| R. Paul Smith Power Station | |
|---|---|
 R. Paul Smith Power Station in 2014 | |
 | |
| Country | United States |
| Location | Williamsport, Maryland |
| Coordinates | 39°35′43″N 77°49′38″W / 39.595278°N 77.827222°W |
| Status | Decommissioned |
| Construction began | 1922 |
| Commission date | 1927; 1947; 1958 |
| Decommission date | 2012 |
| Owner(s) | FirstEnergy |
| Thermal power station | |
| Primary fuel | Bituminous coal |
| Secondary fuel | Fuel oil |
| Power generation | |
| Nameplate capacity | 116 MW |
The R. Paul Smith Power Station is a closed electric generating plant owned by FirstEnergy (formerly Allegheny Energy) in Williamsport, Maryland.
YouTube Encyclopedic
-
1/3Views:1 791 9566 506 0214 420
-
3 Reasons Why Nuclear Energy Is Terrible! 2/3
-
Michio Kaku: The Universe in a Nutshell
-
Electric Vehicle Recharging Solutions
Transcription
Three reasons why we should stop using nuclear energy. One: nuclear weapons proliferation. Nuclear technology made a violent entrance onto the world stage: just one year after the world’s first ever nuclear test explosion in 1944, two large cities were destroyed by just two single bombs. After that, reactor technology slowly evolved as a means of generating electricity, but it’s always been intimately connected with nuclear weapons technology. It’s nearly impossible to develop nuclear weapons without access to reactor technology. In fact, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty serves the purpose of spreading nuclear reactor technology without spreading nuclear weapons with limited success. In 40 years, five countries have developed their own weapons with the help of reactor technology. The fact of the matter is that it can be very hard to distinguish a covert nuclear weapons program from the peaceful use of nuclear energy. In the 1970s, the big nuclear powers were happily selling peaceful technology to smaller countries, which then developed weapons of their own. The road to deadly nuclear weapons is always paved with peaceful reactors. Two: nuclear waste and pollution. Spent nuclear fuel is not only radioactive, but also contains extremely poisonous chemical elements like plutonium. It loses its harmfulness only slowly over several tens of thousands of years. And there is also a process called reprocessing, which means the extraction of plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. It can be used for two purposes: to build nuclear weapons or to use it as new fuel. But hardly any of it is used as fuel, because we don’t have the right kind of reactors for that. A milligram will kill you; a few kilograms make an atomic bomb; and even an inconspicuous country like Germany literally has tons of the stuff just lying around, because reprocessing sounded like a good idea decades ago. And where will all the waste go? After dumping it into the ocean was forbidden, we’ve tried to bury it— but we can’t find a place where it will definitely stay secure for tens of thousands of years. Over 30 countries operate nearly 400 reactors, managing several hundred thousands of tons of nuclear waste and only one is currently serious about opening a permanent civilian waste storage: tiny Finland. Three: accidents and disasters. Over 60 years of nuclear power usage, there have been seven major accidents in reactors or facilities dealing with nuclear waste. Three of those were mostly contained, but four of them released significant amounts of radioactivity into the environment. In 1957, 1987, and 2011, large areas of land in Russia, Ukraine, and Japan were rendered unfit for human habitation for decades to come. The number of deaths is highly disputed, but probably lies in the thousands. These disasters happened with nuclear reactors of very different types, in very different countries, and several decades apart. Looking at the numbers, we may as well ask ourselves, “Are 10% of the world’s energy supply worth a devastating disaster every 30 years? Would 30% be worth another Fukushima or Chernobyl somewhere on Earth every 10 years? What area would have to be contaminated so we say ‘no more’? Where is the line?” So, should we use nuclear energy? The risks may outweigh the benefits, and maybe we should stop looking into this direction and drop this technology for good. If you want to hear the other side of the argument or a short introduction to nuclear energy, click here. Our channel has a new sponsor: Audible.com. If you use the URL <http://audible.com/nutshell>, you can get a free audiobook and support our channel. Producing our videos takes a lot of time, and we fill a lot of it by listening to audiobooks. For a really entertaining book, we recommend “Into Thin Air” by Jon Krakauer. He’s a great writer, and the story is really absorbing and true. Go to <http://audible.com/nutshell> to get the book for free. Thanks a lot to Audible for supporting our channel and to you for watching! Subtitles by the Amara.org community
Description
The facility consists of 2 coal-fired steam generating units generating a total capacity of 116 MW.[1] The units can use fuel oil as an alternate energy source.[2] Condenser cooling for these units is accomplished with once-through cooling water from the Potomac River.[3]
The plant is located on land in between the Potomac River and the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, north of Lock 44 of the canal. Coal was delivered to the plant originally by rail until the mid-1950s, and intermittently by rail and trucks until late 1974 when all coal deliveries were diverted to trucks.[4] Coal ash from the plant was disposed at ash ponds in West Virginia, across the river from the plant.[5]
The plant is subject to the federal Clean Air Act. Because of the age of the power plant units, and the need to maintain the plant's capabilities to ensure reliability of the regional power grid, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) had exempted the plant from compliance with a state law, the Healthy Air Act, which sets stringent air pollution limits for sulfur oxide and NOx.[5] However, FirstEnergy decided to cease plant operations in 2012, and in 2013 MDE proposed reinstating the stringent state emission requirements, in case the plant resumes operations in the future.[6]
History
Construction of the first power plant at Williamsport began in 1922 by the Potomac Public Service Company. In 1923 the company became part of the Potomac Edison Company, and in 1925 Potomac Edison joined West Penn Electric Company. The first generating unit began service in 1927. Coal was delivered to the plant by the Western Maryland Railway. The plant was named for R. Paul Smith, the company's first president.[7]
The 1927 unit was replaced by a new unit in 1947 with a nameplate capacity of 34.5 MW. An additional 75 MW operating unit was constructed in 1958. In 1960 the West Penn Electric Company was renamed Allegheny Power System, Inc. Circa 1970 the plant began to receive coal deliveries by truck, and rail deliveries ended.[7]
On January 26, 2012 parent company FirstEnergy announced that the station would be closed due to the cost of retrofitting the plant to comply with environmental regulations due to take effect in 2015. The R. Paul Smith station was one of six FirstEnergy stations to be retired in 2012. In its last years the plant was operated intermittently.[8] FirstEnergy ceased plant operations on September 1, 2012.[6]
See also
References
- ^ Allegheny Energy Inc. (June 2010). "AE At a Glance."
- ^ U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C. (2008). "Existing Generating Units in the United States by State, Company and Plant, 2008"
- ^ McLean, Richard, et al. (2002). "Maryland Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Regulations and Their Application in Evaluation of Adverse Environmental Impact." (Annapolis, MD: Maryland Department of Natural Resources.) Power Plant Research Program, Report No. PPRP-127. p. 14.
- ^ Lee, J. Lawrence. "ADDENDUM TO POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY, CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL BRIDGE" (PDF). National Park Service. National Park Service. Retrieved 12 May 2020.
- ^ a b Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Takoma Park, MD (2011). "R. Paul Smith Power Station." Archived 2012-04-21 at the Wayback Machine Fact sheet.
- ^ a b Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD (2013-04-05). "Notice of Proposed Action: 26.11.27 Emission Limitations for Power Plants." Maryland Register, Vol. 40, Issue 7. pp. 626-7.
- ^ a b U.S. Historic American Engineering Record (2008). "Potomac Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Bridge, Spanning C & O Canal South of U.S. 11, Williamsport, Washington, MD." HAER No. MD-23. (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.)
- ^ Greene, Julie E. (January 26, 2012). "FirstEnergy to close power station in Williamsport". Hagerstown Herald-Mail. Retrieved 27 January 2012.
This page was last edited on 22 September 2023, at 15:41