Texas Cogeneration

Abstract of speech by Mr. Tommy John, P.E., in March 2008 to STS-AIChE.
Mr. John holds a BS in mechanical engineering, a MS in chemical engineering, and is a registered professional engineer in Texas.


"30 years ago, cogenerators pioneered market
deregulation and energy efficiency in Texas. Today
Texas has 20% of the nation's cogeneration capacity,
some 16,000 MW of electrical generating capacity, representing
16% of the total, most associated with the
process industries. Yet there is potential for much more.

It is the cheapest option for baseload generation, in addition
to improving the reliability of energy supply, reducing
load on the transmission and distribution system, reducing
water consumption, improving air quality, and spurring economic development. The
need for additional generating resources in Texas will be reviewed as well as integrating with the open power market and renewable resources."

More on Nuclear Power

Today's edition is from Townhall.com, with an article by Associated Press titled Obama Launches Yucca Attack at McCain. We hear from American Girl 1650, ex-Wyomingite, and Boone. As usual, I write as energyguy, and sign my real name as Roger E. Sowell.

My consistent theme is that nuclear power plants generate toxic waste that future generations must deal with, that new nuclear plants are too expensive to compete in the marketplace, and environmental attorneys will bring endless lawsuits to delay their construction. My conclusion is they will never get built in the U.S., so we must act to build other means of generating power.

American Girl 1650
Location: NY
Reply # 3
Date: Aug 9, 2008 - 10:53 AM EST
Subject: It's the only winning spin
that helps the voters deprive themselves of a viable component of the energy solution.

45 plants? The size we're used to? I don't think so. Did Mac say how small they'd be?

Technology has come a long way and you know the scientists and engineers (worldwide) have not stopped working while we stopped building.

Pretty soon we'll have laptops the size of pens. For sure Nuclear technology has not sat on the back burner.

energyguy
Location: CA
Reply # 19
Date: Aug 10, 2008 - 12:54 PM EST
Subject: American Girl
Nice handle.

We will not see any new nuclear plants built for many, many years due to their excessive construction costs. Leaving aside the subject of nuclear wastes, reprocessing, and/or storage at Yucca Mountain.

A utility in Florida published in March 2008 their construction cost for a new-technology, AP1000 plant. They stated it would cost them $17 billion for a two-reactor plant generating 2200 MWe.

The article is here:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/article414393. ece

This effectively puts new nuclear power plants on the back burner. Instead, we will see many more natural-gas fired combined cycle cogeneration plants, known as CCC. Natural gas prices are falling and likely to get even lower as LNG imports increase.

We still must dispose of all the nuclear waste our existing plants produce. But for now, we will not see any new nuclear plants.


-- Roger E. Sowell
Energy Attorney

Ex-Wyomingite
Location: CA
Reply # 20
Date: Aug 10, 2008 - 4:26 PM EST
Energyguy
Are you old enough to remember John Fitzgerald Kennedy? People at the time said his ridiculous notion of putting a man on the moon by 1970 was too expernsive, technologically impractical and, worse, wasteful. Then do you remmeber the summer of 1969?

If President McCain, and that's a big if, but if President McCain puts before the nation a goal of having some percentage of our electrical needs met by nuclear generation, it will happen. Nobody will care about some bush league utility having to bear all the costs; it will become like the interstate highway construction program, perfectly feasible.

Millions of Americans were reminded of something the other night from the opening night ceremonies in Beijing. Put enough people to work on something, and the little picayune problems such as those you are fond of citing, vanish. Collectively we can do anything. We're Americans: it's only a matter of setting the goal.

boone
Location: TX
Reply # 21
Date: Aug 10, 2008 - 5:15 PM EST
Subject: The waste problem is real. And forever.
If you want to get an idea just how permanent the waste problem is with nuclear power -- consider this. They are carving stick figure cartoons into the walls. Stick figure goes close to waste container. Invisible rays emanate from container. Stick figures drop dead. You see, people 100,000 years from now who may be another species, but will almost certainly not remember our civilization except the way we remember the sabertooth tiger or the dinosaurs will still be in danger should they wander into Yucca Mountain. People from other planets, maybe other galaxies, still need fear what we are leaving there. Certainly a safe centralized site is probably better than having it all over the country, but I would rather see it shot into the sun or buried on the moon -- both impossible with any forseeable technology. An earhquake of unforeseen magnitude could poison the ground water for most of a continent, but, heck, there may be some really cool mutant fishing available to future settlers on this planet as a tradeoff.

Marlson
Location: IL
Reply # 22
Date: Aug 10, 2008 - 5:22 PM EST
ex-Wyomingite
has it right.

and Energyguy is "changing" the Obamantra to "Yes we can't". Blasphemy.

Two birds with one stone. We can make use of, and drive the waste right off the bridge to nowhere.

Better yet, we can drill and then fill the empty cavities with nuclear waste.

energyguy
Location: CA
Reply # 23
Date: Aug 10, 2008 - 8:40 PM EST
Subject: ex-Wyomingite
I remember JFK well, and watched the first moon landing on TV at age 15. And what I remember is a massive spending program by the U.S. gov't in response to public hysteria that the Red Commies from Russia beat us into space with Sputnik.

It was far easier to manipulate public opinion in those days. We had not yet learned to be cynical.

Totally different worlds, then and now. We also had an economy slumping after WWII and no war to kick-start the economy -- Vietnam had not yet escalated yet in 1963.

If you want govt subsidized nuclear power plants, please go live in France. Leave my beloved U.S. of A.

If you would rather have the good old U.S. can-do spirit, where our smart guys and gals figure out the best solutions and a Reagan-style limited govt stays the he!! out of the way, then follow me. Our geeks and engineers can do it.

I have not exchanged views with most of you before now, so let me introduce myself. I am an energy attorney with 20 years prior experience as a refinery engineer world-wide, with a BS in Chemical Engineering. I welcome the debates on all these issues.

-- Roger E. Sowell


energyguy
Location: CA
Reply # 24
Date: Aug 10, 2008 - 8:49 PM EST
Boone
You are absolutely right. Our creating toxic wastes for future generations to deal with is not playing nice during our four-score years on the world stage. I am convinced that future generations will curse ours, and with good reason, for mucking up the earth with radioactive wastes.

One chilling scenario is an asteroid strike that we cannot detect early enough, and cannot prevent, smack onto a nuclear plant (or close enough). Or the same asteroid smashing into Yucca Mountain. Remember that heat does not destroy that stuff, but it pulverizes the rock and sends the dust into the sky to make Chernobyl look like a minor problem.

Is it likely? No. Is it probable? No. Is it possible? Yes. And that is too much of a chance to leave our grandchildren, and their grandchildren, and their grandchildren to deal with.

Lucky for future generations, the present construction boom in China and India raised the prices of materials including those for nuclear power plants.

Also, the environmental attorneys are far better now than 30 years ago, and have far more laws with which to delay any nuclear power plant that obtains a construction permit.

They will never get built in the U.S. That is my prediction as a realist. Therefore, I support other means of making electric power, as we must have it, and must generate it ourselves.

It is very telling that 90 percent of all new gas-fired power generation in the U.S. is from CCC technology.

-- Roger E. Sowell

Nuclear Power Too Expensive

“Progress Energy [Florida] tripled its estimate for its new nuclear power plant in Levy County, saying Monday that the new price is $17-billion.

The utility paid more than $80-million for 5,200 acres in Levy County, about 10 miles north of its Crystal River power plant. It plans to build two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, with a capacity of 1,100 megawatts each.

Despite [the utility company’s] assurances, the new price could leave some with sticker shock. The number will reverberate throughout the Southeast, where at least five similar projects have been announced. Utilities have said that surging prices for commodities like steel and concrete have driven up the cost of new nuclear, but Progress Energy is the first to offer a firm estimate."

Source: accessed 8-10-2008
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/article414393.ece

Roger Sowell has these comments (aka Energyguy on Townhall.com):
This validates what I have maintained all along: Nuclear power plants will not cost $1 billion for a 1000 MW reactor, but much more. Far more. The surging costs of stainless steel, concrete, and copper contribute much to the higher price.

A utility can add to this the long construction times, likely 7 to 10 years, and the cost of borrowing money to finance the construction. Nuclear power plants are not the best economic option, leaving aside the toxic waste disposal or reprocessing problems.

Natural gas-fired combined cycle cogeneration, CCC, is far superior. The world is awash in natural gas, and has been for decades. We are discovering more and more by the day. LNG plants are sprouting around the globe. Super-tankers for LNG are a reality, led by ExxonMobil; these reduce the transportation costs dramatically. LNG receiving ports are under construction around the U.S., and elsewhere.

A CCC is far more energy efficient than a nuclear plant. A nuke puts 3000 to 4000 MW of energy into the ocean, river, or atmosphere via its cooling system, compared to only 250 to 300 MW for a CCC. That is about a 12 to 1 reduction in wasted heat, or thermal pollution. Does that matter? It should, to the eco-hysterics.

Natural Gas Price Drops Again

from AP, Aug 4 2008:

"Natural gas futures also fell sharply [today], dropping 66.3 cents, or 7.1 percent, to settle at $8.726 per 1,000 cubic feet."

From NYMEX, Aug 7, 2008: (closing price) $8.540 per 1000 cubic feet. Wow. Dropped almost 30 cents in three days.

I added a response on T. Boone Pickens' website www.PickensPlan.com. A commenter using BrianR as his handle stated that natural gas needs no refining, it is brought right out of the ground into pipelines for customers.

Well, that is just not true. I corrected that, stating raw natural gas has several impurities including water, sulfur, mercury (sometimes), ethane, propane, butanes, and natural gasoline. All these are removed by processing in a natural gas plant. Then, the processed gas is odorized to meet pipeline specifications and sent out to the consumers.

I also stated that mass conversion of autos to CNG will require some infrastructure work especially on the East coast. This was in response to those who claim that natural gas infrastructure is already in place. Well, it is, mostly, but it is strained each winter as the north and east get very cold. If the pipelines also had to supply gas for cars, there is not enough capacity.

One solution is to build one or more LNG regasification facilities on the east coast, preferably near New Jersey. But, the enviro-wackos will never allow that.

-- Roger E. Sowell, the energyguy on Townhall.com.

Nuclear Power - Rusher's Column

In which Wendy joins the debate, Rich D surfaces again, and energyguy again states his position. Wendy disagrees, and is rather dubious about energyguy's intentions, but is rather vague about what she means. David from Oklahomoa chimes in, stating solar does not work after the sun goes down. Energyguy corrects David's misconception. ModMark has a good question, but energyguy does not have sufficient time to address it tonight.

This is from William Rusher's column on Townhall of July 28, 2008 advocating nuclear power as the solution to the U.S. high energy prices.


Energyguy wrote:
Deceived
With respect, Mr. Rusher, like many others, you have been deceived.

Some agree with you that nuclear power is safe, efficient, and will forever provide cheap power for the world.

Others, including myself, disagree. I listed 7 reasons not to glow nuclear on Rebecca Hagelin's recent column on this, at:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RebeccaHagelin/2008/07/2 4/nuclear_power_lighting_the_future

You have not mentioned the two show-stoppers for nuclear power in the U.S.: First, prohibitively high costs to build, with the very long construction times due to lawsuits, and Second, safe handling and disposal of the highly toxic wastes.

Solar power is competitive, and runs 24/7 in the Sun Belt. Wind power investment is booming, with far more than enough wind in the U.S. to shut down all the nukes forever. Wind-energy storage systems will soon make that a reality.

For any who are interested, I posted my thoughts on renewable energy at:

http://energyguysmusings.blogspot.com/2008/07/renewable-ene rgy.html

I have zero commercial interest in that blog. I created it solely to avoid typing that stuff over and over as more columnists weigh in on the same issues.

-- Roger E. Sowell
Energy Attorney
BS Chemical Engineering

Wendy wrote:
Energyguy
I have already read your "7 reasons" post, and it was just as silly the second time.

1. The reason nuclear plant construction is so expensive is because, as you yourself suggested, there are lawsuit issues, permit delays, environmental regulations, etc. that double the time and expense to build. This suggests that the problem is that our legislatures need to roll back the ridiculous anti-nuclear legislation that is on the books.

2. Safe handling and disposal of waste is only an issue for environmentalist wacko freaks. It is not a prohibitive issue to a serious mind.

Rational minds also do not suggest that wind and solar power are serious alternatives to sustain an industrial civilization, or that lack of brainpower in America makes it impossible to make our civilization nuclear-powered.

By the way, everyone on this board knows what your real interest is, and it is not the well-being of your fellow man.

Nuclear power won't happen overnight and will not replace oil in the near term (and should not), but if we wish to survive, it is our only solution on the horizon for the long-term.

David from Oklahoma wrote:
Subject: energyguy
Energyguy says solar power is available 24/7 in the sun belt. I live in the sun belt. This may surprise you, but the sun does actually set here like any place else. Liberal wingnuts like energyguy is the reason right now that nuclear cost so much to built and takes so long to come online.

Energyguy responded to David:
David
wrote: "Energyguy says solar power is available 24/7 in the sun belt. I live in the sun belt. This may surprise you, but the sun does actually set here like any place else. Liberal wingnuts like energyguy is the reason right now that nuclear cost so much to built and takes so long to come online."

Take a look at the CSP plant in Phoenix, Arizona. It uses solar power and generates electricity 24/7.

Yes, David, the sun goes down. Every night, even in Phoenix. But geeks and engineers figured it out, and did it with no toxic wastes.

As to nuclear construction costs, actually, you can blame the Chinese and Indians (from India, not the U.S. native groups). Their growing economies caused prices to skyrocket for construction materials like steel, copper, and cement. Nuclear power plants use a lot of those.

-- Roger E. Sowell


Vic tries to bait Energyguy into a response with:
EG
Construction costs are no more for NUke plants than any other large construction. What costs money is delays caused by eco-idiot intervenors and regulators wanting continuous changes in design as you are building it.

Energyguy just ignores Vic; he has demonstrated no ability to use facts and logic but hurls weak insults instead.


ModMark
Location: NY

Reply # 27
Date: Jul 29, 2008 - 10:45 AM EST
Subject: David
" Liberal wingnuts like energyguy is the reason right now that nuclear cost so much to built and takes so long to come online. "

Now EnergyGuy is a big boy and does not need me to defend him, I am afraid that defend him just make him a liberal in your mind.

I have no doubt that he is quite conservative and nothing worst than a true conservative being labeled a liberal.

But I must ask, why is energy production such a left vs right issue?

Why do you care how those electron flowing into your house is produced? Solar, wind, nukes, NG co-gen or that nasty coal all can produce electrons.

Just a matter which is cheapest for me.


ModMark poses a question to Energyguy:
Now EnergyGuy
" First, prohibitively high costs to build, with the very long construction times due to lawsuits,"

You not going to make any friends by talking lawsuits.

If you do your homework, why should lawyers be able to shut down a new AP1000 nuke plant?

Westinghouse did all the proper work and design, it has been approved by the government and is ready to roll.

Can my AGW lawyers start shutting down NG co-gen systems since they do produce CO2? In fact, those same lawyer may join the nuke side since it does not produce CO2.



Rich D wrote:
Subject: energyguy
Unless I'm mistaken, you left the previous forum where we were having a discussion without responding. Anyway, I just went to the Hagelin article and agree with some others that your seven reason post is not reflective of up-to-date nuclear technology. Just a few miles from Pittsburgh, Westinghouse has been advertising and getting many engineers and technical folks to staff up a new design center. Also, a critical mass of supporters and candle haters would be enough to put the Luddites in their place.

I don't know why you seem to ignore the new designs that produce little or no serious waste after reprocessing and contain considerably fewer components, shutdown safely even without an operator, and can be assembled from prefabricated, tested modules made off site.

Also, I see no response from you on the comparative generation and life-cycle costs of the co-gen plants that you advocate. Why is that? I respect your credentials, but others here are not ignorant of technology.


Energyguy responds to Wendy:
Wendy
Please, spell out what you believe is my true interest?

I don't know how many, if any, who disagree with me are engineers. Not to make a big deal out of it, but I think I know whereof I speak, after 30-plus years as both an engineer, and an energy attorney.

Everyone is entitled to their views and opinions, but I expect those who want to argue to bring some facts and logic. Unsupported rants or insults are worthless.

I have previously posted the link to my website, so all can view my biography. Not that it matters to some.

I am a realist. I lived through the agonies of the utility companies building the first round of nuclear power plants in the U.S. I followed the litigation, and the delays that were not caused by intervenors. On a different column, I posted what happened at the South Texas Nuclear Plant.

At STNP, part of the problem were engineering errors, completely unrelated to the reactor side. Incompetent management also led to serious delays, thus increasing the final project cost. Things were bad there, including falsified x-rays of critical welds. Who knows why, and who knows if anything like that will happen again. I hope not.

I am intimately familiar with modular construction, indeed, it is the in-vogue style for much modern construction. It can increase quality control, and can reduce costs and time to construct. But, I can assure you it is not foolproof, either. Airbus, the company that makes the A380, is living proof of that. Boeing is having their own issues with the concept in building the Dreamliner.

But, to your first point on Congress removing laws that can be used by anti-nuclear groups. Many of those laws could have a nuclear plant exemption written into them by Congress, and then signed into law by a President. I seriously doubt that will occur. The political fallout would be immense.

(more)

-- Roger E. Sowell



energyguy Location: CA
Reply # 61
Date: Jul 30, 2008 - 12:18 AM EST
Subject: Wendy - pt 2
I wish all of you would read what I wrote about the Nuclear Death Spiral. It was real. And it hurt the innocent, the poor, those who had no ability to obtain power elsewhere. It got very little press coverage, but all the engineers I know are keenly aware of it.

I don't want to see that happen again.

Next, about nuclear wastes. Everyone has their opinion on this. I know how to handle toxic wastes, some of the stuff we make in chemical plants is incredibly dangerous stuff. As in cyanide, or phosgene, chromium-6, liquid chlorine, and tetra-ethyl lead (no longer, thankfully). I used to respond to HazMat situations.

The difference with nuclear wastes is that it lasts a very long time. Longer than any of us will be alive. I have heard the arguments pro and con for years, all from experts with serious credentials.

If I am wrong, then I am wrong. But I will not live near a railroad track that ships the stuff for reprocessing. I have seen too many chemical train derailments. No container is strong enough. (that usually gets a storm of disagreement...stay tuned).

-- Roger E. Sowell



energyguy Location: CA
Reply # 62
Date: Jul 30, 2008 - 12:36 AM EST
Wendy - finally
Your point about rational minds not touting wind or solar, and we don't have the brain power to do nuclear again.

You may be right. I just give my opinion, with facts taken from others, and sometimes my own experience.

The fact is that most farmers love a windmill. Just like most ranchers love an oil well on their land. The cattle love to scratch their sides up against it. It also brings more wealth to the rancher.

And, who are you to say that it is irrational to believe the DOE and their measurements on wind velocity and duration? Have you seen the Wind Energy Map of the U.S.? Those guys said there is sufficient wind energy at 20 miles per hour or greater.

And I happen to know that there is far more available wind energy at lower speeds, from 10 to 20 miles per hour. So does the DOE, and the guys at eere. That low-speed technology is in the works, and will be available soon.

I also know that Mr. Hails, PE, who wrote in to the Wall Street Journal the other day has serious credentials.

But, we engineers may all be wrong. There are probably thousands of bright grads out there with the smarts in math and physics and engineering and applied economics who are flipping hamburgers to pay their bills. They are just waiting for the nuclear renaissance to deliver them from a doom of sprinkling salt on french fries.

As to society's survival, just how did we manage for the 10,000 years or so before this past 40-year period of nuclear power?

Nuclear power is not a necessity. It is a luxury.

-- Roger E. Sowell



energyguy Location: CA
Reply # 63
Date: Jul 30, 2008 - 12:52 AM EST
Subject: Rich D
I don't always have time to post, just like everyone else. Tonight I do.

I can assure you, it is not cowardice that keeps me from responding!

As to the new technologies that you and some others speak of so lovingly, fine, great, but remember it is new. Not proven. Not tested.

But it is a way for nuclear design companies to generate more business. Maybe it will work. Maybe the plants can be built to generate 1000 MW at 90 percent or greater. And maybe they can be built for $1 billion each, and in 3 years.

That is a lot of maybes. And once again, speaking as a realist, there will be hordes of anti-nuke groups filing one lawsuit after another to block these things. But not me, that is not my thing.

I am not sure if anyone on TH fully appreciates just how pervasive the enviro-lawsuits are these days. I recently attended a seminar on airport construction, where one topic was a lawsuit filed by an unheard-of group (three members) to block a runway extension at Santa Barbara, California. The runway was needed for improved safety.

The runway was finally built, but it took much more time and money to fight the lawsuit. Yes, that was California, where people are nuts.

But the enviros have done the same in Chicago, specifically Whiting, where BP is expanding a refinery. They want the Whiting refinery to use the same level of technology as is required in California for air emissions controls.

Said that Chicago people are just as valuable as California people. Imagine that.

-- Roger E. Sowell



energyguy Location: CA
Reply # 64
Date: Jul 30, 2008 - 1:17 AM EST
Rich D
This next bit gets a little technical. Oh well. Here goes.

The next argument against nuclear and for combined cycle cogeneration that burns natural gas, is thermal pollution.

The fact is that a fission-based nuclear power plant wastes 75 to 80 percent of the heat generated in the reactor. So, for 1000 MW of power produced, an additional 4000 MW goes out the cooling tower as heat. That is somewhat simplified, for the purists out there.

In contrast, a CCC producing 1000 MW sends only about 250 to 300 MW of heat into the sky.

You can check my facts, and I expect some will do so.

Which is more environmentally sound? 250 MW with a bit of CO2, or 4000 MW with no CO2? Remember that clouds reflect heat as much or better than C02 in the sky. How many nuclear power plants are located in cloudy areas?

(Answer: most of them). I can think of three that are not: Palo Verde, San Onofre, and Diablo Canyon. I have driven past all three of those.

Another argument in favor of CCC over nukes is that no power lines need be built.

Another is that CCC generates valuable heat to the refinery, and nukes do not.

A final argument is that most modern refineries, and many chemical plants, have an excess of waste gases that can easily be burned as fuel in the CCC. The alternative is expensive treatment, or flaring.

The reality is that refineries and big chemical plants considered all their options and concluded (and still do) that CCC beats purchased power. As I wrote earlier, BP just bought a 500 MW CCC for the Whiting refinery.

But, not only refineries and chemical plants. As I posted earlier, the EIA's own figures show that utilities overwhelmingly choose CCC for their new gas-fired generating plants. They choose CCC 90 percent of the time.

-- Roger E. Sowell

End of the comments ----------

Renewable Energy

There is much discussion lately (July-2008) of alternative energy solutions to the high price of gasoline and diesel. I post comments from time to time on Townhall.com, as Energyguy, on these issues.

This blog posting is an attempt to bring to one place the things I know as fact, and the references to support them.

First, we are not running out of oil. Never have, never will. We have run out of cheap oil. There is plenty of oil, but the cost to extract it could be more than our current price of $130 per barrel. As just a few examples, Brazil just discovered a large oil field in deep water. ExxonMobil is developing a large oil field off Sakhalin Island north of Japan. The deep water in the Gulf of Mexico has fairly large fields.

Second, we will always need oil, just not for transportation. A significant part of the oil we refine today goes to non-transportation purposes, including home heating oil, lubricants (crankcase oil in the car), asphalt, and petrochemical feedstocks. Even if every transportation use was converted to another fuel, the need for those just listed will not disappear.

Third, we do not need new refineries, or more refineries in the U.S. My statement goes against some fairly heavy hitters, to use a baseball term. But I stand by my assertion. Our demand for gasoline is decreasing. Here is why.

The U.S. has enjoyed a prolonged period of heavy, large vehicles with poor gas economy. That is changing with gasoline at $4 per gallon (higher in CA and a few other states). Smaller cars, hybrid cars, plug-in hybrid cars, and all-electric vehicles, plus CNG vehicles are reducing the demand for gasoline.

Also, demand is dropping due to consumers changing how they drive. People are driving slower, for one thing. As I drive across Los Angeles, California on weekends when the freeways are fairly uncrowded, many cars are driving no more than 60 or 65 miles per hour. I know, because they are not passing me and I drive 60 or 65.

I believe people are also turning off the engine at red lights rather than letting it idle and waste gas. It takes far less gas to restart than to idle for more than about 5 seconds, especially on a modern, fuel-injected hot engine.

I see people coasting into stop signs and red lights. I don't see people pealing out, or screeching the tires by gunning the engine. I also see more people at the air station in filling stations, putting air in the tires. Finally, the people I talk to have cleaned out the car and the trunk, removing any extra weight.

The evidence for using less fuel can be found each Wednesday morning on the website www.eia.doe.gov, then look for the petroleum summary report. That report compares each week's demand to the same period last year. Each week for the past several months, the demand is less than last year. This trend will continue.

Diesel cars are making a comeback. As some may know, sale of new diesel cars were not allowed for the past few years because the air pollution laws were too strict. But the geeks and engineers prevailed, and VW has the first diesel-powered car that meets the emissions rules in all 50 states. Their car is the Jetta TDI. It also gets around 40 miles to the gallon.

In the face of all this, we see no new refineries being built, but a few are being expanded. The list of expansions includes BP at Whiting, Illinois, Motiva in Port Arthur, Texas, and Marathon in Detroit, Michigan. Other refineries have major projects underway including Chevron at Richmond, California, and Alon in Los Angeles, California.

In fact, Shell just cancelled a new refinery that was to be located in Sarnia, Ontario (Canada). Their reasons for cancelling included soaring construction costs, and demand uncertainty. That last is oil-speak for "we don't think there will be the demand for our products in 5 or 6 years when we finally get this thing built."

Furthermore, some refineries are cutting back production even though the summer driving season is not yet over. Total in Port Arthur, Texas, shut down several process units for a few weeks this summer, stating weak demand for gasoline. This is virtually unprecedented.

Finally, the technology to convert a standard car to a plug-in hybrid has arrived. An article on finance.yahoo.com gave the particulars. These after-market conversion systems replace the rear wheels with electric wheel-motors that also serve as generators when braking. An appropriate battery is installed, and a sophisticated computer control system to govern the system. These are not cheap, costing around $9000 installed. But, they pay for themselves in less fuel in just a few years. Also, they increase the value of the vehicle at trade-in or when sold. This is important, because many big SUVs have zero trade-in value at the moment.

For all the above reasons, it is clear that the U.S. will soon be an exporting country, selling gasoline and diesel fuel to India and China. Our gasoline demand will likely be cut by at least a third, probably half, within three years.

Now, to the alternatives. T. Boone Pickens, A Great American, is pushing for more windmills and solar power to generate electricity from wind and solar. He then wants to divert natural gas from power plants and use the natural gas as CNG for vehicles. This is a great plan, and we have been doing each part of it for years in California. As evidence, the mass transit bus system in Los Angeles and surrounding cities are almost entirely fueled by CNG. There are also fleets of city vehicles running on CNG. CNG fueling stations are in several locations. California also has two major wind-generation areas, one in the north at Altamont Pass near San Francisco, and one in the south along the highway leading from Los Angeles to Palm Springs. There are literally hundreds, perhaps thousands of windmills on those hills.

Some doubters claim that the Pickens Plan is a get-rich quick scheme for Pickens, and places a burden on taxpayers because the government builds the power transmission lines. Big deal.

Some claim that wind power is too unreliable, and we have to run fossil-fueled power plants in stand-by mode to take over the task when the wind fails. That argument does not seem to have effect in California, where we have the second-most wind generation in the U.S., second only to Texas.

Others argue that solar power is too unreliable because of clouds and day/night cycles. There is some truth to that for PV, photo-voltaic, solar power. But for the far more economic CSP, concentrating solar power, operation 24/7 is not only possible it is a reality. There is a large CSP plant operating in Phoenix, Arizona with hot oil storage, generating power 24/7.

Another alternative with great characteristics is wave-power in the oceans. That technology has advanced so that multiple systems using different ideas are practical. One design uses a submerged buoy where the top of the buoy is just below the wave troughs. As a wave passes over the buoy, the buoy is depressed by the added weight of the water above. When the trough passes, the buoy rises a bit. This oscillation generates power.

Another design uses articulated slender floats, with internal pistons to compress a fluid and turn a hydraulic turbine. It works.

The waves in the Pacific are large and almost constant, especially from the Canadian border down to northern California. Anyone can check the wave action on NOAA's website, which is updated each day. As I write this, the forecast off Oregon's coast is for 10 foot waves, combined wind and swell. These are small waves for that area.

An excellent source for news on alternative energy and renewable energy is www.eere.energy.gov. They send out a weekly email to anyone, free for the asking.

One last observation regarding drilling in ANWR and the OCS, offshore continental shelf. Neither option should be ignored, but economics will dictate whether the oil is drilled. Given our declining demand for gasoline and diesel, as discussed above, we are already using less imported oil. And, we are importing less today, every day, not having to wait however long it may take to drill for the oil, build the pipelines, and bring the oil to refineries. Oil companies are shrewd operators, and cannot afford many economic failures.

Nuclear Power in our Future

This entry chronicles comments on a Townhall.com column by Rebecca Hagelin, from July 24, 2008. My comments show up as "energyguy." I sign my name, Roger E. Sowell, and then SOB. Society of Oil Boilers.

SOB is, of course, a play on words. Those of us in the oil refining industry sometimes refer to ourselves as SOBs. The primary operation in a refinery is to boil oil and distill the oil in distillation towers. The other meaning is more obvious.

Energyguy wrote:
Subject: Reasons Not to Glow Nuclear

1. Waste reprocessing, or sequestering toxic radioactives for thousands of years.

2. Shortage of qualified engineers to design and supervise construction.

3. Shortage of skilled workers to construct the plants.

4. Skyrocketing costs of materials: steel, concrete, copper, and others. These plants will cost far more than the last group.

5. Environmental groups and their lawyers are far more numerous, and have far more laws to use in their lawsuits to delay the plants.

6. High-cost nuclear power in the 1970's and 80's provided strong incentives for refineries and large chemical plants to build their own, highly-efficient power plants and go off the grid. Many combined-cycle cogeneration (CCC) plants were built then. The same cycle of build-a-nuke, raise the rates, and watch the customer base shrink will happen again.

7. Distributed Generation: the geeks and engineers have been busy in the past 30 years. This time around, not just refineries and big chemical plants can go off the grid by building a CCC. Smaller versions of these allow small businesses and homeowners to use natural gas to provide power, heating in winter and air conditioning in winter. [should read Summer -- energyguy]

Utility planners should take note before embarking on new nuclear power plants.

Geeks and Engineers. Saviors of Society (TM)

-- Roger E. Sowell, SOB. Society of Oil Boilers