Posted on 01/19/2009 9:03:15 AM PST by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO — Blamed for the widespread killing of marine life, California's coastal power plants are under mounting pressure to abandon an antiquated process that draws in ocean water to cool turbines.
The battle has raged from the statehouse to the White House. California agencies are divided, the San Diego County Water Authority is worried, legislation has been introduced in Sacramento, and even the U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to weigh in.
Opponents of more controls have warned of higher bills and tighter energy supplies. Water supplies from desalination plants built alongside power generators also could be at risk, they say.
Supporters contend that these cooling systems will continue to disrupt the cycle of life in the sea if left unchecked.
“We're taking a look at World War II technology, which is creating great havoc,” said state Sen. Ellen Corbett, a San Leandro Democrat carrying legislation that would force coastal generators to switch to more environmentally friendly cooling systems by 2015.
Her bill would impose fees on plants using the process known as “once-through cooling” and would generate $15,000 for every 1 billion gallons of water used by plants. With 16 billion gallons a day flowing through the affected plants, the fees would amount to more than $87 million a year.
The fee would be collected from 2011 through the end of 2014 – the last day the cooling system would be permissible under Corbett's measure, Senate Bill 42. The measures probably faces a tough road, given the state's limited energy and water supply. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the bill.
Nineteen plants along California's coast use once-through cooling, a process that involves piping in water daily and discharging billions of gallons back into the ocean, according to a state report. Those plants generated 20 percent of the state's power need in 2005. However, at such volume and velocity, the cooling practice destroys fish and threatens other marine life, such as harbor seals, sea lions and sea turtles. The ocean's food chain is put at risk by the process, critics say.
The state Water Resources Control Board is separately developing a policy to govern ocean-water use at coastal plants, including three in San Diego County: San Onofre, Encina and South Bay, which use once-through cooling. Agencies have dueled over the language for nearly three years with the group that manages the state's power grid, the California Independent System Operator, which is adamant in seeking to minimize restrictions.
The state water board is not expected to seek a shutdown of the plants when it releases its policy later this year, said Judie Panneton, a research analyst with the agency. “Banning them is not the focus of our draft policy,” she said. “It's the effect on marine life that we're focusing on.”
In Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a case brought by New York-based Riverkeeper that could determine whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should consider costs as part of requirements to protect sea life when assessing power plants. The decision could steer the incoming Obama administration as it develops policies toward once-through cooling.
These challenges to generators come at a time of tight energy and water supplies in the state. With the recession taking a toll, ratepayers might be in no mood to take on higher costs for both.
Eliminating once-through cooling at all the plants could cost “as little as around $100 million to as much as $11 billion, depending on how and when the policy is enacted and how the industry responds,” according to the state Water Resources Control Board.
Alternatives include dry cooling, a process that relies on air-cooled condensers and fans. Eight plants use that system, but they absorb higher costs.
Cooling towers recirculate the water, reducing demand for more water. All but two inland plants use this process. Another option is to use recycled wastewater, which will be put to the test at a plant near Los Angeles.
Southern California Edison, which operates the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, warns that a hasty policy shift could do more harm to the environment. The plant generates enough power for 1.4 million homes. “Sweeping new policy requiring cooling towers could significantly raise customer rates and harm the environment,” Edison said in a statement to water quality regulators. “In our case, SCE would be forced to secure more base-load power at higher customer cost from carbon-emitting fossil fuel plants – increasing local air pollution and adding to greenhouse gas emissions . . . ”
Edison says it has acted aggressively to limit damage by its cooling system, including installing a device that pushes fish away from intakes and a system that provides an escape for fish in the pipe. Edison also has launched the nation's largest artificial kelp reef project off the coast near San Clemente.
Commercial fishermen, however, contend that power generators should be doing more after decades of destroying marine life and threatening their livelihood by using once-through cooling.
“Companies have ignored the fact that it does have a cost. It's just that they're passing the costs along to someone else – us,” said Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations.
There is another wrinkle in the ongoing debate. Some desalination plants, which are being aggressively pursued as California continues to face drought , could be located next to power plants.
The San Diego County Water Authority, exploring a desalination venture with Edison near San Onofre, is expected to oppose Corbett's measure. The water authority wants to keep its options open to use once-through cooling, or some other system, depending on cost and effectiveness.
“It would potentially severely restrict our options to develop these plants,” said Bob Yamada, a water resources manager at the authority. “You could potentially eliminate a significant new water supply.” Poseidon Resource's fledgling venture in Carlsbad – the most prominent of the county's desalination plants – will not use once-through cooling. Nor will the Carlsbad Energy Center, proposed by NRG West.
I guess we just really need to just off ourself’s for the betterment of the planet
Marine life thrives in the cold California waters near the warm water effluent of Power Plants.
The EnvironmentalTards are up to serious no good, as is often the case.
Let’s see.
This would take care of Encinitas, San Onofre, Huntington Beach, Redondo Beach, El Segundo, a couple of the LADWP plants, Ormond Beach, Mandalay, Diablo Canyon, and others as you go up the coast.
That’s a lot of Megawatts that are necessary to maintain voltage stability for the big cities of San Diego, LA, and San Francisco.
You don’t get voltage stability for the big cities with windmills and solar panels. Voltage stability really requires some torque behind it.
I think that all the crap that flows into the oceans from the rivers and streams on all the coasts of the world, overfishing, and outright illegal dumping from the ships of the sea are messing up ocean environment.
Like I say, the death of the oceans will occur a long time before global warming (a political science) will kill us.
....want to see a war between the environmentalist and rich privileged liberals, this would start it!
Shut down and sell off your equipment.
Let the citizens of crackifornia work by soy wax candle and canola oil lamp light.
By staying and letting the parasites feed off you, you’re sustaining that which is trying to kill you.
You think the liberals would agree to go first, if conservatives promised to do themselves immediately after? Everything else they believe, say, and do suggests they’re gullible enough.
This is how the left moves money from the taxpayer(rate payer) to govt, with no apparent benefit to the enviroment.
Using seawater or baywater to cool these plants is the most effecient way to do the job. Cooling towers also consume water. Desalinazation could be added to further improve effeciency.
Oh i agree, SoCal really needs the desal plants,
On the East Coast - especially in New England, the discharge area is where the fishermen look for the best fishing.
But even in Florida - the discharge waters are considered a benefit!
Consider that Florida Power & Light, when it built the Turkey Point Station (with 2 nuclear plants) - was forced to put in a very long “cooling canal” to allow the water to cool some before being discharged to the ocean. It added a lot to the cost of the plant that the environmentalist tried to keep from being built.
Years later, the plant operated safely, providing reliable power. But when it needed to shut down BOTH nuclear plants during the winter for regular refueling, the environmentalists went to court to keep the plants from being shutdown. Seems that the cooling canals were a great “sanctuary” for the manatee (sea cow). Ultimately, the power company was forced to keep 1 plant operating til late spring, which meant operating the plant at 50% power to extend the time til the plant would have to be shut down.
Of course, the best economics require the plant to operate at 100% power til fuel exhaustion, then do the refueling and bring the plant back up to 100% power for 12 to 18 months before the next refueling.
However, FPL (and the users) were forced to pay more by requiring inefficient plant operations, to provide a better environment for a marine animal .....while those same environmentalists had tried to keep the plant from even being built. (This is similar to the opposition to the Alaska Pipeline - it was going to hurt the caribou, when in fact, by providing some man-made shelter ...the population of the caribou has doubled or tripled in areas near the pipeline.)
Mike
It is simply amazing the cr*p the environmentalist shysters get away with in the courts.
Totally inconsistent and totally dishonest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.