Micro and Macro: What is the Energy Future?

Solar panel on a house roof near Boston
Wikipedia, Gray Watson 

Everybody knows?

Milt Caplan wrote an excellent blog post on the future of energy.   He describes attending an event where

a number of speakers prefaced their comments with statements like “everybody knows the future will be based on distributed generation – primarily with small scale renewables and storage to provide reliability”.  
(Bold in the original)

Is this indeed what everybody knows?  Is there no dissent?

Maybe Microgrids?

As Caplan wrote:

 We have this romantic fantasy that we can live off-grid with a combination of solar power and battery backup.  Of course, with a bit of thought .....we accept that we cannot go it completely alone.  The conclusion being that maybe we need to collaborate with our neighbours and build a small system (or microgrid) to achieve the reliability that we need to power our lives.

As it turns out, I have also been thinking about microgrids. A few days ago,  I heard an excellent talk on smart microgrids by Andy Haun, Chief Technology Officer, Schneider Electric Microgrids Business. These advanced microgrids can be controlled "in parallel" with the grid.  When used in this manner, the smart microgrid systems can avoid costs by shaving peak demand and by using cheaper, off-peak power. The microgrids can be also controlled in an "intentional islanded mode," which is especially useful for storm readiness.

It seemed to me that while these microgrids could be used stand-alone in remote locations, they were mostly going to be used in conjunction with the larger grid.  Or why develop all these "peak shaving" features, and so forth?

It doesn't look to me as if advanced microgrids are going to make the bigger grid obsolete, or at least, not anytime soon.

Maybe Macrogrids? 

Maybe instead of microgrids, we should be looking at really big macro grids?

Many of the renewables advocates who hope for a proliferation of microgrids also hope for long-distance DC lines, to bring bulk power from sunny or windy places to places where more people are living.  Maybe, the answer is long-DC lines to bring energy across the continent, moving energy from sunny and windy areas to big cities.  In other words, really big grids.

Earlier this year, Power Engineering featured an article, Enabling Large Scale Renewables in the Western U.S. This article proposed new, lengthy High Voltage DC lines. These lines had names such as Power from the Prairie, and Centennial West.  The lines seemed primarily designed to move wind energy from the west to the east.  Similarly, in early June, an Wall Street Journal ran an opinion piece titled  Upgrade America's 19th Century Electric Grid.   This article called for a $500 billion dollar infrastructure project to build DC power lines to "transfer energy between power-abundant and power-hungry regions. "

Could this work? Probably not.

Donn Dears wrote a blog post DC Transmission for Cutting CO2 Emissions.  As Dears explains,  HVDC transmission lines are best for moving great quantities of power for long distances; current examples carry hydro power from dams to cities. There are HVDC transmission lines carrying hydro power in the American West (Pacific DC Intertie), and similar lines in China and Brazil.  These lines are fully utilized almost all the time,  because they come from huge hydro systems with more than one power plant.

Such utilization would not be the case for the new DC lines proposed for the US.  They would carry wind and perhaps solar energy, which are not steadily available.  Low utilization rates would lead to higher costs, and DC lines are only cost-effective in limited circumstances to start with. An HVDC build-out would not work.  It would not be cost-effective.

Pursuit of the the Unsuitable

Somehow, in pursuit of renewable energy, microgrids (connected to the main grid) or a huge buildout of continent-spanning DC power lines (connected to the main grid) are considered to be options.  The main grid doesn't go away, but these new features get added.

Now, there are uses for both microgrids and DC lines. Even their proponents, however, are not proposing microgrids and DC lines as a complete substitute for the current grid. At best, they would solve some problems on the grid.  At worst, they would be high-cost, duplicative add-ons to the grid that exists now.

In short, if we want to decarbonize our grid without romantic fantasy and without too much costly duplication,  we need the following:

• Keep our current fleet of nuclear plants running
• Build more nuclear plants
• Build more grid infrastructure, as appropriate.  
• Don't duplicate infrastructure because "microgrid" or "HVDC" sounds cool.  Add them as needed. 

In other words, for a reasonable future, we must pursue suitable technologies. Technologies such as nuclear energy.

Nuclear Blogger Carnival #324: Here at Yes Vermont Yankee

Once again, we are proud to host the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers, right here at Yes Vermont Yankee. The Carnival is a compendium of nuclear blogs that rotates from blog site to blog site, and it is always a pleasure and an honor to host it.

Looking at the Future
(The future looks upbeat for nuclear energy.)

Another WISE Summer
At Nuke Power Talk, Gail Marcus describes how engineering societies have co-sponsored an internship program in Washington, DC. This program  introduces engineering majors to public policy considerations.  Some of the past participants have found that the program profoundly influenced their career directions. This blog post describes some of the topics in this year's program.  The program has been running since 1980, and Marcus has been involved with it, one way or another, since the beginning. Though next summer may seem far away, engineering students might make a note of this internship program as a possibility for next summer.

X-Energy and Southern Nuclear Team Up for Advanced Reactor R&D

At Neutron Bytes, Dan Yurman describes an innovative partnership.  Tiny X-Energy, a start-up, has teamed with one of America’s biggest nuclear utilities, Southern Co., to collaborate on the development and commercialization of the design of a high temperature gas-cooled reactor.

Russia's sodium lead cooled fast nuclear reactors

At Next Big Future, Brian Wang describes how Russia has reached two more milestones in its endeavor to close the nuclear fuel cycle. First, Mashinostroitelny Zavod (MSZ) - part of Russian nuclear fuel manufacturer TVEL - has completed acceptance tests of components for its ETVS-14 and ETVS-15 experimental fuel assemblies for one type of reactor. In the second milestone, the company has begun work on the "absorbent element" of the core of the another type of reactor.

Until coal, oil and natural gas are eliminated from power and transportation usage any argument about solar versus nuclear is meaningless
At Next Big Future, Brian Wang describes how coal and oil continue to dominate world energy use. Therefore, plans and arguments about replacing nuclear with solar are--not very relevant.

Clean Air versus Efficiency Charges. Clean Air Wins

At Yes Vermont Yankee, Meredith Angwin compares the costs of New York State's Clean Energy Standard program with Vermont's Efficiency Vermont program. Clean energy standards are cheaper per capita and more important than efficiency improvements. New York's surcharges are smaller and protect everyone's air.  Vermont's surcharges are bigger, and help only a few.

Innovative Solar Project Awarded State Grant

At Northwest Clean Energy, John Dobken announces that Energy Northwest will receive Washington State funding for an innovative solar project, including a technician training facility in Richland, WA.  

Energy Northwest is home to only clean-energy resources, the largest of which is Columbia Generating Station.  The company also has hydro, wind and solar projects.

Looking at Other Strategies, World-Wide
(Trigger warning.  Some of this is unpleasant.)

Should America Be The First To Use Nuclear Weapons, Again?

At Forbes, James Conca usually writes about energy issues. In this post, he notes that the Obama Administration is thinking about adopting a No First Use policy for nuclear weapons, in which the U.S. would declare that we will never be the first to use nuclear weapons in any conflict, under any circumstances. Our current, less restrictive policy, is known as calculated ambiguity.  This has worked for 60 years, and no one knows if changing this would be good or bad. 

Fukushima: Time Bomb Or Training Device?

At Forbes, Rod Adams writes about recent articles and documentaries from Al Jazeera.  The documentary basically attempts to convince its audience that fear of nuclear energy  is well-justified, and that keeping reactors closed is a proper response to the Japanese events of five years ago. Adams notes that Al Jazeera is a media empire that is owned by the government of Qatar, one of the world’s largest LNG exporters. During the five years since the Fukushima accident, Japan has been the world’s largest and most lucrative market for LNG. Japan has burning LNG to produce electricity, instead of operating the 50 nuclear power plants that were not damaged by the accident.

The Distribution Grid: Christine Hallquist on Grid Controversies

Hallquist and the grid

Christine Hallquist, CEO of Vermont Electric Cooperative, presented the third class in my course: The Grid: What Your Electricity Bill Won't Tell You.

On May 3, 2016 at my class on grid issues, Hallquist described the grid  from the perspective of a rural electric cooperative in Vermont. She heads Vermont Electric Cooperative (VEC). This utility was one of the rural Cooperatives of the Rural Electrification movement: it was founded in 1938 to bring electricity to rural Vermont.  It is now the largest locally-owned electric distribution utility in Vermont.  VEC is dwarfed by Green Mountain Power, a utility with a very Vermont-y name. However, Green Mountain Power is actually a wholly-owned subsidiary of Gaz Metro of Quebec.

In my opinion, Vermont Electric Cooperative is the quintessential Vermont utility. It started in the Rural Electrification movement of the 30s, and and it is a cooperative in which the owners and the consumers are the same people.

Update 2018: The videos still exist, but their URLs have changed. Here's the link to this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zN0D_CAkKE


As CEO of VEC, Hallquist is concerned with the cost shifts involved in net metering, since  VEC's service area includes low income areas of Vermont. When your owners are your customers, you pay sincere attention to the economic issues.

Late in the talk, Hallquist also discusses grid stability.  Intermittent power tends to be destabilizing: the grid was set up for rotating electric machinery. Rotating machinery has a healthy inertia which helps keep the grid stable. Starting at about 1:20 (1 hour 20 minutes into the talk), Hallquist shows the jagged effects of wind and solar, and the almost un-analyzable harmonics of the intermittents on the grid.  Few utilities collect this type of data.

I am very grateful to Christine Hallquist for sharing her information and her wisdom with our class.

It happens first in a village

Agatha Christie's Miss Marple is able to solve crimes because she has carefully analyzed many (supposedly) smaller issues in a small village.

To a large extent, Vermont Electric Cooperative is a "village" for the growth of renewables.  The owner/customers are not rich, and they need to keep electricity costs low.  While places like Germany can boast of their renewables while simultaneously building lignite-fired plants, VEC is actually adding renewables and dealing directly with the costs and stability issues that renewables  present.

For example,  the owner/customers have made decisions, very recently,  on how to keep wind energy from being curtailed on their grid.  They are making decisions, right now, on how much net metering the customers can afford.

VEC is hopeful about advances in energy storage and weather forecasting and so forth. (See Hallquist's last slide on "What are we doing about it.")  But right now, there are very real limits for renewables on a small grid, and VEC is reaching those limits.

-------
Previous sessions 

The first session was The Grid: Power and Policy Introduction, and Howard Shaffer on the Physical Grid.  The second session was Payments on the Grid: What Every Citizen Should Know.  This post is the third session.  The fourth session was a field trip to ISO-NE, the grid operator headquarters.

Grid Upgrades, Siting Rule Changes for Vermont: Micheal Bielawski Guest Post

Solar Panels, Portugal

Vermont’s energy future requires grid upgrades, changes to siting rules

By Michael Bielawski    February 23, 2016


RENEWABLES: The Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy faces difficult decisions about siting and grid limitations for the state’s green-energy future.
By Michael Bielawski and Bruce Parker | Vermont Watchdog

MONTPELIER – New siting rules from the Public Service Board – as well as new grid concerns – are dominating the discussion as the Senate Energy Committee prepares for another week of expert testimony.

Representatives of Sierra Club Vermont, Vermonters for a Clean Environment, and Energize Vermont were set to give testimony this week even as senators try to understand important information from the last few days.

Last Friday, Margaret Cheney, one of three members of the much-maligned Public Service Board, discussed draft net metering rules written to appease critics of the board’s siting policies.

“We intend to make the process clearer and easier for municipalities and citizens alike,” she said.

Net metering allows consumers to connect their own solar arrays to a public utility power grid. Whenever unused power gets transferred to the grid for use by others, owners of solar installations gain a reduction on their own energy bill. The net metering changes proposed by the PSB apply to systems up to 500 kilowatts.

During testimony, Cheney suggested using price incentives and disincentives to encourage solar siting that respects municipalities. Preferred locations include gravel pits, quarries, sites next to the primary user or sites designated by the town.

In Vermont, utilities pay about 20 cents per kilowatt-hour for power generated by net metering projects – high above the market price of  about 5 cents per kilowatt-hour. State Sen. John Rodgers, D-Essex/Orleans, said the system is expensive.

“The (Vermont Electric) Co-op figures it is $125,000 for every 1 percent of net metering, and that’s spread out against the rest of the consumers,” he said. “That’s why I say we’ve got to get the price point right. We can’t continue to do it at this price.”

According to the proposed rule changes, net metering system owners would be penalized if projects aren’t sited favorably. They can be further penalized if their renewable energy credits, or RECs, are sold out of state.

As Vermont generates more green energy, lawmakers have to figure out how it will be transmitted.

Asa Hopkins, director of energy policy and planning for the Public Service Department, said big changes to the grid will be necessary if Vermont is to be 90 percent renewable by 2050, assuming all electricity comes from solar energy.

“The grid that you would have to build to be able to use that much solar and export it out of the state when it’s sunny, it would have to be able to hold something like five, or maybe eight, times as much power,” he said. “Imagine the level of upgrades that would be required in the transmission and distribution system, and the incredible costs with that.”

Hopkins told Watchdog in a later exchange that Vermont’s 2015 Comprehensive Energy Plan does not foresee attaining the 90 percent renewable goal using solar alone. He also said storing energy is not possible with current battery technology.

The proposed changes to Vermont’s energy system come as towns are pushing back against poorly sited solar and wind plants.

Last week, the PSB made a nearly unprecedented move to reject a 2-megawatt solar project planned for Bennington. The board has been criticized for rubber-stamping solar and wind projects proposed by developers.

Rodgers said he believed public pressure led to the PSB’s denial of a certificate of public good.

State Sen. Christopher Bray, the Democratic chair of the Energy Committee, said rare denials by the PSB should not be interpreted as ignoring the public. Nevertheless, he acknowledged negative public perceptions of the board.

“I have a sense from conversations with lots of folks that there’s a perception that unless a CPG is denied, the town has not been heard,” Bray said.

Cheney said many projects reviewed by the PSB, including projects as large as 500 kilowatts, receive little public comment.

Rodgers said while he hopes board members are respecting the wishes of towns, more needs to be done.

“I’m certainly not going to just take their word for it. They recently denied the one down in Bennington, but it’s the first real sign of them respecting town plans in my mind.”

Rodgers welcomed the boards new siting guidelines.

“The PSB needs to come out with some sort of direction for towns to follow, because in some rulings they’ve said ‘your plan wasn’t prescriptive enough’ and in other ones they’ve said ‘your plans are too prescriptive.’ So, they basically threw them aside. But this one (in Bennington) somehow hit the sweet spot. ”

Early in the session, Rodgers sponsored a bill to subject energy developers to Act 250, Vermont’s strict land use law. He said he wants criteria from Act 250 put into Section 248, the energy siting statute, to make it a more citizen-friendly system.

CLARIFICATION: This story was updated at 4:53 p.m., Feb. 25 to clarify the statement by Asa Hopkins. The claim that the grid update would need to hold up to eight times more power assumes a scenario in which Vermont achieves its renewable goals using solar energy alone.

Contact Michael Bielawski at mbielawski@watchdog.org


This article appeared on February 23 at Vermont Watchdog, and is reposted by permission.

Solar and Net Metering: Consumer Liaison Group Meeting March 10

Consumer Liaison Group Meeting on Solar in New England

The purpose of the Consumer Liaison Group (CLG) is to be the voice of the electricity consumer in advising the grid operator, ISO-NE.  As you can read in this CLG annual report: The Consumer Liaison Group (CLG) is a forum for sharing information between ISO New England (ISO) and those who ultimately use and pay for electricity in New England.

The next meeting of the Consumer Liaison Group will be a week from tomorrow, March 10, 2016, at the Radisson Hotel in Cromwell, CT.  The topic will be Solar Power in New England. Note that one topic to be discussed is "Consumer Protection" as it applies to solar development.

CLG meetings are free, but you should register in advance if you want lunch.  Here's the information and the agenda.

Since these are screen shots, the links do not work.  Here are the links.

Radisson Hotel

CLG webpage

Mary Louise "Weezie" Nuara

And the most important one:

Register

You can also attend by phone, as listed on the Registration page.

I am a member of the Coordinating Committee for the CLG, and I hope to see you there!

The Solar View from Vermont: The Gold Rush and the Panels.

Andrew Savage of All Earth Renewables
describes a Vermont solar installation
to Energy Safari class, 2011
Blog post on our visit   to the solar installation
Robert Hargraves blog post on our visit

The Solar Gold Rush

At VTDigger, Erin Mansfield wrote a two-part special report on solar. It is well worth reading.

Part 1: Tax breaks drive Vermont solar gold rush
Part 2: Rural communities push back against solar

The first part includes a summary of how solar developers make money: basically, they make money through tax credits.

The second part describes how some Vermont senators tried to give the local towns more say in solar siting. They did not succeed at empowering the towns.  It doesn't matter what the local people think: the Public Service Board rules on solar siting.

I also recommend the comments on these posts.

A Quote: 100,000 acres

When I came back from my trip to England, I discovered that Erin Mansfield had called me.  By the time I called her back, it was too late be quoted in her excellent report on the solar gold rush.

However, Mansfield had looked up my post The 90% Solution: What 90% Renewables would look like in Vermont.  She quoted that post, as follows:

The Ethan Allen Institute, a conservative think tank, estimates that Vermont would need to install panels on 100,000 acres of land to meet 90 percent of its electric energy needs through solar.

The quote is correct. However, this estimate is for the case in which Vermont meets ALL its energy needs through solar renewables, not just its current electric needs. (Meeting all energy needs from renewables is the scenario required by the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan.)  The Vermont mandate is for 90% renewables for everything: electricity, transportation, heat, industrial processes.

Currently, Vermont uses 6,000 GWh of electricity per year.  I estimated that if electricity was also needed for heat pumps and transportation, we would triple that usage.  We would use 18,000 GWh electricity per year. If we met that requirement with solar, we would need 100,000 acres of solar panels.

Let's say, though, that we only use solar for our current electricity usage. We use 6000 GWh of electricity, and would only (only!) need 33,000 acres of solar installations to generate that amount of energy with solar.  (FWIW: Green Mountain National Forest is approximately 400,000 acres.)

100,000 acres: Showing my work

My estimate of 100,000 acres of solar panels was based on a 2.2 MW solar installation in White River Junction. This installation uses 15 acres and is expected to make 2,800 MWh of electricity per year.  It's a quick calculation to get to 100,000 acres. With 18,000 GWh required, and 2.8 GWh produced per 15 acres--the panels would cover 96,000 acres to make 18,000 GWh.

I wrote that estimate in 2013. I decided to do an update with more recent solar installations. I found a Woodstock installation being planned: 500 kW on 3 acres, and a Strafford Hill installation being dedicated: 2000 kW (2 MW) on 15 acres. Quick calculations showed that the solar installations are taking up about the same acres/kWh as I used in my previous estimate, to the rough level of accuracy of the earlier estimate.

The panels are coming

I don't think Vermont will ever host 100,000 acres of solar panels.  I don't think we will even host 10,000 acres of panels: the costs would be outrageously high.  At some point, even clever financing doesn't work.

But as the Mansfield report describes: solar is booming in Vermont, whether local people like it or not.  The "black billboards" (real billboards are not legal in Vermont) are springing up everywhere. As Mansfield writes:

The number and proposed size of commercial projects is also shooting up. The Public Service Department is now reacting to a handful of 20-megawatt commercial projects — which are 10 times larger than any of the existing projects in Vermont.

In other words, the panels are coming.

----------

Apple tree

Aside: Oh, I can't resist.  Once in a while, the hypocrisy is so blatant that it is funny.

Today,  Green mogul opposed wind farm off Martha's Vineyard, blasts objectors in Vermont was published by Bruce Parker of Vermont Watchdog.  The article tells about a renewable energy developer who has a fifteen million dollar home on Martha's Vineyard. He objected to Cape Wind. He claimed that it would spoil his view and lower the value of his house.  However, this same developer is planning a solar farm near the home of Libby Harris in Vermont. He has dismissed her objections (in a filed brief) as “NIMBY concerns.”

If you read Parker's post, you will see why I included a picture of an apple tree.

Parker has several guests posts on this blog.  The most recent post was Vermont town  protests renewable energy credits for MA and CT.

End Aside.

Vermont town protests renewable energy credits for MA and CT: Bruce Parker Guest Post

Vermont town protests renewable energy credits for Massachusetts and Connecticut

Solar farm in Portugal, from Wikipedia

Bruce Parker, Vermont Watchdog, published August 25, 2015

STRAFFORD, Vt. — The town of Strafford has changed its tune on approving a 4.9 megawatt solar array at the Elizabeth Mine, saying approval of the project is now contingent on Vermont — not other states — getting recognition for reducing its carbon footprint.

In a letter sent to the Public Service Board on Friday, the five members of the Selectboard wrote they will not let Wolfe Energy and Brightfields Development install solar at the site if the renewable energy credits associated with the power are sold out of state.

“The Strafford Selectboard, which approved an initial letter of support for the project in part based on the understanding that the project would go to meeting Vermont’s renewable energy needs, cannot continue our support of the project unless 100% of the renewable energy credits go to the state of Vermont by 2017,” the letter states.

“We want the impact of the project to help save valuable Vermont farm and forest lands and not, as currently planned, to go overwhelmingly to meeting renewable energy requirements in other states.”

The reversal comes after the selectmen learned Green Mountain Power, the expected purchaser of the solar power, plans to retire relatively few of the site’s associated renewable energy certificates in Vermont.

“It’s likely somewhere around 10 or 20 percent,” Dorothy Schnure, spokesperson for Green Mountain Power, told Vermont Watchdog.

While Green Mountain Power has yet to contract for the solar power, Schnure said the company expected to sell up to 90 percent of the renewable energy certificates to Massachusetts and Connecticut. Those states, upon purchasing the RECs, obtain the rightful claim — on a bookkeeping basis — to have reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

John Freitag, chair of the Strafford Selectboard, said leaders found out about the RECs in recent weeks, long after the town’s public information meeting, and after the Board wrote a July 8 letter supporting Wolfe Energy and Brightfields Development, the companies engaged in a joint venture to develop the Elizabeth Mine site.

“When you look at how this was presented by the developers of the Elizabeth Mine project, the clear impression was this was going to meet Vermont’s renewable energy needs, Freitag said.

“There needs to be a little more honest conversation about this and about weighing the pros and cons. You can’t say Green Mountain Power is lowering the rates and we’re a renewable energy leader if the reason we’re lowering the rate is because we’re selling everything out of state.”

In Vermont, selling RECs out of state generates more than $50 million annually for utility companies. Schnure says Green Mountain Power plans to retire enough RECs to meet Vermont goals but sell the rest to help lower Vermonters’ energy bills.

“On all the various renewable energy projects that we either own or purchase, we will retire RECs that we need to retire to meet the new state law,” Schnure said. “For any RECs associated with the projects that are in addition to that, then we would sell them, and every penny of a sold REC goes to lower costs for our customers.”

Selling RECs enables Vermont to increase the amount of renewable generation it produces in a cost-effective way. Under the newly passed Act 56, a full 55 percent of a utility’s energy sales must come from renewables starting in 2017. That percentage ratchets up every year until 2032, when utilities must have 75 percent renewable energy in their portfolios.

Kevin B. Jones, professor of Energy Technology and Policy at Vermont Law School, applauded Strafford for raising the issue.

“I commend the Strafford Selectboard for taking leadership on this. Vermont has historically had the most fundamentally flawed renewable energy laws in the country because they set renewable energy goals but then encouraged the utilities to sell the renewable energy credits out of state,” Jones said.

“(This year), the Legislature set a goal that utilities have to meet and actually retire the RECs for it. Before, they were meeting the goal by selling the RECs, which was facilitating false green claims and no environmental benefit. The Legislature has changed the law going forward, and for a renewable energy standard the RECs need to be retired in the future.”

Jones said if well-sited projects like the Elizabeth Mine don’t get counted toward Vermont’s goals, renewable energy developers will be forced to develop additional solar and wind projects on less appropriate areas, such as prime ag lands and forests, causing irreparable harm to wildlife.

Asked what happens to a state’s environmental claims when RECs are sold out of state, Jones said, “You can’t say it’s renewable energy for Vermonters. It will result in increasing our carbon emissions rather than reducing them, because of the proper greenhouse gas accounting for it. And we will have to then develop another five megawatts someplace else in the future to meet the Vermont requirement.”

Freitag said that outcome is not what the Selectboard had in mind when members gave initial support for the project.

“Vermont’s not an easy place to live, and it’s not a cheap place to live. The reason why we live here is because of the beauty and uniqueness of our state. … Our feeling was, we don’t want to sell off that beauty of our landscape and the uniqueness of our place for the benefit of Massachusetts and Connecticut, who choose not to build their own renewable energy projects,” he said.

“I don’t think most Vermonters would want to have our landscape covered with these things for the benefit of other states, even if this saves us a few dollars.”

--
Bruce Parker is a reporter for Watchdog.org. Contact him at bparker@watchdog.org and follow him on Twitter @WatchdogVT

-----

Once again, Bruce Parker of Vermont Watchdog has graciously allowed me to reprint his article.   The original article has excellent graphics and comments, and I recommend it.

Vermont Utilities Seek Power: from Seabrook, from Solar. Guy Page Guest Post

Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant

Vermont utilities seek more nuclear power from Seabrook, 80 acres of solar planned for Rutland Town, and more

By Guy Page
Communications Director, Vermont Energy Partnership

Just because the Legislature has gone home doesn’t mean Vermont has taken a holiday from energy deals and projects. Far from it! In June alone, the wheels were turning to bring more hydro, nuclear (you read correctly), natural gas, and solar power to Vermont – or in the case of hydro, at least through Vermont.

Nuclear – in June both Green Mountain Power (GMP) and Vermont Electric Co-operative (VEC) petitioned the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) to buy nuclear power from Seabrook nuclear power plant in New Hampshire. Both deals would run from 2018 – 2034. Details are preliminary at present, but VEC’s petition calls for up to 10 MW of power. GMP, for its part, hopes the contract will help cover peak load needs. This will be the second GMP contract with Seabrook; the state’s largest utility entered into a baseload power contract in 2011.

Meanwhile at Vermont Yankee, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has given the shuttered plant permission to access the decommissioning trust fund to help pay for spent fuel management, much to the consternation of the State of Vermont Department of Public Service. VY has also arranged about $150 million in private financing and has said that all spent fuel management monies will be reimbursed when the U.S. Department of Energy returns the funds set aside for the unopened national spent fuel repository.

Hydro – the Vermont Conservation Law Foundation has endorsed the construction of the TDI cable project beneath Lake Champlain, following the Quebec-based company’s decision to deliver $283 million for Lake Champlain cleanup. If built (2019 start date), the TDI project would carry hydro power south under the Lake, make landfall at Benson in Rutland County, and then traverse Vermont underground. Southern New England is regarded as the priority customer for the 1,000 MW of TDI power. The cost is expected to be 9-10 cents per kw/h, including the cost of construction, Vermont energy experts say. At least it will not suffer the fate of the Quebec high power transmission lines that were damaged from above in December, 2014, causing a power loss to almost 200,000 southern Quebec customers. Norman Dube, 53, a Quebec resident who allegedly had a labor dispute with Hydro Quebec, dropped unnamed objects on the power lines from an airplane, according to CBC coverage of his trial, which began this month.

Natural Gas - The PSB held hearings June 22-23 in Montpelier on the embattled Phase One (to Middlebury) Vermont Gas Pipeline Project. It was concerned that the cost estimate had jumped about 85% to $154 million. No decision on the project’s future was expected this week. However, supporters of New England regional fuel diversity note that the unexpected cost increases should be a cautionary tale to supporters of the “just build more gas pipeline” solution to New England’s projected energy supply shortfalls. Over-reliance on any one form of power – be it price-volatile natural gas or Quebec hydro-power – is risky for both reliability and affordability.

Solar – State energy officials, speaking at a June 24, Montpelier discussion of the revised Comprehensive Energy Plan, said instate solar development will be very heavy during the next 18 months, to take full advantage of federal tax credits for renewable energy construction before they expire Jan. 1 2017. As if to illustrate, the Rutland Herald reported the planned construction of two Cold River Road, Rutland Town solar farms totaling 55,000 panels spread out over 80 acres. One of the projects already has PSB approval, but will be appealed by Rutland Town to the Vermont Supreme Court.

-----

Guy Page of VTEP is a frequent guest blogger at this blog.  This article has also appeared in several publications in Vermont, including Vermont Business Magazine.

Slow Renewable Growth Means We Must Retain Existing Power Sources: Guy Page Guest Post

With renewable growth slow, Vermont and New England must retain existing, diverse power sources

In an April 13 Associated Press story, a prominent renewable energy advocate said Vermont’s wind power industry is “just taking a little hibernation here as federal policy gets the tax credits right.”

While Vermont waits for Congress to act, now is a good time to examine the status of the state and regional supply of low-cost, low-carbon, reliable electricity. Vermont’s power needs changed dramatically in March 2012, when Vermont Yankee, per its contract, stopped providing one-third of the state’s power – every kilowatt of it low-carbon and low-cost. But not to worry, Vermonters were assured: new, renewable power would fill the gap.

Slow Growth

Three years later, the promise is being fulfilled slowly, and with great uncertainty. Based on state, utility and media sources, here’s an update on instate renewable power generation built since March 2012:

• Three ridgeline industrial wind turbine developments (in Lowell, Sheffield, and Georgia) contribute about 4% of the state’s total electricity load.
• A rapid proliferation of photovoltaic solar power generators, from small rooftop projects to big developments, contributes 1-2 percent.
• Four farm bio-digesters contribute about 0.2 percent, and a small biomass generator and a hydro dam total about 0.1 percent. 

By rough count, in-state renewable generation built since March 2012 comprises about six percent of total demand. Currently, only solar is growing. The others have almost stalled since January, 2013 due to opposition, weak incentives, or cheaper energy alternatives. Yet even the “Solar Express” may slow if Congress lets a 30 percent construction tax credit expire. Through 2016, for example, the builder of a $10,000 solar power generator will pay $3000 less in federal taxes. Whether Congress continues,

eliminates, reduces to 10 percent or phases out this crucial credit is anyone’s guess. Some solar experts believe the declining cost of production has moved solar power almost to the point of tax credit independence.

Wind is Treading Water

Visiting a wind turbine
In New Hampshire

The wind power industry is indeed treading water, waiting on Congress. The three projects cited above
were sufficiently completed by December 31, 2012, just in time to receive an expiring 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour Production Tax Credit (PTC). Congress has since granted the PTC a couple of grudging one-year extensions, hardly the confidence builder the industry needs. The U.S. Senate voted against a five year extension this January. Some pro-wind senators now want a five-year PTC “phase-out.”  

The owner of Vermont’s only unbuilt but permitted project – Deerfield II in Searsburg – must have a power buyer under contract before construction begins, a spokesperson told VTEP in 2013. Ground remains unbroken. A proposed Northeast Kingdom (NEK) wind farm was rejected in a multi-town referendum. Also, transmission lines in the NEK cannot accommodate another large wind power generator, a senior state energy official said last month. Finally, most of the tri-county region’s senators, newspaper editors, and development officials have publicly opposed more ridge line wind projects in the NEK.

Three serious proposals to build instate biomass-burning power plants are unbuilt due to lack of support from neighbors, power-buying utilities and/or regulators.

It's Hard to Build New, So We Need to Keep What We Have

For one reason or another, it’s hard to build new power generation in Vermont. Therefore we must protect the low-cost, low-carbon power generation we already enjoy. With the exception of encouraging the departure of Vermont Yankee, Vermont is pretty good at this. Long-term Hydro Quebec contracts were renewed, as was a permit for a biomass plant in Ryegate. Small, defunct dams are making power again. Active dams have been re-licensed. Burlington declared itself “100 percent renewable” last year after buying a large, existing Winooski River dam. Green Mountain Power has long-term contracts for New Hampshire wind and nuclear power, and owns a small share of a Connecticut nuclear plant.

Throughout New England, hydro and nuclear power plants provide base-load, low-cost, low-carbon electricity. However, their future is jeopardized by policies favoring natural gas, New England’s dominant fuel, including a New England governor’s agreement last week that called for more natural gas infrastructure but was virtually silent on retaining existing nuclear power. Vermont must urge the rest of New England to keep its low-cost, low-carbon power.

Vermont must seek new reliable, affordable, clean power. But first – let’s keep what we already have.

---------

Guy Page

Guy Page is a frequent guest blogger at this blog.  He is  Communications Director of the Vermont Energy Partnership (www.vtep.org) , a Montpelier-based coalition of individuals, businesses, and labor and development organizations promoting clean, safe, affordable and reliable electricity for Vermont. Vermont Yankee is a VTEP member.

This article also appeared in Vermont Digger and other newspapers in Vermont. 

Doing the Numbers on Solarizing: Guest Post by Dr. Robert Hargraves

Dr. Robert Hargraves

I attended Solarize Hanover at the high school Thursday evening, an event put on by many well-intended neighbors. To fight global warming from CO2 emissions they recommend rooftop PV solar panels for electricity that our utility company, Liberty, would otherwise generate from natural gas. An investment of $20,000 for a 5 kilowatt-peak-power PV system would “net" 6000 kilowatt-hours per year of electricity. At about 15 cents/kWh otherwise paid to Liberty this saves the homeowner $900. Solarize Hanover claims an investment payback of 7-12 years. This is only possible through extensive subsidies. Almost half of the $20,000 is recovered by tax credits, placing that cost on other citizen taxpayers.

Other Liberty utility customers also provide a subsidy because of “net” metering. On sunny days the PV solar panels indeed generate 5 kW of power for a few mid-day hours, but the average household consumption is only about 1 kW, so roughly 4 kW of the power (80%) is sent back to Liberty, which is required to buy it at the 15 cents/kWh rate. This raises Liberty’s costs, because it would normally buy cheaper electricity from hydro, nuclear, or natural gas generators at about 5 cents/kWh. This raises rates Liberty must charge other customers. This other-customer subsidy is roughly 80% x (15-5) cents/kWh x 6000 kWh = $480 per year.

CO2 emissions saved by avoiding burning natural gas for electricity are 333 grams/kWh, so each such Solarize Hanover home reduces emissions by 6000 x 333 grams = 2 tonnes of CO2 per year. World CO2 emissions from coal-fired generation of electricity are 10 billion tonnes/year and are expected to double as developing nations prosper.

-------

Dr. Robert Hargraves is the author of Thorium, Energy Cheaper than Coal and an occasional guest blogger on this blog.  I have always been particularly fond of his humorous post: Vernon, New Hampshire?  He is also the author of many more scholarly works, and I recommend his website on radiation safety limits. Exposure limits for radiation should be set a lot higher than they are currently set.

This post appeared as a letter to the editor in the Valley News, October 28. However, the Valley News edited out the sentence on the calculation of other-customer subsidies.  This is the complete letter.

Pandora's Promise on CNN Tonight--Enjoy It!

Pro-Nuclear on TV!

The pro-nuclear documentary Pandora's Promise will be shown on CNN tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern time, 8 p.m. Central time.  Plus, for the night owls, there will be encore showings on CNN, starting at 11 p.m. and 2 a.m.

Banned in Germany!

This pro-nuclear documentary is creating a lot of interest and a lot of anger.  We are lucky to be able to see it.  It's banned-in-Germany.  Okay, that is an exaggeration.   The movie is not banned, it's just that no TV station in Europe will air it.  Here's Rod Adams post on the European refusal to show it.   (Warning...video clip includes some sailor-language.)

Supported by Environmentalists!

Top climate change scientists from Carnegie Institute, Columbia University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Adelaide wrote a open letter in favor of nuclear energy.  A quote from the letter:  ...in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power.

Lied about by the Sierra Club!

Aww...just watch the clip below in which the head of the Sierra Club talks about how the U.S. has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions--because the price of solar panels is falling fast! Puh-leeze. Robert Stone, the director of Pandora's Promise, points out that natural gas is replacing coal in the U.S.  Solar is not replacing coal.

For some reason, the Sierra Club talks about solar, not natural gas. (snark alert)

Gee, in the old days, (2007-2010), the Sierra Club quietly accepted  $26 million dollars from Chesapeake Energy, a natural gas producer. In those days,  the Sierra Club was not so reluctant to expound on the virtues of natural gas.




Available in your living room!

Watch Pandora's Promise!  Watch it tonight!


Personal Note:

I saw Pandora's Promise at Dartmouth several months ago. Robert Stone presented the movie at key universities.  It's a wonderful documentary, and Robert Stone carefully checked everything for accuracy. He had layers of review of the facts presented in the movie. Of course, this doesn't keep nuclear opponents from calling him a liar.  Sigh. But what do you expect....

Also, watch out for the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy being applied to this movie. As in "no true environmentalist..." etc.

Vermont a more "dazzling" nuclear power producer than a solar producer: Guest post by Guy Page

Vermont is a more "dazzling" nuclear power producer than a solar producer
By Guy Page

Vermont produces about one nuclear kilowatt per capita, compared to 34 watts solar

The Dazzling Solar Story

Rooftop Solar  Middlebury College VT

According to a new study by Environment America, Vermont is now a member of the “Dazzling Dozen,” the 12 states with the highest per-capita use of solar power. The Vermont Public Interest Research Group July 23 used the study to call for even more subsidized PV power generation. News about the study, including the Vermont Energy Partnership’s perspective, may be seen in the July 24 Burlington Free Press.

The big, untold story is that Vermont produces more nuclear power as a percentage of overall production than any other state in the country.  In fact, as detailed below, we produce eight times as much nuclear power as we do all non-hydro renewables, including solar power. In order to reduce carbon emissions and to have reliable, cost competitive power it will be important to keep and expand nuclear power while we also expand the use of renewables like solar. This is not only the view of the Vermont Energy Partnership; it is the view of U.S. Energy Secretary Dr. Ernest Moniz and President Obama.

Now-- the calculations

According to the U.S. Census, Vermont’s 2012 population is 626,000.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, nuclear power accounted for about three-fourths of the electricity generated within Vermont in 2011, a higher share than any other State.

Electrical output is best measured in megawatt-hours (MWh). According to the current US EIA state energy profile, Vermont produces a total of 516,000 MWh; of this, 356,000 MWh (69%) is nuclear power, all of it from Vermont Yankee, of course. By comparison, all non-hydro renewable generation together totals 42,000 MWh (8%), most of it wind.

Therefore, using MWh as a yardstick: 0.56 MWh (568,690 watt/hours) per Vermonter from Vermont Yankee alone; from all non-hydro renewables combined, .07 (67,092 watt/hours) per Vermonter.

Rather than using MWh as yardstick, however, the solar study you cite uses capacity figures. Vermont Yankee has a rated capacity of 620 megawatts. That is 620,000,000 watts. Vermont Yankee therefore has a per capita capacity of about 1000 watts – roughly a kilowatt, or about 29 times the 34 watt per capita capacity of Vermont solar power cited in the study. It is important to note that in Vermont, solar power operates at about 10-15% capacity, while most nuclear power plants are 24/7/365 “base load” plants operating at about 90% capacity.

Comparing Power Sources

1000 watts per capita for Vermont Yankee compared to 34 watts for solar power. .56 MWh per capita for Vermont Yankee, compared to .07 MWh for all non-hydro renewables – that is a truly “dazzling” comparison. It is fair to note, however, that solar and nuclear power share enviable similarities. Both are considered “carbon-free” by the U.S. EIA. Numerous studies show that their “lifecycle” carbon dioxide output per kilowatt is virtually identical. Another positive similarity: both can be produced in Vermont, thus reaping benefits of jobs and state revenue.

The Partnership evaluates every potential power source through the prism of "safe, clean, affordable, reliable." Solar admirably fits the first two criteria. As to reliability: it can help the grid as a hot summer day power "peak" provider, although I'm not sold that this benefit justifies the expense. But affordable in its current, fixed-price, "if you can make it the utilities have to buy it" standard-offer form? No.

Solar in Context

Incentives are justified by the likely economic and environmental benefit. Therefore incentives for solar hot water heaters, which "replace" oil or electric powered units at a relatively low cost, would seem to make sense. However, Vermont must do better than promulgate as "energy policy" the practice of forcing ratepayers to pay guaranteed high rates for an increasing number of 2.2 MW, 10 year solar power contracts. Standard offer supporters say the price of solar power production will eventually fall. Vermont would do better to wait, or at best move cautiously, until this hope becomes a reality. If the goal is to be carbon-free, accessing more existing, low-carbon base load power sources (notably nuclear and hydro) would be a suitable policy goal.  

In Germany, Spain, and even in the Northeast Kingdom, Vermont town of Hardwick, ratepayers are complaining that they are being forced to subsidize the guaranteed high rates of solar power production. When the government gets into the business of picking energy production winners and losers, even for the best of reasons, affordability all too often becomes the first loser.

And finally, solar power boosters have no sound answer to the problem of intermittency. The modern-day power grid can't sustain more than 20% (give or take) intermittent power without risk of blackout, brownout, fires and damage. Even now, Green Mountain Power, Vermont’s largest utility, is unable to sell all of its Lowell Wind power due to "curtailment" by ISO-New England. The planned fix - a synchronous condenser - is likely to improve, but not completely solve, this vexing problem. The technology for intermittent into baseload just isn't "there" yet, but we are acting as if it is, or soon will be. This is not prudent.

Guy Page

In short, solar power has its place, and that place may grow more prominent in the future. But current state policy underestimates the inherent economic and transmission shortcomings of solar power.

-------
This guest post is written by Guy Page, Communications director of Vermont Energy Partnership (VTEP) . Page is a frequent guest blogger on this blog. His most recent post announced a new VTEP report: Review of the Vermont Energy Plan: VTEP Review.

The 90% Solution: What 90% Renewables Would Look Like in Vermont

What going to 90% renewable energy would do to Vermont’s landscape

In 2011, the Vermont Department of Public Service published a Comprehensive Energy Plan (CEP) for Vermont’s future. The CEP states that Vermont will get 90% of all its energy, including the energy we use to drive our cars and heat our homes, from renewables by 2050.  There’s another section titled “25 by 25”, meaning that Vermont should get 25% of its energy from renewables by 2025.  There are no concrete directions or roadmaps for accomplishing either of these goals.

In a hearing before the newly formed Energy Siting Board, one woman stated that the CEP was a collection of slogans, not a plan.  She was correct. Nevertheless, it does represent the goals Montpelier has made for our state, they are acting on it, and we have to take it seriously. I am attempting to see how we could possibly meet these goals, and to answer the question what does moving to 90% renewable energy – or trying to – really mean? In particular, what impact would it have on our natural environment and signature Vermont landscape?

Here’s the reality: If we are going to build enough renewables to generate 90% of our energy needs, we will have to devote much of our state land resources to the cause of energy production.

Renault ZE  electric car

Consider that to “get away from fossil fuels” we will have to convert to mostly electric vehicles and electric heat-pump heated homes. How much more electricity will we need?  Right now, Vermont uses 6000 GWh of electricity per year.  For the “renewable” future, my preliminary estimate is that we we will need at least three times this much, or 18,000 GWh. In an op-ed in the Valley News, Charles McKenna, a Sierra Club member and retired engineer, estimated Vermont would require 15,000 GWh. (He was making the case for building renewables quickly.) In short we’re looking at a lot more electricity generation. What are the renewable options for obtaining this power?

Let’s take wind turbines. Most people are immediately struck by how big the things are. A 3 MW wind turbine has blades that sweep the entire area of a football field.  The Vestas at Kingdom Community Wind (Lowell Mountain) have blades that sweep 112 meters  (367 feet). Why so big?  Because wind is not energy-dense.  Think about it: a windy day can blow some trash around, but the wind usually can’t lift even a tiny dog and blow it around.  If you want to make electricity with wind — enough electricity to make it worth the trouble to put in a transmission line — you have to capture a lot of wind. So, you build turbines that sweep more than the area of a football field.

Solar and Wind at Lempster NH

To make 18,000 GWh of electricity, my rough estimate (I’ll have more detailed numbers ready for publication later this spring) is that Vermont would need to build 140 wind farms with the approximate output of Lowell Mountain’s 21-turbine facility. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory web site and other comparisons, 21 turbines of this size would usually cover 5 miles of ridgeline.  These 140 wind farms would use 2,240 industrial turbines over 700 miles of ridgeline. Lowell claims to use only 3 miles of ridge line: in this case, ”only” 420 miles of ridgeline would be required for the turbines. However, not all ridges have wind as good as Lowell, so more turbines would probably be needed. Keep in mind, the entire state of Vermont is 158 miles long and 90 miles across at its widest.

If we do move to a 90% renewable energy portfolio, much of Vermont’s high country would need to be sacrificed to meet the CEP’s goals. Still, that wouldn’t cover the electricity we would need, because sometimes the wind doesn’t blow.

Logs at Springfield NH
biomass plant

What about solar? A 2.2 MW solar facility was recently installed in White River Junction. An area of 15 acres was cleared for this facility. Do to our northern locations and frequent cloud cover, this can be expected to generate only 2,755 MWh or 2.8 GWh per year. Making 18,000 GWh per year with solar would require 6,700 such facilities or 100,000 acres of solar installations. They would cover an area approximately one-fourth the size of the Green Mountain Forest. And, of course, they would not provide any power when the sun isn’t shining.

Biomass? It is difficult to calculate the wood required by biomass plants. Using information from the McNeil and Ryegate biomass plants gives different results from calculations based on wood heat content and power plant efficiencies. Basically, making 18,000 GWh with wood biomass will require between 8 and 14 million cords per year. In contrast, the current wood harvest from Vermont is about 1 million cords per year.

At the Springfield plant

How much forestland does, say, 12 million cords represent?  Estimates of a sustainable wood harvest vary from 0.5 to 2 cords per year per acre. Assuming one cord per acre, we would need 12 million acres to be devoted to wood for the biomass power plants. The total area of the state of Vermont is 5.9 million acres, of which 4.6 million is forested.

Any (or any combination) of the above mentioned options necessary to meet a 90% renewable policy would have a tremendous impact on the look and feel of Vermont for generations to come. Tourism plays a very important role in the economy of this state, and a pristine and rural landscape is an important part of the Vermont brand. We really have to decide if “90%” is worth its tremendous cost to our environment. (And to our pocketbooks. Electricity made from renewables costs two to ten times as much as standard “grid” electricity. We can expect Vermont’s electricity prices to double or triple, if the CEP is actually put into effect.)

People who are against large-scale renewable energy development are often ridiculed as NIMBYs.  However, they may simply be aware that achieving renewable-energy goals will have huge effects on Vermont’s landscape and ecosystem, and they don’t want that to happen.  In other words, people opposed to renewable developments are often true environmentalists. It is time to reject the impossible goals of the CEP, and implement only the renewables that are reasonable and cost-effective for the citizens of our state.

-------

This is a preliminary version of the Vermont Land Use report that George and I are writing for the Ethan Allen Institute.  This post first appeared on the Ethan Allen Institute site.

As Germany goes, so goes Vermont? Guest post by Guy Page

Guy Page

As Germany goes, so goes Vermont?

Parallels in renewable energy policy and outcomes

By Guy Page

“As Maine goes, so goes the nation,” went the political truism between 1834 and 1932, when the Pine Tree State picked the winner in almost every presidential election. When only staunch Republican (!) Vermont joined Maine in selecting Republican Alf Landon in 1936, winner Franklin D. Roosevelt’s campaign manager James Farley famously if somewhat predictably quipped: “As Maine goes, so goes Vermont.”

Eighty years later Vermont is following another trendsetter:  Germany, the Western world’s undisputed leader of government-subsidized renewable power. Visitors to Germany note that solar panels cover the south face of seemingly every village church, school and home. Germany is home to a well-funded, highly popular “feed-in tariff” (FIT) that has encouraged almost broadbased power production. Of the 40 GW of installed solar power worldwide at the end 2010, almost half – 17.4 GW – was located in Germany. In just two years Germany’s share jumped to about 30 GW, according to the Feb. 2013 Washington Post.

German Inspiration

The German program was an inspiration to the crafters of Vermont’s May, 2009 feed-in tariff law, the energy-generation lynchpin of the state’s plan to use 90% renewables by 2050. Then Senate Pro-Tem (and now Governor) Peter Shumlin was particularly enthusiastic. In March, 2010 he told Fox News that if overcast Germany can get 30% of its electricity from solar power, so can America. He said this just days after leading the Vermont Senate in its “no” vote on Vermont Yankee. (When Fox reporter Stuart Varney pointed out that Germany gets just one percent of its power from solar, Shumlin conceded the error but has never retreated from his central point: Vermont, like Germany, can become a leader in the new renewable power energy economy, resulting in new jobs, clean air, and energy independence.)

Like its European forebearer, Vermont’s FIT solar power program also contributes about one percent to the state’s total power portfolio – actually, about one-third of one percent. The state’s SPEED website lists 13 projects (see “project summary” page) as “online and generating,” producing about 18,000 MWh of Vermont’s total load of about 6,000,000 MWh. (The FIT program for ALL forms of generation comes in at 53,000 MWh, or just under the one percent mark.)

German FIT solar power costs about 32 cents American per kilowatt-hour. Likewise in Vermont: FIT solar power is down from 30 cents to 25.7, about five times the average market rate. And while market power rates fluctuate – for better or worse - the Vermont FIT solar power rate, once set, is fixed in contractual stone over the course of the 10 year contract.

Nuclear and Fossil

As in Germany, Vermont opponents of nuclear power were empowered by a nuclear “incident” that helped them reverse government support for nuclear power. The Vermont Senate’s 2010 vote was held amid a powerful public response to reports of a tritium leak at Vermont Yankee. In May 2011, in the wake of Fukushima, the German government announced plans to close many nuclear plants. Although Germany followed Vermont chronologically, the decisions-making process was similar: the politically astute realized that a sense of crisis had moved matters to a tipping point.

The pro-renewables, anti-nuclear policy has had an unexpected effect in both locales: they are more reliant on fossil fuels. Germany has been an acknowledged leader among the “green” nations of Europe. In 2011, Vermont had the nation’s smallest carbon footprint for power generation, thanks largely to its reliance on hydro and Vermont Yankee.

A Step Backwards for the Carbon Footprint

Lignite or "Brown Coal"

In carbon terms, both have taken a step backwards. According to a February 27 2013 Bloomberg News report, Germany plans to build 6000 new megawatts of coal-fired power generation, a move which will significantly increase their overall carbon footprint. The pragmatic Germans realize they need plentiful, domestic, baseload power capacity to support Europe’s strongest manufacturing economy. Deprived of nuclear power, the German government is turning – back – to coal.

In Vermont, something similar has happened. Vermont Yankee’s contract providing about a third of the state’s electricity expired in March, 2012. Vermont’s reliance on New England grid power jumped about one million megawatt-hours in 2012 over 2011, according to “Vermont Electricity At A Glance,” study I conducted for the Vermont Energy Partnership. That figure equals one-sixth of Vermont’s total electrical load. About three-quarters of the grid’s power is derived from fossil fuels, mostly natural gas.

Concerns about the technical Achilles Heel of intermittent power - grid instability - are present in both Vermont and Germany. The August, 2012 Spiegel Online reported that large German manufacturers have experienced expensive power interruptions related to the transition to renewable power. In Vermont, the New England transmission grid operators have “curtailed” its purchases of power from the Lowell Mountain wind turbine development due to intermittency, resulting in a million dollars of lost income this winter, according to the general manager of one Vermont utility quoted in the April 5, 2013 Vermont Digger. The project’s owner is installing a synchronous condenser - $10 million pricetag – that it hopes will solve the problem.

Looking Forward

It is only fair to point out that in neither Vermont nor Germany has the final chapter been written. Perhaps solar power will prove to be greener, in both cash and carbon, in the long run.  Someday, a bright engineer may solve the problem of “translating” intermittent power into a traditional power grid. No doubt renewable power is delivering many positive benefits right now, including energy diversity, property tax income, and strong growth in solar-related employment. Solar power’s cost of production has decreased somewhat in recent years, in part due to fierce competition from China’s solar panel producers. Nevertheless, it’s a safe bet that when the avid backers of solar power in Vermont and Germany celebrated the passage of their FIT laws, few of them were anticipating that the immediate future would have more carbon and serious concerns about power cost and reliability.

-------

Guy Page is a frequent guest blogger at Yes Vermont Yankee. His most recent blog post described his report on Vermont's transition to renewable energy. 

Nuclear Makes a Lot of Electricity. Controversial Renewables Make Very Little.

Where Does Electricity Come From? 

Nuclear:

Vermont Yankee went back on-line after refueling.  The outage lasted 26 days and included replacing a pump motor and transformer, as well as other maintenance.

Power produced: Vermont Yankee is 620 MW and operates over 90% of the time.   At a 90% capacity factor (actually it is higher) this would be about 560 MWyears of energy. (620 MW multiplied by 0.9 capacity factor)

Wind:

Opponents of big wind are pretty much stymied by the permitting process in Vermont.  The Public Service Board and the Siting Commission do not have to pay any attention to local planning.

However, two enterprising Vermont senators from the town of Windham are trying to get around the fact that the towns can be ignored in wind siting decisions. The town plan for Windham bans industrial wind, and these senators have sponsored a bill in the legislature which says that wind turbines cannot be built in the town of Windham.

In my opinion, there is no chance that this bill will pass. Still,  the senators will be able to tell their constituents: "I sure tried to stop big wind around here."

Power produced: The controversial Kingdom Community Wind (Lowell Mountain) project is 21 turbines, totaling 63 MW and can be expected to operate (capacity factor) less than 30% of the time.  Lowell is the largest wind installation in Vermont and can be expected to produce less than 21 MWyears of energy. (63 MW multiplied by 0.3 capacity factor)

Biomass:

There's a biomass plant being planned for Springfield, Vermont. It is running into a fair amount of opposition.  The VPR article by Susan Keese is headlined:  Sustainability of Springfield Biomass Plant in Question.  Meanwhile, Susan Smallheer reported in the Rutland Herald that the state is critical of wood-fired project's forestry plan.

A leading state forester, Steven Sinclair, recommended that the harvest plan should include that about third of the slash be left on the land for the health of the forest.  His office also removed the word "renewable" from their website when describing wood-fired projects.  For wood-fired projects, Sinclair said that “The science on both renewableness and carbon-neutrality is in question.”

Power produced: The Springfield biomass plant would be 35 MW.  Biomass plants capacity factors are variable, but on the average they have lower capacity factors than coal.  A recent National Renewable Energy Laboratory chart shows biomass with an average capacity factor of 70%. Therefore, the Springfield plant could  be expected to produce about 25 MWyears of energy. (35 MW multiplied by 0.7 capacity factor)

Solar:

Rutland Vermont is going to be a solar city.  Green Mountain power plans to "give Rutland the highest solar capacity per capita of any city in New England."  This quote is from the April 9, Green Mountain Power announcement of a Request for Proposals for a solar installation in Rutland.

Montpelier is also planning to install solar energy: Gayle Hanson of the Rutland Herald wrote about this in Capital City eyes going solar. In that article, the chairman of Montpelier's energy committee was quoted as follows: “The city gets a predictable future energy cost, and the bill for the city will be well below the cost from the utilities, so the more we have the more we save.”

Electricity from solar tends to be expensive electricity, but with net-metering (the power company buys electricity from solar arrays at a high price, but sells back-up electricity to the array owner at a lower price), a solar installation can save money for its owner.  This news release from All Earth Renewables describes these zero-cost solar programs.

Power Produced: Rutland will start with a 150 KW solar farm. Montpelier is looking at 150 to 500 KW solar arrays.   Capacity factor for sun in this area is about 18%, that is, average of 4.3 equivalent  sun hours per day.  Energy produced for the 150 KW installations would around 0.027 MWyears. (0.15MW multiplied by 0.18 capacity factor)