On Columbia Generating Station (nuclear) in WA state

[suffragette]

Interesting article about Columbia Generating Station (CRG) in WA state re: earthquakes, dam breaks and wind power.
Apparently BPA Administrator Steve Wright was talking to a house subcommittee about raising rates and many questions came his way due to the situation in Japan.
Some highlights below, much more at article.

BPA's Steve Wright says the region's nuclear plant is safe; outlines an 8.5 percent rate hike
Published: Tuesday, March 15, 2011, 10:42 AM


http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/03/bpas_steve_wright_says_the_reg.html

After noting that CRG is not near the ocean (instead being near Columbia River from which it draws cooling water) and so "not worried about tsunami," they discussed dams:

"The risk would be potentially upstream; the loss of Grand Coulee or Chief Joseph dams," Wright said, raising the specter of a man-made tsunami racing South if one or more dams failed.

"That plant was built with the expectation of that possibility and is built on high enough ground that at least Northwest Power folks believe it would be able to continuation operation even if there was loss of Grand Coulee or Chief Joseph," he said.

Wright admitted he did not know the dams' "design basis" for the maximum earthquake each could absorb without breaching. "I do know the fundamental concern with respect to the nuclear plant was a dam would be take-out and then you would have potentially a surge of water coming downstream to the nuclear plant.

Wright goes on to say this would be unlikely. I'm finding unlikely not much of a reassurance lately.


He goes on to talk about the need for a rate increase to fix infrastructure. This is where it gets even more interesting. One reason why they need to do this?

He also pointed out an irony – the growth of wind power is far faster than expected and "presents new challenges."

Yep, wind is growing so fast and exceeding expectations and generating so much, they apparently need to increase transmission capacity.

He goes on to note they've already surpassed megawatts of wind power forecast for 2020 (had forecast 3,000 and already have 3,400) and now expect "10,000 megawatts could be online by 2017."


Something not brought up in the article is Hanford itself, with all its nuclear waste and problems, another major factor to consider in all this.


edit for minor typing mistakes

[ClayZ]

1. K and R

[suffragette]

3. More here on earthquake faults here and similar design to Japan

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014497750_nwnukes14m.html

[Cleita]

2. Another K&R

[suffragette]

7. Thanks Cleita

From the article in the O.P., I particularly find the info on wind power taking off beyond expectations, well, illuminating.

Here are a couple of past links I posted about Hanford:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3470143#3477066
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3470143#3477945

[thereismore]

4. But but windmills are ugly!

:hide:

[ClayZ]

27. Nu,uhhh! We just traveled through Goldendale WA.

on our way to the Columbia Gorge, the windmills along there are SO BEAUTIFUL. Really. We stopped to take photos and videos, as did others. The pics and videos did not do the Windmills justice.

We found them seriously beautiful... Really.

[thereismore]

31. I know. I was being sarcastic. I love the sight of them. nt

[suffragette]

34. lol

You silly!

:)

[jtrockville]

5. Germany has the same "problem" with solar.

They generate SO MUCH that the grid is overwhelmed.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827842.800-solar-power-could-crash-germanys-grid.html

[suffragette]

8. Interesting how both of these have a problematic tone

Pesky wind and solar, producing too much for the grid to handle.

Yet somehow we keep hearing that there's no way green options can produce enough energy.

Fairly large disconnect there.

[jtrockville]

10. Hermann Scheer (responsible for Germany's solar transition) nailed it.

In one of his last interviews before he died, an interview with Amy Goodman (democracynow.org), he said this:

...

The big mistake in the energy debate is that most people think, because they believe that there is a monopoly and the expertise for all energy activities in the hand of the existing energy players. Many people, including governments, including many scientists, who get their orders for studies from them, they believe and think that the present energy suppliers, the present energy trusts, the companies, they should organize the transformation. And this is a big mistake—a big mistake—because this part of the society is the only one who has an interest to postpone it. The only one. All others, all the others, have an interest to speed it up. But as long government think that it should be left to the energy companies, we will lose the race against time.

...

The full interview is here:
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/15/hermann_scheer_1944_2010_german_lawmaker

He said big mistake THREE TIMES. Listen up people!

[suffragette]

11. Spot on

Though I do think a government push, a WPA type of project, including scientists, companies and environmentalists could be worthwhile.
As I posted elsewhere, something similar to the project to develop article rubber when we lost access to natural in WWII or NASA at its start.
But environmentalists should be part of it and plenty of scientists within that group.

[jtrockville]

12. That's pretty much how Germany did it.

(Hermann Scheer, from the same interview linked to above)

...because of the acceleration—of the politically initiated acceleration with Renewable Energy Act in Germany, so many people can see the results. And they ask themselves, "Why not everywhere? If it’s there, why not here? Why not everywhere?"
...

[suffragette]

13. Exactly what we need: Renewable Energy Act

From same interview:

AMY GOODMAN: How did you make that happen?

HERMANN SCHEER: With the Renewable Energy Act. The Renewable Energy Act was one of my initiatives, together with only a few colleagues in the Parliament. And it was not a draft of the government, because the government was against. We mobilized the measure—it was the Parliament—against the will of the government, to introduce this law and to adopt it. It is a law which gives investment autonomy for all who want to invest for renewables. Without any obligation for them to ask the power companies if this is, let’s say, compatible with their energy investments, they could do it. The full name of this law is Law for the Priority of Renewable Energies.


Everyone should read this link.

[jtrockville]

14. I downloaded the mp3 back when the interview was given.

I've carried it with me (on my phone) and have listened to it several times since Oct 2010. It never gets old. He's so interesting. And it seems there's always something relevant to a current topic. Particularly now.

[suffragette]

15. I see why. There's so much to it.

I can imagine he would be among those pushing Merkel right now and working to ensure she's not just having a moratorium until after the upcoming election in Baden-Württemberg.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,751044,00.html

[jtrockville]

16. Hopefully, someone picked up where he left off.

We sure could use someone like him in our legislature.

[suffragette]

25. Agree and just found Wikileaks about Japanese wind and nuclear

that is very similar to "grid issue" claimed with wind in in Pacific NW and solar in Germany. Looks like we are seeing a pattern here.


US embassy cables: MP criticises Japanese nuclear strategy


Monday 14 March 2011 17.22 GMT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/175295
1. (C) Summary: Lower House Diet Member Taro Kono voiced his strong opposition to the nuclear industry in Japan, especially nuclear reprocessing, based on issues of cost, safety, and security during a dinner with a visiting staffdel, Energy Attache and Economic Officer October 21. Kono also criticized the Japanese bureaucracy and power companies for continuing an outdated nuclear energy strategy, suppressing development of alternative energy, and keeping information from Diet members and the public. He also expressed dissatisfaction with the current election campaign law. End Summary.

~~~

5. (C) In a similar way, he alleged, METI was committed to advocating for nuclear energy development, despite the problems he attributed to it. Kono noted that while METI claimed to support alternative energy, it in actuality provides little support. He claimed that METI in the past had orchestrated the defeat of legislation that supported alternatives energy development, and instead secured the passage of the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) act. This act simply requires power companies to purchase a very small amount of their electricity from alternative sources. Kono also criticized the government's handling of subsidies to alternative energy projects, noting that the subsidies were of such short duration that the projects have difficulty finding investors because of the risk and uncertainty involved. As a more specific example of Japan neglecting alternative energy sources, Kono noted there was abundant wind power available in Hokkaido that went undeveloped because the electricity company claimed it did not have sufficient grid capacity. Kono noted there was in fact an unused connection between the Hokkaido grid and the Honshu grid that the companies keep in reserve for unspecified emergencies. He wanted to know why they could not just link the grids and thus gain the ability to add in more wind power.

[jtrockville]

29. Why do we believe anything the energy industry says?

We now have 3 specific examples where renewables would (or DID) generate more power than the grid could handle:

Washington State USA (wind)
Germany (solar)
Hokkaido, Japan (wind)

Yet we're told, by an industry with a compelling interest to squash renewables, that renewables could never generate enough energy to replace nukes. And we believe the industry.

We're idiots.

Excellent find, suffragette.

[suffragette]

30. "3 specific examples where renewables would (or DID) generate more power than the grid could handle"

Yes, and found that within one day of looking for the information and on a global scale.

Further, two of those may not have come to light but for the situation in Japan.

I doubt the hearing in Pacific NW would have resulted in an article about it otherwise (and that info was not highlighted - just stumbled on it while looking for more info about CRG) and the cable from Wikileaks was dug up out of that huge number of cables because of the current nuclear emergency going on in Japan.

Also, the negative tone of the article about solar and the grid in Germany might have kept someone looking for positive info on solar from finding it.

Great point about the industry having a "compelling interest" to suppress this information and keep it from developing and people from learning about its viability. Non-renewable methods generate a lot of money for a few whereas renewable ones distribute process much more.

[pokerfan]

6. Well, if Grand Coulee were to fail

we would see massive loss of life even without CRG melting down. Not to mention the loss of irrigation water to the Columbia basin (the largest water reclamation project in the country).

[suffragette]

9. Yes we would and the last thing we would need is that being compounded

by problems from CRG (active nuclear) and Hanford (waste).

edit - typing error

[Tesha]

28. The difference, of course, is that nature would heal itself fairly quickly from a dam breach.

But a meltdown that dumped a significant amount of
radioactive debris would cause damage that would
spread far wider and persist much longer.

Tesha

[cliffordu]

17. I'm thinking "unlikely" means "What, me worry??" more and more

these days....

Or mebbe....."IDUNNO..."

[suffragette]

32. Seems very paternal to me

Why not share the data and say x% of probability and here are our contingency plans?

[caseymoz]

18. Wind and solar cannot solve our energy needs.

I would be surprised if the two together can even approach ten percent of what we need now. Renewables are not going to solve our growing energy problem. Yes, they may help, but they won't solve it.

And if we try to get them to, we're going to notice that there's no free lunch with them either-- they will carry their own environmental problems. If we're able to extract energy from the atmosphere in the massive amounts we need for our population now, (in the form of solar and wind) you could expect that the two will alter climate patterns. Also, solar literally competes in the same niche as plants, absorbing the sunlight and space they need live. You might have to whack down whole forests just to put up the panels necessary.

These problems aren't apparent yet. They will be.

The problem really is in the reactor design. It's absolutely foolish to build a "fire" that you can't put out, burning highly toxic chemicals that you have to constantly douse with water or face catastrophe. This is based on US military design, and designed to get a boat through the next war regardless of the consequences.

How our government could hand this to our industry, and then how industry would even build one and sell it to the Japanese to put it on a volatile earthquake fault just proves how badly capitalism operates in practice. Especially our military-industrial complex.

Military design has run us into a wall with nuclear power. So, we need a fundamentally different design.

Barring that, without nuclear, we will not be able to meet our energy needs for the next fifty years. By "we" I mean the world, and this will not be a gentle transition. This will mean widespread deprivation and impoverishment and worldwide famine and a catastrophic drop in world population.

In other words, without nuclear, the country and world are just screwed.

[DCKit]

21. No, but wind, solar, hydro and geothermal might.

However, if we never get started, then your statement is simply self-fulfilling prophecy.

Additionally, if you read the OP the way I did, Germany is having to upgrade the grid to handle all the extra energy being produced on the rooftops of homes and businesses. Suffice to say, that alone indicates that it must be a substantial contribution.

[caseymoz]

22. I didn't say it shouldn't be tried.

Optimism is overstated as a success formula, and it definitely will add no energy to the grid. What I said about getting a better nuclear design was my point, because renewables alone aren't going to do it.

Hydro, we already have a lot of rivers dammed, and prepare for more environmental damage. Also, it's not exactly renewable. Geo-thermal, add another one percent if that, and your equipment, by definition, has to be maintained in earthquake zones.

No, what you site about Germany indicates no such thing. If the German grid was already operating at capacity, of course they would have to upgrade it even if they were getting just one percent more, and I'm thinking it needed upgrading regardless. I could think of other reasons, other than a windfall of energy that they might have to upgrade for wind and solar. Especially when you see that the grid would be acting as the homes' battery storage.

Here's what would "indicate" that the contribution is substantial: look at the total energy expended by Germany in a year. Also, since we're talking about overall energy expended, you'll want to add in all of the fossil fuels used for vehicles and for other things, not just energy from the grid. Look at the amount being produced by solar and wind. Take a percentage. You might also want to compare it to the percentage last decade.

That alone will tell you if it's a "substantial contribution." Nothing else will, and that percentage is the only way you'll convince me.

I assure you, it's not close to ten percent. It's probably not even close to three.

[suffragette]

23. I'm not convinced nuclear is the direction to take

or that changes in design of the plants is enough to make it so.

I thin we need a larger shift than that. A shift, as I noted in other posts, to a nationwide initiative along the lines of WPA, the search for artificial rubber and NASA at its inception, a huge push to take together current renewable sources and to discover alternates.

I also find it interesting that wind has done better than expected in the Pacific Northwest and that solar is working so well in Germany. That says to me we need to move our expectations to acknowledge they work better than we've been led to believe.

[caseymoz]

24. Well, I don't blame you . . .

Whatever experimental design they have is going to take ten to fifteen years to prototype, and books of regulations would have to be rewritten for it.

Even saying that though, looking simply at the math, I don't know how renewables could possibly supply anything very significant to keep us near eighty percent of the energy expenditure we're at as fossil fuels wane. And we're going to notice environmental impact from them as we use them more and more.

Of course, nothing as immediately spectacular as a multi-reactor meltdown.

[Hannah Bell]

19. it's part of the hanford site.

[suffragette]

20. Yep, and that makes it a deadly combo

[jannyk]

26. Kick & Rec!

[suffragette]

33. Thanks. I posted the new Wiki info in the subthread

where jtrockville and I have been discussing certain aspects since it fit directly there,
Thanks again for posing the question in your thread that prompted me to track that down.