Showing posts with label economic analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economic analysis. Show all posts

Thursday, January 4, 2018

A Hole in the Community: When a Nuclear Plant Shuts Down


A hole in the community


What happens when a nuclear plant shuts down


Vermont Yankee

At its peak, the Vermont Yankee plant generated more than 70 percent of the electricity made in Vermont. It was the largest, most reliable source of clean energy in the state and one of the largest plants in the New England grid.

But like many other nuclear plants around the U.S., Vermont Yankee was no longer economically competitive and was losing money for its owners. Its closure would cause harm across many states – and for many years.

The environmental and economic effects of closing Vermont Yankee were severe, and they were completely predictable: air pollution increased, as carbon-free nuclear energy was replaced by natural gas; energy costs increased throughout New England, with utilities warning that customer bills could rise 50 percent or more during the winter; and the region’s economy slowed as 1,000 jobs and $500 million in annual spending dried up.

Most painful, though, was the human toll on the Vernon VT, community as nuclear workers were forced to leave behind loved ones and neighbors in search of work.

In the two and a half years since Vermont Yankee closed, many good people had moved on. Someday, the community might recover. But it will never be the same.

Economic Lessons

When he made his political case that Vermont Yankee should be “retired,” then-Gov. Peter Shumlin promised a “billion-dollar bonanza” for the state. Shumlin argued that, in the short-term, decommissioning a nuclear plant would provide employment, income and spending on par with a functioning power station. While Vermont Yankee was operating, it employed more than 600 people with salaries averaging more than $100,000 a year. Those dollars cycled through the local economy, creating hundreds more indirect jobs.

But closing the plant was not a jobs bonanza – it was a jobs cliff. Hundreds of people lost their jobs, and nowhere near that many jobs were created or likely to be created. To contradict Shumlin’s assertions, I looked at the history of other nuclear plants that closed. What I saw wasn’t pretty. One of the lessons learned about decommissioning was that a closing plant must downsize its staff quickly and aggressively, in order to decommission within the budget of the decommissioning fund.

Lessons learned were everywhere, but they weren’t happy lessons. Wherever a nuclear plant closes, the pattern repeats itself: employment and average incomes fall, which means that tax revenues that fund schools, government services, roads and communities fall, too. To make up the losses, tax rates must rise. In general, the first tax rate to rise is the local property tax.

At the same time, the departure of nuclear workers increases the number of houses on the market, and lowers property values. Local businesses also suffer as temporary workers hired for periodic refueling outages no longer come to town: the outage contractors no longer rent rooms, eat at restaurants, buy groceries or fill their cars with gas. They no longer give the area economy a cheerful boost of workers making good money, with money to spend.

Emissions of carbon and other pollutants rise as clean nuclear energy is replaced by plants that burn fossil fuels. And when a nuclear plant’s around-the-clock supply of electricity is turned off, the law of supply and demand dictates that energy prices must inevitably rise. Even though natural gas prices are low now, when a nuclear plant closes, it creates more competition for the natural gas and the price of gas rises. As natural gas prices rise, so do electricity prices.

About the people

NJ Needs Nuclear: Patty from PSEG on Vimeo.

Nuclear workers are highly skilled, highly trained and highly sought-after. There are jobs to be found at other nuclear plants – for someone who is willing to uproot and leave their friends, their kids’ schools, their churches, their doctors, their favorite restaurants, their church choirs or their poker buddies.

I believe these quotes, left by anonymous commenters on my blog, Yes Vermont Yankee, help illustrate the human side of the story:
Yes, I relocated. No, it was not easy. Selling a house, buying another one, moving, finding a new house with the right schools. Moving away from grown kids. Moving away from grandkids. My wife had to leave a job that she loved …”
“There is no way I will come close to breaking even on selling my house, not with the housing market the way it is … We have elderly parents and we don't know how we are going to manage ...”
In some cases, families were split as one spouse moved to take a new job at a faraway nuclear plant, while the other stayed behind to allow children to stay in school. A plant closure could break up a family for months or years.

Change will never be easy, and it will be harder for some than for others. But plant employees will move on, and they will live well.

For younger people, living well probably means getting out of town, taking their lumps on the declining local housing market and starting anew. Older people may see the loss of a job and community as a betrayal of their lifelong work and plans, and may be less able to start over or go somewhere new.

Today, Vermont Yankee is closed, and the region is forever the worse for it: More carbon in the air, fewer jobs, higher taxes and rising electric bills for those who stay. At one low point, during town meeting, the town of Vernon decided to disband its police force and sell off the cruisers. They could no longer afford their small police force. Hard decisions had to be made.

The Bottom Line

For a plant closure, it is comparatively easy to assess the bottom line in monetary costs.

Economic input to the area down severely, taxes no longer collected, energy prices going up. The human cost – people losing their jobs, becoming discouraged and displaced as they are forced to move to new areas – cannot be calculated.

I believe the nuclear industry will survive. Nuclear workers are smart and resilient. I think the future will work out well for all of them.

I’m less certain about the communities left behind.
_____________________________________________________
The above column is sponsor-generated content from New Jersey Needs Nuclear.
----------
Note: This article is reblogged. It was first printed as sponsored-content in Politico.
http://www.politico.com/sponsor-content/2018/01/02/a-hole-in-the-community

 I wrote this article a while ago. It is partially an update to my earlier article Circles of Pain Around Vermont Yankee closing

Sunday, May 1, 2016

Video: Vermont Yankee people moving on

May 5 Layoff Day

On May 5, almost 100 Vermont Yankee employees will be laid off.  As Entergy spokesman Marty Cohn notes in this video: there were nearly 650 employees when he started work at Vermont Yankee: in a few days, there will be  only 150 employees. (approximate numbers).

In the 22 minute video below, Marty Cohn speaks to two employees that will be laid off.  They happily discuss what they liked about working at Vermont Yankee. In both cases, their future plans take them away from Vermont.

Yes, there are sad moments in this video.  These affected me:
  • When Larry Doucette notes that when he moved to Vermont, it took some some time to get used to the local anti-nuclear attitudes. 
  • When Becky Josey describes her life-long residence in Vernon, and how her mother was a state representative who supported construction of the plant.  Josey has deep roots in Vernon, but she plans to leave.  Her plans are not completely due to Vermont Yankee closing, however.
I  admire everyone at Vermont Yankee, because they are strong people and they did Finish Strong.  I have so much admiration for them.



About the videos

Marty Cohn of Entergy has been hosting a series of videos about Vermont Yankee: SAFSTOR Matters. This series was chosen as 2015 Best Series of the Year at Brattleboro Community Television.

Sunday, October 4, 2015

Vermont Yankee closed: the consequences were completely predictable

Vermont Yankee Closed: The Consequences were 100% Predictable

Last Monday, American Nuclear Society's blog, ANS Nuclear Cafe, featured my post  Vermont Yankee Closes: the Consequences Were 100% Predictable  The consequences were not only predictable, they were indeed, predicted.

In this blog post, I give a historical summary of many predictions, over many years. They all calculated that closing Vermont Yankee would have cause huge economic effects on the region.  They predicted the economic losses in the region would be in the multi-hundred-million-dollar per year range.

Yes. All the economists predicted hundreds of millions in losses for the local area. Nine figures. Their economic-loss predictions range from  $100,000,000 per year to over $400,000,000 per year.  Some of the differences depend on whether the economists were looking at just-Vermont, or at the tri-state region.

In other words, huge.  And these predictions are coming true.

I ask the question: why were all these economic predictions ignored?  Why was the state of Vermont so eager to close Vermont Yankee down?

Please visit my ANS post and write some comments.  Share your thoughts and share the article.

More Press for Vermont and Vermont Yankee

Okay.  I am blushing furiously.  But here are some more links….

Besides writing the article for ANS Nuclear Cafe,  I was on Pat McDonald's TV show, Vote for Vermont: Beyond the Sound Bite.  I link to the video of my interview in this blog post: Vermont Energy with Pat McDonald.

Rod Adams
But wait, there's more!  Rod Adams embedded the video on his blog, Atomic Insights.  The blog post is titled: Meredith Angwin with Pat McDonald on Vote for Vermont.  But Adams didn't just embed it: he also summarized the conversation. He especially noted McDonald's shock about the source of New England renewables.

The morning of the show, I went to the New England grid operator site and took a screen shot of the percentage renewables and the percentage-what-type-of-renewable, and brought the screen shots to the show. They were very typical screen shots, though the low demand on the grid showed a higher percentage of nuclear than might be seen at other times.  But the shocker was the renewables.  McDonald didn't expect to learn that almost half of our vaunted New England "renewable" electricity consists of burning refuse, and most of the rest of our renewable mix consists of burning wood.  (See graphics below.)

If you don't have time to watch the half-hour video, read the summary at Adams blog.

But Wait, There's More!

The ANS Nuclear Cafe blog has a feature called "Friday Matinee."  Most Fridays, they embed a video on the blog.  Yes….this Friday…the video was the Pat McDonald show featuring me.  Video: ANS Member Meredith Angwin on Vote for Vermont.

You have SO many opportunities to watch the show. You can watch the video at my blog, Adam's blog, ANS Nuclear Cafe blog.  I do hope you will watch it….

There is still more.  The ANS post about economic predictability was reprinted in the Ethan Allen Institute newsletter (I am director of their Energy Education Project).  I was on Rod Adam's panel in a recent podcast: Atomic Update.  I will be on the Common Sense radio show this coming Tuesday, October 6 on WDEV.  The show is between 11 and noon, and you can listen on line and even call in, toll-free. (The date of the WDEV show is now correct.  An earlier version of this post had an incorrect date.)

Okay. That's enough for now.  I can't blush any redder, so I will quit writing.


Monday morning fuel mix on the grid
Renewables are 7%

And here are the renewables, the 7% above
 Consists of 48% wood, 45% refuse

Thursday, September 3, 2015

Economic fallout from closed Vermont Yankee plant to continue for years: Bruce Parker Guest Post

Economic fallout from closed Vermont Yankee plant to continue for years

By Bruce Parker  August 14, 2015, Vermont Watchdog

Brattleboro, from a walking trail, Wikipedia
BRATTLEBORO, Vt. — As the consequences of closing Vermont Yankee materialize in southeastern Vermont, residents are discovering the dangerous fallout from the plant is turning out to be economic, not nuclear.

“Vermont Yankee had a significant amount of our catering business — probably 10 percent of our business was to Vermont Yankee. And that’s going to go away,” Bill Daley, owner of Vermont Country Deli, told Vermont Watchdog.

Daley, whose deli has served sandwiches, fresh-baked desserts and pastries to the Brattleboro community since it opened more than 25 years ago, said the loss of the region’s sole economic powerhouse is hurting a range of businesses.

“I know a number of businesses that have grumbled about losing Vermont Yankee. My discussions have been, if they go away, you’re losing a piece of the economy, and it’s a large piece of the economy, and definitely our customer base. We’re now having to live with that decision,” Daley said.

Lost business is only part of the trouble facing residents of Windham County after the nuclear plant closed in December. Sales of single-family homes in Brattleboro are down 16.2 percent year over year, and the median sales price for homes has dipped 8.5 percent, from $194,000 in 2014 to $177,500 so far in 2015. The slump comes at a time when housing nationwide is experiencing a robust recovery.

According to Adam Grinold, executive director of the Brattleboro Development Credit Corp., planners knew ahead of time that closing Vermont Yankee would hurt the housing market and cause job losses far beyond those at the plant.

“We in the region started ringing the alarm the minute that happened, saying housing was going to suffer. There would be too much inventory, which would require prices to drop, and the people who were stuck in the Entergy nuclear world were going to have to move and unload their homes. That’s going to lower the prices,” he said.

RELATED: Brattleboro housing market dives as Vermont Yankee exits region

Since 2012, Grinold’s group has been reviewing Vermont Yankee impact studies that detail economic challenges facing residents and businesses in the tri-county area.

The most recent study, published by the UMass Donahue Institute in December, claims the loss of Vermont Yankee’s nearly 600 employees — who averaged $105,000 in annual pay — will result in an additional 669 job losses at nearby restaurants, retail outlets, real estate services and other local businesses.

The report projects the loss of 141 jobs in leisure and hospitality, 116 jobs in education and health services, 111 jobs in professional services, 81 jobs in retail trade, 54 jobs in financial activities and 44 in construction. The estimated 1,220 total job losses represent a combined annual pay of $106,901,672 and an economic output of $493,406,806.

Grinold is not hopeless, however. He said a 2014 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy document, or CEDS, holds the key to transforming the regional economy. He also said the Southeastern Vermont Economic Development Strategies, an affiliate of the Brattleboro Development Credit Corp., has identified scores of job openings that could lure talent to the area.

“Following the CEDS, SeVEDS initiated a workforce development study. We went out to our region’s largest employers, and we know we have over 3,000 jobs needed in the coming years,” Grinold said. “So we know what sector those are in and what education is needed. We know we have the housing available, and we have the jobs available. Now we just have to figure out how to get the people here to do those jobs.”

Asked if his group was in talks with businesses that could fill the void left by Vermont Yankee, Grinold said nothing was in the works at this early stage. But he expressed optimism about programs such as the Windham County Economic Development Program and the Southern Vermont Economic Development Zone, which held its first committee meeting last week.

“Any region would love to bring in new large manufacturing. BDCC helped attract and develop the Commonwealth Dairy facility two years ago, so we know it can be done,” he said. “Certainly now with the Windham County Economic Development Program Funds, Windham County is uniquely positioned to be able to offer incentives.”

As for Daley, he said operating his deli business is becoming a challenge due to Vermont’s economic and political climate.

“The property taxes have all gone up … and to have the minimum wage go up the way it’s going up, it’s going to be more and more difficult. Plus there’s a limited market here with people,” Daley said.

While Daley said he hasn’t raised prices in the past two years, he couldn’t make any promises going forward.

“Any time you increase the cost of doing business you have to make decisions: Do I increase the number of hours I have and therefore I don’t hire somebody? How do I shift the costs around so it’s affordable?” Daley said. “We’ve tried to hold down costs, but if costs continue to go up I can’t say we’re going to keep prices down in the future.”

---

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

-----

Once again, Bruce Parker of Vermont Watchdog has graciously allowed me to reprint his article.   The original article has excellent graphics and comments, and I recommend it.  His previous guest post at this blog was Vermont Utilities Buy Nuclear Capacity from New Hampshire. 

And meanwhile, my two cents about today's post:

I am always amazed at people who are excited about "getting the people here to do the jobs" when a big employer has left and the town is (in my opinion) sinking into a mini-depression.  I find some of the comments within the article a bit ironical.



Sunday, August 9, 2015

The Pain of Closing Vermont Yankee: Post at Northwest Clean Energy


Pain from Closing Vermont Yankee Lingers was published Friday at Northwest Clean Energy, the blog of Energy Northwest.    Seven months after Vermont Yankee closed, I wrote this retrospective on "what has happened since."

This is what has happened after Vermont Yankee closed:

  • more pollution
  • more pain on the grid (gas-fired plants are being built as rapidly as possible)
  • major economic pain for employees and for the area.

I went back to some of my 2010 posts, the ones where Governor Shumlin was predicting a "jobs bonanza" when the plant closed. I wrote about the Seabrook contracts today.  I wrote about the economic analyses done in 2010 and 2011, about how many jobs would be lost and how the economy would suffer. I wrote about what is happening now, and how today's situation was completely predictable.

Pain from Closing Vermont Yankee Lingers was a hard post to write.  It has extensive references and will be helpful to anyone who wants to get "the story" of Vermont Yankee.

I encourage you to read it and to comment.

Thursday, December 25, 2014

A Report is Released about Economics. Released Christmas Eve.

The Report As Dumped

I didn't plan to blog today.  My "Christmas Post" went up yesterday. Families get together on Christmas Day.  That is what happens.

However, yesterday, during the magical time of Christmas Eve....we had a major News Dump about the huge financial effects of closing Vermont Yankee. "News Dump" is the technical term for releasing news at a time when it may be hard for reporters to cover it, and where it may just (hopefully) sink into oblivion at a time when few people are paying attention to the news.  At least, sinking-out-of-sight is the purpose of a news dump.

Vermont Digger (praise them!) was Johnny-on-the Spot cover the story. Thank you, Digger!  Thank you, John Herrick!

Here's the Digger link: UMass-Dartmouth Report Details Impact of Vermont Yankee Closing.  Within that link, there's a link to the report itself. From the Herrick article:

"Regional economic development planning officials say the closure will cost more than 1,100 related jobs and $480 million in economic activity in the region."

The press release about the report called the results "stark."  A good word choice.

Pat Bradley at WAMC

Although Pat Bradley's radio commentary on Vermont Yankee's closing was broadcast on Christmas Eve, it wasn't a news dump. Radio goes on all the time. A radio show is not the timed release of a major document. It's just another radio show.  Also, businesses and institutions practice News Dumping, while reporters simply practice reporting.

And here's the link to that show.  I am one of the interviewees. Vermont Yankee to Shut Down Permanently On Monday.  And here's part of my quote on that show:

Ethan Allen Institute Energy Education Project Director Meredith Angwin has supported continued operation of the plant.  “The plant is in beautiful shape. It has high ratings from the NRC. It has great labor relations. It is a really wonderful plant with a lot of wonderful people, many of whom are being hurt one way or another.”


Sunday, September 28, 2014

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

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

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

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

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



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!

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

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

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.


Saturday, July 6, 2013

Economics and the Public Service Board Hearings.


Public Service Board Members
David C. Coen, Chairman James Volz,  John Burke
Photo from PSB Board Member Biography web page
The Hearings

The Vermont Public Service Board has finished its hearings on the docket for the state license (Certificate of Public Good) for the power plant.

This last set of hearings were technical hearings: parties to the process testified and cross-examined each other.  The public could attend, but not comment.  One major issue was economics.

Vermont Economics

One might expect the Board to focus on Vermont's interest in jobs or inexpensive power or whatever.  That is, the Board could be expected to focus on how the plant operation will affect the state.  After all, the Board is a state quasi-judicial regulatory panel.

However, the Board's focus seems to be on whether the plant is profitable for Entergy.  In my opinion, that is more Entergy's business than the Board's business. If Vermont Yankee isn't profitable, it is still only a part of a company.  Vermont Yankee is part of Entergy, and the chances that "the company" would have financial issues is very slight.  (And by the way, the Board doesn't have a particularly good track record at seeing problems coming: think Burlington Telecom). 

Actually, the Board's economic concern with Vermont Yankee profitability is a very thinly veiled nuclear safety concern, in my opinion. Is Entergy making enough money to operate the plant safely? (I am shocked, of course, that the Board is treading so close to federally pre-empted issues.  Shocked, shocked....)

As reported by WCAX, Peter Bradford of Vermont Law School said that: "Most nuclear plant owners are responsible and in any case recognize there is nothing more against their self-interest than an accident, but there's always the possibility somebody will cut a corner..." Commenting on the hearings, WCAX states that: "State officials say the continued economic health of Entergy is vital." 


WCAX.COM Local Vermont News, Weather and Sports-

National Economics

The next step for our local activists was to sue the NRC about Entergy finances.  A group is suing the NRC: it  claims that emergency NRC action is required because Entergy is not "financially qualified" to operate the plants. The suit asks that the NRC take emergency enforcement actions against Vermont Yankee's license (and Pilgrim's license, and Fitzpatrick's license) on the basis that Entergy is operating these plants at a loss. 

Nuclear plants and coal plants are currently struggling because of the low price of natural gas. Still the price of natural gas is about twice as high as it was a year ago, and nobody expects it to go down to the $2 level again.  Nuclear and coal are doing better than they did last year, but it is still not a great situation for merchant plants.  I discussed this at some length in my recent ANS blog post: Philosophy, Shale Gas and the NRC National Meeting.

The NRC inspects plants for safety, not economics.  If a plant cannot meet the safety criteria, the NRC will shut it down until it meets the criteria.  If the plant cannot afford to economically meet the criteria, it will close permanently for economic reasons.  But it will not be closing because the NRC inspected its balance sheet!  The NRC would be concerned if an entire company were about to file for bankruptcy.  How profit and loss are divided within a large company is not something that the NRC would try to regulate. (Note: the NRC does track the adequacy of decommissioning funds.)

Entergy Economics

And what about Entergy itself?  How's the company doing?  Everyone read the UBS report predicting Entergy would close Vermont Yankee: I discussed this report in my blog post: Vermont Yankee is Refueling, and I Sort of Told You So. (Well, actually I sort of trashed the UBS report in that post, by doing a careful analysis of the places where their conclusions didn't match their data.  Hint: always look at the data.)

For further reading about Entergy, I suggest the Seeking Alpha report from last August:  Entergy Corporation: Inside The Numbers.  It reviews Entergy results in several ways, and concludes: This shows that Entergy Corporation is very profitable, and very efficient. Based on the nine tests, overall, the company is showing very strong results.

And that report was written when natural gas prices were  lower than they are today!

Or you can look up Entergy prospects any place on the web.  Any particular plant may operate at a loss or a profit, but the company is a financial powerhouse.

How Thin Was Their Veil

The concentration on Entergy's economics (rather than the effect of Vermont Yankee on the state's economics) is a thinly veiled attempt, once again, to regulate nuclear safety.

Sigh.  I am shocked, shocked....

------------
Coming Attractions in this blog:

In recent days, three main issues were discussed before the Board:
  • Plant economics 
  • River water quality (especially thermal discharge) 
  • Entergy and trust
I plan to cover each issue in a separate post over the next  few days.


Saturday, May 4, 2013

Renewable Subsidies for the Rich: Guest Post by John McClaughry

Renewable Subsidies for the Rich by John McClaughry

Renewable electricity costs from two to five times (depending on the technology) as much as electricity from the New England grid, generated by natural gas, hydro, coal, and nuclear. Therefore no utility would rationally buy it but for an astounding assortment of subsidies and mandates.

Consider just these: The federal investment tax credit subsidizes 30% of the capital costs of small scale solar photovoltaic and wind projects. Some investors may also claim a 50% first year depreciation bonus, plus five years of ordinary depreciation of the remainder, regardless of the actual lifetime of the equipment. Wind generated electricity on any scale earns a 2.3 cents/kWh federal Production Tax Credit.

The Vermont legislature has added to this cornucopia a 7.2% investment tax credit for small wind and solar PV electricity produced from commercial properties. The Clean Energy Development Fund, until it ran out of money, also added 45 cents per residential installed watt for solar panels (40 cents per watt for commercial and industrial projects).

The legislature has also required Vermont utilities to buy solar PV (up to 2.2 MW) and small wind electricity (up to 100kw) at prices up to five times the wholesale price available on the New England power grid.  In an effort to lure enough new investors to stay on target toward the 127.5 MW program goal, the PSB has now pushed the feed in tariff rate for new solar PV projects up to 25.7 c/kWh for the next 25 years; and to 26.2 c/kWh averaged over 20 years for small wind.

To summarize: governments shower lucrative capital and operating subsidies on wind and solar entrepreneurs, then force the utilities buy their electricity at up to five times the New England wholesale price for 20 to 25 years, charging the extra cost to their ratepayers. What a sweet deal!

Willem Post of Woodstock is a retired electric engineer whose career took him all over the United States and Europe. One of his hobbies is running calculations on the economics of energy, especially renewable energy.

Post describes a $10.5 million 2.2 MW solar PV facility in White River Jct., created by high-income Boston investors. About 15 acres of topsoil and trees were cleared, leveled, and shielded by an eight foot high fence. The facility almost certainly features Chinese-made solar panels and German-made inverters. It will generate electricity only when the sun is adequately shining, which is about 35% of the hours of the year. The expected annual generation is 2,755 MWh.

Under the legislature’s feed-in tariff law, the Public Service Board mandated that Green Mountain
Power write a check to the investors each year for 25 years in the amount of $661,415.  Since the cost to GMP is about four times the cost of electricity from the New England grid, the utility will charge its customers $509,840 a year more than they would otherwise have had to pay for grid power.

The generous tax benefits appeal to people in the highest income tax brackets. In 2011 the Shumlin administration made it even more attractive to the rich by allowing them to take half of the lifetime projected tax benefits from the Clean Energy Development Fund as an upfront grant, an option eagerly taken by 64 of the first 68 investors in the program.

The state’s Comprehensive Energy Plan of 2011 recommended adoption of a Vermont Renewable Portfolio Standard, by which utilities would be required to increasingly higher percentages of their electricity from renewables (including HydroQuebec). Achieving this goal would mean that ratepayers would be hammered all the harder, while the investors pocket even greater profits. Nice.

Last spring the House was about to enact a Renewable Portfolio Standard. At the last minute Shumlin, an erstwhile advocate, instructed the House not to do it. We don’t know why he suddenly got cold feet, but 14 of the 29 states with RPS laws are currently watering them down.

That suggests that a lot of voters forced to pay for the renewable mandates have discovered that they are a very bad deal – unless they have allowed people like Peter Shumlin and Bill McKibben to terrify them about the Menace of Global Warming, which has disappeared since 1999.
-------------
John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute (www.ethanallen.org). I am a director of the Energy Education Project of the Ethan Allen Institute.


This article first appeared at Vermont Digger
http://vtdigger.org/2013/04/15/mcclaughry-renewable-subsidies-for-the-rich/

Monday, January 21, 2013

Energy Policy is Key to Vermont's Future: Guest Post by Guy Page

Guy Page

Vermont has excellent prospects for strong and sustained economic growth and a high quality of life if it can fashion a more prudent energy policy.  This is a central conclusion in a recent report released by The New England Council, the nation’s oldest regional business organization.

First, the good news.

The report, Smart Infrastructure in New England: An Investment for Growth and Prosperity, finds that Vermont has an important structural advantage:  a lower cost, high-skill subregion known as the I-91 Corridor.  As a result, this area and two other regional corridors have “acceptable cost structures for industries making complex products and/or offering sophisticated services.”   This can be a catalyst for the creation of new businesses, quality jobs and business relocations, particularly from manufacturers and distribution facilities.

I-91 in context
The I-91 corridor offers production costs, says the report, “only four to five percent higher than that for the same product made in the Southeast. Salaries are relatively comparable, and any cost differences come mainly from higher taxes and energy prices in the Northeast.”

Unfortunately, energy is a glaring competitive weakness.  As the report says, “New England’s infrastructure lacks an energy resource that is both reliable and cost competitive. In fact, prices for energy in the region are double those of some southern U.S. states.”

All six New England states are among the 10 most expensive for electricity rates in America, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.  And recently, with the push to higher-priced, non-competitive, mandated renewable electricity sources, Vermont’s electricity prices have increased considerably.  EIA reports that for the 12 months ending October 31, 2012, Vermont’s electricity prices had risen 6.8 percent, more than any state east of the Mississippi.  In fact, prices have declined or stayed the same in most states.

The New England Council report also makes clear that for economic and environmental reasons it is important to keep New England’s four nuclear plants operating.  New England needs its own sources of affordable, reliable, grid-friendly, low-carbon electricity – an apt description for nuclear power. And because new power plant construction seems unlikely, New England must protect its assets, including Vermont Yankee.

As the report says, “The region’s four nuclear power facilities generate 30 percent of its electric energy. Nuclear energy is the only local fuel source and plays a big role in maintaining fuel diversity. Just as important, low operating costs make nuclear power an economical choice. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that new plants will be built in New England in the future, while prices would likely rise if a current plant were decommissioned. This is the economic rationale for keeping nuclear facilities operating.”

The Council’s report also drives home the downside of closing nuclear power plants as regulation of carbon and other emissions increases.  It says, “In addition to providing cost and reliability advantages, nuclear energy also plays an important role in attaining greenhouse gas reduction goals. Nuclear energy is an emission-free energy source, producing no carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, or sulfur dioxide….. If nuclear power plants were closed, new sources of energy would need to be emission-free to continue to meet emissions standards.”

The Council supports energy portfolio diversity, including renewables if shown to be cost-efficient, and recommends investment in transmission and natural gas generation. For Vermont, however, the most important “takeaway” from Smart Infrastructure is this: New England’s future prosperity will benefit from the continued operation of Vermont Yankee.

Policy makers need to take us away from policies that lead to higher energy prices and undermine the region’s competitiveness.  Vermont can and should have a bright future, as the New England Council envisions.  We also owe this to our children, so they can find the jobs, quality of life, and opportunities here in the Green Mountain state.

About the Author:  Guy Page is Communications Director for the Vermont Energy Partnership, 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.  For additional information please visit www.vtep.org.

Friday, November 9, 2012

Young Workers in Windham County: Guest Post by Lindsay Rose

Lindsay Rose
Recent Graduate
Vermont Yankee Employee

Good evening commissioners,

My name is Lindsay Rose, and I would like to first thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you this evening. I’m from Hinsdale, New Hampshire and graduated from UNH in 2010. About a year after I graduated I got a job at Vermont Yankee where I found an exciting opportunity, a well-paying job, and a company with good community values.

It’s a fact that the demographics in Windham County are changing. From 2000 to 2010, the number of older workers, or the baby boomer generation, increased, but the number of young workers, aged 25 to 44, declined.  Basically Windham County’s future workforce is leaving.

Vermont’s future workforce will be looking for opportunity: A steady job, a well-paying job, a company that gives back to their community, and an industry that’s contributing to the overall good and health of our country. VY provides these jobs: more than 600 of them. It was ranked among the Best Places to Work for the last three years in a row by Vermont Business Magazine; VY management encourages volunteerism in our communities; and the nuclear energy industry is contributing to a clean, safe, reliable energy future.

Vermont Yankee is a company that brings professionals to Vermont. These professionals include recent graduates like me, and our country’s military veterans with nuclear experience who are ready to bring their skills and experiences to Vermont. Vermont Yankee is an essential economic driver and is a business that provides career opportunities that keep people in Vermont.

At Vermont Yankee I have a steady, well-paying job, I’m encouraged to learn and take on new activities and experiences, and I’m given opportunities to help the community by participating in VY’s many volunteer activities. This year I joined my co-workers and helped remodel the Brattleboro Drop In Center, I’m supporting Project Feed the Thousands, and I have begun volunteering for Big Brothers Big Sisters.

I’ve chosen to stay in the area specifically because of my job at Vermont Yankee and I enjoy living in the area. The opportunities that I’ve described are what keep me working at VY, and are what keep me in the area. If I didn’t have these opportunities at Vermont Yankee, I would find them elsewhere. This is a great place to live if you have a good job, but I couldn’t live here without one. Thank you for considering my comments.

----------

This is the second in a series of posts which share statements made in favor of Vermont Yankee at the Public Service Board hearing on November 7, 2012.

Ms. Rose spoke on behalf of herself as a personal statement.



Farm and Forest in Vermont: Bruce Shields Guest Post

Bruce Shields, President of the Ethan Allen Institute
Tree farmer in Vermont
I am Bruce Shields, President of Ethan Allen Institute, a Vermont organization promoting free markets and individual decision making.  I have been active in agriculture and forestry in Vermont since 1977.

Agriculture and forestry at about 20% of Vermont’s economy provide a stable and widely distributed base of employment.  Thousands more derive their living indirectly -- paper mills, Cabot Cheese, Ethan Allen Furniture and hundreds of self employed truckers, mechanics, and financial service workers.

These people look to State government to provide a stable and predictable economic framework in which they may operate.  Energy is key to the success of farming and forestry.  No other sector of Vermont has more rapidly and profoundly modernized its production process, and electrical energy is their indispensable base.   One modern farmer with several hundred horsepower of electrical motors on his farm creates more value than 50 farmers like my grandfather did.  An electric sawmill with 5 or 6 hands can put up as much lumber in a day as 30 or more hands could 50 years ago.

Both farming and forestry are dominated by small family businesses who have little influence over their selling price.  The market provides our income: we can only control our expenses.  Electricity is one of the largest expenses for the typical farm.   In 2009, Vermont Gross Farm Income was $589,827,000.  The National Agricultural Statistical Service [NASS] shows that electricity cost our farms $17,423,000 -- 2.95% of GFI.  After all expenses are deducted, Net Farm Income for 2009 was $97,099,000.   Electricity cost equals 17.95% of NFI.  Both the low net operating margin, and the high cost of electricity are consistent with prior years.  But the trend is adverse: in 2003, electricity was 2.72% of GFI, and just 11.87% of NFI.   That upward trend in electrical costs is a negative for business viability.

Vermont Yankee has anchored the power costs of all New England.  Steady and predictable generation smooths price volatility across the region, helping to cap spikes and fill in voids.    Other power sources may move in concert with dominant economic indicators and thus impact farmers and sawmills concurrently with other stressors like high oil costs, or a drought.  For Vermont’s economic health we need to maintain as many counter-cyclical mechanisms as possible.

An operational Vermont Yankee will also inject about $100 million per year into the Vermont economy, and pay millions in statewide education taxes which already fall heavily on farm and forest land. If Vermont Yankee remains open, some of that $100 million in economic benefit will find its way to the wood products makers and farmers. But if it closes, a share of those millions in lost taxes would be inevitably transferred to them, as well. I see no upside to closing Vermont Yankee for farmers and wood products manufacturers.

----------

This is the first in a series of posts which share statements made in favor of Vermont Yankee at the Public Service Board hearing on November 7, 2012.   I will have pictures from the meeting for most of the posts.

Shields is President of the Ethan Allen Institute, and my Energy Education Project is part of the Institute.   Quoting from his biography on the Ethan Allen site:

Bruce, a family tree farmer, has been active in farm and forestry work for many years. He has served as state treasurer of the Vermont Farm Bureau since 1994 and as vice president and president of the Lamoille County Farm Bureau for 13 years. He has been active for many years in leadership positions in the Vermont Timber Truckers and Producers Association, the Vermont Sugar Makers Association, the Vermont Forestry Foundation, and the Vermont Forest Products Association. (Bruce is on the board of directors of the Vermont Forest Products Association.)

Monday, October 22, 2012

Keynes and Hayek: The Rap Videos

I just discovered these two videos about economic theory.

The rap version of economic theory.

I wanted to share these videos because I found them enjoyable and fascinating.  The videos are about economic theory, but they are really about the role of government. Or maybe they are about the role of books.  Or maybe...




Not everyone loves these videos, but millions of people have watched them. The videos may or may not be related to a new book by Nicholas Wapshott:  Keynes Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics
 


At any rate, I think they are fun and thought-provoking and I hope you enjoy them.

Sunday, August 26, 2012

119th Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers Here at Yes Vermont Yankee


The 119th Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers is here today at Yes Vermont Yankee!  I am so pleased with the great blog posts in this Carnival.

I just recently added a set of Share This buttons at the right of the blog.  Please use them to spread the word of the Carnival. Facebook, email and Twitter are right up-top. The Plus button gives you many more choices, such as Stumble-Upon, Reddit and Pinterest. It's easy to spread the word. Just click the button!

Now, on to the Carnival.  To me, a major theme of this Carnival is the difficulty of communicating about nuclear energy.

Fukushima Communication
Let's start with an important Fukushima report and video at ANS Nuclear Cafe

Video interview with ANS Special Committee on Fukushima Co-Chair: Michael Corradini
Dr. Michael Corradini

The leadership of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) commissioned the American Nuclear Society Special Committee on Fukushima to provide a clear and concise explanation of what happened during the Fukushima Daiichi accident, and offer recommendations based on lessons learned from their study of the event.

Dr. Michael Corradini is president of the ANS, and he is also co-chair of the ANS Special Committee on Fukushima. In this video,  Dr. Corradini provides an update on the Special Committee’s work, including the release of the committee’s final report. He also announces as an embedded topical meeting on Fukushima that will take place at the upcoming 2012 ANS Winter Meeting in San Diego, Nov 11-15.

Health Communication
At Atomic Insights, Rod Adams asks why radiation health professionals are so reluctant to talk about radiation hormesis.


Rod shares some comments from an experienced group of professionals about the reluctance of radiation protection professionals to discuss hormesis. Ted Rockwell, who was troubleshooter at Oak Ridge during the Manhattan Project and later served as Admiral Rickover’s technical director when Naval Reactors developed the first nuclear powered submarine (USS Nautilus) and the first commercial light water reactor (Shippingport) provided the first comment.

Aside: Ted's background information is provided to show that he is not only deeply experienced in nuclear energy and its associated radiation, but he is also a rather mature 90 years old and still going strong.

Energy Communication
At Neutron Economy, Steve Skutnik discusses the role of cultural signaling in the energy discussion.


At the Neutron Economy, Steve Skutnik asks the question of how much cultural signaling factors play a role in energy politics. Specifically, how much of support for energy sources like coal (and likewise, renewables) come more from that they say about the values and identities over more rational study of environmental and economic trade-offs?

(Skutnik starts his discussion with a look at why the Friends of Coal plate is the most popular custom license plate in Kentucky.)

Economics Communication
Quite a few  interesting posts  in this category.  

Nuclear Costs
Let's start with Brian Wang at Next Big Future, examining anti-nuclear bias in a Guardian assessment of nuclear power costs


Brazilian Oil Platform Wikipedia
Expensive equipment
A Guardian UK analysis of nuclear power has the usual bias. Oliver Tickell's analysis has - At a construction cost of about US$10 billion per reactor, we would need to dedicate US$110 trillion, or about two years' gross world product, while also providing for long-term liabilities to replace the new fossil fuel generation for expected energy demand growth. However, about 90% of the reactors will be built in or by China, South Korea, Russia and India. The costs will be two to four times less.  In total the costs for nuclear energy to replace all additional fossil fuel for the next 35 years would be more in range of $30 trillion. The analysis is not complete because the comparison of costs needs to look at the costs for the alternatives of wind, solar and other power generation. Wind has the problem that if wind was the sole basis for new power generation it would a warming effect as well.

In a related link Wang points out the oil and gas capital expenditures are currently at more that $1 trillion ( US $) per year.

Fuel Choices
Customs officers 
 Inport controls in action
At Idaho Samizdat, Dan Yurman and Andrea Jennetta report on fuel choices and small modular reactors.

Yurman and Jennetta assess fuel choices for SMRs in terms of assess time to market and export control issues. Thorium reactors face a challenge of proving their competitive advantage in terms of total cost of doing business.

Advertising Campaigns
In Yes Vermont Yankee, I describe a possible advertising communications campaign for Indian Point.

The Subways of New York and Indian Point

Indian Point could advertise on the New York subways, since they provide part of the power for the subways. I thought of some neat ads for them. This post had many hits, and attracted some of the "usual suspects" from the New York area in the comment stream.  Should I be glad I have a new set of readers? (just a joke)


Education and Communication
The Center for Nuclear Science and Technology
The Center for Nuclear Science and Technology: Who should the audience be?
American Nuclear Society's CNST

At 4Factor Consulting Blog, Margaret Harding talks about the Center for Nuclear Science and Technology that ANS is creating to help with education. Two speeches given at the ANS-UWC put the idea in her head that the CNST should be doing more to education journalists and local governments. In the end, what are YOU doing to educate your community?

ANS Young Members
New chair for the Young Members Group at ANS


Gale Hauck

At ANS Nuclear Cafe, American Nuclear Society Young Members Group (YMG) Secretary Elia 
Merzari caught up with new YMG Chair Gale Hauck and asked her to 

introduce herself and upcoming plans for the ANS YMG.



Politics and Communication
Gail Marcus discusses Harry Reid and Bill Magwood
Harry Reid insulted NRC Commissioner Bill Magwood.  Allison Macfarlane would be re-appointed Commission Chair by Obama if he is re-elected.  How is this all going to play out?

More on Reid and Magwood

At Nuke Power Talk, Gail Marcus has a follow-up to her previous discussion on Harry Reid's comments on NRC Commissioner Bill Magwood a few weeks ago.  She reflects on a comment the earlier blog received, which speculated that, if President Obama is reelected, he will want to reappoint Chairman Allison Macfarlane, but it will prove impossible because there will be no Republican with which to pair her nomination.  Gail follows that train of thought and considers the various possibilities.

Nuclear History: SYLCOR Continued




Moving away from communications issues, we look at nuclear history with Will Davis of Atomic Power review.

SYLCOR Western Office:  Part 3

In the latest SYLCOR historical retrospective installment, we learn about SYLCOR's specialty in fuel elements in text and photos, and see a particularly unusual type of fuel element made by this company for a special situation.  Many interesting illustrations are included.


Technology of Uranium Extraction
For our final Carnival entry, we get away from communications into straight technology.  Brian Wang reports that the technology for extracting uranium from seawater has improved.  Costs for seawater extraction are getting closer to land-based costs.

Uranium from seawater idea boosted with shrimp shells

At Next Big Future, Brian Wang reports  that uranium from seawater technology has been improved. 'Although these trials proved the principle of uranium extraction from  seawater, the cost was prohibitively high - perhaps around $260 per  pound. This compares badly to today's most economic mines on land, which produce uranium at around $20 per pound, while resources at higher  costs up to about $115 per pound have already been identified that would last more than a century.' And: The ACS summarised the session saying that the new techniques might reduce the cost of uranium from seawater to around $135 per pound.

Enjoy the Carnival!

Read it! Follow the links!  Tweet it! Facebook it!  (Buttons at top right for your linking pleasure.)

Have fun and spread the fun!