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.

Economics and the Public Service Board Hearings.

Public Service Board Members
David C. Coen, Chairman James Volz,  John Burke
Photo from PSB Board Member Biography web page

The Hearings

The Vermont Public Service Board has finished its hearings on the docket for the state license (Certificate of Public Good) for the power plant.

This last set of hearings were technical hearings: parties to the process testified and cross-examined each other.  The public could attend, but not comment.  One major issue was economics.

Vermont Economics

One might expect the Board to focus on Vermont's interest in jobs or inexpensive power or whatever.  That is, the Board could be expected to focus on how the plant operation will affect the state.  After all, the Board is a state quasi-judicial regulatory panel.

However, the Board's focus seems to be on whether the plant is profitable for Entergy.  In my opinion, that is more Entergy's business than the Board's business. If Vermont Yankee isn't profitable, it is still only a part of a company.  Vermont Yankee is part of Entergy, and the chances that "the company" would have financial issues is very slight.  (And by the way, the Board doesn't have a particularly good track record at seeing problems coming: think Burlington Telecom). 

Actually, the Board's economic concern with Vermont Yankee profitability is a very thinly veiled nuclear safety concern, in my opinion. Is Entergy making enough money to operate the plant safely? (I am shocked, of course, that the Board is treading so close to federally pre-empted issues.  Shocked, shocked....)

As reported by WCAX, Peter Bradford of Vermont Law School said that: "Most nuclear plant owners are responsible and in any case recognize there is nothing more against their self-interest than an accident, but there's always the possibility somebody will cut a corner..." Commenting on the hearings, WCAX states that: "State officials say the continued economic health of Entergy is vital." 

WCAX.COM Local Vermont News, Weather and Sports-

National Economics

The next step for our local activists was to sue the NRC about Entergy finances.  A group is suing the NRC: it  claims that emergency NRC action is required because Entergy is not "financially qualified" to operate the plants. The suit asks that the NRC take emergency enforcement actions against Vermont Yankee's license (and Pilgrim's license, and Fitzpatrick's license) on the basis that Entergy is operating these plants at a loss. 

Nuclear plants and coal plants are currently struggling because of the low price of natural gas. Still the price of natural gas is about twice as high as it was a year ago, and nobody expects it to go down to the $2 level again.  Nuclear and coal are doing better than they did last year, but it is still not a great situation for merchant plants.  I discussed this at some length in my recent ANS blog post: Philosophy, Shale Gas and the NRC National Meeting.

The NRC inspects plants for safety, not economics.  If a plant cannot meet the safety criteria, the NRC will shut it down until it meets the criteria.  If the plant cannot afford to economically meet the criteria, it will close permanently for economic reasons.  But it will not be closing because the NRC inspected its balance sheet!  The NRC would be concerned if an entire company were about to file for bankruptcy.  How profit and loss are divided within a large company is not something that the NRC would try to regulate. (Note: the NRC does track the adequacy of decommissioning funds.)

Entergy Economics

And what about Entergy itself?  How's the company doing?  Everyone read the UBS report predicting Entergy would close Vermont Yankee: I discussed this report in my blog post: Vermont Yankee is Refueling, and I Sort of Told You So. (Well, actually I sort of trashed the UBS report in that post, by doing a careful analysis of the places where their conclusions didn't match their data.  Hint: always look at the data.)

For further reading about Entergy, I suggest the Seeking Alpha report from last August:  Entergy Corporation: Inside The Numbers.  It reviews Entergy results in several ways, and concludes: This shows that Entergy Corporation is very profitable, and very efficient. Based on the nine tests, overall, the company is showing very strong results.

And that report was written when natural gas prices were  lower than they are today!

Or you can look up Entergy prospects any place on the web.  Any particular plant may operate at a loss or a profit, but the company is a financial powerhouse.

How Thin Was Their Veil

The concentration on Entergy's economics (rather than the effect of Vermont Yankee on the state's economics) is a thinly veiled attempt, once again, to regulate nuclear safety.

Sigh.  I am shocked, shocked....

------------
Coming Attractions in this blog:

In recent days, three main issues were discussed before the Board:

• Plant economics 
• River water quality (especially thermal discharge) 
• Entergy and trust

I plan to cover each issue in a separate post over the next  few days.

Vermont Governor Salmon Supports Vermont Yankee

Governor Salmon Speaks in Favor of Vermont Yankee 

On June 19, the Ethan Allen Institute celebrated its 20 year anniversary with a dinner "roasting" its founder, John McClaughry.  I am director of the Energy Education Project, which is part of the Institute. Two former governors spoke at the dinner: Jim Douglas and Tom Salmon.

Tom Salmon was Governor of Vermont from 1973 to 1976.  He is a Democrat. During his term, financial crises in Vermont caused his fiscal viewpoints to become more conservative.  More recently, Salmon testified in favor of Vermont Yankee's continued operation at the Public Service Board hearings in November 2012.

Last month, Salmon again supported Vermont Yankee, this time at the anniversary dinner. I embed the video of Governor Salmon's remarks at the dinner.

I encourage you to move the slider to the 8:30 minute mark, where Salmon talks about the policy areas in which he now agrees with John McClaughry.  He starts with a spirited defense of Vermont Yankee: the state's "assault on Vermont Yankee" makes no sense, and turning our back on baseload power will not help people in Vermont.  Governor Salmon is inspiring.




More information:

For more videos from the dinner, visit the Ethan Allen Institute website page on videos and highlights from the dinner.

Here is Vermont Digger's report on the dinner.

I feel a little guilty about not including more information about Governor Douglas or John McClaughry at the dinner. So I decided to include their pictures, at least! The video-highlights link includes their remarks.

Governor Jim Douglas

John McClaughry

Pandora's Promise: The Stars Talk to Google

My latest blog post was a guest post by Guy Page: Nuclear is Green Energy.  His article is also being published in Vermont newspapers and web sites.  In particular, Page's op-ed has appeared on Vermont Digger . On that site, it has provoked a very lively comment stream (over 30 comments at this writing).  I think readers of this blog will enjoy Willem Post's careful calculations: it is impossible to meet Vermont's energy needs with renewables.

In one comment, one nuclear opponent made a rather disgusting statement, in my opinion.  Here's the quote:

The core problem that no one seems to ever want to talk about is that there are over 7 billion (soon to be 9 billion) people on the plant all demanding more and more energy. It’s not that we have too little resources and need to produce more nuclear (or any other kind of) power. It’s that there are too many of us.

In a later comment, Guy Page asks the author of that quote to explain himself.  The author doesn't answer.

Is this man recommending genocide, or perhaps widespread famine? But maybe he doesn't want to make his recommendation too specific?  No, of course, that couldn't be what he is saying. (sarcasm alert)

The answer in Pandora's Promise

The first few minutes of this interview about Pandora's Promise refutes that man.  The promise of nuclear is the promise of an energy-rich world for all people.

Pandora's Promise is a documentary about nuclear energy.  The clip below features the stars of that documentary in an interview with Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google. They are straightforward, not snarky.  They say what they mean.

(This clip is also the Friday Matinee at ANS Nuclear Cafe today.)




See Pandora's Promise if you can possible arrange to do so.  Here's a list of theaters and cities. Also, if it amuses you, you might go on the Vermont Digger posting and add your own comment

Nuclear is Green Energy: Guest Post by Guy Page

Last Friday morning, on my way to work in Montpelier, as I zipped on my bike down Berlin Street past a house with a prominent solar array, I began thinking about some comments the homeowner made to the media about the future of renewables. In particular, he cited some new solar and wind power construction statistics and concluded, “so much for the belief that green energy cannot replace nuclear.”

In one important sense — low-carbon content — nuclear power is already “green.” The “lifecycle” (including mining, processing, everything) of its carbon footprint is virtually identical to that of wind, solar and hydro power, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. It makes little sense to replace a large, existing, reliable source of very low-carbon power, in the name of climate change activism.

Furthermore, wind and solar energy cannot “replace” nuclear, any more than heating oil can “replace” gasoline. Fill a gas tank with heating oil, and the car stops. Replace a 24/7 baseload generator like Vermont Yankee with intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar, and the carefully balanced transmission grid will crash in a flurry of brownouts, electrical fires, and blackouts. The modern transmission grid can accept about 20% intermittent power. More than that, and service and equipment will degrade.

Renewables proponent David Blittersdorf estimates that by 2050, Vermont will need 18,000 million megawatt-hours, or three times the electricity we use now (from his column in the April, 2013 Green Energy Times). Last year, all of the industrial solar generators in the Vermont SPEED program produced just slightly more than a millionth of that amount - 19,000 MWh. Or to bring the matter closer to home: according to the Vermont Dept. of Public Service,  moving just five percent closer to the state’s goal of 90% total renewable energy would require solar panels on every square inch of an area 1.3 times the size of the City of Barre.  

Guy Page with Great Grandfather
Urban Woodbury
Vermont Governor and
Civil War "empty sleeve"

As technology improves, Vermont and the rest of New England may very well have a sparkling (and not merely sparking) renewable power future. But at present, intermittent renewable power alone cannot be its backbone. Perhaps we can avoid the fate of Germany, which opted to close nuclear plants and then was forced by demand for baseload power to order the construction of many new coal-burning plants. At least until a clean, safe, economic, reliable, baseload alternative is up and running in Vermont, we should not throw out the Vermont Yankee baby with the bathwater.

---------

This guest post is written by Guy Page, Communications director of VTEP. Page has been a frequent guest blogger on this blog, with most recent posts being As Germany Goes, So Goes Vermont? and Specific Power Sources in Vermont, VTEP Report.  Today's guest post is also appearing as a letter to the editor in various newspapers and web sites in Vermont, for example, at Vermont Digger.

About the picture: My granddaughter is visiting me, and Guy Page was kind enough to give us a tour of the State House.  In the past, Page had told me that his great-grandfather was a Civil War veteran and Governor of Vermont. Portraits of all (or most) of the governors are in the State House, but I had never located the picture of his ancestor.

Yesterday, Page gave me and my granddaughter a State House tour.  He showed me the portrait of Urban Woodbury, and I took this picture of Page and Woodbury together, so to speak. (In the portrait, note the empty sleeve, which is slightly hidden by the artist.)

The Underpinnings of Energy Choices: Philosophy and Power

ANS Plenary Session, from ANS blog

Showing Up and Paying Attention

I returned recently  from the American Nuclear Society meeting in Atlanta. The plenary session featured chief executives from many facets of nuclear energy.  However, in my opinion, there was a pall over the meeting, due to the recent permanent closing of four American nuclear plants.

I have a blog post up today at ANS Nuclear Cafe: Philosophy, Shale Gas and the ANS Annual Meeting.

In this post, I discuss the statements of the industry executives in terms of the philosophy; Show Up, Pay Attention, Tell the Truth, and Don't be Attached to the Consequences.

 Fair Share

Clearing for a wind turbine

Earlier this month, my friend Howard Shaffer had a post at the ANS Nuclear Cafe: A Dangerous Precedent or a Slippery Slope.  This was also cross posted at The Energy Collective.

In this post, Howard looks at local control over energy projects, and discusses when this is a good thing, and when it is the slippery slope to unbridled nimby-ism.  The philosophical question: What is a community's "fair share" of a common burden? He includes extensive discussion of wind energy regulations in Vermont.

National Climate Strategy: It's about the money. My prediction

Last night, two friends sent me the same link to President Obama's announcement: he announced that he will announce his climate strategy on Tuesday.

Here's the Washington Post link: Obama to announce Tuesday he will regulate existing power plants as part of climate strategy

Here's the video of the pre-announcement.


One of my friends is pro-nuclear and she wrote something like:
"OMG, this is great news for nuclear energy!"

The other friend is a libertarian, and she wrote something like:
"OMG, what new area for regulation is coming next?"

Of course, I answered with some predictions, which I will also share right here, on my blog.

My Predictions

 IMHO, the climate change initiative will be a fundamentally a tax-raising scheme.

The scheme may include something like Vermont has now:  Entergy must contribute to a Clean Energy Development Fund (though its own energy is clean, of course).  The government will steer that shiny clean money to the people and projects that they think should receive it. In Vermont, the money goes to renewable projects and efficiency.

But I suspect that most of the money collected at the federal level will go to directly to the government.  The national government is desperate for new sources of revenue.

What about emissions? At most, this  carbon tax could tilt the balance  from coal to natural gas.  However, unless the tax is so high that it would have a visible effect on electricity prices (and no politician wants that), the main driver will continue to be the relative prices of gas and coal.  In other words, this scheme won't affect carbon emissions very much, but it will raise revenue.

The utilities have their plants in place. Unlike other industries, utilities can't move out of the country. So--voila! The sitting ducks!