Japan's floating offshore wind turbines

A recently-installed floating wind turbine off the Japanese coast marks the second operating floating project in Asia.  Located about 12 miles off the coast of the site of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear power disaster, the government-funded project is being developed by a consortium led by Marubeni Corp.  So far, it consists of a single 2-megawatt Hitachi turbine coupled with a floating substation, with near-term plans to add two 7-megawatt Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. turbines, and a longer-term vision of installing 1,000 megawatts of capacity.

The Fukushima project follows a 2-megawatt floating offshore wind project installed off Nagasaki.  The Nagasaki project is located about 1 kilometer off the island of Kabashima, a 9-sq.-km island with some 110 households, and followed a 100-kilowatt test project deployed in 2012.

Japan's push for offshore wind development is motivated in large part by the Fukushima nuclear disaster.  Before 2011, nuclear power provided about 30% of Japan's electricity, but all 54 of Japan's nuclear reactors were shut down or inoperable after the disaster.

As an island nation with extensive coastal resources and little if any native fossil fuels, offshore wind may be a natural fit for Japan.  Relatively deep waters surrounding Japan make seabed-mounted towers impractical, so floating platforms may enable greater use of renewable wind energy.  The floating pilot projects off Nagasaki and Fukushima are designed in part to test different technologies, and may help reduce the costs of future projects.

Under the Japanese approach, each of these projects is funded by a separate ministry: the Fukushima project is supported by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, while the Nagasaki project is funded chiefly by the Environment Ministry.

Will Japan continue to develop its deepwater offshore wind resources?  Will floating platforms and turbines play a significant role in powering Japanese society?  Will the pilot projects lead to engineering and manufacturing knowledge that could place Japan at the forefront of the growing deepwater offshore wind industry?

Oregon coal export plans stopped

The United States is one of the world’s top coal producers and exporters, but recent plans to add coal export capacity in the Pacific Northwest have not been fulfilled, as several proposed export terminals have been withdrawn.  Plans for yet another terminal have been scrapped, as yesterday Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP canceled its proposed Clatskanie, Oregon project.  What does this mean for U.S. coal exports and for domestic pricing?

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners is a publicly traded master-limited partnership,or MLP, focused on pipeline infrastructure.  Along with fellow Kinder Morgan family companies Kinder Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan Management, LLC, and El Paso Pipeline Partners, Kinder Morgan claims to be the largest midstream and the third largest energy company (based on combined enterprise value) in North America.  The company owns or operates about 80,000 miles of pipelines and 180 terminals handling products like natural gas, refined petroleum products, crude oil, and carbon dioxide, as well as gasoline, jet fuel, ethanol, coal, petroleum coke and steel. It boasts of operating primarily “like a giant toll road”, and seeks to avoid commodity price risk through a fee-for-service model.

Most coal export capacity in the U.S. is located in the Midatlantic and Gulf Coast regions.  While Asia dominates the world coal import market, major markets for U.S. coal exports include Canada, Brazil, the Netherlands, and the European Union.  The principal West Coast coal export port is Los Angeles/Long Beach, with virtually no export capacity in the Pacific Northwest.  Kinder Morgan had proposed a terminal to be built at the Port Westward industrial park on the Columbia River near Clatskanie.  Yesterday project partner Port of St. Helens stated that Kinder Morgan had announced that it would not be pursuing the project.

Up to six Pacific Northwest coal export terminates have been proposed in recent years, but to date none have been built.  The Kinder Morgan proposal joins a series of other canceled Pacific Northwest coal export plans.  RailAmerica Inc. announced last year that it would not pursue a coal storage and export facility at Washington’s Port of Grays Harbor.  Earlier this year, the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay announced the end of its exclusive negotiating agreement between with Metropolitan Stevedoring Company (Metro Ports) to build a thermal coal and biomass export facility.  With the Kinder Morgan project gone, three potential terminals remain:  Australian  company Ambre Energy’s barge-loading operation at the port of Morrow and Port Westward, Millennium Bulk Terminals’ proposed $643 million dock west of Longview, and SSA Marine’s proposed $600 million coal terminal at Cherry Point.

Whether a coal export terminal will be developed in the Pacific Northwest is uncertain.  If not, it will continue to be difficult for coal produced in the western U.S. to reach the world’s largest demands for coal imports.  China, Japan, South Korea, India, and even the relatively small Chinese Taipei have led the demand for coal imports in recent years.  This opens significant economic activity. At the same time, environmentalists argue that new export projects would contribute to global pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.  Combined with the pressures of the commodity market for coal and other fuels, these dynamics may continue to block expanded West Coast export plans.  As is being argued over the issue of liquefied natural gas exports, whether coal exports are expanded could also have impacts for U.S. coal pricing.

March 17, 2011 - how nuclear power works in 250 words

As we watch the situation in Japan, where a number of reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant have been damaged by the earthquake and tsunami, I've been looking for a simple explanation of how nuclear power plants -- in Japan and here in the U.S. -- work.  Perhaps because it's a complex technology, or because there are a variety of ways humans use nuclear fission to generate electricity, I haven't found a very simple explanation -- so I decided to write one up myself.

Most nuclear power plants use the energy released by fission -- splitting atoms (usually uranium or plutonium) to heat water into steam.  The steam spins a turbine, which spins a generator to create electricity.   These turbines work much like other steam turbines found in other thermal electricity plants (such as those powered by biomass, natural gas, or coal).

The reactor is the heart of a nuclear power plant.  This key component differentiates nuclear plants from other thermal generators.  While most thermal generators create or release thermal energy (heat) through combustion, nuclear fission creates thermal energy by splitting atoms.  When one uranium atom splits, it releases heat and several neutrons -- subatomic particles that fly off the split atom.  If one of those neutrons smacks into another uranium atom at the right speed, that atom will then split, releasing more heat -- and importantly, more neutrons.  By controlling the speed at which these splits occur, operators create a sustained but controlled fission chain reaction.

When the heat produced by this chain reaction is absorbed by cooling water (like in your home’s boiler or car's radiator system), the water heats up to between 500 °F and 600 °F.  Depending on the reactor design, this heat either transforms the water into steam (in an open-loop boiling water reactor), or goes through a heat exchanger to create steam in a secondary loop (in a closed-loop pressurized water reactor).  Either way, the steam produced flows through a turbine, which spins a generator to create electricity.

That's an overview of the basics of nuclear power generation.  I've simplified it greatly to make it easier to understand.  If you dig deeper, the details are fascinating, and point to both the challenges and opportunities of harnessing fission to create electricity.

March 15, 2011 - US nuclear industry

As Japan assesses the damage from last Friday's magnitude 8.9 earthquake and tsunami, one element of the disaster that remains ongoing involves damage to several of that nation's nuclear power plants.  Utility Tokyo Electric Power has imposed blackouts due to a 25 percent capacity shortage, which may be the least of the concerns stemming from the damaged nuclear plants.  Concerns over meltdown and release of radioactive materials loom larger.

A recent snapshot of the price of gas in Maine: $3.539 per gallon for 87 octane regular.

In the immediate wake of the situation in Japan, it may be helpful to consider a snapshot of the U.S. nuclear power industry.  According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (1 page PDF), in 2009 the U.S. nuclear industry was composed of 104 generators with an aggregate nameplate capacity of 106,618 megawatts.  This represents about 9.5% of the nation's 1,121,686 MW total installed nameplate capacity.  Electricity derived from nuclear power thus ranks third in nameplate capacity behind natural gas (459,803 MW) and coal (338,723 MW).

Nuclear power plays an even bigger role in the U.S. electric industry on a megawatt-hour basis.  Remember that megawatts of capacity refer to how much energy could be produced at a given moment if all the units ran full-bore, while megawatt-hours of energy refer to how much energy was actually produced.  In 2010, nuclear power produced 981,815 thousand MWh out of a total 4,120,028 thousand MWh produced -- or about 24% of the nation's total electric generation.  This is due in part to the high capacity factor of nuclear power, meaning that nuclear plants tend to run near their full capacity and have minimal downtime.

Let's keep Japan in our thoughts and hope the people and the nation recover well and quickly.