ELECTRICAL POWER SUPPLY
AND DEMAND FORECASTS
FOR THE UNITED STATES
THROUGH 2050
Hittman Associates, Inc.
-------
ELECTRICAL POWER SUPPLY
AND DEMAND FORECASTS
FOR THE UNITED STATES
THROUGH 2050
HIT-498
February 1972
Prepared Under
Contract No. EHSD 71- 43
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Program s
HITTMAN ASSOCIATES. INC.
COLUMBIA. MARYLAND
-------
ii
LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared as an account of Government sponsored work.
Neither the United States, nor the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Programs (EPA-OAP), nor any person acting on behalf of EPA-OAP:
A. Makes any warranty or representation, expressed or implied with
respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information con-
tained in this report, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method,
or process disclosed in this report may not infringe privately owned rights;
or
B. Assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages
resulting from the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process
disclosed in this report.
As used in the above, "person acting on behalf of EPA-OAP" includes
any employee or contractor of EP A -OAP, or employee of such contractor, to
the extent that such employee or contractor of EP A -OAP, or employee of such
contractor prepares, disseminates, or provides access to any information
pursuant to his employment or contract with EP A -OAP, or his employment
with such contractor.
-------
LEGAL NOTICE. . . . .
T ABLE OF CON TENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
........
........
. . . .
.........
. 8.a..
.......
LIST OF FIGURES.
...........
.....
......
LIST OF TABLES. .
I.
II.
III.
IV.
.....
.....
......
......
INTRODUCTION.
.....
.......
. . . .
. . . .
BACKG ROUND. .
. . . . .. ii
. .. . .
.....
. . . .
.....
.....
..............
.....
. . . .
. . . .
......
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
APPENDIX A - FOSSIL STEAM CONSTRUCTION PLANS 1971-1980 .
.........
.....
.....
POWER USAGE CHARACTERISTICS.
A.
National Trends. . . . . . . . .
.........
B.
Regional Changes in Power Usage. . .
......
SOURCES OF ELECTRICAL POWER. . . .
V.
VI.
.......
A.
Types of Electrical Power Generating Plants.
B.
Geographical Distribution of Plants and Fuels. . .
Near-Term Regional Growth Trends. .
C.
......
D.
E.
Long- Term Growth Trends. . .
Long- Term Fuel Types. . .
.....
. . . .
......
.......
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. .
.....
.......
REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . .
......
.....
. iii
Page
iii
iv
v
1-1
II-1
III - 1
III - 1
III - 4
IV-1
IV-1
IV-2
IV-5
IV - 12
IV - 12
V-1
VI-1
A-1
-------
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
No. Title Page
1-1 Historic Growth of GNP and Electrical Consumption 1-2
II-I U. S. Population Growth 11-2
II-2 U. S. Population Projections II-3
11-3 U. S. Population Forecast (Series C) II-4
11-4 Projections of Kw per Capita Usage II-6
11-5 Electrical Power Demand II-8
111- 1 Percent Change in Electrical Output by Regions III - 5
for 52 Weeks Ending May 22, 1971
III - 2 Trends in Fuel Demand for Electric Power Generation III - 6
III - 3 Weekly Electrical Energy Output III - 7
IV-1 Projection of Fuel Costs IV - 16
-------
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table
No. Title Pa~e
II-1 Per Capita Power Generation II-5
11-2 Per Capita Electrical Power Usage Projections II-5
ll- 3 Forecast Generating Capacity II-7
11-4 Most Probable Power Capacities II-9
III - 1 Power Utility Sales, Output, and Capacity III - 2
III - 2 Power Utility Sales (109 Kw-hr) III - 2
III - 3 Power Utility Sales (Percent) III - 2
III - 4 Electric Heat and Major Appliance Use III - 3
III - 5 Installed United States Generating Capacity in 1970 III - 3
(in Megawatts Electrical)
III - 6 Additional Power Generating Capacity - USA III - 4
IV-1 Electrical Generating System Distribution (1970) IV-2
IV-2 Installed Conventional Steam Capacity (Mwe) IV-3
(through 1970)
IV-3 Fossil Fuel Use (Percent) (1969 Data) IV-4
IV-4 Fossil Fuel Usage in Coal-Competitive Areas (Percent) IV-4
IV-5 Types of new Generating Units as a Percent of Total IV-5
Annual New Capacity in Contiguous U. S. (Excluding
West South Central and Pacific Regions)
IV-6 Fossil Steam Planned Construction (Mwe) IV-6
IV-7 Nuclear Steam Planned Construction (Mwe) IV-8
IV-8 Hydroelectric Planned Construction (Mwe) IV-9
IV-9 Peaking Unit Planned Construction (Mwe) IV - 10
IV -10 Total United States Announced Construction (Mwe) IV - 11
IV - 11 Regional Population Trends to 2050 (Millions) IV - 13
IV - 12 Regional Net Electrical Power Capacity(1970- 2050)(103Mwe) IV - 14
IV - 13 Projected Power Capacity by Fuel (Mwe x 103) IV -15
-------
1-1
1.
INTRODUCTION
Over the past six decades, the United States has undergone a major
growth in the technological ability to produce ever-increasing amounts of goods
and services for distribution and consumption by the population. During these
years, the demand for energy has grown in close relationship to increases in
Gross National Product, as noted in Figure 1-1. While the Gross National
Product and electrical power production have increased by a factor of 10 in
the years 1940 to 1970 (Ref. 1), the population has increased from 132 million
in 1940 to about 205 million in 1970, an increase of about 50 percent. From
population increments of around 15 percent per decade, the energy demands
for the nation have approximately doubled during each decade (Ref. 2). This
report has been prepared to explore the historical growth of the demand for
electrical power, the trends in selection of power plant fuels by geographic
distribution, projections of power demand growth into the twenty-first century,
and the potential impacts on national air quality resulting from the various
alternatives of fuel usage. In particular, power plants scheduled for construc-
tion from mid-1971 onward are surveyed to provide a basis for estimating the
impact of national emission standards for sulfur dioxide on the electrical
generating industry.
-------
'.
,-
- -
- -- -- --
- -
~ -
- -
1-1- r
L
1 1.
rr -I
...I i I T T IT1
1
- i . T 1
Ii
T
T I
rJI
I
I '
T
I
J-!
.~
.,. ~
1
I
....
:;;;
L
T
,
L
1.11
-Y "1
-y 1
"1
I -y
~
I
~
-r
-------
II-1
II.
BACKGROUND
During the period from 1900 through 1970, the population of the United
States has grown from 106 million to over 205 million. The historical popu-
lation growth curve is shown in Figure II-l. The Bureau of the Census peri-
odically reviews population information and prepares a forecast of population
growth to be expected over the next several decades. Based on a variety of
assumptions, such as changes in birth and death rates, these population fore-
casts are shown in Figure II-2. It is unlikely that the Series B curve, which
assumes a total childbearing production of 3100 per 1000 women (3. 1 children
per woman) will be achieved, partially due to the growing concern with the
population explosion. Rather, it may be anticipated that something closer to
a birth production of 2. 5 to 2. 7 children per woman will be realized over the
next 50 or so years. For the purpose of this study, the:-Series C extrapolation
was selected as being a reasonable yet relatively high population growth rate
of 2775 children per 1000 women (over full fertility lifetime). From the
Series C curve, the population was extrapolated by the Census Bureau through
the year 2020, and was further extrapolated through 2050, although the reli-
ability of these projections so far into the future is highly questionable. These
extrapolations are shown in Figure II-3. From these data, it appears that the
United States population will reach 432 million in 2030, 482 million in 2040,
and 540 million in 2050. These data were used to provide the basis for power
demand projections through the middle of the next century.
While population has grown at the rate of approximately 15 percent
per decade, electrical generating capacity from stationary sources has been
growing at a rate of over seven percent per year (Ref. 3), or almost doubling
every 10 years. Historically, since 1955, the per capita power generation
has been increasing at a somewhat startling rate, as shown in Table II-1
(Ref. 4). Much of this increase is attributable to the increased usage of elec-
trically powered home convenience and comfort items such as air conditioners,
electric can openers, etc.
From several sources (Refs. 5, 6, 7), including internally-generated
extrapolations, projections of per capita installed capacity or per capita usage
have been carried beyond the year 2000 to provide some means of estimating
-------
II- 2
. I
-------
II- 3
Figure II-2.
u. S. Population Projections
-------
II-4
U. S. Population Forecast (Series C)
-------
II-5
TABLE II-1. PER CAPIT A POWER GENERATION
Total Power
P%pulation Kilowatt-hours Installed Kw Generated>:<
Year (10 people) per capita per capita (109 Kw-hr)
1955 164 3853 0.44 633
1960 180 4718 0.53 849
1965 194 5969 0.68 1157
1970 205 8100 0.93 1660
1975 (est) 221 10450 1. 19 2310
1980 (est) 231 14000 1. 60 3300
electrical power requirements beyond the end of this century. It should be
noted that these projections are, at best, broad and subject to question.
These data are shown in Figure II-4 and show curves of electrical power
usage in reasonable agreement through about 1980 and then show some diver-
gence beyond that time. Because of the expectations that improved engineering
design will provide increasingly optimal usage of electrical power in future
years, that technological improvements will provide greater reliability in
generating and transmitting facilities, and that something approaching a
saturation point of electrically-powered devices will be realized over the
next century or so, judgements regarding the more probable ranges of per
capita usage were made and are presented in Table II - 2.
TABLE II-2. PER CAPITA ELECTRICAL
POWER USAGE PROJECTIONS
~w Per Capita Usage
Year Most Probable Maximum Expected Minimum Expected EEl
1970 0.9 0.9 0.85
1980 1.5 1.6 1. 25 1. 35
1990 2.4 2.7 1. 70
2000 3.2 4.0 2.05 2.28-3.80
2010 4.0 5.0 2.60
2020 5.0 6.0 3.00
2030 6.0 7.0 3.50
2040 6.8 8.0 3.85
2050 7.8 9.0 4.20
>:
-------
40.0
20.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
a.>
b.O
ro
~ 2.0
ro
...
....
0-
ro
~
~ LO
~ 0.8,
0.6
0.4
0.2
II-6
" .. - - - =1-.- -- - - --1.[' - ..
-' u - -. - -. ::1:-:
- -- 1---': -.. -
...... 1- "
--
- =j--- -- -f.': -'-- f-- .. -
- --
-t- -+-
- =1:: =f =!=
-- -- - -+- -
-. --
.j: -- =1= . .
-- '1'
I j LI'- I-
I - - - i - - 1-
Ft-. ~
.
..
-
i .
- - .- - --".- -- - - --- -- ,- . -
- -- -
= - :. --
- -- - - -- -. . ~
.- - :1.::: '- =t 3-=:1::1:- - - . ~.~~
-. . ~
.. - - - ..- ~e, ~ ~e\.'
..
. ...- -.
-
- --
-
--
- _:~~ I-
- -- - --
I- .-.. 1--
-
-- - -- - . j - -- ... '1
- t--t-- . f---- -- <1 e\
--
-
-- --
-
-- I
- I
-.
J -
-
J
--
-
,
I
-
-- '-
--
I,
VI
1920
1940
1980
Year
Figure II-4. Projections of Kw per Capita Usage
1960
2000
2020
204C
-------
II-7
From the data shown in Table II-2 and the projections of United States
population, projections were made, as shown below in Table II - 3.
a
Year
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2050
TABLE II-3. FORECAST GENERATING CAPACITY
b c d e
Range of Ranges of
Estimated Total
Per Capita Estimated
Usage (Kw) Usage (l0'3Mwe)
0.9-0.9 184-184
1.6-1.3 371-302
2.7-1.7 715-450
4.0-2.1 1220-650
5.0-2.6 1700-885
6.0-3.0 2310-1160
7.0-3.5 3030-1515
9.0-4.2 4860-2270
Population
(106) .
205
232
265
307
340
385
432
540
Plant
Load
Factor
0.64
0.64
0.65
0.66
0.68
0.72
0.78
0.80
f
Range of Total
Estimated Required
Capacity (103Mwe)
288-288
580-475
1100-700
1850-1000
2500-1300
3220-1610
4940-2410
6100-2840
In the above table, the population figures in Column b are reasonable
estimates based on Census Bureau forecasts, although the numbers 'become
less reliable beyond the year 2000. The estimated range of per capita usage
is based on previously noted sources and some judgement and extrapolation.
Undoubtedly, these values will be subject to some question, particularly re-
garding long-range forecasts. However, there is some basis for these values.
The higher values follow, to a reasonable degree, trends established by his-
torical data and by examination of forecasts of electrical energy usage. Extrap-
olation of these data provided the higher set of values. Because it is somewhat
risky to extrapolate long- range trends on an exponential growth curve, some
economic evaluation was required to establish a relationship between the
supply and the demand of electrical power. For example, Figure II-5 illus-
trates a possible shape of the long-term demand curve for electrical power
usage. If, for example, the price of electricity is low, as in P l' then the
corresponding demand is high, as at Q1. As the price of purchasing electrical
power is forced up by such things as higher fuel, labor, or construction costs,
then the demand can be expected to exhibit less elasticity as only necessary
u~es of power are exercised, and the income effects of higher .power costs
result in fewer unnecessary uses. In addition to the economic effect noted,
-------
,~-
II-8
there are reasonable expectations that technological advances will have the
effect of reducing per capita uses away from the exponential growth curve
toward somewhat lower values. For these reasons, it is felt that the ranges
of total usage shown in Table II-3 provide an envelope of usage estimates.
Again, it should be noted tha t these estimates tend to become highly unreliable
beyond about 30 years in the future and become significantly more so as longer
time periods are examined.
Pl
Q2 Q3
Quantity Demanded
Figure II-5. Electrical Power Demand
Q)
()
.~
s...
p... . . ..
P ...
2
Ql
It can be anticipated that Plant Load Factors (the percentage of time a
. generating plant is actually producing power) will tend to improve over the
next 80 years as plant reliability increases and as other system improvements
are realized. Therefore, the Plant Load Factor shown in Table II-3 (column e)
was gradually increased from the existing value of about 64 percent to almost
80 percent in the year 2050. This would be particularly true if a substantial
portion of generating capacity were nuclear-fueled at that time, since this
type plant realizes greatest operating economies at higher load factors.
Additionally, an assumption was made that significantly more improved trans-
mission systems, load scheduling and shifting, and energy storage systems
will gradually become available through technological advances.
Finally, column f of Table II - 3 shows the range of estimated required
generating capacities based on population and per capita use requirements
through the year 2050.
-------
II-9
The information provided in this section, as well as the forecasts of
required electrical generating capacities, has provided the basis for informa-
tion treated in subsequent sections.
In order to provide a more restrictive estimate of power demand over
the next 80 years, Tablle II-4 summarizes the rationale for demand predictions
based on estimates of most probable population, per capita usage, and plant
load factors through 2050.
TABLE II-4. MOST PROBABLE POWER CAPACITIES
Per Estimated
Capita Tot8.1 Plant Required
Population Use Use Load Capacity
Year (106) (106Kw) (l06Kw) Factor (103Mw)
1970 205 0.9 185 0.64 320
1980 232 1.5 348 0.64 544
1990 265 2.4 636 0.65 978
2000 307 3.2 982 0.66 1488
2010 340 4.0 1360 0.68 2000
2020 385 5.0 1925 0.72 2674
2030 432 6.0 2592 0.75 3456
2040 482 6.8 3278 0.78 4203
2050 540 7.7 4158 0.80 5198
-------
III - 1
III.
POWER USAGE CHARACTERISTICS
A.
National Trends
Over the past 50 years, the demand for electrical power in the United
States has been doubling each decade (Ref. 5). This corresponds to an annual
average increment in power generating capacity of about 7.15 percent per year.
It is expected that this growth rate will continue at a similar rate through at
least the end of this century. Increased usage of personal comfort and con-
venience items in the home, the expansion of manufacturing and production
capacities, and other factors have been, and will continue to be, major
causative factors for this growth in power demand.
The percentage of total energy usage in this country presently consumed
for electrical power generation is about 25 percent and is projected
to reach 33 percent by 1980. This means that more fuels will be consumed
for conversion to electrical power, rather than being consumed directly, as
in motor vehicles and home heating units, indicating a trend toward more
electrically-powered items in general usage throughout the country.
Information on the total electrical power generated and sold by the
utility industry is given in Table III -1. Also included in this table are the
ratios by year of installed capacity to peak load demand. During 1968, this
ratio reached as low as 1. 16, indicating that the demand was approaching the
, supply. Because of generating plant outages for maintenance or failure, the
installed capacity is usually never completely available. Thus, the 1968
margin of 0.16 over demand i.3 somewhat misleading and, in fact, during
portions of the year, demand very nearly equalled available on-line supply.
Utility power sales, may be categorized by usage. Typically, these
categories are residential, industrial, commercial, and other usage. The
breakdown of utility sales by category is shown in Table III - 2. Table III - 3
provides the same information, showing the sales by category as a percentage
of the total. It is notable that, on a percentage of total basis, residential sales
do not vary appreciably, while industrial sales trend significantly downward
and commercial and, other sales trend steadily upward. Residential sales
in'elude power for electric heating and other major appliances. The increasing
-------
III - 2
TABLEIII-1. POWER UTILITY SALES,
OUTPUT, AND CAPACITY (Ref. 5)
Installed Installed
Total Sales Total. Output Capacity Peak Load Peak Load
Year (109 Kw-hr) (100 Kw-hr) (Mwe) (Mwe) Ratio
1960 681 765 175,000 133,000 1. 31
1965 950 1060 216,000 175,000 1. 24
1968 1198 1327 279,000 238,000 1. 17
1969 1302 1446 300,000 258,000 1. 16
1970 1386 1540 325,000 275,000 1. 19
1975 (est) 2013 2226 448,000 390,000 1. 25
1980 (est) 2901 3200 681,000 544,000 1. 24
TABLE III-2~ POWER UTILITY SALES
(10 Kw-hr) (Ref. 5)
Year Residential Industrial Commercial Other Total
1960 195 344 114 27 681
1965 280 432 201 37 950
1970 442 575 310 60 1387
1975 (est) 649 810 458 97 2014
1980 (est) 915 1147 677 162 2901
1985 (est) 1229 1558 1002 277 4066
TAB LE III - 3. POWER UTILITY SALES
(Percent) (Ref. 5)
Year Residential Industrial Commercial Other Total
1960 28. 6 50.5 16.8 4.0 100
1965 29.5 45.5 21. 2 3.9 100
1970 31. 9 41. 5 22.4 4.3 100
1975, (est) 32.2 40.2 22.7 4.8 100
1980 (est) 31. 5 39.5 23.3 5.6 100
1985 (est) 30.2 38.3 24.6 6.8 100
-------
III - 3
market for consumer comfort and convenience items, including air conditioning
units, is expected to experience considerable growth and will have a marked
effect on power usage. Table 1II-4 indicates the percent of total power sales
which will be used to operate electrical heating and major appliances.
TABLE 1II-4. ELECTRIC HEAT AND
MAJOR APPLIANCE USE (Ref. 5)
1965
1970
1975 (est)
1980 (est)
0/0 of Total
Power Sales
5.2
5.5
8.2
10.8
Year
In order to generate electrical power, various energy sources are
utilized. Table III-5 indicates the total installed generating capacity (in 1970)
for each of the major sources.
TABLE III-5. INSTALLED UNITED STATES
GENERATING CAPACITY IN 1970 (Ref. 12)
(In Megawatts Electrical)
~ Total Percent
Fossil steam 258,000 78.0
Gas turbine / diesel 12,000 3. 6
Hydroelectric 54,000 16.3
Nuclear 7.000 2. 1
Total 331,000* 100.0
* Approximate
-------
III - 4
B. Regional Changes in Power Usage
Power demand growth varies from one portion of the country to another.
As illustrated by Figure III-I, based on one year changes in power output by
Federal Power Commission regions, the smallest increase of 3. 8 percent
occurred in the Pacific Northwest, while the greatest change of 7.8 percent
occurred in the Rocky Mountain region. The average national increment of
power output amounted to 5.1 percent.
The net additions to generating capacity, the annual capital expenditures
for power generation, and the cumulative installed fossil plant capacities are
given in Table III-6. This table indicates a steady growth of fossil-fueled
steam plants and then a levelling off during the decade of the 1970s. Nuclear
plants are expected to grow from an existing two percent of installed capacity. .
to almost 50 percent before the end of the twentieth century (Ref. 13). Notably,
the increased use of gas-turbine and diesel generators by the utility industry
to meet peak load demands has increased sharply over the past five years.
TABLE III- 6. ADDITIONAL POWER
GENERATING CAPACITY - USA (Ref. 5)
Generating Capacity net additions, Mw.
!T'Jased on data of commercial operation) Capital Total
Expendi - Installed
Fossil G.T.& t~res (Fossil)
'Year Steam 1. C. Hydro Nuclear Total ~ Capacity(Mw)
-
1960 9,431 18 1,348 316 11,113 2.22
1965 10,306 300 1,760 0 12,366 1. 94'
1970 16,302 5,650 1,696 2,252 25,900 6.04 268,000
1975 17,913 3,701 2,735 12,651 37,000 8.48 368,000
1980 16,718 4,200 2,161 18,921 42,000 .10.40 478,000
Figure III-2 shows the expected trends of fuel usage from 1950 through
2000~ Figure 1II-3 shows the variation of power demand as a function of time
of year. During 1970, for example, the lowest weekly demand occurred early
in May at 27 billion Kw-hr. During the heating season, the maximum demand
was about 30.5 billion Kw-hr. The major demand peak, however, occurred
-------
.~ - - -~.' ..--.
-. -. .-----------
.--.----.
- .--.-.-.---------- ----.--.. .- -- --..
-------- --..---.
Fowermap: Percent l:h,;nge in elecllic output by re6ions
for 52 wee~.s ended May 22
--------
-----
TOTAL U.S.A.+5.1%
E)I'cfL:ojng Ala~ka and IIal'/111
-----
[I~I Wcald}' Elc::tric Output Indax,
seasonally ~djllsted (1967 = 100)
Weak Ended
May 1
May 8
May 15
May 22
Index
134
132
]29
131
----'---..--------'-"---- -.-------.-- .-----..-- ------ .-.------...-
.. .
Figure III -1. Percent Change in Electric Output by
Regions for 52 Weeks Ending May 22, 1971
III - 5
-------
-
....
»
-
;:j
.....
~
C\1
....
o
....
-
"'0
C
ro
a
Q)
o
-<
Q)
;:j
~
100,000
10,000'
1,000
100
Water Power
Nuclear
10
1
1970
Year
1980
1990
2000
1950
1960
Figure 111-2.
Trends in Fuel Demand for Electric Power
Generation (Ref. 13)
IIl- 6
-------
III - 7
during the hottest summer months when demand reached almost 33.5 billion
Kw-hr. Much of this variation is due to an increasing air conditioning load.
This summertime peak loading is expected to continue increasing at a signifi-
cant rate. The accompanying commentary on Figure III-3 indicated a new
record for power production. The item is quoted in full:
"Electric power output in the US topped all previous records in
the week ended June 26, reaching 34,090,000,000 kwhr. The
previous record, 33,311,000,000 kwhr, was set in the week
ended Aug. 1, 1970." (Ref. 14)
r-~-----
,
i '
. 'Nec!dy output Jtlfie 26
34,090,000,000 Kwhr
, Junp .9: 3?.835 June 12: :>;>'.251
l.ztr:-,t Cum.
W~~ YfMr
o'.'ur . to
191(1 dal9
101.' U.S + 12.3 + 5.5
I New ~"'). + 13.\ ... 6.\
I . Mid. P.:ldn. ... \72 + ?:l
. C~nl. In;l. .:. \8.8 ... 6.0
W".I C~.,t. ~. 23.3 ... 58
. South."~1 .~ 9.0 .. 5 3
I SC1.c.;cni. + 7.1 ... 8.6
. Rocky MI. ... 9.( + 8.0
:\ pa~:.~..~........... 04 ... ?.8
SW............... 5.2 + 5.2
.l. Late,1 ~ea$on~lly a~iu'led i"de~ 139
PrevIous week 136 Year 3!jQ 123
Source. Edi~on Electric I n$I;lule
52
week.
10
d.t9
... 5.4%
+ 6.1
+ 4.5
+ 4.8
+ 6.2
.. 5.4
... 7.3
+ 7.7
+ 3.2
+ 5.6
Figure III - 3.
Weekly Electrical Energy Output
. (Ref. 14) .
.l
., I
: I
I
I
I
I
I
28.0
~ I
I
I.
..:/
-------
rv':'1
IV.
SOURCES OF ELECTRICAL POWER
A.
Types of Electrical Power Generating Plants
To meet national demands for consumable electrical power, there have
been developed a number of systems to generate electrical power. These may
be listed as conventional hydroelectric, pumped storage hydroelectric, fossil
steam, internal combustion and gas turbine, and nuclear steam systems. A
conventional hydroelectric plant uses the gravity-induced flow of naturally-
deposited water from an upstream source to turn a turbine generator. This
process is usually controlled by flow regulation through dams and reservoirs
to provide uniform flows and a backlog of stored water. A pumped-storage
hydroelectric system also uses the flow of falling water to turn a turbine
generator, but makes use of off-hour generating capacity to provide power to
lift water to a storage reservoir for use when required. A fossil steam plant
utilizes the heat energy from the combustion of fossil fuels to convert water
to steam which is then used to turn a turbine generator. Fossil fuels include
bituminous, anthracite, and lignite coals; distilled, residual, and crude oils;
and natural gas. Internal combustion systems utilize the explosive expansion
power of fossil fuels (usually distillate oils) to turn a shaft, which is used to
run a turbine generator. Gas turbines use the flow of heated exhaust gases
from the combustion of fossil fuels to turn a turbine genera tor. A nuclear
generating system utilizes the heat generated from the fissioning of nuclear
fuels (usually a form of uranium) to produce steam, which then is used to
turn a turbine generator.
As of 1970 in the United States, there were approximately 3400 electric
power plants, of which about 1000 were major steam electric plants, and the
remaining 2400 were hydroelectric, internal combustion, and gas turbine units
(Ref. 8). Seventy-nine percent of present generating capacity is steam-
electric; this percentage is expected to rise to 84 percent over the next 20
years. From the existing two percent nuclear fueled capacity, nuclear plants
will account for approximately 40 percent of the steam -electric capacity in
1990, and almost half by the year 2000. Because of fuel availability or
unforecasted technological advancements, there is some uncertainty as to the
,makeup of power supplied by the different types of generating sources. The
information is discussed in Sections IV. D.
-------
IV-2
Electric generating plants of the various types provided a total gener;-
ating capacity of approximately 330,000 Mwe in 1970. Of this, some 16 per-
cent was hydroelectric; five percent internal combustion and gas turbine,
two percent nuclear, and almost 77 percent fossil steam (Ref. 8). In the
category of fossil steam units, coal presently supplies about 59 percent of the
total fossil fuels consumed, oil 12 percent, and gas 29 percent (Ref. 9) for
the production of electrical power.
B. Geographical Distribution of Plants and Fuels
According to the Edison Electric Institute (Ref. 10), there were a total
of 339. 1 million kilowatts of installed utility generating capacity at the end of
1970. These are distributed by various generating methods as indicated in
Table IV-I.
TABLE IV -1. ELECTRICAL GENERATING
SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION (1970)
Percentage Capacity(Mwe)
Conventional steam 75.3 255,342
Nuclear steam 1.4 4,747
Hydroelectric 18. 1 61,377
Gas turbine/diesel 5.2 17,633
Total 100.00/0 339,100 Mwe
A thorough survey was made of the geographical distribution of installed
conventional steam generating facilities through the end of 1970 by type of fuel
used. This information is shown in Table IV-2. Of the total 263,000 mega-
watts of fossil generating capacity, which has been identifiedin this survey,
plants utilizing coal exclusively provide almost 117,000 megawatts, and
plants using some combination of coal and other fossil fuels provide another
69,000 megawatts. Based on information provided (Ref. 9), a tabulation of
geographic distributions of fossil fuel use has been compiled in Table IV - 3.
According to these data, coal provides 59 percent of national fossil fuel gener-
ated electrical power, oil 12 percent, and gas 29 percent. Historically, coal
-------
TABLE IV-2. INSTALLED CONVENTIONAL STEAM CAPACITY (Mwe)
(through 1970)
Location* Coal Oil Gas Coal/Oil Coal/Gas Oil / Gas Coal/Oil/Gas Total
New England 691 1,735 0 5,028 0 59 3,051 10,564
Middle Atlantic 16, 823 1, 110 0 7,879 2,469 0 4,237 37,518
East North Central 45,343 0 0 2, 652 5,052 55 3,853 56,955
West North Central 5, 169 0 534 1,018 7,205 2,300 2,287 18,513
South Atlantic 26,461 3, 851 42 4,423 3,900 4,851 958 44,486
East South Central 20,197 19 1, 354 0 3,340 246 . 24 25,180
West South Central 0 0 21,170 0 40 16,673 1,500 39,383
Mountain 2.280 0 1, 758 649 3,317 1, 823 1,031 10.858
Pacific 0 198 0 0 0 19,227 0 19,425
Total 116,964 6,913 24,858 21,649 25,323 45,234 16.941 262,882
*Based on United States Census Regions:
New England; Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont
Middle Atlantic: New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania
East North C~ntral: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin
West North Central: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota
South A~lantic: Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, District of Columbia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia .
East South Central: Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee
West South Central: Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas
Mountain: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming
Pacific: California, Oregon, Washington
H
<:
I
""
-------
IV-4
has held a major portion of the fuel market in areas close to sources of coal.
These are called "coal competitive" areas. Table IV-4 (Ref. 9) indicates
trends over the last decade in fuels selected in these coal-competitive regions.
TABLE IV-3. FOSSIL FUEL USE (PERCENT)
(1969 Data)
Location Coal Oil Gas
New England 25 74 1
Middle Atlantic 60 32 8
East North Central 94 0 6
East South Central 54 1 45
South Atlantic 73 15 12
East South Central 89 0 11
West South Central 0 0 100
Mountain 51 3 46
Pacific 0 17 83
National Average 59 12 29
T ABLE IV -4. FOSSIL FUEL USAGE IN
COAL-COMPETITIVE AREAS (PERCENT)
1960 196.4 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969
Coal 80 81 81 80 79 77 73
Oil 6 7 8 9 10 11 14
Gas 14 12 11 11 11 12 13
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
-------
IV-5
C. Near-Term Regional Growth Trends
Through announcements of utility construction plans and from various
other sources, a compilation of planned construction of electrical generating
facilities through 1980 has been made. In the assembly of these data, it was
found that firm plans for several types of generating facilities have not been
made through the end of this decade, inasmuch as design and construction of
these generating facilities require relatively short time periods. For example,
conventional fossil fuel steam plants average about five years for completion;
nuclear plants, about seven years; hydroelectric plants vary substantially
according to design and reservoir filling time; and gas turbines and diesel
generating plants, about two years. However, extrapolations of this informa-
tion have been made based on trends noted and on tentative planning information
from various sources, as noted.
On a nationwide basis, one source of information (Ref. 9) has provided
Table IV -5 which describes the mix of fuel types for new electrical power
plants through 1974. Of particular note in this table are the significant yearly
percentages of nuclear-fueled plants and also the sharp decline of "Other"
power sources (which include internal combustion and gas turbine generators)
after two years, reflecting the rapid turnaround time for installation of these
units.
TAB LE IV - 5. TYPES OF NEW GENERATING UNITS
AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL ANNUAL NEW
CAP ACITY IN CONTIGUOUS U. S.
(Excluding West South Central and Pacific Regions)
Type of Units 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
All conventional steam-electric
units (coal, oil, and gas) 60. 1 45.8 50.3 51. 9 54.0
(coal-fired) (58.8) (39. 6) (39.4) (41. 9) (29.5)
Nuclear 9.5 28.8 42.6 38.0 39.1
Other 30.4 25.4 7.1 10.1 6.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
-------
IV-6
In order to provide additional information on near-term planning for
installation of electrical generating facilities, additional reference material
(Ref. 11) was obtained, from which a listing of all announced new fossil stearn
plants scheduled to be constructed between 1971 and 1980 was compiled. This
listing is included as Appendix A. A summary of this information is provided
in Table IV - 6.
TAB LE IV - 6. FOSSIL STEAM PLANNED
CONSTRUCTION (Mwe)
Location 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978+
New England 402 465 965 400 1515 1200>:< 0>:< 0*
Middle Atlantic 1400 2371 1785 4275 3360 400 O~'< 0*
South Atlantic 4245 4673 5497 6162 5473 3913 0>:< 0*
East North Central 3890 4574 3576 1880 5626 2580 4000* 0*
East South Central 1139 3067 2045 1633 1200 0* 0>:< 0'"
...-
West North Central 1199 1948 1888 1525 1050 2941 1661>:< 0*
West South Central 5257 3740 4787 5930 5625 400>:< 1000>:' 0>:'
Mountain 1230 383 907 2570 2120 1520>;' 1000>:< O~'<
Pacific 1705 1895 1077 750 0 0>;< 0>:< 0*
Total 20,467 23,116 22,527 25, 125 25,969 12,954>:< 7661 >:, 0>:'
~'
-------
IV-7
scheduled for operation during this period, although in the latter two cases,
substantially more capacity than is currently in planning will be ordered and
placed in service during this time period. Table IV -7 shows the scheduled on-
line nuclear capacity through 1980 by census region, and Tables IV - 8 and IV - 9
show hydroelectric and peaking (internal combustion/gas turbine) capacities
scheduled during the same period. Table IV -10 shows the sum total of all
electrical power generating plants presently announced for construction during
the next decade in the United States.
In Table IV-10, it is significant that the total amount of planned capacity
presently announced in mid-1971 is over 286,000 megawatts. With a total
forecasted requirement in 1980 of 560,000 megawatts and an existing capacity
of 330,000 megawatts, the announced 286,000 megawatts more than compensate$
for the 230,000 megawatts difference between existing and planned capabilities.
Of course, these figures make no allowance for the retirement of obsolete,
inefficient older plants, which will make up a large portion of the difference.
There are no data available in current literature on retirement of obsolete
units, either historical or predictive; however, the general trend of utilities
has been to use their older units at lower and lower plant load factors with
increasing age, and to finally place these units on cold standby, especially in
areas of marginal capacity. It should be noted regarding Tables IV-6 through
IV -10 that the totals may differ somewhat from similar data due to the disparity
of sources of the basic information and also because of slipped or accelerated
construction schedules.
-------
T ABLE IV -7. NUCLEAR S'~. ~A]\I: ? :"Al' N ~ ) C )~STRUCTIO ~ :Mwe)
Location 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977* 1978+* Total
New England 1235 830 0 828 0 0 0 3300 6, 193
Middle Atlantic 873 1875 4710 1860 4315 1000 4315 7535 26, 483
South Atlantic 3009 3201 2441 2590 2910 2434 3890 3640 24, 115
East North Central 3106 2292 2104 3633 2732 2610 0 0 16,477
West North Central 0 987 778 1080 0 0 1000 3350 7, 195
East South Central 0 1075 2150 2440 829 1100 3129 1200 11,923
West South Central 0 0 850 0 480 850 2150 0 4,330
Mountain 0 330 0 0 0 0 0 0 330
Pacific 0 0 5020 0 462 2100 5400 4100 17, 082
Total 8223 10,590 18,053 12,431 11, 728 10,094 19,884* 23,125* 114, 128
* Additional units may be ordered.
H
<
I
00 .
-------
TABLE IV-8. HYDROELECTRIC PLANNED CONSTRUCTION (Mwe)
Location 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976* 1977+* Total
New England 750 1250 0 600 0 0 0 2,600
Middle Atlantic 205 606 735 0 0 3000 0 4,546
South Atlantic 210 84 1872 0 0 2250 0 2,544
East North Central 0 0 1872 0 0 0 0 1, 872
West North Central 135 0 36 0 0 0 0 171
East South Central 933 1116 320 1783 2017 0 0 6, 169
West South Central 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 93
Mountain 258 0 600 0 0 500 0 1, 358
Pacific 728 718 1682 1598 800 400 0 5,926
Total 3219 3867 5245 3981* 2817* 6150* 0* 25,279
* Additional units may be ordered.
H
<:
I
co
-------
TABLE IV-9. PEAKING UNIT PLANNED CONSTRUCTION (Mwe)
Location 1971 1972 1973* 1974+* Total
New England 0 45 40 0 85
Middle Atlantic 2977 755 312 0 4,044
South Atlantic 1552 368 200 0 2, 120
East North Central 789 142 0 0 931
West North Central 4 690 160 616 1,470
East South Central 493 600 0 0 1,093
West South Central 135 50 166 50 401
Mountain 77 254 126 0 457
Pacific 0 233 180 0 413
Total 6027 3137 1184"" 666* 11,014
* Additional units may be ordered.
1-4
<:
1-
......
o
-------
TABLE IV-10. TOTAL UNITED STATES ANNOUNCED CONSTRUCTION (Mwe)
Location 1971 1972 1973 1974* 1975* 1976* 1977* 1978+* Total
New England 2,387 2,590 1, 005 1, 828 1,515 1,200 0 3, 300 13, 825
Middle Atlantic 5,455 5, 607 7,542 6, 135 7,675 4,400 4, 315 7,535 48,664
South Atlantic 9,016 8, 326 8,138 8,752 8,383 7,597 3,890 3,640 57,742
East North Central 7,785 7,008 7,552 5,513 8,358 5,190 4,000 0 45,406
West North Central 1,278 4,744 3,019 3,329 1,200 0 1,000 3,350 17,920
East South Central 2, 625 4,739 4,358 5,748 3,896 4,041 4,790 1,200 31,397
West South Central 5,392 3, 883 5,803 5,980 5,105 1,250 3,150 0 30,563
Mountain 1,565 967 1, 633 2,570 2, 120 2,020 1,000 0 11, 875
Pacific 2,433 2, 846 7,959 2, 348 1,262 2,500 5,400 4,100 28,848
.' Total 37,936 40,710 47,009 42,203* 39,514* 28,198* 27, 545~< 23, 125>',< 286,240
*Additional units may be ordered.
H
<:
I
I-"
I-"
-------
IV - 12
D.
Long-Term Growth Trends
The United States Census Bureau has prepared estimates of population
changes by census region for the years 1975 and 1985 (Ref. 1). In order to
arrive at an estimate of regional population through 2050, individual regional
growth rates were assumed to remain reasonably constant throughout the
forecast period and were used to extrapolate population curves during the
period of interest. Data used and calculated are shown in Table IV -11, illus-
trating numerical changes by region as projected by the Census Bureau.
Table IV-ll, based on projected growth rates over the next 15 years
and then projected through 2050 at the same growth rates, probably tends to
overestimate growths in certain areas, particularly in the Pacific region.
However, lacking any additional information, these figures were used to
assess regional power demands.
Assuming no interregional mass export or import of large quantities
of electrical power, implying that each region produces almost all of the
electrical power used within it, and applying the per capita demand of elec-
trical power through the period to 2050,as selected in Section II, Table IV -12
shows the expected net usage by region and decade for the next 80 years.
In Table IV-12, the total additive capacities are based on the projections
made in Section II of this report and are thought to be reasonable estimates of
capacity requirements through 2050, although there is a large uncertainty
factor beyond the turn of the century. The straight-line projections of regional
requirements based on population trends and per capita usage may be somewhat
misleading, inasmuch as there may be substantial savings of regional growth
which cannot be accurately predicted at present.
E.
Long-Term Fuel Types
Based on predictions of electrical energy supplied by fossil, nuclear,
and hydroelectric sources (Refs. 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20) throngh about
2020, an assessment was made of the probable distribution of fuel categorized
utility power supplies through 2050. As in previous sections of this report,
uncertainties on power supply system developments and on the economics and
-------
TABLE IV -11. REGIONAL POPULATION TRENDS TO 2050 (Millions)
Location 1965* 1975** 1985>',<* 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
New England 11. 1 12.5 14.5 16.9 18.7 21. 3 23.4 25.6 28. 1
Middle Atlantic 36.2 40.7 46.5 51. 6 55.4 60.8 65.3 70.0 75.6
South Atlantic 28.8 34.2 41. 4 50.0 56. 1 65.1 74.8 85.4 97.2
East North Central 38.3 42.5 49.7 55.9 60.5 67.8 73.5 79.6 86. 9
West North Central 15.9 16.9 19.0 19.3 19.7 20.2 20.3 20.3 20.0
East South Central 12.8 14.2 16.1 18. 1 19.7 21. 7 23.4 25.6 27.0
West South Central 18.5 21.5 25. 1 29.2 32.3 36.4 40.7 44.9 52.4
Mountain 7.7 9.4 11. 7 14. 1 16.0 19.0 22.1 25.6 29.2
Pacific 24.3 30.8 39.5 51. 9 61. 5 75.2 89. 1 105.7 125. 3
Total 193. 6~< 222.7** 263. 6*>',< 307.0 340.0 390.0 430.0 480.0 541. 7
* Existing data
** U. S. Census Bureau projection
-,.. Population values based on Series "c" Census Bureau data
~
<:
I
.....
'""
-------
T ABLE IV -12. REGIONAL NET ELECTRICAL POWER CAPACITY
(1970-2050) (103 Mwe) .
Plant load factor
0.64
0.64
0.65
0.66
3.2
0.68
0.72
0.75
0.78
0.80
Per capita use
0.9
1.5
2.4
4.0
5.0
6.0
6.8
7.7
Location 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
New England 18 31 54 82 110 147 187 223 270
Middle Atlantic 59 101 171 250 326 420 522 609 728
South Atlantic 49 87 157 243 330 449 599 743 936
East North Central 62 106 182 271 356 468 588 693 837
West North Central 25 41 67 94 116 139 163 176 192
East South Central 21 35 60 88 116 150 187 223 260
West South Central 31 53 93 142 190 251 325 391 489
Mountain 13 24 44 69 94 131 176 223 281
Pacific 42 81 153 252 362 519 713 919 1206
Total 320 560 980 1490 2000 2675 3460 4200 5200
H
<:
I
.....
~
-------
IV -15
technologies of fuel supplies beyond about 2000 introduce increasing unrelia-
bility into these forecasts with increasing time into the future. However.
the existing forecasts are in reasonable agreement and appear to provide a
firm basis for extrapolation to 2050. In these forecasts. the assumption has
been made that a very large percentage of nuclear power will be supplied by
breeder and advanced converter reactors after about 1985.
From the sources referenced above. only trend lines may be derived
for the portion of electrical energy production met by any given fuel. The
data contain some conflicts in estimates. but largely tend to agree within
approximately 10 percent. In order to present these data on fuels for power
supplies. estimates were made on fuel distributions based on the various
estimates available. The results of these estimates are shown in Table IV -13.
TABLE IV -13. PROJECTED PO~ER
CAPACITY BY FUEL (Mwe x 10 )
Fuel 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Coal 176 280 412 566 640 615 595 510 416
Oil 22 34 49 60 76 58 52 45 40
Gas 61 84 108 119 115 103 93 85 80
Hydro 51 62 69 89 90 95 100 102 104
Nuclear 10 106 343 671 1080 1825 2660 3458 4560
Total 320 570 980 1500 2000 2700 3500 4200 5200
As recently indicated (Ref. 21). the major factor affecting coal is the
cost of production; nuclear. the cost of preparation; gas. government regula-
tion; and oil. the market opportunities. Neither gas nor oil prices lend them-
selves to statistical analysis. but both nuclear fuel and coal costs can be
examined in some detail. Because of escalations to be realized in the next
few decades. coal prices are expected to more than double. Since nuclear fuel
j . '~'" .. .. "".
: costs will remain reasonably constant during the same time period due to
" " "
", introduction of breeder reactors. this. too. will significantly affect the
desirability of nuclear power over coal. particularly in light of increasingly
, stringent regulations on coal sulfur contents. Figure IV-1 shows fuel cost
, projections over the next 15 years.
-------
Historical
.
Forecast
.
45 [
40
35 L
I
I
30
25
::1
......
~
s::
o
......
:::: 20
......
~
-
tJ)
......
s::
Q)
U 15
10
5
o
1960
1965
1970
Year
IV -1 6
1975
1980
1985
Figure IV -1. Projection of Fuel Costs (Ref. 21)
-------
V-1
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of predicted populations and per capita electrical power
usage through the year 2050, forecasts of electrical generating capacities have
been derived. These forecasts were broken down by regions and by expected
fuel usage. In arriving at these forecasts, some basic assumptions have been
made, including the assumption that breeder reactors will be commercially
available around 1985, and that plant load factors will gradually increase from
about 60 percent in 1970 to almost 80 percent in 2050 through improved engi-
neering systems technology, better and more complete transmission facilities,
greater plant reliability, improved methods of long-range power dispatching,
and othe r factor s.
These studies indicate that total installed power capacity will increase
from about 320,000 megawatts in 1970 to about 1,000,000 megawatts in 1990,
about 1,500,000 in 2000,and 5,200,000 in 2050. Fossil fuels supply about
83 percent of utility power in 1970. Fossil fuel use will decrease to about 50
percentin 2000 and to about 11 percent in 2050, while nuclear power will
increase from the present 3 percent to about 45 percent in 2000 and to about
88 percent in 2050. Although hydroelectric power shows a gradual increment
throughout the forecast period, it is far outstripped by other power sources
and provides consistently smaller percentages of total power capacities.
Based on the information collected to prepare this report, there is
. reasonable agreement on the amounts of electrical power which will be required
to supply the needs of the United States through the next several decades. Trend
analysis and extrapolation has been used to predict longer-term power require-
ments, but confidence levels decrease significantly with longer time periods.
Nevertheless, barring any major unforeseen developments, such as cataclysm,
catastrophe, or revolutionary scientific discovery, there appears to be rea-
sonable certainty that national electrical power demands and supplies will
~pproximate the growth curves delineated in this report.
Several areas of additional study are suggested from the work required
to complete this report. Most particularly, there is some doubt regarding per
capita use of electricity in the future. It is therefore recommended that addi-
tional efforts be expended to evolve some firm idea of electrical power usage
-------
V-2
in the future. Closely allied to this is the need to assess the effects of
economics on power demand. That is, the effect of increasing prices of
electrical power - which may be caused by increasing fuel prices, scarcity of
power, or more stringent environmental protection controls on the utility
industry - on user demand should be evaluated to determine how economic con-
trols may be used to regulate or minimize environmental impacts from the
production of electrical power. Additionally, there would appear to be some
saturation level in the home of electrically powered devices such as can
openers, air conditioners, dryers, etc., which can be productively utilized
at the same time, and accordingly some limit to power usage on a per capita
basis.
There is some question on how to most effectively utilize generating
capacity to minimize the ratio of demand to capacity. An examination of
optimal energy use policies from an emission control standpoint would provide
operational guidelines for achieving maximum possible effective emission con-
trols. For example, with the major increment in nuclear plants, the most
efficient operation would be application of the nuclear plant to base load, and
the use of fossil, pumped storage, and peaking units to load following, thereby
minimizing combustion product emissions to the atmosphere. It is clear that
the choice of energy utilization will have an effect on atmospheric emissions
and, therefore, indirectly on air quality.
-------
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
VI-1
VI. REFERENCES
1,
U. S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States:
1970, 91st edition, Washington, D.C. 1970, p. 311, p. 507.
Ibid., p. 5, p. 507.
2.
3.
Ibid., p. 509.
4.
Electrical World Magazine, McGraw-Hill, July 6, 1970.
5.
Electrical World Magazine, McGraw-Hill, September 15, 1870.
6.
7.
Combustion Magazine, Combustion Publishing Company, December 1970.
A Review and Comparison of Selected United States Energy Forecasts,
Battelle Memorial Institute, December 1969.
8.
Statement of Chairman John Nassikas, Federal Power Commission,
to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Congress of the United States,
March 23, 1971.
9.
Steam Electric Plant-Factors: 1970 Edition, National Coal Association,
Washington, D. C., November 1970.
49th Semi- Annual Electric Power Survey, Edison Electric Institute,
New York, April 1971.
New Capacity Additions Planned or in Construction (as of June I, 1971),
Electrical World, June 1971.
Directory of Electrical Utilities, 1970 Edition, Electrical World,
McGraw-Hill.
Oil and Gas Journal, Tulsa, Oklahoma, March 1, 1971.
Some Environmental Implications of National Fuels Policies, Report to
the U. S. Senate Committee on Public Works, U. S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D. C., 1970.
Earheart, Jonathan P., Basis for Projected Air Pollution from Combus-
tion of Fossil Fuels in the U. S., U. S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, June 1970.
Potential Nuclear Growth Patterns, W ASH-1098, U. S. Atomic Energy
Commission, Washington, D. C., December 1970.
Forecast of Growth of Nuclear Power, WASH-1084, U. S. Atomic Energy
Commission, Washington, D. C., December 1967.
-------
18.
19.
20.
21.
VI-2
Cost Benefit Analysis of the U. S. Breeder Reactor Pro~ram, W ASH-
1126, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D. C., April 1969.
Gambs, Gerard C., "The Electric Utility Industry: Future Fuel Require-
ments 1970-1990," Mechanical En~ineerin~, ASME, April 1970.
Jedlicka, Charles, and John Walsh, "Survey of Nuclear Power Supply
Prospects." HIT-501. Hittman Associates, Inc.. Columbia, Maryland.
unpublished.
The Effect of Escalation on Future Electric Utility Fuel Costs, Westing-
house Electric Corporation, Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania, 1971.
-------
A-1
APPENDIX A
FOSSIL STEAM CONSTRUCTION PLANS
1971-1980
-------
State
-
Maine
N.H.
Vt.
Mass.
R.I.
Conn.
TA3-,~A-1
C~'l' SUS REG:ON: . NEW El' G :"AND
(Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut)
Fossil
Plant Name
None
Utility
Seabrook (Schiller)
P.S.N.H.
Unnamed
Cent. Vt. PSC
Salem Harbor 4
Gleary 9
Brayton Point 4
Mystic 2
Canal 2
N. Eng. Elec.
Taunton Munic.
N. Eng. Elec.
Bost. Ed.
Canal Elec. Co.
None
Montville 6
Middletown 4
Cokeworks 1
Unnamed
Ct. Lt. &Pwr.
Hartford E. L.
Un. Illum.
Hartford E. L.
Region Total
*Additional units may be ordered.
----J----
1971
1972 .' 1973 .
465(O}
100(O}
465(O}
402(O}
400(O}
402
465
965
1974
400(0}
400
. 1975>:<
600(O}
515(O}
400(O}
1515*
. 1976*
400(O}
800(O}
1200*
Heat Rate,
Btu/Kw-hr
10,000
10,400
12,000
10,400
10,650
10,000
>
I
r-:>
-------
TABLE A-2
CE' S JS R~G:ON: MID):'" ~ A' ~ LANTIC
(New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania)
Fossil Heat Rate,
State Plant Name Utility 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975* . 1976* Btu/Kw-hr
New York Roseton 2 Cent. Hudson 600(0) 9, 100
Astoria 6 & 7 Con Ed 1600(Q) . 8, 800
Oswego 5 Niag. Moh. 875(C,G) 8, 600
Northport LILCO 386(0) 9,000
Roseton 1 Cent. Hud. 600(0) 9, 100
Bowline 1 & 2 Or. &Rock 600(O,G) 600(G,O) 9,500
Unassigned Con Ed. 1200(C/0) 9,000
N. J. Linden 4 PSE &G 80(0) 9,500
Sewaren 7 PSE &G 400(0) 10,000
Seawaren 8 PSE &G 400(0) 10,000
England 3 At!. Cty. Elec. 160(0)
Penna. Conemaugh 2 Con. Grp. 820(C) 8, 800
Hatfield Ferry 3 APS 50 O( C) 9,500
Montour 1 PP&L 785(C) 8, 890
Montour 2 PP&L 785(C) 8, 850
Eddystone 3 & 4 Phila. Elec. 400(C) 400(0) 10, 000
Unassigned Duquesne 800(C) 9,200
Martin's Creek 3 & 4 Penn. P&L 800(0) 800(0)
Region Total
1400
2371
1785
4275
3360>:'
400>',<
>:'Additional units may be ordered.
~
I
W
-------
TA3~~A-3
CENSUS REGIO '1: SO ~.~~ ~ ATLANTIC
( )elaware, ). C., Florida, Georgia,l\iaryland, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia)
Fossil Heat Rate,
State Plant Name Utility 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975* . 1976:;< Btu/Kw-hr
-
Dela. Edgemoor 5 Delvarva 400(C ,G) 10,100
D.C. Benning 16 Pepco 275(0) 11, 243
Florida Gainesville Gaines. Munic. 81(0)
Northside 2 Jax. Munic. 268(0) 7,614
Stock Island 1 Key West Munic. 33(0) 12,000
Lake Worth S4 Lk. Worth Munic. 33(G) 12,570
Hopkins 1 Talahassee Munic. 81(O,G) 10,300
Vero Beach 3 Vero Bch. Munic. 36(O,G) 12, 000
Sanford 4 FP&L 398 (0) 9, 383
Crist 7 Gulf Pwr. 505(C) 9,000
Indian River 3 Orlando Munic. 327(O,G) 8, 163
Big Bend 2 Tampa Elec. 434(C) 9,100
Anciote 1 FPC 510(G,O) 9,800
Port Manatee 1 FP&L 762(0) 9, 200
Sanford 5 FP&L 420(0)
Georgia Etowah 1 Ga. Pwr. 705(C) 8,500
Port Wentworth 4 Savannah E&P 121(G) 9, 843
Etowah 2 Ga. Pwr. 705(C) 8, 800
Effingham 1 Savannah E&P 175(C) 9,500
Etowah 3 Ga. Pwr. 876(C) 8, 800
Etowah 4 Ga. Pwr. 850(C)
Md. Vienna 8 Delmarva 150(0) 10,750
Morgantown 2 Pepco 558(O,C) 8, 600
Wagner 4 -BG&E 415(0) 10,400
Sandy Point 1 Pepco 403(C,O) 10,000
Northern 1 Pepco 768(0) 8, 850
Northern 2 Pepco 768(0) 8, 850
Chalk Point Pepco 630(0)
~
I
~
-------
TABLE A-3
::;~l' SUS REGION: SOUTH ATLA ~r ~IC
(Continued)
Fossil Heat Rate,
State Plant Name Utility 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975* . 1976* Btu/Kw-hr
N.C. Asheville 2 (Skyland 2) CP&L 194(C) 9,450
Sutton 3 CP&L 420(0,C) 9,200
Cliffside5 Duke 590(C) 7, 855
Roxboro 3 CP&L 720(C) 9,100
Belews Creek 1 Duke 1143(C) 7,485
Belews Creek 2 Duke 1143(C) 7,485
S.C. Wateree 2 S. C. E&G 385(C) 8,780
Bushy Park 1 S. C. E&G 600(C) 8,900
Georgetown S.C.PSA 280(0,C) 9,300
Va. Mount Storm 3 VEPCO 561(C) 9,000
Yorktown 3 VEPCO 845(0) 8,700
Northern Virginia . VEPCO 845(0)
W. Va. Amos 1 APC 800(C) 8,700
Mitchell 2 APC 800(C) 8, 660
Amos 2 APC 800(C) 8,700
Harrison 1 Mon. Pwr. 650(C) 7, 870
Harrison 2 Mon. 'Pwr. 650(C) 7,870
Amos 3 APC 1300(C) 7, 600
Unassigned 1 AEP 1300(C) 7, 600
Harrison 3 APC 650(C) 7, 870
Unassigned 2 AEP 1300(C) 7,600
Unassigned 3 AEP 1300(C) 7,600
Region Total
4245
4673
5497
6162
5473*
2913>:<
* Additional units may be ordered.
;J>
I
tJ1
-------
TABLE A-4
G ~l\ SUS REGION: EAST NORTH CENTRAL
r... .inois. Indiana. Michigan. Ohio. Wisconsin)
Fossi. Heat Rate.
State PIant Name Utility 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 * 1976* 1977-80* Btu/Kw-hr
Ill. Edwards 3 Cent. Ill. 350(C) 7.754
Coffeen 2 Cent. Ill. PSC 60 O( C) 9.384
Powerton 5 CE Co. 840(C) 9.800
Dallman 2 Spgfld. M unic. 80(C) 10.287
Baldwin 2 &3 Ill. Pwr. 600(C) 600(C) 9.203
Unnamed Cent. Ill. PSC 600(C)
Unnamed Ill. Pwr. 4000(C)
Ind. Cayuga 2 PSC Ind. 500(C) 9,300
Stout 7 Indianapolis 450(C) 9. 115
Mitchell 12 NIPSCO 520(C,G) 9,350
Culley 3 . SIO &E 250(C) 8. 391
Princeton 1 & 2 PSC Ind. 650(C) 650(C) 8,800
Petersburg 3 Indianapolis 450(C) 9.100
Richmond Richmond Munic. 60(C,O.Q
Unnamed NIPSCO 500(C)
Mich. Monroe 1 Det. Ed. 765(C) 8,710
Monroe 2 Det. Ed. 765(C) 8,710
Monroe 3 Det. Ed. 789(C) 8.700
Monroe 4 Det. Ed. 786(C) 8.710
Karn 3 Con. Pwr. 660(C) 8,800
Presque Isle 5 & 6 U.P.Oen. 170(C) 170(C) 9.400
Otta wa Lansing 150(C) 9.500
Ohio Coleman 3 Big. Riv. Coop. 185(C) 9,600
Stuart 1 Dayt. P&L 580(C) 8.898
Sammis 7 O. Ed. 625(C) 8.803
Eastlake 5 Clev. Elec. 625(C) 8.750
Stuart 3 Dayt. P&L 580(C) .8.898
Conesville 4 .. Col. &S. O. 800(C) 8.744
Stuart 4 Dayt. P &L 580(C) 8,940
Mansefield 1 O. Ed. 880(C) 8,600
Mansefield 2 O. Ed. 880(C) 8.700
Gavin 1 & 2 O. Pwr. 1300(C) 1300(C)
. Mitchell 2 O. Pwr. 800(C)
Miami Fort Day. P&L . 550(C)
Wisc. Columbia 1 Wisc. P&L 486(C) 9.000 ~
I
Region Total 3890 4574 3576 1880 5626* 2580* 4000* 0)
* Additional units may be ordered.
-------
TABLE A-5
" CENS JS R ~GION: EAST SOUTH CENTRAL
(Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee)
Fossil Heat Rate,
State Plant Name Utility 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975* " 1976* Btu/Kw-hr
Ala. Barry 5 Ala. Pwr. 712(C) 9,200
Gorgas 10 Ala. Pwr. 712(C) 8,800
Gaston 5 Ala. Pwr. 876(C) 8,600
Ky. Brown 3 Ky. Util. 427(C) 9,400
Mill Creek 1 L'ville. G&E 330(C) 9,300
Sm ith 2 Owensboro Mun. 265(C) 9,490
Ghent 1 Ky. Util. 427(C)" 9,308
Mill Creek 2 L'ville.G&E 330(C) 9,300
Ohio River 1 E.Ky.R.E.C. 450(C)
Miss. Watson 5 Miss. Pwr. 505(C) "9,318
Wilson 2 Miss. P&L 750(G) 8,000
Andrus 1 Miss. P&L 750(G)
Tenn. Cumberland 1 TVA 1275(C) 8, 872
Cumberland 2 TVA 1275(C) 8,872
Region Total
1139
3067
2045
1633
1200*
0...,
'r-
* Additional units may be ordered.
~
I
-J
-------
--- --
TABLE A-6
CEl' S JS REGION: WEST NO :~: ~ < CENTRAL
:~owa, (ansas, \J :innesota, Missouri, Nebras m, North )akota, South )a wta)
Fossil Heat Rate,
State Plant Name Utility 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 * 1976* 1977-8* Btu/Kw-hr
Iowa Neal 2 & 3 Ia.P.S. 325(C) 500(C) 9,100
Municipal 7 . Pella 29(C) 9,900
Municipal 8 Muscatine 66(C) 10,000
Kans. Lawrence 5 Kans. P&L 430(C,G) 9,400
Quindaro 3- 2 K. C. Elec. 145(C,G) 8,180
Garden City 1 S'flr. Elec. Coop. 94(G) 9,800
LaCynge 1 K. C. P&L 848(C) 8,700
Hutchinson 5 K..P&L 225(O,G) 9,600
Minn. Austin 1 Austin Munic. 30(C ,G) 11,500
Virginia Munic. 6 Virgo Munic. 19(C) 11,400
Boswell 3 Minn. P&L 350(C) 9,200
Unassigned 1 & 2 Interst. Pwr. 216(C) 216( C) 9,400
Shelbourne 1 Nor. St. Pwr. 725(C)
Mo. Labadie 2 Union Elec. 600(C) 9,230
Labadie 3 Union Elec. 600(C) 9,230
Labadie 4 Union Elec. 600(C) 9,230
Rush Island 1 Union Elec. 600(C) 8,900
Rush Island 2 Union Elec. 600(C) 8,900
New Madrid 1 N. Mad. Munic. 600(C) 9,500
New Madrid 2 Asso. Elec. Coop. 600(O,G) 9,400
Plant X Mo. P. S. 400(O,G) 9,400
Asbury 2 Emp. Dist. Elec. . 300(G,O) 9,700
Lake Road St. Jos. L&P 200(C,G) 9,900
Follows Lake Spgfld. Util. 150(C) 9,300
James River 6 Spgfld. Util. 112(C)
Independence Ind. Munic. 145(C)
Neb. Moorhead Mun. 5 M'head Munic. 54(0, G) 10,000
Omaha 906 OPPD 100(O,G) 9,900
Freemont Freemont Munic. - .55(0, G)
North Platte 3 & 4 Neb. PPD 1000(0 ,G)
N.D. Olds 2 Basin Elec.Pwr .Coop. 438(C) 8,500
S.D. Otter Tail 6 Otter Tail Pwr. 450(C) 8,500
(Big Stone) ~
I
Region Total 1199 1798 00
1948 1525 1050* 2641* 1661*
:Additional units may be ordered.
-------
r~A 3LE A-7
CENSUS REGION: WEST so~r~ ~CENTRAL
(Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas)
Fossil Heat Rate,
State Plant Name Utility 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975* . 1976* Btu/Kw-hr
Ark. McClellan 1 Ark. Elec. Coop. 133(G) 9,900
Bailey 2 Ark. Elec. Coop. 200(G)
La. Houma 9 Houma Munic. 26(G) 10,000
Louisiana 1 La. El. Coop. 115(G,O) 9, 800
Louisiana 2 La. El. Coop. 115(G,O) 9,800
Nine Mile Point 4 La. P&L 750(G,O) 8,000
Natchitoches Mun. 10 Natch. Munic. 27(G) 10,000
Plaquemine Munic. Plaq. Munic. 26(G) 10,000
Willow Glen 4 Gulf St; Util. , 580(G) 9,250
Thibodaux Munic. Thib. Munic. 20(G) 10,000
, Alexandria Munic. 4 Alex. Munic. 92(G) 9,800
Nine Mile Point 5 La. P&L 750(G,O) 8,000
Louisiana Y Gulf St. Util. 580(G,O) 9,400
Waterford 1 & 2 La. P&L 430(G,O) 430(G,O) 9, 600
Unassigned Cent. P&L 325(G) 9,600
Louisiana Z Gulf St. Util. 750(G,O) 8, 000
Teche 3 & 4 Cent. La. Elec. 350(G) 440(G~O) 9,600
Plant X-I Cent. Ui. Elec. 430(G,O)
Okla. Seminole 1 Okla. G&E 550(G) 9,600
Seminole 2 & 3 Okla. G&E 550(G) 550(G) 9, 700
Northeastern 3 PSC Okla. 450(O,G) 9,600
Unassigned Okla. G&E 550(G,O) 9,700
Andarko 3 & 4 Wstrn.Farmers 200(G) 135(G) 9,500
Jenks 1 & 2 PSC Okla. 450(O,G) 450(O,G)
Texas Miller 2 Brazos E.P .Coop. 116(G) 9, 900
. Joslin 1 Cent. P&L 240(G) 9, 800
Lewis Creek 2 Gulf St. Uti!. 265(G) 9, 655
Cedar 'Bayou 2 Houston L&P 750(G) 7,828
Jones 1 S'western PSC 244(G) 9,945
Eagle Mountain 3 Tex.Elec. Svc. 375(G) 12,000
Valley 3 Tex. P&L 375(G) 9,500
Big Brown 1 Tex. Util. 575(C) 9,710
Paint Creek 4 W. Tex. Util. , 107(G) 9,970
:P
I
co
-------
State
Tex.
(cont'd)
Fossil
Plant Name
Nueces Bay 7
Rio Grande 8
Gideon 3
Calaveras 1
Wilkes 3
Tradinghouse Cr. 2
Big Brown 2
Lake Hubbard 2
Sabine 4
Greens Bayou 5
Robinson 4
Permian Basin 6
Holly 4
Barney Davis 1
Cedar Bayou 3
Baird Ranch 1
Calaveras 2
Lee 5
Jones 2
Phantom Hill 1
Garland 2
Monticello
Lake Avon 2
Plant A-I
Unnamed
Unnamed
Unnamed
Bayou 5
Region Total
>'.. Additional units may be ordered.
I
. ~
r~A3.~~ A-7
CENSUS REGION: WEST SOUTH CENTRAL
(Continued)
1971 1972.. 1973 .
Utility
Cent. P&L
El Paso Elec.
Lwr. Colo. R. Auth.
San Antonio
SW Elec. Pwr.
Tex. P&L
Tex. Util.
Dallas P&L
Gulf St. Util.
Houston L&P
Houston L&P
Tex. Elec. Svc.
Austin Munic.
Cent. P&L
Houston L&P .
Lwr. Colo. R. Auth.
San Antonio
SW Elc. Pwr.
SW PSC
W. Tex. Uti!.
Garland Munic. 118{G,O)
Dallas P&L
Garland Munic.
SWPSC
El Paso Elec.
Gulf St. Util.
Tex. Elec. Svc.
Houston L&P
5257
325{G)
165{G,O)
325{G)
430{O,G)
345{G)
775{G)
575{C)
1974
. 1975*
515{O,G)
580{G)
425{G,O)
750{G)
540{G,O)
190{G)
325{G,O)
750{G,O)
430{G,O)
430{O,G).
360{O,G)
244{G)
175{G)
576{G,O)
150{G,O)
200{G)
3740
4787
160{G)
580{O)
400{G)
5930
4625*
Heat Rate
. 1976"" 1977* Btu/Kw:..hr
9, 652
7.981
- 9,500
7,947
9,770
9,400
9,710
8,217
9,385
9,800
8,000
9,700
9,500
9, 600
8,000
9, 600
7,936
9,700
9,800
9,900
400{G)
400*
1000{G,O)
1000
:;J>
I
.....
o
-------
TA3:"~A-8
CENSUS R ~G :ON: 1\1 OUNT AIN
(Arizona# Colorado, Idaho# Mon ;ana# Nevada# New Mexico, Jta 1# Wyoming)
Fossil Heat Rate,
State Plant Name Utility 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975* 1976* 1977-8>',< Btu/Kw-hr
Ariz. Navajo 1 Salt R. P. D. 770(C) 9,200
Navajo 2 Salt R. P. D. 770(C) 9,200
Navajo 3 Salt R. p. D. 770(C) 9,200
Unnamed Salt R. p. D. 250(C)
C 010. Lamar Munic. Lamar M unic. 28(0, G) 12,500
Drake 7 Colo. Spr. Munic. 132(G) 9,900
Comanche 1 PSC Colo. 360(C) 9,068
Idaho American Falls 1 Idaho Pwr. 430(C) 9,000
Bridger 1 Idaho Pwr. 500(C) 9,000
Bridger 2 PP&L 500(C) 9,000
Bridger 3 PP&L 500(C) 9,000
Bridger 4 . PP&L 500(C)
Mont. Miles City 1 Mont.-Dak. Util. 25(0,G) 10,100
Unassigned Mont. Pwr. 350(C) 9,200
Nev. Mohave 2 SoCalEd 790(C) 9,100
Fort Churchill 2 Sierra Pac. 1l0(0,G) 12,000
Tracy' 3 Sierra Pac. 1l0(0#G)
N. Mex. San Juan 2 PSCNM 345(C) 9,200
Unnamed N. M.Elec. Svc. 400(G)
Utah Huntington Canyon
1# 2# &4 Utah P&L 430(C) 500(C) 500(C) 9,100
Wyo. Naughton 3 Utah P&L 330(C) 9,550
Johnston 4 PP&L 330(C) 10,500
Region Total
1230
383
907
2570
2120*
1520*
1000*
::x>
I
.....
.....
>:
-------
State
-
Cal.
Ore.
Wash.
Fossil
Plant Name
South Bay 4
Ormond Beach 1
Pittsburg 7
Scattergood 3
Encina 4
Ormond Beach 2
V ictorville
None
C entralia 1
Centralia 2
Region Total
*Additional units may be ordered.
r~A3LE A-9
CENSUS :t ~GION: PACIFIC
(California, Oregon, Washington)
Utility
San Diego G&E
So. Cal. Ed.
PG&E
LADWP
San Diego G&E
So. Cal. Ed.
So. Cal. Ed.
PP&L
PP&L
1971
1972 .' 1973 .
1974
215(G,O)
790(O,G}
735(G,O)
460(G)
287(O,G)
790(O,G)
750(O,G)
700(C)
700(C)
1705
1895
1077
750
. 1975*
0*
. 1976*
0>:<
Heat Rate,
Btu/Kw-hr
11,204
9, 057
8, 200
8,980
11, 000
9,057
9,000
9, 700
9,700
~
I
......
t\:)
------- |