coal2nuclear.com             A Plan for Our Planet
 ►to  CONTENTS page            >  10 U.S. CAPITOL BUILDING COMPLEX          Back <> to NEXT page

Chapter 10.
  "Greening" the U.S. Capitol Building.
Replacing its coal and natural gas boilers with small nuclear boilers.

 

Part 1  Making Washington the world's first zero-CO2 Capitol.
Part 2  Actually doing it.
Part 3  Feasibility.
Part 4  Anti-Coal Protest.
Part 5  More about the Hyperion reactor.
Part 6  More about the NuScale Reactor.

Introduction.

The world's first Zero-CO2 Capitol

"In June 2007, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced the "Greening the Capitol" initiative. The initiative's goal is to make the Capitol carbon neutral,  and the power plant is a major obstacle to achieving this objective." - -   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Power_Plant  
 

Nancy Pelosi's 'Greening the Capitol' initiative gives her the opportunity to make our Capitol the world's first "Zero Global Warming" capitol.  Zero-emissions nuclear reactors small enough to fit in the Capitol's boiler house and powerful enough to power the Capitol are about to come on market.  Like Jack Kennedy's vision of going to the moon, this could be the defining CO2 mitigation concept that marks the turning point in the war against Global Warming.
 

Photo of the U.S. Capitol showing one of the Capitol's boiler house stacks in the foreground and the edge of the other large one along the right edge of the photo.  The boiler house is located about 4 blocks south of the Capitol Building.  Another View.

 

We are talking very small nuclear boilers to replace the industrial/commercial size boilers being used now to heat and cool the Capitol Building Complex.

 

This page is a demonstration of how ending Global Warming and Energy Independence can make each other happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Reactor shown here in a Hyperion Co. sales drawing powering water desalination/purification equipment in a low-tech environment.) 

Doesn't this tell you something about how dangerous these reactors really are?

The new reactors: The new  Hyperion  NuScale  and  mPower  brand mini reactors are developed and waiting for certification by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Hyperion to build small reactor assembly facility in the UK.pdf

 ______________________________________

"Greening" the Capitol Building.  Part 1: Making Washington the world's first zero-CO2 Capitol

Making Washington the world's first zero-CO2 Capitol

Nancy Pelosi will have to initiate the first of several engineering and cost studies leading to the world's first nuclear-powered large building complex.  If you understand what's needed to end Global Warming quickly, it's the very right thing to do.  If you understand America's ignorance and fear about things nuclear, it will take an incredible act of courage on her part to just mention it in public.

Repowering the Capitol Building Complex with small nuclear reactors would accomplish three key things:
           1. Ending natural gas burning would end the Capitol's Global Warming CO2 production.
           2. Ending natural gas burning would begin Oil Energy Independence.
           3. There could be no stronger demonstration to the world how sincere the United States is about ending Global Warming.

 

House Makes Progress With "Green The Capitol" Campaign.
USA Today (9/8, Thompson) reports that in January 2007, the House of Representatives "committed to becoming a greener, more energy-efficient institution," starting with "simple changes, such as switching to more eco-friendly products and finding better ways to dispose of waste products." The "Green the Capitol" program was designed to "change to more environmentally friendly food service products; to shift to renewable energy sources; and to switch from using coal to natural gas." Already, the House cafeteria "is on its way to becoming a zero-waste facility," and the House "now offers only paper with high or 100% recycled content, and as of January 2008, the House Office Supply Store began to add more environmentally friendly paper products." Also, "by switching to Energy Star energy-efficient vending machines alone, the House expects to save $25,000 a year."

 ______________________________________

"Greening" the Capitol Building.  Part 2: Actually doing it.

Actually doing it.  (See "How many Btu?")

As an engineer who has worked on Large Building Complex electrical/electronic upgrade projects, I can think of at least two options for her to consider:

coal2nuclear  option 1. Add 4 Hyperion™ (or 2 NuScale) mini nuclear reactors to the Capitol Power Plant so the Capitol Building Complex can have zero-CO2 heat, cooling, and electricity.
(Hyperion TRIGA 70 MW thermal, 25 MW electrical (33,500 horsepower), 1,000°F steam)   http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/index.html   More >>>
(NuScale Mini Conventional 150 MW thermal, 40 MW electrical (53,620 horsepower), 600°F steam)   http://www.nuscalepower.com/   More >>>

 

For orientation, see overview showing Capitol Hill, below.  Boiler house at tip of yellow pushpin.

Capitol Power Plant.  (Right,  Google image.  North is up.) Boilers in site center toward tracks.  Railroad tracks lower, southbound siding on south side of tracks, coal pile under and south of freeway.  The coal yard, south of the freeway curve, looks to be the best place to locate the reactor bldg.
 

 

A likely location for the new reactor building would be in the existing coal yard south of the freeway.  RED DOT.  The existing unused coal conveyor tunnel might be large enough for the new steam lines.  The existing boilers and their natural gas connections would remain untouched and kept serviceable for backup service.  Steam connections would have to be revised and steam transfer valves added.

COOL

Steam heated lithium-bromide air conditioning systems are among the most efficient ways to cool a building.  Counter-intuitive, but true.

http://www.gasairconditioning.org/absorption_how_it_works.htm 

This is a wonderful way to use steam from a small nuclear reactor to cool large buildings.

 

The author thinks it highly unlikely any of the reactors will be certified by the NRC, manufactured, and in vendor's inventory ready for installation by the next presidential election.  A quicker, less CO2-free option is also available.

option 2. Add two solid biomass (wood pellet) boilers.  While this would not make the Capitol Power Plant zero-emissions, it would become 'carbon-neutral' by avoiding the burning of fossil fuel for heat, cooling, and electricity.    http://www.hurstboiler.com/boilers/hybrid_hd/      Biomass Boiler.pdf  (7.8 meg)

This option would also call for a new boiler house along with a fuel marshalling area, both located in the existing coal yard south of the freeway.  The site has a railroad siding set up for coal, so handling biomass should not pose a problem.  Keep in mind that biomass has 1/3 the energy density of coal so the volumes of fuel and ash will be three times as great but there is plenty of space.  The existing unused coal conveyor tunnel might be large enough for the new steam lines.  The existing boilers and their natural gas connections would remain untouched and kept serviceable for backup service.  Steam connections would have to be revised and steam transfer valves added.

Example of a large biomass power plant

England To Build £500 Million Biomass Plant. The Financial Times (7/16, Tighe) reports, "England's biggest biomass power station, a £500m plant at Teesport, near Middlesbrough, was given the go-ahead" yesterday. "The 295-megawatt capacity renewable energy plant, capable of generating enough electricity to meet the needs of 600,000 homes, will be one of the world's biggest biomass plants." The UK "company developing the wood-fuelled power station is MGT Power, established 18 months ago to develop biomass-generation projects in the UK and continental Europe." According to the Times, "announced on Wednesday to coincide with the unveiling of the government's low-carbon strategies, the plant is expected to save 1.2m tons of CO2 per year and account for 5.5 per cent of the UK's renewable electricity target."

 

Footnotes:
1. Anne Lauvergeon, chief executive of Areva, has been nicknamed by the press as "Atomic Annie."  This was the author's inspiration for "Nuclear Nancy."
2. Since this reactor facility would be the premier United States government office complex reactor facility, the author would suggest only veterans of the Nuclear Navy who have served sea patrols be considered as operators.

______________________________________

"Greening" the Capitol Building.  Part 3: Feasibility

Feasibility

How much energy is the Capitol using and how much CO2 is it making?

A quick and casual look based upon what I could glean from the internet:  
(I'll keep all energies in short (2,000 lb) ton-years of coal for easy comparison.  12,000 Btu per pound Eastern Bituminous will be the yardstick.)File:CapitolComplexMap.jpg

"The percentage of energy input from each fuel has varied from year to year, with an average fuel mix of 43 percent natural gas, 47 percent coal, and 10 percent fuel oil between 2001 and 2007." - From testimony of  ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, June 18, 2008.

The Capitol Power Plant burned 17,108 tons of coal in 2006, producing about 60,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

In April 2007, we reported that 96 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions from the Capitol Hill Complex resulted from purchased electricity (59 percent) and the combustion of fossil fuels in the Capitol Power Plant (37 percent).

"The plant currently produces steam using a combination of seven boilers—two that primarily burn coal, but could also burn natural gas, and five boilers that burn fuel oil or natural gas. The total capacity of these boilers is over 40 percent higher than the maximum capacity required at any given time, and the plant has the flexibility to switch among the three fuels or burn a combination of fuels. The percentage of energy input from each fuel has varied from year to year, with an average fuel mix of 43 percent natural gas, 47 percent coal, and 10 percent fuel oil between 2001 and 2007. " --  Architect of the Capitol, June 18, 2008.

Energy Consumption for the House Buildings

(Below) "Energy is supplied to the House buildings from several sources. Electricity is purchased from the local utility and provided directly to the buildings. The buildings are on a district steam and chilled water loop supplied by the CPP, located on site. The CPP does not produce electricity, but purchases electricity to operate the chillers. The boilers of the plant primarily use coal or natural gas to produce steam that is distributed to many of the buildings. Some of the buildings (for example, the Ford House Office Building) have other suppliers of heating and cooling energy.  Table 2 shows total energy consumption in House buildings. The table includes energy consumption, primarily electricity, metered at each House building, electricity used by the CPP to provide chilled water to House buildings, and fuel used by the CPP boilers to provide steam heat to House buildings."

"The CPP provides chilled water and steam throughout the Capitol complex, not just to House buildings. Because metered consumption of chilled water and steam is not available for each House building, we had to estimate of the percentage of total CPP output that was attributable to the House buildings. Based on floor area data for the buildings served by the CPP, we estimated that 31% of the CPP output is attributable to House buildings. We then applied the 31% factor to total CPP electricity and fuel consumption to calculate the chilled water and steam energy consumption to the House buildings. In 2006, the total annual energy use for the House buildings was an estimated 809,100 million Btu (MBtu) expressed as site energy (not source energy)."      (Map from:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CapitolComplexMap.jpg )

Congress has 435+ principal offices in the House of Representatives and 100+ principal offices in the Senate.

How many Btu* are needed to power the House of Representatives, the Senate, and all their adjacent supporting office buildings?  (I don't have a Senate report.)

To extend the House numbers (above) to a combined House + Senate coal-equivalent energy estimate, multiply House numbers by 535 / 435.

Metered Electricity (MWh)  = 103,411 * 535 / 435 * 3.14 * 3  =  1,198,069 MBtu (Converting coal energy to electrical energy is about 33% efficient)
Electricity (Million Btu)       = 352,838 * 535 / 435                 =    433,950 MBtu
Fuel (Million Btu)               = 456,251 * 535 / 435                 =    561,136 MBtu
Total Btu                                                                           = 2,193,155 MBtu  /  0.012,000 MBtu/lb coal = 182,762,917 lb coal/yr = 91,381 ton coal/yr

Cooling water for the electricity generation might come from some large air conditioning type cooling towers also located in the coal yard.

Which of these mini reactors produce enough annual coal-equivalent heat to do the job?

A Hyperion produces the coal equivalent heat of 80,230 ton/yr (at 1,000°F).  A NuScale would be about 170,000 tons/yr (at 600°F).  An mPower would be about 250,000 ton/yr (at 600°F).  Since the reactors produce differing steam temperatures and volumes, these figures are ball-park.

How much CO2 will be avoided each year?

The U.S. Energy Information Agency says burning one ton of bituminous coal will produce 2.86 short tons of CO2.

2.86 * 91,381 short tons of coal will produce 261,349 tons of CO2.  That's what would be avoided each year by installing mini nuclear reactors in the CPP.

* Btu - British Thermal Unit.  One Btu equals the amount of heat needed to raise one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit.  1 Watt-hour = 3.14 Btu.

______________________________________

Beyond CO2 Clean - All the way to Oil Energy Independence

(Using equivalent heats and assuming the natural-gas-to-diesel-oil conversion process heat was powered by nuclear.  Nuclear conversion of natural gas to oil also avoids the production of CO2.)                                       Confused?     Synthetic Oil from Natural Gas.pdf

How much oil could we make from the natural gas we didn't burn?  We've just avoided burning 91,381 tons of equivalent coal or natural gas heat.  That's 2,193,155,000,000 Btu of heat.  There are 138,700 Btu of heat in a US Gallon of diesel.  That's the equivalent heat of 15,812,220 gallons of diesel.  Or about 2,875 5,500 gallon tanker trucks of diesel every year.  To this web site's Oil Energy Independence page.

This way, not only do we get a CO2-free Capitol, we save enough natural gas to fill 2,875 tanker trucks with diesel oil.

COST: "On July 6, 2009, natural gas cost $3.49 per million Btu.  There are 138,700 Btu in one gallon of diesel.    $3.49 per million Btu natural gas * 0.1387 million Btu / gallon diesel = $0.48 per gallon diesel.
 
So the cost of the natural gas Btu to make one gallon of diesel Btu (assuming synthesis process energy came from a PBMR TRISO nuclear reactor - about 10% burning natural gas) is 48 cents per gallon.  Or, at $0.48 per gallon * 42 gallons per barrel = $20 per barrel."

______________________________________

"Greening" the Capitol Building.  Part 4: Anti-Coal Protest.

Anti-Coal Protest

Thousands Storm Capitol Hill in Protest Against Global Warming - March 2, 2009

.
Anti-coal protest at Capitol Building Complex Boiler House (note coal stacks in background) March 2, 2009. capitolclimateaction.org

Let's build on CapitolClimateAction's victory

In June 2007, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced the "Greening the Capitol" initiative. The initiative's goal is to make the Capitol carbon neutral,  and the power plant is a major obstacle to achieving this objective.  In November 2007, Daniel Beard, the House's Chief Administrative Officer, announced that he would purchase $89,000 worth of carbon offsets for 30,000 tons of carbon emissions. Beard made the purchase from the Chicago Climate Exchange.  On February 28, 2009, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter to the Architect of the Capitol asking him to create a plan to switch the power plant entirely to natural gas by the end of 2009.  This letter came just three days before the scheduled protest, which organizers said would happen anyway. (Wikipedia)

Congress To Stop Using Coal In Power Plant

Jim Abrams,  Huffington Post, May 1, 2009.

WASHINGTON — The 99-year-old Capitol Power Plant, which provides steam for heat and hot water in congressional buildings, is ending its distinction of being the only coal-burning facility in the District of Columbia.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Friday that the switch to natural gas as the sole fuel source used at the plant was part of their efforts to reduce the carbon pollution impact of Congress on the nation's capital.

"The Congress of the United States should not only be a model for the nation, but also a good neighbor," Pelosi said.

The two Democratic leaders have for the past several years initiated steps to make the Capitol grounds more environmentally friendly. But moves to change light bulbs, use less paper and buy fuel-efficient vehicles have in some respects been overshadowed by the smoke that continues to rise from the power plant about four blocks south of the Capitol.

The D.C. government has complained that the plant worsens air quality and has affected the respiratory health of residents and workers in the area, particularly children.

The plant last year operated on about 65 percent natural gas and 35 percent coal. Pelosi's office said the plant has not burned coal since March and would continue to go without coal barring problems.

Acting Architect of the Capitol Stephen Ayers cautioned in a letter to Pelosi that work still needed to be done to upgrade the natural gas pipelines. He said coal might still have to be used as a backup in circumstances where heating needs exceed capacity of the natural gas pipelines, when abnormally cold conditions increase demand or when there are equipment outages.

The Capitol complex would not totally end its dependence on coal. Electricity is supplied by a local utility company that uses coal as a power source.

Ending the use of coal at the power plant has met some resistance from coal state lawmakers, who have said it sends the wrong message about the possibilities of clean coal.

But Hill Residents for Steam Plant Conversion, a neighborhood group, had urged Pelosi and Reid to move quickly to stop using coal at the plant, saying it was a major source of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and particulate air pollution.

 

Capitol Power Plant To Replace Coal With Natural Gas.
The AP (5/2, Abrams) reported, "The 99-year-old Capitol Power Plant, which provides steam for heat and hot water in congressional buildings, is ending its distinction of being the only coal-burning facility in the District of Columbia." Two Democratic Congressional leaders said "the switch to natural gas as the sole fuel source used at the plant was part of their efforts to reduce the carbon pollution impact of Congress on the nation's capital." The AP noted steps initiated past several years "to make the Capitol grounds more environmentally friendly. But moves to change light bulbs, use less paper and buy fuel-efficient vehicles have in some respects been overshadowed by the smoke that continues to rise from the power plant about four blocks south of the Capitol."

Roll Call (5/4, Bendery) adds, "Stephen Ayers, the acting Architect of the Capitol, said in a letter to Democratic leaders that coal will only be burned going forward for backup capacity."

______________________________________

"Greening" the Capitol Building.  Part 5: More about the Hyperion reactor.

More about the Hyperion reactor

(Reactor shown here in a Hyperion Co. sales drawing powering water desalination/purification in a low-tech environment).

 

 

 

 

 

 

This little reactor is a 25 MegaWatts (electrical), (33,500 horsepower), 70 MegaWatts (thermal), energy source that can be buried and run flat-out continually for up to 5 years before it needs to be inerted and shipped back to the factory for refueling.  It can produce up to 1,000°F superheated steam.

To make the Capitol Complex totally CO2 emissions-free would be a monumental win for Nancy and would show the world the United States has the know-how and the will to tackle Global Warming in a way that will end it.

If the reactor springs a leak, its hydrogen gas (non-radioactive) escapes, causing the reactor to loose pressure, stop running, and then cool down.

If you know conventional water/control rod nuclear reactors, the first time you check out this little reactor you'll think it came off the tailgate of a Flying Saucer.
More about the reactor:  [NOTE: Hyperion seems to have jumped the track.  Hyperion's current product is not Dr. Peterson's patented TRIGA reactor but rather a more conservative design that resembles the reactor out of a super-fast 80s era Soviet submarine.  I wonder if they got a deal on nuclear fuel they couldn't refuse?]   This Site   Hyperion's Site

 

United States Patent Application 20040062340

Abstract:

"The present invention includes a nuclear fission reactor apparatus and a method for operation of same, comprising: a core comprising a fissile metal hydride; an atmosphere comprising hydrogen or hydrogen isotopes to which the core is exposed; a non-fissile hydrogen absorbing and desorbing material; a means for controlling the absorption and desorption of the non-fissile hydrogen absorbing and desorbing material, and a means for extracting the energy produced in the core."

                Helpful readers provided some explanations about the chemistry and nuclear mechanisms involved.

"They don't show it here, but this is basic chemistry; there is a critical temperature above which no amount of pressure can stop the complete dissociation of UH3,, but it is off this plot.  I think the patent mentioned 700C, and that looks like a reasonable extrapolation here.  In any event, the patent points out that the operating temperature can be regulated by the pressure, and that's explicit on this plot too." 
(The author gathers that once the uranium hydride (UH3) is completely dissociated, further temperature rise cannot occur.)

 

(Left) Reactor demonstrating self-controlling cycling after being subjected to an impulse load when set to a pressure that would produce a steam temperature yielding 5 MegaWatts of power.

At a loading of 30 kg U-235 the energy content is 78 MWt years and at a loading of 215 kg U-235 the energy content is 540 MWt years.

 How much coal is that?  [1 Wh = 3.412 BTU], [1 lb bituminous coal = 12,000 BTU],  70 MWt * 1 hr = 70,000,000Wth * 3.14 BTU / Wh = 219,800,000 BTU / 12,000 BTU per pound of coal = 18,316 lb coal / hr /2,000 lb/ton = 9.16 ton coal / hr * 24 hr/day = 219 ton/day * 365 day/yr = 80,230 ton/yr * 5 yr = 400,000 tons coal.  Out of something the size of a personal hot tub?  Using heat pipes?

 

"This also demonstrates how the reactor is shipped and started.  The reactor is shipped assembled with uranium metal sand (12) in the reactor core (18) and uranium hydride in the storage trays (24), and an inert gas atmosphere.  To start, the inert gas is sucked out and hydrogen (Or deuterium, or a mix, depending on other things like the reactor life) is bled into the casing while the reactor core and storage trays are heated by external power (25).  With the storage trays at 400-500C, and most of the hydride there dissociated, when the reactor core goes a bit above 200C, the metal in the reactor starts to form the hydride, the hydrogen density shoots up, moderation occurs, and you're off!.  More hydrogen is added until you get the operating temperature you want, and the system is sealed.  In operation, the storage trays are hot enough that most of the uranium hydride has been dissociated to metal and hydrogen gas."  To details page.

Heat pipes (30) extract the heat produced.

Hyperion™ Fast Facts  (From Hyperion web site.)
Small -1.5 meters across, approx size of a residential “hot tub.”
Produces 70 MegaWatts thermal or 25 MegaWatts electrical, enough to power 20,000 average American homes or the equivalent.
Buried underground out of sight and harm’s way.
Transportable by train, ship, truck.
Sealed module, never opened on site.
Enough power for 5+ years.
After 5 years, removed & refueled at original factory.
Uniquely safe, self-moderating using a natural chemical reaction discovered 50 years ago.
No mechanical parts in the core to malfunction.
Water not used as coolant; cannot go “supercritical” or get too hot.
No greenhouse gases or global warming emissions.
Think: Large (heat) Battery.

 

______________________________________

"Greening" the Capitol Building.  Part 6: More about the NuScale Reactor.

More about the NuScale reactor

More   This site            NuScale's Site   http://www.nuscalepower.com/       

The NuScale is a conventional pressurized water (PWR) modular minireactor equipped with two separate steam generators.  Some PWRs have more.  This could enable two or more different steam loads at the same time - such as simultaneous electricity generation and heating.

The NuScale reactor is rated at 150 MW thermal, 40 MW electrical, (53,620 horsepower), 600°F steam.

From NuScale web site:

NuScale system details

NuScale plants are compact. Each component is modular and is designed for fabrication off-site at numerous existing facilities in the USA and around the world. Construction is less complex, lead times shorter, and costs more predictable and controllable. The NuScale containment and reactor vessel measures approximately 60 feet in length and 14 feet in diameter. It and all other modular components are transportable by barge, truck or rail.

In a NuScale system, the reactor pressure vessel contains both the nuclear fuel, or reactor, and the steam generators. Water in the reactor circulates using a convection process known as natural circulation. This is also described as a passive safety system because no pumps or other mechanical devices are required to circulate the water.

NuScale secured rights to the design through a technology transfer agreement with Oregon State University. OSU developed a one-third scale, electrically-heated, fully integrated test facility that replicates the entire NuScale system at temperature and at pressure. The tests in this facility have confirmed the operation of the natural circulation cooling system and have demonstrated the effectiveness of the NuScale passive safety systems.

Advantages of the NuScale design

Off-the-shelf technologies simplify systems and design

The nuclear reactor and steam generator, also known as the Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS), is a self-contained assembly of reactor core and steam generator tube bundles within a single pressure vessel. Throughout the design, every effort was made to employ existing off-the-shelf technologies to minimize, and in many cases eliminate, the need for additional research and development. The primary coolant (water) is moved by natural circulation, eliminating the need for primary coolant pumps and external power. The NSSS and the passive safety heat removal systems are housed within the compact steel containment.

U.S. fabrication helps accelerate modular manufacturing time

The reactor module, consisting of the containment and its contents, can be entirely fabricated at existing manufacturing facilities in the U.S. As a result, construction can be done on a significantly compressed schedule. Compared to a typical PWR plant, the NSSS parameters are much lower. Thermal rating of the reactor is several times smaller. Coolant pressure and steam pressure is about 50% lower than that of a typical PWR. The power generation system is greatly simplified. It implements a turbine-generator set and condensate/feedwater pump. The entire turbine-generator can be replaced with a spare unit for overhaul. Additionally, NuScale plants will use nuclear fuel assemblies similar to those in today’s commercial nuclear plants. The only difference is the length of the fuel assemblies (6 feet for a NuScale system instead of the traditional 12 feet) and the number of assemblies in the reactor.

______________________________________