REPLACING NUCLEAR PLANTS WITH GAS TURBINE PLANTS IN NEW ENGLAND

New England has the highest electric rates of any region in the US.

New England has the worst wind conditions of any region in the US, except the South, and the worst solar conditions, except the the rainy, overcast US Northwest.

See NREL wind map and NREL solar map.

 

https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/100m_wind/awstwspd100onoff3-1.jpg

https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/solar/national_photovoltaic_2009-01...

 

- RE proponents, mainly in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New York, etc., have obstructed additional pipeline capacity from Pennsylvania, and additional gas storage capacity near NE power plants.

- They claim additional LNG should be the transition fuel until wind and solar are built out.

- They insist on replacing near CO2-free, low-cost nuclear electricity with highly subsidized, expensive, unreliable, variable, intermittent wind and solar.

SUMMARY

 

Gas Turbine Plants to Replace Nuclear Plants for Reliable Electricity

In 2017, the entire load on the NE grid was about 121.061 TWh, of which 78.8 TWh was provided by low-cost domestic gas and nuclear.

 

To replace 31.538 TWh of nuclear in 2017 with highly subsidized, expensive, unreliable, variable, intermittent wind and solar would be a huge physical burden on the other generators on the NE grid, requiring more frequent start/stops, more hours at variable operation, and more capacity of synchronous standby (more costs/kWh, more fuel/kWh, more CO2/kWh, just like a car).

 

In fact, because wind + solar are minimal, or near zero, many hours of the year, at any time during the year, especially during summer when wind is minimal for months (just look out the window), and during winter when solar is minimal for months, about 6000 MW of gas turbine plants, at a turnkey capital cost of $9.6 billion, would be required to replace the nuclear plants, to provide electricity at 99.97% reliability, 24/7/365, year after year.

 

The below tables show the electricity cost of various sources of gas and the turnkey capital cost of the gas turbine plants.

 

NOTE: At present, the Jones Act forbids shipping LNG from Louisiana to Everett, MA, unless the vessel in US-owned, US-registered, and crewed with US legal residents.

 

Gas source

 $/million Btu

 c/kWh

Pipeline gas from Pennsylvania

 3.00

 5.05

LNG from Louisiana; see note

6.00

 7.09

LNG from Russia/Middle East

 9.00

 9.14

 

Capital cost/gas turbines

MW

Cap. Factor

GWh/y

$million/MW

$billion

Capacity

5000

0.75

32873

Margin, 20%

1000

Total

6000

32873

1.60

9.6

 

RE Proponents Insist on Expensive Unreliable Wind and Solar

About 5000 MW of solar plus 3449 MW of onshore, ridgeline wind (mostly in Maine), and 4451 offshore wind (mostly south of Martha’s Vineyard) would be required to replace the nuclear plants.

 

The below tables show the electricity cost of wind and solar and the turnkey capital cost of the wind and solar systems.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/green-mountain-power-co...

 

 

c/kWh

 

NE field-mounted solar, competitively bid

 12.0

 

NE rooftop solar, net metered

21.813

 18 + GMP adder 3.813 = 21.813

NE wind, offshore, almost all built by foreign companies

18.0

 

NE wind, ridgeline, mostly built by foreign companies

9.0

  

 

Capital cost

MW

Cap. Factor

GWh/y

$million/MW

T&D

$billion

Solar

5000

0.14

6136

3.50

0.350

19.3

.

Wind, onshore

3449

0.30

9070

3.00

0.300

11.4

Wind, offshore

4451

0.45

17558

4.50

0.675

23.0

.

Total

32764

53.7

 

TWh-Scale Storage Systems: In addition TWh-scale energy storage systems would be required, as there would not be enough remaining gas turbine capacity to provide the peaking, filling-in and balancing services for the large quantities of variable/intermittent wind and solar.

 

NOTE: It would be financially unfeasible to use storage to cover the daily, weekly, and seasonal variations of wind and solar, as the turnkey capital cost of one TWh of storage systems (as delivered to the HV grid) would cost about 1 billion kWh x $400/kWh = $400 billion. Even as future battery costs would decrease, the rest of the turnkey system costs likely would not.

RE Proponents Have Plans for Our Energy Future

RE proponents in Massachusetts and New York are adamantly opposing additional gas lines to provide additional low-cost gas from Pennsylvania. They want to wean us off gas and nuclear to save the world. They say NE state governments have plans to temporarily import Russian and Middle East LNG at 3 times the price of domestic gas, until they build out wind and solar.

 

They do not say it would take a “temporary period” of at least 2 or 3 decades to actually implement:

 

- The planned wind and solar expansion

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/conservative-law-founda...

- Replacing nuclear plants with LNG-fired gas turbine plants

- Replacing gasoline light duty vehicles with EVs charging at night

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/replacing-gasoline-cons...

- Replacing traditional building heating systems with heat pump systems.

- Almost doubling the NE grid for the increased demand and load.

 

NOTE: The capital cost would be much greater, if all the replacement electricity were from wind and solar, because TWh-scale energy storage systems would be required, as there would not be enough remaining gas turbine capacity to provide the peaking, filling-in and balancing services for the large quantities of variable/intermittent wind and solar.

 

An eleven-fold increase of Everett-size tanker loads would be required, if Russian/Middle East LNG.

Everett could handle at most 100 Everett-size tanker loads/y.

The required expansion would be at least 256 Everett-size tanker loads, plus for heat pumps. See table.

 

Summary table

 Capital cost

 LNG tanker loads

 Everett LNG tanker loads

$billion

67500 mt/tanker load

33340 mt/tanker load

Existing

 

0

32

Planned wind and solar expansion

49.4

Nuclear to gas turbine plants

9.0

67

130

Gasoline to electricity from G/T plants

43.2

117

226

Total

101.6

184

356

Heat pump transition

TBA

TBA

TBA

 

RE proponents insist on saving the world by what would involve, during future decades:

 

- Permanently ruining tens of thousands of acres of meadows for solar, plus

- Permanently ruining hundreds of miles of pristine ridgeline for onshore wind, plus

- At least a thousand square miles of expensive offshore wind, plus

- Expanding the capacity of NE LNG terminals to deal with at least 200 tanker loads per year, plus

- Expanding the NE grid to about double its capacity, after heat pumps, etc., also are added. See Appendix and URLs.

 

Regarding replacing gasoline with electricity, RE proponents likely did not consider:

 

- Just to orchestrate the even distribution of charging EVs would be a major effort. If most people tried to charge their EVs at certain hours, it would blow up the grids.

- Just to provide the fuel (Russian and Middle East LNG at 3 times the price of domestic gas) for the new gas-fired generators would be a major effort.

 - Just to provide the grid for supporting an increase in nighttime demand from 12000 MW to 32000 MW would be a major effort.

 - Heat pumps and converting transport diesel and other transport fuels to EVs would be in addition.

 - Hydro-Quebec could not provide even 20%, about 12 TWh/y, on a 24/7/365 basis, of what is needed just for the EVs. See Appendix 5 of URL.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-england-governors-s...

 

ANALYSIS

Replacing New England Nuclear Generation With Wind and Solar

In 2017, NE generation from nuclear was 31,538 GWh at a cost of about 4.5 c/kWh. This low-cost, steady, near CO2-free, around-the-clock electricity is available 24/7/365, at very high levels of reliability, regardless of wind and sun.

 

Compare that cost with wind and solar:

 

- Wind at about 9 c/kWh, on ridgelines; would require destroying hundreds of miles of pristine NE ridgelines,

- Wind at about 18 c/kWh, offshore; would require at least 1000 square miles, such as south of Martha’s Vineyard Island.

- Solar at about 12 c/kWh, field-mounted, competitively bid; would require tens of thousands of acres of open areas.

- Solar at about 21.813 c/kWh, including utility charges of 3.813 c/kWh, such as net-metered, residential rooftop (in Vermont).

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/synapse-energy-study-of...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-england-governors-s...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/conservative-law-founda...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/green-mountain-power-co...

 

Existing and Future Wind and Solar, as Currently Planned by NE States

 

ISO-NE has forecasted, with significant inputs from the states, NE solar capacity would increase from 2390 MW at end 2017 to 5832.9 MW at end 2027, including before the meter, BTM, (household rooftop, building roofs and other small projects on distribution grids), and after the meter, ATM, (large-scale, field-mounted systems). See table.

 

ISO-NE has forecasted, with significant inputs from states, NE wind would increase from 1400 MW at end 2017 to 8600 MW (onshore and offshore) in 2027 - 2035. See table.

NOTE:

BTM is solar not monitored/recorded by ISO-NE

ATM is solar monitored/recorded by ISO-NE

NOTE:

- During overcast, rainy weather, which could last 5 - 6 days in summer, solar would be minimal.

- During a Northeast snowstorm almost all panels would be covered with snow; solar would be near zero for days.

 

NOTE: During a wind lull, which could last 5 - 6 days in summer as well in winter, wind (on- and offshore) would be near zero

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-england-will-need-t...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/a-likely-scenario-durin...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/will-wind-solar-hydro-b...

 

Capital Costs: Implementing planned wind and solar would require a capital cost of about $50 billion. See table.

 

- To increase solar (BTM + ATM) from 2.78% in 2017 to 5.82% in 2027 would cost about $13.2 billion.

- To increase wind (onshore + offshore) from 2.67% in 2017 to 21.1% in 2027 - 2035 would cost about $36.2 billion

- Capital costs include transmission systems

- These highly subsidized systems would produce unreliable, variable, intermittent electricity at high wholesale prices

- NE annual average wholesale prices have been about 5 c/kWh since 2009, courtesy of low-cost nuclear and domestic gas.

 

Year

2017

2017

2017

2027

2027-2035

2027-2035

Capital Cost

Source

 MW

 GWh

%

MW

GWh

%

$billion

Solar

 2390

3436

 2.78

5833

 7431

 5.82

13.2

Wind

1400

3280

2.67

8600

25897

21.10

36.2

Wind  + Solar

 

 

 

 

33328

26.92

49.4

 

Replacing Nuclear Plants With Gas Turbine Plants

 

When the nuclear plants are closed in the near future, a much more reliable and less costly option would be to replace them with gas turbine plants. However, those gas turbines would use expensive ($9/million Btu), imported Russian and Middle East LNG, if utopian dreams of RE proponents in Massachusetts and New York prevail. Those same RE proponents have opposed/obstructed the supply of additional, low-cost ($2.7 - 3.0/million Btu), domestic gas from Pennsylvania.

 

- Required capacity of new gas turbine plants = 1.2, reserve margin x 31538 GWh/y x 1000 MWh/GWh/(8766 h/y x 0.75, capacity factor) = 5756 MW, say 6000 MW of gas plants that would burn gas from LNG.

 

- Required Capital cost = 6000 MW x $1.5 million/MW = $9 billion.

 

- Required Vaporized LNG = (31538 GWh/y x 1000000 kWh/GWh x 3412 Btu/kWh/0.5, efficiency)/(1000 Btu/standard cf/1000000000) = 215.2 billion standard cf/y.

 

Cost of Additional Gas Line From Pennsylvania: If a new gas line were built from Pennsylvania to Massachusetts for about $1.0 billion, it would pay for itself in a few years, because the use of Russian and Middle East LNG is much more costly than domestic gas.

 

Cost of LNG Terminal Capacity Expansion: A huge and very costly capacity expansion would be required of:

- The present LNG terminal in Everett, MA. See Appendix.

- Plus a new LNG facility elsewhere in New England

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/na1278_yevtt-ntd_3M.htm

 

Electricity Cost and Annual Cost: A comparison of electricity cost, c/kWh, and annual cost, $/y, of nuclear and 3 gas sources is shown in the table.

 

Electricity costs

Nuclear

Domestic gas

Louisiana LNG

Russia+ Middle East LNG

GWh/y

GWh/y

GWh/y

GWh/y

Generation

31538

31538

31538

31538

kWh

1

1

1

Btu/kWh

3412

3412

3412

Efficiency

0.5

0.5

0.5

Btu/kWh

6824

6824

6824

$/million Btu

3

6

9

Cost, fuel only, $/kWh

0.0205

0.0409

0.0614

Cost, other, $/kWh

0.0300

0.0300

0.0300

Cost, $/kWh

4.5

5.05

7.09

9.14

Cost, million/y

1419

1592

2237

2883

 

Required Tanker Loads:

- Russian and Middle East LNG tanker loads required would be 68, to replace nuclear plants with gas turbine plants.

- This is in addition to existing LNG tanker loads. See table.

 

NOTE:

- Each tanker load in this articleis assumed at 67500 metric ton of LNG.

- Each shipload at the Everett LNG terminal has an average of about 33340 metric ton of LNG. See Appendix.

 

NOTE: Replacing NE light duty vehicles using gasoline (E10) with EVs would require at least 56.973 TWh/y of additional generation using at least 117 tanker loads of LNG. See URL.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/replacing-gasoline-cons...

 

Generation, GWh/y

31538

Btu/ft3

1000

Btu/kWh

3412

Efficiency

0.5

LNG as gas,  standard cf/y

215215312000

LNG as gas, standard bcf/y

215.2

Gas to LNG reduction factor

600

LNG, bcf/y

0.358692187

cf/m3

35.315

LNG, bm3/y

0.010156936

LNG specific weight, kg/m3

450

LNG, billion kg/y

4.5706

Kg/ton

1000

LNG, billion ton/y

0.004571

LNG, million ton/y

4.571

Tanker LNG capacity, m3

150000

LNG/tanker, ton

67500

Tanker loads/y

68

 

APPENDIX 1

High Electricity Prices for RE in New England: The highly subsidized wholesale prices of wind and solar paid by utilities to producers are much higher than in the rest of the US, because of New England’s mediocre wind and solar conditions.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/subsidized-solar-system...

 

Wind and Solar Far From Competitive with Fossil in New England: The Conservation Law Foundation claims renewables are competitive with fossil. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is a list of NE wholesale prices and Power Purchase Agreement, PPA, prices.

 

NE field-mounted solar is 12 c/kWh; competitively bid

NE rooftop solar is 18 c/kWh, net-metered; GMP adds costs of 3.813 c/kWh, for a total of 21.813 c/kWh

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/green-mountain-power-co...

NE wind offshore is at least 18 c/kWh

NE wind ridgeline is at least 9 c/kWh

DOMESTIC pipeline gas is 5 c/kWh

Russian and Middle East imported LNG is at least 9 c/kWh

NE nuclear is 4.5 c/kWh

NE hydro is 4 c/kWh; about 10 c/kWh, if Standard Offer in Vermont.

Hydro-Quebec imported hydro is 6 - 7 c/kWh; GMP paid 5.549 c/kWh in 2016, under a recent 20-y contract.

NE annual average wholesale price about 5 c/kWh, unchanged since 2009, courtesy of low-cost gas and nuclear.

NOTE: Vineyard Wind, 800 MW, fifteen miles south of Martha’s Vineyard, using 8 or 10 MW turbines, 750 ft tall.

Phase 1 on line in 2021, electricity offered at an average of 8.9 c/kWh over 20 years

Phase 2 offered at an average of 7.9 c/kWh over 20 years

 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2018/08/13/vineyard-wind-offer...

https://www.boem.gov/What-Does-an-Offshore-Wind-Energy-Facility-Loo...

NOTE: The NE grid is divided in regions, each with Local Market Prices, LMPs, which vary from 2.5 - 3.5 c/kWh from 10 pm to about 6 pm; slowly increase to about 6 - 7 c/kWh around noon time, when solar is maximal; are about 7 - 8 c/kWh in late afternoon/early evening (peak demand hours), when solar is minimal. Unusual circumstances, such as power plant or transmission line outages, can cause LMPs to increase to 20 - 40 c/kWh, and even higher when such events occur during peak demand hours.

 

NOTE: The above prices would be about 50% higher without the subsidies and even higher without cost shifting. See Appendix.

 

NOTE: Here is an ISO-NE graph, which shows for very few hours during a 13-y period were wholesale prices higher than 6 c/kWh. Those prices are low because of low-cost gas, low-cost nuclear and low-cost hydro. The last four peaks were due to:

 

- Pipeline constraints, aggravated by the misguided recalcitrance of pro-RE Governors of NY and MA

- Pre-mature closings of coal and nuclear plants

- Lack of more robust connections to nearby grids, such as New York and Canada. See URLs.


https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/markets/

http://truenorthreports.com/rolling-blackouts-are-probably-coming-t...

 

APPENDIX 2

Wind and Solar Conditions in New England: New England has highly variable weather and low-medium quality wind and solar conditions. See NREL wind map and NREL solar map.

 

https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/100m_wind/awstwspd100onoff3-1.jpg

https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/solar/national_photovoltaic_2009-01...

 

Wind:

- Wind electricity is zero about 30% of the hours of the year (it takes a wind speed of about 7 mph to start the rotors)

- Wind is minimal most early mornings and most late afternoons/early evenings (peak demand hours), especially during summer

- Wind often is minimal 5 - 7 days in a row in summer and winter, as proven by ISO-NE real-time generation data.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

- About 60% is generated at night, when demand is much less than during the late afternoons/early evenings

- About 60% is generated in winter.

- During winter, the best wind month is up to 2.5 times the worst summer month

- New England has the lowest capacity factor (about 0.262) of any US region, except the US South. See URL.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20112

 

Solar:

- Solar electricity is strictly a midday affair.

- It is zero about 65% of the hours of the year, mostly at night.

- It often is minimal 5 - 7 days in a row in summer and in winter, as proven by ISO-NE real-time generation data.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

- It is minimal early mornings and late afternoons/early evenings

- It is minimal much of the winter months

- It is minimal for several days with snow and ice on most of the panels.

- It varies with variable cloudiness, which would excessively disturb distribution grids with many solar systems, as happens in southern California and southern Germany on a daily basis. Utilities use batteries to stabilize their grids.

- During summer, the best solar month is up to 4 times the worst winter month; that ratio is 6 in Germany.

- New England has the lowest capacity factor (about 0.145, under ideal conditions) of any region in the US, except some parts of the US Northwest.

 

NOTE: Even if the NE grid had large capacity connections with Canada and New York, any major NE wind lull and any major NE snowfall likely would affect the entire US northeast, i.e., relying on neighboring grids to "help-out" likely would not be prudent strategy.

 

Wind Plus Solar:

ISO-NE publishes the minute-by-minute outputs off various energy sources contributing their electricity to the grid.

All one has to do is add the wind and solar and one comes rapidly to the conclusion both are minimal many hours of the year, at any time during the year.

 

Wind plus solar production could be minimal for 5 - 7 days in summer and in winter, especially with snow and ice on most of the panels, as frequently happens during December, January and February, as proven by ISO-NE real-time generation data.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

 

If we were to rely on wind and solar for most of our electricity, massive energy storage systems (a few hundred GWh-scale for Vermont, multiple TWh-scale for NE) would be required to cover multi-day wind lulls, multi-day overcast/snowy periods, and seasonal variations. See URLs.

 

Wind and solar cannot ever be expected to charge New England’s EVs, so people can get to work the next day, unless backed up by several TWh of storage, because wind/solar lulls can occur for 5 - 7 days in a row, in summer and in winter. BTW, the turnkey capital cost of one TWH of storage (delivered as AC to the grid) is about $400 billion.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-energy-l...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-example-of-elec...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/seasonal-pumped-hydro-s...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electricity-storage-to-...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/pumped-storage-hydro-in...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-hype-ver...

 

APPENDIX 3

LNG Deliveries to Everett, MA During 2017/2018 Gas Shortage

 

Delivering the LNG: The Christophe de Margerie, a Russian-owned icebreaking tanker, named after the deceased former CEO of Total, motored into Isle de Grain, UK, on Dec. 28, according to market information provider ICIS. It unloaded LNG from the new Yamal gas/oil plant in Russia. See Note.

 

The Gaselys, a French-owned tanker, arrived at Isle de Grain, UK, which is a large LNG storage facility in the UK that receives gas from many sources, including the Netherlands, Norway, Middle East, Russia, etc.

It took on a cargo of commingled LNG, including LNG from the Christophe de Margerie, an ice-breaking LNG carrier; LNG capacity 172,600 m3, or 77,670 metric ton.  See Note.

Isle de Grain left the port on Jan. 7 

It arrived at the ENGIE terminal (owned by a Frenchcompany) in Everett, Mass., three weeks later and delivered its payload.

Both tankers were built in Korea.

 

Everett LNG Terminal: LNG is imported from Trinidad and Tobago, where the gas is cooled to -260 F, turned into LNG, reducing the volume by 1/600th, then shipped to Everett.

The gas fields of Trinidad and Tobago have had decreasing outputs due to depletion, which means increased likelihood of more expensive LNG from Louisiana and highly expensive LNG from Russia and the Middle East, while various NE energy measures are being implemented during the next few decades.

Average LNG density = 450 kg/m3 x 0.62428 = 28.1 lb/ft3, depends on gas composition and temperature.

Everett has 2 LNG tanks, each 180 feet tall.

Everett LNG storage is about 160,461 m3, or 3.4 bcf (gas equivalent after gasifying the LNG); peak vaporizing capacity 1.0 bcf/d; maximum continuous 0.715 bcf/d,

GDF Suez Gaz NA, a French company, owns the LNG plants in Trinidad and Tobago that supply most of the LNG to Everett.

It is amazing how much of the LNG infrastructure, and LNG storage plants, and LNG fleets are built and owned by foreigners! See URL.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-eu-and-internationa...

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060076897

http://www.powermag.com/everett-lng-terminal-at-the-crossroads/?pag...

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/lng-terms-tonsyear-cubic-meters-btus...

 

NOTE: Shipments of Russian oil and gas are not subject to sanctions, but “US persons and those in the US” are prohibited from financing Novatek, the lead company in the construction of Yamal LNG. The French, our friendly trading partner, took advantage of that.

 

- Yamal LNG; operated by Yamal LNG company; owned by Russian independent gas producer Novatek (50.1%), Total, a French company (20%), CNPC (20%) and Silk Road Fund (9.9%); capital cost $27 billion; capacity 16.5 million mt LNG, 3 trains.

- Yamal LNG 2: operated by Yamal LNG company; owned by Novatek (60%), Total (20%); Others (20%); capital cost $25.5 billion; capacity 19.8 million mt LNG, 3 trains.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/56f19604-fd6d-11e7-a492-2c9be7f3120a

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-14/russia-dreams-bi...

https://www.total.com/en/media/news/press-releases/yamal-lng-projec...

APPENDIX 4

Just supplying the electricity to the NE EVs would require 55.313 TWh/y to be fed into the NE grid, equivalent to about 117 tanker loads of Russian and Middle East LNG per year, about 2.4 tanker loads per week (LNG at 3x the price of domestic gas). 

 

NOTE: The Jones act forbids LNG shipments from Louisiana to Everett, MA.

NOTE: Mass and New York are opposed to increased pipelines from Pennsylvania.

 

The LNG terminal would need to be able to store about 1 to 2 weeks of LNG to ensure continuous supply.

 

The present LNG terminal in Everett, MA, could handle at most about 61 tanker loads per year.

 

Storage, 3.4 billion cubic foot

Delivery, maximum continuous, could be 0.7 billion cubic foot/d.

All of the current Everett LNG is already spoken for.

All LNG supply for EVs, etc., would be additional. See below table.

 

NOTE:

- Each tanker load in this article holds 67500 metric ton of LNG.

- Each shipload at the Everett LNG terminal holds an average of about 33340 metric ton of LNG.

- About 120/y such shiploads would be required to operate the terminal at 100% capacity; current shiploads are at a rate of about 31.3/y.

- RE proponents want to ship more LNG through the terminal, but one must not forget that additional LNG would not be coming from friendly Trinidad at $5/million Btu, but from hostile Russia and the Middle East at $9/million Btu, in foreign-owned tankers, built in foreign shipyards, crewed by foreigners. Putting America first?

 

TWh

Everett

Storage capacity, billion cubic foot

3.4

Delivery, maximum continuous, bcf/d

0.7

Delivery, maximum continuous, billion Btu/d

700

Generated electricity, billion kWh/d = TWh/d

0.1026

Fed to NE grid, TWh/d

0.0991

In batteries, 0.350/0.436 x Fed to grid, TWh/d

0.0796

In batteries, TWh/month

2.3868

Tanker loads/y, at 100% capacity factor

61

Tanker loads/y at 26% (actual) capacity factor

13

NE EVs

NE EVs miles driven, summer month, billion

12.41

NE EV electricity, TWh/month

4.3435

Everett equivalents

1.82

Tanker loads/y

117

Nuclear to LNG

LNG to gas turbines, TWh/y

64.968

Generated electricity, TWh/y

32.484

Fed to NE grid in 2017, TWh/y

31.538

Fed to NE grid in 2017, TWh/month

2.6282

Tanker loads/y

67

Total tanker loads/y

245

 

APPENDIX 5

The Everett, MA, LNG terminal is operated at a capacity factor of about 0.26, the average of 2016/2017.

It received about 2.49 shiploads/month in 2017, and slightly less than 2.73 shiploads per month in 2016.

It operated at a capacity factor of about 0.46 during January and February 2016, during which it received 9 shiploads, or about 4.5 shiploads loads per month.

The increased shiploads are due to additional gas demand for generating electricity and space heating.

All this LNG came from Trinidad gas fields that have had decreasing outputs.

The average price of Russian/Middle East LNG is about $9/million.

The average price of Trinidad LNG is about $5/million Btu.

The average price of pipeline gas from Pennsylvania is about $2.70/million Btu.

 

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_poe1_a_EPG0_IML_Mmcf_a.htm

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/04/f30/LNG%202016_0.pdf

 

2016

2016

2017

Trinidad

Trinidad

Trinidad

million cf for 60 days

million cf

 million cf

Ship load

9

33

30

Ship load/month

4.5

2.73

2.49

Supply, million cf

19225

69928

63936

Supply, bcf

19.2254

69.9280

63.9360

Gas/ship load, bcf

2.1362

2.1362

2.1362

Delivered gas to users, bcf/d

320

192

175

Period, d

60

365

365

Generated electricity, billion kWh

2.8173

10.2474

9.3693

Fed to NE grid, TWh/d

0.0454

0.0271

0.0248

Actual capacity factor

0.46

0.27

0.25

 

Views: 224

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Willem Post on September 26, 2018 at 1:56pm

Barry,

A lot of fancy talk about expensively decommissioning and dismantling the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant.

Every Tom, Dick, and Harry will be charging to the project to cover their paychecks.

Ratepayers pay all.

Comment by Barry @ SaveOurSeaShore on September 25, 2018 at 8:04am

Are you following https://www.energycentral.com/news/diablo-canyon-joint-proposal-par...

What combination of things are they doing? Is it distributed batteries or just efficiency gains allow this to be moth balled?

Comment by Willem Post on September 20, 2018 at 11:03pm

Frank,

The quantity of natural gas from organic wastes, Btu/ton of waste, would be a tiny fraction of the current world consumption of natural gas.

About one million square miles of kelp farms might be able to replace a fraction of the world’s daily old consumption of about 95 million barrels per day.

Comment by Frank J. Heller, MPA on September 20, 2018 at 8:09pm

It is very possible to generate 'natural gas' from organic wastes. There is proven technology in use throughout the world. Localities can do it and enhance the methane to pipeline quality, and replace part perhapps all of the fossil gas with real natural gas from recycled materials.

Comment by Penny Gray on September 20, 2018 at 1:04pm

Better forward this post to Janet Mills and the rest of the dreamers.  We should have had those molten salt reactors deployed ten years ago, and would have if all those tax dollars hadn't been poured into wind subsidies.

Comment by John F. Hussey on September 20, 2018 at 12:51pm

Please look at what is going on at Terrestrial Energy.  Within 10 years Dr. David LeBlanc, Simon Irish and their team will have small SMR reactors ready for sale.  These units are "walk-a-way" safe.  This molten salt reactors can burn nuclear waste, work at atmospheric pressure, are sealed unit.  Think of these units as batteries that are changed out every 7 years and sent for reprocessing.  This is the future of nuclear power.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MIypP_uBSA   (Integral Molten-Salt Reactor [IMSR] Update - Dr. David LeBlanc of Terrestrial Energy @ TEAC8 )

These units can be placed at the site of decommissioned nuclear plants that have ready made connections to the grid.

First Prize

NE Book Festival

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT (excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010  http://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?"  http://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” http://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

© 2018   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service