National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for megawat thours mwh

  1. Property:Ind sales (mwh) | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    property "Ind sales (mwh)" Showing 25 pages using this property. (previous 25) (next 25) 4 4-County Electric Power Assn (Mississippi) EIA Revenue and Sales - April 2008 + 18,637 +...

  2. Property:Res sales (mwh) | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    property "Res sales (mwh)" Showing 25 pages using this property. (previous 25) (next 25) 4 4-County Electric Power Assn (Mississippi) EIA Revenue and Sales - April 2008 + 35,568 +...

  3. Property:Tot sales (mwh) | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    property "Tot sales (mwh)" Showing 25 pages using this property. (previous 25) (next 25) 4 4-County Electric Power Assn (Mississippi) EIA Revenue and Sales - April 2008 + 69,154 +...

  4. Property:Com sales (mwh) | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    property "Com sales (mwh)" Showing 25 pages using this property. (previous 25) (next 25) 4 4-County Electric Power Assn (Mississippi) EIA Revenue and Sales - April 2008 + 14,949 +...

  5. Property:Building/SPPurchasedEngyForPeriodMwhYrOil-FiredBoiler...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    eriodMwhYrOil-FiredBoiler Jump to: navigation, search This is a property of type String. Oil-fired boiler Pages using the property "BuildingSPPurchasedEngyForPeriodMwhYrOil-FiredB...

  6. Property:Building/SPPurchasedEngyNrmlYrMwhYrOil-FiredBoiler ...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    rmlYrMwhYrOil-FiredBoiler Jump to: navigation, search This is a property of type String. Oil-fired boiler Pages using the property "BuildingSPPurchasedEngyNrmlYrMwhYrOil-FiredBoil...

  7. Property:Building/SPPurchasedEngyNrmlYrMwhYrNaturalGas | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    dEngyNrmlYrMwhYrNaturalGas Jump to: navigation, search This is a property of type String. Natural gas Pages using the property "BuildingSPPurchasedEngyNrmlYrMwhYrNaturalGas"...

  8. Property:Building/SPPurchasedEngyForPeriodMwhYrNaturalGas | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    gyForPeriodMwhYrNaturalGas Jump to: navigation, search This is a property of type String. Natural gas Pages using the property "BuildingSPPurchasedEngyForPeriodMwhYrNaturalGas"...

  9. ,,,,,,"Capacity MW",,,,,"Customers",,,,,"Energy Sold Back MWh",,,,,"Capacity MW",,,,,"Customers",,,,,"Energy Sold Back MWh",,,,,"Capacity MW",,,,,"Customers",,,,,"Energy Sold Back MWh",,,,,"Capacity MW",,,,,"Customers",,,,,"Energy Sold Back MWh"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Charateristics",,,,,,"Photovoltaic",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Wind",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Other",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"All Technologies" ,,,,,,"Capacity MW",,,,,"Customers",,,,,"Energy Sold Back MWh",,,,,"Capacity MW",,,,,"Customers",,,,,"Energy Sold Back MWh",,,,,"Capacity MW",,,,,"Customers",,,,,"Energy Sold Back MWh",,,,,"Capacity

  10. Property:Building/SPPurchasedEngyNrmlYrMwhYrLogs | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Datasets Community Login | Sign Up Search Property Edit with form History Property:BuildingSPPurchasedEngyNrmlYrMwhYrLogs Jump to: navigation, search This is a property of type...

  11. Property:Building/SPPurchasedEngyNrmlYrMwhYrTotal | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    dEngyNrmlYrMwhYrTotal" Showing 25 pages using this property. (previous 25) (next 25) S Sweden Building 05K0001 + 4355.0 + Sweden Building 05K0002 + 1530.1 + Sweden Building 05K0003...

  12. Property:Building/SPPurchasedEngyForPeriodMwhYrDstrtHeating ...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    riodMwhYrDstrtHeating" Showing 25 pages using this property. (previous 25) (next 25) S Sweden Building 05K0001 + 2067.0 + Sweden Building 05K0002 + 492.2 + Sweden Building 05K0003...

  13. Property:Building/SPPurchasedEngyForPeriodMwhYrDstrtColg | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    rPeriodMwhYrDstrtColg" Showing 25 pages using this property. (previous 25) (next 25) S Sweden Building 05K0001 + 762.0 + Sweden Building 05K0002 + 322.0 + Sweden Building 05K0003 +...

  14. Property:Building/SPPurchasedEngyForPeriodMwhYrElctrtyTotal ...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    riodMwhYrElctrtyTotal" Showing 25 pages using this property. (previous 25) (next 25) S Sweden Building 05K0001 + 1399.0 + Sweden Building 05K0002 + 686.9 + Sweden Building 05K0003...

  15. Property:Building/SPPurchasedEngyForPeriodMwhYrTotal | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    gyForPeriodMwhYrTotal" Showing 25 pages using this property. (previous 25) (next 25) S Sweden Building 05K0001 + 4228.0 + Sweden Building 05K0002 + 1501.1 + Sweden Building 05K0003...

  16. Property:Building/SPPurchasedEngyForPeriodMwhYrPellets | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    ForPeriodMwhYrPellets" Showing 25 pages using this property. (previous 25) (next 25) S Sweden Building 05K0001 + 0.0 + Sweden Building 05K0002 + 0.0 + Sweden Building 05K0003 + 0.0...

  17. Property:Building/SPPurchasedEngyNrmlYrMwhYrWoodChips | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    yNrmlYrMwhYrWoodChips" Showing 25 pages using this property. (previous 25) (next 25) S Sweden Building 05K0001 + 0.0 + Sweden Building 05K0002 + 0.0 + Sweden Building 05K0003 + 0.0...

  18. Property:Building/SPPurchasedEngyForPeriodMwhYrOther | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    gyForPeriodMwhYrOther" Showing 25 pages using this property. (previous 25) (next 25) S Sweden Building 05K0001 + 0.0 + Sweden Building 05K0002 + 0.0 + Sweden Building 05K0003 + 0.0...

  19. Property:Building/SPPurchasedEngyForPeriodMwhYrWoodChips | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    rPeriodMwhYrWoodChips" Showing 25 pages using this property. (previous 25) (next 25) S Sweden Building 05K0001 + 0.0 + Sweden Building 05K0002 + 0.0 + Sweden Building 05K0003 + 0.0...

  20. Property:Building/SPPurchasedEngyNrmlYrMwhYrTownGas | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    ngyNrmlYrMwhYrTownGas" Showing 25 pages using this property. (previous 25) (next 25) S Sweden Building 05K0001 + 0.0 + Sweden Building 05K0002 + 0.0 + Sweden Building 05K0003 + 0.0...

  1. "Utility Characteristics",,,,,,"Number AMR- Automated Meter Reading",,,,,"Number AMI- Advanced Metering Infrastructure",,,,,"Energy Served - AMI (MWh)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Energy Served - AMI (MWh)" "Year","Month","Utility Number","Utility Name","State","Data

  2. QER- Comment of MWH Global

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Hello, Was looking at the calendar and curious when the “Final Meeting” is in DC for the QER? http://energy.gov/epsa/initiatives/quadrennial-energy-review-qer Thanks,

  3. Property:Oth sales (mwh) | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    2008 + 713 + Central Illinois Pub Serv Co (Illinois) EIA Revenue and Sales - September 2008 + 886 + City of Detroit (Michigan) EIA Revenue and Sales - April 2008 + 400 + City of...

  4. Property:Building/SPPurchasedEngyForPeriodMwhYrDigesterLandfillGas...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    YrDigesterLandfillGas" Showing 25 pages using this property. (previous 25) (next 25) S Sweden Building 05K0001 + 0.0 + Sweden Building 05K0002 + 0.0 + Sweden Building 05K0003 + 0.0...

  5. Property:Building/SPPurchasedEngyNrmlYrMwhYrDigesterLandfillGas...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    YrDigesterLandfillGas" Showing 25 pages using this property. (previous 25) (next 25) S Sweden Building 05K0001 + 0.0 + Sweden Building 05K0002 + 0.0 + Sweden Building 05K0003 + 0.0...

  6. Property:Building/SPPurchasedEngyNrmlYrMwhYrPellets | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Showing 25 pages using this property. (previous 25) (next 25) S Sweden Building 05K0001 + 0.0 + Sweden Building 05K0002 + 0.0 + Sweden Building 05K0003 + 0.0 + Sweden...

  7. Property:Building/SPPurchasedEngyForPeriodMwhYrTownGas | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Showing 25 pages using this property. (previous 25) (next 25) S Sweden Building 05K0001 + 0.0 + Sweden Building 05K0002 + 0.0 + Sweden Building 05K0003 + 0.0 + Sweden...

  8. Total Cost Per MwH for all common large scale power generation...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    out of the stack, toxificaiton of the lakes and streams, plant decommision costs. For nuclear yiou are talking about managing the waste in perpetuity. The plant decomission costs...

  9. ,,,,,,"Capacity MW",,,,,"Customers",,,,,"Energy Sold Back MWh",,,,,"Capacity MW",,,,,"Customers",,,,,"Energy Sold Back MWh",,,,,"Capacity MW",,,,,"Customers",,,,,"Energy Sold Back MWh",,,,,"Capacity MW",,,,,"Customers",,,,,"Energy Sold Back MWh"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    4,1,"AK",599,"Anchorage Municipal Light and

  10. ,,,,,,"Capacity MW",,,,,"Customers",,,,,"Energy Sold Back MWh",,,,,"Capacity MW",,,,,"Customers",,,,,"Energy Sold Back MWh",,,,,"Capacity MW",,,,,"Customers",,,,,"Energy Sold Back MWh",,,,,"Capacity MW",,,,,"Customers",,,,,"Energy Sold Back MWh"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    5,1,"AK",219,"Alaska Power and Telephone

  11. Alaska: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 566,822 MWh Gas Power 3,571,101 MWh Petroleum Power 1,191,884 MWh Nuclear Power 0 MWh Other 0 MWh Total Energy Production 6,541,675 MWh Percent of Total...

  12. Oklahoma: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 34,200,892 MWh Gas Power 34,915,888 MWh Petroleum Power 19,609 MWh Nuclear Power 0 MWh Other 0 MWh Total Energy Production 75,245,559 MWh Percent of Total...

  13. Rhode Island: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    158,911 MWh Coal Power 0 MWh Gas Power 7,553,278 MWh Petroleum Power 16,262 MWh Nuclear Power 0 MWh Other 0 MWh Total Energy Production 7,728,451 MWh Percent of Total...

  14. North Dakota: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    4,239,993 MWh Coal Power 29,812,959 MWh Gas Power 757 MWh Petroleum Power 48,076 MWh Nuclear Power 0 MWh Other 838 MWh Total Energy Production 34,102,623 MWh Percent of Total...

  15. Nevada: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 7,507,244 MWh Gas Power 26,080,001 MWh Petroleum Power 17,727 MWh Nuclear Power 0 MWh Other 0 MWh Total Energy Production 37,819,763 MWh Percent of Total...

  16. Idaho: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    10,318,565 MWh Coal Power 72,994 MWh Gas Power 1,549,875 MWh Petroleum Power 124 MWh Nuclear Power 0 MWh Other 0 MWh Total Energy Production 11,941,557 MWh Percent of Total...

  17. Kentucky: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 84,379,768 MWh Gas Power 843,725 MWh Petroleum Power 2,028,175 MWh Nuclear Power 0 MWh Other 12,629 MWh Total Energy Production 90,997,966 MWh Percent of...

  18. Oregon: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 3,196,902 MWh Gas Power 15,776,934 MWh Petroleum Power 5,657 MWh Nuclear Power 0 MWh Other 41,248 MWh Total Energy Production 55,861,820 MWh Percent of...

  19. Arizona: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 39,783,826 MWh Gas Power 34,852,150 MWh Petroleum Power 67,337 MWh Nuclear Power 30,661,851 MWh Other 534 MWh Total Energy Production 112,066,601 MWh Percent...

  20. Tennessee: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 41,634,519 MWh Gas Power 410,411 MWh Petroleum Power 178,151 MWh Nuclear Power 26,962,001 MWh Other 788 MWh Total Energy Production 78,966,504 MWh Percent...

  1. Indiana: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 108,590,677 MWh Gas Power 5,390,611 MWh Petroleum Power 154,666 MWh Nuclear Power 0 MWh Other 344,927 MWh Total Energy Production 116,667,762 MWh Percent of...

  2. New Mexico: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 29,084,699 MWh Gas Power 8,759,510 MWh Petroleum Power 43,480 MWh Nuclear Power 0 MWh Other 4,371 MWh Total Energy Production 39,754,081 MWh Percent of...

  3. Utah: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 35,715,484 MWh Gas Power 6,424,511 MWh Petroleum Power 50,180 MWh Nuclear Power 0 MWh Other 186,748 MWh Total Energy Production 43,446,797 MWh Percent of...

  4. West Virginia: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    2,318,714 MWh Coal Power 68,135,764 MWh Gas Power 149,347 MWh Petroleum Power 170,674 MWh Nuclear Power 0 MWh Other 422 MWh Total Energy Production 70,774,921 MWh Percent of Total...

  5. Delaware: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    138,302 MWh Coal Power 2,910,909 MWh Gas Power 1,686,773 MWh Petroleum Power 268,773 MWh Nuclear Power 0 MWh Other 5,877 MWh Total Energy Production 5,010,634 MWh Percent of Total...

  6. Missouri: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 71,848,215 MWh Gas Power 3,400,527 MWh Petroleum Power 86,777 MWh Nuclear Power 10,247,116 MWh Other 27,422 MWh Total Energy Production 88,646,870 MWh...

  7. New York: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 13,152,552 MWh Gas Power 42,954,141 MWh Petroleum Power 2,717,386 MWh Nuclear Power 43,484,614 MWh Other 989,616 MWh Total Energy Production 135,475,849 MWh...

  8. Wisconsin: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 38,330,917 MWh Gas Power 5,601,116 MWh Petroleum Power 730,117 MWh Nuclear Power 12,683,151 MWh Other 72,992 MWh Total Energy Production 61,334,663 MWh...

  9. South Carolina: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 35,157,227 MWh Gas Power 9,402,119 MWh Petroleum Power 523,380 MWh Nuclear Power 52,149,734 MWh Other 105,354 MWh Total Energy Production 100,197,178 MWh...

  10. Georgia: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 69,524,670 MWh Gas Power 20,301,025 MWh Petroleum Power 644,996 MWh Nuclear Power 31,682,579 MWh Other 26,648 MWh Total Energy Production 128,438,721 MWh...

  11. Kansas: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 32,242,988 MWh Gas Power 2,611,084 MWh Petroleum Power 124,354 MWh Nuclear Power 8,768,548 MWh Other 0 MWh Total Energy Production 46,144,448 MWh Percent of...

  12. Ohio: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 113,824,221 MWh Gas Power 4,747,936 MWh Petroleum Power 1,311,952 MWh Nuclear Power 14,937,336 MWh Other 14,388 MWh Total Energy Production 135,949,118 MWh...

  13. North Carolina: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 65,853,978 MWh Gas Power 4,926,167 MWh Petroleum Power 287,979 MWh Nuclear Power 40,847,711 MWh Other 90,997 MWh Total Energy Production 118,993,695 MWh...

  14. Arkansas: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 25,075,250 MWh Gas Power 11,368,417 MWh Petroleum Power 87,674 MWh Nuclear Power 15,169,966 MWh Other 24,019 MWh Total Energy Production 57,499,169 MWh...

  15. New Hampshire: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 2,885,668 MWh Gas Power 5,352,728 MWh Petroleum Power 171,818 MWh Nuclear Power 8,816,673 MWh Other 59,854 MWh Total Energy Production 19,985,757 MWh...

  16. Montana: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    10,053,139 MWh Coal Power 15,164,571 MWh Gas Power 81,800 MWh Petroleum Power 489,689 MWh Nuclear Power 0 MWh Other 110,308 MWh Total Energy Production 25,899,507 MWh Percent of...

  17. Florida: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 54,052,312 MWh Gas Power 117,733,704 MWh Petroleum Power 8,962,843 MWh Nuclear Power 29,336,059 MWh Other 2,576,795 MWh Total Energy Production 217,154,227 MWh...

  18. Minnesota: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 30,091,455 MWh Gas Power 2,559,675 MWh Petroleum Power 60,295 MWh Nuclear Power 12,393,425 MWh Other 340,463 MWh Total Energy Production 52,641,549 MWh...

  19. Mississippi: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 12,970,797 MWh Gas Power 23,380,703 MWh Petroleum Power 17,028 MWh Nuclear Power 10,998,515 MWh Other 5,206 MWh Total Energy Production 48,769,367 MWh...

  20. Illinois: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 90,949,011 MWh Gas Power 4,364,445 MWh Petroleum Power 110,882 MWh Nuclear Power 94,050,482 MWh Other 64,293 MWh Total Energy Production 193,214,345 MWh...

  1. Michigan: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 67,822,266 MWh Gas Power 8,244,775 MWh Petroleum Power 379,469 MWh Nuclear Power 21,851,009 MWh Other 341,304 MWh Total Energy Production 101,641,950 MWh...

  2. Maine: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    8,486,637 MWh Coal Power 72,386 MWh Gas Power 7,481,945 MWh Petroleum Power 480,670 MWh Nuclear Power 0 MWh Other 352,154 MWh Total Energy Production 16,873,792 MWh Percent of...

  3. Pennsylvania: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 104,927,415 MWh Gas Power 29,623,748 MWh Petroleum Power 930,953 MWh Nuclear Power 76,727,686 MWh Other 842,542 MWh Total Energy Production 218,376,989 MWh...

  4. New Jersey: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    973,234 MWh Coal Power 5,345,449 MWh Gas Power 21,037,564 MWh Petroleum Power 304,336 MWh Nuclear Power 34,327,954 MWh Other 513,761 MWh Total Energy Production 62,502,299 MWh...

  5. Hawaii: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    768,368 MWh Coal Power 1,521,169 MWh Gas Power 40,378 MWh Petroleum Power 8,288,819 MWh Nuclear Power 0 MWh Other 166,284 MWh Total Energy Production 10,785,018 MWh Percent of...

  6. Nebraska: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    750,278 MWh Coal Power 23,427,525 MWh Gas Power 332,467 MWh Petroleum Power 24,899 MWh Nuclear Power 9,435,142 MWh Other 0 MWh Total Energy Production 33,970,311 MWh Percent of...

  7. California: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 1,948,279 MWh Gas Power 115,749,546 MWh Petroleum Power 1,638,019 MWh Nuclear Power 31,734,676 MWh Other 440,323 MWh Total Energy Production 204,824,249 MWh...

  8. Connecticut: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 2,453,497 MWh Gas Power 9,678,195 MWh Petroleum Power 288,349 MWh Nuclear Power 16,657,387 MWh Other 712,522 MWh Total Energy Production 31,172,260 MWh...

  9. Massachusetts: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 9,896,296 MWh Gas Power 21,242,542 MWh Petroleum Power 864,489 MWh Nuclear Power 5,396,021 MWh Other 770,712 MWh Total Energy Production 40,175,901 MWh...

  10. Louisiana: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 23,075,071 MWh Gas Power 45,313,617 MWh Petroleum Power 1,815,819 MWh Nuclear Power 16,782,077 MWh Other 390,454 MWh Total Energy Production 91,106,779 MWh...

  11. Washington: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 7,477,773 MWh Gas Power 11,409,482 MWh Petroleum Power 47,275 MWh Nuclear Power 6,634,014 MWh Other 63,675 MWh Total Energy Production 104,593,404 MWh...

  12. Texas: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 139,106,597 MWh Gas Power 191,652,532 MWh Petroleum Power 1,347,315 MWh Nuclear Power 41,497,617 MWh Other 621,766 MWh Total Energy Production 396,477,155 MWh...

  13. South Dakota: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    4,717,288 MWh Coal Power 3,190,913 MWh Gas Power 122,133 MWh Petroleum Power 10,089 MWh Nuclear Power 0 MWh Other 31,318 MWh Total Energy Production 8,071,741 MWh Percent of...

  14. Vermont: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Renewables 2,048,325 MWh Coal Power 0 MWh Gas Power 4,431 MWh Petroleum Power 3,577 MWh Nuclear Power 5,360,608 MWh Other 0 MWh Total Energy Production 7,416,941 MWh Percent of...

  15. Alabama: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 55,659,872 MWh Gas Power 32,369,863 MWh Petroleum Power 163,054 MWh Nuclear Power 39,716,204 MWh Other 7,137 MWh Total Energy Production 142,960,819 MWh...

  16. Maryland: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 24,414,551 MWh Gas Power 2,070,846 MWh Petroleum Power 346,732 MWh Nuclear Power 14,550,119 MWh Other 255,891 MWh Total Energy Production 44,126,270 MWh...

  17. Virginia: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    MWh Coal Power 26,539,392 MWh Gas Power 12,204,843 MWh Petroleum Power 1,110,821 MWh Nuclear Power 28,212,252 MWh Other 427,691 MWh Total Energy Production 71,159,684 MWh...

  18. Bellavista Geothermal Power Station | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Generation Delivered to Grid (MWh) Plant Parasitic Consumption (MWh) Well-Field Parasitic Consumption (MWh) Well Field Number of Production Wells (total) Number of Injection Wells...

  19. "YEAR","MONTH","STATE","UTILITY CODE","UTILITY NAME","RESIDENTIAL...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    NET METERING CUSTOMER COUNT","RESIDENTIAL WIND ELECTRIC ENERGY SOLD BACK (MWh)","COMMERCIAL WIND ELECTRIC ENERGY SOLD BACK (MWh)","INDUSTRIAL WIND ELECTRIC ENERGY SOLD BACK ...

  20. Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Summer Peak Net Capacity (MW) Winter Peak Net Capacity (MW) Avg. Annual GenerationConsumption Gross Generation (MWh) Generation Delivered to Grid (MWh) Plant Parasitic...

  1. A & N Electric Coop (Virginia) EIA Revenue and Sales - August...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Sales (MWh) 31601.089 Residential Consumers 30021 Commercial Revenue(Thousand ) 2194.132 Commercial Sales (MWh) 18253.003 Commercial Consumers 4073 Industrial Revenue (Thousand...

  2. YEAR","MONTH","STATE","UTILITY_ID","UTILITY_NAME","RESIDENTIAL_GP REVENUES (Tho

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    UTILITY_ID","UTILITY_NAME","RESIDENTIAL_GP REVENUES (Thousand $)","COMMERCIAL_GP REVENUES (Thousand $)","INDUSTRIAL_GP REVENUES (Thousand $)","TRANS_GP REVENUES (Thousand $)","TOTAL_GP REVENUES (Thousand $)","RESIDENTIAL_GP SALES (MWh)","COMMERCIAL_GP SALES (MWh)","INDUSTRIAL_GP SALES (MWh)","TRANS_GP SALES (MWh)","TOTAL_GP SALES (MWh)","RESIDENTIAL_GP

  3. EPRI Site Selection Report

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    than 2,000,000 MWh of electricity. By FY 2020, based on the sustainability plan, this electricity consumption is projected to grow to approximately 3,250,000 MWh. The current...

  4. UTILITYID","UTILNAME","STATE_CODE","YEAR","MONTH","RESIDENTIAL REVENUES ($1,000)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    STATE_CODE","YEAR","MONTH","RESIDENTIAL REVENUES ($1,000)","RESIDENTIAL SALES (MWh)","RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS","COMMERCIAL REVENUES ($1,000)","COMMERCIAL SALES (MWh)","COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS","INDUSTRIAL REVENUES ($1,000)","INDUSTRIAL SALES (MWh)","INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS","TRANSPORTATION REVENUES ($1,000)","TRANSPORTATION SALES (MWh)","TRANSPORTATION

  5. Microsoft Word - RNP answers.doc

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    373,000 MWh of spill at Coulee and 234,000 MWh at Chief Joseph for a total of roughly 607,000 MWh of spill. Does all that sound close to being right? On the wind side, I see...

  6. YEAR","MONTH","STATE","UTILITY CODE","UTILITY NAME","RESIDENTIAL REVENUE ($1,000

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    REVENUE ($1,000)","COMMERCIAL REVENUE ($1,000)","INDUSTRIAL REVENUE ($1,000)","TRANSPORTATION REVENUE ($1,000)","TOTAL REVENUE ($1,000)","RESIDENTIAL SALES (MWh)","COMMERCIAL SALES (MWh)","INDUSTRIAL SALES (MWh)","TRANSPORTATION SALES (MWh)","TOTAL SALES SALES (MWh)","RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS","COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS","INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS","TRANSPORTATION

  7. "YEAR","MONTH","STATE","UTILITY CODE","UTILITY NAME","RESIDENTIAL...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    TRANSPORTATION PHOTOVOLTAIC NET METERING CUSTOMER COUNT","TOTAL PHOTOVOLTAIC NET METERING CUSTOMER COUNT","RESIDENTIAL WIND ELECTRIC ENERGY SOLD BACK (MWh)","COMMERCIAL WIND ...

  8. Steamboat III Geothermal Facility | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Parasitic Consumption (MWh) Well Field Number of Production Wells (total) Number of Injection Wells (total) Avg. Well Depth (m) GeofluidGeosteam flow rate into plant Average...

  9. Steamboat Hills Geothermal Facility | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Parasitic Consumption (MWh) Well Field Number of Production Wells (total) Number of Injection Wells (total) Avg. Well Depth (m) GeofluidGeosteam flow rate into plant Average...

  10. Fact Sheet: Tehachapi Wind Energy Storage Project (October 2012...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    hour (32 MWh) lithium-ion battery and smart inverter system. ... * Defers transmission investment * Optimizes ... resiliency, and efficiency of next-generation power grids. ...

  11. Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings | Department of Energy

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    of solar generation, bundled in minimum denominations of one megawatt-hour (MWh) of production. The legislation... Eligibility: Commercial, Industrial, Local Government,...

  12. Maibarara Geothermal Power Plant | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    1 Avg. Annual Gross Operating Capacity(MW) Summer Peak Net Capacity (MW) Winter Peak Net Capacity (MW) Avg. Annual GenerationConsumption Gross Generation (MWh) 60 1...

  13. Solar Renewable Energy Certificates Program (SRECs)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Solar Renewable Energy Certificates (SRECs) represent the renewable attributes of solar generation, bundled in minimum denominations of one megawatt-hour (MWh) of production. The legislation...

  14. Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    per megawatt-hour (MWh) of electric generation. Electric suppliers must provide this information to customers twice annually in a standardized, uniform format. The Michigan Public...

  15. NREL Highlights 2010 Utility Green Power Leaders - News Releases...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    utility programs exceeded 6 million megawatt-hours (MWh) in 2010. Wind energy now represents more than three-fourths of electricity generated for green energy programs nationwide. ...

  16. How Energy Efficiency Programs Can Support State Climate and...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    ... Variation Potential Program Components * Strategic Energy Management (SEM) * ISO50001 * Superior Energy Performance (SEP) Potential Electricity Savings 85 - 130 million MWh in 2030 ...

  17. Ohio Nuclear Profile - Perry

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Perry" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" ...

  18. BPA-2011-00834-FOIA Correspondence

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    following: 1. Data associated with hourly load, thermal generation, wind generation and hydro generation in the BPA region in MWh. 2. Data to span between 112007 and 12312010...

  19. East Central Energy (Wisconsin) | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    (MWH) OTH CONS TOT REV (THOUSAND ) TOT SALES (MWH) TOT CONS 2009-03 497.322 5,074.657 4,666 49.223 506.276 262 546.545 5,580.933 4,928 2009-02 617.038 6,336.617 4,668 59.259...

  20. City of Kansas City, Kansas (Utility Company) | Open Energy Informatio...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    SALES (MWH) OTH CONS TOT REV (THOUSAND ) TOT SALES (MWH) TOT CONS 2009-03 3,262 40,087 56,891 5,911 77,724 7,095 3,466 64,803 94 12,639 182,614 64,080 2009-02 5,311 48,126 57,266...

  1. Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (Personal)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Note: The tax credits are fully subscribed. As of February 2015, there are 712 MW (1,400,000 MWh) of projects in the waiting queue for the wind/biomass tax credit and 464 MW (1,212,000 MWh) of...

  2. Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (Corporate)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Note: The tax credits are fully subscribed. As of February 2015, there are 712 MW (1,400,000 MWh) of projects in the waiting queue for the wind/biomass tax credit and 464 MW (1,212,000 MWh) of...

  3. Empire District Electric Co (Kansas) | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    OTH SALES (MWH) OTH CONS TOT REV (THOUSAND ) TOT SALES (MWH) TOT CONS 2009-03 766.958 8,132.05 8,688 437.806 4,470.832 1,413 386.225 5,336.492 51 1,590.989 17,939.374 10,152...

  4. City Utilities of Springfield | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    ) OTH SALES (MWH) OTH CONS TOT REV (THOUSAND ) TOT SALES (MWH) TOT CONS 2009-03 5,574.607 75,387.438 94,458 7,723.39 113,122.676 13,958 2,145.435 34,204.077 318 15,443.432...

  5. City of Seattle, Washington (Utility Company) | Open Energy Informatio...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    ) OTH SALES (MWH) OTH CONS TOT REV (THOUSAND ) TOT SALES (MWH) TOT CONS 2009-03 23,601 373,913 353,104 24,986 456,778 39,325 4,440 92,495 220 3 47 3 53,030 923,233 392,652...

  6. SAS Output

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    . Demand-Side Management Program Annual Effects by Program Category, 2004 through 2012 (Table Discontinued) Energy Efficiency Load Management Total Year Energy Savings (Thousand MWh) Actual Peak Load Reduction (MW) Energy Savings (Thousand MWh) Potential Peak Load Reduction (MW) Actual Peak Load Reduction (MW) Energy Savings (Thousand MWh) Actual Peak Load Reduction (MW) 2004 52,663 14,272 1,966 20,997 9,263 54,629 23,535 2005 59,000 15,394 930 21,259 10,341 59,930 25,735 2006 63,076 16,006 790

  7. SAS Output

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    3. Demand-Side Management Program Incremental Effects by Program Category, 2004 through 2012 (Table Discontinued) Energy Efficiency Load Management Total Year Energy Savings (Thousand MWh) Actual Peak Load Reduction (MW) Energy Savings (Thousand MWh) Potential Peak Load Reduction (MW) Actual Peak Load Reduction (MW) Energy Savings (Thousand MWh) Actual Peak Load Reduction (MW) 2004 4,532 1,727 36 3,064 1,163 4,569 2,890 2005 5,879 1,705 137 2,223 1,162 6,016 2,867 2006 5,394 1,268 99 2,817 1,690

  8. Microsoft PowerPoint - 09 Tulsa RD Willis Update June.ppt

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    used for the Lake constructed in the 1950 ' ' s. In 1989 the s. In 1989 the dam was modified for the installation of Robert D. Willis dam was modified for the installation of Robert D. Willis Power Plant. The plant has two S Power Plant. The plant has two S - - Tube type turbines Tube type turbines which operate generators nominally rated at 4Mwh each. which operate generators nominally rated at 4Mwh each. Actual power production has rarely exceeded 3.6Mwh Actual power production has rarely

  9. Microsoft PowerPoint - Town Bluff Vegetation impact.ppt

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    's. In 1989 the used for the Lake constructed in the 1950's. In 1989 the dam was modified for the installation of Robert D. Willis dam was modified for the installation of Robert D. Willis Power Plant. The plant has two S Power Plant. The plant has two S - - Tube type turbines Tube type turbines which operate generators nominally rated at 4Mwh each. which operate generators nominally rated at 4Mwh each. Actual power production has rarely exceeded 3.6Mwh Actual power production has rarely

  10. Electricity Monthly Update

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Point and Saint Lucie nuclear plants. The rest of the country saw total fossil fuel use stay relatively the same or slightly decrease. Fossil Fuel Prices mmBtu MWh To gain some...

  11. DOE Wind Vision Community | OpenEI Community

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    content Wind technology roadmap Total Cost Per MwH for all common large scale power generation sources If I generate 20 percent of my national electricity from wind and solar...

  12. DOE Wind Vision Community - Q & A | OpenEI Community

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    term Q & A Question Post date Answers Total Cost Per MwH for all common large scale power generation sources 6 May 2013 - 17:52 0 If I generate 20 percent of my national...

  13. Tax Credits, Rebates & Savings | Department of Energy

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (Corporate) Note: The tax credits are fully subscribed. As of February 2015, there are 712 MW (1,400,000 MWh) of projects in the waiting...

  14. Electricity Monthly Update - Energy Information Administration

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Tons) 155,564 31.5% Nuclear Generation (Thousand MWh) 64,547 3.4% Electric utilities invest in enhanced distribution system efficiency Electric utilities are investing in a...

  15. Microsoft Word - Summary of BPA's Use of the Regional Economic...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    TABLE 21 - Long Term Employment and Income Impact Alternative 2 REVISED Price of Electricity MWh (IP rate) 40 45 50 55 60 70 Employment (job-years) Direct DSI 2,028 2,028...

  16. Ramping Effect on Forecast Use: Integrated Ramping as a Mitigation Strategy; NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Diakov, Victor; Barrows, Clayton; Brinkman, Gregory; Bloom, Aaron; Denholm, Paul

    2015-06-23

    Power generation ramping between forecasted (net) load set-points shift the generation (MWh) from its scheduled values. The Integrated Ramping is described as a method that mitigates this problem.

  17. Denison Dam Historical Generation

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 (MWh) Denison Dam Historical Generation

  18. Primer FINAL.pptx

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    ... Loss -encompasses all other losses not included in the other life cycle stages. It is a constant value of 40 gallons per hour (galMWh) and represents the water consumption ...

  19. Ground Gravity Survey At Neal Hot Springs Geothermal Area (U...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    survey was completed by MWH Geo-Surveys. Interpretations were made by creating a 3D density inversion map. Gravity and magnetic data were used in siting the first production...

  20. Energy Generation by State and Technology (2009) - Datasets ...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    2009, reported in MWh. Also includes facility-level data (directly from EIA Form 923). Data and Resources Energy Generation by Fuel Source and State, 2009XLS Energy Generation by...

  1. NREL Highlights 2012 Utility Green Power Leaders - News Releases...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Highlights 2012 Utility Green Power Leaders Top 10 programs support more than 4.2 million MWh of voluntary green power June 5, 2013 The Energy Department's National Renewable ...

  2. Slide 1

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Two 1,800 kW Diesel Generators (existing) 3.6 1.5 MWh lithium ion energy storage system .5 Interface with Price Driven Load Management (Potential Demand Response) Total Capacity ...

  3. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Perry Unit 1 1,240 10,620 67.2 FirstEnergy ... mwh) Summer capacity factor (percent) Perry 1 1,240 10,620 97.8 BWR 11181987 318...

  4. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Perry Unit 1 1,240 10,620 67.2 FirstEnergy ... Perry Nuclear Power Plant Unit Summer capacity (mw) Net generation (thousand mwh) Summer ...

  5. EKPC

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    East Kentucky Power Cooperative Team Cumberland March 25, 2015 EKPC Service Area Lake Cumberland Area PJM Service Area East Kentucky Power Cooperative PJM Contour Map Real-time 5 Min Market Price $/MWh from March 19

  6. Current State of the Voluntary Renewable Energy Market (Presentation)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Heeter, J.

    2013-09-01

    This presentation highlights the status of the voluntary green power market in 2012. The voluntary green power market totaled more than 48 million MWh in 2012, with about 1.9 million customers participating. The supply continues to be dominated by wind, though solar is increasing its share of utility green pricing programs. Prices for voluntary renewable energy certificates (RECs) increased to above $1/MWh.

  7. Installation of a close loop water system for cooling the turbine bearing oil

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    KAPLAN TURBINE BLADE CRACK WELD REPAIR BUILDING STRONG US Army Corps of Engineers Presented by Beau Biffle P. E. Chief, Hydropower Tulsa District Keystone Power Plant Sam Rayburn Power Plant BUILDING STRONG ® Keystone Power Plant Unit # 2 Technical Data Rated at 35 MW Average yearly generation - 127,000 MWH Unit placed online May 1968 Sam Rayburn Power Plant Unit #2 Technical Data Rated at 26 MW Average yearly generation - 30,000 MWH Unit placed online 1965 BUILDING STRONG ® General

  8. Measures of the environmental footprint of the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    E. Schneider; B. Carlsen; E. Tavrides; C. van der Hoeven; U. Phathanapirom

    2013-11-01

    Previous estimates of environmental impacts associated with the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle (FEFC) have focused primarily on energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Results have varied widely. This work builds upon reports from operating facilities and other primary data sources to build a database of front end environmental impacts. This work also addresses land transformation and water withdrawals associated with the processes of the FEFC. These processes include uranium extraction, conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, depleted uranium disposition, and transportation. To allow summing the impacts across processes, all impacts were normalized per tonne of natural uranium mined as well as per MWh(e) of electricity produced, a more conventional unit for measuring environmental impacts that facilitates comparison with other studies. This conversion was based on mass balances and process efficiencies associated with the current once-through LWR fuel cycle. Total energy input is calculated at 8.7 x 10- 3 GJ(e)/MWh(e) of electricity and 5.9 x 10- 3 GJ(t)/MWh(e) of thermal energy. It is dominated by the energy required for uranium extraction, conversion to fluoride compound for subsequent enrichment, and enrichment. An estimate of the carbon footprint is made from the direct energy consumption at 1.7 kg CO2/MWh(e). Water use is likewise dominated by requirements of uranium extraction, totaling 154 L/MWh(e). Land use is calculated at 8 x 10- 3 m2/MWh(e), over 90% of which is due to uranium extraction. Quantified impacts are limited to those resulting from activities performed within the FEFC process facilities (i.e. within the plant gates). Energy embodied in material inputs such as process chemicals and fuel cladding is identified but not explicitly quantified in this study. Inclusion of indirect energy associated with embodied energy as well as construction and decommissioning of facilities could increase the FEFC energy intensity estimate by a factor of up to 2.

  9. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    District of Columbia Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (District of Columbia) Item Value U.S. Rank Primary energy source Natural gas Net summer capacity (megawatts) 9 51 Electric utilities IPP & CHP 9 51 Net generation (megawatthours) 65,852 51 Electric utilities IPP & CHP 65,852 51 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 0 51 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 148 51 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 49 50 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 0.0 51 Nitrogen oxide (lbs/MWh) 4.5 3

  10. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Ohio Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Ohio) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 32,482 8 Electric utilities 20,779 11 IPP & CHP 11,703 9 Net generation (megawatthours) 137,284,189 7 Electric utilities 88,763,825 12 IPP & CHP 48,520,364 7 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 346,873 2 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 102,526 4 Carbon dioxide (thousand metrictons) 102,466 4 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 5.1 1 Nitrogen oxide (lbs/MWh)

  11. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Oklahoma Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Oklahoma) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Natural gas Net summer capacity (megawatts) 23,300 17 Electric utilities 16,951 18 IPP & CHP 6,349 17 Net generation (megawatthours) 73,673,680 22 Electric utilities 53,348,841 18 IPP & CHP 20,324,839 17 Emissions Sulfur dioxide 80,418 19 Nitrogen oxide 57,024 17 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 46,268 19 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 2.2 18 Nitrogen oxide (lbs/MWh) 1.5 19

  12. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Utah Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Utah) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 7,698 39 Electric utilities 6,669 32 IPP & CHP 1,029 44 Net generation (megawatthours) 42,516,751 33 Electric utilities 39,526,881 29 IPP & CHP 2,989,870 45 Emissions Sulfur Dioxide (short tons) 23,670 32 Nitrogen Oxide (short tons) 62,296 13 Carbon Dioxide (thousand metric tons) 35,699 24 Sulfur Dioxide (lbs/MWh) 1.1 33 Nitrogen Oxide (lbs/MWh)

  13. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Vermont Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Vermont) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Nuclear Net summer capacity (megawatts) 1,255 50 Electric utilities 329 45 IPP & CHP 925 46 Net generation (megawatthours) 6,884,910 48 Electric utilities 872,238 43 IPP & CHP 6,012,672 38 Emissions Sulfur Dioxide (short tons) 71 50 Nitrogen Oxide (short tons) 792 50 Carbon Dioxide (thousand metric tons) 15 51 Sulfur Dioxide (lbs/MWh) 0.0 50 Nitrogen Oxide (lbs/MWh) 0.2 51

  14. UTILITY_ID","UTILNAME","STATE_CODE","YEAR","MONTH","RES_REV (Thousand $)","RES_S

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    OTH_REV (Thousand $)","OTH_SALES (MWh)","OTH_CONS","TOT_REV (Thousand $)","TOT_SALES (MWh)","TOT_CONS" 0,"State Level Adjustment","AK","2007R",1,5766,24179,0,7398,30009,0,1385.504,7829.663,0,,,0,14549.504,62017.663,0 213,"Alaska Electric Light&Power Co","AK","2007R",1,1479,14609,13602,981,11953,2118,390.496,5260.337,99,0,0,0,2850.496,31822.337,15819 219,"Alaska Power

  15. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Alabama Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Alabama) Item Value U.S. Rank Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 32,353 9 Electric utilities 23,419 7 IPP & CHP 8,934 11 Net generation (megawatthours) 150,572,924 6 Electric utilities 115,027,021 3 IPP & CHP 35,545,903 11 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 144,568 9 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 56,885 18 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 66,986 11 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 1.9 22 Nitrogen oxide (lbs/MWh) 0.8 39

  16. Microsoft Word - Document2

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    min, average, and max average CO 2 emissions by month for AZNM subregion (lbs CO 2 MWh load) 800 1,100 1,400 1,700 January 800 1,100 1,400 1,700 February 800 1,100 1,400 1,700...

  17. Dayton Power & Light Co | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    REV (THOUSAND ) TOT SALES (MWH) TOT CONS 2009-03 42,929 405,917 457,328 32,828 369,986 56,335 12,936 163,248 1,748 38 375 1 88,731 939,526 515,412 2009-02 50,501 495,479 457,129...

  18. McKenzie Electric Coop Inc | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    (THOUSAND ) TOT SALES (MWH) TOT CONS 2009-03 4.139 55.309 113 0.083 0.047 2 4.222 55.356 115 2009-02 5.066 56.074 114 0.083 0.044 2 5.149 56.118 116 2009-01 4.899 69.559 114...

  19. PacifiCorp (Idaho) | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    OTH CONS TOT REV (THOUSAND ) TOT SALES (MWH) TOT CONS 2009-03 4,863.802 67,315.248 56,342 2,259.042 33,641.948 8,317 6,035.093 136,727.669 5,524 13,157.937 237,684.865 70,183...

  20. Engineering and Economic Analysis of an Advanced Ultra-Supercritical Pulverized Coal Power Plant with and without Post-Combustion Carbon Capture Task 7. Design and Economic Studies

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Booras, George; Powers, J.; Riley, C.; Hendrix, H.

    2015-09-01

    This report evaluates the economics and performance of two A-USC PC power plants; Case 1 is a conventionally configured A-USC PC power plant with superior emission controls, but without CO2 removal; and Case 2 adds a post-combustion carbon capture (PCC) system to the plant from Case 1, using the design and heat integration strategies from EPRI’s 2015 report, “Best Integrated Coal Plant.” The capture design basis for this case is “partial,” to meet EPA’s proposed New Source Performance Standard, which was initially proposed as 500 kg-CO2/MWh (gross) or 1100 lb-CO2/MWh (gross), but modified in August 2015 to 635 kg-CO2/MWh (gross) or 1400 lb-CO2/MWh (gross). This report draws upon the collective experience of consortium members, with EPRI and General Electric leading the study. General Electric provided the steam cycle analysis as well as v the steam turbine design and cost estimating. EPRI performed integrated plant performance analysis using EPRI’s PC Cost model.

  1. Fact Sheet: Wind Firming EnergyFarm (August 2013)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Primus Power is deploying a 25MW/75MWh EnergyFarm(TM) in the Modesto Irrigation District (MID) in California’ central valley that consists of an array of 250kW EnergyPods(TM); plug-and-play zinc-flow battery modules and power electronics systems housed inside ISO shipping containers.

  2. Consolidated Edison Co-NY Inc | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    CONS TOT REV (THOUSAND ) TOT SALES (MWH) TOT CONS 2009-03 180,424 829,996 2,282,842 177,132 1,007,995 393,452 2,556 15,772 240 104 656 5 360,216 1,854,419 2,676,539 2009-02...

  3. Wells Rural Electric Co (Utah) | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    TOT SALES (MWH) TOT CONS 2009-03 46 519 490 71 957 210 55 979 5 172 2,455 705 2009-02 52 607 492 69 1,045 211 46 797 5 167 2,449 708 2009-01 57 672 490 77 1,053 211 51 899 5 185...

  4. City of Independence, Missouri (Utility Company) | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    OTH CONS TOT REV (THOUSAND ) TOT SALES (MWH) TOT CONS 2009-03 3,560.56 35,314.852 51,607 3,689.899 38,562.777 5,126 271.211 3,999.786 10 7,521.67 77,877.415 56,743 2009-02...

  5. Small Modular Reactor: First of a Kind (FOAK) and Nth of a Kind (NOAK) Economic Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lauren M. Boldon; Piyush Sabharwall

    2014-08-01

    Small modular reactors (SMRs) refer to any reactor design in which the electricity generated is less than 300 MWe. Often medium sized reactors with power less than 700 MWe are also grouped into this category. Internationally, the development of a variety of designs for SMRs is booming with many designs approaching maturity and even in or nearing the licensing stage. It is for this reason that a generalized yet comprehensive economic model for first of a kind (FOAK) through nth of a kind (NOAK) SMRs based upon rated power, plant configuration, and the fiscal environment was developed. In the model, a particular project’s feasibility is assessed with regards to market conditions and by commonly utilized capital budgeting techniques, such as the net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), Payback, and more importantly, the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for comparison to other energy production technologies. Finally, a sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the effects of changing debt, equity, interest rate, and conditions on the LCOE. The economic model is primarily applied to the near future water cooled SMR designs in the United States. Other gas cooled and liquid metal cooled SMR designs have been briefly outlined in terms of how the economic model would change. FOAK and NOAK SMR costs were determined for a site containing seven 180 MWe water cooled SMRs and compared to a site containing one 1260 MWe reactor. With an equal share of debt and equity and a 10% cost of debt and equity, the LCOE was determined to be $79 $84/MWh and $80/MWh for the SMR and large reactor sites, respectively. With a cost of equity of 15%, the SMR LCOE increased substantially to $103 $109/MWh. Finally, an increase in the equity share to 70% at the 15% cost of equity resulted in an even higher LCOE, demonstrating the large variation in results due to financial and market factors. The NPV and IRR both decreased with increasing LCOE. Unless the price of electricity increases along with the LCOE, the projects may become unprofitable. This is the case at the LCOE of $103 $109/MW, in which the NPV became negative. The IRR increased with increasing electricity price. Three cases, electric only base, storage—compressed air energy storage or pumped hydro, and hydrogen production, were performed incorporating SMRs into a nuclear wind natural gas hybrid energy system for the New York West Central region. The operational costs for three cases were calculated as $27/MWh, $25/MWh, and $28/MWh, respectively. A 3% increase in profits was demonstrated for the storage case over the electric only base case.

  6. State Electricity Profiles - Energy Information Administration

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Name Average Retail Price (cents/kWh) Net Summer Capacity (MW) Net Generation (MWh) Total Retail Sales (MWh) Alabama 9.18 32,547 152,878,688 86,182,548 Alaska 16.30 2,119 6,946,419 6,416,411 Arizona 9.81 27,587 110,904,994 75,063,343 Arkansas 7.62 16,355 65,005,678 46,859,567 California 13.50 71,329 199,518,567 259,538,038 Colorado 9.39 14,947 52,556,701 53,685,297 Connecticut 15.50 9,060 36,117,544 29,492,338 Delaware 11.10 3,357 8,633,694 11,519,331 District of Columbia 11.90 10 71,787

  7. Baker-Barry Tunnel Lighting: Evaluation of a Potential GATEWAY Demonstrations Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tuenge, Jason R.

    2011-06-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is evaluating the Baker-Barry Tunnel as a potential GATEWAY Demonstrations project for deployment of solid-state lighting (SSL) technology. The National Park Service (NPS) views this project as a possible proving ground and template for implementation of light-emitting diode (LED) luminaires in other NPS tunnels, thereby expanding the estimated 40% energy savings from 132 MWh/yr for this tunnel to a much larger figure national

  8. Wind Energy Projects | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Wind Energy Projects Wind Energy Projects Wind Energy Projects Wind Energy Projects Wind Energy Projects Wind Energy Projects Wind Energy Projects Wind Energy Projects Wind Energy Projects Wind Energy Projects Wind Energy Projects Wind Energy Projects WIND ENERGY 4 PROJECTS in 5 LOCATIONS 1,025 MW GENERATION CAPACITY 2,190,000 MWh PROJECTED ANNUAL GENERATION * 1,225,000 METRIC TONS OF CO2 EMISSIONS PREVENTED ANNUALLY ALL FIGURES AS OF MARCH 2015 * Calculated using the project's and NREL

  9. Otter Tail Power Co (North Dakota) | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    ) TOT SALES (MWH) TOT CONS 2009-03 4,536 69,096 44,206 6,635 104,771 12,634 326 5,568 2 11,497 179,435 56,842 2009-02 4,919 69,170 44,146 6,370 97,635 12,601 334 6,444 2...

  10. LPO5-002-Proj-Poster-CSP-Mojave

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    MOJAVE Innovative design enhances proven technologies at Mojave, one of the world's largest parabolic trough concentrating solar power plants. INVESTING in AMERICAN ENERGY OWNER Abengoa Yield LOCATION San Bernardino County, California LOAN AMOUNT $1.2 Billion ISSUANCE DATE September 2011 GENERATION CAPACITY 250 MW PROJECTED ANNUAL GENERATION 617,000 MWh CLIMATE BENEFIT 329,000 Metric Tons of C0 2 Prevented Annually

  11. Geothermal Energy Projects | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Geothermal Energy Projects Geothermal Energy Projects Geothermal Energy Projects Geothermal Energy Projects Geothermal Energy Projects Geothermal Energy Projects Geothermal Energy Projects Geothermal Energy Projects Geothermal Energy Projects Geothermal Energy Projects GEOTHERMAL POWER 3 PROJECTS in 5 LOCATIONS 158 MW GENERATION CAPACITY 946,000 MWh PROJECTED ANNUAL GENERATION * 517,000 METRIC TONS OF CO2 EMISSIONS PREVENTED ANNUALLY ALL FIGURES AS OF MARCH 2015 * Calculated using the project's

  12. California: Energy Resources | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    PV 246,008 GWh246,008,000,000 kWh 246,008,000,000,000 Wh 246,008,000 MWh 8.856288e+17 J 111 GW111,000 MW 111,000,000 kW 111,000,000,000 W 111,000,000,000,000 mW 0.111 TW 2,320...

  13. PowerPoint Presentation

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    Business Models and Regulation of Regulated Utilities Gregory Starheim, President & CEO Kenergy Corp., Henderson, KY Quadrennial Energy Review September 8, 2014 Public Meeting #12 - East Newark, NJ Kenergy Overview: * Distribution Electric Utility * Serving 56,000 consumers * Strong Industrial base * 2013 Sales: 9,760 M MWh * 7,000 miles of power lines * Regulated by Kentucky PSC * Member-Owner of Big Rivers Electric Corporation (BREC) for power supply services - Total Power Capacity -

  14. Anaerobic MBR: Challenges and Opportunities | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Anaerobic MBR: Challenges and Opportunities Anaerobic MBR: Challenges and Opportunities Presentation by Art Umble, MWH Americas, during the "Technological State of the Art" panel at the Hydrogen, Hydrocarbons, and Bioproduct Precursors from Wastewaters Workshop held March 18-19, 2015. PDF icon Anaerobic MBR: Challenges and Opportunities More Documents & Publications The Anaerobic Fluidized Bed Membrane Bioreactor for Energy-Efficient Wastewater Reuse Microbial Fuel Cell

  15. Solar Manufacturing Projects | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Solar Manufacturing Projects Solar Manufacturing Projects Solar Manufacturing Projects Solar Manufacturing Projects Solar Manufacturing Projects Solar Manufacturing Projects SOLAR MANUFACTURING 1 PROJECT in 1 LOCATION 1,000 MW GENERATION CAPACITY 1,927,000 MWh PROJECTED ANNUAL GENERATION * 1,100,000 METRIC TONS OF CO2 EMISSIONS PREVENTED ANNUALLY ALL FIGURES AS OF MARCH 2015 * Calculated using the project's and NREL Technology specific capacity factors. For cases in which NREL's capacity factors

  16. Short-Term Energy Outlook - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Electricity Average wholesale power prices this winter have been lower than in recent years in response to sustained low natural gas prices and warmer-than-normal temperatures in many areas of the country, which have lowered electricity demand. The average on-peak prices in the ISO New England and PJM day-ahead power markets both averaged about $30 per megawatthour (MWh) last month, which is 76% and 66% lower, respectively, than average wholesale power prices in February 2015. Electricity

  17. U.S. Department of Energy Energy Information Administration

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    For Payment of Fees OMB No: 1901-0260 (Expires: xx/xx/xxxx ) Section 1. Identification Information: Please first read the instructions on the back. Section 2. Net Electricity Generated Calculation 1.1 Purchaser Information: Item Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Station Total 1 1.11 Name:____________________________________________ 2.1 Unit ID Code: 1.12 Address:__________________________________________ 2.2 Gross Thermal Energy Generated (MWh): 1.13 Attention: _________________________________________ 2.3

  18. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    ) TOT SALES (MWH) TOT CONS 2009-03 1,134 15,419 18,636 1,164 19,883 5,080 1,252 25,660 132 3,550 60,962 23,848 2009-02 1,069 14,377 18,635 1,136 19,109 5,099 1,198 23,937 132...

  19. Verdigris Valley Elec Coop Inc | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    ) TOT SALES (MWH) TOT CONS 2009-03 3,334 39,732 29,287 620 6,280 4,308 487 5,668 607 4,441 51,680 34,202 2009-02 3,065 36,726 29,285 456 4,469 4,299 405 4,606 607 3,926...

  20. UNS Electric, Inc | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    REV (THOUSAND ) TOT SALES (MWH) TOT CONS 2009-03 5,500 45,911 79,490 5,666 46,579 10,607 2,748 28,348 20 13,914 120,838 90,117 2009-02 6,301 52,859 79,557 5,084 42,064 10,613...

  1. Slide 1

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Russell, P.E. Sr. Energy Engineer Nissan North America ISO50001 - What Counts! October 31 , 2012 Nissan's Commitments To Improving Energy Performance Cost Reduction On Energy Spend Nissan Green Program 2016 ENERGY STAR® Certification Of Plants DOE Better Plants Smyrna Vehicle Manufacturing Plant Conditioned Space Area 5.5 MM Sqft Production Capacity 550,000 Vehicles Per Year Energy Sources Typical Annual Use Electricity 220,000 MWH Natural Gas 650,000 MCF Coal 12,000 Tons Stamping Modern

  2. Alabama Nuclear Profile - Browns Ferry

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Browns Ferry" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,101","8,072",83.7,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  3. Arizona Nuclear Profile - Palo Verde

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Palo Verde" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,311","9,308",81.0,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  4. California Nuclear Profile - Diablo Canyon

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Diablo Canyon" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,122","8,677",88.3,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  5. California Nuclear Profile - San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 2,"1,070","6,989",74.6,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  6. Georgia Nuclear Profile - Vogtle

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Vogtle" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,150","10,247",101.7,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  7. Illinois Nuclear Profile - Braidwood Generation Station

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Braidwood Generation Station" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,178","9,197",89.1,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  8. Illinois Nuclear Profile - Byron Generating Station

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Byron Generating Station" ,"Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,164","10,337",101.4,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  9. Illinois Nuclear Profile - Clinton Power Station

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Clinton Power Station" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,065","8,612",92.3,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-

  10. Illinois Nuclear Profile - LaSalle Generating Station

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LaSalle Generating Station" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,118","9,207",94.0,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  11. Iowa Nuclear Profile - Duane Arnold Energy Center

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Duane Arnold Energy Center" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,601,"4,451",84.5,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,601,"4,451",84.5

  12. Maryland Nuclear Profile - Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,855,"6,755",90.2,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  13. Massachusetts Nuclear Profile - Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer cpacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,685,"5,918",98.7,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,685,"5,918",98.7

  14. Michigan Nuclear Profile - Donald C Cook

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Donald C Cook" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,009","7,807",88.3,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  15. Michigan Nuclear Profile - Fermi

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fermi" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 2,"1,085","7,738",81.4,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,"

  16. Michigan Nuclear Profile - Palisades

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Palisades" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,793,"6,241",89.8,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,793,"6,241&

  17. Nebraska Nuclear Profile - Fort Calhoun

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fort Calhoun" "Unit","Summer Capacity (MW)","Net Generation (Thousand MWh)","Summer Capacity Factor (Percent)","Type","Commercial Operation Date","License Expiration Date" 1,478,"3,701",88.4,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,478,"3,701",88.4

  18. Tennessee Nuclear Profile - Sequoyah

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Sequoyah" "Unit","Summer Capacity (MW)","Net Generation (Thousand MWh)","Summer Capacity Factor (Percent)","Type","Commercial Operation Date","License Expiration Date" 1,"1,152","8,962",88.8,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  19. Texas Nuclear Profile - Comanche Peak

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Comanche Peak" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,209","9,677",91.4,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  20. Texas Nuclear Profile - South Texas Project

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    South Texas Project" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,280","11,304",100.8,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  1. New Jersey Nuclear Profile - Oyster Creek

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Oyster Creek" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,615,"4,601",85.5,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,615,"4,601",85.5

  2. New Jersey Nuclear Profile - PSEG Salem Generating Station

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    PSEG Salem Generating Station" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,174","8,777",85.3,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  3. New York Nuclear Profile - Indian Point

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Indian Point" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 2,"1,022","7,326",81.8,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  4. New York Nuclear Profile - James A Fitzpatrick

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    James A Fitzpatrick" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,855,"6,361",84.9,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,855,&

  5. New York Nuclear Profile - Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,630,"5,294",95.9,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  6. New York Nuclear Profile - R E Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    R E Ginna Nuclear Power Plant" "Unit","Summer Capacity (MW)","Net Generation (Thousand MWh)","Summer Capacity Factor (Percent)","Type","Commercial Operation Date","License Expiration Date" 1,581,"4,948",97.2,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,581,"4,948",97.2

  7. North Carolina Nuclear Profile - McGuire

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    McGuire" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,100","8,836",91.7,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  8. Ohio Nuclear Profile - Davis Besse

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Davis Besse" "Unit","Summer Capacity (MW)","Net Generation (Thousand MWh)","Summer Capacity Factor (Percent)","Type","Commercial Operation Date","License Expiration Date" 1,894,"7,610",97.2,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,894,"7,610",97.2

  9. Pennsylvania Nuclear Profile - Limerick

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Limerick" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,130","9,047",91.4,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  10. Pennsylvania Nuclear Profile - PPL Susquehanna

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    PPL Susquehanna" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,260","8,294",75.1,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  11. Pennsylvania Nuclear Profile - Peach Bottom

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Peach Bottom" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 2,"1,122","9,000",91.6,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  12. Pennsylvania Nuclear Profile - Three Mile Island

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Three Mile Island" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,805,"6,634",94.1,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,805,"6,634",94.1

  13. South Carolina Nuclear Profile - Catawba

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Catawba" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,129","9,889",100.0,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  14. South Carolina Nuclear Profile - H B Robinson

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    H B Robinson" "Unit","Summer Capacity (MW)","Net Generation (Thousand MWh)","Summer Capacity Factor (Percent)","Type","Commercial Operation Date","License Expiration Date" 2,724,"6,473",102.1,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,724,&qu

  15. South Carolina Nuclear Profile - V C Summer

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    V C Summer" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,966,"8,487",100.3,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,966,"8,487",100.3

  16. Workplace Charging Program and Initiatives

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Program and Initiatives Evan Kolkos New York Power Authority Clean Energy Technology © 2008 All Rights Reserved NYPA: Who We Are * Largest state public power organization in the United States * Uses no taxpayer funds in its operations * Provide wholesale power supplier throughout New York State and neighboring states as required by law * Provide, in the form of generation and market power purchases, about 25% of New York State's electricity * 2011 Generation: 28.1 million MWh, 78% hydro; 22%

  17. Advanced Nuclear Energy Projects | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Projects Advanced Nuclear Energy Projects Advanced Nuclear Energy Projects Advanced Nuclear Energy Projects Advanced Nuclear Energy Projects Advanced Nuclear Energy Projects ADVANCED NUCLEAR ENERGY 1 PROJECT in 1 LOCATION 2,200 MW GENERATION CAPACITY 17,200,000 MWh PROJECTED ANNUAL GENERATION * 10,000,000 METRIC TONS OF CO2 EMISSIONS PREVENTED ANNUALLY ALL FIGURES AS OF MARCH 2015 * Calculated using the project's and NREL Technology specific capacity factors. For cases in which NREL's capacity

  18. LPO5-002-Proj-Poster-BIO-Genesis

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    GENESIS Using parabolic trough technology, Genesis is one of the largest concentrating solar power projects in the U.S. INVESTING in AMERICAN ENERGY OWNER NextEra Energy LOCATION Riverside County, California LOAN AMOUNT $852 Million ISSUANCE DATE August 2011 GENERATION CAPACITY 250 MW PROJECTED ANNUAL GENERATION 605,000 MWh CLIMATE BENEFIT 322,000 Metric Tons of C0 2 Prevented Annually

  19. LPO5-002-Proj-Poster-CSP-CrescentDunes

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    CRESCENT DUNES Concentrating the sun's energy to heat molten salt, Crescent Dunes will be the world's largest power tower with storage. INVESTING in AMERICAN ENERGY OWNERS SolarReserve, LLC, ACS Cobra & Banco Santander LOCATION Nye County, Nevada LOAN AMOUNT $737 Million ISSUANCE DATE September 2011 GENERATION CAPACITY 110 MW PROJECTED ANNUAL GENERATION 482,000 MWh CLIMATE BENEFIT 279,000 Metric Tons of C0 2 Prevented Annually

  20. LPO5-002-Proj-Poster-CSP-Ivanpah

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    IVANPAH Rising 450 feet above the California desert, Ivanpah is the world's largest concentrating solar power facility. INVESTING in AMERICAN ENERGY OWNERS BrightSource Energy, NRG Energy & Google LOCATION Ivanpah Dry Lake, California LOAN AMOUNT $1.6 Billion ISSUANCE DATE April 2011 GENERATION CAPACITY 392 MW PROJECTED ANNUAL GENERATION 940,000 MWh CLIMATE BENEFIT 500,000 Metric Tons of C0 2 Prevented Annually

  1. LPO5-002-Proj-Poster-CSP-Ormat

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    ORMAT NEVADA With 3 facilities across the state, Ormat Nevada increases Nevada's clean power capacity by tapping into a vast underground geothermal reservoir. OWNERS Ormat Nevada, Inc. & Ormat Technologies LOCATIONS Jersey Valley, McGinness Hills & Tuscarora, Nevada LOAN AMOUNT $350 Million ISSUANCE DATE September 2011 GENERATION CAPACITY 97 MW PROJECTED ANNUAL GENERATION 557,000 MWh CLIMATE BENEFIT 301,000 Metric Tons of C0 2 Prevented Annually INVESTING in AMERICAN ENERGY

  2. LPO5-002-Proj-Poster-GEO-BlueMtn

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    BLUE MOUNTAIN The state-of-the-art Blue Mountain plant is helping Nevada use its geothermal resources to meet its clean energy goals. INVESTING in AMERICAN ENERGY OWNER AltaRock Energy, Inc. LOCATION Humbolt County, Nevada LOAN AMOUNT $98.5 Million ISSUANCE DATE November 2010 GENERATION CAPACITY 39 MW PROJECTED ANNUAL GENERATION 240,000 MWh CLIMATE BENEFIT 130,000 Metric Tons of C0 2 Prevented Annually

  3. LPO5-002-Proj-Poster-GEO-USGOregon

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    USG OREGON By pioneering a more e cient thermal extraction technology, USG Oregon is able to access previously untapped geothermal resources. INVESTING in AMERICAN ENERGY OWNERS U.S. Geothermal, Inc. & Enbridge (U.S.), Inc. LOCATION Malheur County, Oregon LOAN AMOUNT $97 Million ISSUANCE DATE February 2011 GENERATION CAPACITY 22 MW PROJECTED ANNUAL GENERATION 149,000 MWh CLIMATE BENEFIT 86,000 Metric Tons of C0 2 Prevented Annually

  4. LPO5-002-Proj-Poster-PV-AVSR

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    ANTELOPE VALLEY SOLAR RANCH By scaling up innovative inverter technology, Antelope Valley Solar Ranch demonstrates that utility-scale photovoltaic solar can reliably deliver electricity. INVESTING in AMERICAN ENERGY OWNER Exelon LOCATION Lancaster, California LOAN AMOUNT $646 Million ISSUANCE DATE September 2011 GENERATION CAPACITY 242 MW PROJECTED ANNUAL GENERATION 482,000 MWh CLIMATE BENEFIT 279,000 Metric Tons of CO 2 Prevented Annually

  5. LPO5-002-Proj-Poster-PV-AguaCal

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AGUA CALIENTE By harnessing Arizona's abundant sunlight, Agua Caliente is demonstrating that photovoltaic solar can go big in the U.S. INVESTING in AMERICAN ENERGY OWNERS NRG Solar, LLC & MidAmerican Renewables, LLC LOCATION Yuma County, Arizona LOAN AMOUNT $967 Million ISSUANCE DATE August 2011 GENERATION CAPACITY 290 MW PROJECTED ANNUAL GENERATION 559,000 MWh CLIMATE BENEFIT 312,000 Metric Tons of CO 2 Prevented Annually

  6. LPO5-002-Proj-Poster-PV-Alamosa

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    ALAMOSA Innovative tracking and concentrating optics increase the e ciency of Alamosa, the world's largest high concentration photovoltaic solar system. INVESTING in AMERICAN ENERGY OWNERS Cogentrix Power & Carlyle Infrastructure Partners LOCATION Alamosa, Colorado LOAN AMOUNT $90.6 Million ISSUANCE DATE September 2011 GENERATION CAPACITY 29 MW PROJECTED ANNUAL GENERATION 58,000 MWh CLIMATE BENEFIT 34,000 Metric Tons of CO 2 Prevented Annually

  7. LPO5-002-Proj-Poster-PV-CVSR

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    To boost output, California Valley Solar Ranch uses innovative single-axis trackers and a wireless monitoring and control system. CALIFORNIA VALLEY SOLAR RANCH INVESTING in AMERICAN ENERGY OWNERS NRG Energy, Inc. & NRG Solar, LLC LOCATION San Luis Obispo, California LOAN AMOUNT $1.2 Billion ISSUANCE DATE September 2011 GENERATION CAPACITY 250 MW PROJECTED ANNUAL GENERATION 650,000 MWh CLIMATE BENEFIT 370,000 Metric Tons of CO 2 Prevented Annually

  8. LPO5-002-Proj-Poster-PV-DesertSunlight

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    DESERT SUNLIGHT By working with 14 commercial lending partners, Desert Sunlight helped pave the way for future utility-scale photovoltaic solar deals. INVESTING in AMERICAN ENERGY OWNERS NextEra Energy, General Electric & Sumitomo of America LOCATION Riverside County, California LOAN AMOUNT $1.5 Billion ISSUANCE DATE September 2011 GENERATION CAPACITY 550 MW PROJECTED ANNUAL GENERATION 1,060,000 MWh CLIMATE BENEFIT 614,000 Metric Tons of C0 2 Prevented Annually

  9. LPO5-002-Proj-Poster-SLR-MFG-1366

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    6 TECHNOLOGIES Using new, proprietary manufacturing processes, 1366 Technologies aims to produce higher-quality, lower-cost silicon wafers for solar cells. INVESTING in AMERICAN ENERGY OWNER 1366 Technologies, Inc. LOCATION Bedford, Massachusetts LOAN AMOUNT $150 Million ISSUANCE DATE August 2011 GENERATION CAPACITY 1,000 MW PROJECTED ANNUAL GENERATION 1,927,000 MWh CLIMATE BENEFIT 1,100,000 Metric Tons of CO 2 Prevented Annually

  10. LPO5-002-Proj-Poster-WIND-Granite

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    GRANITE RELIABLE As one of the first U.S. projects to use larger, more e cient turbines, Granite Reliable is a pioneering American wind farm. INVESTING in AMERICAN ENERGY OWNERS BAIF Granite Holdings & Freshet Wind Energy LOCATION Coos County, New Hampshire LOAN AMOUNT $169 Million ISSUANCE DATE September 2011 GENERATION CAPACITY 99 MW PROJECTED ANNUAL GENERATION 224,000 MWh CLIMATE BENEFIT 130,000 Metric Tons of CO 2 Prevented Annually

  11. LPO5-002-Proj-Poster-WIND-Kahuku

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    KAHUKU By combining cutting-edge wind turbine generators and a control system, Kahuku brings wind power to the Aloha State's island-based power grid. INVESTING in AMERICAN ENERGY OWNER First Wind LOCATION Kahuku, Hawai'i LOAN AMOUNT $117 Million ISSUANCE DATE July 2010 GENERATION CAPACITY 30 MW PROJECTED ANNUAL GENERATION 70,000 MWh CLIMATE BENEFIT 39,000 Metric Tons of CO 2 Prevented Annually

  12. LPO5-002-Proj-Poster-WIND-RecordHill

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    RECORD HILL Robust turbine technologies at Record Hill allow more power output during extreme weather conditions than conventional wind energy technology. INVESTING in AMERICAN ENERGY OWNERS Record Hill Wind & Yale University LOCATION Roxbury, Maine LOAN AMOUNT $102 Million ISSUANCE DATE August 2011 GENERATION CAPACITY 51 MW PROJECTED ANNUAL GENERATION 96,000 MWh CLIMATE BENEFIT 56,000 Metric Tons of CO 2 Prevented Annually

  13. LPO5-002-Proj-Poster-WIND-ShepardsFlat

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    SHEPHERDS FLAT Spanning two counties of working heritage ranch land in eastern Oregon, Shepherds Flat is one of the world's largest wind farms. INVESTING in AMERICAN ENERGY OWNER Caithness Energy, LLC LOCATIONS Gilliam County & Morrow County, Oregon LOAN AMOUNT $1.3 Billion ISSUANCE DATE December 2010 GENERATION CAPACITY 845 MW PROJECTED ANNUAL GENERATION 1,800,000 MWh CLIMATE BENEFIT 1,000,000 Metric Tons of CO 2 Prevented Annually

  14. PacifiCorp | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    (MWH) TOT CONS 2009-03 4,513.328 40,300.371 35,420 2,957.385 28,242.692 7,794 295.18 3,403.742 1,964 7,765.893 71,946.805 45,178 2009-02 4,309.919 37,789.644 35,472 2,584.65...

  15. Provo City Corp (Utility Company) | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    (MWH) TOT CONS 2009-03 1,368 18,290 30,311 1,749 28,411 4,779 437 10,070 1 3,554 56,771 35,091 2009-02 1,552 20,914 30,371 1,847 31,146 4,792 451 10,886 1 3,850 62,946 35,164...

  16. Voluntary Green Power Market Forecast through 2015

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bird, L.; Holt, E.; Sumner, J.; Kreycik, C.

    2010-05-01

    Various factors influence the development of the voluntary 'green' power market--the market in which consumers purchase or produce power from non-polluting, renewable energy sources. These factors include climate policies, renewable portfolio standards (RPS), renewable energy prices, consumers' interest in purchasing green power, and utilities' interest in promoting existing programs and in offering new green options. This report presents estimates of voluntary market demand for green power through 2015 that were made using historical data and three scenarios: low-growth, high-growth, and negative-policy impacts. The resulting forecast projects the total voluntary demand for renewable energy in 2015 to range from 63 million MWh annually in the low case scenario to 157 million MWh annually in the high case scenario, representing an approximately 2.5-fold difference. The negative-policy impacts scenario reflects a market size of 24 million MWh. Several key uncertainties affect the results of this forecast, including uncertainties related to growth assumptions, the impacts that policy may have on the market, the price and competitiveness of renewable generation, and the level of interest that utilities have in offering and promoting green power products.

  17. ORNL Neutron Sciences Annual Report for 2007

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Anderson, Ian S; Horak, Charlie M; Counce, Deborah Melinda; Ekkebus, Allen E

    2008-07-01

    This is the first annual report of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Neutron Sciences Directorate for calendar year 2007. It describes the neutron science facilities, current developments, and future plans; highlights of the year's activities and scientific research; and information on the user program. It also contains information about education and outreach activities and about the organization and staff. The Neutron Sciences Directorate is responsible for operation of the High Flux Isotope Reactor and the Spallation Neutron Source. The main highlights of 2007 were highly successful operation and instrument commissioning at both facilities. At HFIR, the year began with the reactor in shutdown mode and work on the new cold source progressing as planned. The restart on May 16, with the cold source operating, was a significant achievement. Furthermore, measurements of the cold source showed that the performance exceeded expectations, making it one of the world's most brilliant sources of cold neutrons. HFIR finished the year having completed five run cycles and 5,880 MWd of operation. At SNS, the year began with 20 kW of beam power on target; and thanks to a highly motivated staff, we reached a record-breaking power level of 183 kW by the end of the year. Integrated beam power delivered to the target was 160 MWh. Although this is a substantial accomplishment, the next year will bring the challenge of increasing the integrated beam power delivered to 887 MWh as we chart our path toward 5,350 MWh by 2011.

  18. Microsoft Word - EIA-111 Form for 2018 FINAL 071015 with Picklists.docx

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Approved: 08/26/2015 OMB No. 1905-0208 Expiration Date: 08/31/2018 Burden: 1.5 hours EIA-111 QUARTERLY ELECTRICITY IMPORTS AND EXPORTS REPORT Imports into the U.S. from Canada or Mexico Did the entity have any imports this quarter? ○ Yes ○ No Month Foreign Source Balancing Authority U.S. Sink Balancing Authority Transmission Provider/ Transfer Facility(ies) Category of Service Energy Purchases or Exchange Imported (MWh) Energy Payments ($US) Other Payments ($US) Total Payments ($US)

  19. SAS Output

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    5. Unit of Measure Equivalents Unit Equivalent Kilowatt (kW) 1,000 (One Thousand) Watts Megawatt (MW) 1,000,000 (One Million) Watts Gigawatt (GW) 1,000,000,000 (One Billion) Watts Terawatt (TW) 1,000,000,000,000 (One Trillion) Watts Gigawatt 1,000,000 (One Million) Kilowatts Thousand Gigawatts 1,000,000,000 (One Billion) Kilowatts Kilowatthours (kWh) 1,000 (One Thousand) Watthours Megawatthours (MWh) 1,000,000 (One Million) Watthours Gigawatthours (GWh) 1,000,000,000 (One Billion) Watthours

  20. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Alaska Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Alaska) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Natural Gas Net summer capacity (megawatts) 2,384 48 Electric utilities 2,205 39 IPP & CHP 179 50 Net generation (megawatthours) 6,496,822 49 Electric utilities 5,851,727 39 IPP & CHP 645,095 49 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 4,202 43 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 18,043 37 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 3,768 44 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 1.3 29 Nitrogen oxide

  1. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Arizona Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Arizona) Item Value U.S. Rank Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 27,910 13 Electric utilities 20,668 12 IPP & CHP 7,242 16 Net generation (megawatthours) 113,325,986 12 Electric utilities 92,740,582 8 IPP & CHP 20,585,405 15 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 23,716 31 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 59,416 15 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 55,342 16 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 0.4 42 Nitrogen

  2. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    California Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (California) Item Value U.S. Rank Primary energy source Natural Gas Net summer capacity (megawatts) 73,772 2 Electric utilities 28,165 4 IPP & CHP 45,607 2 Net generation (megawatthours) 200,077,115 5 Electric utilities 78,407,643 14 IPP & CHP 121,669,472 4 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 2,109 48 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 96,842 5 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 57,323 13 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 0.0 49

  3. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Colorado Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Colorado) Item Value U.S. Rank Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 14,769 30 Electric utilities 10,238 28 IPP & CHP 4,531 20 Net generation (megawatthours) 52,937,436 28 Electric utilities 42,508,826 25 IPP & CHP 10,428,610 29 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 40,012 27 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 49,623 21 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 39,387 20 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 1.5 27 Nitrogen

  4. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Connecticut Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Connecticut) Item Value U.S. Rank Primary energy source Nuclear Net summer capacity (megawatts) 8,769 35 Electric utilities 152 46 IPP & CHP 8,617 13 Net generation (megawatthours) 35,610,789 38 Electric utilities 50,273 45 IPP & CHP 35,560,516 10 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 3,512 45 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 9,372 45 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 8,726 41 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 0.2 47 Nitrogen

  5. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Delaware Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Delaware) Item Value U.S. Rank Primary energy source Natural gas Net summer capacity (megawatts) 3,246 46 Electric utilities 102 47 IPP & CHP 3,144 32 Net generation (megawatthours) 7,760,861 47 Electric utilities 25,986 47 IPP & CHP 7,734,875 34 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 2,241 47 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 2,585 48 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 4,722 43 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 0.6 40 Nitrogen oxide

  6. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Florida Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Florida) Item Value U.S. Rank Primary energy source Natural gas Net summer capacity (megawatts) 58,781 3 Electric utilities 50,967 1 IPP & CHP 7,813 15 Net generation (megawatthours) 222,398,924 3 Electric utilities 202,527,297 1 IPP & CHP 19,871,627 18 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 117,797 12 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 88,345 6 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 108,431 3 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 1.1 34

  7. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Georgia Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Georgia) Item Value U.S. Rank Primary energy source Natural gas Net summer capacity (megawatts) 38,210 7 Electric utilities 28,875 2 IPP & CHP 9,335 10 Net generation (megawatthours) 120,953,734 10 Electric utilities 107,082,884 4 IPP & CHP 13,870,850 26 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 123,735 10 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 55,462 20 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 56,812 15 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 2.0 20

  8. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Hawaii Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Hawaii) Item Value U.S. Rank Primary energy source Petroleum Net summer capacity (megawatts) 2,757 47 Electric utilities 1,821 40 IPP & CHP 937 45 Net generation (megawatthours) 10,267,052 45 Electric utilities 5,748,256 40 IPP & CHP 4,518,796 40 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 20,710 33 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 25,416 31 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 7,428 42 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 4.0 5 Nitrogen oxide

  9. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Idaho Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Idaho) Item Value U.S. Rank Primary energy source Hydroelectric Net summer capacity (megawatts) 4,924 42 Electric utilities 3,394 37 IPP & CHP 1,530 39 Net generation (megawatthours) 15,186,128 43 Electric utilities 9,600,216 36 IPP & CHP 5,585,912 39 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 6,565 42 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 7,627 46 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 1,942 49 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 0.9 37 Nitrogen

  10. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Illinois Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Illinois) Item Value U.S. Rank Primary energy source Nuclear Net summer capacity (megawatts) 44,950 4 Electric utilities 5,269 35 IPP & CHP 39,681 4 Net generation (megawatthours) 203,004,919 4 Electric utilities 11,571,734 35 IPP & CHP 191,433,185 3 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 203,951 6 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 63,358 11 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 97,812 6 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 2.0 21 Nitrogen

  11. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Indiana Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Indiana) Item Value U.S. Rank Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 27,196 14 Electric utilities 23,309 8 IPP & CHP 3,888 24 Net generation (megawatthours) 110,403,477 13 Electric utilities 96,047,678 7 IPP & CHP 14,355,799 23 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 273,718 4 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 121,681 3 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 98,895 5 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 5.0 2 Nitrogen

  12. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Iowa Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Iowa) Item Value U.S. Rank Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 15,929 25 Electric utilities 12,092 21 IPP & CHP 3,837 26 Net generation (megawatthours) 56,670,757 27 Electric utilities 41,932,708 26 IPP & CHP 14,738,048 22 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 106,879 14 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 44,657 25 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 39,175 21 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 3.8 6 Nitrogen oxide

  13. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Kansas Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Kansas) Item Value U.S. Rank Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 14,093 32 Electric utilities 11,593 24 IPP & CHP 2,501 35 Net generation (megawatthours) 48,472,581 32 Electric utilities 39,808,763 28 IPP & CHP 8,663,819 32 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 30,027 30 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 30,860 30 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 33,125 27 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 1.2 30 Nitrogen

  14. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Kentucky Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Kentucky) Item Value U.S. Rank Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 21,004 21 Electric utilities 19,599 16 IPP & CHP 1,405 40 Net generation (megawatthours) 89,741,021 18 Electric utilities 89,098,127 11 IPP & CHP 642,894 50 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 190,782 7 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 87,201 7 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 85,304 7 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 4.3 4 Nitrogen oxide

  15. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Louisiana Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Louisiana) Item Value U.S. Rank Primary energy source Natural gas Net summer capacity (megawatts) 26,228 15 Electric utilities 17,297 17 IPP & CHP 8,931 12 Net generation (megawatthours) 102,010,177 15 Electric utilities 56,226,016 17 IPP & CHP 45,784,161 8 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 122,578 11 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 82,286 9 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 58,274 12 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 2.4 16

  16. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Maine Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Maine) Item Value U.S. Rank Primary energy source Natural gas Net summer capacity (megawatts) 4,499 43 Electric utilities 14 49 IPP & CHP 4,485 21 Net generation (megawatthours) 14,030,038 44 Electric utilities 597 49 IPP & CHP 14,029,441 25 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 13,365 38 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 9,607 44 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 3,675 45 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 1.9 23 Nitrogen oxide

  17. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Maryland Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Maryland) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 12,339 33 Electric utilities 85 48 IPP & CHP 12,254 8 Net generation (megawatthours) 35,850,812 37 Electric utilities 30,205 46 IPP & CHP 35,820,607 9 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 41,539 26 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 21,995 34 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 18,950 34 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 2.3 17 Nitrogen oxide

  18. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Massachusetts Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Massachusetts) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Natural gas Net summer capacity (megawatts) 13,678 32 Electric utilities 969 42 IPP & CHP 12,709 7 Net generation (megawatthours) 32,885,021 40 Electric utilities 611,320 44 IPP & CHP 32,273,700 12 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 12,339 40 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 15,150 41 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 14,735 38 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 0.8 38

  19. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Michigan Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Michigan) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 30,128 11 Electric utilities 22,148 9 IPP & CHP 7,981 14 Net generation (megawatthours) 105,417,801 14 Electric utilities 83,171,310 13 IPP & CHP 22,246,490 14 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 237,091 5 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 86,058 8 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 67,193 10 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 4.5 3 Nitrogen oxide

  20. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Minnesota Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Minnesota) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 15,758 26 Electric utilities 11,901 22 IPP & CHP 3,858 25 Net generation (megawatthours) 51,296,988 31 Electric utilities 41,155,904 27 IPP & CHP 10,141,084 30 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 35,625 28 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 36,972 28 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 29,255 29 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 1.4 28 Nitrogen

  1. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Mississippi Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Mississippi) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Natural gas Net summer capacity (megawatts) 15,561 28 Electric utilities 12,842 20 IPP & CHP 2,719 35 Net generation (megawatthours) 52,810,264 29 Electric utilities 45,413,403 23 IPP & CHP 7,396,861 35 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 87,718 17 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 24,490 32 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 22,633 33 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 3.3 9

  2. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Missouri Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Missouri) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 21,801 19 Electric utilities 20,562 15 IPP & CHP 1,239 42 Net generation (megawatthours) 91,626,593 17 Electric utilities 89,217,205 10 IPP & CHP 2,409,387 46 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 157,488 8 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 78,033 10 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 78,344 8 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 3.4 8 Nitrogen oxide

  3. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Montana Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Montana) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 6,329 41 Electric utilities 2,568 38 IPP & CHP 3,761 27 Net generation (megawatthours) 27,687,326 41 Electric utilities 7,361,898 38 IPP & CHP 20,325,428 16 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 16,865 36 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 21,789 35 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 16,951 35 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 1.2 31 Nitrogen oxide

  4. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Nebraska Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Nebraska) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 8,449 36 Electric utilities 7,911 30 IPP & CHP 538 49 Net generation (megawatthours) 37,104,628 34 Electric utilities 35,170,167 30 IPP & CHP 1,934,461 48 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 66,884 22 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 31,505 29 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 28,043 32 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 3.6 7 Nitrogen oxide

  5. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Nevada Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Nevada) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Natural gas Net summer capacity (megawatts) 10,652 34 Electric utilities 7,915 29 IPP & CHP 2,737 34 Net generation (megawatthours) 36,443,874 35 Electric utilities 27,888,008 34 IPP & CHP 8,555,866 33 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 7,436 41 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 16,438 39 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 15,690 37 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 0.4 43 Nitrogen

  6. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Hampshire Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (New Hampshire) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Nuclear Net summer capacity (megawatts) 4,413 44 Electric utilities 1,121 41 IPP & CHP 3,292 30 Net generation (megawatthours) 19,778,520 42 Electric utilities 2,266,903 41 IPP & CHP 17,511,617 20 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 3,733 44 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 5,057 47 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 3,447 46 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 0.4 45 Nitrogen

  7. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Jersey Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (New Jersey) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Nuclear Net summer capacity (megawatts) 18,997 22 Electric utilities 544 43 IPP & CHP 18,452 6 Net generation (megawatthours) 64,750,942 24 Electric utilities -122,674 50 IPP & CHP 64,873,616 6 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 3,196 46 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 15,299 40 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 15,789 36 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 0.1 48 Nitrogen oxide

  8. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Mexico Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (New Mexico) Item Value U.S. Rank Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 7,938 38 Electric utilities 5,912 33 IPP & CHP 2,026 36 Net generation (megawatthours) 35,870,965 36 Electric utilities 29,833,095 33 IPP & CHP 6,037,870 37 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 17,735 34 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 59,055 16 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 28,535 31 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 1.0 36 Nitrogen

  9. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    York Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (New York) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Natural Gas Net summer capacity (megawatts) 39,918 6 Electric utilities 10,736 26 IPP & CHP 29,182 5 Net generation (megawatthours) 136,116,830 8 Electric utilities 33,860,490 31 IPP & CHP 102,256,340 5 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 30,947 29 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 44,824 24 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 33,456 26 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 0.5 41 Nitrogen

  10. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    North Carolina Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (North Carolina) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 30,048 12 Electric utilities 26,706 6 IPP & CHP 3,342 29 Net generation (megawatthours) 125,936,293 9 Electric utilities 116,317,050 2 IPP & CHP 9,619,243 31 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 71,293 20 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 62,397 12 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 56,940 14 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 1.1 32

  11. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Dakota Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (North Dakota) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 6,566 40 Electric utilities 5,292 34 IPP & CHP 1,274 41 Net generation (megawatthours) 35,021,673 39 Electric utilities 31,044,374 32 IPP & CHP 3,977,299 42 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 56,854 23 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 48,454 22 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 30,274 28 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 3.2 11 Nitrogen oxide

  12. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Oregon Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Oregon) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Hydroelectric Net summer capacity (megawatts) 15,662 27 Electric utilities 10,973 25 IPP & CHP 4,689 19 Net generation (megawatthours) 59,895,515 26 Electric utilities 43,254,167 24 IPP & CHP 16,641,348 21 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 17,511 35 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 13,803 42 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 9,500 40 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 0.6 39 Nitrogen

  13. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Pennsylvania Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Pennsylvania) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 43,040 5 Electric utilities 455 44 IPP & CHP 42,584 3 Net generation (megawatthours) 226,785,630 2 Electric utilities 1,105,740 42 IPP & CHP 225,679,890 2 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 276,851 3 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 151,148 2 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 108,729 2 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 2.4 15 Nitrogen

  14. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Rhode Island Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Rhode Island) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Natural gas Net summer capacity (megawatts) 1,809 49 Electric utilities 8 50 IPP & CHP 1,802 38 Net generation (megawatthours) 6,246,807 50 Electric utilities 10,659 48 IPP & CHP 6,236,148 36 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 1,271 49 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 1,161 49 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 2,838 48 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 0.4 44 Nitrogen

  15. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Carolina Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (South Carolina) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Nuclear Net summer capacity (megawatts) 23,017 18 Electric utilities 21,039 10 IPP & CHP 1,978 37 Net generation (megawatthours) 95,249,894 16 Electric utilities 91,795,732 9 IPP & CHP 3,454,162 44 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 47,671 25 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 19,035 36 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 28,809 30 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 1.0 35

  16. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    South Dakota Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (South Dakota) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Hydroelectric Net summer capacity (megawatts) 4,109 45 Electric utilities 3,480 36 IPP & CHP 629 48 Net generation (megawatthours) 10,108,887 46 Electric utilities 8,030,545 37 IPP & CHP 2,078,342 47 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 15,347 37 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 11,430 43 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 3,228 47 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 3.0 12

  17. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Tennessee Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Tennessee) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 21,326 20 Electric utilities 20,635 13 IPP & CHP 690 47 Net generation (megawatthours) 79,651,619 19 Electric utilities 75,988,871 15 IPP & CHP 3,662,748 43 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 86,204 18 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 23,189 33 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 38,118 22 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 2.2 19 Nitrogen oxide

  18. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Texas Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Texas) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Natural gas Net summer capacity (megawatts) 109,584 1 Electric utilities 28,705 3 IPP & CHP 80,879 1 Net generation (megawatthours) 433,380,166 1 Electric utilities 96,131,888 6 IPP & CHP 337,248,278 1 Emissions Sulfur Dioxide (short tons) 383,728 1 Nitrogen Oxide short tons) 228,695 1 Carbon Dioxide (thousand metric tons) 257,465 1 Sulfur Dioxide (lbs/MWh) 1.8 25 Nitrogen Oxide

  19. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Virginia Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Virginia) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Nuclear Net summer capacity (megawatts) 24,828 16 Electric utilities 20,601 14 IPP & CHP 4,227 22 Net generation (megawatthours) 76,896,565 20 Electric utilities 63,724,860 16 IPP & CHP 13,171,706 28 Emissions Sulfur Dioxide (short tons) 68,077 21 Nitrogen Oxide (short tons) 39,706 27 Carbon Dioxide (thousand metric tons) 34,686 25 Sulfur Dioxide (lbs/MWh) 1.8 26 Nitrogen

  20. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Washington Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Washington) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Hydroelectric Net summer capacity (megawatts) 30,656 10 Electric utilities 27,070 5 IPP & CHP 3,586 28 Net generation (megawatthours) 114,172,916 11 Electric utilities 100,013,661 5 IPP & CHP 14,159,255 24 Emissions Sulfur Dioxide (short tons) 13,259 39 Nitrogen Oxide (short tons) 17,975 38 Carbon Dioxide (thousand metric tons) 12,543 39 Sulfur Dioxide (lbs/MWh) 0.2 46

  1. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    West Virginia Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (West Virginia) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 16,282 24 Electric utilities 10,625 27 IPP & CHP 5,657 18 Net generation (megawatthours) 75,863,067 21 Electric utilities 46,351,104 22 IPP & CHP 29,511,963 13 Emissions Sulfur Dioxide (short tons) 93,888 15 Nitrogen Oxide (short tons) 60,229 14 Carbon Dioxide (thousand metric tons) 68,862 9 Sulfur Dioxide (lbs/MWh) 2.5 14

  2. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Wisconsin Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Wisconsin) Item Value Rank Primary Energy Source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 17,342 23 Electric utilities 13,358 19 IPP & CHP 3,984 23 Net generation (megawatthours) 65,962,792 23 Electric utilities 47,027,455 20 IPP & CHP 18,935,337 19 Emissions Sulfur Dioxide (short tons) 108,306 13 Nitrogen Oxide (short tons) 44,114 26 Carbon Dioxide (thousand metric tons) 47,686 18 Sulfur Dioxide (lbs/MWh) 3.3 10 Nitrogen

  3. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Wyoming Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Wyoming) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 8,381 37 Electric utilities 7,279 31 IPP & CHP 1,102 43 Net generation (megawatthours) 52,483,065 30 Electric utilities 48,089,178 19 IPP & CHP 4,393,887 41 Emissions Sulfur Dioxide (short tons) 49,587 24 Nitrogen Oxide (short tons) 55,615 19 Carbon Dioxide (thousand metric tons) 50,687 17 Sulfur Dioxide (lbs/MWh) 1.9 24 Nitrogen Oxide

  4. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Vermont profile Vermont total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 620 55.0 4,782 72.2 Hydro and Pumped Storage 324 28.7 1,347 20.3 Natural Gas - - 4 0.1 Other Renewable1 84 7.5 482 7.3 Petroleum 100 8.9 5 0.1 Total 1,128 100.0 6,620 100.0 1Municipal Solid Waste net generation is allocated according to the

  5. Table 1. Updated estimates of power plant capital and operating costs

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Updated estimates of power plant capital and operating costs" ,"Plant Characteristics",,,"Plant Costs (2012$)" ,"Nominal Capacity (MW)","Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)",,"Overnight Capital Cost ($/kW)","Fixed O&M Cost ($/kW-yr)","Variable O&M Cost ($/MWh)" ,,,,,,,"NEMS Input" " Coal" "Single Unit Advanced PC",650,8800,,3246,37.8,4.47,"N" "Dual Unit Advanced

  6. Superconductive magnetic energy storage (SMES) external fields and safety considerations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Polk, C. . Dept. of Electrical Engineering); Boom, R.W.; Eyssa, Y.M. . Applied Superconductivity Center)

    1992-01-01

    This paper addresses preferred SMES configurations and the external magnetic fields which they generate. Possible biological effects of fields are reviewed briefly. It is proposed that SMES units be fenced at the 10 gauss (1 mT) level to keep unrestricted areas safe, even for persons with cardiac pacemakers. For a full size 5000 MWh (1.8 {times} 10 {sup 13} J) SMES the magnetic field decreases to 10 gauss at a radial distance of 2 km from the center of the coil. Other considerations related to the environmental impact of large SMES magnetic fields are discussed briefly.

  7. Table 8.2. Cost and performance characteristics of new central station electricity generating technologies

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Table 8.2. Cost and performance characteristics of new central station electricity generating technologies Contingency Factors Technology Online Year 1 Size (MW) Lead time (years) Base Overnight Cost in 2014 (2013 $/kW) Project Contin- gency Factor 2 Techno- logical Optimism Factor 3 Total Overnight Cost in 2014 4 (2013 $/kW) Variable O&M 5 (2013 $/mWh) Fixed O&M (2013 $/ kW/yr.) Heatrate 6 in 2014 (Btu/ kWh) nth-of-a- kind Heatrate (Btu/kWh Scrubbed Coal New 2018 1300 4 2,726 1.07 1.00

  8. Nuclear reactor characteristics and operational history

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2. Ownership Data, Table 3. Characteristics and Operational History Table 1. Nuclear Reactor, State, Type, Net Capacity, Generation, and Capacity Factor PDF XLS Plant/Reactor Name Generator ID State Type 2009 Summer Capacity Net MW(e)1 2010 Annual Generation Net MWh2 Capacity Factor Percent3 Arkansas Nuclear One 1 AR PWR 842 6,607,090 90 Arkansas Nuclear One 2 AR PWR 993 8,415,588 97 Beaver Valley 1 PA PWR 892 7,119,413 91 Beaver Valley 2 PA PWR 885 7,874,151 102 Braidwood Generation Station 1

  9. Alabama Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","5,043",15.6,"37,941",24.9 "Coal","11,441",35.3,"63,050",41.4 "Hydro and Pumped

  10. Alabama Nuclear Profile - Joseph M Farley

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Joseph M Farley" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,874,"6,577",85.9,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" 2,860,"6,592",87.5,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  11. Alabama Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Browns Ferry Unit 1, Unit 2, Unit 3","3,309","24,771",65.3,"Tennessee Valley Authority" "Joseph M Farley Unit 1, Unit 2","1,734","13,170",34.7,"Alabama Power

  12. Arizona Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (nw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear",3937,14.9,"31,200",27.9 "Coal","6,233",23.6,"43,644",39.1 "Hydro and Pumped Storage","2,937",11.1,"6,831",6.1

  13. Arizona Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Palo Verde Unit 1, Unit 2, Unit 3","3,937","31,200",100.0,"Arizona Public Service Co" "1 Plant 3 Reactors","3,937","31,200",100.0 "Note: Totals may not equal sum of

  14. Arkansas Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,835",11.5,"15,023",24.6 "Coal","4,535",28.4,"28,152",46.2 "Hydro and Pumped

  15. Arkansas Nuclear Profile - Arkansas Nuclear One

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Nuclear One" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,842,"6,607",89.6,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" 2,993,"8,416",96.7,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  16. Arkansas Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1, Unit 2","1,835","15,023",100.0,"Entergy Arkansas Inc" "1 Plant 2 Reactors","1,835","15,023",100.0

  17. California Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","4,390",6.5,"32,201",15.8 "Coal",374,0.6,"2,100",1.0 "Hydro and Pumped Storage","13,954",20.7,"33,260",16.3

  18. California Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    California nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Diablo Canyon Unit 1, Unit 2","2,240","18,430",57.2,"Pacific Gas & Electric Co" "San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2, Unit

  19. Connecticut Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","2,103",25.4,"16,750",50.2 "Coal",564,6.8,"2,604",7.8 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",151,1.8,400,1.2 "Natural

  20. Connecticut Nuclear Profile - Millstone

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Millstone" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 2,869,"7,415",97.4,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" 3,"1,233","9,336",86.4,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  1. Connecticut Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Connecticut nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Millstone Unit 2, Unit 3","2,103","16,750",100.0,"Dominion Nuclear Conn Inc" "1 Plant 2 Reactors","2,103","16,750",100.0

  2. Florida Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (nw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","3,924",6.6,"23,936",10.4 "Coal","9,975",16.9,"59,897",26.1 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",55,0.1,177,0.1 "Natural

  3. Florida Nuclear Profile - Crystal River

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Crystal River1" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 3,860,0,"--","PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,860,0,"--" "Data for 2010" "1 Unit was offline in 2010 for repairs." "-- Not applicable.

  4. Florida Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Florida nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Crystal River Unit 3",860,0,"--","Progress Energy Florida Inc" "St Lucie Unit 1, Unit 2","1,678","12,630",52.8,"Florida Power & Light Co" "Turkey Point

  5. Florida Nuclear Profile - St Lucie

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    St Lucie" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,839,"5,299",72.1,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" 2,839,"7,331",99.7,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  6. Florida Nuclear Profile - Turkey Point

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Turkey Point" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 3,693,"5,356",88.2,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" 4,693,"5,950",98.0,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  7. Georgia Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","4,061",11.1,"33,512",24.4 "Coal","13,230",36.1,"73,298",53.3 "Hydro and Pumped

  8. Georgia Nuclear Profile - Edwin I Hatch

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Edwin I Hatch" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,876,"6,510",84.8,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" 2,883,"7,392",95.6,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  9. Georgia Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Edwin I Hatch Unit 1, Unit 2","1,759","13,902",41.5,"Georgia Power Co" "Vogtle Unit 1, Unit 2","2,302","19,610",58.5,"Georgia Power Co" "2 Plants 4

  10. Illinois Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","11,441",25.9,"96,190",47.8 "Coal","15,551",35.2,"93,611",46.5 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",34,0.1,119,0.1 "Natural

  11. Illinois Nuclear Profile - Dresden Generating Station

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Dresden Generating Station" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 2,867,"7,727",101.7,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" 3,867,"6,866",90.4,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  12. Illinois Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Illinois nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Braidwood Generation Station Unit 1, Unit 2","2,330","19,200",20.0,"Exelon Nuclear" "Byron Generating Station Unit 1, Unit 2","2,300","19,856",20.6,"Exelon

  13. Iowa Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear",601,4.1,"4,451",7.7 "Coal","6,956",47.7,"41,283",71.8 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",144,1.0,948,1.6 "Natural

  14. Iowa Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Iowa nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Duane Arnold Energy Center Unit 1",601,"4,451",100.0,"NextEra Energy Duane Arnold LLC" "1 Plant 1 Reactor",601,"4,451",100.0

  15. Kansas Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,160",9.2,"9,556",19.9 "Coal","5,179",41.3,"32,505",67.8 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",3,"*",13,"*"

  16. Kansas Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Kansas nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Wolf Creek Generating Station Unit 1","1,160","9,556",100.0,"Wolf Creek Nuclear Optg Corp" "1 Plant 1 Reactor","1,160","9,556",100.0

  17. Kansas Nuclear Profile - Wolf Creek Generating Station

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    April 2012" "Next Release Date: February 2013" "Wolf Creek Generating Station" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,160","9,556",94.0,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  18. Louisiana Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","2,142",8.0,"18,639",18.1 "Coal","3,417",12.8,"23,924",23.3 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",192,0.7,"1,109",1.1

  19. Louisiana Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Louisiana nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant Name/Total Reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (Pprcent)","Owner" "River Bend Unit 1",974,"8,363",44.9,"Entergy Gulf States - LA LLC" "Waterford 3 Unit 3","1,168","10,276",55.1,"Entergy Louisiana Inc" "2 Plants 2

  20. Louisiana Nuclear Profile - River Bend

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    River Bend" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,974,"8,363",98.0,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,974,"8,363",98.0 "Data for 2010" "BWR = Boiling

  1. Louisiana Nuclear Profile - Waterford 3

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Waterford 3" "Unit","Summer Capacity (MW)","Net Generation (Thousand MWh)","Summer Capacity Factor (Percent)","Type","Commercial Operation Date","License Expiration Date" 3,"1,168","8,949",87.5,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,"1,168","8,949",87.5

  2. Maryland Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,705",13.6,"13,994",32.1 "Coal","4,886",39.0,"23,668",54.3 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",590,4.7,"1,667",3.8

  3. Maryland Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1, Unit 2","1,705","13,994",100.0,"Calvert Cliffs Nuclear PP Inc" "1 Plant 2 Reactors","1,705","13,994",100.0 "Note: Totals

  4. Massachusetts Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, smmer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear",685,5.0,"5,918",13.8 "Coal","1,669",12.2,"8,306",19.4 "Hydro and Pumped Storage","1,942",14.2,659,1.5 "Natural

  5. Massachusetts Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Unit 1",685,"5,918",100.0,"Entergy Nuclear Generation Co" "1 Plant 1 Reactor",685,"5,918",100.0 "Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to

  6. Michigan Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy Source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","3,947",13.2,"29,625",26.6 "Coal","11,531",38.7,"65,604",58.8 "Hydro and Pumped Storage","2,109",7.1,228,0.2

  7. Michigan Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Donald C Cook Unit 1, Unit 2","2,069","15,646",52.8,"Indiana Michigan Power Co" "Fermi Unit 2","1,085","7,738",26.1,"Detroit Edison Co" "Palisades Unit

  8. Minnesota Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,594",10.8,"13,478",25.1 "Coal","4,789",32.5,"28,083",52.3 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",193,1.3,840,1.6 "Natural

  9. Minnesota Nuclear Profile - Monticello

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Monticello" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,554,"4,695",96.7,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,554,"4,695",96.7 "Data for 2010" "BWR = Boiling Water Reactor."

  10. Minnesota Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Minnesota nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Monticello Unit 1",554,"4,695",34.8,"Northern States Power Co - Minnesota" "Prairie Island Unit 1, Unit 2","1,040","8,783",65.2,"Northern States Power Co -

  11. Minnesota Nuclear Profile - Prairie Island

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Prairie Island" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,521,"4,655",102.0,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" 2,519,"4,128",90.8,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  12. Mississippi Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,251",8.0,"9,643",17.7 "Coal","2,526",16.1,"13,629",25.0 "Natural Gas","11,640",74.2,"29,619",54.4

  13. Mississippi Nuclear Profile - Grand Gulf

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Grand Gulf" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,251","9,643",88.0,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,"1,251","9,643",88.0 "Data for 2010" "BWR = Boiling Water Reactor."

  14. Mississippi Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Mississippi nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Grand Gulf Unit 1","1,251","9,643",100.0,"System Energy Resources, Inc" "1 Plant 1 Reactor","1,251","9,643",100.0

  15. Missouri Nuclear Profile - Callaway

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Callaway" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,190","8,996",86.3,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,"1,190","8,996",86.3

  16. Missouri Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Callaway Unit 1","1,190","8,996",100.0,"Union Electric Co" "1 Plant 1 Reactor","1,190","8,996",100.0 "Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to

  17. Nebraska Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,245",15.8,"11,054",30.2 "Coal","3,932",50.0,"23,363",63.8 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",278,3.5,"1,314",3.6

  18. Nebraska Nuclear Profile - Cooper

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Cooper" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,767,"6,793",101.1,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,767,"6,793",101.1 "Data for 2010" "BWR = Boiling

  19. Nebraska Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Nebraska nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Cooper Unit 1",767,"6,793",61.4,"Nebraska Public Power District" "Fort Calhoun Unit 1",478,"4,261",38.6,"Omaha Public Power District" "2 Plants 2

  20. New Hampshire Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,247",29.8,"10,910",49.2 "Coal",546,13.1,"3,083",13.9 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",489,11.7,"1,478",6.7 "Natural

  1. New Hampshire Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (nw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Seabrook Unit 1","1,247","10,910",100.0,"NextEra Energy Seabrook LLC" "1 Plant 1 Reactor","1,247","10,910",100.0 "Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due

  2. New Hampshire Nuclear Profile - Seabrook

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Seabrook" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,247","10,910",99.9,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,"1,247","10,910",99.9

  3. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Idaho Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Idaho) Item Value U.S. Rank Primary energy source Hydroelectric Net summer capacity (megawatts) 4,924 42 Electric utilities 3,394 37 IPP & CHP 1,530 39 Net generation (megawatthours) 15,186,128 43 Electric utilities 9,600,216 36 IPP & CHP 5,585,912 39 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 6,565 42 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 7,627 46 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 1,942 49 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 0.9 37 Nitrogen

  4. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Oregon Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Oregon) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Hydroelectric Net summer capacity (megawatts) 15,662 27 Electric utilities 10,973 25 IPP & CHP 4,689 19 Net generation (megawatthours) 59,895,515 26 Electric utilities 43,254,167 24 IPP & CHP 16,641,348 21 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 17,511 35 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 13,803 42 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 9,500 40 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 0.6 39 Nitrogen

  5. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    South Dakota Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (South Dakota) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Hydroelectric Net summer capacity (megawatts) 4,109 45 Electric utilities 3,480 36 IPP & CHP 629 48 Net generation (megawatthours) 10,108,887 46 Electric utilities 8,030,545 37 IPP & CHP 2,078,342 47 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 15,347 37 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 11,430 43 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 3,228 47 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 3.0 12

  6. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    United States Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (United States) Item Value Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 1,060,064 Electric utilities 616,799 IPP & CHP 443,264 Net generation (megawatthours) 4,065,964,067 Electric utilities 2,388,058,409 IPP & CHP 1,677,905,658 Emissions Sulfur Dioxide (short tons) 3,978,753 Nitrogen Oxide (short tons) 2,411,564 Carbon Dioxide (thousand metric tons) 2,172,355 Sulfur Dioxide (lbs/MWh) 2.0 Nitrogen Oxide

  7. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Washington Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Washington) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Hydroelectric Net summer capacity (megawatts) 30,656 10 Electric utilities 27,070 5 IPP & CHP 3,586 28 Net generation (megawatthours) 114,172,916 11 Electric utilities 100,013,661 5 IPP & CHP 14,159,255 24 Emissions Sulfur Dioxide (short tons) 13,259 39 Nitrogen Oxide (short tons) 17,975 38 Carbon Dioxide (thousand metric tons) 12,543 39 Sulfur Dioxide (lbs/MWh) 0.2 46

  8. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Wyoming Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Wyoming) Item Value Rank Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 8,381 37 Electric utilities 7,279 31 IPP & CHP 1,102 43 Net generation (megawatthours) 52,483,065 30 Electric utilities 48,089,178 19 IPP & CHP 4,393,887 41 Emissions Sulfur Dioxide (short tons) 49,587 24 Nitrogen Oxide (short tons) 55,615 19 Carbon Dioxide (thousand metric tons) 50,687 17 Sulfur Dioxide (lbs/MWh) 1.9 24 Nitrogen Oxide

  9. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Vermont profile Vermont total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 620 55.0 4,782 72.2 Hydro and Pumped Storage 324 28.7 1,347 20.3 Natural Gas - - 4 0.1 Other Renewable1 84 7.5 482 7.3 Petroleum 100 8.9 5 0.1 Total 1,128 100.0 6,620 100.0 1Municipal Solid Waste net generation is allocated according to the

  10. Tennessee Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","3,401",15.9,"27,739",33.7 "Coal","8,805",41.1,"43,670",53.0 "Hydro and Pumped

  11. Tennessee Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Tennessee nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Sequoyah Unit 1, Unit 2","2,278","18,001",64.9,"Tennessee Valley Authority" "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 1","1,123","9,738",35.1,"Tennessee Valley

  12. Tennessee Nuclear Profile - Watts Bar Nuclear Plant

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Watts Bar Nuclear Plant" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,123","9,738",99.0,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,"1,123","9,738",99.0 "Data for 2010" "PWR = Pressurized Light Water

  13. Texas Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","4,966",4.6,"41,335",10.0 "Coal","22,335",20.6,"150,173",36.5 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",689,0.6,"1,262",0.3

  14. Texas Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Comanche Peak Unit 1, Unit 2","2,406","20,208",48.9,"Luminant Generation Company LLC" "South Texas Project Unit 1, Unit 2","2,560","21,127",51.1,"STP Nuclear

  15. New Jersey Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","4,108",22.3,"32,771",49.9 "Coal","2,036",11.1,"6,418",9.8 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",404,2.2,-176,-0.3 "Natural

  16. New Jersey Nuclear Profile - PSEG Hope Creek Generating Station

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    PSEG Hope Creek Generating Station" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,161","9,439",92.8,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,"1,161","9,439",92.8

  17. New Jersey Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Oyster Creek Unit 1",615,"4,601",14.0,"Exelon Nuclear" "PSEG Hope Creek Generating Station Unit 1","1,161","9,439",28.8,"PSEG Nuclear LLC" "PSEG Salem Generating

  18. New York Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","5,271",13.4,"41,870",30.6 "Coal","2,781",7.1,"13,583",9.9 "Hydro and Pumped

  19. New York Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Indian Point Unit 2, Unit 3","2,063","16,321",39.0,"Entergy Nuclear Indian Point" "James A Fitzpatrick Unit 1",855,"6,361",15.2,"Entergy Nuc Fitzpatrick LLC" "Nine

  20. North Carolina Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","4,958",17.9,"40,740",31.7 "Coal","12,766",46.1,"71,951",55.9 "Hydro and Pumped

  1. North Carolina Nuclear Profile - Brunswick

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Brunswick" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,938,"6,808",82.9,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" 2,920,"8,000",99.3,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  2. North Carolina Nuclear Profile - Harris

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Harris" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,900,"7,081",89.8,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,900,"7,081",89.8 "Data for 2010" "PWR = Pressurized Light

  3. North Carolina Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Carolina nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Brunswick Unit 1, Unit 2","1,858","14,808",36.3,"Progress Energy Carolinas Inc" "Harris Unit 1",900,"7,081",17.4,"Progress Energy Carolinas Inc" "McGuire

  4. Ohio Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","2,134",6.5,"15,805",11.0 "Coal","21,360",64.6,"117,828",82.1 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",101,0.3,429,0.3 "Natural

  5. Pennsylvania Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","9,540",20.9,"77,828",33.9 "Coal","18,481",40.6,"110,369",48.0 "Hydro and Pumped

  6. Pennsylvania Nuclear Profile - Beaver Valley

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Beaver Valley" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,892,"7,119",91.1,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" 2,885,"7,874",101.6,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  7. Pennsylvania Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Pennsylvania nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Beaver Valley Unit 1, Unit 2","1,777","14,994",19.3,"FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company" "Limerick Unit 1, Unit 2","2,264","18,926",24.3,"Exelon

  8. South Carolina Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","6,486",27.0,"51,988",49.9 "Coal","7,230",30.1,"37,671",36.2 "Hydro and Pumped

  9. South Carolina Nuclear Profile - Oconee

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Oconee" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,846,"7,434",100.3,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" 2,846,"6,731",90.8,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  10. South Carolina Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    South Carolina nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Catawba Unit 1, Unit 2","2,258","18,964",36.5,"Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC" "H B Robinson Unit 2",724,"3,594",6.9,"Progress Energy Carolinas Inc"

  11. Vermont Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear",620,55.0,"4,782",72.2 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",324,28.7,"1,347",20.3 "Natural Gas","-","-",4,0.1 "Other

  12. Vermont Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Vermont Yankee Unit 1",620,"4,782",100.0,"Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee" "1 Plant 1 Reactor",620,"4,782",100.0

  13. Vermont Nuclear Profile - Vermont Yankee

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Vermont Yankee" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,620,"4,782",88.0,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,620,"4,782",88.0 "Data for 2010" "BWR = Boiling

  14. Virginia Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","3,501",14.5,"26,572",36.4 "Coal","5,868",24.3,"25,459",34.9 "Hydro and Pumped Storage","4,107",17.0,10,"*"

  15. Virginia Nuclear Profile - North Anna

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    North Anna" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,920,"6,780",84.1,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" 2,943,"6,620",80.1,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  16. Virginia Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "North Anna Unit 1, Unit 2","1,863","13,399",50.4,"Virginia Electric & Power Co" "Surry Unit 1, Unit 2","1,638","13,172",49.6,"Virginia Electric & Power

  17. Virginia Nuclear Profile - Surry

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Surry" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,839,"6,206",84.4,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" 2,799,"6,966",99.5,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  18. Washington Nuclear Profile - Columbia Generating Station

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Columbia Generating Station" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 2,"1,097","9,241",96.2,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,"1,097","9,241",96.2

  19. Washington Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Washington nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Columbia Generating Station Unit 2","1,097","9,241",100.0,"Energy Northwest" "1 Plant 1 Reactor","1,097","9,241",100.0

  20. Wisconsin Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (nw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,584",8.9,"13,281",20.7 "Coal","8,063",45.2,"40,169",62.5 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",492,2.8,"2,112",3.3

  1. Wisconsin Nuclear Profile - Kewaunee

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Kewaunee" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer cpacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,566,"4,990",100.6,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,566,"4,990",100.6 "Data for 2010" "PWR = Pressurized Light

  2. Wisconsin Nuclear Profile - Point Beach Nuclear Plant

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Point Beach Nuclear Plant" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,506,"3,954",89.2,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" 2,512,"4,336",96.7,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  3. Wisconsin Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Wisconsin nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Kewaunee Unit 1",566,"4,990",37.6,"Dominion Energy Kewaunee Inc." "Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 1, Unit 2","1,018","8,291",62.4,"NextEra Energy Point Beach

  4. GSA Wind Supply Opportunity

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Wind Supply Opportunity 1 2 3 Proposed Location * Size: 100-210 MegaWatts *Location: Bureau County, IL *Planned COD: December 2014 or 2015 *Site Control: 17,000 acres *Wind Resource Assessment: 7.4 m/s *Annual Production Estimate: 350,000 - 725,000 MWh * Interim 2013 renewable energy goal of 15% met and exceeded * Still short of 2020 goal to be 30% renewable * Renewable Power supply is an excellent method of meeting these goals 4 GSA's Renewable Mandate 5 Mechanics of Supply *MG2 would deliver

  5. Microsoft PowerPoint - Hydro Conf 6-15.pptx [Read-Only]

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Value of Flexibility in the Markets June 2015 1 2 Value of Flexibility in the Markets * Basic overview of the SPP and MISO markets * Potential benefit to some SPA customers of using markets to schedule energy * Increasing need for ancillary services, and the value of ancillary services in the markets 3 4 4 MISO/SPP 5 5 SPP Locational Marginal Prices SPA - SPP Prices June 1 - June 7, 2015 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 6/1/2015 6/2/2015 6/3/2015 6/4/2015 6/5/2015 6/6/2015 6/7/2015 $/MWh Day Ahead Real

  6. EIA - State Electricity Profiles

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Arkansas Electricity Profile 2013 Table 1. 2013 Summary statistics (Arkansas) Item Value U.S. Rank Primary energy source Coal Net summer capacity (megawatts) 14,786 29 Electric utilities 11,559 23 IPP & CHP 3,227 31 Net generation (megawatthours) 60,322,492 25 Electric utilities 46,547,772 21 IPP & CHP 13,774,720 27 Emissions Sulfur dioxide (short tons) 88,811 16 Nitrogen oxide (short tons) 45,896 23 Carbon dioxide (thousand metric tons) 37,346 23 Sulfur dioxide (lbs/MWh) 2.9 13 Nitrogen

  7. Slide 1

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Electric Transmission Congestion Study Workshop St. Louis, MO December 8, 2011 Panel II - Industry Laureen L. Ross McCalib Great River Energy Great River Energy * Not-for-profit electric cooperative * 28 members * 3,400 MW of capacity * 14,300,000 MWH sales * 4,500 miles of transmission * $3.3 billion in assets * 850 employees Conditional Constraint Areas National Electric Transmission Congestion Study 2009 Figure ES-1. 2009 Type I and Type II Conditional Constraint Areas Predominantly wind and

  8. Primus Power Corporation Wind Firming EnergyFarm

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Primus Power Corporation Wind Firming EnergyFarm (tm) Project Description Primus Power is deploying a 25MW/75MWh EnergyFarm(tm) in the Modesto Irrigation District (MID) in California' central valley that consists of an array of 250kW EnergyPods(tm); plug-and-play zinc-flow battery modules and power electronics systems housed inside ISO shipping containers. The modular design and operation will be field tested at Pacific Gas & Electric with support from Sandia National Laboratories and the

  9. Geothermal rotary separator turbine: wellhead power system tests at Milford, Utah

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hughes, E.E.

    1983-08-01

    Through development of a separator/expander engine EPRI is improving the efficiency of single flash geothermal power systems. Under cost-shared contracts with Biphase Energy Systems and Utah Power and Light Company (UP and L), a wellhead power generating system has been built and tested. The wellhead unit has been operated for 4000 hours at Roosevelt Hot Springs near Milford, Utah. Phillips Petroleum Company operates the geothermal field at this site. The rotary separator turbine (RST) is a separating expander that increases the resource utilization efficiency by extracting power upstream of a steam turbine in either a 1-stage or 2-stage flash power system. The first power output was achieved October 28, 1981, six weeks after arrival of the RST at the site. The RST system produced 3270 MWh(e) gross and 2770 MWh(e) net to the UP and L grid. Total equivalent power produced by the wellhead RST (actual power output of the RST plus the power obtainable from the steam flow out of the RST) is 15 to 20 percent above the power that would be produced by an optimum 1-stage direct flash plant operated on the same geothermal well.

  10. Performance evaluation of an anaerobic/aerobic landfill-based digester using yard waste for energy and compost production

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yazdani, Ramin; Barlaz, Morton A.; Augenstein, Don; Kayhanian, Masoud; Tchobanoglous, George

    2012-05-15

    Highlights: Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Biochemical methane potential decreased by 83% during the two-stage operation. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Net energy produced was 84.3 MWh or 46 kWh per million metric tons (Mg). Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer The average removal efficiency of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) was 96-99%. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer The average removal efficiency of non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs) was 68-99%. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer The two-stage batch digester proved to be simple to operate and cost-effective. - Abstract: The objective of this study was to evaluate a new alternative for yard waste management by constructing, operating and monitoring a landfill-based two-stage batch digester (anaerobic/aerobic) with the recovery of energy and compost. The system was initially operated under anaerobic conditions for 366 days, after which the yard waste was aerated for an additional 191 days. Off gas generated from the aerobic stage was treated by biofilters. Net energy recovery was 84.3 MWh, or 46 kWh per million metric tons of wet waste (as received), and the biochemical methane potential of the treated waste decreased by 83% during the two-stage operation. The average removal efficiencies of volatile organic compounds and non-methane organic compounds in the biofilters were 96-99% and 68-99%, respectively.

  11. Emissions Benefits of Distributed Generation in the Texas Market

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hadley, SW

    2005-06-16

    One potential benefit of distributed generation (DG) is a net reduction in air emissions. While DG will produce emissions, most notably carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides, the power it displaces might have produced more. This study used a system dispatch model developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory to simulate the 2012 Texas power market with and without DG. This study compares the reduction in system emissions to the emissions from the DG to determine the net savings. Some of the major findings are that 85% of the electricity displaced by DG during peak hours will be simple cycle natural gas, either steam or combustion turbine. Even with DG running as baseload, 57% of electricity displaced will be simple cycle natural gas. Despite the retirement of some gas-fired steam units and the construction of many new gas turbine and combined cycle units, the marginal emissions from the system remain quite high (1.4 lb NO{sub x}/MWh on peak and 1.1 lb NO{sub x}/MWh baseload) compared to projected DG emissions. Consequently, additions of DG capacity will reduce emissions in Texas from power generation in 2012. Using the DG exhaust heat for combined heat and power provides an even greater benefit, since it eliminates further boiler emissions while adding none over what would be produced while generating electricity. Further studies are warranted concerning the robustness of the result with changes in fuel prices, demands, and mixes of power generating technology.

  12. Development of zinc-bromine batteries for utility energy storage. First annual report, 1 September 1978-31 August 1979. [8-kWh submodule

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Putt, R.; Attia, A.J.; Lu, P.Y.; Heyland, J.H.

    1980-05-01

    Development work on the Zn/Br battery is reported. A major improvement was the use of a bipolar cell design; this design is superior with respect to cost, performance, and simplicity. A cost and design study for an 80-kWh module resulted in a cost estimate of $54/kWh(1979$) for purchased materials and components, on the basis of 2500 MWh of annual production. A cell submodule (nominal 2 kWh) of full-sized electrodes (1 ft/sup 2/) accrued over 200 continuous cycles in a hands-off, automatic routine with efficiencies in the range of 53 to 56%. Initial testing of a full-sized 8-kWh submodule demonstrated energy efficiencies of 65 to 67%. 23 figures, 10 tables. (RWR)

  13. SAS Output

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2. Demand-Side Management Program Annual Effects by Program Category, by Sector, 2004 through 2012 (Table Discontinued) Year Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Total Energy Efficiency - Energy Savings (Thousand MWh) 2004 17,185 24,290 11,137 50 52,663 2005 18,894 28,073 11,986 47 59,000 2006 21,150 28,720 13,155 50 63,076 2007 22,772 30,359 14,038 108 67,278 2008 25,396 34,634 14,766 75 74,871 2009 27,395 34,831 14,610 76 76,912 2010 32,150 37,416 17,259 89 86,914 2011 46,790

  14. SAS Output

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    4. Demand-Side Management Program Incremental Effects by Program Category, by Sector, 2004 through 2012 (Table Discontinued) Year Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Total Energy Efficiency - Energy Savings (Thousand MWh) 2004 1,827 1,812 894 -- 4,532 2005 2,249 2,559 1,071 -- 5,879 2006 2,127 2,281 986 -- 5,394 2007 3,659 2,830 1,178 13 7,680 2008 4,568 4,383 1,477 1 10,428 2009 5,030 4,959 2,918 1 12,907 2010 6,492 5,325 1,771 5 13,592 2011 9,989 8,166 3,261 6 21,421 2012 9,531

  15. SAS Output

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6. Energy Efficiency Category, by Sector, 2013 through 2014 Year Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Total Incremental Annual Savings - Energy Savings (MWh) 2013 11,031,419 10,478,997 3,141,213 29,894 24,681,523 2014 11,442,191 11,928,895 3,074,819 19,316 26,465,221 Incremental Annual Savings - Peak Demand Savings (MW) 2013 6,812 11,319 1,463 5 19,599 2014 3,031 2,920 564 2 6,517 Incremental Costs - Customer Incentive (thousand dollars) 2013 1,252,085 1,274,406 345,676 5 2,872,171

  16. SAS Output

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7. Energy Efficiency - Life Cycle Category, by Sector, 2013 through 2014 Year Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Total Life Cycle Savings - Energy Savings (MWh) 2013 84,525,515 128,026,835 38,500,862 448,421 251,464,746 2014 100,729,499 149,493,353 39,631,016 287,925 290,141,793 Life Cycle Savings - Peak Demand Savings (MW) 2013 44,351 70,979 19,524 6 134,861 2014 17,911 46,600 12,248 2 76,760 Life Cycle Costs - Customer Incentive (thousand dollars) 2013 2,698,741 2,875,605 455,357

  17. AEO2013 Early Release Base Overnight Project Technological Total Overnight

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    3 Early Release Base Overnight Project Technological Total Overnight Variable Fixed Heatrate 6 nth-of-a- kind Online Size Lead time Cost in 2012 Contingency Optimism Cost in 2012 4 O&M 5 O&M in 2012 Heatrate Technology Year 1 (MW) (years) (2011 $/kW) Factor 2 Factor 3 (2011 $/kW) (2011 $/MWh) (2011$/kW) (Btu/kWh) (Btu/kWh) Scrubbed Coal New 7 2016 1300 4 2,694 1.07 1.00 2,883 4.39 30.64 8,800 8,740 Integrated Coal-Gasification Comb Cycle (IGCC) 7 2016 1200 4 3,475 1.07 1.00 3,718 7.09

  18. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Alabama Nuclear Profile 2010 Alabama profile Alabama total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 5,043 15.6 37,941 24.9 Coal 11,441 35.3 63,050 41.4 Hydro and Pumped Storage 3,272 10.1 8,704 5.7 Natural Gas 11,936 36.8 39,235 25.8 Other1 100 0.3 643 0.4 Other Renewable1 583 1.8 2,377 1.6 Petroleum 43 0.1 200

  19. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Arizona Nuclear Profile 2010 Arizona profile Arizona total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,937 14.9 31,200 27.9 Coal 6,233 23.6 43,644 39.1 Hydro and Pumped Storage 2,937 11.1 6,831 6.1 Natural Gas 13,012 49.3 29,676 26.6 Other 1 - - 15 * Other Renewable1 181 0.7 319 0.3 Petroleum 93 0.4 66 0.1 Total

  20. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Arkansas Nuclear Profile 2010 Arkansas profile Arkansas total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State ttal (percent) Nuclear 1,835 11.5 15,023 24.6 Coal 4,535 28.4 28,152 46.2 Hydro and Pumped Storage 1,369 8.6 3,658 6.0 Natural Gas 7,894 49.4 12,469 20.4 Other 1 - - 28 * Other Renewable1 326 2.0 1,624 2.7 Petroleum 22 0.1 45 0.1 Total

  1. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    California Nuclear Profile 2010 California profile California total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 4,390 6.5 32,201 15.8 Coal 374 0.6 2,100 1.0 Hydro and Pumped Storage 13,954 20.7 33,260 16.3 Natural Gas 41,370 61.4 107,522 52.7 Other 1 220 0.3 2,534 1.2 Other Renewable1 6,319 9.4 25,450 12.5 Petroleum

  2. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Connecticut Nuclear Profile 2010 Connecticut profile Connecticut total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 2,103 25.4 16,750 50.2 Coal 564 6.8 2,604 7.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 151 1.8 400 1.2 Natural Gas 2,292 27.7 11,716 35.1 Other 1 27 0.3 730 2.2 Other Renewable1 159 1.9 740 2.2 Petroleum 2,989 36.1 409

  3. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Florida Nuclear Profile 2010 Florida profile Florida total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary Energy Source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 3,924 6.6 23,936 10.4 Coal 9,975 16.9 59,897 26.1 Hydro and Pumped Storage 55 0.1 177 0.1 Natural Gas 31,563 53.4 128,634 56.1 Other1 544 0.9 2,842 1.2 Other Renewable1 1,053 1.8 4,487 2.0 Petroleum 12,033 20.3

  4. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Georgia Nuclear Profile 2010 Georgia profile Georgia total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 4,061 11.1 33,512 24.6 Coal 13,230 36.1 73,298 54.0 Hydro and Pumped Storage 3,851 10.5 3,044 2.7 Natural Gas 12,668 34.6 23,884 15.9 Other 1 - - 18 * Other Renewable1 637 1.7 3,181 2.2 Petroleum 2,189 6.0 641 0.5

  5. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Illinois Nuclear Profile 2010 Illinois profile Illinois total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 11,441 25.9 96,190 47.8 Coal 15,551 35.2 93,611 46.5 Hydro and Pumped Storage 34 0.1 119 0.1 Natural Gas 13,771 31.2 5,724 2.8 Other 1 145 0.3 461 0.2 Other Renewable1 2,078 4.7 5,138 2.6 Petroleum 1,106 2.5 110

  6. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Iowa Nuclear Profile 2010 Iowa profile Iowa total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 601 4.1 4,451 7.7 Coal 6,956 47.7 41,283 71.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 144 1.0 948 1.6 Natural Gas 2,299 15.8 1,312 2.3 Other Renewable1 3,584 24.6 9,360 16.3 Petroleum 1,007 6.9 154 .0.3 Total 14,592 100.0 57,509 100

  7. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Kansas Nuclear Profile 2010 Kansas profile Kansas total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,160 9.2 9,556 19.9 Coal 5,179 41.3 32,505 67.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 3 * 13 * Natural Gas 4,573 36.5 2,287 4.8 Other Renewable1 1,079 8.6 3,459 7.2 Petroleum 550 4.4 103 0.2 Total 12,543 100.0 47,924 100

  8. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Maryland Nuclear Profile 2010 Maryland profile Maryland total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (Percent) Nuclear 1,705 13.6 13,994 32.1 Coal 4,886 39.0 23,668 54.3 Hydro and Pumped Storage 590 4.7 1,667 3.8 Natural Gas 2,041 16.3 2,897 6.6 Other 1 152 1.2 485 1.1 Other Renewable1 209 1.7 574 1.3 Petroleum 2,933 23.4 322

  9. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Massachusetts Nuclear Profile 2010 Massachusetts profile Massachusetts total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 685 5.0 5,918 13.8 Coal 1,669 12.2 8,306 19.4 Hydro and Pumped Storage 1,942 14.2 659 1.5 Natural Gas 6,063 44.3 25,582 59.8 Other 1 3 * 771 1.8 Other Renewable1 304 2.2 1,274 3.0 Petroleum 3,031

  10. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Michigan Nuclear Profile 2010 Michigan profile Michigan total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 3,947 13.2 29,625 26.6 Coal 11,531 38.7 65,604 58.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 2,109 7.1 228 0.2 Natural Gas 11,033 37.0 12,249 11.0 Other 1 - - 631 0.6 Other Renewable1 571 1.9 2,832 2.5 Petroleum 640 2.1 382 0.3

  11. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Minnesota Nuclear Profile 2010 Minnesota profile Minnesota total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,549 10.8 13,478 25.1 Coal 4,789 32.5 28,083 52.3 Hydro and Pumped Storage 193 1.3 840 1.6 Natural Gas 4,936 33.5 4,341 8.1 Other 1 13 0.1 258 0.5 Other Renewable1 2,395 16.3 6,640 12.4 Petroleum 795 5.4 31

  12. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Mississippi Nuclear Profile 2010 Mississippi profile Mississippi total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,251 8.0 9,643 17.7 Coal 2,526 16.1 13,629 25.0 Natural Gas 11,640 74.2 29,619 54.4 Other 1 4 * 10 * Other Renewable1 235 1.5 1,504 2.8 Petroleum 35 0.2 18 0.1 Total 15,691 100.0 54,487 100.0

  13. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Missouri Nuclear Profile 2010 Missouri profile Missouri total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,190 5.5 8,996 9.7 Coal 12,070 55.5 75,047 81.3 Hydro and Pumped Storage 1,221 5.6 2,427 2.6 Natural Gas 5,579 25.7 4,690 5.1 Other 1 - - 39 * Other Renewable1 466 2.1 988 1.1 Petroleum 1,212 5.6 126 0.1 Total

  14. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Nebraska Nuclear Profile 2010 Nebraska profile Nebraska total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,245 15.8 11,054 30.2 Coal 3,932 50.0 23,368 63.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 278 3.5 1,314 3.6 Natural Gas 1,864 23.5 375 1.0 Other Renewable1 165 2.1 493 1.3 Petroleum 387 4.9 31 0.1 Total 7,857 100.0 36,630

  15. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Hampshire Nuclear Profile 2010 New Hampshire profile New Hampshire total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,247 29.8 10,910 49.2 Coal 546 13.1 3,083 13.9 Hydro and Pumped Storage 489 11.7 1,478 6.7 Natural Gas 1,215 29.1 5,365 24.2 Other 1 - - 57 0.3 Other Renewable1 182 4.4 1,232 5.6 Petroleum 501 12.0

  16. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Jersey Nuclear Profile 2010 New Jersey profile New Jersey total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 4,108 22.3 32,771 49.9 Coal 2,036 11.1 6,418 9.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 404 2.2 -176 -0.3 Natural Gas 10,244 55.6 24,902 37.9 Other 1 56 0.3 682 1.0 Other Renewable1 226 1.2 850 1.3 Petroleum 1,351 7.3 235

  17. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    York Nuclear Profile 2010 New York profile New York total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 5,271 13.4 41,870 30.6 Coal 2,781 7.1 13,583 9.9 Hydro and Pumped Storage 5,714 14.5 24,942 18.2 Natural Gas 17,407 44.2 48,916 35.7 Other 1 45 0.1 832 0.6 Other Renewable1 1,719 4.4 4,815 3.5 Petroleum 6,421 16.3

  18. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    North Carolina Nuclear Profile 2010 North Carolina profile North Carolina total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 4,958 17.9 40,740 31.7 Coal 12,766 46.1 71,951 55.9 Hydro and Pumped Storage 2,042 7.4 4,757 3.7 Natural Gas 6,742 24.4 8,447 6.6 Other 1 50 0.2 407 0.3 Other Renewable1 543 2.0 2,083 1.6

  19. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Pennsylvania Nuclear Profile 2010 Pennsylvania profile Pennsylvania total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 9,540 20.9 77,828 33.9 Coal 18,481 40.6 110,369 48.0 Hydro and Pumped Storage 2,268 5.0 1,624 0.7 Natural Gas 9,415 20.7 33,718 14.7 Other 1 100 0.2 1,396 0.6 Other Renewable1 1,237 2.7 4,245 1.8

  20. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    South Carolina profile South Carolina total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 6,486 27.0 51,988 49.9 Coal 7,230 30.1 37,671 36.2 Hydro and Pumped Storage 4,006 16.7 1,442 1.4 Natural Gas 5,308 22.1 10,927 10.5 Other 1 - - 61 0.1 Other Renewable1 284 1.2 1,873 1.8 Petroleum 670 2.8 191 0.2 Total 23,982

  1. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Tennessee profile Tennessee total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 3,401 15.9 27,739 33.7 Coal 8,805 41.1 43,670 53.0 Hydro and Pumped Storage 4,277 20.0 7,416 9.0 Natural Gas 4,655 21.7 2,302 2.8 Other 1 - - 16 * Other Renewable1 222 1.0 988 1.2 Petroleum 58 0.3 217 0.3 Total 21,417 100.0 82,349 100.0

  2. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Texas profile Texas total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 4,966 4.6 41,335 10.0 Coal 22,335 20.6 150,173 36.5 Hydro and Pumped Storage 689 0.6 1,262 0.3 Natural Gas 69,291 64.0 186,882 45.4 Other 1 477 0.4 3,630 0.9 Other Renewable1 10,295 9.5 27,705 6.7 Petroleum 204 0.2 708 0.2 Total 108,258 100.0

  3. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Virginia profile Virginia total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 3,501 14.5 26,572 36.4 Coal 5,868 24.3 25,459 34.9 Hydro and Pumped Storage 4,107 17.0 10 * Natural Gas 7,581 31.4 16,999 23.3 Other 1 - - 414 0.6 Other Renewable1 621 2.6 2,220 3.0 Petroleum 2,432 10.1 1,293 1.8 Total 24,109 100.0 72,966

  4. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Washington profile Washington total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,097 3.6 9,241 8.9 Coal 1,340 4.4 8,527 8.2 Hydro and Pumped Storage 21,495 70.5 68,342 66.0 Natural Gas 3,828 12.6 10,359 10.0 Other 1 - - 354 0.3 Other Renewable1 2,703 8.9 6,617 6.4 Petroleum 15 * 32 * Total 30,478 100.0 103,473

  5. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Wisconsin profile Wisconsin total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,584 8.9 13,281 20.7 Coal 8,063 45.2 40,169 62.5 Hydro and Pumped Storage 492 2.8 2,112 3.3 Natural Gas 6,110 34.3 5,497 8.5 Other 1 21 0.1 63 0.1 Other Renewable1 775 4.3 2,474 3.8 Petroleum 790 4.4 718 1.1 Total 17,836 100.0 64,314

  6. The carbon component of the UK power price

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kris Voorspools

    2006-08-01

    CO{sub 2} emissions trading is in full swing in Europe and is already having an impact on the price of power in the UK. If EU allowances (EUAs) trade at euro 20/t-CO{sub 2}, the EUA component in the power price is estimated to be slightly < euro 10/MW.h. In the case of UK power for delivery 1 year ahead, this is {approximately} 10% of the market price of power. The introduction of a carbon components into the UK power prices took place along before the 'official' start of ETS in 2005. Analysis of historical data of the price of power, gas, coal and EUAs shows that the first trace of a CO{sub 2} component in UK power dates back to August 2003, shortly after EUAs first started to trade. In April 2004, CO{sub 2} was fully integrated into the UK power price. 4 refs., 5 figs.

  7. Missouri Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,190",5.5,"8,996",9.7 "Coal","12,070",55.5,"75,047",81.3 "Hydro and Pumped Storage","1,221",5.6,"2,427",2.6

  8. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Alabama Nuclear Profile 2010 Alabama profile Alabama total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 5,043 15.6 37,941 24.9 Coal 11,441 35.3 63,050 41.4 Hydro and Pumped Storage 3,272 10.1 8,704 5.7 Natural Gas 11,936 36.8 39,235 25.8 Other1 100 0.3 643 0.4 Other Renewable1 583 1.8 2,377 1.6 Petroleum 43 0.1 200

  9. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Arizona Nuclear Profile 2010 Arizona profile Arizona total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,937 14.9 31,200 27.9 Coal 6,233 23.6 43,644 39.1 Hydro and Pumped Storage 2,937 11.1 6,831 6.1 Natural Gas 13,012 49.3 29,676 26.6 Other 1 - - 15 * Other Renewable1 181 0.7 319 0.3 Petroleum 93 0.4 66 0.1 Total

  10. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Arkansas Nuclear Profile 2010 Arkansas profile Arkansas total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State ttal (percent) Nuclear 1,835 11.5 15,023 24.6 Coal 4,535 28.4 28,152 46.2 Hydro and Pumped Storage 1,369 8.6 3,658 6.0 Natural Gas 7,894 49.4 12,469 20.4 Other 1 - - 28 * Other Renewable1 326 2.0 1,624 2.7 Petroleum 22 0.1 45 0.1 Total

  11. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    California Nuclear Profile 2010 California profile California total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 4,390 6.5 32,201 15.8 Coal 374 0.6 2,100 1.0 Hydro and Pumped Storage 13,954 20.7 33,260 16.3 Natural Gas 41,370 61.4 107,522 52.7 Other 1 220 0.3 2,534 1.2 Other Renewable1 6,319 9.4 25,450 12.5 Petroleum

  12. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Connecticut Nuclear Profile 2010 Connecticut profile Connecticut total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 2,103 25.4 16,750 50.2 Coal 564 6.8 2,604 7.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 151 1.8 400 1.2 Natural Gas 2,292 27.7 11,716 35.1 Other 1 27 0.3 730 2.2 Other Renewable1 159 1.9 740 2.2 Petroleum 2,989 36.1 409

  13. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Florida Nuclear Profile 2010 Florida profile Florida total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary Energy Source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 3,924 6.6 23,936 10.4 Coal 9,975 16.9 59,897 26.1 Hydro and Pumped Storage 55 0.1 177 0.1 Natural Gas 31,563 53.4 128,634 56.1 Other1 544 0.9 2,842 1.2 Other Renewable1 1,053 1.8 4,487 2.0 Petroleum 12,033 20.3

  14. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Georgia Nuclear Profile 2010 Georgia profile Georgia total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 4,061 11.1 33,512 24.6 Coal 13,230 36.1 73,298 54.0 Hydro and Pumped Storage 3,851 10.5 3,044 2.7 Natural Gas 12,668 34.6 23,884 15.9 Other 1 - - 18 * Other Renewable1 637 1.7 3,181 2.2 Petroleum 2,189 6.0 641 0.5

  15. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Illinois Nuclear Profile 2010 Illinois profile Illinois total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 11,441 25.9 96,190 47.8 Coal 15,551 35.2 93,611 46.5 Hydro and Pumped Storage 34 0.1 119 0.1 Natural Gas 13,771 31.2 5,724 2.8 Other 1 145 0.3 461 0.2 Other Renewable1 2,078 4.7 5,138 2.6 Petroleum 1,106 2.5 110

  16. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Iowa Nuclear Profile 2010 Iowa profile Iowa total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 601 4.1 4,451 7.7 Coal 6,956 47.7 41,283 71.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 144 1.0 948 1.6 Natural Gas 2,299 15.8 1,312 2.3 Other Renewable1 3,584 24.6 9,360 16.3 Petroleum 1,007 6.9 154 .0.3 Total 14,592 100.0 57,509 100

  17. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Kansas Nuclear Profile 2010 Kansas profile Kansas total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,160 9.2 9,556 19.9 Coal 5,179 41.3 32,505 67.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 3 * 13 * Natural Gas 4,573 36.5 2,287 4.8 Other Renewable1 1,079 8.6 3,459 7.2 Petroleum 550 4.4 103 0.2 Total 12,543 100.0 47,924 100

  18. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Maryland Nuclear Profile 2010 Maryland profile Maryland total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (Percent) Nuclear 1,705 13.6 13,994 32.1 Coal 4,886 39.0 23,668 54.3 Hydro and Pumped Storage 590 4.7 1,667 3.8 Natural Gas 2,041 16.3 2,897 6.6 Other 1 152 1.2 485 1.1 Other Renewable1 209 1.7 574 1.3 Petroleum 2,933 23.4 322

  19. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Massachusetts Nuclear Profile 2010 Massachusetts profile Massachusetts total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 685 5.0 5,918 13.8 Coal 1,669 12.2 8,306 19.4 Hydro and Pumped Storage 1,942 14.2 659 1.5 Natural Gas 6,063 44.3 25,582 59.8 Other 1 3 * 771 1.8 Other Renewable1 304 2.2 1,274 3.0 Petroleum 3,031

  20. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Michigan Nuclear Profile 2010 Michigan profile Michigan total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 3,947 13.2 29,625 26.6 Coal 11,531 38.7 65,604 58.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 2,109 7.1 228 0.2 Natural Gas 11,033 37.0 12,249 11.0 Other 1 - - 631 0.6 Other Renewable1 571 1.9 2,832 2.5 Petroleum 640 2.1 382 0.3

  1. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Minnesota Nuclear Profile 2010 Minnesota profile Minnesota total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,549 10.8 13,478 25.1 Coal 4,789 32.5 28,083 52.3 Hydro and Pumped Storage 193 1.3 840 1.6 Natural Gas 4,936 33.5 4,341 8.1 Other 1 13 0.1 258 0.5 Other Renewable1 2,395 16.3 6,640 12.4 Petroleum 795 5.4 31

  2. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Mississippi Nuclear Profile 2010 Mississippi profile Mississippi total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,251 8.0 9,643 17.7 Coal 2,526 16.1 13,629 25.0 Natural Gas 11,640 74.2 29,619 54.4 Other 1 4 * 10 * Other Renewable1 235 1.5 1,504 2.8 Petroleum 35 0.2 18 0.1 Total 15,691 100.0 54,487 100.0

  3. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Missouri Nuclear Profile 2010 Missouri profile Missouri total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,190 5.5 8,996 9.7 Coal 12,070 55.5 75,047 81.3 Hydro and Pumped Storage 1,221 5.6 2,427 2.6 Natural Gas 5,579 25.7 4,690 5.1 Other 1 - - 39 * Other Renewable1 466 2.1 988 1.1 Petroleum 1,212 5.6 126 0.1 Total

  4. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Nebraska Nuclear Profile 2010 Nebraska profile Nebraska total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,245 15.8 11,054 30.2 Coal 3,932 50.0 23,368 63.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 278 3.5 1,314 3.6 Natural Gas 1,864 23.5 375 1.0 Other Renewable1 165 2.1 493 1.3 Petroleum 387 4.9 31 0.1 Total 7,857 100.0 36,630

  5. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Hampshire Nuclear Profile 2010 New Hampshire profile New Hampshire total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,247 29.8 10,910 49.2 Coal 546 13.1 3,083 13.9 Hydro and Pumped Storage 489 11.7 1,478 6.7 Natural Gas 1,215 29.1 5,365 24.2 Other 1 - - 57 0.3 Other Renewable1 182 4.4 1,232 5.6 Petroleum 501 12.0

  6. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Jersey Nuclear Profile 2010 New Jersey profile New Jersey total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 4,108 22.3 32,771 49.9 Coal 2,036 11.1 6,418 9.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 404 2.2 -176 -0.3 Natural Gas 10,244 55.6 24,902 37.9 Other 1 56 0.3 682 1.0 Other Renewable1 226 1.2 850 1.3 Petroleum 1,351 7.3 235

  7. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    York Nuclear Profile 2010 New York profile New York total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 5,271 13.4 41,870 30.6 Coal 2,781 7.1 13,583 9.9 Hydro and Pumped Storage 5,714 14.5 24,942 18.2 Natural Gas 17,407 44.2 48,916 35.7 Other 1 45 0.1 832 0.6 Other Renewable1 1,719 4.4 4,815 3.5 Petroleum 6,421 16.3

  8. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    North Carolina Nuclear Profile 2010 North Carolina profile North Carolina total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 4,958 17.9 40,740 31.7 Coal 12,766 46.1 71,951 55.9 Hydro and Pumped Storage 2,042 7.4 4,757 3.7 Natural Gas 6,742 24.4 8,447 6.6 Other 1 50 0.2 407 0.3 Other Renewable1 543 2.0 2,083 1.6

  9. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Ohio Nuclear Profile 2010 Ohio profile Ohio total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 2,134 6.5 15,805 11.0 Coal 21,360 64.6 117,828 82.1 Hydro and Pumped Storage 101 0.3 429 0.3 Natural Gas 8,203 24.8 7,128 5.0 Other 1 123 0.4 266 0.2 Other Renewable1 130 0.4 700 0.5 Petroleum 1,019 3.1 1,442 1.0 Total

  10. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Pennsylvania Nuclear Profile 2010 Pennsylvania profile Pennsylvania total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 9,540 20.9 77,828 33.9 Coal 18,481 40.6 110,369 48.0 Hydro and Pumped Storage 2,268 5.0 1,624 0.7 Natural Gas 9,415 20.7 33,718 14.7 Other 1 100 0.2 1,396 0.6 Other Renewable1 1,237 2.7 4,245 1.8

  11. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    South Carolina profile South Carolina total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 6,486 27.0 51,988 49.9 Coal 7,230 30.1 37,671 36.2 Hydro and Pumped Storage 4,006 16.7 1,442 1.4 Natural Gas 5,308 22.1 10,927 10.5 Other 1 - - 61 0.1 Other Renewable1 284 1.2 1,873 1.8 Petroleum 670 2.8 191 0.2 Total 23,982

  12. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Tennessee profile Tennessee total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 3,401 15.9 27,739 33.7 Coal 8,805 41.1 43,670 53.0 Hydro and Pumped Storage 4,277 20.0 7,416 9.0 Natural Gas 4,655 21.7 2,302 2.8 Other 1 - - 16 * Other Renewable1 222 1.0 988 1.2 Petroleum 58 0.3 217 0.3 Total 21,417 100.0 82,349 100.0

  13. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Texas profile Texas total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 4,966 4.6 41,335 10.0 Coal 22,335 20.6 150,173 36.5 Hydro and Pumped Storage 689 0.6 1,262 0.3 Natural Gas 69,291 64.0 186,882 45.4 Other 1 477 0.4 3,630 0.9 Other Renewable1 10,295 9.5 27,705 6.7 Petroleum 204 0.2 708 0.2 Total 108,258 100.0

  14. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Virginia profile Virginia total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 3,501 14.5 26,572 36.4 Coal 5,868 24.3 25,459 34.9 Hydro and Pumped Storage 4,107 17.0 10 * Natural Gas 7,581 31.4 16,999 23.3 Other 1 - - 414 0.6 Other Renewable1 621 2.6 2,220 3.0 Petroleum 2,432 10.1 1,293 1.8 Total 24,109 100.0 72,966

  15. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Washington profile Washington total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,097 3.6 9,241 8.9 Coal 1,340 4.4 8,527 8.2 Hydro and Pumped Storage 21,495 70.5 68,342 66.0 Natural Gas 3,828 12.6 10,359 10.0 Other 1 - - 354 0.3 Other Renewable1 2,703 8.9 6,617 6.4 Petroleum 15 * 32 * Total 30,478 100.0 103,473

  16. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Wisconsin profile Wisconsin total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,584 8.9 13,281 20.7 Coal 8,063 45.2 40,169 62.5 Hydro and Pumped Storage 492 2.8 2,112 3.3 Natural Gas 6,110 34.3 5,497 8.5 Other 1 21 0.1 63 0.1 Other Renewable1 775 4.3 2,474 3.8 Petroleum 790 4.4 718 1.1 Total 17,836 100.0 64,314

  17. operation_tbl1_October_2011M.xlsx

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2009 Summer Capacity 2010 Annual Generation Capacity Factor Net MW(e) 1 Net MWh 2 Percent 3 Arkansas Nuclear One 1 AR PWR 842 6,607,090 90 Arkansas Nuclear One 2 AR PWR 993 8,415,588 97 Beaver Valley 1 PA PWR 892 7,119,413 91 Beaver Valley 2 PA PWR 885 7,874,151 102 Braidwood Generation Station 1 IL PWR 1,178 9,196,689 89 Braidwood Generation Station 2 IL PWR 1,152 10,003,246 99 Browns Ferry 1 AL BWR 1,066 8,072,298 86 Browns Ferry 2 AL BWR 1,104 8,842,513 91 Browns Ferry 3 AL BWR 1,105

  18. Washington Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary Energy Source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,097",3.6,"9,241",8.9 "Coal","1,340",4.4,"8,527",8.2 "Hydro and Pumped Storage","21,495",70.5,"68,342",66.0

  19. Novel Flow Sheet for Low Energy CO2 Capture Enabled by Biocatalyst Delivery System

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Reardon, John; Shaffer, Alex; Vaysman, Vladimir

    2015-02-01

    This report documents a preliminary Techno-Economic Assessment (TEA) for processes utilizing Akermin’s second generation biocatalyst delivery system to enhance AKM24, a non- volatile salt solution for CO2 capture. Biocatalyst enhanced AKM24 offers the potential to reduce the cost of CO2 capture in flue gas applications due to its improved equilibrium and stoichiometric properties that result in double the absorption capacity relative to previously demonstrated biocatalyst enhanced solvents. The study assumes a new supercritical pulverized coal fired power plant with a net output of 550 MWe after 90% CO2 capture and uses the June 2011 cost basis (August 2012 update of Bituminous Baseline Study, or BBS). Power plant modeling, capital cost review, and economic calculations were provided by WorleyParsons. Rate-based CO2 capture process modeling and equipment sizing was performed by Akermin using AspenPlus® V8.4, customized to accurately predict thermodynamics, kinetics, and physical properties of the AKM-24 solvent based on available laboratory data. Equipment capital costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer™ which compared well with published baseline cost estimates. Quotes of equipment costs and power consumption for vacuum blower and CO2 compression equipment were also provided by Man Diesel & Turbo. Three process scenarios were examined for Akermin biocatalyst enhanced solvent systems including: Case-1A: an absorption-desorption system operated with a reboiler pressure of 0.16 bara (60°C); Case-2A: an absorption-desorption system with moderate vacuum assisted regeneration at 0.40 bara (80°C); and finally, Case-2B: a conventional absorption-desorption system with near atmospheric pressure regeneration at 1.07 bara (105°C). The estimated increases in cost of electricity (ICOE) for these cases were $58.1/MWh, $47.3/MWh and $46.4/MWh, respectively. Case 2B had the best results for this analysis achieving an estimated 30% reduction in ICOE relative to the NETL Case 12 (v2) baseline of $66.3/MWh ICOE. Likewise, Case-2B achieved capture costs of $53.0/tCO2 and 65.7/tCO2 avoided, which equates to 20.2% and 31.4% savings relative to the Case 12 baseline ($66.4/tCO2 and $95.9/tCO2 avoided). While Case 2A and 2B have similar results, Case 2A requires further development. Focus on Case 2B is recommended for this project because its cost performance is closest to the DOE goals, and has it has the best potential to achieve a successful demonstration at the next scale.

  20. Geothermal district heating and cooling in Vicenza, Italy

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Leoni, P.

    1995-06-01

    The discovery of a large low-enthalpy geothermal water reservoir under the city of Vicenza (110,000 people) in northern Italy, through an oil prospecting venture, opened up the opportunity to install a district heating system with low energy consumption. Although the geothermal water is at 67{degrees}C, this is insufficient for heating the city`s commercial and residential buildings using their existing high-temperature heat distribution systems. Heat pumps are, therefore, used to obtain optimum useful heat energy from the geothermal source. Experience so far suggests that the system can reduce energy consumption by up to 60%, or 3885 MWh/year. The 2000 m deep well was completed in 1983 and is the first such well in Italy to be located within an urban area, making it ideal as a heat source for a district heating system. It produces 100 m{sup 3}/h of low salt-content water. The {open_quotes}Vicenza{close_quotes} geothermal heating and cooling project was developed by {open_quotes}Aziende Industriali Muncipalizzate{close_quotes} from 1988 to 1991, a utility company owned by the city of Vicenza, with the purpose of distributing approximately 40,000 MWh year to residential and commercial buildings. The project includes the installation of a power plant, and a district heating and cooling network. A reduction in the consumption of conventional fuels both for heating and domestic water has been achieved through a highly-efficient thermodynamic system based on reversible heat pumps. The system provides heating in the winter and air conditioning in summer.

  1. Sensitivity Analysis of Offshore Wind Cost of Energy (Poster)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dykes, K.; Ning, A.; Graf, P.; Scott, G.; Damiami, R.; Hand, M.; Meadows, R.; Musial, W.; Moriarty, P.; Veers, P.

    2012-10-01

    No matter the source, offshore wind energy plant cost estimates are significantly higher than for land-based projects. For instance, a National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) review on the 2010 cost of wind energy found baseline cost estimates for onshore wind energy systems to be 71 dollars per megawatt-hour ($/MWh), versus 225 $/MWh for offshore systems. There are many ways that innovation can be used to reduce the high costs of offshore wind energy. However, the use of such innovation impacts the cost of energy because of the highly coupled nature of the system. For example, the deployment of multimegawatt turbines can reduce the number of turbines, thereby reducing the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with vessel acquisition and use. On the other hand, larger turbines may require more specialized vessels and infrastructure to perform the same operations, which could result in higher costs. To better understand the full impact of a design decision on offshore wind energy system performance and cost, a system analysis approach is needed. In 2011-2012, NREL began development of a wind energy systems engineering software tool to support offshore wind energy system analysis. The tool combines engineering and cost models to represent an entire offshore wind energy plant and to perform system cost sensitivity analysis and optimization. Initial results were collected by applying the tool to conduct a sensitivity analysis on a baseline offshore wind energy system using 5-MW and 6-MW NREL reference turbines. Results included information on rotor diameter, hub height, power rating, and maximum allowable tip speeds.

  2. A Locational Analysis of Generation Benefits on Long Island, NewYork

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wang, Juan; Cohen, Jesse; Edwards, Jennifer; Marnay, Chris

    2005-11-08

    Beginning in April of 2004, nine sites owned by Verizon began to participate in the Long Island Real Time Purchasing Pilot Project (LIRTP) as retail choice customers. LIRTP was designed to minimize electricity costs for retail customers who own on-site distributed generation (DG) units in the near-term, and to stabilize overall electricity costs in the long-term. The nine Verizon buildings have two types of DG units: gas turbines with an estimated generation cost of $156/MWh, and diesel units with an estimated cost of $120/MWh. Due to total site emission limits, the operable hours of the DG units are limited. To estimate the economic value of running on-site DG units, an analysis of the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) Locational Based Marginal Price (LBMP) data for Long Island was conducted, mainly covering the summer months from 2000 to 2004. Distributions of LBMP, relationship between LBMP and load, and estimates of profitable operating hours for the units were all analyzed. Since Long Island is a diverse and highly congested area, LBMP varies greatly. Looking at the data statistically offers a zone-wide viewpoint, while using spatial analysis shows the LBMP intrazonal differentiation. LBMP is currently used by NYISO for pricing in the 11 NY control zones. Because geographic information systems (GIS) visualize the distribution of a phenomenon over space, it clarifies where load and generation nodes are located, and where load reduction would be most valuable. This study is based on the assumption that the control zone areas do not fully represent the diversity of pricing, and that intrazonal pricing can be analyzed to determine where and when electricity conservation or injection into the network is most valuable.

  3. Energy and Cost Optimized Technology Options to Meet Energy Needs of Food Processors

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Makhmalbaf, Atefe; Srivastava, Viraj; Hoffman, Michael G.; Wagner, Anne W.; Thornton, John

    2015-05-01

    Full Paper Submission for: Combined cooling, heating and electric power (CCHP) distributed generation (DG) systems can provide electric power and, heating and cooling capability to commercial and industrial facilities directly onsite, while increasing energy efficiency, security of energy supply, grid independence and enhancing the environmental and economic situation for the site. Food processing industries often have simultaneous requirements for heat, steam, chilling and electricity making them well suited for the use of such systems to supply base-load or as peak reducing generators enabling reduction of overall energy use intensity. This paper documents analysis from a project evaluating opportunities enabled by CCHPDG for emission and cost reductions and energy storage systems installed onsite at food processing facilities. In addition, this distributed generation coupled with energy storage demonstrates a non-wires solution to delay or eliminate the need for upgrades to electric distribution systems. It was found that a dairy processing plant in the Pacific Northwest currently purchasing 15,000 MWh/yr of electricity and 190,000 MMBtu/yr of gas could be provided with a 1.1 MW CCHP system reducing the amount of electric power purchased to 450 MWh/yr while increasing the gas demand to 255,000 MMBtu/yr. The high percentage of hydro-power in this region resulted in CO2 emissions from CCHP to be higher than that attributed to the electric utility/regional energy mix. The value of this work is in documenting a real-world example demonstrating the value of CCHP to facility owners and financial decision makers to encourage them to more seriously consider CCHP systems when building or upgrading facilities.

  4. Energy and Cost Optimized Technology Options to Meet Energy Needs of Food Processors

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Makhmalbaf, Atefe; Srivastava, Viraj; Hoffman, Michael G.; Wagner, Anne W.; Thornton, John

    2015-04-02

    ABSTRACT Combined cooling, heating and electric power (CCHP) distributed generation (DG) systems can provide electricity, heat, and cooling power to buildings and industrial processes directly onsite, while significantly increasing energy efficiency, security of energy supply, and grid independence. Fruit, vegetable, dairy and meat processing industries with simultaneous requirements for heat, steam, chilling and electricity, are well suited for the use of such systems to supply base-load electrical demand or as peak reducing generators with heat recovery in the forms of hot water, steam and/or chilled water. This paper documents results and analysis from a pilot project to evaluate opportunities for energy, emission, and cost for CCHP-DG and energy storage systems installed onsite at food processing facilities. It was found that a dairy processing plant purchasing 15,000 MWh of electricity will need to purchase 450 MWh with the integration of a 1.1 MW CCHP system. Here, the natural gas to be purchased increased from 190,000 MMBtu to 255,000 MMBtu given the fuel requirements of the CCHP system. CCHP systems lower emissions, however, in the Pacific Northwest the high percentage of hydro-power results in CO2 emissions from CCHP were higher than that attributed to the electric utility/regional energy mix. The value of this paper is in promoting and educating financial decision makers to seriously consider CCHP systems when building or upgrading facilities. The distributed generation aspect can reduce utility costs for industrial facilities and show non-wires solution benefits to delay or eliminate the need for upgrades to local electric transmission and distribution systems.

  5. Demontration of Integrated Optimization Software at the Baldwin Energy Complex

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rob James; John McDermott; Sanjay Patnaik; Steve Piche`

    2009-01-07

    This project encompassed the design, development, and demonstration of integrated online optimization systems at Dynegy Midwest Generation's Baldwin Energy Complex (BEC) located in Baldwin, Illinois. The overall project objective was to improve coal-based generation's emission profile, efficiency, maintenance requirements and plant asset life in order to enhance the long-term viability of the United States abundant coal resources. Five separate but integrated optimization products were developed, addressing combustion, sootblowing, SCR operations, overall unit thermal performance, and plant-wide availability optimization. Optimization results are inherently unit-specific and cannot be known for a particular generating unit in advance. However, NeuCo believed that the following were reasonable targets for the completed, integrated set of products: Furnace NOx reduction improvement by 5%, Heat rate improvement by 1.5%, Increase of annual Available MWh by 1.5%, Commensurate reductions in greenhouse gases, mercury, and particulates; and Commensurate increases in profitability from lower costs, improved reliability, and greater commercial availability. The goal during Phase I was to establish each system and demonstrate their integration in unified plant optimization. Efforts during Phase I focused on: (1) developing, deploying, integrating, and testing prototypes for each of the five products; (2) identifying and addressing issues required for the products to integrate with plant operations; and (3) systematically collecting and assimilating feedback to improve subsequent product releases. As described in the Phase II continuation application NeuCo successfully achieved the goal for Phase I. The goal of Phase II was to improve upon the products installed and tested in Phase I and to quantify the benefits of the integrated system. As this report documents, NeuCo has also successfully achieved the goal for Phase II. The overall results of the project, compared with the project goals, are: (1) NOx Reduction: The 5% target for NOx reduction was exceeded with average CEMS and SCR Inlet (furnace) NOx reduction of between 12% and 14%. (2) Heat Rate Improvement: The optimization systems delivered an average heat rate improvement of between 0.67% and 0.7%. This falls short of the 1.5% heat rate improvement target largely because Cyclone Stability (availability) and CEMS and SCR Inlet NOx were prioritized over heat rate in the event they needed to be traded-off with one another. A different prioritization of objectives could have driven a different balance, thereby meeting the target of 1.5% improvement. There were also several factors that could have been masking greater heat rate improvements such as the decrease in fuel density over the course of the project and the impact of actions taken as a result of advice provided by the optimizers that are difficult to quantify. (3) Increased Annual Available MWh: Although difficult to measure precisely, the target of increasing available MWh's by 1.5% was met by providing prioritized alerts and knowledge-based diagnostics for a wide array of plant equipment and process anomalies; helping the plant to move from high sulfur, high Btu Illinois coal to PRB and run that fuel at low stoichiometries without derates; and improved management of cyclone flame quality as well as improved vigilance with respect to cyclone conditions which avoided some degree of temporary de-rate due to cyclone slag build up. (4) Commensurate Reductions in Greenhouse Gases, Mercury, and Particulates: Reductions in all three of these indices can be associated directly with the optimization leverage observed in the heat rate and NOx reductions. (5) Commensurate Increases in Profitability from Lower Costs, Improved Reliability, and Greater Commercial Availability: Commensurate improvements in costs, reliability and availability resulted from the previously described benefits. Also playing a role were the sustained operation of the cyclones while using more available, less expensive but off-design fuel; more effective catal

  6. TMCC WIND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Turtle Mountain Community College

    2003-12-30

    North Dakota has an outstanding resource--providing more available wind for development than any other state. According to U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) studies, North Dakota alone has enough energy from good wind areas, those of wind power Class 4 and higher, to supply 36% of the 1990 electricity consumption of the entire lower 48 states. At present, no more than a handful of wind turbines in the 60- to 100-kilowatt (kW) range are operating in the state. The first two utility-scale turbines were installed in North Dakota as part of a green pricing program, one in early 2002 and the second in July 2002. Both turbines are 900-kW wind turbines. Two more wind turbines are scheduled for installation by another utility later in 2002. Several reasons are evident for the lack of wind development. One primary reason is that North Dakota has more lignite coal than any other state. A number of relatively new minemouth power plants are operating in the state, resulting in an abundance of low-cost electricity. In 1998, North Dakota generated approximately 8.2 million megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity, largely from coal-fired plants. Sales to North Dakota consumers totaled only 4.5 million MWh. In addition, the average retail cost of electricity in North Dakota was 5.7 cents per kWh in 1998. As a result of this surplus and the relatively low retail cost of service, North Dakota is a net exporter of electricity, selling approximately 50% to 60% of the electricity produced in North Dakota to markets outside the state. Keeping in mind that new electrical generation will be considered an export commodity to be sold outside the state, the transmission grid that serves to export electricity from North Dakota is at or close to its ability to serve new capacity. The markets for these resources are outside the state, and transmission access to the markets is a necessary condition for any large project. At the present time, technical assessments of the transmission network indicate that the ability to add and carry wind capacity outside of the state is limited. Identifying markets, securing long-term contracts, and obtaining a transmission path to export the power are all major steps that must be taken to develop new projects in North Dakota.

  7. MODEL REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO PROVIDE ENERGY AND OTHER ATTRIBUTES FROM AN OFFSHORE WIND POWER PROJECT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jeremy Firestone; Dawn Kurtz Crompton

    2011-10-22

    This document provides a model RFP for new generation. The 'base' RFP is for a single-source offshore wind RFP. Required modifications are noted should a state or utility seek multi-source bids (e.g., all renewables or all sources). The model is premised on proposals meeting threshold requirements (e.g., a MW range of generating capacity and a range in terms of years), RFP issuer preferences (e.g., likelihood of commercial operation by a date certain, price certainty, and reduction in congestion), and evaluation criteria, along with a series of plans (e.g., site, environmental effects, construction, community outreach, interconnection, etc.). The Model RFP places the most weight on project risk (45%), followed by project economics (35%), and environmental and social considerations (20%). However, if a multi-source RFP is put forward, the sponsor would need to either add per-MWh technology-specific, life-cycle climate (CO2), environmental and health impact costs to bid prices under the 'Project Economics' category or it should increase the weight given to the 'Environmental and Social Considerations' category.

  8. Water: May be the Best Near-Term Benefit and Driver of a Robust Wind Energy Future (Poster)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Flowers, L.; Reategui, S.

    2009-05-01

    Water may be the most critical natural resource variable that affects the selection of generation options in the next decade. Extended drought in the western United States and more recently in the Southeast has moved water management and policy to the forefront of the energy options discussions. Recent climate change studies indicate that rising ambient temperatures could increase evapotranspiration by more than 25% to 30% in large regions of the country. Increasing demand for electricity, and especially from homegrown sources, inevitably will increase our thermal fleet, which consumes 400 to 700 gal/MWh for cooling. Recovering the vast oil shale resources in the West (one of the energy options discussed) is water intensive and threatens scarce water supplies. Irrigation for the growing corn ethanol industry requires 1,000 to 2,000 gallons of water for 1 gallon of production. Municipalities continue to grow and drive water demands and emerging constrained market prices upward. As illustrated by the 20% Wind Energy by 2030 analysis, wind offers an important mitigation opportunity: a 4-trillion-gallon water savings. This poster highlights the emerging constrained water situation in the United States and presents the case for wind energy as one of the very few means to ameliorate the emerging water wars in various U.S. regions.

  9. Technology Pathway Partnership Final Scientific Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hall, John C. Dr.; Godby, Larry A.

    2012-04-26

    This report covers the scientific progress and results made in the development of high efficiency multijunction solar cells and the light concentrating non-imaging optics for the commercial generation of renewable solar energy. During the contract period the efficiency of the multijunction solar cell was raised from 36.5% to 40% in commercially available fully qualified cells. In addition significant strides were made in automating production process for these cells in order to meet the costs required to compete with commercial electricity. Concurrent with the cells effort Boeing also developed a non imaging optical systems to raise the light intensity at the photovoltaic cell to the rage of 800 to 900 suns. Solar module efficiencies greater than 30% were consistently demonstrated. The technology and its manufacturing were maturated to a projected price of < $0.015 per kWh and demonstrated by automated assembly in a robotic factory with a throughput of 2 MWh/yr. The technology was demonstrated in a 100 kW power plant erected at California State University Northridge, CA.

  10. Fuel Cell Demonstration Project - 200 kW - Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell Power Plant Located at the National Transportation Research Center: FINAL REPORT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Berry, JB

    2005-05-06

    Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) researches and develops distributed generation technology for the Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Distributed Energy Program. This report describes installation and operation of one such distributed generation system, a United Technology Corporation fuel cell located at the National Transportation Research Center in Knoxville, Tennessee. Data collected from June 2003 to June of 2004, provides valuable insight regarding fuel cell-grid compatibility and the cost-benefit of the fuel cell operation. The NTRC fuel cell included a high-heat recovery option so that use of thermal energy improves project economics and improves system efficiency to 59% year round. During the year the fuel cell supplied a total of 834MWh to the NTRC and provided 300MBtu of hot water. Installation of the NTRC fuel cell was funded by the Distributed Energy Program with partial funding from the Department of Defense's Climate Change Fuel Cell Buy Down Program, administered by the National Energy Technology Laboratory. On-going operational expenses are funded by ORNL's utility budget and are paid from operational cost savings. Technical information and the benefit-cost of the fuel cell are both evaluated in this report and sister reports.

  11. Brighter Future: A Study on Solar in U.S. Schools

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    In a first-of-its-kind report tracking the use of solar energy at K-12 schools in the United States, The Solar Foundation has developed the most comprehensive understanding to date of how schools are using and financing solar energy and the potential for still more schools to benefit from the technology. According to the report, there are currently 3,752 K-12 schools with solar installations, meaning nearly 2.7 million students attend schools with solar energy systems. These PV systems have a combined capacity of 490 megawatts (MW), and generate roughly 642,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity each year, equivalent to $77.8 million worth of utility bills and enough clean, renewable energy to offset 50 million gallons of gasoline. Solar potential on schools remains largely untapped. Of the 125,000 K-12 schools in the country, up to 72,000 schools (60%) can "go solar" cost-effectively. Approximately 450 individual schools districts have the potential to save more than $1 million over 30 years by installing a solar PV system.

  12. Performance assessment of the PNM Prosperity electricity storage project :

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Roberson, Dakota; Ellison, James F.; Bhatnagar, Dhruv; Schoenwald, David A.

    2014-05-01

    The purpose of this study is to characterize the technical performance of the PNM Prosperity electricity storage project, and to identify lessons learned that can be used to improve similar projects in the future. The PNM Prosperity electricity storage project consists of a 500 kW/350 kWh advanced lead-acid battery with integrated supercapacitor (for energy smoothing) and a 250 kW/1 MWh advanced lead-acid battery (for energy shifting), and is co-located with a 500 kW solar photovoltaic (PV) resource. The project received American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) funding. The smoothing system is e ective in smoothing intermittent PV output. The shifting system exhibits good round-trip efficiencies, though the AC-to-AC annual average efficiency is lower than one might hope. Given the current utilization of the smoothing system, there is an opportunity to incorporate additional control algorithms in order to increase the value of the energy storage system.

  13. Chapter 2: Sustainable and Unsustainable Developments in the U.S. Energy System

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Levine, Mark; Levine, Mark D.; Aden, Nathaniel T.

    2008-05-01

    Over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the United States developed a wealthy society on the basis of cheap and abundant fossil fuel energy. As fossil fuels have become ecologically and economically expensive in the twenty-first century, America has shown mixed progress in transitioning to a more sustainable energy system. From 2000 to 2006, energy and carbon intensity of GDP continued favorable long-term trends of decline. Energy end-use efficiency also continued to improve; for example, per-capita electricity use was 12.76 MWh per person per year in 2000 and again in 2006, despite 16 percent GDP growth over that period. Environmental costs of U.S. energy production and consumption have also been reduced, as illustrated in air quality improvements. However, increased fossil fuel consumption, stagnant efficiency standards, and expanding corn-based ethanol production have moved the energy system in the opposite direction, toward a less sustainable energy system. This chapter reviews energy system developments between 2000 and 2006 and presents policy recommendations to move the United States toward a more sustainable energy system.

  14. A Green Prison: The Santa Rita Jail Campus Microgrid

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Marnay, Chris; DeForest, Nicholas; Lai, Judy

    2012-01-22

    A large microgrid project is nearing completion at Alameda Countys twenty-two-year-old 45 ha 4,000-inmate Santa Rita Jail, about 70 km east of San Francisco. Often described as a green prison, it has a considerable installed base of distributed energy resources (DER) including an eight-year old 1.2 MW PV array, a five-year old 1 MW fuel cell with heat recovery, and considerable efficiency investments. A current US$14 M expansion adds a 2 MW-4 MWh Li-ion battery, a static disconnect switch, and various controls upgrades. During grid blackouts, or when conditions favor it, the Jail can now disconnect from the grid and operate as an island, using the on-site resources described together with its back-up diesel generators. In other words, the Santa Rita Jail is a true microgrid, or ?grid, because it fills both requirements, i.e. it is a locally controlled system, and it can operate both grid connected and islanded. The batterys electronics includes Consortium for Electric Reliability Technology (CERTS) Microgrid technology. This enables the battery to maintain energy balance using droops without need for a fast control system.

  15. Impact Assessment of Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles on the U.S. Power Grid

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kintner-Meyer, Michael CW; Nguyen, Tony B.; Jin, Chunlian; Balducci, Patrick J.; Secrest, Thomas J.

    2010-09-30

    The US electricity grid is a national infrastructure that has the potential to deliver significant amounts of the daily driving energy of the US light duty vehicle (cars, pickups, SUVs, and vans) fleet. This paper discusses a 2030 scenario with 37 million plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) on the road in the US demanding electricity for an average daily driving distance of about 33 miles (53 km). The paper addresses the potential grid impacts of the PHEVs fleet relative to their effects on the production cost of electricity, and the emissions from the electricity sector. The results of this analysis indicate significant regional difference on the cost impacts and the CO2 emissions. Battery charging during the day may have twice the cost impacts than charging during the night. The CO2 emissions impacts are very region-dependent. In predominantly coal regions (Midwest), the new PHEV load may reduce the CO2 emission intensity (ton/MWh), while in others regions with significant clean generation (hydro and renewable energy) the CO2 emission intensity may increase. Discussed will the potential impact of the results with the valuation of carbon emissions.

  16. An Analysis of Wind Power Development in the Town of Hull, MA, Appendix 2: LaCapra Financial Study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Adams, Christopher

    2013-06-30

    The financial analysis and summary results presented in this document represent a first cut at an economic assessment of the proposed Hull Offshore Wind Project. Wind turbine price increases have outpaced the materials and labor price pressures faced by nonrenewable power plant developers due to increased demands on a limited pool of turbine manufacturers and offshore installation companies. Moreover, given the size of the proposed offshore facility, it may be difficult to contract with turbine manufacturers and/or foundation companies given the size and scope of competing worldwide demand. The results described in this report assume that such conditions will not significantly impact the prices that will have to be received from the output of the project; rather, the project size may require as a prerequisite that Hull be able to piggyback on other offshore efforts. The financial estimates provided here necessarily feature a range due to uncertainty in a number of project assumptions as well as overall uncertainty in offshore wind costs. Nevertheless, taken together, the analysis provides a ballpark revenue requirement of approximately $157/MWh for the municipal financing option, with higher estimates possible assuming escalation in costs to levels higher than assumed here.

  17. Waste-to-Energy Cogeneration Project, Centennial Park

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Johnson, Clay; Mandon, Jim; DeGiulio, Thomas; Baker, Ryan

    2014-04-29

    The Waste-to-Energy Cogeneration Project at Centennial Park has allowed methane from the closed Centennial landfill to export excess power into the the local utility’s electric grid for resale. This project is part of a greater brownfield reclamation project to the benefit of the residents of Munster and the general public. Installation of a gas-to-electric generator and waste-heat conversion unit take methane byproduct and convert it into electricity at the rate of about 103,500 Mwh/year for resale to the local utility. The sale of the electricity will be used to reduce operating budgets by covering the expenses for streetlights and utility bills. The benefits of such a project are not simply financial. Munster’s Waste-to Energy Cogeneration Project at Centennial Park will reduce the community’s carbon footprint in an amount equivalent to removing 1,100 cars from our roads, conserving enough electricity to power 720 homes, planting 1,200 acres of trees, or recycling 2,000 tons of waste instead of sending it to a landfill.

  18. Steam generator materials performance in high temperature gas-cooled reactors

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chafey, J.E.; Roberts, D.I.

    1980-11-01

    This paper reviews the materials technology aspects of steam generators for HTGRs which feature a graphite-moderated, uranium-thorium, all-ceramic core and utilizes high-pressure helium as the primary coolant. The steam generators are exposed to gas-side temperatures approaching 760/sup 0/C and produce superheated steam at 538/sup 0/C and 16.5 MPa (2400 psi). The prototype Peach Bottom I 40-MW(e) HTGR was operated for 1349 EFPD over 7 years. Examination after decommissioning of the U-tube steam generators and other components showed the steam generators to be in very satisfactory condition. The 330-MW(e) Fort St. Vrain HTGR, now in the final stages of startup, has achieved 70% power and generated more than 1.5 x 10/sup 6/ MWh of electricity. The steam generators in this reactor are once-through units of helical configuration, requiring a number of new materials factors including creep-fatigue and water chemistry control. Current designs of larger HTGRs also feature steam generators of helical once-through design. Materials issues that are important in these designs include detailed consideration of time-dependent behavior of both base metals and welds, as required by current American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code rules, evaluation of bimetallic weld behavior, evaluation of the properties of large forgings, etc.

  19. Evaluation of Dry Sorbent Injection Technology for Pre-Combustion CO{sub 2} Capture

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Richardson, Carl; Steen, William; Triana, Eugenio; Machalek, Thomas; Davila, Jenny; Schmit, Claire; Wang, Andrew; Temple, Brian; Lu, Yongqi; Lu, Hong; Zhang, Luzheng; Ruhter, David; Rostam-Abadi, Massoud; Sayyah, Maryam; Ito, Brandon; Suslick, Kenneth

    2013-09-30

    This document summarizes the work performed on Cooperative Agreement DE-FE0000465, “Evaluation of Dry Sorbent Technology for Pre-Combustion CO{sub 2} Capture,” during the period of performance of January 1, 2010 through September 30, 2013. This project involves the development of a novel technology that combines a dry sorbent-based carbon capture process with the water-gas-shift reaction for separating CO{sub 2} from syngas. The project objectives were to model, develop, synthesize and screen sorbents for CO{sub 2} capture from gasified coal streams. The project was funded by the DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory with URS as the prime contractor. Illinois Clean Coal Institute and The University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign were project co-funders. The objectives of this project were to identify and evaluate sorbent materials and concepts that were suitable for capturing carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) from warm/hot water-gas-shift (WGS) systems under conditions that minimize energy penalties and provide continuous gas flow to advanced synthesis gas combustion and processing systems. Objectives included identifying and evaluating sorbents that efficiently capture CO{sub 2} from a gas stream containing CO{sub 2}, carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrogen (H{sub 2}) at temperatures as high as 650 °C and pressures of 400-600 psi. After capturing the CO{sub 2}, the sorbents would ideally be regenerated using steam, or other condensable purge vapors. Results from the adsorption and regeneration testing were used to determine an optimal design scheme for a sorbent enhanced water gas shift (SEWGS) process and evaluate the technical and economic viability of the dry sorbent approach for CO{sub 2} capture. Project work included computational modeling, which was performed to identify key sorbent properties for the SEWGS process. Thermodynamic modeling was used to identify optimal physical properties for sorbents and helped down-select from the universe of possible sorbent materials to seven that were deemed thermodynamically viable for the process. Molecular modeling was used to guide sorbent synthesis through first principles simulations of adsorption and regeneration. Molecular dynamics simulations also modeled the impact of gas phase impurities common in gasified coal streams (e.g., H{sub 2}S) on the adsorption process. The role of inert dopants added for mechanical durability to active sorbent materials was also investigated through molecular simulations. Process simulations were conducted throughout the project to help determine the overall feasibility of the process and to help guide laboratory operating conditions. A large component of the program was the development of sorbent synthesis methods. Three different approaches were used: mechanical alloying (MA), flame spray pyrolysis (FSP), and ultrasonic spray pyrolysis (USP). Sorbents were characterized by a host of analytical techniques and screened for SEWGS performance using a thermogravimetric analyzer (TGA). A feedback loop from screening efforts to sorbent synthesis was established and used throughout the project lifetime. High temperature, high pressure reactor (HTPR) systems were constructed to test the sorbents at conditions mimicking the SEWGS process as identified through process modeling. These experiments were conducted at the laboratory scale to examine sorbents for their CO{sub 2} capacity, conversion of CO to CO{sub 2}, and impacts of adsorption and regeneration conditions, and syngas composition (including impurities and H2O:CO ratio). Results from the HTPR testing showed sorbents with as high as 0.4 g{sub CO{sub 2}}/g{sub sorbent} capacity with the ability to initially shift the WGS completely towards CO{sub 2}/H{sub 2}. A longer term experiment with a simple syngas matrix and N{sub 2}/steam regeneration stream showed a USP sorbent to be stable through 50 adsorption-regeneration cycles, though the sorbent tested had a somewhat diminished initial capacity. The program culminated in a technoeconomic assessment in which two different approaches were taken; one approach was intended to be technically conservative while the second required several key engineering challenges to be met in order to succeed. The project team is confident that, with the proper support, those challenges could be met. The second approach relies on a slipstream of H{sub 2} from the shifted syngas and O{sub 2} from an air separation unit (ASU) to be combusted in the presence of the sorbent for regeneration; termed a regenerating boiler. The approach also makes use of the heat of adsorption to generate >400 MW of turbine quality steam; total plant gross energy output as high as 1 GW was estimated for an IGCC with an initial gross energy output of 737 MW, without any additional coal usage. The regenerating boiler concept could benefit further from additional heat integration, but the results of this effort show a COE of $97.50 per MWh for a rational combination of operating parameters and sorbent lifetime as well as conservative estimates for steam turbines, gas turbine, and ASU. If the COE of CO{sub 2} transmission, storage and monitoring ($5.60 / MWh) is added to the base case for an IGCC ($81.30 / MWh for Case 5 from the DOE Bituminous Coal Report), the cost of CO{sub 2} capture for the regenerating boiler was only $10.60 / MWh; other regenerating boiler cases are as low $6.90 / MWh. The project met all agreed upon milestones and was completed within budget, more than 25% cost share provided by the project team. Results from the program showed that the SEWGS process has great promise, and with further study and evaluation could become a component of a comprehensive carbon capture program. SEWGS requires a paradigm shift in the traditional approach to carbon capture because the regenerating boiler concept is not a ‘back-end’ solution to CO{sub 2} mitigation. Rather, it is an integral part of the plant operations and is responsible for generating more electricity than the IGCC itself. Schemes could be envisioned where the H{sub 2} production is used exclusively to regenerate the sorbent, with any excess sold as a commodity, and the heat of adsorption serving as the primary driver for power generation. Further work with sorbent evaluation, process modeling and heat integration, and scale-up would be needed to more fully vet SEWGS, but the culmination of this program indicates that additional study is warranted.

  20. Advanced Microturbine Systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rosfjord, T; Tredway, W; Chen, A; Mulugeta, J; Bhatia, T

    2008-12-31

    In July 2000, the United Technologies Research Center (UTRC) was one of five recipients of a US Department of Energy contract under the Advanced Microturbine System (AMS) program managed by the Office of Distributed Energy (DE). The AMS program resulted from several government-industry workshops that recognized that microturbine systems could play an important role in improving customer choice and value for electrical power. That is, the group believed that electrical power could be delivered to customers more efficiently and reliably than the grid if an effective distributed energy strategy was followed. Further, the production of this distributed power would be accomplished with less undesirable pollutants of nitric oxides (NOx) unburned hydrocarbons (UHC), and carbon monoxide (CO). In 2000, the electrical grid delivered energy to US customers at a national average of approximately 32% efficiency. This value reflects a wide range of powerplants, but is dominated by older, coal burning stations that provide approximately 50% of US electrical power. The grid efficiency is also affected by transmission and distribution (T&D) line losses that can be significant during peak power usage. In some locations this loss is estimated to be 15%. Load pockets can also be so constrained that sufficient power cannot be transmitted without requiring the installation of new wires. New T&D can be very expensive and challenging as it is often required in populated regions that do not want above ground wires. While historically grid reliability has satisfied most customers, increasing electronic transactions and the computer-controlled processes of the 'digital economy' demand higher reliability. For them, power outages can be very costly because of transaction, work-in-progress, or perishable commodity losses. Powerplants that produce the grid electrical power emit significant levels of undesirable NOx, UHC, and CO pollutants. The level of emission is quoted as either a technology metric or a system-output metric. A common form for the technology metric is in the units of PPM {at} 15% O2. In this case the metric reflects the molar fraction of the pollutant in the powerplant exhaust when corrected to a standard exhaust condition as containing 15% (molar) oxygen, assuring that the PPM concentrations are not altered by subsequent air addition or dilution. Since fuel combustion consumes oxygen, the output oxygen reference is equivalent to a fuel input reference. Hence, this technology metric reflects the moles of pollutant per mole of fuel input, but not the useful output of the powerplant-i.e. the power. The system-output metric does embrace the useful output and is often termed an output-based metric. A common form for the output-based metric is in the units of lb/MWh. This is a system metric relating the pounds of pollutant to output energy (e.g., MWh) of the powerplant.

  1. A DISTRIBUTED INTELLIGENT AUTOMATED DEMAND RESPONSE BUILDING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Auslander, David; Culler, David; Wright, Paul; Lu, Yan; Piette, Mary

    2013-12-30

    The goal of the 2.5 year Distributed Intelligent Automated Demand Response (DIADR) project was to reduce peak electricity load of Sutardja Dai Hall at UC Berkeley by 30% while maintaining a healthy, comfortable, and productive environment for the occupants. We sought to bring together both central and distributed control to provide “deep” demand response1 at the appliance level of the building as well as typical lighting and HVAC applications. This project brought together Siemens Corporate Research and Siemens Building Technology (the building has a Siemens Apogee Building Automation System (BAS)), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (leveraging their Open Automated Demand Response (openADR), Auto-­Demand Response, and building modeling expertise), and UC Berkeley (related demand response research including distributed wireless control, and grid-­to-­building gateway development). Sutardja Dai Hall houses the Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society (CITRIS), which fosters collaboration among industry and faculty and students of four UC campuses (Berkeley, Davis, Merced, and Santa Cruz). The 141,000 square foot building, occupied in 2009, includes typical office spaces and a nanofabrication laboratory. Heating is provided by a district heating system (steam from campus as a byproduct of the campus cogeneration plant); cooling is provided by one of two chillers: a more typical electric centrifugal compressor chiller designed for the cool months (Nov-­ March) and a steam absorption chiller for use in the warm months (April-­October). Lighting in the open office areas is provided by direct-­indirect luminaries with Building Management System-­based scheduling for open areas, and occupancy sensors for private office areas. For the purposes of this project, we focused on the office portion of the building. Annual energy consumption is approximately 8053 MWh; the office portion is estimated as 1924 MWh. The maximum peak load during the study period was 1175 kW. Several new tools facilitated this work, such as the Smart Energy Box, the distributed load controller or Energy Information Gateway, the web-­based DR controller (dubbed the Central Load-­Shed Coordinator or CLSC), and the Demand Response Capacity Assessment & Operation Assistance Tool (DRCAOT). In addition, an innovative data aggregator called sMAP (simple Measurement and Actuation Profile) allowed data from different sources collected in a compact form and facilitated detailed analysis of the building systems operation. A smart phone application (RAP or Rapid Audit Protocol) facilitated an inventory of the building’s plug loads. Carbon dioxide sensors located in conference rooms and classrooms allowed demand controlled ventilation. The extensive submetering and nimble access to this data provided great insight into the details of the building operation as well as quick diagnostics and analyses of tests. For example, students discovered a short-­cycling chiller, a stuck damper, and a leaking cooling coil in the first field tests. For our final field tests, we were able to see how each zone was affected by the DR strategies (e.g., the offices on the 7th floor grew very warm quickly) and fine-­tune the strategies accordingly.

  2. Changes in the Economic Value of Variable Generation at High Penetration Levels: A Pilot Case Study of California

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mills, Andrew; Wiser, Ryan

    2012-05-18

    We estimate the long-run economic value of variable renewable generation with increasing penetration using a unique investment and dispatch model that captures long-run investment decisions while also incorporating detailed operational constraints and hourly time resolution over a full year. High time resolution and the incorporation of operational constraints are important for estimating the economic value of variable generation, as is the use of a modeling framework that accommodates new investment decisions. The model is herein applied with a case study that is loosely based on California in 2030. Increasing amounts of wind, photovoltaics (PV), and concentrating solar power (CSP) with and without thermal energy storage (TES) are added one at a time. The marginal economic value of these renewable energy sources is estimated and then decomposed into capacity value, energy value, day-ahead forecast error cost, and ancillary services. The marginal economic value, as defined here, is primarily based on the combination of avoided capital investment cost and avoided variable fuel and operations and maintenance costs from other power plants in the power system. Though the model only captures a subset of the benefits and costs of renewable energy, it nonetheless provides unique insights into how the value of that subset changes with technology and penetration level. Specifically, in this case study implementation of the model, the marginal economic value of all three solar options is found to exceed the value of a flat-block of power (as well as wind energy) by \\$20--30/MWh at low penetration levels, largely due to the high capacity value of solar at low penetration. Because the value of CSP per unit of energy is found to be high with or without thermal energy storage at low penetration, we find little apparent incremental value to thermal storage at low solar penetration in the present case study analysis. The marginal economic value of PV and CSP without thermal storage is found to drop considerably (by more than \\$70/MWh) as the penetration of solar increases toward 30\\percent on an energy basis. This is due primarily to a steep drop in capacity value followed by a decrease in energy value. In contrast, the value of CSP with thermal storage drops much less dramatically as penetration increases. As a result, at solar penetration levels above 10\\percent, CSP with thermal storage is found to be considerably more valuable relative to PV and CSP without thermal storage. The marginal economic value of wind is found to be largely driven by energy value, and is lower than solar at low penetration. The marginal economic value of wind drops at a relatively slower rate with penetration, however. As a result, at high penetration, the value of wind can exceed the value of PV and CSP without thermal storage. Though some of these findings may be somewhat unique to the specific case study presented here, the results: (1) highlight the importance of an analysis framework that addresses long-term investment decisions as well as short-term dispatch and operational constraints, (2) can help inform long-term decisions about renewable energy procurement and supporting infrastructure, and (3) point to areas where further research is warranted.

  3. Design Concepts for Co-Production of Power, Fuels & Chemicals Via Coal/Biomass Mixtures

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rao, A. D.; Chen, Q.; Samuelsen, G. S.

    2012-09-30

    The overall goal of the program is to develop design concepts, incorporating advanced technologies in areas such as oxygen production, feed systems, gas cleanup, component separations and gas turbines, for integrated and economically viable coal and biomass fed gasification facilities equipped with carbon capture and storage for the following scenarios: (i) coproduction of power along with hydrogen, (ii) coproduction of power along with fuels, (iii) coproduction of power along with petrochemicals, and (iv) coproduction of power along with agricultural chemicals. To achieve this goal, specifically the following objectives are met in this proposed project: (i) identify advanced technology options and innovative preliminary design concepts that synergistically integrate plant subsections, (ii) develop steady state system simulations to predict plant efficiency and environmental signature, (iii) develop plant cost estimates by capacity factoring major subsystems or by major equipment items where required, and then capital, operating and maintenance cost estimates, and (iv) perform techno- economic analyses for the above described coproduction facilities. Thermal efficiencies for the electricity only cases with 90% carbon capture are 38.26% and 36.76% (HHV basis) with the bituminous and the lignite feedstocks respectively. For the coproduction cases (where 50% of the energy exported is in the form of electricity), the electrical efficiency, as expected, is highest for the hydrogen coproduction cases while lowest for the higher alcohols (ethanol) coproduction cases. The electrical efficiencies for Fischer-Tropsch coproduction cases are slightly higher than those for the methanol coproduction cases but it should be noted that the methanol (as well as the higher alcohol) coproduction cases produce the finished coproduct while the Fischer-Tropsch coproduction cases produce a coproduct that requires further processing in a refinery. The cross comparison of the thermal performance between the various coproduct cases is further complicated by the fact that the carbon footprint is not the same when carbon leaving with the coproduct are accounted for. The economic analysis and demand for a particular coproduct in the market place is a more meaningful comparison of the various coproduction scenarios. The first year cost of electricity calculated for the bituminous coal is $102.9/MWh while that for the lignite is $108.1/MWh. The calculated cost of hydrogen ranged from $1.42/kg to $2.77/kg depending on the feedstock, which is lower than the DOE announced hydrogen cost goal of $3.00/kg in July 14, 2005. Methanol cost ranged from $345/MT to $617/MT, while the market price is around $450/MT. For Fischer-Tropsch liquids, the calculated cost ranged from $65/bbl to $112/bbl, which is comparable to the current market price of crude oil at around $100/bbl. It should be noted, however, that F-T liquids contain no sulfur and nitrogen compounds. The calculated cost of alcohol ranged from $4.37/gal to $5.43/gal, while it ranged from $2.20/gal to $3.70/gal in a DOE funded study conducted by Louisiana State University. The Louisiana State University study consisted of a significantly larger plant than our study and benefited from economies of scale. When the plant size in our study is scaled up to similar size as in the Louisiana State University study, cost of alcohol is then reduced to a range of $3.24/gal to $4.28/gal, which is comparable. Urea cost ranged from $307/MT to $428/MT, while the market price is around $480/MT.

  4. Baker-Barry Tunnel Lighting: Evaluation of a Potential GATEWAY Demonstrations Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tuenge, Jason R.

    2011-06-28

    The U.S. Department of Energy is evaluating the Baker-Barry Tunnel as a potential GATEWAY Demonstrations project for deployment of solid-state lighting (SSL) technology. The National Park Service views this project as a possible proving ground and template for implementation of light-emitting diode (LED) luminaires in other tunnels, thereby expanding the estimated 40% energy savings from 132 MWh/yr to a much larger figure nationally. Most of the energy savings in this application is attributable to the instant-restrike capability of LED products and to their high tolerance for frequent on/off switching, used here to separately control either end of the tunnel during daytime hours. Some LED luminaires rival or outperform their high-intensity discharge (HID) counterparts in terms of efficacy, but options are limited, and smaller lumen packages preclude true one-for-one equivalence. However, LED products continue to improve in efficacy and affordability at a rate unmatched by other light source technologies; the estimated simple payback period of eight years (excluding installation costs and maintenance savings) can be expected to improve with time. The proposed revisions to the existing high-pressure sodium (HPS) lighting system would require slightly increased controls complexity and significantly increased luminaire types and quantities. In exchange, substantial annual savings (from reduced maintenance and energy use) would be complemented by improved quantity and quality of illumination. Although advanced lighting controls could offer additional savings, it is unclear whether such a system would prove cost-effective; this topic may be explored in future work.

  5. Molten carbonate fuel cell product development test. Final report, September 30, 1992--March 31, 1997

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1997-12-31

    This report summarizes the work performed for manufacturing and demonstrating the performance of its 250-kW molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) stack in an integrated system at the Naval Air Station Miramar (NAS Miramar) located in San Diego, California. The stack constructed for the demonstration test at the NAS Miramar consisted of 250 cells. It was manufactured using M-C Power`s patented Internally Manifolded Heat Exchanger (IMHEX{reg_sign}) stack design. The demonstration test at NAS Miramar was designed to operate the 250-kW MCFC stack in a cogeneration mode. This test represented the first attempt to thermally integrate an MCFC stack in a cogeneration system. The test was started on January 10, 1997, and voluntarily terminated on May 12, 1997, after 2,350 hours of operation at temperatures above 1,100 F and at a pressure of three atmospheres. It produced 160 MWh of d.c. power and 346,000 lbs of 110 psig steam for export during 1,566 hours of on-load operations. The test demonstrated a d.c. power output of 206 kW. Most of the balance of the plant (BOP) equipment operated satisfactorily. However, the off-the-shelf automotive turbocharger used for supplying air to the plant failed on numerous occasions and the hot gas blower developed seal leakage problems which impacted continuous plant operations. Overall the demonstration test at NAS Miramar was successful in demonstrating many critical features of the IMHEX technology. Lessons learned from this test will be very useful for improving designs and operations for future MCFC power plants.

  6. Plantwide Energy Assessment of a Sugarcane Farming and Processing Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jakeway, L.A.; Turn, S.Q.; Keffer, V.I.; Kinoshita, C.M.

    2006-02-27

    A plantwide energy assessment was performed at Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co., an integrated sugarcane farming and processing facility on the island of Maui in the State of Hawaii. There were four main tasks performed for the plantwide energy assessment: 1) pump energy assessment in both field and factory operations, 2) steam generation assessment in the power production operations, 3) steam distribution assessment in the sugar manufacturing operation, and 4) electric power distribution assessment of the company system grid. The energy savings identified in each of these tasks were summarized in terms of fuel savings, electricity savings, or opportunity revenue that potentially exists mostly from increased electric power sales to the local electric utility. The results of this investigation revealed eight energy saving projects that can be implemented at HC&S. These eight projects were determined to have potential for $1.5 million in annual fuel savings or 22,337 MWh equivalent annual electricity savings. Most of the savings were derived from pump efficiency improvements and steam efficiency improvements both in generation and distribution. If all the energy saving projects were implemented and the energy savings were realized as less fuel consumed, there would be corresponding reductions in regulated air pollutants and carbon dioxide emissions from supplemental coal fuel. As HC&S is already a significant user of renewable biomass fuel for its operations, the projected reductions in air pollutants and emissions will not be as great compared to using only coal fuel for example. A classification of implementation priority into operations was performed for the identified energy saving projects based on payback period and ease of implementation.

  7. TidGen Power System Commercialization Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sauer, Christopher R.; McEntee, Jarlath

    2013-12-30

    ORPC Maine, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC (collectively ORPC), submits this Final Technical Report for the TidGen® Power System Commercialization Project (Project), partially funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DE-EE0003647). The Project was built and operated in compliance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) pilot project license (P-12711) and other permits and approvals needed for the Project. This report documents the methodologies, activities and results of the various phases of the Project, including design, engineering, procurement, assembly, installation, operation, licensing, environmental monitoring, retrieval, maintenance and repair. The Project represents a significant achievement for the renewable energy portfolio of the U.S. in general, and for the U.S. marine hydrokinetic (MHK) industry in particular. The stated Project goal was to advance, demonstrate and accelerate deployment and commercialization of ORPC’s tidal-current based hydrokinetic power generation system, including the energy extraction and conversion technology, associated power electronics, and interconnection equipment capable of reliably delivering electricity to the domestic power grid. ORPC achieved this goal by designing, building and operating the TidGen® Power System in 2012 and becoming the first federally licensed hydrokinetic tidal energy project to deliver electricity to a power grid under a power purchase agreement in North America. Located in Cobscook Bay between Eastport and Lubec, Maine, the TidGen® Power System was connected to the Bangor Hydro Electric utility grid at an on-shore station in North Lubec on September 13, 2012. ORPC obtained a FERC pilot project license for the Project on February 12, 2012 and the first Maine Department of Environmental Protection General Permit issued for a tidal energy project on January 31, 2012. In addition, ORPC entered into a 20-year agreement with Bangor Hydro Electric Company on January 1, 2013 for up to 5 megawatts at a price of $215/MWh, escalating at 2.0% per year.

  8. Tracer-level radioactive pilot-scale test of in situ vitrification for the stabilization of contaminated soil sites at ORNL

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Spalding, B.P.; Jacobs, G.K.; Naney, M.T. ); Dunbar, N.W. ); Tixier, J.S.; Powell, T.D. )

    1992-11-01

    A field demonstration of in situ vitrification (ISV) was completed in May 1991, and produced approximately 12 Mg of melted earthen materials containing 12.7 mCi of radioactivity within 500 g of sludge in amodel of an old seepage trench waste disposal unit. Past waste disposal operations at Oak Ridge National Laboratory have left several contaminated seepage sites. In planning for remediation of such sites, ISV technology has been identified as a leading candidate because of the high risks associated with any retrieval option and because of the usual high quality of vitreous waste form. Major isotopes placed in the test trench were [sup 137]Cs and [sup 90]Sr, with lesser amounts of [sup 6O]Co, [sup 241]Am, and [sup 239,240]Pu. A total of 29 MWh of electrical power was delivered to the ground over a 5-day period producing a melt depth of 8.5 ft. During melting, 2.4% of the [sup 137]Cs volatilized from the melt into an off-gas containment hood and was captured quantitatively on a high efficiency particulate air filter. No volatilization of [sup 90]Sr, [sup 241]Am, or [sup 239,240]Pu was detected and > 99.993% retention of these isotopes in the melt was estimated. The use of added rare earth tracers (Ce, La, and Nd), as surrogates for transuranic isotopes, led to estimated melt retentions of >99.9995% during the test. The molten material, composed of the native soil and dolomitic limestone used for filling the test trench, reached a processing temperature of 1500[degrees]C. Standardized leaching procedures using Product Consistency Testing indicated that the ISV product has excellent characteristics relative to other vitreous nuclear waste forms.

  9. Tracer-level radioactive pilot-scale test of in situ vitrification for the stabilization of contaminated soil sites at ORNL

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Spalding, B.P.; Jacobs, G.K.; Naney, M.T.; Dunbar, N.W.; Tixier, J.S.; Powell, T.D.

    1992-11-01

    A field demonstration of in situ vitrification (ISV) was completed in May 1991, and produced approximately 12 Mg of melted earthen materials containing 12.7 mCi of radioactivity within 500 g of sludge in amodel of an old seepage trench waste disposal unit. Past waste disposal operations at Oak Ridge National Laboratory have left several contaminated seepage sites. In planning for remediation of such sites, ISV technology has been identified as a leading candidate because of the high risks associated with any retrieval option and because of the usual high quality of vitreous waste form. Major isotopes placed in the test trench were {sup 137}Cs and {sup 90}Sr, with lesser amounts of {sup 6O}Co, {sup 241}Am, and {sup 239,240}Pu. A total of 29 MWh of electrical power was delivered to the ground over a 5-day period producing a melt depth of 8.5 ft. During melting, 2.4% of the {sup 137}Cs volatilized from the melt into an off-gas containment hood and was captured quantitatively on a high efficiency particulate air filter. No volatilization of {sup 90}Sr, {sup 241}Am, or {sup 239,240}Pu was detected and > 99.993% retention of these isotopes in the melt was estimated. The use of added rare earth tracers (Ce, La, and Nd), as surrogates for transuranic isotopes, led to estimated melt retentions of >99.9995% during the test. The molten material, composed of the native soil and dolomitic limestone used for filling the test trench, reached a processing temperature of 1500{degrees}C. Standardized leaching procedures using Product Consistency Testing indicated that the ISV product has excellent characteristics relative to other vitreous nuclear waste forms.

  10. PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY ON THE INTEGRATION OF A PROCESS UTILIZING LOW-ENERGY SOLVENTS FOR CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE ENABLED BY A COMBINATION OF ENZYMES AND ULTRASONICS WITH A SUBCRITICAL PC POWER PLANT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Swaminathan, Saravanan; Kuczynska, Agnieszka; Hume, Scott; Mulgundmath, Vinay; Freeman, Charles; Bearden, Mark; Remias, Joe; Ambedkar, Balraj; Salmon, Sonja; House, Alan

    2012-11-01

    The results of the preliminary techno-economic assessment for integrating a process utilizing low-energy solvents for carbon dioxide (CO2) capture enabled by a combination of enzymes and ultrasonics with a subcritical pulverized coal (PC) power plant are presented. Four cases utilizing the enzyme-activated solvent are compared using different methodologies of regeneration against the DOE/NETL reference MEA case. The results are shown comparing the energy demand for post-combustion CO2 capture and the net higher heating value (HHV) efficiency of the power plant integrated with the post-combustion capture (PCC) plant. A levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) assessment was performed showing the costs of the options presented in the study. The key factors contributing to the reduction of LCOE were identified as enzyme make-up rate and the capability of the ultrasonic regeneration process. The net efficiency of the integrated PC power plant with CO2 capture changes from 24.9% with the reference Case 10 plant to between 24.34% and 29.97% for the vacuum regeneration options considered, and to between 26.63% and 31.41% for the ultrasonic regeneration options. The evaluation also shows the effect of the critical parameters on the LCOE, with the main variable being the initial estimation of enzyme dosing rate. The LCOE ($/MWh) values range from 112.92 to 125.23 for the vacuum regeneration options and from 108.9 to 117.50 for the ultrasonic regeneration cases considered in comparison to 119.6 for the reference Case 10. A sensitivity analysis of the effect of critical parameters on the LCOE was also performed. The results from the preliminary techno-economic assessment show that the proposed technology can be investigated further with a view to being a viable alternative to conventional CO2 scrubbing technologies.

  11. TEP Power Partners Project [Tucson Electric Power

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2013-11-19

    The Arizona Governors Office of Energy Policy, in partnership with Tucson Electric Power (TEP), Tendril, and Next Phase Energy (NPE), formed the TEP Power Partners pilot project to demonstrate how residential customers could access their energy usage data and third party applications using data obtained from an Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) network. The project applied for and was awarded a Smart Grid Data Access grant through the U.S. Department of Energy. The project participants goal for Phase I is to actively engage 1,700 residential customers to demonstrate sustained participation, reduction in energy usage (kWh) and cost ($), and measure related aspects of customer satisfaction. This Demonstration report presents a summary of the findings, effectiveness, and customer satisfaction with the 15-month TEP Power Partners pilot project. The objective of the program is to provide residential customers with energy consumption data from AMR metering and empower these participants to better manage their electricity use. The pilot recruitment goals included migrating 700 existing customers from the completed Power Partners Demand Response Load Control Project (DRLC), and enrolling 1,000 new participants. Upon conclusion of the project on November 19, 2013: ? 1,390 Home Area Networks (HANs) were registered. ? 797 new participants installed a HAN. ? Survey respondents are satisfied with the program and found value with a variety of specific program components. ? Survey respondents report feeling greater control over their energy usage and report taking energy savings actions in their homes after participating in the program. ? On average, 43 % of the participants returned to the web portal monthly and 15% returned weekly. ? An impact evaluation was completed by Opinion Dynamics and found average participant savings for the treatment period1 to be 2.3% of their household use during this period.2 In total, the program saved 163 MWh in the treatment period of 2013.

  12. Water Power for a Clean Energy Future (Fact Sheet)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    2012-03-01

    This fact sheet provides an overview of the U.S. Department of Energy's Wind and Water Power Program's water power research activities. Water power is the nation's largest source of clean, domestic, renewable energy. Harnessing energy from rivers, manmade waterways, and oceans to generate electricity for the nation's homes and businesses can help secure America's energy future. Water power technologies fall into two broad categories: conventional hydropower and marine and hydrokinetic technologies. Conventional hydropower facilities include run-of-the-river, storage, and pumped storage. Most conventional hydropower plants use a diversion structure, such as a dam, to capture water's potential energy via a turbine for electricity generation. Marine and hydrokinetic technologies obtain energy from waves, tides, ocean currents, free-flowing rivers, streams and ocean thermal gradients to generate electricity. The United States has abundant water power resources, enough to meet a large portion of the nation's electricity demand. Conventional hydropower generated 257 million megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity in 2010 and provides 6-7% of all electricity in the United States. According to preliminary estimates from the Electric Power Resource Institute (EPRI), the United States has additional water power resource potential of more than 85,000 megawatts (MW). This resource potential includes making efficiency upgrades to existing hydroelectric facilities, developing new low-impact facilities, and using abundant marine and hydrokinetic energy resources. EPRI research suggests that ocean wave and in-stream tidal energy production potential is equal to about 10% of present U.S. electricity consumption (about 400 terrawatt-hours per year). The greatest of these resources is wave energy, with the most potential in Hawaii, Alaska, and the Pacific Northwest. The Department of Energy's (DOE's) Water Power Program works with industry, universities, other federal agencies, and DOE's national laboratories to promote the development and deployment of technologies capable of generating environmentally sustainable and cost-effective electricity from the nation's water resources.

  13. Economic evaluation of losses to electric power utilities caused by ash fouling. Final technical report, November 1, 1979-April 30, 1980

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Burkhardt, F.R.; Persnger, M.M.

    1980-01-01

    Problems with convection ash fouling and wall slagging were considerable during our study. The Dakota lignites posed the greatest problems, particularly with fouling. The subbituminous coals had considerable problems, related mostly with wall slagging. The Texas lignites had few problems, and those were only associated with wall slagging. The generation losses were as follows: The Dakota lignite burning stations averaged an overall availability of 87.13%. Convection fouling outages were responsible for 57.75% of this outage time for a decrease in availability of 7.43%. Fouling was responsible for curtailment losses of 317,649 Mwh or 8.25% of the remaining available generation. Slagging was responsible for losses of 2732 megawatt hours or .07% of the remaining available generation. Total ash related losses amounted to 16.08% of the total available generation. The subbituminous burning stations averaged an overall availability of 78.36%. Total ash related losses amounted to 1.54% of the total available generation. The Texas lignite burning stations averaged an overall availability of 80.63%. No ash related outage losses occurred. Slagging curtailments accounted 0.08% of the total available generation. Costs due to ash fouling and slagging related curtailments are a tremendous sum. Seven power stations were studied for a six month period to assess costs. The total cost directly attributable to ash slagging and fouling condition was $20,638,113. Recommendations for reducing the problems involve soot blowers, control of furnace gas exit temperature, water blowers and more conservative boiler design.

  14. FINAL REPORT WIND POWER WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION TRIBAL LANDS DOE GRANT NUMBER DE-FG36-07GO17077 SUBMITTED BY WARM SPRINGS POWER & WATER ENTERPRISES A CORPORATE ENTITY OF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF WARM SPRINGS WARM SPRINGS, OREGON

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jim Manion; Michael Lofting; Wil Sando; Emily Leslie; Randy Goff

    2009-03-30

    Wind Generation Feasibility Warm Springs Power and Water Enterprises (WSPWE) is a corporate entity owned by the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation, located in central Oregon. The organization is responsible for managing electrical power generation facilities on tribal lands and, as part of its charter, has the responsibility to evaluate and develop renewable energy resources for the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs. WSPWE recently completed a multi-year-year wind resource assessment of tribal lands, beginning with the installation of wind monitoring towers on the Mutton Mountains site in 2003, and collection of on-site wind data is ongoing. The study identified the Mutton Mountain site on the northeastern edge of the reservation as a site with sufficient wind resources to support a commercial power project estimated to generate over 226,000 MWh per year. Initial estimates indicate that the first phase of the project would be approximately 79.5 MW of installed capacity. This Phase 2 study expands and builds on the previously conducted Phase 1 Wind Resource Assessment, dated June 30, 2007. In order to fully assess the economic benefits that may accrue to the Tribes through wind energy development at Mutton Mountain, a planning-level opinion of probable cost was performed to define the costs associated with key design and construction aspects of the proposed project. This report defines the Mutton Mountain project costs and economics in sufficient detail to allow the Tribes to either build the project themselves or contract with a developer under the most favorable terms possible for the Tribes.

  15. Recovery Act: Brea California Combined Cycle Electric Generating Plant Fueled by Waste Landfill Gas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Galowitz, Stephen

    2012-12-31

    The primary objective of the Project was to maximize the productive use of the substantial quantities of waste landfill gas generated and collected at the Olinda Landfill near Brea, California. An extensive analysis was conducted and it was determined that utilization of the waste gas for power generation in a combustion turbine combined cycle facility was the highest and best use. The resulting Project reflected a cost effective balance of the following specific sub-objectives: Meeting the environmental and regulatory requirements, particularly the compliance obligations imposed on the landfill to collect, process and destroy landfill gas Utilizing proven and reliable technology and equipment Maximizing electrical efficiency Maximizing electric generating capacity, consistent with the anticipated quantities of landfill gas generated and collected at the Olinda Landfill Maximizing equipment uptime Minimizing water consumption Minimizing post-combustion emissions The Project produced and will produce a myriad of beneficial impacts. o The Project created 360 FTE construction and manufacturing jobs and 15 FTE permanent jobs associated with the operation and maintenance of the plant and equipment. o By combining state-of-the-art gas clean up systems with post combustion emissions control systems, the Project established new national standards for best available control technology (BACT). o The Project will annually produce 280,320 MWhs of clean energy o By destroying the methane in the landfill gas, the Project will generate CO2 equivalent reductions of 164,938 tons annually. The completed facility produces 27.4 MWnet and operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

  16. Life cycle assessment of base-load heat sources for district heating system options

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ghafghazi, Saeed; Sowlati, T.; Sokhansanj, Shahabaddine; Melin, Staffan

    2011-03-01

    Purpose There has been an increased interest in utilizing renewable energy sources in district heating systems. District heating systems are centralized systems that provide heat for residential and commercial buildings in a community. While various renewable and conventional energy sources can be used in such systems, many stakeholders are interested in choosing the feasible option with the least environmental impacts. This paper evaluates and compares environmental burdens of alternative energy source options for the base load of a district heating center in Vancouver, British Columbia (BC) using the life cycle assessment method. The considered energy sources include natural gas, wood pellet, sewer heat, and ground heat. Methods The life cycle stages considered in the LCA model cover all stages from fuel production, fuel transmission/transportation, construction, operation, and finally demolition of the district heating system. The impact categories were analyzed based on the IMPACT 2002+ method. Results and discussion On a life-cycle basis, the global warming effect of renewable energy options were at least 200 kgeqCO2 less than that of the natural gas option per MWh of heat produced by the base load system. It was concluded that less than 25% of the upstream global warming impact associated with the wood pellet energy source option was due to transportation activities and about 50% of that was resulted from wood pellet production processes. In comparison with other energy options, the wood pellets option has higher impacts on respiratory of inorganics, terrestrial ecotoxicity, acidification, and nutrification categories. Among renewable options, the global warming impact of heat pump options in the studied case in Vancouver, BC, were lower than the wood pellet option due to BC's low carbon electricity generation profile. Ozone layer depletion and mineral extraction were the highest for the heat pump options due to extensive construction required for these options. Conclusions Natural gas utilization as the primary heat source for district heat production implies environmental complications beyond just the global warming impacts. Diffusing renewable energy sources for generating the base load district heat would reduce human toxicity, ecosystem quality degradation, global warming, and resource depletion compared to the case of natural gas. Reducing fossil fuel dependency in various stages of wood pellet production can remarkably reduce the upstream global warming impact of using wood pellets for district heat generation.

  17. Baseline Assessment of TREAT for Modeling and Analysis Needs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bess, John Darrell; DeHart, Mark David

    2015-10-01

    The Transient Reactor Test Facility (TREAT) is an air-cooled, thermal, heterogeneous test facility designed to evaluate reactor fuels and structural materials under conditions simulating various types of nuclear excursions and transient undercooling situations the could occur in a nuclear reactor. Fuel meltdowns, metal-water reactions, thermal interaction between overheated fuel and coolant, and the transient behavior of ceramic fuel for high temperature systems can be investigated [Freund 1958]. The contribution by TREAT to reactor safety includes the following: 1) provision of basic data to predict the safety margin of fuel designs and the severity of potential accidents, 2) service as a proving ground for fuel concepts designed to reduce or prevent consequent hazards, and 3) provision of nondestructive test data via neutron radiography of fuel samples irradiated in other test reactors [Sachs 1974]. The major unique features of TREAT include large flux integral absorption due to its high heat capacity; inherent, essentially instantaneous, temperature-dependent shutdown mechanism; rapid control rod movement; and visual access to the core center [MacFarlane 1958]. TREAT’s primary purpose was to simulate accident conditions leading to fuel damge, including melting or vaporization of the test specimens, while leaving undamaged the reactor’s fuel. During steady-state operation, TREAT could be utilized as a large neutron-radiography facility and could examine assemblies up to 15 ft. in length. Unique shielded viewing slots allowed for both optical and gamma camera systems to record reactive mechanisms occurring during the experiment on film for detailed study. A fast-neutron hodoscope was a key diagnostic instrument that by collimating and detecting fission neutrons emitted by experiment fuel samples could provide time and spatial resolution of fuel motion during transients and in-place measurement of fuel distribution before and after an experiment. The reactor was operated from February 1959 until April 1994, generating over 720 MWh of energy. The reactor underwent a major upgrade in 1988, which included installation of new instrumentation and control systems, with refurbishment of the rod drive systems. The only major difference, in-core, between the preupgrade core and the upgraded core was the change in the number and locations of the control rods; all other neutronics behavior is essentially unchanged.

  18. Electric Power Generation from Low to Intermediate Temperature Resources

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gosnold, William D.

    2015-06-18

    This project was designed to test the concept on the Eland-Lodgepole Field near Dickinson, North Dakota in the Williston Basin. The field is in secondary-recovery water-flood and consists of 12 producing oil wells, 5 water injection wells and one disposal well. Water production at the site averages approximately 320 gallons per minute (20.2 l s-1) and the temperature is 100 ⁰C. Engineers at Ormat estimated power production potential with the existing resource to be approximately 350 kWh. Unfortunately, ownership of the field was transferred from Encore, Inc., to Denbury, Inc., within the first week of the project. After two years of discussion and planning, Denbury decided not to pursue this project due to complications with the site location and its proximity to Patterson Lake. Attempts to find other partners operating in the Williston Basin were unsuccessful. Consequently, we were unable to pursue the primary objective of the project. However, during negations with Denbury and subsequent time spent contacting other potential partners, we focused on objectives 2 and 3 and developed a clear understanding of the potential for co-produced production in the Williston Basin and the best practices for developing similar projects. At least nine water bearing formations with temperatures greater than 90 ⁰C extend over areas of several 10s of km2. The total energy contained in the rock volume of those geothermal aquifers is 283.6 EJ (1 EJ = 1018 J). The total energy contained in the water volume, determined from porosities which range from 2 percent to 8 percent, is 6.8 EJ. The aquifers grouped by 10 ⁰C temperature bins (Table 1) include one or more formations due to the bowl-shape structure of the basin. Table 1. Summary of energy available in geothermal aquifers in the Williston Basin Analysis of overall fluid production from active wells, units, fields and formations in North Dakota showed that few sites co-produce sufficient fluid for significant power production with ORC technology. Average co-produced water for 10,480 wells is 3.2 gallons per minute (gpm). Even excluding the tight formations, Bakken and Three Forks, average co-produced water for the remaining 3,337 is only 5 gpm. The output of the highest producing well is 184 gpm and the average of the top 100 wells is 52 gpm. Due to the depth of the oil producing formations in the Williston Basin, typically 3 km or greater, pumps are operated slowly to prevent watering out thus total fluid production is purposefully maintained at low volumes. There remain potential possibilities for development of geothermal fluids in the Williston Basin. Unitized fields in which water production from several tens of wells is collected at a single site are good possibilities for development. Water production in the unitized fields is greater than 1000 gpm is several areas. A similar possibility occurs where infill-drilling between Bakken and Three Forks horizontal wells has created areas where large volumes of geothermal fluids are available on multi-well pads and in unitized fields. Although the Bakken produces small amounts of water, the water/oil ration is typically less than 1, the oil and water mix produced at the well head can be sent through the heat exchanger on an ORC. It is estimated that several tens of MWh of power could be generated by a distributed system of ORC engines in the areas of high-density drilling in the Bakken Formation. Finally, horizontal drilling in water bearing formations is the other possibility. Several secondary recovery water-flood projects in the basin are producing water above 100 ⁰C at rates of 300 gpm to 850 gpm. Those systems also could produce several tens of MWh of power with ORC technology. Objective 3 of the project was highly successful. The program has produced 5 PhDs, 7 MS, and 3 BS students with theses in geothermal energy. The team has involved 7 faculty in 4 different engineering and science disciplines, ChE, EE, GE, and Geol. The team has produced 26 peer-reviewed papers and 62 presentations at professional meetings. Faculty involved in the program developed five graduate level courses covering different elements in heat flow and geothermal energy that are now offered in the Harold Hamm School of Geology and Geological Engineering. Lessons learned – Keys to developing a successful project;1. Determine target formations; a. Data from oil and gas operators, state oil and gas regulatory agencies, and state geological surveys help to identify producing formations and their properties; 2. Determine the quantity of energy available in the target formations; a. A complete thermal analysis of the basin or region yields the most useful information; b. Critical data include: BHT, heat flow, stratigraphy, lithology, lithological properties, and thermal conductivity, subsurface structure; 3. Determine fluid production potential; a. State oil and gas regulatory agencies, and state geological surveys have data on oil, gas and water production. State Water Commission/Agencies have data on water quality, aquifers, and regulations; b. Consider single horizontal wells, multiple conventional wells, and unitized fields; 4. Calculate energy production capacity of each formation based on different well combination and power plant scenarios. This is a broad overview rather than a site specific analysis; 5. Research and understand the local electrical power industry. Obtain the PPA before committing to the project; 6. Work with the high-level personnel in the oil company partner. Obtain an MOU that addresses all issues in the project including what to expect if the company goes out of business, is bought out, changes management, etc; and 7. Be prepared for project delays.

  19. COMMERCIALIZATION OF AN ATMOSPHERIC IRON-BASED CDCL PROCESS FOR POWER PRODUCTION. PHASE I: TECHNOECONOMIC ANALYSIS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Vargas, Luis

    2013-11-01

    Coal Direct Chemical Looping (CDCL) is an advanced oxy-combustion technology that has potential to enable substantial reductions in the cost and energy penalty associated with carbon dioxide (CO2) capture from coal-fired power plants. Through collaborative efforts, the Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group (B&W) and The Ohio State University (OSU) developed a conceptual design for a 550 MWe (net) supercritical CDCL power plant with greater than 90% CO2 capture and compression. Process simulations were completed to enable an initial assessment of its technical performance. A cost estimate was developed following DOE’s guidelines as outlined in NETL’s report “Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies: Cost Estimation Methodology for NETL Assessments of Power Plant Performance”, (2011/1455). The cost of electricity for the CDCL plant without CO2 Transportation and Storage cost resulted in $ $102.67 per MWh, which corresponds to a 26.8 % increase in cost of electricity (COE) when compared to an air-fired pulverized-coal supercritical power plant. The cost of electricity is strongly depending on the total plant cost and cost of the oxygen carrier particles. The CDCL process could capture further potential savings by increasing the performance of the particles and reducing the plant size. During the techno-economic analysis, the team identified technology and engineering gaps that need to be closed to bring the technology to commercialization. The technology gaps were focused in five critical areas: (i) moving bed reducer reactor, (ii) fluidized bed combustor, (iii) particle riser, (iv) oxygen-carrier particle properties, and (v) process operation. The key technology gaps are related to particle performance, particle manufacturing cost, and the operation of the reducer reactor. These technology gaps are to be addressed during Phase II of project. The project team is proposing additional lab testing to be completed on the particle and a 3MWth pilot facility be built to evaluate the reducer reactor performance among other aspects of the technology. A Phase II proposal was prepared and submitted to DOE. The project team proposed a three year program in Phase II. Year 1 includes lab testing and particle development work aimed at improving the chemical and mechanical properties of the oxygen carrier particle. In parallel, B&W will design the 3MWt pilot plant. Any improvements to the particle performance discovered in year 1 that would impact the design of the pilot will be incorporated into the final design. Year 2 will focus on procurement of materials and equipment, and construction of the pilot plant. Year 3 will include, commissioning, start-up, and testing in the pilot. Phase I work was successfully completed and a design and operating philosophy for a 550 MWe commercial scale coal-direct chemical looping power plant was developed. Based on the results of the techno-economic evaluation, B&W projects that the CDCL process can achieve 96.5% CO2 capture with a

  20. State Policies Provide Critical Support for Renewable Electricity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Barbose, Galen; Wiser, Ryan; Bolinger, Mark

    2008-07-15

    Growth in renewable energy in the U.S. over the past decade has been propelled by a number of forces, including rising fossil fuel prices, environmental concerns, and policy support at the state and federal levels. In this article, we review and discuss what are arguably the two most important types of state policies for supporting electricity generation from geothermal and other forms of renewable energy: renewables portfolio standards and utility integrated resource planning requirements. Within the Western U.S., where the vast majority of the nation's readily-accessible geothermal resource potential resides, these two types of state policies have been critical to the growth of renewable energy, and both promise to continue to play a fundamental role for the foreseeable future. In its essence, a renewables portfolio standard (RPS) requires utilities and other retail electricity suppliers to produce or purchase a minimum quantity or percentage of their generation supply from renewable resources. RPS purchase obligations generally increase over time, and retail suppliers typically must demonstrate compliance on an annual basis. Mandatory RPS policies are backed by various types of compliance enforcement mechanisms, although most states have incorporated some type of cost-containment provision, such as a cost cap or a cap on retail rate impacts, which could conceivably allow utilities to avoid (full) compliance with their RPS target. Currently, 27 states and the District of Columbia have mandatory RPS requirements. Within the eleven states of the contiguous Western U.S., all but three (Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming) now have a mandatory RPS legislation (Utah has a more-voluntary renewable energy goal), covering almost 80% of retail electricity sales in the region. Although many of these state policies have only recently been established, their impact is already evident: almost 1800 MW of new renewable capacity has been installed in Western states following the implementation of RPS policies. To date, wind energy has been the primary beneficiary of state RPS policies, representing approximately 83% of RPS-driven renewable capacity growth in the West through 2007. Geothermal energy occupies a distant second place, providing 7% of RPS-driven new renewable capacity in the West since the late 1990s, though geothermal's contribution on an energy (MWh) basis is higher. Looking to the future, a sizable quantity of renewable capacity beyond pre-RPS levels will be needed to meet state RPS mandates: about 25,000 MW by 2025 within the Western U.S. Geothermal energy is beginning to provide an increasingly significant contribution, as evidenced by the spate of new projects recently announced to meet state RPS requirements. Most of this activity has been driven by the RPS policies in California and Nevada, where the Geothermal Energy Association has identified 47 new geothermal projects, totaling more than 2,100 MW, in various stages of development. Additional geothermal projects in Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington are also under development to meet those states RPS requirements. The other major state policy driver for renewable electricity growth, particularly in the West, is integrated resource planning (IRP). IRP was first formalized as a practice in the 1980s, but the practice was suspended in some states as electricity restructuring efforts began. A renewed interest in IRP has emerged in the past several years, however, with several Western states (California, Montana, and New Mexico) reestablishing IRP and others developing new rules to strengthen their existing processes. In its barest form, IRP simply requires that utilities periodically submit long-term resource procurement plans in which they evaluate alternative strategies for meeting their resource needs over the following ten to twenty years. However, many states have developed specific requirements for the IRP process that directly or indirectly support renewable energy. The most general of these is an explicit requirement that utilities evaluate renewables, and that

  1. Kauai Island Utility Cooperative energy storage study.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Akhil, Abbas Ali; Yamane, Mike; Murray, Aaron T.

    2009-06-01

    Sandia National Laboratories performed an assessment of the benefits of energy storage for the Kauai Island Utility Cooperative. This report documents the methodology and results of this study from a generation and production-side benefits perspective only. The KIUC energy storage study focused on the economic impact of using energy storage to shave the system peak, which reduces generator run time and consequently reduces fuel and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. It was determined that a 16-MWh energy storage system would suit KIUC's needs, taking into account the size of the 13 individual generation units in the KIUC system and a system peak of 78 MW. The analysis shows that an energy storage system substantially reduces the run time of Units D1, D2, D3, and D5 - the four smallest and oldest diesel generators at the Port Allen generating plant. The availability of stored energy also evens the diurnal variability of the remaining generation units during the off- and on-peak periods. However, the net economic benefit is insufficient to justify a load-leveling type of energy storage system at this time. While the presence of storage helps reduce the run time of the smaller and older units, the economic dispatch changes and the largest most efficient unit in the KIUC system, the 27.5-MW steam-injected combustion turbine at Kapaia, is run for extra hours to provide the recharge energy for the storage system. The economic benefits of the storage is significantly reduced because the charging energy for the storage is derived from the same fuel source as the peak generation source it displaces. This situation would be substantially different if there were a renewable energy source available to charge the storage. Especially, if there is a wind generation resource introduced in the KIUC system, there may be a potential of capturing the load-leveling benefits as well as using the storage to dampen the dynamic instability that the wind generation could introduce into the KIUC grid. General Electric is presently conducting such a study and results of this study will be available in the near future. Another study conducted by Electric Power Systems, Inc. (EPS) in May 2006 took a broader approach to determine the causes of KIUC system outages. This study concluded that energy storage with batteries will provide stability benefits and possibly eliminate the load shedding while also providing positive voltage control. Due to the lack of fuel diversity in the KIUC generation mix, SNL recommends that KIUC continue its efforts to quantify the dynamic benefits of storage. The value of the dynamic benefits, especially as an enabler of renewable generation such as wind energy, may be far greater than the production cost benefits alone. A combination of these benefits may provide KIUC sufficient positive economic and operational benefits to implement an energy storage project that will contribute to the overall enhancement of the KIUC system.

  2. Data Center Economizer Contamination and Humidity Study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shehabi, Arman; Tschudi, William; Gadgil, Ashok

    2007-03-06

    Data centers require continuous air conditioning to address high internal heat loads (heat release from equipment) and maintain indoor temperatures within recommended operating levels for computers. Air economizer cycles, which bring in large amounts of outside air to cool internal loads when weather conditions are favorable, could save cooling energy. There is reluctance from many data center owners to use this common cooling technique, however, due to fear of introducing pollutants and potential loss of humidity control. Concerns about equipment failure from airborne pollutants lead to specifying as little outside air as permissible for human occupants. To investigate contamination levels, particle monitoring was conducted at 8 data centers in Northern California. Particle counters were placed at 3 to 4 different locations within and outside of each data center evaluated in this study. Humidity was also monitored at many of the sites to determine how economizers affect humidity control. Results from this study indicate that economizers do increase the outdoor concentration in data centers, but this concentration, when averaged annually, is still below current particle concentration limits. Study results are summarized below: (1) The average particle concentrations measured at each location, both outside and at the servers, are shown in Table 1. Measurements show low particle concentrations at all data centers without economizers, regardless of outdoor particle concentrations. Particle concentrations were typically an order of magnitude below both outside particle concentrations and recently published ASHRAE standards. (2) Economizer use caused sharp increases in particle concentrations when the economizer vents were open. The particle concentration in the data centers, however, quickly dropped back to pre-economizer levels when the vents closed. Since economizers only allow outside air part of the time, the annual average concentrations still met the ASHRAE standards. However, concentration were still above the levels measured in data centers that do not use economizers (3) Current filtration in data centers is minimal (ASHRAE 40%) since most air is typically recycled. When using economizers, modest improvements in filtration (ASHRAE 85%) can reduce particle concentrations to nearly match the level found in data centers that do not use economizers. The extra cost associated with improve filters was not determined in this study. (4) Humidity was consistent and within the ASHRAE recommended levels for all data centers without economizers. Results show that, while slightly less steady, humidity in data centers with economizers can also be controlled within the ASHRAE recommended levels. However, this control of humidity reduces energy savings by limiting the hours the economizer vents are open. (5) The potential energy savings from economizer use has been measured in one data center. When economizers were active, mechanical cooling power dropped by approximately 30%. Annual savings at this center is estimated within the range of 60-80 MWh/year, representing approximately a 5% savings off the mechanical energy load of the data center. Incoming temperatures and humidity at this data center were conservative relative to the ASHRAE acceptable temperature and humidity ranges. Greater savings may be available if higher temperature humidity levels in the data center area were permitted. The average particle concentrations measured at each of the eight data center locations are shown in Table 1. The data centers ranged in size from approximately 5,000 ft{sup 2} to 20,000 ft{sup 2}. The indoor concentrations and humidity in Table 1 represents measurements taken at the server rack. Temperature measurements at the server rack consistently fell between 65-70 F. The Findings section contains a discussion of the individual findings from each center. Data centers currently operate under very low contamination levels. Economizers can be expected to increase the particle concentration in data centers, but the increase appears to still be

  3. Comprehensive Renewable Energy Feasibility Study for the Makah Indian Tribe

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    RobertLynette; John Wade; Larry Coupe

    2005-03-31

    The purpose of this project was to determine the technical feasibility, economic viability, and potential impacts of installing and operating a wind power station and/or small hydroelectric generation plants on the Makah reservation. The long-term objective is to supply all or a portion of Tribe's electricity from local, renewable energy sources in order to reduce costs, provide local employment, and reduce power outages. An additional objective was for the Tribe to gain an understanding of the requirements, costs, and benefits of developing and operating such plants on the reservation. The Makah Indian Reservation, with a total land area of forty-seven square miles, is located on the northwestern tip of the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State. Four major watersheds drain the main Reservation areas and the average rainfall is over one hundred inches per year. The reservation's west side borders the Pacific Ocean, but mostly consists of rugged mountainous terrain between 500 and 1,900 feet in elevation. Approximately 1,200 tribal members live on the Reservation and there is an additional non-Indian residential population of about 300. Electric power is provided by the Clallam County PUD. The annual usage on the reservation is approximately 16,700 mWh. Project Work Wind Energy--Two anemometer suites of equipment were installed on the reservation and operated for a more than a year. An off-site reference station was identified and used to project long-term wind resource characteristics at the two stations. Transmission resources were identified and analyzed. A preliminary financial analysis of a hypothetical wind power station was prepared and used to gauge the economic viability of installation of a multi-megawatt wind power station. Small Hydroelectric--Two potential sites for micro/small-hydro were identified by analysis of previous water resource studies, topographical maps, and conversations with knowledgeable Makah personnel. Field trips were conducted to collect preliminary site data. A report was prepared by Alaska Power & Telephone (Larry Coupe) including preliminary layouts, capacities, potential environmental issues, and projected costs. Findings and Conclusions Wind Energy The average wind resources measured at both sites were marginal, with annual average wind speeds of 13.6-14.0 mph at a 65-meter hub height, and wind shears of 0.08-0.13. Using GE 1.5 MW wind turbines with a hub height of 65 meters, yields a net capacity factor of approximately 0.19. The cost-of-energy for a commercial project is estimated at approximately 9.6 cents per kWh using current costs for capital and equipment prices. Economic viability for a commercial wind power station would require a subsidy of 40-50% of the project capital cost, loans provided at approximately 2% rate of interest, or a combination of grants and loans at substantially below market rates. Recommendations: Because the cost-of-energy from wind power is decreasing, and because there may be small pockets of higher winds on the reservation, our recommendation is to: (1) Leave one of the two anemometer towers, preferably the 50-meter southern unit MCC, in place and continue to collect data from this site. This site would serve as an excellent reference anemometer for the Olympic Peninsula, and, (2) If funds permit, relocate the northern tower (MCB) to a promising small site closer to the transmission line with the hope of finding a more energetic site that is easier to develop. Small Hydroelectric There are a very limited number of sites on the reservation that have potential for economical hydroelectric development, even in conjunction with water supply development. Two sites emerged as the most promising and were evaluated: (1) One utilizing four creeks draining the north side of the Cape Flattery peninsula (Cape Creeks), and (2) One on the Waatch River to the south of Neah Bay. The Cape Creeks site would be a combination water supply and 512 kW power generation facility and would cost a approximately $11,100,000. Annual power generation would be approximately 1,300,000 kWh and the plant would have a cost-of-energy of approximately 65 cents per kWh, substantially above market rates. The Waatch site would also be a combination water supply and power generation facility. It would have a rated capacity of 935 kW and would cost approximately $16,400,000. Annual power generation would be approximately 3,260,000 kWh and the plant would have a cost-of-energy of approximately 38 cents per kWh, also substantially above market rates. Recommendation: Stand-alone hydroelectric development is not commercially viable. The Tribal Council should not pursue development of hydroelectric facilities on the Makah Reservation unless they are an adjunct to a water supply development, and the water supply systems absorbs almost all the capital cost of the project.

  4. Membrane Process to Capture CO{sub 2} from Coal-Fired Power Plant Flue Gas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Merkel, Tim; Wei, Xiaotong; Firat, Bilgen; He, Jenny; Amo, Karl; Pande, Saurabh; Baker, Richard; Wijmans, Hans; Bhown, Abhoyjit

    2012-03-31

    This final report describes work conducted for the U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE NETL) on development of an efficient membrane process to capture carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) from power plant flue gas (award number DE-NT0005312). The primary goal of this research program was to demonstrate, in a field test, the ability of a membrane process to capture up to 90% of CO{sub 2} in coal-fired flue gas, and to evaluate the potential of a full-scale version of the process to perform this separation with less than a 35% increase in the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). Membrane Technology and Research (MTR) conducted this project in collaboration with Arizona Public Services (APS), who hosted a membrane field test at their Cholla coal-fired power plant, and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and WorleyParsons (WP), who performed a comparative cost analysis of the proposed membrane CO{sub 2} capture process. The work conducted for this project included membrane and module development, slipstream testing of commercial-sized modules with natural gas and coal-fired flue gas, process design optimization, and a detailed systems and cost analysis of a membrane retrofit to a commercial power plant. The Polaris? membrane developed over a number of years by MTR represents a step-change improvement in CO{sub 2} permeance compared to previous commercial CO{sub 2}-selective membranes. During this project, membrane optimization work resulted in a further doubling of the CO{sub 2} permeance of Polaris membrane while maintaining the CO{sub 2}/N{sub 2} selectivity. This is an important accomplishment because increased CO{sub 2} permeance directly impacts the membrane skid cost and footprint: a doubling of CO{sub 2} permeance halves the skid cost and footprint. In addition to providing high CO{sub 2} permeance, flue gas CO{sub 2} capture membranes must be stable in the presence of contaminants including SO{sub 2}. Laboratory tests showed no degradation in Polaris membrane performance during two months of continuous operation in a simulated flue gas environment containing up to 1,000 ppm SO{sub 2}. A successful slipstream field test at the APS Cholla power plant was conducted with commercialsize Polaris modules during this project. This field test is the first demonstration of stable performance by commercial-sized membrane modules treating actual coal-fired power plant flue gas. Process design studies show that selective recycle of CO{sub 2} using a countercurrent membrane module with air as a sweep stream can double the concentration of CO{sub 2} in coal flue gas with little energy input. This pre-concentration of CO{sub 2} by the sweep membrane reduces the minimum energy of CO{sub 2} separation in the capture unit by up to 40% for coal flue gas. Variations of this design may be even more promising for CO{sub 2} capture from NGCC flue gas, in which the CO{sub 2} concentration can be increased from 4% to 20% by selective sweep recycle. EPRI and WP conducted a systems and cost analysis of a base case MTR membrane CO{sub 2} capture system retrofitted to the AEP Conesville Unit 5 boiler. Some of the key findings from this study and a sensitivity analysis performed by MTR include: The MTR membrane process can capture 90% of the CO{sub 2} in coal flue gas and produce high-purity CO{sub 2} (>99%) ready for sequestration. CO{sub 2} recycle to the boiler appears feasible with minimal impact on boiler performance; however, further study by a boiler OEM is recommended. For a membrane process built today using a combination of slight feed compression, permeate vacuum, and current compression equipment costs, the membrane capture process can be competitive with the base case MEA process at 90% CO{sub 2} capture from a coal-fired power plant. The incremental LCOE for the base case membrane process is about equal to that of a base case MEA process, within the uncertainty in the analysis. With advanced membranes (5,000 gpu for CO{sub 2} and 50 for CO{sub 2}/N{sub 2}), operating with no feed compression and low-cost CO{sub 2} compression equipment, an incremental LCOE of $33/MWh at 90% capture can be achieved (40% lower than the advanced MEA case). Even with lower cost compression, it appears unlikely that a membrane process using high feed compression (>5 bar) can be competitive with amine absorption, due to the capital cost and energy consumption of this equipment. Similarly, low vacuum pressure (<0.2 bar) cannot be used due to poor efficiency and high cost of this equipment. High membrane permeance is important to reduce the capital cost and footprint of the membrane unit. CO{sub 2}/N{sub 2} selectivity is less important because it is too costly to generate a pressure ratio where high selectivity can be useful. A potential cost ?sweet spot? exists for use of membrane-based technology, if 50-70% CO{sub 2} capture is acceptable. There is a minimum in the cost of CO{sub 2} avoided/ton that membranes can deliver at 60% CO{sub 2} capture, which is 20% lower than the cost at 90% capture. Membranes operating with no feed compression are best suited for lower capture rates. Currently, it appears that the biggest hurdle to use of membranes for post-combustion CO{sub 2} capture is compression equipment cost. An alternative approach is to use sweep membranes in parallel with another CO{sub 2} capture technology that does not require feed compression or vacuum equipment. Hybrid designs that utilize sweep membranes for selective CO{sub 2} recycle show potential to significantly reduce the minimum energy of CO{sub 2} separation.

  5. PG&E WaveConnect Program Final Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brendan P. Dooher; Edward Cheslak; Robert Booth; Doug Davy; Annette Faraglia; Ian Caliendo; Gina Morimoto; Douglas Herman

    2011-12-01

    The PG&E WaveConnect project was intended to demonstrate the technical and economic viability of wave power in the open ocean adjacent to PG&E's service territory. WaveConnect was conceived as a multi-stage development process leading to long-term megawatt-scale wave power production. The first-stage tasks consisted of site selection, permitting, pilot plant design, and assessment of technology and commercial readiness. The second stage would have included development of infrastructure, undersea cabling, and deployment of wave energy conversion devices (WECs). In the third stage, the most promising WEC devices would have been deployed in larger quantities and connected to the grid. This report documents the findings of Stage One. Site Selection: After studying the wave energy potential, grid interconnection and other project infrastructure along the California coast, PG&E selected two sites: one near Eureka, called the Humboldt WaveConnect (HWC) project, and another near Vandenberg Air Force Base, called the Central Coast WaveConnect project (CCWC). Permitting: FERC issued PG&E preliminary permits for HWC in 2008 and for CCWC in 2010. PG&E chose to use FERC's Pilot Project Licensing Process, which was intended to streamline licensing to allow relatively quick and easy installation, operation, and environmental testing for pilot projects. Permitting, however, proved to be complicated, time-consuming and expensive, mainly because of the uncertain impacts of WEC devices. PG&E learned that even under the PPLP the project would still require a full analysis under CEQA, including an EIR, as well as Monitoring and Adaptive Management Programs and other requirements that had significant cost and scheduling implications. A majority of efforts were expended on permitting activities. Pilot Plant Design: PG&E prepared a conceptual design for a 5-MW pilot test facility at the Humboldt site, which consisted of an off-shore deployment area where WECs of different designs and from different device manufacturers could be tested. PG&E was to provide permitting, subsea cables, and on-shore facilities necessary to connect WaveConnect to an existing PG&E substation, while the WEC manufacturers would provide, operate and maintain their devices during the test period. Technology and Commercial Readiness: PG&E issued a Request for Information to the wave power industry to assess the technical and commercial capabilities of WEC manufacturers. Sixteen manufacturers responded, representing the four best-known and most mature designs. PG&E found that WECs are early-stage devices with evolving designs and little real-world operating experience. These characteristics made environmental impacts difficult to assess, which complicated permitting efforts. It also made a megawatt-scale demonstration project difficult to support because early stage WECs are costly and have limited track records for performance and reliability. Results: PG&E withdrew its FERC DPLA for HWC in November 2010 and surrendered its preliminary permit for CCWC in May 2011, effectively discontinuing the project for the following combination of reasons: Permitting issues were much more challenging than originally anticipated. Stage One project funding of $6 million proved insufficient to complete the necessary development and permitting work. During Stage One development, PG&E determined that permitting costs would be $2 million to $5 million greater than originally budgeted. The cost of developing a five-year, 5-MW pilot project at Humboldt Bay is much greater than the $15 million to $20 million originally estimated. Even assuming that vendors provide WEC devices at no cost to the utility, which was the proposed strategy with WaveConnect, PG&E concluded that a pilot project comparable to HWC would cost approximately $47 million. If WEC devices were purchased for such a project, its total cost would be on the order of $90 million. It is unclear when or if wave power will become competitive with renewable energy alternatives. Significant additional investment in design, testing and demonstration will be needed to improve designs and reduce costs. Using a vendor-provided installed cost goal of $2500/kW for mature WECs in five to 10 years, PG&E concluded that their LCOE would be in the range of $175-$250/MWh, which is not competitive with current or near-term renewable alternatives such as wind or solar photovoltaics. Although PG&E discontinued the project and no WEC devices were deployed, WaveConnect advanced PG&E's understanding of the technological, engineering, permitting, environmental, economic, stakeholder, and related issues involved in undertaking any wave power project now or in the future. As WEC technologies mature, and regulatory and permitting agencies grow more familiar with their environmental impacts, PG&E believes that wave power will merit further evaluation, demonstration and deployment.