 |
| Ginna Station from NRC site |
I want to express my strong support for keeping Ginna Station operating.
I worked in energy research for many years. My background includes renewables, gas-fired plants, and nuclear plants. I have worked to improve them all. I live in Vermont, and I am now a member of the Coordinating Committee of the Consumer Liaison Group (CLG) for ISO-NE. I must stress that the opinions I express here are MY OWN: they are NOT official opinions of the Committee. I mention the CLG to explain that I have some expertise in grid issues. The purpose of the CLG is to advise the grid operator in support of the electricity consumer.
Right now, the New England grid makes almost 50% of its electricity with natural gas. This has been a problem for grid stability, especially in the winter. ISO-NE has had two “Winter Reliability Programs” that basically paid dual-fired generators to keep oil on hand. They used the oil during the times in deep winter when natural gas was not available to power plants. These reliability programs have cost $70-$80 million a year, and FERC wants them to stop, because they are targeted, not market-based. FERC may be right, but the programs have kept the lights on in New England during the winter. These programs mainly bought oil, though LNG was also fed into our grid (though not as part of the Winter Reliability Program). Other grids are encountering the same issues, as they become more dependent on natural gas.
Ginna Station and other nuclear stations make low-carbon electricity and increase the diversity of the New York grid. Please value that diversity! Grid diversity contributes to system reliability and price stability. Without the nuclear plants, the grid will move more and more to natural gas, which emits greenhouse gases. Also, putting all your eggs in one basket (having only one predominant fuel supplier for the grid) is a very bad idea. Supply crunches and price rises are not only likely: they happen, and they will happen more if the grid goes mostly to natural gas. The amount of “subsidy” given to Ginna to keep it operating will be only a small amount, compared to the amount you can expect to pay for winter reliability programs or if there is a price rise for natural gas.
For the sake of your consumers, keep the grid diverse and keep Ginna (and other nuclear plants) operating. For the sake of the planet (greenhouse gases), keep Ginna (and other nuclear plants) operating.
----------
Who Digs Deeper, and For What Do They Dig?
A friend on Facebook alerted me to the opportunity to support continued operation of Ginna Station in New York. Thank you, Michael Mann!
I just posted the comment above on the New York State Department of Public Service site. The Department is asking for comments on a case to allow a "reliability support services agreement" for Ginna Station. This agreement would give Ginna slightly increased pay on the grid, in return for the reliability and support that the plant gives to the grid.
An upstate New York newspaper has an article headlined Regulators examining plan to prop up Ginna plant. The first sentence says that consumers will have to "dig deeper in their pockets" to keep the Ginna plant operating.
 |
| Old steam locomotive Best I could do for "steam" Wikipedia |
Sometimes you can almost see the steam coming out of my ears.
Don't Just Steam, Take Action
Write your short letter about Ginna here:
http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Comments/PublicComments.aspx?MatterCaseNo=14-E-0270
It doesn't have to be long, but make sure it is personal. Make sure it is clear that the letter is your personal opinion. If you live in New York State, that's a great reason to have a pro-Ginna opinion. If you live elsewhere, compare the issue to something in your area: coal plants shutting down, electricity price rises, whatever is going on. Make it personal.
As an example of what NOT to write, look at the existing letter collection.
http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterCaseNo=14-E-0270
Approximately a thousand letters all say the same thing. They all start:
Dear Secretary Burgess:
I am writing to oppose a consumer subsidy for the Ginna nuclear power reactor, owned by Exelon.
Ginna is one of the oldest nuclear reactors in the U.S. Propping up this uncompetitive reactor …..
Not very convincing!
When you have finished your note to the New York regulators, please consider also sending it as a comment on this post. The more examples of letters that we have, the easier it will be for the next person to post a letter to the New York State regulators.
2 comments:
I would like to thank Meredith for helping to get the word out so elegantly. I am not nearly as eloquent. Here is my letter of support for Ginna, which I sent a while ago: "Dear Secretary Burgess,
I would like to tell you why I support case number 14-E-0270 for the continued operation of the R. E. Ginna Nuclear power plant. Ginna is one of the best maintained and operated facilities in the country, producing clean electrical energy without producing greenhouse gasses with unmatched reliability. (over 90% capacity factor for more than a decade) This reliability is the backbone of our electrical grid, when I need power to keep me warm in a harsh winter or cool in a sweltering heat wave, this reliability saves lives in western New York. The employees of Ginna provide a huge percentage of the volunteer and community organizations in Monroe and Wayne counties as well as being the largest supporter of the United Way in Wayne county. The loss of Ginna would not only make my electrical power less reliable, raise my electric rates and contribute to dirtier air to breath, it will also disrupt the economies of Ontario, Webster, and many other local communities in both Wayne and Monroe counties. If you want examples look to the towns around Kewanee NPP and Vermont Yankee which are struggling to cope with those announced shutdowns. Please vote to keep the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant open, this is an extremely important issue for the future of the Rochester metropolitan area.
Thank you,
Michael M. Mann
I would like to tell you why I support case number 14-E-0270 for the continued operation of the R. E. Ginna Nuclear power plant. Ginna is one of the best maintained and operated facilities in the country, producing clean electrical energy without producing greenhouse gasses with unmatched reliability. (over 90% capacity factor for more than a decade)
Post a Comment