, RAIN DECEMBER 1977 VOLUME IV, NO. 3 INSIDE: Suppressed Energy Studies p. 18 Greywater Treatment p. 4 Culture and Agri-Culture p. 14 Zen and the Art of Firefighting p. 8 ONE DOLLAR
Page 2 RAIN December 1977 RAIN access C SOLAR ) Mean Monthly Net Heat Transfer Through Windows, Ken Cooper, presented at Solar Energy Update '77 Conference, Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Aug. 22-24, 1977, single copies $1 from: ECON, Energy Conservation Advisors No. 6-2636 Yukon St. Vancouver, BC V5Y 3P8 Canada M,ore evidence, abet calculated, that south-facing windows are effective solar collectors even in fairly severe climates like Edmonton's. From the conclusions: "Shutt~red double glazings are recommended for sun-collecting windows. Quadruple glazings should only be considered in north-facing windows as they are net heat losers compared to triple or shuttered double glazings in sun-collecting windows." -Chris Mattock How to Predict Interior Daylight Illumination, $1 from: Libbey-Owens-Ford Company Merchandising Department P-1 811 Madison Avenue Toledo, OH 43695 A handy manual for designing daylighting in buildings, with simple and detailed calculations and special procedures for rooms with shading, two-sided illumination, etc. From the folks who brought you the Sun Angle Calculator. -TB A Preliminary Assessment of the Unique Features ofa Parabolic Aquaculture/ Greenhouse, Davis Straub with Evan Brown, and The Effect of Solar Energy on Aquaculture Support: A Preliminary Assessment, Elizabeth Coppinger, $2 for both from: Ecotope Group 2332 E. Madison Seattle, WA 98112 Presented at the Marlboro (Vermont) Solar Greenhouse Conference, these papers are the latest on Ecotope's continuing path-breaking work in this area. Conducted at Pragtree Farm in Arlington, Wash., under a cooperative agreement with the USDA-Agricultural Research Service "Solar Heating & Cooling of Greenhouses & Rural Residences" Program, it's another example that we have much to learn about solar biology as well as solar mechanics. Their useful integration is an occurrence that we can expect to see more of in the solar world before us, as we finally come to respect the work natural systems will do for humanity if we only design the life-provoking niches they need to do so. A self-addressed, stamped envelope will get you their entire publications list, including bioconversion (dairy methane plant), various renewable energy studies for state and city govts, etc. -LJ Solar Greenhouse Annotated Bibliography and Plans List, 2nd edition, July 1977, free from: National Solar Info Center Box 1607 Rockville, MD 20850 (call toll-free 800/523-2929) A very comprehensive list, with many items I've not seen before and with addresses for 11 directly useful plans. If you're into this area, be sure to check this out. Ask for their complete publications list. It's free, too. -LJ C ) 135 kw, 72' dia., 3-bladed WECS, for details send SASE to the designer: Charles Schackle Moses Lake Airport Moses Lake, WA 98837 509/765-9696 This independent inventor has built the largest wind generator existing in the PNW, as a production prototype for a larger, 120' rotor radius wind turbine planned for summer 197 8. This 1000 hp version will be designed to pump water for irrigation and for electricity production in conjunction with hydroelectric dams at an estimated cost of l.2ct/kwhr. The 72' diameter model produces 250 hp (135 kw) at 26 mph rated windspeed, via hydraulic coupling to a generator, with upwind blades atop a tower which turns on tracks in a concrete base, similar to the 1931 Russian WECS located at Yalta on the Black Sea. Why doesn't BPA buy 5 or 10 and test them out? -LJ "Wind Energy Heating Research Project," a joint project of Puget Sound Power & Light, Snohomish County PUD and John Strickler, Jr., for a 4page pamphlet send a SASE to: John Strickler, Jr. 338 N. Wind Sun Way Camano Island, WA 98292 As far as I know, this is the only wind heating work being done in the PNW; it and Habitat I at the Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, are the only major ones we've got to go on until the USDAARS projects mentioned on page 15 are funded. We'd like to hear about others. -LJ
( ENERGY ) Wood Stoves: How to Make and Use 1 •• Them, Ole Wik, 1977, $5.95 from: Alaska Northwest Publishing Co. Graphically illustrating the effect of necessity upon invention, Ole recounts his own and others' experience in making wood stoves from discarded scrap. Techniques of using a limited number of primitive hand tools to produce practical woodburners are well explained. This book is an excellent guide for one who, by choice or circumstance, wants to build his own stove. Ole injects his personality into his writing so that the book is easy and interesting to read. -Bill Day Dear Rain, We've·got a specific problem (challenge, opportunity) here, and we need h,elp. There's a fellow setting up an auto repair shop, a valued service in this remote area, back in our community where there are no electric .lines so far. He wants (and we want) the shop to be powered by an alternative source of electricity rather than see it tied into ' the nuclear grid. But we don't know the best way to do it, or if it's really even feasible. If we could do it successfully, it'd be a strong political . statement and a model for other similar communities. We hear that wind, sola,r or steam power require great expense, particularly for storag~ batteries. What we're after, though, is a non-fossil, renewable, non- or minimal-pollution energy source. We have acce~s to some funding, but also understand that there's a program of small grants available for work in this are.a. Maybe you know more about that. Is it possible to pow.er a small shop via an alternative source of electricity without spending thousands an'd thousands of dollars? We're really at an important ·crossroads for our small community, and whatever help you can offer will be truly appreciated. Many thanks, Jerry Friedberg Route 2, Box 96C Leslie, AK 72645 JerryRather than producing all that highquality and, as you .mention, expensive • electricity to do mechanical work, a poor matching of energy-quality to actual end-use energy needs, as .Amory Lovins and Howard Odum ~ave taught us, why not use a wind-mechanicalhydraulic tool or -compressed air tool system, converting only a very small part of the mechanical energy to electricity for a few fluorescent shop lights? Ifyou don't have wind but do have a year-round streamfiow, a small hydroelectric set-up using a pelton wheel (impulse turbine) would be still cheaper. Check that out with Bill Delp, Independent Power Developers, Noxon, MT 59853, and see the Nov. '77 ASE as well, Any ofyou readers who do answer , Jerry, please send a copy of your suggestions to RAIN. It'll help us answer similar queries. Thanks very much. - L] December 1977 RAIN Page 3 Help! Nuclear and Renewable Energy info needed by: Centro d'Informazion Kristina Anderson . Via Mattioli, 17 06100 Perugia Italy A group of Italian students working on nuclear energy issues and the possibilities offered by alternative energy sources has just opened this information center and would like to receive info on these topics fr.om the U.S. and elsewhere. They offer to pay for xeroxing, postage and other costs incurred 'in getting info to them. Won't you help? Can you put them on your mailing list? • RAIN has sent them all the OAT sourcelists. Thanks very much. ~LJ RAIN's office is at 2270 N.W. Irving, Portland, OR 97210. Ph: (503) 227-5110. I RAIN STAFF: ' Tom Bender Lane deMoll Marcia Johnson Lee Johnson I Typesetting: Irish Setter Printing: Times Litho Joan Meitl AND NOW THIS IS THE BEST SOLAR HOME BOOK! ... FOR A WHILE ANYWAY. AND NEW RAYS OF HOPE For a bit there Bruce Anderson's and Donald Watson's books . were irreplaceable. But Alex Wa.de's new $8.95 Rodale book has now eclipsed them both and is the only solar home publication I will be recommending, especially to those ownerbuilders with limited funds who trust me to tell them the "one best source." We've really got one now! 30 Energy-Efficient Houses f OU Can Build is so excellent that follow-on revisions and copy-cat authors will have to really know their stuff in hands-on construction skills, costcutting techniques, inexpensive and practical passive solar design, and energy-saving restoration and remodeling to produce-a better compendium of well-detailed principles and basic house plans. Yes, house plans, friends. And if you use only one of Alex's hints, you'll pay back this book's cost many times over. . A perfect Christmas gift too ... it's beautiful enough for dreaming over, full of photos with people in them, but why not get it dirty with thumbprints as you build your own. Almost forgot ... Rodale Press, 33 E. Minor, Emmaus,,PA 18049. -LJ If y_ou were to tell me that you already had read Amory Lovin 's book Soft Energy Paths (Ballinger) and wanted to get the next two best publications mentioned in this issue, I'd suggest Alex Wade's 30 Energy-Efficient Homes You Can Build, if you wanted to actually build/remodel your home, and Deni~ Hayes' new book, Rays of Hope: Th~ Transition-to a PostPetroleum World, $9.95 from W.W. Norton & Co., 500-5th Ave., New York, NY 10036, if you liked Soft Paths. I like to·think of Denis's book as complementary to Amory's, with Rays providing a more tech_nical but highly readable state-of-the-art survey of what is now possible with solar-based energy sources, what a solar society might mean and how the end of nuclear pqwer, the use of conservation and the transition to solar energy·can lead to a better future life for us all. It ranks up there with Wilson Clark's pathfinding encyclopedia, Energy for Survival (Doubleday), and updates it very well. Rays_ is an excellent perspective on our situation and what we can do about it. Don't miss reading it. - LJ
Page 4 RAIN December 1977 Is greywater reuse something new and dangerous? The "suds-saver" is a greywater recycling system long used and accepted in the U.S.-even though thousands of housewives can come in physical contact with the greywater. The suds-saver is a ;W-gallon tank located next to the washer which stores the rinse-water from one load of washing for use in washing the next load. -Peter Wars'hall - The recently released Rural Wastewater Disposal Alternatives report prepared by the California office of Appropriate Technology recommends the development of On-Sit·e Wastewater fylanagement Districts which would licei:ise, certify, periodically inspect and possibly m~intain on-site sewage systems. What is interesting is that their recommendations are for institutional arrangements (licensing, inspection, etc.) rather than technological (sewage plants). They are recognizing that the inherently increased people-involvement common in small-scale systems is a fundamentally different situati6n than the design of large me.chanized systems, but a situation where public safety can be equally well met while providing much lower cost performance. The focus on continuing people-to-people relationships makes ·possible an interesting shift from expensive monolithic "overkill and forget" systems to a pragmatic incrementalism which underlies the re.st of the recommended polic\e~. Instead of requiring treatme'nt facilities'to handle the most outrageously wasteful suburban water :use as is common in most codes, • they suggest putting in what you think you need, and ;i way to check ,if it is overloaded. If it is, change it. P~t in a few more feet of leaching line or add another 55-gallon drum sand filter to increase your capacity. Soils vary incredib_ly in their ability to treat and absorb wa~_er, and no effective means has been dev.eloped to predict accurately their performance and necessary treatment designs. Lifestyle patterns vary even more so. What works best in this great rich variability may ~nvolve management of any or all steps from our values through source reduction to final treatment methods. Installation of a few low flush toilets in a community may avoid the need for a wh9le central sewe,r system. Adding a grease trap may be wiser and cheaper than replacing clogged leach lines. Maintenance and pumping may be a cheaper alternative to repl~cing failed septic systems. Keeping kitchen grease out of the drain lines can be a much more sensible and economical approach than dealing with it once it is there clogging pipes and soils. Peter Warshall suggests th.at you simply-don't let the grease get into the plumbing-'wash dishes in a plastic basin and throw the washwater out of doors. Even more simply, use greasy foods or cooking techniques less often. A void the problems. GREYWATERTREATMENT Removal of toilet wastes and kitchen garbage from household wastewater and s_eparate treatment of them by composting dramatically lessens the need for treatment of the remaining wastewater (or greywater, as it looks and is frequently called). Dry toilets and other water-conserving measures·also significantly reduce (by two-thirds) the volume of water to be treated. Such actions together can lower.household wastewater
- Decem~er 1977 RAIN Page 5 WASTING WATER treatment needs below the thresh~ld where expensive contractor-installed septic and drainfield or sewer systems are necessary to where simple owner-installed and -maintained treatment· systems are adequate. Such systems may cost $50-$100 or lessonly 5 to 10 percent of the cost of a septic/leach system, and only one percent of what a sewer installation would cost. Simple on-site greywater treatment is necessary to realize the full benefits that dry toilets present as an alternative to central sewage treatment. Together, they possess the following advantages: _· ' • On-site systems can cost only a fracti.on of central systems and lessen the massive financial burden central systems place on individuals and ,communities. • They avoid the land "development" push resulting from central sewer installations. • Water is typically returned to the local water table by dispersed release of the wastewaters in small doses. • . • No final effluent disposal problem is created as with the large plant. • The estimated ·cost benefit with dry toilets is that of a water economy of 45 percent, or 4,000 to 6,000 gallons per person/ year: • With the water economy of dry toilets, a lot of land and therefore many building sites would become available where eitber·water is in too short supply for conventional use of flush toilets or wastewater is difficult to dispose of because the size of the lot or soil characteristics prevent adequate drainfield installation. • The proper maintenance and repair of on-site systems upgrade~, rather than abandons, an investment in on-site sewage systems already ~ade by pre-existing housing- estimated as 16-20 million homes at $1,000, or 16-20 billion dollars in the U.S.. The disadvantages of such on-site treatment systems are less concrete, and more a question of lack of experience with them or adequate standards for their use: • • Management systems for decentralized on-site installations are not well developed. • On-site systems commonly leave so much to the discretion of the operator, especially for the ultimate waste and wastewater disposal, ,that regulatory agencies _view control as difficult if not impossible. • The legal basis for right of entry on private property for regulatory inspection of these systems has not been clearly established. • • The actual standards for construction of on-site systems va~y enormously, have a poor record for compliance, and have so often contributed to their failure record that on-site systems are accepted with difficulty by regulatory agencies, and have been bypassed in favor of replacement by central treatment plants (although the actual performance record of central treatment plants is much worse than assumed by those same regulatory agencies). • Although the presence of disease agents in human waste has been well documented, the health risk associated with on-site systems has had no modern-day evaluation. Treatment necessary for greywater depends on volume, degree of pollution of the water, and intended reuse. The main treatment problems are: • Breaking down food wastes without offensive odors or attracting flies, rats, or other creatures that may cause nuisance or health problems. • Soil clogging that prevents necessary absorption of water into the ground.. • Care and maintenance of the treatment facilities to ensure continued effective operation. • Additionally, where human contact in reuse of the greywater is involved, or where discharge of the greywater may affect the health of others via contamination of groundwater, streams or rivers, the reduction of possible human disease organisms to safe levels is necessary. Separate; treatment of toilet wastes and-greywater and demand for surface reuse of greywater is relatively new and· almost no health standards have been set for discharge of greywater. Actual health hazards are extremely difficult to determine, and the main difficulty of setting standards for greywater is to avoid arbitrary and unrealistic standards. Rural and single-family use of separate greywater treatment probably should require less stringent control than urban use, as they are to large degree self-quarantined by ·geography ·and present much lower health hazards. Water quality statistics usually make a point of the higher pollution level per volume where dry toilets and other water conservation measures have been taken, while ignoring that there may be a lower TOTAL of pollutants released from the house. There may be a valid case also for allowing higher concentrations of pollutants in wastewater from low-discharge households than in larger wasteflows, as the total pollutants are much less and more likely to be within what the soil, air, and plants can absorb, transform and make use of without harm or further treatment. The OAT report contains an excellent overview of greywater chemical and biological quality and details for treatment and reuse of greywater. Get a copy if you plan to install a separate greywater system. - TB
I Page 6 RAIN December 1977 Low-Flow Wastewater No meaningful standards have been developed yet for the quality of water released from greywater treatment. The following elements have been designed for or used in lowdischarge households, and can m·ostly be duplicated or used in sequence for more complete treatment or to handle larger volumes. Use the common-sense approaeh- start with nothing and add piece by piece until you get the water quality you need. Suburban America generates 25 to 60 gallons ofgreywater per person per day- an average of 30 gallons. That can be much less. Ten gallons per person per day is a reasonable estimate where water conservation practices are followed. Use the Rules of Thumb and Nose to figure what you need. Let us know of other better designs, or bow these work/don't work for you. -TB - A simple system has been proposed by septic tank consultant Tim Winneberger for treating small volum~s of wastewater that has few suspended solids. The settling tank is a 30-gallon plastic garbage can with lid, used to trap grease or other float~ ables that would clog seepage pit. The check tank is a fivegallon plastic bucket with lid. The pipes are one-inch plastic. Where high ground water isn't a problem, the settling tank can be surrounded by rocks which allow water to seep into the ground as illustrated. With high groundwater, the effluent pipe and rock fill are omitted and wastewater piped to a regular leaching line near the ground surface. When you check the check tank and find grease or other floatables, it's time to empty the settling tank and bury the contents. The three- or four-inch observation pipe is notched or has holes in the side so the water level in the seepage pit can be checked and seen if it is overloaded. If so, a leach line can be added where 'arrow says "to field." See ?AT Report for more details. Sand filters give excellent BOD removal (removing the Biological Demand for Oxygen by bacteria that break organic matter down into simpler compounds), and also pathogen control. Allow one square foot of surface for every six to ~ight gallons of ,water flow per day-a 55-gallon drum will treat 25-5 0 gallon·s per day. A 3o~inch depth of sand is adequate. Sand filters fail if continually saturated, so need cover in rainy weather and perform better if alternated filters are used.' Occasional backwashing with clear water and removal of top inch or two of s.and is needed. See VITA Village Technology Handbook for more details. Most·health officials still see red at the mention of direct. surface application of greywater, though in drought areas they have conveniently looked the other way. No modern testing , seems to have been done to determine what, if any, real health hazards exist when soil is used as the simplest natural veatment for nutrient removal and pathogen destruction. Farallones Urban House has been using an elegantly simple method for some time now. Both urine and greywater are drained to a 55gallon drum, where the urine.is diluted by the greywater and its nitrogen content used to balance the fertilizer value of the.· phosphorous in the greywater from soaps. A garden hose distributes the water to desired areas of the garden, where a cloth bag tied to the end of the hose retains large pa,rticles and prevents soil erosion. The bag should be washed or changed weekly. See the Farallones Greywater Reports for more details. -
- Treatment The United Stand folks in Northern California have put togeth_er a number of low-flow greywater designs from the experiences in those parts. These two designs, made from (you guesseµ it) tar-covered 5 5-gallon drums treat 20 to 5 0 gallons of greywater per day. The mini-septic tank is really a 1 fancier, 100-gallon sedimentation tank. The economy model design shown for a leach line uses a "V" made from lx6 redwood or cedar instead of plastic or tile pipe. Rule of thumb is one or one-and-one-half feet of leach line for every gallon of water disposed of per d'ay. If you need more, add more. See United Stand Privy Booklet for more details. When you're on a sewer and reusing the greywater by choice, thisJittle plumbing hookup from the-Farallones House is useful. When the valve is closed, all sewage goes directly into the sewer. When it's open, all drains into the greywater holding ta:nk unless it is full, in which case the water backs up and flows out the sewer. No toilets, please! - TB December 1977 RAIN Page 7 , ,.. . RESOURCES Rural Wastewater Disposal Alternatives, Sept., 197 7, free from: State Water Resources Conttol Board P.O. Box 100 , Sacramento,' CA 95801 • This is the OAT report. It's a bargain-free, too! THE best resource currently available on on-site sewage, compost toilets, greywater, current research, legislation, on-site management, educational programs- you name it. For the price, you get thrown in pit ·privy, Farallones privy, and drum privy plans and designs for several greywater systems. Highly recommended for anyone interested in real alternatives to central sewers. Grey Water Use in the Home Garden, 1977. 25f/ from: Fai.-allones Urban House 1516 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 A brief but concise booklet packed with practical answers to questions about possible hazards of greywater use in gardens and best methods for its use. Expansion of material excerpted in RAIN (April, 1977). A technical bulletin will be available next spring covering plumbing modifications and practical techniques for reusing wastewater. Above Ground Vse of Greywater, ($2); Drum P~ivy Guidelines, ($1.25), from: - · Peter Warshall Box 42, Elm Road Bolinas, CA 94924 The bureaucratic hurdles tQe OAT 1report had to go through held it up for six months, and there was some question if important parts would be omitted. Peter went ahead and revised his two papers and made them available separately. They're excellent summaries of the state of the art in both areas, with more ill'-;lstrations than the OAT report. Thanks, Peter. Small Scale Waste Management Project, Publications available from: 1 Agriculture Hall University of Wisconsin Madison, WI 53706 Detailed technical studies of bacterial and viral contents of wastewater, soil clogging, nutrient removal by soils, etc. Write for full publications listL Recent papers by Robert Siegrist (see Journal of Envir_onmental Health, July-Aug. 1977) conclude that elimination of the garbage grinder and toilet wastes could yield simplified wastewater treatment including surfac•e disposal and possibly outside reuse of the greywater as well as conserve water and return nutrients to the soil. \ Manua/-of Greywater Treatment Practice, J. T. Winneberger, 1974, $10 from: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc.· P.O. Box 1425 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 and Septic Tank Practices, Peter Warshall, 1976, $3 from: Box 42, Elm Road Bolinas, CA 94924 We've reviewed both these resources before (Rainbook, p. 194) _but both are valuable resources for any on-site sewage treatment design. Warshall focuses on small and simple systems, Winneberger on polh,ition content of greywa_ter and solid engineering data for typical hou'sehold application. ~ ~
Page 8 RAIN December 1977 It's easy to get wrapped up in the ingenuity and the "presence" of machinery and forget that focussed energy, self-discipline, community action, determination and good will can work wonders that no technology can accomplish. This chronicle the Zen Center sent us of their successful defense of the Tassajara Zen Mountain Center in the midst of the grea.t Big Sur fire this summer gave us a good reminder. These folks work wonders with people-energy on all levels. They also need financial help to recover from the $100,000 cost of fighting the fire. Ifyou can help, send a do.nation to the Tassajara Fire Fund, Zen Center, 300 Page St., San Francisco, > CA 94102. - TB The Tassajara Fire Saturday, August 6 5: 30 p. m. Roshi receives a call from the Assistant Fire Boss, who says the fire has escaped at Arroyo Seco, ."slopped over" onto the north side of Tassajara Creek, and burned 1,000 acres in 50 minutes directly toward Tassajara. He says we have to evacuate immediately and give up Tassajara. Baker-roshi says he himself is convinced that with the "blacklined" (burned out) area behind Tassajara there is now no danger of the oxygen burning out of the valley·and that the blacklined area is now a sufficient safety zone in case the fire comes into Tassajara too rapidly to handle. Sow~ elect to stay in Tassajara and fight the fire, not evacuate. The Fire Boss says all right: ON LISTS, GUIDES AND RESOURCE DIRECTORIES After doing RAIN and Rainbook for the past couple of years, I know h~w difficult it is to put together a resource listing that is useful to people. To me there are several signposts that now determine what makes me look twice (much less keep) any of the many attempts that come ·into the purple mail- >box at 2270 N.W. lrvi~g. 7: 00 p. m. BakeNoshi asks the USFS to send in at least one ranger, if possible Bob Crew, to advise us on the backfiring. First, l look for descriptions. If there is no attempt to evaluate and describe a group or a publication, the list isn't much good to me except as a mailing list once I've checked to see if there are any books or groups I haven't heard of. lt''s hard to imagine how it can be of any use at all to a beginner. "Where on earth do I start?" she says, scratching her head. A lot of people worry about putting their own value judgments down. Bt,.It if you don't t;ike ~he plunge there's just no way to know what's worth getting into and what is best left alone. I always check the opinions on a few of my own favorites when a new list comes _my way. If they pan my idols and praise my most hated things, then I know how to judge their 9pinions on resources that are unfamiliar to me. It doesn't matter if you disagree, but it really helps to have -some sort of handle to hang their value judgments on. Second, I look for humor and a personalized approach: It is very important to put material into a form that -
Shortly thereaft.er a California Division of Forestry (CDF) truck comes iri to evaluate our position. There has been a plan to send ih a tanker, but the CDF people think we can handle the fire ourselves without a tanker. At Jamesburg more handtools, hoses, goggles, helmets, headlamps, eyewash, etc. are still' arriving from San Francisco and being sent into Tassajara. One of the Forest Service people comes to talk to us at Jamesburg and we see written on the back of his map: "Tassajara-well disciplined, good liaison, calm." Sunday, August 7 2: 00 a. m. 13 people arrive at Jamesburg froin San Francisco. They bring more gas for the pumps, sleep for about an hour, and le.ave for Tassajara about 3: 15. Dr. Wenner kindly has left his prac.:tice for three days to join us at Tassajara during the fire so that in case of injury we·can have immediate access to expert help regardless of the condition of the road out of Tassajara.. • 9:00 a.m. Bob Crew, to our great relief, arr:ives at Tassajara. His truck driver is Sandy Sanderson. With Bob we study the whole defense system of, Tassajara. He has us cut scratch lines high up on the hills around th~ trees, herb gardens, and hillsides that we most want to-save. ·Backfiring would be done from these lines, and if the fire and winds do not effectively draw our backfire up the hill, we wou1d start another fire from the bottom of the hill below our scratchlin_es so that it would be drawn into the upper fire's. dr:aft and would then push both fires up toward the main fire c.omin,g down the mountain. Bob Crew gives detailed instru'ctions on safety procedures induding evacuation to the alre:rdy established blackline area south of the creek. We complete the majority of this work by evening. Bob is a wonderful, courageous person and a great firefigh. ter. Monday, August 8 . Midmorning: Four Forest Service cleanup crews of 20 people each come into Tassajara on their way up the stream to control the backfire slopovers. But the fire gets away from .them both upstream and downstream, so in the afternbon they return to Tassajara to wait until radio contact can be established with the USFS about where they are needed most. Now we all wait for the arrival of the fire which we can see coming in at us from three directions at once. Tuesday, August .9 . 10: 00 a. m. • Orders come through for the three Indian crews, Magdalena and Santa Domingo Pueblo No. 1 and No. 2, to leave. They hike downstream. One crew called Penasco No. 3 is left at Tassajara under Don Jordan and J. J. Dominguez, to act as a backup crew for us during the initial backfiring. (Later in the fire J. J. has part of his ear burnetj off and his crew have .the packs burned off their backs. They have to get leads to its effective use as inform<¼tion. Just reprinting a group's blurb on themselves is so boring I can never get past the first few. Graphics or at least an eye-pleasing layout is a plus too, as far · as I'm concerned. Just straight infor- ,mation to ~11 but the most addicted info-freak is hard on the eyes and the head. Third, I look for accuracy. There are always going to be a few mistakes. Names change, people move around, typesetters' fingers and proofreaders' eyes get crossed. But constant almostDecember 1977 RAIN Page 9 under their plastic reflective sheets to capture some air and let the fire pass over them_-.) People are now calling us the Tassajara Cool Shots..Eventually we became the Tassajara Long Shots. During one of the instructional meetings led by Bob Crew and Ted Marshall, our fire boss, about how to cut line, use a shovel,·and so forth, Bob's driver Sandy Sanderson sud- , denly stands up and recites a long·poem of his own about the cosmic and molecular significance of our most simple actions. Our spirit is up and ready for the fire. We continue Waiting. Hank Weston, one of the two CDF main fire bosses who had visited Tassajara the day before, reports to Jamesburg that Tassajara is adequately prepared. Evening: We spot the fire coming over the ridge's south of Tassajara. We divide into four fire crews under separate crew •bosses and divide Tassajara into four areas: downstream by the barn~, lower garden and cabins; upper garden, cabins and shop; propane tanks and gate house; central area from the zendo and hill cabins, store rooms, baths, upstream. A fifth, office and logistical crew, keeps careful accounts of where ~ach person is, awake or asleep. And, of course, there is the around-the-clock kitchen crew. {· 00 p. m. The fire appears in a sudden burst_over Flag Rock. As we all look in relief to finally see the enemy, Bob Crew, through wisdom or chance, looks the other way and sees,a dark column of smoke near the baths. We run over and find 'a burning log has slid down the hill and lit brush and grass all around one side of the bath. With shovels and hose we put out the first fire at Tassajara itself. A lookout from our own helispot upstream comes into camp to tell us the fire is also coming over the ridge upstream and onto the hogback. We watch the flames and wait. 3:30 p.m. When the fire is burning strongly on the hogback' and above the hill cabins, we start the backfires. Bob Crew suggests that Baker-roshi light the first backfire, and he lights small fires every 10,or 15 feet with the fuses: Within a few minutes the whole hill is aflame and creates its own wind strongly flap.ping our clothing toward the fire. A crew i~ left there to prevent slopovers and Baker-roshi and Bob Cre,w light fires from high up on the west.hill across from the shops along our fireline down the road at a point just beyond the gate. Our backfire burns up the entire vertical pasture to the •ma"in fire. Then Bob Crew and Ted Marshall start backfiring on th~ same hill in the other direction, up and around the hill. cabins where we fight the hardest against ·winds generated by the fires swirling around in that c_oncave section of the hill.· But with several hoses and many shovels the fire is contained beyond the scratchliries. Fire on the two faces of Flag Rock, above.the propane tanks and gate and above the cabins and lower garden, is edging down the hill but backburning itself out as it goes-hot material dropping down the hill and then burning back up the hill. With the coolness of evening the fire on Flag Rock subsides slowly and beautifully. but-not-quite-right names or too many addresses that are two or three years old put the reliability of the whole thing up to question. These are certainly not hard and fast rules- and there definitely is some value in a collection of resources that can serve as a mailing list. But I know how much work went into even a poorly put-together list, and it seems a shame not to have taken the very little bit more effort to make it truly worth everybody's time and effort. - LdeM
Page 10 RAIN December 1977 Pouring Money Down the Both Amory" Lovins and Charles Komanoff have done yeoman work in calmly showing nuclear-electric power to be uneconomic, unnecessary and undesirable, rather like the little boy at the parade who spoke the truth about the Emperor having no clothes, but they do it with ample references to the literature in support of cogent arguments. Amory's most recent useful item is "Epitaph for an Industry," a lovely piece on how the nuclear dinosaur is dying, and why we should hasten its demise, in the Nov. '77 issue of Not Man Apart. A complete version of his testimony on the same date to the same·congressional subc_ommittee as Komanoff is available from "Nuclear Blowdown," clo NMA, 124 Spear St.,.San Francisco, CA 94105. Chuck. is best known so far, and thanked by anti-nuclear intervenors, for his two very useful analyses of nuclear/coal economics and reliability, Power Plant Performance (1976) and Nuclear Plant Performance Update (1977). These technically-tight yet understandable handbooks are available from the Council on Economic Priorities, 84 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 1-0011. What you'll read below is his most recent analysis, done September 21, 1977, for the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources, , which asked him 'to testify as an expert on nuclear power costs. Charles, and Edward Kahn of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, are now working on wind-electric capacity factors and economics for the next revisions of Performance and Update, an idea which I suggested in the spring of 1977 would be extremely valuable to intervenors and their technical consultants in t~e many windy ,areas of the nation where power companies are still trying to .sell us the "peaceful" atom. If we can't stop the utilities from building power plants, then at the very least those new plants should be wind and solar rather than nuclear or coal. Please write to Chuck at Komanoff Enc:,rgy Associates, 545 Madison Ave., 9th Floor, New York, NY 10022, ifyou've got wind energy costs, reliability and capacity factor data to share. It'll help all of us out a lot. Thanks very much. - LJ NOTES TO TEXT 1. The calculation and supporting assumptions are in C. Komanoff, Rebuttal Testimony in Behalf of the County of Suffolk, In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company, Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Case 80003, before the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environmen~. August 30, 1977. Assumptions are: nuclear equivalent forced outage rate (EFOR) of 22.3 THECOSTSOFNUCLEARPOWER The economics of nuclear power,are bad and getting worse. In my judgment, no utility executive with an accurate perception of the costs of nuclear power and a sincere desire to minimize customer costs would propose ordering a new nuclear plant, with the possible exception of utilities in New England. Nuclear plants cost too much t'o build, relative to coal plants; and more unreliable and erratic in performance than coal plants; and are available only in large unit sizes unsuited to even the largest U.S. power gri9s. These problems more than cancel nuclear plants' fuel c;ost, advantage over coal-fired facilities. On an overall life-cycle cost basis, I believe that electricity from new nuclear plants will cost 22 percent more than electricity from new coal plants, averaged over the seven regions of the country. By region, nuclear's cost disadvantage ranges from 1 percent in the Northeast to 49 percent in the Mountain states and Pacific Northwest, as seen in Table 1: percent, on-peak scheduled outage rate (SOR) of 6 percent; coal EFOR of 14.9 percent and on-peak SOR of 3 percent. Of the 22 percent difference in capacity required (1800 Mw vs. 2300 Mw), 13 percent results from different outage rates and 9 percent from different unit sizes. The methodology was developed by E. P. Kahn, Lawrence Berkeley-Laboratory, Testimony before the New jersey Board of Public Utility Commissioners, Construction Hearings Dqcket No. 762-194, 1977. 2. I.C. Bupp et al, Trends in Light Water Capital Costs in the United States: Causes arid Consequences. Center for Policy Alternatives, MIT, CPA 74-~, December 18, 1974, and several. follow-up reports.by Bupp.
December 1977 RAIN Page 11 Nuclear Rathole Table 1: Excess Cost of Nuclear Power Relative to Coal Power, Estimated for New Plants Installed in 198 5, per kwh Region Northeast East North Central South Atlantic South Central West North Central Mountain & Pacific NW California Cost (in cents per kwh) Coal Nuclear 5.5¢ 5.6¢ 4.6 5.4 4.6 5.2 4.2 5.2 4.3 5.4 3 .6 5 .4 4.5 5.6 Excess Nuclear Cost 1% 18 11 23 25 49 25 Note: Breakdown of costs and geographical definitions are provided in Table 2, which is available from Komanoff Energy Associates at their address above. Percentages in last column were computed prior to rounding cost figures. Unfortunately, many people among the electric utilities, reactor manufacturers and federal energy agencies have not yet gotten the message of Table 1. They are blinded by the occasional reactor that meets its targeted capital cost or the rare plant that operates at or close to its design capacity. They fail to see that the golden age of nuclear economics-the period from roughly 1968 to 1975, when reactors were cheap to buy, cheaper still to run, and sometimes reliable to operateis over. Comparing mid-1980s-installation reactors with 1968197 5-installation reactors, capital costs and fuel costs have tripled (in constant dollars), and reactor performance is likely to fall as large, unwieldy reactors replace the smaller, less complex units which are easier to run. Coal costs have risen too, significantly, but not nearly as much as nuclear. Overall, I agree with Lovins and others who point to conservation and cogeneration as more effective investments than new central-station power plants, but if we are to have such plants, coal appears to be the more economic choice. The figures in Table 1 are not precise-they cannot be, in view of the uncertainties in coal, and especially nuclear costsbut they are probably good guesses of average power plant costs in particular regions. I offer them from the perspective of three years of full-time study of nuclear and coal generating costs, undertaken for the Council on Economic Priorities and as a consultant to the U.S. Congress and government agencies in seven states (New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Kentucky, New Mexico and California). 3. Newsday, "Nuclear Power Plant Cost Soars," by Mitchell Freedman, September 2, 1977, p. 6. 4. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Power Plant Capital Costs: Current Trends and Sensitivity to Economic Parameters, WASH-1345, October 1974. This report projects a 1981 capital cost of $571 per kw for twin 1150-Mw nuclear units at an average U.S. site. Adding 5 percent for single-unit station, adding 11.4 percent for ~maller Shoreham size using the AEC/ERDA 0.68-power nuclear scalmg formula, adding 5 percent for Northeast U.S., and deducting 6 percent for 1980 installation, the AEC figure of $571 per kw converts to a Shoreham estimate of $662 per kw. NUCLEAR AND COAL COST VARIABLES: A BRIEF DISCUSSION 1. Unit Sizes: The nuclear plants in my cost analysis are 1150megawatt units. This and slightly larger units are virtually the only size reactors available from U.S. vendors. In contrast, the typical reactor installed in 1970 was 600 Mw, and in 1974 800 Mw. Nuclear stations now under construction typically consist of two 1150-Mw units spaced a year or two apart, totalling 2300 megawatts. Coal plants are available in virtually any size, from 50 Mw to over 1000 Mw. Bigger plants appear to cost somewhat less per kilowatt, but are less reliable. My analysis assumes 600-Mw coal units, which can be installed with from one to four units at the same site. 2. System Reliability Parity: Utility cost planners compare alternatives with equal amounts of megawatts. Thus, "the alternative" to 2300 Mw of nuclear capacity is considered to be 2300 Mw of coal capacity. This is fallacious. Expansion of a typical utility system by 1800 Mw of coal capacity (three 690-Mw units) would achieve the same overall system reliability as would result from expansion by 2300 Mw of nuclear capacity (two 1150-Mw units). This is the result of a precise calculation which takes into account the effect of the sizes and reliabilities of individual generating units on the required amount of reserve capacity .1 The amount of required reserve decreases when units are smaller, since the number of separate plant failures necessary to exhaust the available reserve increases as unit sizes decrease. Moreover, the smaller coal units are individually more reliable than the larger nuclear units. The result is that 1800 Mw installed in three coal units is the reliability equivalent of 2300 Mw of nuclear in two units. These are the stations compared in my analysis. 3. Capital Costs: The definitive Harvard-MIT study of power plant construction costs found that nuclear costs, already higher than coal's in 1971, were increasing two to three times faster than coal costs for reactors completed and under construction during 1971-1981.2 Nuclear plants not only require more material and labor than equivalent coal plants-they are subject to greater regulatory-mandated design changes, require more potentially scarce specialized labor, and consume more expensive engineering talent. 5. Nuclear cost based on general literature survey. Coal cost assumes coal units costing 70 percent as much as twin nuclear units at 1150Mw, adding 16.1 percent to coal unit cost for their 600-Mw size using the AEC/ERDA 0.77-power coal scaling formula, and deducting 2-1/2 percent for duplication of third coal unit. 70 percent coal-nuclear c?st ratio is less than AEC's 82 percent (WASH-1345) but more than ratio from extrapolating Bupp's regressions to mid-1980s. 6. C. Komanoff, Power Plant Performance: Nuclear and Coal Capacity Factors and Economics, November 1976, and C. Komanoff and N. A. Boxer, Nuclear Plant Performance Update, May 1977, both from Council on Economic Priorities, New York, NY.
Page 12 RAIN December 1977 Reactor costs are still exceeding utilities' upwardly revised estimates. A case in point is the Long Island Lighting Company's Shoreham reactor. Shoreham received its AEC construction permit in early 1973, thus seeming to clear the way for speedy construction by 1978. Yet almost annually, Lilco pushes back the projected completion date and pushes up the estimated cost. The next revision, due November 1 according to a recent article in Newsday,3 will increase last year's estimate of $969 million (for May 1979 completion) by 20 percent (for fall 1980 finish). The resulting $1416 per installed kw cost (based on the plant's 821 Mw capacity) will make Shoreham the most expensive co~mercial power plant ever buih. For comparison, the last (and still current) AEC capital cost study projected $662/kw for plants of Shoreham's size4 -less than half the cost now projected. Shoreham looks to be an extreme case, but the cost-overrun disease is real. In big round numbers, $1200/kw for twin nuclear 1150-Mw units, and $950/kw for 600-Mw coal units with scrubbers, look like reasonable national averages for 1985.5 Northeast plants would cost 5 percent more, South Atlantic and South Central plants 5 percent less, due to labor cost variation; California plants would cost 5 percent more due to stricter safety and environmental standards. 4. Fixed Charge Rate: This refers to the cost of capital, local taxes and federal taxes which determine the annual "fixed charges" the utility pays as a percentage of plant capital costs. Taxes are usually marginally less for nuclear than coal, due principally to accelerated depreciation permitted for nuclear, but nuclear marginal cost of capital may be considerably higher due to greater financing requirement and greater perceived risk. A reasonable assumption is 16 percent fixed charge rate, for both nuclear and coal (about 11 percent cost of capital and 5 percent taxes). 5. Capacity Factor: A power plant's actual kilowatt-hour production as a percentage of its maximum possible output, based on design capacity, is its capacity factor. A 7 5 percent capacity factor means a plant operating at full capacity 75 percent of the time (and shut down otherwise) or operating at 75 percent of capacity all of the time, or some combination. Utilities seek to maximize capacity factors of new nuclear and coal plants, especially nuclear, to minimize fixed costs per unit of output. 7. Coal capacity factors of 69 percent in Central States, 71 percent in Atlantic States and 7 3 percent in West are based on 197 5 average sulfur content of coals burned in regions (2.5 percent, under 2 percent and under 1 percent, respectively), from Reference 10. 8. Nucleonics Week, July 21, 1977, p. 1. 9. 1.1¢/kwh nuclear fuel cost assumes $60/lb. uranium, $120-$140/ SWU enrichment, no recycle, and only a 5 percent penalty for below design heat rate and burnup. Model used is from "1984 Steady-State Fuel Cycle Cost for PWR," Exhibit 10 in lecture by Prof. Michael Utilities and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff facilely assume equal coal and nuclear capacity factors in their economic analyses, previously assuming 80 percent, now 75 percent or 70 percent, or, in a few cases, 65 percent. Yet plant reliability is a greater problem for nuclear units, especially with new ones sized twice as large as coal units. All power plants, especially nuclear, suffer more frequent and longer breakdowns at larger sizes. Radiation and safety considerations often limit reactor output and complicate repairs. Through 1976, nuclear plants have averaged 64 percent capacity factor at units under 800 Mw, but only 50 percent at units over 800 Mw. Capacity factors vary widely for existing plants, especially nuclear, and will likely do so for new units. I think 55 percent is a reasonable average capacity factor to project for 1150-Mw nuclear units, and 70 percent for 600-Mw coal units with scrubbers. These projections are based on my two-year study of nuclear and coal power plant capacity factors and reliability, the original data base of which was bought by the Federal Energy Administration. That study cut through utility and FEA/ ERDA rhetoric to demonstrate that: capacity factors fall as plant size rises, especially for nuclear; aging improves capacity factors for coal (up to age 10) but for only one of the two U.S. nuclear plant designs; "duplicate" coal units have higher capacity factors, but duplicate nuclear units perform no better than other nuclear units; coal capacity factors rise as coal sulfur content falls, etc.6 Driscoll, July 22, 1976, MIT Summer Course, "Principles of Nuclear Fuel and Power Management." 10. Federal Power Commission, Annual Summary of Cost and Quality of Steam-Electric Plant Fuels, 1975, May 1976. 11. See J. Papamarcos, "Stack Gas Cleanup," Power Engineering, June 1977. 12. E. Kessig, Testimony for New York Power Pool, NY PSC Case 26974, Comparative Economics of Nuclear and Fossil Generation, December 1976. Kessig's costs are $20.4 million per year for twin
The correlations are richer than this summary suggesrs. Based on them, 1150-Mw nuclear units should have 50 percent capacity factors, but a 5 percent allowance for design and operating improvements seems reasonable, giving 55 percent. For coal, the correlations yield 70 percent for 600-Mw units burning 2 percent-sulfur (medium-grade) coal with scrubbers.7 No addition is made for this figure, despite potential improvements. A nuclear plant with a 55 percent capacity factor makes electricity at a 22-29 percent higher cost than at the industryassumed 70-7 5 percent capacity factor. Through 1976, only 6 of the 48 commercial U.S. reactors were averaging 70 percent or better capacity factor, as seen in capacity factor tables from Reference 6, attached to testimony. Utility insistence that all nuclear plants will run at the high capacity factors achieved by just a few units is a major factor in overstating the economics of nuclear power. 6. Fuel Costs: This is the area where nuclear has an edge over coal (outside of the Mountain states), but the advantage has been diminishing as an accurate appraisal emerges of the nuclear fuel cycle. Nucleonics Week reported recently that U.S. uranium sellers are not accepting current high utility bids for as much as $45 per pound in 1977 dollars, i.e., with escalation, vs. $8/16. only three years ago.8 Uranium now accounts for over half of nuclear fuel cycle costs. Meanwhile, plutonium recycle is politically dead, and nuclear fuel produces significantly fewer kwh's than utilities project for new plants, due to premature refueling forced by fuel failure and erratic plant performance, and to poorer than anticipated thermal performance. A 1985 nuclear fuel cost of 1.1¢ per kwh is supported in the notes.9 Coal mine and transportation costs are sensitive to mining region and plant site. The nuclear fuel cost of 1.1¢/kwh projected for 1985 is equivalent to Eastern (high-grade) coal at $27.50/ton, Midwest (medium-grade) coal at $25/ton and Western (low-grade) coal at $19.50/ton. Current coal prices are generally within the range of these figures (lower in the West), but coal prices will of course rise between now and 1985. For estimating 1985 coal prices in this analysis, I have taken average delivered coal costs by region for 197 5 (last year of FPC data available),10 increased this ~y 25 percent for a one-time increase attributable to new mme costs (50 percent in West North Central and 75 p~rcent_ in ~ountain States, due to anticipated state and Indian stnp-mme severance taxes and royalties), and escalated by 6 percent per year through 1980 and 5 percent per year through 1985. California costs assume mining in Mountain States plus $13/ton transportation in 1985 (8500 BTU/lb. coal). A life-cycle cost analysis should incorporate the effect of post-1985 fuel cost escalation. Equal escalation rates for nuclear and coal fuel would imply a widening of the 1985 nuclear fuel cost advantage (except in the Mountain States, December 1977 RAIN Page 13 where coal is projected cheaper). However, I believe nuclear fuel is likely to suffer greater escalation, due to the smaller size of uranium reserves (relative to coal) and the politicization of the nuclear fuel cycle, which increases uncertainty, adding to the market power of suppliers. Exclusion of post1985 fuel cost escalation from this analysis, for simplicity, probably works to the advantage of nuclear costs, except in the Northeast, where the 1985 nuclear fuel cost advantage is very large (1.6¢/kwh) and likely to widen slightly. 7. Operating and Maintenance Costs: O&M costs include all non-fuel operating expenses: water treatment, ash and sludge disposal and limestone feed for coal scrubbers, nuclear radwaste treatment, maintenance and repair, spare parts inventory, etc. They typically account for only about 5 percent of all annualized costs, though some analysts have attempted to attribute coal scrubbing O&M costs 3-4 times nuclear O&M. Actual experience with coal scrubbers, such as at the Kansas City Power & Light La Cygne station,l 1 suggests only modestly greater per kw O&M costs for coal, despite scrubbers, than for nuclear. My costs here use a detailed analysis by the New York Power Pool,12 and assume 55 percent capacity factor for nuclear, 69-7 3 percent for coal, depending on coal grade. 8. Costs Excluded from the Analysis: In brief, this analysis makes no provision for potentially expensive reactor decommissioning following useful life; assumes equal lives for nuclear and coal plants despite evidence of reactor performance deterioration in the few reactors older than age ten; and includes only a small allowance for nuclear waste disposal (about 0.15¢/kwh in 1985) which may substantially understate actual costs. These omissions, made because the ultimate costs are unknowable at present, improve the appearance of nuclear economics. - Charles Komanoff ■-----------------------------------------.w 1260-Mw nuclear units in 1976 dollars, assuming 65 percent capacity factor. Variable costs, accounting for about 8.7 percent of total, are prorated downward for 55 percent capacity factor. All costs are reduced by 6 percent for 1150-Mw size, using AEC/ERDA scaling rule. Costs are then escalated at 6 percent per year to 1985. Coal costs are given as $25.9 million per year for three 840-Mw coal units with scrubbers (3 percent-sulfur coal), also 197 6 and 65 percent capacity factor. Limestone costs are 34 percent of total, other variable costs are 5 percent, and fixed costs are 61 percent. Limestone costs are linearly proportional to sulfur content per btu, and so have been prorated commensurate with roughly 2-1/2 percent-sulfur coal (corrected for btu differences from Kessig's assumed 3 percent-sulfur coal) in all "Central" regions, 2 percent in Northeast and South Atlantic, and 1 percent in West. All variable costs including limestone were then prorated for 69-7 3 percent capacity factor from Kessig's 65 percent. Finally, all coal O&M costs were reduced 22.8 percent based on three 600-Mw instead of 840-Mw units, using AEC/ERDA scaling ratio, and then escalated 6 percent per year to 1985. . Regional differences were ignored in O&M calculations due to small dollar quantities involved, though Kessig's New York-based limestone costs may be high for other regions, and other O&M costs may be higher as well.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz