A Strong Vision for the Future of Vermont: Charles Kelly Guest Post

Charles Kelly
Professional Engineer
Addison, Vermont

Reference PSB Docket No. 7862

Gentlemen of the Vermont Public Service Board,

I am sure you have heard all the arguments before but some things are worth repeating.

The electrical generating capacity of Vermont Yankee needs to be continued as well as Vermont’s use of it. As you know there is no Vermont based generated energy on-line or feasible in the next decade that can replace Vermont Yankee’s near 5,000 giga -Whr per year. Vermonters do not discard useful tools before their time. Please do not discard this valuable in-place, environmentally clean, energy source.

Reliance on foreign and out-of-state energy sources, coupled with our own meager intermittent renewable sources, leaves us vulnerable to uncontrolled rate increases and in a weak bargaining position.

At some time in the distant future, a replacement state-of-the art energy system can make valuable use of the pre-qualified central generating site in Vernon.

Let the legacy of the 2012 Public Service Board be one of vision:

• Vision to see through the political rhetoric.
• Vision to not be fooled by the profiteering antics of the intermittent energy coalition.
• Vision to provide affordable energy for Vermont’s working class and small business community.
• And a vision to keep Vermont Yankee generating for Vermont.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,


Charles Kelly
Addison, Vermont

----------

Charles Kelly drove from Addison Vermont to speak at the hearing.   He holds a BME and MME from Villanova University, and is a Professional Engineer  (P.E.) in Pennsylvania and Vermont. You can read more about Kelly's background at his earlier guest post: PV Solar and Vermont, Not a Good Fit.  Kelly serves on the planning commission for the town of Addison.

----------
This is the 14th in a series of posts which share statements made in favor of Vermont Yankee at the Public Service Board hearing on November 7, 2012

PV Solar and Vermont: Not a Good FIt. Guest Post by Charles Kelly

PV Solar Energy and the State of Vermont: Not a Good Fit

It is interesting to witness all the hype about PV solar energy fields in Vermont, and how these fields will be a panacea for our future energy needs. Even if we put aside the vast land area that solar requires, there is real concern that our energy planners are over-selling Solar Photovoltaic. Excessive investment in solar will cause taxpayers to pay substantially more for their electricity to the detriment of their personal savings.

Over-reliance on solar is an ill-conceived strategy. Our state energy planners seem more concern with hitting the perceived hot buttons of green energy and the subsidies that come with it, than conducting a pragmatic and thorough study of how well PV solar energy fits in our state.

Cost and Efficiency

Here are a few facts about solar, backed up by creditable data:

• Solar panels are not remotely competitive with Coal, Gas, or Nuclear with regards to efficiency, cost, and materials.
• Because of cloud cover; solar radiation reaching Vermont is 40% less per year (8 MJ/m2) than that reaching Montana, at the same latitude, and 59% less than New Mexico. In other words, we pay the same for solar panels, but unlike other states we get less production per panel.

Solar Technologies and Critical Materials

There are two basic solar panel technologies: crystalline silicon and thin film.

Silicon panels are more efficient, but costs more. Silicon semiconductor manufacturing, particularly the cutting of silicon ingots, is an energy-intensive, CO2-producing process. Taking this into account, the total net energy generated during the life (~ 25 years ) of the panels is reduced by as much as 10%. In addition panel output degrades about 0.5% per year due to aging, a significant reduction over 25 years.

Thin film panels use exotic rare earth metals, such as cadmium telluride, gallium arsenide, and indium. Only two nations, China and Mexico, have significant deposits of these materials. So much for being energy independent with PV Solar. Even with these sources, there are not enough of these materials on the planet to satisfy world need. There are no proven substitutes. The 2011 U.S. Department of Energy report Critical Materials Strategy outlines the severity of material limitations not only for PV solar, but wind power as well.

Efficiency, Cost, and Materials: The Three Warning Signs

Efficiency, cost, and materials are three warning signs that should not be ignored by state energy planners,. Planning decisions made now will affect rate payers and taxpayers alike for the next quarter century and beyond. Why jump into a technology that is not suitable for the New England area? In time, household and business electric bills will be much higher due to rolling the expensive solar energy into rate schedules. At that point, it will become abundantly clear to the average Vermonter that we have been misled, whereas the top 1% of households that are part of tax-shelter LLCs will have enjoyed a lucrative 20-year joyride courtesy of Vermont's SPEED program.

About Charles Kelly:

Charles Kelly, BME and MME Villanova University, P.E. Pennsylvania and Vermont, Consulting Engineer to Lithium Battery Industry. Granted two U.S. patents for battery and composite material design. Senior Principal Design Engineer (Ret.) Enersys Advanced Systems. Project Engineer (Ret.) Raytheon Engineers & Constructors for PSC of NH Seabrook Nuclear Station. Supervising Test Engineer (Ret.) for power industry components, Schutte & Koerting Co. Philadelphia, PA.

-------------

Solar panel illustration from Wikipedia

Comments on the Vermont Energy Plan

Some people have sent me copies of their comments to the Vermont Department of Public Service about the Comprehensive Energy Plan. They also gave permission for me to print the comments. The comment period for the plan ends Monday, so get your own comments in as soon as possible. Here's the link for the comment form and email address.

I can publish more comments in the future. Send to mjangwin at gmail.com

An Engineer's Comments: There is No Plan

Charles Kelly wrote:

Vermonters by nature are not wasters. They don't throw away equipment with usable life remaining. Witness all the old farm equipment and trucks still in service in our heartland. In reading the Department of Public Service (DPS) Comprehensive Energy Plan I don't see anywhere where the perfectly usable Vermont Yankee Plant will continue in service until it can be logically phased out within the extended life period certified by the NRC. The DPS energy plan admits to a gap (page 13) in electric supply before renewables and natural gas can be brought on-line. That is at least 18 years (2030) according to Daniel Yergin, Chairman of HIS Cambridge Energy Research Association in his recent book, The Quest.

The other part of the DPS plan is a natural gas pipeline installation which will service only metropolitan areas, and is also years in the making. What do we do in the next decade? The Energy Plan is weak on numbers and timelines. It is more of a statement of wishful thinking, driven by an anti-Vermont Yankee sentiment which permeates the Governor's office. In reading this Energy Plan I don't get the impression that the DPS is proud of it. I do not think they even believe in it. Tell me how my electric rates will stay affordable in the foreseeable future.

A Nurse's Comments: We Don't Plan to Shoot People Anymore

Mary Daly wrote:

I cannot believe that the State of Vermont is planning to close down Vermont Yankee and submit its citizens to high cost renewable replacement energy instead. I have been to both an NRC open house in Brattleboro and a tour of the plant in Vernon and have no concerns about the plant. This hysteria about nuclear energy reminds me of the days in the 60’s when I was going to nursing school and there was talk of arming the Emergency Room staff with guns so that in the event of a nuclear accident, the staff could kill people who had been exposed rather than letting them contaminate others. To my knowledge, there has never been a nuclear accident in the US that would have required that action. Yes, they were worried about bombs at that time.

The hysteria about the tritium leak is just that. I carry tritium with me all the time on my watch.

My request is that we support Vermont Yankee and work to build another plant in the State. That would increase jobs, keep the lights burning and not damage the environment. I bet it would also be less expensive that what you are planning too. You are also ignoring the fact that many Vermonters support wind power but NOT in their back yards. The NIMBY factor.

A Former Vermont Senator's Comments: Energy Independence at the Price of Economic Growth?

John McClaughry, founder of the Ethan Allen Institute, former Vermont State Senator wrote:

The guiding principle of the Plan’s "vision" is “to set Vermont on a path to attain 90% of its energy from renewable sources by 2050.”

The document also advocates for

• Moving toward "energy independence” by requiring Vermonters to reduce their consumption of imported fossil fuels that now comprise two thirds of the state’s total energy consumption.
• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2012, and 50% below by 2050, to “lower the state’s contribution to global warming.” (Act 168 of 2006)
• Strengthening and extending the various mechanisms for effecting these goals: mandates, subsidies, controls, and directives.

A more desirable and realistic plan would be , in our view, “to set Vermont on a path to assure safe, reliable and competitively priced energy that will make possible a strong, competitive and growing economic base , both for creation of new wealth and income for the people of the state, and for expanded tax revenues to enable the state to meet its fiscal obligations.”

......

The most startling omission in this voluminous plan is the complete absence, in section 3.1, of any chart or graph showing the sources of Vermont’s electrical energy now, and the sources we can expect to enjoy in future decades if the Plans recommendations are acted upon.

(This is an excerpt, read the complete comment here)

--------------

Full disclosure: John McClaughry is the founder of the Ethan Allen Institute, and I am director of the Energy Education Project, which is part of that Institute.

Pistol image from Wikipedia.