Europe, regulate demand and use load shedding and other controls to maintain high load factors. Data for a recent year (1968) show that capacity factors were about 64 percent in Canada and Japan and nearly 60 percent in Norway. This compares with about 56 percent for the United States, as indicated above. The comparable figure for the United Kingdom and France was about 46 percent. Senator GRAVEL. We are talking about the power needs. Do we have reserves above the peak demand? Dr. SCHLESINGER. Yes, sir. The estimate at the present time, using the Midwest as an example, is that the reserves will be about 5.6 percent above anticipated peak demand. The problem is that the largest plant on a utility system is generally about 12 percent of the system capacity and if that plant should fail, you would be on the negative side and not be able to meet the demand. Senator GRAVEL. Just looking at the environmental problem, might it not appear to a lay person that if we learn to utilize the one-third capacity that is not being utilized for a third of the time, this might offer great reduction in the need for more powerplants? Dr. SCHLESINGER. That is a meritworthy point. We are working on it. Senator BAKER. Are you going at this on a priority basis? Dr. SCHLESINGER. I would have to submit that for the record. We have a new program in the nonnuclear area, and one of our major efforts is in the area of storage batteries. (The following information was subsequently supplied :) The AEC's authorization request for FY 1973 includes $750,000 in the nonnuclear technology program for work on energy storage. Energy storage provides a means for reducing investment in generating capacity, a major component of the cost of electricity. A plant operating at anything less than its optimum capacity is unduly costly. The aim of energy storage is to meet a particular load situation with less investment in a central station plant. Some utility systems are able to utilize pumped storage systems using hydroelectric units driven by water from a head water pool. There are, however, a limited number of sites suitable for pumped storage installations. Use of pumped storage is further limited by environmental concerns. High performance rechargeable electric batteries would serve a purpose similar to that of pumped storage. During "off peak" hours low cost power would be used to charge the batteries. During periods of peak power demand the batteries would be connected to the system for power production. Development of long-life reliable storage batteries capable of storing large quantities of energy at reasonable cost would allow more efficient use of installed generating equipment. Such batteries would be highly advantageous from the environmental standpoint. They would not create any air pollution and their release of waste heat to the environment would be considerably less than conventional sources. They could be located near load centers, thus saving on transmission and distribution costs. Our efforts in FY 1973 will focus on development of the lithium/sulfur battery which has very high energy storage capabilities (about 5-10 times that of the conventional lead acid storage battery). Studies on the lithium/sulfur system are presently at the laboratory stage and have to date been limited to developing single cells which deliver just a few watts of power. Actual batteries have not yet been built. Although a significant research, development and engineering program will be required to develop a megawatt sized battery, there appear to be no insurmountable technical barriers to achieving this goal. It is expected that this program will provide the basic information needed to construct a 1 KW sized battery which could probably be completed in about 3 years. Commercial demonstration of energy storage systems utilizing such batteries might be possible in 6-8 years. Senator GRAVEL. How long has this program been going on? Dr. SCHLESINGER. This particular program follows from the change in the legislation governing the Atomic Energy Commission. This is a new program for the AEC. Senator GRAVEL. But have not these facts about load-factor curves been known for some time? Certainly this is no revelation about our idle generating equipment standing by for peaks in the use of electric power. We have worked on the breeder reactor for 20 years, and ignored storage technology that could have been developed. Dr. SCHLESINGER. We are hopeful that we can develop some additional storage capacity. Mr. RAMEY. The pumped storage plants are essentially a system of storing energy from periods when it is not needed for peak demand for later use. Senator GRAVEL. I was thinking of the hydrogen fuel cell. Maybe you could put some of the energy there and use it later for peak demands. Mr. RAMEY. There has been research on that, particularly in the space program, and the question essentially is costs of translating it from small compact purposes for space use, to a large use, and as so many of these things, it takes a lot of development effort to get it done. Senator GRAVEL. The point I am making is that it is obvious we really have not addressed ourselves to all of the energy alternatives, but attention has now come about through the discipline of this act. Dr. SCHLESINGER. I think that the act makes a contribution. The concerns expressed in the act make a contribution and much work has been done in the past under the auspices of other agencies. There is also the fact that we are beginning to look at a shortage of fossil fuels and a growth of demands, so that we look at the energy problem in its totality, and that is an enormous recent development. Senator GRAVEL. Doctor, if the definition of power shortage is suspect, which is the point I was trying to make, but if you accept what we are told; namely, that we have an energy crisis, then must we rush headlong into building more powerplants and pay no mind to environmental problems. That is what I interpreted you to be advocating. Dr. SCHLESINGER. No; quite the converse. I think we have got to pay very careful attention to the environment consequences. That we are attempting to do; we are concerned with the efficiencies with which power facilities are utilized, we are concerned with the trade off between mobile and nonmobile forms of energy, and we are finally concerned with the utilization of energy. One of the aspects that I think you yourself have stressed, is that if we had better insulation of homes, the demand for electricity and other forms of energy could be substantially reduced. Those offer possibilities for economization of both the use of electric power and of electric power production facilities. Senator GRAVEL. Why would the courts have said to stop in the construction of all of these nuclear reactors, if they felt there was no environmental consequence? Dr. SCHLESINGER. They have not stopped construction. I think with the exception of Quad Cities Senator GRAVEL. You just told us earlier that the Quad Cities decision has a total debilitating effect on the whole nuclear program. Dr. SCHLESINGER. This is a unique situation in the Midwest, Senator. Because of the low levels of reserves in the Midwest and the very high proportion of additional generating capacity that is represented by nuclear, that we do face a problem in the Midwest. I will tell you when we see what temperatures we have. Senator GRAVEL. Were you not making a point concerning the Quad Cities decision that you cannot go ahead with the operation of the reactors until the 102 statements are complete, so what has happened is a delay ? Dr. SCHLESINGER. That is right. Senator GRAVEL. And you are testifying that we should find some way around that? You are suggesting the possibility of legislation? Dr. SCHLESINGER. Yes. The problem that has cropped up, Senator, is that the regulations we adopted on September 9, were held inconsistent with NEPA, and we are appealing that case in the courts; but we are concerned about the failure to test adequately the facilities that are now standing idle, and more significant perhaps, we are concerned that depending on temperatures this summer, we could well have a shortage of power, and the lack of the availability of power is something that has cropped up since November. Senator GRAVEL. I am trying to separate two points, Doctor. One is the alleged power shortage, air conditioners; that problem is on the one hand. But what we are talking about now is the environmental problem from the reactors on the other hand. By this Quad Cities case, the licensing program has been impeded, in that all of the reactors have to conform to the 102 statement. Do you have any quarrel with giving a very good 102 statement ? Dr. SCHLESINGER. No, sir. We have been working vigorously on that problem since the Calvert Cliffs decision. We have a schedule for the production of 102 statements. Senator GRAVEL. Other than the very simple fact of taking time to provide the 102 statements, this is a very good thing that has happened? Dr. SCHLESINGER. We have indicated that the interim licensing problem is a transitional problem, and it is a problem we would have wished to avoid, but the situation in the Midwest has created some difficulties. Senator GRAVEL. But if you wished to avoid it, it means we would not have the 102 information, which we desire as a part of the national policy? Dr. SCHLESINGER. No, sir; we have a full production schedule for 102 statements. Those statements will be forthcoming. We have submitted for the record the Quad Cities "interim" statement, which is going to be similar to a number of other statements, with regard to the various facilities which are a subject of concern.2 2 The statement referred to appears on p. 133. The establishment of the rules indicated that we could allow partial power, limited power, in order to do adequate testing and mitigate the effects of being caught in this transitional period, while continuing the full environmental statement and review. There is no desire on the part of the Commission to do anything other than fully to comply with the requirements for a final environmental statement. But in this transition period, while we are working on the full statement, we are concerned that power facilities may stand idle and inadequate testing be done when there will be no long-term environmental consequences. That is why I mentioned earlier that we would have a mini-NEPA review. It would not be a final review, but it would deal with that level of power we authorize, whether it be 20 percent, 6 percent, or 9 percent, but it would not be the final statement. Senator BAKER. I would like two things, and we have another vote signal, and I expect we will have to recess these hearings. On the general line of questions put by Senator Gravel, which are very thorough and very well demonstrated, now, is it not true, however, that pump storage, and any other sort of peak-saving techniques, when measured against the growth rate of power demand in this country, that all of these storage techniques will just postpone the day when we need the new capacity? Dr. SCHLESINGER. Yes; this will mitigate the rate of growth, of demand. Senator BAKER. I believe the figures now, the best estimates are that the power demand in the United States is now doubling in something like 8 years? Dr. SCHLESINGER. About 10 years. Senator BAKER. Is it still 10 years? I had the impression it was 8. Dr. SCHLESINGER. Maybe a little less. Senator BAKER. The second thing, on the question of the distinction between an R. & D. project and full operation of the project, as far as either administrative techniques, policy under NEPA, or amendments to any act are concerned, does the AEC have, or would you be willing to supply any draft language we might consider in this respect? Dr. SCHLESINGER. We do not have any draft language in this area, Senator. I think this is a subject on which clarification of congressional intent could be made by the Congress without any changes in NEPA. Senator BAKER. Very well, If the AEC wishes to supply a memorandum, or any further ideas in that respect, I am sure they would be welcome. Senator GRAVEL. If I could make one specific request, is there any study you could submit for the record, independent of your collection of what the utility companies say the power demands will be, about the electrical energy needs of the country? Dr. SCHLESINGER. Yes, sir; we will send some to you, and if you wish, you can put them in the record. They will be somewhat lengthy. Senator BAKER. They will be made a part of the record. (The material referred to follows:) Mr. L. MANNING MUNTZING, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., January 18, 1972. Director of Regulation, Atomic Energy Commission, DEAR MR. MUNTZING: As agreed in our discussion of December 10, 1971, we are supplying herewith an updated summary statement covering the power supply situation in areas where operating licenses are pending for new nuclear plants. This report includes the latest reliable information available to the Federal Power Commission on anticipated loads and operating capacity, including the estimates of full operating license dates for new nuclear plants provided in the AEC status report on priority nuclear facilities dated December 20, 1971. We are not certain, however, that current reports fully reflect the potential impact on plant operating dates of the latest court decisions bearing on AEC's issuance of licenses for partial operation and the Corps of Engineers' procedures including EPA's release of water discharge permits. It is not possible to forecast power inadequacies with absolute precision, because they depend on the coincidence of random events, such as the weather, equipment outages, operator errors, and other similar contingencies. Therefore, the difference between total nominal capacity and the statistically forecast peak loads, which is designated reserve margin, is only an approximate indicator of the probability of being able to meet all load demands. It is important to recognize that a substantial portion of the reserve margin is needed for unscheduled equipment outages. The summary statement confirms that the power situation related to key nuclear plants is at least as urgent as we have detailed in our individual environmental statement commentaries on these plants. Very truly yours, STEWART P. CRUM (For T. A. Phillips, Chief, Bureau of Power). (Enclosure: "Adequacy of Electric Generating Capacity in Areas with Pending Nuclear Plant Operating Licenses.") FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION-BUREAU OF POWER ADEQUACY OF ELECTRIC GENERATING CAPACITY IN AREAS WITH This report supplements the analysis of the electric generating capacity situation provided as an attachment to the October 15, 1971, letter from Chairman Nassikas of the Federal Power Commission to Chairman Schlesinger of the Atomic Energy Commission. It covers the period from now through the winter of 1972-73. Because of the uncertainty about ability to issue interim partial power permits occasioned by the recent Quad Cities court decision, no consideration has been given to the availability of power prior to a full license or to the effect of partial power licenses as a means of advancing the date of full commercial power. It has been assumed that full commercial power could not be available sooner than two months after issuance of a full power license. While this is believed to be a realistic interval, it is recognized that longer periods may be involved in some cases and the best information available to the FPC has been used. The information in this summary report is consistent with that provided in the individual comments on plant environmental statements supplied by the FPC to the AEC. An expanded discussion of individual plant effects upon power supply adequacy is contained in the specific commentaries. As noted, in some instances the listed capacity for peak load periods includes new fossil capacity scheduled for service beyond the May 31 and October 31 cut-off dates, normally used by the FPC to identify dependable summer and winter capacity levels. Experience has shown that such capacity cannot be considered fully dependable during the first few months of operation. 76-248-72- -8 |