Nuclear Power Has a Place in New England Energy Future: Guest Post by Howard Shaffer

Howard Shaffer
at a rally

New England is at a crossroads. One choice is to continue on the road now traveled, with natural gas for electricity production exceeding that of coal, hydro and nuclear power combined by 2018.

Due to a shortage of gas-pipeline capacity, we are already experiencing high prices for home heating and electricity. And there has been a decline in air quality due to the increased use of coal plants to meet electricity needs and the loss of Vermont Yankee’s 600 megawatts of emission-free power.

The other choice, the path we should be taking, is to maintain a balanced mix of low-carbon energy sources, including the Seabrook and Pilgrim nuclear plants with licenses renewed, wind and solar power. (It is always understood that on the use side, we must do the maximum conservation and efficiency.) This would enable the plants to continue running for another 20 years or longer. With less reliance on natural gas for electric power generation, households and businesses would benefit from lower energy costs.

But for that to happen, the EPA will need to modify a proposed rule to cut carbon emissions from power plants. As the rule is now written, it is rigged against nuclear power, even though the U.S. fleet of nuclear plants accounts for nearly two-thirds of the nation’s zero-carbon electricity – and they will become increasingly important as more coal plants are shuttered. The proposed rule – which would require New Hampshire to reduce its carbon emissions by 46.3 percent compared to 2005 levels by 2030 – shortchanges nuclear power, the one technology that could make a decisive contribution in the battle against global warming.

Nuclear plants are a dependable source of electricity, because they produce “base-load” power about 90 percent of the time, underpinning the stability of the electricity grid. But currently, New England’s deregulated electricity market does not recognize nuclear power’s environmental value or its critically important role in maintaining power reliability. New England’s regional and state power authorities need to make the changes necessary to ensure the continued availability of nuclear-generated electricity, which is much cheaper than most other alternatives.

At one point last winter, during the polar vortex, 75 percent of New England’s natural-gas generating capacity was not operating due to lack of supply or high prices. Public Service of New Hampshire resorted to burning costly jet fuel to meet the demand for electricity, while the price of oil rose to more than $400 per barrel.

Imagine what would happen if the Seabrook and Pilgrim nuclear plants are shut down. Once a nuclear plant closes, its license terminates. The price of electricity would skyrocket. Let’s make sure that doesn’t happen.

-------

This column by Howard Shaffer first appeared in the Concord Monitor, on January 28, 2015.  Shaffer holds a M.S. in Nuclear Engineering from M.I.T., is a registered nuclear engineer in Vermont and New Hampshire, and was a start-up engineer and systems engineer at Vermont Yankee.  He is a featured writer at this blog.

Two Recent NRC Decisions in Favor of Vermont Yankee

We Move Forward With Lessons Learned (First decision)

The Great Wave Off Kanagawa 

Well, the first question might be...why is this even a decision?  Of course, we always move forward with lessons learned.  We learn lessons when problems occur (like tsunamis at nuclear plants). We implement fixes. How else would technology advance?

Various groups are attempting to accelerate the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  (Yes, these groups call  themselves "nuclear watchdogs" and environmental groups, but I calls them as I sees them.) These accelerator groups wanted all GE Mark 1 reactors shut as a response to Fukushima.

In April 2011, one of these groups filed an "emergency enforcement petition" to the NRC to shut all such reactors immediately.  As reported by NucNet, on January 23, 2015, the NRC rejected this petition.  It stated that lessons-learned were being implemented, including a huge FLEX program of backup power equipment.

This first pro-Vermont Yankee decision can be restated: We fix problems, we don't throw away technologies.

• Yes, this does seem obvious.  
• No, I don't know why it took the NRC over three years to make this ruling.

If It's Not Dangerous, You Don't Need a Warning System (Second Decision)

Entergy has removed all fuel from the reactor, and it is now in the fuel pool, cooling.  According to Entergy and NRC calculations, after fuel has been out of the reactor for about a year, the fuel pool is no longer in danger of having a fuel pool fire (not that there was very much danger in the first place).

However, the state of Vermont requested a hearing asking the NRC to  make Entergy "either keep its ERDS (Emergency Response Data System) operational or provide a new, equally effective monitoring and warning system" as long as fuel remains in the fuel pool. (Quote from article by Nuclear Street.)  On January 28, the NRC ruled against the state. The NRC ruled that Entergy can stop staffing and supplying an emergency warning systems after fuel has been in the fuel pool for a year and three months. MassLive has an article which links directly to the ruling itself.  As a matter of fact, I have embedded the ruling at the end of this post.

Areva Central
Fuel Pool

Yes, once again, this seems obvious. When there is no danger, you don't need a warning system. Still, if  you go to the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning web site and then go to the Document Library for NDCAP (the local decommissioning panel), you can see a summary of the comments that have been filed with the Vermont Public Service Board.   As the summary states: By far, the most common request in the received comment sets was the retention of the current 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) beyond the planned “hot wet” spent fuel storage period (i.e. beyond April 2016). In a total of 41 public comment sets, 32 sets requested retaining the current EPZ at least until all spent fuel is moved to dry cask storage.

Accelerator groups and fear

Meditation Room Kyoto

Many people in carbon dioxide accelerator groups apparently still feel endangered by Vermont Yankee.    This is true even though there was very little danger when the plant was operating, and negligible danger now.

I understand fear.  I am myself a cowardly person.  So I have some advice.  I have used this advice on many occasion--- for myself.

When I have an exaggerated and unreasonable fear, there is one person in charge of reassuring me and handling my emotions. That person is me. 

Vermont Yankee 012815 Ruling on Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene

Ohio Energy Matters: Welcome to a new blog

Ohio 

A New Local Blog, and Why Local Blogs Matter

This post welcomes a new local blog, started by Will Davis.

Ohio Energy Matters
This blog's motto is:
Reporting on Ohio energy matters because Ohio's energy MATTERS

This blog is in the grand tradition of local nuclear blogs...well, I think that there are only five local nuclear blogs in North America.  Still, five can be a grand tradition, right?

The five local blogs that I know about are:
Ohio Energy Matters
Canadian Energy Issues
Atoms For California
Northwest Clean Energy
Yes Vermont Yankee

All politics is local. 

Local blogs can influence local actions by providing local information and linking to ways to use that

information (hearings to attend, newspaper articles that may have comment sections on-line, etc.)  The local blogs are adapted to their areas, and feature different types of information.

• Steve Aplin of Canadian Energy Issues has a running sidebar on his blog of how much clean energy is being produced in Ontario, that hour, by nuclear, gas, wind and other energy sources. 
• Andrew Benson of Atoms for California analyzes the California Energy Commission response to nuclear, among other things, including renewable sprawl.
• Northwest Clean Energy writes about new records set by Columbia Generating Station, challenges nuclear opponents inaccurate scare stories, and describes a utility demand response initiative. (This blog has several bloggers: I am one of them.) 
• Will Davis at Ohio Energy Matters describes local hearings and local news reports.  He also has local news sources in his blog rolls.
• At Yes Vermont Yankee, I have quoted from testimony and court cases concerning the plant. I also have local news on my blog rolls.

The blog posts at these blogs are  not always of national interest.  Yet they are tremendously important.  Local people want to link to legislative reports, hearing records and so forth. They want to refer back to something that happened six months ago, without trying to comb through the archives of a newspaper.  As a matter of fact, newspaper and radio reporters often (not always) read the local blogs when they want "the other side" of the nuclear story, and are pressed for time to find it.

All politics is local.

The Opponents Go National and We Must Go Local

Many nuclear opponents have nationwide reach.  For example, one of the men who was most active in closing Vermont Yankee is now "crisscrossing  (Ohio) labeling the power purchase agreement a “bailout” for the utility and specifically for Davis-Besse." From a   Dan Yurman blog post on activism against nuclear plants.  This man is determined to close down Davis-Besse next.

To defend the nuclear option, I believe we need both national and local blogs. A recent post at Ohio Energy Matters shows exactly the type of impact that a local blogs can have.

Nuclear Energy Institute did a report on the financial contributions of Davis Besse to the Ohio economy.  In his blog post,  Economic Impacts of Davis-Besse, Will Davis summarized the report and linked to the report.  But he went farther.  He compared this report to the report of economic devastation that is happening in Vermont due to shutting down Vermont Yankee.  In other words, he put the Davis-Besse report in context.

In the comment section, someone asked how to comment to agencies in favor of Davis Besse.  By having a local blog, Davis was able to both receive this comment (who you gonna ask?) and to answer it.  

Welcome the new local blog: Ohio Energy Matters!

Will Davis, Blog Author

Will Davis has an outstanding track record as a pro-nuclear energy communicator.  Davis has his own blog, Atomic Power Review, with over 800,000 page views. He writes for the industry newsletter, Fuel Cycle Week. He is one of the organizers and editors of the American Nuclear Society blog ANS Nuclear Café. Davis is also Communications Director for the Nuclear Ship Savannah Association.

So Davis is not just a nuclear communicator, he is a very busy and very sought-after nuclear communicator.  And yet, Davis has started this new, local blog.  Because local blogs are important.

Decommissioning Meeting Wednesday Night in Brattleboro

The Meeting and the NRC

There's a meeting of the Nuclear Decommissioning Citizen Advisory Panel (NDCAP) on Wednesday night in Brattleboro. The meeting will start at 6 p.m. at the Quality Inn and Conference Center, on Vernon Road in Brattleboro. Here's a link to the agenda.
http://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/psd/files/VY%20NDCAP%20Agenda%201-28-15%20Final.pdf

As you may note, this is an unusual meeting because a representative from NRC will be there. NDCAP itself will continue to have meetings forever, though the Rockies may crumble and Gibraltar may tumble...no, not that long.  Wrong song.

The meeting tomorrow night may well be an important meeting, because it is during the period when the NRC is taking comments on the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Plan, the Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report, aka the PSDAR. And a representative from the NRC will be there, which is always quite a draw for the opponents.  (See my post on one of the NRC-sponsored meetings: The Politics of Intimidation.)

Update Note: I originally wrote that NDCAP would have "monthly" meetings forever.  Howard Shaffer corrected this.  He informed me that NDCAP has had monthly meetings recently, since so much is going on, but the group is only required to have four meetings a year.  So they will have meetings forever, but not monthly meetings.

Sources of Information, and What to Say

Vermont Yankee has an excellent web site on decommissioning, including links to the PSDAR. The Public Service Department also a good site, with links to presentations at NDCAP meetings.  And a big Hat's Off to Howard Shaffer, for his submission to NDCAP. There were two presentations to NDCAP by nuclear opponent groups, and Howard also has a presentation.  (See December 18 meeting notes.)

The bad news is you can spend a week reading pages and pages of information about this meeting. But, if you go to the meeting, you will only get probably two minutes to say anything at all. What might you say?

My advice would be to say that with the plant shut down, and all fuel in the pool, the emergency planning zone (EPZ) no longer needs to be in effect at the time when the NRC says it doesn't need to be in effect.  In other words, the EPZ can be shut down in early 2016.

EPZ Controversy

Well, it isn't a controversy.  All nuclear people (plant, NRC etc) agree that when the fuel has been in the fuel pool for about a year, it becomes too cool to start a fire.  At that point, the emergency planning zone no longer needs to be funded.  However, the opponents are eager to have all nuclear plants spend as much money as possible and keep the emergency planning and so forth in place forever.

Or at least, they think that the EPZ should be in place until Gibraltar tumbles and...wait.  Wrong song!  No, actually, it may be the right song.

The VY Decommissioning page includes an analysis of the public comments received by the Public Service Board about the PSDAR.  You will note that the majority of the comments:

• Request EPZ until all fuel is in dry casks
• Request EPZ until all spent fuel is offsite, maybe in Yucca Mountain
• Request EPZ expansion to fifty miles.

If you go to the meeting, explain perhaps that the fuel pool will not be a danger...just about the time when the NRC says it will not be a danger.  And that the EPZ can go away....just about the time that the NRC says it no longer needs to be funded!  These dates are calculations, not coincidence. 





Will I Be At the Meeting?

Probably not.  I have to admit that I have lost my taste for watching people walk up to the microphone and endlessly repeat that they are terrified about the fuel pool. The plant is not operating. They won, and I don't want to watch them anymore.  Also,  I have lost my taste for being intimidated, and the presence of someone from the NRC may lead the opponents to having more fun (so to speak) than a normal meeting.

However, Howard Shaffer said he may go, and I may go also.  Shaffer is a real trooper, filing testimony to partially balance the testimony of the opponents. I haven't decided about this meeting. Luckily, the blizzard didn't really blizzard here, the way it blizzarded in Massachusetts. So I could go, I guess.

A lot to think about.

The Vermont Yankee Series Expands. The "Attitude Post" and more

The American Nuclear Society  blog has run a three-part series on the reasons for Vermont Yankee closing. Seven bloggers contributed.  Here are links to part one, part two, and part 3.

Now, the series has expanded at another blog.  Dan Yurman described the reasons for the series, and the credentials of the bloggers, at his blog: Neutron Bytes.  His post is called Seven At One Blow (seven bloggers on one topic, in one series).  Pro-nuclear bloggers are knowledgeable and accomplished people, but the bloggers are seldom explicitly acknowledged.  A big THANK YOU to Yurman for his post.

Well Begun is Half Done

The third post in the American Nuclear Society blog could be called the "attitude" post.  How shall we approach the political battle for nuclear energy?  Our attitudes matter.

Well Begun is Half Done. Confused beginnings  and confused goals rarely lead to success.

Vermont State House chamber

Howard Shaffer's post is titled "Failure to Politically Engage. As Shaffer writes: Unfortunately, Entergy Vermont Yankee carried through with the industry’s error of misunderstanding the campaign against the plant as a technical and legal policy debate, as opposed to recognizing it for what it truly was—a bare knuckle political campaign.

Shaffer doesn't leave it at that, though.  He develops a list for winning a campaign. The material on the list might be old-hat to a politician, but these things seems new to the nuclear industry. For example:

Be the first to get negative information about you into the media. You get to define the issue, not your opponents. 

Shaffer is a co-owner of  this blog, as well as a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe. I recommend his ANS Nuclear Cafe post about testifying to a legislative committee about spent fuel storage: Getting Inside the Legislative Process.

Dan Yurman continues the theme with his post "Vermont Yankee Shuts Down for Good."  He concludes that low gas prices and the regulatory environment contributed to Vermont Yankee closing, Entergy, which is a Louisiana business, never got a sense of how to deal with New England greens.  Yurman's conclusion, however, is more about the market: Entergy...(could not) to recover value, nor earn revenue, ... based on the carbon emission reductions it provided to the region.

Prices in New England
2014

In this case, it was the market that was ill-begun.

Dan Yurman is a pre-eminent nuclear blogger.  His current blog is Neutron Bytes: his former blog, Idaho Samizdat, was one of the pioneering pro-nuclear blogs.

So Many Thanks!

First, I want to thank Dan Yurman, who had the idea for this series of blog posts at ANS.  He was also a contributor to the blog, the collector of the posts (we sent them to Yurman), and a major force in publicizing this effort.

Second, I want to thank Will Davis of the blog Atomic Power Review and Linda Zec of the Outreach Department at American Nuclear Society, who took the seven essays across the finish line for publication at ANS Nuclear Café.

Third, I want to thank the people who wrote excellent, informed and thought-provoking comments on Reflections 1 and Reflections 2.  Join the conversation!

On the Roof? Video about Vermont Yankee retirement

WCAX interviewed Howard Shaffer and Arnie Gundersen about Vermont Yankee's retirement.  Gundersen apparently does not know where the fuel pool is: he says that the fuel is stored "on the roof."  Really?  Last I looked, it was under the roof.

Shaffer is reasonable as usual.

Just a quick post to share this. I hope the video comes through.  If not, please follow the link.

http://www.wcax.com/story/27886195/vermont-yankees-long-road-to-retirement

  WCAX.COM Local Vermont News, Weather and Sports-

At American Nuclear Society Blog: Second Part of Analysis on Vermont Yankee Closing

It's the politics?

In yesterday's post at the American Nuclear Cafe blog, Les Corrice and I analyzed Vermont Yankee's closing. We both concluded that  the statement that "it was uneconomic to operate the plant" was kind of a smokescreen. The "economics statement" was a way to avoid admitting the real issue: the plant closed mostly due to political opposition. That was the first post in the series at ANS Nuclear Cafe: you might call it "the politics post."

I also encourage you to read the first comment on the post, clearly written by someone who worked at the plant.  The comment includes more detail on exactly the type of political pressures the plant was facing.  Once you have read the comment, join the conversation.

It's the economics, maybe? Or the lack of advocacy?

Today, ANS posted  the second part of that three-part series on Vermont Yankee's closing.

In this post, three bloggers comment on the closing. Two of the bloggers describe the economics of the plant, and the third describes what real advocacy could mean.

1. Rod Adams worked hard to convince buyers that the plant was worth saving, and he presents cogent economic arguments for keeping the plant running. Adams blogs at Atomic Insights, and most bloggers who read this blog have seen his posts and guest posts.   One of his recent posts is Prevention is Easier and Less Painful than Cure--Keep Vermont Yankee Open.  In today's post at ANS Nuclear Cafe, he gives a concise analysis of how Vermont Yankee could be an economic asset.
2. Edward Kee is an energy economist, and the owner of the Nuclear Economics Consulting Group.  He blogs at Nuclear Economics where he recently posted Nuclear Lessons from Vermont Yankee Closure.  Today, at the American Nuclear Cafe blog, Kee writes that the lack of profitable power contracts was a major cause of Vermont Yankee's closing. He also notes that the grid markets do not financially favor nuclear plants, despite their reliability. 
3. The third blogger, Robert Margolis, feels that the major problem was lack of advocacy.  We needed advocacy for Vermont Yankee, and while we had some, we didn't have enough.  As an example of "enough," Margolis cites Frederick Salvucci, a civil engineer who had personal reasons to advocate for the Big Dig in Boston...and he fought for it, and he won.  The Big Dig was built, however unlikely that might seem in retrospect.  Nuclear advocates are fighting for something better than the Big Dig, but we need some of Salvucci's fire.

I encourage you to read this second Vermont Yankee post at the American Nuclear Society blog, and comment on it.

1-93 Tunnel, part of the Big Dig