The Panama Canal and the Renewable Mandate. Guest Post by Guy Page.

Vermont Could Learn Energy Lesson from de Lesseps, Panama Canal Failure

Guest post by Guy Page, Vermont Energy Partnership

Canal Excavation work under de Lesseps, 1886

It may sound odd, but when I think of Vermont’s pursuit of 90% Total Renewable Energy by 2050, I think of Ferdinand de Lesseps.

Never heard of him? He was the creator of the Suez Canal who later attempted the digging of the Panama Canal under the French flag.

Inspired by his success at Suez and a transcendent if naïve 19th century belief in the unstoppable power of Modern Progress, de Lesseps led the national effort from 1870-94 to dig a “sea level” canal across Panama. When engineers warned the canal couldn’t be finished, de Lesseps counseled faith in France, progress, and himself. After a quarter century, failure was complete: no canal, a bankrupt nation, and 25,000 dead from accident, malaria and other tropical diseases.

The goal is not the only issue

Like building a trans-isthmus canal, pursuing a future with safe, clean, affordable, reliable energy is an ambitious, worthy goal. Five years after the unveiling of Vermont’s landmark pro-renewable 2011 Clean Energy Plan, there has been much progress in solar and wind development. Yet as with de Lesseps’ canal, some basic, foreseeable problems remain unsolved:

First, overdevelopment. Instate wind and solar development can’t meet our growing megawatt/hour needs without drastically remaking our treasured landscape. To compensate for weaker output compared to nuclear, hydro and natural gas, wind and solar power require vast acreage, premium siting, and proximity to consumers. Vermont is only just starting to realize what a 90% renewable portfolio will really look like. And it is no good to say Vermont can conserve its way out of overdevelopment. The CEP clearly states Vermont will need more electricity than ever to replace the fossil fuels now energizing our cars and home furnaces. Also, more extreme forms of conservation – the virtual exclusion of the private car, air traffic, and single family home ownership – are unacceptable to the average Vermonter and thus are doomed to failure.

Second, wind and solar produce power at nature’s whim, not when we need it. This intermittent power problem makes transmission more unreliable and difficult to manage as the ratio of wind/solar power to total load grows. The purported solution – efficient battery storage – does not exist in applicable, market-ready form. As with the followers of de Lesseps, we are told that technological breakthrough is just around the corner. Skeptics are told to have more faith in progress, and to keep the workers busy and the money flowing.

SS  Ancon, first ship through Panama Canal 1914

Appropriate technology

Perhaps technology will solve these problems. After all, the Panama Canal was eventually built – but not where, when, and how de Lesseps had envisioned. U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt learned from France’s mistakes. Twenty years after the French plan failed, the United States completed a redesigned, relocated Panama Canal with sound planning and available technology.

Vermont should imitate TR and rework its energy future with a plan that doesn’t require landscape devastation or non-existent technology. Carbon reduction, the much-stated reason for a 90% renewable portfolio, can be achieved by state and regional policies embracing existing regional hydro and nuclear power with  more deliberate growth in wind and solar. In August, New York State took a bold step by including nuclear power in its clean power portfolio. Vermont and the rest of New England should consider following suit.

When (or if) the Big Energy Breakthrough happens – whether efficient storage of intermittent power, or a totally new form of power generation - we’ll be ready for it. Until then - pardon my skepticism, call me plodding and cautious, but our future is too important to leave to faith in progress.

--------

Guy Page is communications director of the Vermont Energy Partnership (www.vtep.org). This post has appeared or will appear at several newspapers in Vermont.  Page is a frequent guest blogger at this blog: his most recent post is Challenges for Instate Hydro.

The New New New! Vermont Energy Plan

The grid is all about gas

The last two posts at this blog (here and here) showed that Vermont Yankee electricity on the grid has been replaced, kWh for kWh, by power electricity produced by gas-fired plants.  Two comments (that I published) asked about the growing use of renewables. Two other comments (that I did not publish) asked the same thing, but in a truculent and accusatory tone.

So. What about renewables? Vermont has a plan.

Comes the Revolution!

Here's the answer about renewables.  Vermont has a new improved energy plan for the future!  We are going to cut our energy use by 1/3 by 2050, and use renewables for 90% of our remaining energy needs.  Here are two graphs (for the years 2015 and 2050) which I have abstracted from the executive summary of the plan.

 2015 energy use

2050 energy use

Look how much less energy we will use!  Look at how much less waste there will be!  And fossil fuels will be almost completely eliminated!

You can double-click to see larger versions of the charts, and you can read the ten page summary. For this blog post,  I simply took screen shots of the charts, but you can find numbers in the summary document, or in the complete plan document, which is over 400 pages long.

My Russian grandmother had a rather cynical saying: "Sure, comes the revolution..."  I guess she heard that phrase once too often, growing up in Czarist Russia.

Comes the Revolution, indeed.

What's new this time? Less energy.

Still, the new part of the plan is clear:  we are not only switching to renewables, we will use significantly less energy in the future.  The earlier plan was about switching to 90% renewables: this plan is also about lowering energy use to use only 2/3 of the energy that we use now.  On page 2 of the Executive Summary (which is the first real page of the plan) we read:

 Expanding upon the statutory goal of 25% renewable by 2025 (10 V.S.A. § 580(a)), this CEP establishes the following set of goals:
• Reduce total energy consumption per capita by 15% by 2025, and by more than one third by 2050.
• Meet 25% of the remaining energy need from renewable sources by 2025, 40% by 2035, and 90% by 2050.
• Three end-use sector goals for 2025: 10% renewable transportation, 30% renewable buildings, and 67% renewable electric power.

(Bold type is in the original.)

More news: lip service to the environment

The other new thing is a certain level of lip service to the environment, including some realization that there are conflicting goals on land use, and that our ridge lines are part of our ecosystem and landscape.  The article about the plan in Vermont Business Magazine quotes extensively from these pages among the 400 pages of the plan document. The quotes are from Chapter 5 on land use planning, a chapter that is about six pages long (page 58 to 63). The chapter includes references to Vermont's land use laws (for most of the chapter).  It acknowledges competing land uses in paragraphs such as this:

As we move toward generating more of our energy renewably and closer to home, it’s no surprise that tensions between competing land uses will arise. For one thing, the power density — the amount of energy per given unit of volume, area, or mass — of existing renewables is orders of magnitude less than it is for fossil fuels. As a result, renewables require much more space on the landscape than do traditional, centralized generators....

Our hilltops and mountaintops allow access to the strong, steady winds necessary for the scale of wind energy production that can make a significant contribution to our energy supply. Those same peaks capture rainfall and store snowpack that feeds our headwaters, which descend into the rivers that nurture fish and plants. Mountain ridgelines and peaks tend to sit in the center of our most significant blocks of wildlife habitat; .....

 However, the report certainly stops short of promising to protect these ridges. Instead, chapter five ends with a ringing endorsement of planning. Some quotes:
1. Energy and non energy land use planning should be integrated as much as possible at the local, regional, and state levels.
2. Energy (30 V.S.A. 248) and non energy (Act 250) land use regulatory processes should be complement each other to the extent practicable.

Comes the Revolution! Redux

In other words, we can hope that the bureaucrats will successfully plan our future land use in Vermont. They will apply themselves to this job, despite the welter of competing interests and confusing laws.  The bureaucrats will certainly be busy.

As everybody who studied Russian history may note: Came the Revolution, that is exactly what happened.

--------

End note: My tax money paid for writing this elaborate state plan, but nobody is paying me to read it.  So I won't.  I read the earlier version, a few years ago. Also, the state set up a way to comment on the plan which was basically impossible to use. (Here's my blog post on the near-impossibility of commenting.)  I have put in my time on this plan, in all honesty.

And as George said to me: "Comes the Revolution, Meredith, you will be surely be one of the first to be executed."  (Not that it will come to that. He was just kidding.)

Public Service Commissioner: Vermont Green Energy Plan Not About Global Warming. Guest post by Bruce Parker

By Bruce Parker  /   October 23, 2015

As Vermont races to become the nation’s first green-energy economy, the head of the Public Service Department says the state’s renewable energy plan is about economic matters, not global warming.

On Wednesday, the Vermont Public Service Department completed the third of five public hearings for the state’s 2015 Comprehensive Energy Plan. The 380-page document, set to be completed and adopted by Jan. 1, charts a course for Vermont to get 90 percent of its energy from renewables by 2050.

While Vermonters are struggling to see the benefit in siting hundreds of utility-scale solar and wind projects in neighborhoods and atop mountain ridgelines, the benefit most commonly associated with embracing green energy — combating global warming — is conspicuously absent from Vermont’s plan.

“I disagree with the characterization that the reason we’re doing this is to try and improve global warming,” Chris Recchia, commissioner of the Public Service Department, told Vermont Watchdog.

“It is certainly a byproduct of it, and a help, but primarily why we’re doing it is to have stable energy pricing and really secure energy resources that are renewable in our state.”

Recchia, appointed by Gov. Peter Shumlin in 2013 to lead the department responsible for regulating energy development, said Vermont is too small to make a difference in the nation’s carbon footprint. As result, the commissioner says Vermont needs to embrace an all-renewable-energy future to have a strong economy, a stable energy supply and stable energy pricing.

“If everybody else in the United States and around the world did what we’re doing, it would have a tremendous impact on climate change. The problem is we can only do what we can do,” he said.

Since Shumlin made renewable energy a top priority of the state, towns have found themselves fighting green-energy companies eager to profit from taxpayer subsidies and regulation-free land use policies.

Swanton, which is battling a proposal from Swanton Wind LLC to construct seven 500-foot wind turbines on a local ridgeline, has scheduled a Nov. 17 townwide vote to give residents a say in the matter.

“We’re definitely against it. The Selectboard, we do not support this project. We are for renewable energy if it’s the right thing for our communities, but this is not the right thing for our communities,” Swanton Selectboard Chair Dan Billado told Vermont Watchdog.

“These towers are 100 feet or more taller than any turbines in New England — they’re 499 feet. That equates to 50-story structures on a ridgeline that’s already a 345-foot ridgeline above the lake. Tell me anywhere in Vermont where we have 50-story structures.”

On the year’s windy days, the project will provide power to an estimated 7,800 homes. Despite that benefit, Billado said people in the town are worried about the project’s negative effect on wildlife, public health, water quality, property values and aesthetics.

“We already know that windmills kill birds and bats. It’s devastating on that, not to mention the rest of the wild animals — deer, bear, coon, fox, you name it,” he said. “It drives them away. They say they’ll come back, but nobody can give us an answer when.”

At the town’s Tuesday night Selectboard meeting, more than 50 residents met with Recchia to express concerns about the turbines. According to Billado, when the board asked for a show of hands to see how many people opposed the project, all but five people threw up their hands.

“The five people for it were Mr. Belisle, his wife, his lawyer, and, I believe, his sister and brother-in-law that were there — they’re the developers.”

Billado said the vote could have as big a turnout as the Oct.1 vote in Irasburg, which saw residents fill Town Hall to overflowing to vote 274-9 against 500-foot windmills on the Kidder Hill ridgeline west of the village center. Although non-binding, such townwide votes send a loud message that developers need to go someplace else.

RELATED: Revolt: Vermont town votes 274-9 against giant wind turbines

Vermont Watchdog asked Recchia if towns could be expected to sacrifice their landscapes for a plan

Chris Recchia
Commissioner
DPS

that offers negligible environmental benefits and significant environmental damage.

“It is not a huge sacrifice compared to what the people of West Virginia have been dealing with for 100 years in terms of coal mining and mountaintop removal and a variety of other things. It just is not the same scale,” he said.

For environmentally minded Vermonters, Recchia’s perspectives may seem out of touch.

“To say, ‘OK, it’s really about having stable energy prices; it isn’t about having some sort of impact — even local — on global climate change,’ you’re missing the boat with me,” said Michael Keane, a Selectboard member in the Town of Bennington.

“Prices are always going to go up and down. There’s not going to be any absolute control of prices. … If all we’re thinking of is stable prices, we’ve let ourselves be horse-traded in sort of a Wild West situation.”

The “Wild West” in Bennington includes a plan to clear-cut 27 acres of forest for a two-plot solar farm in the Apple Hill residential area along Route 7, within eyeshot of the town’s welcome center.

The project’s developer, New York City-based Allco Renewable Energy, angered residents when the CEO criticized a Bennington woman who decided to intervene against the project due to aesthetic and procedural concerns. In 2010, the CEO himself campaigned to stop an offshore wind farm from being sited in Nantucket Sound near his summer home in Martha’s Vineyard.

In August, the Bennington Selectboard voted against the arrays due to “the inevitable damage to environmental, historical, safety, visual, and aesthetics of the surroundings.” Two weeks ago, board members sent the Public Service Board a letter saying its decisions “appeared to ride roughshod” over the concerns of the people of Bennington.

Recchia may be listening to towns’ complaints. He said he would oppose “random applications being submitted by developers that don’t have any relationship to what towns and communities want.” He also said he would work to help residents “be part of the solution and really engage in the process.”

Going forward, Recchia said the department plans to enlist all regional planning commissions in the state to conduct smart energy planning with communities in the upcoming year.

Swanton needs answers sooner rather than later, according to Billado.

“When they start blasting ridgelines, what’s that do to surrounding wells? You’re fracking the ground (and) breaking up flows of water that feed people’s wells. What’s that going to do to everybody’s drinking water? Nobody knows. They say they have to do studies,” he said.

According to Keane, if the state’s energy plan is about economic issues, Vermonters need to rethink the real benefits of moving forward.

“If we’re doing this for stable energy prices in the year 2020 or 2030, then let people know that. Let’s disabuse them of the goodwill intentions that they have to have a benefit on the environment,” he said.

“If, in fact, we are not having some sort of useful impact on the environment that we can either have bragging rights about or be thought of as a model for other political entities, then what the hell are we doing?”

-------

Bruce Parker

This post by Bruce Parker first appeared in Vermont Watchdog, October 23, and is reprinted here by permission. Parker has frequent guest posts at this blog: his most recent guest post was Vermont town protests renewable energy credits for MA and CT.

You can reach Bruce Parker at bparker@watchdog.org

The Green Vision for Vermont: We Can't Be Rural

The Bureaucratic Goal

For the past two posts, I have been down in the weeds trying to make sense of the Vermont Public Service Department (PSD) request for comments on the 2015 Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan. This plan describes the methodology for forcing Vermont energy to become 90% renewable, in all sectors, by 2050.

90% renewable can't  actually be achieved in Vermont. However, the PSD has attempted to hide that simple fact by generating hundreds of pages of prose, and tens of pages of requests for feedback.  

As I say, I was down in the weeds reviewing this endless prose.  What a waste of time.

The New Vermont? No ten-acre lots here.
Wikipedia picture of NYC,
with note of population density
approx 28K people per square mile

The Vision Goal

The real question is: What is the goal of this draconian plan?  What is the vision?  What is Vermont's future supposed to look like?

While I was parsing bureaucratic rambling,   Bruce Parker of Vermont Watchdog reviewed the visionary goals of the plan.

Parker's recent article describes the Green Vision for the Future of Vermont, as expounded by David Blittersdorf. Blittersdorf is the president of All Earth Renewables in Vermont, and a strong supporter (some would say "crony") of Governor Shumlin. Blittersdorf supports the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan, and frankly, stands to profit by it. Blittersdorf gave a presentation to the Addison County Democrats: Parker reviewed it.

Here are some quotes from the Blittersdorf vision for  Vermont.

“The car has been our No. 1 reason we consume so much energy. Suburbia is built around the car; our highway system is heavily subsidized around the car….In Vermont, people like to live 10, 20, 30 miles from work. That’s going to disappear. The 10-acre lot way out in the middle of nowhere on a dirt road is not going to be working anymore. "

Please read Parker's article at Watchdog:  Green Energy CEO: Vermonters Must Abandon the Car, Embrace Renewable Energy Future.  It is illustrated with fine picture of Governor Peter Shumlin stepping out of his Suburban to attend a rally. Click on the link and read it. Look at the comments, too.

Choice or Mandate, in my opinion 

Yes. Living in cities is more energy-efficient.  This is true. World-wide, more people are choosing to live in cities.

However, I believe in choice. In choosing to live in cities, or choosing not to live in cities. I want  inexpensive energy so people can make choices.

Vermont is mandating only-renewable-energy, no nuclear, no fossil…. and therefore energy will be expensive, cars will be unavailable, and everyone-will-have-to-move. No ten-acre lots out in the country, not for Vermont anymore!  Is New York City the model for Vermonters?

This is not environmentalism  This is coercion and arrogance.

Meanwhile, the lords and masters can still drive their Suburbans?

Supplementary Information:

Blittersdorf presentation to the Addison County Democrats on June 8, 2015, Youtube.

My down-in-the-weeds post about the renewable energy plan.

My down-in-the-weeds post about commenting on the renewable energy plan.

It's Hard to Even Comment: The Vermont Energy Plan

Comments due tomorrow

In yesterday's post I wrote that the Vermont Energy Plan is Basically Unworkable.  It's not only unworkable, it is almost impossible to comment on it.

Public comments on this update to Vermont's Comprehensive Energy Plan are due to the Vermont Public Service Department (PSD) by tomorrow.  In my blog post, I encourage people to comment.  I shouldn't ask people to do what I haven't done myself.  I had no idea what I was getting into, when I decided to comment.

Commenting is difficult

For this round of comments, the schedule is very compressed. (There will be another comment period in the fall.)  The PSD set invitational meetings in late June, has public meetings in July, and insists that all comments are submitted by late July. This is despite the fact there are  hundreds of pages of reading material on these subjects.

There are two ways that PSD wants you to send comments, as listed in the page Update to the Comprehensive Energy Plan. To quote the PSD page:

"Written comments are welcome at (https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/vtcepOC) by July 24, 2015.
You may also provide comment in response to specific questions raised by the Department at (https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/vtcepFQ) by July 24, 2015."

Opening the Forms

So I followed those links.

The link ending OC is the Open Comment survey form.  The link ending FQ is Framing Questions survey form. These forms are different, though related.  Each form is nine pages long.  Both forms have  from one to several questions per page. Though, in fairness, the first two pages have no questions, just directions and a place to put your name and so forth. After the initial pages, here's how the forms are:

OC. The pages of the OC form aren't really questions: They are  topic areas in which you can comment.
For example, under Transportation in the OC form, you can comment on
Freight Heavy Duty Vehicles
Zero Emission Vehicle Action Plan

Or (under Energy Financing in the OC form)
Energy Financing

FQ:  The FQ form asks more directed questions.  For example, the first real question (not about filling out your name) asks:
What areas of the 2011 CEP need updates? It includes links to all the volumes of the 2011 CEP.

The next question links to a dozen recent PSD reports. It asks how these reports and processes should be incorporated into the new CEP.

Later questions include this one:
9. How should the 2015 CEP update address the use of natural gas? How should the plan differentiate between policies regarding the use of this fossil fuel and policies regarding construction of pipeline infrastructure that can carry both fossil natural gas and other gaseous fuels such as renewable natural gas?

A New Job?

Clearly, commenting on these forms could be a full time job.  I don't have full time for this, and I suspect my readers don't have full time for it either. So, I am back to square one.  I shouldn't ask people to do what I haven't done.  What am I going to do?

OC  
On page 8 there's a space to make a positive comment about nuclear energy, which I did.  On page 9, I was a bit crabby. I said the Comprehensive Plan is a slogan, not a plan.  I also suggested the PSD stop wasting taxpayer money on writing expensive reports.

FQ
In the FQ document, the first question is about "what parts of the 2011 CEP plan need to be updated."  I suggested that, since we are making very little energy instate, we should plan to buy more energy from Seabrook and Millstone.

Vermont Energy Plan is Basically Unworkable

2010 Known Electric Resources from PSD
Blog post about this at ANS Nuclear Cafe

Input requested

The Vermont Public Service Department (PSD)  is revising the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan which they issued in 2011.  They want public input by July 24,  in other words, this Friday.

Here's the main link to their page about updating the plan. The lower section of this post contains links for commenting.

Yes, the plan has been under serious discussion for about a month.  First PSD had invitation meetings (late June), now they are having public meetings (July).  Then they will issue a draft 2015 plan and request further comments later in the year. You can see local timeline here.  The 2011 plan is one of the base documents.

The Charts and the Questions

On the morning of June 30, the subject of the invitation meeting was Energy Supply Resources. Asa Hopkins is Director the Planning and Energy Resources Division of the PSD. Here is a link to his presentation. (You can see all the meeting agendas and presentations at this link.)

From Hopkin's presentation, this is the current version of the 2010 chart:

 2015 Known Vermont Electric Sources from PSD

Yes, it looks familiar.

 We've got the big green part at the bottom: HydroQuebec.  HydroQuebec falls off somewhat as the old contracts finish, but it is still steady.  Above it is the steady purple of Vermont and New York State hydropower, and the increased level of nuclear (medium blue) as the Seabrook contracts begin. Then there's that huge red part, "residual mix" (aka "buying from the grid or short-term contracts") that is supposed to diminish.  As a matter of fact, it's supposed to go away entirely.

After all, the Vermont plan is for 90% renewables, and the chart shows that we already have a big section of nuclear (relatively new long-term contracts). Nuclear is clean-air, but the Vermont plan isn't about clean air and low carbon, it's about renewables and only renewables.  In other words, with the nuclear purchase in place, in order to meet the Vermont plan, we really can't afford to buy a single electron from the grid.  We also can't afford to expand our use of natural gas.

All that white space at the top right must be filled with renewables.

The last few slides in the presentation show the PSD grappling with this problem. A slide labelled "Question #1 background cont." includes the following:
"Expected identified resources ….leave 46% of the electric portfolio undetermined."

Here come the cars and heat pumps

If you look at the 2015 chart above, you will notice that the line at the top (how much electricity Vermont is projected to require) slopes up gently to the right.  On that chart, the Vermont electricity requirement number seems to hang right around 6,000,000 MWh (6 TWh) for fifteen years.

But if you look at another chart in the same viewgraph presentation, you get quite a different picture.  This is Vermont projected electricity use from the TES (Total Energy Study)  done for the PSD.  The TES study included all sectors of energy use, and predicted that Vermont can lower total energy use significantly.  However, to do this, Vermont will use considerably more electricity (electric vehicles and heat pumps). The chart below sums this up.

Future Vermont Electricity Use, from Total Energy Study and PSD presentation

In this chart, as building heat (heat pumps) and transportation (electric vehicles) kick in, the Vermont energy use goes from around 5 TWh in 2015, to around 9 TWh in 2050.

In other words, the Known Electric Resources chart ended in 2030, with just a gentle uptick in demand, as shown by the top line of the chart. For that top line, PSD  used a VELCO projection of energy use, instead of referring to their own PSD studies.  I don't know what study they used for the "46% of the portfolio" number.

However,  if Vermont really runs all sectors on renewables and therefore electricity, we are going to need much more electricity than estimated by VELCO.  Vermont electricity use practically doubles by 2050. It looks to me as if "46% of the portfolio…. is undetermined" could be a serious underestimate of the problem.

Where will we get so many renewables?  I think that buying from Hydro Quebec seems the only realistic option. And of course, HQ will love the sight of Vermont needing to buy their power!  Talk about Vermont having no bargaining position whatsoever.

Ah well. We can always write to the PSD, and encourage them to read their own reports.

--------------
To comment to PSD

 PSD has specific questions,  which they describe in this document:

http://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/psd/files/Pubs_Plans_Reports/State_Plans/Comp_Energy_Plan/2015/2015%20CEP%20Update%20Process%20kickoff%20FINAL.pdf

You can make comments through SurveyMonkey

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/?sm=1NTqHoQRyM1MBw1NQ9xeThq78cUOihKpFdnD4A2EqZE%3d

Or, you can answer questions through SurveyMonkey https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/?sm=kjY2yQok9BGK%2f38FGcFM%2b6pO9xwR%2fNdD7QARhCJpNA8%3d

Once again, the main page about the 2015 plan is here.

The 2011 Plan, the Reports since 2011, and the 2015 plan

The 2011 Comprehensive Plan  was quite lengthy.  It consists of five documents: a one-page overview, a 14 page summary, a 314 page main document, an appendix document (each appendix is separately paginated: I guess the appendix document at 200 pages) and a 26 page "public involvement report." (This last report contains a very amusing typo at the bottom of most pages.  I know that everybody makes mistakes, including me. No big deal. Still, I find my little smiles where I can.) You can find links to all these documents at 2011 Comprehensive Energy Plan.

On to the 2015 plan.

There's a ten-page document of questions about the 2015 plan CEP Process Kickoff Final.  This document contains a lengthy list of energy reports that have been issued by state agencies since 2011.   Yes.  There's a lot of reading ahead if you want to read everything before commenting on the 2015 plan.

You won't have time to read all this before Friday.  I hope this blog post has given some guidance.

My Comment on the Vermont Total Energy Study

You Can Comment on the Total Energy Study

Comment Period Closing On Wednesday January 22

The Vermont Department of Public Service has written a new planning document for Vermont's future energy use: The Total Energy Study Legislative Report.  You can link to the report and its back-up documentation on the Total Energy Study web page of the Department of Public Service.   You can also link directly to the report and appendixes.

The public comment period on this study is only open through Wednesday, January 22, 2014.  To write a comment,  use this email address: PSD.TotalEnergy@state.vt.us.

I encourage you to comment.

My Comment to the Department of Public Service on the Total Energy Study

Dear DPS

First, a thank-you to Asa Hopkins for sending me information about the RFP for the total energy study.

Second, a comment on the study.  It's a document about setting policy, and most of the policies seem to be financial. There are requirements to use renewable fuels, with financial burdens imposed if you don't (TREES), carbon taxes, etc. 

With this study, the stick is in place to drive the state energy use to 90% renewables, but...where's the road?  We're whipping the horse, but where is the horse heading?  What will 90% renewables look like for the whole economy?  More wind turbines?  Only biodiesel and ethanol fuel sold in Vermont?  A law against private vehicles unless they are electric?  What is the goal here?

In my opinion, by not analyzing actual technologies and how they will be employed, the study is basically a cop-out. I am sorry to say this, because I was hoping for something better in terms of Vermont's future energy use.  Time, energy and intelligence went into this study. In some ways, the study is quite admirable.  It is, however, the wrong study for setting goals for our energy future.

Meredith Angwin
-----------

Background on the Total Energy Study

Basically, the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan was put into place in 2011.  This plan mandates  90% of all of Vermont's energy will come from renewables in 2050. Despite its title, however, the Comprehensive Plan does not contain an actual plan for achieving this goal.  (I wrote about this disconnect in an earlier blog post and op-ed.)

By legislative requirement, the Department of Public Service is putting together a Total Energy Study on how to move toward the goal.  To date, in my opinion, the Total Energy Study has focused mostly on financial policy incentives (carbon taxes, fuel switching with targets for renewable content of fuels, cap and trade schemes).  There's also some discussion of methodologies for evaluating technology choices.  

Here's my blog post about the Total Energy Study: Renewables plus Taxes: The Total Energy Study.

Please comment, I think

So, here I am, urging my readers to comment on the study, but frankly, it is difficult to comment on it.  The people at the Department of Public Service have worked hard on the Total Energy Study, but it is not easy to get a handle on the study or recommendations.  To me, reading the study didn't feel like reading an energy article ("how many wind turbines might be built under this scenario?") but instead, it felt like reading something in a political science course.  

Finally, I realized that: my confusion was actually my comment!  So I commented as above.

I urge you to read the study (or at least the executive summary) and write your own comment.

Updated: Renewables Plus Taxes: The Total Energy Study

Right now, you can comment on the Total Energy Study, the follow-on report for Vermont's Comprehensive Energy Plan.  Comments are open until January 22.  Email address:   PSD.TotalEnergy@state.vt.us


----Also, please see the update at the end of this post.---

The Earlier Version: the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan

In 2011, the Vermont Department of Public Service released the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan, a plan for moving Vermont to 90% renewables for ALL energy use (not just electricity) by 2050.

Except it wasn't a plan for the future. In my opinion, the Comprehensive Energy Plan was about gas pipelines, which is why I called my post about it: Hurry Up. Hurry Up. Renewables. Don't Pay Attention to the Gas Pipeline. The Plan used a lot of space talking about natural gas.   Later, I wrote an op-ed:  Vermont's Renewable Energy Plan is Wishful Thinking.  I quoted a woman who spoke about the Comprehensive Plan at a meeting before the Public Service Board:  "It's not a plan, it's a collection of slogans."

Yes, in my opinion, the Comprehensive Energy Plan was a collection of slogans, along with some encouragement of natural gas.  There was no plan involved.

The Total Energy Study: A Plan for Policies

Now the Department of Public Service has a new plan--the Total Energy Study.  You could describe the Total Energy Study (TES)  as  planning document meant to help prioritize policies, and the policies will help build a plan which will fulfill the goals (or slogans) of the Comprehensive Energy Plan.

You can find the links to the TES documents on the Public Service Department website. Here's the main report and here are the appendixes.  The report was released on December 16, and the public comment period lasts through January 22. You can comment address: PSD.TotalEnergy@state.vt.us

Is TES a plan?  Well, yes, but not the kind of plan I would have expected.  It's mainly about policy choices, not technical choices, and I'm kind of a technical-choice wonk.  Here's a quote from a section called "What this report is not" from page 12 of the main document: While the Total Energy Study describes several policy and technology scenarios that are expected to achieve the State’s goals, these reports are not intended to be or replace the Comprehensive Energy Plan. Neither this report nor the TES Final Report will articulate or recommend a definitive pathway forward.

TES is about policy-- mostly fiscal policy.  TES is being written under contract to the Department of Public Service by Dunsky Energy Consulting, a consulting firm based in Montreal.  Besides public comments,  there were "stakeholder focus groups" on this study all last summer. The list of stakeholders is in the appendixes to the report. Dr. Asa Hopkins of the Department was kind enough to send me the Request for Proposal for this stage of the study.  It is a public document, and I link to it here.

The Policies: Raising Money for the State

 In my opinion, the "policy choices" in TES are mostly about raising money for the state government.  There are many words in this document, but the main comments are about financial policy: how to build incentives for the change to 90% renewables.  These policies include:

• carbon taxes 
• cap and trade 
• requirements for fuel-switching (I suspect if you don't switch you may have to pay a fine).

The TES document includes lengthy comments about other issues, but, basically, financial sections jumped out at me.  This may be because I am a tax-payer and rate-payer in Vermont, though not a "stakeholder." I am a simple member of the public.

Carbon Taxes and Other Requirements

Carbon taxes, according to TES, may be "revenue-neutral" with cutting back some other taxes, but that is hardly promised. Also, when I read something called "requirements for fuel-switching," I wonder how the requirements will work.  I suspect that police will not come and shut down a business if it doesn't fuel-switch well enough. Fuel-switching won't be quite that draconian!  I am pretty sure that these requirements will be enforced with....fines.  In other words, fuel-switching requirements will be another source of revenue for the government.

I also recommend John McClaughry's excellent commentary on this plan: Vermont's New Energy Gosplan. (Note: John McClaughry is vice-president and co-founder of the Ethan Allen Institute, and I am director of the Energy Education Project of that institute.)

Public Comments

According to the Public Service Department web page on the Total Energy Study, a public meeting was held in November, before the study was published in December.  However, the Framing Report for the study was available at that time.

You can send your comments on the study to the Public Service Department through email.  I encourage you to comment.  Comments are due by January 22. PSD.TotalEnergy@state.vt.us

I also urge you to read the study documents, not just my opinions of the study.  Draw your own conclusions and write your own comments.

 ---------

Thank you to Dr. Asa Hopkins

At this point, I want to give a hat-tip to Dr. Asa Hopkins, director of the Planning and Energy Resources Division of the Department of Public Service.  Dr. Hopkins has been very helpful.

I found it odd that Vermont needed a Montreal company to do a study here in Vermont,  since we have so many universities and think-tanks in this state.  I asked Hopkins about this, and he promptly and kindly sent me the Department's request for proposal and a list of the groups that answered that request.  The contract for this study was awarded by competitive solicitation.
-----

Update and Correction: Another Thank-You to Asa Hopkins!

Dr. Hopkins sent me these corrections this morning, which I am happy to post, and I apologize for the mistakes:


Ms. Angwin,
Two quick corrections/clarifications regarding the TES:
1)      “TES is being written under contract to the Department of Public Service by Dunsky Energy Consulting, a consulting firm based in Montreal.“ The Legislative Report to which you direct your readers was not written by Dunsky Energy Consulting – it was written by PSD staff. DEC is doing qualitative and quantitative analysis for us, under the contract from the RFP you requested. Their work will be complete in the late spring. The PSD will publish a final TES Report over the summer, building on Dunsky’s work but also reflecting our own analysis.
2)      “Also, when I read something called "requirements for fuel-switching," I wonder how the requirements will work.” The TES does not contain anything called “requirements for fuel-switching.”
Best,
Asa


Indeed, Dr. Hopkins is correct. The words "requirements for fuel switching" do not appear in the report. My error and I apologize!

 I was using these words to summarize the following section of the report (page 2) I definitely should have used the words of the report itself. I am sorry. The report lists various policies under consideration, and this is one of them. A direct quote is below, but I have added the italics.

"Renewable targets with carbon revenue: Draws from the previous two policy sets; here, the state would set a target for the renewable energy content of all fuels, placing a non-binding obligation on energy suppliers. If the target were not met within a given sector, however, the obligation would become mandatory within that sector or that sector’s carbon tax would be increased. This obligation structure would be paired with a small economy-wide carbon tax used to raise revenue applied to programs directed at making it easier for obligated parties to meet their target obligations."

Review of the Vermont Energy Plan: VTEP Review

VTEP study surveys Vermont’s progress towards 90% renewables goal

The Vermont Energy Partnership today published its latest study, “The Three-Legged Race: Vermont’s Pursuit of 90% Renewables by 2050,” an overview of progress towards reaching the Vermont Department of Public Service goal of using 90% renewable energy by 2050.

Findings explained in detail here, include:

• In order to reach its interim home energy efficiency goal for 2020, the state must weatherize 80,000 homes over the next seven years. At its current pace, Vermont will likely only meet half that goal.

• Transportation accounts for 36% of Vermont's total energy consumption, and 59% of carbon emissions. Today, one in 1,756 of Vermont registered cars are electric plug-ins.

• Reaching 90% renewable total energy by 2050 will require Vermont to triple its electricity consumption. Yet Vermont now makes less electricity than any other New England state, about half of which is produced by Vermont Yankee.

• To move Vermont just 5% closer to 90%, Vermont would need either 262 new 2.2 MW solar plants, five new Lowell Mountain wind projects, or 300 small existing hydro dams.

• The chasm between Vermont’s renewables present and renewables future – about 3 million renewable megawatt-hours on this side of the 37-year span, 18 million on the other – may simply be a bridge too far, barring unexpected changes.

---------

Guy Page with
Governor Urban Woodbury
his great-grandfather

The Vermont Energy Partnership (www.vtep.org) is a diverse group of more than 90 business, labor, and community leaders committed to finding clean, affordable and reliable electricity solutions.  Its mission is to educate policy makers, the media, businesses, and the general public about why electricity is imperative for prosperity, and about the optimal solutions to preserve and expand our electricity network.  Entergy, owner of Vermont Yankee, is a member of the Vermont Energy Partnership.

Note: Guy Page, the lead author on this report, is a frequent guest blogger at Yes Vermont Yankee.  His most recent post was Nuclear is Green Energy

Vermont's Renewable Plan is Wishful Thinking

Decision Tree

The Comprehensive Energy Plan Isn't a Plan

In 2011, the Vermont Department of Public Service issued a Comprehensive Energy Plan that asserts that 90 percent of all energy used in the state ­— including electricity, transportation and building heating — will be provided from renewable sources by 2050.

Who could argue with the idea that almost all of the state’s energy should come from renewable energy by mid-century?

Probably nobody would argue, until they realize that what is called a “plan” isn’t actually a plan; it’s a collection of roughly sketched ideas, some good, some not so good. At a hearing of the Vermont Energy Generation Siting Policy Commission, one woman made a very clear statement. She said that the state energy plan is a collection of slogans, not a planning document. She was basically correct.

Nevertheless, the energy plan is guiding many statewide energy decisions: expediting small hydro installations, attempting to close Vermont Yankee, supporting ridgeline wind development. The realization that the 90% goal is influencing statewide energy policy is particularly troubling when you examine some of its implications.

We Will Need Much More Electricity

For starters, it is hard to use renewable energy for transportation and heating unless we use electricity for these sectors. We can make electricity with renewable energy, and then use it to run electric cars and heat pumps. Both these choices will increase the demand for electricity.

Right now, Vermont uses 6,000 GWh of electricity per year. (A GWh is a million kilowatt hours.) My estimate is that Vermont would need 18,000 GWh annually to achieve the 90% goal by switching to electric cars, heat pumps and so forth. That’s an outrageously big number, but it coincides with two other rough calculations I’ve seen from renewable advocates. In a recent op-ed, Charles McKenna, a local Sierra Club member, estimated the state would need 15,000 GWh in order to achieve the 90% renewable goal. In a recent Green Energy Times, David Blittersdorf, a renewable developer, said that the 90% goal will require three times the electricity we use now. (Three times 6,000 is 18,000.)

To put this number in perspective, consider that Vermont currently buys approximately 2,000 GWh from Hydro-Quebec. This is about a third of our current electricity demand, but it would be only a small fraction of the electricity needed for a 90% renewable goal.

Diffuse Energy Sources

Chihuahua Dog

Unfortunately for Vermont, renewable sources tend to be diffuse, not energy dense. If we really tried to make this much electricity with renewables, we would have to devote much of Vermont’s land to energy generation. For example, Lowell Mountain’s wind turbines each sweep the area of a football field because wind is not a dense energy source. The average wind can blow some trash around, but it can’t pick up a small dog and move it. If you want to make enough wind-based electricity to make it worthwhile to put in a transmission line, you need to build a wind turbine with a blade that is more than half the length of a football field. Then the blade can capture enough wind.

I did another rough set of calculations to estimate how many wind turbines, biomass plants, solar panels and so forth would be needed to generate 18,000 GWh of electricity. The results are appalling. For example, making 18,000 GWh using wind turbines would take about 2,000 turbines, covering 400 to 700 miles of ridgeline. Vermont is only 160 miles long. Making the same amount of electricity from biomass would require 12 million acres of woodlands, sustainably harvested. That’s twice the size of Vermont.

Of course, the state would be using a mixture of renewables, not just one type. These are crude estimates, and my husband and I are working at improving them for a report on the land use implications of renewables.

Unrealistic Plan Interferes with Realistic Choices

Energy Safari group members
Lempster Wind Farm

Adopting an unrealistic, over-arching energy plan that calls for almost all energy to come from renewable sources essentially confers a blessing on all proposed renewable projects.  Every project advances the “plan.” Objecting to to any project supposedly reveals the person as an opponent of good environmental policy or a so-called NIMBY — someone who will try to stop any development in their proximity.

People who are against overly extensive renewable development are not NIMBYs. They are not blithely ignoring environmental considerations or greedily focusing on financial factors. It is quite possible to be in favor of moderate renewable development and environmental stewardship. Indeed, in my opinion, moderate renewable development and environmental stewardship are two ideas that go well together.  For example, a goal of 20 percent  of electricity supply from new in-state renewables would be ambitious but within reach.

We also need to encourage conservation, and to its credit, the Comprehensive Energy Plan is very clear on that. On the other hand, future conservation is built into my estimates of electricity demand. Even with conservation, there will be significant energy demand, and we have to plan for it.

What a Plan Needs to Be

Basically, a plan has to be a plan.  In particular, a state's energy plan needs to be more than a collection of slogans.
----
Meredith Angwin worked in many sectors of the utility industry for more than 20 years. She is the director of the Energy Education Project of the Ethan Allen Institute, a Vermont public policy research organization that emphasizes free-market solutions. Angwin and her husband, George Angwin, are developing a report for the Institute that will analyze the land use implications of the Vermont Energy Plan.

----------------
An earlier version of this op-ed appeared in my local paper, the Valley News, and I hope it will appear in more papers in Vermont.

The Vermont Energy Land Use Report

The Energy Education Project of the Ethan Allen Institute (I am the director of the Energy project)  has a new initiative: the  Vermont Energy Land Use Report.  We announced  the report in the Ethan Allen Institute February newsletter, and I copy that announcement below. Later, there will be press releases and so forth.

To donate to preparing this report, click the Donate button on this blog or the Support Freedom button on the Ethan Allen Institute website.  Please donate to help build a solid report which will be of interest to everyone in Vermont.

Energy Education Project Keeps Close Watch on Energy Issues

In the last few months, the Energy Education Project has focused in two main areas:

• Educating people about the value of the Vermont Yankee power plant, and encouraging them to testify in favor of the plant at the Public Service Board hearings
• Writing op-eds and letters to the editor about the economics of renewable energy and the problems with over-investing in these technologies.

Both these areas are the source of fierce debate within Vermont. Here's the gist:

Vermont Yankee:

The Public Service Board must rule on a Certificate of Public Good for Vermont Yankee.  The PSB evaluated this subject between 2008 and 2010, but then the Senate voted in 2010 to forbid the Board from releasing its findings.  The Federal Court decision in 2012 told the state that it could not make decisions about nuclear plants based on nuclear safety.  Nuclear safety evaluations are the purview of the Federal government.

At that point, the Public Service Board decided its docket about Vermont Yankee was  contaminated with inappropriate material. It opened a new docket, and held two public hearings about the Certificate of Public Good.  In general, anti-nuclear groups completely mob these hearings, often with many people from Massachusetts.  The Energy Education Project encouraged supporters of clean efficient energy to come to the PSB hearings.  Other groups (such as Associated Industries of Vermont and the main Vermont Yankee union) did the same. Therefore, the meetings had a high proportion (in one case, a majority) of plant supporters.

Plant supporters line up
to make statements at hearing

Since the supporters were not outnumbered, more of them chose to speak.  We made an effort to have the Public Service Board hear both sides of the Vermont Yankee story, including the supporter side. That effort was successful.  There were only two public hearings on this docket. Plant supporters were there.

Renewable Energy:

In 2011, newly-elected Governor Shumlin was "shocked" to discover that the state's energy plan assumed that Vermont Yankee would keep operating.  His appointees at the Department of Public Service put together an ambitious energy plan: the state will use 90% renewable energy for everything (including home heating and transportation) by 2050.

Wind resource map of Vermont

This plan is similar to Germany's Energiewende plan, which is currently running into deep trouble. Too many intermittent sources are destabilizing the German grid. Neighboring countries, such as Poland, are tired of having their power plants be "backup" to Germany's intermittent power surges from wind turbines. These countries are setting switches to be able to isolate German power, when necessary. In other words, the European grid is becoming somewhat fragmented. Also, the electricity costs are forcing some manufacturers to leave Germany.  However, the German plan is being partially bailed out by new power plants burning brown coal.

The new Comprehensive Energy Plan for Vermont has striking similarities to the German plan.  The Energy Education Project has written several op-eds about this issue.

We will write a white paper in the near future about the land use consequences of the current Vermont Energy plan. Renewables are not only intermittent, they are diffuse energy sources, and require a lot of land to make a relatively small amount of power. Land use has only been addressed in a fragmentary way in the media, and we will rectify that.

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

The Energy Education Project

I am director of the Energy Education Project of the Ethan Allen Institute.  The Ethan Allen Institute was founded in 1991 and is Vermont's independent, nonpartisan, free-market-oriented public policy think tank.  The Institute was kind enough to take my interest in Energy Education seriously, and form a Project under the general heading of the Institute. We founded the Energy Education Project of the Ethan Allen Institute in September, 2010.  Here's my blog post about the Energy Education Project launch.

The Ethan Allen Institute just revitalized its website, to a great, modern site.  I encourage you to visit ethanallen.org.  The new site is attractive and very easy to navigate!  Most of the topics are far removed from energy, but I expect energy will be higher on the agenda in the near future.  You can donate to the Ethan Allen Institute by clicking the "support freedom" button on the web page.

The Vermont Renewable Scene: It's Awkward (for me)

On Saturday, December 1, the Vermont Energy and Climate Action Network (VECAN) held its annual conference at the Lake Morey Resort. The theme of the conference was meeting Vermont's Comprehensive Energy Plan goals of 90% renewables for all energy uses by 2050.  If you remember, the Comprehensive Energy Plant was pushed through by the Shumlin administration in 2011. I blogged about the plan extensively, for example, in the post Hurry Up. Hurry Up.  Renewables. Don't Pay Attention to the Gas Pipeline.

Talking to the Press

The day before the VECAN meeting about the renewables goal, John Gregg of the Valley News emailed me to ask if I would be willing to comment on whether the 90% goal was reasonable.  He emailed that Jon Wolper was attending the conference and writing the article.  I emailed back that of course I would be willing to comment. I have a great deal of respect for John Gregg, and I was very happy to be asked.

Actually, I didn't just say: "Yes, I'll comment." I wrote a long email to Gregg and Wolper about renewables.

The day after the meeting, on Sunday, the Jon Wolper article appeared in the Valley News: Vermont Energy Advocates at Fairlee Conference Eye 90 Percent by 2050 Goal.   It includes a quote from my email. I think it is an excellent article.

The article starts:

Fairlee — For a group of about 300 energy officials and advocates brainstorming how to accomplish a certain state plan yesterday, adjectives reigned.
They said that Vermont’s Comprehensive Energy Plan, which is meant to get the state to 90 percent renewable energy usage by 2050, was bold. It was huge. Audacious. Ambitious. Extraordinary.
Also, essential.

The article ends with the following quote from me:

“No, it is not possible by 2050,” wrote Meredith Angwin, a physical chemist, in an email. ....
“It may never be possible," she said.

I think the Valley News article was clear-eyed about the challenges.

Talking to the Ethan Allen Institute

When I'm quoted in the press, I usually send a link to various people at the Ethan Allen Institute. The Institute is the parent organization for my Energy Education Project.  Rob Roper, the new president of the Institute, emailed me after he received the link to the Valley News article.  Roper said he thought that I had probably said more than "not possible...may never be possible."  Did I give my reasons for "not possible" in the email I sent the reporters?

I assured him I had sent quite a lengthy email to the Valley News, with reasons and links and everything. I sent him a copy of the email.

In Roper's opinion, the incomplete quote in the article was used to portray me as a "negative Nellie." Roper has written a letter to the editor about my quote.

Talking to my Blog Readers

At this point, I will close the blog post with an edited version of the email that I sent to the Valley News.

• In terms of the Valley News, I know that reporters have space constraints, and I don't feel I was quoted badly.  
• In terms of the Ethan Allen Institute, I understand Roper's point.  

So it is up to you, dear readers, to tell me what you think of the quote and the email.

Here it is:
***********

Hello Jon and John

Thank you for asking me for my opinion!

About 90% renewable energy...your substantive question...no, it is not possible by 2050.  It may never BE possible, unless our "behavior modification" includes dropping our population to far less than it is now.  You see, renewable energy is pretty land-intensive, and we just can't devote that sort of land area to it and keep any type of society as we have it now.
--------
Note: the original meeting announcement said this about the keynote speaker:

 Dr. Martenson will speak to why he believes a 90 percent renewable energy goal is now a necessity. 
"Getting to 90 percent renewable by 2050 is critical. To get there, however, will require major behavior modification by governments, corporations and individuals.."
-----------
I encourage you to look at this free book on the web...Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air

http://www.withouthotair.com/

You can download the book, or the synopsis, for free. My son-in-law, a professor of mechanical engineering at Columbia, uses this book as one of the texts for his first-level energy course.  MacKay is a professor at Cambridge and  scientific advisor to UK on climate change.  I am not recommending some off-the-wall book here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._C._MacKay

Closer to home, you might want to interview Dr. Robert Hargraves, who has a recent self-published book on a type of new reactors (thorium reactors) which has gotten wonderful reviews by Nobel-prize winners.  Hargraves lives in Hanover.

Hargraves recently spoke in China to a very good reception by some very important people
http://energyfromthorium.com/2012/11/04/lftr-leader-jiang-mianheng-addresses-itheo/

And he gave a recent seminar at Dartmouth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS2JrWa_Wkc

Here's his book
http://www.amazon.com/THORIUM-energy-cheaper-than-coal/dp/1478161299

The important thing, from your point of view, is that the first half of the Hargraves book expands on MacKay's book.  If renewables can supply what we need in the future, then we don't need thorium or any nuclear source, or really, any energy-dense source at all (coal, etc.)  Except that...renewables can't do it for a modern society. Worth reading the book or watching the first part of the Dartmouth talk.

Well, this is long enough!  I just hope it is helpful!

Best,
Meredith

89th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers up at Idaho Samizdat

The 89th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is up at Idaho Samizdat. Dan Yurman has put together a great Carnival. Some features include:

• Make Your Smartphone into a Radiation Detector from Nuclear Diner
• Myths and truths of nuclear liability insurance from Atomic Insights
• Reports on the Blue Ribbon Commission Final Report from NEI Nuclear Notes

This Carnival also includes two new blogs (new to the Carnival, at least):

• TalkNuclear from the Canadian Nuclear Assocation
• i-Nuclear which covers world nuclear, and is based in UK.

This is a great Carnival! There's more, of course: new reactor types, Russian nuclear icebreakers, cultural bias and nuclear energy. Come to the Carnival! Enjoy your Sunday evening with the best reading in the nuclear world!

In local news, not the Carnival, I recommend an op-ed by Howard Shaffer. The Vermont Energy plan is supposedly about moving to renewables. Actually, the plan is about burning more natural gas and coal. Shaffer: Energy plan relies too much on fossil fuels.

Will Vermont Yankee be Replaced by Unicorns? Pictures of the Rally, and a Critique of the Vermont Energy Plan

The Rally

Thank you to Kay Trudell for the photos of the rally in support of Vermont Yankee this October! We just put an entire album of pictures on the Save Vermont Yankee Facebook page. These four pix are just a sample.

I couldn't resist putting in a picture of Howard Shaffer carrying a great sign

The Energy Plan for Unicorns

There's a new Vermont Energy Plan. It says that we are going to use 90% renewable energy by 2050. It says that we don't need Vermont Yankee, but we do need a new natural gas pipeline. That's the plan.

John McClaughry of Ethan Allen Institute has a great critique of the energy plan today at Vermont Tiger. McClaughry's title tells where Vermont's energy supply is heading: Unicorn Power for Vermont! Read it. You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll laugh and cry, both at the same time. (Full disclosure: The Energy Education Project that I direct is part of the Ethan Allen Institute. John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute.)