Paint It Black

A horrible day

Today was a horrible day at Vermont Yankee.

A year from now, the plant will be closed.  Most people who work at the plant will be able to work there for only one more year.  However, some people will (probably) be involved in doing the decommissioning assessment, and they have two years of work ahead of them.

Today, Entergy announced who will have a year, and who will have two years. The people at the plant referred to this as "the list was out."

 I wasn't at the plant of course, but from what I read (mostly on Facebook) this was the worst day ever at the plant.  Gratitude if you were one of the "lucky ones" was offset by misery at the fact that so many of your friends were "unlucky."

What can I say?  I wanted the plant to keep operating. People work together for years to do something good, and in an afternoon, most of the good feelings were destroyed.

Grief.  A horrible day.

A friend screams

I need to tell a story about a layoff.  I was working at a software company, and there was a massive layoff.  I survived it, and thought I was so very lucky.  I guess I was.  A woman I knew --- she screamed when our boss told her.  I heard her.  Everybody heard her. It was horrible, hearing that scream.

Well. The thing about being laid off is that the person generally gets another job.  But where do they get a job? Obviously, they get a job at a company that is hiring.  A company that is growing.  A company that is doing well.

And that is what happened. She got a job within a few months and rose very quickly at that new company. Meanwhile, lucky me, the not-laid-off-person, well...I stayed at the same company and merely hoped to survive the next layoff.

I also thought...man, if I am the next person laid off, I am definitely looking my friend up!  She's doing so well! She might be able to help me!

Who is lucky and who isn't?  It isn't clear.  In general, one year or two years from now, there will be no comparable jobs in Windham County.  One or two years from now, people will be deciding to stay or to leave.  I personally think that the people who leave will get good jobs...at companies that are hiring.

This is a miserable situation and I don't mean to be a Pollyanna. People are being torn right out of their community of work and friendship.

Still, people will go on and have good lives.  This event is a lot closer to a divorce than a death.

Paint It Black

Grief doesn't know, though. Grief feels like grief even if it is "just a divorce."

To me, this very dark song has always been somewhat comforting.  So I share it.  I mean well by sharing it.  I know it won't be everyone's cuppa.

The German Experience: Seen by Environmentalists, and Seen by Nuclear Opponents

Communication

Triple Falls, Dupont State Forest, North Carolina
From: Farmers, City Folk and Renewable Energy
at ANS Nuclear Cafe

I consider myself a pro-nuclear communicator, and I often blog about effective communication.  However, communicating effectively means considering your audience.  I have come to the conclusion that there are two kinds of people who are opposed to nuclear energy:

• Environmentalists who have lumped nuclear with "other bad stuff," but may not have given the matter much thought. They often come to realize the role of nuclear energy in providing very low carbon electricity.
• People who are just plain against nuclear energy. Period. End of story.

You have to know who you are talking to.  For example, these two groups will have very different assessments of the recent German experience.

Environmentalists

Many environmentalists (people interested in a healthy environment) are beginning to embrace nuclear power.  The movie Pandora's Promise is about one such set of environmentalists.  Similarly, Armond Cohen, a leading environmentalist in California, noted that greenhouse gas emissions in California rose substantially when San Onofre went off-line. Cohen also realized that renewable sources, such as wind turbines, require huge amounts of land to make the same amount of power as a relatively small nuclear plant.

As described in this VPR interview, Cohen explains why he has reluctantly shifted from being an anti-nuclear activist to someone who now argues that we can't afford to dismiss nuclear power.

At the Washington Post last month, Stephen Stromberg wrote Why Environmentalists Should Hope Nuclear Power Sticks Around.  He illustrated his article with a chart showing the two low-carbon power sources in the United States: renewables and nuclear.  By 2040, U.S. renewables are expected go from producing 12% of our electricity (today) to 16% in 2040.   Nuclear energy's contributes 19% today and 16% in 2040. It is an important part of our low-carbon future.

Meanwhile, in Europe, greenhouse gas targets remain in place, but renewable targets are being scrapped.  Gail Marcus of Nuke Power Talk gives an excellent overview in her latest blog post: Good News From Europe: Reasoned Approaches to Energy Policy. 

Opponents of Nuclear Energy

At Canadian Energy Issues, Steve Aplin has several posts that show that Germany's greenhouse gas emissions have risen, despite their investment in renewables. This is because the Germans are phasing out their nuclear plants.  Two excellent posts are:

• Money for Nothing: German wind turbines and solar panels useless during coldest, darkest part of the year.
• Reducing carbon pollution from electric power generation: what works?

In the second post, Bas Gresnigt (from The Netherlands) comments that the German people are happy with the German electrical grid, because they are pleased to see nuclear be phased out.

The German Experience as an Opponent Experience

Which brings us to a question: what is the purpose of the German energy transition?  If it is about greenhouse gases, it frankly isn't working, as Steve Aplin (and others) point out.

But maybe it isn't about environmentalism, lowering the carbon footprint, or anything like that.  Maybe it is mostly about being opponents of nuclear energy. Rod Adams posted about fossil fuels versus nuclear energy: Smoking gun research continuing in earnest. This post was published in early December 2013, and now has 145 comments.

At the base of a turbine
Lempster wind farm
New Hampshire

I want to draw attention to one comment. Once again, Bas Gresnigt was commenting, and someone brought up the increased carbon plus increased electricity cost of the German experiment.  The question was

"Does the current German electricity market situation really make sense to you?"

Bas Gresnigt answered it as below (here's the link, so you don't have to read 145 comments.)
Here's his answer:

Very sensible market design.
You will agree if you measure that market with the German targets in mind (in order of importance):
1. Nuclear out
2. Democratize energy
3. 100% renewable
4. Less CO2
5. Affordable costs
etc.

I contacted Gresnigt and asked him if I could use this quote. He was kind enough to give permission, though he felt the brief statement of this quote was somewhat unfair to his arguments.  I hope he will comment on this blog post.

Back to Communication

People looking at the German experience can look at it as a colossal failure (higher carbon dioxide, higher prices) or a great success (phasing out nuclear plants). For a group for whom "anything is better than nuclear energy," no amount of communication is likely to make a difference.

For environmentalists concerned with land use and with greenhouse gases, nuclear communicators can use the German experience as an example of a situation in which, as they say: mistakes were made.

Common Ground on Vermont Yankee: Guest Post by Brad Ferland

Vermont finally has found common ground on Vermont Yankee

By Brad Ferland, President
Vermont Energy Partnership

Brad Ferland
November 2012 PSB meeting

When the State of Vermont holds a major public hearing about Vermont Yankee and almost no-one attends, what does it mean?

I was asking myself this question as I waited, virtually alone, to testify at a well-announced public hearing Tuesday, January 14 in the Vermont Interactive Television studio in Williston. The subject of Vermont Yankee usually draws a big, passionate crowd, with both supporters and opponents eager to express their views. Yet on this night, most of the state's 13 interactive TV studios were empty. I was the only person to testify in the only studio located in populous Chittenden County.  For lack of testimony, the meeting ended an hour and a half earlier than scheduled.

The Vermont Public Service Board had called the meeting to solicit comment from all Vermonters about Vermont Yankee's request to operate through the end of 2014. A PSB decision on whether to grant a Certificate of Public Good, a requirement for the plant to continue to operate in 2014, is expected by March 31.

A lot is riding on that decision. In the recent years through 2012, Vermont Yankee provided about a third of all electricity consumed in Vermont, and still had plenty to sell to the rest of New England. Since opening in the early 1970’s, Vermont Yankee has made about three-quarters of the total power produced in Vermont. Last August, plant owner Entergy announced that (due mostly to the very low market cost of electricity), the plant would close in 2014.

On December 23, the State of Vermont and Entergy announced a master settlement of most of their differences. The agreement says Entergy will close the plant, proceed with safe, responsible decommissioning, and will pay $10 million for economic re-development of Windham County and $5.2 million into a state fund for renewable power. Both sides will drop the many expensive legal disputes now in federal courts.

Board member David Coen, Board Chairman James Volz
Board member John Burke

The agreement also specifically requires Public Service Board approval to operate Vermont Yankee through 2014. So if approval is denied, the settlement falls apart and has to be entirely re-negotiated or litigated. Supporters of the settlement include Governor Peter Shumlin, Attorney General William Sorrell, and many legislative leaders.

The financial aid is a continuation of Vermont Yankee's longstanding practice of supporting the Windham County economy and the state's renewable power future. The plant has long been the cornerstone of the local economy and virtually the sole funder of the Vermont Clean Energy Development Fund. Entergy needs PSB approval because the plant's workers need to know they will have their jobs until sometime near the end of this year, giving them time to find new work, homes, and schools. In short, PSB approval is highly desirable for Vermont Yankee workers, for the area's economic recovery, and for the state's renewable power future.

I appeared at the hearing to tell the Public Service Board essentially what I have been saying since co-founding the Partnership seven years ago: an operational Vermont Yankee helps the economy, ratepayers, taxpayers, and environment of our beloved state. Indeed, even without a settlement agreement, Vermont Yankee’s continued operation is in the state’s best interest.

And now finally I return to the question: why didn't more people attend? Perhaps it is because, as Attorney General Sorrell said at the Dec. 23 master settlement announcement, it is time for peace. Most Vermonters, at long last, have found common ground on Vermont Yankee. Under the settlement, the plant will close; the expensive federal lawsuits are history; economic and environmental needs are addressed. It's a good deal for everyone and the PSB should swiftly approve the Certificate of Public Good.

----------
Brad Ferland, a resident of St. Albans Town, is president of the Vermont Energy Partnership (www.vtep.org), a Montpelier-based coalition of more than 90 businesses, labor organizations, not-for-profits, and individuals committed to a clean, safe, affordable, and reliable energy future for Vermont.

Supporting State Science Education: PSB Comments by Carlos Pinkham

You can still comment to the Public Service Board

Science Fair
from Wikipedia

This is one of a series of posts containing  people's comments to the Public Service Board about the Vermont Yankee agreement. The comments describe some of the reasons the Board should grant a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) to Vermont Yankee.

I hope these examples will inspire you to write your own  comment to the board.   Here's the link for comments.

http://psb.vermont.gov/docketsandprojects/public-comment?docket=7862

Comment by Dr. Carlos Pinkham

Dr. Carlos Pinkham
Making his statement at PSB hearing
November 2012

I would like to address one small, but for Vermont, significant aspect of the public good served by Entergy Vermont Yankee (EVY).  The Vermont State Science and Mathematics Fair (VSSMF) is the premier STEM competition in the state for grades 5-12.  Each year it awards nearly $1,000,000 in scholarships to Vermont Colleges and Universities. It also awards prizes and trips to compete in national and international STEM competitions by our best students and their teachers.

VSSMF is an all-volunteer organization.  For the past seven of the 10 years the VSSMF has been affiliated with these national and international competitions, EVY has been one of our biggest supporters, providing 6% of our $25,000 annual budget and two to six judges.

Nothing can impact Vermont more significantly than inspiring its youth to get excited about STEM.  I propose that for this reason alone, EVY should be granted the amended Certificate of Public Good.

Carlos F. A. Pinkham, PhD

Co-Director, VSSMF

------

Carlos Pinkham is Professor Emeritus of Biology at Norwich University.  Courses taught included Environmental Biology.  Former Environmental Science Officer and Senior Consultant for Army Reserve and National Guard Preventive Medicine Science Officers. 

The Art of the Grid

It's Cold Out.  Everywhere.

Extremely cold weather is stressing the grid all over the United States.

• Tennessee Valley Authority has asked people to conserve: in their service area, every time the winter temperature drops one degree, they need to put another 400 MW online. 
• Today, New England governors announced a plan to expand the gas delivery network, so more gas can be used for power.
• At the Merrimack Station coal-fired plant in New Hampshire, jet-fueled turbines are running. Yes, a small part of the New England grid is currently running on jet fuel!

Like the rest of the grid, the New England grid is stressed and the power is expensive.

The Art of the Grid

In the past few days, I have taken screenshots of various graphics on the ISO-NE (New England grid operator) website. These graphics are kind of like art.  The graphics are not the whole story of the grid in cold weather, but they are a start.

The graphics come from these two web sites:  http://www.iso-ne.com/ and http://isoexpress.iso-ne.com/guest-hub  Each graphic includes the day and time it was taken.

January 23, 2014--today

Here's the grid at about 4:45 on Thursday afternoon.

Map of the spot prices in the ISO-NE region

Fuel mix in the ISO-NE region. Note the heavy use of oil

$360 per MWh is the same as 36 cents per kWh. The average price on the grid last year was around $36 per MWh or less than 4 cents per kWh.  The price of power right now is ten times the average price for last year.

Yesterday's Greatest Hits January 22

These are a few more pix.  The dates and times are on the graphics.

It seems that the grid operator winter reliability program is working as planned: look at the high percentage of oil! (ISO-NE made $75 million dollars capacity factor payment to oil generators because natural gas is less available in cold weather.  This payment was part of the Winter Reliability Program.)

------

Also: Infrastructure article

Cold weather stresses the grid infrastructure as well as stressing fuel availability. There's an excellent article today on grid infrastructure: Why Does the Power Go Out When It's Cold? by Eric Gunther at the National Geographic blog. 

The Art of the Deal: Shaffer at ANS

Howard Shaffer

The Art of the Deal: ANS Nuclear Cafe post by Howard Shaffer

Yesterday, ANS Nuclear Cafe posted Howard Shaffer's blog post The Art of the Deal.  In this post, Shaffer summarizes the Entergy-Vermont deal which will be presented to the Public Service Board. In the hearings about the deal, Entergy AND Vermont state agencies will be in support of the deal. They will mutually support the Public Service Board granting Entergy a  Certificate of Public Good for operation through 2014, based on the agreement. The sight of Entergy and state agencies supporting each other in front of the Public Service Board--Wow. What a wonderful sight that will be.  It surely has not happened since Governor Shumlin was elected!  And now it will happen.

This is truly a New Deal and a Big Deal, and Howard describes it very well.  He also describes the ways the opponents are likely to fight it, and why they are unlikely to win.
At the price of a small spoiler-alert, I want to share some of Howard's conclusions:


Where does this leave the PSB? With an easier task than before.... Now, with the state and Entergy together—...—it will be hard to find something that will not be in the public good. It is expected that the PSB will complete the hearings to give the opponents their “day in court,” and perhaps impose a few administrative conditions, and then approve the CPG.

The opponents can be expected to continue to fight to the end, and to try to make it even more bitter.


But really: read the whole Art of the Deal, not just this excerpt!

My Comment on the Vermont Total Energy Study

You Can Comment on the Total Energy Study

Comment Period Closing On Wednesday January 22

The Vermont Department of Public Service has written a new planning document for Vermont's future energy use: The Total Energy Study Legislative Report.  You can link to the report and its back-up documentation on the Total Energy Study web page of the Department of Public Service.   You can also link directly to the report and appendixes.

The public comment period on this study is only open through Wednesday, January 22, 2014.  To write a comment,  use this email address: PSD.TotalEnergy@state.vt.us.

I encourage you to comment.

My Comment to the Department of Public Service on the Total Energy Study

Dear DPS

First, a thank-you to Asa Hopkins for sending me information about the RFP for the total energy study.

Second, a comment on the study.  It's a document about setting policy, and most of the policies seem to be financial. There are requirements to use renewable fuels, with financial burdens imposed if you don't (TREES), carbon taxes, etc. 

With this study, the stick is in place to drive the state energy use to 90% renewables, but...where's the road?  We're whipping the horse, but where is the horse heading?  What will 90% renewables look like for the whole economy?  More wind turbines?  Only biodiesel and ethanol fuel sold in Vermont?  A law against private vehicles unless they are electric?  What is the goal here?

In my opinion, by not analyzing actual technologies and how they will be employed, the study is basically a cop-out. I am sorry to say this, because I was hoping for something better in terms of Vermont's future energy use.  Time, energy and intelligence went into this study. In some ways, the study is quite admirable.  It is, however, the wrong study for setting goals for our energy future.

Meredith Angwin
-----------

Background on the Total Energy Study

Basically, the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan was put into place in 2011.  This plan mandates  90% of all of Vermont's energy will come from renewables in 2050. Despite its title, however, the Comprehensive Plan does not contain an actual plan for achieving this goal.  (I wrote about this disconnect in an earlier blog post and op-ed.)

By legislative requirement, the Department of Public Service is putting together a Total Energy Study on how to move toward the goal.  To date, in my opinion, the Total Energy Study has focused mostly on financial policy incentives (carbon taxes, fuel switching with targets for renewable content of fuels, cap and trade schemes).  There's also some discussion of methodologies for evaluating technology choices.  

Here's my blog post about the Total Energy Study: Renewables plus Taxes: The Total Energy Study.

Please comment, I think

So, here I am, urging my readers to comment on the study, but frankly, it is difficult to comment on it.  The people at the Department of Public Service have worked hard on the Total Energy Study, but it is not easy to get a handle on the study or recommendations.  To me, reading the study didn't feel like reading an energy article ("how many wind turbines might be built under this scenario?") but instead, it felt like reading something in a political science course.  

Finally, I realized that: my confusion was actually my comment!  So I commented as above.

I urge you to read the study (or at least the executive summary) and write your own comment.