coal2nuclear.com
Sidebar
Directory
Local Nuclear Example: The U.S. Capitol Building
Complex
Electricity From THORIUM
Local Nuclear
Example: The U.S. Capitol Building Complex.
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.
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
gave 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.
Now that Republican John Boehner has
been handed the job of keeping the lawns mowed we'll see green he'll want the
Capitol to be.
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
John Boehner 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."
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.)
"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."
________________________________________________________________________________________
JUMP:
Directory
Top
Previous
Next