Energy Penalty Analysis of Possible Cooling Water Intake Structure Requirements on Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants.

Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that cooling water intake structures must reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. Many existing power plants in the United States utilize once-through cooling systems to condense steam. Once-through systems withdraw large volumes (often hundreds of millions of gallons per day) of water from surface water bodies. As the water is withdrawn, fish and other aquatic organisms can be trapped against the screens or other parts of the intake structure (impingement) or if small enough, can pass through the intake structure and be transported through the cooling system to the condenser (entrainment). Both of these processes can injure or kill the organisms. EPA adopted 316(b) regulations for new facilities (Phase I) on December 18, 2001. Under the final rule, most new facilities could be expected to install recirculating cooling systems, primarily wet cooling towers. The EPA Administrator signed proposed 316(b) regulations for existing facilities (Phase II) on February 28, 2002. The lead option in this proposal would allow most existing facilities to achieve compliance without requiring them to convert once-through cooling systems to recirculating systems. However, one of the alternate options being proposed would require recirculating cooling in selected plants. EPA is considering various options to determine best technology available. Among the options under consideration are wet-cooling towers and dry-cooling towers. Both types of towers are considered to be part of recirculating cooling systems, in which the cooling water is continuously recycled from the condenser, where it absorbs heat by cooling and condensing steam, to the tower, where it rejects heat to the atmosphere before returning to the condenser. Some water is lost to evaporation (wet tower only) and other water is removed from the recirculating system as a blow down stream to control the building up of suspended and dissolved solids. Makeup water is withdrawn, usually from surface water bodies, to replace the lost water. The volume of makeup water is many times smaller than the volume needed to operate a once-through system. Although neither the final new facility rule nor the proposed existing facility rule require dry cooling towers as the national best technology available, the environmental community and several States have supported the use of dry-cooling technology as the appropriate technology for addressing adverse environmental impacts. It is possible that the requirements included in the new facility rule and the ongoing push for dry cooling systems by some stakeholders may have a role in shaping the rule for existing facilities. The temperature of the cooling water entering the condenser affects the performance of the turbine--the cooler the temperature, the better the performance. This is because the cooling water temperature affects the level of vacuum at the discharge of the steam turbine. As cooling water temperatures decrease, a higher vacuum can be produced and additional energy can be extracted. On an annual average, once-through cooling water has a lower temperature than recirculated water from a cooling tower. By switching a once-through cooling system to a cooling tower, less energy can be generated by the power plant from the same amount of fuel. This reduction in energy output is known as the energy penalty. If a switch away from once-through cooling is broadly implemented through a final 316(b) rule or other regulatory initiatives, the energy penalty could result in adverse effects on energy supplies. Therefore, in accordance with the recommendations of the Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as the May 2001 National Energy Policy), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), through its Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), has studied the energy penalty resulting from converting plants with once-through cooling to wet towers or indirect-dry towers. Five locations--Delaware River Basin (Philadelphia), Michigan/Great Lakes (Detroit), Ohio River Valley (Indianapolis), South (Atlanta), and Southwest (Yuma)--were modeled using an ASPEN simulator model. The model evaluated the performance and energy penalty for hypothetical 400-MW coal-fired plants that were retrofitted from using once-through cooling systems to wet- and dry-recirculating systems. The modeling was initially done to simulate the hottest time of the year using temperature input values that are exceeded only 1 percent of the time between June through September at each modeled location. These are the same temperature inputs commonly used by cooling tower designers to ensure that towers perform properly under most climatic conditions

The plant cell wall matrix harbors a precursor of defense signaling peptides

Proteins of plant cell walls serve as structural macromolecules and play important roles in morphogenesis and development but have not been reported to be the origins of peptide signals that activate genes for plant defense. We report here that the mRNA coding the tomato leaf polyprotein precursor of three hydroxyproline-rich glycopeptide defense signals (called LeHypSys I, II, and III) is synthesized in phloem parenchyma cells in response to wounding, systemin, and methyl jasmonate, and the nascent protein is sequestered in the cell wall matrix. These findings indicate that the plant cell wall can play an active role in defense as a source of peptide signals for systemic wound signaling