The man, who has not made a mistake, probably never did anything new!
A E.
Einstein's class
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Saturday, October 29, 2011
125 Years of Statue of Liberty some original pics
The Statue of Liberty. She is a symbol of freedom, an icon of New York City, and today is her birthday. In honor to celebrate, I’d like to share some images from an article from the August 14th, 1886 Scientific American that highlighted the methods of assembling Lady Liberty. After all, what’s birth without a gestation period?
While still in France, the statue’s shell was assembled and each piece was assigned a number or figure. Pieces that lined up next to each other had identical figures on sides which needed to fit together, creating a reassembly map. Each piece had a row of small holes on its edges, and when adjacent pieces lined up, their holes coincided so they could be riveted together.
The shell of the statue is made of very thin copper, making it somewhat pliable. When the pieces left France, they were tightly packed in wooden frames to prevent them from bending. However, some distortion inevitably occurred and once the pieces arrived, the laborers –with a lot of skill and patience—had to refit each piece. Iron bars were fitted to line the interior to give the shell extra strength and rigidity. The bars were bent to fit the contours of the copper, as seen in the close up of the face’s interior. Copper and iron were insulated from each other by a layer of shellac and asbestos in order to prevent and chemical reactions happening between the two metals.
The statue is braced by 2 systems of heavy girders, embedded deep into the pedestal, and 4 eye beams that connect the girders. The concrete foundation, which the article reported as “easily the largest single block of artificial stone in the world,” measured 90 feet square at the base, 65 feet square at the top, and 52 feet 10 inches in height.
The original date of the statue’s unveiling was set for September 3, 1886. However, all the intricate work needed to reassemble and erect the statue delayed the ceremony until October 28, 1886—which makes today the Statue of Liberty’s 125 Birthday! The man, who has not made a mistake, probably never did anything new! A E.
Friday, October 28, 2011
enhanced Geothermal systems ( EGS ) in Google Earth
If you're unclear on what Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) are about, read this snipped from theGoogle.org EGS page:
Enhanced Geothermal Systems, or EGS, attempts to do just that. EGS produces heat and electricity by harnessing the energy from hot rock deep below the earth's surface, expanding the potential of traditional geothermal energy by orders of magnitude. EGS is a big challenge, but with the potential to power the world many times over, it demands our immediate attention. At Google we support efforts to advance EGS through R&D, investment, policy and information.To see this data for yourself in Google Earth, simply load this KMZ file
(which was last updated just a few days ago). Also worth your time is this short article in Forbes that talks a bit more about how EGS could benefit all of us.http://www.google.org/egs/downloads/EGSPotential.kmz
Down Load this kmz file in Google earth and
Fukushima Nuclear Contamination was at Highest
The Fukushima nuclear disaster released twice as much of a dangerous radioactive substance into the atmosphere as Japanese authorities estimated, reaching 40 percent of the total from Chernobyl, a preliminary report says.
The estimate of much higher levels of radioactive cesium-137 comes from a worldwide network of sensors. Study author Andreas Stohl of the Norwegian Institute for Air Research says the Japanese government estimate came only from data in Japan, and that would have missed emissions blown out to sea.
The study did not consider health implications of the radiation. The long-term effects of the nuclear accident are unclear because of the difficulty of measuring radiation amounts people received.
In a telephone interview, Stohl said emission estimates are so imprecise that finding twice the amount of cesium isn't considered a major difference. He said some previous estimates had been higher than his.
The journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics posted the report online for comment, but the study has not yet completed a formal review by experts in the field or been accepted for publication.
Cesium-137 is dangerous because it can last for decades in the environment, releasing cancer-causing radiation.
Last summer, the Japanese government estimated that the March 11 Fukushima accident released 15,000 terabecquerels of cesium. Terabecquerels are a radiation measurement. The new report from Stohl and co-authors estimates about 36,000 terabecquerels through April 20. That's about 42 percent of the estimated release from Chernobyl, the report says.
It also says about a fifth of the cesium fell on land in Japan, while most of the rest fell into the Pacific Ocean. Only about 2 percent of the fallout came down on land outside Japan, the report concluded.
Experts have no firm projections about how many cancers could result because they're still trying to find out what doses people received. Some radiation from the accident has also been detected in Tokyo and in the United States but experts say they expect no significant health consequences there.
Still, concern about radiation is strong in Japan. Many parents of small children in Tokyo worry about the discovery of radiation hotspots even though government officials say they don't pose a health risk. And former prime minister Naoto Kan has said the most contaminated areas inside the evacuation zone could be uninhabitable for decades.
Stohl also noted that his study found cesium-137 emissions dropped suddenly at the time workers started spraying water on the spent fuel pool from one of the reactors. That challenges previous thinking that the pool wasn't emitting cesium, he said.
The man, who has not made a mistake, probably never did anything new!
A E.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
The Ground-Shaking Reality For California's Nuclear Power
The Ground-Shaking Reality For California's Nuclear Power:
Six months have passed since the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan. In the immediate aftermath of the accident, anxious utility investors sought to understand whether what happened in Japan could happen at Diablo Canyon or San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), California's two operating nuclear power plants. In its 90-day report, issued in July, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) task force assigned to assess the lessons learned from Japan concluded that U.S. nuclear plants are safe and that "a sequence of events like the Fukushima accident is unlikely to occur."
But the accident raises a number of important safety questions for Diablo and SONGS, which like Fukushima are located on a coastline that has seismic and tsunami risks. According to estimates, California faces a 99.7% chance of a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake during the next 30 years. And there is a 37% chance that there will be an earthquake in Southern California over the next 30 years that exceeds magnitude 7.5 and a 15% chance for Northern California, according to the United States Geologic Service. Diablo and SONGS are designed to withstand a 7.5 and 7.0 magnitude earthquake, respectively.
The Fukushima accident has already complicated the extension of operating licenses for Diablo Canyon, which has asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to hold off on ruling on a license extension until it completes more detailed seismic modeling. Diablo's licenses for its two reactors expire in 2024 and 2025. The license for SONGS units expires in 2022. The credit issue we are focused on is whether the NRC and state agencies will allow the plants to continue to operate past their current licenses, and if they do, what upgrades may be required and at what costs. If the retrofits prove too costly and force nuclear closures, it is unclear that California has the political will that would allow for the timely construction of natural gas and renewable generation and supporting transmission lines to substitute for Diablo and SONGS. Even though both plants have over a decade of remaining legal operating life, if decisions on the future of these plants are not made in the next two to four years, it may be too late to ensure that replacement infrastructure can be built in time, in our view.
A greater credit risk is the prospect for a disorderly shut down of one or both nuclear plants. After Fukushima, the state is again reassessing whether its nuclear plants -- which supply about 15% of the state's total power requirements -– are safe. To be sure, public opinion polls have consistently registered Californians' discomfort with nuclear power, and a 1976 state statute prevents the construction of any new plants. The public's willingness to live with nuclear plants that are located near major fault lines may be tested as early as 2012 if a proposed voter initiative gathers a required 504,760 signatures needed to make the fall 2012 ballot. In November, whether the signature drive has been successful will be clear. If the initiative makes the ballot, its prospects are uncertain, but we would view even its inclusion on the ballot as clouding the credit quality of the state's investor-owned electric utilities. A state poll completed in June found that while most Californians don't want Diablo and SONGS phased out during the next decade, that majority is slim.
Diablo Canyon is owned and operated by Pacific Gas & Electric and consists of two nuclear reactors, each with a capacity of 1,120 megawatts (MW), which came online in 1985 and 1986. Diablo is located at Avila Beach, which is near San Luis Obispo, a coastal city about 190 miles north of Los Angeles. By California standards, this region of the central-southern coast is not densely populated. According to public documents, an estimated 424,000 people live within a 50-mile radius of Diablo -- the evacuation zone that NRC, in a March 17, 2011 press release, said it would recommend in the U.S. if an event like Fukushima occurred here.
SONGS is operated by Southern California Edison, which owns a 78% share of the 2,340 MW plant. San Diego Gas & Electric owns a 20% share. (A southern California city owns the balance.) SONGS is located about 60 miles south of Los Angeles and 60 miles north of San Diego, which are the second and eighth largest cities in the U.S., respectively. As a result, an estimated 7.4 million people live within a 50-mile radius of SONGS. SONGS consists of two operating reactors, each of which are 1,170 MW and which began operation in 1983 and 1984. (A third unit stopped operating in 1992 and is in the process of being dismantled.)
Nuclear plants are a critical source of power and grid reliability in California. Diablo and SONGS nuclear capacity is large -- the collective 4,580 MW of capacity supplies nearly 10% of the summer peak capacity, which is typically around 48,000 MW, based on the California Independent System Operator. No other power plants in the state compare in their size and production. The 15% of the state's power that comes from nuclear somewhat understates their value to their owners, who rely more heavily on the plants. Last year, for example, 24% of PG&E's power supply portfolio came from Diablo. SCE forecasts that, next year, SONGS will provide about 21% of its customers' power requirements. SDG&E meets almost 40% of its power requirements with nuclear. (But this total includes power it receives from Palo Verde, an Arizona nuclear power plant of which SDG&E and SCE are part owners.) As we discuss further below, SONGS, in particular, is critical for reliability, providing essential capacity in the transmission-constrained Los Angeles basin.
On March 11, a 9.0 magnitude earthquake struck off the coast of Japan, about 81 miles east of Sendai. At this time, three of the six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility, located about 71 miles south of Sendai, were operating. (Units 4, 5, and 6 were closed for routine refueling and maintenance). As designed, when offsite power was lost to the entire facility, emergency diesel generators automatically started to provide critical power to the units to supply cooling water to reactors and cooling ponds that house spent fuel.
Some 40 minutes after the quake, a tsunami in excess of 45 feet hit the plant, exceeding the height of the plant's barrier wall by about 27 feet. Seawater flooded the plant yard, and disabled the backup diesel generators located in the basement. Battery backup systems either failed or were soon exhausted. With a complete loss of power, radioactive nuclear fuel could not be cooled. The buildup of heat and pressure inside the reactor vessels caused explosions at four units, damaging the concrete containment buildings and releasing radiation. Units 1 through 4 all sustained partial core damage; units 5 and 6 were successfully transitioned to cold shutdown.
While the accident was serious, it pales in comparison to the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl, which is the worst in nuclear power's 60-plus year history. Experts have estimated that the radiation releases by Fukushima were about 10% of that of Chernobyl. And human exposure to radiation was minimal in Japan due to the prevailing winds and the comparatively quick evacuation of the immediate areas around Fukushima.
It's unlikely the factors that caused Fukushima would be identically replicated in California. Important design and geographical factors differ between California's plants and Fukushima. For example, while backup diesel generators at Fukushima were not adequately protected from the tsunami, SONGS' emergency backup diesel generators are located 30 feet above sea level, and a seven-day supply of diesel fuel is stored in subsurface vaults built to withstand seismic events and flooding. Emergency battery backup power and switch gears are at a 50-foot elevation. According to SCE, SONGS also stores 5.3 million gallons of water on site that could be used for emergency cooling, of which 3 million gallons are in subsurface vaults, designed to protect against the site's seismic risks.
The biggest risk to the nuclear plants in California is that an earthquake occurs near the plants that exceeds their design specifications. These specifications are based on the most severe seismic event historically reported for the site and the surrounding 200 miles. A margin of safety is then added to account for the inherent limitations of historic data.
Diablo was designed to withstand an earthquake of 7.5 magnitude along the Hosgri fault and 0.75 g peak ground acceleration. The Hosgri fault is located about 4.5 kilometers (km) offshore of Diablo and runs approximately 140 km along the California coast. The Hosgri is believed to be capable of generating a maximum earthquake of magnitude 7.1.
A second fault, the Shoreline Fault, was discovered in 2008 and lies much closer to the plant than the Hosgri. The fault is estimated to be about 24 km in length, and its central portion lies just 300 meters from Diablo's saltwater intake structure and 600 meters from the power block. PG&E has an ongoing seismic program and its scientists undertook a two-year study that it released in January 2011. PG&E concluded that two earthquakes in Avila Bay occurred in the early 1900s of 5.0 magnitude and could have been caused by the Shoreline fault. PG&E's safety analysis assumed the fault could produce a maximum of a 6.5 magnitude quake and that, given likely ground motion impacts of a quake along with other factors, an adequate safety margin continues to exist. The NRC's own independent analysis in 2009 reached similar findings. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has created an impendent panel to peer review PG&E's analysis.
SONGS is designed to withstand a magnitude 7.0 quake (or 0.67 peak ground acceleration), and is five miles away from the Rose Canyon fault, which is part of the Newport-Inglewood fault system. According to San Diego County emergency planning documents, the Rose Canyon fault has the potential to reach a magnitude of 6.9 to 7.2. In a 2008 report, the California Energy Commission (CEC), which was tasked by the legislature to review existing scientific studies to assess the risks of a major seismic event to Diablo and SONGS. The report raised concerns that, since the time SONGS was built, seismic and geologic data indicate that SONGS could experience larger and more frequent earthquakes than anticipated and that the design basis for SONGS underestimates the seismic risk at the site. SCE has not publicly stated whether it will seek to relicense SONGS, but given its size and important, we expect it to. As with PG&E, it's clear that as part of the re-licensing process these concerns will be vetted by a fresh set of seismic studies that utilizes improved technology.
California has tsunami risk from both local and distant faults. According to NRC testimony before the California senate in April, SONGS has a 30-foot seawall, based on an assumed maximum tsunami height of 27 feet, which includes a high tide and maximum storm surge. Diablo is designed to withstand a tsunami height of 45 feet based on an assumed maximum tsunami height of 35 feet.
How does this compare with historical records of California tsunamis? The California Seismic Safety Commission estimated in 2005 that 82 tsunamis have been recorded in California's history. Eleven have been large enough to cause damage, two have been major, and four have led to deaths. The most devastating tsunami to affect California in modern history followed a 9.2 magnitude earthquake in Alaska in 1964. Areas of northern California experienced 21-foot waves that flooded significant parts of Crescent City (a small coastal city 20 miles south of Oregon) and killed 11 people. A 1960 Chilean earthquake, the most powerful earthquake record on earth (9.5 magnitude), impacted the entire Pacific basin, damaging ports from San Diego to Crescent City.
None of these events produced tsunamis that would have breached the seawalls that protect Diablo and SONGS. But tsunamis occurring elsewhere in the world have demonstrated huge swells. In addition to the Japanese earthquake that caused waves in excess of 45 feet at Fukushima, in December 2004 the Indian Ocean tsunami raised water levels by about 100 feet in Indonesia, and 40 feet in Thailand.
According to experts, California's largest tsunami risk stems from the Cascadia subduction zone, a long sloping, underwater seismic fault that stretches from mid-Vancouver Island to Northern California. Experts believe the Cascadia could produce a large earthquake, with a magnitude 9.0 or greater, if a rupture occurred over its whole area. The last major Cascadia earthquake occurred in 1700, according to California's Seismic Safety Commission. Native American accounts suggest that wave heights could have reached 60 feet. This is supported by records in Japan, where wave heights as high as 15 feet were recorded as the tsunami travelled across the Pacific Ocean to Asia. Geological evidence suggests that Cascadia great earthquakes have occurred at least seven times in the past 3,500 years, at a rate of every 400 to 600 years, but experts have not ruled out the possibility that a Cascadia 9.0 quake could occur in our lifetime.
The NRC permits existing nuclear units to apply for a license extension of 20 years; licensees are expected to submit an application at least five years before their current license expires. PG&E filed Diablo's license extension in late 2009. SCE has not yet filed for a license extension beyond 2022. The NRC review process typically takes 22 to 30 months, depending on the need for a hearing and the length of any hearing process. If granted, Diablo would be able to operate until 2044 to 2045. SONGS would be able to operate until 2042.
A key component of the relicensing process will be an update of seismic studies. Previously, the CPUC authorized PG&E to spend $16.7 million to update their assessments of Diablo Canyon's seismic risks. But in a Sept. 23 application, the utility asked that the amount be increased to $64.2 million. As part of its 2012 general rate case pending before the CPUC, SCE has asked for $29 million to study SONGS, of which $21 million is for three-dimensional seismic studies, similar to PG&E's.
PG&E asked the NRC in April to delay final processing of its license until its seismic studies are completed. Because it requires state permits to carry out its seismic testing, when these studies will be complete is unclear. PG&E has told the NRC that it expects its summary report to be available no later than December 2015.
Beyond seismic and tsunami issues, another risk that is being raised by politicians is that of storing spent fuel on site. The lack of a permanent federal repository for spent fuel has forced all nuclear reactors to store fuel on site in spent pools, often along with dry cask storage for "temporary" storage. The concern is that so much fuel stored on a seismically active site could compound the severity of a nuclear disaster.
Diablo and SONGS have approximately 1,126 tons and 1,430 tons of spent fuel on site, divided between spent fuel ponds and dry cask storage, according to testimony before the California Senate in April.
Spent fuel storage has become a focus of influential U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. Boxer chairs the senate's environment and public works committee. Feinstein, who toured Diablo and SONGS in April, chairs the senate's appropriations subcommittee on interior, environment, and related agencies. Both senators have expressed concern about plant safety, singling out the spent fuel issue. In March, the senators sent a letter to the head of the NRC asking it to conduct a thorough inspection of the plants to evaluate safety and emergency preparedness. Another issue for nuclear facilities throughout the country after Fukushima is whether the population density, especially for SONGS, would make it impossible to enable an evacuation in the event of a nuclear emergency.
While the NRC has jurisdiction over safety and operational issues at the plant, the CPUC will also play an instrumental role in whether the plants operate beyond their current licenses because it approves the recovery of nuclear costs in customer rates. Even if the NRC grants the plants new licenses, the CPUC could block relicensing by refusing to fund the new retrofits if needed for another 20 years of operation. However, there are no indications that the CPUC would do this, and, in fact, it has been quick to approve preliminary costs for relicensing, including PG&E's seismic studies. The California Coastal Commission (CCC) also has a role in that it will need to issue a certificate that the plants' continued operation is consistent with federal coast zone management requirements.
Possible retrofits ordered by the NRC are not the only source of cost the plants will face if they continue to operate past their current licenses. Both Diablo and SONGS use once-through cooling systems that pump ocean water to the plants. The ocean water is then returned to the sea at temperatures that compromise marine and plant life. The California Water Resource Control Board voted in 2010 to adopt new requirements for all California power plants. Diablo and SONGS have compliance deadlines concurrent with their license expirations, so would need to comply with the board's requirements to modify their cooling systems if they continue to operate. These modifications are not likely to swamp the attractive economics of the plants, but they will be a factor in the state's decision-making.
Diablo and SONGS are among the lowest cost base-load power resources in PG&E and SCE's power supply portfolio. Diablo's operating costs are $50 per megawatt-hour and are comparable for SONGS. The costs of all Diablo power in 2011 for PG&E is expected to be about $502 million, and for SONGS it is $322 million (based on 2012 estimates). The CPUC has estimated that the annual cost of replacement energy would be well over a billion dollars for each utility, assuming that combined-cycle natural gas plants supply the shortfall, and higher still if renewable power were utilized. PG&E estimates are that relicensing would have net present value ratepayer benefits of between $3.8 billion and $16 billion, depending on the scenario, over the 20-year life of the extension. SCE has estimated the net present value benefits of $4 billion if the SONGS license is extended.
Diablo is a strategically located plant for grid stability, but it is not vital to maintaining reliability. But SONGS is. The mathematics of power requirements for the Los Angeles Basin are that the local area has about 12,309 MW of capacity, of which SONGS' 2,340 MW is part. Some 10,600 MW are required to maintain grid reliability. Removing SONGS from the capacity brings the area under the minimum, according to data provided by the CPUC. While SONGS could theoretically be replaced with combined-cycle gas plants, there are real regulatory and permitting constraints to adding generation to the southern California area. Southern California air basins have some of the worst air quality in the nation, and air quality requirements are stringent and constrain the ability to license new power plants. Equally important, shutting down SONGS would require siting high voltage transmission and 230/500 kilovolt substations in the Los Angeles basin, which would be challenging given resistance to building transmission infrastructure in highly populated areas.
The CPUC has estimated that to replace nuclear capacity would require five to seven years if air and land use permits could be obtained. SCE has pegged the needed lead time at closer to a decade. So while the expiration of licenses in the 2022 to 2024 timeframe may sound distant, if a decade is assumed to be needed to develop alternatives, the state has at most the next two to four years to make important decisions about the future of its nuclear plants.
If the plants are closed, the state's ability to meet its stringent carbon requirements will likely be in jeopardy. The closure of SONGS alone would add an additional 6 million to 10 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions to the state's carbon profile each year, which SCE has estimated is equivalent to the emissions of 1.2 million to 2.0 million passenger cars. While it might be theoretically possible to replace SONGS with new renewables, SCE has estimated this would require 6,600 MW of wind, plus 1,600 MW of backstop peaking generation or 6,000 to 8,000 MW of solar, and each would require massive investment in transmission. In addition, while the California Independent System Operator has indicated that the integration of renewables at the state-mandated 33% by 2020 is feasible, it is unclear if the grid can accommodate levels beyond this. But it is difficult to envision how the state could assure the timely delivery of so much infrastructure. Without a viable plan that could be credibly executed in time for the licenses expirations, the credit quality of the electric utilities in the state could be compromised.
A disorderly exit from nuclear -- that is, something that forces the early closure of the plants without clearly defined cost recovery and that does not give the electric utility owner time to plan for alternatives, almost certainly would jeopardize credit quality. This risk has recently elevated given the current circulation of a proposed state ballot initiative.
Called the Nuclear Waste Act of 2012, passage of the initiative would block Diablo and SONGS from operating unless the federal government has approved technology for permanent disposal of nuclear waste, something that is clearly not advanced and has dim prospects of doing so. As a result, the requirements of the act would have the effect of shutting the plants down. In May, the state attorney general's office cleared the initiative for circulation, and it is now in the signature gathering process. It needs about a 500,000 signatures to qualify for the 2012 state ballot, and backers have until Oct. 20 to gather them. Only in November will the state be able to determine whether the initiative has the required number of valid signatures to be certified for the ballot, so the process is in the early stages, and its chances are uncertain.
Based on polling data, a statewide vote to shut the plants would likely fail. The independent field poll found in June, based on a survey of Californians, that by a margin of 56% to 32%, most Californians believe existing nuclear power plants in the state are safe. But when asked whether the state should phase out its nuclear plants over the next decade, the public is more divided: 46% are opposed to and 39% are in favor of an eventual closure while 15% had no opinion.
The bipartisan Legislative Analyst's Office issued an analysis indicating that if the measure passed, regular rolling blackouts would occur in the state. Moreover, such a disorderly move away from the plants would leave dangling the critical credit question of how and over what time period the utilities would recover their remaining $4 billion investment in Diablo and SONGS from ratepayers.
We view the chances of the initiative qualifying for the ballot to be remote -- if only because we believe its proposal is extreme. At the same time, referendums have worked to close nuclear plants in the state before. In 1989, the 913 MW Rancho Seco nuclear facility, owned and operated by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, was shuttered after a public referendum demanded its closure. The 1975-vintage plant was plagued by serious operational problems and cost overruns, whereas both Diablo and SONGS have enjoyed strong track records. Nevertheless, the potential for the statewide ballot initiatives to radically change energy policy underscores that tail risk exists because complex issues can be put directly to the voters.
The nuclear policy and cost decisions facing the state have no immediate credit implications for its owners, SCE, PG&E, and SDG&E. But under some scenarios, there could be unfavorable credit outcomes for these companies. If seismic studies support that the plants can continue to operate safely, we would view license extensions to be credit neutral, even if there are costs to retrofit the plants. So long as cost recovery is approved by the CPUC and supports the continued operation of the plants as the least-cost resources relative to alternatives (almost certainly the case under any plausible scenarios), we would not expect any ratings actions.
If, via a rejection of license extension or other paths, one or both of California's nuclear plants are closed after their current licenses expire, there may be negative credit impacts if a credible plan to develop alternative resources and transmission does not develop. At the latest, a clear path to transitioning away from nuclear would need to exist by approximately 2014 for SCE and 2016 for PG&E, which would give each about eight years to executive an alternative plan. We view this timeline to be the minimum needed to transition away from SONGS and Diablo.
The most unlikely outcome, but certainly the most threatening to credit quality, would be if the proposed ballot initiative that could cause an immediate closure of the plants were to qualify for the statewide ballot in 2012 and pass by a majority of voters. We have no indications that this will be the case, but if it were, we would evaluate the stable outlooks on all three of the states' investor-owned electric utilities and/or consider a negative CreditWatch listing because the initiative leaves in limbo the plant owners' recovery of their stranded investments and would likely threaten grid stability and reliability.
Six months have passed since the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan. In the immediate aftermath of the accident, anxious utility investors sought to understand whether what happened in Japan could happen at Diablo Canyon or San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), California's two operating nuclear power plants. In its 90-day report, issued in July, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) task force assigned to assess the lessons learned from Japan concluded that U.S. nuclear plants are safe and that "a sequence of events like the Fukushima accident is unlikely to occur."
But the accident raises a number of important safety questions for Diablo and SONGS, which like Fukushima are located on a coastline that has seismic and tsunami risks. According to estimates, California faces a 99.7% chance of a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake during the next 30 years. And there is a 37% chance that there will be an earthquake in Southern California over the next 30 years that exceeds magnitude 7.5 and a 15% chance for Northern California, according to the United States Geologic Service. Diablo and SONGS are designed to withstand a 7.5 and 7.0 magnitude earthquake, respectively.
Overview
- California utilities that own nuclear power generation facilities may face increased scrutiny during their relicensing process because of the Fukushima disaster in Japan.
- Various federal and state agencies are re-examining the assumptions upon which construction risk models are based, and a voter initiative (not yet on the ballot) is attempting to shut down plants because no long-term federal storage facilities are available for spent nuclear waste.
- The credit fallout from the outcome of these various scenarios ranges from none to significant. If California's nuclear plants are not relicensed, the long lead times required to site new generation and transmission means that affected utilities may have just two to four years to develop backup plans.
The Fukushima accident has already complicated the extension of operating licenses for Diablo Canyon, which has asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to hold off on ruling on a license extension until it completes more detailed seismic modeling. Diablo's licenses for its two reactors expire in 2024 and 2025. The license for SONGS units expires in 2022. The credit issue we are focused on is whether the NRC and state agencies will allow the plants to continue to operate past their current licenses, and if they do, what upgrades may be required and at what costs. If the retrofits prove too costly and force nuclear closures, it is unclear that California has the political will that would allow for the timely construction of natural gas and renewable generation and supporting transmission lines to substitute for Diablo and SONGS. Even though both plants have over a decade of remaining legal operating life, if decisions on the future of these plants are not made in the next two to four years, it may be too late to ensure that replacement infrastructure can be built in time, in our view.
A greater credit risk is the prospect for a disorderly shut down of one or both nuclear plants. After Fukushima, the state is again reassessing whether its nuclear plants -- which supply about 15% of the state's total power requirements -– are safe. To be sure, public opinion polls have consistently registered Californians' discomfort with nuclear power, and a 1976 state statute prevents the construction of any new plants. The public's willingness to live with nuclear plants that are located near major fault lines may be tested as early as 2012 if a proposed voter initiative gathers a required 504,760 signatures needed to make the fall 2012 ballot. In November, whether the signature drive has been successful will be clear. If the initiative makes the ballot, its prospects are uncertain, but we would view even its inclusion on the ballot as clouding the credit quality of the state's investor-owned electric utilities. A state poll completed in June found that while most Californians don't want Diablo and SONGS phased out during the next decade, that majority is slim.
A Brief Primer On California's Nuclear Power Plants
Diablo Canyon is owned and operated by Pacific Gas & Electric and consists of two nuclear reactors, each with a capacity of 1,120 megawatts (MW), which came online in 1985 and 1986. Diablo is located at Avila Beach, which is near San Luis Obispo, a coastal city about 190 miles north of Los Angeles. By California standards, this region of the central-southern coast is not densely populated. According to public documents, an estimated 424,000 people live within a 50-mile radius of Diablo -- the evacuation zone that NRC, in a March 17, 2011 press release, said it would recommend in the U.S. if an event like Fukushima occurred here.
SONGS is operated by Southern California Edison, which owns a 78% share of the 2,340 MW plant. San Diego Gas & Electric owns a 20% share. (A southern California city owns the balance.) SONGS is located about 60 miles south of Los Angeles and 60 miles north of San Diego, which are the second and eighth largest cities in the U.S., respectively. As a result, an estimated 7.4 million people live within a 50-mile radius of SONGS. SONGS consists of two operating reactors, each of which are 1,170 MW and which began operation in 1983 and 1984. (A third unit stopped operating in 1992 and is in the process of being dismantled.)
California's Nuclear Plants Are Currently Critical
Nuclear plants are a critical source of power and grid reliability in California. Diablo and SONGS nuclear capacity is large -- the collective 4,580 MW of capacity supplies nearly 10% of the summer peak capacity, which is typically around 48,000 MW, based on the California Independent System Operator. No other power plants in the state compare in their size and production. The 15% of the state's power that comes from nuclear somewhat understates their value to their owners, who rely more heavily on the plants. Last year, for example, 24% of PG&E's power supply portfolio came from Diablo. SCE forecasts that, next year, SONGS will provide about 21% of its customers' power requirements. SDG&E meets almost 40% of its power requirements with nuclear. (But this total includes power it receives from Palo Verde, an Arizona nuclear power plant of which SDG&E and SCE are part owners.) As we discuss further below, SONGS, in particular, is critical for reliability, providing essential capacity in the transmission-constrained Los Angeles basin.
Could Fukushima Happen in California?
On March 11, a 9.0 magnitude earthquake struck off the coast of Japan, about 81 miles east of Sendai. At this time, three of the six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility, located about 71 miles south of Sendai, were operating. (Units 4, 5, and 6 were closed for routine refueling and maintenance). As designed, when offsite power was lost to the entire facility, emergency diesel generators automatically started to provide critical power to the units to supply cooling water to reactors and cooling ponds that house spent fuel.
Some 40 minutes after the quake, a tsunami in excess of 45 feet hit the plant, exceeding the height of the plant's barrier wall by about 27 feet. Seawater flooded the plant yard, and disabled the backup diesel generators located in the basement. Battery backup systems either failed or were soon exhausted. With a complete loss of power, radioactive nuclear fuel could not be cooled. The buildup of heat and pressure inside the reactor vessels caused explosions at four units, damaging the concrete containment buildings and releasing radiation. Units 1 through 4 all sustained partial core damage; units 5 and 6 were successfully transitioned to cold shutdown.
While the accident was serious, it pales in comparison to the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl, which is the worst in nuclear power's 60-plus year history. Experts have estimated that the radiation releases by Fukushima were about 10% of that of Chernobyl. And human exposure to radiation was minimal in Japan due to the prevailing winds and the comparatively quick evacuation of the immediate areas around Fukushima.
It's unlikely the factors that caused Fukushima would be identically replicated in California. Important design and geographical factors differ between California's plants and Fukushima. For example, while backup diesel generators at Fukushima were not adequately protected from the tsunami, SONGS' emergency backup diesel generators are located 30 feet above sea level, and a seven-day supply of diesel fuel is stored in subsurface vaults built to withstand seismic events and flooding. Emergency battery backup power and switch gears are at a 50-foot elevation. According to SCE, SONGS also stores 5.3 million gallons of water on site that could be used for emergency cooling, of which 3 million gallons are in subsurface vaults, designed to protect against the site's seismic risks.
Earthquake risks for Diablo and SONGS: What's lurking under the deep blue sea?
The biggest risk to the nuclear plants in California is that an earthquake occurs near the plants that exceeds their design specifications. These specifications are based on the most severe seismic event historically reported for the site and the surrounding 200 miles. A margin of safety is then added to account for the inherent limitations of historic data.
Diablo was designed to withstand an earthquake of 7.5 magnitude along the Hosgri fault and 0.75 g peak ground acceleration. The Hosgri fault is located about 4.5 kilometers (km) offshore of Diablo and runs approximately 140 km along the California coast. The Hosgri is believed to be capable of generating a maximum earthquake of magnitude 7.1.
A second fault, the Shoreline Fault, was discovered in 2008 and lies much closer to the plant than the Hosgri. The fault is estimated to be about 24 km in length, and its central portion lies just 300 meters from Diablo's saltwater intake structure and 600 meters from the power block. PG&E has an ongoing seismic program and its scientists undertook a two-year study that it released in January 2011. PG&E concluded that two earthquakes in Avila Bay occurred in the early 1900s of 5.0 magnitude and could have been caused by the Shoreline fault. PG&E's safety analysis assumed the fault could produce a maximum of a 6.5 magnitude quake and that, given likely ground motion impacts of a quake along with other factors, an adequate safety margin continues to exist. The NRC's own independent analysis in 2009 reached similar findings. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has created an impendent panel to peer review PG&E's analysis.
SONGS is designed to withstand a magnitude 7.0 quake (or 0.67 peak ground acceleration), and is five miles away from the Rose Canyon fault, which is part of the Newport-Inglewood fault system. According to San Diego County emergency planning documents, the Rose Canyon fault has the potential to reach a magnitude of 6.9 to 7.2. In a 2008 report, the California Energy Commission (CEC), which was tasked by the legislature to review existing scientific studies to assess the risks of a major seismic event to Diablo and SONGS. The report raised concerns that, since the time SONGS was built, seismic and geologic data indicate that SONGS could experience larger and more frequent earthquakes than anticipated and that the design basis for SONGS underestimates the seismic risk at the site. SCE has not publicly stated whether it will seek to relicense SONGS, but given its size and important, we expect it to. As with PG&E, it's clear that as part of the re-licensing process these concerns will be vetted by a fresh set of seismic studies that utilizes improved technology.
A California tsunami: No, it's not a new kind of sushi roll
California has tsunami risk from both local and distant faults. According to NRC testimony before the California senate in April, SONGS has a 30-foot seawall, based on an assumed maximum tsunami height of 27 feet, which includes a high tide and maximum storm surge. Diablo is designed to withstand a tsunami height of 45 feet based on an assumed maximum tsunami height of 35 feet.
How does this compare with historical records of California tsunamis? The California Seismic Safety Commission estimated in 2005 that 82 tsunamis have been recorded in California's history. Eleven have been large enough to cause damage, two have been major, and four have led to deaths. The most devastating tsunami to affect California in modern history followed a 9.2 magnitude earthquake in Alaska in 1964. Areas of northern California experienced 21-foot waves that flooded significant parts of Crescent City (a small coastal city 20 miles south of Oregon) and killed 11 people. A 1960 Chilean earthquake, the most powerful earthquake record on earth (9.5 magnitude), impacted the entire Pacific basin, damaging ports from San Diego to Crescent City.
None of these events produced tsunamis that would have breached the seawalls that protect Diablo and SONGS. But tsunamis occurring elsewhere in the world have demonstrated huge swells. In addition to the Japanese earthquake that caused waves in excess of 45 feet at Fukushima, in December 2004 the Indian Ocean tsunami raised water levels by about 100 feet in Indonesia, and 40 feet in Thailand.
According to experts, California's largest tsunami risk stems from the Cascadia subduction zone, a long sloping, underwater seismic fault that stretches from mid-Vancouver Island to Northern California. Experts believe the Cascadia could produce a large earthquake, with a magnitude 9.0 or greater, if a rupture occurred over its whole area. The last major Cascadia earthquake occurred in 1700, according to California's Seismic Safety Commission. Native American accounts suggest that wave heights could have reached 60 feet. This is supported by records in Japan, where wave heights as high as 15 feet were recorded as the tsunami travelled across the Pacific Ocean to Asia. Geological evidence suggests that Cascadia great earthquakes have occurred at least seven times in the past 3,500 years, at a rate of every 400 to 600 years, but experts have not ruled out the possibility that a Cascadia 9.0 quake could occur in our lifetime.
California's Nuclear Power Plants Face Relicensing Challenges
The NRC permits existing nuclear units to apply for a license extension of 20 years; licensees are expected to submit an application at least five years before their current license expires. PG&E filed Diablo's license extension in late 2009. SCE has not yet filed for a license extension beyond 2022. The NRC review process typically takes 22 to 30 months, depending on the need for a hearing and the length of any hearing process. If granted, Diablo would be able to operate until 2044 to 2045. SONGS would be able to operate until 2042.
A key component of the relicensing process will be an update of seismic studies. Previously, the CPUC authorized PG&E to spend $16.7 million to update their assessments of Diablo Canyon's seismic risks. But in a Sept. 23 application, the utility asked that the amount be increased to $64.2 million. As part of its 2012 general rate case pending before the CPUC, SCE has asked for $29 million to study SONGS, of which $21 million is for three-dimensional seismic studies, similar to PG&E's.
PG&E asked the NRC in April to delay final processing of its license until its seismic studies are completed. Because it requires state permits to carry out its seismic testing, when these studies will be complete is unclear. PG&E has told the NRC that it expects its summary report to be available no later than December 2015.
Beyond seismic and tsunami issues, another risk that is being raised by politicians is that of storing spent fuel on site. The lack of a permanent federal repository for spent fuel has forced all nuclear reactors to store fuel on site in spent pools, often along with dry cask storage for "temporary" storage. The concern is that so much fuel stored on a seismically active site could compound the severity of a nuclear disaster.
Diablo and SONGS have approximately 1,126 tons and 1,430 tons of spent fuel on site, divided between spent fuel ponds and dry cask storage, according to testimony before the California Senate in April.
Spent fuel storage has become a focus of influential U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. Boxer chairs the senate's environment and public works committee. Feinstein, who toured Diablo and SONGS in April, chairs the senate's appropriations subcommittee on interior, environment, and related agencies. Both senators have expressed concern about plant safety, singling out the spent fuel issue. In March, the senators sent a letter to the head of the NRC asking it to conduct a thorough inspection of the plants to evaluate safety and emergency preparedness. Another issue for nuclear facilities throughout the country after Fukushima is whether the population density, especially for SONGS, would make it impossible to enable an evacuation in the event of a nuclear emergency.
While the NRC has jurisdiction over safety and operational issues at the plant, the CPUC will also play an instrumental role in whether the plants operate beyond their current licenses because it approves the recovery of nuclear costs in customer rates. Even if the NRC grants the plants new licenses, the CPUC could block relicensing by refusing to fund the new retrofits if needed for another 20 years of operation. However, there are no indications that the CPUC would do this, and, in fact, it has been quick to approve preliminary costs for relicensing, including PG&E's seismic studies. The California Coastal Commission (CCC) also has a role in that it will need to issue a certificate that the plants' continued operation is consistent with federal coast zone management requirements.
Possible retrofits ordered by the NRC are not the only source of cost the plants will face if they continue to operate past their current licenses. Both Diablo and SONGS use once-through cooling systems that pump ocean water to the plants. The ocean water is then returned to the sea at temperatures that compromise marine and plant life. The California Water Resource Control Board voted in 2010 to adopt new requirements for all California power plants. Diablo and SONGS have compliance deadlines concurrent with their license expirations, so would need to comply with the board's requirements to modify their cooling systems if they continue to operate. These modifications are not likely to swamp the attractive economics of the plants, but they will be a factor in the state's decision-making.
What If California Decides to Become A Nuclear Free Zone?
Diablo and SONGS are among the lowest cost base-load power resources in PG&E and SCE's power supply portfolio. Diablo's operating costs are $50 per megawatt-hour and are comparable for SONGS. The costs of all Diablo power in 2011 for PG&E is expected to be about $502 million, and for SONGS it is $322 million (based on 2012 estimates). The CPUC has estimated that the annual cost of replacement energy would be well over a billion dollars for each utility, assuming that combined-cycle natural gas plants supply the shortfall, and higher still if renewable power were utilized. PG&E estimates are that relicensing would have net present value ratepayer benefits of between $3.8 billion and $16 billion, depending on the scenario, over the 20-year life of the extension. SCE has estimated the net present value benefits of $4 billion if the SONGS license is extended.
Diablo is a strategically located plant for grid stability, but it is not vital to maintaining reliability. But SONGS is. The mathematics of power requirements for the Los Angeles Basin are that the local area has about 12,309 MW of capacity, of which SONGS' 2,340 MW is part. Some 10,600 MW are required to maintain grid reliability. Removing SONGS from the capacity brings the area under the minimum, according to data provided by the CPUC. While SONGS could theoretically be replaced with combined-cycle gas plants, there are real regulatory and permitting constraints to adding generation to the southern California area. Southern California air basins have some of the worst air quality in the nation, and air quality requirements are stringent and constrain the ability to license new power plants. Equally important, shutting down SONGS would require siting high voltage transmission and 230/500 kilovolt substations in the Los Angeles basin, which would be challenging given resistance to building transmission infrastructure in highly populated areas.
The CPUC has estimated that to replace nuclear capacity would require five to seven years if air and land use permits could be obtained. SCE has pegged the needed lead time at closer to a decade. So while the expiration of licenses in the 2022 to 2024 timeframe may sound distant, if a decade is assumed to be needed to develop alternatives, the state has at most the next two to four years to make important decisions about the future of its nuclear plants.
If the plants are closed, the state's ability to meet its stringent carbon requirements will likely be in jeopardy. The closure of SONGS alone would add an additional 6 million to 10 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions to the state's carbon profile each year, which SCE has estimated is equivalent to the emissions of 1.2 million to 2.0 million passenger cars. While it might be theoretically possible to replace SONGS with new renewables, SCE has estimated this would require 6,600 MW of wind, plus 1,600 MW of backstop peaking generation or 6,000 to 8,000 MW of solar, and each would require massive investment in transmission. In addition, while the California Independent System Operator has indicated that the integration of renewables at the state-mandated 33% by 2020 is feasible, it is unclear if the grid can accommodate levels beyond this. But it is difficult to envision how the state could assure the timely delivery of so much infrastructure. Without a viable plan that could be credibly executed in time for the licenses expirations, the credit quality of the electric utilities in the state could be compromised.
Nature Created the Earthquakes, Californians Created the Ballot Initiative
A disorderly exit from nuclear -- that is, something that forces the early closure of the plants without clearly defined cost recovery and that does not give the electric utility owner time to plan for alternatives, almost certainly would jeopardize credit quality. This risk has recently elevated given the current circulation of a proposed state ballot initiative.
Called the Nuclear Waste Act of 2012, passage of the initiative would block Diablo and SONGS from operating unless the federal government has approved technology for permanent disposal of nuclear waste, something that is clearly not advanced and has dim prospects of doing so. As a result, the requirements of the act would have the effect of shutting the plants down. In May, the state attorney general's office cleared the initiative for circulation, and it is now in the signature gathering process. It needs about a 500,000 signatures to qualify for the 2012 state ballot, and backers have until Oct. 20 to gather them. Only in November will the state be able to determine whether the initiative has the required number of valid signatures to be certified for the ballot, so the process is in the early stages, and its chances are uncertain.
Based on polling data, a statewide vote to shut the plants would likely fail. The independent field poll found in June, based on a survey of Californians, that by a margin of 56% to 32%, most Californians believe existing nuclear power plants in the state are safe. But when asked whether the state should phase out its nuclear plants over the next decade, the public is more divided: 46% are opposed to and 39% are in favor of an eventual closure while 15% had no opinion.
The bipartisan Legislative Analyst's Office issued an analysis indicating that if the measure passed, regular rolling blackouts would occur in the state. Moreover, such a disorderly move away from the plants would leave dangling the critical credit question of how and over what time period the utilities would recover their remaining $4 billion investment in Diablo and SONGS from ratepayers.
We view the chances of the initiative qualifying for the ballot to be remote -- if only because we believe its proposal is extreme. At the same time, referendums have worked to close nuclear plants in the state before. In 1989, the 913 MW Rancho Seco nuclear facility, owned and operated by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, was shuttered after a public referendum demanded its closure. The 1975-vintage plant was plagued by serious operational problems and cost overruns, whereas both Diablo and SONGS have enjoyed strong track records. Nevertheless, the potential for the statewide ballot initiatives to radically change energy policy underscores that tail risk exists because complex issues can be put directly to the voters.
Credit Implications: A Work in Process
The nuclear policy and cost decisions facing the state have no immediate credit implications for its owners, SCE, PG&E, and SDG&E. But under some scenarios, there could be unfavorable credit outcomes for these companies. If seismic studies support that the plants can continue to operate safely, we would view license extensions to be credit neutral, even if there are costs to retrofit the plants. So long as cost recovery is approved by the CPUC and supports the continued operation of the plants as the least-cost resources relative to alternatives (almost certainly the case under any plausible scenarios), we would not expect any ratings actions.
If, via a rejection of license extension or other paths, one or both of California's nuclear plants are closed after their current licenses expire, there may be negative credit impacts if a credible plan to develop alternative resources and transmission does not develop. At the latest, a clear path to transitioning away from nuclear would need to exist by approximately 2014 for SCE and 2016 for PG&E, which would give each about eight years to executive an alternative plan. We view this timeline to be the minimum needed to transition away from SONGS and Diablo.
The most unlikely outcome, but certainly the most threatening to credit quality, would be if the proposed ballot initiative that could cause an immediate closure of the plants were to qualify for the statewide ballot in 2012 and pass by a majority of voters. We have no indications that this will be the case, but if it were, we would evaluate the stable outlooks on all three of the states' investor-owned electric utilities and/or consider a negative CreditWatch listing because the initiative leaves in limbo the plant owners' recovery of their stranded investments and would likely threaten grid stability and reliability.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
IEA to release World Energy review---Video
Dr Fatih Birol, Chief Economist at the International Energy Agency, explains some of the key topics which feature in the 2011 World Energy Outlook, which will be launched on 9 November.
The Energy is the biggest Issue in the coming days. International Energy Agency releases its Annual Issue on 9th November 2011.
The Curtain raiser...
Saturday, October 8, 2011
The solar bonanza: Aurora Clip
The man, who has not made a mistake, probably never did anything new!
A E.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)