Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs (2006) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix D Supply Technologies
Appendix D Supply Technologies
Pages 86-123
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 86... ...
Also included are a products used in the overall production of electricity from summary of New York State's current policies related to PV gas turbines in the New York City area. technology and an accelerated PV-deployment scenario for · Appendix D-4, "Proposed Pipeline Projects in the New York State through 2020.
|
From page 87... ...
Data exclude delivery costs. Data reflect fuel prices that are New York State-specific; see Table D-1-7.
|
From page 88... ...
Adjustment to fuel costs may change relative cost of electricity. NREL wind costs noted that Canadian wind/hydro would add $0.002/kWh to $0.006/ kWh to the cost of pure wind alone.
|
From page 89... ...
89 Payment ($/kWh)
|
From page 90... ...
. bFuel prices are New York-specific.
|
From page 91... ...
91 Payment ($/kWh) 0.0340 0.0275 0.0317 0.0257 0.0339 0.0126 0.0376 0.0128 0.0443 0.0089 0.0454 0.0236 0.0183 0.0398 0.0238 0.0703 0.3793 0.4022 modeling million)
|
From page 92... ...
. bFuel prices are New York-specific.
|
From page 93... ...
Fuel 2004 Prices 2004 Prices in 2003$ Coal 1% S $1.50 $1.47 Natural gas $4.50 $4.42 Municipal solid waste (MSW) $2.50 $2.46 Biomass $2.50 $2.46 NOTE: Fuel prices are New York-specific and were provided by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.
|
From page 94... ...
Erin Hogan is with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.
|
From page 95... ...
95 0 0 0 0 6.7 6.7 30 30 9.9 9.9 47 47 0.03 0.03 Wind WND 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 18 18 20 20 0.5 0.5 39 39 Wood WD 1.00% 0.00% 0.26% 0.55% 498 499 0.20% 2,611 2,610 1,981 1,971 5,090 5,080 Uranium UR 0.04% 0.50% 0.20% 9 8 39 38 34 33 13 12 52 52 0.2 114 121 260 264 0.97% 6.43% 1.25% Refuse REF 4.06% 2.07% 12.3% 4.65% 18 0 18 0.48 0.48 0.00% Other OT 97.4% 58 57 3 2 122 122 927 922 471 460 105 105 2,672 2,636 0.60% 1,470 1,472 0.18% 0.67% 5,827 5,777 Water WAT 1.34% 1.62% 0.64% 2.30% 21.4% 0.86% 5 5 2 2 2 6 6 6 5 17 17 0.2 36 37 heads. 3.85% 0.00% 0.00% 4.28% Methane MTE 0.51% 9.09% column 15.6 15.6 186 117 202 133 0.00% Kerosene KER 36.99% 34.13% Jet Fuel JF 0 0 "Single-Fuel" see 6 1,667 1,649 1,667 1,649 (MW)
|
From page 96... ...
96 0 0 6.7 6.7 30 30 9.4 46 48 0.03 0.03 Wind WND 0.00% 11.1 0.02 0.02 0.00% 0.00% 18.2% 0.00% 0.00% 3.68% 18 18 20 20 0.5 0.5 39 39 Wood WD 0.6% 0.50% 0.00% 0.00% 498 499 0.14% 2,630 2,629 1,987 1,985 5,115 5,113 Uranium UR 0.03% 0.11% 0.04% 8 8 40 40 33 33 13 12 51 52 0.2 112 112 257 257 1.77% 0.68% 1.96% Refuse REF 4.76% 0.18% 0.19% 12.03% 0 0 0.48 0.48 Other OT 0.00% 0.00% 58 58 2 2 125 123 831 927 492 497 104 105 2,672 2,674 Water WAT 0.07% 0.21% 1.6% 11.4% 0.85% 1,487 1,517 2.07% 0.86% 4.2% 5,772 5,903 2.26% 6 6 2 2 2 6 6 6 6 18 17 0.2 37 39 heads. 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.09% Methane MTE 1.79% 1.44% column 22.4 17.7 197 137 220 155 Kerosene KER 22% 31% 30% Jet Fuel JF 0 0 "Single-Fuel" see 6 (MW)
|
From page 97... ...
97 69 79 15.6 14.3 18.8 19.4 103 112 Wind WND 8.3% 14.1% 2.72% 8.63% 98 94 107 104 192 211 Wood WD 9.03% 10.4% 9.71% 3,863 4,308 Uranium UR 11.51% 20,833 20,057 3.72% 15,915 16,260 2.17% 40,610 40,626 0.04% 91 77 43 49 270 245 228 236 382 378 892 897 3.64% 0.64% 1,905 1,883 8.96% 14.44% 1.02% 1.13% Refuse REF 15.09% 0 0 Other OT 4 8 216 239 653 276 714 381 363 6,417 7,108 2,491 3,491 2,129 12,355 17,316 39.% 40.15% 10.46% 10.77% 4.68% 26,008 28,153 8.25% Water WAT 57.77% 71.34% 107.93% 51 45 17 16 14 19 16 118 144 205 236 heads. 2.19% 22.12% 15.13% Methane MTE 11.02% 16.75% column 2.4 0.2 19 43 21 43 Kerosene KER 90.% 132.% 106.% Jet Fuel JF 0 0 "Single-Fuel" see 6 395 407 395 407 (GWh)
|
From page 98... ...
98 Wind WND 14 79 19 112 Wind WND 0.2 0.3 1.4 0.1 Wood WD 107 104 211 Wood WD 1.2 7.4 0.1 4,308 Uranium UR 20,057 16,260 40,626 Uranium UR 68.8 73.6 97.7 27.6 77 49 245 236 378 897 Refuse REF 1,883 Refuse REF 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.5 2.3 6.1 1.3 2005 Other OT 0 0 Other OT 0.0 0.0 1, 8 239 276 714 363 7,108 2,129 3.8 1.0 3.9 Water WAT 17,316 28,153 54.0 77.7 50.8 25.0 19.1 Water WAT 100.0 January heads. of as Methane MTE 45 16 14 16 144 236 Methane MTE 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 column Type Fuel 0.2 Kerosene KER 43 43 Kerosene KER 0.0 0.2 0.0 by "Single-Fuel" see Jet Fuel JF 0 Jet Fuel JF 0.0 6 6 heads, Production No.
|
From page 99... ...
99 Wind WND 0 6.7 0 0 30 11.1 48 Wind WND 0.0 0.7 0.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 Wood WD 18 20 39 Wood WD 1.4 2.1 0.0 0.1 499 Uranium UR 2,629 1,985 5,113 Uranium UR 51.3 38.2 94.5 12.9 8 Refuse REF 40 33 12 52 112 257 Refuse REF 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 2.5 2.0 0.6 2005 Other OT 0 0 0.0 Other OT 16.1 1, 58 123 927 497 105 6.0 1.8 3.0 Water WAT 2,674 1,517 5,903 Water WAT 51.3 72.5 52.5 42.9 77.2 14.9 January of heads. as Methane MTE 6 2 2 6 02 6 17 39 Methane MTE 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 6.7 0.1 0.1 column Type, Fuel Kerosene KER 17.7 137 155 Kerosene KER 0.5 1.4 0.4 by "Single-Fuel" see Jet Fuel JF 0 Jet Fuel JF 0.0 Capacity, 6 6 heads, 4.3 No.
|
From page 100... ...
100 0.03 6.7 9.9 0 0 Wind WND 30 47 Wind WND 0.0 0.7 0.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 Wood WD 18 20 39 Wood WD 1.4 2.3 0.0 0.1 499 Uranium UR 2,610 1,971 5,080 Uranium UR 52.5 39.4 95.2 13.5 8 Refuse REF 38 33 12 52 121 264 Refuse REF 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 2.5 2.3 0.7 2005 1, Other OT 0 0 0.0 Other OT 16.7 57 122 922 460 105 6.0 1.8 3.1 January Water WAT 2,636 1,472 5,777 Water WAT 51.9 73.0 52.8 47.3 76.4 15.4 of heads. as 5 2 2 6 02 5 Methane MTE 17 37 Methane MTE 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 6.9 0.1 0.1 column Type, Fuel by 15.6 Kerosene KER 117 133 Kerosene KER 0.5 1.3 0.4 "Single-Fuel" see Jet Fuel JF 0 Jet Fuel JF 0.0 Capacity, 6 6 heads, 4.4 (MW)
|
From page 101... ...
101 Wind WND 16 69 19 103 Wind WND 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.1 Wood WD 98 94 192 Wood WD 1.2 3.0 0.1 3,863 Uranium UR 20,833 15,915 40,610 Uranium UR 67.3 69.9 97.7 28.3 91 43 270 228 382 892 Refuse REF 1,905 Refuse REF 1.0 0.8 1.2 0.5 2.3 5.7 1.3 Other OT 0 Other OT 0.0 4 216 653 381 6,417 2,491 3,491 3.8 2.2 4.1 2004 Water WAT 12,355 26,008 45.8 75.4 78.7 45.2 18.1 Water WAT 100.0 1, heads. 51 17 19 Methane MTE 118 205 Methane MTE 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 January column of as 2 Kerosene KER 19 21 Kerosene KER 0.0 0.1 0.0 Type, "Single-Fuel" see Fuel Jet Fuel JF 0 Jet Fuel JF 0.0 by 6 6 heads, No.
|
From page 102... ...
102 Wind WND 0 6.7 9.4 0 0 30 46 Wind WND 0.0 0.7 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Wood WD 0.5 18 20 39 Wood WD 1.5 2.1 0.0 0.1 498 Uranium UR 2,630 1,987 5,115 Uranium UR 51.3 38.3 94.5 12.9 8 0 Refuse REF 40 33 13 51 112 257 Refuse REF 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 2.4 6.5 2.1 0.7 2004 Other OT 0 0.0 Other OT 15.6 1, 58 20 125 831 492 104 5.9 1.8 2.9 Water WAT 2,672 1,487 5,772 Water WAT 50.3 70.3 52.0 40.0 77.9 14.6 January of heads. as 6 2 6 6 Methane MTE 18 37 Methane MTE 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 column Type, Fuel 22.4 Kerosene KER 197 220 Kerosene KER 0.6 2.1 0.6 by "Single-Fuel" see Jet Fuel JF 0 Jet Fuel JF 0.0 Capacity, 6 6 heads, 4.2 No.
|
From page 103... ...
103 Wind WND 0.03 6.7 9.9 0 0 30 47 Wind WND 0.0 0.7 0.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Wood WD 0.5 18 20 39 Wood WD 1.4 2.3 0.0 0.1 52.4 39.3 95.3 13.4 498 Uranium UR 2,611 1,981 5,090 Uranium UR 9 0 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.2 2.5 5.7 2.2 0.7 Refuse REF 39 34 13 52 114 260 Refuse REF 2004 1, Other OT 18 18 Other OT 0.4 0.0 13.8 58 30 6.1 1.8 3.0 51.2 73.1 53.1 40.7 80.5 15.3 January 122 927 471 105 Water WAT 2,672 1,470 5,827 Water WAT of as heads. 5 2 6 6 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 Type, Methane MTE 17 36 Methane MTE column Fuel by 0.4 2.1 0.5 15.6 Kerosene KER 186 202 Kerosene KER "Single-Fuel" see Jet Fuel JF 0 Jet Fuel JF 0.0 Capacity, 6 6 4.4 heads, 25.1 (MW)
|
From page 104... ...
NG 16,644 100 16,644 7,000 116,508,000 113,666 0.31 1Parker Mathusa is a member of the Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs. Erin Hogan is with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.
|
From page 105... ...
APPENDIX D 105 APPENDIX D-4 PROPOSED PIPELINE PROJECTS IN THE NORTHEAST OF THE UNITED STATES FIGURE D-4-1 Proposed Northeast pipeline projects. SOURCE: Northeast Gas Association.
|
From page 106... ...
impact on the environment and local communities can be Combustion Units greater than that of nuclear plants. Typical flue-gas-cleaning configurations for coal-fired Pulverized coal combustion is the primary technology power plants are shown in Figure D-5-1.
|
From page 107... ...
emissions from fossil power generation, 1965 to 2030. Figure D-5-2 shows how emissions of SOx and NOx are SOx Control likely to continue to decline for many years, despite growing Partial flue-gas desulfurization is accomplished by dry electricity generation.
|
From page 108... ...
108 ALTERNATIVES TO THE INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER NOx SO2 PM10 0.45 0.41 0.4 0.35 0.31 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.17 lb/MMBtu 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.053 0.05 0.027 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.02 0.010.01 0.015 0.01 0.002 0 Traditional PC Retrofit Older PCs Advanced IGCC w/MDEA IGCC w/Selexol NGCC w/SCR w/Scrubbers and PC/SCPC/CFB Absorber and SCR SCR (using low-S Coal) Type of Power Plant FIGURE D-5-3 Types of power plants.
|
From page 109... ...
The NOx Control general consensus in the industry is that improved technol- NOx emissions from IGCC are similar to those from a ogy will change this picture significantly within the next few natural-gas-fired combined-cycle plant. Dilution of syngas years.
|
From page 110... ...
This analysis discusses the potential for three bines must be located in areas of good wind resource, which sources of wind energy and several sources of biomass, and may or may not have access to existing transmission lines. the underlying assumptions and issues related to the projec Therefore, any comprehensive look at wind power potential tions of potential.
|
From page 111... ...
Wind plants can come online in 1-3 · Additional grid operating costs have been found to be years total. Grid operators in TX and CA are examining inin the 0.2-0.5 ¢/kWh range for a variety of U.S.
|
From page 112... ...
land · Visual and other concerns seem to be much less off based resources. Long Island than those associated with the Cape Wind · Operating cost additions from hydro are not well charproject in Massachusetts.
|
From page 113... ...
Note again that offshore wind power current Day Ahead and Real Time Hydro Quebec imports peak times show a much better match to peak electric load are bounded at about 1,500 MW, so additional transmission demand as measured by Effective Load Carrying Capability may be needed)
|
From page 114... ...
ergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Resource Develop- Table D-1-3 assumes two biomass prices -- biomass (e.g ment Potential in New York State -- Final Report, dated Au- wood chips from forestry operations) at $2.50/106 Btu, and gust 2003.
|
From page 115... ...
The New York State report was constrained by an eco Economics: Assuming that gasification was to be used nomic assumption framework for a period up to about 2001. for all biopower applications (i.e., no CHP or co-firing con- This is essentially a business-as-usual framework that did tribution)
|
From page 116... ...
, costs. 80 percent capacity factor from R.L.
|
From page 117... ...
APPENDIX D 117 a. For Biomass and MSW/CDW v.
|
From page 118... ...
This analysis provides an overview of PV programs. Perhaps more importantly such an initiative would markets, an analysis of the potential for PV to help replace establish a self-sustaining PV market in New York, resulting the electricity capacity and generation from the Indian Point in an additional 1 GW of PV being installed in New York by nuclear power station in New York State, a summary of New 2020, generating 3,000 GWh of electricity (offsetting about York's current policies related to PV technology, and an ac 80-90 percent of Indian Point's capacity during peak periods celerated PV deployment scenario for New York through and 18 percent of Indian Point's annual electricity output)
|
From page 119... ...
Given that lize PV generation combined with a limited amount of local Indian Point's capacity is ~2 GW with a capacity factor of energy storage to displace expensive on-peak demand, i.e., ~95 percent, and that PV in New York State has a capacity when transmission is likely to be constrained and the market
|
From page 120... ...
(2004a) periods by 2020 (the strategy as a whole would replace a used the average NYISO day ahead hourly wholesale price much larger fraction of the generation from Indian Point)
|
From page 121... ...
Given New York's relatively high electricity sustaining industry. The average price of residential PV sysprices -- the average residential electricity price in New York tems installed in Japan in 2004 was $6.2/W, i.e., about 25 TABLE D-7-3 Current PV-Related Policies in New York State Incentivea Description Sales tax exemption (R)
|
From page 122... ...
This scenario is not a model result, but tions creates a peak program cost of $74 million in 2012. an estimate of what New York could achieve under the fol- · Achieving the high growth rates envisioned during the lowing assumptions: 2006-2015 period will require investing additional resources (on the order of $10 million per year)
|
From page 123... ...
New York State Energy Re lar Cell Production and Market Implementation of Photovoltaics. Euro- search and Development Authority, Albany, New York.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.