Vermont Renewable Mandate (video)

The "90% renewables" solution

Vermont has an energy policy that requires that 90% of Vermont's energy come from renewables by 2050. This policy includes all of Vermont's energy, including heating and transportation.  Such a change can most generously be described as "unlikely."  I have at least two blog posts on this subject:  What 90% renewables would look like in Vermont,  and Vermont's renewable plan is wishful thinking   These posts are from 2013.

The renewable policy might become a law

So far, this renewable policy is not law, but it might become law.  The legislature is in session, and, as Mark Twain said: "No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session."  Bills are being introduced to make this policy into an actual law.

The Ethan Allen Institute recently made a video on the folly of 90% renewables for Vermont.  I appear briefly in the video.  I hope you enjoy it.

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!

Nuclear Blogger Carnival 298, 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 with blog posts directly about nuclear energy.  Nuclear power is moving forward, world-wide, despite opposition.

Fukushima Updates--Leslie Corrice

Takahama unit #3 restart

Takahama unit #3  has restarted, and this has spurred  numerous FUD-based press reports. The main reason is the use of MOX fuel bundles in 15% of the core. The postings also focus on allegedly inadequate emergency planning, the lack of a national nuclear waste disposal option, the inference that the only benefit of nukes is making money, and citizens claiming a violation of their human rights.

Neutron Bytes - Dan Yurman

SMR developers form advocacy group in DC

Leading developers and potential customers of small modular reactors (SMR) have formed a consortium, called SMR Smart, to advance the commercialization of the innovative light water reactor designs.

Also, developers of advanced nuclear reactors are pleased with their DC summit meeting held last week.

Next Big Future--Brian Wang

China plans on at least 110 Nuclear Reactors by 2030
Many will be 1400 MW or larger.  The Chinese supply chain is well in place.

Lightbridge is making progress on improved nuclear fuel
This fuel should increase energy production by 17% in existing reactors.

Bad air quality in Japan from lack of nuclear energy and air pollution in China
Hopefully, reactor restarts in Japan will ease the problem. But right now it is pretty bad, with 60% of monitoring sites in Japan above the particulate pollution standard. 

Neutron Bytes - Dan Yurman

French gov’t struggles to overcome a panic attack about UK’s Hinkley Point nuclear power project

French energy group EDF has postponed giving final approval for construction of the twin 1600 MW Areva EPRs in Somerset, UK. The current cost estimate, which is a work in progress, is pegged at between $18-20 billion.

The move to delay the final investment decision is said to have been made as a result of concerns within the French government and by investors about whether the financing was firmly in place for the huge project and whether costs could be contained over a decade long period of construction of the reactors.

Next:  Can renewables replace fossil fuel and nuclear?  Well, no. Here are some posts on that issue.

Forbes--James Conca
Exxon Believes That Global Use Of Oil And Gas Will Continue To Increase
The largest fossil fuel company in the world predicts our energy mix won’t change a whole lot over the next 25 years. In fact, Exxon Mobil projects that oil and gas will actually increase by 2040, even as coal decreases a bit. This unfortunate future stems from the age-old conundrum of trying not to eat sugar when your pockets are full of candy. The Earth has so much fossil fuel, and it has become so cheap to extract it, that it defies logic to think that humans will not keep burning it as their main source of energy.

Northwest Clean Energy--Meredith Angwin
Reality: Less nuclear means more natural gas
Vermont Yankee and San Onofre closed recently. Natural gas-fired plants took over and made the electricity that replaced the nuclear outputs.  Meanwhile, paper after paper, and study after study, trumpet the coming world of renewables.  These are just studies.  Though renewables maybe would'a, could'a, should'a replaced the closed plants, the reality is that less nuclear means more natural gas.

Atomic Insights--Rod Adams
Another day, another model “proving” capabilities of weather-dependent power

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) jointly published a paper about a new model they've created to simulate using weather-dependent energy sources to reduce greenhouse gas production from the US electricity sector. 

Their scenarios include generous amounts of natural gas, a nationwide HVDC transmission network,  and other conditions. Some news outlets have published headlines citing  the large reduction without noting the required conditions. Shocking, isn't it?

The Atomic Show (podcast)---Rod Adams

Atomic Show #249 - All Electric America by S. David Freeman and Leah Y Parks

Freeman has been actively doubting the value of nuclear energy since the mid 1970s. He's now in his 90s. Leah Y Parks is a writer who earned an MS in environmental engineering and has some experience in developing water infrastructure projects. She, like Freeman, believes that wind, solar and water can do it all, even if all energy now supplied by burning fossil fuels is converted to electricity.  The conversation is civil, even though the participants have unresolvable disagreements. 

Yes Vermont Yankee--Guest Post

Overreach at the Attorney General's Office: Guest post by Deborah Bucknam

In this case, strong-arm tactics are being used to promote renewable use, whether people want it or not. Recently, the Vermont Attorney general's office announced that they were investigating Annette Smith for possibly "practicing law without a license." Ms. Smith is a prominent anti-wind advocate.  In this guest post, Vermont lawyer Deborah Bucknam explains that the preposterous charge will likely be thrown out. Nevertheless, the charge will  hamper free speech and encourage wind developers. 

Renewables at 90% only IF grid-level storage comes first

Renewables can't be a 90% unless we have grid-level storage

Renewable installations are growing fast, but we can't have huge percentages of wind and solar on the grid unless we first have grid-level storage.  With the exception of pumped storage, grid-level storage does not exist at this time.  (No, I don't count an occasional 2 MW project as "the answer.")

We can't grow wind and solar to a higher percentage on the grid than their capacity factor implies, unless we have storage. Moving to 50% wind on the grid is not possible, without utility level storage.  

The explanation follows, based on the New England grid.

A year on the New England grid (2008)
Shows the necessity of being able to dispatch electricity
Note rise in gas usage while nuclear plants refuel
Click to enlarge

Five million down and five million up (natural gas takes the lead)

In a guest post on January 7, Michael Twomey of Entergy used grid operator (ISO-NE) data to show that between 2014 (when Vermont Yankee was running) and 2015 (when Vermont Yankee was closed), nuclear kilowatt-hours decreased by about five million MWh and gas-fired generators increased their output by almost exactly the same amount.  Natural gas went from 46,200,000 MWh to nearly 51,900,000 MWh.  Nuclear kWh nuclear went down by almost the same amount of MWh.

Click to enlarge table

Wind and solar growing fast: Jeff Schmidt's comment

Looking at the table above, you can see that wind went from 1,892,000 MWh to 2,135,00 MWh, growing by approximately 243,00 MWh, and solar grew from 327,500 to 436,200 MWh, approximately 108,700 MWh.

This rapid rate of growth (though still only adding up to 2.4% of the power on the grid), prompted Jeff Schmidt to write this comment on the Twomey article:

"This article seems to dismiss the growth of wind and solar. While I am pro-nuclear, and think that nuclear needs to play a vital role in our future energy mix, I think the author of the article is neglecting something important - growth of wind and solar.

It's true that they are still small. But, if you look at the year-over-year growth rate, as shown by the statistics provided by the ISO and called out by Mr. Twomey, we see that Solar grew 33% in a year, and Wind grew 41%. Of course, one can't predict future growth rates based on one year, but IF wind and solar can keep up strong growth like that, they could conceivably become a very large proportion of the New England energy mix inside of 10 years.

It's true that it's likely an overly optimistic and simplistic projection, but just for the sake of argument, if they can keep up that growth rate, then 9 years from now, Wind could produce about 50% of the energy, and solar about 5%. If you projected it to 10 years instead of 9, that would account for more than 100% of current grid generation.

However, at the same time, it's very likely that at some point, Wind and Solar's growth must slow. Still, it's a valid point to concede that Wind and Solar, while currently small in absolute terms, are actually growing at a pretty fast rate."

Why renewables can't keep growing--unless we have storage

I wrote the following response to Schmidt.  I oversimplified, but I am also worried that "we can't grow wind and solar" arguments are often based on cost, or on complex technical issues that are hard to explain.  So, here's my oversimplification.  Basically correct, but oversimplified.

Basically, we can't grow wind and solar to a higher percentage on the grid than their capacity factor implies, unless we have storage. Moving to 50% wind on the grid is not possible, without utility level storage.



Jeff
I wrote about Vermont's plans to be 90% renewables in today's blog post. Of course, renewable growth from 1 to 3 to 5% is possible and looks great. However, it simply does not scale. Let's oversimplify a little, though not a lot.

Most of Vermont is one weather pattern, with some exceptions. Hot, dry and sunny...all over Vermont. Windy at night...all over Vermont. Cold and windless....all over Vermont. Now, obviously, the mountains are different from the river valleys and so forth, but the statement "weather is the same all over Vermont" is far closer to true than its opposite would be.

Okay. We cannot turn wind on and off. Let's say that wind has a 30% capacity factor. For wind to grow to 30% of the electricity supply overall, that means when wind is on the grid (the wind is blowing in Vermont)...the grid has to be 100% wind. Without this high percentage when wind is available, wind is not going to be able to be 30% of the electricity, overall. So we have to build a lot of wind to get wind to 30% of the electricity supply, and we have to turn everything else off if the wind is blowing.

Well, what if we build more wind? If we do that, when the wind is blowing....what then? We have to curtail some of the wind, because the grid can't take more than 100% of wind. So, without grid level storage, wind reaches a VERY hard stop at 30%.

Well, it is windier in the mountains, and the southern part of the state gets less wind and so forth and this is an oversimplification. And the grid requires more power in the day, and less in the night (when the wind usually blows). So it is quite complicated in reality. But the basics remain.

IF you can turn things on and off, you don't reach this sort of hard stop. 100% of the electricity from natural gas...this could work. No "hard stop" involved. 100% from nuclear...well, current nuclear doesn't follow load well, but there is no "hard stop" involved, where you have more nuclear than you can use on the grid. You don't need grid level storage for nuclear, just plants that follow load a little better. And so forth.

This is why I am so cynical about the Vermont energy plan. The plan is kind of "We don't just hope for miracles, we expect them."
------

Jeff Schmidt has two guest posts at this blog:

The Nuclear Safety Paradox, which describes how experience (such as building new nuclear plants) increases safety.

Flawed Analogies, which describes the analogies nuclear opponents made in a debate against nuclear energy.

Illustration

The illustration showing the need for dispatchable power
From Sustainability presentation by David Lamont
Vermont Department of Public Service
October 18, 2010
Presentation is no longer on the web, but I had saved it to my computer.

Overselling Renewables: The Northwest and Here

Visiting the wind turbines
Lempster NH

Overselling Renewables: Northwest Version

I also blog at Northwest Clean Energy. Many of my posts are in support of Columbia Generating Station, the nuclear plant owned by Energy Northwest.

A professor at Stanford, Mark Z. Jacobson, promulgated an untested vision for using wind, water and solar (not even any biomass) for ALL the energy requirements of the entire country, by 2050. Yes, electricity, transportation, heating, industrial energy…all by wind, water, and solar.

Jacobson's SolutionsProject promotes this untested vision.  The project team is headed by an Executive Director, as most not-for-profits include. The other team members are a Creative Director, a Producer and a State Program director.  Creative Director? Producer? Well, I suppose, if  you haven't got facts, you need showmanship.

Jacobson writes his (basically fictional) report on a state by state basis.  My most recent post at Energy Northwest blog examines his ideas for Washington State: If more wind is the answer, what was the question? There are some nice comments on the post. I hope you will read it.

Overselling Renewables: Local Version

All over the country,  anti-nuclear people adore Jacobson's fictions.  For example, one of the commentators on this Boston Globe article about Pilgrim closing refers to Jacobson's words on renewables-for-Massachusetts as the reason we don't need Pilgrim.  (Alas, I can't find the comment now, but I read it yesterday. There are 98 comments as I write this post.)

Meanwhile, Vermont has a 90% percent renewables-for-everything "plan" that is only slightly less aggressive than Jacobson's ideas. Vermont only goes to 90% renewables, not 100%. Also, Vermont allows biomass. For an up-to-date look at how this plan is being accepted by the people of Vermont (it's pretty much hated), read Bruce Parker at Vermont Watchdog.

Parker went to a review meeting about the Vermont green energy plan. At that meeting, the Vermont Department of Public Service spokesman admitted the Vermont plan would have no effect on global warming, and also said that the Vermont plan was not aimed at setting an example to the world.

The spokesman faced angry Vermonters who don't know why we are covering our ridges with big roads and wind turbines, if it isn't going to do any good anyway.  Read Parker's report Vermont's green energy plan to have no impact on global warming. (The report has 198 comments as I write this post).

Note: Parker has had several guest posts at this blog, for example: Vermont town protests renewable energy credits for MA and CT

Overselling Renewables, National Version

Renewables are being oversold all over.

Meanwhile, nuclear power is demonized. Nuclear is the largest provider of low-carbon electricity in the United States.

Perhaps some day, we will wake up.  I hope so.

Vermont Yankee closed: the consequences were completely predictable

Vermont Yankee Closed: The Consequences were 100% Predictable

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Press for Vermont and Vermont Yankee

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

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

Rod Adams

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

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

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

But Wait, There's More!

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

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

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

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

Monday morning fuel mix on the grid
Renewables are 7%

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

The Cleantech Bubble, Tesla Motors, Nuclear Industry Startups: Guest Post by Evan Twarog

Evan Twarog

The Energy Market

In 2013, more than $1.6 trillion was invested into global energy markets, a figure that has more than doubled since 2000, and one that will continue to grow well into the future. The global energy market is worth tens of trillions of dollars, and this marketplace has driven the growth of entire regions, including Northern Africa, the Middle East, and Russia.  In other words, the energy market is massive beyond comprehension.  For the aspiring entrepreneur, this amount of available money means one thing; a huge opportunity to build a company that dwarfs even Exxon Mobil.  If a company can capture just 1% of this market, the company will be worth over $100 billion.  This opportunity is what drew the attention of a herd of entrepreneurs in the mid-2000s.

At the start of the 21st century, seemingly everyone thought that clean energy would be the next big thing.  How could it not? Smog in Beijing was so bad that people couldn’t see from building to building.  The year of the hurricane, 2005, brought a record 28 hurricanes, 8 more than the next busiest season.  Humanity’s consumption habits had to change, and they had to change immediately.  It was going to be a generation of clean energy entrepreneurs that lead this wave of economic transformation.  No longer would we be reliant on evil oil companies, greedy lobbyists, or big finance.

This revolution never came though.  Wind power today, a full decade after the Green Tech Boom offered to change the world, meets less than 5% of total power consumption in the US.  Solar power meets less than 1% of our power needs.  Renewable energy advocates point to stunning growth rates, often nearing 100% for solar power, however fail to mention the percentage of total power generated by renewables.  What happened to this wave of change?

The Cleantech Bubble Bursts

In 2007, the Cleantech Bubble burst.  The Renewable Energy Industrial Fund, which peaked at over 2000 points, dropped to less than half of that in a year, and today rests at 528.93 points (as of April 30, 2015).  While conservatives will often argue that as soon as the government touched renewables with its subsidies, its failure was inevitable, there is a different explanation as to why cleantech blew up.  Many cleantech companies tried to be revolutionary companies that would take over the entire energy market, and turn into a multi-billion dollar company.  While the massive scale of the energy marketplace seemed to present a huge opportunity on the surface for entrepreneurs, the reality was that this created fierce competition.   While many companies tried to differentiate themselves from one another with “unique” approaches to producing solar panels or wind turbines, there were no exponential improvements in solar panel efficiency.  A solar panel from one company was virtually the a solar panel from a different company, only both were marketed as being revolutionary.  In reality, there was rarely a distinction from a CIGS Solar Panel and a Silicon Solar Panel from a market standpoint.  While this bust may seem like a creation of the oil industry, the failure comes back to a lack of distinction, and companies trying to go big and compete against much larger competitors.

This bubble is by no means the first time an industry has burst open.  The housing bubble of 2008 and the tech bubble of the early 2000s are the two examples that come to mind.  Even the South Sea Company experienced a massive financial bubble in 1720.  What makes the Cleantech Bubble unique is its connection to a social issue.  In building a cleantech company, entrepreneurs were taking on a problem facing humanity.  Environmentalists were thrilled by the industry’s growth, and the potential revolution even attracted the attention of the GOP, a party that has traditionally been skeptical of environmentalism.  The pressing nature of climate change undoubtedly pushed forward the inflation of the bubble.  The failure of the Cleantech Bubble was the biggest flop of “social entrepreneurship” in mankind’s history.

Tesla Motors Survives the Bubble

Out of this bubble, one of the survivors and winners that emerged was Tesla Motors.  Founded by a group of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs in 2003, Tesla aimed to create world class cars that were powered by electricity.  With each generation becoming increasingly affordable, the goal was to bring beautiful, powerful electric cars to the masses and prove that they could match and exceed its gasoline competitors.  Today, Tesla has a market capitalization of nearly $30 billion, and has sold tens of thousands of cars.

Tesla Motors ultimately emerged from the Cleantech Bubble for a number of reasons.  Perhaps the single greatest reason why Tesla succeeded is that Tesla took over a small market, and then expanded to include larger markets.  Initially targeting the high-end, luxury electric car market with its Roadster, it was able to capture a monopoly over the industry before expanding into larger markets.  The Roadster provided the needed capital and reputation necessary to fund the R&D to design and built the less expensive Model S.  Now it’s in a prime position to expand into even broader markets.

One of the key features of any Tesla product is its outstanding performance and beauty.  Its Model S has the highest safety rating a car can achieve, and it can accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in 5 seconds.  Tesla’s technology is so good that other companies use it in their own products.  Mercedes-Benz uses its powertrain, Daimler uses its battery packs, and Toyota uses its motor.  Simply put, Tesla has the best electric vehicle on the market.  Not only this, but its products are beautiful.  It can be considered the “Apple of the Auto Industry”, and has something of a cult following.  This innovative culture is the product of Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk  Musk is both a brilliant salesman and engineer.  This combination is exceedingly rare to find, and he could easily be compared to Apple’s Steve Jobs.  In many ways, Musk has become the face of the electric car industry.  His demanding nature has attracted both the fascination of the public and the drive of some of the best engineers.  He describes his staff by saying “If you’re at Tesla, you’re choosing to be at the equivalent of Special Forces.  There’s the regular army, and that’s fine, but if you are working at Tesla, you’re choosing to step up your game”. This charisma and intensity is a critical component of the success the company has experienced.

Beyond this, Tesla was able to time the markets in order to take advantage of government funding available during the Cleantech Bubble to gain access to tremendous amounts of capital.  In January 2010, Tesla secured a $465 million loan from the Department of Energy.  Today, this loan is unthinkable with the political climate in Washington.

Entrepreneurial Success Requires Micro-Vision 

All of these factors coupled together show a few things.  Companies must have a micro-vision in order to take advantage of macroeconomic trends.  Entrepreneurs can’t rely on the opportunities that huge markets present without thinking about how their company in particular will capture this market.  Tesla had a vision from the start, whereas Nanosolar and Solyndra didn’t create a solar panel that would stand out from other competitors and in turn, meet a market need.  Beyond this, timing, leadership, people and image all play a significant role in how the success of a company pans out.

Tesla’s success is largely due to a combination of factors.  It created a revolutionary car.  It timed the market perfectly.  It captured a small market before expanding into larger ones.  It attracted incredibly engineers.  It offers direct car sales to its customers through its company dealerships.  Its name has become a coveted brand, and Tesla took advantage of the “sex-appeal” of appearing to be green in order to drive its initial sales of the Roadster.  Perhaps the nuclear industry, an industry not known for its startup-friendly culture can learn from Tesla’s example.

Innovation in the Nuclear Industry

One industry that isn’t necessarily known for its rapid innovation and startup friendly culture is the nuclear industry.  This might be slowly starting to change though.  Y-Combinator, one of the world’s most renown startup incubators, has invested in several nuclear power startups over the past several years.  UPower, a nuclear battery company, hopes to produce a container-sized nuclear battery capable of producing 2 megawatts of electricity.  Instead of producing a reactor that produces enough electricity to power a small state, the reactor would power a small, remote city.  Another startup that YC has recently funded is Helion Energy, a nuclear fusion company that takes an alternative approach to building a nuclear fusion reactor.  Instead of building multi-billion dollar reactors like the ITER, the international effort to build a nuclear fusion reactor, Helion aims to build smaller, distributed reactors for several tens of millions of dollars.  The company claims that it could produce power for $.04/KWh.  Even outside of YC, NuScale Power, the front runner of small modular reactor designers resembles more of a technology startup compared to a traditional nuclear company.  Starting out of the vision of Dr. Jose Reyes in the early 2000s, NuScale has collaborated with Oregon State University and is arguably the company within the industry that has the most momentum.

These companies are examples of an interesting shift in the way innovation is permeating into the nuclear industry.  For decades, innovation within the industry was dominated by larger companies such as GE, Westinghouse and Areva.  Seemingly, some of this momentum is now coming from smaller startups.  While this trend might not seem significant, it could change the way in which newer technologies come to the marketplace.

If startups are going to be successful within the nuclear industry, they are going to have to learn from the startups of Silicon Valley and the Cleantech Bubble.  Compared to other industries, the nuclear industry is heavily capital intensive and regulated, so establishing a strong foundation is critical to a startup’s success.  In particular, a couple issues that the nuclear industry will face mirror those that Tesla overcame.

Breakthrough Nuclear Technologies, and Learning from Tesla

Any nuclear startup will need to address what their target market will be.  Just as Tesla established a small niche and then expanded out into larger markets, nuclear startups must do the same because of the immense size of the energy marketplace.  These startups are going to run into serious challenges because of competition from fossil fuels. Larger nuclear reactors will have the benefit of massive scale, but will face the challenge of proving their economics because of the uncertainty associated with their construction costs.  Not only this, but natural gas and coal will provide fierce competition.  Why should utilities build a $10 billion reactor, when they could build a natural gas plant for half of that in half the time?  Smaller reactors will face similar competition from fossil fuel generators.  What these startups will have to rely on are nuclear power’s inherent advantages over its competition.  Nuclear reactors rarely have to be refueled, making them appealing in marketplaces with unstable and high energy prices.  Additionally, because they don’t have to be refueled, they’re appealing to markets where refueling can be difficult (UPower is attempting to capture this market).

Creating a breakthrough technology in the nuclear industry is going to be difficult, expensive and lengthy due to its strong regulatory framework.  As Peter Thiel writes in Zero to One, a breakthrough technology is something that is orders of magnitude better than the current competition.  Being 25% more efficient than other competitors isn’t going to be considered a breakthrough technology in his mind.  Creating a product that is 2 times better, 5 times better or even 10 times better is what will change the world.  The difficulty that the industry is going to experience is that innovation is a) expensive and b) lengthy.  The NRC is planning on charging $279 for every hour of time that its staff spends reviewing a reactor license, meaning it will cost tens of millions of dollars to win a reactor license.  Additionally, the review period takes several years, making it difficult for any startup to maintain the momentum it built up during its initial period of life.  Nuscale is proving that these regulatory challenges can be overcome by partnering up with a larger firm (in this case it was Fluor, a large construction firm) to gain access to the necessary capital to navigate the process.

There are several technologies that have the potential to be considered breakthrough technologies.  Molten Salt Reactors offer passive safety systems and a smaller footprint that could lead to lower construction and operating costs.  Nuclear fusion, which has been “20 years away for the past 50 years”, could be equally as transformative if it  can be commercialized at competitive costs.  The other technology that could be powerful is the Traveling Wave Reactor which is currently under design by the company Terrapower.  All of these technologies have the potential to improve safety, decrease the waste generated by the fuel cycle, decrease production and construction costs, and in turn, be considered breakthrough technologies.

Building the Nuclear Startups

The laws of building a startup apply to any company that is seeking to enter into the nuclear industry.  While the engineering and monopoly questions are both critical to answer and present unique challenges for the industry in particular, all of the questions will need to be answered.  Building a startup is a massive investment of personal energy and it will consume years of the entrepreneur’s life.  Just because there are some unique challenges facing the nuclear industry doesn’t mean that entrepreneurs should be timid about building a company in the industry.  If anything, this difficulty will separate out those who are serious about building a company and technology from those who are looking to simply get rich.  Building a startup in the nuclear industry offers potentially tremendous rewards if it can overcome the challenges facing the industry.  Where difficulty lies, if success is found, the rewards are tremendous.
------

Works Consulted:

“About Tesla.” Tesla Motors. N.p. n.d. Web. 1 May 2015.
Russell, Kyle. "Y Combinator And Mithril Invest In Helion, A Nuclear Fusion Startup." TechCrunch. TechCrunch, 14 Aug. 2014. Web. 02 May 2015.
Russell, Kyle. "YC-Backed UPower Is Building Nuclear Batteries."TechCrunch. TechCrunch, 18 Aug. 2014. Web. 02 May 2015.
“Technology” UPower. N.p. n.d. Web. 1 May 2015.
Thiel, Peter. Zero to One. New York, NY; Crown Publishing. 2014. Print.
"Top 10 Most Active Hurricane Seasons." Weather Underground. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 May 2015.
"WORLD ENERGY INVESTMENT OUTLOOK 2014 FACTSHEET." (n.d.): n. pag.International Energy Agency. International Energy Agency. Web. 1 May 2015.
"§ 170.20 Average Cost per Professional Staff-hour." Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 29 Aug. 2014. Web. 1 May 2015.


-------
Evan Twarog will graduate high school this year and start at the Coast Guard Academy this summer.  He has been a guest blogger at this blog and an intern at the Energy Education Project of the Ethan Allen Institute.  Most recently, he has been blogging at his own blog, Semper Deinceps (rough translation: "Always Forward").  This post first appeared at that blog. Twarog also contributes to several other sites. Twarog's latest two posts are The Three Gorges Dam: Why China is Run by Engineers at Atomic Insights, and Touring Vermont Yankee, at ANS Nuclear Cafe.  We are pleased to host this essay at this blog.

Tesla Roadster

Slow Renewable Growth Means We Must Retain Existing Power Sources: Guy Page Guest Post

With renewable growth slow, Vermont and New England must retain existing, diverse power sources

In an April 13 Associated Press story, a prominent renewable energy advocate said Vermont’s wind power industry is “just taking a little hibernation here as federal policy gets the tax credits right.”

While Vermont waits for Congress to act, now is a good time to examine the status of the state and regional supply of low-cost, low-carbon, reliable electricity. Vermont’s power needs changed dramatically in March 2012, when Vermont Yankee, per its contract, stopped providing one-third of the state’s power – every kilowatt of it low-carbon and low-cost. But not to worry, Vermonters were assured: new, renewable power would fill the gap.

Slow Growth

Three years later, the promise is being fulfilled slowly, and with great uncertainty. Based on state, utility and media sources, here’s an update on instate renewable power generation built since March 2012:

• Three ridgeline industrial wind turbine developments (in Lowell, Sheffield, and Georgia) contribute about 4% of the state’s total electricity load.
• A rapid proliferation of photovoltaic solar power generators, from small rooftop projects to big developments, contributes 1-2 percent.
• Four farm bio-digesters contribute about 0.2 percent, and a small biomass generator and a hydro dam total about 0.1 percent. 

By rough count, in-state renewable generation built since March 2012 comprises about six percent of total demand. Currently, only solar is growing. The others have almost stalled since January, 2013 due to opposition, weak incentives, or cheaper energy alternatives. Yet even the “Solar Express” may slow if Congress lets a 30 percent construction tax credit expire. Through 2016, for example, the builder of a $10,000 solar power generator will pay $3000 less in federal taxes. Whether Congress continues,

eliminates, reduces to 10 percent or phases out this crucial credit is anyone’s guess. Some solar experts believe the declining cost of production has moved solar power almost to the point of tax credit independence.

Wind is Treading Water

Visiting a wind turbine
In New Hampshire

The wind power industry is indeed treading water, waiting on Congress. The three projects cited above
were sufficiently completed by December 31, 2012, just in time to receive an expiring 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour Production Tax Credit (PTC). Congress has since granted the PTC a couple of grudging one-year extensions, hardly the confidence builder the industry needs. The U.S. Senate voted against a five year extension this January. Some pro-wind senators now want a five-year PTC “phase-out.”  

The owner of Vermont’s only unbuilt but permitted project – Deerfield II in Searsburg – must have a power buyer under contract before construction begins, a spokesperson told VTEP in 2013. Ground remains unbroken. A proposed Northeast Kingdom (NEK) wind farm was rejected in a multi-town referendum. Also, transmission lines in the NEK cannot accommodate another large wind power generator, a senior state energy official said last month. Finally, most of the tri-county region’s senators, newspaper editors, and development officials have publicly opposed more ridge line wind projects in the NEK.

Three serious proposals to build instate biomass-burning power plants are unbuilt due to lack of support from neighbors, power-buying utilities and/or regulators.

It's Hard to Build New, So We Need to Keep What We Have

For one reason or another, it’s hard to build new power generation in Vermont. Therefore we must protect the low-cost, low-carbon power generation we already enjoy. With the exception of encouraging the departure of Vermont Yankee, Vermont is pretty good at this. Long-term Hydro Quebec contracts were renewed, as was a permit for a biomass plant in Ryegate. Small, defunct dams are making power again. Active dams have been re-licensed. Burlington declared itself “100 percent renewable” last year after buying a large, existing Winooski River dam. Green Mountain Power has long-term contracts for New Hampshire wind and nuclear power, and owns a small share of a Connecticut nuclear plant.

Throughout New England, hydro and nuclear power plants provide base-load, low-cost, low-carbon electricity. However, their future is jeopardized by policies favoring natural gas, New England’s dominant fuel, including a New England governor’s agreement last week that called for more natural gas infrastructure but was virtually silent on retaining existing nuclear power. Vermont must urge the rest of New England to keep its low-cost, low-carbon power.

Vermont must seek new reliable, affordable, clean power. But first – let’s keep what we already have.

---------

Guy Page

Guy Page is a frequent guest blogger at this blog.  He is  Communications Director of the Vermont Energy Partnership (www.vtep.org) , a Montpelier-based coalition of individuals, businesses, and labor and development organizations promoting clean, safe, affordable and reliable electricity for Vermont. Vermont Yankee is a VTEP member.

This article also appeared in Vermont Digger and other newspapers in Vermont. 

The Cold Truth on the New England Grid This Week: A High-Carbon Fuel Mix

The Grid In Winter

I have been following the New England Grid through the extremely cold weather of  the past few days.  As you would expect, electricity prices have been high, demand is high, and so forth.  Here's a typical screen-shot of the Vermont situation this morning.  Electricity prices above 25c per kWh.  (Price of $274 per MWh is 27 cents per kWh.) This screen shot comes from the ISO-NE main website, where the price ticker keeps changing in real time.

That is hardly the highest it has been. Here's some more information from the ISO-NE express page.  You can see that the variation, with moments of 40 cents/kWh today, and they had around 50 cents yesterday. Alas, I didn't take a screen shot yesterday.  (As usual, you can click on the graphics to enlarge them.)

The demand is soaring, also.

Here's a screen shot of the various areas in ISO-NE, including the lines feeding in from Canada, out to New York, and the cross-sound link to Long Island.

Note, you can see all these charts for yourself, real time, by clicking this link. With sub-zero weather, demand and price are soaring.  Of course.

The interesting thing was the fuel mix.

The Fuel Mix in Winter: Nuclear and Natural Gas are Equal

At the bottom of that same page, there's a little pie-chart of the current fuel mix.  This is an astounding pie chart: nuclear and natural gas are neck-and-neck in supplying power right now.   This is despite the fact that ISO-NE often says that New England is overly dependent on natural gas. The ISO-NE statement about closing Vermont Yankee noted that 52% of New England's electricity is generated with natural gas.  

Well, right now, New England's electricity isn't being generated by natural gas.  With a high demand on the grid, nuclear is 27% and natural gas is 28%.  Since nuclear power is reliable, but the amount is rather fixed, the nuclear component didn't go up.  Instead,  the percentage of natural gas has gone down.  In other words, when we need natural gas in New England, it isn't available.

But take a look at that oil percentage: 18%!  And coal at 13%.  

The lack of availability of natural gas is old news.  Indeed, the high percentage for oil shows that the ISO-NE winter reliability program is working.  In that program this fall,  ISO-NE (well, the rate-payers of New England) payed $75 million in capacity payments for oil-burners to have oil on site.   Now that those plants are actually making power, the oil-burners are also getting high prices as they sell their power. The $75 million this fall was a "capacity"payment--a payment to have oil on-site so the oil-fired capacity is available for dispatch.

ISO-NE has made some comments yesterday about the situation in New England. This grid isn't looking particularly good. This article Energy demand, prices soar as temperatures drop in New England quotes ISO-NE as follows:  

ISO-New England, the region's power grid operator, told transmission and generating companies on Tuesday to halt routine maintenance to free up resources for power exports to other regions if necessary, spokeswoman Marcia Blomberg said.

Some electric power plants have switched to burning oil and coal in New England in response to rising natural gas prices, she said.

(Note: This Energy Demand article by Stephen Singer of AP also appears in the Brattleboro Reformer, but I think it may be behind a paywall there.)

The whole situation on the grid is going to get worse next year when Vermont Yankee goes off-line.  That 27% nuclear will shrink and it is very unlikely that new gas lines will have been installed.  I think that coal and oil will be the new normal for the New England grid in winter. 

What about the renewables?

This post isn't particularly about renewables, but it has been windy, and we have had wind power. "Renewables" are 8% of the fuel mix chart above, and clicking on the "renewables" tag on that chart shows the percentage of the various renewables, as below.  Wood and refuse are 66% of the renewables and wind is 32%.  In other words, wind is about a third of 8% of the demand on the grid, or less than 3%.  And it has been windy!  We are not experiencing a mass of still cold air which is typical of winter. This weather system is described as a "vortex."  For what it's worth, production of power from refuse and wood is relatively fixed-capacity, but the amount of wind varies.  This chart covers a time when the wind power was comparatively high. 

I guess it is time to repeat myself a little. Here's the conclusion:

When Vermont Yankee goes off-line, coal and oil will be an even bigger part of the New Normal on the winter grid in New England. 

-------

Update: I recommend this NEI blog post about the grid and nuclear energy: Nuclear Fleet Shrugs Off Polar Vortex, and this article in the Hartford Courant about nuclear supplying more power to the grid than any other fuel on Tuesday afternoon when power demand was high.

Vermont Yankee's Closing Will Hurt Vermont

The Plant Will Close

On Aug. 27, Entergy announced that Vermont Yankee would be shuttered in the fall or 2014, when its current fuel load is finished producing power.

Entergy’s decision elicited a variety of reactions. Some regarded this as a great victory and were practically dancing in the streets. I was among those who were upset and depressed by the news. But I suspect that most people were somewhere in the middle. They thought, well, Vermont isn’t using Vermont Yankee power anyway, so it shouldn’t make much of a difference.

It does. Vermont Yankee’s closing will affect everyone in Vermont. It will make our electricity more expensive, more fossil-fuel based and less reliable.

Vermont utilities are using Vermont Yankee power now. They’re not officially buying Vermont Yankee power, but “using” power and “buying” power are different. Power use has to do with physical structure — where power plants, transmission lines and users are located. “Buying” power is about power contracts. A utility can choose to “buy” power from far away, but it will continue to use the power from the local generators. For example, when Green Mountain Power bought power from Seabrook instead of from Vermont Yankee, no power lines needed to be constructed. When a major supplier of regional power is lost, it must be replaced, regardless of who’s buying it.

So when Vermont Yankee closes, people in Vermont will have to get actual power from other sources. Can they get this power? The short answer is yes. Vermont Electric Power Co. (VELCO) manages the state transmission systems. VELCO was concerned that Vermont Yankee might close. Between 2010 and 2013, it invested $30 million in new lines and substations to bring replacement electricity to Vermont.

The Replacement Power

What will the new power sources be? Despite the Vermont Comprehensive Plan, very little will come from renewable sources. Building renewables is a slow, expensive, land-intensive job. Vermont Yankee generates 620 megawatts of power and is well-connected to the grid. In contrast, the Lowell Mountain wind project produces 64 MW and has difficulty getting on the grid. Rep. Tony Klein, a strong advocate of wind energy, said recently that he expects no more wind farms to be built in Vermont for another 10 to 15 years.

When Vermont Yankee goes off-line, Vermont will get its power from outside Vermont: either power supplied by the regional grid, ISO-NE, or hydro-power from Canada. With Yankee closing, much of the power on the grid, especially the spot market power, will be gas-fired and its price is due to go up. Power supplied under contract by HydroQuebec follows that spot price. Before, when gas prices went up, Vermont Yankee could underbid the gas prices, and supply many megawatt-hours at a lower price than gas. But without Vermont Yankee, gas prices will determine the price of almost everything on the grid.

Natural Gas and Some Oil

Industrial Gas Turbine

Our local grid power is already overdependent on natural gas. Right now, 52 percent of the power on the grid is produced from natural gas, and it will be a higher percentage when Vermont Yankee closes. ISO-NE considers gas dependence a “key strategic risk” for New England. The area is vulnerable to supply disruptions and price changes for this commodity.

Let’s start with supply disruptions. We had a natural gas supply crisis during the January 2013 cold snap. Although many in New England heat their homes with natural gas, the limited gas lines serving the region make for an inadequate supply. In cold weather, when domestic demand for gas spikes, those customers receive priority, and the power plants can’t get enough gas. During that cold snap, the grid would attempt to summon the help of a gas-burning power plant, and the plant would answer: “Sorry. Can’t go online. No gas.”

This year, ISO-NE started a “Winter Reliability Program” to address this problem — by using oil. ISO-NE has set aside $75 million to keep (mostly) oil-burning plants at the ready. That’s right, the grid is paying $75 million to have oil-burning plants keep oil onsite. (This is a “capacity” payment; the plants will be paid separately when they actual make power.) ISO-NE is ensuring reliability, but at a high dollar cost and a high cost in fossil-fuel use.

Without Vermont Yankee, more power will come from gas plants, but they will still be supplied by the same set of pipelines. Unless new pipelines are built quickly, an unlikely event, it will take less of a cold snap to activate the “we can’t get gas for our power plant” situation. In that case, more oil will be needed for back-up.

Price also matters, and once again, the problem is a lack of pipelines. Fracking has made a lot of gas available, but New England’s access to it is limited. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which tracks national supply and demand, published a market assessment in October that reported that gas prices are relatively stable in most of the country, except in New England. In other regions, gas prices charged last winter and for futures contracts written on the coming winter are around $4 per MMBTU (1 million BTUs). In New England, natural gas prices last year were $6.60 MMBTU, but the futures price for the winter of 2014 is soaring to $11.75. Electricity prices in this area are also expected to rise, since electricity prices customarily track gas prices.

Canadian Hydro--only a very partial solution

What about getting more power from hydro plants in Canada? This will work … partially. Depending on how much electricity we import, new transmission lines may well be needed. Some of these lines are already being planned. We should also note that Canadian power is unlikely to shield us from price rises on the grid. Under the new HydroQuebec contracts signed around 2012, the price HydroQuebec charges will fluctuate; it will move according to the market price on the grid, which itself follows natural gas prices.

Ice Storm of 1998

In this case, we will be actually moving more electricity from Canada, not just writing contracts. Electricity carried long distances is also liable to disruptions. In 1998, an ice storm devastated HydroQuebec’s power lines, causing widespread, lengthy power outages. This could happen again, but let’s look at a more recent and more mundane supply disruption.

During that same cold snap last January, HydroQuebec exported only about half of the usual amount of electricity to the U.S. Why did it cut back just when the power was most needed?

Quebec law requires HydroQuebec to supply inexpensive electricity to “legacy” customers within the province. The needs of those customers must be met, and at a retail price of around 3 cents per kWh. Therefore, many people in Quebec heat with electricity. In a cold snap, the Quebec heaters go on, and HydroQuebec has less power to send to us. HydroQuebec hates this, but has no choice.

Cold Weather and Reliability

Even with Vermont Yankee running, Vermont and New England were overly dependent on natural gas. Without Vermont Yankee, the problems will get worse,. Our dependence on natural gas and on Canada sets us up for a perfect storm of increased power prices — and it won’t take a monster storm to trigger it. Cold weather itself will do a fine job.

--------

This op-ed originally appeared in the Valley News on November 17, and appeared in the Ethan Allen Institute newsletter in December.

A reference list for this post is Reference list for effects of closing Vermont Yankee.

Where Vermont Power Will Come From After Vermont Yankee

Rainfall in U S during ice storm
Does not include rainfall Jan 4 and 5

On Sunday, the Valley News published my op-ed Yankee's Closing Will Hurt Vermont. 

I always enjoy having an op-ed in the my local Sunday paper.  I hope you read it. It's about the probable effects on Vermont when Vermont Yankee closes.

Factors Affecting Vermont Electricity 

As I wrote in the op-ed:

Vermont Yankee’s closing will affect everyone in Vermont. It will make our electricity more expensive, more fossil-fuel based and less reliable.

I explained the factors that will affect our power supply and pricing after Vermont Yankee closes.  Specifically:

• The plant will not be replaced by renewables.  Wind turbine construction in Vermont is practically at a standstill, for example.
• Our power will come from outside Vermont, and be subject to various sorts of interruption, including too few natural gas supply lines, ice storms, and HydroQuebec needing to use its electricity in Quebec during a cold snap.
• The electricity price will follow the grid price of natural gas.  According to FERC, the New England price of natural gas is set to rise substantially (from $6.60 MMBTU to $11.75 MMBTU).  In the rest of the country, the price of natural gas is set to remain stable.
• Grid payments of $75 million to oil-burning plants (the ISO-NE Winter Reliability Program) will be rolled into our electricity costs.

What About the People at Vermont Yankee?

Realtor map of my area
Map shows town boundaries
Dartmouth is in Hanover
My home is in Hartford

Several people asked me why I didn't mention the people at Vermont Yankee, the effect of the plant closing on the local economy, the effect on the state economy, the effect on the state taxes?  

There's a simple reason.  I live about sixty miles north of the plant, and I think people in this area don't care very much about southern Vermont.  People here generally commute across the bridge to New Hampshire, where they work at Dartmouth College, Dartmouth Medical Center, and many high-tech industries spawned by Dartmouth (for example, HyperTherm).  

People here care where their electricity comes from. They care about reliability and about environmental impact.  They care somewhat about their electric bills.  My own feeling is people here don't care that much about what happens to Brattleboro or Vernon. They are insulated from many aspects of the Vermont economy through their jobs in New Hampshire.

Therefore, for my local paper, I wrote about things that affect all of Vermont: where our electricity comes from, how reliable it is, how fossil fuels will be used to produce our electricity, and how expensive electricity may become.

The Op-Ed

For an op-ed, Yankee's Closing Will Hurt Vermont was  very data-dense!  Sometimes I wondered--where was the "opinion" part?  Why did I write it this way?

Still, it was fun to write, and I plan to reprint it on this blog in a week or so.  

However, I always like to have people access the op-ed at the newspaper for a few days before I begin putting it on my own blog.  I hope you enjoy the article.

----

P.S.  Just came across an article in a Boston business journal which says that Boston should expect a 20% percent price rise in electricity this winter, for some of the same reasons I discussed for expecting price rises in Vermont.