Transitioning to Renewable Power: What It Might Look Like

Transitioning to Renewable Power: An Expert Describes What it Might “Look Like”
 By Guy Page

How many in-state, renewable power plants would it take to generate five percent of all energy used in the state?

This isn’t just an academic question for energy policy wonks. The State of Vermont has hitched its wagon to the star of 90 percent renewable power by 2050, and is pulling mighty hard to build more wind turbines, solar farms, and other renewable power generators.   And some Vermonters are pushing back just as hard.

There’s no lack of spirited debate, but sometimes it’s hard to find good, solid facts. On  February 7, the State of Vermont’s Director of Energy Policy and Planning, Dr. Asa Hopkins, performed and important and very informative public service as he addressed the Vermont Energy Generation Siting Policy Commission at a public hearing in Montpelier. Using “just the facts, ma’am” tone and detail, Dr. Hopkins described what a five percent  increase in Vermont-generated renewable electric power would look like.

The Five Per Cent Non-Solution

Hopkins emphasized that there’s nothing magic about five percent. It’s just one intermediate step from the 23 percent renewable energy level of 2010 to the 90 percent goal of 2050. He also clarified that electricity is a third of Vermont’s total energy sector. Heating and transportation, both more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, account for the other two-thirds.  The state energy analyst described several possible paths to increasing total energy by five percent solely through instate renewable power generation:

• Using large wind only, the state would need to generate 288 megawatts (MW), equal to 96 three- megawatt turbines. That is 4.6 times the capacity of the Kingdom Community Wind project. 
• Using solar only, the state would need to generate 576 MW (5.4 square miles – half the size of Burlington or 1.3 times the size of Barre City), equal to  262 2.2 MW solar generators – the maximum size allowed under the state’s “standard offer” subsidized power program.  Hopkins himself liked it to placing slightly more than one 2.2 MW solar plant in every town, city, and gore in Vermont. 
• Using small hydro only, the state would need to generate 173 MW, almost twice the estimated capacity available from powering 300 of the 1200 existing dams. Hopkins noted that the federal permitting process for small hydro can be lengthy and complex. 
• Using biomass (woodchips) only, the state would need to generate 139 MW, which would require an additional 1.1 million tons of fuel per year. At present, Vermont now uses 1.5 million tons/year total.

How Much Do We Need?

Dr. Hopkins noted that the expected reduced demand through conservation will cancel out the projected annual growth in demand for electricity. There is a notable exception: when demand for electricity rises by one-third due to the transition to plug-in electric vehicles. Energy conservation can’t keep up with a power demand spike of that size. At that point, Vermont ‘s power supply would need a real boost.

Vermonters know, more than we knew several years ago, the challenges that wind and solar projects present. We are developing opinions of a future of renewable power, based on our actual experience. Dr. Hopkins’ scenarios may help some of us inform those opinions. Knowing what we know, do we want five more Lowell Mountain wind projects, or solar farms everywhere, or hundreds more small dams, or heavier harvesting of woodlands in and around Vermont? Or an energy buffet of smaller servings of “all of the above?” For others, the answer might be “none of the above.”

Two years ago there was just a single ridgeline wind facility, now there are four. Solar power production on rooftop homes, on large buildings, and in pastures are on the rise.  Plug-in car registrations grew 57% in 2012, but only to 188 in total.

Can we build (and afford) enough renewable power? If we can, do we want to? These are questions that Vermonters will continue to debate. But with the help of Dr. Hopkins’ illustrations, at least we can better understand what the finished work might look like.

-----------

Guy Page is Communications Director of the Vermont Energy Partnership. He has several excellent guest posts on this blog.  His most recent post was Energy Policy is Key to Vermont's Future.

Vermont Energy Partnership is a diverse group of more than 90 business, labor, and community leaders committed to finding clean, affordable and reliable electricity solutions.  Entergy, owner of Vermont Yankee, is a member of the Vermont Energy Partnership.

Asa S. Hopkins is the Director of Energy Planning for the Vermont Department of Public Service.  He holds a Ph.D. in physics from California Institute of Technology. He previously held positions at the Department of Energy and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.

73rd Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers at Next Big Future

The 73rd Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is up at Next Big Future. Brian Wang has put together a great Carnival of world-wide reach!

In the United States:

• Brian Wang of Next Big Future has started a White House Petition for better nuclear education.
• Dan Yurman of Idaho Samizdat asks whether the Texas reactors are Texas Toast.
• At Yes Vermont Yankee, I question the Comprehensive Energy Plan for Vermont without Vermont Yankee.
• Steve Skutnik of Neutron Economy explores the physical and political limits for spent fuel repositories.
• Gail Marcus of Nuke Power Talk takes a look at coal and gas, pollution-wise.
• Steven Krivit, of ANS Nuclear Cafe, points out that we were once terrified of fire, too.

Meanwhile, going international:

• Will Davis of Atomic Power Review discusses the blast at Fukushima Unit 2: Tepco says it wasn't a hydrogen explosion. It could have been a steam explosion when a hot object hit water.
• Steve Aplin at Canadian Energy Isues discusses climate change and nuclear proliferation. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists thinks carbon sequestration is "immediately deployable" and that nuclear power leads to nuclear weapons. Wrong on both counts.
• Brian Wang at Next Big Future reports that India expects to have 20,000 MW of nuclear on-line by 2020, and Russia is going ahead with a nuclear ice-breaker and new floating nuclear reactors.
• Also at Next Big Future, Wang reports that Kazakhstan is slowing down its uranium production until prices rise again.

There's so much going on in the world of nuclear power! Visit the Carnival and enjoy it all!

The Vermont Energy Plan: Little Time to Comment, No Time to Review

This blog post is a slightly edited version of an article I wrote for True North Reports last week. I am grateful to True North Reports for permission to reprint it on my blog.

Governor Shumlin wants a plan--without Vermont Yankee

Shortly after Governor Shumlin took office, he said he was very surprised to see that the State Energy Plan included Vermont Yankee operating past March 2012, operating beyond its design date. He claimed my team (is) frankly scrambling to put together a shutdown plan that should have been designed over the years...we have grid challenges, we have challenges in rates....

Shumlin, a plant opponent, did not change his opinion of "design date" after the NRC extended Vermont Yankee's federal license until 2032. Instead, he and his team put together a plan for Vermont without Vermont Yankee, the Comprehensive Energy Plan (CEP). The plan was written under the auspices of the Department of Public Service (DPS) and is now going through the public comment process.

The CEP was released on September 14, and the public comment period ends on October 10, less than a month later. (October 10 is a week from today.)

The CEP covers electricity, heating, transmission, and transportation. It is over 600 pages long, including the appendices. The main volume is 368 pages. Less than a month does not give the public much time to review the documents.

What is a Plan?

The CEP includes ambitious renewable goals, but little actual planning. Among other things, it doesn't address the issue of electricity supply without Vermont Yankee in a straightforward fashion.

For example, in the summary document, the electricity section (pages 7 through 9) includes expansion of the standard offer program for renewable energy, and hiring a new "renewable energy project development director" for DPS. The electricity section does not mention natural gas or acknowledge any gap in the electricity supply.

However, the home and business heating section (pages 10 through 12) does note that there might be an electricity supply gap. On page 11, the heating section encourages the expansion of a gas pipeline into Vermont because "Natural gas can address two key needs: reduce Vermonter's reliance on overseas oil for heating....and help fill a gap in electric supply." (emphasis added).

We Have Goals and Stakeholders

The CEP contains goals such as 90% of our energy needs by renewable sources by 2050. (page 3 of summary document). There are no numbers or dates for future construction of renewable sources, however. No statements such as "this much wind energy by this date." The CEP does contain a solid recapitulation of Vermont's historic energy demand and supply sources.

However, that is not the same as a forward-looking plan.

The Institute for Energy and the Environment of Vermont Law School(VLS) recently announced that they had extensive input on the CEP. The Law School input is visible in the CEP. The CEP contains historical data, things to be considered in choosing energy sources, and a great deal about "process" and "stakeholders."

However, the CEP is not what an engineer would call a plan.

Controversy

Despite its lack of content, the plan has come under fire from VPIRG (Vermont Public Interest Research Group). Shay Totten, of Seven Days, blogged about VPIRG's early criticism of the plan. VPIRG felt the plan did not move far enough and fast enough about renewables.

According to Totten, Ben Walsh of VPIRG did some quick calculations about renewable goals, and fired off an email titled "Really? This is what we waited for?" Walsh pointed out that Vermont utilities added 1.6 percent new renewables under Governor Douglas, and, calculating back from the goals, the CEP calls for only 1.1 percent new renewables per year.

Four hours after Walsh sent the email, his boss James Moore wrote an apologetic email: "We are thrilled to have a comprehensive energy plan that shows real vision for where this state can and should go." However, Moore noted that "There are parts of the plan that we feel are weak, like the renewable energy requirements."

Shay Totten's post has insightful comments on what this exchange means in terms of the usually cozy relationships between Governor Shumlin and VPIRG. It is worth reading.

After the Totten blog post, the controversy between VPIRG and the State continued. The Rutland Herald reported that James Moore of VPIRG criticized the renewable energy plan even more strongly about a day later. He claimed that the administration target puts renewable energy growth in Vermont on a slower annual pace than it is on now.

Elizabeth Miller, the DPS Commissioner, was also quoted in the Rutland Herald. Miller said she wasn't sure how VPIRG calculated this renewable energy target (number).

In my opinion, this controversy was caused by the fact that the plan has long-term goals and few actual numbers. VPIRG was criticizing numbers that DPS did not explicitly put in the plan.

Examining a Plan Goal

As an example, it is worth looking at one chart with plan goals. The following chart on the right is on page 14 of Volume two of the CEP.

This shows the plans for Greenhouse Gas emissions for the future in Vermont. (You can click to enlarge it). The level of greenhouse gases produced from the electricity sector is shown as rising rapidly after 2012, presumably after Vermont Yankee closes. The chart also shows projections for lowering greenhouse emissions are (at minimum) aggressive, and probably unworkable. It is a chart of goals, not a plan.

The one part of the chart that seems grounded in a defined event (closing Vermont Yankee) is the rise in electricity-produced greenhouse gases after 2012. The CEP claims that it does not actually take a stand on Vermont Yankee. On page 150 of volume 2: This plan will not take a position on whether VY should continue to operate; that is the role of state laws and processes and is the subject of the pending lawsuit.

However, since the impetus of writing the plan was to have an energy plan without Vermont Yankee in the mix, this statement is a bit disingenuous. For example, a recent editorial about the plan in the Burlington Free Press notes that: Given the governor's history, no one should be surprised that nuclear energy -- Vermont Yankee in particular -- has no long-term future in the Shumlin plan.

Note: A Burlington Free Press article by Nancy Remsen: Vermont Faces Up to Energy Challenge gives an excellent overview of the plan, particularly the home heating (natural gas and wood) and transportation (electric vehicles) section. Full disclosure...I am quoted in the article.

A Way to Comment

There is still a week left to send input to the DPS on the CEP. Though the plan itself is quite long, the summary document is only 19 pages, and can be reviewed rapidly. The public comment page

http://www.vtenergyplan.vermont.gov/comment/public_comment

You are asked to address only one energy topic per comment (electricity, conservation) but you can submit multiple comments.

Or you can use the email address to comment.

PSD.energyplan2011comments@state.vt.us

These electronic forms are probably the best ways to comment, though there are public meetings on October 3 and October 6, also.

http://www.vtenergyplan.vermont.gov/events#public%20hearings

Approval Moving Forward

The CEP approval process is moving forward rapidly. The length of the CEP documents and the shortness of the comment period are somewhat intimidating. Still, it is possible to comment, perhaps by choosing one area of the plan. Citizens interested in Vermont's energy future should comment. As citizens, we have an obligation to have our voice heard.

Vermont Energy Plan Review: Hurry Up. Hurry Up. Renewables. Don't Pay Attention to the Gas Pipeline

Comments on the Comprehensive Energy Plan

The Vermont Department of Public Service (DPS) has issued a draft Comprehensive Energy Plan for Vermont, and they have opened it for public comment. This document covers all types of energy use in Vermont: home heating, transportation, electricity. It is the document Governor Shumlin wanted: Vermont without Vermont Yankee. Now the DPS is asking for public comments on the document.

DPS isn't hoping for too much public comment. On September 14, the Department of Public Service released the plan and the time schedule, and sent an email to that effect to selected organizations. The public comment period ends on October 10, less than a month later. The summary volume of the CEP is 19 pages. The main volume (volume 2) is 368 pages. The appendix volume is 200 pages, but seems to be a moving target. New information was added to the appendix after the original email was received. Read fast!

People can comment through a website or email address, or you can go to meetings.

• There's a form on this Public Comment Page.
• You can email PSD.energyplan2011comments@state.vt.us.
• There will be five public meetings, two of which are on Rosh Hashanah, and none of which is within fifty miles of my home.

Renewables in a Hurry

They could have more meetings of course, but that would take more time. Shumlin wants this done, and done by November. He wanted the vote on Vermont Yankee in February 2010, before the economic report was presented to the legislature. He got the vote. He wants a comprehensive energy plan for the state done with less than one month of review. He'll probably get it.

What do I think of the plan? Well, it isn't really a plan. To understand it, I suggest you read the summary (volume 1 on this page), and review an earlier presentation by Liz Miller, the DPS commissioner. I heard Ms. Miller give this presentation earlier this year, and it is an excellent summary of the problems. I discussed her presentation about the coming electricity gap in a blog post in June: Thoughts on a Chart. (This was a guest post at ANS Nuclear Cafe.)

An excellent summary of the problems, however, is comparatively easy. This is supposed to be the plan for curing the problems. It isn't. The first pages of the summary volume are a mixture of problem description and platitudes, and some ideas for increasing energy efficiency programs. (As a member of my town's energy commission, I like many of the efficiency ideas.)

The section Strategies for Electricity and Renewable Energy starts on page 9 of the 19 pages. It calls for:

• Increasing renewables through a Renewable Portfolio Standard, or an increased SPEED program, or other methods
• Encouraging utilities to develop auction methodologies for encouraging mid-size generation projects
• Hiring a director of renewable resources in the DPS
• It does not mention natural gas.

Later parts of the document consider transmission, and call for implementation of the smart grid, and increased Vermont advocacy within ISO-NE and FERC. (page 12). Since Vermont is only 4% of the New England grid load, I am not at all sure that being stronger advocates within ISO-NE will work for us. We're not exactly the 900 pound gorilla on the local grid. (ISO-NE is the New England grid operator.)

Gas is the Actual Answer

The meat of the electricity plan is actually in the Home Heating Section. This section calls for increased use of natural gas for heating, and expansion of natural gas pipelines. (page 13). As it says on page 13: Natural gas can address two key needs: reduce Vermonter’s reliance on overseas oil for heating and for heavy fleet transportation, and help fill a gap in electric supply. (emphasis added)

Wow. The home heating section is the one place where the plan admits to a gap in the electricity supply. And the cure is a longer gas pipeline from Canada.

There is No Plan

There are no quantities, dates or costs anywhere in this plan. They are not in the summary volume. I tried to find them in Volume Two (368 pages), but they aren't there, either. Volume Two is a list of Good Things We Will Do. I am glad government workers will be encouraged to carpool, but that isn't going to replace Vermont Yankee.

The trouble is that if you actually look at numbers, you see how important Vermont Yankee is. In the case of the DPS, the solution was simple. Don't look.

But There is a Plan for Electricity

Yet, in another way, the electricity plan is simple, despite the length of the documents. It has two parts:

• Add more renewables through expanding government support programs.
• Bring in that natural gas pipeline to fill the gap in the electricity supply.

The president of Green Mountain Power, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Gaz Metro, organized Governor Shumlin's inaugural ball. At that time, somehow I felt that if Vermont Yankee were shut down, the electricity gap would be filled by Canadian gas. Of course, the inaugural ball and the DPS report may be completely unrelated. Perhaps it just makes sense to shut down an operating power plant in your home state, lay off all the people who work there, and buy methane from Canada instead.

Have Your Voice Heard

Read as much of the plan as you can, and give your opinion to DPS on the Public Comment Page.

Illustration of Wind Turbines in Austria, from Wikipedia