Skip to main content

The Future in Miniature with Georgia Power

Georgia-Power-logoMiniature not because Georgia Power is a small provider of electricity, but because the company’s view of its own future may provide some insight into larger energy trends. We should not assume this to be true, an easy trap to fall into; instead, let’s look at it as one data point in a thesis that could be proven or disproven by more data points.

The reason we can glimpse into the future is because the Georgia Public Service Commission requires Georgia Power to submit what it calls an integrated resource plan. This IRP provides a look at the electricity landscape over the next 20 years. Georgia Power prepares a new IRP every three years, so its outlook can change based on changes in the marketplace.

Although we often refer to the two new reactors at Georgia’s Plant Vogtle as a Southern Co. project, the facility is jointly owned by Georgia Power (45.7%), Oglethorpe Power Corporation (30%), Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (22.7%) and Dalton Utilities (1.6%). Georgia Power is a subsidiary of Southern Co. and, as you can see, owns the largest share of Plant Vogtle.

But nuclear later. First, coal (and oil): 

As part of today's filing, Georgia Power is requesting to decertify and retire 15 coal- and oil-fired generating units totaling 2,061 megawatts (MW): Units 3 and 4 at Plant Branch in Putnam County; units 1-5 at Plant Yates in Coweta County; units 1 and 2 at Plant McManus in Glynn County; and units 1-4 at Plant Kraft in Chatham County; and Boulevard units 2 and 3, also in Chatham County. In addition, the company is requesting to decertify and sell Plant Bowen Unit 6, which has a rating of 32 MW, bringing the total of retired capacity to 2,093 MW.

I don’t think the company links these closures explicitly to the two new reactors at Vogtle, but consider:

As recently as a year ago, Georgia Power and its parent, Atlanta-based Southern Co., complained about new environmental regulations to reduce toxic emissions from power plants, saying those rules could force the utility to close several coal plants and threaten peak capacity. Company officials said that is no longer a concern because long-term demand is not as high as they once predicted.

And:

Once a dominant fuel for electricity generation, coal’s use will continue to diminish as Georgia Power closes more than a dozen coal and oil-fired units.

And that’s because they do not expect to open any new coal-fired units to replace the closed units.

How about natural gas?

Also, Georgia Power will request converting units 6 and 7 at Plant Yates from coal to natural gas, and will switch from burning Central Appalachian coal to burning Powder River Basin coal at Plant McIntosh Unit 1, pending a successful test burn and further study.

So two more units will halve their carbon emissions. I have no idea of the implications of changing coal type at McIntosh – I’ll leave that to black rock mavens to explain – though I reckon it is meant to improve the facility’s emissions profile.

So no new coal units, a switch of two units to natural gas – and nuclear energy? Well, the story about the filing mentions it only in passing, so let’s tell that part of the story ourselves: the two new reactors will pack about 2234 megawatts capacity. Hmm – coal out, about 2061 megawatts, nuclear in, about 2234. Seems pretty quid pro quo to me, at least as a correlation.

The switchover to natural gas, the build out of nuclear energy, the development of renewable energy sources – Georgia Power expects to field 1500 megawatts of capacity by 2016 – suggests a rapidly changing, environmentally aware and nuclear-friendly energy portfolio. Just to put a cherry on it, let’s add this to our data points:

The continuing expansion of renewable energy technologies, advances in energy efficiency, and the rapid shift from coal to natural gas for generating electricity combined to bring down U.S. carbon dioxide emissions last year to their lowest levels since 1994, according to a report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. 

And it’s only going to get better when the new reactors in Georgia (and South Carolina) go online later this decade. Still, it’s all good – in miniature or life size.

Comments

jimwg said…
Re:
"Company officials said that is no longer a concern because long-term demand is not as high as they once predicted."

Sometimes these kinds of statements puzzle me, in light that there's supposed to be a big push and future for electric vehicles. Aren't you supposed to building up your electric infrastructure to accommodate this -- or ironically, can the resultant lack of affordable power nip the widespread applications of electric vehicles in the bud?

James Greenidge
Queens NY
SteveK9 said…
EV's are indeed the technology that could really impact electricity demand. I'm optimistic, not everyone is. I think it will happen slowly enough that generating capacity can be increased in time.
Anonymous said…
The switch in coal from Appalachian to Powder River Basin is because PRB coal is low sulfur and therefore can be used in coal fired plants without scrubbers. It's actually somewhat ironic, but plants with scrubbers tend to burn dirtier coal since it is cheaper and the scrubbers still allow them to stay below the legal limits for emissions.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…