Vermont Energy with Pat McDonald

Beyond the Sound Bite

Pat McDonald served many years in government in Vermont, appointed to leadership positions under both Democrat and Republican administrations.  She also represented her community as a legislator in the State House for four years.

Early this summer, MacDonald started a community access TV show "Vote for Vermont." The motto for the show is"Listening Beyond the Sound Bite."  You can read more about her show in this Times Argus article.

About two weeks ago, MacDonald interviewed me about energy issues in Vermont.  She always interviews her guests before the show is taped, to be sure she has strong, relevant questions.

This past Monday, I was on the show.  I embed it below. Because her questions were  so strong, the half-hour show flew by quickly.  I hope you will enjoy it!


Vermont Energy on "Vote for Vermont"

Intergrating Renewable Resources: ISO-NE Consumer Group Meeting October 9, New Hampshire

The Consumer Liaison Group 

The purpose of the Consumer Liaison Group (CLG) is to be the voice of the electricity consumer in advising the grid operator, ISO-NE. As you can see by this page in their website, ISO-NE has many advisory and working groups, including groups on marketing, transmission, and planning  As you can read in this CLG annual report: The Consumer Liaison Group (CLG) is a forum for sharing information between ISO New England (ISO) and those who ultimately use and pay for electricity in New England.

I am the Vermont representative to the Coordinating Committee of the CLG.  I used to be one of two representatives (states can have several representatives) but the representative from the Department of Public Service recently resigned.  I expect another representative will be nominated soon.

The Upcoming Meeting in New Hampshire

The next CLG meeting will take place on October 9 in New Hampshire (announcement above). The subject of this meeting is the important issue of integrating renewables to the grid.

CLG meetings rotate between the six New England states, along with frequent meetings in Boston.  Here's my description of the meeting in Vermont in March, when I was the panel chair.  Here is the official (and excellent) summary of the Vermont meeting.

Gus Fromuth, New Hampshire representative, will chair the panel for the upcoming meeting.  Here's a link to the meeting agenda, including call-in information if you can't attend in person.

Somewhat surprisingly, a representative from Green Mountain Power will be on the panel, though Green Mountain Power only operates in Vermont, not New Hampshire.  However, the meeting panels address regional issues, as well as state issues.

The meetings are free and open to the public.  They usually provide a lunch, so it is best to register in advance. It is not-good, seriously not-good, to register and be a no-show (wastes the cost of a lunch).  On the other hand, you can come at the last minute and I encourage you to come.  There's always room at the meeting.  The worst that can happen if you show up at the last minute would be---you don't get lunch.  (But there's usually plenty of food. )  Note: You can call in, if you can't attend in person.

Links:

For technical reasons  (I can't mount a pdf on a blogspot post, so I have to play with it), the links in the announcement above do not work.   Here are the links from the announcement, in the order in which they appear on the announcement.

Sheraton Portsmouth Harborside Hotel

CLG and CLG webpage

Register

Mary Louise "Weezie" Nuara email mnuara@iso-ne.com


I hope to see you in New Hampshire!

Vermont and Renewable Sprawl: Perspective from Platts

SunGen Solar Farm
Sharon, VT

Vermont Leads the Way in Pushback Against Renewable Sprawl

Platts tracks world-wide energy prices and issues.  It is part of McGraw Hill Financial Services, and it offers a variety of subscriptions and analysis reports. Platts is known to be a premier source for energy information.

Platts covers the whole world, which means it doesn't spend a lot of time covering Vermont.  But sometimes Vermont energy issues "lead the way."  In that case, Platts has articles and blog posts about Vermont.

On that theme, Platts has a recent blog post about Vermont.  Before nuclear opponents start their happy dance, however, ("Oh yes we led the way, we did!"),  we should look at the subject of the Platts article.  Guest post: Out of sight, out of mind? Vermont considers its renewables describes how people in Vermont are pushing back against renewable sprawl.

As Long As It's Not Too Severe

The blog author  is John Kingston, president of McGraw Hill Financial Institute. He notes that people in Vermont support renewables in the same way that Edith Bunker supports capital punishment: "as long as it's not too severe." Local towns want more say in the siting process: they feel shut out of the conversation.  (Well, the towns are shut out of the conversation.  When the Public Service Board okays a project, the towns have little recourse.)

Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O'Hara

The Vermont legislature has been stymied this year about renewable legislation. It has come up with a new program: Wait Till Next Year.  Like Scarlett O'Hara, the legislature plans to "think about it tomorrow."  This year, the legislature hopes to pass legislation that will provide incentives for renewable projects in environmentally-damaged "brown fields" and gravel pits and so forth.

This won't work.  I mean, Vermont may get some renewable projects built in gravel pits, but the "90% renewables mandate" in Vermont means that there simply aren't enough gravel pits.  To quote the Platts post:

So like the civil New Englanders they are, everyone is agreeing to listen. But that’s not going to solve the problem. ….

The replacement for that (Vermont Yankee) power is going to need to occur with a lot of the population making Edith Bunker-like declarations about renewable energy which, as the growing disputes in Vermont show, can not take a major role in electricity generation unless it takes a major role in real estate consumption too.

Romaine River
from Wikipedia

End Notes:

I encourage you to read the comments on the Platts  post. One commenter from Quebec is cynical about Hydro Quebec (HQ) secrecy. Apparently, HQ has claimed to be able to supply Vermont, Ontario and even more places. But HQ doesn't actually share much information on its excess capacity to generate electricity.

HQ is definitely looking south to new markets, and constructing new dams on the Romaine River.

 Meanwhile, despite the 90% renewables mandate, Vermont is planning to remove small dams, rather than renovate them.  Apparently, in Vermont, dams affect the local ecology.

In recent weeks, the Vermont legislature has been considering new energy siting rules.  However, as noted above, the bottom line is that the legislature plans to Wait Till Next Year.

Renewable Energy Mandates Pose a Threat to Nuclear : Guest Post by Jeff Walther

Renewable Energy Mandates, and How They Threaten Nuclear Energy and the Grid

Guest post by Jeff Walther


I think the most immediate threat to clean nuclear electricity generation, right now, is not anti-nuke protests, nor corporate indifference, but state “Renewable” Energy Mandates. The clause in the states’ RE mandates which require that “RE” be taken on the grid in preference to other energy sources is the greatest danger to affordable base load generators, and to the whole institution of reliable, affordable electricity for the consumer.

This is how it works. When wind or solar generation start supplying 10% – 15% of total electricity, their theoretical generating capacity is much higher because they have capacity factors of about 20%. So wind installations which supply 15% of the energy needed in a year, have a name-place generating capacity of 75% of the power needed at any given time. They don’t generate 75% of the energy because the wind mostly doesn’t blow.

But, fairly frequently, for brief periods, those wind installations, which can only supply 15% of yearly energy needs, will all get good wind, and then, they’ll generate 75% of the power the grid needs. When that happens, for that brief period, the RE Mandate requires that steady, constant, reliable generators, such as nuclear shut down or otherwise stop generating.

The Base Load Generators Suffer

Shutting down and starting up again are expensive and even damaging for base load generators. Now, this might be an okay situation: why not drive the inflexible base load off the grid? But the grid cannot do without the base load. Because, most of the time, the wind isn’t supplying 75% of the power. A lot of the time, it’s not even supplying 15%. That’s just what it averages out to over the year.

So the grid cannot do without steady, reliable, affordable generators, but it could do quite nicely without expensive intermittent wind and solar.

Yet, state legislated RE Mandates are pushing the necessary and affordable base-load off the grid.

I cannot think of a single piece of legislation better designed to drive up the cost of electricity and drive away grid reliability, even if I was legislating from scratch. “RE” Mandates are the enemy of the consumer.

The problem is that the connection is subtle and the public still believes that RE Mandates exist to benefit them and the environment. The truth is, that RE Mandates, combined with the recent “privatizing” of grids and generating capacity, are designed to drive out grid reliability and drive up energy costs for all consumers.

Renewable Energy "Maturity"

Given public perception, the goal should be to modify RE Mandates, so that “RE” does not receive priority on the grid; sell this as “proving” RE maturity, and get nuclear electricity generation included in the definition of “Renewable Energy”. Repealing them entirely is probably impossible.

The true opponent in the near and short term is the requirement in RE Mandates that intermittent sources be given priority on the grid. Changing that should be the single most immediate target of pro-nuclear activists. Public opinion about nuclear, and the NRC regulatory framework matter almost not at all, when existing nuclear generation can be driven off the grid by this single point of legislation and a small percentage of Unreliables penetration.

Amateur Rocket Launch

--------

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

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


Jeff Walther possesses two B.S. degrees in engineering: aerospace and electrical. He also holds a J.D. degree and is licensed to practice law in Texas. All his degrees are from the University of Texas at Austin.  He used to work as an aerospace engineer, and currently is an electrical engineer at a medium-size start-up.

Walther describes his leisure activities as follows: "On the weekends, when I'm not coaching one of my son's baseball games, I try to make it out to Hutto, TX for one of the Austin Area Rocketry Group's rocket launches."

The Live and Local Podcast: Assessing the Energy Plan in Vermont:

Energy Safari group 
at Lempster Wind Farm

The Comprehensive Energy Plan and My Op-Ed

The Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan, issued in 2011, asserted that Vermont would obtain 90% of all its energy from renewables by 2050.   I have been studying the land-use implications of that plan, and my husband and I are preparing a report for the Ethan Allen Institute. (I am the director of the Energy Education Project, which is part of that Institute.)

With our preliminary results, I wrote an op-ed: Vermont Renewable Plan is Wishful Thinking. This op-ed was printed in several newspapers in Vermont.  Most particularly, the op-ed was printed in The Commons, a weekly independent, nonprofit paper in Brattleboro.  I want to give a hat tip to Jeff Potter of The Commons, because he truly welcomes voices from both sides of this controversy.

Chris Lenois is host of the Live and Local radio program in Brattleboro (WKVT 1490 FM).  Lenois saw the op-ed in The Commons, and he invited me to speak on his show.  I was on Live and Local yesterday.

The Podcast

WKVT mounted a podcast of the discussion on their site: Meredith Angwin --VT Energy Policy.

Lenois asked me:

• How I estimated Vermont's future energy use
• Whether an ambitious renewables policy could encourage innovation in renewable energy
• How I derived numbers such as "400 miles of ridge line for wind turbines"
• The role of efficiency and conservation in Vermont's energy policy

To answer Lenois' questions, I needed to go into depth about land-use issues and my research methods.   I think you will find the podcast interesting.  

Thank you to Chris Lenois for inviting me and asking me serious questions.  I also thank him for his role in quickly mounting the podcast on the WKVT website.

Review of the Vermont Energy Plan: VTEP Review

VTEP study surveys Vermont’s progress towards 90% renewables goal

The Vermont Energy Partnership today published its latest study, “The Three-Legged Race: Vermont’s Pursuit of 90% Renewables by 2050,” an overview of progress towards reaching the Vermont Department of Public Service goal of using 90% renewable energy by 2050.

Findings explained in detail here, include:

• In order to reach its interim home energy efficiency goal for 2020, the state must weatherize 80,000 homes over the next seven years. At its current pace, Vermont will likely only meet half that goal.

• Transportation accounts for 36% of Vermont's total energy consumption, and 59% of carbon emissions. Today, one in 1,756 of Vermont registered cars are electric plug-ins.

• Reaching 90% renewable total energy by 2050 will require Vermont to triple its electricity consumption. Yet Vermont now makes less electricity than any other New England state, about half of which is produced by Vermont Yankee.

• To move Vermont just 5% closer to 90%, Vermont would need either 262 new 2.2 MW solar plants, five new Lowell Mountain wind projects, or 300 small existing hydro dams.

• The chasm between Vermont’s renewables present and renewables future – about 3 million renewable megawatt-hours on this side of the 37-year span, 18 million on the other – may simply be a bridge too far, barring unexpected changes.

---------

Guy Page with
Governor Urban Woodbury
his great-grandfather

The Vermont Energy Partnership (www.vtep.org) is a diverse group of more than 90 business, labor, and community leaders committed to finding clean, affordable and reliable electricity solutions.  Its mission is to educate policy makers, the media, businesses, and the general public about why electricity is imperative for prosperity, and about the optimal solutions to preserve and expand our electricity network.  Entergy, owner of Vermont Yankee, is a member of the Vermont Energy Partnership.

Note: Guy Page, the lead author on this report, is a frequent guest blogger at Yes Vermont Yankee.  His most recent post was Nuclear is Green Energy

Vermont's Renewable Plan is Wishful Thinking

Decision Tree

The Comprehensive Energy Plan Isn't a Plan

In 2011, the Vermont Department of Public Service issued a Comprehensive Energy Plan that asserts that 90 percent of all energy used in the state ­— including electricity, transportation and building heating — will be provided from renewable sources by 2050.

Who could argue with the idea that almost all of the state’s energy should come from renewable energy by mid-century?

Probably nobody would argue, until they realize that what is called a “plan” isn’t actually a plan; it’s a collection of roughly sketched ideas, some good, some not so good. At a hearing of the Vermont Energy Generation Siting Policy Commission, one woman made a very clear statement. She said that the state energy plan is a collection of slogans, not a planning document. She was basically correct.

Nevertheless, the energy plan is guiding many statewide energy decisions: expediting small hydro installations, attempting to close Vermont Yankee, supporting ridgeline wind development. The realization that the 90% goal is influencing statewide energy policy is particularly troubling when you examine some of its implications.

We Will Need Much More Electricity

For starters, it is hard to use renewable energy for transportation and heating unless we use electricity for these sectors. We can make electricity with renewable energy, and then use it to run electric cars and heat pumps. Both these choices will increase the demand for electricity.

Right now, Vermont uses 6,000 GWh of electricity per year. (A GWh is a million kilowatt hours.) My estimate is that Vermont would need 18,000 GWh annually to achieve the 90% goal by switching to electric cars, heat pumps and so forth. That’s an outrageously big number, but it coincides with two other rough calculations I’ve seen from renewable advocates. In a recent op-ed, Charles McKenna, a local Sierra Club member, estimated the state would need 15,000 GWh in order to achieve the 90% renewable goal. In a recent Green Energy Times, David Blittersdorf, a renewable developer, said that the 90% goal will require three times the electricity we use now. (Three times 6,000 is 18,000.)

To put this number in perspective, consider that Vermont currently buys approximately 2,000 GWh from Hydro-Quebec. This is about a third of our current electricity demand, but it would be only a small fraction of the electricity needed for a 90% renewable goal.

Diffuse Energy Sources

Chihuahua Dog

Unfortunately for Vermont, renewable sources tend to be diffuse, not energy dense. If we really tried to make this much electricity with renewables, we would have to devote much of Vermont’s land to energy generation. For example, Lowell Mountain’s wind turbines each sweep the area of a football field because wind is not a dense energy source. The average wind can blow some trash around, but it can’t pick up a small dog and move it. If you want to make enough wind-based electricity to make it worthwhile to put in a transmission line, you need to build a wind turbine with a blade that is more than half the length of a football field. Then the blade can capture enough wind.

I did another rough set of calculations to estimate how many wind turbines, biomass plants, solar panels and so forth would be needed to generate 18,000 GWh of electricity. The results are appalling. For example, making 18,000 GWh using wind turbines would take about 2,000 turbines, covering 400 to 700 miles of ridgeline. Vermont is only 160 miles long. Making the same amount of electricity from biomass would require 12 million acres of woodlands, sustainably harvested. That’s twice the size of Vermont.

Of course, the state would be using a mixture of renewables, not just one type. These are crude estimates, and my husband and I are working at improving them for a report on the land use implications of renewables.

Unrealistic Plan Interferes with Realistic Choices

Energy Safari group members
Lempster Wind Farm

Adopting an unrealistic, over-arching energy plan that calls for almost all energy to come from renewable sources essentially confers a blessing on all proposed renewable projects.  Every project advances the “plan.” Objecting to to any project supposedly reveals the person as an opponent of good environmental policy or a so-called NIMBY — someone who will try to stop any development in their proximity.

People who are against overly extensive renewable development are not NIMBYs. They are not blithely ignoring environmental considerations or greedily focusing on financial factors. It is quite possible to be in favor of moderate renewable development and environmental stewardship. Indeed, in my opinion, moderate renewable development and environmental stewardship are two ideas that go well together.  For example, a goal of 20 percent  of electricity supply from new in-state renewables would be ambitious but within reach.

We also need to encourage conservation, and to its credit, the Comprehensive Energy Plan is very clear on that. On the other hand, future conservation is built into my estimates of electricity demand. Even with conservation, there will be significant energy demand, and we have to plan for it.

What a Plan Needs to Be

Basically, a plan has to be a plan.  In particular, a state's energy plan needs to be more than a collection of slogans.
----
Meredith Angwin worked in many sectors of the utility industry for more than 20 years. She is the director of the Energy Education Project of the Ethan Allen Institute, a Vermont public policy research organization that emphasizes free-market solutions. Angwin and her husband, George Angwin, are developing a report for the Institute that will analyze the land use implications of the Vermont Energy Plan.

----------------
An earlier version of this op-ed appeared in my local paper, the Valley News, and I hope it will appear in more papers in Vermont.

Waterfalls, Renewables and Me

Triple Falls, DuPont State Forest
North Carolina

This morning, I have an unusual blog post at ANS Nuclear Cafe, inspired by my recent hiking trip in North Carolina.

In Farmers, City Folk and Renewable Energy, I consider the renewable-advocates idea that we can "get" all the energy we need from sun, wind and water.  No. We can't simply "get" energy from sun, wind and water. We would have to "take" this energy, by industrializing the wilderness.

I compare this idea of "getting" energy with the realities of farming.  City people are sometimes annoyed at that reality, but farms are a sort of factory for food.  A well-tended field is not just scenery: it has had inputs: seeds, fertilizer (organic or not), labor.  With these inputs, the field is expected to produce outputs: food.  Do we want to turn the natural world into a kind of energy farm, as we set ourselves up to "take" the renewables, wherever they may be?  I don't think so.

I write about environmentalism, and letting the rivers be rivers, not hydro plants, and my own history of Sierra Club membership, back in the day when the Club protected the wilderness. Remember the fight against Glen Canyon Dam?  Remember the fights to expand wilderness areas?

So-called "environmental" groups have come a long way in the wrong direction since those days. Now, they try to sell everyone on the absolute necessity of building wind turbines on the ridges of our beautiful mountains. Now, they make fun of people who think hydro power might be limited in Vermont.  Now...well, now, in my opinion, many of their stances are completely anti-environmental.

My ANS post is more personal than usual.  I hope you will read it.

The 90% Solution: What 90% Renewables Would Look Like in Vermont

What going to 90% renewable energy would do to Vermont’s landscape

In 2011, the Vermont Department of Public Service published a Comprehensive Energy Plan (CEP) for Vermont’s future. The CEP states that Vermont will get 90% of all its energy, including the energy we use to drive our cars and heat our homes, from renewables by 2050.  There’s another section titled “25 by 25”, meaning that Vermont should get 25% of its energy from renewables by 2025.  There are no concrete directions or roadmaps for accomplishing either of these goals.

In a hearing before the newly formed Energy Siting Board, one woman stated that the CEP was a collection of slogans, not a plan.  She was correct. Nevertheless, it does represent the goals Montpelier has made for our state, they are acting on it, and we have to take it seriously. I am attempting to see how we could possibly meet these goals, and to answer the question what does moving to 90% renewable energy – or trying to – really mean? In particular, what impact would it have on our natural environment and signature Vermont landscape?

Here’s the reality: If we are going to build enough renewables to generate 90% of our energy needs, we will have to devote much of our state land resources to the cause of energy production.

Renault ZE  electric car

Consider that to “get away from fossil fuels” we will have to convert to mostly electric vehicles and electric heat-pump heated homes. How much more electricity will we need?  Right now, Vermont uses 6000 GWh of electricity per year.  For the “renewable” future, my preliminary estimate is that we we will need at least three times this much, or 18,000 GWh. In an op-ed in the Valley News, Charles McKenna, a Sierra Club member and retired engineer, estimated Vermont would require 15,000 GWh. (He was making the case for building renewables quickly.) In short we’re looking at a lot more electricity generation. What are the renewable options for obtaining this power?

Let’s take wind turbines. Most people are immediately struck by how big the things are. A 3 MW wind turbine has blades that sweep the entire area of a football field.  The Vestas at Kingdom Community Wind (Lowell Mountain) have blades that sweep 112 meters  (367 feet). Why so big?  Because wind is not energy-dense.  Think about it: a windy day can blow some trash around, but the wind usually can’t lift even a tiny dog and blow it around.  If you want to make electricity with wind — enough electricity to make it worth the trouble to put in a transmission line — you have to capture a lot of wind. So, you build turbines that sweep more than the area of a football field.

Solar and Wind at Lempster NH

To make 18,000 GWh of electricity, my rough estimate (I’ll have more detailed numbers ready for publication later this spring) is that Vermont would need to build 140 wind farms with the approximate output of Lowell Mountain’s 21-turbine facility. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory web site and other comparisons, 21 turbines of this size would usually cover 5 miles of ridgeline.  These 140 wind farms would use 2,240 industrial turbines over 700 miles of ridgeline. Lowell claims to use only 3 miles of ridge line: in this case, ”only” 420 miles of ridgeline would be required for the turbines. However, not all ridges have wind as good as Lowell, so more turbines would probably be needed. Keep in mind, the entire state of Vermont is 158 miles long and 90 miles across at its widest.

If we do move to a 90% renewable energy portfolio, much of Vermont’s high country would need to be sacrificed to meet the CEP’s goals. Still, that wouldn’t cover the electricity we would need, because sometimes the wind doesn’t blow.

Logs at Springfield NH
biomass plant

What about solar? A 2.2 MW solar facility was recently installed in White River Junction. An area of 15 acres was cleared for this facility. Do to our northern locations and frequent cloud cover, this can be expected to generate only 2,755 MWh or 2.8 GWh per year. Making 18,000 GWh per year with solar would require 6,700 such facilities or 100,000 acres of solar installations. They would cover an area approximately one-fourth the size of the Green Mountain Forest. And, of course, they would not provide any power when the sun isn’t shining.

Biomass? It is difficult to calculate the wood required by biomass plants. Using information from the McNeil and Ryegate biomass plants gives different results from calculations based on wood heat content and power plant efficiencies. Basically, making 18,000 GWh with wood biomass will require between 8 and 14 million cords per year. In contrast, the current wood harvest from Vermont is about 1 million cords per year.

At the Springfield plant

How much forestland does, say, 12 million cords represent?  Estimates of a sustainable wood harvest vary from 0.5 to 2 cords per year per acre. Assuming one cord per acre, we would need 12 million acres to be devoted to wood for the biomass power plants. The total area of the state of Vermont is 5.9 million acres, of which 4.6 million is forested.

Any (or any combination) of the above mentioned options necessary to meet a 90% renewable policy would have a tremendous impact on the look and feel of Vermont for generations to come. Tourism plays a very important role in the economy of this state, and a pristine and rural landscape is an important part of the Vermont brand. We really have to decide if “90%” is worth its tremendous cost to our environment. (And to our pocketbooks. Electricity made from renewables costs two to ten times as much as standard “grid” electricity. We can expect Vermont’s electricity prices to double or triple, if the CEP is actually put into effect.)

People who are against large-scale renewable energy development are often ridiculed as NIMBYs.  However, they may simply be aware that achieving renewable-energy goals will have huge effects on Vermont’s landscape and ecosystem, and they don’t want that to happen.  In other words, people opposed to renewable developments are often true environmentalists. It is time to reject the impossible goals of the CEP, and implement only the renewables that are reasonable and cost-effective for the citizens of our state.

-------

This is a preliminary version of the Vermont Land Use report that George and I are writing for the Ethan Allen Institute.  This post first appeared on the Ethan Allen Institute site.

Alternative Energy Siting in Vermont: The Hearing

The Siting Commission

When the drumbeat of opposition to the industrial wind projects grew loud enough in the fall of 2012, Governor Shumlin created the Governor's Energy Generation Siting Policy Commission by executive order on October 2, 2012.   The first sentence of the executive order is that:

Whereas, as set forth in the 2011 Comprehensive Energy Plan and statute, Vermont has recognized the need to increase its energy independence and resilience through the greater use of renewable energy in all sectors; 

As many Vermonters see it, this body is supposed to deflect heat from the Public Service Board, which was siting industrial wind projects and riding roughshod over Vermont town land-use planning in order to do so.  This new Siting Commission is also allowed to ride roughshod over the town plans, but somehow, we are supposed to like it better.  As I noted in a recent post, the Vermont Senate considered a bill requiring stronger environmental review of energy projects, but only passed a gutted bill.

At any rate, the new Commission is holding some public hearings, and I went to one last night.  It was an interactive TV hearing, with people attending from all over Vermont. A large crowd was present in the Lyndonville TV studio. Lyndonville is in the Northeast Kingdom (NEK) of Vermont, where the wind projects are being built, despite much local opposition.

Spillway at Hydro Quebec

Most speakers were against the projects, and they were angry because they realized they are powerless to do anything about the projects. The Siting Commission also doesn't have to pay attention to the town or regional plans.  Other speakers asked why Vermont has to make all its own energy, when after all, it doesn't grow all its own food or make all its own clothes.

Guy Page of VTEP (Vermont Energy Partnership) spoke. He referenced his recent report that Vermont already gets over 50% of its electricity from sources it considers renewable.  Luckily, the Vermont legislature passed a law saying that power from Hydro Quebec is renewable.  That sure helped our renewable percentages around here!

Note: I recommend a blog post today by Howard Shaffer about renewable energy in Vermont. Alternative energy in Vermont – Chickens coming home to roost  at ANS Nuclear Cafe includes an excellent history of energy controversies in Vermont and a root cause analysis of energy opposition.

I also spoke at the Siting Commission meeting, and my statement is below.

Energy Density and Renewables: My Statement

It is relatively easy to think of people who are opposed to renewable energy projects as NIMBYs, and there may be some of that included in their opposition.  However, renewable energy sources have lower energy density than traditional sources (such as fossil fuels and nuclear power). Therefore, renewable projects often require significant use of land.

The book Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air, written by the carbon-advisor to the British Government, looks at the land use requirements for Britain if it attempted to obtain all its energy through renewables.  Similarly, the recent report by the Wilderness Society looks at land-use implications if the Northeast attempts to obtain most of its energy through renewables: Cumulative Landscape Impacts of Renewable Energy Alternatives for Northern New England   

If you look at these books and reports, you will see that there are extensive land-use implications to the use of renewables.  Towns could be trampled by renewable projects if such projects are considered more important than their own land-use planning processes.  I urge you to abide by the planning processes of the towns, and not override them.

A view in the Northeast Kingdom

Environmental Review of Vermont Wind: A Gutted Bill Moves from Senate to House

Turbine 9, Lowell Mountain
From Ver Monts albums

Environmental Oversight for Wind: In the Senate

Industrial wind projects in Vermont do not have to undergo Act 250 environmental review. (Since the 1970s, Act 250 has been Vermont's main land use planning act.) A recent bill in the Senate would have required Act 250 review for energy projects.  It had strong bi-partisan support in the Senate.

The bill also led a wind developer, Jeff Wolfe, to publicly threaten the (liberal Democrat) President Pro Tem of the Senate, John Campbell, as follows: if you support this bill, not only does ...(my) support end, but I will help recruit and support opposition to you in the next election, and will put my money where my mouth is.

In my opinion, Wolfe's public statement was sure to backfire, especially since Campbell had already announced his support of the Act 250 review bill.  What did Wolfe expect Campbell to do: apologize for offending Wolfe, get down on his knees and beg forgiveness, and promise to change his vote immediately?  I don't think that was very likely to happen.

As Campbell said: he “has publicly threatened me and tried to intimidate me to vote one way, and I think it would send a bad message” were he to change his vote. 

I blogged about this incident in Blowing in the Wind: Threats and Reactions.

The next step was exactly what you might expect in Vermont: the Senate took the "Act 250 part" out of the bill, made it a "study" bill and passed it by a narrow vote (16-14). Then the Zuckerman amendment was added. I have no idea why the initial vote was so close, because the bill had already been gutted.  However, a vote against (the version before the Zuckerman amendment) was considered a vote against big wind.  Then, after the Zuckerman amendment, everybody voted for the bill.

Yes, it gets really confusing.  Here's the Roll Call link to the bill, before the Zuckerman amendment.  It includes links to the bill itself.

On to the House

Representative Tony Klein

At any rate, the bill passed the Vermont Senate.  Its first stop in the Vermont House will be the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, chaired by Tony Klein.  Klein is a dedicated foe of Vermont Yankee and friend of wind.

Andrew Stein of Vermont Digger reports on what will happen in that committee: S.30, energy siting bill, to get limited airing in House Natural Resources.

Klein doesn't want to spend too much time on this bill.  As quoted by Stein,  Klein stated: “We will be focusing in on what it is that’s going to be studied and what the tone is going to be...it seems to be implying that renewables are bad, and I would rather change it to start with the premise that renewables are good.”

That means Klein’s committee will take limited testimony.

“It’s not going to be an open door policy because it’s a study and there are certain things that are being asked to be studied,” he said. “I don’t need to hear from neighbors.” 

Klein is already hearing from many of the "neighbors" in the comment section of the Digger article.  I encourage you to read the comments.

A Broader View

Meanwhile, renewable energy in New England...as they say about relationships in Facebook: "It's complicated."  Let's start with the fact that the states can't agree on what energy is renewable. Is big hydro a renewable? Is biomass?  A recent AP article by Stephen Singer New England Renewable Energy Hard Sell in Region  includes this quote:

....the groundbreaking (interstate) deal is snared in a patchwork of rules, state laws and disagreements over how even to define alternative energy.
"I don't think we know how to do it," was the blunt assessment of Christopher Recchia, commissioner of Vermont's Public Service Department.

So there's the view from outside the Golden Dome (State House).  We don't know how to implement renewable energy in the region.

Perhaps this statement can be taken as a suggestion that everybody "listen to the neighbors."  Listening is usually a good idea.

The Vermont Renewable Scene: It's Awkward (for me)

On Saturday, December 1, the Vermont Energy and Climate Action Network (VECAN) held its annual conference at the Lake Morey Resort. The theme of the conference was meeting Vermont's Comprehensive Energy Plan goals of 90% renewables for all energy uses by 2050.  If you remember, the Comprehensive Energy Plant was pushed through by the Shumlin administration in 2011. I blogged about the plan extensively, for example, in the post Hurry Up. Hurry Up.  Renewables. Don't Pay Attention to the Gas Pipeline.

Talking to the Press

The day before the VECAN meeting about the renewables goal, John Gregg of the Valley News emailed me to ask if I would be willing to comment on whether the 90% goal was reasonable.  He emailed that Jon Wolper was attending the conference and writing the article.  I emailed back that of course I would be willing to comment. I have a great deal of respect for John Gregg, and I was very happy to be asked.

Actually, I didn't just say: "Yes, I'll comment." I wrote a long email to Gregg and Wolper about renewables.

The day after the meeting, on Sunday, the Jon Wolper article appeared in the Valley News: Vermont Energy Advocates at Fairlee Conference Eye 90 Percent by 2050 Goal.   It includes a quote from my email. I think it is an excellent article.

The article starts:

Fairlee — For a group of about 300 energy officials and advocates brainstorming how to accomplish a certain state plan yesterday, adjectives reigned.
They said that Vermont’s Comprehensive Energy Plan, which is meant to get the state to 90 percent renewable energy usage by 2050, was bold. It was huge. Audacious. Ambitious. Extraordinary.
Also, essential.

The article ends with the following quote from me:

“No, it is not possible by 2050,” wrote Meredith Angwin, a physical chemist, in an email. ....
“It may never be possible," she said.

I think the Valley News article was clear-eyed about the challenges.

Talking to the Ethan Allen Institute

When I'm quoted in the press, I usually send a link to various people at the Ethan Allen Institute. The Institute is the parent organization for my Energy Education Project.  Rob Roper, the new president of the Institute, emailed me after he received the link to the Valley News article.  Roper said he thought that I had probably said more than "not possible...may never be possible."  Did I give my reasons for "not possible" in the email I sent the reporters?

I assured him I had sent quite a lengthy email to the Valley News, with reasons and links and everything. I sent him a copy of the email.

In Roper's opinion, the incomplete quote in the article was used to portray me as a "negative Nellie." Roper has written a letter to the editor about my quote.

Talking to my Blog Readers

At this point, I will close the blog post with an edited version of the email that I sent to the Valley News.

• In terms of the Valley News, I know that reporters have space constraints, and I don't feel I was quoted badly.  
• In terms of the Ethan Allen Institute, I understand Roper's point.  

So it is up to you, dear readers, to tell me what you think of the quote and the email.

Here it is:
***********

Hello Jon and John

Thank you for asking me for my opinion!

About 90% renewable energy...your substantive question...no, it is not possible by 2050.  It may never BE possible, unless our "behavior modification" includes dropping our population to far less than it is now.  You see, renewable energy is pretty land-intensive, and we just can't devote that sort of land area to it and keep any type of society as we have it now.
--------
Note: the original meeting announcement said this about the keynote speaker:

 Dr. Martenson will speak to why he believes a 90 percent renewable energy goal is now a necessity. 
"Getting to 90 percent renewable by 2050 is critical. To get there, however, will require major behavior modification by governments, corporations and individuals.."
-----------
I encourage you to look at this free book on the web...Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air

http://www.withouthotair.com/

You can download the book, or the synopsis, for free. My son-in-law, a professor of mechanical engineering at Columbia, uses this book as one of the texts for his first-level energy course.  MacKay is a professor at Cambridge and  scientific advisor to UK on climate change.  I am not recommending some off-the-wall book here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._C._MacKay

Closer to home, you might want to interview Dr. Robert Hargraves, who has a recent self-published book on a type of new reactors (thorium reactors) which has gotten wonderful reviews by Nobel-prize winners.  Hargraves lives in Hanover.

Hargraves recently spoke in China to a very good reception by some very important people
http://energyfromthorium.com/2012/11/04/lftr-leader-jiang-mianheng-addresses-itheo/

And he gave a recent seminar at Dartmouth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS2JrWa_Wkc

Here's his book
http://www.amazon.com/THORIUM-energy-cheaper-than-coal/dp/1478161299

The important thing, from your point of view, is that the first half of the Hargraves book expands on MacKay's book.  If renewables can supply what we need in the future, then we don't need thorium or any nuclear source, or really, any energy-dense source at all (coal, etc.)  Except that...renewables can't do it for a modern society. Worth reading the book or watching the first part of the Dartmouth talk.

Well, this is long enough!  I just hope it is helpful!

Best,
Meredith

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.

123rd Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers posted at Hiroshima Syndrome blog

"

The 123rd Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is up at Hiroshima Syndrome.  Leslie Corrice has done a great job of putting the Carnival together!

Plus, Corrice has made my job of announcing the Carnival much easier.  I always try to put up a brief summary of the posts.  This week, Corrice has provided an excellent summary!  Here it is.

The Hiroshima Syndrome is proud to host this week’s Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers, listing the reports posted by the internet’s most prominent nuclear bloggers during the past week. 

The Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers has existed for more than two years and is a mainstay of nuclear information for thousands of interested readers. Each listed blog is summarized and the URL link given, making it easy to find and read the full reports.  

This week’s topics include; Vermont Yankee continues to operate despite a legal challenge, several perspectives concerning the impact of Japan’s new energy policy on its nuclear plants, what politicians can learn about nuclear energy from experts, and how “all the above” may not be the best energy choice.

Trojan Cows and Grid Facts: Op-Ed

Non-Trojan Cow

The Cow

On July 1, a group of people opposed to the continued operation of Vermont Yankee protested at the nuclear power plant’s gates. One prop they used to dramatize their belief that there are better energy options than nuclear power was a hollow “Trojan Cow” they pulled to the demonstration. Some protesters pulled mock solar panels out of the cow, while others held whirligigs representing wind turbines. The cow sculpture even included a representation of manure, representing “cow power” energy produced from farm methane. The theme was clear: Vermont Yankee will be replaced with renewables.

Well, that is simply not true, at least in the foreseeable future. Closing Vermont Yankee will not bring a burst of renewables to market to replace its power.

Grid Power

Closing Vermont Yankee would mean buying more power from the New England grid to make up for Vermont Yankee’s supply. Grid power is approximately 58 percent fossil fuel, 28 percent nuclear and 12 percent hydro plus renewables. Wind, solar and farm methane together account for less than 1 percent of the power generated in New England.

What would closing Vermont Yankee mean? More solar power on the grid? No. With or without Vermont Yankee, renewables are expensive, and they are not coming on line quickly.

On the other hand, fossil fuel plants are abundant suppliers to the New England grid, supplying the majority of grid power. Many fossil fuel plants operate only part-time. The part-time plants run when they are needed to satisfy the power requirements on hot summer days or cold winter evenings. They also operate when nuclear plants are down for refueling.

The New England Grid responds to nuclear refueling
From Vermont Dept Public Service  presentation

If Vermont Yankee closed, existing fossil fuel plants would compensate by running longer hours and making more power. If the Vermont Yankee protesters had wanted to stage a more accurate dramatization, they would have pulled a model of a gas or coal plant from their Trojan Cow’s belly, not a cardboard solar panel.

Renewables: Too Slow, and Too Expensive

Or perhaps the demonstrators were claiming that shutting down nuclear plants will bring more rapid development of renewable energy, even if we’re forced to use more fossil fuels for a “short while.”

Well, a “short while” is likely to be very long.

For example, the Vermont state energy plan calls for the state to meet 90 percent of its total energy needs from renewable sources by 2050. That’s an ambitious goal considering that Vermont does not meet its current renewable energy goals and has no prospects of meeting them in the near future. The Vermont energy plan established a goal of having the state use 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2017. Even using optimistic assumptions about project completion, the state will attain only the 16 percent mark in by that date. In 2009, the state had 13 percent of its electricity from renewables (mostly in-state hydro). A growth of 3 percentage points over eight years ( 13 to 16%, 2009 to 2017) is not very impressive.

Perhaps the rate of growth of renewables is accelerating? Not really. Last year, the Vermont Legislature voted against having an aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard for Vermont. Such a standard might raise the percentage of renewables in Vermont, but it would also raise Vermont electricity rates to unacceptable levels. Renewable growth is slow in neighboring states for similar reasons. In short, closing Vermont Yankee would have the regional result of requiring more fossil fuel to supply the New England grid.

Vermont Is An Island?

Within Vermont, many anti-nuclear activists don’t seem to care much about the regional issue. They often say that the power from Vermont Yankee doesn’t matter to Vermont, because “Vermont is no longer using any Vermont Yankee power.”

Not true. In March of this year, the power contracts between Vermont utilities and Vermont Yankee ended. Vermont utilities no longer buy Vermont Yankee power. However people in Vermont are still using Vermont Yankee power.

That sounds weird, but realize that buying power and using power are different, because power from different sources blends together on the grid. The supply on the grid depends on the power plants, transmission lines and end-users. These don’t change when contracts change.

Buying and Paying

Who pays for the power is a different matter altogether: Payment depends on agreements made between plants and utilities and regulators. The day after Vermont Yankee stopped selling power to Vermont utilities, Vermont consumers used the same actual power mix as they had used the day before. However, on that day, Vermont consumers began paying for power in a different manner. Among other changes, Vermont consumers began paying for Seabrook power, according to a contract between Green Mountain Power and Seabrook. This did not mean that Seabrook power suddenly began streaming into local power lines.

Once again, we have to take into account the regional nature of the grid. Power contracts determine payment methods, but contracts don’t determine power routing and use — that is determined by plant availability and geography.

Power blends together on the grid. If a plant goes off-line, other plants take up the slack. When nuclear plants go off-line, fossil fuel plants step up and produce replacement power.

(Note: Howard Shaffer wrote an excellent description of the grid at his recent guest post: Where's the Magic Switch?)

Deception 

Protesters used a Trojan Cow to suggest that if Vermont Yankee closed, renewables would take its place. Perhaps the use of a Trojan animal was more apt than the demonstrators intended. After all, the original Trojan horse was designed to deceive. In this case, the people that the demonstrators are deceiving about the consequences of closing Vermont Yankee start with...themselves.

-----
This is a slightly edited version of an op-ed I wrote for my local paper, the Valley  News.  I wrote this op-ed about the July 1 "Trojan Cow" protest at Vermont Yankee. It appeared in the Valley News on Sunday, July 29, but the Valley News puts very little of its content on-line.   I felt this op-ed fit in well with Howard Shaffer's recent blog post about the grid: Where's the Magic Switch.

You can watch a three-minute video of the demonstration on YouTube.

A Book I Loved: THORIUM: Energy Cheaper Than Coal by Bob Hargraves

Disclosure

First of all, let me acknowledge that I know Dr. Robert Hargraves and have worked with him on various energy projects, such as co-teaching the Energy Safari course last fall, and founding the Coalition for Energy Solutions.  In the acknowledgements at the end of THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal, Hargraves thanks me and my husband, George Angwin (among others) for editorial reviews of an earlier draft of the book.

I wanted to say this upfront, because I think this is a terrific book, and I would think the same if I didn't know Bob Hargraves at all.  This is not just a book about thorium reactors. It's a book about energy policy and energy choices.  Even if you don't care a bit about thorium, you will benefit by reading this book.

You can buy the book at Amazon: THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal.

Hargraves also has a useful website about this book: THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal.  In this website, he includes the chapter headings, giving you an idea of the sweep of this book.  A partial list of chapters:

• why we need energy (energy and prosperity)
• analysis of energy sources 
• the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor LFTR
• safety 
• sustainability 
• energy policy

Cheaper than Coal and why it matters

The idea behind this book is not fear.  It is not about doom from existing nuclear plants, or even from global warming. The title tells much of the thesis: nuclear energy can be cheaper than coal.  Why is this important?

Prosperity and birth rate,  from Hargraves

Coal was the fuel that brought the industrial revolution and made Western nations prosperous. Now that Western nations are prosperous, we are beginning to turn away from coal, at least to some extent.  However, many developing nations are following the Western path to prosperity: "We'll start with coal."  If the wealthy countries wag their fingers at the developing world about coal, they quite rightly get fingers wagged back at them: "When our people are even half as prosperous as your people, we will enjoy a conversation with you about optimum energy sources.  Until then, you rich guys, don't be such a bunch of hypocrites."

Throughout the book, Hargraves emphasizes that nuclear power (specifically LFTRs) can undercut the price of coal, or the price of cheap natural gas. Hargraves stresses that carbon taxes are not going to be a global solution to the problems of fossil fuel use. LFTRs can be inexpensive and they produce almost no greenhouse gases or air pollution. They can be a large part of the solution.  People all over the world will attempt to lift themselves out of poverty.  Hopefully, people will use nuclear energy instead of coal, and thereby make a better world for all of us.

Technologies Reviewed

Fossil or nuclear?  Are those really the choices?

For those who may say: "We don't need fossil or nuclear, we can do everything with renewables" Hargraves has a well-researched answer.  The book includes almost 100 pages of "doing the numbers" on renewables, and showing they are not a solution for a modern society's energy needs.

One feature of the Hargraves book is that he estimates costs for the different renewable technologies, and explains his estimates.  David MacKay's excellent book, Sustainable Energy--without the hot air, also analyzes renewable technologies. However, MacKay's book mainly asks whether the renewable technologies will provide enough energy for society (without using all the land for energy production). Hargraves estimates the costs, because, after all, the book is titled: THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal.  Hargraves knows that people will choose inexpensive energy to lift themselves from poverty to prosperity.  Cost matters.

Though Richard Martin's book Superfuel was all about LFTRs, the technology of LFTRs was not particularly well-expounded in that book. In THORIUM, there are over 100 pages about LFTRs. The information includes charts and illustrations, description of the different varieties of LFTR, information about the technical challenges that LFTRs have overcome, and about many of the technical challenges remaining.  I don't know anywhere else you could obtain this information so clearly and concisely. The information is out there, no doubt, in thorium forums and papers (and Hargraves references these).  But if you want a quick-course on LFTRs, not a personal-research-project on LFTRs, this is the book for you.

Hargraves also reviews other types of advanced reactors: Integral Fast Reactors, pebble beds, etc.  All sections of the book contain very helpful illustrations (and lots of them) and references. The list of references and bibliography is truly impressive.

Technology Overstated?

I can hear it.  Somebody is going to say that I have been taken in by a paper reactor.  Do I know that the LFTR will work? Do I know that the LFTR development task section of Hargraves' book (pages 227-247) lists all the necessary tasks? Do I know that all the development tasks, listed or not, will be completed?  Of course not. I don't know these things, and neither does Hargraves, and neither does anybody else. I also know that materials development work is often much harder than it looks at the beginning.  LFTR development is not certain.

Molten Salt FLIBe

However, several advanced reactor concepts are in development at this time. New types of reactors will be developed in the near future.  In my opinion, the Hargraves book makes an excellent case for expanded work on the LFTR.

My One Gripe

Early in this post, I said:

This is not just a book about thorium reactors. It's a book about energy policy and energy choices.  Even if you don't care a bit about thorium, you will benefit by reading this book.

As a matter of fact, that statement also expresses my one major problem with the book.  The sections on energy policy, renewables and costs are top-notch (as are the sections on advanced reactors).  The energy policy sections should interest every citizen and every policy maker.  But will  the average citizen or policy maker pick up a book about advanced reactors?

I think that this book consists of two fine books packed in one cover:

• a book on energy choices and energy policy 
• a book on advanced reactors, especially the LFTR  

Of course these two topics are related, but putting them in one book makes a rather thick book (470 pages). Though it is well-written and well-illustrated, I think its size alone is a bit intimidating.

I urge you to buy it.  You can read the whole thing and enjoy it. Or you can just read the sections of interest to you and use the rest as reference.

In either case, this book is a major achievement, and should be on the bookshelf of people interested in energy in general, renewable energy, nuclear energy, and advanced reactors.  In other words, it will be helpful to pretty much everybody.

Reminder: You can buy the book at Amazon: THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal.

Note: The book cover is by Suzy Hobbs Baker of Popatomic Studios.  I am on the board of directors of Baker's not-for-profit, and I love her work.