recover its sunk costs not including any return 11 on common equity during the period of recovery. This includes outlays 12 for the interest on its debt and dividends on the preferred stock over i
13 a ten-year period on a levelized basis net of taxes. We believe this 14 is an equitable sharing of the cost of this investment. We are not 15 seeking a return on the equity component which is in excess of 40 16 percent of the investment. Mr. Stimart will discuss this in more 17 detail in his supplemental testimony.
18 Q. HOW WAS THE CONSTRUCTION OF CHEROKEE FINANCED?
19 A. In the past this Commission has issued orders approving the sale 20 of securities the proceeds of some of which were invested in 21 Cherokee Unit 1. Investors relied on such orders and the Commission's 22 orders finding that the generating capacity represented by Cherokee 23 Unit 1 was needed to meet the demands of Duke's customers and that 24 construction should be undertaken. It would, therefore, seem equitable 25 that investors should at least be allowed to recover cash outlays for 26 preferred dividends and interest on the debt components of the cost 27 of cancelling Cherokee Unit 1.
8 l
l
1 Q. IS THE GENERATION THAT CHEROKEE WOULD HAVE PROVIDED STILL NEEDED 2 ON THE DUKE SYSTEM IN THE MID-1990s?
3 A. Our current forecasts show that the electricity that this unit 4 would have provided will still be needec in the mid-1990s. As 5 I have indicated, in that time frame Cherokee 1 is not the scost 6 economical alternative. We do not need new base load capabilities 7 for the early 1990s and under no circumstances would we build a 8 Cherokee for peaking and cycling load. Since other generation 9 requires less tire to construct, we will have the opportunity 10 to explore alternative methods of providing needed generating 11 capacity in the 1990s.
12 Q. DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY?
13 A. Yes.
4 9
r-, 4- - - , .
l Before The fib North Carolina Utilities Commission g r,. 1979 l Docket No. E-100, Sub 35 CHIEF CLERK N. C. UT!UTits COMMiss10N Testimony of --
Dr. John O. Blackburn, Professor of Economics, Duke University Dr. E. Roy Weintraub, Professor of Economics, Duke University
.)
Introduction As professional economists, we are naturally concerned with economic analyses of important public issues, For this reason we welcome the Public Staf f Report on the Analysis cdf IggyL Range Needs for Electric Generating Facilities jLrt North Carolina,1979. The research design, general methodology, l and analysis in this third annual Staff Report are commendable, especially l
in such a rapidly evolving and complex field. The North Carolina Utilities Commission is fortunate to have access to such a study. The Public Staff deserves congratulations for the trained intelligence they have brought to bear on complicated issues.
Such a comprehensive study requires many assumptions, many analytical decisions, and much careful exercise of judgment. We do not wish to take issue with all minor details of the Report. We are, however, concerned about some major issues raised by the Report, related to the role of inflation-adjusted (real) electricity prices between 1979-2000. We shall show that rising inflation-adjusted electricity prices can have powerful effects on electricity demand. We believe that rising real prices of electr.icity, not
. . . - - ~ n.
2 assumed beyond 1981 in this Report, are more likely than stable real prices.
Therefore, wjt believe that the various estimates for electricity systematically understate real price influences, and thus overstate future demand for electricity in North Carolina. As a consequence, vji believe that the Report's forecasts oj[ future generating capacity needs will, if[ implemented, produce arl inefficient outcome: too much electric generating capacity for future State needs.
We hope that the Commission will accept the proposition that there ist njl fixed lonn-run relationship between any en; all energy inputs and output of goods and services. Such ratios may be inflexible in the short run, but given time, adjustments can be made. In a market economy, these adjustments are carried out through changing relative prices.
In a later section, we shall present our findings - that future electricty outputs are overstated, and considerably so, in the Public Staff's "most
-n likely" forecast.
N It is important to note what we are not saying. We are not saying that economic growth will cease in the U.S. or in North Carolina. We are tot saying that a slower growth rate in electricity production will result in slower growth in the N.C. economy or fewer jobs. Those who assert that slower growth
! in energy production must mean deprivation and unemployment do not know their 1
economics, nor have they examined the abundant evidence to the contrary. In modern industrial economies, persistently higher relative energy prices are invariably associated with greater ef ficiency in its use.
An analogy may be helpful. There is no fixed, long-run relationship between labor inputs and outputs of goods and services. We are all used to the notion of rising labor productivity over time, stimulated by and resulting in rising real wages. We need now only think of rising energy productivity, l
a .
l 3
stimulated by rising real energy prices.
Role of Prices in Staff's Report The primary role of prices in the demand forecast results from the specification of the demand functions by class of user for each power company.
In the case of Duke Power Company, the residential demand is partitioned into baseload demand by: a) non-electric space heating customers; b) electric space heating customers; and further by use as for: 1) space heating; 2) water heating; and 3) air conditioning. The natural logarithm of real electricity price and per capita income are used in most demand equations, and thus yield estimates of price and income elasticities of damand. Real appliance prices and real electricity prices also are explanatory variables, as are real prices All of oil and gas where appropriate, or relative gas / electricity prices.
signs of the estimated price relationships are as expected. Real electricity price increases reduce demand and reductions in either electricity prices or electric appliance prices stimulate demand for electricity.
Cojoined to these price variables are other independent variables which play a role in estimating demand not only by residential users but also by commercial and industrial electricity users: per capita income, family size, employment, industrial production, textile production, and trend variables on appliance saturation.
Given the estimated demand functions, demand is then projected through the year 2000 by using various assumptions about the growth of the independent variables. For electricity prices, for instance, this means using calculated future electricity prices, and the Data Resources, Inc., consumer price index (CPI) forecast of 6.1% per annum through A.D. 2000 together with a 1980 L ,
I 4
recession forecast which generates a 1% real electricity price rise through 1981 and a 0% real electricity price rise from 1981-2000. The real price of air conditioning units is similarly forecast to fall at an annual rate of 3.1% from 1979-2000. These forecasts are assumptions, or inputs, into the demand forecast-ing model.
Part III of the Report provides a Generation Capacity Model designed to determine the (non-stochastic) least cost expansion path for electricity generating facilities which will meet the forecasted demand for both baseload and peak.
Part IV investigates, using the consultants' reports, the analytical modifications that will impinge on the demand forecasts, and thus the supply side, under scenarios involving various peak-load pricing schemes, load manage-ment, conservation programs, solar penetration, cogeneration, etc.
The important point is the critical role of the assumption about the future course of real electricity prices and the demand equation coefficients of the real price variables in the demand forecasts. If either the coefficients or the price assumptions are in serious error, the dema,nd forecasts are misleading, the expansion path is inefficient, and the construction schedules are uneconomic.
Moreover, the consultants' estimates of electricity conservation and displacement are considerably understated (since they, too, are dependent on electricity i prices) thus further reducing the "best estimate" demand for electricity.
In the next section we shall attempt to show how the demand forecasts l
1
! overstate the future electric power needs for North Carolina.
5 l
Critique of Public Staff's Demand Forecast The first point to consider is the manner in which price enters into the regression equations f or residential demand.
Electricity price elasticities in the residential sector are negative (as expected) and sizeable for space-heating, water heating, and air condi-tioning. While they do not appear to be large for baseload residential demand, price does enter into the space heating acceptance equation and this, as we shall see, strongly conditions the results of the staff study.
Commercial demand also has a sizeable elasticity, while indicated use elasticities, especially long-run elasticities, are substantial. The Duke and CP&L elasticities are given on pp. 45-65* and 73-88 respectively.
It should be noted that many other investigators find much higher long-run price elasticities for electricity (see Appendix I: EPRI Task Force 2, Table 6-3. Summary of Studies of Price Elasticity of Demand for Electricity.)
The forecasts of future demand growth are based on the estimated rela-tionships and forecasts of important independent variables. Table II.A.2 on page 43 is fundamental. The starred Public Staff Forecasts are of the various real prices for the models. The real price growth was estimated using the Data Resources, Inc., estimate of a 6.1% per annum CPI growth between 1980-2000 and the Public Staff's forecast of nominal electricity price growth at 6-7%.
The fundamental result which emerges is the forecasting assumption that real electricity prices will grow by 1% per annum until 1981, and 0% per annum from 1891-2000.** The sensitivity analysis of the forecast to changes in the
- Unless noted otherwise, page references are to the 1979 Public Staff Report.
- We ignore the other projected price growth rates, which, in our view, are equally misleading.
l 4
6 l
forecasted growth rates of the independent variables, performed in section i
II.A.7, p. 121 et seq., is based on allowing variables which grow (or decline) a
- more than 2% per annum to vary by + .5% per annum and those growing (or i
i declining) by less than 2% per annum to vary by + .25% per annum. The effect ej[ this methodological choice jjt tjl_ simulate the demand model with real price varying from .25% per annum tct +.25% per annum. Thisjjtjg1 unreasonably narrow range of price variability for several reasons, but of paramount im-portance is just one reason: even assuming the Public Staff's expertise in forecasting nominal electricity prices over the next two decades, small vari-j ations in the DRI forecasts of the Consumer Price Index around a 6.1% per annum growth rate will destroy the forecast methodology. What confidence should we have in the DRI forecast? Some old words are still best:
i "It would be foolish, in forming our expectations, to ,
, attach great weight to matters which are very uncertain.
It is reasonable, therefore, to be guided to a considerable 2 degree by the facts about which we feel somewhat confident, even though they may be less decisively relevant to the issue i
than other facts about which our knowlege is vague and scanty." Keynes, J.M., The General Theory oJ[ Employment, Interest, and Money, 1936, p. 198.
! So, too, with the DRI forecast. The fact that real electricity prices have been stable or falling over a long past period is no reason for them to be stable in the future, especially when that past period consists of a distant past period of declining real electricity prices and a more recent period of increasing real electricity prices. As for CPI forecasts over a twenty-year future, we are, as professional economists, simply astounded at the alacrity with which the DRI forecast has been embedded in the Public Staff's work.
Of all macroeconomic forecasts, CPI forecasts are the most notoriously unreliable, even one or two quarters ahead, let alone twenty years. Not only do we not know,
l 7
we do not as professional economists have any widely accepted theory of the inflationary process with which to judge. For this reason alone the lack of real electricity price variability in the sensitivity analysis is grossly misleading.
We think that, whatever the general inflation rate, real electricity prices are likely to rise more rapidly than was assumed in the Staff Report, as indeed they have on the average for the last eight-nine years.
New plant costs have consistently risen more rapidly than prices in general, or, for that matter, construction costs elsewhere in the economy. Fuel prices are more likely to rise in real terms than to fall, especially those of uranium. Safety and other environmental requirements will continue to add to escalation in plant costs. All of these factors have operated strongly for most of the last decade, and we see no reason to suppose that they will abate. With respect to insurance costs, it would be imprudent to base policy decisions on continuance of the Price-Anderson Act.
Other costs for nuclear operations (such as waste disposal) can be estimated but cannot be based on historical experience; there is none. They will probably turn out to be understated.
Our views are not original: An article in the Wall Street Journal (April 24, 1979, p. 1) quotes industry sources who expect nuclear electricity prices to triple in a decade - an annual rate of 11%.
We agree with the Public Staf f assumption that real natural gas prices will rise. We see no reason not to assume similar increase for real electricity prices. Some estimates of these effects, which are large, need to be done with more care and staff than is possible for us. We give one estimate later in our testimony.
s
i 8
This lacuna in the Report is highly significant. Forecasting using a zero percent per annum real electricity price growth rate drops out price effects from the econometric forecasting model. No matter what the price elasticity turns out to be, the responsiveness of the dependent variable is irrelevant if the independent variable does not change. Consequently all the demand equations turn out to be driven bjr other non-price variables which are assumed to be positively related to demand growth, and which are assumed, ajt per page 43, to be growing at non-zero rates over the next two decades.
Some examination of the estimates of future electricity demands in gigawatt hours and their components are illuminating. They show the powerful effect of the assumptions (p. 43) and the coefficients from the econometric analysis, as well as the structure of the forecasting model.
(Our detailed discussion is for the Duke Power estimates, though similar observations apply to CP&L as well.)
The " base case" forecast for Duke Power (Staff Report, p. 71) indicates a tripling in electricity sales from 1979 to 2000; from 52,307 GWH to 157,682 I
GWH. The total forecasted increase is 105,375 GWH. The largest single component is Industrial, from 20,499 GWH to 71,303 GWH, an increase of 50,804 GWH, or nearly half of the forecasted increase. Residential and Commercial uses have forecasted increases of 21,231 GWH and 20,813 GWH, respectively. (All of the figures are North Carolina and South Carolina i
combined, since we are dealing with one entity for electric generation pur-
{ poses.) Within the residential sector, the dominant component of the increase is "baseload" electricity (nearly 13,000 GWH out of the above 21,000 + GWH)
I rather than space heating, air conditioning, or water heating.
The industrial results follow directly from the assumptions of growth l
9 of independent variables (p. 43) and the estimated coefficients (pp. 63-65).
Electricity use rises (outside of textiles) more rapidly than production (long-run coefficients, p. 65), further rises both under the influence of ever-more-expensive natural gas (nearly doubling in real terms by 2000) and nct increase in the real price of electricity (except for 1% in 1979-81).
The commercial forecast follows in like manner. A rapid rise in non-industrial employment with a high coefficient on that variable and no increase in the real price of electricity, lead directly to a three-fold increase in commercial use.
These two customer groups account for two-thirds of the forecasted increase in electricity demand. Both are quite sensitive (downward) to increases in the real price of electricity, but that important variable, by assumption, has virtually n_o impact o_n n the result, in the residential sector, the largest component in the increase between 1979-2000 is in baseload electricity. This results from a substantial pene-tration of electric heat (55%), the apparent higher baseload consumption of space heating customers, and the importance of appliance prices, assumed (p. 43) to decline steadily in real terms throughout the period. Both the penetration rate of space heating and baseload use for such customers respond to price. The price assumption therefore enters twice into the most rapidly growing segment oj[ residential use, but that important variable, tgr assumption, has virtually no impact on the results.
To repeat, the narrow range (+.025 to .025) in which the price variable is permitted to move in the sensitivity analysis loses important information.
The failure to apply sensitivity analysis to the important coefficients just mentioned likewise loses important information.
10 Implications of Price Sensitivity The sensitivity analyses already carried out (pp. 121-130) show that seemingly small changes in the variables examined produce enormous results on forecasting demand. For Duke Power (p. 123) the range between high and low estimates is 72,412 GWH, or nearly half the " base-case" forecast.
t As we have seen, electricity prices are varied by 0.25 percentage points, being, in this study, the one variable which hardly changes over t ime .
Consider now an additional step. Let the real prica of electricity grow at 2.5% annually through the forecast period. This is much less than the rate assumed for natural gas (p. 43) and slightly less than the actual rate for electricity from 1970-78. Further, let long-run price elasticities of 1.0 be considered. This is larger than most elasticities found in this study, but well under the median of all estimates in other studies shown in Appendix 1. This would lower the " base case" forecast for Duke Power to about 90,000 or 100,000 GWH.
This is.a very rough calculation, and is shown only to emphasize the necessity for examining these issues before a forecast is adopted.
It is also interesting to note that the rough estimate above is much closer to the results of engineering forecasts on p. 147. Using present rates of demand in GWH, engineering forecasts done with linear and exponential trending, and averages of trends, yield growth in GWH between 1979 and 1995 for the power companies as follows (see p.147) l l
l
11 (GWH in thousands)
Duke CP&L VEPCO 1979 1995 1979 1995 1979 1995 Linear 30 50 51 78 38 60 Average 30 64 51 90 39 85 Exponential 30 78 52 101 40 104 Further, the scenarios sketched in Volume II by the consultants at RTI and ICF both use percentage reductions in demand as a result of the various conservation, retrofit, peak-load pricing, solar penetration, and cogeneration studies. Thus the effect of a lower base case forecast through real price growth results in an even lower drop in the "most likely cast" analysis of demand growth. This is probably the best example of the interrelated nature of the Public Staff's Report through the treatment of price variables. Modi-fications of the price scenario do not simply modify the basic analysis, but indeed ramify throughout the Report in a complex and interrelated fashion.
One complicated point deserves mention here. The basic uncertainty so far discussed in long-term forecasts was analyzed by a sensitivity study using variations in the projected time paths of the independent variables.
It is important to remember, however, that the parameter estimates of the demand relationships, which usually had elasticity interpretations, are indeed statistical estimates. The parameters can be thought of as most likely estimates from a probability distribution with certain characteristics.
There are thus two sources of potential forecart error: statistical error l i
l in the parameter estimates and error in the projected time paths of the l i
I l
independent variables. Only the latter has been analyzed in the Public Staff's
1 12 Report, and that inadequately. It would take a moderate amount of extra work for the Public Staff to attempt a Monte Caric study of the demand fore-cast to deal with parameter " uncertainty." Such a study would, however, lend much weight to the Staf f's conclusions if the results were very robust.
Since real electricity price variations are " washed out" of the equations, uncertainty about estimates of the responsiveness of industrial demand to indus-trial production indices, or residential demand to family size, may produce forecasts with enormously wide bands of confidence which will necessitate considerable care in presentation. Identical baseline demand forecasts, with wildly dif ferent 1% confidence intervals, are not equivalent forecasts.
l Discount Rates Only partially related to our primary concern about the report are several other issues which we would like to identify and comment upon.
We note than in the RTI study on insulation retrofit, payback periods under existing and modified rate schedules were developed using three separate real interest rates. In these studies, real interest rates of 4-6% were used.
Using the DRI anticipated CPI growth rate of 6.1%, these real rates correspond to nominal discount rates of 10% to 12%. We note however (page 189 of the Staf f Report) that some capital costs are discountea at an 8% nominal rate, or a 2% real rate. Certainly, current 10% inflation rates translate into I
l 16% nominal rates using the 6% RTI real rate. With savings accounts yielding 5-6% in nominal terms, a 16% nominal return on insulation retrofit seems to be an overly stringent yield requirement for market penetration of insulation retrofit packages. This procedure (2%-4% real rate for utility capital costs
13 in the Report and 4-6% real rate for conservation in the Appendix) is an inadmissible inconsistency. Certainly the Public Staff did not intend to set higher hurdles for conservation than for new plants! We take it to be the accidental result of two studies by two staffs, studies which are difficult to reconcile in every detail.
These penetration scenarios by RTI are further weakened by the no real electricity price rise assumption discussed earlier.
Comparison of Electricity Cost from Nuclear and Coal Plants Figures are frequently quoting assering that nuclear-generated elec-tricity is less expensive than coal-generated electricity. These hearings are no exception. With respect to plants already operating, this appears to be so, but external effects weaken this result, given the costs and risks borne by others rather than utility companies and their customers.
i The key question is: Will this still be the case for facilities now being planned to meet future demand for electricity?
The Public Staff concludes that such will be the case, though by a narrower margin than that calculated in its 1978 study (page 162).
While this is not the main concern of our testimony, we wish to point out that in at least two respects the Staff's calculations understate nuclear i
4 costs relative to coal costs (both discounted to 1978).
l With respect to capital costs (Staff Report, p.190) nuclear capital 1
1 costs are based on units already under construction or well along in licensing. Coal plant capital costs, on the other hand, are based on higher-cost possible future units, since, except for CP&L until 1985, no coal units are under construction or under serious consideration.
14 I
The utilities' nuclear decisions, then, are self-validating! Since they are building or planning mostly nuclear plants, the nearer-term (relatively I cheaper) nuclear capital costs are compared with more-in-the-future (relatively expensive) coal capital costs.
The proper comparison is, of course, between capital costs for coal and for nuclear plants that would be brought into service in the same year.
With respect to fuel costs, a 10% discount rate is applied to esticated future nuclear fuel costs (creating a relatively low present value in 1978) and estimated future coal costs are discounted back to 1978 at an 8% rate (creating a relatively high present value).
The proper procedure is to estimate future nuclear and coal costs, and then discount them both back to 1978 at the same discount rate.
We do not have either the time or access to enough data to estimate the 1 effect of these two biases, both of which operate to understate nuclear costs relative to coal. Moreover, nuclear insurance costs are understated; other costs such as waste disposal and plant decommissioning probably are also.
The relative cost advantage of nuclear power is debatable, especially for new plants. (See again the Wall Street Journal, April 24, 1979, p. 1.)
One authority, Charles Komanoff, calculates that nuclear power has njl cost advan tage.
We therefore urge the Commission to seek new estimates of future comparative costs in order to assure that the least costly mode is selected.
t i
15 Summarv
- 1. We find the Public Staf f Study to be comprehensive, soundly designed, and enormously helpful to those seeking to reach judgments about future !
electricity demand. The staff is to be complimented. Our differences, it ]
l should be noted, are generally within the structure of the study.
- 2. We note an inconsistency in the use of real discount rates for generation as opposed to conservation or displacement. Though obviously unintended, j
they have the real ef fect of understating conservation or overstating l
generation.
- 3. We note computational procedures which have the effects of overstating the cost of coal-based electricity relative to nuclear electricity, though we have not had the data nor the time to compute the size of these effects.
- 4. Our major difference lies in the treatment of the inflation-adjusted price of electricity. We urge the Public Staff to extend its sensitivity analysis by examining, say,1%, 2%, and 2.5% average annual growth rates in real electricity prices. We urge that at least one larger set of elasticities also be examined for the real price changes selected. Wjt have shown that one plausible combination of these leads to a reduction in estimated demand of_ approximately 40%.
- 5. We urge the Commission to accept no long-range forecast until it has examined the effect of rising real electricity prices on future demand.
L
---~
Apptndix I ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITIRE e cm Table 6 3 Summary of Studies of Price Elast city of Demand for Eicctric Energy
. . _ _ . . .2 1 spa Proce Elast.coty of Pr.ce lor.g Ran Anatried Othur important Varubtes na Study 1,. o of Data Ana.jst(s)* Short Ran Re . co.n:.ar
- 0 89 M Hoa.e oid.n:onc.q..p.co .i;.;.wves C .*v Houir a 6er NE
- 0 15 00 A Incunw gas Pse. tos.: ut at p ences St..tes
- r. .r ce and Massen A+;'c.;2te U S Huutna.aer and Taylor - 0 13 - t 89 A rest us..! uar .wt t. n ser c..;s.ta G.is pr.sa f..m.iy m ume. degico da vs. 1At.,A WJ,on NE - 2 00 A number of room, per hou .e
- 1 20 A Pnpa'at.on. incomo, gas p..co. i.,niperature St.ites Mount. Cnapman, t.no Tyrres - 0 14 NE -1.12 A C.n c.t. ar.c co.. pr.te incomo asee.sgo St it.'s Anelorson tam y see. te i.;. .itare L ,rr an A Ca', (d<e. pr< e aiden elk omo. tenterature Lt tg %:rvice territory
(- 0 90)*
- Houtr.aoer, ver'eger, and Snoenari - 0 90 - 1 02 M h 'wnas consump ion por capita St...es Ha'.or son NE - 1 33 A NA NA NA NA Ge.rt.n - 0 06 - 0 52 M T rre'. *d Cr'orn P.E - 0 99 A incorr.c. popstat on. gps p*.co States i
f.e' .on tsE -I6 A Cas ps.ce. ancortio C.t.cs Derman ar.d Graucand 00 -10 A Incot:.e .sp*;.ane. gas pace. teniperat se C.. torror V/coas NE -15 A Inccene .g.p.ance satusat.on o.l ai 1 gas price. Cour.ty pr ce ir.de.
FEA NE - 0 77 A Gas ano o.i prico, incom. . pops.t.ni.on Cee.ws ecg.on Commerc.ar Mour 1. Cr.apman, and Tyrres - 0.17 - 1 36 A Popuiat.on. ir. con e. gas pr.co. tumr>ce.stur e St ites t tmien (2.10) A G.as pr.co. Doco d. den. .ncomo. tems.i satu re Ut 'y sorwce territory P.E - 0 944 A NA NA H 2.. :r se n Gr.n.n - 0 04 -051 M NA t.A t,maaw Cncrn tsE - 1 23 A locuene pc :.o at. >n o.l. co.it. '..nn gas price ?.t..tes V.oods NE -1O A Commerc.at or-paymcat q: s price C e.. .!s iFA NE -O aT G.n and 01 price encome. popu.at.on Ce aws Reg.On Ini! . .tr .:
t4E - 1 25 A NA f t .' >
6 . r er an o Kagen tal - 1 50 A Capitai s..s ur .no .t ; b, .rgustr y ($sC)
U .. tee and Rees NE - 1 54 A Coas cone ar.d o.1 pf.cc. n.anufactur.ng States Anssee son
- JQu f.ste
- 0 22 - 1 82 A Pc pulat on .ncut.e. g.es pr co terr.; r tu er e St..*cs M >ur t. Cnapman. aru Tyrren A G..s pr.ce pr.cu . noes income. temperature L'.iy serv <o territory t pen.an (-140) NA H..:.cs sen NE -231 A F4A ,
- 0 04 -051 M NA NA Gritui Tyreon and Cnsen NE - 1 28 A Gas pr<e. .noast..at output Staes V. mus -03 -37 A Inos,tri i cut,,ut coat o.l. .ind gu pr.co 1 C c0ants iLA NE - 0 33 A Gos. res cent.a: od ar.J coas pr.co. Cers.>re3cns econom.c war.ac.os hs,;a Ta.h r.ne 2 f.s e c.ty s,r terr. no fot.c 7 J n .,y 31.197 7 p t ?.e ret te P.E - rios est-yed pea i not 4 4. L.v. A . a.e;#a ,e ;.r a,. M a fr.arg nisi pace, $At*JA a 6*anGard fretropus vi sta:est.cgi are,a .no L.C = star.a d ir.o sie... c :.s.t.c. ion Groupeo c y custvr.r ciass "vanuse a gweruneses are est.in.tes of cornoined short-fu and r lor.g. sun price en ast.c.iy
~
/- j BUFORE THE K071TH CAROLI?3 UTILITIES CC7ISSION Docket No. E-10Dsub 46 Direct Testimony of Wells Eddicnan for Interveno- Kudzu Alliance 1 My name is Wells Eddleman. I an an indenendent ene*gy nnd 2 pollution control consultant residinF at 718-A Iredell e t . ,
3 Durhan, NC. My, business address is Pt. 1 Box 183, Durhan NC 27705.
4 I have testified as an exnert in energy systens, enevgy 5 conservation, or both, in nunerous NCUC dockets including the 6 1980-81 load forecast, general rate cases, fuel rate cases, and 7 "used nuke" powerplant sale esses. A cony of ny cualificat? ors 8 is attached as Eddlenan Exhibit Q.
9 I continue to provide consulting sarvices and reno *ts to 10 Fnergy Research Foundation, Columbia SC concerring costs, en-11 vironmental and other effects, e n d availe bility/innlanenta tion 12 of varicus forms of energy for useful work (end-use), with a 13 nurticular ennhasis on efficiency /conservat'on/renewcble energies lh and their cost-effectiveness via-a-vis exoansion of, o= cont'nued 15 high use of, elect *1 cal energy. I have and contfnue to neke load 16 forecasts, critioues of utility load forecasts (e.g. Duke Vowar, 17 CP&L), and connuter nrograms and ' services for load forectsting, l
18 for the Foundation.
19 Palnetto Alliance Inc. has used my services as a consultinr 20 energy systens exnert for some years now. I cu rently am nrov!d'ng l 21 then with analysis of nower plant sales, costs / availability and P2 planning for energy alternatives, conservati on and load managenent, 23 and other information. Jesse Riley and I like to joke about hew 2I4 the NC Utilities Connission has never recognized cnyone as en expert 25 forecaster whose forecast has been nuch, if any, good. In ny 1983 P6 Exhibit IONCOE-1, you'll see Jease's 1973 end l o7A rrne cm. m ,,, nr
f KUDZU 1 If Duke Power and CP&L can indeed achieve the addit.".cnel 2 conservation they and the Public Staff estinate, the facing page 4
3 shows the pos sible levels of neek loads and sales through the k 1990s that would result asse.ing the Eudzu '83 fonecast is ec- ec'.
5 The results are confirnation that new rowerrlant ccnstruct'on een 6 de delayed indefinitely if censervatich, cfficiener and load -arage-7 ment are really nut to work. (When new generato*s are needed, ths-8 should be smaller units, which are more "eliable for tr e electric 9 syste- and more suited to use of waste hest by industrici en d 10 connercial --e.g. shonping nall -- cogeneration, district het*t tr/
11 cooling, and the like. Such units could be fluidice d bed con 1 'i-ed 12 olants, or burn was'e wood or municipel wastes as well er othr- "e-13 newable resources. There is plerty of time to clan fc such a set 14 of new power resources before the 196F gene-ation of nowen nlante 15 wears out around the year 2000 - 2010, if the Connission and co- Enies 16 will provide some lea dershin ir the nistning. )
17 Tha facing table shows CP&L neah could be held to abcut 7300 "Y 18 in the year 2000. Including 20% ese ver , 5760 ET of CP&L esnuaces 19 would then be recuired for all t'nes fron now unt*1 the yeer 20C0 20 Thet is less than CF&L's sur. mar canability includirg Mayo 1 (88COMY).
21 I conclude that all furthe- c?&L nowerplant constructicn can be 22 canc411ed. Mayo 2, not yet built, night be kent on hold as a con-l 23 tingency reserve, since it ucn't cost custcners anything much in CWI?
i l 2h if it is delayed. darris 1 and 2 should be scranted as sonn s s nessible 25sothatyhe tax loss on them can be sold, tc the benefit of customers 26 and stockholders.
27 The si'tuation for Duke Power is siniinr, e7 cent that it would be
?8 cheaper to deconnission McGuire 1 now, while it's not too -adioactivelv 29 nessy, since it won't be needed for neak (nurchases Ok thwu 19P4 o_r so) 30 and new GWh outuut won't really be needed until the mid-late 90s.
31 Cnerokee and Catawba are clearly avoidable, as McGui e 2. Sell tax losses.
l Table 1 EXChSS COSTS OF 91C'APON HA97I", DL/sNT 03E"ATION
'all figures in n111 ton 3 (4) (10)
YESR (1) (2) (3) (14 ) (5) (6) (7) (8) CPeL NET LOSS MR9IS 1 h.1 FIE.D H. P Harris P li 1 & P NU4E ADDL TOTAL CLAIMED TO DEPRECIATION C.lA 90ES DEP9. FIXFD ChGS. TAXFS ITilmANCE O&M CliA RGPSI SAVINGS 9ATEDavERS 1r ' '- 96.24 h81.2 -- -- 11 6 23 617 100 517 1987 96.24 46P -- --
12.5 6.5 25 602 125 h77 1988 96.24 44P.7 -- --
1P.5 7 P7.5 586 185 401 1989 96.24 423.5 *
- 12.5* 7.5* 30* 570 30h* P66*
1990 96.24 414.2 81.1 405.4 P0.0 13 67 1097 311 786 1991 96.24 395.0 81.1 389.P 21 3 1h 73 1070 488 582 1992 96.24 37<.7 81.1 373 Pl.3 15 80 10h 2 509 533 1993 96.Ph 356.4 81.1 356.8 Pl.3 16 88 1016 504 512 1994 96.24 337.2 81.1 340.6 Pl.3 17 97 990 $21 h69 1995 96.24 318 01.1 3Ph.h Pl.3 18 107 966 h85 481
'TnTAL Loss : A5.0Ph billion Tais table almost entirely based on CP&L-supplied data constant '863 @l0%: 3368 million Footnote 1: Conservative for reasons below and becoise nuclear venair costs omi ted
- CP&L claimed savings assumes Harris aoneration in 1969. I have included its ref1 '*'89 s9 vings n"k C6h Column 1: ear depreciation times 2.h06~ billion CP&L 2-83 estinute of Hnvris 1 costs Column 2: Ig',/y/
20; year fixed charge rate on undeprecisted part or Harris 1 cost , each year O Column 3: h% year depreciation times 2.0P7 billion cP&L P-83 estinate or Hnnvis P ccats
@ Column h: PO / year fixed charge ra te on undeprecinted nant of Harris ') cost, each year x Column 5: Taxes from CP&L Harris Environmental Fenort, pnge 8.1.1-P Column 6: Nuclear liability from CP&L Environmental Report, Section 8; Huclenn nrope rty jgg insurance at NEIL rates of about $$ million/ unit per your, escalation (500000/ye Column 7: Nuclear O&M set at 5 mills /kwh above coal, escalation 108/ycar. CP&L's 6-30 82
$ FE9C Order 48 filing uith NCUC, 290.302(b)(1-Ph) rives (iten 15) a difference g of 2.8 mills /KWh for hurris nuclear above Mavo coal in varinble nonfue3 O&M, and (Item 10) a difference of fixed O&M (nuclear above co.23 ) of over *17/Ky-yeac
, which, using Iten 22 thereof for hours / vent oneration (9000+ f
~, adds another 3 5 mills. I believe CP&L escalates OEM about year. 9%o/r both lvres)
Column 8: Sum of first seven columns. Column 9: CP&L Harris Enviro, Renort paFe 8.1.1-3
% (December 1982); Column (10) is difference between columns 8 and 9. _
? ?
.l . .
KUD3U EXCESS COSTS OF SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 1
The Public Staff has analyzed the cost of coal and nuclear 2
plants in this proceeding, fo= total cost of nower nroduced. Their 3 estimates of coal plant costs are consistent with Warren Owen's r-100 h sub h0 testimony for Duke Power (4550/kW without additional nellut'on 5 controls, 19818, nininun) and the cost of electrostatic nrecinitete s 6 and with the historical lh5 cer year inflation -ate of occi plant 7 carital costs shown in the Staff's King (CP&L) cross-exanination 8
Exhibits in Docket No. E-100 sub L1 in December 198P.
9 But the Staff's nuclear capital costs are low. Consider Estris 10 unit #1, which was 82000/kW at 12.31.79, 4222P/kW at 1P.31. O, erd 11 82673/kW at 12 31.82. This unit's total cost is inflatinc sbout 10d 12 cer year connounded, below the historical 20-P5% uer year rate for 13 nucienr plants.
Yet the lower'nF na" he e"ror in C?EL's ccst ert* stes 14 just ouoted above. At any rate, the Har-is plad;'s cost in 1983 15 dellers if and when it night finally cone on line, should be no le ss 16 than $2700/kW. This is double the Staff's estinate for e nucles" 17 plant.
18 Harris Unit 2 is infleting even faster, and has gone fron 41h00/kW 19 at the tine of the 1-st load forecast, to $2252/kV at 12.11.8P. I thi nk 20 a reasonable cost estinate for a nuclear unit in 1990 or inter 5s now l
2; about $h000/kW in nominel dollars (as connleted) and nay ec h! rte .
22 Deflating that back to 1983 gives $181h/kW, still well above the Staff
- estimate. (That uses 12% discount " ate, which is too high tn use.)
23 My conclusion is that CP&L's nuclear units unde" construct *on will be 24 unecononical.
25 This conclusien is also based on the ?chle 1 fac'ng this para, 8 26 which shows (using CP&L assunctions) that operation of Harris 1 and 2 27 would increase net costs to CP&L custoners by over 83 3 billion 5n 1983 28 dollars by the year 1995. That's $5 billion in current dollars.
/ ]
s 4 ~Cemments on Indoor Air Pollution Commentary Henry Hurwitz, Jr.
Anthony V. Nero, Jr.
Jan Beyea Indoor air pollution Allegations that there has been decep-tion in the discussion of the risks of nuclear power seem to me to carry a deception of their own.' Casualty projections from uncontained nuclear meltdowns, management of nuclear w'astes, and mining of uranium are based primarily on the assumption that exposure to ionizing radiation is dangerous at any level. But when it develops that the seemingly benign program of encouraging people to save energy by sealing up their homes could cause even greater incremental public exposure to ionizing radiation, the nuclear power critics are incon-sistently silent.
The home radiological problem arises because radioactive radon gas, which is prevalent in the natural emironment, can enter buildings from the underlying soil, the water supply, and building materials. The decay products of radon are also radio-active and, being chemically active, can adhere to sensitive lung tissues.
Epidemiological studies of uranium miners who worked in poorly venti-lated mines have indicated that radon decay products play at least a con-tributory role in the incidence of lung cancer. The concentration of radon and its decay products in buildings is increased by reductions in ventila-tion so that, if effective mitigative measures are not deployed, energy conservation by reduced ventilation can significantly increase public ed posure to this form of ionizing radia-tion.
Scientists in governmental labora-tories and agencies such as the U.S.
+
Environmental Protection Agency have been candid in reporting their estimates of the potentially large impact of energy conservation on lung cancer rates in the United States.'
These estimates, based on precisely February 1981 The Bulictin of the Atomic Scientists 6f u
4 priate. The action lesel will probably be es-the same methodologies that have ventilation with minimum expenditure tabbshed in the radon decay product concen-c ,,,1,on range of 0.0: wt. This would impt>
been used to estimate the hazard of energy. But, as of now, the pubh.
of nuclear energy, have received com- has not been systematically apprised acceptance risk hmit to ;ncrementallifetime of a of prudently i percent. estimated upper paratively little publicity, presumably of the desirability of such mitiga. '
tNied byYn'-
door afo proble mig de because of the mind-set that associates tive measures.
Perhaps as a result of efforts of the creasing radiologicat exposure resels to the increased radiological exposure with nuclear energy, but not with other sarious research groups and 'h com. general public by "a substantial factor.
human activities. EPA risk estimates mittees studying the indoor g air pollu-nuni ao p,[n$"d R5 A alzh published in the Federal Register in- tion problem,' more energetic1980). mitiga- rem single Thi$ corresponds organ esposure to approximatei> 5 hmit (Bullenn dicate that even a modest reduction in tive actions will be taken.' Meanwhile, picocuries per 1:ter radon concentration which ventilation in some fairly typical U.S. the contrast between the relatively low has been found to be exceeded in some energy ef.
homes could cause an added lifetime key approach to the indoor radio- ficient homes.
risk of death by radiologica!!y induced logical problem and the frenetic con- , ,
lung cancer of order one in a thou- cern over low level radiation from sand.* (In some energy efficient homes the nuclear industry is giving the The risk estimate that Henry Hur-the theoretical risk could be still public an entirely incorrect perspec- witz attributes to modest decreases tive of relative hazards from energy in ventilation rates in U.S. homes is greater.) c. ibstantially correct. As he notes, It was on the basis of this same conservation and energy generation.'
HENRY HURWITZ, J R. there are considerable uncertainties magnitude of theoretical risk from Schenectady, N.Y.12309 about it, as there are about the ef-low-level radiation that the American fects of doses that would be as-Physical Society Light Water Reactor
- 1. Bruce L. Welch, " Deception in Nuclear sociated with nuclear reactor acci-Safety Study increased the draft Power Risks: A Call to Action," Bullerm' WASH-1400 casualty estimate for a dents.
se
In', l' Warning: Home Energy What Hurwitz does not point out severe uncontained nuclear reactor 2 1isa 5 meltdown from zero to a few hundred Conservation May Be Dangerous to Your is that ahhough the health effects at-Health," Nanonal Journal (Aug. 2,1980), tributed to alpha doses may have a to over 10,000, thereby helping to congeal public perception of such an Pj,2 ederal . Rcrater, 45 (April 22,1980),
firmer foundation than those as-accident as an unprecedented di- Tabie l( A). p. 27371. The EPA uses the working soCiatCd with penetrating radiation.
level twt) unit to rneasure concentranon of the actual dose and dose distribution saster.' '$ " h' basis of l associated with esposures to radon The validity of the methods used to '[d",dl,j'do g, , t6 I c ir , , u le a . e, theoretically quantify the hazards of for residence in a home with an 0.01 wt radon daughters is highly uncertain. Henc decay product concentration is quoted as t it is possible-because of the size low level radiation has not been ver.
ified by direct observation. Therefore, [,',",';;n ';*n'",d n l*dq " dln'*i,Y P' ,d",d 0$ distribution of particles to which radon daughters are attached, be-the resulting estimates should be view ed wtso that a further 25 percent increase due to reduced sentitation could occasion an added I cause of possible synergisms with as being prudent upper limits to the * ' 5 **Y actual hazard. On the other hand, the '", 3,n ' *[,d ,('ify n ,j,,77 ,,, smoking. and so on-that the actual doses from radon daughters. and recently issued report of the Com- nitude, simitar ot targer factors or consenansm mittee on the Biological Effects of probably esist**in estimates of the risks from hence the estimated health effects,
" ' "8 are substantially different from rpA lonizing Radiation (the BEIR Ill re-estimates (and those of Hurwitz).
port) suggests that although standard (su me[19h5) T b e.a$,' xuItslos'"P' Hence, even presuming that the dose methodologies probably overestimate ,, p response model for alpha irradiation the hazard of some types of radia- tions of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing is correct, the actual doses and Radiation." (Washington, D.C.: Committee tion, the estimates are more likely to on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radianon, health effects could be considerably be correct (or possibly even under- National Academy of Sciences. July 1980), p. 4. lower As it turns out. however, they erimate) for the case of the alpha 6. The rederal Radiation Policy Council has esiabi shed a task force to consider problems can't he considerably higher, be-radiation emitted by radon and its ^$5cci*t'd *ith '""t'on of naturally occurring cause the observed long cancer rate decay products.' '" '8 " "" ' '
among those who don't smoke is so Proponents of energy conservation ',*d[3 5 believe that the home rad;ological 7. One possibihty is to require that govern. low.
ment subsides or tan ircentives for home energy g urthermore Hurwitz neglects to problem can be solved with air to air conservation be contingent on actual measure. point out that even modest attention heat exchangers that make i.t pos- ments of indoor radioionical tevels, and the sible in principle to maintain good adoption of remedial actions where appro- to present indoor radon levels (for 1
62
a
- 3. - -
Commentary example, a screening element as- ficult to decrease ventilation rates in about older housing, I am worried sociated with programs t ) save en- existing U.S. buildings even ifone tries about the tighter construction tech-crgy) could identify areas in which very hard to do so. l say this based on niques that are being used in the levels significantly higher than 0.01 several years' experience in the energy- frames of ne w houses. Here, I believe, working level, which llurwitz suggests conservation in housing program at we will see a significant lowering of as an " action level," occur with some Princeton University. natural ventilation rates as a result of frequency. The result would be that energy conservation efforts. Perhaps, energy conservation programs, by di- In the past, most U.S. houses have to avoid increased risk from indoor air recting remedial action to those who been built with so many openings in pollutants, it will be necessary to re-need it, could actually lower indoor the frame that, unless special equip- quire forced ventilation or to advise ment is available, it is virtually im- residents of new housing to keep exposures to radon daughters. This constitutes a notable difference from possible for the ordinary contractor some windows open slightly-even in nuclear power, wherein fact most of doing business today or the ordinary winter.
homeowner to locate enough of the However, concern about indoor air the concern is over potentially large exposures that are much more signifi. openings to decrease the ventilation pollution need not compromise U.S.
cant than those that occur in homes- Thus rate by more than about 10 percent. energy conservation efforts. In the current retrofit efforts by m- first place, the amount of energy need-energy-conserving or not. ,
sulation contractors and homeowners ed to condition incoming air is gener-Nevertheless, hurwitz is certainly correct in suggesting that the public are not likely to cause a serious in- ally less than the conduction losses crease in the radon problem. Any through the frame and windows, so is much more ready to believe risks attributed to nuclear power than slight potential merease m ,nsk cor- that maintaining average ventilation resp n g to a slight decrease in rates at historiclevels will stillleave an those risks attributed to other ,
technologies, including energy con- "'.erage ventilation rates can be enormous potential for energy sav-el.minated by telling people to keep a ; g servation. A consistent treatment of few extra wmdows open m, those ;
these risks requires that, within each seas ns when the heating and cooling ventilation air can be recovered and technology, the social costs and be- transferred to incoming air by using systems are turned off. the air-to-air heat exchangers men-nefits be properly treated, after I" ** future, experienced ,, house which the various technologies may tioned by Hurwitz.
doctors,,, using special equipment, g ; g; ;,
be compared. Although Hurwitz may not realize it, that is what hap- may well be abletio" to prescribe house- lation in new housing, we can insist ec c co $" *
(through regulation) that tight con-pened for nuclear power and what is $0 p 5 ,
now happen,mg for energy conserva- struction practices in basements be
, "" decreases in ventilaion. Howevm we ,
used at the same time that tight con-can insist-as Anthony Nero and ANTHONY V. NERO, JR. g struction practices are used above Berkeley, Calif. ?4705 house doctors be equipped with radon ground. Such regulations would reduce the radon source strength and,
. . . detectors to identify those houses with therefore, the net risk in those (many) large concentrations of radon and to To avo.d i confus. ion about the health prescribe remedial measures when nec- parts of the country where radon risks from energy conservation, it essary. scepage from soilis a much larger con-l shou'd be noted that only those energy tributor to the total concentration siving measures which actually reduce Typical rzdon concentrations in than the contribution from building ventilation rates in buildings increase U.S. houses are only about five times materials and other sources.
! exposure to radon and other indoor the average outdoor radon concentra- It should be clear from the discus-pollutants. Some conservation tion,' but some houses register sion that there are a number of measures (such as the addition of readings 30 times the median value.8 remedial measures which can be taken we:ther stripping) are aimed at reduc- Reduction of the radon source to eliminate the unwanted side effects ing ventilation rates while others (such strength by the use of scalants or use of from energy conservation efforts in as the addition of insulation to hollow forced ventilation techniques in high- housing. However, if the knowledge walls) may do so in some houses as a risk houses would cause a net reduc. that such techniques exist serves only by-product of reducing conduction tion in the total number of delayed to relax policy-makers and environ-losses. health effects attributable to radon. mentalists rather than to guide them to In any case, it turns out to be dif. Although lam not overly concerned action, Hurwitz will be correct in his February 1981 The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 63 L
i
.d, d
J l
t accusations that the approach to the radon problem has been " low key."
J AN BEYEA National Audubon Society New York, N.Y.10022
- 1. A. C. George. A. J. Breslin, "The Distribution of Ambient Radon and Radon Daughters in Residential Buildings in the New Jersey-New York Area," paper presented at DOE /UT Symposium on the Natural Radiation Environment 111. Houston, Texas, April 23-28,
, 1978.
- 2. J. Rundo, F. Markun, and N. J. Plondke.
"Some Determinations at Argonne National Laboratory of Radon in Houses." Radon m Bwidmas. National Bureau of Standards, Special Publication $81 (Washington, D.C.
20402:cro,1980).
i s 4 l
^-
i
)
6 J AN BiiLA and FRANA SON HIPPLl Containment of a reactor meltdown Any good scientist or engineer be- reactor failing, the fuel melting and (NRc). its successor in the area of lieses implicitly in Murphy's law: "If the volatile radioactive isotopes in the nuclear safety regulation since 1975, something can go wrong, sooner or fuel being released to the atmosphere. required so many redundant safety later it will go wrong." The U.S. The answer which came back from systems on nuclear power plants that Atomic Energy Commission, which major studies in 1957 [1],1965 [2] and both nuclear regulators and the until 1975 had the responsibility for 1975 [3] was always that the conse- nuclear industry became consinced ensuring the safety of U.S. civilian quences could be very serious indeed. that the likelihood of a reactor power reactors, had many good scien- This finding underlined the impor- meltdown accident had been reduce tists and engineers invohed in its tance of preventing nuclear reactor to a negligible lesel.
The massise failure of safety sys-work. And during its history it re- meltdown accidents. As a result, the peatedly considered the consequences Atomic Energy Commission and the tems and the associated confusion of all the safety systems in a nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission which has occurred repeatedly at nu.
Figure 1 Figure 2 LARGE VOLUME PRESSURIZED WATER CONTAINMENT SM ALL VOLUME BOILING WATER CONTAINMENT
.t .c.c% :,y
.. o.t,,. n # 4 % g1.
y.
a w com cwm s., , ,
v5 p cs. ws s,
"% =.
cw ww ~
"3:)h ,x 6%"H. /\ i. RO1." ,
.h $g 4
.' O ,; l 7 ~ Cya wt e a.a k ,.
c1 V. & M*f n'sG #s ,g ;;.,- % ..
- em y-r 3 %sm .. c.,
?,. a .
yass
, ngg .. -
3 3g e, 4 ..
3
.< sm y <
S. : ,.
.-w w a, ' y .. a. ,ts
- n. -_ sm-q a n j p f .
V G"'M if 3; N -
QV f5 a (1 ,
%;l;,' o g#.
1-y
?
I y( Y vm ex w
- e. .
au +
.: .f . , , ,
- , u y 8;., k, E acuv
? s cm.e , r , i . 3,3
..~.
m"" te-
.. .... .,:\
z w- 1 M .
4 g+ .:
.. .. n.a .
.=.c 7Q s M.N5.'-M 8 ' 484.Q ...
h*/T/s u i .? ..,
8 .
j . .. . _ _.j g
t
,,eacr:a.
ts w crsq c m as'
' _ . *_ a * .w'
.'d suratsse p#I a .' -.-
$A.[Tv A[ct@
DiaW995 s The combined solume of the dry well and the connected free space Because of its large solume (about 60.000 cubic meters). this con-oser the pressure supprenion poolis only one eigth that of the con-tainment can hold all of the steam released in the first minutes of a loss of coolant accident. Subsequent!) steam pressore should be reduc- tainment shown in Figure 1. Steam from the dr> well bubbles throug't the w ater in the pr euure suppression chamber and is condensed. T his ed by the containment water sprays.
could present oserpressurization by steam but not by other non-condensable gases such as hydrogen at :! carbon dioside.
Source: T.J. Thompson and J.G. Beckert). The Technology of Auc/ car Reactor Safery, sof.2. chap. 21 (Cambridge. Ntass.: NilT Press,1973).
52 l -
4 So many tens of billions of dollars had been invested in plants which were already. operating or in an advanced stage of construction that nuclear safety authorities were unwilling to question the basic safety design features of nuclear power plants, clear power plants since 1975-with ter a reactor shutdown, the radioac- ciated with the burning of this much serious damage resulting at Brown's tive fission products in a reactor core hydrogen-esen given an initiall> low Ferry in 1975 [4] and Three Stile Is- generate heat at a rate great enough to pressure.
land in 1979 15]- have, how es er, turn hundreds of metric tons of water in small boiling water reactor con-thrown this confidence into question. into steam per day (Figure 3). It would tainments the probability of a hydro-Our purpose here, therefore, is to take only about 300 metric tons of gen fire is eliminated by "inerting" the draw wider attention to the possi- steam to increase the pressure inside containment with an atmosphere of bilities for increased public protection esen a large (60,000 cubic meter sol- pure nitrogen. This is not done, bow-offered by the last barrier between the ume) Three Stile Island type of con- ever, in ice condenser containment, radioactivity released from a molten tainment building by about ten atmo- which are designed to withstand much core and the outside world: the reac- spheres. It is apparent, therefore, that lower internal pressures than most for containment building. unless the containment cooling system other containments. On September 8, operates reliably and effectisely to 1980, during a final resiew of the The containment. Reactor contain- keep this steam pressure from build- design of Sequoyah Nuclear Power ment buildings are both massise and ing up, the containment will quickly Plants, Units 1 and 2 (which are well-equipped (Figures I and 2). Stost be overpressured by steam alone [6]. equipped with ice condenser con-are designed to withstand internal Hydrogen is another potential con- tainments) the NRc's watchdog, the pressures of three to four atmospheres tributor to the pressurization of the Adsisory Committee on Reactor Safe-and may maintain their integrity at containment. It is produced when guards, pointed out in a letter to the more than six atmospheres internal water or steam comes into conto Commission that: "For esents invoh-pressure. They also has e w ater sprays, w th a metal whict, binds oxygen su ing more than 30 percent oxidation of water pools or compartments full of strongly that the metal can take oxy- che zirconium, hydrogen control ice-whose purpose is to reduce pres- gen away from water molecules. Be- .rieasures may be necessary to avoid sures by removmg steam from the cause it absorbs relatisely few neu- containment failure."
contamment atmosphere. trons, one such metal, zirconium, is The remaining threat to contain-Reactor containment buildings to. the structural material of choice used ment integrity from oserpressuriza-day are not designed to contain a reac- n the cores of water cooled reactort. tion during a core meltdown accident tor core meltdow n accident, how es er. Zirconium starts reacting rapidly with would arise from the carbon dioxide Their " design basis accident"is a loss- steam at temperatures abose 1,1000C. and carbon monoxide liberated as the of-coolant accident m which large About one half the circonium in the molten core melted its wrx down amounts of volatile radioisotopes are core of Three N1ile Island Unit No. I through the concrete basemat of the released from a temporarily over- was oxidized during the accident there reactor building 18; 9].
heated core, but in which the uncon- 17]. This listing is sufficient to suggest trolled release of energy from the core For a small volume (boiline water why one of today's small solume reac-into the containment atmosphere is reactor type) containment, th'e mere tor containment buildings would terminated by a flood of emergency pressure deseloped by the amount of probably rupture during a core melt-core cooling water before an actual hydrogen generated at Three N1ile down accident and why there is a sig-meltdown occurs. This is essentially Island would have been enough to nificant, although less certain, prob-what happened during the accident at raise the containment pressure by one ability of failure for a large volume Three N1ile Island although, due t pressurized water reactor type con-to three atmospheres.
various errors, the core remained only For a large volume containment, Wnment M partially cooled for a period of hours.
the pr,mcipal
, hazard associated with The regulatory response. The si t-The threat of overpressuri:ation. If the hydrogen would be fire or explo- uation w e have just described was first for any reason the emergency core sion, and in fact the hydrogen did explored by an Atcmic Energy Com-cooling system were not effective and burn at Three N1ile Island. Fortunate- mission advisory committee in 1966 a core meltdown occurred, the build- ly, however, the initial pressure in the when the AEC was just beginning to up of internal pressure in a sealed re- containment building was such that license the construction of today's actor containment building could rup- the containment was able to withstand large commercial power reactors. The ture it within a matter of hours. The the resulting pressure increase of advisory committee recommended in threat would come from steam, hy- about two atmospheres. Some exist- its report, however, that the Com-drogen and other gases. ing reactor containments would not mission should undertake only "a For an .'xtended period of time af- have withstood the pressure rise asso- small. scale, tempered effort on [the]
August / September 1982 The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 53 h
L
r
.o P
Frank van Hippel, a physicist, is in the Program on Nuclear Policy Alternatives of the Center for Environmental Studies at Princeton Unisersity, Princeton, New Jersey 08544.
problems . . associated with systems ment concepts. As the Commission 25, 1972 by Joseph Hendrie, then whose objective is to cope with the certified time after time that exist- Deputy Director for Technical Resiew consequences of core meltdown. ." ing containment designs were ade- of the Atomic Energy Commission.
The committee did not recommend a quately safe, however, this research Hendrie was responding to the sugges-l crash program on the deselopment of was phased out. tien by a senior member of the
! better containments because it felt Periodically, the issue of improsed Commission staff, Stesen Hanauer, that "to produce effective designs, if containment designs was brought up that because of the safety disadsan-indeed feasible, might require both by outsiders. For example,in 1975 the tages of small solume containment considerable fundamental research American Physical Society Study buildings such as the General Electric and practical engineering appli- Group on Light Water Reactor Safety boiling water reactor pressure sup-cation." Instead, the committee ad- recommended that "more emphasis pression containment show n in Figure vised the Commissior that "for the should be placed on seeking improse- 2 and the ice condensor pressure sup-time being, assurance can be placed ment in containment methods and pression containment design being on existing types of reactoi safe- technology" [11]. By that time, proposed at the time by Westmg-guards, principally emergency core- howeser, so many tens of billiom of house, "I ecommend that the Atc cooling" [10]. dollars had been insested in nuclear [ Atomic Energy Commission] adopt a The Commission accepted this ad- power plants which were already policy of discouraging further use of vice and w ent ahead with the licensing operating or in an adsanced stage of pressure suppression containments."
of containment buildings whose in- construction, that the nuclear safety Hendrie's response is reproduced in tegrity depended upon the successful authorities were unwilling to question full below :
functioning of emergency core cool- the basic safety design features of ing systems. A small amount of nuclear power plants. "With regard to the attached Stese's research w as conducted for a time into This attitude was expressed in a idea to ban pressure suppression the possibility of improsed contain- memorandom written on September containment schemes is an attractise one in some ways. Dry containments F.gure 3 hase the notable adsantage of brute simplicity in dealing with a primary POTENTIAL STEA'J PRODUCTION BY RADIOACTIVE AFTER-HE AT blowdown, and are thereby free of (1000 MEGAWATT REACTOR) the perils of bypass leakage.
3000 ' ' ' ' '
Howeser, the acceptance of pres-H sure suppression containment con-cepts by all elements of the nuclear g field, including Regulatory and the g
oc ACRS [Adsisory Committee on Re-2000 -
actor Safeguards), is firmly imbed-ded in the consentional wisdom.
[
O Resersal of this hallowed policy, y particularly at this time, could well be the end of nuclear power. It 8
1000 - would throw into question the oper-
[ ation of licensed plants, would make 5E unlicensable the GE and Westing-h house ice condensor plants now in resiew, and would generally create 0 ' ' ' ' ' more turmoil than I can stand."
O 2 4 6 DAYS AFTER SHUT-DOWN This memorandum became public as a The figure shows the cumulatise amount of water which would be esaporated by the red f a Rech M Inhab Act suit by the Union of Concerned radioactise after-heat generated after shut-down by the core or a typical modern 1.000-megawatt hght water reactor. In the absence of heat removal from the containment, Scientists reinforced by Congressional the steam pressure so generated would threaten the containment integrity withm hours. pressure following Hendrie's appoint-54 L -
s 3
i 1
w 1 L Jan Beyea, a physicist, is a sernt energy scientist at the Na- .
tional Audubon Society in New York 100:2. $({
ment to the chairmanship of the Nu- lease gas fast enough to sase it. The through would reliese the steam pres-clear Regulatory Commission in 1977. pressure rise associated with a hydro- sure in the primary system, with the filtered vents. As more and more een fire could, for example, be sery result that certain water in the system nuclear power plants went into opera- rapid. Rapid increases in steam pres- would be mobilized and pour into the tion, the attention of those w ho wished sure could also occur within the con- pressure sessel on top of the molten to improse reactor containment de- tainment of a pressurized water reac- core. This could cause a rapid pres-signs turned to safety systems which tor as a result of sudden contacts be- sure rise of one to three atmospheres.
could be "retrofitted" onto existing tween large amounts of molten core And finally, after melting through the plants and to one specific idea in par- and large amounts of water, pressure s essel, the molten core could, ticular. This was a " filtered sent" According to current ideas, a melt- once again, fall into a pool of water system which could reliese the pres- ing reactor core would not drip away. collected in the casity be;ow the ses-sures inside a dangerously pressurized Instead, it is believed more likely that sel. Another rapid increase in pressure containment building by releasing a large fraction of the core would sud- could then result [9,1].
some ofits radioactive gases to the at- denly collapse and fall into the water There appear to be strategies that mosphere through a large filter sys- remaining at the bottom of the reactor can reduce the threat of containment tem. There the most dangerous radio- pressure sessel. In the past there has failures resulting from such pressure actis e species w ould be trapped before been concern in the reactor safety increases if in fact further analysis the filtered containment gases were community about such an esent re- should establish this threat as a se-allowed to escape. It would be sulting in a " steam explosion" siolent rious one: Indeed, the Nuclear Regu-relatisely easy to add such a system enough to propel the top of the reac- latory Commission is already begin-onto an already completed contain- tor sessel through the shell of a con- ning to require hydrogen " igniters" ment building because the filter tainment building. This concern has capable of burning any accumulating system could be installed in a separate been downgraded in most recent stud- hydrogen in stages before concentra-building outside the existing contain- ies but inside even a large containment tions can build to lesels w here a single ment building and cornected to it building a rapid increase in pressure fire w ill be intense enough to endanger through a large vahe and under- of about one atmosphere could occur. the containment. The magnitude of ground pipe (Figure 4 [12]). in some scenarios, w here the prima- some of the steam pressure rises asso-The installed cost of one of these ry pressure system around the reactor ciated with core meltdowns in pres-systems has been estimated to be be- core and its attached piping remain in- surized water reactors could also be tween $1 million and $20 million per tact until the core actually melts reduced by teliesing the pressure in reactor, an amount which is smallin through the pressure vessel, the melt- the primary system and flooding the comparison with the more than $1 bil-lion total cost of a modern nuclear Figure 4t2 power plant [13).
Despite these attractise aspects of GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF A PWR FILTERED VENT SYSTEM the sented containment concept, the Nuclear Regulatory Commissic,n pro- ... ,caero, ceeded to investigate it extremely E'[*j E *'
slowly and cautiously. While the
'*'~ e maust stac=
Commission's slowness can only be ron
"'TE"ED Gases deplored, its caution is appropriate:
prescriptions for nuclear safety, like those for drugs, should be both safe /vatvcs ra=s \ m
and effective and the staff has con- ,% l 3,,3 ntyg, cerns in both areas.
In the area of effectiseness the i staff's concerns focus on the possibili- unocasnov=o enancoat ntrans I
ty t!'at in certain accident sequences the pressure buildup inside the con- If the pressure inside the containment climbed to dangerous tesels, the isolation sahes tainment might be so rapid that no ex. could be opened and some of the containment gas released through sand and actisated char-
I"'*
haust system of realistic size could re-August / September 1982 The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 55
1 l
j .
As more and more nuclear power plants went into operation, attention turned to safety systems which could be retrofitted onto existing plants. . . .
containment building with water to a cumulatise radiation dose from an dents we (fortunately) have no statis-level which covers the pressure vessel uncontained meltdown accident. The tics yet. The Commission will, there-when a meltdown appears inevitable. Commission's safety concern about fore, have to make a careful judg-And, as we have seen, a filtered vent filtered senting, therefore, focuses on ment, it seems likely that the final would make possible still another the fact that a filtered vent system, conclusion will be that, for a well-strategy: carly venting so as to reduce w hile offering some protection designed system, the reduction in the the pressure base on which any subse- against large releases of radioactivity risks of large releases will greatly ex-quent sudden pressure increases to the atmosphere would also increase ceed the increased risk of small would build. by an uncertain amount the frequen- releases. At the current level of effort, The possibility of early senting is cy of public exposure to very much however, it will take many years be-two-edged, however, because it re- smaller releases. fore thorough safety analyses base quires a judgment that nothing else This concern is akin to the one been concluded on each major type of can be done to prevent a major release about automobile seat belts-that by reactor containment; and then more of radioactivity. That judgment might slowing a passenger's escape from a years may be taken up in conducting be wrong or the filtered venting sys- vehicle in some accident situations, a specific safety analyses on each plant tem might even operate accidentally, seat belt could contribute to rather chosen as a candidate for retrofit.
The resulting releases would be dom- than prevent a death. But seat belts, as inated by the non-filterable radio- we know from statistics, sase vastly The industry response. In response active noble gases which would con- more lises than they endanger. In the to the Three Mile Island accident, the tribute about one-thousandth of the case of reactor core meltdown acci- U.S. nuclear industry could have put An area the size of Connecticut approximately three times higher than the average whole-body dose from natural background radiation over the same period and might cause on the order of one extra Among nuclear power opponents one of the most wide- cancer death among every 1,000 people exposed at that ly used characterizations of the hazard from reactor acci- '
dents is based on a quote from the files of the long-sup- ln the case of thyroid irradiation we have chosen a pressed 1%5 Atomic Energy Commission study on react-or accident consequences:"The possible size of such a Figure 5 disaster might be equal to that of the state of Pennsyl-monoc ,,, ,
y p. ,
vania"[2].
aara m ==ca no vsse e.ets exv ocu :
What exactly would happen over this area? "" Q'Q*" " * *'" ;
The study f ound - as have many studies since [3,11. 20] ---- men ans. .
-that the most widespread danger from a reactor acci- \ ,
dent would be thyroid damage f rom the ingestion of radio- N active iodine. Milk might be contaminated with radio. coNwcT ecuT_. g
- ~
\ E iodine above the protective action limits specified by the ~
Federal Radiation Council over" areas which would range \ '
from 10,000 to 100,000 square kilometers"[2]. The area of Pennsytvania is 115,000 square kilometers; hence the g
comparison. .:- g The problem of milk contamination by radioiodines ap- E s pears to us to be a relatively manageable one [21]. so we o 1,000 -
N -
focus instead on two potential consequences of reactor P \ -
core meltdown accidents which are less manageable F.,
~
\ -
than milk contamination and could also affect huge { \
areas.These are the hazards of long-term contamination \
~ '
of land e.nd property by radioactive cesium; and thyroid damage resulting from the inhalation of radioactive io-h
\g dine-131. E g -
For land contamination we have set the threshold at a -
\
standard level corresponding, in the absence of deconta. _
\ .
mination. to a cumulative whole-body dose f rom penetrat- \
ing external gamma radiation of 10 rem to any resident
\ '
population over the first 30 years following the accident. g n , 3 (The duration of land contamination will be dominated by too io i oi 30-year half 4fe cesium 137.) This 10 rem dose would be PERCENT RADioCEstuW RELEASED 56 L _ .
. . . a filtered vent system could relieve the pressures inside a dangerously pressurized containment building by releasing some of its radioactive gases through a large filter system.
its own resources into investigating fission product compounds and the T he Commission did, howeser, au-the possibilities for the reduction of aerosol behavior mechanisms, the of f- thorite an effort to esamine the Insti-radioactive releases following core- site dispersion of radioactise mate- tute's claims as a collaboratise en-melt accidents. Unfortunately, it did rials (other than gases) following a terprise between Commission staff not, instead, the industry mounted a major L%R [ light water reactor] acci- members and technical esperts at concerted campaign to consince both dent will be small." The electric utili- three major national laboratories, in the public and government that, esen ties' public relations departments and March 1981 this team stated in a drafi in case of containment failure, the re- the nuclear industry press sprang into report:
sutting release of radioactivity to the action and adscrtised these claims The results of this study do not atmosphere would be much less than with great fanfare, noting that "If supp rt de contendon dat We pre-has always been thought. In particu- findings like these are serified . . it # "9"#"'#'
lar, the electrical utilities' Electric would go far toward deflating the ""'"'
Power Research Institute published a doomsday predictions of anti-nuclear dicted by orders of magnitude m TP study which concluded, in effect, that groups" [15). The Nuclear Regulatory ~
improsed containments were not nee- Commission, aside from a few staff sn P. 't stuh Nr nampk, the anab in t rep rt inhes dat .
essary(14]. comments in the trade press, es- 100o to 50re of the core insentory of The Institute repoit claimed that, pressed no public reservations con- .' "#' ' # #"
esen in the event of a core meltdown cerning the significance of these r nment ,"[16].
accident and a containment failure, claims, which tended to gise them fur-
"due to the solubility of the solatile ther credibility. Under pressure from the industry, the threshold dose from inhalation of 30 rem for adults. The 150 rem to a child's thyroid, the probability of subsequent Environmental Protection Agency's guideline threshold thyroid surgery has been f ound to be on the order of a f ew dose to the thyroid for mandatory evacuation is 25 rem percent [25).
[23] The dose to the thyroids of exposed children in the There has been less follow up on the consequences per same area might exceed 150 rem [24] For an X ray dose of rem to the thyroid of internal beta radiation emitted by iodine 131. The U.S Food and Drug Administration, there-Figure 6 f ore, assumes that iodine 131 irradiation is as damaging to the thyroid per rem as X ray radiation [26).
600.000 y,,i , , gni,,i ii pm TTr r ans. nc aw tu,eoio nou siceres so.a. C Figures 5 and 6 show, as a function of the percentage
_ _ qogo aas a -i~ releated into the atmosphere of the inventories of radio-active cesium and iodine from the core of a modern com-mercial power reactor " typical" and realistic upper bound CONNECTICUT-areas over which the long-term doses from ground con-10,000 _, tamination and the thyroid inhalat:on doses would ex-5 'l ceed the thresholds specified above [27]. The upper bound I\ M curves in the Sgures are about the highest which can be l
i E
\ obtained for reasonable choices of parameters using the standard simplified model for atmospheric dispersion.
f
\g ~
We show no lower limit for the area which could be af-fected because it could be essentially zero. A heavy rain
'000 I g ~~E could, for example, scrub the radioactive aerosols from l: : N :
~
the air soon af ter they wers released from the contain.
ment.
] : \
~
For an uncontained meltdown, most studies predict
{
g N
that from 10 to 90 percent of the radioactive iodines and N cesiums in the core could be released [3.16]. It is apparent too --
N --=
from figures 5 and 6 that the area affected by such re.
- \ q leases with doses above the specified thresholds could
\
be on the order of 10,000 square kilometers. Even if this is
[ \ [ closer to the area of the state of Connecticut than Penn.
\ _
sylvania, it is still a very substantial area. It is also appar.
\ ent that the areas at risk could, for example, be decreased
,, , , I, n , ,, ,, 11, . , , , , by about one hundredfold if reactor containment systems g
too to I on could be made ef fective enough !o reduce any releases to PERCENT RADiolooiNE RELEASED less than one percent of the core inventories [28] E August / September 1982 The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 57
f The industry is concerned that accident mitigation techniques, such as off site preparations for emergencies and retrofitting with filtered venting systems, could be interpreted as tacit admissions that serious accidents can happen.
Commission subsequently rewrote the reconsideration of this decision, in- requirement be made within one year summary language so that it no longer dicated in a parliamentary bill that it of the notice"[18].
appeared to be a rebuttal to the Elec- would move forward toimplement fil-trical Power Research Institute re- tered venting starting with the Barse- The Commission, howeser, did not port. Nevertheless, the technical con- buck reactor located just 20 kilo- commit the necessary resources. Now, clusions remained the same. meters across the sound from Copen- almost three years later, it is further hagen [17]. away from such a decision than it was The role of public pressure. There Without the pressure of a political then.
are by now many examples of public referendum, it is doubtful that pro- The Commission could also be pressure being required to offset the gress on filtered senting would hase pressured into adopting the recom-paralyzing effect of industry opposi- been any faster in Sweden than it has mendation made to it in a September tion to nuclear safety initiatives-es- been in the United States. 10, 1980 letter from its Advisory pecially when the purpose of the initi- Committee on Reactor Safeguards:
Unfortunately, there are no com-atives is to mitigate the consequences that it proceed without further delay of nuclear reactor accidents. The m- parable political events on the horizon to require utilities to do design and in the United States. It is possible, dustry is apparently concerned that therefore, that it will take an accident risk reduction studies with regard to the adoption of accident mitigation more serious than Three Mile Island the installation of filtered vent techniques, such as off-site prepara- to overcome the inertia that is holding systems on their nuclear power plants tions for emergencies and retrofittmg back further development of contain- II9I-containment buildings with filtered Of course the filtered vent strategy ment improvements in this country. If venting systems, could be interpreted should not be pursued to the exclusion a large release of radioactisity occurs by the public as tacit adm,ssions i that t other containment improsement in such an accident, the U.S. nuclear serious accidents can happen. strategies w hich may also prose industry may well follow the example It was only after Congressional of its Swedish counterpart and en- useful. We have focused on the vented containment concept here because it is pressure developed for improsed dorse containment improsements in specific evidence for our more general emergency planning in the aftermath an attempt to salvage a future for c ntention that there is a great poten-of Three Mile Island, for example, nuclear power in the United States.
tial for enhancing the capabilities of that the Commission converted the recommendations of a Nuclear Reg- The prognosis for our society will reactor containment buildings to re-ulatory Commission / Environmental be bleak, however, if we protect our- tain the radioactivity from accidents Protection Agency task force report selves only after experiencing every which might otherwise contaminate into Commission policy and extended variety of disaster. It is, therefore, to an area "the size of Connecticut."[See the emergency planning zone for acci- be hoped that the Commission and its box.] O dents out to 16 kilometers from reac- watchdogs will press ahead v.ith work tors. on accident consequence mitigation 1. U.S. Atomic Energy Commmion, Theo-In Sweden, it appears that the poli- strategies from the " study" stage to retica/ Poss,bilaries and Consequences of Major Accidents en Large Nuclear Power P/ ants, tical pressure of that country's debate the decision stage.
over nuclear power may have already The Commission received exactly * $,"U.No)ie Energy commission. Docu-ments Retaring to the Re exam,nar,on of forced a decision in the case of filtered this recommendation from its Three '. 4su-no. Approdmately 200 unpublished venting. Prior to that country's March Mile Island " Lessons Learned Task " 8 ' " ' ' "
1980 referendum on the future of nu- Force"in October 1979: nIde a$ii e to the pu e in i co[
mission's public document room in 1973 as a re-clear power the pro-nuclear side was suit or suits and threats or suits under the Free-eager to support every safety measure "The Task Force recommends . . d " " ' ""
proposed by a special Swedish govern- that a notice of intent to conduct am ** N"s ^5h$w o nlea ment committee of enquiry, created rulemaking be issued to solicit com- Safety Pe-ils " N.Y. Times (Nos. II,1974).
- 3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Re-after the Three Mile Island accident. ments on the issues and specific facts Filtered venting was one measure re- relating to the consideration of con- ['sg',3D $"#[75 f o 4,19I5[im i eli commended by this committee. After trolled, filtered venting for core-melt by the Atomic Energy Commission, this study
- as pubtished in its final form by the Nuclear the referendum, the Swedish govern- accidents in nuclear power plant de-ment, noting that subsequent studies sign and that a decision on whether "*8"$
4, Ccon
" hesI"ioint committee on had failed to uncover any basis for a and how to proceed with this specific Atomic Energy Hearings," Brown s Ferry Nu-58 L
l H
lt is possible that it will take an accident more serious than Three Mile Island to overcome the inertia that is holding back further development of containment improvements.
clear Plant Fire" (Sept. 16, 1975); DamelF. Los Angeles, t n a t v.-7775,1977). The princi- dine 13), of which only one-thousandth the Ford, Henry W. Kendall, Lawrence S. T>e, pal radionotopes which would not be remosed original will remain after eight weeks. The area Broun's ferry: The Regulatory fadure (Cam- by such a filtered sent sptem would be the no- of land contamination will, therefs re, hase de-bridge, Mass.: Union of Concerned Seantists, ble gases: radioactise krypton and senon. creased after eight weeks by orders of magni-1976). 13. D. Carhon and J. Hickman, A Fah.c-/m- tude from its original site. During the period of S. Report of the President's Commnsmn on pact Assessment of Alternate Containment contamination it would be quite sttaight-the Accident at Three Afde Island (1979). Concepts (W ashington, D.C.: Nuclear Regula- forward to arrange where necessary that dair) 6, % e has c assumed containment atmosphere tory Commission, st ato c u-0165,1978). The cattle be shifted from pasture to relatnely temperatures of about 150 degrees Centigrade M urfin Report estimates a 520 million price tag. uncontaminated stored feed, and to dnert any in these calculations. More elaborate sersions uould cost more. contaminated milk to the production of pow-The free solume in a containment typical of 14. M. Lesenson and F. Rahn (Electric dered milk, cheese, etc., which could be stored those used in most operating U.S. boihng water Power Research Institute)," Realistic Estimates until its radioactae contamination had decayed reactors is about 7,900 cubic meters. The effec- of the Consequences of Nuclear Accidents " to neghgible lesch.
ine free solume of boiling water reactor con- paper presemed at the International Meeting of tainments may be less than half of their nominal the American Nuclear Society, %ashington, 22. U.N. Scientific Committee on the E ff.ects of Atomic Radiation, Sources and Effects of volumes, hoseser, since the solume oser the D.C. (Nos . 20,1980).
- 15. John O'Neill," Scientists Say sn( Greatly Iom:mg Radiarmn(New York: United Nations, pressure suppression pool is connected to that Oserestimates Accident Risks,"NuclearIndus- 1977). p. 414; U.S. National Academy of Sci-of the " dry well" by what amounts to a one wa) try (Dec.1980), p. 27. ences, Committee on ihe Biological Ef fe,t5 of vais c. Therefore, it w ould be possible, in princi.
Icnizing Radiation, The Effects on Population plc, for steam to drise the "noncondensable- 16. E Mear Regulaton Ornmsn- of bposure to Low Levels ofloniong Radia-gases into the 40 percent of the total free s olume Techmcal Basesfor Estimating fission Product ,,on (%'ashington. D.C.,1980); Eliot Marshall, oser the pressure suppression pool, leasing the W m en unnA RE( -
"New A Bomb Data Shown to Radiation Es-pressure in that chamber at a much higher lesel draft (March 6,1981; final, June 1981). The perts," Science 2/2 (1981), p.1,364 and the than in the dry well surrounding the reactor s es-basic points in the suc esperts reuew wcre im- telated letters in Science 213 (1981), pp. 6, 8.
sel after the steam condensed. (See Figure 2 for mediately apparent to knowledgeable readers of 392,602,60A a representation of these chambers in a boiling the Institute report. See Frank son H ppel. an 23. U.S. Ensironmental Protection Agency, w ater containment. The range of pressures cited insited briefing to the sac as recorded in the Afanualof Protection Action Guides and Pro-in the test allows for this possibihty.)
transcript "suc Meeting on lodine Release
- 7. In the Three Mile Island accident an esti- intie Artmns for Auclear /ncidents (%' ash-from Accidents and Estimates of Conse- ngton, D.C.: Pe520 'l-75-001,1975). Table mated 44 to 63 percent of the 22.600 kilograms quences," (Nos . 18,1980), pp. 38-61. For ac- 5 '
of zirconium in the core were oxidized. See Re- cidents in w hich the damage is sufficient to open j4. U.S. Enuronmental Protection Agency, port of the President's Commission on the A cci- large pathways from the core to the sontain' Ennronmental Analysis of the Cranium f uel dent at Three Alde Island,(staff reports),11, p. ment, there w ill not be sufficient w ater as ailable Cyc /c //: Auclear Power Reactors (% ashington.
34-to trap the radioactis e materials of concern, nor D.C.: t P v520 9M3-003-C,1973), Table 40.
- 8. For a "high-carbonate concrete,,hastng 80 will the pathway be so tortuous that a signifi- 25. L.H. Hempelmann and others, Journal weight percent CACO and an initial radius of cant amount will stick to surfaces before 3
of the Aatmnal Cancer Institute, $5 (1975). p.
the core debris on the reactor casity floor of reaching the containmeni atmosphere. Similar- 519 3.05 meters the "w I( Hst " code predicts that the ly,if the containment fails early enough, there 26. U S. FD L Proposed Recommendarmns core will hase penetrated 80 centimeters into the will be insufficient time for aerosols to settle to on Use o/ Potassium lodideas a ThvroidBlocA-concrete 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> after it has landed on the sur- the reactor building floor. These three mech- ing Agent in a Radiation Emer5cnci ( April face and will hase therets) released 27 metric anisms are the baus for the claims made in the 1981). For an early release, the thyroid dose tonnes of CO2 ,13 of CO,9 of H20, and 140 Electric Power Research Institute report. from the 21 hour2.430556e-4 days <br />0.00583 hours <br />3.472222e-5 weeks <br />7.9905e-6 months <br /> half life isotope iodine 133 kilograms of H2. The carbon monoxideand h3 - 17. Gosernment bill to Swedish Parliament, would be approximate!) one-third that of io-drogen result from reactions between CO2 and 1980 '81:90. It is cspected that the Barseback re- dine-131. In March 1954, 22 Marshallese chil-H2O and hot metals (steel and zircomum)in the actor would be equipped with a filtered sent sys* dren on Rongelap atoll receised an estimated melt. The osides of carbon would add about tem by 1985. 700 to 1,200 rem thstoid dose from drinking two-thirds of an atmosphere to the pressuri- 18. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, rsit-2 water contammated with such short lised zation of a small containment. A" medium car. Lessons Learned TasA force Tmal Report radioiodines from the "Braso" H-bomb test.
bonate cor: crete is characterized as hasing 46 gg ashington, D C.; st ato-0585,1979). pp. Almost all subsequenth required thyroid weight percent CACO and therefore presu- 3-5. surger) and were put on infetime thyroid hor-mably would release about half as much CO' 19, Adsisory Committee for Reactor Safe- mone medication. tRobert A. Conard and oth-plus CO. Another code,"isTE a, predicts about guards letter to the sa( on " Additional Ac as ers, Reuen of t h e Afedical findmps in a twice as much gas evohed as strust . See als comments on Hydrogen Control and improse- Afarshallese Populatwn Tu enti .5n l' ears u (kn, e
'"'"' " ' ' " '"' *# M "' ^ "' '"'" P"?" '" "'"I""'
t of the Zion '/ndian b * * # * " W*
Point Study (U.S. sa( st nio c a.1409-1413' 1981 A(as letter on "Ac as Report on Require- $1261,1980].)
I
- " ' ** '"" " " '" *" 27. A detailed discussion of the dernation of
' 9. Re r of th Ta k Force on Power Emer Manufacturing Licenses. .' Figures 5 and 6 may be found in, Jan Bey ea and gency Cooling, " Emergency Core Cooling ,, 20. Jan Beyea, "Some Long Term Conse- Frank son Hippel, Auclear Reactor Accidents:
U.S. AE C , TID-24226 (1%6), p.9. quences of Hypothetical Major Releases of Ra-i The l'alue of Improved Containment (Prince-
- 11. Report to the APs b) the Study. Group on l
dioactisity to the Atmosphere from Three Mile ton Unnersity, Center for Energs and Ensiron-Light % ater Reactor Safety," Review of 3fod- Island," a report to the President's Council on mental Studies Report e94,19805.
ern Physics R Sup. No.1 (1975), p. S7. Ensironmental Qualit) (Princeton Unisersity. 28. Although it is not possible to filter out the
- 12. B. Gosset. H.M. Simpson, L. Cas e, C.K. Center for Energy and Ensironmental Studies noble gases, doses in excess of to tem would be Chan, D. Okrent and I. Catton, Post-Accident Report #109,1980). receised from the noble gases oser an area
/diration as a Afcans of Improving Contain- 21. The longest lised radtoiodine of concern w hich would be smaller than I percent of 10,000 ment Effectiveness (Unisersity of California at for reactor accidents is eight-day half life io- square kilometers.
August / September 1982 The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 59
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF WAKE Today Dr. G. George Reeves appeared befom me and affirms that the attached analysis and information is true and correct to the best of his knowled6e and belief and was prepared by him for Wells Eddleman.
A Dr. C. George Reeves" ~
1 /ff " 7 1902 ML tt)u a 451xL es ~ . ,
2.c
e CONSERVATION AND LOAD MANAGEMENT SUBSTITUTIONS FOR CP&L GENERATION Dr. G. George Reeves 3324 Octavia Strret Raleigh, N. C. 27606 l July 14, 1982
4
. . l
. 2 l
. , l
Introduction:
The fruits of electricity consumption are essential to our society.
For example, the rapid improvements in industry, commerce and the diversity of life in our region in the past three decades has coincided with the widespread application of air conditioning. There is a good possibility that air conditioning was more a cause of these changes than a result.
However, our electric economy is undergoing rapid changes and there are i
now many new ways to achieve the desired results. The best way is one that costs the least and therefore consumes the fewest resource and does the least damage to the environment.
I It is essential that electric generating capacity be larger than the maximum essential load. There are two parameters, generation and load, and they are both subject to control. This report points out load controls that are very cost effective, non-intrusive to customers and not treated in CF&L's conservation and load management program.
i i
~
3 Carolina Power and Light System:
The system peak loads are very weather dependent as shown by Figure 1. This is a plot of daily maximum and minimum loads for CP&L for every Wednesday from 7/11/79 thru 3/26/80. The figure is thus for high load working days for the most severe
, parts of a cooling season, a heating season, and the light load autumn in between. The units on the horizontal axis to the right are daily maximum temperatures at the Raleigh airport weather station during the cooling season. Raleigh data should be roughly represent-ative of the system weather since it is near the load center. The horizontal scale pointing left has daily minimum temperatures at the airport during. the heating season. Also shown for reference are the summer and winter seasonal peak loads. The maximum and minimum load data can be approximated by the straight line segments shown. Most of the scatter of the data about the straight lines is probably due to Raleigh weather not being the same as the system load weighted average weather. Note that the weather independent base load is about 2.4 GW or 41% of the annual peak. The weather independent peak is about 3 8 GW or 64% of the annual peak. Thus at the annual peak fully 36% of the load is due to the weather. This 36% is probably nearly all space conditioning load.
Figure 2 shows the hourly load for the annual peak day which was B/9/79 with high temperatures in the mid and upper 90's. As expected the cooling load is heavy by noon and continues until late evening on such a day.
Infacttheloadstayedabove95%ofitspeakvgefor i
y ,-
about 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> and above 90% of the peak for about 11 hours1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br />.
Figure 3 shows CP&L's mana6ement peak load forcast for 1995 The peaks have been put on the temperature axis at the same temperatures that correspond to the peaks for the line segment approximation in Figure 1. The weather sensitivity of the daily maximum loads has teen assumed the same in 1995 as that observed in 1979-1980. ' Thus the weather independent maxima and base loads are taken as 64% and 41% of the forcast peak. This implies the same load factor in 1995 as '79 '80 and may predict the 1995 weather independent loads too I
high, Also on Figure 3 are three dashed lines. The top horizontal line i
is the system generating capacity without either of the Shearon Harris reactors operating. This line is present capacity plus the two 720 MW Mayo units. The dashed lines above the lines for daily maximum loads are maxima plus the optimum 20% reserve generating capacity. Notice that l
the maximum loads plus the 20% reserve exceed the available capacity I
without Shearon Harris reactors only when the cooling season temperature exceeds 87 5 F or the heating season temperature drops below 26 F. In
'79 '80 in Figure 1 these conditions were met for only 3 summer Wednesdays ,
and 5 winter Wednesdays. If we assume that the plotted Wednesdays represent 8 6-day weeks of hi 6h load then there would be about 480 hours0.00556 days <br />0.133 hours <br />7.936508e-4 weeks <br />1.8264e-4 months <br /> in 1995 when the system has less than optimum reserve capacity without the Shearon Harris reactors operating. The past experience with similar brief periods of sub-optimum reserves indicate the CP&L handled them competently by good management, power purchases from
--~w g - --y ( , -- -y---g -,,- ,- m---+,,,
J 1
nearby utilities with surpluses, small voltage reductions and rare appeals to the public to conserve. The third dashed line on F1 6ure 3 l
is the horizontal line below the maximum load segments. It represents
) J 1995 base capable generating capacity without Shearon Harris reactors operating. This 1995 base capacity would te 60% larger than the weather independent base load and in fact nearly as lar6e as the i
weather independent daily maximum load in 1995 This 1995 base capable capacity would be 2.245 GW of nuclear 6eneration and 3 530 GW of large coal 6eneration.
i
}
a 4
I B
I i
5 I,
j
, .Lj 9,. y- .. - - - , s_,, 4n_ .._y , --.y
h l
1
,9 !
1 4.6 4
.4
}.
.2
.}
+
. i
+.
41; .
.{
ti
,6-ti el. .j4 t 8
44 , I (t 4 .1 ..}. . .. 4i 9 4 l' (..i , 4, .
41 .t ...i p j6 6 .t -
.;(..
+
i n ii ,, .
.i . p
.4 2
..4 i 4 ., ,. (1.+ . . ,.. . . 4 .
.I ,+l
.. n.
. J.3. .v t ,. ..., ,
4.
t,,. ! . ..,
6 .' '
4 - [ +4e1. . .. .]f 9 .t .
}4 1,.
9- 4,4 t4 444}4
. . i4+ 4,-
t{--
- t. . .. .
)( -
- u. ... .-
44 O,,x ..
.. 4 14.
.. .f, , .. ..,
},,
, . . .. ..R-
- 6. .I t. ' 4. . l p ,
1 6.,4 i .; . .. .
,. . . } 3, l ,q(...{ .
4 .4
., 1. .
4 l .l 4.. +. ... . 4 ,.. . !.., ... ..
6 L. e.;
.. . .A..
. i .,
. ,N
.*6 N : *
. - +.4, . ..i 4IO+
. ... .... h.
.' . .t .4 '
- * ***8 i.,. ..,*. ,
, .' l .
I* '
r+
ii* , { .' I '*,*
.+
4 4 ,} . . .. 4.{ .. 4. ! ,d l
44 ,...
4.t4 ---,. ..4 ...,
64.
. 4 c3 g)
.o. - , . ... .. ..,. .4,. 4.. ...i .
.. .,. 44 . .},
.. 4 .v.
s
. . ..,t 44 .t.
. . , 6 4 - +,
44., . ... .a. . ! . .g.. .,.. . .
..{. 4 & .{ ,t 44 .
4 a*g . .. .. \O
(( 44 ,@ 9 4, .1.a -
. e.g., , Mb +t 4.,
(. .
4
.t .4
+...
.-;4...
4%.
i 4 4.
. .a
. + , ,.
.4. . .
M c
.. .2 i4.
.. i.
.J
.. .- 4..l ... ,1, ,.1
, ; i..
. . , =
.i. , \. . ..., ..i, .+,, .. ...
9 c
- -,+*-
4 4 4 4 . , . . &- . ..t..*
.4 ..
t... ,4{. ..+ ,. ..j, . , * .
A., i 4.& .. .$ .. .1 e
,*,f . * . M
. l ,. j. . .
6 I, 4 4 . . .. .
- 4. ., l ., ... . . .... s.t ,$ .{ I +. ., +4+ t.+ .. .. D. ....
p 9.. 4,45 + ., . ..,4 .e.4 f. ... .e- >- . 4" . .
cn b.
... .... ... .,. .ia N
,. _.1 .44. g ! ... ,,. t... . . . .. 1.f. :.. 4, ..u ..,. ,..,
g
. L . 4.4. ai .;. ' -
. . .., .. N.
Q 54 . . . t. . A f.4.4 4
.}
.g,. 1.'. t -+ ++ + +- -
9+ s
. ,5
.l .... ... i si M
...}
. .. . . 4.. . 4,. ... . 4 t ait ... .
4 . .. 4
'4 *- ****
- h
... .. ;.! .,. . . .. . ; t. .4 4+4'- t. 4' 1 D .. . e
... ... .. 4 4; . .. .. . - 4 .,.
h
^
e 4 *{
o.44
... g. .. t c1
.u.m, ....._t...e..
.i t ...t. **t* ** ,'*.8- -* *** **
- 0
".
- 2...
.a . *
..,,'4 .1 .44 . . ., . . . a. I ,. i. .. ...
.u, ..
4 , ....
...I ..
.t 4 . t .+ . . L.1,. ;, a.,}
og
.4. ... .4 ..
o
. . n. ....I
,,I, ...
t.!,
., t !i 4,. " .. 4. ~! ....
== ,
.. 4
. i .,.
v..i ,., .
.i... . . . 1.
4il !, ..
.4 x
g,1 . .! .4 ., i.
.. i .. . . t., . .6t. 1
. .. .... u c) o .,
. 4,,
.l ,- .. e. . .f i. t ,;
,1.1 eE
.i.
. t...4..
. .. ... }
noo
.w .., .... ... .. .. ., .. .., . o. t n ,, .... ,
o
.... io .g .w ..
.4 ...
.4
. . ..i
.,. .. 4,.i .,...
. ,. 4t .
n
.% . . .. . .- . . ... .. .. ,. .o2 . . . .. . ygo o,
.. .. ..., .. . ,o..... i. .i .i , .. ..i.. . .
. _ ,1 .
.o . ., . r4 n 4 .. ...
. ., .... ,. l ; ,. . , . .
. . . .. .. . 4; .... ..
.. ae D
,..e i...
- p. !,,! . . ..,
.5.0.
... ... .i..
.+.
... . . .o1 , .
...,4. .
c
~.
i , ,- .... .
..g E=
4.......
4,. . r..,:., a. ,: 1 ..,. ,, ..-.. .
. . 7i . .. . i.
.., g..,
, m : .
...,5
,.,,..A . .. ...,
. g. . 3.
,o .6,.,
...4
,i 14..
_w ,.1 . .
.,,. -. .4.. , -.--N.. .
s.. xo
.1 . . ..
... .. . .. 2 e -4
. ..:1. ... .. ..t.
Le
. - .. m
.../ .;. . . , , .
,,,. v...
.. .. . . ..., t.
- ...., -. ., ; .i. ....
, . .. , .. , . .. ,a .c j . ..
, ,... .. . ... ... ~,,,, ..,4.. ,4 ..
. .. 43 .,. . . . . -
.... . . . . .e #
. ,j . .g. ., o, -
.. . . . . . . .... .... ... . ,.,. .... .m T _.. o :.
.. .i.; .. i. ..; .f.- _, ,
.. . < ...,+ .. ,1,4 I .. , . .... .,
.i ... .. .. -
_ . ,6 ,
. .1 . ... . ..
. .j.
. . l... . . . . .
W
..,.. . ., . t . .....
... 1 ..t. ....
. . . . . . .... ..., i.
...f . . .... ....
.i.
.. . ..... 4..
1f. .. .., ,i.. 4 i
- A. .
... . - . . . .. .... ... i... ... , a
. .... ... ... .. . . .4 . t.. .... . ..
.!t
.4i . ,24
. u. i.
- 1. . .i.=t.
. . .. ., . i. . .
5 .. .
.... 1. . , ... . ..
+ .
1 ; .k. h. . ,. . ..
i .
4.
.i ..,.
.. ... 44 44, ,..4 ., .l t.... ..i.
)
. ... . .. . , .; . g. . ..
u ..,
. 1.. .d,. o: ._... . i.
. 4
..,. .., w. ....
. . .J . ..c
. , .+. .
- .. u ;
. . o, s ..... 1 .o , ,. . . . .., . .
.. ... .. ti; .._, 41 .
..., .i t ,4, ...; . 1..
- i. . i ., .
7..
r..-.
. ,i
. . , )3 .. ....
. . .,,1 , .,
.!!.i ... ...:
.l.
.. I .,,. . . .
- 1. . . 4 .. j io. ... ... . , .,,,
..t. .... . . . . . 4
?..l l
- l
- I I
e,
+,.
..I
. si
.I 62 ... .,. ..., .s. ,,6 I44 . . . . .,
.., ., .: . ! .. e . . .
..i.. .4. . . .4.
. 4 .
6 } .
.,j
.4, .
..;{-
.j .
., !-.e-
,9
- .4
( . .l e .
g.
. t. .- . . g , .,
4..
i.
j.
ilta .ij.
, .iii A .i .r ., .
4 ii
, . l' t {
. . i!i,4 ,
. . 4 .e. .
. ., 4 ..i . .,
,4..
.i. .+
..i
+.
e9..,4 4 ,
.} , j4o.
. t'* .. **,i, 4 s
i;..
.4
'3'
- t.' '
' j *. . .* ....
.. ..a . v', ,
,+'
W py . P. 6 4 :K i
- i i... . . y+ '.v
.f ,.
' . .)(. *
. t. - . , f .: . .. .. l **l.,
.. .t .* , ,? .,C ., , ..
j.
4 , . .
...t ..f, , , , .. . - ti ; ,.i . 4. '
4j. . tot 6.t ,.,.,
4e. .4,,y. p . . . ,
. ,.; . , . . -4 .- .g
+ .; .
.. , ,.4 .,. . ! ., . .
..i
,4
.; . , ., .(1, ;i,
..i l,. .4
,.4 444 i.
- 44 4 . 4.,4
+1 .
4
.I
. 4.. .
4 .w 4 . -
...>.. 4..
_;4 41..
... ... . v. .- . ....
- t'A J... 4...
+ . . , ,, , +i. . . .. . . .
., . it.
.it,-
f,/3 d E. . ..1. . ..
.. ... ..s .... ... .6 . .,,.
.. ,i.
44 ,l..
.!. . .. : . ,6 ,;; 4, 4. .6 . . . ..,. , . .
.4
.4i 4i44 .., , r, 4 6:
.+.
. , . , . .it
. 4 .
i., ....
,7 .
et
- e. , .i +i..,..,, .,. .6. . .
.... ... . . .. V...4. .
. 4 4.. 4... 9, _
,; 9 , . ...
.,,4
,.._, . , 4 .. t ....
4+.~ .... . T, . . l '. i ~... . ..,. ..i ~ ,4-.. .... .. , . . . . ,.. .... .,..
. l4 .'.4.,
4..
.4
}
+
4 4 . .-
.e
.4 .....4.J 4
.j.
. t. ' i
- -4.
. 4, ils
.4..
4 * * -
.p; 4,.
- i
+..'.
t' 4,;, , ,
. }
- I *.
+,.. .... ,.-.. ..A. : ; ..
....g..
4.4 2
... ..4 4
... . 4.
- r. ..4 ...
.p,
.i ;
1.., ..,
t
.j_ ... . ... . .. .
. sa .
i
...i
.+.;
... ,+..o ....
....k
.i.
.. y ...
..,. , .4 ,
...m....n 1 n,t.
,, y ,4,
..s M ...M.
, . f.o.
.. .. . .M... 2
. , . . .. .. . ._. 4.
..o
., .i..,
. . . . 4. 4
.. ,,4.
. 4., .. .... .. . ...~. . ..
.... .... ..... . . . ..... .. ... ... , 4.., i,.. ,j- i; . . . .. ., . . . .
..... ... 4.. .. 2 .i., . .. ..
. m.i. . .... . ;.1
. . . . . .i. 4 ,.., , . + . ,
.J..
4
. . .. . 4.., ... .. .... .... ... . ..,
..1
..i. .
3 4 .,4 .,
.i, 4t.! ...
. i . . ..,4 .... .. .
... ,,. . . t.. i. ... . .. . ,1 44 Figure 2 CP&L sur.mer peak day hourly load 8/9/79
i 1
1 e .
8 l'..Ij . ,- ., ,'.6.. i .} . 4 , ..-{. . ..I i*.. . ,. .. ,4 . .. .
. -. I, .+ .,.. 4- ..
4 9 .
,.t , i. 4 , . . . . 9
, ,, .... . ,., ;. . v.... .
,' t' '
t . -
. , .. 4 . . . .
t- y.t. ,t.l .,9* .... .$-9 .
, +. , 4 } ..-, L.,ltt ' . * *f t * ' ** t 'l*' + ** -*+-- **** -
'f-* '
e,
. 1 - -
a - 4.. ..4 ,,,i g..
+, I ,.- 4 6
...i . . . ,... .. .... ,.. .
. ,l ..,6 ., . 4 4, i. .,*.
..,. ,,I. - '*'
4 . I I g . . . 4, . . .... t+4. -
+
*t 4 + *< t *
-..te 4 .
*+t' 4 , *. a e+- 6- - -
t'I4
.4,. . . +4 .. - i ' t* I8 ' I t *t 44t t .'t *** *+'* '. '
.ij ~%.
^~
t . 4, l.. i 4 '. .. % 4, i Il i II., 4: 1
. , 't t . 9. ,
. 4
.4
.4 9
4
.i
+. .
,4 6
t * . -
- t +
t t i' * ++ ****
- 4 i
. l '. .'. & 1 t'; __'. _.,4'-._
.. . ..N .,, . . ., . . ,.s. .... .. . - ..
}. . , .
4.). 4
...I
.... ,i .s . ,. . }. 6 . s. ...,. .. .
..t' ' * *- '
tt- t 4' t*- - A j' 'A te ** 1et* 44 4 I + 4 *} i* **t* **
- tt i *' i-
,t A *** +' ++++ Y*e- ! N +t* ** '
- t .' '! Q*'t ***; '+ **** ++ * * *- *
., e i,t - ..,
. .. J..
.4 - 4. , ... .,. .+. .
. 4 o
,...., ...v
. 44 ....
. . , .,. __ ..y . p i..
,. 4
) .
~'
.4
. ***y**
4
~
,tt 4 *4 t +J- t t4 i++ . 4
-g tt t t. ***'**t' * ' ?+ *++* *
. m. .. . ..g ...
.., 4 . i t. ..6t,, ,. i - . ..... ..... 4
., . i. ,,
4 ,i _ ,t . ...
.. . A. ...,.
,,....t
.. , . + ,. . .. . . , .
.. 4.,,. 46 ...,
,4 . .. 4 ... ,
k, ! i 6 . 4 .i , 4 . - - 46 , 1 .
- t. . . . . .... .. . . . .
~
-- 4o
; li 4.. .. ,i i . ,.i. . ,T .... .:.. i .. ., .....,... . ,. .... ... . .V?. .
dE
' I tt* . - . !4 , t,*+ ... i t 4, ," , ,* . *t * * .N ***
- Z
. . * .. *. N
-t 4 +, +.
q..
. , t. 4 . -
ff4+ .
- 4. . .+ ,
i
..t.
.f7t
.. 4 OP
& .,.... .....i .. . ..
.... k- + + ,
++-% y
_* c o 3 p
,D .4.....
,-4+ 4, 4 g. . ... .. ,..t , ... ...
.I.*. .* .*. -D 66& 84 * +.*ie ** **
v.a 13 + 4 N .- - 64
.+.t.
.. . 44, . .t i,
.*t.
., . . t-+-
- t-
+ *'+ * **
.- l .-
*+
.-* l g
. 4. I ,i 4..,& + 4 .g .
3, ..,4 94 .4 . 3
. . +. +
, ..i
. ,' 6 6 ,. ...,,
,fi.
. *[-
. bs
..f Q.,j $t ta d
+
6.i-
.4 ..
g ;. .i
.l'
, -.{ .l, ,... .. .,, .
.+..
. , O
...t
. .I
.i 4
4, 4 t: ig.,.4.+4.., .
.4,
.,4 .t.+' . *, .+.-**'NL
* #M 3 .
Q7.. '
- . Ot
.c c
.- 4 4
.4..
4 ..9
*t*t **--
..,t--
4*t*
--+ +
* 3*
- ** 1 4 4+ ,ta
+*
6 1 t
* *+
'if- 6.
- tt i ..,4i 4**t e,+
.~.
~'*
*++ 0*g.- l.
4 d
't * ' '
' wi
*t*+ t * *
. i. *' ' t ' + **46 *t
..~+- .-..+ 4*-
+ e.,
. #4
+
- t' *- ,.
+
- t++* -**t
***. +*
++ ' + - + '
b-3c c, o
'I(4 4
*t*t
. (j t
, 4
.,' Q g.. I. ,;
..t .+..
i , tj t 9 t,*,
+ +
A' 4
.,p.. + +~,t .Ot
. .. , ~
+t.. . - .
t 4. . . 4 ., 4 e
, t. +++f ,,. . +.9,. '.*.+ . d
.... v.., ....
4, ., t ..
* ,4
.4 b.
..i
.s. ,,9+ ....i .
...A
+ +'
- OO O
*'t.,+
. . .,j ... . . . .. .... . . . . -.l* t. .4 't
,, t, . i. v+ .i ..t. . . . , 64, .6.. . . .'. ccO
.. 3 . i. .
,.40 rs
- .. .,.6 1.. ... . o
.6 4
. .. . . . . . .. .. 4. to. .
ep
.(3
..l. ..
f...
.g. ..{
...l _..,
l...
,,t.
66.
..ti gg
. g-, - . 1 g ,C
*'. ' -Q.'
' **** + *** 4
. . . ., .I . . . . , ..4. i t. t., .... ' . .,
. '* ' ,. .. +.. y
. +. .. , - .t4 s,. '
t' * ' t* ' + * * ' *t '***' ' , ' ***I ' * * **
.4.. *t ++l .*A' + ' + a +++ - . -* *6 6 f i t t* **** t. **
'+**_ ,
- h ** hy
. ... .l . 9,+ .,, i t +}4*- .'+ ,A+ +- U+ ++ H *
'.,.+, lt*
.} b
. . . .. ... . j .i . . .,.. ...
, t .t **** **** ++** **++ *' '+
4 t. . . *** ,- t,' * ' "\
.. 4 94 . ,.
e
.t
..i ..}.
i , 4( ty .+t 6 t* ' '. ...,
,rii *** ** **
- t*
++ U\
,: - >:. ; .w+ : .
,+4..
N Os
. . . . . 4 4., . . . , , ,.4+ ..,, 6,a+ iF .: _A. _ ., , .., . . . .. r4 4 '
. . , ,. . . .. .,. 44 , 4 , ,,. .. . . . , , ... . . ,. .. o *
- 4. .., ., ie 7. I 9 .
...j . , , ,.
- 6 .tg4
- - ' t, . +{ g,t} }.6* 4 '.'+t,
?*** * ** *** ** 4
. ... ... . .,4 ,,. .. . ,..t. .. t ,+ . ,
.t .,., .... ,,.. . g. q. .
my A d
. f.. . .. .
., t... ..,t l. i .i - i s, , *
..t.
.. . +...
. .+
., i, t, +.,+
.4...
+
+-
.. g$ .I I
. .t . , ....
- 4. .
.. om 3 7
., l 4
,f. . . . . . . ,j . .; ,
.' .ii., ..
. . .. ,. 1
..i.
;,+. l....,.
.... . t 1 C
'. . 4 . 4 i++. .. .
. . .,.. . , , .. . . .+ . , .... .t,+ .++.. ... ... 4 4 m 9.f, ;i ttt
,4{ -
- e. .. .
l- .... ... .Q .... ,4 6
-_+
{,-
+++, *tt* if* - -
'O
44 (,,)
... ... ... /.,9 .,. .. . 6 , .,. . ..+,.
4{tv f l:. t 6, ,... .,tt .., , N.
...i . ...
. .t ..
.t,
. . . . 1,44 4 4
I. 4.41+
.+++
..4
.,.+ ,. ,j . ,
.t,... ... ...
c3
,, . .4 . .4 .,. .l 14 .. 6 , .f- ,.7, ..i. .C,. .i+, ... ... .
.. ..., .+4 .e ..., .... i' I4,
.... .'t' I' . , t6
.... ..,.6,
.. ...+
, . . .i , i. s .a
.j. .,. o,
,.6 .., 6+i .,1 ,
., +
, t. +. t
'.t* ..
t .. . .,t . . . . . 7., .. . i,. ..,, ..., ... .... .... 6 - a
.., .T
. .j I. . ..
.1
[.. t . 4
...{
... , 9 I.
.., lt.,
,e44 4.
.4- ... .1. . . .4 ... . . .t ,. , . 4. .,.. .., ..
..l.
., . . . . : e . . ,+ . .. .tt e+'- + t. *- + af *- .l
.,6
. . .t.1 4to
,+,4
.i .*. , .t 4' *
. 7,
+* t'.s*+'
4 . .
... .4 . . , . , .... .
,s 54 t9.f Af, .it.e4 6& t.t* *,4
.. .., 4' t 6t ***
. .4 ... 4
.}
,t ftt6 .
t,t t4 .t* t,t, *4* g* _
.4 . .,- , . . . .., ..f. , .. ..,. 4 .... .4, t6 . .. . .. ... ..
4... ..; .... ... .. t. . .. .+,. t. ,9 .
. 49,t
... .... . .. ... , ... . . . *' t- - ++ t *+ * ** - *
- *+'
. ,... ... . . 3. . . ..,t
* * -+
f+- ' *+- ' *i +' - *
.;- +
.. ' .' 4..
(. * . . ~
. 4..
,14 4., .
*4 a , .
. .. - .4,, 4,4, e.6 4
..i.., ..
. }j,
,{},
t,-,.. , l
. .et, s 17 ,. .
. . o
. Ae, 6***
. ,, 6 6. t e . +6 ,4.+ ,.
4... ,6.j ,., f.}t .t.* ??
-......9 y *#t6
__,_t
. 4{ -L '
- a r. - - . . + .n..m_-
t
9 Customer Efficiency Improvements and Peak Reductions: While the generating capacity margin; for 1995 shown in Figure 3 is barely adequate it is not comfortable. It leaves little room for low estimates of future loads, mana6ement errors, or unreliability of large 6enerators. There are three ways in which the desired 1995 optimum 20% 6eneration margin can be achieved: spend about $2 billion to complete and start operating Shearon Harris units 1 and 2 or spend about $500 million to buy 1 502 GW of conventional peakin6 capacity; or increase the efficiency improvements and load shifting beyond the amount planned by CP&L's mana6ement. The first alternative is the most expensive. The annual cost to the ratepayers of the extra $2 billion to be spent in the future will be about $400 million. The second alternative has an annual cost in 1995 of $100 million for capital and $43 million for fuel to operate the new peaking generation at an average of half its capacity for the 480 hours per year when reserves otherwise would be below 20%. The $43 million 1995 annual fuel cost assumes oil at $1.25 per gallon in 1982 dollars and 25% efficiency. There is an additional system cost associated with not finishing Shearon Harris units 1 and 2. If they were built they would displace some coal 6enerated base load. Assuming that coal and nuclear plants have the same M & O Costs then coal generation would c6st about
- Only one significant figure has been used for the cost of completing Shearon Harris units 1 and 2 because past construction cost estimates have not been accurate enough to justify more than 'one digit. It would perhaps be bettor to guess that the cost will lie somewhere between 1 5 and 2 5 billion dollars.
- m. .
10 I i, 0.8c per kWH more than nuclear due to the difference in the fuel costs. The two. nuclear units capacity would annually generate: 6 1800 x 0 7 x 8760 = 11.04 x 10 MWH The additional coal would cost $88 million per year in 1982 dollars. Oil in 1995 would have to increase to $6.16 per gallon in 1982 dollars in order for conventional peaking unit option to be more expensive than Shearon Harris units 1 and 2. In addtion the conventional peaking option has the advantage of relatively short construction times. The money need not be spent until it is almost certain that the need exists. Interest charges do not start running more than a decade before the need exists. Also if only part of the capacity is needed then only that part need be purchased because the units are smaller. If the capacity is unneeded at some future time paaking units can be sold and moved. The third alternative is by far the most attractive if it is possible. Good efficiency improvements have a zero or negative net cost because the energy saved is more valuable than the cost of the improvements. Many efficiency improvements can incorporate load shifting. Time of day rates can make further load shifting attractive. The only net cost to the system may be the coal not displaced. From Fi6 ures 1,2 and 3 it should be apparent that the extreme weather loads are the most important item to examine. In particular the cooling peak load is the critical parameter since there are many easy ways to reduce the heating peak load. CP&L's presently planned Conservation and Load Management program is a step in the right direction. Already it has caused enough reduction in the forcast load to permit the cancellation of Shearon Harris units 3 and 4. The program is l t j '
- . . . . - ~ . ~ .
11 Yl relatively new. It is not surprising therefore that them are program changes, improvements and additions that can enhance its effectiveness. 1 a These changes, improvements and additions are discussed in succeding sections. Their total impact is enough to make Shearon Harris units 1 and 2 unnecessary. e l I a i S M
,hi !'l #1 h
1 id. . 3 . N ! 4 l !5 id i-1 M l M f I ! I d .
-- - - ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~
Q i No-Ne t- C ost-Loans: There are many very cost effective energy investments that consumers could make but do not. They miss these opportunities out of ignorance, short si6htedness, timidity or perceived lack of cash. Very few people realize that a li 6ht bulb with a 50e price tag in a store really represents a $5 purchase because by the time it is burned out it will have used $4 50 worth of electricity. If people knew this the sales of fluorescent li6 hts would increase faster. Few people know that a typical electric water heater with a $200 store price will uce $5,000 to $10,000 worth of electricity during its life. If they did then many more solar, gas and wood fired water heaters would be sold. Many people who are aware of energy costs only think about their monthly bill and not about long term costs over a reasonable number of years. Most consumers seem to think of their finances in the periodic cycle over which they are paid and pay their bills. They find it difficult to save much or take on substantial new loan payments. ' They also are completely unused to thinking in terms of borrowing a little in order to save more. It is mostly beyond their experience to borrow money to save. A loan with payments of $10 per month which reduces some other bill $20 per month is mysterious. Yet, this is precisely what many energy conservation expenditures do. Consumer skepticism and timidity in this area is not surprisin6 They have been taught that "you don't Set something for nothing",but
, 33 1
that is precisely what happens when you stop waste. Investing a dollar and getting back two dollars sounds a lot like the empty promises of a seller of snake oil or underwater Florida land. However, in many investments in efficiency a dollar put in can return ten dollors in saving. j Most 'of these problems of consumer information, cash flow and credulity can be overcome by getting the utility involved in efficiency promotions and financing. The basic idea is to have the company sell l bonds and then use the money to finance consumer energy efficiency purchase s. Consumers would pay the bond interest and repay the principal with the dollars that the extra efficiency subtracts from their energy costs. The cash to repay loan and interest comes from energy bill savings. The typical consumer does not have to provide any extra cash per month for the loan. For each kind of purchase guidelines would have to be established to ensure both dollar payback and the desired energy i 1 re sult. 'For example, consider room air conditioners. A 14,000. btu unit with EER= btu /WH = 6 costs $390 while one with EER= 10 costs $570. The more efficient unit saves the consumer 933 kWH worth about $56 per year for 1.000 hours use per year. If a bond interest rate of 14 3% and consumer income tax rate of 30% is assumed then the annual after-tax j interest cost to the consumer is 10%. If the entire $570 cost of the more efficient unit is financed by a no-net-cost utility loan then two bad things happen. First, since the annual intereht cost ish $57 while annual saving is taken as $56 there is no cash left over to repay the principal. Secondly, by making extremely easy financing available to consumers more air conditioners will be added to the system and the l I
- s. .
14 summer peak load will likely increase which is the opposite of the desired effect. If, on the other hand, the amount financed thru the no-net-cost utility loan is the $180 difference between the costs of the high and low EER units the picture becomes much more favorable. The $56 annual saving pays the $18 per year interest with $38 left over for the principal the first year. The principal is repaid in about 4 years and for the remainder of the air conditioner's life the consumer 6ets the full benefit of its economy. The money is repaid rather quickly so that it can be recycled into some other consumer efficiency investment. The overall apInrent initial cost of the air conditioner is almost unchanged for the consumer at the time of purchase. The cash outlay for the good unit is the same as for the cheap unit and the cash cost of operation for the first four years is nearly the same. Thus, a sub-stantial increase in the number of installed room air conditioners is unlikely. The more efficient unit has been made a little more attractive than the low EER unit. The 0 933 kW summer demand reduction causes the utility to sell $180 in bonds or $193 per kW. This is a much lower financing burden than any new 6eneration and does not have to be repaid by the ratepayers. It is entirely repaid by the purchaser of the high EER air conditioner. Tne only costs to the ratepayers for the load reduction which substitutes for 0 933 kW of generation are the administrative costs of processing the bonds and loans and the cost of bad debts. Since people must pay their utility bills bad debts should be few. People who skip town can be detected when they apply for utility service elsewhere . l l E. . _ - . .- -
15 A useful technique in setting repayment schedules would be to set initial schedules for zerocash cost for the typical customer. For each succeeding year stretch the repayment time for new loans out a little to make it more attractive to customer with less than normal usa 6e of the thing being financed. i l l
.)
L 16 Bental and leased Properties: The energy and cost saving tenefits of this program can be , l extended to rented and leased space by simply making the past utility
! bills of the property available to prospective tenants. Where there )
i are many similar units such as essentially identical south facing apartments in the same complex it would be more useful to give average i Inst bills. With reliable utility cost information in hand when the
, lease is signed, efficient units will command proportionately higher , rents. No net cost energy efficient loans would be paid by the person paying the utility bill since he is the utlimate beneficiary. It may be useful for rental property to offer somewhat stretched out payments so that early tenants Set a lar6er share of the dollar benefits if they are paying the bills.
Building owners would always install the energy saving features since they have no net cost, may have tax benefits, and improve the property to allow higher future rents or resale value. l l
17 Storage Bin Air Conditioning: Thermal storage air conditioning accomplishes three desirable ends. It reduces peak loads, improves load factor and increases efficiency. The basic idea is to use a cooling unit similar to a window air conditioner to chill an insulated thermal mass such as a bin filled with rocks or sealed bottles of water. When space f l cooling is desired room air is blown thru the bin to be chilled to create cool air for a supply ducting system. With proper controls the cooling unit can run mostly at ni 6ht to take advantage of the J fact that a high EER air conditioner improves about 1% in efficiency l for each 1 F decrease in outside temperattee. The storage cooling I , unit can run 24 hours per day in severe weather rather than the 12 hours per day of a conventional air conditioner and thus need have j only about half the btu per hour cooling capacity. The cooling unit I is thus about half as expensive, has half the peak power demand and i is more efficient on aver 36e. In addition, the presence of stored cool will make consumers more willing to have their cooling power cut i ' during system peaks. t In fact shutoffs of up to 6 hours can easily be tolerated so 1cng as the house air moving blower continues to blow I air to be chilled by the stored cool. Thus storage air conditioning would reduce the typical 4 kW demand for a conventional 28,000 btu, i EER = 7 to 1 7 kW for a 14,000, EER = 10 bin cooler with a 300 W indoor fan. There is thus an automatic peak demand reduction of 2 3 kW at the
; time of summer system peak. In addition there can be a further reduction of 1.4 kW for several hours thru load control widaout the customer l
l t A
so N being aware of it if the bin is adequately sized to the house cooling loa d. Typically the bin would be massive enou6h to absorb the full cooling capacity of the cooling unit for 12 hours with a 25 F temperature decrease, For the 14,000 btu /hr unit this means a heat l capacity of 6,720 btu per F. If rocks are used then about 336 cubic feet would be required. Typically this would be an 8'4 f t bin that is four feet deep. The structure could be a concrete block box about nine feet scuare or a sheet metal cylinder like a stubby silo about ten feet 4 in diameter. With R-20 insulation it'would have an average heat gain of about 300 btu por hour or 7,200 btu per day or about 4% of a typical days cooling demand. This loss is more than compensated for by the fact that running at night improves the efficiency about 10%. In principle enou6h sytem air conditioning could be converted to storage type and then direct control could be used to eliminate the peak on the hottest days. The maximum weather sensitive peak forcast in Figure 3 is 3 3 GW above the normal GW peak load and includes about 0,4 GW of peak reduction due to air conditioner efficiency improvement ana load control. If the average EER of system air conditioners is raised from 7 to 10 by 1995 then the 1995 maximum weather sensitive peak would be 7/10 x (3 3+0.2) = 2 5 GW above the normal 6 GW peak. In '79 '80 the daily avera6e load on a mild day was 87% of the peak; the maximum peak load was 2.107 GW above the weather independent peak; and the daily averaSe load on the maximum day was 1517 GW above the daily avera6e load on a mild day. The weather sensitivo increase in daily average load is thus approximately 1517/2.107 = 72% of the weather sensitive increase in peak load. The 2 5 GW in.ather sensitive peak L
increase would thus bring a 0.72 x 2 5 = 1.8 GW weather sensitive increase in the daily averaSe load on the maximum day in 1995 with efficient air conditioners but no cool storage. Without storage the maximum summer day would then have a 6 + 2 5 = 8 5 GW peak and a (0.87 x 6.0)'+ 1.8 = 7 0 GW average load for the day. The most that storage could do on the maximum day is to shift enou6h load off-peak to maintain a constant load all day. In other words storage cannot do better than make the load constant all day long at the averaSe load value that would otherwise exist. Any more stor46e would CiVe a daytime minimum and a night peak. Thus with stora6e added to conversion to efficient air conditioners a maximum day peak load of 7.0 GW is possible. This gives a weather sensitive peak 7 0 - 6.0 = 1.0 GW above the weather insensitive peak forcast for 1995 This 1.0 GW increase is 40% of the 2 5 GW increase that would occur without storaSe. Thus the maximum possible system benefit from storage is obtained if 60% of the normal peak air conditioning load is shifted off-peak thru stora6e and load control. This presumes that there is to be no sacrifice in customer comfort or further improvement in insulation i that would actually decrease the btu's of cooling delivered en the maximum day. Insulation improvements beyond those planned in CP&L's conservation and load management program are likely so that the actual i I 1995 maximum day peak could be less than 1 GW above the mild day peak. l l e 9 A
20 Storage Bin Applications - Active Solar New Homes: The goal is to move 60% of the air conditioning load off Icak thru storage. The problem is then to identify which cases are the lowest in cost starting with those that are cost free to the' rate-payers. Storage bins associated with active solar heating systems using low cost air collectors can be obtained as part of the heating system at no net cost to anyone. The simplist and least expensive place to apply active solar air collector heating and hot water systems is new housing. About 33% of the housing expected in CP&L's area in 1995 has not yet been 4 built. A solar heating system with storage bin cooling for a typical new home in this area can have a net cost under $1000 and save $500 per year from the first year's energy bill (see Appendix I). A 545 tax-free and inflation protected return on an investment is guite exce ptional. Most new home purchasers would choose to make the $1000 extra investment if it were not for some informational and institutional impediments. The chief informational problem is that most consumers simply do not know that low cost reliable systems are now available. Most of the information published by " unbiased" sources has been about systems that cost too much and/or did not work. Consumers need to be warned that everything solar is not automatically good, but many now have the impression that everything active solar is bad. The chief institutional problem lies in the lending institutions. They typically consider neither energy costs nor tax credits when they compute mort 6 age eligibility. Most people buying new homes are trying to get as much house as they can qualify for without considering solar energy equipment l t i
and features. The extra cost cannot be added to the mortgage unless the lender takes into account the extra tax cash which flows back auickly and the long term cash savings resulting from decreased energy bills. CP&L could erase both of these impediments. Billing inserts pointing out good active solar examples would overcome the information i problem. No-net-cost financing of the extra construction cost of active solar energy systems with storage air conditioning would eliminate the lending institution problem. Repayment in this case should not be at a constant monthly rate. It would be better to tailor early payments to be larger to reflect the extra temporary cash flow due to tax credits. In this way the example house with $1000 net solar initial cost would rupay its $4500 no-net-cost loan in a little over two years.
, If we assume that two-thirtis of new home purchasers will desire low cost solar heating with off-peak storage air conditioning then 20% of CP&L's residential air-conditioning load in 1995 can be moved off-peak by these new solar homes. The above fraction 'si 20% rather than 22%
due to the circulating fans which would still be on during peaks. The only probable cost to CP&L is a continuing incentive payment for direct load control like the present one. If time-of-day off peak rates are attractive enough then even this incentive payment may be unnecessary. Competition, installation experience, mass production economics and future increases in energy costs 'will probably largly offset any future reduction in solar energy tax credits.
__. ~ __ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . -__ _ __ i __
', .' 22 Storage Bin Applications - Active Solar Betrofits:
About 20% of the homes in CP&L's area in 1995 will be unita that now exist and have an adequate southerly, sunny roof for a retrofit f active air solar heating and hot water system. A 384 ft2 air collector I system without a storage bin can be installed on nearly any of these units at a total cost to the consumer of $6,300 before tax credits and a net cost of $2,800 after credits. In these simple systems heat is stored in the heat capacity of the house. Adding a storage bin beside or behind the home would add about $700 to the net making it i
$3 500.
Many people with working air conditioners would not be especially interested in the storage bin at the time the .ollectors are installed since it increases their cost by a fourth without much increase in
; energy saving. Later their air conditioner will need replacement or
- major repair. If they already had a bin they would protably save noney and connect a smaller new unit to the bin rather than buy a new expensive large unit. To ensure that adequate storage for future cooling is installed with the solar collectors and tax credits, CP&L i should nake no-net-cost loans available to any property owner who installs !
a solar heating system with adeauate storage suitable for storage air conditioning with direct loed control. The loan repayment rates depend on the energy displaced. The typical system would annually deliver 12,000 kWH of usable heat for space and hot water heating. For homes with electric water heaters the first 1 l year value of this heat at present energy prices is $699 for electric l l .. -l b
23 resistance space heat, $563 for oil heat, $516 for Lp gas, $459 for heat pump heat, and $427 for natural 6as heat. All of these savings are lar6e enough to regy a no-net-cost loan. However, it mi6ht be desirable to speed up repayment by increasing the payment size as the price of displaced energy escalates. This repayment method would have to be [ used with homes having natural gas, heat and water heat since the first year $300 value of the heat delivered at present 6as prices is less than the loan interest. Escalating prices should permit reasonable repayment t times even in the all natural 6ase case. I I If half the suitably roofed homes added active solar systems with storaSe air conditioning by 1995 then these will represent about 10% of the residential air conditioning load. In addition there are a substantial number of home renovations annually which involve addin6 living space and new roof. In one sample of 20 small, single family homes on large lots, half of them added roof and living spee over a 25 year period. The observed avera6e rate of 2% per year is probably not representative of the Op&L system as a whole which includes attached homes, rental units, large homes and many with limited yard space. Even if the observed rate is a factor of three too hi 6h there would still be about 74 of the units in 1995 which now exist and have had roof added between now and then. If half of these are suitable for solar energy then another 3% of the residential air conditioning load would te converted to off-peak storage. 1 l j
l ,, , ao Storage Bin Application - Non Solar:. Time-of-day rates make storage bin cooling attractive even when they cannot be used for solar energy. When a conventional air conditioner wears out or needs major repair the consumer may choose storage cooling. A 14,000 btu /hr EER = 10 air conditioner and a storage bin cost about
$1,800. A 28,000 btu /hr EER = 10 air conditioner to do the same job cost $1,300. The net cost of adding storage is thus $500 since the installation costs are about the same for either cooling unit. The l l
conventional worn out unit being replaced is assumed to have EER = 7 and 1 with present residential electric rates would cost $233 24 per year to J operate 1,000 hours. The stcrage unit taking advantage of TOD rates would operate 2,000 hours for $107 55 including demand char 6es for about 100 hours of on-peak use each month. The difference in operating costs easily repays a no-net-cost loan for the $500 difference in cost between the two options. Thus storage bins in conjunction with TOD rates are seen to be applicable to most centrally air conditioned houses even if they are not suitable for solar heat. Central air conditioning is about 64% of the residential weather sensitive load during the cooling season. Since the residential load is about 42% of the coincident peak the total potential for weather related peak reduction by treating centrally air conditioned residences is large. Of the total housing stock in 1995, 22% has been estimated as active solar new homes,10% as active solar retrofits on existing roof and % as active solar retrofits with new roof. The 22 + 10 + 3 = 35% of total homes represent 0.42 x 0 35 = 15 of the total weather sensitive peak. The remaining 65% of homes not i
\,.. .--m -
4p 2f ' i l active solar have 0.65 x 0.64 x 0.42 - 17% of the system weather _I_ ! sensitive peak due to centrally air conditioned homes. If two-thirds of these units take advantage of storage bin cooling then the system weather sensitive peak would be reduced another 11%. The total expected reduction in 1995 weather sensitive system peak thru storage bin air conditioning of centrally air conditioned homes is 11 + 15 - 26%. This is 26% of the total weather sensitive peak. Since only 42% of that peak is residential the reduction is 26/42=62% of the residential weather sensitive peak. Thus if all this storaSe and load control is installed the summer residentia1
~
load would actually peak at ni ht 6 on the hottest summer day. , i h
26 i Storage Bin Application - Commercial and Industrial: Small commercial loads are essentially the same as residences and thus the same analysis should apply. Consider for example a 10 kW, 100,000 btu /hr unit running 1,000 hours per year. It would have an annual energy bill ranging between $563 and $800 depending on what other loads entered into the demand billed during the non-cooling months. Under Small General Service TOD rates it would cost $675 per year. However, with a 2,400 ft storage bin its whole load could be shifted off peak and the annual energy bill wculd be $286. The $277 to $500 annual bill reduction would easily pay back a $2,000 no-net-cost loan to pay for the stora6e bin. The no-net-cost loan is especially important here because businesses typically expect to invest their limited capital at a much higher rate than that available in the long term bond market. In the above it has been assumed that the came 10 kW machine would be used in either the normal or storage system. In fact a small unit would do the job in nearly all cases and save some capital investment to further increase the attraction to storage cooling. Larger cooling loads using chilled water distribution systems can store cool directly in a large unpressurized water tank if care is taken in designing flow paths and baffling to preserve storage tank stratification. In some cases such as supermarkets which need very low humidity) air conditioner evaporator temperatures are normally low. In these situations it may be feasible to switch to machinery with evaporator temperatures low enough to store cool by making ice and greatly reduce the size of the stora6e unit. There seem to be no reasons why 60% of the commercial and industrial air conditioning cannot be converted to stora6e if no-net-cost loans are made available. k
27
. 1 Air Conditioner Efficiency Improvement:
By 1995 every air conditioner me.de before 1975 will be more than 20 years old and probably scrapped. Upgrading the efficiency at the time of replacement is very easy as explained in the example in the i No-Net-Cost Loan section. A consumer would be very foolish to choose a cheaper model with high operating costs when a high efficiency and protably sturdier model has the same short term costs and lower long i term costs. It is quite likely that the lower efficiency models would be driven from the local market by lack of demand. i i
, ,. zo Heating Season Weather Sensitive Peak Load:
Low grade heat for winter space heating is easy to obtain from many sources and easily stored. Thru 1995 it should be rather easy to bring down the growth in winter weather sensitive peaks to match the summer peaks. Any storage bin air conditioner can also be an off-peak heating system simply by adding strip heaters and controls to l the air conditioning unit. Resistance heat can be switched to scme other source such as natural gas, LP gas, or oil. In some cases with electric furnaces and heat pump bekup heaters the switch over can consist of simply adding an air-water heatexchanger with hot water derived from a new fuel fired water heater and circulating pump. This scheme is often convenient because it allows the flue pipe to be some distance from the air handler. The new water heater also eliminates i 4 the water heating electrical load. To the extent that solar heating is installed fuel and electrical energy resources become available to reduce the growth in winter peak demand. These actions to reduce winter weather sensitive peaks are readily financed thru no-net-cost loans because fuels and off-peak electricity are all substantially less
, expensive than on-peak electricity, i
I e i i l I' i
gg 1 . .. . t Mild Weather Peak Load Reduction: There is at least one large steady residential load that can be further reduced below the values expected by CP&L's load management and conservation program. The planned water heater load control is to reach only 25% saturation by 1995 with an average peak load reduction of 0.4 kW per unit controlled. These targets can be improved upon considerably. The 0.4 kW per heater figure can be raised to 0.8 kW 4 each by increasing the off-time to eli;ht to twelve hours. Control can be extended to low population density regions by using $10 quartz crystal controlled time clocks similar to those most people wear on their wrists. With a lithium battery the clocks would need attention only once every ten years. The twelve hour off-time would require upgrading the size and insulation of water heaters when they are replaced due to age. By 1995 most of them will be. If a 0.4 kW load reduction is worth $24 per year than a 0.8 kW load reduction is worth at least $48 per year. It is actually worth more since it has the same effect as controlling twice as much load for the same control cost. Upgradin6 the size of a water heater costs about $2 per gallon of capacity. Adding 50 to 80 gallons to the new tank is thus easily financed by a no-net-cost loan which would be quickly repaid by the $48 annual payment. At least half the customers probably have room and would make the switch to the larger tank. The 1995 peak load reduction would then be 4 x 69 MW = 0.28 GW nearly independent of weather. I I I i l l 1
I('
, ' ~
t* .
. + . .
- '_i*.,
' _ . 11
+,4
,4 ilt 1 ' ..,,
+,.t .e,.,
4*.* f
'a4 ,
u i.l. i, ii *}
*}
- .4
,1
,7
. , ,n
.f t- ;
i }t 1i , , . -4 A '
,t,,
'i,t i
- i6 t,
.t+
f t -} s q TD?gg $ .
.gXy.D
' 6 c,. Q
. et. * - . . . . .
.N .A ~
.gs'hg t.%q.
t
- ,* . '6
.f. . * -4. . . - . . .
.' .. * .,. 4l.l, * .. . ,,. . . . . -. . .,,, '. . . , . - ,,. i ti' ,64+ ,!*4, t.6+ 1*j + ,[ .t'i
+I,++4
'. . . . , . e.. . * . . . 't+ . .
. . . . . . . . , . - . . . + * ,. '. , 4 . . .
* . ..+.
4,,'D &%N.,+ .
,. ymg...
QNx
- . , . + . . . . . .. . , - . - . . - -
q-a* qg .4 ' M. . . . +4
..@. **..,. , . 't. . . -
4 . . i
,.4
!+
,.+ ,
.tt+
; . + ,
;t+ ,
. . , ... ,.. . . ,t.
. I ,, *4 . . . , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . , ,. ' . , . . ' * , . . .t' . ,., * + . . ,t'. 66i, ; I.
. .' . ,.+ .'e4 if.t ,- 4I64
.,(e, .t ,4 ;,;. t.lt ,. .. . 1. . .6 . t , + .. ' . , .l . ! .t 6
' t! . Is a ,, ..t, 44t. .' .
.n g. *p..
, t., . . ,
QTg. A
- .D iQ., tt.6 t. .+++ ,,tg
. . 4.
%* %W . + . .
I . t4 . i. , . . . +
, . {. .
A. . , { . . - . i
.t,, 'I .
. . . * . t
\,+e
, 7
, ,- . , , ,,] . . . , , i . . . . . . * . . + , , ,,,. .. ,, . ,,' l 44 - tt. i'j I . . +, .iI.,
.8 . t' , , .
j . f.f - . . , '
, . ,. .l4 r'. .
,' g i. ,
. . i, ..
-.*.. . sf.
. . . +' ,, ;4* . .. . - , ,
. . - .,. . ,.. .,,e.
- t. , -
J' 5 .b
-/ . .
b f ' . . 4 , ,.
.i
-A.j',
t' i ,.
.4l
.Ii
.i
,'l<
- ,. . . i , , . . , . . 1. ,' .4 ' .
9 . -'h. .t,N"-
- + . . ] ^ . ,+,
.* - t,,. . .i ,. tte . ,
5/. . _/./
..M . . . . .
)
. 'i.
(
'\ . . - - - -
- e,t. t.4,; e1ij
. . . W.,t,
. . + -
/.. / -
I I g l' . f g , 0.g. . .
' . - . .. ,' . i . . - . ,. , . - ,. t'6 . t. . . tt.. . '4
* . ./ . . . . - . * , . , .+ - . ,t. , - , . .4 , ,i . ' .. * . .4 .6 - ,', ,'4 + , . . . '4-o ,. .,,
. . ,.. , . . ,,+ ,4 , .. , .at, . .i.
,4t l4,. , . . . ,t, , . , . . ,6 't ,. ' . . 1t, . ' e ' . .. .; ,. . , . , .. ,, }tt,' .tt.
,i-.l
,,;, .lt , ,, ..Ft ,44 . . - ,,'8.
.- ,. . . .' , ,+.. I'i , .i, ,,.t, +4 .
. . . . y'
.1I t l++e i.,. ,4. .
. .D. e ,}f g,t
,'1+
,'4 . . . . . * ,4 : ,.4, , .. , ,f. , +t., ; .,, .4tt. ,. .+ . .i. ' .
,,464
; . ,e}, .4 t,~
',++. f .
,. ,. ,e ,, 4 . ,.
;'t. +.+ . +,6 . . .+ . , . ,. . * . ,,4. . ,. .
. . s 49, V,g . -
.g sV. . .,.,: . , ' ;
tt. ,. ,. . f. .4 . , . ,.,,;t,te ;t +4 .v,. , . , * .+ .4 t. .. ! .l, t,,* .g, ! i .i+4 i. . - ,+ . . . *1 . +. ,
. , ,, +t4{ ,, t. i!i.44 -ti,4 41 t, , 4,' ,
,+ . , . . ,. . ,-a . . . .t. ' ,,j4,+ , ,,1+
9.+4+4- .
..+. 6. ,. . I . ,,,. ..*e4;'4. t 64 + . ,,4 4g t .:It,.
+...i .6 1 ,.4} ,.4, .,i t't, t* f i .-! j,f .tl44 . .* , . 4i. 4,I.
,* ,. . ,, . I . . ,. . , ,,s; t. .4 ,4 . ..4 . +t,: 4+, 4. ! ,,,t: }., .,., ,s i, ' ,,. . . .- i.,, ..+.+- e'. , 'I.i 41 .at,.
-,. . ,. ,.+ . . .,. t. . . * .. . * . . , . . . . . . - .+4.i,
.t .. + .
- 4: . . ,. . , ,. . , .t. ' . .. . .- .6 } 4* ,.- .t,. i,.t ,. .. - ,. .
,. 44.t .+., ,... ,t. , '... . ,.' .. ,t,. .tj s.I: i .
, '+, - tt + ,. t. .+ .. 44 ,- 44t.
~,,+,,
. .N i},. i.'. e6,. .i4..
. rt, j ,t, iA,6 . ,+.l :I4,t . , tt . . . 9 64.a ~ .
.},e ,.4 . . ..
. ,.. .4 ., , . . . 4., '... . . , - ,. .. .
,t,4 .',. , l. . ii{,
. . .. ,. , , . , . . ,... . ... , .:6',. . 4e. .u
,: . + . , . , . 4. 4. . ,i4
. , . ,, .+ - . . . . , ;'t.* .. + . , . . j4 ,l I .. 4 . . , ' . ' . ,. , . . t ,a ' ,. . ,. . ,. .- .4 ,. -. . . .i -,+ ,, ..,'
,. ;+ )4
- t. ., :j,
.,.i
+ . . .
+..,
. ,,,4-t,.
i.. .
+.. .t.t.
i4,..
,g,.,w ' ,.,a
.,.t
).+4 ,.4. ; .*. . ; _.... 6+ .. .,4
,. . j. .. . ,t.
4,,+,-
,. , '. 44 . . ,,, 444 . .,. ,. .. . , , . * ,.,. .p,.4 . ,;. . . .. .. . i . ,' . *,}, l,,, ,4{ . i,.. .I 1
. . ,. * . .. . . + . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . ,.4
. . .+ . . . . . , . . . .. , . . . . ,.
. . . _ . . . , . , .. ,7 . . . .. .' , . , . ..,, ,4.. . + . . . .
..4 , . . .. . . .. , . . + . .a . .6 4 ,
.... . . . . . .. . . . . . 1, : * .. :. . . . 4 . ... : ... . .6 . .4. . - .i. .
,6.. . . . ,,. . ,. . - . ,4 .
, ,6 . . . . 6.. . .i. , . . . . '
. . . . . .. ; .i . , - , ,. . , .
. . . . .e. . , * . . + , , . . , . . . 3.
. ,. - ' ,. - . + .+ . . . ,. .
. ,. . . .. . ,,. .4 ..
... . . . . . . ... . .4. .. - ' .. - . .. . . . , . . . : ..4 . . . : . . .. .. .. . . . .- ... . , . . . ,
. * . .. . ,. . . . . . - ,9 ,. i. ,. . . .
.0g. ,6. i64 . . . . . , . . . .. . . . . . - . ..
.$[. t
.e
.~. . . - . . ;.. -
.. .Ng.
..-q .
%q..
- .qi hL
. . . . . - . . 3,g ]... . .&3. .
D.. . . g4 . . - .
. - - 3Q. .
,. . . . . , . . . . . . , ,. .. . -4 ,. . ,. . ,
. . . . o.
7 nq,q '
- g. , ,
4 4 4}
. 3. . qh ,s . , . . . .
. ,. . . , . . ' . , + ! . . .
%.~..
i7' u .sDQMjernm n, gor &N gr&3 Pa"rrro3pr
- 3OuvN OMpgog gdPM 6opgp p3
, d yP@ S aNp,, - g nOggo 2Prrop pDg gOP4 DPcpm3.ey prA t re. goc m.,3PHop rpyg yc 5r&p >
4 x l pUa m-f_ l iIl [,lil tI'
,I .t I llla __1
21 . . . Summary: Figure 4 summarizes the results of these analyses. With a suitably designed and promoted conservation and load management program the growth in weather sensitive peak loads can le substantially reduced. Under these conditions the 1995 peak load would be 6.7 GW which is well within the present generating capacity of the system at 8.163 GW. The erucial elements of the program are information, no-net-cost loans, and load shifting thru storage. The cost to the ratepayers of the specific elements in the program is essentially zero. Conc 1usion: Since a no cost program can make the present CP&L generating capacity adequate thru 1995 no further construction or new generating plant operation is needed for the forseeable future. However, since Mayo unit 1 is nearly conplete it probably should be finished. The excess g capacity from Mgo unit 1 will provide some margin for error in case it takes longer than expected for customers to respond to the load management program. The capacity of Myo unit 2 and Shearon Harris units 1 and 2 is unnecessary. There is a no-net-cost method to meet the needs that these plants were originally intended to serve. The only cost associated with cancelling Shearon Harris units 1 and 2 is the modest cost of the coal fuel they would have displaced. Should it happen that load management works much more poorly than planned then Mayo unit 2 could be finished and if necessary some quick peaking capacity could be purchased. 1 i All of these solutions have a lower cost and therefore consume fewer resources than completing and operating Shearon Harris units 1 and/or 2. 1 I I l l w
N 3 SOLAR-AIN SYSTEMS GIVE COMF0HT AND CASH W W W W Dr. C. George Reeves. Energy Control Systems I
; tr A* g I
3324 Octavia St. . Kaleigh.11. C. 27606 gj 4 g
<o - - -
g ,. ,. .. m3 i if Cuning a low-cost solar erargy system is a little like owning a small oil well - it delivers energy ard tax sheltered money. For a typical new If
~2 >;
I [I Ip
;j
+
1 a home a Solar-Air system from Energy Control Systems will cost initially 2.1 1 VD id I about $1000 more than a neat pump ard electric water heater. But.it will (E E $1 ** save mon than half the electric bills for heat, hot water and air condition- ;; _ ' i ing. The extra $1000 initial cost can to simply added to the mortgage. This ~g I l 7 e adds a few dollars per morth to the mortgage payment but for every one dollar $a ' added to the mortgage payment six dollars are taken off the monthly electric ii I (, . g till. Thus you always have more spending money l' you have a Solar-Air ' 11 i home. In a.idition, mortgage inte re st is tax dedactible and money saved on {"T f'. gp
- f. STORAG g i electric bills is tax exempt cash! With Solar-Air you will to warner in d ;E h.*
2 , winter, cooler in summer ard have mon cash in your pocket. %- N I , , , The Solar-Air Systems '
. 4 A typical system for heats not water and air conditioning has a sun collector. storage, back up heater, chiller and control system. The Solar- * *
- Air collector normally provides much of the South roof area and is tilted t- -
]
45 to catch tra winter sun. Tre sun passes thru two layers of clear material l l ard is absorted by and warms a black surface. Air blown thru the Solar-Air 1 g panels is heated by the warm black surface. Air is tmst for a sohr heating , system in this part of the country since most lecple want air conditioning i ard air collectors can to simple, eccnomical ard avoid plumbing, corrosion. I and leakage problems. Solar heated air can heat the house directly, heat , I water in an air - water heat exchanger or heat a storae er tin. The storage bin is usually about 1/2 to 2/3 of a cubic foot of rocks for each squan J + l l foot of collector. The house can be heated at night or on cloudy days by , d cirtulating room air thru the hot storage bin ard tack into the room. A k a conventional hot water storage tank saves solar heated water for use at ni@t. If there an coveral cloidy days in a row the stored energy will to used up l g p h e en and some other (tack up) heat source is r.eeded. Gas or oil water heaters and I - g W wood stoves are guite satisfactory tack up heat sources. Y
- l , f. *y11J Z> Q The system also assiats in summer air conditioning by using the collector ard storage bin. In summer the bin can store cool rather than heat. The I, ,, _, .._ _ J collector can is used at night to cool air which then goes thru a chiller and thru the storage bin. The chiller is much like a window air conditioner. E 9
By running the chiller at n1@t with the collector cooled air the cooling efficiency is substantially increated. The stored cool can to used to cool s C l [ the house on the next warm day by circulatis.g room air thru the storage bin. 31nce the storage bin lets the chiller run both night ard day in very hot k dJ weather, the btu capacity of the cooling unit can to about half as laf6e as O: @ a conventional central air contitioner. An a6tomatic Energy Processor D containing blower. pump heat exhanger and motorized valves manages all the required energy flows in response to sunlight, system tem,mratures ard thermostat setting. k A typical, well insulated 1800 square foot new home will need about 400 ' mW souare feet of collector to provide abuut 60% of the winter heat and hot water energy: 90% of late spring, summer ard early fall hot water; and a a s g 40% reduction in summer cooling costs when compared to a similarly insulated
- heat pump home. The solar energy system will reduce the first year energy bill by about 10.000 kW}t worth $$00. In future years the dollar savings would g
increase da to inflation in energy costs. The Public Staff of the N. C. g
/ c/
i
table change s11thtly for differ *nt interest. Inflation and tan rates.but the Utilities Commiston projects an electricity cost inflation rate of about overall result is esentially tem rama. If you live in a state without solar
*/% per year thru 1990. With a 7% inflation rate the Dolar system savinE tax credits then the result is still attreettve. leaving out the M. C. tax in energy t,111s woulJ total $47 305 over 30 years. r* tate incpanes the initial mortgar paymnt to $ 14.51 per month and causes the final 30 year accomulated savings to te $ 86.906 instead of $ 95.222.
Solar -Air System Costs - - New Houses The costs of the various parts of a typical Solar -Air system are shown in the table talou. An existing houne usually already has a heating and cooling system and a roof so that som of the Solar-Air money r,aving features In new homes are not 416 square foot collector $ 2496 Solar energy system price $ 8500 applicable. However, a Solar-Air Collector is roof that can te either addad on Collec tor insulation and ducting 236 less cost saving on items top of enlating roof or uvd to create a new corport, garage or room addition. Raf ter heat shields 278 omitted - 4000 The structure of many ernsting hors is so massive that the storare bin is not Storage bin 400 Issa N.C. tan relate - 1000 reeded. The surplus solar heat in the daytime can simply te used to warm the Storage tank (120 gal) 260 tess U.S. tan retate - ?j28 home a few degrees. The live-in storage naves about $1000 in cost. Without Cas fired water heater 280 a bin a Golar-Air system with 416 square feet of collector would cost about 400 Net cost of adding solar $ 972 $6000 total installed price. Tax credits of $2400 Federal and $!000 State Chiller (14.000 ptu/hr) would reduce the amou.. . to te financed by the homeowner to $6000- 2400-1000-Energy processor 1650 Ins %11ation of collector, system. $2600. This simple Solar-Air system would une the estating heating cooling room ducting and contractors profit J300 an! hot water equipent for tackup. The $2600 to te financed can te more than E8500 repaid by the $500 per year energy bill saving. For example if the $2600 la financed with a 10 year home improvernt loan at 16% interest the cash effects The sales price of a solar energy system installed to heat. cool and make would be as shown in the following table hot water for a typical new home would thus be about $ 8500. This does not mean th1t the solar system has increased the cost of the home by anywhere near this year from annual value monthly solar ' extra solar acetmulated snount. In the first place the Solar -Air system replaces a heat pump. electric start of of solar energy loan payment spend ing solar savings water heater and 400 square feet of conventional roof that together would have cost loan delivered per costs money ter year in the tank about $ 4000. These money saving features mean that insta111ng a Solar -Air year tylten increases the direct cost of a new house by only $ 8500 - 4000 = $ 4500. To help you pay this $ 4500 the state of North Carolina will send you checke 1 $ 500 $ 34.92 $ 81 $ 86 totaling $ 1000 as N. C. income tax relates under present law. 1he U. S. government 5 655 37.88 200 822 vill send you income tax retate checks totaling an additional $ 2$28. The money 10 919 44.83 381 2942 refunded comes from N. C. and U. S. Income taxes withheld from your pay. Thus 20 1807 0 1807 24073 the tax rebates pay $ 3528 of the $ 4500 leaving you with a net cost of only 30 3557 0 3557 81046
$ 972 to be added to the mort 6 age. put more simply the $ 972 added to the mortgage saves $ 47.305 in electric bills over a 30 year perind.
The exact values of the ntaters in the table depend on interest and inflation Cash Synding Money Effects - - New House! rates but for any reasonable values the overall result is esentially the same. If for example the loan interest rate is 18% instead of 16% then the accimulated Since the $ 972 Solar -Air system always saves more from the electric bill cash savings is $79,641 instead of $R1.046. If there are no state tan credits than it adds to the mortgage payment, there is always more spending money ulth tr. your state then the amount f'.nanced changes to $340 and the accumulated solar. The table telow shows how much extra sper:11ng money there is for neveral cash saving tecomes $75.504 instead of $81.046. y*ars daring the life of a 30 year mortgage. Tin deilar value of the solar energy goes up each year tecause energy costs are assued to inflate 7% per year. The Summary s year f rom annual volte monthyl solar entra so?ar acetmulated The clear message in these numters is that you can use a Solar-Air system start of of solar energy loan gayment sprvling solar savings and the tank's money to heat and cool your houe armi make hot water. The energy mortgage delivered p r year costs money pr year in the tank bill caving will repay the tank loan and leave a lot of cash available for other things. If the houw is sold the Solar-Air system will add to its sales argeal 1 $ 500 $ 7.15 $ 414 $ 440 and vale. 5 655 7.?? 568 2918 to 919 7 35 831 8256 Many people fim1 ttese solar energy cash savings incredible. However. In an 20 1808 8.01 1712 325 % average week about $10 worth of solar energy hits a typical roof arul is wasted 30 3551 10.or- 3436 95??2 and lost. A Solar-Air system simply captures this energy and makes it useful. Owning a non-solar roof in 1981 is equivalent to setting fire to a $10 bill mortgage interest rate has teen taiten at IN arut the long term navings account every Friday. Ne st year a non-solar roof will cost even more due to enerry cost interest at 9C. The right hand colian in the table shows how much money would gnflation. acetmulate in the savings account if the entra solar sparuling money la naved each year. The money saved accimulates to total $ 0%2?? t y the time the mortgage with a Solar-Air system you can te warmer in winter, cooler in sumer save la guld off! For computat ions in tte table twom tax raten for $ 11.400 annial much money, connrrve non-renewable resources and te less effected by tie tanable family income has been use t. Ttw euct valies of tie nunters in the twicettaintlen in t'uture energy prices amt supplies *
@l N
w___ __
e .. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF WAKE Today Dr. G. George Reeves appeared before me and affirms that the attached analysis and information is t:pue and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief and was prepared by him for Wells Eddleman.
- this //8 f February 1983 Dr. G. George Reeves
?
ud" ('d ' b l&c %
?![47 a 4' l
F 1 l COSTS AND SAVINGS FROM j CONSERVATION AND LOAD MANAGEENT J SUBSTITUTIONS FOR CP&L GEERATION l Dr. G. George Reeves 3324 Octavia St. Raleigh, N. C. 27606 February 10, 1983 f l l I
Introduction 1 The purpose of the analysis is to quantify the costs and benefits of the specific conservation and lead mana8ement measures treated in the author's " Conservation and load Management Substitutions for CP&L Generation" report of July 14, 1982. The following assumptions will be used throughout this analysis:
- 1. All dollar values are expressed in 1982 dollars
- 2. All costs and energy prices inflate at the same rate as overall inflation rate 3 Existin6 electric rates reflect true costs
- 4. Costs and savings (benefits) are computed at the consumer bill 5 Each measure is implemented in 13 even increments from 1983 through 1995 High EER Air Conditioners:
A 14,000 btu per hour air conditioner with EER = 10 uses 933 watts less and costs $180 more initially than a common EER = 6 unit. Thus it costs the consumer 180/0933=193 per kW of load reductica. The estimated 1995 system load reduction was 0.8 GW on the maximum summer l day reducing the maximum weather sensitive peak from 3 3 GW to 2 5 GW. ! The annual power demand increment would be 0.8/13 =.0615 GW - 61 5 MW. , The yearly consumer cost of this 615 MW is estimated at
$193 x 61 5 x 103 - $11.88 x 106 . The additional energy saved each year is estimated at 61 5 x 10 x 1000 - 61 5 x 10 kWH for the -
typical 1000 hours of air conditioner use per year. The value of the
m. h
-2 . .
f energy saved is about 5 8 cents per kWH on residential bills and from 51 to 7 8 cents per kWH on small general service bills. The lower 51 figure applies if the customer's air conditioning load is a small fraction of his total demand charges. The 7 8 figure applies if the airconditioning demand is the majority of his total demand. The 5 8 cents per kWH number has been used for all air conditioning loads. The cost after 1995 assumes that each year 5 of the high EER air conditioners need replacement. x 10 x 10 Year Cost Savin _g 1983 11.88 3 57 1984 11.88 7 14 1985 11.88 10.71 1986 11,88 14.28 1987 11.88 17 85 1988 11.88 21.42 1989 11.88 24 98 1990 11.88 28 55 1991 11.88 32.12 1992 11.88 35 29 1993 11.88 39 26 1994 11.88 42.83 1995 11.88 46.40 any year 7 72 46.40 after 1995 ! Table I . HiSh EER Air conditioners Costs and Sav ings l
3 Active Solar New Homes It was estimated that with reasonable enecouragement 25 of the 770,000 residences expected in CP&L's service area in 1995 will be solar homes constructed during the next 13 yer.rs at an avera6e rate of 13150 Per year. Each home solar heating system has an estimated net,after credits cost to the consumer of $1,000. The estimated energy saving per year is $500 per home after allowing for maintenance. x 10 x 10 Year Cost Saving 1983 13 15 6 57 1984 13 15 13 15 1985 13 15 19 72 1986 13 15 26 30 1987 13 15 32.87 1988 13 15 39 45 1989 13 15 46.02 1990 13 15 52.60 1991 13 15 59 17 1992 13 15 65 75 1993 13 15 72 32 1994 13 15 78 90 1995 13 15 85 47 any year after 1995 0 85 47 Table II Active Solar New Homes Costs and Savings I
l _4 , , l i Active Solar Retrofits: It was estimated that 13% of the CP&L service area residences in 1995 or 100,100 units will have active solar energy systems retrofited by 1995 Spread over 13 years, 7,700 residences per year would be retrofitted at a net consumer cost of $3,500 each. It has been assumed that the market penetration for each type of conventional heating is the same for the converted homes as it was for CP&L as a whole in 1981. The weighted average annual energy bill reduction is thus $554 per unit. This understates the actual system wide cost saving because there will be a tendency for more expensive conventional systems to be converted. 6 x 10 x 19 6 Ys Cost Saving 1983 26.95 4.27 1984 26.95 8 53 1985 26.95 12.80 1986 26.95 17 06 1987 26.95 21 33 1988 26.95 25 59 1989 26.95 29.86 1990 26.95 34.13 1991 26.95 38 39 1992 26.95 42.66 1993 26.95 46 92 1994 26.95 51.19 1995 26.95 55 46 i any year o 55 46 after 1995 Table III. Active Solar Retrofit Costs.and Savin 6s
p- ' Residential Storage Bin Air Conditioning Without Solar: I From the above estimates 35% of the 1995 residences in CP&L's service area are anticipated to be active solar assisted. Assuming l 1981 central air conditioning market penetration applies in 1995 then 64% of the remaining non-solar units would have central air conditioning. Assuming that 2/3 of these take advatage of storage air conditioning by 1995 there would be 2/3x0.65x0.64x770000-213.547 such residences. The net cost of converting to storage bin air conditioning at the time of present system wearout is the difference between the cost of an EER = 10 full size air conditioner and a storage bin. Taking 28000 btu /hr as a typical residential conventional cooling system, the net cost difference is $140 per . unit. .The annual saving per unit through time-of-day rates and mostly off-peak running should be $55 72 per unit. This is the additional saving beyond what would occur with a conventional EER = 10 unit x 10 6 x 10 6 Year Cost Saving 1983 2 30 0 92 19B4 2 30 1.83 1985 2 30 2 75 1986 2 30 3 66 1987 2 30 4 58 1988 2 30 5 49 1989 2 30 6.41 1990 2 30 7 32 1991 2 30 8.24 1992 2 30 9 15 1993 2 30 10.07 1994 2 30 10 99 1995 2 30 11 90 I any year 0 11.90 l after 1995 Table IV . Costs and Savings for Non-Solar Residential ) Storage Air Conditioning ( b -
-6 .
f Non Residential Storage Air Conditioning: The weather sensitive coincident summer peak with EER = 10 air conditioners in 1995 would be 2 5 GW. The non-residential fraction of this 2 5 GW has been estimated at 585 Converting 60% of the non-residential 58% would shift 870 MW of coincident summer peak load to off-peak. Non-residential consumers would pay about $200 per kW shifted and annually save $38 90 per kW under time-of-day small general service rates. Allowing 13 years for the change would mean converting 870/13=66.92 MW per year. x 10 x 10 Year Cost Saving 1983 13 38 2.60 1984 13 38 5 21 1985 13 38 7 81 1986 13 38 10.41 1987 13 38 13 02 1988 13 38 15 62 1989 13 38 18.22 ' 1990 13 38 20.83 1991 13 38 23 43 1992 13 38 26.03 1993 13 38 28.64 1994 13 38 31.24 1995 13 38 33 84 any year after 1995 0 33 84 1 Table V. Non-Residential Storage Air Conditioning Costs and Savings
r . .r 1 Water Heater __C_ontrol: It is estimated 345,000 customers can be converted to effective off-peak only water heating at a consumer cost of $130 each, saving l 0.8 kW each and reducing each customer's bill $48 per year. The continuing $3 45 x 10 annual cost assumes an average 13 year life for the larger storage tanks. 6 x 10 6
- x 19 Year Cost Saving 1983 3 45 1.27 1984 3 45 2 55 1985 3 45 3.82 1986 3 45 5 10 1987 3 45 6 37 1988 3 45 7.64 1989 3 45 8 92 1990 3 45 10.19 11.46 1991 3 45 1992 3 45 12 74 1993 3 45 14.01 1994 3 45 15 29 1995 3 45 16.56 any year after 1995 3 45 16 56 Table VI. Water Heater Load Control Costs and Savings t
i l . f f i
--,s.- _ ,-
r -+-e m ' g- -**'t-' + * - *
( .s_,. . S ummary: Table VII shows the total consumer costs and savings for the six measures discussed here. Notice that the annual costs are quite small after 1995 because properly built storage bins should have a very long trouble free life. Active air-collector solar heating should last as long as the attached building with proper maintenance which has been incitded in the net saving calculations. 6 x 10 x 10
-Year- Cost Saving 1983 71.11 19,20 1984 71.11 38 39 1985 71.11 57 59 1986 71.11 76.78 1987 71.11 85 98 1988 71.11 115 18 1989 71.1 1 134 37 1990 71.11 153 57 1991 71.11 1 72.76 1992 71.11 191 96 1993 71.11 211.11 1994 71.11 230 35 1995 71.11 249 55 any year .
after 1995 11.17 249 55 i Table VII. l The net lon6 term savin 6s 245 55-11.17 - 234 38 million dollars per year is considerably larger than the $88 million annual fuel cost saving I if Shearon Harris units 1 and 2 are built and operated at 70% of capacity to save coal, d
p-Additional Savings: In addition to the savings estimated here there are others which are related but not specifically included. Any electric heating customers who add storage bins for cooling will probably also take advantage of time-of-day rates and shift their heating off-peak. Many heat pump customers may choose to install a fuel fired water heater and a heat exchanSer for heat pump backup and save on both their heating and wate$ bills.- Thus there are additional savings beyond those in Table VII. . G 9 4
~
.t 3 1 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF WAKE Today Dr. G. George Reeves appeared before me and affirms that the attached analysis and information is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief and was prepared by him for Wells Eddleman. YF M ay of June 1983 Dr. G. George Bee M h5 ' E y; y a/ ll&"
/ i dm ,
S
'caA~
fc ,,
~i l
F ] i i I ADDITIONAL 1995 CP&L CONSERVATION ENERGY Dr. G. George Reeves 3324 Octavia St. Raleigh, N. C. 27606 June 25. 1983
i'
Introduction:
Another useful way to quantify the costs and benefits of conservation measures is to compute the cost per kWH saved. This way is particularly useful to consumers because it lets them rank competing conservation measures and also avoid those which cost more than the ener6y they save. A conservation measure has an annual extra maintenance cost (M) and an annual capital cost (CC) determined by the intial cost (I), the useful life (n), and a diccount rate (d) CC = I d 1-(1+d)'" where n is in years, d is the effective annual, after tax, after inflation interest rate that consumers pay or receive on safe, long-term borrowing or saving. When the inflation rate is steady long enou6h for the capital markets to adjust d = .03 Consumers pay their bills with after tax, inflated dollars. Thus the appropriate consumer discount rate is the after tax and inflation interest rate on long term borrowing and saving. For example for 1% inflation, mortgages cost 6% and savings yield 5%. With 30% marginal state and federal income taxes the after-tax numbers are 0.7 x 6 = 4.2% and 0.7 x 5 - 3 5%. One percent inflation reduces the real after-tax interest rates to 3 2% and 2 5% respectively. Steady 5% inflation should produce 12% mortgage interest rates and 10 5% long term savings interest for i
,p.~-
y v m,.- e ~ - .m
g_ -- real after tax and inflation rates of 3 4% and 2.4% respectively. When inflation is changing fast interest rates lag and overshoot leading to transients in the value of d which average out over the years. The total cost of conserved energy (CCE) for some conservation measure ist
= 1 M+I d ,
(CCE)
.\ E -
1- (1+d)'" - where.' E is the number of kWH saved annually. High EER Air Conditioners: A 14,000 btu per hour air conditioner with EER= 10 uses 933 1 For the typical watts less and costs $180 more than an EER=6 unit. 1000 hours annual use 933 kWH would be saved. The more efficient For a 20 year unit should have no extra maintenance costs (M=0). life the cost of each of the conserved 933 kWH is thus (CCE)= 1 0 + 180 .03 = 130c/kWH
-20 933 ~ -
1 - (1.03) The total 0.8 GW load reduction by 1995 due to high efficiency units implies a total energy use reduction of 800 GWH in 1995 Active Solar New Homes: A typical new home active solar heat and hot water system costs
$4500 before tax credits $1972 after 40% U.G. credits and $972 after U.S. and N.C. credits (Appendix I) . The system would save 10,000 kWH
l per year compared to a typical good heat pump equiped home. Additional l I maintenance costs are about $40 per year. A properly maintained air t system should have a life of 40 years or more; thus take n= 40. For low costs active solar air without tax credits: (CCE) = 1 40 + 4500 (.03984) =2.19e/kWH 10,000 L .J I With U.S. tax credits only: (CCE) = 1 40 + 1972 (.03984), = 1.19e/kWH 10,000 [ l With both U.S. and N.C. tax credits: (CCE) =' i 40 + 972 (.03984) . - 0.79e/kWH 10,000 . . 4 The total 1995 energy saving anticipated from new active solar homes in CP&L's territory is 0.68 x (169,400 x (10,000) = 1152 x .0 9 kWH or 1152 GWH. The 0.68 facter is the fraction of new homes that would have heat pumps. It assumes that new homes without solar use wood, natural gas or heat pumps and that the distribution among these three stays as it was in the 1982 saturation survey. Active Solar Betrofits:
)
The estimated 100,000 active solar retrofited homes in CP&L's territory in 1995 would each cost $3500 with U.S. and N.C. credits.3 Without the N.C. credit the cost would be $4500. Without any tax credits the intial cost per solar unit would be $7500. Do-it-yourself installation would reduce the costs to about $1700, $2700, and $4500 respectively. l
A system life of 40 years is assumed and the added maintenance would be about $40 per year as in the new house case. For each of the contractor installed cases the cost of conserved energy ist (CCE) = 3 39 e/kWH (notaxcredits) (CCE) = 2.19 c/kWH (U.S. tax credit only) (CCE) = 1 79 c/kWH (U.S. and N.C. credits) . For do-it yourself installations the conserved energy costs are (CCE) = 2.19 e/kWH (notaxcredits) (CCE) = 1.48 e/kWH (U.S. tax credits only) (CCE) = 1.08 e/kWH (U.S . and N.C. credits) . The total system GWH reduction in 1995 depends on how many of these 100,000 homes had electric heat and/or water heaters. Using saturation data and assuming that the 100,000 retrofited homes are similar to the overall population there would be 15,900 heat pumps, 34,100 electric heat and 82,500 electric water heaters. With 4,050 kWH per water heater, 6,000 kWH per heat pump and 8,300 kWH per electric furnace the total 1995 reduction would be 713 GWH. Solar Water Heaters: The 500,600 non-solar heated residences in CP&L's area in 1995 are candidates for solar water heaters. A standard 40 ft , $2000 before tax credit unit can be expected to provide 60% of the annual hot water of a typical residential customer using 60 gallons per day. This would save 2887 kWH per year. U.S. and combined U.S. and N.C. tax credits would reduce the system consumer cost to $1200 and $700 re spectively. The system should last at least 20 years with extra 7 maintenance costs of about $10 per year. (CCE)=500e/kWH (no tax credits) (CCE) = 314 /kWH (U.S. credits only) (CCE)=198W/kWH (U.S. and N.C. credits) l If three-forths of the 1995 non-solar heated homes with electric water heaters have converted to solar water heat then the annual energy saving would be 894 GWH. This estimates 500,600 x 0.825 x 0 75 - 309,746 solar water heaters in CP&L s area in 1995 This la 4 3 times more units than contemplated by CP&L's load mana6ement program. Window Shading and Unshading: Window treatments are another example of cost effective solar conservation measures. Few people realize that an ordinary 15 square foot south facing window can capture 20.4 therms or 598 kWH of heat per average heatin6 season in Raleigh. Incident radiation during each heating season would average 193,710 btu per square foot 5 and about 70 % would be delivered through double glazed windows. Also, few people realize how much solar heat is collected by curtained windows during the cooling season. During the heating season, people presently have about half of their south window area obscured by curtains and outside screens which keep out about 55 % of the potential solar gain. Assumming that the windows are about 30 % shaded by fenestration and trees; the available annual energy from opening curtains fully and storing screens for the heating season is 0 55 x 0 7 x 598 = 230 kWH for a south 15 ft.2 window. The annual cost of hiring someone to do this would probably not average l
more than $2 per window. The cost per kWH is thus 2/230 - 0.87 e/kWH assuming resistance heat is replaced. The 1995 system wide saving from this measure can be estimated by assuming that each of the 250,000 non-solar, electrically heated homes 2 south window. The estimated 1995 annual saving is 192 GWH. has 50 ft of The estimate may be somewhat 6hi h because it neglects the fact that some of the energy displaced would have come from heat pumps; but on the other hand it may be somewhat low because it neglects the electric backup heat saving in active solar homes. During the cooling season heavy white curtains or drapes reflect only about half of the solar heat that penetrates. Typical numbers are 60% transmission thru, outside insect' screening, 70% transmission thru double glass and 50% transmission thru incide drape s. Thus an unshaded window with the drapes closed transmitts 0.6 x 0 7 x 0 5 = 0.21 of the incident solar energy to the home interior. The average annual incident solar energy on 200 ft2of Raleigh window during June, July and August is 14 million btu if the windows are equally divided among N, S, E and W wall areas. 21% of this energy or 2 94 million btu would get into the home. l At EER=10, an airconditioner would need 294 kWH to remove this heat gain. For the 74% of the homes with air conditioning, assuming it is used an average of 60 days per summer and that windows are 70% shaded by trees and buildings: the annual 1995 energy would be 78 GWH to remove this solar sumner gain. The simplest way to reduce this gain is to grow morning glory on wire mesh in front of the windows. For ground floor 15 ft2 windows it 7 . would cost about $2 and if the home occupant rolls up and saves the mesh each year it should last 20 years. Upper floor windows would also 2-need window boxes and cost about $10 each. An average unshaded 15 ft window would have its solar gain reduced by 221 x 103 btu saving 14.7 kWH for 60 days use per year. The cost of conserved energy ist (CCE)= 0.91 e/kWH (groundfloor) (CCE)= 4 57 /kWH (upperfloor) Lighting: If there are an average of two,100W incandescent lamps per home that burn 2000 hours per year, then another 185 GWH can be saved on 1995 residential lighting. A 32W fluorescent lamp produces more light than a 100W incandescent bulb.0 Considering ballast losses about 60W is saved for each incandescent bulb replaced. Replacement costs are between $15 and $30 per bulb depending on whether or not a screw in fluorescent substitute can be used in an existing fixture. Bulb cost is about the same per hour since fluozescent bulbs cost about 5 to 10' times as much as incandescent but last more than 10 times as long. Taking fixture and ballast life at 20 years the cost of conserved energy is: (CCE)= 0.84 c/kWH (same fixture) (CCE)= 1.67 c/kWH (newfixture) Motors: More efficient fractional horsepower motors are now available at only a slight increase in price.7 Any motors with substantial annual use should be the high efficiency kind. For example, consider hp 1 blower motors which run about 3000 hours per year. The high efficiency
-7
6 motor uses 62W 1ess and has a retail list price $23 37 more. At 3000 hours per year and a 10 year life the cost of conserved energy is: (CCE)= 1.47 /kWH. Nearly all such motors now in the system will probably need replacing by 1995 Some homes have more than one s dual heat pump homes have four. It is thus likely that by 1995 there will be an average of one per re sidence . The 1995 system energy saving would be 143 GWH. Bath Water Space Heat: Some energy saving measures cost nothing in money or comfort. It is simply a matter of making a slight change in the way things are done. Bath water space heat is an example of this. A bath or shower with 15 gallons of hot water has 3 3 kWH of energy which normally flows immediately down the drain. However, in the heating season the water can be allowed to to stand in the tub until it coold to room temperature. This removes about 2.2 kWH from the waste water and transfers it to the space to be heated. By simply opening the drain. later 2.2 kWH of free space heat is obtained. This is easily done for the last bath of the day or for any bath followed by a few hour interval until the next use. If an average of one bath per day for the 180 day heating season for 385,000 homes with electric heat or backup heat fcllow this procedure, then 152 GWH would be saved. Television: There are some energy savings that will occur with no consumer effort > [ or expense. Television receivers are an example. By 1995 nearly all the i l t 1
1 l . l l present 300W, 864 kWH per year televisions will be replaced by current j 100W, 288 kWH units. Newer more efficient sets do not cost more, the 1 l overall technology has simply changed for the better. As old TV's wear out and are replaced, energy is saved at no cost to anyone. Actually, only the larger sets use 100W now with many 19" units using only about 2/3 as much ener6y. However,100W is probably a good number to use for the future to account for the tendency to use auxiliary equipment such as computers, games, and VCR's with TV. These auxiliary units typically need from a few watts to a few tens of watts. Taking the present average annual TV energy per household to be 864 kWH, we can expect a 444 GWH reduction in annual energy use for tele-vision. Summary: The summary table lists the measures discussed here with their costs and the GWH made available by them in 1995 The GWH column is the extra energy made available beyond that planned by CP&L's load management program. The neasures are all cost effective since they cost less than the present price of electricity. In fact, they all cost less per kWH than the future expenditures for any of the Shearon Harris' units. Unit i has the lowest future expenditures at $825 million in 1984,1985, and 1986 construction costs and future fuel, operations, maintenance, repair, and decommissioning charge s. At 60 % capacity factor and a 20 % annual capital charge, future construction cost is 3 49 g/kWH. All other future charges would have to total less than 1.08 g/kWH to be equal to the least attractive present
SUMMARY
TABLE Measure /kWHCCE 1995 GWH New 1995 GWH High EER 1 30 800 707 < New Active Solar No Credits 2.19 1152 1152 U.S. Only 1.19 U.S. and N.C. 79 - Retrofit Active Solar No Credit 3 39 U.S. Only 2.19 U.S. and N.C. 1 79 Do-it-yourself No Credit 2.19 713 713
.L Retrofit Active Solar U.S. Only 1.48
? U.S . and N .C . 1.08 Solar Water Heaters No Credit 5 00 894 686 U.S. Only 3 14 U.S. and N.C. 1.98 Winter Windows .87 192 192 Summer Windows Upper 4 57 78 78 Cround 91 Lighting Same Fixture 0.84 New Pixture 185 185 1.67 Motors 1.47 143 143 Bath Water Space Heat .00 152 152 TV .00 444 444 4452 .
~
~
i conservation measure at 4 57 e/kWH on the list. The next most expensive present measure is solar water heat without any state tax credit i at314W/kWH. It costs less than the remaining unit 1 construction costs. l Thus, even if all construction costs on unit 1 before 1984 were magically forgiven and erased, it would still be more expensive per kWH than the listed conservation measures. It is also of interest that the listed t measures total to 4452 new GWH made available which would be the output of unit 1 at 56% capacity factor. t
, . - - , - - - , , > - , - , - , a.- . - , - - py,,--,,,- --
. \
Refrence s:
- 1. Sears Roebuck,1982 Spring & Summer Catalog
- 2. D. Hall, V.L. Sailor, L.G. Fishbone : " Evaluating New U.S. Energy Technologies", Energy Economics, Policy and Management, Spring,1983
- p. 40 - 49 3 G.G. Reeves, "Censervation and Lead hanagement Substitutions for CP&L Generation", July 14, 1982
- 4. Summary of Appliance / Heating and Cooling Saturation Study,1982, CP&L 1 5 D.Y. Goswami D.E. Klett, M.T. Raiford. E.T. Stefanakes " Solar Radiation Design Data for North Carolina", School of En6 ineering, NCA&T University, July 1979
- 6. W.W. Grainger catalog # 363, p. 540, 543 7 Ibid., p.64, 65 i
~ - Appendix I .
SOLAR-A1H SYSTEMS GIVE COMFOHT AND CASH Dr. C. Geory Itseves. Energy control Systone g n2= Octavia St. . asteigh, u. C. 27606 g 3 T'
< g. . . -.--
- 1 g
Ouning a low-cost solar energy system is a little lik,a owning a small If 8
+ 1 all well - it delivers energy and tax aholtared, money. For a typical new I g 4
home a Solar-Air erstem from Energy control Systems u111 cost initially M y 1 I about $1000 more than a heat pump amt electric water heater. But.it will g 5 g o save more than half the electric bills for heat. hot water and air condition- 4 ing. The extra $1000 initial coat can be staply added to the nortgage. This adds a feu dollars per month to the mortgage payment but for every one dollar $
] f' f ,,,
added to the mortense payment six dollare are taken off the monthly electric $5 . 8 bill. Thus you always have more spending money if you have a Solar-Air p7 a ll w a g home. In addition, mortgage interest is tax deductible and money saved on electria bills is tax essept casht with Solar-Air you will be warmer in Q hI *)' g
, [ 1 r.4* Qf rinter, cooler in stamer amt have more cash in your pocket. <
N l
- 4 I, . Qe:
The Solar-Air Systems g
,. s ..
h.e4 - 4 A typical system for heats hot unter and air conditioning tas a sist , N, collector, storsgo, back up heater. chiller and control system. The Solar-
- 0 *
$ll Jur !wammm9ms Air collector normally provides such of the South roof area and is tilted - - E E' h*EE 3*5* to catch the winter sua. The sun passes thru two layers of clear material
- l -l 'g 'G '5 ~
and is absorbed by and unas a black surface. Air blown thru the Solar-Air 4 panels is heated by the were black surface. Air is best for a solar heating I I M system in this part of the country since most people want air conditioning e ami air collectors can be simple, economical and avoid plumbing, corrosion, e and leakage problene. Solar heated air can heat the house directly, heat I unter in an air - unter heat exchanger or heat a stornes bin. The storage bin is usually about 1/2 to 2/3 of a cubic foot of rocks for each square 8 ,_1 + 8 I foot of collector. The house can be heated at alet or on cloudy days by + circulating room air thru the hot storage bin and back into the room. A e conventional hot water storage tank saves solar heated water for use at night. l If there are several clouty days in a rou the stored energy will be used up - and some other (back up) heat source is needed. Cas or oil unter heaters and I ag J 4 . uood stoves are quits entisfactory back up heat sources. l
.1.,,,1 The system aleoassists in staaer air conditioning by using the collector
- l ~ -~ ~'~ ~ ~
ami storage bin. In simmer the bin can store cool rather than heat. The c:11ector can be used at night to cool air which then goes thru a chiller and thru the storage bin. The challer is much like a windou air conditioner.
~ 9 By running the chiller at nipt with the collector cooled air the cooling '
cfficiency is substantially increased. The stored cool can be used to cool \ C the house on the rioxt var e day by circulating room air thru the storage bin. - { Q Since the storage bin lets the chiller rte both night and day in very hot \ ,J g usather, the btu capacity of the cooling unit can be about half as lapse as W s conventional contral air contitioner. An automatic Energy Processor- \ containing blouer, pump, heat enhanger and motorised valves manages all the required energy flows in response to sunlight, system tes;mratures and \ thornostat setting. A typical, well insulated 1000 aguare foot new home util need about 8600 s ag,g sounze feet of collector to provide about 60% of the vinter heat and het water energy 90% of late spring. summer and early fall hot waters and a 3*05 reduction in summer cooling costs when compared to a similarly insulated de N heat pump home. The solar eurgy system vill reduce the first year energy bill by about 10.000 kWM worth $$00. In future years the dollar savings would g increase due to inflation in energy coats. The Public Staff of the II. C. I
- 13 4
table change slightly for different interest. Inflation and tax rates.but the Utilities Crwiston pro. Pets an electrtetty coat inflation rate of about overall result is essentially the ease. If you live in a state ulthout solar 75 pr year thru 1990 With a 7% inflation rate the solar system saving tan credits then the result is still attractive. Isaving out the N. C. tas in energy tills would total $47 305 over 30 yeers. rotate incream a the initial mortpge payment to $ 14 51 pr month and causes the final 30 year accoulated envings to to $ 86.906 instead of $ 95 222. Solar -Air System Coats - - New Houssi Solar-Air System Cash - Enlating Houne s The costs of the various parts of a typical Solar -Air system are shown in the table ta= low. An esisting houne usually already has a heating and cooling systen and a roof so that some of the Solar-Air money saving features in new homes are not 416 square foot collector $ 24"6 Solar energy system price $ 8500 app!! cable. However, a Solar-Air Collector le roof that can te either added on Collector insulation and ducting 236 tesa cont naving on items top of esisting roof or uned to create a new corport, garage or room addition. Raf ter heat shields 278 omitted - 4000 The structure of many estating hoses is so easelve that the storspe bin la not Storage t*ln 400 less N.C. tan rotate - 1000 needed. Tte surplus notar heat in the daytime can staply te uned to mars the Storage tank (120 gal) M4 less U.S. tan rotate - 22 8 home a feu degrees. Tie live-in storage saves shout $1000 in cost. Without Cas fired water heater 280 a tin a Solar-Air system ulth 416 myuar* feet of collector would cost almt 400 M*t cost of adding solar $ 972 $fD00 intal installed price. Tax credits of $2400 Federal aml $1000 State Chiller (14.000 ptu/hr) would reduce the amount to te financed by the homeowner to $6000- 2400-1000-F.nergy Frocessor 1650 Ineallation of collector, system. $2600 This almple Solar-Atr systra would use the estating heating. cooling room 4 rt ing arut contractor.4 prnfit 270 arnt hot unter equipm*nt for lackup. The $2MO to to financed can te more than
$ 8TO regeld by the $500 ger year energy bill naving. For example if the $2600 la financed ulth a 10 year home improvement losn at 16% interest the cash effects The sales price of a solar energy system Installed to heat eccl arvi make would to as dioun in the folloutng tables hot mater for a typical new home would thus tw alcut $ 8$00. This does not mean that the solar system has increased the cost of the home ty anyutere near this year from annual value monthly solar ent ra solar acessnula ted annunt. In the first place the Solar -Air system replaces a heat pump. electric start of of solar energy loan payment sier:11ng solar savings mater heater and 400 square feet of conventional roof that together would have cost loan delivered per costs money pr year in the tank steut $ 4000 These money naving features mean that Insta111mg a Solar -Air year system increases the dirwet cost of a new houw t,y only $ 8500 - 4000 = $ 4500.
To help you pay this $ 4500 the state of North Carolina util aerwt you checks t 8 500 $ 34.92 $' 81 $ 86 totaling $ 1000 as N. C. income tax relates under present law. The U. S. government 5 655 37.88 200 822 util seral you ineone tax rwtate checks tgtaling an adattlonal $ 2528. The money 10 9t9 44.8) 381 2942 refunded comes from N. C. arul U. S. Income tarea withheld from your pay. Thus 20 1807 0 1807 2407) the tax rebates gay $ 3528 of the $ 4500 leaving you uith a net cost of only 30 3557 0 3557 81046
$ 972 to te added to the mortgage. Put more simply the $ 972 added to the mortgage naves $ 47.305 in electric blue over a 30 year priod.
The exact values of the nuaters in the table depnd on interest and inflation Cash Synding Money Fffects - - New House! rates but for any reasonable values the overall result la essentially the same. If for esample the loan interest rate is 185 instead of 16% then the accumulated Since the $ 972 Solar -Air system always saves more from the electric bill cash savings is $77.641 instead of $81.046. If there are no state tan credits than it adds to the enrtpape payment. therw is atuays unre agending money utth in your state then the anom t financed changes to $)600 and the accumulated solar. The table telou shows how much entra spruling money there is for neveral canh saving tecomes $75 504 instead of $81.046. years during the life of a 30 year mortgage. The onilar value of the solar erergy gnes up each year tecause energy costs are assumed to inflate 7% ger year. The Summary s yea r f rom annual value monthyl solar antra solar accumulated The clear message in these nunters is that you can use a Solar-Air system start of of solar energy loan payment spruling solar savings and the tenk's money to best ami cool your house arut make hot unter. The energy mortgage delivered pr year costs money p r year in the tank bill naving ulli regey the tank loan and leave a lot of cash available for other things. If the houne is sold the Solar-Air system ut!! add to its males appeal I $ 500 $ 7.15 $ 414 $ 440 and value. 5 655 7.27 568 2918 10 919 7 35 831 8256 Many pople first these solar energy cash savings incawdible. How ever. In an 20 1808 8.01 1712 32576 averare week about $10 morth of solar energy hits a typical roof and is vastad W 3558 10.06 3436 45222 ami lost. A Solar-Air system atmply captures thle energy and maken it useful. Omning a non-oclar roof in 19R1 to equivalent to setting fire to a $10 bill enrtgage inter *st rate has teen taken at 15 and the long tern aavings accomt every Friday. Nest year a non-solar roof mill cost even more due to energy cost Interest at 95. Tte right hand column in the table reown how much money would inflation, acc oulate in the navings account if the entra solar spreting money is saved each yaar. The un ney raved acetsmulates to total $ 95.222 by the ties. tie mortgage With a Solar-Air system you can tu. warmer in ulnter conter in a-r. ente is peld of f! For congmtations in the tat le income tax rates for $ 11.400 annual much money. consarve non-renewable resources and to less ef fectrd by the tanable taally income han teen uwd. Tre enact values of the noters in it* uncertaintles in future energy prices arut supplies . 14 - 9
a7 G. GEORCE REEVES Present Position President, Energy Control Systems, 3324 Cctavia St. , Raleigh, H. C. 27606 Tel. (919) 851-2310 Professional Experience Research and development in solar heating, photovoltaic solar energy systems, injection lasers, solid state device fabrication processes, optical communications and electronic instruments. Teaching and course development in electronics, digital systems, thyristor circuit design and electromagnetics. Consulting with NASA, RTI and private companies on solid state devices, fabrication processee, digital systems and solar heating. hanagement of solar energy design and manufacturing. Past Positions 1977 - present - President, Energy Control Systems 1971-1977 - Assistant Professor, Electrical Engineering, North Carolina State Universiety 1962-1971 - Instructor, Electrical Engineering, North Carolina State University 1960-1962 - Teaching Assistant, Electrical Engineering, North Carolina State University Education North Carolina State University, Ph.D. in E.E. ,1971; North Carolina State University, M.S. in E.E. ,1965: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, B.S. in E.E., 1960. Memberships i IEEE, Sigma Xi. :tethodist Publications i
" Polar Display Phasor Measurement Device," M.S. Thesis, N. C. State l University 1965
" Broad Band Laser Amplifier " U.S. Patent Number 3,621,459, November 16, 1971
, j "The Transversely Adjusted Gap Laser - A New Class of Devices," Ph.D. Thesis, N. C. State University, 1971.
Gallium Arsenide Technog, Vol. II, Wafer Processing, with R. P. Donovan, Technical Report AFAL-TR-72-312, Vol. II, January,1973 f (
1 f G. George Reeves Pa6e Two l
"The Transversely Adjusted Gap Laser for Optical Communication Systems,"
IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics, Vol. QE-9, No. 7, p. 762-768, July, 1973
" Mode Multiplexing in Optical Communications," Proc. of Southeastern 74 Conference, IEEE, p. 522-525. Hay,1974.
" Solar Er.srgy Reduces Total Housing Payments," North Carolina Energy Notebook, Tri-City Sun Day Inc. , May,1978.
Selected Public Lectures
" Low Cost Home Electricity and Heat Using Solar Cells and Focused Sunlight,"
NCSU Solar Energy Seminar Series, April 17, 1975
" Astronomy, Optics, Solid State and the Energy Crises," NCSU Society of Physics Students, November 6,1975
" Low Cost Solar Electricity," IEEE Eastern N. C. Section, February 25, 1976.
Testimony
" Impact of Solar Heating on Electricity Demand," U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hearing, Raleigh, N. C., September 27, 1977.
" Energy Conservation Thru the Utility System,: N. C. Utilities Commission, Energy Conservation and Load t'.anaEement Hearings,1978.
" Actions to Reduce North Carolina Utility Bills About Two Billion Dollars Per Year," N. C. Utilities Commission Energy Conservation and Load Management Hearing, 1979.
I l l 1}}