In east Arkansas, why would Entergy bring 2 different old generating stations online just recently? They haven't been run in 10-15 years. I think they run on natural gas or oil.

-- Anonymous, June 06, 1999

Answers

Art, the Arkansas stations are not the only older generating stations being brought into use. See the March 1999 thread here about Virginia Power doing the same thing. It's titled "Moth-balled Co-generation plant being furbished" and it's at:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000cLW

The two reasons which have been put forth as possible explanations are, 1. the electric utility "Defense in Depth" contingency planning for Y2K, part of which is to have all available generation online, and 2. because demand is outstripping generation, particularly in the summer months, older plants are being brought back into production for economic purposes. Some opinions about these two possibilities are also given in the above mentioned thread.

Whether a couple of recent delays mentioned on Entergy's News site have had anything to do with the older generating station decisions, I don't know. (Perhaps wanting more assured summer generation?)

4/27/1999 - "Entergy Operations announced today that it expects the duration of the current refueling outage at the Entergy Gulf States River Bend Station to be extended beyond the original schedule by an estimated six to eight weeks.

Planned work during the outage included replacing nuclear fuel assemblies earlier identified as having cladding degradation and inspecting other assemblies. During the inspections, a higher than expected amount of degradation was found on some assemblies. The outage extension is necessary to allow for the design and manufacture of more fuel assemblies than originally planned."

6/4/1999 - "Entergy Nuclear is in the process of purchasing Pilgrim Station from Boston Edison. The sale close is expected to take place this summer, after the refueling outage is complete and the unit is returned to service."

"Boston Edison officials have announced the duration of the refueling outage at Pilgrim Station will be extended about 25 days while the utility replaces the main transformer. The transformer was damaged May 18 during a small fire that resulted from electrical testing. Subsequent inspections have shown that the damage to the main transformer is more extensive than originally thought and repairs cannot be completed on-site. Pilgrim was expected to return to full power on June 14th. The transformer replacement will add about 25 days to the original schedule."

Personally, Art, I think Y2K has been part, if not all, of the motivation for bringing old plants back into service, but this is my opinion only. You'll have to read the other thread and any other answers to this one and make your own best guess. Other thoughts are just as valid at this point because those privileged with that info aren't giving the public specifics of their internal plans.

If you come up with any further information, Art, or any other ideas, let us know, please?

-- Anonymous, June 06, 1999

It's reason #2. Generation (including the Nukes) plants tend to be taken down in the Spring for and general maint. (and refuleing if needed). There is also a shortage of generation in certain areas of the country, such as New England. The toughest time for most utilites is the summer due to all of the air-conditioning load. Turn those thermostats up people! If your have an early hot summer, which looks to be the case in the East and plants are down for their Spring overhaul you could run into problems. Nerc has a report on it's website of the Summer outlook for generation. It's an interesting read.

Another problem is the lack of transmission corridors but as I said, that's another problem.............

-- Anonymous, June 07, 1999

Just got done reading the Nerc summer assessment published today. There were 3 pages of capacity additions and "re-rates". It looked like they were adding quite a bit new stuff to the system.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 1999

Its very odd. Lets take New England as an example. Right now the peak load is about 20,000 MW. It is being adequately serviced. There are plans over the next few years to add 25.000 MW of generation. That is more than double the peak load.

Some of this may replace older plants, some will probably never get built. Still you do have to wonder how the economics would come out if even half the number went on line.

And then there is the problem of transmission corridors. Generating the power is one thing. Getting it to your door is another.

Its suppose to be up 100 today in Boston. Turn the AC up to 76 or 78 please, and turn off the pool pumps, lights, etc.

Thanks.

-- Anonymous, June 08, 1999

ECAR is adding 1.8 MW by August of this year. Is this signifigant? I took the capacity additions from the 1999 Summer Assessment published on June 4,1999 and added up all of the planned for ECAR. Seems like a lot, but I don't know what normal is here. Engineer, any thoughts on this?

Here are the actual additions to ECAR Unit Name MW Type Date Arcanum No. 3 , 2, Int. Combustion No. 2 Fuel Oil New June Ashtabula No. 6 , 43, Steam Turbine Bituminous Reactivate June B.C. Cobb No. 2 , 56, Steam Turbine Natural Gas Reactivate May Belle River No.12-1 , 72, Gas Turbine Natural Gas New August Belle River No. 12-2 ,72, Gas Turbine Natural Gas New August Belle River No. 13-1 ,72, Gas Turbine Natural Gas New June Belleville No. 1 , 21, Hydro Water New June Belleville No. 2 , 21, Hydro Water New June BowlingGreen GT No.1 ,32, Gas Turbine No. 2 Fuel Oil New June Bryan No. 1-3 , 5, Int. Combustion No. 2 Fuel Oil New June Cleveland No. 1-5 , 9, Int. Combustion No. 2 Fuel Oil New June City Columbus No.1-6 ,11, Int. Combustion No. 2 Fuel Oil New August Conners Creek No.15 ,150, Steam Turbine Natural Gas Reactivate June Conners Creek No.16 ,150, Steam Turbine Natural Gas Reactivate June Delray No. 11-1 , 62, Gas Turbine Natural Gas New June Delray No. 12-1 , 62, Gas Turbine Natural Gas New June Dover No. 1-6 , 11, Int. Combustion No. 2 Fuel Oil New June E.W. Brown No. 6 , 164, Gas Turbine Natural Gas New August E.W. Brown No. 7 , 164, Gas Turbine Natural Gas New August Greenwood No. 11-1 , 82, Gas Turbine Natural Gas New June Greenwood No. 11-2 , 72, Gas Turbine Natural Gas New June Greenwood No. 11-3 , 72, Gas Turbine Natural Gas New June Hamilton GT No. 3 , 30, Gas Turbine No. 2 Fuel Oil New June J.K. Smith CT No. 1 ,110, Gas Turbine Natural Gas New June J.K. Smith CT No. 2 ,110, Gas Turbine Natural Gas New June J.K. Smith CT No. 3 ,110, Gas Turbine Natural Gas New June Jackson Center No. 1 , 2, Int. Combustion No. 2 Fuel Oil New June Napoleon No. 4-6 , 5, Int. Combustion No. 2 Fuel Oil New June Orrville No. 1-3 , 5, Int. Combustion No. 2 Fuel Oil New June Seneca Nos. 1, 2, & 3 88, Pumped Storage Water Uprate June St. Marys GT No. 1 , 10, Gas Turbine No. 2 Fuel Oil New June Trenton Channel No.7 11, Steam Turbine Coal Uprate June Trenton Channel No.8 -5, Steam Turbine Coal Derate June Trenton Channel No.9 28, Steam Turbine Coal Uprate June Versailles No. 1-3 , 5, Int. Combustion No. 2 Fuel Oil New June

Well, that's all of em. I'm off to total up the others.

-- Anonymous, June 08, 1999

Sorry bout that last post. It looked good in the browser and came up sorta jumbled.

Finished adding the major areas NPCC adding 600 MW and Main adding almost 1.2 MW. Again, would like to know if this is signifigant amount to add. Most or all is to be online by Aug-Sept. Tells me someone want's everything that can generate on line for this transition. Is this an incorrect assumption. C'mon factfinder and engineer, let me know what the real deal is here. Thanks

-- Anonymous, June 08, 1999

Personally, I think the *telling* part in this matter is the refurbishing of old plants, ones that haven't run in 10 years or more. That sort of restart is not for long range planning or peak summer demand, in my opinion. What makes sense to me, is that there is industry knowledge that some nukes or other plants will possibly have to be shut down, or will self shut down, due to the Y2k problem. Thus, to try to avoid grid shock and grid shutdown there must be some other plants ready to pick up the load. Old plants are better than no plants, and I think this is an example of the sort of contingency planning that we all want to see happening, even if they are not yet ready to publicly state that as the reason.

-- Anonymous, June 10, 1999

gordon,

i wholeheartedly agree that the reason they are bringing so many old plants on line is due to the possibilities of plants 'tripping' as a result of y2k.

what i do not understand is there apparent unwillingness to be more forthcoming. this is very *positive* step. it does not conjure up anything negative, on the contrary it says to me that the electrical industry is taking this *very* seriously and they are willing, in this competitive marketplace, to go the extra mile. their reticence may be due in part to the litigious society in which we live but i feel that the public would view these as heroic efforts.

they are to be commended. this sends a message, to me at least, that they are exploring every avenue and that they are not willing to take anything for granted.

stating to the public that these efforts are being put forth in as effort to assure that the lights remain on would go a long way to assuage the fears of many.

-- Anonymous, June 10, 1999

there was something else i wanted to add to my previous post.

we are all in this together. we, the laymen, are not out to lay blame at the feet of the electrical industry. the die is cast, all we really want is a good idea of how to weigh the risk.

back in the seventies, during the oil crisis, it was put forth at the federal level, that we, the citizenry, would not be able to adjust... chaos would rule the day. we would not be able to reduce consumption... we were spoiled, complacent, etc.

i don't remember the exact figures but i believe that we reduced our consumption by close to 30%. we turned thermostats down, we bought woodstoves, we bought smaller cars... we learned to adjust.

all 'they' ever had to do was give us a 'heads up' and if they would have done this last year there would have been no panic nor any animosity.

now it is almost too late. and electricity might prove to be the least of it.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 1999

Marianne,

I think the reason we are not being told about the restarts of old plants and the contingency plans is to avoid alerting the general public to the seriousness of the entire Y2k problem at this time. If the electric utilities were to say that they were preparing for disruptions and grid exposures, it would start a major question session within the public and even some areas of the media. The government doesn't want people to be getting too excited just yet. I disagree with that approach, the same as you do. However, that seems to be the official position. Since the electric industry is getting some of the older generators out of mothballs, that's good. We can muddle through a lot of problems if we have at least a partially reliable electric supply. So this move on their part gets a big thumbs up from me.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 1999