WSP08754 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RICHARD p, GODWIN cates that a dual plant on the Gulf of California can produce water at between 16-40 cents per 1000 gallons in the year 1980, As conceived, the plant would produce about 1,700 MW of power for trans- mission and about I billion gallons of fresh water per ~ay (3,000 acre ft/day) in 1980, Clearly there are many factors which effect the cost of this water and the capital costs of the plant, including such things as financing costs, site, size and ratio of water to power, Considerably more design and analysis work would be necessary to clearly identify costs in terms of 1980 dollars. The trend which remains the most important to the Colorado Basin area is the growing de- mand for water. We all accept the added demands for water by population increases and agriculture, but in addition, substantial quantities of water will be required for industrial development in the Basin, For example, commercial development of the almost unlimited reserves of oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming will be contingent on obtaining an adequate supply of water to support the mining oper- ation and the associated population. It has been estimated that an annual consumption of 500,000 acre- feet will be required for a production of two million barrels of oil per day. A water consumption of 500,000 acre-feet per year requires a desalting capacity of about 420 million gallon/day. This is three times as large as the ISO mgd Bolsa Island nuclear power and desalting project. Water costs from desalting units are largely a function of plant size, and of the credit assigned for the power produced. Water costs as a function of the credit for the electrical power produced for a dual purpose plant are easily calculated. You can see that in a 3308 MW plant - - water cost change from 40 cents to 10 cents per 1000 gallons by changing the credit for electric power from about 2 mil/Kwh to 8 mil/Kwh. Also the relationship between electrical power production and water production, as a function of reactor size produces clear advantages for the large reactor. Note, doubling power can produce about three times more water. Installed capacity of water desalting units is presently doubling approximately every 3 years. and technology is advancing at a fast p~ce, Many alternate processes are currently being investigated, and like any new industry, costs can be expected tQ decrease significantly with time and increasing unit size. As new materials are developed with superior corrosion resistance, operating temperatures and plant efficiencies will be raised. Thus, it is anticipated that dual purpose nuclear power - water desalt- ing plants will become a major factor in providing for; the future water needs throughout the arid re- gions of the world, What's going on in the other parts of the West, outside the Colorado Basin? California current- ly has 7 nuclear stations announced or in operation, and in San Onofre, has one of the largest, most modern operating nuclear plants in the world today. In the Pacific Northwest, investor-owned and publicly-owned utilities have recently reached ago greement with the Bonneville Power Administration on a 20-year expansion program. A total of 20 nu- clear stations are planned, with approximately one 1000 MW nuclear unit being installed each year. The first of these plants will be the 1100 MW pressurized water reactor announced by Portland General Electric, scheduled for operation in late 1974, Near Denver, Colorado, the 330 MW Fort St, Vrain generating station is now under construc- tion, This plant will utilize a prototype high temperature, gas-cooled reactor. This station will be the first large HTGR in the U.S" the only other plant of this type being the 40 MW Peach Bottom unit. This type of reactor is in the so-called "advanced converter" category, since it makes more eff- icient use of uranium fuel than the light water reactors. Successful development of the HTGR as a competitive power producer would significantly reduce the future demand for uranium, All in all, nuclear power is growing very rapicjly in the West. In summary, then: "Nuctear power has become a competitive source of heat for electric power production in ',many areas and at least 50 percent of neW generating capacity installed in the U.S. is ex- pected to be provided by nuclear plants. The most significant effect of the swing to nuclear power on the economy of the Colorado .1 l .1 -32-