No Country for Old Nukes? Mike Twomey Guest post

Vermont Yankee

In a scene from Cormac McCarthy's novel, No Country for Old Men, a professional assassin taunts his rival (who is cornered, defenseless, and about to meet his maker) with the following query:

"If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?"

It is a profound question intended to raise doubts about the decisions we make, the principles we follow, and the assumptions that guide our behaviors.  A version of this concept is applicable to a wide range of situations:  If the road you traveled brought you to a negative outcome, was it the right road? (Where could you have made different or better decisions?)  Or, in the positive:  If the road you traveled brought you to a positive outcome, it was the right road. (Do not waste your time or energy second-guessing the seemingly unhelpful detours along the way.)

I work for one of the largest nuclear operators in the U.S. and my responsibilities over the last several years have included advocacy on behalf of the continued operation of nuclear plants in New York and New England.  Working with a large team, this effort has involved complex, technical presentations to state and federal agencies with jurisdiction over the related matters that affect the licenses under which the nuclear plants operate, as well as extensive stakeholder outreach to educate the public, the media, elected officials, and others about the important benefits of nuclear power, from an electric reliability perspective, from an economic perspective, and from an environmental perspective.

Over the last six or seven years, the wholesale market for electricity has dramatically changed due to persistent low natural gas prices.  In most "organized" markets (New York, New England, Mid-Atlantic, for example), the price for power typically follows the price for natural gas.  Therefore, as the price for natural gas has plunged, wholesale power prices have also plunged to historic lows.

While wholesale power prices have plunged, the cost to run a nuclear power plant has increased, for a variety of reasons.  You do not have to be a finance professional to conclude that increasing costs and decreasing revenues will eventually lead to unprofitability.  Faced with these grim economic prospects, in 2013, Entergy announced the retirement of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Vernon, VT.  Vermont Yankee delivered electricity to the New England electric grid for the last time on December 29, 2014, ending a more than 42-year run of providing clean, reliable energy, employing more than 600 nuclear professionals, and paying millions annually in state and local taxes.

Due to the same economic forces that led to Vermont Yankee's closure, Entergy also announced the retirement of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, MA in May 2019.  Pilgrim produces more than 80% of the carbon-free energy generated in Massachusetts.  In addition to inflicting the same type of economic harm in and around Plymouth that Vermont Yankee's retirement inflicted on southern Vermont, Pilgrim's retirement will make it very difficult for the Commonwealth to meet its legal obligation to reduce greenhouse gases.

During the last ten years, while we have been seeking federal (and, in some cases, state) approvals to continue to operate our existing nuclear plants, many federal and state officials have separately been pursuing efforts to reduce carbon emissions.  These efforts have included federal agency actions (most notably, the EPA's Clean Power Plan) and various state actions, including legislation, agency actions, and "encouragement" provided to utilities to take steps to reduce electric sector carbon emissions (e.g., the recent multi-state "clean energy" RFP issued by utilities in several New England states).

In general, these federal and state carbon reduction efforts have focused on providing significant subsidies and/or long term contracts to renewable energy sources, primarily wind and solar.  But, these carbon reduction efforts have not included any proposals to support the continued operation of existing nuclear facilities.  For example, the Clean Power Plan provides no incentives to states to maintain their existing nuclear plants.  And, the multi-state "clean energy" RFP issued by several New England utilities in 2015 excluded existing nuclear facilities from participating.  In short, carbon reduction advocates have tended to be single-minded in their objective: Increase the use of renewable energy.

According to data from ISO-New England, reliance on natural gas for electricity production in New England more than tripled from 2000 to 2015 (15% to 49%).  During that same period, contributions from hydro resources and renewable energy resources remained essentially flat (7% and 8-9%, respectively).  Nuclear also remained essentially flat (31% to 30%), with uprates and increased availability offset by Vermont Yankee's retirement.  The big declines have come in the use of oil-fired (22% down to 2%) and coal-fired (18% to 4%) generation.  And, from 2000 to 2014, New England saw steady reductions in CO2 emissions as natural gas-fired plants replaced oil- and coal-fired plants.

In 2015, however, Vermont Yankee's retirement increased New England's CO2 emissions by 5 percent, or more than two million metric tons.  The reason? Natural gas-fired generation replaced Vermont Yankee's output.  A similar outcome followed the retirement of the San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station in California, which resulted in meaningful increases in CO2 emissions.  Future nuclear plant retirements can be expected to produce the same results.  This means that we can expect increased CO2 emissions.

The takeaway for New England, therefore, is this:  The mix of federal and state actions (and inaction), combined with market forces, has led to (1) substantially increased reliance on natural gas-fired generation, (2) nuclear plant retirements followed by increased CO2 emissions, and (3) no meaningful increase in renewable energy's contribution to the grid. ISO-New England, the non-profit, independent entity responsible for maintaining the reliability of the region's electric grid, identified the following challenges in its most recent report:

• Inadequate natural gas pipeline infrastructure is at times limiting the availability of gas-fired resources or causing them to switch to oil, which is creating reliability concerns and price volatility, and contributing to air emission increases in winter.
• Substantial nongas generating capacity is retiring, limiting the options for reliable grid operation when natural gas infrastructure is constrained.
• The weather-dependent output from wind and solar resources and the increase in [distributed generation] adds complexity to how the ISO must operate the power system to maintain reliability.
• Expensive transmission infrastructure upgrades are needed to connect more wind and hydro resources.
• Efforts to meet state policy goals to inject more clean energy into the system through long-term contracts may undermine confidence in the markets and inhibit future investment in competitive power resources.

We are left to ponder the consequences of a single-minded focus on supporting renewable energy and a lack of support for the existing nuclear fleet.  Even if you disagree about the relative merits of carbon reduction efforts, it is inarguable that additional nuclear plant retirements will lead to increased CO2 emissions.  Moreover, the increased dependence on natural gas-fired resources reduces fuel diversity and exposes customers to potential price volatility.  An important additional fact to recognize is that, once a nuclear plant retires, there is no opportunity to bring that plant back into service (it is not technically impossible, but it is infeasible from a regulatory standpoint and an economic perspective).

If we are, through application of a "renewable energy is the only future" rule, moving toward an electric future of increased carbon emissions, less grid reliability, insufficient fuel diversity, and increased consumer prices, then stakeholders (customers, elected officials, businesses, etc.) will be entitled to ask:  If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?

There is another path to follow.  In New York, the Public Service Commission is considering the adoption of a program that would compensate nuclear facilities for their non-carbon emitting attributes.   It would be the first in the U.S. to explicitly -- and financially -- acknowledge the importance of the existing nuclear facilities to carbon reduction goals.  All who desire a future electric grid that is clean, reliable, and affordable should applaud New York's efforts.  And, we should decline the pitch of renewable energy advocates who peddle the fantasy that wind and solar alone can power the grid.

----
About the author:

Mike Twomey is Vice President for External Affairs at Entergy. He is involved in many areas of negotiation and outreach concerning the nuclear plants.  His most recent guest post at this blog was The Replacement for Vermont Yankee Was...Natural Gas.

This post first appeared on LinkedIn and is republished by permission.

Cinco de Bye-O at Vermont Yankee

It's today

Well, today is the day.  About a hundred people will be laid off from Vermont Yankee, leaving a small staff of about 140 until such time as the fuel is moved into dry casks.  (See the Mike Faber article in Vermont Digger for a history of the layoffs.) This will take place several years from now, around 2020, I believe.  I think the fuel moving will be done by contractors, some of whom may be former Vermont Yankee employees.  For now, however, the plant will be close to its shut-down goal of Cold and Dark.

A Fine Little Plant

My Facebook feed includes many Vermont Yankee employees. Oddly, I see more happiness than sorrow in the posts on FB.  I realize that FB can be misleading, but still.  I see pride in the excellent little plant. I see gratitude for the good work and the good companions. I see Cinco de Bye-O parties.   I see humor. A bit of gallows humor, but still humor.  The comment: "Tomorrow is the last day my husband will be getting up at 5:30 to go to the plant" is followed by: "Hey, maybe I'll go in late. What are they gonna do? Get rid of me?"

As I said, I know Facebook can be misleading. Still, I think the mood is basically far more upbeat than depressed. There is so much pride in the plant, and in work well done, and so much love for the co-workers. It's amazing to me.  The mood is so different from the mood two years ago, when the "lists were up." The "lists" defined who would have one more year at Vermont Yankee, and who would have two years.  I called the post about that day: Paint It Black.  The day the "lists were up" was not covered in any local paper.  They weren't interested in the pain of the Vermont Yankee workers.

In contrast, no doubt, there will be stories and op-eds galore about today. I'm not looking forward to some of the op-eds that will be published, though I think I could write some of them myself. I suspect Governor Shumlin (he who recently tried to destroy emails that may show some serious issues) will make a statement. Once again, Shumlin will look forward to the bright renewable future that is just around the corner for Vermont.  As he has looked forward to it, so many times in the past.

(Enough about our current governor.  With any luck, Vermont will get a special prosecutor about those emails.  What goes around may yet come around. )

You Done Good

Governor Salmon making a statement in favor of VY
PSB hearing, November 2012

Many VY people will be laid off today.  But, as we saw in the video posted yesterday, many VY people are leaving Vermont. So why despair?  There are other places, and other jobs, far away from here.

Many don't have such jobs.  Some are being moved into retirement, whether they like it or not.  Still, overall the mood is good.

Why is the mood good?  It's because Vermont Yankee was a great plant, with great people.  People who worked there had reason to be proud of their work!  That makes a difference, even when the work ends.

As Governor Salmon wrote in December 2014: Governor Salmon praises 42 year of Vermont Yankee.  As George Clain, Past President of IBEW at Vermont Yankee wrote: Vermont Yankee Union President: You Done Good.  December 2014 is when Vermont Yankee went offline forever.

And I say:

Vermont Yankee, you done good for Vermont.  Thank you.  

You finished strong. 

May everyone in the Vermont Yankee family go from strength to strength in their lives.  

You finished strong and you will be strong.  

I hope your futures will be filled with happiness. 

The Vermont Yankee Series Expands. The "Attitude Post" and more

The American Nuclear Society  blog has run a three-part series on the reasons for Vermont Yankee closing. Seven bloggers contributed.  Here are links to part one, part two, and part 3.

Now, the series has expanded at another blog.  Dan Yurman described the reasons for the series, and the credentials of the bloggers, at his blog: Neutron Bytes.  His post is called Seven At One Blow (seven bloggers on one topic, in one series).  Pro-nuclear bloggers are knowledgeable and accomplished people, but the bloggers are seldom explicitly acknowledged.  A big THANK YOU to Yurman for his post.

Well Begun is Half Done

The third post in the American Nuclear Society blog could be called the "attitude" post.  How shall we approach the political battle for nuclear energy?  Our attitudes matter.

Well Begun is Half Done. Confused beginnings  and confused goals rarely lead to success.

Vermont State House chamber

Howard Shaffer's post is titled "Failure to Politically Engage. As Shaffer writes: Unfortunately, Entergy Vermont Yankee carried through with the industry’s error of misunderstanding the campaign against the plant as a technical and legal policy debate, as opposed to recognizing it for what it truly was—a bare knuckle political campaign.

Shaffer doesn't leave it at that, though.  He develops a list for winning a campaign. The material on the list might be old-hat to a politician, but these things seems new to the nuclear industry. For example:

Be the first to get negative information about you into the media. You get to define the issue, not your opponents. 

Shaffer is a co-owner of  this blog, as well as a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe. I recommend his ANS Nuclear Cafe post about testifying to a legislative committee about spent fuel storage: Getting Inside the Legislative Process.

Dan Yurman continues the theme with his post "Vermont Yankee Shuts Down for Good."  He concludes that low gas prices and the regulatory environment contributed to Vermont Yankee closing, Entergy, which is a Louisiana business, never got a sense of how to deal with New England greens.  Yurman's conclusion, however, is more about the market: Entergy...(could not) to recover value, nor earn revenue, ... based on the carbon emission reductions it provided to the region.

Prices in New England
2014

In this case, it was the market that was ill-begun.

Dan Yurman is a pre-eminent nuclear blogger.  His current blog is Neutron Bytes: his former blog, Idaho Samizdat, was one of the pioneering pro-nuclear blogs.

So Many Thanks!

First, I want to thank Dan Yurman, who had the idea for this series of blog posts at ANS.  He was also a contributor to the blog, the collector of the posts (we sent them to Yurman), and a major force in publicizing this effort.

Second, I want to thank Will Davis of the blog Atomic Power Review and Linda Zec of the Outreach Department at American Nuclear Society, who took the seven essays across the finish line for publication at ANS Nuclear Café.

Third, I want to thank the people who wrote excellent, informed and thought-provoking comments on Reflections 1 and Reflections 2.  Join the conversation!

The Blog Goes On: Five Year Anniversary

History and Questions

I started this blog on January 1, 2010. January 1 of 2015 was an anniversary, a milestone, and a decision point for me.  I have blogged for five years at Yes Vermont Yankee.

But Vermont Yankee stopped generating power on December 29, 2014.  Was there any point to continuing this blog?

For me, this was not a trivial question.  There are many ways for a person to spend her time, and many worthy causes to support.  I am also five years older than I was in 2010, and more aware of how we each have a limited time on earth.  The plant has shut down.  Should I keep blogging?

It took me a while to answer that question.

My answer is yes.  I will keep blogging. I still have things I want to say.  The blog has already morphed, to some extent, as I have begun to follow grid issues (including joining the Coordinating Committee for the grid operator's Consumer Liaison Group).  The blog will change, but gradually. I will follow Vermont Yankee in this blog, but I will also follow other energy and nuclear issues.

Yes Vermont Yankee started as a local blog, and will remain so.  The blog will continue to focus on energy issues in the Northeast. It will continue to be a rallying point for people who support nuclear power and reasonable energy choices.

The New Focus

The tag under the blog title has been: A blog about Vermont energy issues and in support of Vermont Yankee.

The new title is: A blog about Northeast energy issues, and in support of nuclear power.

Guest Posts

With the expanded scope, I also plan to have more guest posts. The blog receives thoughtful comments from many people. As well as comments, I hope to have more guests posts in the future.  If you would like to post on this blog, please email me at mjangwin at gmail.

The Last Ship

My children live in New York and New Jersey. Over the holiday, part of the family took an expedition to see a matinee of a Broadway show: Sting in The Last Ship.

Talk about a busman's holiday!  This was a musical about the closing of a shipyard in England. Meanwhile, back in Vermont...Vermont Yankee was closing.  Frankly, this is a depressing subject for a musical, but the music was great, and Sting was great.  I am very glad we went.  The show is closing on January 24, and I encourage you to attend.

 The shipyard in The Last Ship does not get miraculously saved.  It closes.  The Last Ship sails.

But the musical has a sort-of happy ending as the various characters come to term with their pasts, their loves, and their futures.  I wish the same for all my friends at Vermont Yankee.

May we all have peace and joy and love and health and prosperity, even though the last Vermont Yankee electron has sailed.

Governor Salmon Praises 42 Years of Vermont Yankee. (Guest Post)

Governor Salmon speaking in favor of  Vermont Yankee
At PSB hearing,  November 2012

Former governor tells Vermont Yankee operators: ‘you done good’

By Thomas P. Salmon

In 1958, when I moved from Boston to Bellows Falls, Vermont was something of an economic and political backwater. The economy was stagnant and political loyalties were virtually unchanged since the Civil War. More people moved out than moved in. Not until 1963 did the human population exceed the bovine.

Construction on the Interstate Highway began in 1957. Many visitors followed the freeway north to the ski resorts, lakes and woodlands of “Vermont: The Beckoning Country,” so styled by Gov. Phil Hoff and his tourism expert, Al Moulton. Of course many loved what they saw and stayed. With them came fresh energy, ideas, and human and financial capital.

As our population and industrial base grew, so did our need for reliable, low-cost, smog-free electricity. In the mid-1960’s the Legislature faced a hard choice: buy hydro power from Labrador, or build an instate nuclear power plant. I favored the former. The struggle was intense, the vote close. Vermont Yankee won. Did the “losers,” myself included, take our bats and balls and go home? No, we closed ranks behind Vermont Yankee. Politics, then, took second place to presenting a unified front for creating plentiful, low-cost, clean electricity.

As I write these words, the operators of Vermont Yankee have spent 42 years before the mast. If an informed Vermonter were to sum up in a sentence the performance of Vermont Yankee, he would say, ‘you done good:’ 42 years of baseload power; environmentally benign; never hurt a soul. Vermont Yankee provided, at a critical time in Vermont’s history, stable, steady and very cost-effective power. It’s been a good corporate citizen, with wages and benefits far beyond the norm, and always there to help the community whenever there was a genuine need.

Eight years ago, after serving as president of the University of Vermont and chair of Green Mountain Power, I began to notice the heat being turned up on Vermont Yankee. A rather fierce ideological battle from the hard left ensued. Some were Vermonters, but the vast majority lived in other states. The Vermont press was responding to their siren song. However in Windham County, a hardy band of citizens said, ‘we want to be heard on these issues.’ And so the non-profit Vermont Energy Partnership was founded to advocate on behalf of public policies that facilitate the affordable, safe, reliable, clean power, including support for a well-operated Vermont Yankee plant. It was a great honor and privilege to participate in this effort.

At the end of this month, Vermont Yankee will cease to operate, but it will remain an important member of our community for many years still to come. I salute the plant’s many dedicated professionals and outstanding neighbors who will now retire or seek work elsewhere. In the meantime, there is still important work to be done for the future of Windham County and to solve energy issues in our state. Vermont Yankee has agreed to provide assistance for rebuilding the post-shutdown economy and renewable energy, contingent upon certain regulatory approvals from the state. I look forward to working with Vermont Yankee and the community to continue solving these issues together.

(Thomas P. Salmon of Rockingham served as governor for the State of Vermont from 1973-1977.)

-----

This post has appeared as an op-ed in several newspapers in Vermont.

Meeting about Decomm and Important Posts about Closing Vermont Yankee

Marlboro College
Graduate School Building
graphic from Wikipedia

The Meeting and the Comments

Yesterday, I posted about ways to comment about Vermont Yankee's decommissioning plans. The comment period is only open until Tuesday.

Tonight, there is a meeting in Brattleboro of the Vermont Nuclear Decommissioning Citizen Advisory Panel (NDCAP).  The meeting starts at 6 p.m. at Marlboro College on Vernon Street.  Here's a link to the agenda. Regrettably, I still have a rather bad cold, and I will not be attending.

Did I say "regrettably"? Hmm....I try to be more honest than that!  These meetings can be very hard to attend because the nuclear opponents tend to dominate the conversation.  However, I have heard that this NDCAP meetings have been far more civilized than the earlier VSNAP meetings.  I encourage people to attend and support Vermont Yankee's continued operation and careful closing.

The 165 Layoffs and the Pain

As Vermont Digger posted yesterday, Entergy has announced that 165 Vermont Yankee workers will be laid off on January 19. According to an Entergy press release, 69 of these workers live in Vermont, 48 live in New Hampshire and 39 live in Massachusetts.  (I linked to the Digger article rather than the press release because you can comment on the Digger article.)

Evan Twarog at the left
Speaking at Rotary Day  at the U N

Today, I have a guest blog post at NEI Nuclear Notes about the spreading pain of Vermont Yankee closing. I attempt to cover layoffs, taxes, the grid, and my opinion that the Entergy payments for Windham County development won't help Vermont Yankee employees that much. I hope you read it and comment on it.  Pain from Vermont Yankee Closing Spreads Far and Wide.

Evan Twarog about the pain on the grid

Evan Twarog, the son of a Vermont Yankee employee, is now a blogger at Atomic Insights.  Today he has a very well-researched and thoughtful post about the price rises on the grid.  Power in New England: Why are Prices Increasing So Rapidly?  As usual, at Atomic Insights, the comment stream is also worth reading.

Those of you who follow this blog may remember that Twarog has been a frequent guest blogger, and was a summer intern at the Ethan Allen Institute Energy Education Project, two summers ago.

NEI Report on Vermont Yankee

This week, the Nuclear Energy Institute has written an excellent multi-faceted report on Vermont Yankee.  My blog post (linked above) was the final step in this report.  I encourage you to read the entire report, bookmark it, and use it!

Blog posts:

Closing Vermont Yankee, and All That It Means (overview and market problems)
Vermont Yankee and the Looming Energy Crisis (the energy market shortfalls)
Vermont Yankee and All That It Does Not Produce (effect of closing on the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative)
Pain From Vermont Yankee Closing Spreads Far and Wide  (my post, referenced above)

The report itself (Permanent at the NEI site, not blog posts):

Closing Vermont Yankee (overview and links to other pages, including great links about the energy markets, nationwide)
Nuclear Plant Shutdowns Reveal Market Problems
New England's Looming Energy Crisis
Vermont Yankee Closing Will Challenge Region's Emission Goals

Soaring Prices in New England: An Update And Another Update

Electricity Prices Rises in New England, Updated

Golden coins

On Saturday, I posted Electricity Prices Soar in New England. And Soon In Vermont. In this post, I used two examples of recent rate hikes: National Grid in Massachusetts is raising rates by 37%, and Liberty Mutual in New Hampshire is raising rates by 50%.

Since then, New Hampshire Electric Coop announced a rate increase of 12%. Public Service of New Hampshire, which owns the Merrimack Station Coal Plant, expects only a slight rate increase. Another New Hampshire utility, Unitil, will soon file for a winter rate.  NHPR reports Electric Co-op Latest Utility To Announce Rate Increase.

Hah!  This just in! Unitil (New Hampshire utility) announced that the close-to-100% price rise on the grid (8.4 cents to 15.5 cents) will cost Unitil customers an extra $42 per month, starting in December. Unitil Electric Rates to Rise $42 per month.

Price Mealy-Mouthing in New England, Updated

Meanwhile, closer to home, Green Mountain Power and its sister utility, Vermont Gas Systems, explain that they are efficient and will therefore have stable prices. (This seems to imply that neighboring utilities are inefficient.) WCAX reports: GMP and Vermont Gas Keep Stable Prices. 

Both GMP and Vermont Gas are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Gaz Metro.

My own interpretation of the GMP statement about stable prices is quite simple: they aren't announcing the price rise just yet.  Gaz Metro companies don't always announce things promptly, as far as I can tell.

For example, the Vermont Gas pipeline expansion will cost $120 million dollars, which is $35 million more than regulators approved. Vermont Gas knew of the overrun in March, but did not notify regulators until July (meanwhile, Vermont Gas kept building the pipeline). Vermont Gas was fined $35,000 for this delay in notification.  Vermont Digger reports: Vermont Supreme Court Clears PSB to Reconsider Vermont Gas Pipeline.

A Well-Written Report from Conca at Forbes

Meanwhile, at Forbes, James Conca has an excellent post (including a link to my Saturday post): Closing Vermont Nuclear Bad Business for Everyone. He shows how closing Vermont Yankee is hurting our neighboring states.  It is a pleasure to read a good post about our area in the national media. I also urge you to read and join the lively comment stream on that post.

Consumer Liaison Group

I was just elected to the Coordinating Committee of the Consumer Liaison Group (CLG) of the grid operator, ISO-NE. I am one of two representatives from Vermont on the committee.  The group exchanges information with ISO about policies that affect consumers.  It also advises ISO.

I went to the CLG meeting September 24, but that is a subject for a whole different blog post. As you can imagine, however, the coming price rises were a major topic of discussion.

More updates soon.

Update again:  

Berkshire Eagle reports that National Grid price rise will cost homeowners up to $100 a month more on their bills and cost even more to businesses: National Grid Customers, Lawmakers Charged Up about Rate Increase.


Update: Some People Love Expensive Electricity An important post from Rod Adams: a review of the philosophy of people who celebrate the price rises because "the only way to guarantee that energy conservation measures are diligently pursued in this country is to make energy a very precious and expensive commodity. " (This quote was part of a comment on James Conca's article in Forbes.) Rod's post: Purposeful Price Pumping By Constraining Supply

Nuclear Energy Blog Carnival 228: Here at Yes Vermont Yankee

Once again, we are proud to host the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers 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.

This week, several posts are concerned with nuclear's effect on the environment, or people's perceptions of nuclear's effects on the environment.  So let's start there.

Nuclear Energy and the Environment.

Water and Energy:  A Close Connection
http://www.nukepowertalk.blogspot.com/2014/09/water-and-energy.html

At Nuke Power Talk, Gail Marcus addresses an article which claimed that growing water shortages might shift energy production away from coal and nuclear power. Marcus points out that 1) cooling towers and advanced nuclear technologies can help meet the needs for water more efficiently, and 2) some renewable energy technologies also have significant water needs.

What it means to be pro-nuclear (part 1)
http://nuclearlayperson.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/what-it-means-to-be-pro-nuclear-part-1/

At the new blog, Nuclear Layperson, Amelia Cook (aka MillySievert) is asked by a childhood friend if she is "really convinced by nuclear"? Cook looks at the complicated nature of the "pro-nuclear" label and offers some alternative descriptions. One of her descriptions is I am pro low-carbon sources of energy. 

DOE Energy Calculator: Coal, Dynamite, Burritos, and Nuclear Candy
http://us.arevablog.com/2014/09/26/doe-energy-calculator-coal-dynamite-burritos-and-nuclear-candy/

The Areva Blog reviews the Department of Energy's online tool for calculating the average amount of

energy you consume each year.  in energy-equivalent terms of coal, dynamite, and burritos (yes, burritos). Turns out the average American burns up the annual energy equivalent of 15,370 pounds of coal (7.7 tons). But the DOE tool lacks a crucial alternative comparison: eight gummy-bear-size pieces of nuclear fuel would reliably power every hour of your life for a year – without climate impact emissions.

Vermont Yankee Powers Down While Vermont Protestors Flock Down to New York City to Protest Climate Change
http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2014/09/vermont-yankee-powers-down-while.html#.VChfRihCqvI

In this post, Yes Vermont Yankee considers the irony of Vermont protestors driving to New York City to protest climate change. They were carrying banners about "saying no to nuclear energy." The post also contains links to life-cycle studies of nuclear and renewable carbon footprints.

Nuclear power and the U.N. Green Climate Fund

http://canadianenergyissues.com/2014/09/25/nuclear-power-and-the-u-n-green-climate-fund/

Steve Aplin of Canadian Energy Issues  looks at what will actually reduce carbon. Back in 2008, if you were a major financial investor, the smart thing to do was to put your money into credit default swaps. If  you were a small investor and connected to the right people, the smart place to put your money was into one of Bernie Madoff’s funds. And today, if you want to cut carbon without killing your economy, the smart thing to do is to go gangbusters into wind and solar. Aplin suggest ignoring the smart green energy consensus reflected in reportage on the U.N. Climate Summit in New York. Instead, notice what technologies will actually reduce carbon.

Deer Leap Falls, Poconos
Not a hydro site, so far

Why I support nuclear energy

http://efncanada.com/support-nuclear-energy/

At the new blog for Environmentalist for Nuclear Canada, Robert Rock describes cost and safety as two important reasons to support nuclear energy.  Other blog posts at this new blog include subjects such as The basics of climate change.

Indeed, though nuclear does protect the climate and the environment, it is also a very valuable industry.  Using the Rock post as a bridge, let's look at the nuclear industry as, you know, an industry.

The Nuclear Industry as an Industry: New Builds and More

South Africa inks 9.6 Gwe $50B reactor deal with Russia

http://neutronbytes.com/2014/09/23/south-africa-inks-9-6-gwe-10b-reactor-deal-with-russia

Dan Yurman at Neutron Bytes reports on the Rosatom deal to build several (up to eight) nuclear reactors in South Africa. This deal has been on-again and off-again, and it mirrors the tender South Africa released in 2007 and then cancelled. But this time is different.  This time Eskom, the state-owned electric utility, isn’t in the picture.

Seven Decades Past, A New Dawn

http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2014/09/26/seven-decades-past-a-new-dawn/

At ANS Nuclear Cafe, Will Davis starts by looking back at the early days, when nuclear was part of the Manhattan Project. Seventy years ago, the first full scale nuclear reactor started up at Hanford, Washington, and the world hasn't been the same since.  See rare photos of the project to build it, and learn the history of the first working reactor.

The Nuclear Weapons States: Who Has Them And How Many

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/09/25/the-nuclear-weapons-states-who-has-them-and-how-many/

As long as we are talking about the Manhattan Project, let's look at whether nuclear energy leads to nuclear weapons? The answer is no. Nuclear energy does not lead to nuclear weapons. James Conca at Forbes explains that there are nine nuclear weapons states with about 10,000 weapons. These weapons were all made from nuclear weapons programs, not commercial nuclear energy programs. There are two paths to the bomb. Iran tried one but will not succeed. North Korea took the other and succeeded. 

Consensus standards in industry
http://newsok.com/consensus-standards-in-industry/article/5345101

Nanocrystal
World's smallest reference material
Developed by NIST

In this post, Robert Hayes describes important standards in industry. These range from manufacturing
specifications to testing and procurement requirements. He describes the important role of NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) and professional organizations (ASME, for example) in setting these standards.

A Plea to Tepco and Tokyo – Just Do It!

http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-commentary.html

At Hiroshima Syndrome, Les Corrice considers the best possible way to reduce the wastewater problem at F. Daiichi? Tepco and Tokyo should start dumping the stored waters already run through ALPS as soon as the local fishermen and the public have been fully informed. Wait a minute…they already have! Damn the radiophobic fears and unfounded rumors…JUST DO IT!

Electricity Prices Soar in New England. And Soon in Vermont.
http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2014/09/electricity-prices-soar-in-new-england.html#.VChAVihCqvI

Yes Vermont Yankee reports that electric prices in Massachusetts and New Hampshire are jumping by 35-50%, partially due to the retirement of Vermont Yankee nuclear plant and Salem Harbor coal plant. The state of Vermont will not be immune from this trend.

Passive Safety: Staying on Track

http://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurepassive-safety-staying-on-track-4385660/

In this article at Nuclear Engineering International, Joseph Somsel takes a somewhat critical look at passive safety design concepts based on a case study of Casey Jones' famous accident. The successful deployment of a passive safety system was a major cause of the accident.

Somsel notes that basic problem for our industry is that making a nuclear power plant ten times safer won't make a single additional sale.  Making electricity from a nuclear reactor half the cost will sell many of them.

This look into the future (and into the railroad past) leads to the last part of our blog carnival.  What's new!

New Types of Reactors

Integrated Molten Salt Reactor should demonstrate the lowest lifetime cost of energy of any known technology

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/09/integrated-molten-salt-reactor-should.html

Canada's Terrestrial Energy Corporation is a leader in molten salt reactors. Nextbigfuture believes they have a good chance at creating an energy revolution because of their low cost and low development risk design. Their main advantage is the Canadian oilsands. Hundreds of IMSR reactor can be used to generate steam for oil recovery.

Cost is important. Low cost and accessible energy supply is linked to living standards and quality of life.

Molten Salt Reactor Projects in the U.K.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/09/molten-salt-reactor-projects-in-uk.html

Molten Salt, laboratory scale

A feasibility study for a next-gen Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) has won funding from the Technology Strategy Board, the UK government’s strategic innovation agency. The bid was led by the indefatigable Jasper Tomlinson and Professor Trevor Griffiths. In a first for the UK, the project will produce a rigorous desk- and computer-based study of the feasibility of a pilot-scale MSR, based on the latest science.

Ian Scott has recently founded a UK based molten salt reactor development start-up, Moltex Energy LLP.

A Year Ago: The Announcement Considered

Fountain of Time Sculpture, Chicago
Photo from Wikipedia

Looking Backward

On August 27, 2013, Entergy announced that Vermont Yankee would close at the end of its 2014 fuel cycle, basically, at the end of this year.

Two days after the announcement, I wrote a blog post Questions I Frequently Ask Myself about Vermont Yankee Closure.  A few months later, in January, Entergy announced who would be laid off after fuel was offloaded (early 2015) and who would remain on for perhaps another year of decommissioning.  I wrote a blog post about that, also: Paint It Black.

Time Stays, We Go

A large, beautiful and depressing sculpture stands near the University of Chicago: The Fountain Of Time,  by Lorado Taft.  A hundred people pass before Father Time, who stands unmoved by the procession.   The sculpture is based on a poem with the repeated lines:

Time goes, you say?- ah no! 
Alas, Time stays,- we go!

With that in mind, exactly what has gone on during this year?

Agreements Happened

After a fair number of insults being levied at Entergy,  Entergy and state agencies reached an agreement that if Entergy paid certain amounts of money (about $40 million) and said they would move fuel into dry casks expeditiously and so forth...the state would stand WITH Entergy before the Public Service Board. The state would ask the Board to give Entergy a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) to operate through the end of this year.

And so, with millions of dollars riding on the signatures,  Entergy and the state agencies signed the agreement in December 2013. With this agreement, the state would argue FOR Entergy in front of the Public Service Board.

However, the agreement would be null and void if the Public Service Board didn't adopt it by late March.  And so March came, and the Public Service Board issued the CPG through the end of the year, The Board also made several snarky and unnecessary statements, claiming that if Entergy had wanted a 20-year CPG, it  probably would not have received one.

(By the way, agreements happened but love didn't.   People at the plant told me that Governor Shumlin has never visited the plant after the closing was announced. He never even visited Vernon.)

Money Happened

Entergy tax money happened: Entergy delivered its various taxes, Clean Energy Development fund money, and so forth right on  the schedule from the agreement.  The majority of the money went to state agencies, but $2 million dollars (for this year) was earmarked for economic development of Windham County. I really need to write a blog post about that $2 million.  The agency in charge of the funds has noted that guidelines have been released (as of August 1) but there is still confusion about the process for awarding the grants and loans.

Furthermore, some people say that there aren't enough really good proposals for the money.  Other people say: "Yeah, what did you expect? There's been all types of incentive programs for this area of Vermont for a long time...if there were good ideas, we probably would have heard them already."

When I write a blog post about this, it's going to be a long one!

Entergy Profits and Revenue Sharing happened:  Over $17 million dollars.  That's the check that Entergy wrote to Vermont utilities as "revenue sharing" according to the agreement under which it purchased the plant in 2002.  My April blog post on this: Green Mountain Power Receives $17 Million in Revenue sharing

Well, that was April and this is September.  Green Mountain Power (Gaz Metro) had the money, but it had to have a rate case before Public Service Board before it could do anything with the money. So it has had its rate hearing. Gaz Metro will be lowering people's electric bills with the money.  But not all at once, for Pete's sake. That would be terrible!  If electric bills were lowered for only one year and then popped up again, they would have to admit that the reason for the decrease was Vermont Yankee money! So Gaz Metro isn't  going to do that.

Electric bills will be lowered for about three years, just a little bit each year.  This will keep people from noticing (probably) the effect on their pocketbooks from Vermont Yankee's closing.  Some of the recent newspaper stories mention the Entergy money, some just trumpet the rate decrease, without mentioning Entergy.

Looking Forward

I have a number of friends at the plant, and to me, the real news is that they are announcing their new gigs on Facebook.  They are going to other Entergy plants ("See you there soon!" they write each other.)  They are going to non-Entergy plants ("It's going to be a great change, we LOVE the area!" they write each other.)

Vermont will stagger forward, with local non-profits fighting over the Entergy money.  Most young Vermont Yankee workers are moving on.

Forward is the future.  Vermont is the past.

New England Energy: What Were They Thinking? George Coppenrath Guest Post

What were they thinking?

Observers of the New England energy scene can be forgiven for asking “what were they thinking” when New England’s state energy planners backed building 25 cent/kilowatt-hour wind projects while opposing reliable, existing, low-cost generators like Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.

They were thinking New England would have endless amounts of “fracked” natural gas; they were wrong. Contrary to “expert” predictions of just a few years ago, demand has outstripped deliverable supply causing prices to climb steadily and spike drastically when the weather is at its hottest and coldest.

 They were thinking New England could always buy more Canadian hydro power; they were wrong. As with natural gas, there’s not enough transmission capacity. Efforts to build new power lines have yielded controversy, spending, but no new cross-border transmission.

And finally, they were thinking that closing a big, base load nuclear power plant or two would push New England utilities into the waiting arms of intermittent solar and wind power; they were wrong. You cannot replace base load power sources with intermittent ones, so electric utilities were instead forced into the waiting arms of high carbon fossil fuel.

 In short, they thought their foresight and strongarm regulatory tactics would bend the region’s energy market to their will. The market is bent, but instead of the result they wanted, they got the worst case scenario: higher emissions and higher prices which damage New Englanders' quality of life and increase costs to businesses.

 ---------
This op-ed column was written by George Coppenrath of Barnet, Vermont.  He is a former Vermont Senator from the Caledonia Orange District.  Within the Vermont Senate, Coppenrath served on the Natural Resources and Energy Committee.  His column has appeared in several newspapers in Vermont.

His column is also quoted extensively in today's excellent post at NEI Nuclear Notes: In a Pit in Nuclear-Free Vermont.

Co-operative ownership and Vermont Yankee: Adams post today

Today, Rod Adams writes about the possibility of keeping Vermont Yankee operating with an employee-owned corporation.  I encourage you to read the post, think about it, comment on it, and...maybe more.  Maybe...take action!

Vermont Yankee: A Clean Kilowatt Cow That Deserves  Saving

------------
I am on travel right now. I am currently in a town that has a lovely park: Leslie Groves Park. Guess the town.

Reference list about effects of closing Vermont Yankee

My op-ed, Vermont Yankee Closing Will Hurt Vermont,  was based on many references. This list of links helps support it, but no simple list can be a complete set of references on these subjects.

Wind Projects in Vermont

Representative Klein on not-expecting wind projects in Vermont for about ten years
http://vtdigger.org/2013/10/30/vlct-director-argues-local-input-energy-project-permitting/

Natural Gas

ISO says natural gas dependence is key strategic risk
http://www.iso-ne.com/nwsiss/pr/2013/iso_new_england_issues_statement_vy_retirement_final.pdf

FERC Market Assessment of price nationally

https://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/reports-analyses/mkt-views/2013/10-17-13.pdf

Matt Wald of the NYTimes on natural gas and New England
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/business/electricity-costs-up-in-gas-dependent-new-england.html?_r=0

20% electricity price rise expected in Boston this winter

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2013/10/national-grid-prices-rising-this-winter.html?page=all

Portland at Forbes on the gas crisis in New England

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2013/12/05/has-anyone-noticed-new-englands-escalating-energy-crisis/

Winter Reliability with Oil

ISO Winter reliability program---burning oil
http://isonewswire.com/updates/2013/9/18/ferc-accepts-iso-nes-proposed-winter-20132014-reliability-pr.html

Hydro Quebec and more

When HQ exported only half the electricity during a cold snap...
http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2013/01/cold-weather-winners-and-losers-on.html

HQ Planning document:
Note page 6 on 97% of electricity goes to Heritage Pool in Quebec
Note page 32 on plans for profits from exports
http://www.hydroquebec.com/publications/en/strategic_plan/pdf/plan-strategique-2009-2013.pdf

An older blog post about HQ and profits.
HQ charts showing where their profits come from.  This post is old, but HQ puts equivalent charts in every annual report.  Look at the blue charts...also see page 32 of planning document above
http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2010/12/you-better-be-good-to-your-in-state.html#.UnztaChfWec

The great ice storm of 1998
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Ice_Storm_of_1998

Careful review of who-owns-what in the weird structure of Gaz  Metro and HQ. My basic conclusion---ordinary shareholders do not influence these companies.  The government of Quebec controls the actions of these companies.  It's hard to figure out, however.  Good links within the post.
http://vtuncommontaters.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/who-owns-green-mountain-power/

Unintended Consequences from Decommissioning Funds: Guest Post by John Alan Rodericks

Late last month, I wrote about my sorrow at Vermont Yankee closing in the post We are not Spock: Emotion and Nuclear Power, published at ANS Nuclear Cafe.  There were very insightful comments on that post, and they deserved further discussion.  I obtained permission to use some of these comments as guest posts on my own blog.  This comment is by John Alan Rodericks.

-----------

Thank you for this well-written and thoughtful post.

Account book 1909

I view this conversion of decom money to cash flow as THE issue of the future in this post-deregulated electric power generation world — an unintended consequence of an ill-conceived plan. As such, it echoes the theme that is prevailing in the electric power industry at this time… what was once the domicile of engineers is now the domain of accountants.

My estimates are that it will cost about $500-700 million to replace VY’s megawatts with a highly efficient gas-fired 2-and-1 combined cycle plant that will be dispatchable in much less time and have a much smaller staff (assuming they can get the needed natural gas capacity). However, this will come at the expense of fuel diversity and proper market function as margin prices become easier to manipulate thorough strategic and calculated fuel hedging. Pilgrim likely will not be far behind.

New England could well find itself in a mess and it will be too late to do anything about it.

-----------
John Alan Rodericks wrote this about himself and his post:


I have worked in electric power generation for 32 years with (former) Cambridge Electric Light Co. as a plant operator.... Although I have never worked in nuclear, I've read extensively about it and have a number of friends who have been in nukes for many years. I am disturbed by the trend which is developing in New England, despite the advent of supposedly abundant shale gas. In my time I've seen cycles play out, and view this as just another one.

I hope for a more thoughtful discussion about nuclear going forward, although Vermont Yankee seems like fait accompli. We must learn the lesson from it.

Nuclear Training and Questions about the Future

Vermont Yankee

Vermont Yankee Workers: The Question 

On my latest post, a comment posed a very important question about training at nuclear plants. Specifically, the comment raised questions about the future for people at Vermont Yankee.

Here's a quote from that comment:

Everyone even me is saddened about the loss of VY and that it is impossible to restart a shut down nuclear plant. One reason is because to keep the license, all the operators have to have continuous training. Why couldn't operators train at another reactor of the same brand? If the NRC won't allow that, why doesn't the industry try to change that? Entergy, for example, must have another GE reactor of theirs....Also, I read that a license is plant specific. Why is that? Why can it not go by maybe brand? That is like you get a drivers license but you can only drive 1 car. Again, why did the industry let that happen? Why is your industry taking this closures "lying down"? 

My Partial Answer: About Simulators

These are good questions.  Though I don't work at a nuclear plant, I made an attempt to answer the question as below:

Indian Point

There's an old saying that France has one variety of nuclear plant and 100 varieties of cheese, while America has one variety of cheese and 100 varieties of nuclear plants. That is the main problem. 

Even "sister" reactors are not totally alike. Though being a qualified operator on one reactor definitely gives you a leg up on being qualified on a similar reactor, you still have to go through a lot of training for that second reactor.

I was at EPRI during part of the ten years just after TMI. At that time, reactor training went from "generic" to very plant-specific simulators. This was a Good Thing for training and safety. 

That said, airplane pilots face this problem of the "new plant" all the time. (For a while, my husband worked at a company that did software for airplane simulators.) Anyhow, for a pilot qualified on a 727, after a certain number of hours in the simulator for a 737--that pilot can get into the cockpit of a 737, with passengers in the plane behind him.

Seabrook

It would be good if the nuclear industry had something similar. People get too locked into their jobs IMHO. Maybe the nuclear industry does have this....as I say, I don't work in a plant and I am not an expert on nuclear simulator training. 

However, you make a good point that such operator flexibility would be good for the industry.

I encourage people who work at nuclear plants to enter this conversation.

SROs and Others

I know people (such as Howard Shaffer) who held responsible positions at more than one

Duane Arnold

nuclear plant.  I don't know how easy or hard it is to do this.  I would think a plant chemist would need almost no re-training, but an SRO might need months or years of training to qualify at a new plant.  But I really don't know.

I hope knowledgeable people will comment on this post.

Also, if as a nuclear worker, you moved between plants in the past, it would be great if you could comment on this post.

Thank you.

Emotion and Vermont Yankee: Rod Adams Guest Post

Rod Adams

Late last month, I wrote about my sorrow at Vermont Yankee closing in a post We are not Spock: Emotion and Nuclear Power, published at ANS Nuclear Cafe.  In this post, I wrote that nuclear opponents appealed to emotions: "I am so afraid!"

In contrast, in my support of nuclear energy, I think I was channeling Spock: "Support of nuclear energy is logical."  I should not have been merely "Spock." I wrote about my need to be fully human, to be emotional, about nuclear energy.  I acknowledged my deep sorrow about Vermont Yankee closing.

This post at ANS gathered a wonderful comment stream.  I will be using some of these comments as "guest posts" over the next few weeks. These comments truly expand and enhance the original post, and the ideas in the comments should not be buried in the comment list.

Here's the first of those guest posts: this one by Rod Adams. Adams hosts a widely-read nuclear blog along with podcasts.  For years, he has been a very effective advocate for nuclear power.  In his comment at the ANS blog, Adams looked into the long-term roots of sorrow about Vermont Yankee, including the many years of harassment of Vermont Yankee by the state of Vermont.

At his own blog, Atomic Insights, Adams wrote a post in response to my post: Nuclear Professionals can, and should get emotional.  Adams blog is excellent and widely read: this particular post has around 70 comments!  In the post, Adams talks about his own deeply-held feelings about nuclear energy, and how we need to give ourselves permission to reveal our emotions. We need to reveal both our passion for nuclear power, and our sorrow when a plant closes.

Without further ado or further referrals to Rod's blog, I present the comments that Rod Adams made about sorrow and Vermont Yankee. He made these comments on my "not-Spock" post at ANS Nuclear Cafe.

------------
Meredith:

You are not alone in your sorrow. It is not just the loss of a single mature nuclear power plant, but the implications for our incredibly rich democracy. We inherited an amazing place from our forebears, but we are on a risky course of self-destruction.

You mentioned that Entergy made it’s decision based on “economics”, but the financial attributes that drove that decision are almost entirely fabricated. Sure, VY cost a lot to operate. Who can forget the description of the massive effort to find a leak of nearly pure water because it had a few milligrams of tritium in it, the armies of lawyers who were billing Entergy for months during a sustained effort to defend the company’s private property interests in a facility that most certainly was doing the public a lot of good, and the requirement for Entergy to pay all of the costs of its professional opponents in the form of the Public Oversight Panel chaired by Peter Bradford and employing Arnie Gundersen as its engineering advisor?

http://www.vermontbiz.com/news/july/arnie-gundersen-and-peter-bradford-vermont-yankee-public-oversight-panel

Sure, other power sources beside VY were selected for long term purchase contracts by the Canadian company that owns most of the monopoly electric utilities and a substantial portion of the Canadian gas that will be burned in the replacement power plants. If I am not mistaken, that is the same company with divisions that will be compensated for building the necessary transmission lines to carry the new power supplies.

http://www.masslive.com/business-news/index.ssf/2013/09/vermont_yankee_nuclear_shutdown_makes_ne.html

Shumlin and his co-conspirators are deeply involved in companies that supply industrial wind farms and have worked hard to ensure they are compensated for those monstrosities by fees placed on everyone else.

https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2010/09/07/vt-man-with-shumlin-ties-at-center-of-controversy/

This is a sorrow-making situation that cannot be addressed with rational arguments. It is time for us to get emotional about the huge costs that are being imposed for no good reason other than to take from the poor and give to the rich. We need to resist the modern Sheriff of Nottingham (Shumlin) and his henchmen (Bradford, Cooper, Gundersen, etc.).

I think it’s time for a new blog – Yes Nuclear Energy.

Rod Adams, Publisher, Atomic Insights