State of Vermont Sues in Favor of Federal Pre-Emptive Regulations

Wood Boiler
from University of New Hampshire site on heating with wood

Please Regulate Woodburning at the National Level!

Vermont has joined a group of seven states that are suing the federal Environmental Protection Agency.  The states are attempting to force the EPA to regulate wood boilers.  For those of you who don't live in rural areas, here's how a New York State website describes wood boilers:

(Outdoor Wood Boilers) OWBs....are fuel burning devices (1) designed to burn wood or other fuels; (2) that the manufacturer specifies for outdoor installation or installation in structures not normally occupied by humans; and (3) that are used to heat building space and/or water through the distribution, typically through pipes, of a gas or liquid (e.g., water or water/antifreeze mixture) heated in the device. A typical unit looks like a small metal storage shed with a stack. OWBs can also be used to heat swimming pools, greenhouses, milk rooms, etc.

As the Wall Street Journal notes in its article about the lawsuit:

EPA data says emissions from wood-burning devices account for 13 percent of all soot pollution in the nation.  

As the University of New Hampshire cooperative extension website states:

The "classic" outdoor wood boilers that have been on the market for years have raised public health and environmental concerns. Fuel frequently burns incompletely, resulting in heavy smoke and high emissions.

The problem is compounded by the fact that the stacks on these devices are often shorter than surrounding structures and do not disperse smoke adequately, concentrating it near the ground.

The illustration above is from the New Hampshire website.

State's Rights

I would guess that half the posts on this blog concern Vermont attempting to regulate nuclear safety, and fighting the idea that nuclear safety is regulated at the federal level.  Okay.  Acknowledged.  "State's Rights" are important to Vermont.

Clearly, Vermont thinks it has the expertise to regulate nuclear energy, but it also seems to think that the federal government had better step in and regulate the far more complex situation of wood boilers.  States can't be expected to have their own regulations about such things.

Well, actually....wrong.

Vermont Level of Responsibility?

Vermont actually has a half-hearted attempt to regulate wood boilers.  There's a law (not enforced, apparently) outlawing old wood boilers within 200 feet of a residence or healthcare facility.  There's also some money to help people put in new wood boilers. It is first-come first-serve at obtaining the money.

As the Vermont Air Pollution Control Division (APCD)  describes the program:

 “One way you can look at this is as a friendly-neighbor program,” said Dick Valentinetti of the APCD.

Other States Take More Responsibility

Other states have taken stronger measures.

Washington State has outlawed wood boilers.  From the Washington State FAQ

Are any outdoor wood-fired hydronic heaters legal in Washington?
Not at this time.

New Hampshire has state-level regulations controlling wood boilers. These regulations include stack height, setbacks, and fuel use.

Maryland says it is illegal to own and operate this type of equipment in Maryland. However, in fact, Maryland only responds to complaints about such boilers.

If a unit is causing a big problem, we can issue an order to shut it down.

In Fairness to Vermont

Bruegel illustration of cat-belling

It's hard to regulate wood boilers.  Some of them are used responsibly, some of them pollute entire valleys in the winter. (I know.  I've driven through such valleys.)

Maybe it is politically expedient to let Uncle Sam take the heat on this one.  As the WSJ article explains about New York State:

New York state adopted regulations in April 2011 to require all new wood-fired boilers sold in the state to burn at least 90 percent cleaner than older models. A plan to extend the rules to existing boilers was shelved after a public outcry, particularly in rural areas of northern New York where numerous farms and homes that rely on the heaters would be forced to pay thousands of dollars to replace them.

Clearly, the people in Montpelier want the Federal Government to bell the cat about wood boilers.  If the federal government acts:

• The right hand of the people in Montpelier can encourage the use of wood boilers to meet Vermont's renewable energy plan
• Montpelier's left hand can sue to restrict the use of wood boilers at the federal level.  

This could work, I guess.

In Fairness to Vermont Yankee

Perhaps we need a federal Wood Boiler Act, like the Atomic Energy Act. This new act would move wood boiler regulation to the federal level because it is so complicated. Stack height!  Distance from houses! Particulate measurements!  Far too complicated for a state to regulate.

Once the Federal Wood Boiler Act was passed, we could expect the Vermont legislature to challenge the federal jurisdiction.

At that point, our legislature might find the political courage to regulate wood boilers, instead of merely filing lawsuits against the federal government.

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.

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)

Transitioning to Renewable Power: What It Might Look Like

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

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

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

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

The Five Per Cent Non-Solution

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

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

How Much Do We Need?

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

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

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

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

-----------

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

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

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

Acid and Air, the Environmental Effects of Non-Nuclear Electricity: Guest Post by Stuart Endsley

Stuart Endsley

My name is Stuart Endsley and I am in favor of granting a permit to Vermont Yankee. Over the past 32 years, I have worked in many types of power generation facilities -- both nuclear and non-nuclear.

I don’t need to speak of the economic benefit of Vermont Yankee since many business leaders have already done so. Nor do I need to speak about the great benefit local charities receive, you’ve heard from them as well. You, as board members, are smart individuals, and I’m certain you recognize the public good Vermont Yankee provides in regard to those issues.

Instead, I would like to speak of my personal experiences working at different types of power generation facilities -- the facilities that would most likely replace much of the energy generated by Vermont Yankee should it close.

I would like to tell you about a fossil plant I worked in last February where after just six weeks the paint on my car was damaged by the acid rain coming from the stack. The pollution that damaged my car does not know state borders and simply goes wherever the wind blows, including Vermont.  This is certainly NOT in the public’s good.

I would also like to mention a Biomass plant, a so-called “Green Plant,” that I worked in a few years back.  After just two shifts, the caustic chemicals used in the scrubbers ate up the threads in the soles of my shoes causing the soles to fall off. These chemicals were found on the walkways and catwalks and when it rained they simply went down the street and ultimately into the ground water which also doesn’t recognize state borders.  This is certainly NOT in the public’s good.

I’ve worked at wind turbine projects in Iowa, Minnesota, Oklahoma, California, and Texas. At each of these sites I found dead birds that had been killed by the turbines. These birds did not know state borders either and some of them may have come from Vermont. Again, this hidden side effect of wind energy is certainly NOT in the public’s good.

And what about the coal plant in southern Nevada with tens of acres of fly ash containing arsenic and God knows what other carcinogens?  All in public view where the winds were free to carry it where they pleased. Most certainly NOT in the public’s good.

So I close my testimony by asking each of you to consider the true environmental impact of these alternative sources of energy.  I encourage you to personally visit some of these plants to see first-hand, as I have, the impact of these plants in regards to the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the wildlife we enjoy.

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

Stuart Endsley works at Vermont Yankee.  He gave this statement at the Public Service Board's November 19 interactive TV hearing on Vermont Yankee's Certificate of Public Good.  He was kind enough to send me a copy of his testimony.

The Measured Move to Renewables: Valley News Opinion

I wrote this editorial last month for my local paper.  I am happy to share an edited version on my blog.

The Measured Move to Renewables in Vermont

By Meredith Angwin

Valley News Editorial, May 20, 2012

Neil Daniels and Chuck Theall 
Springfield Biomass Plant

Not A Renewable Portfolio Standard 

Just before adjourning, the Vermont Legislature passed a heavily-debated renewable portfolio standards bill. They passed it at the last minute, only after stripping out the renewable portfolio standards component. Is this good news or bad news?  Should Vermont residents worry that the stripped bill implies bad things for the future of Vermont renewables?

I don’t think it’s a cause for worry. Actually, I think the lawmakers have deftly crafted a bill that promotes green energy while simultaneously moderating the increased cost of purchasing renewable energy.

The Springfield Biomass Plant


The concept of a “renewable portfolio” might best be illustrated by examining the finances of the biomass plant in Springfield, NH-- an operation familiar to many Upper Valley residents who see its tall stack from Interstate 89 in Georges Mills. The plant makes 19 megawatts of electricity by burning trees and wood chips. It has the latest pollution- control equipment, including electrostatic precipitators to catch the fly-ash and selective catalytic reduction to control nitrogen oxides. The plant sells fly-ash as a soil amendment and sells tree-bark to landscapers.

It’s a good thing the Springfield plant sells all these byproducts, because it sells its electricity for about one cent per kilowatt-hour more than it pays for the wood fuel to produce it. That margin doesn’t sound like enough money to keep the plant staffed 24/7, buy anhydrous ammonia for the nitrogen oxide control and so forth. (Details of the pricing are proprietary, of course.) When I visited the plant in the fall, the plant manager said that the plant would probably not be profitable, except that it also sells RECs.

RECs

Log Piles at the Springfield Plant

RECs are Renewable Energy Certificates. A state with a Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) requires RECs. Programs vary from state to state, but basically, when a renewable energy provider places a kWh of power onto the grid, it also generates a REC for one kWh. In states with an RPS,  the utilities must buy a prescribed portion of their power from renewable sources. How do the utilities prove they have purchased the right amount of renewables? They use RECs to prove their purchases to their regulators.

However, the regulations have another twist. A power plant can sell RECs separately from selling the power. So a renewable-energy plant can sell power to the grid, and separately sell RECs to a utility that needs to present them to its regulators. This is what the Springfield plant does. As a matter of fact, there’s an interstate auction site for RECs.

No RECs Needed in Vermont

Vermont does not have an RPS, but it does have other incentives for renewables. The two major incentives are the “standard offer” program for small scale  renewable producers, and the SPEED program for bigger producers.  Both these programs require utilities to buy renewable power, but neither program requires RECs. Vermont renewable suppliers can sell their RECs to out-of-state utilities. Therefore, Vermont renewable providers can add to their profits with out-of-state money.

When the long-debated Vermont RPS bill had the portfolio standard stripped from it, it meant that Vermont utilities were still not required to buy RECs.  The bill did not change the SPEED program for large generation sources. It did expand the standard offer program for small-scale sources. Instead of requiring Vermont utilities to buy up to 50 MW of small-scale renewables, they are now required to buy up to 127 MW.

Mixed Feelings Toward RECs

Not everyone was happy with the final bill the legislature passed. Some environmentalists complained that allowing Vermont utilities to sell RECs discourages the development of renewable projects in other states.  Other states can burn fossil fuels while meeting their own RPS goals by purchasing RECs from Vermont.  These environmentalists call Vermont’s renewables program “brown power” ¬- a step down from “green power.”

 Meanwhile, utility managers take a more pragmatic view. David Hallquist, CEO of Vermont Electric Co-operative, says that if Vermont had had REC requirements, he might have used RECs instead of buying renewables directly: this choice would have been more cost-effective for his utility. As he wrote: “Utilities will simply buy power from gas-fired sources and RECs from other states… (With RECs available, we would not have been likely) to support the Kingdom Community Wind project.”

Hallquist implicitly acknowledged that renewables are more costly than conventional power. Vermont’s current programs increase consumer power costs, and a Renewable Portfolio Standard would add to that cost.  Power runs 4 to 6 cents per kWh(wholesale) on the grid. The Vermont standard offer program requires utilities to pay 9 cents to 27 cents per kWh for renewables, according to the charts on the program website.

Vesta Wind Turbine

Will People Pay for Renewables?

Are people willing to pay more for renewables? The evidence is mixed. Higher electricity costs have negative effects on Vermont businesses. Meanwhile, many people say they are willing to pay more for renewable power, but few actually choose to pay more. Only 2 percent of CVPS customers - 3,300 customers out of 160,000 - have chosen to purchase more expensive, renewable “Cow Power”--power produced by methane from waste digesters on dairy farms.

Considering the costs and issues with renewable development, Vermont legislators ended up passing a good bill. It expands the standard offer for small producers, which will definitely cost money, but it isn’t an RPS law. Therefore, some Vermont renewable costs can be met by out-of-state money from selling RECs.  Rep. Margaret Cheney, D-Norwich and vice chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy, summed up the change in the bill: “The major concerns were the cost impact of a renewable portfolio standard.”

Cost is an important concern, and the Legislature deserves credit for addressing it. Meanwhile, the RPS laws of other states will help underwrite the costs of renewables in Vermont.

-----------

More about the Springfield Power Plant: Photo of Chuck Theall (plant manager) and Neil Daniels (local engineer) at the Springfield power plant.  My visit was part of an ILEAD class that toured seven local power plants.  Robert Hargraves and I led the class.  My blog posts about the Springfield visit are here and here.  Hargraves blog post about it is here. For more information on the course, see Energy Safari.

Alan Panebaker articles about RPS energy bill, in Vermont Digger.

• Energy Bill Gets Last Minute Overhaul
• Final Energy Bill Minus RPS

David Hallquist Op-Ed in Vermont Digger

Note: Vermont Digger site seems to be down now.  I hope these links work later...

Standard Offer Rates in Vermont

Percentage paying for cow power from two sources:  Cow Power Seeks New Customers (3,300 customers) January 2012, and CVPS at a glance (160,000 customers)

Biomass In Vermont: It Won't Replace Vermont Yankee

Biomass In Vermont's Future

On September 14, The Department of Public Service (DPS) released a 600 page Comprehensive Energy Plan (CEP) for Vermont. The plan was long, vague, and internally inconsistent.

Instead of tacking the whole thing, environmentalist Chris Matera studied a defined chunk: the plan's recommendations for increased use of biomass for electricity production. Matera wrote an opinion for the Bennington Banner titled Vermont's Plan Misses the Forest. He describes how burning wood for electricity causes air pollution, generates carbon dioxide, and causes deforestation. He asks: So how did increased cutting and burning of forests (called "deforestation" and "pollution" when it occurs in other countries) get re-branded as "green" energy..?."

The CEP sections on woody biomass were confusing. On some pages, the CEP seems to expect only about a 30% increase in electricity from woody biomass in the near future. On nearby pages, the CEP describes "25 x'25", a plan to produce 25% of Vermont's energy by biomass fuels by 2025.

Ignoring the Working Group

Two years ago, the state legislature convened a biomass working group. The group is supposed to report its results on biomass utilization to the legislature in 2012. It is typical of this administration that it is rushing to adopt the Comprehensive Energy Plan before receiving that report.

Is There Enough Biomass, Anyway?

Instead of trying to decipher the CEP statements on biomass, let's look at real examples of biomass plants, and what it would take to expand this type of electricity production in Vermont.

The Springfield Power LLC biomass plant in Springfield New Hampshire is visible to people who drive south on Interstate 89. It is located at exit 12A, not far from New London. The plant makes 19 MW of power, and runs most of the time, only shutting down for maintenance. It sells its power at about 5 cents per kWh, while paying around 4 cents per kWh for its wood. The Springfield plant is well-equipped with NOx and particulate control, and sells its fly ash as a garden amendment.

It also sells Renewable Energy Certificates, and therefore is profitable to run. I visited it with the Energy Safari class. Bob Hargraves wrote a very comprehensive blog post on our visit.

The Springfield plant burns 200,000 tons of wood to make 20 MW of electricity. This about 100,000 cords of wet wood (2 tons per cord).). Chuck Theall, the plant manager, says that the plant calls the grid operator daily, and promises to supply energy. The grid counts on his energy, and if the plant does not operate, it has to pay for replacement power.

Wood-burning plants are heat engines, which means they can be reliable baseload plants, like Springfield Power. The ability of a wood-burning plant to supply baseload power is in sharp contrast to solar and wind renewables, and makes expansion of wood-burning very attractive for an all-renewable energy plan.

How Much Forest Per Megawatt?

In terms of power production, the Springfield plant is tiny. Vermont Yankee makes 620 MW of power. It would require 31 Springfield Power plants to replace Vermont Yankee on the grid. How much forest would this require?

I did research on sustainable forest yields. I could not find answers in a book, so I asked local foresters: "What is the sustainable yield of firewood for an acre of Vermont forest?"

I learned that foresters hate to answer general questions about "Vermont forests" because "Every bit of forest is different." Eventually, I found an approximate consensus: One-half cord per acre is a sustainable yield for most of our forests. As a child, I learned the mantra that you could harvest a cord of wood each year from an acre of forest. Vermont foresters agree that that number was too high.

Half of the Green Mountain Forest for 20 MW

A quick calculation (100,000 cords per year, half a cord per acre) shows that the yield from 200,000 acres is required for a 20 MW plant. To give some context to this number, the entire Green Mountain National Forest is 400,000 acres, and the state of Vermont is 6,000,000 acres. It takes the equivalent of half the harvest of the Green Mountain Forest to make 20 MW of electricity. To make 31 times this amount of electricity, to replace 620 MW of Vermont Yankee with woody biomass power plants--this would mean the entire state would be devoted to raising wood to burn. Six million acres wouldn't even be quite enough.

Expanding our current wood-fired electricity production will be difficult, but not impossible. Replacing Vermont Yankee with wood-fired plants is impossible. Going "25% by 2025" for electricity through woody biomass is close to impossible, especially since power plants must compete with homes and schools for firewood.

The Bigger Picture in the Woods

In the long run, our forests are our joy. Our forests are our foliage season. Our forests eat carbon dioxide from the air, and even sustainable harvest will affect this to some extent. We can add some wood-fired electricity in Vermont, but not much. We cannot get one-fourth of our electricity from our forests. We need to be mindful of competing uses for our woodlands.

And so, we return at last what Matera said in his op-ed: So how did increased cutting and burning of forests (called "deforestation" and "pollution" when it occurs in other countries) get re-branded as "green" energy..?"

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

Picture of Chuck Theall of Springfield Power, and Neil Daniels, retired engineer, courtesy of Bob Hargraves, from his post on the ILEAD visit to the Springfield plant.

True North Reports published a more complete version of this article. I thank Rob Roper and True North Reports for the opportunity to reprint the article on my blog.

Picture at upper left is part of the wood pile: approximately two weeks worth of logs, and logs are approximately 1/3 of the wood used. The rest of the wood is delivered as chips.

This post also grew out of an earlier Yes VY post about the biomass plant, specifically from the comment section of that post.

Energy Safari Visits Woodchip Plant

On October 4, the Energy Safari class visited Springfield Power LLC, a wood-burning power plant in Springfield New Hampshire. The plant is very visible from Interstate 89, at Exit 12A, Georges Mills. It is rated for 19 MW, and usually makes that amount.

As usual, I recommend Bob Hargraves excellent blog post on the visit. His post contains videos of logs being fed into the chipper, chips on a conveyor belt to the silo, and a semi-truck load of chips being emptied into a chip pile, from which they will be loaded into the conveyor belt. (I include that video below.) The plant buys about one-third of its wood as logs and chips them on site. The other two-thirds of its fuel is purchased as chips.

They use trees that are not good for other uses, such as furniture or firewood.Most of the trees they use are small pines. This is the first powerplant I have every visited that smelled wonderful, like a Christmas tree or a pine forest. Nothing like having tons of pine chips around for a truly pleasant odor. The plant burns 200,000 tons of wood chips per year. Our host, Chuck Theall, was incredibly patient and completely knowledgeable. I include one of Bob's videos.

Okay, I admit it. I was very comfortable in this environment, because it was a "regular" power plant, and Theall is a man who was in the Nuclear Navy. Somehow, I expect power plants to be run by Nuclear Navy people. Shows something about me, I guess!

It's a Heat Engine

This wood chip plant is a heat engine, which means they have to keep fuel on hand. The picture below shows their current log pile, which is about two weeks supply of logs.

During mud season, there are weight limits posted on the local roads, and logging trucks have a hard time traveling. Theall builds up a six weeks supply of wood and chips in preparation for mud season.

We Keep Running

I found the fact that this plant keeps running very reassuring. The exact figures are proprietary, but Theall said the plant gets paid about 5 cents/kWh, but his fuel costs are about 4 cents/kWh. These are in the price range of power from other types of plants, unlike the 24 cents and 30 cents/kWh of the solar farm, for example. Theall said that the sale of RECs (Renewable Energy Certificates) was an important part of the plant's ability to be profitable. He also pointed out that all the plant's fuel expenses are paid out to local people. The money goes right into the local communities, to loggers, land-owners, and their families.

Every day, the plant tells ISO-NE (the grid operator) whether it is on-line or having a problem. (It is usually on-line, with one or two weeks off per year for inspection and repair.) After that call to ISO-NE, the plant contracts to supply a certain amount of power to the grid that day. If it can't supply that power, it has to pay ISO-NE for replacement power. I found this type of contract and requirement a change from the discussion of capacity factors (14% at solar, 35% at wind) in the other facilities.

Pollution Control and By-Products

The plant has excellent pollution control equipment for fly-ash and NOx.

Electrostatic precipitators catch the fly-ash: you can see the big ash-hopper below. The ash is sold as a soil amendment. It brings alkalinity and minerals to the soil. They also sell tree-bark to landscapers.

The plant burns hot (1600 F) enough to make some NOx. It controls NOx with a selective catalytic reduction control system with an ammonia feed. I could include a picture, but I think a picture of a tank of anhydrous ammonia is somewhat boring.

Lovely, but Not Enough

I was impressed by the plant, by the pollution control equipment, by professionalism of those who ran it, by the sweet smell of pine. Alas, I was more surprised than impressed by the turbine hall. It's a perfectly nice turbine, but it is only 19 MW, which looks tiny to people like me who are used to coal or nuclear plants. At twenty MW, it would take 31 plants like this to make as much power as Vermont Yankee.

Turbine below.

This is a serious, well-run plant that lives up to its committments to supply power. It is a benefit to its community and I am very glad I visited it. All in all, I got a very positive impression of biomass.

Krista Langlois of the Valley News wrote a front-page article about our trip in the Valley News October 5. The article is not on-line, but I will quote the final paragraphs:

While those in the ILEAD class are serious about getting reputable information in an industry in which misinformation abounds, one draw of the class is likely the field trips.

As Hartford resident Meredith Angwin summed it up: "I just like power plants."

It's true. I like power plants. I like electricity. I feel privileged to have spent so much of my lifetime in the electricity business, which is so important to human health and happiness.

All pictures are my own. Video from Robert Hargraves.

The Murky Road to Renewables and Geothermal in Vermont

The Biomass Plant

Last Saturday, Howard Shaffer and I went to the VECAN conference on energy savings and renewable energy. The first speaker was governor-elect Peter Shumlin. I admit, I was bored with his repetitive statements against Vermont Yankee. I especially think his "junker car" analogy is getting old. However, I was interested in what he would say about renewable energy in Vermont. I am in favor of renewable energy use (in reasonable amounts) and I am a member of my town's energy commission.

As I described in an earlier post, a biomass plant is proposed for southern Vermont. The plant would be located close enough to Vermont Yankee to be relevant for replacing a small part (30 MW) of Vermont Yankee's power (620 MW). The plant would also use a grown-in-Vermont renewable resource --wood. The protests against the plant have been fierce, but you might think Shumlin would love it. It's renewable. It's local. It's not nuclear.

Of course, Shumlin doesn't love it. At the VECAN meeting, Shumlin was asked about this plant and another proposed biomass plant. He answered that biomass is the "least attractive" renewable technology, and that he hoped the biomass plants underwent Act 250 review. Act 250 is Vermont's draconian environmental review process, so hoping for an Act 250 review has clear implications. Shumlin isn't supporting the biomass plants, and he hopes they don't get built.

What do I think about the Pownal biomass plant? I decided not to take a position on it because I have not studied it enough. To make up my mind, I would have to investigate the sources of the wood and the pollution control plans for the plant. In contrast, Shumlin knows his own mind on renewable matters, whether or not he actually knows the facts.

Geothermal Heat

However, there are renewables that Shumlin favors. Geothermal. Shumlin announced an upcoming conference on geothermal heating for Vermont. Heating with green energy! The earth's own energy! What could be better?

Geothermal heating sounds very natural, but it doesn't use the earth's energy in some natural, passive manner. Geothermal heating in Vermont is actually electric heating, using a ground-based heat pump. I am in favor of geothermal heat pumps, because they use electricity to replace oil. You can make electricity many ways, including low-carbon sources like nuclear power. Burning oil in your basement is simply...burning oil.

Most people in Vermont use oil and oil-derived products (propane) for heating. It gets cold up here, and Vermonters use a lot of oil in the winter. Some people use biomass for heating: wood stoves and pellet stoves. However, since larger buildings are almost all heated by oil, I would have to say that oil-based products are the main source of heat in Vermont in winter. Geothermal heating could replace some of this oil.

Research on Geothermal Heating Was Sponsored By the Electric Industry

Back home from the Conference, all the Commission members received a note from the head of Hartford Energy Commission, announcing the geothermal heating conference in January. I wrote a response: When I was at EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) improved heat pumps were a major research area, because improved heat pumps could compete with direct use of fossil fuels. Their presence would be a new market for electricity.

The EPRI heat pump research succeeded, and one of the results is this geothermal heating conference.

Part of my reason for writing this note was that there is too much good guys versus bad guys rhetoric in the energy business. Many of the people on my energy commission list will be upset to learn that one of Shumlin's favored "green" technologies was developed to provide a new market for electricity. But so what? I think people should open their eyes to the wonderful things electricity can do for us. Developing new uses for electricity can make our lives better and our energy use more efficient.

Environmental Implications

I use fuel oil for heating, like most people up here. I don't particularly enjoy having an oil tank in my basement. As you can see by this fact sheet about preventing problems from fuel oil tanks, replacing millions of basement oil tanks would prevent a lot of environmental problems. By using electricity, we can replace those tanks. We need abundant inexpensive electricity in order to be truly "green."

In other words, for geothermal heating in Vermont, we need Vermont Yankee. The nuclear plant has had negligible environmental effects, especially compared to home-based oil tanks that contaminate groundwater all over the country.

Unfortunately, the concept of using electricity to prevent pollution may be a more complicated view of green than some people are ready to accept.

Woodpile image and Water to Water Heat Pump image both from Wikimedia

30th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs

Asia: The New Frontier for Nuclear

Several nuclear energy blog posts this week explore the new builds in Asia. At ANS Nuclear Cafe, Dan Yurman reviews China's ambitious nuclear program. China is planning 40 GWe of nuclear by 2020. Will China be able to execute its ambitious plans? A target of 40 GWe by 2020 could involve at least 30 new reactors. However, the official target is almost 120 GWe. Yurman discusses China's targets, challenges and plans in his post. For example, China would have to become self-sufficient in reactor design.

Brian Wang at Next Big Future also looks toward China. In An Even Bigger Century of Nuclear Energy, Wang shows that China has been able to maintain Walmart type prices for its nuclear builds. In McKinsey Proposes a Green Revolution Development Plan for China, Wang reviews a McKinsey report from late 2009, and notes that China is moving faster on nuclear and green technologies than that report recommended. In a related post, Wang looks at the Chinese energy mix for now, 2015 and 2020. And finally...what is China planning to do with all this electricity? Here's one answer. In a post on amazing facts of China's high speed rail buildout, Wang points out that by the end of 2012, China may have more miles of high-speed rail than the rest of the world combined.

Looking at the costs in China, however, Charles Barton describes how molten salt reactors, built in the United States, could still be the most cost-effective way to produce nuclear power. As Barton explains, Keeping Up with China may mean leapfrogging current technology.

North America Moves Ahead

Current technology in North America is doing very well: David Bradish of NEI Nuclear Notes shares some statistics. Nuclear power electricity production in the United States is on track to break all previous yearly records. So far, 2007 was the record year for nuclear generation. At the end of October in 2007, nuclear had provided 669.5 bkWh. This year, nuclear provided 670.0 bkWh by the same date.

North of the border (that is, the border between the U. S. and Canada) the situation is decidedly mixed. In Idaho Samizdat, Dan Yurman describes how the Ontario provincial government plans to build two more nuclear plants at Darlington, and refurbish ten more reactors. However, the Ontario provincial government also wants to sell (privatize) Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL). This is the company that would build the reactor. As usual, Yurman gives insights into these murky waters.

North America Falls Behind

Steve Aplin of Canandian Energy Issues also casts some light into the murk. Ontario has a long-term energy plan that includes phasing out its coal plants. However, the plan includes replacing most of the coal plants by natural gas. Aplin explains why this is not a particularly good idea. He concludes by pointing out that the plan is a pdf document, no more. It's written in pixels, not stone. It can be changed.

Meanwhile, at Atomic Insights, Rod Adams brings a blast from the past: at year-old document on radiation from gas and production water in the Marcellus shale. Did anybody except Adams ever read this document? I hope so. Thousands of wells are going to be drilled, in thickly-settled farm county, and someone should be thinking about the effects.

Speaking of the countryside, in my Yes Vermont Yankee post, I temporarily stop describing protests against the nuclear plant in southern Vermont. Instead, I describe protests against the proposed biomass plant in southern Vermont. Just in case you thought renewables would make people happy.

Not exactly a blog post, but Cool Hand Nuke helps you nuclear-power your browser. You can bring nuclear news, views, and job openings to your browser with Cool-Hand Nuke's free widgets. (I think they are widgets. Maybe they are plug-ins. Anyhow, they are free and they are all about nuclear.)

The Carnival Calls

Come to the Carnival! It's always fun. It's never cold and windy. The comestibles are brain food, not cotton candy. Something to learn! Something to see! Always something new!

Protests Grow in Southern Vermont. About Biomass.

The Biomass Facility

Pownal Vermont is the proposed home of a 29 MW biomass plant and wood pellet facility. Like Vernon, home of Vermont Yankee, Pownal is in southern Vermont, close to the Massachusetts border. Pownal is in the western half of Vermont, near New York State, while Vernon is in the eastern half, near New Hampshire.

People in Pownal and neighboring Massachusetts are vigorously protesting the biomass plant. About eighteen protesters recently lined the road to the proposed plant (there's a great picture in that link). At meetings in local churches, groups against biomass have described many possible hazards, including:

• biomass plants used as incinerators
• biomass plants starting fires in neighboring areas
• particulate from biomass escaping the very best scrubbers, and lodging in people's lungs

A biomass opposition website contains extensive information about the hazards of biomass, along with specific ideas on how to fight this plant. Plant opponents also attack the safety record of the company proposing to build the plant.

If the company breaks ground for the plant before the end of the year, the developers may be eligible for $50 to $80 million in federal grants. Naturally, plant opponents are eager to slow them down. As Vermont Digger reports: Pownal resident Doreen Forney said she wants to see the process slowed. “At least be thorough with your investigation of this company,” she said. However, it is not just this company that is the problem. Vermont Digger reports that Rachel Smolker of Biofuel Watch Group states that “Big oil sees this (biomass) as a way out of their oil dilemma...There are a lot of powers at play here,””

Still, some local residents want the plant. Others feel that biomass money should be used for solar and wind power instead.

Thanksgiving

Why does this all sound so very familiar?

I give thanks that I don't plan to investigate the pros and cons of this biomass plant.

It is interesting to observe yet more excitement about power plants on the Vermont/Massachusetts border. That is why I decided to blog about this protest. But I'm not going any further with this.

For electric power production, I prefer heat engines based on nuclear fission. I'm going to leave it at that.

Woodpile image from Wikimedia