tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post8434404490732691066..comments2023-04-07T05:19:44.951-04:00Comments on Yes Vermont Yankee: The Replacement for Vermont Yankee Was…Natural Gas: Mike Twomey Guest PostMeredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-65596510219234504402016-01-17T17:30:55.648-05:002016-01-17T17:30:55.648-05:00James
Thank you for your comments!
Jeff
I wrote a...James<br />Thank you for your comments!<br /><br />Jeff<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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..<br /><br />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%. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />This is why I am so cynical about the Vermont energy plan. The plan is kind of "We don't just <i>hope</i> for miracles, we <i>expect</i> them."Meredith Angwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-30435425695672416802016-01-13T09:43:16.519-05:002016-01-13T09:43:16.519-05:00This article seems to dismiss the growth of wind a...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12528401688809372093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-70746260355399711092016-01-11T16:15:21.802-05:002016-01-11T16:15:21.802-05:00Good article!
I think the crux punchline as to wh...Good article!<br /><br />I think the crux punchline as to why there's no real outcry and that the Vermont public would be willing to eat the prospect of higher gas costs is that "anything else is far _safer_ than Vermont Yankee (or any nuke)." Even if wind and solar end up as parasitic subsidized losers that rational would make few lament the loss of a nuclear plant, as I'm sure will continue so in Germany. This is at its core a nuclear PR and de-FUD'ing public education war for the hearts and reason of the public, not a pocketbook one.<br /><br />James Greenidge<br />Queens NYjimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624023124404414596noreply@blogger.com