Archive for the ‘News’ Category

October, 2010
Lake Country Sun

Events at Glen Rose will have a significant impact at Possum Kingdom Lake.

With the proposed addition of two towers at the Comanche Nuclear Power Plant in Glen Rose, the Lake Granbury Waterfront Owners Association is fighting hard to maintain water levels.

The draft environmental impact statement shows significant amounts of water will evaporate from the cooling towers every year – in excess of 60,000 acre feet. That same report notes that PK Lake and Lake Granbury water levels will drop. And Lake Granbury property owners are seriously concerned about their lake level falling. For example, those owners refer to the “drought of 2009” when Granbury lake levels fell significantly while Possum Kingdom Lake water levels never fell more than just over 5 feet on a couple of occasions. That was without the additional two towers.

The WOA folks want assurances that their lake will be stable, even going so far as to solicit support for legislative action to force the Brazos River Authority to release more water from PK to do so. The organization is working very hard, through elected officials, to have Lake Granbury designated as a “recreational lake” with a stable lake level.

In addition, WOA members and Granbury city leaders want the generators at PK back on line, citing as a reason the additional release of water from PK. Granbury Mayor Ricky Pratt even suggested that Luminant, the Comanche Peak operator, or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission assume ownership and operation of the generators at Morris Sheppard Dam.

The stability of the water level at Lake Granbury would mean the water would have to come from PK, the generators operating would mean the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission stays. Both these situations would have a significant impact on not only PK leaseholders, land owners and businesses, but also Palo Pinto County businesses. With insufficient water levels, vacationers and weekend visitors could well decide to travel elsewhere.

The bottom line – PK water levels will fall if the towers are built. How much will depend a lot on what assurances property owners at Lake Granbury can get from the Legislature or BRA.

There are a number of pressures on PK already – the proposed Cedar Ridge Reservoir on the Clear Fork of the Brazos River, the property sale and a possible reservoir on the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos.

But there is common ground, The folks at Lake Granbury have as much heartburn with the Brazos River Authority as people at PK. Their experiences are as frustrating, if not more so. They are not opposed to the additional towers at Comanche Peak, they are opposed to using Lake Granbury as the water source without assurances the lake level will be stabilized.

They are worried about their lake, people at PK are worried about theirs. While some of the goals are directly opposite, others are in tandem. The point being, people at PK should become aware and involved in what WOA is working toward. With the property sale nearly done, it is time to look to other issues that will have a lasting and dramatic effect on the future of Possum Kingdom Lake. There is room for compromise, there are areas where joint efforts can pay off, bit only if everyone pays attention.

September 21, 2010

Jack Z. Smith
Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Sept. 21–Anyone wanting to weigh in on the potential environmental impact of expanding the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant will have an opportunity in public meetings this afternoon and tonight in Glen Rose.

The meetings, held by staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, will be from 1 to 4 p.m. and from 7 to 10 p.m. at the Glen Rose Expo Center, 202 Bo Gibbs Blvd.

In addition, NRC staffers will be available for informal discussions with the public during “open house” sessions from noon to 1 p.m. and from 6 to 7 p.m. at the center, immediately preceding the three-hour meetings.

The NRC staff is seeking comments on its preliminary finding that there are no environmental grounds to preclude issuing combined construction and operating licenses to electric power generator Luminant for the addition of two reactors at Comanche Peak, four miles north of Glen Rose and 45 miles southwest of Fort Worth.

The NRC’s preliminary finding is contained in a draft environmental impact statement filed with the Environmental Protection Agency.

An opponent of the expansion, the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition, is expected to address the preliminary finding.

Luminant plans to more than double Comanche Peak’s generating capacity by adding two 1,700-megawatt reactors for an estimated $15 billion to $20 billion.

A three-member panel of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has scheduled an Oct. 28 hearing for oral arguments on the contentions of the SEED Coalition and other opponents that renewable energy, such as wind power with backup natural gas-fired generation, is a more attractive option than expanding Comanche Peak. That hearing is set for 9 a.m. at the Hood County Justice Center, 1200 W. Pearl St. in Granbury.

Plant opponents argue that an expanded Comanche Peak would be a huge water consumer, create more radioactive waste and be a potentially vulnerable target for terrorists.

Luminant has countered that an expanded plant would recycle water, be secure, could handle additional nuclear waste and would have a major economic impact by providing jobs and tax revenue for local governments.

Jack Z. Smith, 817-390-7724

September 22, 2010

Jack Z. Smith
Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Sept. 22–GLEN ROSE — Numerous elected officials, civic leaders and residents of Somervell and Hood counties expressed support for a multibillion-dollar expansion of the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant at a public meeting here Tuesday.

But a series of speakers repeatedly expressed one nagging concern: whether the proposed addition of two 1,700-megawatt reactors would significantly lower water levels on Lake Granbury, which would be heavily tapped to provide cooling water for the new units.

"Such a huge drain on the water reserves does not seem prudent," said Sue Williams, who along with her husband, Joe Williams, cited their concerns. They live on the lake and are members of the Lake Granbury Waterfront Owners Association.

Significantly lower lake levels could hamper recreational activities such as fishing and boating and reduce property values of surrounding residences, some residents say.

Approximately 200 people packed the Somervell County Expo center for a lengthy afternoon meeting held by the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The officials sought comments on the commission’s preliminary finding that there are no environmental grounds to preclude issuing combined construction and operating licenses to Luminant, operator of the Comanche Peak plant, for building the two new reactors, which would more than double the plant’s generating capacity. The plant is four miles north of Glen Rose, the Somervell County seat, and is 45 miles southwest of Fort Worth.

Rafael Flores, Luminant’s senior vice president and chief nuclear officer, sought to reassure residents by pledging that the company would try to minimize the impact on the lake. Estimates in a draft environmental impact statement said that the percentage of time that Lake Granbury is at “full pool level” would drop from 57 percent to 46 percent. The percentage of time that the lake would be 2 feet or more below full pool level would go from 10 to 25 percent. On average, the lake level would be 7 inches lower.

Flores said the actual impact would likely be less.

Numerous speakers said the expansion would provide economic benefits by adding jobs and tax revenues for local government. They also said Luminant has been a model corporate citizen in terms of civic involvement by employees.

August 9, 2010

By Jack Z. Smith
Fort Worth Star-Telegram

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has made a preliminary finding that "there are no environmental impacts that would preclude" issuing combined construction and operating licenses for a proposed expansion of the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant 45 miles southwest of Fort Worth.

The federal agency’s decision is contained in a draft environmental impact statement that was filed late Friday with the Environmental Protection Agency, commission spokesman Scott Burnell told the Star-Telegram Monday.

Dallas-based Luminant, the electric power generator proposing to build two new 1,700-megawatt reactors at Comanche Peak, is "pleased with the NRC’s preliminary recommendation" in support of "more safe, dependable nuclear power in Texas," said company spokeswoman Ashley Monts.

Karen Hadden, executive director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, an opponent of the plant expansion, said Monday: "We remain very concerned that there are environmental impacts that are not being adequately addressed."

Water usage an issue

Hadden said the group is particularly concerned about water withdrawals from Lake Granbury that would be required for the two new reactors. The group previously estimated that withdrawals could reach 91.5 million gallons per day during maximum operations. Luminant has said that there should be sufficient water supplies and that substantial volumes will be recycled.

Hadden’s group has urged that instead of building the new reactors, additional renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power should be developed, in conjunction with compressed-air energy storage and natural gas-fired generation.

Public meetings

NRC staff members will seek public comment on the agency’s preliminary finding in meetings to be held from 1 to 4 p.m. and 7 to 10 p.m. on Sept. 21 in the Glen Rose Expo Center at 202 Bo Gibbs Blvd. in Glen Rose. Staffers from the NRC and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will discuss the draft environmental impact statement at the meetings.

NRC staffers will be available for informal discussions with the public during "open house" sessions from noon to 1 p.m. and 6 to 7 p.m. at the center, immediately preceding the three-hour meetings that begin at 1 p.m. and 7 p.m.

Continued opposition

Hadden said the SEED coalition, together with a group of plant opponents known as True Cost of Nukes, will "continue to oppose these new reactors."

"We will be at the Sept. 21 meetings and encourage the citizens to join us," she said.

The two new reactors, dubbed Units 3 and 4, would more than double generating capacity at the current two-unit Comanche Peak plant four miles north of Glen Rose.

Cost estimate

Luminant CEO David Campbell estimated in July that the plant expansion would cost $15 billion to $20 billion. Luminant hopes to win approval of combined construction and operating licenses by late 2012 or early 2013, he said. The new units could go online in the 2018-2020 timeframe, perhaps a year apart, he said.

The expansion would create approximately 5,000 jobs at the Comanche Peak site during five years of construction, and more than 500 permanent jobs there, economist Ray Perryman has estimated

The expanded plant’s indirect economic effect would create 2,847 permanent jobs in the Somervell County area in the general vicinity of Comanche Peak, and 6,264 permanent jobs throughout Texas, Perryman has estimated.

The two new reactors would provide enough power to serve an estimated 1.7 million homes.

Future hearing

A three-member panel of the federal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board agreed in late June to hold a future hearing regarding arguments by plant opponents that a combination of renewable energy, natural gas and energy storage could provide a feasible alternative to expansion of Comanche Peak. No hearing date has been set, said Burnell, the NRC spokesman.

Jack Z. Smith, 817-390-7724

July 31, 2010

By Lynn Doan
SNL Financial LC

Consumers benefited in 2009 from some of the lowest wholesale electricity prices the Electric Reliability Council of Texas Inc. region has seen in recent years, but the market suffered, according to an annual report issued by ERCOT’s independent market monitor.

According to the report, "2009 State of the Market Report for the ERCOT Wholesale Electricity Markets," wholesale electricity prices averaged $34.03 per MWh in 2009, or 56% lower than the $77.19 average price in 2008. Market monitor Potomac Economics noted in the report, sent to stakeholders July 30, that average annual prices fell to the lowest levels experienced in the ERCOT wholesale market since 2002.

All-in electricity prices, accounting for the costs of operating reserves, regulation and uplift, ranked lower than those in markets in California, New England, New York and the mid-Atlantic region.

While the lower prices provided short-term relief to consumers, Potomac Economics said, they did not reflect market conditions when operating reserves were scarce. When reserves fall short, prices are supposed to rise sharply to reflect that.

And according to the report, they did not rise sharply enough to support the development of new natural gas, combined-cycle and combustion turbine generation. A sharp drop in the number of shortage intervals last year further exacerbated the situation, Potomac Economics said.

"Although these shortage conditions occur in only a handful of hours each year," the report said, "efficient shortage pricing is critical to the long-term success of the ERCOT energy-only market."

Estimated revenues for nuclear and coal-fired generation in 2009 were also not enough to support new market entry, though that was primarily caused by a fall in natural gas prices and a related drop in wholesale energy prices.

Potomac Economics concluded in its report that the ERCOT wholesale market performed competitively in 2009, and performance measures showed "a trend of increasing competitiveness" over the 2005 through 2009 period, it said. But the 2009 report also echoes Potomac Economics’ previous concerns that current market rules and procedures are resulting in "systemic inefficiencies" that the nodal market system, now scheduled to go live Dec. 1, will largely resolve.

Among other things, the report said, the nodal market design will improve ERCOT’s ability to manage congestion, provide incentives to market participants to more efficiently commit and dispatch generation, and reliably integrate rapidly growing amounts of wind- and solar-generated power.

The report estimates that the net revenue required to pay for the annual fixed costs of a new gas turbine unit ranges from $70 to $95 per kW-year. The estimated net revenue in 2009 for a new gas turbine was about $55, $47 and $32 per kW-year in the South, Houston and North Zones, respectively.

For a new combined cycle unit, the estimated net revenue necessary is about $105 to $135 per kW-year, the report said, while the actual estimated net revenue in 2009 was about $76, $67 and $52 per kW-year in the South, Houston and North Zones, respectively.

"These values indicate that the estimated net revenue in 2009 was well below the levels required to support new entry for a new gas turbine or a combined cycle unit in the ERCOT region," Potomac Economics said in its report.

Estimated net revenue for a new coal unit similarly fell far below net revenue requirements in 2009, to $93, $84 and $70 per kW-year in the same three zones. And the estimated net revenue for a new nuclear unit was about $194, $187 and $172 per kW-year in the zones, well under the required net revenue of about $280 to $390 per kW-year.

The report also revealed that interzonal price disparities grew significantly in 2008 and 2009 compared with previous years, primarily because of additional wind generation in the West Zone and "inefficiencies that are inherent to the zonal market design," the report said. Wind generation also attributed to an increased use of coal-fired power as the marginal, or price-setting, fuel in the region.

The amount of load participating in the responsive reserve market fell in late 2008 and into 2009, the report said, compared with participation in previous years, likely due to a combination of Hurricane Ike and the economic downturn’s impact on industrial operations. But in all, participation has held fairly constant at 1,150 MW since 2006, and Potomac Economics said this high level of support "sets ERCOT apart from other operating electricity markets."

According to the report, ERCOT’s average balancing energy prices fell by 56% in 2009, and the average natural gas price fell by 56%.