Renewables at 90% only IF grid-level storage comes first

Renewables can't be a 90% unless we have grid-level storage

Renewable installations are growing fast, but we can't have huge percentages of wind and solar on the grid unless we first have grid-level storage.  With the exception of pumped storage, grid-level storage does not exist at this time.  (No, I don't count an occasional 2 MW project as "the answer.")

We can't grow wind and solar to a higher percentage on the grid than their capacity factor implies, unless we have storage. Moving to 50% wind on the grid is not possible, without utility level storage.  

The explanation follows, based on the New England grid.

A year on the New England grid (2008)
Shows the necessity of being able to dispatch electricity
Note rise in gas usage while nuclear plants refuel
Click to enlarge

Five million down and five million up (natural gas takes the lead)

In a guest post on January 7, Michael Twomey of Entergy used grid operator (ISO-NE) data to show that between 2014 (when Vermont Yankee was running) and 2015 (when Vermont Yankee was closed), nuclear kilowatt-hours decreased by about five million MWh and gas-fired generators increased their output by almost exactly the same amount.  Natural gas went from 46,200,000 MWh to nearly 51,900,000 MWh.  Nuclear kWh nuclear went down by almost the same amount of MWh.

Click to enlarge table

Wind and solar growing fast: Jeff Schmidt's comment

Looking at the table above, you can see that wind went from 1,892,000 MWh to 2,135,00 MWh, growing by approximately 243,00 MWh, and solar grew from 327,500 to 436,200 MWh, approximately 108,700 MWh.

This rapid rate of growth (though still only adding up to 2.4% of the power on the grid), prompted Jeff Schmidt to write this comment on the Twomey article:

"This article seems to dismiss the growth of wind and solar. While I am pro-nuclear, and think that nuclear needs to play a vital role in our future energy mix, I think the author of the article is neglecting something important - growth of wind and solar.

It's true that they are still small. But, if you look at the year-over-year growth rate, as shown by the statistics provided by the ISO and called out by Mr. Twomey, we see that Solar grew 33% in a year, and Wind grew 41%. Of course, one can't predict future growth rates based on one year, but IF wind and solar can keep up strong growth like that, they could conceivably become a very large proportion of the New England energy mix inside of 10 years.

It's true that it's likely an overly optimistic and simplistic projection, but just for the sake of argument, if they can keep up that growth rate, then 9 years from now, Wind could produce about 50% of the energy, and solar about 5%. If you projected it to 10 years instead of 9, that would account for more than 100% of current grid generation.

However, at the same time, it's very likely that at some point, Wind and Solar's growth must slow. Still, it's a valid point to concede that Wind and Solar, while currently small in absolute terms, are actually growing at a pretty fast rate."

Why renewables can't keep growing--unless we have storage

I wrote the following response to Schmidt.  I oversimplified, but I am also worried that "we can't grow wind and solar" arguments are often based on cost, or on complex technical issues that are hard to explain.  So, here's my oversimplification.  Basically correct, but oversimplified.

Basically, we can't grow wind and solar to a higher percentage on the grid than their capacity factor implies, unless we have storage. Moving to 50% wind on the grid is not possible, without utility level storage.



Jeff
I wrote about Vermont's plans to be 90% renewables in today's blog post. Of course, renewable growth from 1 to 3 to 5% is possible and looks great. However, it simply does not scale. Let's oversimplify a little, though not a lot.

Most of Vermont is one weather pattern, with some exceptions. Hot, dry and sunny...all over Vermont. Windy at night...all over Vermont. Cold and windless....all over Vermont. Now, obviously, the mountains are different from the river valleys and so forth, but the statement "weather is the same all over Vermont" is far closer to true than its opposite would be.

Okay. We cannot turn wind on and off. Let's say that wind has a 30% capacity factor. For wind to grow to 30% of the electricity supply overall, that means when wind is on the grid (the wind is blowing in Vermont)...the grid has to be 100% wind. Without this high percentage when wind is available, wind is not going to be able to be 30% of the electricity, overall. So we have to build a lot of wind to get wind to 30% of the electricity supply, and we have to turn everything else off if the wind is blowing.

Well, what if we build more wind? If we do that, when the wind is blowing....what then? We have to curtail some of the wind, because the grid can't take more than 100% of wind. So, without grid level storage, wind reaches a VERY hard stop at 30%.

Well, it is windier in the mountains, and the southern part of the state gets less wind and so forth and this is an oversimplification. And the grid requires more power in the day, and less in the night (when the wind usually blows). So it is quite complicated in reality. But the basics remain.

IF you can turn things on and off, you don't reach this sort of hard stop. 100% of the electricity from natural gas...this could work. No "hard stop" involved. 100% from nuclear...well, current nuclear doesn't follow load well, but there is no "hard stop" involved, where you have more nuclear than you can use on the grid. You don't need grid level storage for nuclear, just plants that follow load a little better. And so forth.

This is why I am so cynical about the Vermont energy plan. The plan is kind of "We don't just hope for miracles, we expect them."
------

Jeff Schmidt has two guest posts at this blog:

The Nuclear Safety Paradox, which describes how experience (such as building new nuclear plants) increases safety.

Flawed Analogies, which describes the analogies nuclear opponents made in a debate against nuclear energy.

Illustration

The illustration showing the need for dispatchable power
From Sustainability presentation by David Lamont
Vermont Department of Public Service
October 18, 2010
Presentation is no longer on the web, but I had saved it to my computer.

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 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.

Local Meetings and a Revised Website for Vermont Yankee

Information about the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan meetings and the NRC Vermont Yankee review meeting.

Also, welcome to the revised Vermont Yankee website.

The Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan, Thursday June 9, Springfield Vermont

If you remember, newly-elected Governor Shumlin was shocked to discover that Vermont's energy plan included Vermont Yankee past 2012. As Governor Shumlin requested, the Department of Public Service is putting a new plan together. The Governor hopes to have the new Comprehensive Energy Plan on his desk by this fall. Here's the DPS web page about the plan, including links to various drafts.

Update: At first, I couldn't find the meeting information on the DPS web site.. However, there is a link to the meetings on the DPS web page. I thank Ed Delhagen of DPS for sending it to me. Forums to Focus on State Comprehensive Energy Plan Update.

I first learned about the meetings because I received an email as a member of the Hartford Township Energy Commission. The meetings are open to the public. I encourage people to attend the planning meetings and make public statements in favor of the energy type you choose (nuclear, I hope!)

I will be at the June 9 meeting highlighted below.

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

June Forums to Focus on State Comprehensive Energy Plan Update

***Your input is needed!***

Goal: Comprehensive Energy Plan to be Completed & on Governor’s desk by Oct 15;

Implementation of VT’s Energy Plan is the central piece of this work!

Community energy committee leaders, planners and the general public are all invited to attend one of the following:

• June 1 Montpelier 6-9 p.m. National Life. Co-hosted by the Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission and Two Rivers Ottauquechee Planning Commission
• June 9 Springfield - Riverside Middle School 6-9 p.m. In cooperation with Windham Regional Commission, Southern Windsor County Regional Planning Commission and the Two Rivers Ottauquechee Planning Commission
• June 16 Rutland Leahy Center at Rutland Regional Medical Center 6-9 p.m. Co-hosted by the Rutland Regional Planning Commission, Addison County Regional Planning Commission and Bennington County Planning Commission
• June 28 - Colchester - Colchester High School - 6- 9 pm

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

(Email from Bob Walker of SERG. Thank you to Mr. Walker for sending this email.)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Annual Review Meeting June 22

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold the annual review meeting about Vermont Yankee at Brattleboro High School on June 22, from 6:30 to 9 p.m. To find out more about the meeting, go to the NRC website. There's a calendar headed Public Meetings: if you click on June 22, you can find out more about the meeting. The agenda is:

• Introduction Discussion of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station performance in 2010(10 minutes)
• Discussion of U.S. plant safe operation in light of Japan event (10 minutes)
• NRC to address public questions (time as needed)
• Closing Remarks (5 minutes)

These meetings are great gathering places for plant opponents. Sometimes their remarks are quite humorous. Last year there was an exchange about "Was the fish alive when you caught it?" Or had the fish died of radiation poisoning first?

Plant supporters are often too intimidated to show up. If you can show up and make a public comment before the NRC, it can balance the situation at least a little. I plan to be there.

A Modern Website for Vermont Yankee

Vermont Yankee has put some time and thought into its message in the past few months. The Vermont Yankee website has been totally revamped recently.

http://www.safecleanreliable.com/

The new website is much more appealing, and includes links and an email sign-up area. Vermont Yankee is also on Twitter now @Vermont_Yankee. As far as I can tell, they joined Twitter yesterday. Check out the new media!

Some Notes on IBM and Yankee. How I Found Vermont's Energy Plan.

The Puzzle

On Wednesday, IBM said they might close their large plant in Vermont if Vermont Yankee closes and their electric bills rise. A day later, the governor said he thought there was a plan for electric supply for Vermont: a plan that did not include Vermont Yankee. But, according to VPR, the governor says he can't find such a plan. The plan never existed, or it has gotten lost.

Seek and ye shall find. I am proud to say that I found the plan. Yes I did. Keep reading.

IBM Makes An Announcement about Energy Use and Continued Operations

The background about IBM:

• IBM has a huge wafer fabrication plant in Essex Junction, Vermont. It employs thousands of people.
• IBM spends $35 million a year for electricity.
• On Wednesday of last week, IBM said that they were very concerned about Vermont Yankee closing.
• IBM further said that they would not be able to operate in Vermont if their electricity prices rise and they expect the prices will rise without Vermont Yankee.

At that point, high-up people in the Vermont government responded.

• Legislators suggested to IBM that they could build their own power plant on the IBM wafer fab plant site.
• IBM answered that they were in the wafer fab business, and had no intention of building and operating power plants.
• Governor Shumlin tried to deal with the IBM announcement by saying "the statement I read was ‘We’re out of here,’ meaning we’re out of business, not that they’re moving somewhere else.” (Yes. You read that right. I often scratch my head about Shumlin's statements.)
• Shumlin further stated that he had been shocked, shocked to find out that the state had no energy plan for the future that did not include Vermont Yankee

C'est Moi, the Energy Sleuth

Well, gosh, I was shocked too. So I did a little digging on my own blog, and I found the missing plan.

As a matter of fact, the plan for going forward without Vermont Yankee was explained during a recent debate which I posted on my blog: Howard Shaffer and I debated James Moore of VPIRG and Vermont Senator Dick McCormack.

Senator McCormack sits on both the Senate Natural Resources Committee and the Finance Committee. The Natural Resources Committee deals with energy issues, and the Finance Committee deals with utility regulation (among other things). Therefore, McCormack's authority and his explanation of the Vermont energy plan are very credible. You can hear him explain it in his own words on the video below:






The Energy Plan on Video

To hear the energy plan, you have to move the slider to about 22 minutes in to the tape.

At this point, I have just finished explaining the possible grid-level consequences of closing Vermont Yankee, as described by ISO-NE, the grid operator.

Senator McCormack does not dispute my description of post-Yankee grid problems, and adds that he is on the Senate Finance Committee which reviews ISO-NE reports. He says that people ask him about "where will the electricity come from without Yankee" as if nobody in the legislature ever thought of it before. People who want Yankee's license to be extended will ask that question, and his tone of voice implies that they are a bit silly.

McCormack says the transition will be difficult, but the utilities have assured the legislature that the grid has plenty of excess power and can make up the loss from Yankee. He also says energy efficiency is important.

At this point, I thought I had a pretty clear idea of the energy plan. I thought it was that Vermont would buy from the grid and also improve energy efficiency. McCormack understands there will be grid problems and other problems, but that is the plan. Buy from the grid at market prices. Okay. I don't like this plan particularly, but it seemed realistic at least.

Now we are around 24 or 25 minutes into the tape, and McCormack begins to to describe the long term plan, not the transition energy plan. In all honesty, this may not be the official plan, but only McCormack's own plan. But since McCormack describes the earlier plan as "the transition," I think this is the official longterm plan. Also, he is on all the relevant committees in the Senate, and he is describing the longterm plan, so I think this is it. I think I found it.

We DO Have A Plan

As McCormack explains, the long-term plan is about cutting back on our electric use. (I got the impression these will be big cut-backs, not some little wimpy measures.) Vermonters will cut back voluntarily, or at least McCormack hopes we cut back voluntarily. If not voluntarily, we will still cut back. (McCormack does not outline the mechanism for non-voluntary cutbacks.) He further says that that the idea that everyone can have all the electricity they want is outmoded. If you listen for about five minutes, between 21 and 26 minutes on the video, you can hear the entire conversation.

So there it is. The Vermont energy plan, on video, in the words of a ranking Senator from both significant Senate committees. The long-term plan for replacing VY is simple: Vermont just can't keep using all that electricity.

Look, I know IBM won't like this. I don't like this. However, I only stated that I found the plan and I am happy to share it with Governor Shumlin. I never said I liked the plan, I just said that Vermont has a plan. The Governor can start with that knowledge, and go on from there.

Vermont will just stop using so much electricity. This will be easier, of course, if IBM shuts down and stops drawing all that power.

The Backstory on this post: Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

In building this post and finding the plan, I acknowledge and thank many writers and reporters, as well as other reporters linked within the text above.

My first and foremost tip of the hat is to Rod Adams, for his two posts:

IBM Tells Vermont Politicians That a 25% Increase in Their Power Bill Would Force Them to Shut Down

40-year -old nuclear plants can produce electricity that is "too cheap to meter"--that capability angers the competition

The second tip of the hat is to Jack Harding of Vermont Tiger for his post

Do You Hear Footsteps?

And finally, for the WCAX reporting (with video) that first covered the story.

IBM warns lawmakers about the loss of Vermont Yankee

And finally, I appreciate VPR for Bob Kinzel's interview with Shumlin, and especially for these quotes:

"The extraordinary thing to me is that I stand here as your governor - 16 months before the shutdown date that was scheduled when we approved it 40 years ago - and state government has one plan. That's to continue to operate it beyond its design date. There was never a second plan, which might have been: What if it is actually shut down when it was scheduled to be shut down?"

"I sit here with my team frankly scrambling to put together a shutdown plan that should have been designed over the years."