tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30332888797087801062024-03-13T20:39:00.485-04:00Yes Vermont YankeeA blog about Northeast energy issues, and in support of nuclear power.Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comBlogger1068125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-90829966680329060672018-10-29T20:22:00.001-04:002018-10-29T20:22:54.215-04:00"The New Fire" as Shown in Vermont<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwGUMsFXeif9sAxZnwpTnyy0QBGzi5DWpZFUNiX97jPAtd7JqQPhb-68MGA1jccMR81KXFkvzA83uzhqASWX-1vS4rJ8STqIGRfXBkFmjSuSDuPzGWRUxG5k7MuqbMdQSH9oxrLBhLwHU/s1600/Meredith+Dave+VTIFF+181026.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwGUMsFXeif9sAxZnwpTnyy0QBGzi5DWpZFUNiX97jPAtd7JqQPhb-68MGA1jccMR81KXFkvzA83uzhqASWX-1vS4rJ8STqIGRfXBkFmjSuSDuPzGWRUxG5k7MuqbMdQSH9oxrLBhLwHU/s400/Meredith+Dave+VTIFF+181026.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">David Schumacher, director of <i>The New Fire</i>, with me<br />
We are sitting in front of The New Fire poster at the Vermont International Film Festival</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Showing <i>The New Fire</i> in Vermont</b><br />
The movie <a href="https://www.newfiremovie.com/" target="_blank">The New Fire </a>was shown Friday at the <a href="https://vtiff.org/" target="_blank">Vermont International Film Festival</a> in Burlington VT. I attended the screening. I am tempted to write a click-bait heading about my experience.<br />
<br />
<b><i>"I saw The New Fire in Burlington Vermont. What I discovered will surprise you!" </i></b><br />
<br />
The showing surprised me, at least. This is Vermont. I expected the audience to be hostile to nuclear energy. I expected some boo-ing during the film, and aggressive questions to the director at the Q and A period after the film. None of that happened.<br />
<br />
<b>The promise of <i>The New Fire</i></b><br />
The New Fire follows dedicated young people as they develop new types of reactors. The film shows competent, idealistic young engineers as they design an exciting new generation of reactors. Their work will make the world far less dependent on fossil fuels<b>. </b>Their dedication and idealism shines through the film. I felt inspired and energized as I watched.<br />
<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bRGGoGENuus" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
The rest of the audience also appeared to be impressed. During the film, the audience was quiet and thoughtful. Afterward, they asked reasonable questions, not aggressive rants disguised as questions. In the hallway later, the conversations were interested and even a bit hopeful. <br />
<br />
The competence and sincerity of the young engineers had clearly made an impression on the people watching the film. <br />
<br />
As a nuclear advocate, I am grateful to director David Schumacher for making <i>The New Fire</i>. I hope it will be shown widely. (The DVD is also <a href="https://www.amazon.com/New-Fire-Jeffrey-Sachs/dp/B07HHS9J3V/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1540850992&sr=8-1&keywords=the+new+fire+movie&dpID=51WKzFfBsSL&preST=_SY300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch" target="_blank">available on Amazon</a>.) This movie will inspire more people to understand the hope and the reality of the new generation of nuclear power. Perhaps they may even begin to appreciate our current generation of nuclear plants.<br />
<br />
<b><i>The New Fire</i> and me</b><br />
I had seen the film at an earlier showing, and I had also watched the DVD with my husband. So the movie was not new to me. What was new was that I was seeing it in Burlington, at a film festival.<br />
<br />
The audience's reaction made me feel better about Vermont. Trying to save Vermont Yankee left me with a deep seated (but rarely expressed) anger at the <a href="http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2013/09/challenging-those-who-celebrate-vermont.html#.W9eGvi_MzUI" target="_blank">crowing of the plant opponents</a> when the plant announced it would close. My anger often spread itself further than just those people I could easily identify as people who hated Vermont Yankee. It began to encompass many people in Vermont.<br />
<br />
Watching this film made me happier about Vermont people and Vermont as a state. Some Vermonters <i>will</i> consider nuclear power. Some Vermonters <i>recognize</i> idealism when they see it. Some Vermonters <i>are</i> willing to learn.<br />
<br />
David Schumacher said that the positive audience reactions at this showing was typical of all the showings. I was glad to hear this. <b><i>I saw The New Fire in Burlington Vermont.</i></b> <b><i>What I discovered surprised me!</i></b><br />
<br />Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-74232267057428150282018-10-10T18:42:00.000-04:002018-10-10T18:42:11.588-04:00Nuclear Science Week Next Week, October 15-19<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCabu7asHb0RkxcD9pPIffL6VPNG_vIlYyQEbO1sRPTpb_JgvLW7jAap1wWOJ9AODmeCyD_PKZPllwsK_ubHW_9sKzmKpZEIR8AV6zBwZxlS-bxRGeDQ4Eg-4GgwMgK3G_9Hw1Nwc6eUo/s1600/NSW+logo.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="410" data-original-width="816" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCabu7asHb0RkxcD9pPIffL6VPNG_vIlYyQEbO1sRPTpb_JgvLW7jAap1wWOJ9AODmeCyD_PKZPllwsK_ubHW_9sKzmKpZEIR8AV6zBwZxlS-bxRGeDQ4Eg-4GgwMgK3G_9Hw1Nwc6eUo/s320/NSW+logo.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<b> Nuclear Science Week on a National Scale</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<a href="http://www.nuclearscienceweek.org/" target="_blank">Nuclear Science Week </a>is a national week-long celebration of all aspects of nuclear science. the Week is nationwide, and various areas plan local events. For example, Energy Northwest employees visited a middle school during Nuclear Science Week in 2015:<br />
<br />
<i>“We always get a great response and a lot of interest from the students when we explain the science behind nuclear energy,” said Jamie Dunn, an engineer at Energy Northwest. </i>(Quote from <a href="https://northwestcleanenergy.com/2015/10/19/energy-northwest-celebrates-nuclear-science-week/" target="_blank">Energy Northwest blog post.</a>)<br />
<br />
<b>The "Big Event" at Nuclear Science Week, Albuquerque</b><br />
<br />
Each year, Nuclear Science Week plans one <i>Big Event</i> at a single location. This year, the Big Event is in Albuquerque New Mexico.<br />
<br />
Okay. I admit I am being overly shy here. I have not yet linked to the schedule for<a href="http://www.nuclearscienceweek.org/thebigevent/schedule/" target="_blank"> The Big Event</a> in New Mexico. That is because I am the keynote speaker. 😊 On Monday morning, October 15, I will talk about the importance of pro-nuclear activism. My talk will be at the University of New Mexico campus in Albuquerque. (Here's a<a href="http://www.nuclearscienceweek.org/thebigevent/venue/" target="_blank"> link to the venues</a> for The Big Event.)<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqe6uprGGvRvro69_naA5rBZRa4VzDBs2VBFXbZZebw0t1jRMP_uPfIpIL8b0lAIehEm-t5FQFSjv7_ewBnK7rbmHnVDdXY-IOTQLxdRcVgXryCAtuEAWJvBkd6gMbkDvtu3sHjXcKwFI/s1600/Sub_Sail-720x440.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="440" data-original-width="720" height="195" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqe6uprGGvRvro69_naA5rBZRa4VzDBs2VBFXbZZebw0t1jRMP_uPfIpIL8b0lAIehEm-t5FQFSjv7_ewBnK7rbmHnVDdXY-IOTQLxdRcVgXryCAtuEAWJvBkd6gMbkDvtu3sHjXcKwFI/s320/Sub_Sail-720x440.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">James R Polk Sub Sail<br />
<a href="https://www.nuclearmuseum.org/see/exhibits/heritage-park/" target="_blank">Heritage Park</a><br />
National Museum of Nuclear Science and History</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Many activities at the Big Event center around the <a href="https://www.nuclearmuseum.org/" target="_blank">National Museum Of Nuclear Science and History</a>. At this Smithsonian-affiliated museum, the <a href="https://www.nuclearmuseum.org/see/exhibits/" target="_blank">indoor area</a> includes exhibits on energy, uranium, nuclear medicine and more. The Museum also contains a nine acre outdoor exhibit area, <a href="https://www.nuclearmuseum.org/see/exhibits/heritage-park/" target="_blank">Heritage Park</a>, with mostly military exhibits. I am happy to be visiting the museum. And of course, I am happy to be keynote speaker.<br />
<br />
I am not the only distinguished speaker who will be at The Big Event. (Wow, I just called myself a "distinguished speaker." Maybe that keynote business is going to my head?) Other speakers include Jim Walther (executive director of the Museum) and Carol Browner, head of the EPA under Clinton, and now a leader in <a href="https://www.nuclearmatters.com/safety" target="_blank">Nuclear Matters</a>.<br />
<ul>
<li>Browner, Walther and I (among others) will be speaking on Monday October 15. </li>
<li>On Wednesday, October 17, Michael Shellenberger will speak at a showing of <i>Pandora's Promise</i>. </li>
<li>On Thursday, the Department of Energy and the Museum will host a Millennial Nuclear Caucus on the theme of "Nuclear Science in Pop Culture." </li>
</ul>
Starting this year, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station is <a href="http://www.nuclearscienceweek.org/about-nsw/history/" target="_blank">partnering with the Museum</a> to be a major sponsor for The Big Event.<br />
<br />
It is going to be a wonderful week in New Mexico (<a href="http://www.nuclearscienceweek.org/thebigevent/schedule/" target="_blank">schedule</a>). I hope you can attend!<br />
<br />
<b>Nuclear Science Week in South Carolina and Georgia</b><br />
<br />
Nuclear Science Week is nationwide, with events in schools all over the country. One area has Nuclear Science Week events that rival The Big Event in New Mexico. In South Carolina and Georgia (Savannah River Site area, ) <a href="http://srsco.org/">SRSCRO.org</a> has organized a full list of activities for Nuclear Science Week. Many companies are participating. The events include:<br />
<ul>
<li>Plant Vogtle visits </li>
<li>field trips to the Savannah River Site</li>
<li>a lecture by Dr. Jose Reyes, a founder of NuScale Power </li>
<li>Science Education Enrichment Day</li>
<li>Nuclear workers visiting high school chemistry and physics classes</li>
<li>Tours of the Savannah River Site Museum</li>
<li>A costume ball (Yes. This is real. I love to see nuclear supporters having fun!)</li>
</ul>
See the full list of Savannah River area Nuclear Science Week events at the <a href="https://www.srscro.org/nuclear-science-week-2018/" target="_blank">SRSRCO web page about Nuclear Science Week. </a><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Nuclear Science Week for Everyone</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Nuclear Science Week is not just for people who can attend a local event, spectacular as some of the events may be. For example, the Nuclear Science Week website has a tab <a href="http://www.nuclearscienceweek.org/get-involved/" target="_blank">Get Involved</a>. Everyone can find something interesting on this tab. There's a section on <a href="http://www.nuclearscienceweek.org/get-involved/lessons_and_resources/" target="_blank">lesson plans</a> for elementary school, middle school and high school. The resources include games to learn physics, a "mock Senate" module to lead to discussions of energy choices, and more. The tab on <a href="http://www.nuclearscienceweek.org/get-involved/resources/" target="_blank">Resources</a> is also rich with links and ideas. In short, the Nuclear Science Week website is a resource for all of us. <br />
<br />
If you can't come to New Mexico, or Georgia, don't feel left out. I enjoy browsing the <a href="http://www.nuclearscienceweek.org/" target="_blank">Nuclear Science Week</a> website, and I think you will enjoy it also.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-29252795261510938252018-10-03T10:03:00.000-04:002018-10-03T10:03:20.469-04:00 Low Dose Radiation: Keynotes, Initials and History<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcV4lKYZAQaiZZGgGHz7Hnwm2Nu5h6NuV-b_TiMudLH-Ka8JzrNOx64kjjh_v6mmMFe4ezpmeEYsEqdATTfxaoJk1mZwet1dfiAPBEbUqWopyhoMCpVK98-Lf5OIAcwtXfudPR83Fn2n4/s1600/IMG_7183.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="480" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcV4lKYZAQaiZZGgGHz7Hnwm2Nu5h6NuV-b_TiMudLH-Ka8JzrNOx64kjjh_v6mmMFe4ezpmeEYsEqdATTfxaoJk1mZwet1dfiAPBEbUqWopyhoMCpVK98-Lf5OIAcwtXfudPR83Fn2n4/s320/IMG_7183.JPG" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Alan Walter opens the conference.<br />
October 1, Pasco WA</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Rod Adams post:</b><br />
<br />
Rod Adams and I are covering the Low Rad meeting. I urge everyone to read his post (which he posted just a few minutes ago) and comment on it. <br />
<br />
Would you evacuate your home in the middle of the night because of a radioactive release? This question was during at the meeting. Read the answer here: <a href="https://atomicinsights.com/making-sense-from-radiation-protection-controversy/" target="_blank">Making sense from radiation protection controversy</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>Nonstop Learning</b></div>
<br />
I am now in the morning of the third day of the Low Dose Radiation conference, and it has been non-stop learning. In between the sessions and the poster sessions, it has been hard to post. To give you an example of what I mean, on Monday morning there were eight presentations, not counting various welcoming remarks. At lunch, Michael Shellenberger gave a stirring talk. In the afternoon, there were two panel discussions and four presentations. The poster session is also extraordinarily interesting. And I haven't even mentioned the handbell concert at breakfast. When I say "nonstop," I <i>mean</i> nonstop.<br />
<br />
I cannot possibly summarize this conference. That's the bad news. The good news is that since I can't possibly cover the whole thing, I will just hit some high points, and add plenty of commentary. Starting with Monday morning.<br />
<br />
<b>Goals and First Set of Keynotes</b><br />
<br />
<b>Goals:</b> Mike Lawrence, former director of the Hanford site, described the goals of the conference. The conference attempts to pull together scientific data on the effects of low-dose radiation. A major goal is to ensure that radiation protection through evacuation after an accident is done only on scientific grounds, not on primal fear of radiation. The doses encountered at Fukushima would have led to no deaths or very few, but the evacuation killed over a thousand people. (Some estimates are only 800 people, but you get the idea. The difference between no deaths and hundreds of deaths is a lot of deaths.)<br />
<br />
<b>Brenner talk:</b> The first keynote was by David Brenner of Columbia University. He supported LNT as the proper measure for low-dose radiation. The two arguments that he used to support the LNT theory really struck me, but not in a good way. He used the idea that there is a cell, and it gets zapped with radiation. We know quite a bit about high doses, but as we lower the dose, we can expect that each cell will only be zapped one time. Then, as we lower the dose further, fewer cells will be zapped, but each cell which is zapped will be zapped pretty much the same way. He admitted that repair mechanisms exist, but felt they were the same (or could be considered to be the same) if every cell was zapped once, or if only half the cells were zapped. Therefore, he considers LNT to be correct.<br />
<br />
My opinion: this was an overly-simplistic gedanken experiment. Later in the meeting, I heard many scientists describing the complex interactions of radiation, expression of genes, DNA repair, and so forth.<br />
<br />
He also claimed that radiation damage to a fetus was another reason to support LNT, because fetuses do not have the confounding factors that adult humans have: no smokers, drinkers, etc. So damage to a fetus can stand in for damage for adults. My opinion: "I'll drink to that. And while I am at it, I will have a thalidomide pill, if I can find one, in case I get a little nauseated." In other words, many things that harm a fetus (alcohol, thalidomide) are not harmful to an adult, especially at low doses. Many choices that would have been unwise for me to make while I was pregnant are no particular problem to me now. His fetus-centric argument strikes me as a thin reed to hold such an immense regulatory structure. <br />
<br />
<b>McClellan talk.</b> The second keynote was by Roger McClellan, an internationally known expert in inhalation toxicology. He has worked in both radiation toxicology and chemical toxicology, and understands the difficulties of obtaining good data at low doses. Brenner's conclusions about low dosages were clear (but wrong in my opinion), while McClellan was nuanced. McClellan said that all industries, de facto, use ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) for exposure, basically because no CEO wants to get sued. He concluded that poverty is far more dangerous to human health than the low-dose issues of nuclear energy. (I hope I am reporting this correctly.) I enjoyed his talk, and hope to read it in full at some time, to report on it more accurately.<br />
<br />
<b>The March of the Initials</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
The next part of the meeting was what I call the March of the Initials. At this point, I need to encourage people to go to the program tab of the Low Radiation Dose Conference website.<br />
<br />
Website for Program: <a href="http://lowdoserad.org/">http://lowdoserad.org</a><br />
Pdf of program: <a href="http://www.umtanum.com/TopicalManagedFiles/_Program/Program.pdf">http://www.umtanum.com/TopicalManagedFiles/_Program/Program.pdf</a><br />
<br />
The March of the Initials is the list of regulatory agencies, marching by in rapid fire, who presented their approaches to radiation protection. They had twenty minutes per agency. These agencies included NRC, IAEA, UNSCEAR and others. I was somewhat surprised (I am naive) about how different these agencies are in their approach. David Pawel of EPA could have been giving Brenner's talk, while Patricia Wieland of UNSCEAR acknowledged the limitations of understanding any possible levels of good or harm at low doses. She ended her talk by recommending that "regulators...use the old concept of ‘de minimis non curat prætor’ and exempt from regulations low-dose exposure situations that do not warrant control." (Lots of us wanted to kiss Ms. Wieland, but we refrained.)<br />
<br />
<i>Note: </i>Wieland was standing in for Abel Gonzalez, whose name is on the paper but could not attend the meeting. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
As this point, I encourage people to go the website for the program, go to the program tab, and download the zip file of the Flash Drive for more information.<br />
<br />
<b>Micheal Shellenberger and History</b><br />
<br />
Michael Shellenberger, founder of <a href="http://environmentalprogress.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Progress</a>, spoke at the luncheon, with a fascinating talk on "The Making of Radiation Panic." History teaches us the way forward. To some extent, the bomb-making scientists (such as Oppenheimer) found themselves displaced in the public esteem by the reactor-making leaders (such as Rickover). They did not necessarily like this fact. Also, many of the older scientists, including Einstein, had the Utopian idea that the bomb would lead to a world government, which would mostly supersede the nation-states. This also did not happen. It's a complex story, and Shellenberger told it well. <br />
<br />
It became a battle between the idea of promoting world peace through promoting fear of radiation, and promoting world prosperity through the use of nuclear power. I believe Shellenberger is writing a book on this subject. I will be eager to read it.<br />
<br />
<b>So Much More</b><br />
<br />
There's so much more to say. But if I don't post now, I will be late to the meeting!<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-21325946878734575622018-09-27T20:40:00.000-04:002018-09-28T08:57:57.552-04:00Low Dose Radiation: The Conference in Pasco<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1ONo5j6IpmhXzRMqs_avRNwBEksBgDtyE49h8P7e9FD7AJ-e3u-LjeYksDALoANz0HA3Y5CrKwAKjYorAO0Fz_8uEFJOQztnaO63sHQ07YPMQF7f2lzI3hxCkQYWWSZ1qwtXG7qdIpqY/s1600/TheConcert.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="494" data-original-width="676" height="291" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1ONo5j6IpmhXzRMqs_avRNwBEksBgDtyE49h8P7e9FD7AJ-e3u-LjeYksDALoANz0HA3Y5CrKwAKjYorAO0Fz_8uEFJOQztnaO63sHQ07YPMQF7f2lzI3hxCkQYWWSZ1qwtXG7qdIpqY/s400/TheConcert.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Mid Columbia Master Singers perform at the front face of the B reactor<br />
Photo courtesy of Energy Northwest</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Low Dose Radiation</b><br />
<br />
It is generally agreed that high radiation doses can be very harmful. However, few things in nature are described by simple straight lines, and other effects of radiation are not so clear. Is exposure to low levels of radiation harmful, neutral, or helpful? Let's just say that the answers are controversial: no "general agreement" here!<br />
<br />
Next week, in Pasco Washington, a joint meeting of the American Nuclear Society and the Health Physics Society will attempt to get some clarity on the effects of low dose radiation. Experts from many countries will attend. I am pleased to say I will be at that meeting and I will be blogging about it. Watch this space!<br />
<br />
Here's the press release announcing the meeting.<br />
<br />
<b>International meeting in Tri-Cities to discuss low dose protection standards</b><br />
<br />
RICHLAND, Wash. – The American Nuclear Society and the Health Physics Society have joined to provide an international forum of current nuclear expertise to evaluate whether existing low dose protection standards should be reconsidered. Ethical standards for many, including radiation biologists and epidemiologists in recent years, call into question the justification for unintended consequences that may result from adherence to the long-established model.<br />
<br />
Featured speakers include William Magwood, Antone Brooks, Michael Shellenberger and Gayle Woloschak. Nuclear expert at Atomic Insights Rod Adams [<a href="http://www.atomicinsights.com/">www.atomicinsights.com</a>] and Nuclear Advocate Meredith Angwin will cover the meeting through their blogs. One of the media contacts will send an email with links to the posts at the end of each program day.<br />
<br />
The conference will be held in Pasco, Wash., Oct. 1-3 at the Pasco Red Lion. For program details, visit our website at <a href="http://lowdoserad.org/">lowdoserad.org</a>.<br />
<br />
News media are invited to attend the meeting. Please coordinate interview requests with one of the the media contacts:<br />
Gerald Woodcock, Arrangements Chair, 509-308-6452 <br />
Anna Markham, Communication Chair, 509-377-8162 <br />
---<br />
<b>Master Singers at the B Reactor</b><br />
<br />
I have been to a meeting that held its banquet at a museum after-hours. That was pretty cool. This meeting will hold a kick-off banquet at a decommissioned reactor from the Manhattan Project! That is beyond merely cool! I am very happy that I will be able to attend this event.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.mcmastersingers.org/" target="_blank">Mid-Columbia Master Singers</a> will perform at the banquet: the photo above is from an earlier performance. Here's a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q3GIyHzPfA" target="_blank">video </a>of their performance at B reactor last year. Enjoy!Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-38708687235636570462018-08-26T12:30:00.000-04:002018-08-26T14:44:10.448-04:00Electrification of the Heating Sector: CLG meeting in September<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>Consumer Liaison Group Meeting in September</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
The purpose of the Consumer Liaison Group (CLG) is to be the voice of the electricity consumer in advising the grid operator, ISO-NE. (I am on the Coordinating Committee for the CLG.)</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
The next meeting of the Consumer Liaison Group will be Thursday, September 20, in Windsor Locks, Connecticut. The topic is Electrification of the Heating Sector. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
CLG meetings are free, but you should register in advance if you want lunch. Here's the information. The graphic is merely a screen shot, I supply the relevant links below the graphic. I hope to see some of you there.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM4E97RJba5M08kUQ2mryCJ2t2FYbITZpKMGrYqI4jvfCerKxglVeYxzOIF2SDFsHK-PtXvXgLJ0LUpaXEf7yCyZL4JJ-boxPPmiSnAbkk36GR7TfEQcW01ILaEqelmmheZHSO8FoQ8xw/s1600/Sept18CLG.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1318" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM4E97RJba5M08kUQ2mryCJ2t2FYbITZpKMGrYqI4jvfCerKxglVeYxzOIF2SDFsHK-PtXvXgLJ0LUpaXEf7yCyZL4JJ-boxPPmiSnAbkk36GR7TfEQcW01ILaEqelmmheZHSO8FoQ8xw/s640/Sept18CLG.jpeg" width="524" /></a></div>
<br />
<a href="http://doubletree3.hilton.com/en/hotels/connecticut/doubletree-by-hilton-hotel-hartford-bradley-airport-BDLETDT/index.html" target="_blank">DoubleTree Hilton Hotel, Windsor Locks, CT</a><br />
<a href="https://www.iso-ne.com/committees/industry-collaborations/consumer-liaison" target="_blank">CLG Webpage</a><br />
<a href="https://www.iso-ne.com/event-details?eventId=135360" target="_blank">Register</a>Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-89887421292684839932018-08-14T18:45:00.003-04:002018-08-14T18:45:51.466-04:00New England Governor's Meeting: Guest post by Guy Page<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmYC77DemjCfQE7W4i5m9Nd3FPo4piOFwhiMJwtqnwlwdEmSuIY4XuNgo37rr7MqdQZUxl4eVbfzWoXviz-6gAIEs9793mM5iStinMhUjVQv458LNfj6IUq8WRaOblzTL32iIihg7ZA6I/s1600/Toronto_ON_2003_Blackout.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="640" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmYC77DemjCfQE7W4i5m9Nd3FPo4piOFwhiMJwtqnwlwdEmSuIY4XuNgo37rr7MqdQZUxl4eVbfzWoXviz-6gAIEs9793mM5iStinMhUjVQv458LNfj6IUq8WRaOblzTL32iIihg7ZA6I/s400/Toronto_ON_2003_Blackout.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Toronto, Evening of August 14, 2003, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003#/media/File:Toronto_ON_2003_Blackout.jpg" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>On eve of 15th anniversary of Big Blackout, governors push more reliable power grid</b><br />
<br />
By Guy Page<br />
AUGUST 13, 2018 - Maybe the timing was just co-incidence. But today, on the eve of the 15th anniversary of the August 14, 2003 Big Blackout that put 50 million North Americans in the dark, <a href="http://governor.vermont.gov/press-release/new-england-governors-statement-regional-energy-affordability" target="_blank">Gov. Phil Scott and four other New England governors announced plans to prevent crippling power blackouts.</a><br />
<br />
The 2003 outage blacked out an estimated 50 million people and 61,800 megawatts (MW) of electric load in eight northeastern states, including parts of southern Vermont, and Ontario.<br />
<br />
Maybe the governors remember the Big Blackout, but it’s more likely they are heeding this winter’s scary wake-up call. For three weeks of record cold in December and January, New England homeowners burned record amounts of natural gas to stay warm. Power grid operators lacked adequate supply to power regional natural-gas fired plants. The New England grid was already playing with a thin bench, due to recent closures of coal and nuclear power plants. Things got worse when a transmission line failure separated an operational nuclear power plant from its customers. In extremis, grid operators burned backup stockpiles of dirty, expensive coal and oil. Soon even these supplies began to run low. Had sub-zero temperatures persisted, the grim reality of blackouts, frozen pipes and frostbitten New Englanders was imminent. <br />
<br />
In the aftermath, grid operator ISO-New England warned that preventing blackouts will require action. Yesterday, the governors agreed:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“The New England states and ISO New England have recognized the challenge of increasing reliance on natural gas-fired generation during cold periods when the region’s natural gas is used primarily for heating. These concerns have been heightened as non-natural gas-fired generation resources, such as nuclear, coal, and oil, have retired in recent years. During recent winters, ISO-NE has been relying on more expensive, carbon-intensive oil-fired units to ensure sufficient generation to meet hour-by-hour demands on our energy system.” </blockquote>
The governors in particular praised the low-carbon, energy security value of nuclear power:<br />
“Effective next June, the region will have two nuclear power plants that represent approximately 3,500 MW of baseload energy that is not dependent on natural gas infrastructure and also helps to meet emission goals. ….It is important to continue to evaluate cost-effective policies that properly value existing clean energy resources which have significant fuel security implications.”<br />
<br />
Proposed energy policies, to be adopted state-by-state, could include:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Public “cold weather” education to conserve non-essential electricity and heating fuel, similar to messaging during summer heat waves;</li>
<li>Charging customers more at peak hours of consumption, hopefully to reduce demand;</li>
<li> Energy efficiency, including weatherization and combined heat and power, which reduces overall consumption of electricity and natural gas; and</li>
<li>New, generation such as large-scale hydropower and off-shore wind;</li>
<li>Working with Congress to ensure Liquid Natural Gas can be delivered in a timely manner during winter;</li>
<li>More backup generation, fuel storage and transmission. </li>
</ul>
<br />
For those of us who may have forgotten the 8/14/2003 Big Blackout, or vaguely remember seeing news coverage on our (electric) television sets – power was not restored for 4 days in some parts of the United States, according to the official EPA final report April, 2004. According to August 13 2013, ISO Newswire, New England was largely spared from the effects of the outage because protective equipment installed on the transmission system sensed the disturbance and automatically closed the ‘electricity border’ with New York, splitting New England away from the collapsing power system to the west. <br />
<br />
But that’s history. New England’s governors have taken the important first step of acknowledging a serious, life-threatening problem exists. Whether they can prevent another Big Blackout is a question for historians of the future.<br />
<br />
---------<br />
<a href="https://yesvy.blogspot.com/2017/02/sooner-rather-than-later-northstar.html#.W3NbXS3MzUI" target="_blank"> Guy Page,</a> a frequent guest blogger at this site, <a href="https://mailchi.mp/5c75def33c5a/headliners-on-eve-of-big-blackout-anniversary-governors-move-to-prevent-region-wide-power-outages" target="_blank">published this in his newsletter: State House Headliners. </a><br />
<br />
Copyright © 2018 Guy Page, All rights reserved.<br />
<br />
Reprinted by permission<br />
<br />Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-16703373066938336762018-07-12T10:16:00.002-04:002018-10-06T11:44:45.076-04:00Updated. Batteries at Green Mountain Power: Beating the Peak<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdLVYWTwsvOHhyphenhyphenx149lFe0A2JDOJ302URyh9l-I0osaxkodUHTpbDbSyH0RPMLgzI3gy5fnlozbsBO9NKxuOLQdr2hetHGLOXwgY6erXfjSXYxZzFK2kk0u9v-lCf2Pvd_NOAt5h3Teis/s1600/Batteries.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="214" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdLVYWTwsvOHhyphenhyphenx149lFe0A2JDOJ302URyh9l-I0osaxkodUHTpbDbSyH0RPMLgzI3gy5fnlozbsBO9NKxuOLQdr2hetHGLOXwgY6erXfjSXYxZzFK2kk0u9v-lCf2Pvd_NOAt5h3Teis/s1600/Batteries.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_battery#/media/File:Batteries.jpg" target="_blank">Batteries from Wikipedia</a><br />
(Tesla battery images are proprietary)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Beating the Peak</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
I wrote recently about <a href="http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-game-of-peaks.html#.W0Zyny3MzUI" target="_blank">The Game of Peaks</a>. This game is a business move, not a moral imperative.<br />
<br />
Utilities pay a percentage of overall grid costs based on the percentage of power they use during the high-usage peak hour on the grid. Lowering their usage at that time can save significant amounts of money for the utility. <br />
<br />
Note that "beating the peak" saves money for one utility, but the fixed costs of the grid remain the same. If one utility beats the peak, another utility will pay more for the fixed costs of the grid. Beating the Peak has little to do with conservation, a clean grid, etc. We are talking about cost shifting from one business to another. It irritates me when utilities wrap themselves in "do-good" rhetoric about this cost shift plan.<br />
<br />
I plan a series of posts about Vermont utilities and their various strategies for Beating the Peak. I start today with the biggest utility (Green Mountain Power) which has the most high-tech strategy (batteries).<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Green Mountain Power: We Have the Batteries</b><br />
<br />
In an article in 2016, Green Mountain Power claims to have used batteries to reduce its peak power demand and <a href="https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2016/10/27/green-mountain-power-saves-200k-battery-power/92824712/" target="_blank">save its customers $200,000 in an hour.</a> We know that Green Mountain Power plans to use batteries to shave the peak this year, also, as described in their recent press release: <a href="https://vtdigger.org/2018/07/09/green-mountain-power-turns-stored-energy-heat-wave/" target="_blank">During Hot Weather GMP Leveraging Stored Energy to Drive Down Peak Power Demand and Lower Costs for Customers</a> In the press release, GMP describes the use of solar power and batteries in terms of 5,000 homes powered by battery during the peak, and that GMP's power sources are 90% carbon free.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Complicated and slow</b><br />
<br />
The battery story is a bit more complicated, actually. The press release above claims that<i> Vermonters have installed nearly 500 Powerwall batteries in their homes...GMP can share access to stored energy to pull down power demand at key times... and drive down costs for all customers</i>.<br />
<br />
Actually, Green Mountain Power is not deploying its Tesla battery units as fast as it had hoped to do so. <a href="https://electrek.co/2018/04/06/tesla-powerwall-delivered-massive-batch/" target="_blank">Electrek reported in April</a> that only 200 home Powerwalls had been installed out of 2000 that GMP planned to install. However, the article said that the utility was making some "big deals" (with commercial customers?) that would lead to more deployment. <br />
<br />
If there were 200 batteries in April and 500 now, the pace of installation must have increased. Here's how Electrek describes the arrangement GMP makes with its customers for Powerwalls: <i>Under their agreement with the electric utility, homeowners who receive a Powerwall are able to use it for backup power for “$15 a month or a $1,500 one-time fee”, which is significantly less expensive the ~$7,000 cost of the device with installation, but in return, Green Mountain Power is able to access the energy in the pack to support its grid, like a virtual power plant.</i><br />
<br />
<i style="font-weight: bold;">UPDATE: </i>Green Mountain Power has just claimed to have saved $500k during the recent heatwave, deploying "enough batteries to accomplish the equivalent of taking 5000 homes off the grid." They also said they had deployed 500 Powerwall batteries. In this case, my estimate of $1000 saved per battery (see below) would be correct. <br />
<br />
However, as described in the article, GMP also has solar storage facilities, access to electric vehicle chargers, and other methods of saving electricity. Because of the other methods of saving electricity, as well the Powerwalls, my estimate of $1000 saved per battery is too high. Since there is no way for me to correct the estimate, I will stay with that estimate, but note that it is optimistic on the role of batteries. <a href="https://vermontbiz.com/news/2018/july/12/stored-energy-helped-gmp-save-500k-during-heatwave" target="_blank">Vermont Business Magazine: Stored energy helped GMP cave $500 K during heatwave. </a><br />
<br />
<i><br /></i><b>Math on the Batteries</b><br />
<br />
Let's do some math. If batteries "beat the peak" for Green Mountain Power, they could be cost effective. Let's say GMP installs 1000 batteries, and each battery costs them $7,000 (true cost) minus $1,500 (cost the homeowner pays.) So each battery costs Green Mountain Power $5,500. With 1000 batteries, they will have invested $5.5 million dollars in batteries.<br />
<br />
If GMP saves only $200,000 a year by beating-the-peak, it would take GMP about 27 years to make up the $5.5 million cost for the batteries. Hopefully, they will actually save more, or perhaps they got a better deal on the batteries. <br />
<br />
I'll look the calculation a different way, however. In 2016, Green Mountain Power saved $200,000 a year with less than 200 batteries deployed. If GMP saves $1000 a year per battery, it will only take them 5.5 years to make up the costs of the batteries, which is a more reasonable payback time.<br />
<br />
<br />
However, if GMP deploys all 2000 batteries that they plan to use, will they be able to save $1000 per battery? Will they be able to save $2 million in a year?<br />
<br />
To answer this question, I would have to look at what they would pay for transmission without using the batteries. First, we need to know the overall grid costs for transmission. That part is easy: <a href="https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/transmission" target="_blank">ISO-NE expects to spend $700 million dollars</a> on transmission this year.<br />
<br />
Then comes the hard part: estimating Green Mountain Power's peak use compared to grid peak use. I fear this would be a lot of speculation on my part. I don't know how much GMP would pay without the batteries. And by what percentage would the batteries cut demand? Perhaps GMP could save $2 million a year on transmission costs, by using the batteries. Perhaps they couldn't. I will just leave the question out there.<br />
<br />
<i>Note</i>: It is not clear how quickly the homeowner will make back their share ($1500) of the costs of the batteries.<br />
<br />
<b>My opinion of the GMP Strategy: Not very cost-effective. Not straightforward.</b><br />
<br />
<b>Cost: </b>Batteries are an innovative way to shave a peak, but they don't look particularly cost-effective. They are okay, but even a six year payback is long, in terms of business calculations. And a six year payback was my most optimistic calculation.<br />
<br />
<b>Rhetoric:</b> In my opinion, GMP's rhetoric about the batteries and the peak is misleading. <a href="https://vtdigger.org/2018/07/09/green-mountain-power-turns-stored-energy-heat-wave/" target="_blank">Their press release</a> is full of feel-good words about the environment, and nothing about how the money is saved --the "savings" is really a transfer of grid costs to other utilities.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-40738854333621354872018-07-05T12:22:00.001-04:002018-07-12T08:38:10.232-04:00The Game of Peaks<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizWmA5bwYoeaYsh3ZUrd2xuoa4HI72sAsgMbINE2yg9t5DeNXvB3Fp-XOP3iTXSGuME82reRQUy2vrttg4phM7HlQX7VtRC_F6sVHenXOHB2j4OUzsTuMd8gYE7Lf8nwGCIgWsAdrusNo/s1600/Game_of_Thrones_Oslo_exhibition_2014_-_Weapons.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="759" height="315" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizWmA5bwYoeaYsh3ZUrd2xuoa4HI72sAsgMbINE2yg9t5DeNXvB3Fp-XOP3iTXSGuME82reRQUy2vrttg4phM7HlQX7VtRC_F6sVHenXOHB2j4OUzsTuMd8gYE7Lf8nwGCIgWsAdrusNo/s400/Game_of_Thrones_Oslo_exhibition_2014_-_Weapons.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Weapons used as props in the Game of Thrones<br />
<a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Game_of_Thrones_Oslo_exhibition_2014_-_Weapons.jpg" target="_blank">Wikimedia</a><br />
By Benjamin Skinstad [CC BY 3.0 ]</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>The Game of Peaks</b><br />
<br />
Cutting back on electricity use on the hottest day of the summer is not a moral imperative. It is merely part of The Game of Peaks. This game allows large utilities to shift costs to smaller utilities and co-operatives.<br />
<br />
Luckily Game of Peaks is all about accountants, not swords. The Game of Peaks is nowhere near as brutal as the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Thrones" target="_blank">Game of Thrones</a>. Nobody gets killed in the Game of Peaks, but lots of people get misled about the situation on the grid. And lots of people end up paying more than their fair share of grid costs. There are losers in the Game of Peaks. You may be one of them.<br />
<br />
<b>Rules for the Game of Peaks</b><br />
<br />
ISO-NE must charge utilities their "fair share" of system costs, particularly transmission costs. But what is their fair share? ISO determines a utility's share of the grid-wide transmission costs by determining <i>the power used by that utility during the peak-usage hour</i> on the grid. The percentage of power used during the peak is the percentage of transmission costs that the utility has to pay.<br />
<br />
Of course, this percentage calculation is an opportunity for utilities to shift costs elsewhere. Utilities campaign about "shaving the peak." Announcements state that "we saved hundreds of thousands of dollars by shaving the peak." For example, in this Burlington Free Press article from 2016, Green Mountain Power claims to have used batteries to reduce its peak power demand, <a href="https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2016/10/27/green-mountain-power-saves-200k-battery-power/92824712/" target="_blank">saving customers $200,000 in an hour</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>Conservation Now?</b><br />
<br />
The statement about saving $200,000 in an hour is a bit misleading. It looks like it is about energy conservation, sparing the grid, etc. It isn't. <br />
<br />
That $200,000 wasn't some excess cost of electricity in that single hour. The savings comes from the fact that Green Mountain Power used its predictive power and its batteries to reduce its demand at the time of peak demand. Therefore, it will reduce the amount it pays for grid-level transmission. Somebody is still paying that $200K for transmission: the overall cost of grid transmission hasn't changed. Some other utility is paying that cost.<br />
<br />
According to an <a href="https://electrek.co/2018/07/04/tesla-powerwalls-save-day-heat-wave-vermont/" target="_blank">article yesterday in Electrek</a>, Green Mountain Power has now has 5,000 kWh of battery storage at this time. This 5 MWh of storage will not make much difference to expense of transmission on the grid. However, Green Mountain Power hopes it will make a major difference to their own bottom line, as it did in 2016.<br />
<br />
<b>Saving Electricity in Summer: The Game as Played</b><br />
<br />
As I wrote in an earlier post, <a href="http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-not-stressed-grid-in-summer.html#.Wz5EjS3MzUI" target="_blank">The Not-Stressed Grid in Summer</a>, "beating the peak" is <i>not</i> about<br />
<ul>
<li>saving money while the grid power is expensive, (it is not that expensive in summer) or</li>
<li>diminishing pollution (coal and oil are not in use much during the summer), or</li>
<li>keeping the grid from failing (there's plenty of reserve capacity). </li>
</ul>
<br />
The local grid is doing well in very hot weather. <br />
<br />
I am writing this post because utilities only seem to talk about the grid when they are pushing "beat the peak." If the peak is beaten, the peak-beating utilities save money, and the other utilities have to pay more. It's a zero-sum game, not a moral imperative.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, people know very little about the grid, except that you "shouldn't" (whatever that means) use as much electricity on a hot day in summer. If I write about the grid, I need to debunk that fallacy. I feel that if I am going to write about the problems the <a href="https://yesvy.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-northeast-grid-and-oil.html#.Wz5Bvy3MzUI" target="_blank">local grid faces in winter</a>, I also needed to write about the problems of summer. Or rather, about the non-problems of summer, and the misleading rhetoric of some utilities.<br />
<br />
<b>Yes. Saving electricity is always good</b><br />
<br />
Don't get me wrong. Being thrifty and not using excess power is always a very good thing. Still, it helps the environment more if you are thrifty with electric usage in winter (with all that oil and coal-burning) than in midsummer. It helps your local utility's bottom line more if you are thrifty with electric use in summer.<br />
<br />
My voice is rather muted, compared to utility advertising campaigns, but I felt that I must speak up.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-8106759062528878842018-07-05T12:16:00.000-04:002018-07-05T12:23:40.597-04:00The Not-Stressed Grid in Summer<b>The grid is not stressed</b><br />
<br />
The Northeast is using a lot of power, but the grid is not particularly stressed. "Using a lot of power" and "stressed grid" are not the same thing. Many local utilities are urging conservation...but this is not because the grid is stressed. More about conservation in the next post.<br />
<br />
How can I say the grid is not stressed? We're having a major heat wave! For days, Vermont temperatures have been in the high nineties. A number of communities <a href="https://vermontbiz.com/news/2018/july/02/vermont-communities-open-cooling-stations?utm_source=VBM+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=e5bc2355ce-ENEWS_2018_07_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5e56b36a4-e5bc2355ce-286677853" target="_blank">opened "Cooling Stations"</a> in public building such as fire departments. People were encouraged to go to air-conditioned malls, drink water, check in on elderly people who may need assistance, etc.<br />
<br />
Okay, it's hot. But I will start by comparing the <i>grid</i> situation on this heat wave with the grid situation in the cold snap in December-January.<br />
<br />
<b>Hot weather electricity use and prices</b><br />
<br />
Let's look at the ISO-NE electricity usage chart for July 3. The peak is near 25,000 MW. The LMP (local marginal price) prices for electricity were between about $25 and $80 per MWh, or about 3 cents to 8 cents per kWh.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUEwmg0DNIhhIOzaiuvZH-U_vzMRoz3QMxc7-ExJyVNqq655hVKB6uR2yU8oqMfyVWVdsvkPeFGrtbiRFIYd7EfSR4TZEUzpjYum0CjdtTK7lSSeDaaBWDU2iJ3CKYkUAwlCQ3dYGGHdQ/s1600/julyISO.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1538" data-original-width="656" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUEwmg0DNIhhIOzaiuvZH-U_vzMRoz3QMxc7-ExJyVNqq655hVKB6uR2yU8oqMfyVWVdsvkPeFGrtbiRFIYd7EfSR4TZEUzpjYum0CjdtTK7lSSeDaaBWDU2iJ3CKYkUAwlCQ3dYGGHdQ/s640/julyISO.jpeg" width="272" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>Cold weather electricity use and prices</b><br />
<br />
In contrast, during the cold snap at the beginning of this year, electricity use never got much higher than 22,000 MW, as shown in this graph from the <a href="https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2018/01/20180112_cold_weather_ops_npc.pdf" target="_blank">ISO report on cold weather operations</a>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxmDQ8R6gXyi8HAHm4VE3ZyA_QPS6LjIb4LgwcP6KCv6KF-aQfR6AKqoN65syFayMMezz2WSc4iPzWDIDJzC6vuYjE7RX3iMECFnJ0MUeAouRx3QF1MdbmtHFAd2VpZm9lqgLOupsvg1Y/s1600/Coldweather+load.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1027" data-original-width="1600" height="205" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxmDQ8R6gXyi8HAHm4VE3ZyA_QPS6LjIb4LgwcP6KCv6KF-aQfR6AKqoN65syFayMMezz2WSc4iPzWDIDJzC6vuYjE7RX3iMECFnJ0MUeAouRx3QF1MdbmtHFAd2VpZm9lqgLOupsvg1Y/s320/Coldweather+load.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
However, in the cold snap, the LMP prices spent a lot of time between $150 and $300 per MWh (15 cents to 30 cents per kWh). The circled area on the graph below, from the same ISO report.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinu20bcCxDez5kvRXcxZ-pOlxv_hDmJspE9rWf5MwXg_kSAkSm9dCfNGP-LXVEFVDpBLhTwoqWJ0VY7z05US3zPd12xvUN6ZDBFnVvvH2eRx109nA-111MIGyLiGeoSMBPjW8R3ZMsTaU/s1600/coldweathergrid+prices.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1109" data-original-width="1600" height="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinu20bcCxDez5kvRXcxZ-pOlxv_hDmJspE9rWf5MwXg_kSAkSm9dCfNGP-LXVEFVDpBLhTwoqWJ0VY7z05US3zPd12xvUN6ZDBFnVvvH2eRx109nA-111MIGyLiGeoSMBPjW8R3ZMsTaU/s400/coldweathergrid+prices.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
In short, during the cold snap we used less electricity and paid higher prices than we do now. <br />
<br />
<b>Conservation and fuel usage</b><br />
<br />
Using more electricity in New England means making more carbon dioxide and burning more fossil fuels. So conservation is always good. But is conservation in summer particularly wonderful? Not really.<br />
<br />
Right now, we have a fairly clean grid. The fuel mix is mostly natural gas, nuclear, hydro and renewables. The grid was running 60% gas, 20% nuclear 16% hydro and renewables. Pretty good, in terms of emissions! Here's a recent fuel mix graph.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGfKy1LnLiJkLSu6qNxl4Yg5wXyHaM9rryQRUJAktM48I6bDzD5dxw0yOOKEtW238f7Db6fei45KJaJls9i5jyE5yajnMyCzFbQgcdcjFgbLYUOZBn8Jh2DyJjbJeIybYNovHMFHEbggQ/s1600/july4mix.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="734" data-original-width="666" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGfKy1LnLiJkLSu6qNxl4Yg5wXyHaM9rryQRUJAktM48I6bDzD5dxw0yOOKEtW238f7Db6fei45KJaJls9i5jyE5yajnMyCzFbQgcdcjFgbLYUOZBn8Jh2DyJjbJeIybYNovHMFHEbggQ/s320/july4mix.jpeg" width="290" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A fuel mix chart for the grid on July 4</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;">In contrast, in the winter, when natural gas was not available, oil and coal were in heavy use (</span><a href="http://www.vnews.com/Column-OilSavesGrid-ma-14865099" style="text-align: center;" target="_blank">Oil Kept the Power Grid Running</a><span style="text-align: center;"> op-ed). </span>During the cold snap, the mix was 30% oil, not "less than 1%" oil, as it is now. <span style="text-align: center;"> Coal use was higher, also, up around 5%. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;"><b>Surplus Capacity</b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;">So far, there's no particular reason to conserve right now instead of conserving some other time. But let's look at something else. Perhaps, even with natural gas available, the grid is close to maximum capacity in hot weather? Perhaps, if we don't conserve, the grid will fail?</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;">Nope. The grid is doing well. If you look at the <a href="https://iso-ne.com/" target="_blank">ISO-NE website</a>, it lists "surplus capacity" right on the front page. At this moment, as I am writing this, on a very hot day, surplus capacity on the grid is 1,180 MW. That is the capacity available <i>above </i>the maximum predicted peak power use for today (23, 000MW) and <i>above</i> the grid's operating reserve requirement for today (2,492 MW). You can always check these types of figures in the <a href="https://iso-ne.com/markets-operations/system-forecast-status/morning-report" target="_blank">ISO-NE morning report</a>. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;">Or, you can simply remember that when ISO-NE predicted the <a href="http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2018/05/rolling-blackouts-for-new-england.html#.Wz4LHi3MzUI" target="_blank">possibility of rolling blackouts</a> in the future, ISO was concerned with winter stress on the grid leading to blackouts. They were not concerned with high summer electricity usage. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;"> In short, conserving electricity this summer doesn't save more money or more carbon dioxide then it would save at many other times. As a matter of fact, it saves less of both than it would save in a winter cold snap. Conserving now also doesn't "save the grid" from blackouts. The grid is operating at high capacity, but nowhere near its capacity limits.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;"> So why are the utilities pushing conservation <i>right now</i>?</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;"><b>Game of Peaks</b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;">The utilities are urging conservation right now because they are playing the Game of Peaks. It's a utility game about money. If they play the Game of Peaks well, they can shift some costs from themselves over to neighboring utilities. Yeah, it's a zero-sum game. ("I win" can only happen if "you lose.")</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;"> Learn the rules for the <a href="http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-game-of-peaks.html#.Wz5F7S3MzUI" target="_blank">Game of Peaks in the next post</a>.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-32311738881432941982018-06-20T14:49:00.001-04:002018-06-21T10:33:50.317-04:00Micro and Macro: What is the Energy Future?<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmk1ogKsAgY9ib5H-4_rPDDa3jv8_dLBt_dHod45d_pmxrw9XTEsnD5jrcNbUo4WAfhoDrsPuub9U7v2mYKkKsL4HINHSR4KCO88bmEa0xHcKRhNFzYKBpnUzq6rhBRh3Z_YqtKdf-8XM/s1600/1200px-Solar_panels_on_house_roof.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="803" data-original-width="1200" height="267" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmk1ogKsAgY9ib5H-4_rPDDa3jv8_dLBt_dHod45d_pmxrw9XTEsnD5jrcNbUo4WAfhoDrsPuub9U7v2mYKkKsL4HINHSR4KCO88bmEa0xHcKRhNFzYKBpnUzq6rhBRh3Z_YqtKdf-8XM/s400/1200px-Solar_panels_on_house_roof.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Solar panel on a house roof near Boston<br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_panel#/media/File:Solar_panels_on_house_roof.jpg" target="_blank">Wikipedia, Gray Watson </a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Everybody knows?</b><br />
<br />
Milt Caplan wrote an <a href="http://mzconsultinginc.com/?p=982" target="_blank">excellent blog post on the future of energy.</a> He describes attending an event where<br />
<br />
<i>a number of speakers prefaced their comments with statements like “<b>everybody knows</b> the future will be based on distributed generation – primarily with small scale renewables and storage to provide reliability”. </i><br />
(Bold in the original)<br />
<i><br /></i>
Is this indeed what <b>everybody knows</b>? Is there no dissent?<br />
<br />
<b>Maybe Microgrids?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
As Caplan wrote:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #fdfdfd; color: #777777; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 15.399999618530273px;"> </span><span style="background-color: #fdfdfd; color: #777777; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 15.399999618530273px;"><i>We have this romantic fantasy that we can live off-grid with a combination of solar power and battery backup. Of course, with a bit of thought .....we accept that we cannot go it completely alone. The conclusion being that maybe we need to collaborate with our neighbours and build a small system (or microgrid) to achieve the reliability that we need to power our lives.</i></span></blockquote>
As it turns out, I have also been thinking about microgrids. A few days ago, I heard an excellent <a href="https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2018/06/clg_meeting_haun_panelist_presentation_june_14_2018.pdf" target="_blank">talk on smart microgrids</a> by Andy Haun, Chief Technology Officer, Schneider Electric Microgrids Business. These advanced microgrids can be controlled "in parallel" with the grid. When used in this manner, the smart microgrid systems can avoid costs by shaving peak demand and by using cheaper, off-peak power. The microgrids can be also controlled in an "intentional islanded mode," which is especially useful for storm readiness.<br />
<br />
It seemed to me that while these microgrids <i>could</i> be used stand-alone in remote locations, they were mostly going to be used in conjunction with the larger grid. Or why develop all these "peak shaving" features, and so forth?<br />
<br />
It doesn't look to me as if advanced microgrids are going to make the bigger grid obsolete, or at least, not anytime soon.<br />
<br />
<b>Maybe Macrogrids? </b><br />
<br />
Maybe instead of microgrids, we should be looking at really big macro grids?<br />
<br />
Many of the renewables advocates who hope for a proliferation of microgrids also hope for long-distance DC lines, to bring bulk power from sunny or windy places to places where more people are living. Maybe, the answer is long-DC lines to bring energy across the continent, moving energy from sunny and windy areas to big cities. In other words, really big grids.<br />
<br />
Earlier this year, Power Engineering featured an article, <a href="https://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-122/issue-1/features/enabling-large-scale-renewables-in-the-western-u-s.html" target="_blank">Enabling Large Scale Renewables in the Western U.S</a>. This article proposed new, lengthy High Voltage DC lines. These lines had names such as Power from the Prairie, and Centennial West. The lines seemed primarily designed to move wind energy from the west to the east. Similarly, in early June, an Wall Street Journal ran an opinion piece titled <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/upgrade-americas-19th-century-electric-grid-1528152728" target="_blank">Upgrade America's 19th Century Electric Grid. </a> This article called for a $500 billion dollar infrastructure project to build DC power lines to "transfer energy between power-abundant and power-hungry regions. "<br />
<br />
Could this work? Probably not.<br />
<br />
Donn Dears wrote a blog post <a href="http://www.powerforusa.com/2018/06/15/dc-transmission-for-cutting-co2-emissions/" target="_blank">DC Transmission for Cutting CO2 Emissions</a>. As Dears explains, HVDC transmission lines are best for moving great quantities of power for long distances; current examples carry hydro power from dams to cities. There are HVDC transmission lines carrying hydro power in the American West (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie" target="_blank">Pacific DC Intertie</a>), and similar lines in China and Brazil. These lines are fully utilized almost all the time, because they come from huge hydro systems with more than one power plant.<br />
<br />
Such utilization would not be the case for the new DC lines proposed for the US. They would carry wind and perhaps solar energy, which are not steadily available. Low utilization rates would lead to higher costs, and DC lines are only cost-effective in limited circumstances to start with. An HVDC build-out would not work. It would not be cost-effective.<br />
<br />
<b>Pursuit of the the Unsuitable</b><br />
<br />
Somehow, in pursuit of renewable energy, microgrids (connected to the main grid) or a huge buildout of continent-spanning DC power lines (connected to the main grid) are considered to be options. The main grid doesn't go away, but these new features get added.<br />
<br />
Now, there are uses for both microgrids and DC lines. Even their proponents, however, are not proposing microgrids and DC lines as a complete substitute for the current grid. At best, they would solve some problems on the grid. At worst, they would be high-cost, duplicative add-ons to the grid that exists now.<br />
<br />
In short, if we want to decarbonize our grid without romantic fantasy and without too much costly duplication, we need the following:<br />
<ul>
<li>Keep our current fleet of nuclear plants running</li>
<li>Build more nuclear plants</li>
<li>Build more grid infrastructure, as appropriate. </li>
<li>Don't duplicate infrastructure because "microgrid" or "HVDC" sounds cool. Add them as needed. </li>
</ul>
In other words, for a reasonable future, we must pursue suitable technologies. Technologies such as nuclear energy.<br />
<br />Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-34919185018584812312018-05-17T11:55:00.000-04:002018-06-01T11:49:24.966-04:00Rolling Blackouts for New England? Angwin Op-Ed<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZqJXUtSniwq1GMnC31Gvg7z9qMZJ129dsPIXEPR5EXzz2nRhPWBHS3jmFrEzVdxwthXOh7KO_XqP4Q2cUcVEfqtxt02O_q7Zyelve4TDoc5mkxpT1-SwXmRHqW3a50k2qBgQV-dV-l_I/s1600/Mystic_Station_Power_Plant.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1064" data-original-width="1600" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZqJXUtSniwq1GMnC31Gvg7z9qMZJ129dsPIXEPR5EXzz2nRhPWBHS3jmFrEzVdxwthXOh7KO_XqP4Q2cUcVEfqtxt02O_q7Zyelve4TDoc5mkxpT1-SwXmRHqW3a50k2qBgQV-dV-l_I/s400/Mystic_Station_Power_Plant.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystic_Generating_Station#/media/File:Mystic_Station_Power_Plant.jpg" target="_blank">Mystic Power Station</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b><br /></b>
<b>Rolling blackouts</b><br />
<br />
Rolling blackouts are probably coming to New England sooner than expected.<br />
<br />
When there’s not enough supply of electricity to meet demand, an electric grid operator cuts power to one section of the grid to keep the rest of the grid from failing. After a while, the operator restores the power to the blacked-out area and moves the blackout on to another section. The New England grid operator (ISO-NE) recently completed <a href="https://iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2018/01/20180117_operational_fuel-security_analysis.pdf" target="_blank">a major study of various scenarios for the near-term future (2024-2025) of the grid</a>, including the possibilities of rolling blackouts.<br />
<br />
In New England, blackouts are expected to occur during the coldest weather, because that is when the grid is most stressed. Rolling blackouts add painful uncertainty – and danger – to everyday life. You aren’t likely to know when a blackout will happen, because most grid operators have a policy that announcing a blackout would attract crime to the area.<br />
<br />
<b>Exelon announces plan to close Mystic Station</b><br />
<br />
In early April, Exelon said that it would close two large natural-gas fired units at Mystic Station, Massachusetts. In its report about possibilities for the winter of 2024-25, ISO-NE had included the loss of these two plants as one of its scenarios. The ISO-NE report concluded that Mystic’s possible closure would lead to 20 to 50 hours of load shedding (rolling blackouts) and hundreds of hours of grid operation under emergency protocols.<br />
<br />
When Exelon made its closure announcement, ISO-NE realized that the danger of rolling blackouts was suddenly more immediate than 2024. <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/iso-ne-cost-recovery-proposal-opens-new-front-in-fuel-security-debate/522843/" target="_blank">ISO-NE now hopes to grant “out of market cost recovery”</a> (that is, subsidies) to persuade Exelon to keep the Mystic plants operating. If ISO-NE gets FERC permission for the subsidies, some of the threat of blackouts will retreat a few years into the future.<br />
<br />
<b>Winter scenarios and natural gas</b><br />
<br />
The foremost challenge to grid reliability is the inability of power plants to get fuel in winter. So ISO-NE modeled various scenarios, such as winter-long outages at key energy facilities, and difficulty or ease of delivering Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) to existing plants.<br />
<br />
Ominously, 19 of the 23 of the ISO-NE scenarios led to rolling blackouts. The worst scenarios, with the longest blackouts, included a long outage at a nuclear plant or a long-lasting failure of a gas pipeline compressor.<br />
<br />
A major cause of these grid problems is that the New England grid is heavily dependent on natural gas. Power plants using natural gas supply about 50% of New England’s electricity on a year-round basis. Pipelines give priority to delivering gas for home heating over delivering gas to power plants. In the winter, some power plants cannot get enough gas to operate. Other fuels have to take up the slack. But coal and nuclear generators are retiring, and with them goes needed capacity. In general, the competing-for-natural-gas problem will get steadily worse over time.<br />
<br />
All the ISO-NE scenarios assumed that no new oil, coal, or nuclear plants are built, some existing plants will close, and no new pipelines are constructed. Their scenarios included renewable buildouts, transmission line construction, increased delivery of LNG, plant outages and compressor outages.<br />
<br />
<b>Natural gas and LNG</b><br />
<br />
The one “no-problem” scenario (no load shedding, no emergency procedures) is one where everything goes right. It assumed no major pipeline or power plant outages. It included a large renewable buildout plus greatly increased LNG delivery, despite difficult winter weather. This no-problem scenario also assumes a minimum number of retirements of coal, oil and nuclear plants.<br />
<br />
This positive scenario is dependent on increased LNG deliveries from abroad. Thanks to the Jones Act, New England cannot obtain domestic LNG. There are no LNG carriers flying an American flag, and the Jones Act prevents foreign carriers from delivering American goods to American ports.<br />
<br />
We can plan to import more electricity, but ISO-NE notes that such imports are also problematic. Canada has extreme winter weather (and curtails electricity exports) at the same time that New England has extreme weather and a stressed grid.<br />
<br />
<b>New England needs a diverse grid</b><br />
<br />
To avoid blackouts, we need to diversify our energy supply beyond renewables and natural gas to have a grid that can reliably deliver power in all sorts of weather. When we close nuclear and coal plants and don’t build gas pipelines, we increase our weather-vulnerable dependency on imported LNG.<br />
<br />
We need to keep existing nuclear, hydro, coal and oil plants available to meet peak demands, even if it takes subsidies. Coal is a problem fuel, but running a coal plant for a comparatively short time in bad weather is a better choice than rolling blackouts.<br />
<br />
This can’t happen overnight. It has to be planned for. If we don’t diversify our electricity supply, we will have to get used to enduring rolling blackouts.<br />
-----<br />
Meredith Angwin is a retired physical chemist and a member of the ISO-NE consumer advisory group. She headed the <a href="http://ethanallen.org/" target="_blank">Ethan Allen Institute</a>’s Energy Education Project and her latest book is <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Campaigning-Clean-Air-Strategies-Pro-Nuclear-ebook/dp/B01MA5GU9Q/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1476806189&sr=1-1&keywords=angwin&refinements=p_n_feature_browse-bin:618073011" target="_blank"><i>Campaigning for Clean Air</i></a>.<br />
<br />
______<br />
<br />
This op-ed has now appeared in several websites and news outlets. Links below to the post in other publications, some of which have comment streams.<br />
This post at <a href="http://ethanallen.org/commentary-rolling-blackouts-for-new-england/" target="_blank">Ethan Allen Institute</a>, <a href="http://www.caledonianrecord.com/opinion/columns/meredith-angwin-rolling-blackouts-for-new-england/article_f9f8cb1c-b1cb-53a3-8b41-f058005402c9.html" target="_blank">The Caledonian Record</a>, <a href="https://vermontbiz.com/news/2018/may/15/angwin-rolling-blackouts-new-england" target="_blank">Vermont Business Magazine,</a> <a href="https://vtdigger.org/2018/05/16/meredith-angwin-rolling-blackouts-new-england/" target="_blank">VTDigger</a>, <a href="http://truenorthreports.com/rolling-blackouts-are-probably-coming-to-new-england" target="_blank">True North Reports</a>, <a href="http://www.commonsnews.org/site/site05/story.php?articleno=28285&page=1" target="_blank">The Commons</a>, <a href="https://newenglanddiary.com/home/9nyl3evvezt6ucdsuuderx999bmlmx/5/20/2018" target="_blank">New England Diary</a> <a href="http://digital.olivesoftware.com/olive/ODN/ProJoApp/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TPJ%2F2018%2F06%2F01&entity=Ar01500&sk=B7B896FF&mode=text" target="_blank">Providence Journal</a>, <a href="http://m.golocalprov.com/news/rhode-island-and-new-england-may-get-hit-with-rolling-blackouts-in-the-futu" target="_blank">Rhode Island and New England May Get Hit with Rolling Blackouts in the Future</a>, including an interview with me, appeared in GoLocalProv.com<br />
<br />
<b><i>Special note:</i></b> My op-ed has now <a href="http://www.vnews.com/Column-Rolling-Blackouts-Possible-for-New-England-17599767" target="_blank">appeared in my local paper,</a> the Valley News, on the front page of the Sunday "Perspectives" section. It is always a thrill to see my work in my local paper!Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-25754294615556893902018-05-05T20:34:00.000-04:002018-05-05T20:34:25.305-04:00Vermont Yankee Sale: Local groups happy, CLF objects again<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLhhuS_4tALT-H4DhNeoxefi10Fpzml4yzQCy7NxBkC-YKG7HbNTvIJEGpaQb4C4vYq9z_2CFj-1SfVwY9TmtRV14KiW-qVJH-23JlW_naJiQx_-BQBUMD1AtJYr6jj6_PclMhBDlA7aY/s1600/240px-For_Sale_by_Owner_Sign.svg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="240" data-original-width="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLhhuS_4tALT-H4DhNeoxefi10Fpzml4yzQCy7NxBkC-YKG7HbNTvIJEGpaQb4C4vYq9z_2CFj-1SfVwY9TmtRV14KiW-qVJH-23JlW_naJiQx_-BQBUMD1AtJYr6jj6_PclMhBDlA7aY/s1600/240px-For_Sale_by_Owner_Sign.svg.jpg" /></a></div>
<b>Almost Everyone Agrees</b><br />
<br />
Entergy plans to sell Vermont Yankee to NorthStar for decommissioning. As you can imagine, this plan has led to lots of discussions and hearings, and I have even written a few blog posts about it. <br />
<br />
The last time I wrote about this proposed sale was right before the April 12 hearing before the Vermont PUC. (<a href="http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2018/03/thursday-meeting-on-sale-of-vy-to.html#.Wuyx7i_MzUJ" target="_blank">Thursday Meeting on Sale of Vermont Yankee</a>) In March, all parties (state agencies, Native American tribes, intervenors) signed off on the agreement between Entergy and NorthStar, as detailed by Mike Faher at Vermont Digger. (<a href="https://vtdigger.org/2018/03/02/financial-cleanup-promises-win-vermont-yankee-critics/" target="_blank">State, NorthStar strike deal for sale of Vermont Yankee</a>). At the April 12 hearing, supporters of the sale were clearly in the majority. <a href="https://vtdigger.org/2018/04/13/supporters-dominate-meeting-on-sale-of-vermont-yankee/" target="_blank">Supporters dominate meeting on sale of Vermont Yankee</a>. (Article by Faher)<br />
<br />
Oh, did I say "all parties" had signed off on the agreement? Wrong. My bad. The Conservation Law Foundation refused to sign the agreement. In March, <a href="http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2018/03/thursday-meeting-on-sale-of-vy-to.html#.WuzURi_MzUI" target="_blank">I predicted</a> that CLF would do everything in their power to make the sale fall through. I was right.<br />
<br />
<b>Sleeping Beauty</b><br />
<br />
This reminds me of the Sleeping Beauty fairy tale, where fairies are giving their gifts to a newborn princess, but one fairy feels slighted. That fairy's gift is a curse: the young princess will prick her finger on a spinning wheel and die. Another fairy partially reverses the curse. The girl will fall asleep for 100 years instead of dying. Thus begins the story of Sleeping Beauty.<br />
<br />
CLF is planning something similar. I don't know if they actually feel slighted, but I think they sure plan to kill the deal. If they succeed, like the girl in Sleeping Beauty, the VY power plant will be in SafStor for many many years. Sixty years. The economic development of the town will sleep for more than a generation. <br />
<br />
The people of southern Vermont and the people of Vernon want a clean site and a new employer in Vermont. They are hoping this change will happen soon, not sixty years from now. But when a powerful creature like CLF feels slighted, what are you going to do? A creature like that can stop time.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilbxP2WhPZw1XhcgCy5h6kv059sfxcDm4qRnm8OJn7c4QtnWihh2GCxnDFpEeQqlb8Ver8Nw3Yb1XrOPlP6PEVw3xUonZOPofRMc0UFBB9227OyGV6nqQnyrWUGnpJePDy2emXAfrZu6k/s1600/Briar_Rose_-_Anne_Anderson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="717" data-original-width="600" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilbxP2WhPZw1XhcgCy5h6kv059sfxcDm4qRnm8OJn7c4QtnWihh2GCxnDFpEeQqlb8Ver8Nw3Yb1XrOPlP6PEVw3xUonZOPofRMc0UFBB9227OyGV6nqQnyrWUGnpJePDy2emXAfrZu6k/s320/Briar_Rose_-_Anne_Anderson.jpg" width="267" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">She pricked her finger on the spindle<br />
<a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sleeping_Beauty#/media/File:Briar_Rose_-_Anne_Anderson.jpg" target="_blank">Art by Anne Anderson</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Lawyers and Ventures</b><br />
<br />
Okay, all that was just a metaphor. CLF is not a magical evil creature. And it is not unstoppable. Basically, CLF is a not-for-profit law firm (<a href="https://www.clf.org/" target="_blank">Conservation Law Foundation</a>) and an associated "Ventures" group.<br />
<br />
CLF claims that the companies involved in the VY sale have not released "even a page of their contract to the public." CLF also admits that they could have read the contract by signing a non-disclosure form, but they claim that such an agreement would be onerous and unnecessary. ( Mike Faher article in Vermont Digger <a href="https://vtdigger.org/2018/04/20/conservation-law-foundation-details-vermont-yankee-concerns/" target="_blank">Conservation Law Foundation details Vermont Yankee concerns</a>.) <br />
<br />
<b>Transparency and soap</b><br />
<br />
Guy Page, a <a href="http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2017/02/sooner-rather-than-later-northstar.html#.Wuzyqi_MzUI" target="_blank">frequent guest blogger</a> at this blog, has been following the sale closely. Like me, Page cannot understand why CLF (a bunch of lawyers, after all) won't sign a non-disclosure in order to obtain more information about the sale. I will not attempt to equal Page's excellent commentary in Vermont Digger: <a href="https://vtdigger.org/2018/05/02/guy-page-while-most-see-opportunity-clf-sees-only-problems-with-vy-sale/" target="_blank">Where most see opportunity, CLF sees only problems with VY sale. </a> However, I will quote him.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "merriweather" , serif; font-size: 14px;">CLF’s knowledge of NorthStar’s plan is limited, due to its choice not to sign a non-disclosure statement protecting certain contract information. If CLF was truly concerned about transparency, it shouldn’t have soaped its side of the window.</span></blockquote>
-----<br />
<b>A side note about CLF Ventures</b><br />
<br />
<b><i>Aside</i></b>: I have never understood the relationship between the main CLF and their <a href="https://www.clf.org/strategies/green-economy/" target="_blank">Ventures</a>. CLF is a not-for-profit 501c3, and they make <a href="https://www.clf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CLF-Form-990-final.pdf" target="_blank">their form 990</a> readily available. 501c3 organizations generally have educational or charitable purposes, which can include advocacy under the "educational" purpose. <br />
<br />
CLF Ventures seems to be a part of the main CLF, and it is described under the <a href="https://www.clf.org/our-focus/market-strategies/" target="_blank">Our Focus</a> section of the CLF website. Still, the work CLF does as "Ventures" seems pretty much like the work other law firms do for for-profit companies. For example, here is a quote from the CLF website: "<a href="https://www.clf.org/strategies/market-access/" target="_blank">CLF Ventures</a> helps early stage companies gain access to the market through our unique blend of experience. We use private and public networks, our knowledge of the business, market, and regulatory arenas, and our understanding of key gatekeepers to help early stage companies access markets and generate revenues." <br />
<br />
Helping companies "generate revenues"? Is this service also a part of the not-for-profit CLF 501c3? I can't tell from their website: such services may be part of the main CLF, or not. The website doesn't make it easy to understand the relationship between the two (or maybe just one) entities, CLF and CLF Ventures. It is not transparent. <b><i>End Aside. </i></b><br />
<div>
<b><i><br /></i></b></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-64257133132870230112018-04-05T18:50:00.000-04:002018-04-05T18:50:58.221-04:00PUC meeting on decomm April 12<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLhhuS_4tALT-H4DhNeoxefi10Fpzml4yzQCy7NxBkC-YKG7HbNTvIJEGpaQb4C4vYq9z_2CFj-1SfVwY9TmtRV14KiW-qVJH-23JlW_naJiQx_-BQBUMD1AtJYr6jj6_PclMhBDlA7aY/s1600/240px-For_Sale_by_Owner_Sign.svg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="240" data-original-width="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLhhuS_4tALT-H4DhNeoxefi10Fpzml4yzQCy7NxBkC-YKG7HbNTvIJEGpaQb4C4vYq9z_2CFj-1SfVwY9TmtRV14KiW-qVJH-23JlW_naJiQx_-BQBUMD1AtJYr6jj6_PclMhBDlA7aY/s1600/240px-For_Sale_by_Owner_Sign.svg.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:For_Sale_by_Owner_Sign.svg" target="_blank">sign from Wikimedia</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<b>Vermont PUC hearing on NorthStar sale set for April 12 in Brattleboro</b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
As I described in <a href="http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2018/03/thursday-meeting-on-sale-of-vy-to.html#.WsaM1DLMwUE" target="_blank">a previous blog post</a>, Entergy plans to sell Vermont Yankee to NorthStar for decommissioning. Most (but not all) of the intervenors are now supporting this sale. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The sale must be approved by the Vermont Public Utilities Commission, and the Commission is <a href="http://puc.vermont.gov/event/puc-case-no-8880-rescheduled-public-hearing" target="_blank">holding a public hearing</a> on April 12 in Brattleboro. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Guy Page of Vermont Energy Partnership has a recent op-ed in the Brattleboro Reformer: <a href="http://reformer.com/stories/guy-page-settlement-builds-foundation-for-hope-at-vermont-yankee,536181" target="_blank">Settlement builds foundation for hope at Vermont Yankee</a>. In this article, he describes how the terms of the settlement will help the Windham County region, and the entire state. My favorite quote from his op-ed:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "pt serif" , serif; font-size: 15px;">"For its part, Entergy will contribute an estimated $30 million for site restoration, and also will contribute another $40 million, if needed. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "pt serif" , serif; font-size: 15px;">To its credit, the state did not use the settlement as an ATM machine to fund state programs, as was the practice of some recent administrations."</span></blockquote>
<div>
<b>Supporters, please come!</b></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Guy wrote an email about the meeting to some plant supporters. Here is a partial quote:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The next - and final - Vermont Public Utility Commission (PUC) meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 12 from 7-9:00 PM at Brattleboro Union High School in the multipurpose room. An informational session will be held prior to the meeting at 6:00 PM.<br />
<br />
Please mark your calendars and plan on attending this public hearing. Even though a settlement has been reached, many longtime critics of Vermont Yankee did not participate in the negotiations, and it is likely that they will make their voices heard. The PUC needs to hear from Vernon, Windham County and the rest of Vermont why they support the settlement and why sale of Vermont Yankee to NorthStar is of economic and environmental benefit.</blockquote>
Please attend if you possibly can. <br />
<br />
For more information, contact <i>page at vtep.org </i><br />
----<br />
Page is a <a href="http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2017/02/sooner-rather-than-later-northstar.html#.WsaSnzLMwUF" target="_blank">frequent guest blogger</a> at this blog. <br />
<br />
(Note: the Vermont Public Service Board has been renamed as the Vermont Public Utility Commission.)Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-5795578155276601052018-03-30T09:58:00.002-04:002018-07-12T14:03:22.779-04:00Nuclear Communications, Tribalism, and Kurt Weill<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYN3UT2CzNHgKkD6nAWWCm7TQUfcsP-EjwpES8SRAYqqHmv2frsMmYBDwgniksbvchzmKtzSXYoZ832ZW1hi3P5REsrMhDrWskNVq6qOOtcED-t7RRHyCncjzxWfQtFXrrz2uc_RV_niY/s1600/602px-Chatham_House_over_the_Jubilee_weekend_%25287345325368%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="899" data-original-width="602" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYN3UT2CzNHgKkD6nAWWCm7TQUfcsP-EjwpES8SRAYqqHmv2frsMmYBDwgniksbvchzmKtzSXYoZ832ZW1hi3P5REsrMhDrWskNVq6qOOtcED-t7RRHyCncjzxWfQtFXrrz2uc_RV_niY/s320/602px-Chatham_House_over_the_Jubilee_weekend_%25287345325368%2529.jpg" width="214" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Chatham House<br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule#/media/File:Chatham_House_over_the_Jubilee_weekend_(7345325368).jpg" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Nuclear Communications</b><br />
I just participated in a meeting on nuclear communications: the meeting ran on "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule" target="_blank">Chatham House Rule</a>." According to the Rule, I cannot say who participated in the meeting, or what individuals said. I agreed to participate under this Rule, and I am abiding by that agreement. Chatham House Rule allows to me use the "information received" but without attribution. I received a lot of information.<br />
<br />
Luckily for me, "who was there" and "who said what" was the least interesting part of the meeting.<br />
<br />
<b>Tribalism</b><br />
A major point of discussion was what I will call "tribalism." People are far more invested in <i>remaining in good standing in their group</i> than in <i>careful evaluation of data.</i> Not being "in" with your group can get you in big trouble. Humans can only survive in groups. Throughout evolutionary history, a single human, without any group, will soon be a dead human.<br />
<br />
Since tribalism is a deep human trait, it is true on the right and on the left. It turns out that most people who claim that there is no significant issue about man-made climate change are aware of the evidence and science of climate change. Similarly, most people who say that nuclear will not help ameliorate climate change are aware of the evidence that nuclear plants are major sources of low-emission electricity. (Various presenters at the meeting showed evidence for these statements.)<br />
<br />
In other words, right or left, people are not uninformed. They are not stupid. But, as humans, they are far more serious about group membership than about scientific controversies.<br />
<br />
<b>Can we solve the problems of tribalism?</b><br />
So what do we communicators do about this tribalism? That was a major discussion point at the meeting. It did not end with a clearly defined answer.<br />
<br />
The answer that I derived for myself was that<br />
<span style="text-align: center;"><i>we should invite people to accept nuclear, without imposing any kind of loyalty oath</i>. </span><br />
<br />
Not "accept nuclear because of climate change" for the people who don't publicly accept man-made climate change, and not "accept nuclear because renewables are bunk" for people who are invested in renewables as the way to stop climate change. <br />
<br />
<b>Many people, many reasons</b><br />
There are many reasons to accept nuclear. In contrast, it is unreasonable and even arrogant for communicators to expect people to throw away their group loyalty in order to be pro-nuclear. Different pro-nuclear arguments are compatible with different kinds of group loyalties. To a large extent, this is why my husband and I put together the book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Voices-Vermont-Yankee-George-Angwin-ebook/dp/B00BJ7KSTQ/ref=sr_1_2?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1484234795&sr=1-2" target="_blank">Voices for Vermont Yankee.</a> In that book, we captured the statements that ordinary people made in favor of Vermont Yankee. We would never have thought about many of the things that other people said.<br />
<br />
As communicators, I believe that we have to open our hearts to the fact we are all human, and everyone needs to be included in some kind of a group. When we open our hearts to people and do our best not to threaten their group membership, they may open their hearts and minds to nuclear energy.<br />
<br />
<b>The role of professionals, and a lesson from Kurt Weill</b><br />
This wasn't my first rodeo. While I learned more about tribalism at this meeting, I knew about it when I walked into the meeting.<br />
<br />
What was new to me was meeting people who had a strong anti-grassroots-advocacy stance. These were pro-nuclear people who felt that most grass-roots advocacy backfired and made things worse. They felt that advocacy should be left to trained professional advocates.<br />
<br />
Wow. Well, first of all, as I wrote a friend after the meeting---advocacy by trained professional advocates hasn't worked, has it? Here's an edited version of what I wrote to some friends who had also been at the meeting:<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: left;">
We should leave nuclear communications to the professional communicators because us free-lance communicators will screw it up? NO! The nuclear industry has had professional communicators, with carefully crafted “messages” and brand-recognizable color schemes—had this stuff forever! Has it worked? NO! What nuclear needs is people who will step up and communicate their own personal pro-nuclear message in their own communities. We need all the voices, even if they are not in perfect agreement with each other.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Sort of Worked, Actually</b><br />
Well. I have to acknowledge something here. "Has it worked? NO!" is too harsh. The nuclear industry would be much worse off without the professional public relations it has sponsored and continues to sponsor. We have some excellent PR people working for us. However, these professionals are not enough. We need grass-roots advocacy. We need ordinary people to communicate their pro-nuclear opinions in their own way. We need people to communicate at their local meetings and to their own neighbors. To write letters to the editor at their local newspapers. And perhaps, even to make their own mistakes and learn from those mistakes. It's not like the professionals have never made a mistake! <br />
<br />
<b>Free Speech, Democracy, Kurt Weill</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Pro-nuclear people should feel empowered to speak out. It's about free speech, democracy, and our fundamental values as a society.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
In Kurt Weill's song, "Caesar's Death," Weill makes a strong and universal statement. Hiding behind the professionals is "hiring clever men to do our thinking for us." This leads to disaster.</div>
<br />
<br />
<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lh6K5b8JiBg?rel=0" width="560"></iframe>Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-56123559253619567372018-03-19T11:35:00.000-04:002018-03-19T11:35:03.834-04:00Thursday Meeting on Sale of VY to NorthStar<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdimQw1RHg5Un6dd0px-YR_Z2TmfIilQjh_5dDrKr6I8DPym-ypnJYQegTOGo8ronxSfKpHKdnq_n_ilCx5TkXpIUHXqrOc-MIcHbmFYx48BTerQYDohtnZJQzpxXR1SqkX6h8nFl_VnQ/s1600/240px-For_Sale_by_Owner_Sign.svg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="240" data-original-width="240" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdimQw1RHg5Un6dd0px-YR_Z2TmfIilQjh_5dDrKr6I8DPym-ypnJYQegTOGo8ronxSfKpHKdnq_n_ilCx5TkXpIUHXqrOc-MIcHbmFYx48BTerQYDohtnZJQzpxXR1SqkX6h8nFl_VnQ/s320/240px-For_Sale_by_Owner_Sign.svg.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:For_Sale_by_Owner_Sign.svg" target="_blank">Sign from Wikipedia</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>The Plan for the Sale</b><br />
<br />
On Thursday, March 22, the Vermont Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel (<a href="http://publicservice.vermont.gov/electric/ndcap" target="_blank">NDCAP</a>) will meet to discuss the sale of Vermont Yankee from Entergy to NorthStar. On March 2, all the parties to the sale (and all but one of the intervenors) signed off on a <a href="http://vydecommissioning.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018-03-02-docket-8880-mou.pdf" target="_blank">Memorandum of Understanding</a>.<br />
This Vermont Digger article by Mike Faher covers the memorandum and is a little easier to read than the legal document. <a href="https://vtdigger.org/2018/03/02/financial-cleanup-promises-win-vermont-yankee-critics/" target="_blank">State, NorthStar strike deal for sale of Vermont Yankee.</a><br />
<br />
Why is the proposed sale a big deal? I will attempt to answer that question by answering three subsidiary questions and providing some links.<br />
<br />
<b>1) What is this deal about?</b><br />
<br />
<b>Choices</b> After Entergy closed Vermont Yankee, the next step was decommissioning. Entergy looked at the available funding for decomm, and it proposed that the plant be put in SAFSTOR while the funding grew and the radioactivity of the plant diminished. (SAFSTOR can last for up to 60 years.) Nobody really liked this idea, but it was financially practical and legal. Entergy didn't like the plan because Entergy has expertise in running plants, but not in decommissioning them. The state didn't like it because the plant would be just sitting there, for decades.<br />
<br />
<b>Decomm Companies</b> Many other nuclear plant owners have faced this issue, and most have hired a decomm company to do the actual decomm. This is a little complicated, due to nuclear regulations. For example, when Exelon planned to decommission the Zion units, it hired the specialist firm EnergySolutions to do the actual work. However, "hired" is not quite the way it happens. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zion_Nuclear_Power_Station" target="_blank">Exelon transferred the Zion license</a> to EnergySolutions, and EnergySolutions will transfer the license back to Exelon when the decomm is complete. The accumulated decomm funds were transferred with the license. In effect, EnergySolutions owns Zion temporarily, and is directly responsible to the regulatory agencies during decomm.<br />
<br />
The proposed Entergy/ NorthStar deal took this type of deal a step further: Entergy will sell Vermont Yankee to NorthStar, permanently. <br />
<br />
<b>A Sale </b>The sale plan led to a lot of excitement among the local nuclear opponents. A first-of-a-kind transfer (direct sale, not temporary ownership), and happening in Vermont? Oh my! The list of intervenors grew and grew. I felt sorry for both of the companies (Entergy and NorthStar) that had stepped into the morass of Vermont anti-nuclear organizations. These organizations saw this transfer as their last chance to show the world how deeply anti-nuclear they are. I think they also saw it as their last chance to wring concessions of various types from the companies involved.<br />
<br />
<b>Signatures</b> The big deal is that on March 2, all but one of the intervenors signed a Memorandum of Understanding on the terms for the transfer. Basically, Entergy and NorthStar added more bonds and more insurance and more money to the pot, and everyone signed off. It was not just a win for the intervenors though: the decomm is allowed to use rubbilization, which means using clean debris from building demolition to fill basements. This had been a huge issue. My blog post from last year contains facts and links, <a href="http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2017/11/rubble-at-vermont-yankee-framing.html#.Wq_G8TLMwUE" target="_blank">Rubble at Vermont Yankee: Framing the Discussion</a><br />
<br />
Well, everyone signed off on the MOU except Conservation Law Foundation, who felt there wasn't enough money or enough guarantees. CLF predicts that the decomm will run out of money and leave Vermonters on the hook, etc. My own prediction is that CLF will do everything in their power, including lawsuits, to try to make their prediction come true. <br />
<br />
<b>2) What are the next steps?</b><br />
<br />
There are quite a few. Vermont State agencies, NorthStar and intervenors have agreed on the MOU, but the state Public Utilities Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must still rule on it. Once again, Faher at Vermont Digger has a good article on this: <a href="https://vtdigger.org/2018/03/09/vermont-yankee-sale-case-will-extend-summer/" target="_blank">Vermont Yankee sale case will extend into summer</a>. Within that article, note that Guy Page urges plant supporters to come to the Vermont Public Utilities Commission hearing on April 12. (<a href="http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2017/02/sooner-rather-than-later-northstar.html#.Wq_MHzLMwUE" target="_blank">Guy Page</a> of Vermont Energy Partnership is a frequent guest blogger at this blog.)<br />
<br />
Guy Page's suggestion about the April meeting leads to an easy segueway into the next question:<br />
<br />
<b>3) Should I go to the Thursday NDCAP meeting?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Probably. NDCAP is an advisory committee, and its meetings are often very informative. This one will include presentations from Entergy, NorthStar and state officials. The meeting is going to be held at a bigger venue (Brattleboro High School) than usual, because they expect quite a crowd. In Brattleboro, "quite a crowd" can be unpleasant, as legions of nuclear opponents come in (sometimes by buses) from Massachusetts and all over Vermont and New Hampshire. On the other hand, the NDCAP meetings are usually fairly orderly.<br />
<br />
As I said in my book, meetings are more civilized when the groups are more even. So I do suggest that you go.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, I am not sure I will go. I may have a family visit that interferes. I may be there, or I may not be there. That makes it harder for me to write: "Absolutely, go!"<br />
<br />
If I possibly can, I will be there.Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-27916063242786755632018-03-14T09:19:00.001-04:002018-03-14T09:48:09.576-04:00(Escu) Five things I like about nuclear power<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiU8X91Vg_1r8ibVjt1OoXV73ho8blTfQkFXFelChEL72be_gRUhSkMeDCY-XirPHUSECdqtrszAU_nVihpOR5qMzyHIqIXe2LOsADMiPW1ifbiVwF9Iyypw0vOYWnRfY6l5deOG-L0KqU/s1600/NuclearCleanAir-nggid03452-ngg0dyn-300x0-00f0w010c010r110f110r010t010.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="329" data-original-width="300" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiU8X91Vg_1r8ibVjt1OoXV73ho8blTfQkFXFelChEL72be_gRUhSkMeDCY-XirPHUSECdqtrszAU_nVihpOR5qMzyHIqIXe2LOsADMiPW1ifbiVwF9Iyypw0vOYWnRfY6l5deOG-L0KqU/s200/NuclearCleanAir-nggid03452-ngg0dyn-300x0-00f0w010c010r110f110r010t010.jpg" width="181" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Five Best Things about Nuclear Energy</b><br />
<br />
Suzanne Jaworowski recently asked for input on nuclear communications, specifically for ideas on the best things to communicate about nuclear energy. Jaworowski is Chief of Staff, Senior Advisor, Office of Nuclear Energy at the Department of Energy.<br />
<br />
Dan Yurman posted her <a href="https://neutronbytes.com/2018/02/11/doe-wants-ideas-to-educate-the-public-about-nuclear-energy/" target="_blank">request at his blog</a>, and I posted <a href="http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-five-best-things-about-nuclear.html#.Wqh3cjLMwUF" target="_blank">my Five Best</a> and <a href="http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2018/03/shaffer-five-best-things-about-nuclear.html#.Wqh1wTLMwUE" target="_blank">Howard Shaffer's Five Best</a> at this blog. Today, Nick Escu (his pen name) contributes to the conversation. Escu is a frequent guest blogger at this blog, often writing about <a href="http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2016/12/nuclear-vs-gas-economics-part-2-guest.html#.Wqh01DLMwUE" target="_blank">natural gas prices</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>Nick Escu: Five Things I Like About Nuclear Power</b><br />
<br />
<b>1)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Baseload power.</b><br />
<br />
Baseload power is the foundation that the grid depends upon. Nuclear, natural gas, and coal are the three baseload power sources for the US grid.<br />
<br />
<b>2)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Reliability.</b><br />
<br />
Reliability is the function of being able to continually produce power. Factors include: fuel, fuel supplies, sustainability during severe weather.<br />
<br />
Nuclear plants reliably out rank both natural gas and coal. Nuclear plants produce power over 92% of the time. Coal approximately 57% of the time, and natural gas only 53% of the time. As a baseload, nuclear power is more reliable.<br />
<br />
<b>3)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Resilience</b><br />
<br />
There are several factors involving resilience for grid operation. How much fuel does a plant have on hand? Do fuel supplies become unavailable? How does severe weather affect the plant itself?<br />
<br />
Nuclear plants receive fuel either once every 18 months or once every 24 months. Nuclear plants strive to run breaker to breaker, 24 hours/day, 365 days a year, up to 2 years continuously. The nuclear equipment is extremely safety conscious, with redundancy built in, to order to continue running.<br />
<br />
Both natural gas and coal have severe limitations on availability of fuel.<br />
<br />
Homes receive natural gas ahead of natural gas power generators. When pipeline restrictions begin to be affected, such as in a severe cold period, like the 2014 polar vortex, or the recent winter blast, most natural gas plants don't have reserves. Some <span style="background-color: white;">natural </span>gas plants are now building oil storage tanks, and burning oil during severe weather.<br />
<br />
Coal supplies in the open, FREEZE. So just because a coal plant has 90 days worth of reserves, doesn't mean those reserves are able to be used, because they're frozen. Many coal plants are now installing ice breaking equipment to break up the frozen coal, and transport it into their plants.<br />
<br />
At present, nuclear power plants are much more resilient, and in fact, they care for the grid's needs during severe weather. For example, when hurricanes hit Texas, the nuclear power plant's twin units kept supplying power, when all other power sources had shut down.<br />
<br />
<b>4)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Low Cost</b><br />
<br />
Nuclear power plants are very expensive to build initially, due to the additional safety built into these plants. But the normal pay-off of the initial costs, is completed between 15 and 18 years. But then these nuclear plants run efficiently for the next 40 to 60 years.<br />
<br />
The average life span of a natural gas plant is 19 years, before an entire re-build is necessary. Natural gas plants are smaller, power wise, than a nuclear plant. Natural gas plants are able to be licensed quicker than nuclear plants, so a 450 MWe natural gas plant, which costs $2.5 billion is able to be licensed and approved within a year, and constructed with 3 years, as compared to licensing and building for a nuclear plant within 10 years.<br />
<br />
So where exactly are the lower costs?<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>First, natural gas is a polluter of the air, and eventually, assessments will be required for the pollutants natural gas spews out every day. </li>
<li>Next, natural gas prices swing from as high as $14/MMBTU to as low as $1.72/MMBTU. Since the recent $1.73 in March, 2016, the steady natural gas prices have risen to $3.65/MMBTU, over a 100% climb in 2 years. That steady climb is partially due to the export of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) to foreign countries willing to buy nat gas at $17.00/MMBTU. Prices are rising. When natural gas reaches $4.75/MMBTU, nuclear power becomes cheaper than natural gas. </li>
<li>But for now, nuclear plants are less expensive, for several reasons. Fuel for nuclear plants have risen less than 7%/year since the 1990s. Additionally, power is continually produced by nuclear plants: their reliability and resilience far outdistances both natural gas and coal. Natural gas prices spike during severe weather to sometimes more than $500/MMBTU. Nuclear remains steady. </li>
</ul>
<br />
Nuclear plants are operational for 60 to 80 years, at the same location. Natural gas plants effectively have to replace everything every 19 years. So megawatt vs. megawatt, nuclear power is built much stronger initially. It out lasts and out performs natural gas in a less expensive manner.<br />
<br />
<b>5)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Community Friendly</b><br />
<br />
Nuclear plants contribute massive amounts in taxes, in community involvement, in family and community building, because of so many exceptionally talented and experienced people, contributing to their local communities for their working and retirement lifetimes. When a nuclear plant is closed ahead of time, communities and people of those communities suffer tremendously.<br />
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-87253232121566882072018-03-10T07:40:00.000-05:002018-03-13T21:07:06.010-04:00(Shaffer) Five Best Things About Nuclear <b>Five Best Things About Nuclear Energy</b><br />
<br />
Suzanne Jaworowski recently asked for input on nuclear communications. Jaworowski is Chief of Staff, Senior Advisor, Office of Nuclear Energy at the Department of Energy. I read her questions on <a href="https://neutronbytes.com/2018/02/11/doe-wants-ideas-to-educate-the-public-about-nuclear-energy/" target="_blank">Dan Yurman's blog post </a>, and I sent her my own Five Best ideas. Later, I published my ideas in a <a href="http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-five-best-things-about-nuclear.html#.WqMBrzLMwUE" target="_blank">blog post</a> that has a developed a wonderful comment stream of other people's input. Please read it, especially the comments!<br />
<br />
Today, we have Howard Shaffer's essay on the five best things about Nuclear Energy. He sent this to the Department of Energy, and sent a copy to me. Shaffer was a start-up engineer at Vermont Yankee. He was an engineer at several other nuclear plants, in the United States and abroad, and an American Nuclear Society Congressional Fellow. Shaffer is a frequent guest blogger at this blog. <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5B7u0Pny5m3tJAW2oT155OaGw4011Ra7HTHipCutAPyS_eEMJo7pAcQJHODA_l1ZCMfCtX328goCvkcA3PFTng0t6vYsciSFYrjIfm0p9uexBpR16pPSQRcMqu-li9EU2G4RaozzGRSk/s1600/HCS+November+2006.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1056" data-original-width="768" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5B7u0Pny5m3tJAW2oT155OaGw4011Ra7HTHipCutAPyS_eEMJo7pAcQJHODA_l1ZCMfCtX328goCvkcA3PFTng0t6vYsciSFYrjIfm0p9uexBpR16pPSQRcMqu-li9EU2G4RaozzGRSk/s320/HCS+November+2006.jpg" width="232" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Howard Shaffer </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Five Best Things about Nuclear </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>by Howard Shaffer</b><br />
<br />
<b>Communications Continuity</b> Radiation is natural and man-made, and safe within limits. Limits are well known, based on sound science and over 100 years of experience. Like fire, radiation can be used safely and for great good; but can cause havoc if misused, or mistakes are made. People are not perfect, so mistakes will be made with all technologies. We still have fire departments, don’t we? Demanding perfection, or raising decades-old mistakes is unrealistic.<br />
<br />
Communication about nuclear power has not prevailed in some areas of the country because of a “missing link” in the information presentation “chain.” That link is addressing concerns raised by citizens at public meetings. When these concerns, challenges, and charges are not addressed at the meetings, or immediately thereafter- 48 hours(?)-they become the story. Local media pick them up, and they get repeated many times. Local media go with "if it bleeds it leads,” and they also love a David and Goliath story. <br />
<br />
Nuclear power plant management has just begun to recognize this is a political fight, and all the modern tools are being used by the opposition. There is an “Anti-Nuclear Industry” professionally staffed, with some of it headquartered in Washington. One of the common tools they use is repetition, which works for good or bad information. When bad information is repeated and not countered by good information, it becomes the story.<br />
<br />
As in elective politics nuclear power is a “red state, blue state” issue. The political demographics where nuclear power plants have been forced to shut down, compared to where they continue to run with just a little opposition clearly illustrate this truth.<br />
<br />
The Anti-Nuclear industry has been effective in selling “Any amount of Radiation is dangerous.”<br />
<br />
<b>Safety </b> Nuclear power is safe. That does not mean <i>perfect</i> for any technology. When the total casualties and environmental effects for energy technologies are compared, nuclear power comes out way ahead of all fossil fuels and even hydro power. It has been observed by Prof Von Hippel that, “Some people don’t like this kind of arithmetic.” Those who don’t like the “spread sheet” type of comparison i.e. all effects and costs, seem to like to focus on the few large nuclear power accidents that have been media circuses.<br />
<br />
Anti-nuclear information says that a large nuclear accident will make the surrounding area uninhabitable for thousands of years. How silly is this when anyone can go on-line and see before and after pictures of the city of Hiroshima. How much sillier that the plant spokespeople don’t use them.<br />
<br />
The operational, health, and environmental records over more than half a century prove the personnel and environmental safety of nuclear power, and all uses of radiation.<br />
<br />
<b>Inexhaustible Energy</b> The fuel for nuclear reactors of the present types, and proven types being developed for the market, can last for at least a thousand years. This is possible because the energy from splitting an atom is a million times more than from burning an atom. (Burning gives a thousand times more energy than a moving atom-wind or water)<br />
<br />
<b>Benign</b> The environmental impact of the whole nuclear fuel and plant cycle is small compared to fossil fuels, because so much less fuel material is used. Used fuel is in solid form and is easy to handle; there are no liquids to leak if there is an accident.<br />
<br />
<b>Reliable</b> Nuclear power plants, and fossil fuel plants, can and do run 24/7 to supply the electric grid. Coal and oil plants depend on fuel deliveries and usually keep a 60 day supply on hand. Natural gas plants depend on pipelines, so a pipeline accident will shut them down. Nuclear reactors have 1 ½ to 2 years fuel in them when refueled.<br />
-----<br />
<br />
<b><i>End note: </i></b><br />
<br />
On Facebook, a friend wrote that Jaworowski had asked for the best things to <i>communicate</i> about nuclear. He is at least partially correct. However, for the sake of headline writing, I am going to continue to call this exercise "The Five Best Things about Nuclear."Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-63033437636354460782018-03-06T14:14:00.000-05:002018-03-16T08:05:34.446-04:00The Five Best Things About Nuclear (Angwin)<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhse2iKFDUTk_PCuTw04tWcXp7O_Caz6-6sxWJOc0HychAmqu7o_v41TvPzPyhNKECViup1gGr-g7irGNvGM7621HABCT5UZkrj9kX45Gqb88jipOyn4B9FVydW8HRg0mIGtc647EKgv0U/s1600/Lightmatter_Golden_gate_bridge.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="239" data-original-width="900" height="105" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhse2iKFDUTk_PCuTw04tWcXp7O_Caz6-6sxWJOc0HychAmqu7o_v41TvPzPyhNKECViup1gGr-g7irGNvGM7621HABCT5UZkrj9kX45Gqb88jipOyn4B9FVydW8HRg0mIGtc647EKgv0U/s400/Lightmatter_Golden_gate_bridge.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Golden Gate Bridge with light-brown photochemical smog behind it. NOx gives the smog that color.<br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smog#/media/File:Lightmatter_Golden_gate_bridge.jpg" target="_blank">Wikipedia photo by Aaron Logan</a><br />
Nuclear energy makes no smog.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>The Question: Your Five Best</b><br />
<br />
In early February, Suzanne Jaworowski, Chief of Staff, Senior Advisor, Office of Nuclear Energy, Department of Energy, sent an email to selected people. She asked the recipients to send her "your top five most motivating facts about Nuclear." Another part of the letter asked "What facts do you tell people and they are surprised?"<br />
<br />
Dan Yurman blogged about this letter; his post is <a href="https://neutronbytes.com/2018/02/11/doe-wants-ideas-to-educate-the-public-about-nuclear-energy/" target="_blank">DOE wants ideas to educate the public about nuclear energy</a>. His post includes the entire letter, as well as his ideas for DOE's future actions. <br />
<br />
Okay. I am a little late about blogging about this. Jaworowski wanted input by mid-February, and I sent my input quite promptly after after reading Dan's post. Alas, it took me a while to get around to putting my Five Best things on my blog.<br />
<br />
Please comment or share your Five Best with me!<br />
<br />
<b>The Five Best Things About Nuclear, by Meredith Angwin</b><br />
<br />
<b>1) Economic: </b>Nuclear plants are great sources of jobs and taxes for a community. They have jobs for people with advanced degrees and for high school graduates. Plants often have very liberal policies to encourage continuing education for their employees. Wages are usually higher than other local wages, and they hire good people at all education levels.<br />
<br />
<b>2) Safety:</b> Living near a nuclear power plant exposes you to less radiation than you would get by 1) living in the mountains (cosmic radiation) 2) living on granite bedrock 3) taking some cross country airplane flights. People who live near nuclear plants do not have excess deaths from cancer.<br />
<br />
<b>3) Clean air. </b>This is my favorite, and not because of carbon dioxide. I hate NOx, which is formed in all modern high-temperature combustion-power processes, and only partially cleaned up. NOx is the precursor of acid rain, smog, etc. Very bad stuff. In NOx, the air burns itself: the nitrogen in the air is burned by the oxygen in the air. This happens at the high temperatures in modern gas and coal plants. Also, the good thing about talking about NOx is that talking about CO2 raises issues with people. Many people do not buy into man-made global warming. Mentioning CO2 is audience-specific, while "nuclear plants don’t make NOx" is straightforward. Nobody likes acid rain and smog!<br />
<br />
<b>4) Surprising fact: </b>What a half-life actually means, People keep hearing that something has a half-life of thousands of years (or whatever) and this is presented as showing that the substance is very dangerously radioactive. Then I lead them through what a half-life is, and what a long half-life actually means (few atoms decaying at any one time, not much radioactivity). A long half-life is <i>low</i> radioactivity. This is almost always a surprise.<br />
<br />
<b>5) Surprising facts on the big accidents:</b> Nobody died from radioactivity at Fukushima, and few or no cancer deaths are expected. The sister plant (right next door) to Chernobyl was staffed and producing power until about 2000, over a dozen years past the day of the accident.<br />
<br />
<b>Please comment!</b><br />
<br />
I spend a great deal of my time writing about energy and about nuclear power, yet this "five best" exercise was very helpful for me! I hope you will comment on this post, hopefully with your own "five best." I will be posting Howard Shaffer's list within the next few days. If I get some great lists as comments, I plan to post them as blog posts. <br />
<br />
I look forward to reading your comments.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-42228975483562461212018-02-25T18:32:00.000-05:002018-02-26T14:29:50.280-05:00Department of Energy: Nuclear policy, nuclear money, and the millennial caucuses<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTcVRb5-lzxM5VupUWiApXA1webUoQgpBgSE5esIl4HzPRRxgcXC6eT58bzXMpSmYStwEA5fUA9CdxG4YFkkzLAI-DVJo-anx-ATcMvzUIWobGsSt25GT86_ND4YnLhn5_jbqKGqen0wA/s1600/millenialcaucus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="807" data-original-width="1600" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTcVRb5-lzxM5VupUWiApXA1webUoQgpBgSE5esIl4HzPRRxgcXC6eT58bzXMpSmYStwEA5fUA9CdxG4YFkkzLAI-DVJo-anx-ATcMvzUIWobGsSt25GT86_ND4YnLhn5_jbqKGqen0wA/s400/millenialcaucus.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Secretary Rick Perry and Millennial Nuclear Caucus<br />
October 2017<br />
<a href="https://energy.gov/articles/secretary-energy-rick-perry-met-young-leaders-nuclear-community-millennial-nuclear-caucus" target="_blank">From Department of Energy website</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Millennials </b><br />
Starting this past fall, I finally noticed that the current Department of Energy was not the <i>old</i> Department of Energy. In October 2017, DOE cooperated with the Nuclear Energy Institute and held the first <a href="https://energy.gov/articles/secretary-energy-rick-perry-met-young-leaders-nuclear-community-millennial-nuclear-caucus" target="_blank">Millennial Nuclear Caucus, in Washington DC</a>. At that event, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry met with a group of young nuclear professionals. In a post on the DOE website, Secretary Perry said: "I had the pleasure of meeting with a number of young visionaries in the nuclear field this morning." As a matter of fact, the hashtag for the Millennial Nuclear Caucus meetings is #NuclearVisionaries. Here's a brief video of part of the meeting.<br />
<br />
<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/moGTiYzHs20?rel=0" width="560"></iframe>
<br />
<b>More to come</b><br />
When I saw the announcement of the first caucus, I felt terrific. The Department of Energy promoting young people and nuclear! Well, the only word was--- <i>awesome</i>!<br />
<br />
Next, I realized there was more to come. I learned that the Washington meeting was going to be the first of a series of caucuses. So far, there has been the first Caucus in Washington, another in Ohio, and a third a few days ago at Texas A&M University. The Caucuses are listed on this page of the Department of Energy website. <a href="https://energy.gov/ne/millennial-nuclear-caucus">https://energy.gov/ne/millennial-nuclear-caucus</a> Videos of the Caucuses are at the U. S. Department of Nuclear Energy Facebook page<br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/NuclearEnergyGov/">https://www.facebook.com/NuclearEnergyGov</a><br />
<br />
<b><i>UPDATE:</i></b> The next Millennial Nuclear Caucus will be March 7 in Washington D.C. <a href="https://www.eventbrite.com/e/millennial-nuclear-caucus-tickets-43452885751">https://www.eventbrite.com/e/millennial-nuclear-caucus-tickets-43452885751</a><br />
<br />
The most recent Caucus took place at <a href="https://www.energy.gov/jobs/events/millennial-nuclear-caucus-texas-am-university" target="_blank">Texas AMU on February 20. </a>Once again, the millennial panelists were from various types of nuclear facilities: national labs, start-ups, operating plants. This time, the leader from DOE was Suzie Jaworowski, senior advisor to the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy. Here (hopefully) is a direct link to video of the meeting on the DOE Nuclear Facebook page <br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/NuclearEnergyGov/videos/215074865735271/">https://www.facebook.com/NuclearEnergyGov/videos/215074865735271/</a><br />
<br />
<b>Hype or real?</b><br />
Now, first of all, I would be happy even if this new look by DOE were only hype. I am happy that the the government is holding and co-sponsoring events like the Millennial Nuclear Caucus. Previous administrations tended to act as if nuclear power were some sort of embarrassment. The current DOE Facebook page and the nuclear-positive events show a change in attitude.<br />
<br />
However, if you go to the video of the Texas meeting on the Facebook page, you will see Rod Adams ask a question that he admits puts Suzie Jaworowski "on the spot." (Move the slider to about 1:02) To paraphrase Adams's question: This is all very good, but the DOE budget proposal has less money for nuclear for next year than it had for this year. Is DOE really going to be able to support nuclear?<br />
<br />
<b><i>Side note:</i></b> <a href="https://atomicinsights.com/optimism-pessimism-realism-everything-official-start-advanced-reactor-technical-summit-v/" target="_blank">Optimism, pessimism, realism and everything in between before the official start of the Advanced Reactor Summit V</a> is Rod Adams post which includes his comments on the Millennial Caucus meeting.<br />
<br />
What was Jaworowski's answer? Since the budget isn't totally set, the answer couldn't be totally set either. Jaworowski answered that DOE is focusing on its priorities. High priorities include keeping the existing fleet going, and keeping the pipeline of future projects underway. There are also plans for public-private partnerships, with government and private money leading to innovations.<br />
<br />
<b>Policy or money?</b><br />
You might say Jaworowski gave a standard-issue answer, and maybe it was. But I notice the nuclear group at DOE running events, making videos, posting to FB, and I am encouraged.<br />
<br />
The federal government has been running immense deficits for years, and the Republicans are the party of "small government and decreased government spending." Therefore, budget cuts were inevitable, from both a practical (deficits) and policy (Republican) point of view. Considering that budget cuts will be coming, the new pro-nuclear initiatives of the current administration are very welcome. <br />
<br />
In other words, if the major role of the government is to spend money, then things are looking bad. If the major role of the government is to set policy, then things are looking better. I think this administration's policies will be pro-nuclear. I believe these policies will have an impact.<br />
<br />
I am well aware that support of energy initiatives usually requires both policy and money. I know money/policy is not a simple either-or. However, setting policy is the first step.<br />
<br />
If you look at Rod Adams post (linked above) you can see a somewhat more pessimistic evaluation of the future of nuclear. I'm not so sure of myself as to say he is wrong. And he isn't completely pessimistic, either. Maybe I am just an optimist. Still, I am optimistic about the DOE initiatives.<br />
<br />
Only time will tell.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-52718001588363240302018-02-22T20:46:00.002-05:002018-02-22T20:46:30.062-05:00Having fun with a book sale<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiri2EAA0C9q8Rsa6nrQDtpdZssgHUVQcGBqc-Uwpze0ZE1OP3sRRMEGI_dC-GMne_VidR7VF3S5mNje-xb1NAd-jWhqXQZMXEtCiCozsiqkm48Mp8PRdjYQJzJLBOoeolFyVMJgJou4vQ/s1600/FrontcoverCAMPAIGNING+FOR+CLEAN+AIR+9780989119047-FRONT+DEC+13_Prf5+copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1035" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiri2EAA0C9q8Rsa6nrQDtpdZssgHUVQcGBqc-Uwpze0ZE1OP3sRRMEGI_dC-GMne_VidR7VF3S5mNje-xb1NAd-jWhqXQZMXEtCiCozsiqkm48Mp8PRdjYQJzJLBOoeolFyVMJgJou4vQ/s320/FrontcoverCAMPAIGNING+FOR+CLEAN+AIR+9780989119047-FRONT+DEC+13_Prf5+copy.jpg" width="207" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>Thank you for your orders of Campaigning for Clean Air!</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>I was right, and George was wrong.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
When I told my husband George that I was going to set up a President's Day reduced-price offer for the paperback version of my book, he said that such an offer was useless. He claimed that my target audience is not price-sensitive. I told him that marketers do this all the time, because everyone likes a deal. Plus---people like a signed book.<br />
<br />
I was right. He was wrong.<br />
<br />
But the main thing was: I had fun!<br />
<br />
<b>Orders and comments</b><br />
<br />
Not only did I get some orders, but most orders came with a comment. If I had known how much fun it is to sell the book myself, and to see all the comments, I would have done something like this sooner. I quote or paraphrase some of the comments below:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Tell your husband that students are price-sensitive!</li>
<li>Hope you win your bet!</li>
<li>I have a copy of your book, but I want a signed copy that I can keep for myself. I won't lend it to friends (as I do with my current copy).</li>
<li>From over here in Vernon, near Vermont Yankee, thank you for everything you do.</li>
<li>Tell George he is wrong.</li>
</ul>
I enjoyed the comments!<br />
<br />
The sale is over, but you can still buy a book<br />
<br />
<b>The sale is over, but the book is widely available.</b><br />
<br />
Whether you are a member of the American Nuclear Society or not, you can buy both the paperback and the ebook through the <a href="http://www.ans.org/store/item-690099/" target="_blank">American Nuclear Society</a> . Members get a discount. You can also buy the book from <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Campaigning-Clean-Air-Strategies-Pro-Nuclear-ebook/dp/B01MA5GU9Q/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1476806189&sr=1-1" target="_blank">Amazon</a> or <a href="https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/campaigning-for-clean-air-meredith-angwin/1126700681?ean=2940158991318" target="_blank">Nook</a> or <a href="https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/campaigning-for-clean-air" target="_blank">Kobo</a>. Most people seem to buy it from Amazon.<br />
<br />
I encourage people to order the audiobook through <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Campaigning-Clean-Air-Strategies-Pro-Nuclear/dp/B0788TJTQ6/ref=tmm_aud_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1476806189&sr=1-1" target="_blank">Amazon</a> (Audible). The narrator, Pamela Almand, is wonderful! I cannot arrange a discount on the audiobook, but there are ways you can get a discount on Audible, as I understand it<br />
<br />
<b>Or your library can buy the book for you</b><br />
<br />
If you go to your local library, you can ask them to order a copy of the book. The paperback book is available from Ingram Spark, as well as being available from the various places listed above. As I understand it, libraries prefer Ingram Spark.<br />
<br />
The audiobook is available from Overdrive. Overdrive is set up for bulk audio orders, and to fufill orders from libraries.<br />
<br />
However you obtain the book, I hope you enjoy it!Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-16586833234097605102018-02-19T15:29:00.000-05:002018-02-20T14:00:16.796-05:00President's Day Book Bargain: Prove My Husband Wrong<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHnbg7FL_b9-PwcCIgdARIP4ZpXVPxaB6Jir0FhZ0EUap7_pDURSMHQCNTFPgEzJZgGB8n7JfaKMg4pN2aeElzNz4TLg0wnTOu0lI99cWbRDWYRGyB3qWAXjeFhqCgdd3YfiHS3VjAdnM/s1600/FrontcoverCAMPAIGNING+FOR+CLEAN+AIR+9780989119047-FRONT+DEC+13_Prf5+copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1036" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHnbg7FL_b9-PwcCIgdARIP4ZpXVPxaB6Jir0FhZ0EUap7_pDURSMHQCNTFPgEzJZgGB8n7JfaKMg4pN2aeElzNz4TLg0wnTOu0lI99cWbRDWYRGyB3qWAXjeFhqCgdd3YfiHS3VjAdnM/s320/FrontcoverCAMPAIGNING+FOR+CLEAN+AIR+9780989119047-FRONT+DEC+13_Prf5+copy.jpg" width="207" /></a></div>
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<b>Campaigning for Clean Air: Limited Time Reduced Price Offer</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Prove my husband wrong!<br />
<br />
I told my husband George that I was going to set up a President's Day limited-time reduced-price offer for buying the paperback version of my book. You can buy my book from Amazon on $17.95 plus shipping....or you can buy it directly from me at $16, shipping included. Plus...I will sign it! This is the lowest price I have ever offered to anyone.<br />
<br />
The catch is that you have to order it today or tomorrow. This is a limited time offer. More about that below.<br />
<br />
My husband said that such an offer is useless: my target audience is not price-sensitive. I told him that marketers do this all the time, because everyone likes a deal. Plus---people like a signed book.<br />
<br />
Free shipping and a lower price and a signature!<br />
<br />
Prove me right. Prove him wrong. Order the book today or tomorrow.<br />
<br />
<b>How to order the book</b><br />
<br />
This deal is only on the paperback book. To order the paperback book, go to your paypal account, and choose to "send money" to mjangwin at earthlink.net. Send $16. Be sure to include your mailing address in the proper area of the paypal form. This offer closes at midnight tomorrow night (February 20).<br />
<br />
If you prefer an ebook edition, you have to order it at full price from <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Campaigning-Clean-Air-Strategies-Pro-Nuclear-ebook/dp/B01MA5GU9Q/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1476806189&sr=1-1" target="_blank">Amazon</a> or <a href="https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/campaigning-for-clean-air-meredith-angwin/1126700681?ean=2940158991318" target="_blank">Nook</a> or <a href="https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/campaigning-for-clean-air" target="_blank">Kobo</a>. However, if you are a member of ANS, you can get a <a href="http://www.ans.org/store/item-690099/" target="_blank">reduced price ebook</a> by ordering it through ANS.<br />
<br />
I encourage people to order the audiobook through <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Campaigning-Clean-Air-Strategies-Pro-Nuclear/dp/B0788TJTQ6/ref=tmm_aud_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1476806189&sr=1-1" target="_blank">Amazon</a> (Audible). Pamela Almand, the narrator, is wonderful! I cannot arrange a discount on the audiobook, but there are ways you can get a discount on Audible, as I understand it<br />
<br />
If you want the paperback, order it from me at a discount. Today or tomorrow!<br />
<br />Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-62974363544556961102018-02-18T15:54:00.000-05:002018-02-26T09:22:55.004-05:00ISO-NE Consumer Liaison Group meeting March 1<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiag6_UIcmhu_ktdT98xdfxIoKzdYIHtqNw5AGdDdcShyphenhyphenwCoNzrwB2VOSHkMqvF1Kv4lUFLg92DsJvm-MpGKAqaVsNmPVfV-ZNolkJopg1qDpVn3thj_BWdgZAKau0wII1RgpCe7_UVHUk/s1600/March1_2018+banner.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1202" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiag6_UIcmhu_ktdT98xdfxIoKzdYIHtqNw5AGdDdcShyphenhyphenwCoNzrwB2VOSHkMqvF1Kv4lUFLg92DsJvm-MpGKAqaVsNmPVfV-ZNolkJopg1qDpVn3thj_BWdgZAKau0wII1RgpCe7_UVHUk/s640/March1_2018+banner.jpg" width="480" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
On March 1, the Consumer Liaison Group (CLG) associated with ISO-NE will hold its quarterly meeting near Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Meetings are free and open to the public, and include a free lunch. (Rather a pleasant lunch, usually, not just some dry sandwiches.) I am on the Coordinating Committee for the CLG. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The topic for this meeting is "How Have the Region's Wholesale Markets Evolved Over Time? Why Should Consumers Care?" In other words, this meeting addresses the heart of consumer concerns with the grid. I encourage you to attend. You can also register for phone access, and the slides are usually posted. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The graphic above is merely a screen shot, so the links don't work. Here are the links that do work:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Most important: <a href="https://www.iso-ne.com/event-details?eventId=135356" target="_blank">Register here</a> (includes information for offsite access)</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The hotel: <a href="http://www.wentworth.com/" target="_blank">Wentworth by the Sea </a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://www.iso-ne.com/committees/industry-collaborations/consumer-liaison" target="_blank">Consumer Liaison Group webpage</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="mailto:mnuara@iso-ne.com" target="_blank">Mary Louise "Weezie" Nuara email</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-86891913283833587922018-02-07T15:43:00.002-05:002018-02-07T15:43:58.542-05:00The Oil-filled Grid: Communications<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCTT_pNCFQxu3_4p3Xz2PY2fBTw0LXEx8XYh6oc-H8dZ3nFHU4GyMk8ZpmXYK-UaQr8enyPrQgI9c21EvQv6Nmycqe_8HzSa85aiqLVXUE_ld2OEnYySMU9Rots22YUb8dwPg4LqdZc2M/s1600/Early_January_2018_Nor%2527easter_2018-01-04_1345Z.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1565" data-original-width="1600" height="313" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCTT_pNCFQxu3_4p3Xz2PY2fBTw0LXEx8XYh6oc-H8dZ3nFHU4GyMk8ZpmXYK-UaQr8enyPrQgI9c21EvQv6Nmycqe_8HzSa85aiqLVXUE_ld2OEnYySMU9Rots22YUb8dwPg4LqdZc2M/s320/Early_January_2018_Nor%2527easter_2018-01-04_1345Z.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Early January Nor'Easter<br />
<a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:January_2018_North_American_blizzard#/media/File:Early_January_2018_Nor%27easter_2018-01-04_1345Z.jpg" target="_blank">Wikimedia, NOAA</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Oil on the Grid</b><br />
<br />
About two weeks ago, I wrote a blog post <a href="http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-northeast-grid-and-oil.html#.WntVAzLMwUE" target="_blank">The Northeast Grid and the Oil.</a> This described our early-January polar weather, and how Northeastern power plants could not get enough natural gas in the below-zero weather. Homes had priority for natural gas delivery, and plants that could use oil switched from natural gas to oil. <br />
<br />
As a matter of fact, the oil stocks were also getting depleted. <br />
<br />
I want to update the cold-snap story with some other posts. The general public doesn't read my blog, so I did some outreach. I wrote an op-ed about the grid for my local paper, the Valley News. The op-ed was printed on the front page of the Sunday Perspective section on January 28, and has been shared around 200 times on Facebook. <a href="http://www.vnews.com/Column-OilSavesGrid-ma-14865099" target="_blank">Oil Kept the Power Grid Running in Recent Cold Snap</a>.<br />
<br />
Why were people so interested in the article? Because a secure electric supply is an important part of personal safety during extremely cold weather. Most home furnaces require electricity to spread the warmth into the household. People who have chosen heat pumps are also dependent on reliable electricity.<br />
<br />
<b>Nuclear plants and pipelines and controversy, oh my!</b><br />
<br />
There were more articles on the situation, of course, not just mine. Actually, I think there were too <i>few</i> articles. Nearly running out of oil when you can't get gas---this can be a major deal during severe winter weather! I will point out some interesting articles, and I hope that people who read this will send links to a few more.<br />
<br />
Rod Adams post described the "sobering statements" made by the grid operator about oil supply, and the weird statements made by nuclear opponents. (Pilgrim should have shut down <i>before</i> the storm? Really?) He shares some graphics from ISO-NE on the weak performance of solar panels during the days of the crisis. He also discusses Pilgrim going off-line, and whether that could have been prevented. As usual, his post has an active and informed stream of comments. <a href="https://atomicinsights.com/performance-new-england-power-grid-extreme-cold-dec-25-jan-8/" target="_blank">Performance of the New England power grid during extreme cold Dec 25-Jan 8</a>, at <a href="https://atomicinsights.com/" target="_blank">Atomic Insights</a> blog.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, over at Forbes, several columnists were commenting on the situation.<br />
Jude Clemente wrote <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2018/01/07/what-happens-when-you-dont-build-natural-gas-pipelines/#21266a725fd6" target="_blank">What Happens When You Don't Build Natural Gas Pipeline</a><br />
David Blackman wrote <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2018/01/03/governor-andrew-cuomos-pipeline-obstruction-is-costing-new-englanders-dearly/#16dd55af23bb" target="_blank">Amid Deep Freeze, New Englanders Can 'Thank' N.Y. Gov Cuomo For Their High Energy Bills</a><br />
Christopher Helman wrote <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2018/01/03/natural-gas-demand-hits-record-as-cold-bomb-targets-northeast/#11cf0ed6aacd" target="_blank">Natural Gas Demand Hits Record As Cold Bomb Targets Northeast</a><br />
<br />
Over WBUR radio, Bruce Gellerman has a fascinating seven minute segment on how the power plants actually operated during the cold snap, including an interview with a manager of a peaker plant that runs about 800 hours a year. <a href="http://www.wbur.org/bostonomix/2018/01/12/region-need-more-pipelines" target="_blank">Do We Need More Natural Gas Pipelines</a>?<br />
<br />
There's a lot of controversy built into all these articles. The role of nuclear. The need (or not-need) for more natural gas pipelines. Will new emissions regulations make handling the next cold snap much harder? Did renewables make a great contribution during the cold snap? Or not?<br />
<br />
<b>The Electric Supply</b><br />
<br />
A steady electric supply is hugely important to winter safety. In my opinion, it should not be such a subject of controversy. My hope is that reason will prevail, and we will have the nuclear plants, pipelines and energy security that we need.Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-26491585035765778902018-01-27T16:09:00.004-05:002018-01-28T14:23:14.590-05:00The Northeast Grid and the Oil<b>ISO-NE Report on Cold Weather Grid Performance</b><br />
<br />
It was dramatically cold here in the Northeast from late December through January 8. Temperatures of ten below were common. The grid used amazing (30% or more) amounts of oil, as the power plants could not get gas. (I wrote a couple of blog posts about this, which I reference at the end of this post.)<br />
<br />
On January 16, ISO-NE issued a report on the grid behavior during this period. <a href="https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2018/01/20180112_cold_weather_ops_npc.pdf" target="_blank">Cold Weather Operations, December 24, 2017 through January 8, 2018.</a> This document is worth reading. Frankly, in my blog posts, I simply did not know how bad things were becoming on the grid. Let me quote viewgraph 11 of the ISO report:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<b>As gas became uneconomic, the entire season’s oil supply rapidly depleted</b>"</blockquote>
<br />
<b>Pictures speak louder than words</b><br />
<br />
This is a story best told in graphics.<br />
<br />
As I noted earlier, the generation mix on the grid shifted heavily to oil. On December 24, 2017, oil supplied 2% of grid electricity. On January 6, 2018, oil provided 36% of the electricity. ISO slide 14 shows this very effectively.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4V6ZByWhKgpiEsDUxh_MYvz1Wd-2hh6FIqmiyACnDQVcC3zRbWUeoecF7Kh5XkOHeHSG7_okSzUp1GLgicZKxnccFAOnIfxkSS6OeJbNKrODhCPxF6TxTyiz_Z1U0MGsNYgWAnR-C_yM/s1600/fuelmix14.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1153" data-original-width="1600" height="230" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4V6ZByWhKgpiEsDUxh_MYvz1Wd-2hh6FIqmiyACnDQVcC3zRbWUeoecF7Kh5XkOHeHSG7_okSzUp1GLgicZKxnccFAOnIfxkSS6OeJbNKrODhCPxF6TxTyiz_Z1U0MGsNYgWAnR-C_yM/s320/fuelmix14.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Slide 14<br />
<a href="https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2018/01/20180112_cold_weather_ops_npc.pdf" target="_blank">from ISO report</a><br />
Double click to expand<br />
Other illustrations are from the same report<br />
<br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b><i>Update: </i></b> <a href="http://www.elysiumindustries.com/team/" target="_blank">Ed Pheil</a> pointed something out to me: if I don't explain that demand on the grid was rising between 12/24 and 1/1/, the decline in nuclear's share of the grid electricity (from 39% to 27% etc.) is inexplicable. Did the nuclear plants go off-line? No. But there are only so many nuclear plants, and they can make only so much power. <br />
<br />
The chart below shows a steady line of "daily generation" for the nuclear plants. It is the green line near the top of the chart. There's one exception: Pilgrim went off line when a transmission line failed. You can see the dip.<br />
<br />
Thank you to Ed. This was a necessary clarification.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdzFycftKX7xA9O7SV1gD-yVA06GePUvrXrZSFGpW9JCiv20SYSwmxm9BobzadPjJhwYiOSPlgsEA8PrwDr2K5rQos2mc0tmWFAOCPuQy-vouw8h-lXhyphenhyphen0_-q9suSHXlokh5ajfqZdL1Y/s1600/daily+by+fuel+type.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1176" data-original-width="1600" height="235" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdzFycftKX7xA9O7SV1gD-yVA06GePUvrXrZSFGpW9JCiv20SYSwmxm9BobzadPjJhwYiOSPlgsEA8PrwDr2K5rQos2mc0tmWFAOCPuQy-vouw8h-lXhyphenhyphen0_-q9suSHXlokh5ajfqZdL1Y/s320/daily+by+fuel+type.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Slide 13</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
Local natural gas prices soared, while Marcellus shale prices remained fairly steady. Electricity prices followed the natural gas prices. However, generators that could switch to oil did the switch. Oil was was less expensive. Natural gas prices rose about 30 fold (from around $3 to around $90, as shown below)<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyOq3k1s5gLMBJkYEMXhF6BXa5lygynQwIVwjBrAjaL5k2ry1gEspopuoViJy3hpD81MHbzSOK0ST9KHTx61yTNXQhs_ia1IEdKfZNawDQm9O6s_6t-Zre_yrM05uq3jlnsYO9APeztMk/s1600/local+natural+gas+prices.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1008" data-original-width="1600" height="201" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyOq3k1s5gLMBJkYEMXhF6BXa5lygynQwIVwjBrAjaL5k2ry1gEspopuoViJy3hpD81MHbzSOK0ST9KHTx61yTNXQhs_ia1IEdKfZNawDQm9O6s_6t-Zre_yrM05uq3jlnsYO9APeztMk/s320/local+natural+gas+prices.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Slide 30<br />
<br />
<br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
Due to power plants using lower-priced oil, however, prices on the grid rose from around $50 to around to $450/MWh, only a ten-fold rise.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3iehWTkXIfo93XdhCeE_4rGQvnNF6lke-f6zQ0rr9DEf6aXfJpw132U6pPlY8DzU07Si36cnP2QYYCIwOKO2f8Rf_IE65OgrAN9KsQjdGbRSfldAtXZEMYXOQJIsdNpJzsU-rrzNqOsY/s1600/hourly+lmp.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1092" data-original-width="1600" height="218" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3iehWTkXIfo93XdhCeE_4rGQvnNF6lke-f6zQ0rr9DEf6aXfJpw132U6pPlY8DzU07Si36cnP2QYYCIwOKO2f8Rf_IE65OgrAN9KsQjdGbRSfldAtXZEMYXOQJIsdNpJzsU-rrzNqOsY/s320/hourly+lmp.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Slide 55</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Oil Depletion</b><br />
<br />
The region was burning oil far faster than it was replenishing it. On December 1, we had 68% (of the maximum oil) available to power plants. On January 8, we had 19%.</div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnsyX7T904pfYlK7sOLCeuyfg-ArDSxPnCCQVL1Dlbggge5s0MEMSi0AIxoSr33WnPU6zfZpVlIxD1EdKxTb-dsSQ9tAfh8IX1MplNldPrkSuU1aR47-79-V6e50wcDqnXZEoVPcAEvZE/s1600/usuable+fuel+oil.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1170" data-original-width="1600" height="234" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnsyX7T904pfYlK7sOLCeuyfg-ArDSxPnCCQVL1Dlbggge5s0MEMSi0AIxoSr33WnPU6zfZpVlIxD1EdKxTb-dsSQ9tAfh8IX1MplNldPrkSuU1aR47-79-V6e50wcDqnXZEoVPcAEvZE/s320/usuable+fuel+oil.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Slide 21</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
For a more dramatic picture, ISO shows a single power plant's oil supply, which went from an eight-day supply to a one-day supply over the same period.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjx5LhTbZGpUklhrm08vu9KpCaqnjt2RM1kA7IAXqO0dpVJ2moKWKVuhNkVnDzQpKiRkovVg-u4_zBaACaVxJXRKNB2a5HoRjhJ_m1Hsdi0gGkosFzWIVItp97VkYMDCJ7jNEEwnnuvn_I/s1600/oil+depletion+one+station.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1159" data-original-width="1600" height="231" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjx5LhTbZGpUklhrm08vu9KpCaqnjt2RM1kA7IAXqO0dpVJ2moKWKVuhNkVnDzQpKiRkovVg-u4_zBaACaVxJXRKNB2a5HoRjhJ_m1Hsdi0gGkosFzWIVItp97VkYMDCJ7jNEEwnnuvn_I/s320/oil+depletion+one+station.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Slide 22</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
There are many important slides. For example, slide 17 shows how the generators that were enrolled in the ISO-NE Winter Reliability Program really picked up the slack, and slide 18 compares the amount of oil burned in the two weeks of cold with the amount of oil burned the previous two years. (More was burned in the two weeks of cold.) </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And then there was all the scrambling to keep things going. Slides 35 and 36 show that there were emergency conference calls about the grid---pretty much every day. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>What have we learned?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Much as I dislike burning oil for power, I dislike widespread outages even more. I give ISO-NE tremendous credit for the Winter Reliability Program, and for keeping the lights on.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
According to the last slide in the ISO program, replenishment of oil is the key issue for reliable operation during cold weather in New England. ISO-NE is correct, according to their charter.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW0bA3hPSm30zyifbiosiPORQvZPeiUwpKRUktgs-lF1xKj1LixEohPl1WViOgaKRUWUlV8ZFBPE0AIgUjiDeCpZgqkO3CsVLmgCRrEJpJHezy42x1LSW3LR7NePEMunh_Wb8-MFuFVB8/s1600/finalslide.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1083" data-original-width="1600" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW0bA3hPSm30zyifbiosiPORQvZPeiUwpKRUktgs-lF1xKj1LixEohPl1WViOgaKRUWUlV8ZFBPE0AIgUjiDeCpZgqkO3CsVLmgCRrEJpJHezy42x1LSW3LR7NePEMunh_Wb8-MFuFVB8/s320/finalslide.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">slide 62</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
However, the ISO-NE charter is limited. For me, the important thing is to keep Northeastern nuclear plants operating. Nuclear plants are thoroughly reliable. (Yes, Pilgrim went offline due to a transmission line failure.) Nuclear plants keep making electricity, no matter what the weather might be, as long as there is a transmission line to send out their power. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In cold weather, we need reliability. In cold weather, we need nuclear. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
----</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Earlier blog posts:</div>
<div>
<a href="http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2017/12/successful-encouragement-of-oil-on-new.html#.WmzcYDLMwUE" target="_blank">Successful encouragement of oil on the New England grid,</a> December 27.</div>
<div>
<a href="http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2017/12/more-cold-and-more-oil-on-new-england.html#.WmzcpjLMwUE" target="_blank">More cold and more oil on the New England grid</a>, December 29</div>
<div>
<a href="http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2018/01/vermont-hot-air-and-puerto-rico.html#.Wmzc6DLMwUE" target="_blank">Vermont, Hot Air, and Puerto Rico</a>, January 7</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-1754308519442850792018-01-21T09:49:00.001-05:002018-01-21T18:06:55.697-05:00Advocates, NEI and Unions. Advocates are essential.<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhT7BBe36YqThq2DSkuQsZ0zvymnzx92TmC4ZFanXkkbwoYUu17Pr8oylYGO8PTdWeFr1QltTwIgiJ_zVLyORfXKfbd0EGxWFYHIJIdtBUbrhU_SEYTnkCJDroTeGm-DoNZfhlWivNTj0w/s1600/vernondam.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="139" data-original-width="235" height="189" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhT7BBe36YqThq2DSkuQsZ0zvymnzx92TmC4ZFanXkkbwoYUu17Pr8oylYGO8PTdWeFr1QltTwIgiJ_zVLyORfXKfbd0EGxWFYHIJIdtBUbrhU_SEYTnkCJDroTeGm-DoNZfhlWivNTj0w/s320/vernondam.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Vermont Yankee when it was operating</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Entergy withdraws from NEI</b><br />
<br />
Entergy and NextEra have announced their withdrawals from the <a href="https://www.nei.org/" target="_blank">Nuclear Energy Institute</a>. <a href="http://southeastenergynews.com/2018/01/18/two-utilities-withdraw-from-leading-nuclear-energy-trade-group/">http://southeastenergynews.com/2018/01/18/two-utilities-withdraw-from-leading-nuclear-energy-trade-group/</a><br />
<br />
This could simply mean that these companies prefer to hire their own public relations firms and lobbyists. Eliminate the middle man, etc. Another possibility is that nuclear energy issues are so state-specific that an institute focused on Washington has become less relevant. I can think of all sorts of reasons why this "may not be so bad, really."<br />
<br />
But I think it <i>is</i> bad, <i>really</i>. I consider these major withdrawals from NEI to be very bad news for the nuclear industry.<br />
<br />
To me, this also means that ordinary people who support nuclear energy have to be out there, supporting it. The big institutions may not be doing their part in the future.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Update:</i></b> In a post today, <a href="https://neutronbytes.com/2018/01/21/us-nuclear-industry-faces-watershed-year-nei/" target="_blank">US Industry Faces Watershed Year,</a> Dan Yurman has further background on events at NEI, plus links to this post and other posts on the need for advocacy.<br />
<br />
<b>Entergy faces union issues about decomm</b><br />
<br />
Usually, I don't write about "labor negotiations are ongoing..." etc. However, according to this LOHUD article, <a href="https://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/indian-point/2018/01/18/indian-point-strike-deadline/1041307001/" target="_blank">Indian Point Strike Deadline</a>, one of the big issues in the on-going contract negotiation is whether current plant workers will stay on to do the decomm, or whether Entergy will turn over the decomm to a separate company:<i> "Topping the list of worker concerns is whether they will have a role in the years-long dismantling process that will follow Indian Point's shut down. "</i><br />
<br />
<i>This just in:</i> Talks have broken down over the weekend. Whether the union workers will be doing the decomm continues to be a major contention<a href="https://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/indian-point/2018/01/20/indian-point-talks-halt-weekend/1051511001/" target="_blank">. https://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/indian-point/2018/01/20/indian-point-talks-halt-weekend/1051511001</a>/<br />
<i><br /></i>
Keeping the current workers on-site will be difficult, because the people who operate a plant have different skill sets (and usually higher pay) than the people who decommision a plant.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>If Indian Point was going to operate for another twenty years, this entire issue would be irrelevant. Plus, New York would continue to have clean power.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
To me, the union request means that ordinary people who support nuclear energy and <i>plant operation </i>have to be out there, supporting it. </div>
<br />
<b>Two News Items, One Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
The big institutions (NEI, unions) are changing their roles. The nuclear industry needs its supporters, now more than ever. It needs all the people who are willing to write letters, talk to their representatives, speak to a high school group or a Rotary, hold a rally, teach a class at the local community college, everything. <br />
<br />
Nuclear advocates: the people of the world need you more than ever!<br />
<br />
I am somewhat cheered by the number of pro-nuclear groups that are active now, and the number of pro-nuclear books that are currently being published. And the videos, blogs, white papers, etc. Still, we pro-nuclear advocates are need to up our game, be out there, be effective.<br />
<br />
<b><i>It's up to us, now.</i></b>Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.com1