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.

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.

Hydro: Some insight into nuclear opponent mistakes

My recent post on Nuclear Opponents View of New Hydro in Vermont described a Public Service Board hearing. The post showcased a lawyer for a nuclear opponent as he said the equivalent of:
"Nah, nah, nah, I know about hydro and I am not telling!"

What did he think he "knew" but didn't have to "tell"?

Two engineers contributed to this current post on the topic of new hydro.   William Rodgers commented on my earlier blog post itself, while Jaro Franta (from Quebec) commented on the earlier post at the Save Vermont Yankee Facebook page.

Licensing  by William Rodgers:

..But anyway, not to take away from Mr. Simon's moment illustrating his maturity level; the other issue of new hydro is not just available capacity but also licensing.

New hydro needs to walk the path of licensing with FERC. It is one thing to read a few research articles in Hydroworld and proclaim some sort of illusory victory. It is entirely something else to actually make a transition plan to new hydro work so all will benefit and none will suffer. New hydro can take anywhere from 5 to 15+ years to get licensed.

And with the current FERC leadership preferring natural gas plants over all other generation sources to back up wind, it is highly doubtful significant new hydro would be licensed anyway. Especially since actual environmental groups would come out and protest licensing activities.

Then there is the construction costs, number of sites that would have to be used to get even close to the output of VY, issues with run-of-the-river dams where water is already needed for other uses, not hydro-generation. Oh the list goes on and on.

Then there is the dreaded drought year or years. What then?

What is "Hydrologic"? by Jaro Franta

"Hydrologic turbines" seems to be a reference to an aquatic version of windmills:

Greens in Quebec have also been pushing these "water current turbines" or Tyson turbines, as an alternative to standard hydro dams - they would apparently prefer putting thousands of these things in the St. Lawrence and other rivers.

Unfortunately they're clueless about the crud (fouling) that develops over time on these things, due to the low-speed water flow, and the massive job it would be to keep cleaning them.

(Not to mention other undesirable aspects, such as interference with marine traffic and harm to aquatic life)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_head_hydro_power#Installation_of_turbines_in_river_current

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyson_turbine

Developments in ducted water current turbines

http://www.cyberiad.net/library/pdf/bk_tidal_paper25apr06.pdf

Keeping These Turbines Clean, by Jaro Franta

Incidentally, a fair comparison may be made with the Côte Sainte-Catherine Hydromega projects, which I was involved in the mid-1990's.

As I recall, one of the big issues there was the fouling of the trash racks on the intake to the penstocks: These are ***fortunately*** accessible from shore (they are on the high side of the seaway locks dikes), but they certainly keep the plant operators busy cleaning them, especially in the summer.
I can't imagine what that job would be like, with turbine units spread out all over the river somewhere.....

http://algonquinpowercompany.com/cms/index.php?c=msg&id=166&

" The Côte Ste-Catherine facility is located at the Côte Ste-Catherine lock of the Lachine section of the St. Lawrence Seaway. The bypass canal upon which the facility is located was constructed as part of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1958. The facility has a total installed capacity of 11,120 kilowatts and was constructed in three separate phases, each phase having a total installed capacity of 2,120 kilowatts, 4,500 kilowatts and 4,500 kilowatts, respectively, and each phase was commissioned in 1989, 1993 and 1996, respectively. Due to the year round, high volume water flows of the St. Lawrence River, the facility is expected to operate at full capacity throughout the year. The Côte Ste-Catherine facility uses approximately 2 per cent of the river flow at any given time.

More photos: http://www.hmiconstruction.ca/real_STCATHERINE.htm

My Own Conclusions

As William Rodgers notes, permitting new hydro would be close to impossible.  This is probably why upgrading existing hydro is more popular.

As Jaro Franta notes, upkeep on run-of-the-river turbines is very difficult, since the low flows mean the trash racks are easily fouled.  Also, the Côte Ste-Catherine facility uses only 2 percent of the river flow.  With a mighty river like the St. Lawrence, installed capacity for these turbines is 11.2 MW.  With a smaller stream, the output would be in kilowatts, and the costs of running and cleaning the system might be too high for the amount of power you would gain.

Nuclear Opponents View of New Hydro in Vermont

New Hydro Power in Vermont

I blogged recently about the potential for new in-state hydro power in Vermont.  Quoting many studies, I concluded that not much new in-state hydro power is available for Vermont.  My estimate was about 25 MW possible. Please read the entire post for the justification of this number.

Vermont Yankee opponents, on the other hand, often say there is much more hydro available for Vermont.  Among the opponents, VPIRG is the most honest: their  Repowering Vermont report predicted only 15 MW expansion in hydro power.

Other opponents wave their hands in the air and claim that new hydro in Vermont can be a serious addition to the fuel mix in Vermont.  They don't state numbers and they don't state references. They don't adhere to the generally accepted rules of evidence.  They don't...

Aw heck.  I'll just quote them.

Evidence, Pre-Filed Testimony, and Loaded Questions

On February 14, I attended a Public Service Board hearing about the Certificate of Public Good for Vermont Yankee. At that hearing, Entergy presented Jeffrey Tranen as an expert witness.  You can read Mr. Tranen's resume here, and you can read his pre-filed testimony for the Board at the relicensing docket.  Tranen has held responsible positions with grid operators and utilities. Tranen testified on the need for reliability and a good fuel mix on the grid.

Vermont Yankee (620 MW)
Vernon Dam (34 MW)

In general, substantive issues are supposed to be entered into the docket as pre-filed testimony.  You can see volumes of pre-filed testimony at the relicensing docket site, above.

New England Coalition is an old-line nuclear opponent, and an intervenor in the docket.  The lawyer for the New England Coalition was Brice Simon.

Examination is supposed to be on the basis of the pre-filed testimony.  However, the Public Service Board is quasi-judicial, not a court of law, so there is some leeway.  Also, in most courts of law, while leading questions are sometimes permissible, loaded questions are not.  Loaded questions assume an answer, and the classic loaded question is described in Wikipedia as follows:

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" indirectly asserting that the subject has beaten her at some point.

Okay, cutting to the chase here.  Brice Simon's questions for Tranen seemed so inappropriate that I obtained a copy of the transcript for that day so that I could quote the exchange directly. The transcript is a public record, but it is not on the Public Service Board website.

See what you think of these questions.

I Know and You Don't--So Hah-Hah!

Context: Discussion of Vermont Yankee's role in diversifying the fuel supply mix in this area, an area which has limited natural gas pipelines.

(Questions by Brice  Simon, NEC lawyer; answers by Jeffrey Tranen, Entergy Witness; Objection by Robert Juman, Entergy Lawyer; Comment by James Volz, Chairman of the Public Service Board)

Illustration from
Renewable Energy Vermont

Q. Just to follow up on that one, isn't locally produced hydro power one type of fuel that can step in to meet that need rather than Vermont Yankee?

A. Local hydro is already factored into the dispatch.

Q. What I'm asking is increased local hydro over time could come in to meet that need, correct?

A. I question whether there's enough increased local hydro of the magnitude of a Vermont Yankee power plant, but in general any other source of power than gas which is economic -- more economic than gas to operate in the dispatch would reduce the amount of gas that's required during the operating day.

Q. Are you aware of how much untapped hydro resources there remain in the State of Vermont?

A. I don't have specific numbers, but when I was actively involved in management with regard to New England it was my understanding that there was very little economic new hydro in New England to be developed.

Q. And when was that?

A. A decade ago.

Q. A decade ago. So you're not aware of all of the wonderful improvements that Vermont hydro developers are seeing that are increasing the available economic hydro in the state, are you?

A. I am not aware of the -- to what extent there could be new hydro that would be economic to develop in Vermont.

Q. Are you aware of the recent developments in run-of-the-river hydrologic turbines?

MR. JUMAN: Objection. What developments are you referring to?

MR. SIMON: I'm asking if the witness is aware of the developments that I'm aware of that I'm not going to tell about.

MR. JUMAN: Then I object to that question. You're asking him about something you're not sharing with him.

MR. SIMON: I don't have to share it with him.

MR. JUMAN: You're asking him to read your mind.

MR. SIMON: No. I'm asking his state of knowledge. I don't have to tell him.

CHAIRMAN VOLZ: I think it's fair to ask him if he's -- we are -- what developments in hydro technology is he aware of.

MR. SIMON: I'll rephrase the question happily.

BY MR. SIMON: Q. What, if any, developments in the area of run-of-the-river hydrologic turbines are you aware of?

A. I am not aware of any hydroelectric technology developments that would make new hydro development economic in competing with gas fired generation to any great extent.

Q. Thank you. ..

My Conclusion

A fishy fish from Wikipedia

Mr Simon did not even attempt to justify his implied assertion that recent improvements had greatly expanded hydro power availability in Vermont.  He didn't enter anything about these new improvements into the pre-filed testimony. (All the NEC pre-filed testimony is about fish and cooling towers.) Instead, Simon resorted to loaded questions and "I know but I'm not telling." With this, he tried to convince the Public Service Board that there is lots of new hydro available to Vermont.

Simon seems to be claiming that there is new hydro available, on the same scale as Vermont Yankee power, but as small run-of-the-river plants, using an unreferenced new technology.  And he doesn't have to tell anything more about it.

Hopefully, the Board is smart enough to see through this type of questioning.

Hydro Power in Vermont: The Expert's View

A few days ago, I posted about some controversial renewable energy projects in Vermont.   I didn't mention hydro projects.  Basically, I don't think in-state hydro is going to expand very much in Vermont.  Still, hydroelectric power is pretty important in New England, so I need to discuss it.

Here's my Vermont-centric description of the Future Of Hydro.

In-State Hydro Right Now

 Historically, Vermont receives about 10-12% of its power from in-state hydro. I show two charts that show this percentage.  One is about two years old, showing 11% in-state hydro in Vermont.

Vermont Electric Supply
From 2010 PSB Sustainability Presentation 

One is more recent, showing 12% in-state hydro for Green Mountain Power, which supplies over 70% of the electricity in this state.

From current Green Mountain Power web page on Fuel Mix.

Green Mountain Power (GMP) website's hydro page describes Vermont's long history of hydro power. GMP itself has a fleet of 32 hydro stations, many of which include recreation areas. There are about 80 active hydro sites in Vermont.

Views on New Hydro in Vermont's Future

I don't expect in-state hydro to expand very much in the future.

VPIRG and the Coalition for Energy Solutions: In 2009, VPIRG issued a report on Repowering Vermont, and the Coalition for Energy Solutions reviewed this in their own report Vermont Electric Power in Transition in early 2010. On hydro, the two reports pretty much agree.  The VPIRG report expects only 15 MW growth of in-state hydro. The Coalition report is not sure that even that amount of hydro expansion is feasible: When thinking about building many small dams, the effects on tourism should be considered. In general, small free-flowing streams are part of the Vermont landscape, and a great tourist draw...(Full disclosure: I am one of the authors of the Coalition report.)

Renewable Energy Vermont (REV) is upbeat about hydro, but they admit that By and large all existing dam sites in Vermont have already been developed, with no new projects commissioned since 1993. Environmental concerns, a burdensome licensing process and difficult economics have been primarily responsible for the lack of new dams coming on line.  Despite this, REV is hopeful about small, community-scale, run-of-the-river hydro.

Hydropower Illustration
From REV

In August 2010, the Burlington Free Press ran an article Hydroelectric dams resurgent in Vermont. It isn't much of a resurgence, though. This article is really about refurbishing: the two dams described as coming on-line soon are on the sites of existing dams, and together the dams would generate only 3 MW of power.

The same article says that  A 2008 report assembled by the Agency of Natural Resources published estimates in the 50 MW range, which it termed “broad-brush assessments.” (The report) also noted that Vermont’s stewardship of its water resources probably would supercede the licensing of any new hydro dams.

A Department of Public Service (DPS)  presentation in 2008 includes several projections of how much new hydro is available in Vermont.  The numbers range from 25 MW to 322 MW. The DPS projection says that 25 MW can be built.  The high projection is from the Department of Energy: this estimate stands alone with so big a number, and seems to be based on the idea that every river, stream and brook in Vermont would have a hydro plant.

In Conclusion: Very Little New Hydro For Vermont

 I think that existing dams in Vermont will be refurbished and upgraded, with some increase in power supply.  Estimates of 15 to 25 MW seem reasonable to me.  As a whole, I think the state of Vermont will follow the guidance of the Agency of Natural Resources report:

Vermont’s stewardship of its water resources probably would supercede the licensing of any new hydro dams.

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

Hydro Outside of Vermont

As far as I can tell, while existing dam sites are being refurbished, the national trend is not in favor of more hydro projects. In the United States, hydro seems as likely to be dismantled as to be built. A year ago, for example, the Hydro Review website ran an article by Elizabeth Ingram: Exploring the Reasons behind Dam Removal.  The dams that were removed were located in the western United States.  Nearer to home,  the Edwards Dam was removed in Maine, in 1999, on the basis that it interfered with fish migration.

Low-head hydro that does not require a dam is much discussed. However,  I find few examples of such systems being built, perhaps because the economics are unfavorable.  Refurbishing an existing dam site is the most common way of adding hydro capacity at this time. If I am wrong about this, I hope my readers will correct me.

Hongping Hydro Station, China

Small hydro is being greatly expanded in China.

Further Reading:

To read about the biggest Vermont in-state hydro sites, I recommend Bob Hargraves post on the Energy Safari visit to Comerford Dam.

The five hydro plants on the Connecticut River are due for relicensing, and hearings will begin soon.  However, these plants are not counted as in-state hydro for Vermont. The Connecticut River is the border between Vermont and New Hampshire, but the state of Vermont begins at our shoreline, not in the middle of the river.  So New Hampshire has the hydro plants as well as responsibility for the bridges.

Transitioning to Renewable Power: What It Might Look Like

Transitioning to Renewable Power: An Expert Describes What it Might “Look Like”
 By Guy Page

How many in-state, renewable power plants would it take to generate five percent of all energy used in the state?

This isn’t just an academic question for energy policy wonks. The State of Vermont has hitched its wagon to the star of 90 percent renewable power by 2050, and is pulling mighty hard to build more wind turbines, solar farms, and other renewable power generators.   And some Vermonters are pushing back just as hard.

There’s no lack of spirited debate, but sometimes it’s hard to find good, solid facts. On  February 7, the State of Vermont’s Director of Energy Policy and Planning, Dr. Asa Hopkins, performed and important and very informative public service as he addressed the Vermont Energy Generation Siting Policy Commission at a public hearing in Montpelier. Using “just the facts, ma’am” tone and detail, Dr. Hopkins described what a five percent  increase in Vermont-generated renewable electric power would look like.

The Five Per Cent Non-Solution

Hopkins emphasized that there’s nothing magic about five percent. It’s just one intermediate step from the 23 percent renewable energy level of 2010 to the 90 percent goal of 2050. He also clarified that electricity is a third of Vermont’s total energy sector. Heating and transportation, both more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, account for the other two-thirds.  The state energy analyst described several possible paths to increasing total energy by five percent solely through instate renewable power generation:

• Using large wind only, the state would need to generate 288 megawatts (MW), equal to 96 three- megawatt turbines. That is 4.6 times the capacity of the Kingdom Community Wind project. 
• Using solar only, the state would need to generate 576 MW (5.4 square miles – half the size of Burlington or 1.3 times the size of Barre City), equal to  262 2.2 MW solar generators – the maximum size allowed under the state’s “standard offer” subsidized power program.  Hopkins himself liked it to placing slightly more than one 2.2 MW solar plant in every town, city, and gore in Vermont. 
• Using small hydro only, the state would need to generate 173 MW, almost twice the estimated capacity available from powering 300 of the 1200 existing dams. Hopkins noted that the federal permitting process for small hydro can be lengthy and complex. 
• Using biomass (woodchips) only, the state would need to generate 139 MW, which would require an additional 1.1 million tons of fuel per year. At present, Vermont now uses 1.5 million tons/year total.

How Much Do We Need?

Dr. Hopkins noted that the expected reduced demand through conservation will cancel out the projected annual growth in demand for electricity. There is a notable exception: when demand for electricity rises by one-third due to the transition to plug-in electric vehicles. Energy conservation can’t keep up with a power demand spike of that size. At that point, Vermont ‘s power supply would need a real boost.

Vermonters know, more than we knew several years ago, the challenges that wind and solar projects present. We are developing opinions of a future of renewable power, based on our actual experience. Dr. Hopkins’ scenarios may help some of us inform those opinions. Knowing what we know, do we want five more Lowell Mountain wind projects, or solar farms everywhere, or hundreds more small dams, or heavier harvesting of woodlands in and around Vermont? Or an energy buffet of smaller servings of “all of the above?” For others, the answer might be “none of the above.”

Two years ago there was just a single ridgeline wind facility, now there are four. Solar power production on rooftop homes, on large buildings, and in pastures are on the rise.  Plug-in car registrations grew 57% in 2012, but only to 188 in total.

Can we build (and afford) enough renewable power? If we can, do we want to? These are questions that Vermonters will continue to debate. But with the help of Dr. Hopkins’ illustrations, at least we can better understand what the finished work might look like.

-----------

Guy Page is Communications Director of the Vermont Energy Partnership. He has several excellent guest posts on this blog.  His most recent post was Energy Policy is Key to Vermont's Future.

Vermont Energy Partnership is a diverse group of more than 90 business, labor, and community leaders committed to finding clean, affordable and reliable electricity solutions.  Entergy, owner of Vermont Yankee, is a member of the Vermont Energy Partnership.

Asa S. Hopkins is the Director of Energy Planning for the Vermont Department of Public Service.  He holds a Ph.D. in physics from California Institute of Technology. He previously held positions at the Department of Energy and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.