Watch Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Real Time

Carbon Dioxide and Nuclear

The first meeting of the nuclear energy study group at Dartmouth was true to its name: Nuclear Power for Climate and for People.  Bob Hargraves gave an excellent presentation on carbon dioxide and the role nuclear energy can play in carbon dioxide abatement.

I sent the class members links to sites where you can watch the carbon content of the electricity sector, pretty much world-wide.  Here's the note I sent.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Our first session was mostly about climate change.  In general, the electric sector is only part of the problem: industry, heating and transportation are important sources of carbon dioxide emissions.  However, almost all decarbonization plans for those emissions involve using electricity in other sectors: electric cars, heat pumps.  So the carbon dioxide content of the electric sector is essential, right now and in the hopefully-decarbonized future.

Real Time Electricity

Screen grab of electricitymap selection at 11 a.m. January 20

Now, back to the  electricity sector.  Interactive sites are fun, because you can watch them in real time.  Or maybe I just have an odd idea of fun....

Here's a real-time, interactive map of world-wide CO2 emissions. Many (but not all) countries are on it. https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=map

Little stuff: To move between areas in the map, click and hold. While holding, you can drag the map around with your mouse. You can also zoom in and out with your mouse. Wind and solar are listed as "false" above, because I have not checked the "wind solar potential" boxes. I am suspicious of the word "potential." I want real time data, not projections.

France and Germany

For fun, let's click on France, which is green on the map.
France is at 39 grams CO2 per kWh right now (it generally hangs around at that level)
96% low carbon electricity
25% renewable (hydro, I believe)

Okay, next, let's click on Germany.
Germany is at 470 grams CO2 per kWh (it is at that level a lot, but sometimes goes down to the 300s or even high 200s.  Watch it for yourself.)
It has 42% low-carbon electricity
22% renewable, probably hydro and wind

The difference between the low-carbon and renewable numbers is nuclear--low-emissions but not renewable.

Data is from around 9 a.m. this morning, January 20

New York, Ontario, Alberta

From EmissionTrak at 11 a.m. January 20

This website gives a week's worth of emissions for New York, Ontario, and Alberta. The source of the emissions is color-coded. http://emissiontrak.com/cei/nyOnAb.html

Ontario is mostly nuclear and hydro, New York is mixed, Alberta is coal and natural gas.  I think their "other fossil" is coal. Coal is--- "He who must not be named."

Fun with Maps!

Enjoy these maps. I think "playing around" is the best way to find out stuff. Have fun. We will see you Thursday!

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.

Nuclear Blogger Carnival #304, at Yes Vermont Yankee

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

Let's start by looking into the future with nuclear energy.

Expanding the Definition of Renewable

At Nuke Power Talk, Gail Marcus discusses how words like “renewable” come to be associated with specific technologies, but looking at the bigger picture.  For example, solar and wind, usually regarded as renewable, use non-renewable materials to extract the “renewable” energy.  On the other hand, we may well be able to extract uranium from seawater in the future. This could could make nuclear energy as renewable as solar and wind power.

Progress Report on HTGR reactors in China and U.S.

At Neutron Bytes, Dan Yurman describes newly-achieved milestones in the development of the  high temperature gas cooled reactor (HTGR).  The HTGR concept has more than three decades of history behind it.  Both the U.S. and China are developing this type of reactor, and it has had several new breakout milestones in both countries.

Is Duke Still Banking on Lee?

At Neutron Bytes, Dan Yurman looks at the prospects for the new Lee plant.  Duke will complete the NRC licensing process, but the answer to the question whether or when it will build the nuclear power station comes in several parts spread over two states.

Sometime later this year the NRC will issue a combined operating license (COL) to the William States Lee III nuclear power plant which references twin Westinghouse 1150 MW AP1000 nuclear reactors. Duke CEO Lynn Good says that once the utility gets the license from the NRC, it will still have to decide “how and whether it makes sense to build nuclear.” Even if Duke started this year, it could take six-to-ten years before either unit entered revenue service.

“There are all kinds of considerations,” Good says. The utility, as a publicly traded firm, has to take into account a “prudent investor.” With a market capitalization of $55 billion, the estimated $12 billion the two units could cost would be just over 20% of the total value of the giant utility. That’s pretty close to a “bet the company” decision which makes prudence a key factor in assessing the need for the project.

Now, let's look at why we need nuclear energy!

Illinois’ Nuclear Dilemma Embroils Famed Climate Scientist James Hansen

At Forbes, James Conca writes that Illinois faces a peculiar dilemma in planning its clean energy future. Unless something is done, the state is going to lose its most important low-carbon energy source: nuclear energy. On Monday, a coalition of scientists and conservationists, including famed climate scientist James Hansen, sent an open letter to Illinois legislators. The scientists asked the legislators to stop nuclear closures from happening. (This post has an excellent graphic, which shows that nuclear might require a 0.3 cent per kWh surcharge to keep the plants running, while solar subsidies in Illinois are 21.9 cents per kWh.)

The Worth-It Threshold – When gas or gas + renewables is as bad for climate as a coal plant

At Atomic Insights a guest post by Mike Conley & Tim Maloney basically asks whether burning natural gas is truly better than coal for the climate.  Burning methane for energy produces about half the CO2 of coal, which is a good thing. But fugitive methane – the gas that leaks before it can be burned – is a powerful greenhouse gas, with 84X the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2.

The big idea behind wind and solar farms is to fight global warming by reducing greenhouse gases. But since most of a farm’s power is actually generated by gas, the rationale for a massive build-out of utility-scale wind and solar hinges on the issue of fugitive methane.

That rationale just had a major meltdown at Porter Ranch.

Fallout From The Nuclear Security Summit

At Forbes, James Conca reports on the Nuclear Security Summit last week in Washington, D.C. The Summit showcased significant progress in reducing global nuclear weapons and nuclear material stockpiles, and increased security on nuclear facilities. A dozen countries are now free of weapons-grade materials.

There is a lot of good news: a newly-amended nuclear protection treaty was signed by over 100 countries. The historic nuclear deal with Iran has, so far, gone as planned. However, China is the country that is expanding most in nuclear power and weapons.

Looking backward a bit, and learning from history

Chernobyl through the mist of decades

At ANS Nuclear Cafe, Will Davis looks at Chernobyl: what happened, and what people said happened.  The fog of three decades has obscured the memory of the Chernobyl accident. Many incorrect sources were written after the accident, and have have misled those in search of the facts.  Will Davis uses historic documents and accounts of those directly involved during and after the accident.  With the keen eye of a historian, Davis clarifies our perception of what really happened before, during and after.

State Control of Decommissioning Funds is a Bad Idea

At Yes Vermont Yankee, guest blogger Richard January describes the state of Vermont's attempts to "have input" on the decommissioning process.  Vermont and Massachusetts are lobbying the NRC for "tighter rule-making" on decommissioning. As January points out, the state of Vermont is strapped for cash, and it is not clear that state decisions would be driven solely by safety, and not by the desire for another infusion of Vermont Yankee cash.  NRC oversight of decommissioning is a far better idea.


Once again, pro-nuclear bloggers have covered many aspects of energy: nuclear energy, new types of plants, gas emissions, funding issues.   Click on the posts and read more!

Vermont and the EPA Carbon Abatement. Be Careful What You Ask For.

The Carbon Abatement Plan

A few days ago, the EPA issued a proposed plan for greenhouse gas mitigation.  The plan is intended to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the electricity sector by 30% by 2030.  The required mitigations are determined by state.  For example, since Vermont has no fossil fuel electricity plants, Vermont has no required mitigation.

According to USA Today, the EPA document about the plan is 645 pages long. According to many reports, President Obama was frustrated with Congress’s inability to pass greenhouse gas legislation. Therefore, he  asked the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases directly, without requiring a law passed by Congress.

State by State and Here Come the Lawsuits

In the 645 page plan, different states have different proposed carbon mitigations. As reported in the Washington Post  and also published in my local Valley News)

Kentucky and West Virginia get more than 90 percent of their power from coal. The EPA made concessions to those states in setting its climate target. Coal-heavy Indiana, for example, would need to make smaller percentage cuts than New York or Washington states.

• West Virginia is a heavily coal state, and the EPA says it must cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 19%. 
• New York State gets less than 10% of its electricity from coal, and 80% of its electricity is generated by nuclear, hydro and natural gas. The EPA says that New York State must cut its carbon emissions by 44%.

To me, these rules seem arbitrary. It is no wonder that many commentators expect a raft of lawsuits. The satirical website, The Onion,  sums up the situation beautifully: New EPA Regulations Would Force Power Plants to Find 30% More Loopholes by 2030.

What about Vermont?

In this potential mess, Vermont is doing well. As Vermont Digger wrote: Obama Points to Vermont as a Model for Carbon Reduction. As noted in that article: Vermont does not generate electricity from coal and is the only state not required to come up with a plan (the district of Columbia is also exempt.)  Indeed, Vermont does not generate much electricity from fossil fuels, though we do generate 14% of our electricity from oil (ISO-NE state profile).  We have hydro, biomass, and of course, Vermont

From ISO-NE state profile

Yankee nuclear power.

Oops.  Vermont Yankee?  Vermont Yankee will go off-line at the end of the year. What will this mean for Vermont’s carbon-reduction plan?


Well, nothing immediately.  Though the current Vermont administration encourages more natural gas pipelines and the state Comprehensive Energy Plan includes a  great deal about natural gas, we don’t have any natural gas power plants in-state at this time.

When our nuclear plant shuts down,  this will not mean that Vermont will immediately generate fossil-fuel-based electricity in-state.  Oh yes, we will be buying more fossil-fuel based electricity from the grid.  Yes, the grid will be burning more fossil fuels to make up for Vermont Yankee being off line.  Those are facts.

However, since Vermont won’t be generating fossil-fuel-based electricity in-state, we won’t have to design a fossil-fuel mitigation plan for Vermont.  To me, this is just another way that the rules are more about politics than about pollutant mitigation.

NOx and carbon and me

Back in the early days of the Clean Air Act, I worked on methods for preventing NOx pollution. At the time, our work was funded by the EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB).  NOx (nitrogen oxides) are precursors of acid rain, photochemical smog, and ozone.  Comparing the NOx abatement work with the current set of carbon rules, I notice that this recent pollution control plan is political right from the  beginning.

Usually,  emission rules are based on an assessment of health issues or other concerns of importance to society.  Once the rules are in place, however, groups seek (and often get) variances based on their particular situations. The variances often include political considerations.

Still, the rules themselves, as promulgated,  are supposed to be based on science, not politics. Not in this case, as far as I can tell.  These rules incorporate the politics of each state.

Perhaps this 645 page document means that President Obama’s administration is cutting to the chase: they are going directly to the political realities.  However, one cannot help but notice that drastic cuts in greenhouse gases are set for states with only few coal plants. This isn’t terribly effective as a mitigation measure.  “If you mine and use a lot of coal, that’s okay!  Just small cutbacks!  But if you use nuclear and natural gas...we’re on your case!”

This policy does not have a lot to do with effectively limiting greenhouse gases.

Vermont as the model?

Vermont does not have to come up with a greenhouse mitigation plan because we do not burn coal for electricity generation in Vermont.  After Vermont Yankee shuts down, we will be generating far less of our electricity in Vermont.  The rest of our electricity will be imported from elsewhere, and those other states will have to bear the burden of complying with the new rules. We still won't have to come up with a greenhouse gas mitigation plan for Vermont.  It will be somebody else's problem.

Electric  car in China

Is this truly the model that the president wants? Export your problems?

Be careful what you wish for...
------

Snide end note:  Does anybody except myself see the irony in the graphic at the top the Vermont Digger article Obama points to Vermont as a model for carbon reduction?  The graphic is a picture of a charging station “for the state’s fleet of solar vehicles.”

Avoid Carbon Dioxide, Keep Vermont Yankee; Dr. Carlos Pinkham Guest Post

Dr. Carlos Pinkham
Professor Emeritus
Biology and Ecology 

By Carlos Pinkham, Professor Emeritus, Norwich University

On the evening of November 7, I spoke before the Vermont Public Service Board in Vernon in support of the continued operation of Vermont Yankee. What appears below is quite similar to the testimony I submitted in written form to the board, and from which I drew my remarks.

In the ‘70’s, I was one of the U.S. Army’s first environmental scientists working National Environmental Policy Act issues with Project Managers.  I found that progress could be made if both parties would adopt four ground rules:

• Agree that both sides had legitimate concerns. 
• Agree to listen seriously to these concerns and see the problem from the other side’s perspective. 
• Agree to think outside the box. 
• Agree to be willing to compromise. 

Employing these four ground rules, we were able to ensure completion of the mission and mitigation of environmental impacts in each of the hundred plus projects I worked on. I sense that some of these rules are not being followed in the VY controversy.

As Vermonters, we have always taken pride in being environmentally conscious. We keep our streets clean, we protect our parks and lands, we recycle, and we have some of the country’s highest air quality ratings. These are the same sources of pride that motivate both sides of the Vermont Yankee debate.

Following, are some sources of pride that should be considered rationally from the pro Vermont Yankee side. Since coming online in 1972, Vermont Yankee has generated over 150 million megawatts of electricity and prevented more than 69 million tons of carbon dioxide from entering our air. Vermont Yankee’s clean operation avoids 2.8 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually, as well as emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.  Avoidance of these harmful greenhouse gases while producing almost three-quarters of the electricity generated in state has helped Vermont achieve its second-place nationwide ranking for lowest electric power-related carbon footprint.

In addition, Vermont Yankee has contributed significantly to Vermont’s number one ranking for “green” jobs per capita, according to a March, 2012 report by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Nuclear power jobs, including hundreds at Vermont Yankee, are clearly defined in the report as green jobs.

We would lose these sources of pride with a Vermont Yankee shutdown. MIT Professor and head of the Dept. of Nuclear Science Dr. Richard Lester notes that Vermont Yankee’s closure would lead to significant increases in carbon emissions. If the 620 MW of power provided by the plant is replaced by natural gas-fired plants on the New England grid, the increase would be equivalent to 30% of the state’s total current emissions.

Vermont has always been an environmental leader. If we choose to close down Vermont Yankee, our leadership could suffer, as closing Vermont Yankee will lead to heightened use of fossil fuels to meet electricity demand.

Carlos F. A. Pinkham, PhD
Active Professor Emeritus

Co-Director, Vermont State Science and Mathematics Fair
Chair, Vermont ESTEEM Network
Researcher, Vermont EPSCoR Streams Project
Faculty Advisor, Norwich Christian Fellowship

----------
Norwich University is the oldest senior military college in the United States, founded in 1819.

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

The Vermont Energy Plan: Little Time to Comment, No Time to Review

This blog post is a slightly edited version of an article I wrote for True North Reports last week. I am grateful to True North Reports for permission to reprint it on my blog.

Governor Shumlin wants a plan--without Vermont Yankee

Shortly after Governor Shumlin took office, he said he was very surprised to see that the State Energy Plan included Vermont Yankee operating past March 2012, operating beyond its design date. He claimed my team (is) frankly scrambling to put together a shutdown plan that should have been designed over the years...we have grid challenges, we have challenges in rates....

Shumlin, a plant opponent, did not change his opinion of "design date" after the NRC extended Vermont Yankee's federal license until 2032. Instead, he and his team put together a plan for Vermont without Vermont Yankee, the Comprehensive Energy Plan (CEP). The plan was written under the auspices of the Department of Public Service (DPS) and is now going through the public comment process.

The CEP was released on September 14, and the public comment period ends on October 10, less than a month later. (October 10 is a week from today.)

The CEP covers electricity, heating, transmission, and transportation. It is over 600 pages long, including the appendices. The main volume is 368 pages. Less than a month does not give the public much time to review the documents.

What is a Plan?

The CEP includes ambitious renewable goals, but little actual planning. Among other things, it doesn't address the issue of electricity supply without Vermont Yankee in a straightforward fashion.

For example, in the summary document, the electricity section (pages 7 through 9) includes expansion of the standard offer program for renewable energy, and hiring a new "renewable energy project development director" for DPS. The electricity section does not mention natural gas or acknowledge any gap in the electricity supply.

However, the home and business heating section (pages 10 through 12) does note that there might be an electricity supply gap. On page 11, the heating section encourages the expansion of a gas pipeline into Vermont because "Natural gas can address two key needs: reduce Vermonter's reliance on overseas oil for heating....and help fill a gap in electric supply." (emphasis added).

We Have Goals and Stakeholders

The CEP contains goals such as 90% of our energy needs by renewable sources by 2050. (page 3 of summary document). There are no numbers or dates for future construction of renewable sources, however. No statements such as "this much wind energy by this date." The CEP does contain a solid recapitulation of Vermont's historic energy demand and supply sources.

However, that is not the same as a forward-looking plan.

The Institute for Energy and the Environment of Vermont Law School(VLS) recently announced that they had extensive input on the CEP. The Law School input is visible in the CEP. The CEP contains historical data, things to be considered in choosing energy sources, and a great deal about "process" and "stakeholders."

However, the CEP is not what an engineer would call a plan.

Controversy

Despite its lack of content, the plan has come under fire from VPIRG (Vermont Public Interest Research Group). Shay Totten, of Seven Days, blogged about VPIRG's early criticism of the plan. VPIRG felt the plan did not move far enough and fast enough about renewables.

According to Totten, Ben Walsh of VPIRG did some quick calculations about renewable goals, and fired off an email titled "Really? This is what we waited for?" Walsh pointed out that Vermont utilities added 1.6 percent new renewables under Governor Douglas, and, calculating back from the goals, the CEP calls for only 1.1 percent new renewables per year.

Four hours after Walsh sent the email, his boss James Moore wrote an apologetic email: "We are thrilled to have a comprehensive energy plan that shows real vision for where this state can and should go." However, Moore noted that "There are parts of the plan that we feel are weak, like the renewable energy requirements."

Shay Totten's post has insightful comments on what this exchange means in terms of the usually cozy relationships between Governor Shumlin and VPIRG. It is worth reading.

After the Totten blog post, the controversy between VPIRG and the State continued. The Rutland Herald reported that James Moore of VPIRG criticized the renewable energy plan even more strongly about a day later. He claimed that the administration target puts renewable energy growth in Vermont on a slower annual pace than it is on now.

Elizabeth Miller, the DPS Commissioner, was also quoted in the Rutland Herald. Miller said she wasn't sure how VPIRG calculated this renewable energy target (number).

In my opinion, this controversy was caused by the fact that the plan has long-term goals and few actual numbers. VPIRG was criticizing numbers that DPS did not explicitly put in the plan.

Examining a Plan Goal

As an example, it is worth looking at one chart with plan goals. The following chart on the right is on page 14 of Volume two of the CEP.

This shows the plans for Greenhouse Gas emissions for the future in Vermont. (You can click to enlarge it). The level of greenhouse gases produced from the electricity sector is shown as rising rapidly after 2012, presumably after Vermont Yankee closes. The chart also shows projections for lowering greenhouse emissions are (at minimum) aggressive, and probably unworkable. It is a chart of goals, not a plan.

The one part of the chart that seems grounded in a defined event (closing Vermont Yankee) is the rise in electricity-produced greenhouse gases after 2012. The CEP claims that it does not actually take a stand on Vermont Yankee. On page 150 of volume 2: This plan will not take a position on whether VY should continue to operate; that is the role of state laws and processes and is the subject of the pending lawsuit.

However, since the impetus of writing the plan was to have an energy plan without Vermont Yankee in the mix, this statement is a bit disingenuous. For example, a recent editorial about the plan in the Burlington Free Press notes that: Given the governor's history, no one should be surprised that nuclear energy -- Vermont Yankee in particular -- has no long-term future in the Shumlin plan.

Note: A Burlington Free Press article by Nancy Remsen: Vermont Faces Up to Energy Challenge gives an excellent overview of the plan, particularly the home heating (natural gas and wood) and transportation (electric vehicles) section. Full disclosure...I am quoted in the article.

A Way to Comment

There is still a week left to send input to the DPS on the CEP. Though the plan itself is quite long, the summary document is only 19 pages, and can be reviewed rapidly. The public comment page

http://www.vtenergyplan.vermont.gov/comment/public_comment

You are asked to address only one energy topic per comment (electricity, conservation) but you can submit multiple comments.

Or you can use the email address to comment.

PSD.energyplan2011comments@state.vt.us

These electronic forms are probably the best ways to comment, though there are public meetings on October 3 and October 6, also.

http://www.vtenergyplan.vermont.gov/events#public%20hearings

Approval Moving Forward

The CEP approval process is moving forward rapidly. The length of the CEP documents and the shortness of the comment period are somewhat intimidating. Still, it is possible to comment, perhaps by choosing one area of the plan. Citizens interested in Vermont's energy future should comment. As citizens, we have an obligation to have our voice heard.

Power Purchases in Vermont: Not Really Replacing Vermont Yankee But Adding Greenhouse Gases.

The chart above comes from the Vermont Department of Public Service website. Dave Lamont of that department drew this chart in March of this year. It shows the "committed resources" for Vermont's electricity supply. Vermont uses approximately 6000 GWh electricity per year. The chart shows power plants and utilities that have agreed to sell power to Vermont.

We can see the more-than-2000 GWh from Vermont Yankee (bottom left gray area) coming to an end in 2012. We can also see old Hydro-Quebec (HQ) contracts coming to an end in 2016 and new HQ contracts starting around that time frame, for slightly less supply than the old contracts.

The most noticeable thing on the chart is all that white space to the right of 2012--the who-knows-where-it's-coming-from part of Vermont's electricity supply. Roughly half the electricity supply after 2012 on this chart is white space: it simply isn't there.

Recently, new announcements of power purchases by Vermont utilities have re-assured people in Vermont that there's going to be plenty of electricity anyhow, if Vermont Yankee closes. However, there is less in these contracts than meets the eye, in my opinion.

The New Contracts

The big new contract is GMP (Green Mountain Power) with Seabrook Station Nuclear power plant in New Hampshire. GMP is going to buy 60 MW of power from Seabrook. That is about 1/3 of the power that Vermont obtains from Vermont Yankee. To see this amount on the chart above, draw a line at about 700 GWh above the existing lines. As you will note, the big supply gap is still there. For example, adding 700 GWh in 2017 (when the current HQ contracts phase out and we are on the new HQ contracts) moves the total supply to around 3600 GWh out of 6000 GWh required. Okay. So that's only 40% white space now. When we factor in the Seabrook purchase, only 40% of the electricity is "who knows where it is coming from?"

However, today's news included more announcements of power purchases, this time by Central Vermont Public Service (CVPS). CVPS bought 0.57 GWh through the end of 2012. The new contracts are opaque: CVPS said they held a "structured auction," and got a good price (4.75 cents per kWh). However, CVPS won't release the names of the auction winners. Nobody knows what kind of power CVPS bought. It's probably fossil based, because the Northeast grid is fossil based.

CVPS also had to get ready for the Vermont Yankee outage, and needed to buy power for that. As the Reuters article says: The contracts will also fill Central Vermont's energy needs during the planned Vermont Yankee refueling outage this fall, the utility said.

The Seabrook power purchased by GMP is available for many years, but the agreements announced today by CVPS are only for power through 2012, when the old and new HQ contracts are also both available. It's a short-term power purchase agreement.

That Chart Again: The Short-Term Power Purchase Agreements

Looking at that Committed Resources chart again, at the head of this blog, we can notice two new things.

• First, look at the medium blue area called Vermont PPAs. These are various short-term power purchase agreements set up by the Vermont utilities. With a PPA, the utilities hopes to get a better deal than they would receive from the spot market. PPAs are never arranged too far in advance, or for very much power. These CVPS deals announced today are just more PPA deals, which are usually not accompanied with such hoopla. Of course, anything that claims to replace Vermont Yankee power will be a major announcement, nowadays.
• Second, these CVPS contracts extend only through the end of 2012, so they could only be covering the small amount of white space at the top of the chart, through 2012. They have no effect on the big white space to the right of the chart.

It's hard to see what all the excitement was about.

Time for Perspective: Greenhouse Gases

Up until now, I have been describing the Committed Resources chart at the top of this blog post. It's not the only chart the Department of Public Service prepared for their March presentation.

Below is a companion chart, showing the sources of greenhouse gases for Vermont. While Vermont Yankee is running, the electricity section of the greenhouse gas emissions is low. However, after 2012, look at those emissions grow! By 2015, the electricity sector in Vermont is making more greenhouse gases than all the heating of all Vermont buildings (RCI fuel use). By 2020, with autos and home heating emissions steady, the electricity sector has grown to be the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases.

I have noticed that the emission chart says "electricity supply high-emission scenario" but I don't see a low-emission scenario in the presentation. I can think of a low-emission scenario, though.

If Vermont Yankee keeps operating, that is a low-emission scenario, and a very good one.

Notes: You can double-click on the charts to enlarge them.

I also blogged about the Committed Resources chart at ANS Nuclear Cafe.