May 23, 1963
Page 9384
Hydroelectric Power in the Nuclear Age
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. THOMAS J. McINTYRE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Thursday, May 23, 1963
Mr. McINTYRE: Mr. President for too long the New England States have been at a competitive disadvantage for want of a modern system for the generation and transmission of electric power. My colleague, the junior Senator from Maine [EDMUND S. MUSKIE], in a recent address before the American Public Power Association, has pointed to changes in technology that will improve this situation in the near future. The use of more efficient high voltage transmission lines will enable the States of northern New England to seek low cost power sources which will benefit the region in industrial expansion and residential consumption of power. With foresight and imagination Senator MUSKIE has pointed the way for all the New England States in the development of this most critical resource. I am pleased to call your attention to his remarks on the revolution in electrical technology and ask unanimous Consent that Senator MUSKIE'S speech be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
HYDROELECTRIC POWER IN THE NUCLEAR AGE
No discussion of our energy needs is meaningful, unless it is undertaken in the context of our position as a world power. The strength of nations, today, depends on their industrial capacity and resources. The conduct of our diplomacy and the adequacy of our defense structure are vital to our future, but each depends, for its effectiveness, on the industrial and economic strength of the Nation. That strength, in turn, is rooted in our developed energy resources.
If we are to maintain our position as the leader of the free world; if we are to make significant advances in our productive capacity and in the employment of our human and natural resources; we must make bold strides in the expansion of our electrical energy output. This is a matter of national importance and concern.
Two facets of this problem interest me, today: nuclear power and hydroelectric power. Some view them as competitors; I see them as complementary systems.
What will be the role of nuclear powerplants in the next 40 years?
Recently, the Atomic Energy Commission reported to President Kennedy its estimate that, by the end of the century, nuclear power will be assuming the total increase in national electric energy requirements and will be providing half the electric energy generated.
Such long-range predictions can only be tested by time. Opinions concerning the advent of economic atomic power have run the gamut from dazzling predictions to dark pessimism.
Today, there are no nuclear plants on e line which are competitive with comparable conventional generating facilities. We are a still in the position of judging nuclear power
on its promise not its performance. But the I promise is very great, and must be taken into account in power planning.
Nuclear energy is unique in its widespread availability, and radically different in character from sources of energy that man has used in the past. Usable world reserves of nuclear fuels are estimated to represent an energy potential 15 to 20 times as great as deposits of coal, oil, and gas; with controlled fusion of hydrogen, the earth would have at hand an unlimited supply of energy. Nuclear fuels are highly concentrated forms of energy, capable of providing enormous amounts of potential power from relatively small physical quantities. But nuclear energy presents hazards to health and safety not associated with conventional fuels; radiation released with power reactors is a far more serious type of contamination than the usual industrial pollution because it can destroy living cells and mark future generations through harmful mutations.
In view of these and other special attributes, including its role in weapons production, nuclear energy has been properly vested with a public interest. The Federal Government has expended approximately $25 billion in the development of nuclear energy for war and peace, and continues to closely supervise its application for both purposes.
Even if the Atomic Energy Commission's predictions for the turn of the century prove correct, it is likely that, for at least several decades, steam power plants using heat from coal, oil, or gas will remain the principal source of electricity in this country. Today such steam plants represent about 80 percent of our power supply; this percentage will likely increase as feasible hydro sites diminish and demand for electricity rises.
Despite these qualifications, the potential of nuclear power is of particular interest to those of us who live in New England. Electric bills in our part of the Nation are among the highest in the country, although our use of electricity has not kept pace with other regions. In 1961, the average residential customer in New England used 3,113 kilowatt hours -- 23 percent below the national average -- and paid approximately 3.417 cents per kilowatt hour -- which is more than 15 percent above the national average.
We have no coal mines, oil wells or gas fields to supply a source of low-cost fuel. Average fuel cost of New England steam plants in 1961 was 36.9 cents per million Btu compared with a national average of 26.7 cents.
Federal Power Commission Chairman Swidler pinpointed one of the basic reasons for our area's poor showing electrically when he told the Electric Council of New England: "New England in the past has built and still relies on too many small and inefficient generating units and on too few of the large, low-cost units. The evidence suggests that New England's electrical progress is restrained by the chain of high costs, which in turn leads to high rates, which delays growth of energy use and thus tends to keep costs high."
Mr. Swidler advanced several suggestions for solving this dilemma, including increased integration of facilities and operations, more efficient use of fuel, and greater use of power through power use promotion. I would like to discuss a fourth proposal he made for a review of the economic feasibility of many of the area's undeveloped hydro power sources, for additional blocks of capacity on the basis of power pooling for the region as a whole and in cooperation with neighboring regions.
The Northeast has millions of kilowatts of undeveloped hydroelectric capacity. In New England alone, FPC studies show a potential of 2.8 million kilowatts. This is an extremely conservative figure. It does not include, for example, the potential 1 million kilowatts of peaking capacity at the Passamaquoddy Tidal project.
Hydro power can -- and should -- be developed now. Unlike atomic energy, the technology is already perfected and feasible sites have been surveyed. The major cost of a hydro project is in building the dam to form the reservoir. This expense is subject to escalation as price levels rise; thus, the sooner these projects are constructed, the lower the anticipated price tag.
Today, the States of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont are supplied in about equal amounts of hydro and thermal generation. The predicted power supply pattern of the future calls for large generating stations integrated through extra high voltage transmission grids.
Some say that giant, low-cost steam power -- especially in nuclear energy plants -- has doomed the future of hydroelectric generation. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The expanded use of nuclear energy and modern high capacity fossil fuel plants accentuate the opportunities for hydroelectric power. It is growing more and more important as a source of peaking power. The inherent characteristics of a hydro power plant permit wide variations of load in extremely short intervals of time. This is ideal for peaking purposes. On the other hand, high capacity thermal powerplants using energy from either fossil fuels or from nuclear sources do not possess this flexibility.
The heat balance required under the high pressures and high temperatures encountered in the large thermal units does not permit wide variations in output within short intervals of time. The high investment and operating costs of these units require practically continuous operations at full-rated output with only minor shutdowns for maintenance purposes to obtain economical outputs.
The outlook of the power industry is, I think, well exemplified in the present plans by the Consolidated Edison Co. of New York. This system has in the active planning or early construction stages three generating plants with an output of 1 million kilowatts each. One of these plants will be hydroelectric, operated on a pumped storage basis to provide peaking requirements. Of the remaining two plants, one will utilize conventional fossil fuels, and the other will be supplied by nuclear energy.
Several large generating units are under construction for operation in the utility systems of southern New England. The largest plant is rated at 340 megawatts and will be installed at the L Street station of the Boston Edison Co. Unit operation is scheduled for July 1965.
Two hundred and twenty-five megawatt power plants will be installed at the Brayton Point plant of the New England Power Co. The first 225-megawatt power unit is scheduled for operation in July 1963, and the second is scheduled for operation in July 1964.
The Hartford Electric Co. also has a large unit scheduled for initial operation in 1964. This is the Middletown Unit No. 3 and will have a capacity of 220 megawatts. Initial operation is scheduled for October 1964.
One method of meeting peaking needs for such plants involves pumped storage. In a recent issue of the Electrical World, the Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. announced plans for development of a 600,000 kilowatt pumped storage hydroelectric project. The site is at Breakneck Mountain overlooking the Hudson River south of Beacon con, N.Y., and is directly across the river from the 1 million kilowatt pumped storage projectof the Consolidated Edison Co. of New York.
The Taum Sauk project by the Union Electric Co., Of St. Louis, MO., is another prime example of what is happening in the hydro field. In this project, the top of a mountain was literally blown off to provide a manmade reservoir so that a pumped storage hydroelectric power project for peaking functions could be constructed.
In my own State of Maine, we have the potential of a unique hydroelectric power development. This could benefit Maine, New England, and the Maritime Provinces of Canada. In this case, the waterfall or head is not provided by the natural terrain of the country and the streamflow from rainfall but by the lunar forces responsible for the tides.
This unique hydroelectric power development has certain problems, to be sure, but it can also boast of features that are not present in a riverflow hydroelectric power development.
The tides are produced by gravitational forces between the Earth and the Moon and the configuration of the land area. In view of the absolute determinability of the relative position of the Earth, the Sun, and the Moon, it is possible to accurately calculate and to predict the amplitude of a tide at any time in the future. With the exception of a few tidal storms, there are no physical factors which can destroy these predictions. Thus, instead of having a source of hydroelectric power depending upon the vagaries of rainfall and terrain, we have a source of power which can be absolutely predicted.
In many of the earliest studies of Passamaquoddy, attempts were made to match the tidal cycle to the solar day with relatively little success. In the most recent concept developed in the IJC report, Passamaquoddy was proposed as a source of dependable hydroelectric energy.
In contrast, the studies by the Department of the Interior indicate a great need in the future for peaking capacity. The two-pool concept developed in the IJC report provides an excellent opportunity for developing peaking power of the characteristics which have been historically experienced in the marketing area considered by the Department of the Interior. This embraced the New England States, eastern New York, and the maritime Provinces of Canada, particularly New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
Computer studies are being made as part of the overall Passamaquoddy review to determine the optimum peaking capacity that Could be developed at the Passamaquoddy Tidal Powerplant. We understand these studies are progressing satisfactorily and they will show the number of hours' peaking capacities of various magnitudes could be provided by the Passamaquoddy development, both on the basis of isolated operation and on the basis of interconnected integrated operation with power generated on the St. John River. We understand the studies are being made for various capacities from 500 megawatts to one million kilowatts.
Studies already made by various people indicate that the development of the Upper St. John River is entirely economical and makes good financial sense. If it can be demonstrated that Passamaquoddy can stand on its Own feet, certainly the coordination of power capacity of the Passamaquoddy with the Upper St. John River will be an even better development. On this basis, the dependable capacity of Passamaquoddy could be calculated on the basis of the potential output from the average tide of 18 feet, rather than from the lowest tide of about 13 feet.
I, and I am sure many of you, are anxiously awaiting the results of the studies in progress by the Department of Interior. We have every assurance that the report to the President will be completed by July 1,1963. Should this report demonstrate the feasibility of Passamaquoddy operating on its own, I will recommend that serious consideration be given to this potential resource.
As we consider these and other potential sources of hydroelectric energy, we must not let the glamour of the nuclear age obscure the new look in hydroelectric power. Hydro is the partner of modern steam generation, not its enemy. By applying imagination, hard work, and determination to the potential of hydroelectric peaking plants, large scale steam plants, and efficient high-voltage systems, we can open a new day in the sound development of our economic, natural, and human resources. We will also demonstrate to the world the power for growth in a free society.