, managing editor
Coal plants are running at full tilt in response to high natural gas prices, and nuclear plant capacity continues to improve. Emission rates continue to drop as innovations in controls come on line. Those are just some of the trends we saw in the 2004 Operating Rankings.
For the fourth year in a row, EL&P has joined with Energy Ventures Analysis (EVA) to produce one of our most popular industry reports. Power plant managers across the country benchmark their operations with these numbers. Placing highly is a point of pride for companies in coal, natural gas and nuclear generation, and the results are also featured in annual reports.
Tom Hewson, EVA principal, provided the numbers for this report and in a recent interview, shared his analysis of the results. Readers can look back at previous years to compare the numbers by logging onto the Electric Light & Power website at www.elp.com and selecting “issue archives.” Reports begin with the November 2002 issue.
nuclear generation poised to grow
According to the latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, nuclear plants produce 20 percent of the electric power generated in the United States. The sector is ready to grow, too, fortified by the recent passage of the Energy Bill, which supports nuclear power in several ways. Hewson predicts that we will see new plants on these lists by 2008 and also expects consolidation in the sector to continue.
 |
Table 1 ranks nuclear plants by generation. Pinnacle West’s Palo Verde plant in Arizona is still No. 1, with just over 28 million MWh, slightly less than last year’s total. The No. 2 spot goes to Texas Genco’s South Texas plant, a considerable move up for that facility from its previous ranking position as No. 18. According to Hewson, the plant had problems at one of its units in 2003 but in 2004 returned to regular operating levels, even surpassing its old average of 19 million MWh with more than 21 million.
Exelon’s three plants, Braidwood, Byron and Limerick, are still in the Top 5, while Southern Co.’s Vogtle plant dropped one place this year, to sixth.
 |
Table 2 ranks nuclear plants by their capacity factor. Progress Energy’s H.B. Robinson plant, No. 1 in 2003, has dropped completely out of the top 20 for 2004, but the company’s Crystal River plant is No. 4. Seabrook, FPL Group’s nuclear plant in New Hampshire, is now No. 1. Seabrook wasn’t in the picture in last year’s report at all.
In fact, there’s been a lot of reshuffling in these numbers. Exelon’s LaSalle County Nuclear Generating Station has moved up to third place from No. 10 and Three Mile Island took second place this year. Last year’s No. 2, Duke Power’s McGuire, drops out of the top 20 in 2004. Two Entergy plants, Indian Point 2 and Grand Gulf, appeared in 2003 as Nos. 4 and 5, respectively. This go-round they’re No. 20 and No. 11.
Last year Hewson predicted a continuation of uprating and a capacity factor close to 90 percent. Both predictions have come true, with the capacity factor for the top 20 plants above 95 percent. “We have been getting better each year in terms of capacity. We know how to operate these plants,” said Hewson. “When we bring them down for refueling, we only have to do it every 18 months or so. They generate a lot of power and we run them full out. And when it comes to controlling CO2, nuclear will play a big role.
“To put the size of these plants in perspective, if you took all the wind projects in the United States and added them together, they would still not break into the top 20 or even the top 25 on this list,” Hewson said. “These nuclear plants are huge.”
coal plants running at full capacity
To be among the top 20 on the coal plant generation list, you have to be big. In many cases these plants are the lowest cost producers, and that’s why they’re running all the time, generating as much power as they can.
Hewson said there’s nothing like high-priced natural gas to inspire new projects. “We’re tracking 116 coal plants at this time. We have two coal plants coming on line this year, one in Kentucky and one in Montana,” said Hewson. The plant in Kentucky runs a fluidized-bed boiler, able to use a wide variety of coals. The Montana plant is using a boiler from South Africa that is being shipped in pieces so it can be reassembled on the site. Next year, Hewson expects to see another two plants begin operation.
In Table 3, the generation rankings chart, 2004 finds Southern Company still the leader. Three Southern plants made the top five. The company’s Scherer plant in Georgia took the No. 1 place, with a whopping 23,261,025 MWh, and Bowen and Miller plants placed third and fourth. These are the same places that Southern earned in the 2003 rankings, except that the Bowen plant was No. 1 last time.
Second place went to Cinergy’s Gibson for another year, with 21,340,496 MWh. AEP is No. 5 again this year but with the Gen. J.M. Gavin plant not John E. Amos.
 |
Hewson said that on the capacity factor chart (see Table 4) numbers are skewed toward the western part of the nation. These coal plants serve major metropolitan areas and they don’t back down often. “These plants can operate flat-out because they are extremely low cost, and in some cases they sell steam too, so they operate all around the clock.”
Looking at the 2004 capacity factor list, we see that there has been a lot of change since 2003. Golden Valley Electric Association is No. 1 on the 2004 list, with its Healy plant in Alaska. But its net capacity in MW was only 25. Last year, Black Hills Corp. took top honors with a capacity factor of 101.7 percent and a net capacity of 80 MW.
Platte River Power Authority jumped up to No. 2 from No. 5 and Ameren’s Joppa Steam also made a big move, ending at No. 4 this time around, up from No. 14 in 2003.
Salt River Project took top honors in the SO2 emissions rate rankings again with its Navajo station (see Table 5). Last year it had an SO2 rate of 0.037; this year it’s down to 0.032. TriState G&T made a major improvement, moving from No. 17 to No. 2. Dominion is still in the top five, although one of its plants, Southampton, dropped to No. 11. The Reid Gardner station, a Sierra Pacific plant, has also moved up this year, from No. 15 in 2003 to No. 5.
“Whenever we put on more controls, we reduce our energy efficiency because the controls take power to run. We lose heat and the plants are not as efficient,” said Hewson. “The amount of carbon dioxide emitted per megawatt hour will also be increased.”
Hewson explained more about the trade-offs inherent in emissions control. For every ton of SO2 removed, 5 tons of sludge is produced. By converting the sulfur dioxide to this calcium sulfate solid, a new waste stream is created. Currently there are several plants that expend energy to drive moisture and impurities out of the sludge so that they can have a saleable commodity, gypsum, that can be used to make wallboard. “While it’s not nearly the quality of mined gypsum,” said Hewson, “if you get any revenue it will offset a portion of your costs.”
 |
Compared by heat rate efficiency (see Table 6), coal-fired plants show numbers that are similar to last year’s. “The backbone of our coal fleet is pulverized coal, and we have many high-performance plants. Supercritical boilers are where all the really energy efficient plants are.”
If new advanced supercritical designs can get steam pressure up to 4,700 psi, the heat rate would go down to 8,126 Btus per kilowatt hour. Those units would be 42 percent efficient. “If we can just double our steam pressure, we can improve our heat rate efficiency quite a bit,” said Hewson. Materials that can handle these extreme pressures and temperatures have yet to be developed.
TVA’s Bull Run plant in Tennessee is No. 1 in 2004, improving from second place in 2003. Duke Power still has two plants in the Top Five. Marshall was No. 1 in 2003; in 2004, it’s No. 2. Belews Creek improved in 2004 to No. 3. SCANA’s Cope dropped to No. 7 from third place in 2003. Montour, a PPL Corp. plant, came in at fourth in 2004, an improvement over its No. 10 slot in 2003. Reliant moved up to fifth, with its Conmaugh plant in Pennsylvania.
combined cycle plants feeling price pinch
These rankings focus on natural gas turbine combined cycle generation (NGCC), plants that are designed to be base-load. Their heat rate efficiencies are such that they are more efficient than “their steam brethren.” (See Table 7.)
“You have to be in an area with high energy prices so you can run hard,” said Hewson, and that would include Florida. FPL Group is in the No. 1 spot again this year, but its Sanford NGCC plant replaces the Fort Myers plant for that honor.
“To be on this list you have to be a multiple unit,” said Hewson. “Sanford is new to the list because it has been expanded.” It’s a multiple unit at 2,100 MW capacity. A normal NGCC plant would have two gas turbines, so according to Hewson, Sanford appears to have six. The Fort Myers and Mystic plants have also been repowered.
Boston Generating’s Mystic plant is No. 4. Boston Generating, a banking entity, is the owner of several other gas-fired plants and closed a $1.3 billion recapitalization in October with the international law firm of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCoy LLP.
 |
Most of the plants on the gas capacity list (see Table 8) are cogeneration plants, while some are Qualifying Units. When a plant has obligations to produce steam for an industrial user it’s easier for it to be cost-effective to run the plants.
overall, natural gas capacity is only half that of coal.
The heat rate efficiency, shown in Table 9, of the NGCC plants is better this year.
 |
Sempra is No. 1 in 2004 with its Elk Hills Power plant. Last year it was No. 300. International Power’s ANP Blackstone Energy Project was first last year and has dropped from the list entirely. Coyote Springs II was No. 7 last year but moved up to No. 2 in 2004. Duke Energy takes No. 4 and No. 5. PSEG is still in the top five with the Odessa-Ector plant at No. 3 in 2004.
“One of the ways to get onto this list is to have a fairly high capacity factor. The heat rate efficiency curve for a gas combined cycle plant is highly sensitive to loading. You need to be able to operate near full load to get your best efficiency,” said Hewson. With natural gas prices so high, Hewson wonders if and when other traditional types of generation will displace these plants, maybe even oil.
Looking ahead to challenges in the power industry, Hewson commented on emissions controls and our capabilities.
“We create a solid waste issue when we solve the air issue. The same will be true with mercury.” Activated carbon injection will be the primary technology employed, according to Hewson, but then the quality of the ash will be degraded to the point that a lot of ash that is being sold now for roadbed material will no longer be suitable. “Then it will have to be disposed of properly.”
Hewson is optimistic that after the mercury issue is solved, other innovative ideas will come along. “We’re going to come up with creative ideas and if 10 percent of them work out that will be great.”
For more information about Energy Ventures Analysis, visit www.evainc.com or call 703.276.8900.