Vermont Yankee a Clean Power Alternative: Guest Post by Guy Page

Guy Page
Communications Director of VTEP

Vermont Yankee a cleaner power alternative than natural gas, coal
Guest Post by Guy Page

It is interesting if not peculiar that Rep. Tony Klein may move to repeal the state’s new ban on hydrofracking, a process which uses chemicals and a large volume of water to extract natural gas (Oct. 30 Burlington Free Press, “The Renewable Energy Debate”)! He wants Vermonters who are unhappy with the industrial wind development he has championed to realize that the likely alternative is nuclear power, natural gas and even coal.


It is unclear why Rep. Klein believes instate renewables and Vermont Yankee can’t co-exist. Both are low-carbon, jobs-producing, tax-paying domestic power sources benefiting New England, our own state included. Clean power diversity is a good thing, especially when one source (renewable wind and solar) is expensive per kilowatt-hour and operates at full power only part of the time. Vermont Yankee, a low-cost, 24/7 producer, can compensate for these shortfalls by making the region’s power run more smoothly, reliably and affordably.

Representative Tony Klein

Vermont’s legislative leadership has, as a practical matter, helped push Vermont and all of New England further into the arms of the natural gas-burning electricity producers of southern New England. If successful, the effort to close Vermont Yankee would make Vermont and the rest of New England depend more than ever on the regional power grid, for which the main fuel source is natural gas. The loss of 620 megawatts of virtually carbon-free power would result in more, not less, greenhouse gases. This obvious, if inconvenient, fact of cause-and-effect has been generally ignored, but never rebutted, by the “close Vermont Yankee, live carbon-free, build renewables” coalition of advocacy groups and elected and appointed officials.

The Vermont Public Service Board will soon hear Vermonters’ testimony about Vermont Yankee’s economic,  environmental, and reliability fitness for a 20-year Certificate of Public Good. The huge economic benefit of more than 1000 jobs, millions in annual state revenue, and low-cost power are widely recognized. So is the plant’s longtime, proven record of reliable 24/7 delivery of power on demand. Yet the environmental case for approving Vermont Yankee is for many people even more compelling, because in our great state of Vermont, the environment matters more than economics.  And like most compelling arguments, it is fairly simple: if Vermont really wants to reduce greenhouse gases, we cannot close the state’s biggest carbon-free power producer, thus forcing the combustion of even more natural gas, coal and oil to meet the region’s energy needs.

A report recently released by the prestigious New England Council, the region’s oldest business organization, underscores this point. The Council says  the most important step New England can make to be energy competitive and reduce greenhouse gases is to keep open the region’s four nuclear power plants.

Advocates of renewables and energy conservation will continue to articulate their vision. And it is indeed a glittering future that many Vermonters hope will come true – sometime. Yet the fact remains: closing Vermont Yankee would lead immediately to more reliance on fossil fuels and the addition of millions of tons of carbon to the atmosphere every year. Vermont can, and should, do better.


-----------

Guy Page is the communications director of the Vermont Energy Partnership (www.vtep.org), a Montpelier-based coalition of about 90 Vermont manufacturers, businesses and business groups, utilities, labor unions, and individuals committed to promoting a clean, safe, affordable and reliable energy future for Vermont. Entergy, owner of Vermont Yankee, is a member of VTEP.

Shumlin, the Storm, and Vermont Yankee: The storm is not a problem for the plant.

Shumlin says the storm is not a problem for Vermont Yankee! By golly, he's acting like a governor now, focusing attention on areas of Vermont that need attention!

In his interview at Democracy Now, Shumlin starts with the usual "leaking plant, untrustworthy company" stuff. But then he says we are "in good hands" about the plant and the storm. Instead of using the storm as yet-another-platform about Vermont Yankee, Shumlin puts important things first. The people who are flooded out, and the roads that are closed--those problems come first.



If you don't live in the state, and want to get an idea of the extent of the flooding damage, this road-closure map might help.

Update: I recommend Rod Adam's excellent post on this subject. Shumlin wants to shut down the nuclear plant and simulataneously help prevent global warming? Soft hearts should not be accompanied by soft heads.

Reliability and Business: Two Reasons Why Vermont Needs Vermont Yankee

Last week was a big week for writing letters about Vermont Yankee. I received (in various ways) two very informative letters about Vermont Yankee, and I want to share them in my blog. The first letter, about Vermont Yankee reliability, was sent by an Entergy Vice President. The second letter was an open letter to Peter Shumlin about the importance of Vermont Yankee to Vermont's economy. The letter about Vermont Yankee economics was signed by two business organizations and a union.

Vermont Yankee and Reliability

The letter about Vermont Yankee reliability was sent by Entergy to an email list, and I don't know who was on the list. (Media? Friends of Vermont Yankee?) At any rate, I was glad to get the letter, because it showed Entergy is reaching out to bloggers. For most companies, including Entergy, us bloggers don't get no respect. For most companies, we're not "real media." ( Areva, on the other hand, has conference calls and even tours for bloggers.)

So I was happy to see the letter come my way, and I sincerely hope that communication with bloggers is a new approach by Entergy. (Rod Adams has already blogged about the letter.)

Vermont Yankee and Reliability

In this letter, Entergy Vice President T. Michael Twomey, based in White Plains, New York, did a fabulous job of refuting the trash-talk about Vermont Yankee and reliability. The person to whom the letter was addressed, James Marc Leas, apparently has described Vermont Yankee as a "piece of machinery that is falling apart" and claimed that it has "extraordinary" reliability issues.

Twomey completely refutes Leas. In the letter, Twomey goes through the plant, practically section by section:

• Performance Indicators, as assessed by the NRC, show that Vermont Yankee is at the highest levels of performance and lowest levels of required oversight, year after year.
• Vermont Yankee's capacity factor (time on-line) is fourth highest of its group of sixteen "sister plants" (boiling water reactors that came on-line between 1969 and 1979).
• Major equipment upgrades ($400 million dollars worth of equipment) have been added by Entergy in the eight years it has operated the plant. Twomey lists the equipment that was added.

Yet, in my opinion, Twomey doesn't go far enough. He doesn't mention that in 2010, VY was awarded an industry-wide prize for their advanced steam-dryer inspection methodology. Well, okay. If Twomey was going to list everything, it would be a long letter.

The letter is pretty impressive as it is.

I have to say, however, that I wish I had had access to this information months ago. For example, when I speak about VY, I have said things like: "It is one of the most reliable plants in the fleet." Saying "fourth out of sixteen in capacity factor" would have been much better. I have said: "They have kept up the plant effectively, as proved by its reliability." Saying "400 million in capital improvements" would have been more convincing.

To quote Rod Adams, Like many of my pronuclear blogging friends, I have been a little disappointed in the lack of quotable responses from the plant owner.

I am pleased that this letter has been written, but I wish it had been written months ago.

Vermont Yankee and Vermont's Economy

The letter about the economic consequences if Vermont Yankee does not get relicensed did not contain any information which will be new to readers of this blog. A quote from the letter:

Vermont will face 1) increased electric rates from more expensive replacement power than Yankee would offer, 2) increased rates from the cost of projects required to shore up the electric grid's reliability, 3)possible periods of reduced reliability if such projects are not completed in time, and 4) the loss of well over 1,000 jobs from Yankee itself, companies doing business with the plant, and other businesses facing higher electric rates.

The new information in this letter is the list of the groups signing it, which includes Associated Industries of Vermont. The other two organizations who signed the letter are IBEW, a union which has long supported Vermont Yankee, and VTEP, another long-time supporter. However, I see the signature of Associated Industries of Vermont, along with IBM's recent press conference, as evidence of a new mobilization of Vermont industries to support Vermont Yankee.

Two letters: one with new information, and one with new supporters. I am happy to share them.

Vermont Yankee and the Grid. ISO-NE Knows We Need Yankee

The Auction and the Drop-Out

On August 30, ISO-NE held an auction for power supplies in 2013-2014, the Forward Capacity Market Auction. ISO-NE is the grid manager for New England, responsible for power supply and grid stability. As ISO-NE announced in a press release that day, Vermont Yankee dropped out of the auction. Actually they didn't drop out forever. Yankee attempted to do a "dynamic delist" from the auction, which could be temporary.

This led to a certain amount of speculation. What was the plant's motivation for dropping out? Why didn't they drop out months ago? The plant isn't making much money, maybe that's the reason they dropped out?

In my opinion, the plant explained itself well. According to the Rutland Herald, Entergy spokesman Larry Smith said that: Entergy requested not to participate in the auction because Vermont Yankee’s license to operate from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its certificate of public good from the state of Vermont both expire in 2012 and have not been renewed.

Withdrawing from the auction doesn't mean the plant won't operate past its current license expiration date, but it does mean that the plant isn't promising to operate past that date. The plant refused to make a promise that it might not be able to keep. To me, that seems honorable.

Except, of course, that Vermont Yankee did participate in the auction. ISO New England wouldn't allow VY to drop out.

ISO Keeps Vermont Yankee in the Auction

ISO New England insisted that Vermont Yankee remain in the auction. A few quotes from their press release about the auction:

If the ISO’s reliability analysis shows that the resource is needed, it is not allowed to withdraw from the capacity market....

Vermont Yankee

....Studies for future system needs in Vermont and New Hampshire have been ongoing for more than a year and are being updated to reflect the possibility of a Vermont Yankee shutdown in order to identify impacts on the regional power system. The studies completed so far have shown that with or without Vermont Yankee, the system in Vermont has reliability issues that must be addressed; without Vermont Yankee in service, those issues are more severe and could affect neighboring areas...ISO New England does not have authority to require Vermont Yankee to operate without the appropriate permits and licenses, but it does have the responsibility to ensure a reliable power system. This responsibility requires the ISO to develop alternative solutions...These alternatives could include interim solutions such as emergency generation brought into Vermont temporarily, more expensive generation from outside Vermont, and demand-side resources.... All these options will come at an additional cost....

As one Vermont blogger put it: Life Without Yankee would be..expensive, chaotic, and occasionally dark.

What Is Reliability, Though?

I have an inquiring mind, which is sometimes a liability. I agree with ISO-NE that we need Vermont Yankee, but I really didn't understand it all.

How does ISO-NE judge reliability? Have other areas of New England ever had reliability problems? If they had problems, what did ISO-NE do about it? Why did ISO-NE keep Vermont Yankee in the auction, if there is a chance that Vermont Yankee won't be operating?

These questions will be answered, but they deserve a post to themselves. Stay tuned for the post on reliability. N minus 1 minus 1.

The Seventeenth Blog Carnival Of Nuclear Energy

The Seventeenth Blog Carnival of Nuclear Energy is up at Next Big Future. New types of reactors, safety on the job in the energy industry. Great stuff! Read and enjoy. Nothing like a Carnival on Labor Day.

Transmission line graphic from Wikimedia

Carousel at Avignon, again.