Ok, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone for encouraging me to do my homework. Now go do yours. I posted earlier asking if anyone could answer a question regarding scheduled capacity addition increases which were identified in the recently published NERC summer assessments.

No one could tell me if they were normal capacity increases or not. So I did my homework and dug up the last few years. Doesn't appear at all normal to me.......but I'll let all you homework doers find out and correct me if I'm wrong (I may be missing something, I'm a little dull ;)

In 1997 there were 1,066 MW added to the system. In 1998 there were 576 MW added to the system. In 1999 there are 5,782 MW scheduled additions.

And all of them are scheduled to take place by Sept 99. Does this increase strike y'all as strange? Looks a bit on the large side to me. Maybe it's gonna be a hot summer. Or maybe pigs will fly and the moon is made of cheese.

I'm gonna go look at what's on tap for the fall. My guess would be more cap. additions.

-- Anonymous, June 13, 1999

Answers

Jim,

It's kind of like when the Navy starts pulling a bunch of old ships out of mothballs and getting them ready to be used. Makes you wonder what's up? I'm not reading a lot of good reasons for this from the industry. And it has never happened before, on this grand a scale, all over the country. Just because they expect a lot of summer usage? Personally, I'm glad they're doing it. Get every "able bodied generator" cleaned up and standing by. Maybe there really *is* safety in numbers. Now, if only the telecoms would get some of those old switchboards standing by. You know, the one-ringy-dingy stuff with a nice person ready to manually push a plug into a socket and throw a little switch to let the communications flow. :-)

-- Anonymous, June 14, 1999

Gordon,

At generation plants, our turbines spin and produce electricity - not money. To make money, you gotta spin units. Before, easy problem - spin enough to meet load. If your capacity exceeds demand, economic dispatch dictates that you shut down less effecient units in favor of less costly, efficient units to maximize profits.

Now there is de-regulation. The next time a severe power shortage in one region sends the $$/kw through the roof, and the purchasers are buying all available at any price, even the most inefficient unit is now profitable. Competition changes everything. THAT is the difference that is being overlooked.

Besides, doesn't human nature and the 'FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE' mentality that the industry is being accused of dictate that the negative news be shushed, AND the good news be trumpeted? Wouldn't any spinmeister worth their salt be bragging loudly about their wonderful foresight and planning to get an old analog plant ready?? Think about it.

-- Anonymous, June 14, 1999

CL,

There's an old Jack Benny skit that I love. He's walking down this street and a guy jumps out of the alley with a gun, points it at Jack and says "Your money or your life." Jack just stares at the guy, who waits a few seconds and repeats "I said, your money or your life?" Jack just says "I'm thinking, I'm thinking." And so CL, I assure you I am thinking about your statement too. In fact, I'll wager that a lot of folks are thinking about this. For now, I can give you this preliminary reaction, your answer is possible, but not probable. Sorry.

-- Anonymous, June 15, 1999

So I'm told, operating nuclear plants will be positioned at 50% generating capacity for the rollover. Additional units will be brought on line to balance the load.

The idea is that it's faster/easier to bring a nuclear up from 50% than the reverse should a fossil plant trip. This way the safety margin is in the nuclears.

I do not know if nuclears running at half-power are easier to scram. Maybe Rick can speak to that. If so, then that would ad extra incentive to this type of configuration.

-- Anonymous, June 15, 1999

Charlie,

Now, that thought I can buy into, no problem. There's two things you didn't mention. That the reason for this setup is to provide extra power in the deregulated rollover environment. Never mind. How about, that the reason for this setup is to guard against Y2k failures, in spite of what our super confident engineer type pros are telling us. Yeah, that sounds kind of like it might be the case. Y2k contingency plans. Wonder what would get these management folks to spending precious money to cover a January power demand, when the "engineer" says we got no real problemo and plenty of reserve in January. For some reason those managers aren't listening to the engineering staff, or then again, maybe they are listening to some engineering staffs at *other* power companies.

-- Anonymous, June 15, 1999

Charlie,

Nukes are fat, dumb, and happy when operating at 100%. An interesting side note: BWR's were initially designed by GE to be load following units; in other words, they are designed to make as much power as demand requires and power up/down as necessary to meet demand. In practice, this "load following" capability has never really been utilized in any BWR to the best of my knowledge.

So, yeah, this idea might have some merit, but I suspect that it would be the fossil plants that were in "hot standby", or operating at a lower capacity for reserve margin.

-- Anonymous, June 15, 1999

Gordon: I understand your point. I hope the power industries recognize that you can be both confident while being prudent. The criticality of the utility business demands it.

Rick: It's tough to get the right answers when you don't know all the questions. I'll run that through my sources again. Thanks.

-- Anonymous, June 15, 1999

Jim,

Thanks youre welcome and I didnt really think you would but, then again, I wasnt selling anything.

If I offended you by my final comment, please accept my apology. It certainly was not my intent. Theres too much of that going around these days. I often forget that written communications are sometimes lacking in conveying a jocular tone and can often be interpreted as facetiousness. Again, I apologize.

You had asked for any thoughts on the subject of capacity additions and, if I remember correctly, whether it was normal or unusual. No, I did not perform any specific research, background checks or homework. I was relying, primarily, on thirty plus years in the electric industry and, what I perceive to be, a substantial level of education, training and experience in the operations of electric generation, transmission and distribution systems. If this meager background preempts you from accepting my sincere convictions as anything other than truthful well, so be it. It is your loss. Regardless, I applaud your right to and prudent exercise of healthy skepticism.

However, your response still leaves me confused relative to your point here. Are you seriously convinced that utility companies are investing in new generation capacity for the sole purpose of ensuring sufficient compliant generation for the rollover? If your answer is yes, then my thoughts would be a resounding and unambiguous No Way!. While there may be some strategic advantage to placing this amount of capacity on line in time for the rollover, I do not see it and I think it is safe to say that the principal reason for the additions is to increase available capacity and/or improve reserve margins.

In NERCs September 1998 Reliability Assessment (1998-2007), the near term projections seem to indicate adequate resources for the next few years but clearly cautions us that unexpected unit problems during severe weather conditions could result in supply problems. The long term projections go on to indicate that generating capacity additions are not keeping pace with expected growth and that demand during the period from 1998 to the summer of 2002 is expected to grow by about 36,000 MW. This would require an average of 7,200 MW of new capacity per year for the period 1998 to 2002. Based on your excellent homework, we can rest assured that at least 5,782MW will be added by September 1999. The point here is that I do not see this as being at all related to the Year 2000 issue except in that it may prove fortuitous.

I simply maintain that the changing nature of electric utility operations as a result of de-regulation or re-regulation, whichever you prefer, has fundamentally altered the way electric companies do business and assess risk. Adding generation capacity is costly and risky. Add to this mix any newly proposed environmental regulation costs, unpredictability in fuel costs and, I am sure, some other minor inconveniences, you begin to see that this is why a lot of companies are relying more on capacity purchases (imports) to cover increasing demand. Unfortunately, this just dips into the reserve margins which are themselves expensive to own and maintain. If memory serves, during the 1998 summer seasons, the interchange revenues for hundreds of companies increased significantly over previous years because they were successfully marketing energy to the mid-west. Seems there were numerous units down for overhaul and some nuclear generation down for refueling. I believe if you try, you may recall reports of extraordinarily high energy prices in the range of thousands of dollars per MWh. I can assure you, some of the buyers were glad to pay it at the time. I know that we were happy to sell it. The fact of the matter is that there is generation capacity in existence today that is, for what ever reason, considered non- marketable and yet years away from scheduled retirement. Why? Simply because of some of the reasons I mentioned in my previous post and probably others I failed to mention.

The Year 2000 rollover, however it may turn out, is a singular event that is to occur on a Friday night/Saturday morning during a typically low demand period. It would seem to me that adding capacity solely for this event would be an enormous waste of resources. There have been abundant reports and posts that seem to indicate support for placing all available units in service prior to rollover to ensure sufficient capacity is available as part of any contingency. I would submit that in some regions, this may prove to be an imprudent move. In the southeast, we have had three consecutive, rather mild winters. The resulting low demand combined with limited energy transfers, gas heating and unpredictable holiday celebrations could conceivably cause some difficulty with maintaining stable generating units.

Honestly Jim, since you asked, the only thing that really strikes me as strange is that big porker that just flew by! Wellreckon Ill just have to get a bigger swatter.

-- Anonymous, June 15, 1999

JT,

Talking about big porkers flying by, I think I just saw one myself. Since you seem to be knowledgeable about such things I wonder, is it possible or not possible to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear?

-- Anonymous, June 15, 1999

gordon,

yes, he was smooth, very smooth.

i believe the english have a saying for that.

"he was too clever by half."

-- Anonymous, June 15, 1999

I have to admit, JT has me seeing bacon in the clouds. Thanks again for a cogent informative reply. I really do appreciate it. As far as the slam on oil analysts, I think most of them stink too! And we could all use to be a little less sensitive in this silly litigious world we've created.

But, I'm still troubled by the concept that utilities would want to ramp up the pool that much. It would seem they've been taking lessons from our OPEC brethern who last year "raised their production quotas" at a time when the world was swimming in oil. In other words, if I'm a utility I want just enough power to meet demand and not an KV more.

Also, I wondered if you're planning to address the fact that the NRC is now planning to bend rules, important safety standards, to provide enough juice for the transition. I'd like your thoughts on this developement. They don't seem overly confident to me.

-- Anonymous, June 15, 1999

Jim,

See the thread on the home page just above this one regarding the July 1 NRC situation. There is some good discussion as well as a few excellent thoughts from Rick.

-- Anonymous, June 15, 1999

Gordon,

Good one, Gordon! My poor attempt to address Jims concerns was simply intended to offer an opposing, or at least, an alternate view from a utility insiders perspective. I sincerely regret that you and Marianne have chosen to dismiss any opinion that does not necessarily meet your personal standards for truth and integrity. Perhaps if I try harder.

Diversity of views is critical to any constructive discussion or debate, particularly on an issue as important as this one. Personally, I feel that skepticism is healthy for group discussion and I am certainly pleased to see interesting questions and sincere challenges to the electric industry. It is much too long in coming. It is unfortunate that it has taken the Y2K issue to generate this level of interest. But for me, the future looks much brighter than the past in this respect. I have learned a lot in this forum from both sides of the fence and I visit here daily for updates.

Well Gordon, to answer your question.. Yes, it is possible to make a silk purse from a sows ear and I would be glad to share it with you. Unfortunately, as Rick has often reminded us all, the subject is simply off topic and Im sure he would simply delete my explanation. Yall have a good day now ya hear!

-- Anonymous, June 16, 1999

gordon,

this is truly a diverse group. i feel that jt is an extraordinary dancer along with all of his other obvious talents.

did you see how beautifully he 'side stepped' that question?

-- Anonymous, June 16, 1999

Marianne,

There has been a lot of discussion and thinking about the required remediation of coding in many areas of the electric utility field. Some say it is possible to fix all the required systems in time, some say it is not. Some say it doesn't matter because we can run it all manually anyway. This sounds to me like there are some who are planning on making a silk purse out of sow's ear, and I have been told all my life that such a thing was impossible. Now we have an opinion that such a thing can indeed be done! This is confusing, and perhaps is best put into the conflict of opinion folder. Troubling, huh?

-- Anonymous, June 17, 1999

Gordon,

I think this is rather silly, but I'll jump in anyway. A few years back, there was an article in a chemical mag about how some graduate students actually made a silk purse out of a sow's ear. I'm sorry but my head is filled with this kind of trivia.

-- Anonymous, June 17, 1999

i am responding to this in spite of my own misgivings.

you _cannot_ make a silk purse out of a pig's ear.

why, you ask? well, 'silk' is by definition; a very fine or natural fiber produced by various insects, especially by the larvae of silkworms.

a pig's ear is just that... a pig's ear.

the key words in the sentence are... out of.

out of is defined as 'from within.'

so you cannot make a fine or natural fiber produced by insects purse from within a pig's ear.

you can however, cover a pig's ear with silk, which is what the students must have done.

having said that... you can make a silk purse out of a corn's ear.

corn silk. get it?

it is at times like these that i can hardly stand myself.

-- Anonymous, June 17, 1999

Marianne,

Thank you for clarifying that. I sort of suspected that there was some slight-of-hand involved, even if JT didn't get into the details.

-- Anonymous, June 17, 1999

Gordon,

I am confident that these last few silk purse posts from you and Marianne are intended toward good natured humor and I appreciate and welcome a good laugh at anytime. Hence, my original response to Jim and yourself. I feel I have made a good friend in Jim and hope he feels the same. However, I am obviously lacking in the subtle interpretations of your good old, down home, country charm and I regret that I have misinterpreted your silk purse question. I did not realize that my rather brief attempt to respond to what I interpreted as your charming effort at humor would be or could be classified as side-stepping your question. While I dearly appreciate her later compliment (and have considered printing and framing it), contrary to Mariannes observations, alas, my wonderful wife has compelled me to admit openly that Marianne has seriously misjudged my talents.

But more importantly, whether intentionally or unintentionally, you appear to indicate that, (and Im just trying to clarify your post of the 17th) I have stated, meant or implied some things I do not recall writing. And you are absolutely correct, this is troubling . and not just from my perspective.

I have searched through most of my recent posts and I have failed to find the specific text where I have implied that .it is possible to fix all the required systems in time or it is not and Some say it doesn't matter because we can run it all manually anyway. In your post of the 17th, you go on to say that.. Now we have an opinion that such a thing can indeed be done!

I take this last sentence as a reference to my prior post when my response was characterized as dancing around the question. Frankly, I have never formulated an opinion on the former and, therefore anyone, yourself included, would be hard pressed to find related comments attributable to me. As to the latter, I do have some rather unyielding opinions but, to my recollection, I have never posted them here or anywhere else. Regardless, my comment regarding the silk purse and sows ear did not represent an opinion of the Y2K issue in any respect. And I think you know that.

If this was an unintentional misinterpretation on your part, then please clarify. If it was intentional, it was a misrepresentation of the facts and I ask that you not do that again! Thanks and have a great day!

-- Anonymous, June 18, 1999

JT,

I don't think it's proper for anyone to intentionally misrepresent facts. It troubles me deeply when I see that being done. Perhaps the only thing worse are "......those who cut selected information and reassemble out of context to intentionally rape the truth. This is sheer evil, especially when honest folks are struggling to decide what is best for their families, they need the truth." Which was something that was apparently nagging at the back of CL's mind for some reason or other, but which I heartily agree with.

-- Anonymous, June 18, 1999

Some say it is possible to fix all the required systems in time, some say it is not....

My own experience, and that of many others, has taught me that, by and large, a project is on schedule until it isn't....

-- Anonymous, June 19, 1999

Jim Smith: In 1997 there were 1,066 MW added to the system. In 1998 there were 576 MW added to the system. In 1999 there are 5,782 MW scheduled additions. And all of them are scheduled to take place by Sept 99."

JT: "The fact of the matter is that there is generation capacity in existence today that is, for what ever reason, considered non- marketable and yet years away from scheduled retirement."

JT:"The Year 2000 rollover, however it may turn out, is a singular event that is to occur on a Friday night/Saturday morning during a typically low demand period. It would seem to me that adding capacity solely for this event would be an enormous waste of resources."

This is a un-professional reading of the foregoing. JT says there is already surplus (but non-marketable) generating capacity. Would the industry not make use of this capacity at need? Presumably these facilities are functional, and have not been written off. Is not "unmarketable" a moving threshold -- dependent on demand?

Yet (if Jim Smith has the figures right) in 1999 the industry is adding ten times the capacity it added in 1998. On the face of it, this will only increase an existing surplus. This seems unprofessional.

Signed, Interested Bystander.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 1999

There have been valid points made for both viewpoints of the increased capacity issue. It's a tough call to make about the motivations behind a utility refurbishing old plants and bringing them online. The original thread about a capacity addition concerned Virginia Power's bringing the mothballed Mt. Storm North Branch power plant back into production. North Branch would add 74 megawatts to VP's capacity.

In that thread, Jim Lynes kindly offered the facts that last summer the normal $38/mW price of power hit $7,000/mW during the peak demand days. Certainly a 6,962 dollar price differential is an incentive. However, what we don't know is if that price savings for the peak days of demand for 74 megawatts would be greater than the costs of refurbishing the North Branch plant, re-instating licenses and re-staffing the plant.

I can't speak for any other of the older plants being brought online, but it does seem to me that the start-up costs and year-round salaries/operating expenses for North Branch might well offset potential peak demand savings for that 74 MW. Just having more capacity to save money during peak summer demand days does not automatically tell us if bringing an old plant back online year-round is only financially motivated or not. We would have to know how much it costs to get that savings for peak demand days. For instance, spending $10.00 just to save $5.00 would be silly unless there were additional motivations or expected gains involved. Unless we know more about costs than we do, there are no sure answers about this.

Since this response will go to Jim, our oil analyst, I'll bring up something else he might be able to give some input on. At the link:

http://www.electricpowertech.com/com_ed_project.htm

there is a description of a project done for Commonwealth Edison in which EDP was the prime contractor for adding gas-fired capability to their Collins units 4 and 5 oil combustion plants. I'm wondering if the price of oil versus natural gas varies enough in normal times to make it worth the expense of giving generating plants dual-capability?

-- Anonymous, June 23, 1999

Tom,

Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency that may be interpreted from my earlier post here. I regret any confusion as it was my intent only to offer an alternate view as to the underlying motivation to add any generating capacity. I certainly did not mean to suggest that my view was the only view. I simply was trying to make the point that given the time period of the transition, expected and future projected demand levels, current reserve levels versus future reserve projections, Y2K, in my view would be at the extreme low end of the needs list. As it relates to the 5,782 megawatts of capacity mentioned by Jim, I see it only as a fortuitous addition for contingency reasons. Personally, I would not define this extra capacity as surplus as in the context of not needed. Reserves are needed and used often. I realize this may sound like double speak, Tom, and I apologize in advance but, frankly, operating reserves are necessary and required by NERC.

The make up of generating capacity in America is as diverse as any where in the world and that diversity is not limited to the type of fuel used. There is the age of the unit, size, efficiency, control system vintage, maintenance costs, response characteristics and on and on. Prior to deregulation, when electric utilities were structured vertically, the primary motivator for capacity additions for utilities was need. That is to say that a utilitys obligation to serve its customers reliably required that they periodically install additional capacity to keep pace with growth in demand and to maintain some measure of reserves. If I recall correctly, the typical reserve margin used to be around 15% to 25%. Some companies attempted to sustain more reserves and some less. Regardless, the cost of capacity additions is expensive even in a regulated environment and the cost of maintaining reserves can be costly as well. Reserves permit a utility to schedule periodic unit shutdowns for overhaul and respond to capacity shortfalls in an emergency. A unit overhaul is an intensive and expensive reconditioning/refit effort to simply maintain a units effectiveness and efficiency. Add to this mixture such things as environmental costs, regulatory costs, labor, routine maintenance and unpredictable fuel costs and other nice little incidentals, you can see that keeping production cost down is difficult.

Now we add the deregulation ingredient  competition. Now, I fully understand that this issue is currently in flux and not all states have adopted the requisite legislation. And in some that have, that legislation may vary from state to state. However, deregulation essentially removes barriers and allows utilities to compete anywhere, even down to the distribution level. This dramatically magnifies the element of risk to any decision to add capacity because all the other costs requirements remain unaltered and will often, encourage utilities to partner and share the pain of adding capacity. Some utilities may choose to purchase off-system energy and become an importer for the short term in order to defer additional capacity construction for a while. Some even may do so for the long term because they have chosen to get out of the generation business altogether. Hence, the purchase of some nuclear facilities. These units are purchased, most probably, because the buyer is convinced that it is a viable and profitable enterprise. I seriously doubt that a nuclear plant would be purchased solely for Y2K reasons the justification is simply not there. Today, there are some projects underway to install what is called merchant capacity in areas that demonstrate strong marketability for low cost, efficient power. The addition of this type capacity is added primarily for making money and I can assure you that they will charge what the market will bear.

As for capacity that is no longer marketable, I am simply referring to those units that for one reason or another have been determined to be too expensive to operate and relegated to off-line reserves, placed in storage or used only in an emergency. In these instances, these units would not be wasted so to speak. But even these units may become marketable if the conditions similar to those of the summer of 1998 in the mid-west recur. The hourly energy market can be quite profitable at times. At $7,000 per megawatt-hour, even an old combustion turbine using diesel fuel with a cost of $150 to $200 per megawatt-hour can turn a sweet profit. However, if a unit can be retro-fitted economically to improve its performance, its heat rate or its operational effectiveness, then this may become an alternative to building new generation for some but not all. This is not a difficult decision for them to make if they use prudent planning tools. The difficulty lies in knowing what the other guy is going to do.

Sorry Tom, if I was not clear. I can assure you most utilities I am familiar with are quite frugal with their resources and are not in habit of making capital investments of this magnitude for singular once in a lifetime events. But please understand that this is just my singular opinion. I hope this helps.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 1999

JT -- as I said, I'm just an onlooker here. You're familiar with many management and marketing issues and with the surely intricate web of regulations involved with the electric power industry. A region where I'm way out of my depth.

The question seemed simple to me, but I may have presented it awkwardly. It boils down to this:

Jim Smith wrote,

"In 1997 there were 1,066 MW added to the system. In 1998 there were 576 MW added to the system. In 1999 there are 5,782 MW scheduled additions."

Does the term "addition" used in this context apply to bringing off- line capacity back on line? Or does it refer only to new construction? Or to both situations?

I had interpreted the statement as referring to new construction of generating capacity. If the reference is (in part or whole) to off- line capacity coming back on line, it must be that up to 5.8 gigawatts of such offline capacity has been lying idle. Is this a realistic figure?

Whatever the actual mix, does the projected increase noted by Jim Smith, 10-fold over last year's increase, fall within the historical pattern of the industry? Or is it an anomaly?

-- Anonymous, June 24, 1999

From Dick Mills work I believe anyone who can deliver clean, abundent, and guaranteed(within reason) power in the summer of 2000 will make a substantial amount of money.

Richard

-- Anonymous, June 24, 1999

Tom,

Thanks for asking and it was probably me that misunderstood. As it relates to the 1999 capacity additions, I would have to hazard a guess and presume it refers to new capacity. This position assumes, however, that older generation is still being counted in the reserve margin. Im sorry Tom, but frankly, I just dont know for sure. However, that was Jims quote and I do not have the source documents he is using. But then I have no reason to doubt the numbers quoted either. Nor do I have reference materials that provide any historical perspectives from which to draw a reasonable conclusion regarding any historical pattern. Regardless, I will say that a 10 fold growth in capacity from 1998 is a significant increase. Is it an anomaly? Looking at the projections over the next ten years, Id say we have a lot of anomalies in store for us. To put it in perspective, when you compare that 5,782MW increase to the 1998 North American installed generating capacity of 727,037 MW, it represents an increase of 0.795%. I think I did the math right! From this perspective, I see the increase as incidental and not related to Y2K except in terms of being fortuitous.

I am familiar with the NERC Reliability Assessment (1998-2007) document published in September of 1998. This is a compilation of studies and projections for the North American bulk electric systems that include all four interconnections; Eastern, Western, ERCOT and Quebec. Interesting reading actually. Generally, it seems to caution that throughout the study period capacity additions, old or new, is not projected to keep pace with demand and indicating a heavy reliance on a steadily declining reserve margin in some regions.

Generally speaking, refurbishing or refitting, an older unit can offer advantages in some instances if the cost can be recovered in a reasonable time frame and the unit meets operating, environmental and regulatory requirements. This may save the cost and time necessary to site and permit the unit. It appears that this is done, most often, to install combined cycle units. These refurbished units use the hot exhaust gases from newly installed, gas fired, combustion turbines to generate steam for the older steam turbine driven generator. This is popular because it makes good use waste heat from the gas turbines and significantly improves the BTU input/MW output ratios. (Makes them marketable). Now I will not say that old retired units are not being refitted. I am just saying before it is done, there has been some effort to cost justify the venture or there is too little time to site, permit, build and startup a new unit.

Generating unit outages or failures are going to occur. Prudent operation and maintenance schedules will mitigate this considerably but you know the old saying stuff happens. An example of a common failure is a boiler tube rupture. These failures can trip a unit in seconds but the demand that unit serves remains and must be covered by extra generation. The first response is from capacity that is currently on-line called spinning reserves and then from operating reserves contributed from internal and external sources. Typically, the deficient system must cover the loss within 30 minutes by starting additional capacity or purchasing power off system. This is why surplus capacity is maintained. The production of electricity occurs when you, the customer demand it. It cannot be stored or placed in a warehouse, it must be there when you throw the switch. If its not call me have I got a deal for you! :)

-- Anonymous, June 24, 1999

Im sorry Tom, but frankly, I just dont know for sure. However, that was Jims quote and I do not have the source documents he is using. But then I have no reason to doubt the numbers quoted either. Nor do I have reference materials that provide any historical perspectives from which to draw a reasonable conclusion regarding any historical pattern......

Funny how that works, because I don't have them now either. I have tried to download them from the RAS website that NERC has set up and the documents are now refusing to download or comming up completely blank in my Acrobat reader. If any of you are able to successfully download the summer 99 assessment, i would greatly appreciate it if you could send it to me via email. I want to update this next section with subtotals from the "other" category. Luckily I saved most of the data from Main and Ecar which were a large part of the additions.

I will attempt to summarize for these two areas only at this time.

Ecar Additions: 1393 New, 487 Reactivate and 34 Uprate. Main Additions: 771 New, 233 Reactivate and 220 Uprate.

As far as the types of capacity go: By far the bulk are Gas Turbine Nat Gas with Ecar adding 1312 and Main 1104 of this type. The other signifigant being added was Steam Turbine Nat Gas with 356 in Ecar.

Since I would very much like to complete this spreadsheet by adding up the New etc for the other category, I'd really appreciate if someone would send me the summer 98 pdf.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 1999

I haven't contributed aything to this thread previously because it does concentrate on the USA system and initially on Nukes. I am not terribly familiar with nuke plant as we don't have any in New Zealand, however some years ago I did spend a couple of days in a nuke simulator. It certainly was not enough time for me speak with any authority on nuclear plant, but as this thread has now progressed into such aras as spinning reserve and fossil plant reponsiveness, perhaps there is something that I can add.

When looking at how the different types of generation plant responds to frequency swings caused by loss ofgeneration elsewher in the grid, it is necessary to consider how the governor reacts, where the prime energy comes from, and how long the additional energy can be maintained for. (I apologise if the next part gets too technical, but I'll try to keep it simple).

The very best types of plant to respond to any loss of generation elsewhere in the sytem are boiling water types of plant, and it doesn't matter whether that boiling water is being provided by fossil fuel or nuclear. Between the boiler (or reator) and the turbine is a piece of equipment called a "Drum". The drum is partly filled with liquid water and partlyfilled with steam, under very high pressure and temperature. A change in the turbine setting (initiated by the governor) will pull more steam from the drum, trying to lower the pressure, and cause some of the water to flash off into steam, and therefore providing more of the prime source of energy for the turbine. This additional energy can only be maintained for a short period of time before the drum level gets too low and the governor has to reduce the turbine setting. However during the time that the drum is supplying extra energy, the boiler output is being increased to attempt to maintain the higher output. Of the types of plant that I'm familiar with gas fired thermal plant is the fastest to respond, followed by oil fired, then coal fired. I don't know where nukes fit into this order. Gas fired generators can increase generation by around 25% almost immediately, hold it for around 10 to 20 seconds then reduce to whatever the boiler has picked up to. They can then ramp up their generation fairly quickly. Coal fired plant is limited by the speed at which the coal feed can be increased.

Gas turbine plant is probably the next fastest. There is no imedaiate pickup in generation, but they can often ramp from their initial full load setting to overload (10% to 15% higher) within a few seconds. They can then hold this higher setting for quite some period of time.

Hydro generators are slower to pick up load, possibly taking up to 6 seconds to respond (depending on the length of penstock, any surge design, and the physical size of the runner and rotor), but then they can hold the additional generation for hours, or even days.

So when looking at the amount of spinning reserve required for the Y2K rollover, it is also neccessary to look at the mix of plant on the system. If the USA is considering 50% spinning reserve, then taking the nukes as being 20% of this figure, I would say that the USA grid should be in a sound position. Some contributers have already alluded to the possibilty of consumers reducing their load, and this is possibly one of the destabilising scenarios. The greater the total inertia on the system (both generation and demand) then the more stable it is likely to be.

I would be interested in learning just what mix of different types of plant that USA does have. Can anyone help out with this data?

Malcolm

-- Anonymous, June 28, 1999