tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post1944947592376463593..comments2023-04-07T05:19:44.951-04:00Comments on Yes Vermont Yankee: Vermont Yankee was replaced by natural gas: Doing the numbersMeredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-36516016583595232872016-01-12T17:31:25.458-05:002016-01-12T17:31:25.458-05:00Meredith,
It would seem that in the US north, a...Meredith,<br /><br /> It would seem that in the US north, a great percentage of buildings use natural gas direct heating. This actually makes sense. Economically speaking, if your goal is heat, it makes far more sense to heat space by directly burning natural gas, than to use natural gas to generate electricity - because, of course, as you know (since you have been in chemistry and energy issues for a long time) you have to burn 2 to 3 times as much gas to generate the electricity to produce equivalent heat to directly burning the natural gas.<br /><br />But, it also raises another important point - 1) If we are to seriously cut greenhouse gas emissions in the country, we need to move to heating by a combination of clean electricity and, possibly, geothermal energy (that is, electric geothermal heatpump systems); 2) The ONLY source of electricity that is reliable enough in the winter to make sure that people don't freeze, is nuclear.<br /><br />Wind and Solar are just too unreliable to use for heat in the northern US, Canada, etc. So, if for no other reason, we should build nuclear for clean electric heat in the winter. . . and use the electricity for other purposes the rest of the year (I think we can find ways to put the electricity to use ;-) ).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12528401688809372093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-77266804220973298802016-01-04T08:33:33.309-05:002016-01-04T08:33:33.309-05:00Thank you all for your comments!
Steve, Jacobso...Thank you all for your comments! <br /><br />Steve, Jacobson believes in Water Wind and Sun. His plans don't even include biomass or any type of heat engine except geothermal. If you go to his website and look at his staff leadership---it includes a "creative director" and a "producer." I think he is more about publicity than facts.<br /><br />James. Thank you. Happy New Year to you and your family. I always love to see your name on a comment.<br /><br />Scott, I appreciate this. Once again, Blogspot annoys me by not bringing the links over in a comment. Your links are important! So, I will try to bring them over myself by hand-doing the html link. Here goes. Hope it works. <br /><br /><a href="https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/CommodityStatistics/Statistics.aspx?language=english" rel="nofollow">Canadian link</a><br /><br /><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/replacement-vermont-yankee-natural-gas-mike-twomeyl" rel="nofollow">Twomey link</a> Meredith Angwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-10479838470805510832016-01-03T11:03:16.067-05:002016-01-03T11:03:16.067-05:00I posted the following comment on Facebook, and am...I posted the following comment on Facebook, and am reposting here with links to the data source:<br />"Quebec shut it's nuclear generating station late in 2012. It is be possible to find sales from Canada to Vermont via Canada's National Energy board: YTD October exports to Vermont from Canada, mostly Quebec, show as up just 214 GWh (2015 over 2014) - but the price was up over 10% (nearing $70/MWh)."<br />The numbers are pulled from Canada's National Energy Board. International traders are authorized and file reports inclusive of client for export sales. The data I calculated my comments from was October year-to-date totals for both 2014 and 2015 taken from Table 3A - Export Sales Summary Report by Destination" - https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/CommodityStatistics/Statistics.aspx?language=english<br /><br />I'll note there is an excellent, related, summary of changes in the New England ISO system up on Linkedin, by Energy VP External Affairs Mike Twomey: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/replacement-vermont-yankee-natural-gas-mike-twomeyScott Lufthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09219859339423144673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-24581281942911219322016-01-02T17:18:08.089-05:002016-01-02T17:18:08.089-05:00Thanks for that hard-worked graph I'm studying...Thanks for that hard-worked graph I'm studying -- like every legislator ought!!<br /><br />Have a Happy New Year & Keep the Flame!!<br /><br />James Greenidge<br />Queens NYjimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624023124404414596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-55169065435898371952016-01-02T15:13:55.833-05:002016-01-02T15:13:55.833-05:00"Nuclear went down, natural gas wasn't av..."Nuclear went down, natural gas wasn't available, and oil and coal use went up. Nothing to celebrate. We're not looking at "green" energy expanding."<br /><br />Absolutely yes. And that's just electricity. Natgas use did go up, for exactly the reason you mention -- it was cold. Vermont is the same as Ontario, and the Ontario energy peak is, and always has been, in winter -- electricity is in long third place, behind heat (#1) and transportation (#2).<br /><br />My bet is that natural gas use actually skyrocketed in Vermont during Q4 2014 and Q1 2015, by much more than the amount the graph shows it decreased in electricity generation.<br /><br />If Jacobson's fantasies had any basis in reality, wind/solar would have picked up ALL VY's slack, and would have provided a hundred-or-so million MWh for heating to boot. No need for any of that gas.<br /><br />But alas, his fantasies share no correspondence with reality. The graph shows wind and solar were negligible, and did nothing to mitigate fossil use IN ELECTRICITY, forget about heat and transportation.Steve Aplinhttp://www.canadianenergyissues.comnoreply@blogger.com