DOCSLIB.ORG

Energy White Paper Perspectives on Water Supply Energy Use

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Energy White Paper Perspectives on Water Supply Energy Use Energy White Paper Perspectives on Water Supply Energy Use City of Santa Cruz & Soquel Creek Water District scwd2 Desalination Program Prepared by: April 2011 Table of Contents Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... ii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. iv List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ iv List of Appendices ..................................................................................................................... iv Section 1: Executive Summary and Background ......................................... 1 1.1 Executive Summary .............................................................................. 1 1.2 Background .......................................................................................... 2 1.3 Current Water Supply Portfolios ............................................................ 2 1.3.1 SCWD Water Supply Portfolio ................................................... 2 1.3.2 SqCWD Water Supply Portfolio ................................................. 3 Section 2: Energy and Our Current Water Supply ........................................ 4 2.1 What is Energy? ................................................................................... 4 2.2 Our Society is Fundamentally Reliant on Energy .................................. 5 2.3 Our Current Water Supplies Require Energy ........................................ 6 2.3.1 SCWD Water Supply Energy Requirements .............................. 6 2.3.2 SqCWD Water Supply Energy Requirements ............................ 7 2.4 Typical Residential Energy Use Including Water Supply ....................... 8 Section 3: Desalination Energy Requirements ........................................... 12 3.1 The Seawater Desalination Process ................................................... 12 3.1.1 Seawater Desalination Has Become More Energy Efficient ................................................................................... 13 3.2 Energy Use of Proposed Desalination Facility .................................... 14 Section 4: Putting Desalination Energy into Perspective .......................... 15 4.1 Desalination Energy Compared to Typical Santa Cruz Area Energy Uses ....................................................................................... 15 4.2 Water Supply Energy with Supplemental Desalination ........................ 16 4.2.1 SCWD Water Supply Energy with Supplemental Desalination ............................................................................ 16 4.2.2 SqCWD Water Supply Energy with Supplemental Desalination ............................................................................ 17 4.3 Desalination Energy Compared to Typical Household Energy Uses ................................................................................................... 17 ii Energy White Paper, Perspectives on Water Supply Energy Use Table of Contents (cont'd) Section 5: Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Study .......................................................................................... 19 5.1 GHG Regulatory Guidelines ............................................................... 19 5.1.1 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .......................... 19 5.1.2 California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) .................... 20 5.1.3 California Coastal Commission and the California Coastal Act ............................................................................. 21 5.1.4 Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary ............................... 21 5.2 Projected scwd2 Indirect GHG Emissions ........................................... 21 5.3 Putting Desalination GHG Emissions into Perspective ....................... 22 5.4 Investigating Renewable Energy and GHG Reduction Options .......... 23 References ............................................................................................................................... 24 Energy White Paper, Perspectives on Water Supply Energy Use iii List of Tables Table 2-1 Estimated SCWD Residential Annual Energy Consumption by End Use ............ 9 Table 2-2 Estimated SqCWD Residential Annual Energy Consumption by End Use ......... 10 Table 3-1 Conceptual Range of Energy Requirements of the Project ................................ 14 List of Figures Figure 2-1 PG&E 2009 Power Mix ........................................................................................ 5 Figure 2-2 SCWD Graham Hill WTP ..................................................................................... 7 Figure 2-3 SqCWD Groundwater Pump ................................................................................ 8 Figure 2-4 Typical Santa Cruz Area Residential Energy Use Including Water Supply ........... 9 Figure 2-5 Estimated SCWD Residential Annual Energy Use ............................................. 10 Figure 2-6 Current SqCWD Residential Energy End Uses .................................................. 11 Figure 3-1 Desalination Plant in Pleasanton, CA ................................................................ 12 Figure 3-2 Typical Desalination Process ............................................................................. 13 Figure 3-3 Energy Consumption by the RO Desalination Process ...................................... 14 Figure 4-1 Desalination Energy Use Relative to Santa Cruz Area Demands ....................... 15 Figure 4-2 SCWD Residential Annual Energy Consumption with Supplemental Desalination Water Supply ..................................................................................................... 16 Figure 4-3 SqCWD Residential Annual Energy Consumption with Supplemental Desalination Water Supply ................................................................................. 17 Figure 4-4 scwd2 Household Desalination Water Supply Energy Equivalents ..................... 18 Figure 5-1 Categories of GHG Emissions ........................................................................... 20 List of Appendices Appendix A: Units, Conversion Factors, and Calculations...................................................... 26 iv Energy White Paper, Perspectives on Water Supply Energy Use Section 1: Executive Summary and Background 1.1 Executive Summary The City of Santa Cruz Water Department (SCWD) and Soquel Creek Water District (SqCWD), partnering together as scwd2, are evaluating seawater desalination as a supplemental source to their current water supply portfolios. The energy requirement of seawater desalination is among the key issues in the evaluation of the proposed scwd2 Regional Seawater Desalination Project (Project). scwd2 is committed to thoroughly studying the potential energy use of the scwd2 Regional Seawater Desalination Project (Project). A desalination facility uses electricity from the power grid, similar to a home or business. scwd2 is conducting the Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Study to ensure that the most advanced and energy efficient technologies and approaches are identified and incorporated into the proposed Project and to inform the Project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The study will also explore renewable energy options (such as photovoltaic solar systems, third party providers, etc.) to offset power requirements of the Project. This paper serves as a preface to the scwd2 Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Study. This paper will describe the energy requirements of traditional water supplies with those of the Project (which includes the water treatment facility as well as the related intake, pump stations, etc.), and compare the respective energy uses to typical energy requirements for a household. This comparison will put the energy requirements for desalination into broader perspective. The proposed scwd2 Seawater Desalination Project, running at full capacity year-round would have a peak demand of 1.6 MW and require about 13,700 MWh of energy annually. In a typical, non-drought year, the facility is expected to run at half capacity and thereby require approximately 0.8 MW or about 6,800 MWh annually. This is a small to moderate amount of energy compared to other demands in our society. The desalination plant would use energy similar to a small manufacturing facility or mid-sized hospital. The energy required to produce water from traditional supplies (such as surface water and groundwater) for customers served by the City of Santa Cruz or Soquel Creek Water District is approximately 0.5 to 0.7 “…because desalinated water would be used percent of a household’s total energy only to supplement existing water supplies usage. While the process of desalination the energy required to deliver water would requires more energy than a typical become approximately 1 to 2.3 percent of the water supply, because desalinated water would be used only to supplement total energy used in a typical household.” existing water supplies, the energy required to deliver water would become approximately 1 to 2.3 percent of the total energy used in a typical household. Although the water supply energy could increase by 2 to 3 times with desalination, the energy use is still only a small percentage of the energy we use in our households every day. Energy
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Board-Approved 2013-2014 Transmission Plan
    2013-2014 ISO Transmission Plan March 25, 2014 APPENDIX A: System Data California ISO/MID A-1 2013-2014 ISO Transmission Plan March 25, 2014 A1 Existing Generation Table A1-1: Existing generation plants in PG&E planning area Planning Area Generating Plant Maximum Capacity Humboldt Bay 166 Kekawaka 4.9 Pacific Lumber 32.5 PG&E - LP Samoa 25 Humboldt Fairhaven 17.3 Blue Lake 12 Humboldt Area Total 258 Santa Fe 160 Bear Canyon 20 Westford Flat 30 Western Geo 38 Geysers 5 53 Geysers 6 53 PG&E - North Coast and Geysers 7 53 North Bay Geysers 8 53 Geysers 11 106 Geysers 12 106 Geysers 13 133 Geysers 14 109 Geysers 16 118 California ISO/MID A-2 2013-2014 ISO Transmission Plan March 25, 2014 Planning Area Generating Plant Maximum Capacity Geysers 17 118 Geysers 18 118 Geysers 20 118 Bottle Rock 55 SMUD Geo 72 Potter Valley 11 Geo Energy 20 Indian Valley 3 Sonoma Landfill 6 Exxon 54 Monticello 12 North Coast and North Bay Area Total 1,619 Pit River 752 Battle Creek 17 Cow Creek 5 North Feather River 736 South Feather River 123 PG&E - West Feather River 26 North Valley Black Butte 11 CPV 717 Hatchet Ridge Wind 103 QFs 353 North Valley Area Total 2,843 California ISO/MID A-3 2013-2014 ISO Transmission Plan March 25, 2014 Planning Area Generating Plant Maximum Capacity Wadham 27 Woodland Biomass 25 UC Davis Co-Gen 4 Cal-Peak Vaca Dixon 49 Wolfskill Energy Center 60 Lambie, Creed and Goosehaven 143 EnXco 60 Solano 100 High Winds 200 Shiloh 300 Bowman Power House 4 PG&E - Camp Far West (SMUD) 7 Central Valley Chicago Park Power House 40 Chili Bar Power House 7 Colgate Power House 294 Deer Creek Power House 6 Drum Power House 104 Dutch Plat Power House 49 El Dorado Power House 20 Feather River Energy Center 50 French Meadow Power House 17 Green Leaf No.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX A: System Data
    2012-2013 ISO Transmission Plan March 20, 2013 APPENDIX A: System Data California ISO/MID A-1 2012-2013 ISO Transmission Plan March 20, 2013 A1 Existing Generation Table A1-1: Existing generation plants in PG&E planning area Planning Area Generating Plant Maximum Capacity Humboldt Bay 166 Kekawaka 4.9 Pacific Lumber 32.5 PG&E - LP Samoa 25 Humboldt Fairhaven 17.3 Blue Lake 12 Humboldt Area Total 258 Santa Fe 160 Bear Canyon 20 Westford Flat 30 Western Geo 38 Geysers 5 53 Geysers 6 53 PG&E - North Coast and Geysers 7 53 North Bay Geysers 8 53 Geysers 11 106 Geysers 12 106 Geysers 13 133 Geysers 14 109 Geysers 16 118 California ISO/MID A-2 2012-2013 ISO Transmission Plan March 20, 2013 Planning Area Generating Plant Maximum Capacity Geysers 17 118 Geysers 18 118 Geysers 20 118 Bottle Rock 55 SMUD Geo 72 Potter Valley 11 Geo Energy 20 Indian Valley 3 Sonoma Landfill 6 Exxon 54 Monticello 12 North Coast and North Bay Area Total 1,619 Pit River 752 Battle Creek 17 Cow Creek 5 North Feather River 736 South Feather River 123 PG&E - West Feather River 26 North Valley Black Butte 11 CPV 717 Hatchet Ridge Wind 103 QFs 353 North Valley Area Total 2,843 California ISO/MID A-3 2012-2013 ISO Transmission Plan March 20, 2013 Planning Area Generating Plant Maximum Capacity Wadham 27 Woodland Biomass 25 UC Davis Co-Gen 4 Cal-Peak Vaca Dixon 49 Wolfskill Energy Cener 60 Lambie, Creed and Goosehaven 143 EnXco 60 Solano 100 High Winds 200 Shiloh 300 Bowman Power House 4 PG&E - Camp Far West (SMUD) 7 Central Valley Chicago Park Power House 40 Chili Bar Power House 7 Colgate Power House 294 Deer Creek Power House 6 Drum Power House 104 Dutch Plat Power House 49 El Dorado Power House 20 Feather River Energy Center 50 French Meadow Power House 17 Green Leaf No.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Photovoltaic Plus Storage
    Photovoltaic plus Storage – Part 2, Projects By John Benson February 2019 1. Introduction Part 2 will describe recent major U.S. PV and storage projects and some new twists on residential PV plus storage. Part 1 of this paper (linked below) is on new technologies for utility-scale PV, utility-scale storage and PV plus storage systems, and the evolution of missions. https://www.energycentral.com/c/cp/photovoltaic-plus-storage-%E2%80%93-part-1- technology 2. Projects The projects described below include PV plus storage, PV-only and storage only. 2.1. Arizona Public Service and First Solar A 65 megawatt (MW) project is making news by coupling PV with battery energy storage systems (BESS), a first for utility Arizona Public Service, which solicited proposals in 2017 for generation sources to provide electricity during peak demand hours.1 The solar-plus-storage bid beat out other generation sources, including multiple proposals for natural gas plants. The utility has an agreement with an existing natural gas-fired plant for a total of 570 MW for the summers of 2020 through 2026. A dramatic drop in the cost of BESS, driven in large part by an increase in lithium-ion battery production to satisfy growing demand for electric vehicles allows a PV + storage project to be competitive with gas peakers plus offer more capabilities. Storage is capable of providing services like frequency regulation, which maintains the grid’s electric frequency on a second-to-second basis, and reactive power support, which supports the voltage that must be controlled for grid reliability.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Annual Sustainability Report CONTENTS
    2018 Annual Sustainability Report CONTENTS Our People ..................................................................................................2 Environmental Sustainability ...............................................................6 Our Products............................................................................................. 11 Our Governance ......................................................................................14 Our Headquarters and Regional Offices ....................................... 17 United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals ...................... 18 Our Possibilities ...................................................................................... 19 Vistra Energy Power Plants* Natural Gas Coal Nuclear Solar / Batteries Oil Batteries (under development) Retail Operations Plant Operations Retail and Plant Operations Regional Office Company Headquarters *Note: Does not include plants previously announced to be retired. CEO’S MESSAGE As an integrated energy company, Vistra Energy operates an innovative, customer-centric retail business and a generation fleet focused on safely, reliably, and efficiently generating power in the communities we serve. Electricity is an irreplaceable product that is critical to everyday life, whether it be for residences or businesses. We understand and take very seriously our role to provide cost-effective, reliable power to our customers and help fuel the economy. We also understand and take very seriously that our business has an environmental footprint.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C to California’S Proposed Compliance Plan for the Federal Clean Power Plan: Target Recalculation Calculations
    Appendix C to California’s Proposed Compliance Plan for the Federal Clean Power Plan: Target Recalculation Calculations Prime Nameplate Generator mover Capacity Summer ARB Updated List EPA Original Plant Name Operator Name ORIS Code ID Fuel type type (MW) Capacity (MW) EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Rollins Nevada Irrigation District 34 1P WAT HY 12.1 12.1 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Venice Metropolitan Water District 72 1 WAT HY 10.1 10.1 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE J S Eastwood Southern California Edison Co 104 1 WAT PS 199.8 199.8 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE McClure Modesto Irrigation District 151 1 DFO GT 71.2 56.0 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE McClure Modesto Irrigation District 151 2 DFO GT 71.2 56.0 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Turlock Lake Turlock Irrigation District 161 1 WAT HY 1.1 1.1 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Turlock Lake Turlock Irrigation District 161 2 WAT HY 1.1 1.1 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Turlock Lake Turlock Irrigation District 161 3 WAT HY 1.1 1.1 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Hickman Turlock Irrigation District 162 1 WAT HY 0.5 0.5 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Hickman Turlock Irrigation District 162 2 WAT HY 0.5 0.5 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Volta 2 Pacific Gas & Electric Co 180 1 WAT HY 1.0 0.9 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Alta Powerhouse Pacific Gas & Electric Co 214 1 WAT HY 1.0 1.0 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Alta Powerhouse Pacific Gas & Electric Co 214 2 WAT HY 1.0 1.0 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Angels Utica Power Authority 215 1 WAT HY 1.4 1.0 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Balch 1 Pacific Gas & Electric Co 217 1 WAT HY 31.0 31.0 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Balch 2 Pacific Gas & Electric Co 218 2 WAT HY 48.6 52.0 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE Balch 2 Pacific Gas & Electric Co 218 3 WAT HY 48.6 55.0 EXCLUDE EXCLUDE
    [Show full text]
  • California ISO Planning Standards
    FILED 03/27/19 04:59 PM A1903026 California ISO Planning Standards June 23, 2011 1 1 / 226 Table of Contents I. Introduction II. ISO Planning Standards 1. Applicability of NERC Reliability Standards to Low Voltage Facilities under ISO Operational Control 2. Combined Line and Generator Outage Standard 3. Voltage Standard 4. Specific Nuclear Unit Standards 5. Loss of Combined Cycle Power Plant Module as a Single Generator Outage 6. Planning for New Transmission versus Involuntary Load Interruption Standard III. ISO Planning Guidelines 1. New Special Protection Systems IV. Combined Line and Generator Unit Outage Standards Supporting Information V. Loss of Combined Cycle Power Plant Module as a Single Generator Outage Standard Supporting Information VI. Background behind Planning for New Transmission versus Involuntary Load Interruption Standard VII. Interpretations of Terms from the NERC Reliability Standards and WECC Regional Criteria 2 2 / 226 I. Introduction The California ISO (ISO) tariff provides for the establishment of planning guidelines and standards above those established by NERC and WECC to ensure the secure and reliable operation of the ISO controlled grid. The primary guiding principle of these Planning Standards is to develop consistent reliability standards for the ISO grid that will maintain or improve transmission system reliability to a level appropriate for the California system. These ISO Planning Standards are not intended to duplicate the NERC and WECC reliability standards, but to complement them where it is in the best interests of the security and reliability of the ISO controlled grid. The ISO planning standards will be revised from time to time to ensure they are consistent with the current state of the electrical industry and in conformance with NERC Reliability Standards and WECC Regional Criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Resource Plan Report Is Based Upon the Best Available Information at the Time of Preparation
    2019 Integrated resource planVOLUME 1 OCTOBER 18, 2019 This 2019 Integrated Resource Plan Report is based upon the best available information at the time of preparation. The IRP action plan will be implemented as described herein, but is subject to change as new information becomes available or as circumstances change. It is PacifiCorp’s intention to revisit and refresh the IRP action plan no less frequently than annually. Any refreshed IRP action plan will be submitted to the State Commissions for their information. For more information, contact: PacifiCorp IRP Resource Planning 825 N.E. Multnomah, Suite 600 Portland, Oregon 97232 (503) 813-5245 [email protected] www.pacificorp.com Cover Photos (Top to Bottom): Marengo Wind Project Transmission Line Electric Meter Pavant III Solar Plant PACIFICORP – 2019 IRP TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... i INDEX OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ vii INDEX OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ x CHAPTER 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................. 1 PACIFICORP’S VISION ........................................................................................................... 1 REIMAGINING THE FUTURE BASED ON A CENTURY OF INNOVATION .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Memo to 316B 2014 Final Rule Record Diablo Canyon Comments
    Memo to Record Re: Diablo Canyon comments and data regarding "de minimis" exemption Date: March 27, 2013 In EPA's Notice of Data Availability for impingement mortality control requirements for cooling water intake structures, EPA solicited comment and data on approaches to establishing standards for very low impingement rates. According to the Federal Register notice (77 FR34325) low rates of impingement was described as follows: This is usually due to intake location for the specific waterbody from which water is withdrawn for cooling, or the implementation ofother technologies. For example, EPA is aware ofa facility located on the inside bend ofa large freshwater river which seasonally employs large mesh barrier nets. The facility impinges an average ofseveral fish per month. In another case, the intake is located downstream ofa dam, and the fish avoid the cold water coming from the dam. Recent data show the facility impinged one fish over two 24 hour periods. Under such low impingement rate conditions, technology performance is unlikely to be meaningfully evaluated. Moreover, in EPA's view, these facilities are not likely having an adverse effect on aquatic life. It is probable that in most cases requiring additional technology would not be necessary to further minimize adverse environmental impacts. On July 11, 2012, PG&E Corporation submitted comments and data (Attachment 1) on EPA's Notice of Data Availability for impingement mortality control requirements for cooling water intake structures. EPA reviewed this data when considering possible approaches to setting standards for facilities with very low impingement rates. This memo summarizes the data provided by PG&E specific to Diablo Canyon, and compares the data to other data sources.
    [Show full text]
  • B&W's Nox Reduction Systems and Equipment at Moss Landing Power
    B&W’s NOx Reduction Systems and Equipment at Moss Landing Power Plant Bill Becker Don Tonn Babcock & Wilcox Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A. Nancy Stephenson Cormetech, Inc. Durham, North Carolina, U.S.A. Kenneth Speer, Jr. Duke Energy North America Moss Landing, California, U.S.A. Presented to: ICAC NOx Forum March 23-24, 2000 Washington D.C., U.S.A. Abstract California’s Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPD) rule 431 requires NOx emissions to be less than 10 ppm by January 1, 2002 for Units 6 and 7 at Duke Energy’s Moss Landing Power Plant near San Francisco. B&W developed a design in an alliance arrangement with the previous owner, Pacific Gas & Electric, to retrofit an SCR to Unit 7. (Rule 431 was modified to slightly defer the SCR on Unit 7, replace the original burners on Units 6 and 7 with B&W’s XCL-S™ low NOx burners and install overfire air ports.) The modified Rule 431 requires one unit to be at 10 ppm maximum NOx with less than 10 ppm slip after December 31, 2000 and the second unit in compliance after December 31, 2001. Unit Background Moss Landing Units 6 and 7 are oil- and gas-fired 750 MWe Babcock & Wilcox Universal Pressure (supercritical) type boilers, operational in 1967 and 1968. Each unit has a continuous steam flow capacity of 5.1 million lb/hr at 3,830 psig and 1005F at the superheater outlet under clean conditions while firing natural gas. The furnace is 54 ft wide by 36 ft deep with a single division wall.
    [Show full text]
  • Vistra Brings World's Largest Utility-Scale Battery Energy Storage
    NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION Vistra Brings World’s Largest Utility-Scale Battery Energy Storage System Online Flagship of company’s Vistra Zero portfolio will provide affordable, zero- carbon electricity, bolster reliability of California’s power grid IRVING, Texas — Jan. 6, 2021 — Vistra (NYSE: VST) today announced that its Moss Landing Energy Storage Facility connected to the power grid and began operating on Dec. 11, 2020. At 300 megawatts/1,200 megawatt-hours, the lithium-ion battery storage system, located on-site at Vistra’s Moss Landing Power Plant in Monterey County, California, will be the largest of its kind in the world. Furthermore, construction is already underway on Phase II, which will add an additional 100 MW/400 MWh to the facility by August 2021, bringing its total capacity to 400 MW/1,600 MWh. “This is a keystone project and it is important in so many ways – it revitalizes an existing power plant site and utilizes active transmission lines, enhances grid stability, fills the reliability gap created by intermittent renewables, provides emission-free electricity, supports California’s sustainability goals and mandates, significantly benefits the local community, and ultimately provides affordable electricity to consumers,” said Curt Morgan, chief executive officer of Vistra. “A battery system of this size and scale has never been built before. As our country transitions to a clean energy future, batteries will play a pivotal role and the Vistra Moss Landing project will serve as the model for utility-scale battery storage for years to come.” Housed inside the power plant’s completely refurbished former turbine building and spanning the length of nearly three football fields, Phase I of the battery system can power approximately 225,000 homes during peak electricity pricing periods.
    [Show full text]
  • Renewable Energy Qualifications and Project Experience | Sargent & Lundy
    Renewable Energy Qualifications and Experience Wind Power | Solar PV | Concentrating Solar Power | Alternative Fuels, Recycling, & Biomass | Geothermal | Hydroelectric | Energy Storage | Hybrid Power Plants & Microgrids 55 East Monroe | Chicago, Illinois 60603-5780 | 312.269.2000 | www.sargentlundy.com Renewable Energy Project Experience Qualifications and Experience Contents CONTENTS About Sargent & Lundy .............................................................................................................. 1 Wind Power ................................................................................................................................. 2 Due Diligence and Independent Engineering ............................................................................................ 3 Selected Recent Project Experience ............................................................................................... 3 Additional Project Experience .......................................................................................................... 7 Owner’s Engineer and Technical Advisor ............................................................................................... 15 Selected Recent Project Experience ............................................................................................. 15 Additional Project Experience ........................................................................................................ 16 Conceptual Design and Studies .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Effects of the Moss Landing Powerplant Thermal Discharge
    Ecological Effects of the Moss Landing Powerplant Thermal Discharge A report submitted to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Sanctuary Integrated Monitoring Network (SIMoN) and Monterey Bay Sanctuary Foundation June 2006 Moss Landing Marine Laboratories 8272 Moss Landing Road Moss Landing CA 95039 Moss Landing Powerplant Thermal Discharge Effects 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary........................................................................................................4 1 Introduction..............................................................................................................6 2 Plankton ...................................................................................................................8 2.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................8 2.2 Previous Studies.....................................................................................................................9 2.3 Objectives .............................................................................................................................10 2.4 Methods.................................................................................................................................11 2.4.1 Sampling........................................................................................................................................11 2.4.2 Bacterial analysis ..........................................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]