Vattenfall sacks head of defective nuclear plant

[bananas]

Source: Deutsche Welle

Four days after a technical failure shut down a nuclear power station in northern Germany, operator Vattenfall admitted to having made a mistake, while Social Democrats and Green are urging a boycott.

Vattenfall admitted that a mistake had been made at the Kruemmel nuclear power station and confirmed that it had fired the plant manager. The Swedish operators said the head of the reactor had broken an agreement with German authorities to install discharge detectors on a transformer.

<snip>

The latest incident at Kruemmel, just one of many problems that have dogged the plant over the past years, has sparked furious political debate over the security of nuclear fuel technology.

In 2007, a fire in a previous transformer at the site led to its closure for two years. The facility had only been up and running again for two short weeks when Saturday's short-circuit threw it off the national grid once again.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4464985,00.html

---

This reactor was down for two years, and didn't last two weeks before it had to be shut down again.
According to the article, it's going to take months to replace the transformers.
Just like an old car, these things become too unreliable to depend on, too expensive to maintain, and too dangerous to operate.

[bananas]

1. Before anyone comments that it was "just a transformer":

Electricity is required to operate the control rods and run the cooling pumps. Even after the control rods are inserted to stop the reactor, the cooling pumps must continue operating because the reactor continues generating decay heat for a long time. Although there are back-up diesel generators, they have their own failure rates.

These articles written after the 2003 blackout in the US describe why it's so serious:

The Current State of US Nuclear Safety Regulations and Transmission Grid Reliability

<snip>

Nuclear power plants are equipped with redundant safety systems, each fully capable of safely shutting down the reactor and provide core cooling during the post-shutdown decay heat phase. These systems draw power from the grid, and cannot be energized by the plant’s main generator. So, if a nuke trips off the line, power must be quickly restored to the safety systems to prevent core damage. Since offsite power loss is a fact of life at any plant, nuclear reactor sites are equipped with several means of supplying power separate and independent of the transmission grid.

As plant operating experience developed through the 1970s, however, it became evident to most risk analysts that the potential for extended transmission grid unavailability coincident with the loss of the onsite emergency power supplies was sufficiently high to warrant additional measures. In the nuclear power industry, this scenario combining transmission grid unavailability (such as occurred in the 2K3 Blackout) with total loss of all onsite emergency power is referred to as a “Station Blackout.”

Depending on circumstances, the Station Blackout reactor accident scenario can be particularly dangerous to public health and safety. The reactor core can melt on time scales comparable to the TMI accident. Unlike the limited loss of cooling event at TMI, however, the core damage scenario in a Station Blackout can be particularly severe, including a so-called “early high energy release” comprising a particularly heavy “portfolio” of fission products dispersed far and wide within a few hours.

<snip>

Blackout Demonstrates Vulnerability of Nuclear Plants and Failure of Electricity Deregulation

The August electricity blackout, which shut down 21 nuclear reactors in the United States and Canada, was a spectacular demonstration of the heightened vulnerability of nuclear power plants in a deregulated electricity market. Nonetheless, leaders in Congress are disingenuously exploiting the blackout to promote more reliance on nuclear power and further electricity deregulation. Consider:

* When a plant loses offsite electrical supply, it automatically shuts down. It must then connect to a generator to keep coolant circulating and prevent the reactor core from overheating and causing a meltdown. However, in only the past 12 months, there have been 15 reported cases in which nuclear plants’ emergency diesel generators were declared inoperable. In four cases, all emergency diesel generators were inoperable at once.

* The large pools where "spent" nuclear fuel is stored at nuclear sites, which circulate cool water to keep the fuel cool, are not connected to backup generators. This material is both highly radioactive and very hot; if the power is out for too long (as little as eight hours), this material may catch fire and contaminate huge areas.

* In case of an emergency, many sirens in place to alert officials and the public may not operate because of a lack of power. In reports submitted to the NRC after the blackout, the Indian Point and Ginna nuclear stations (both in New York) noted that many of their emergency sirens malfunctioned. In the case of Indian Point, the sirens in four surrounding counties—including the densely populated Westchester County, with nearly 1 million people—failed during the blackout. If that were to happen in the event of a meltdown, the region would be left in a tragic state of ignorance.

* Local emergency personnel, who would be risking their lives in the event of an accident or attack, are not confident that they would be able to handle the overwhelming problems that would come with a disaster. In May 2003, 175 Indian Point-area first responders signed a petition to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission expressing their concerns that "even best efforts may not be enough to adequately protect the public health and safety of the citizens of this region."

<snip>

[enviralment]

6. Krummel shutdown

That is why we have nuclear safety commissions to catch these mistakes and oversights. Also the German at Krummel is an example of a problem with a nuclear station and the correct steps being taken. Just because a problem was discovered and they close down the transmitter, resulting in loss of power, but not loss of life or some sort of contamination. I think Krummel is exactly what we want when a nuclear station runs into problems.

[Pavulon]

34. wrong spot

dupe

[ensho]

2. sane thinking by the Germans

nt

[Liberation Angel]

3. Once again it shows the problems are serious/K&R

and trusting the companies who run them or the proponents claiming that they are safe is a mistake.

[Iterate]

4. It won't be restarted until at least April/May 2010.

Vattenfall announced this earlier today.

"Kruemmel out until April 2010
The German nuclear plant Kruemmel (KKK) is unlikely to be restarted until April or May 2010, according to operator Vattenfall. The company has decided to buy two new transformers, following a failure on 4 July caused an automatic shutdown at the plant. It will take until spring 2010 to receive and install them. The 4 July incident is the second transformer-related shut down in a week for the 1346MWe BWR, which was coming out of a two-year maintenance and repair outage."

http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=132&storyCode=2053530

[bananas]

7. Wow - that's a great article

Power fluctuations caused water pipes to break all over the city.
A bunch of other problems discovered with the reactor that have to be fixed.
They still don't know what caused the transformer to fail.

[madokie]

5. Except for when one does goes boom

"Just like an old car, these things become too unreliable to depend on, too expensive to maintain, and too dangerous to operate."

I'm not looking forward to the day when one of our nuke plants does go boom and hopefully it'll never happen. Living in the fear of that happening though sure sucks. There will be no dealing with it for so many people if and when it does happen because they'll be dead.

[Pavulon]

8. Wait for jesus to come back at the garden, have your plans ready

when a PWR reactor just blows it will be right after his last set of the evening..60 Years and the USN has not kaboomed one yet.

[Liberation Angel]

9. Yeah but the navy has leaked plenty of radiation

from their subs.

I spoke with the commander of a nuke sub and he told me that radioiodine is leaked from nuke reactors into the water.

There have been serious accidents with releases on subs (Remember the Thresher?)

But almost no publiciy at all.

One sub had a fire in port in the reactor room and everyone in the community became ill (they said it was the Asian flu) within a week or two of the fire. A close friend of mine had a miscarriage after she got sick in that town.

The nuclear navy keeps secrets. Deadly ones.

[Pavulon]

10. Negative

you owe links friend. Your conversations with some commander are worth the same as your conversation with your SO or god for that matter. Thresher was lost to a non reactor incident. The reactor is intact and stable.

I call bullshit on you. Link this shit or sit down. A release of radiation from a naval vessel would be easily traceable. Even the soviets could not keep it silent. You think a sub crew is going to be irradiated and no one will speak?

[Liberation Angel]

13. Hell, I know navy guys with cancers growing on the outside

who work in reactors on the subs.

No one speaks and of they do they can get in trouble.

I know that the military has a good public record but getting that info is going to be hard because there are no outside reports.

As for the Thressher how do YOU know it is intact? The sub totally collapsed in on itself and all the submariners were crushed.

[Thothmes]

17. The Thresher wreck has been photographed

extensively. The deep submersable Triest found and photographed the wreck in six major sections in a debris field covering 160,000 square yards. Years later Bob Ballard, working for the Navy also photographed the Tresher wreck site. He used that experience to help locate and photograph the wreck site of the USS Scorpion.

[Liberation Angel]

20. Thanks for that info

sad

and in that debris field there are leaky nukes and nuke weapons.

This gives me info to find out whether they tested for radiation then

Thanks

[Thothmes]

21. She was post overhaul sea trials at the time she sunk

She did not have any weapons on board.

[Liberation Angel]

22. ok but she had a reactor which was dumped in pieces

to the bottom of the sea and its too dangerous to recover due to radioactivity based on the story in the link I posted

I stand corrected on the missiles

[Thothmes]

23. Thresher was not capable of carrying missiles

she only carried torpedos.

[Thothmes]

24. According to your post #16

Surveys of the area showed no abnormal radiation. Recovery was not undertake to due to the depth of the wreck, not due to danger of radiation.

[Liberation Angel]

31. Read it again

They could not recover it due to the danger of radiation.

The gas would go up into the atmosphere and the rest woud be on the bottom of th sea spreading through the waters and fauna and flora

They did "routine" tests which really means nothing.

but they said recovery was too dangerous due to the danger of radiation.

If the sub was crushed and scatter so were the nuke materials and the reactor on board.

[Liberation Angel]

14. "Thresher Down" 1963 link

http://www.subsim.com/ssr/thresher.html

[Thothmes]

11. What town?

[Liberation Angel]

12. I'll see if I can find a link

it was 30 years ago.

The story seems to be scrubbed (I's have to find local paper to prove this as there are no links and it only got local coverage.

But the links below in my "Navy" post will give you a few examples.

[madokie]

15. Yeah but you can't really compare the navy to the private industry

The navy have total and complete control and very disciplined operators, big dif.

[Liberation Angel]

16. Yeah and the Thresher (nuclear sub) never sank killing all crew

"Officially commissioned in 1961, the USS Thresher was taken through extensive sea trials by its captain and crew. The submarine experienced several small problems during its period of sea trials, including issues with the ballast tanks and nuclear reactor. With the sea trials finally completed, the USS Thresher was taken out to sea off the coast of Massachusetts for deep sea diving training, accompanied by the USS Skylark, a submarine rescue ship, on 9 April 1963.

The USS Thresher submerged to the expected depth, and then reported that it was experiencing problems and attempting to surface. The report was garbled, and the submarine was never heard from again. The USS Skylark reported the ship lost, and an effort was launched to identify the wreckage and determine whether or not the reactor had leaked. The USS Thresher sank in waters deep enough to cause the ship to implode with pressure, killing the 129 seaman aboard in less than two seconds and scattering the ship across the ocean floor in six pieces. Routine radiological surveys failed to turn up signs that the ship's nuclear fuel had contaminated the area.

"Research on the fate of the USS Thresher would seem to suggest that the ship sank because of a failure in its saltwater piping system which ultimately led to flooding of the submarine, turning off the nuclear reactor. Before the sub's crew could power the reactor back up, the ship sank. Recovery of the USS Thresher wreck has not been possible due to the depths at which the sub sank and concerns about nuclear contamination with several memorials to the ship and her crew being located at various sites in the United States, including Arlington National Cemetery."


My Note: I would hardly call this a stellar performance nr would I say that we have any idea how much leaked or where it went. It would likley not be detectable in the water (except in the immediate vicinity which they cannot get to) and so it is in the sea food chain and the seawater slushing around and the gases escaped inot the atmosphere.

Stellar navy record.

(I worked with the widow of a man who was crushed on this vessel and is there at the bottom of the sea surrounded by nuclear poison so that his body could never be recovered)

[Liberation Angel]

19. Navy has a total blackout on info to the public so we'll never know

nt

[Liberation Angel]

18. United States Navy has had nuclear incidents

United States Navy has had nuclear incidents





I wish to take issue with Rep. Gene Taylor's assertion that the United States Navy has, in the words of The Mississippi Press' Jan. 18 editorial, "been using nuclear power for decades without incident." In making this statement, both Rep. Taylor and The Mississippi Press are in error. The actual list of "incidents" includes:



1. In 1961, the USS Theodore Roosevelt was contaminated when radioactive waste from its demineralization system blew back onto the ship after an attempt to dispose of the material at sea.


2. On Dec. 12, 1971, approximately 500 gallons of radioactive coolant water was spilled into the Thames River near New London, Conn., during a transfer from the submarine USS Dace to the submarine tender USS Fulton.


3. In 1975, the nuclear-powered submarine USS Guardfish was contaminated with radioactive waste from its reactor coolant water system during disposal at sea.


4. Sometime during October to November of 1975, the submarine tender USS Proteus discharged radioactive coolant water into Apra Harbor, Guam, contaminating two of the harbor's public beaches with radiation 50 times the allowable dose.


5. On May 22, 1978, the nuclear-powered submarine USS Puffer mistakenly released up to 500 gallons of radioactive water near Puget Sound, Washington.


This list does not include the losses of the nuclear-powered submarines USS Thresher and USS Scorpion. While their losses were unrelated to nuclear propulsion, their reactors are still sitting on the ocean floor, making it a matter of time before radioactive material is released. This list also doesn't include accidents involving nuclear weapons or incidents at shore-based facilities.


Finally, Rep. Taylor's assertion does not take into account the U. S. Navy's policy of not releasing information on incidents involving nuclear power. For example, OPNAVINST 3040.5B instructs naval commanders they "may not need to contact all the relevant authorities" if an incident occurs in a foreign port. This is in direct contradiction to the U. S. government's "Standard statement on the operation of U.S. nuclear powered warships in foreign ports" which states, "the appropriate authorities of the host government will be notified immediately in the event of an accident involving the reactor of the warship, during a port visit." In other words, knowledge of any "incidents" may not be in the public domain.


http://greennuclearbutterfly.blogspot.com/2008/01/nuclear-navy-hides-mishapsno-kidding.html

[Pavulon]

25. Christ, green nuclear butterfly. Like sourcing stormfront on jewish history..

you owe legitimate links to the horse shit you post. The military leaks like a sieve. If I knew I was dosed and then the incident classified I would post details of that incident right here. Or have someone do it for me.

I can help ya here. Here is a list of accidents. These are serious and kill people dead. I am looking for a list Oak Ridge compiled for an internal study of 60 major events. Here is a list of military events. Some involve weapons and others reactor or industrial accidents.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents

[Liberation Angel]

27. I guess wikipedia is cool in school too

but there are plenty of sources at the site I linked

I am sorry that post is not footnoted

but you can check each one

It is not without the possibility of verification

[Pavulon]

33. Wiki, is a source for secondary data (links)

like the guy you published is paid and published by greenpeace. Not a bad thing, but worth knowing when you read his material.

If you post info it should identify the source of the information.

[Pavulon]

26. Sources..I think a poster should get 3 strikes. Claim fact, post source. WITH DATA.

after that you get a tombstone. DONT POST SHIT SOURCES, that do not reference their claims to data. You cant do it in the 6th Grade and you cant do it here. It is wrong.

If you want to post anecdotes fine, just dont try to pass them as fact. This is not sunday school, i am not interested in your beliefs.

List of criticality accidents:
http://www.csirc.net/docs/reports/la-13638.pdf

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/radaccidents.html

Obviously there are some percentage of accidents that get release delayed. Accidents with military reactors or projects that are currently classified may not be released for years. However there is a wealth of information that allows people to make informed decisions.

[Liberation Angel]

28. Ok - if that source is not good enough the site has dozens of links

to get the info you seek

I will not do all your research for you

Nor do I want to identify my hometown

for obvious reasons


Anyway I am not just speaking of criticality acidents, i am speakin of leaks and emissions of nuclear radiation in incidents by the navy

every one of those incidents is verifiable

[Pavulon]

32. Low level releases and criticality events are not them same.

For someone to suffer immediate health impact takes measurable exposure to a radioactive source. This is extensively documented. Criticality accidents or high level release is obviously quite serious. Low level incidents are bad and warrant attention as someone or some thing failed.

However I would assert that FAR more people have been killed in coal mine operations or even linemen than people injured or killed involving nuclear incidents in the US. Primary loop coolant release is bad but not a radiological disaster.

[Liberation Angel]

38. Low levels cause immediate harm with long term deaths

check out this study:


http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm

MILLIONS died from man made nuclear radiation exposure (all sources)

[Pavulon]

41. I have to pay to get it..

backout chernobyl, atom bombs, and you may have real data. This is an institution recognized by no one. It is backed by the europe green party, which is like sourcing the BNP for info on immigrants in the UK. The KKK for race relations. Just the summary page brings about questions.

Find a study in JAMA, Lancet, Nature, etc that backs this and you have data.

[Liberation Angel]

44. Most "mainstream" studies are corporate financed BS . This one is NOT FOR PROFIT.

You can trust an organization which is NOT driven by profit.

There is no upside to opposing nukes financially.

It is all about our health and future genrations.

The people who did this study were well qualified. These people are reeminent in their fields.

All they care about i getting the truth out


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Committee_on_Radiation_Risk

[Pavulon]

46. One it is not available, two it is hosted by greens

who are anti nuclear like the kkk is anti black. Not rational folks.

[Liberation Angel]

48. That is patently ridiculous KKK is violent racist right wing nutjobs

greens are anti-fascist environmental activists.

They are motivated by LOVE not hate.

Love of the planet and all its creatures.

The analogy is patently ridiculous.

As for the studt, I have read it but do not own it.

But the conclusions, while heavily attacked by the nuke industry, are solid science.

I have sen the uncensored research.

Studies can be found at www.radiation.org which are available.

Every baby tooth tested in the US had man made radiation in it.

Every human being on the planet, with very few exceptions, has been dosed.

You cannot tell me that is safe or a good thing.

[Liberation Angel]

29. More data: navy nuclear accidents

http://prop1.org/2000/accident/1989/8907a1.htm

In my opinion this is a reliable source

you can differ on that

but I will bet you each one can be verified with the DATA provided

The FACTS can be ascertained.

[Liberation Angel]

30. And more on Navy "incidents"

http://oc.itgo.com/kitsap/nuclear/clymer.htm

[bananas]

36. That list isn't complete, it even says so: "This is a listing (incomplete) ... "

According to your own criteria, you are posting "SHIT SOURCES" and you should be tombstoned.
This is a political discussion forum, the only people who should be tombstoned are the people who violate the rules about civility etc. Personal anecdotes are important, especially when discussing which has a long history of cover-ups, secrecy, and publication bias. The USSR even tried to cover-up Chernobyl and pretend that nothing happened. Anything from the nuclear industry has to be taken with a huge grain of salt. The construction cost estimates of just a few years ago are another example of the kind of nonsense you get from the nuclear industry. The people who said the cost estimates were way too low were called "stupid anti-nukes who can't do math", finally after independent analysis it became clear that it was the stupid pro-nukes who couldn't do math.

[Pavulon]

37. I posted examples, with links. I also made no claim.

of fact. "Miscarriage caused by nuclear exposure" "Lived near plant and was exposed". ETC. Read the posters comment history. My anecdotes are lived near two reactors with no problems over 30 years. Hmm, but that is just my opinion.

The USSR is a fine fucking example. The accident was discovered by a system that checked nuclear radiation in norway. This is documented fact, history if you will. Not a maybe

The document I liked published by the doe has factual information, exposure levels, dates and times.

Dont like nuclear, fine. You can choke on coal, and petro, blow money on a new grid to handle 8 million windmills to cover the tristate area, when it is windy, or just pray to god for a miracle. Then you are all good..

Everything we do is taken from nature, the sun is a massive reactor. The technology is not going away. Unless we all die of dog,bird, or ass flu we need reliable power.

[Liberation Angel]

40. My personal experience is anecdotal but I have worked with the researchers

and their science is solid


www.radiation.org. They are no paid off shills for the industry.

Nor are they compromised and stacked with pronukers like the DOE and the US government

[Pavulon]

42. Pit study of TMI,

nature, journal oncology, jama, lancet etc all have studies that I trust. I do not like 503c that are fronts for some political or cause pushers. It is an AGENDA site, not news, not independent science. Like posting KKK position on race relations.

[Liberation Angel]

43. Most of these studies have corporate agendas

Trust Halliburton much?

[Pavulon]

47. Jama, lancet, and journal oncology are not Haliburton.

none of them have anything close to the numbers your site claims. And they want me to pay $32 to see their data.

[Liberation Angel]

49. NUKE INDUSTRY FUNDS the studies

so they are unreliable

[Pavulon]

35. Reality

We all like our happy modern lives. We like living past 70. We like plug in hybrid cars, computers, big awesome tvs, and lights that come on when you want them to. No one is going back to the 1600's by choice.

Now (I mean right now and the next 10 years or so) there are choices on how we generate power. Coal, natural gas (petroleum) and Nuclear. Everything else is tied to geography (hydro, geo) or not ready for prime time (renewable). There is NO WAY to run large cities on windmills. I could barely keep a sailboat's electrical system running on solar, and wind turbines were not much better.

So nuclear power in the west is and should be highly regulated. Incidents involve leaks of low level radiation, not exploded cores.

So now we come to risk. You want to get cross country, you fly. There is risk in that. You want thousands of megawatts of power you use PWR reactors or PU breeder reactors. Bury it somewhere decided by the feds, sorry someone is drawing the short stick. Nevada was already used for a nuclear testing ground, so let them deal with it. Now you get lots of power and no CO. We need to modernize every reactor in the US to a standard PWR like the AP1000. Get rid of the old stuff and commit. States that refuse to host reactors can pay massive charges to those who do run a modern grid. Sorry no more coal.

Or you can continue to burn coal. Which is dirty. MANY more people die from coal than nuclear. Thousands of miners dead, acid rain, etc.

Lastly you can throw money at voodoo and see what happens. Cold fusion, orbital solar arrays, windmills running the tristate area...Good luck.

[Liberation Angel]

39. Reality: No dirty coal No nukes Never None No more

Yes there will be a transition period.

The experts I have talked to say natural gas can be used at existing nuke plants in the meantime during the transition.

But we are in a global emergency. No more business as usual. We MUST conserve and we must act as if our children's lives depend on it.

we can go to 100% renewables if we STOP reliance on the nuclear death cult.

[Pavulon]

45. I am an engineer. Not nuclear

material, so I passed science class.. Bottom line there is no source of renewable energy currently ready to bring online in a metro area. And currently means in the next 10 years. Windmills are great where there is wind and power demand fits the model. NG is combustion. I know turbines, they pay my bill. Even a highly efficient turbine capturing heat from exhaust gas still produces CO. To my knowledge no one uses ng turbines with a second stage steam turbine (heat exchanged from exhaust) to capture energy in power generation systems(naval does). NG is used for overflow cap and is expensive.

Nuclear energy and weapon technology are not related.

[madokie]

50. I can't for the life of me remember the other power plant near here

that is a natural gas plant that uses the wasted heat from the first two gas turbines to run two steam turbines. as soon as I remember I'll post a link to it.


http://www.calpine.com/power/plant.asp?plant=56

Pryor Power Plant

The Pryor Power Plant is located in Pryor, Oklahoma. One combustion turbine is routed to two heat recovery steam generators, which provide steam to three steam turbines. Pryor Peaker consists of three combustion turbines, which produce electricity during times of peak demand.

The Pryor Power Plant sells 100 megawatts of capacity of electrical energy to Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company. Steam produced from the Pryor Power Plant is sold to five different manufacturing facilities in the Mid-American Industrial Park. Surplus electricity is sold to the Public Service Company of Oklahoma.

[Pavulon]

51. Cool.

I knew it was possible, it is common in marine applications but I had not heard of that setup in power generation. Thanks for the link!

[madokie]

52. Like I said there is another plant just down the road from this one

that have two gas turbines and two steam turbines and they are almost ready to begin the construction of two more sets of these gas and steam turbines combos. Down the road from that is two coal power plants and its amazing the difference between the two sites. the coal plant is huge, covers hundreds of acres and the natural gas ones are maybe a couple acres, nothing in comparisons even though they have the same output. Between the two technologies it's obvious as to what is the best way to go.

[Pavulon]

53. both dump CO

in quantity. Coal is a obsolete source of power. NG is a great secondary source, I believe modern nuclear reactors are the best current method to generate in the 1000 MW range and beyond. Again the technology is evolving and hopefully a better method will come up. I do not think the overall demand for power will reduce, even as we conserve by habit and inherent efficiency.

[madokie]

54. Here is the Power plant I was talking about

http://www.aeci.org/FacilitiesCH.aspx

Recognized nationally for its low emissions and efficient performance, AECI’s Chouteau Power Plant is a combined-cycle, natural gas plant with the capacity to provide 522 megawatts of energy to member systems.

In operation since July 2000, the power plant is located in northeastern Oklahoma on 22 acres inside an industrial park. Natural gas is supplied to the plant from a connection on a high-pressure mainline running through plant property. A 161-kV substation connects and transmits power generated by the plant to the integrated transmission system of KAMO Power, one of AECI’s six member-owners.

Under AECI’s direction, Siemens designed and built the plant and provides daily operation and maintenance of the unit. Because the plant is highly automated, only about 20 skilled employees are needed to operate and maintain it.

The Chouteau Power Plant has greater efficiency than a simple-cycle combustion turbine unit because it employs both a steam turbine and a combustion turbine to power the generator.

Chouteau features two heat-recovery steam generators (HRSGs), each measuring about 70 feet by 100 feet, that capture exhaust heat to power a steam turbine. In contrast, hot exhaust from the gas turbine is vented to the atmosphere on a simple-cycle plant.

At Chouteau, exhaust heat enters the HRSG, or boiler, at about 1,085 degrees Fahrenheit and moves through the structure, heating tubes of water to create steam to power the steam turbine, which turns the generator to produce electricity. Afterward, the exhaust is vented from the stack at about 200 degrees.

This heat-recovery system increases the efficiency of the unit to 58 percent, compared with 33 percent efficiency of a simple-cycle plant.

Operating at full load, the plant burns roughly 86 million cubic feet of natural gas per day. Environmental impact of operating the unit is minimal. Its emissions are among the lowest in the state.