Xcel demand down, down, down

September 28th, 2014


I’ve been saying this for so many years, that electric demand is down, down, down, and instead, Xcel Energy (and all the others) have been saying it’s going UP, UP, UP (even though Mikey Bull said years ago that they wouldn’t need power for a while), and they’re applying for and getting Certificates of Need for all these permits for utility infrastructure that are obviously designed to market and sell the surplus, and the Public Utilities pretends to be oblivious (I say “pretends” because I cannot believe they’re that unaware and uninformed.).

This is a must read:

Xcel Compliance Filing_CN-13-606_20149-103251-02

Here’s the short version from Xcel:


2024 is expected to be about what it was back in 2007, the industry peak year.  DOH!  But note this — there’s a “small capacity surplus in 2016.”  DOH!

And given the surplus which we’ve known has been present and looming larger, that’s why they then ask for withdrawal of the Certificate of Need for the Prairie Island uprate because it isn’t needed (and really, that was just what, 80 MW or so?  Or 80 MW x 2 reactors, 160 MW?).  If they don’t need that small uprate, why on earth would they need so much more?


But what do I know…

Hollydale Transmission Line was clearly not needed, and they withdrew that application…

CapX 2020 transmission was based on a 2.49% annual increase in demand, and for Hampton-La Crosse in part supposedly based on Rochester and La Crosse demand numbers, yeah right, we know better, but that was their party line.  Again, DOH, it didn’t add up to needing a big honkin’ 345 kV transmission line stretching from the coal plants in the Dakotas to Madison and further east, but who cares, let’s just build it…

ITC MN/IA 345 kV line — the state said the 161 kV should be sufficient to address transmission deficiencies in the area, but noooooo, DOH, that wouldn’t address the “need” for bulk power transfer (the real desire for the line).

Here’s a bigger picture of the bottom line (I’m accepting this as a more accurate depiction, not necessarily the TRUTH, but close enough for electricity), keeping in mind that these are PROJECTIONS, and that they’re adding a “Coincident Peak adjustment” which should be included in the “peak” calculations):

Xcel Resource Need Assessment 2014

Notice the only slight reduction in coal capacity, just 19 MW, nuclear stays the same, a 320 MW decrease in gas, a 128 MW reduction in Wind, Hydro, Biomass, which I hope includes garbage burners and the Benson turkey shit plant , slight increase in solar of 18 MW, and Load Management also a slight increase of only 80 MW.  This is Xcel Energy with its business as usual plan, which has to go.  We can do it different, and now is the time.

Will someone explain why we paid so much to uprate Monticello, and paid to rebuild Sherco 3?


From the archives:

500+ give LS Power a piece of their mind

October 20th, 2009

2012 NERC Long Term Reliability Assessment

May 7th, 2013

PJM Demand is DOWN!

November 15th, 2012

Prairie Island nuclear plant

While cruising the MISO queue for wind projects in Illinois, this popped up, new MISO Queue numbers J371 and J372, 3,664 MW filed near the end of June.  Oh my…


But I don’t think it’s what it looks like.  I think they’re planning to shut them down.  There’s been a lot of buzz about it, they auctioned off the power… but didn’t, big FAIL, hence the buzz.  ???  They’re due for a report out in August, will keep an eye on the queue.


New nuclear plant in Utah???

March 16th, 2014


Whoa! Looks like I’ve been paying attention to transmission in the Midwest.

Blue Castle Holdings: Nuclear power proposal along the Green River in Utah

This caught my attention as part of a transmission deal, see Salt Lake Tribune article below — this nuclear power plant was proposed quite a while ago, but my take is that it isn’t exactly going anywhere. 

My concern is that it just might sneak through anyway.  Why?  Because they’re making allowances for connection to the grid, and the state is caving in this “compromise” that’s not in the public interest:

Transmission line fight ends in compromise

TransWest had said it planned to build one near Delta at some point, but that assurance wasn’t enough for Utah power companies like Blue Castle Holdings, which is laying the groundwork for the state’s first commercial nuclear plant near Green River, and some solar companies.

What’s this nuclear power plant?  It’s the Blue Castle Project, planning a

“Clean energy resources…” — how dare they say this, given nuclear history in Utah. And yet, last November, they won a challenge and can take water out of the Green River, a major tributary to the Colorado River:

Here’s the judge’s decision — the opinion shows his misunderstandings about nuclear power and electric economics:

Decision regarding water access and use by nuclear power plant

Read this Blue Castle press release about an MOU where it’s claimed:

Page Electric Utility (PEU) provides electricity services as a municipal electric utility in Page, Arizona and the surrounding area.  By 2019-2020 PEU projects that it cold need as much as an additional 30 MW of base load electric resources.

30 MW as a justification for a NUCLEAR PLANT?  Yup, they’re nuts, this proves it!


Today in the mail, I got the annual Prairie Island nuclear calendar, above, with notice of the exciting “NEW Xcel Energy Nuclear Planning App” available at “Google play.”  Gee, I feel so much safer now.

Also today, thanks to the internet, I learned that the Fukushima Diiachi nuclear plant is exploding, again, underground… as a friend noted, time to kiss our collective ass goodbye.

It’s everywhere, just like the radioactivity emitting from the plant.  Just GOOGLE IT!

Anyway, to make a dreadful story short, on December 31, 2013, there were two explosions, one a 5.1 magnitude explosion, followed by a 3.6 magnitude explosion.

Underground Nuclear Explosion At Crippled Nuclear Plant Shocks World (take with a grain or two of salt!)

Steam Rises from Fukushima reactor, cause still unknown

Homeless recruited to clean up Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility and surrounding area



The transcript from last week’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission meeting-not-hearing regarding the Nuclear Waste Confidence GEIS and Rulemaking (click HERE for that NRC page) is out:


Comments are being solicited on the proposed rule (at the very end of the Federal Register notice below) and the Generic Environmental Impact Statement:

Nuclear Waste Confidence Rule_Proposed

Nuclear Waste GEIS

Once more with feeling, comments are due soon, so get cracking!  Send comments by December 20, 2013:

• Email comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301–415–1677.

And check out these ditties that I put into the record.  My nuclear stuff is all over at the other house, and it’s been so long that I can’t remember all that I’ve forgotten, so much about casks, and it’s really offensive that nearly 20 years later we’re still having to dredge up all the info about how it’s just not reasonable to think we can store it safely for any length of time, much less 100 years on-site, in “temporary” storage, or tens of thousands of years…

Premature Degradation of Spent Fuel Storage Cask Structures and Components from Environmental Moisture

INEL “unloads” TN-24P – stuck

Creep & Crud of Nuclear Waste Storage