Ecomodernist Podcast on "Campaigning for Clean Air"

I was recently invited to talk about my book, Campaigning for Clean Air, on the Ecomodernist Podcast.  The podcast was released, and here's the link.  I hope you will listen to it: I think you will enjoy the conversation.

The Ecomodernist Podcast:

Part of the podcast was talking about my book, There are many books about the virtues of nuclear power, but this is the first book (as far as I know) on how to support nuclear power in the public sphere.  It's the "then what" book:

"Now that I know about the importance of nuclear power, then what can I do to support it?"

My book is a major answer to that question.   I encourage you to read its excellent reviews on Amazon.

However, a good podcast goes beyond just discussing the book.  Gabriel Ignetti and Rick Maltese were great interviewers.

We discussed combustion versus nuclear energy for electricity. Specifically,  we discussed the nasty effects on air quality that are caused by nitrogen oxides from gas and coal-fired plants. Nowadays, carbon dioxide gets all the press, but nitrogen oxides are still out there, making smog and acid rain. We discussed  being members of environmental groups that are fighting climate change, and the importance of sticking up for nuclear within these groups.  Ignetti, especially, had good stories about his involvement in the environmental movement in Florida.  We discussed hecklers and people who really get "in your face" against nuclear, and possibly-effective versus certainly-ineffective ways to deal with them.

At the end of the podcast, Ignetti and Maltese have a short, separate section, sharing some research they did about how nitrogen oxides affect people's health, forest health, and even our sculpture and our buildings.

Ecomodernism

Painted trillium in Pisgah National Forest
A not-power-plant near a waterfall.

I was on the  "Ecomodernist Podcast," and now you may be wondering: what is "ecomodernism"?  Ecomodernism is a movement that started in 2015, with the publication of the Ecomodernist Manifesto. The ecomodernist goal is human prosperity and an ecologically vibrant planet.

This goal will be achieved by humans choosing technologies that can lift people from poverty and supply abundant energy, while using less of the of the world's area for human endeavors.  This means, for example, using compact energy sources like nuclear power, and leaving the ridges, the tides, the woodlands,  the pastures, and the streams to benefit the ecologies that need ridges, tides, woodlands,  pastures and streams.  In other words, giving nature room to breathe, while giving humans enough abundance to live healthy lives.

Ecomodernism hadn't been invented yet, in 2013, when I had an article in ANS Nuclear Cafe: Farmers, City Folk and Renewable Energy. But the idea in my article substantially the same: don't look at every woods and every waterfall as a source of energy, ready for "biomass" burning, or building a nice big concrete dam.

Let much of nature be nature.  Use compact sources of energy, rather than bulldozing the woods.

That is also a goal of ecomodernism.

Pro-Nuclear Advocacy Post at ANS Nuclear Cafe

Great Days, right now.

These are great days for pro-nuclear advocacy. Many states are moving in the right direction to save their nuclear plants. Nuclear opponents are fighting desperately to get the states to stomp on nuclear. ("All you need is a few wind turbines to meet your carbon goals.  That's all you need. Pay no attention to the gas plant behind the curtain.")

In other words, pro-nuclear forces are winning, right now, at the state level! But we have well-armed opponents, and we have to keep fighting!

These are great days for pro-nuclear advocacy.

I have a blog post at ANS Nuclear Cafe about the importance of pro-nuclear advocacy, especially local pro-nuclear advocacy.  I encourage you to read it, and comment either here or at the ANS post.

ANS Nuclear Cafe logo

Pro-Nuclear Advocacy

by Meredith Angwin

Right now, in the United States, citizens have become active advocates on many subjects. Ever since the last election, congressional phone lines have been swamped. .....

However, the backlog on the D.C. phone lines is of little importance to pro-nuclear advocates. For pro-nuclear advocates, right now most of the action is not in Congress, but in the states.

Read the entire post here:
- See more at: http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2017/03/16/pro-nuclear-advocacy/#sthash.C7zs7nuz.dpuf

The Future of Nuclear in RTO Areas

RTO areas in North America.  Based on FERC data

FirstEnergy plans to close or sell its nuclear plants

In a recent post at ANS Nuclear Cafe, Will Davis wrote about some changes that may happen  in the nuclear landscape in the near future.  He reported on statements made by FirstEnergy CEO Charles E. Jones at the Edison Electric Institute financial conference on November 7.

Here's a direct link to Jones' presentation: FirstEnergy: Transforming to a Regulated Company As Davis describes in his article, FirstEnergy is attempting to get out of the competitive electricity markets and become a fully-regulated utility. If it cannot support marginal plants in competitive markets, it will sell or shut down those plants.

Looking at the Earnings Per Share slide (slide 12 of the Jones presentation), you can see why FirstEnergy might get out of the competitive market.

• At a "basic Earnings per Share" level,  Competitive Services are losing around $2.50 per share.  
• Adjusted with "special items," Competitive Services are earning around $0.50 per share.  
• Regulated Distribution and Regulated Transmission are always in the black, with or without "special items."  
• Regulated Distribution, for example, earns around $1.80 per share, overall.

This is a big deal, because FirstEnergy operates in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.  Selling its nuclear plants (and coal plants) will be a major change and disruption.  I encourage you to refer to the Davis article for more specifics on this, and for other links.

Is FirstEnergy following the Entergy exit pattern?

In all the excitement about Entergy announcements of Vermont Yankee closing, Pilgrim closing, and the sale of Fitzpatrick to Exelon,  it is easy to overlook the fact that Entergy may be following a similar strategy of exiting the "deregulated" areas.  In December, 2015, Entergy announced the sale of its gas-fired plant in Rhode Island to Carlyle Power Partners.

At this point, except for Indian Point in New York, I think all Entergy power plants in deregulated areas are either slated for closing or slated for sale.  To me, this looks like the same "exit the deregulated areas" strategy that FirstEnergy is now pursuing.  Both companies have extensive regulated operations, as well as operations in deregulated areas.

Oops: I should have said Entergy has been exiting its holdings of plants in the Northeastern RTO areas.  Entergy Wholesale Commodities also owns Palisades in Michigan. http://entergy.com/ewc/

RTO areas

Clearly, there's a lot to say about these exits, and about the implications for our power plants of all kinds. And of course, if you know me, you know my deep and abiding cynicism about the deregulated areas: see The Oddness at the Heart of RTO.  These areas seem to be more about "tweaks R us" than about market forces.

For now, I will reprint my comment on the Davis article. This subject needs far more discussion than is possible in a single blog post.

It's not just about the price per kWh

Will

Thank you for this article. The RTO areas are basically stacked against nuclear and other baseload plants.

People will say: “Yeah, well, those plants just can’t compete with cheap natural gas.” That is not the case. Actually, in RTO areas, many or most natural gas plants get much of their income from selling “capacity” and “ancillary services,” not from selling kWh. Look at this slide from one of my articles: Payments for various types of power plants on the New England grid

As you can see, nuclear gets most of its income from selling kWh (gold bars) while NG/Oil GT (gas turbines) get around 80% of their income from “capacity” and “auxiliary” payments (blue and brown bars). That’s because the gas plants don’t sell as many kWh as nuclear sells, and you can also see that if the price of a kWh goes down but the capacity payments go up…the gas plants are all right. The common description of the “low price of natural gas on the grid” accounts for low-price sales of kWh, which are nuclear energy’s life and breath. It doesn’t account for all the ways the grid supports low kWh prices and makes up the difference…for plants that don’t run very much.

This has also been called the “search for the missing money.” Natural gas plants, without capacity payments, would have to charge more per kWh or go out of business. But…most RTO areas supply the gas plant’s “missing money” in a way that hurts any high-capacity-factor plant on the grid.

(Note: CC is combined cycle, ST is steam turbine, GT is gas turbine.)

- See more at: http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2016/11/16/november-news/#sthash.EyWLASTY.dpuf

Closing Pilgrim Will Zap Environment and Grid: Guest Post by Professor Gilbert Brown

Professor Gilbert Brown

Premature Closings

The premature closing of nuclear power plants such as Pilgrim harms our nation’s economy, energy security and the environment.

Why is this happening? It is not because of safety, but rather a blatant skewing of energy markets, that until just a few years ago leaned on the reliability of nuclear power plants. Today there is the short-sighted view that mandated solar and wind and the current windfall from fracked natural gas will work. Facts and history speak otherwise.

Although natural gas is cheap now, it is not likely to stay that way for long. Natural gas has a history of price volatility. Increasing New England’s reliance on gas for electricity generation — now at the 75 percent mark and rising — is nonsensical, especially in winter in a region where gas is used for heating.

And the fact remains that, although wind and solar have seen their costs fall, without serious subsidies their overall costs are more expensive per kilowatt hour than nuclear (and certainly gas). Furthermore there isn’t enough solar and wind to replace large nuclear plants and, because they only operate intermittently, there will surely be more fossil burning.

Correcting market abnormalities in 20 states where nuclear plants are at financial risk may be necessary to ensure that they are not closed early. Right now, the problem with the electricity market is that no value is placed on nuclear power’s role in reducing carbon emissions or its contribution to ensuring electricity reliability and energy security. Most troubling, the loss of nuclear power means that it will become more difficult — in some cases, impossible — for states to comply with EPA carbon-reduction rules, jeopardizing the administration’s climate goals at the very time when the world is looking to U.S. leadership in the battle against global warming.

Shortsighted Choices

This is really shortsighted. There is no avoiding the fact that more fossil fuels will be used for power production to compensate for the loss of nuclear power. Renewables and improvements in energy efficiency alone won’t meet energy requirements. And what about the rising popularity of electric cars? Where will the “clean” electricity come from to recharge their batteries?

Renewables like solar and wind power are intermittent sources that rely on carbon-emitting natural gas as a backup fuel when the weather isn’t cooperating. Moreover, wind requires 360 times as much land area to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear plant, and solar requires 75 times the land area.

Last year 3,600 megawatts of nuclear-generating capacity was closed down, compared with 4,500 megawatts of coal power. Among the shuttered nuclear plants were San Onofre’s two units in southern California and the Crystal River plant in Florida. Those three plants had been inoperable due to required multibillion-dollar repairs and were deemed no longer commercially viable. But since then, decisions have been made to close four operating nuclear plants — Kewaunee in Wisconsin, Vermont Yankee, Pilgrim and most recently, FitzPatrick in New York.

With climate change concerns rising every day, the last thing we need is a trend that makes them rise even faster. Yet that is what will happen when zero-carbon-emitting nuclear plants are prematurely retired. In Massachusetts the Pilgrim plant accounts for 79 percent of the emission-free electricity and is the only clean-air source that can produce large amounts of base-load power around the clock. The loss of Pilgrim’s 677 megawatts of generating capacity is not good for consumers, energy security or the environment.

---------
Gilbert J. Brown is a professor and director of the nuclear engineering program at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. He is an active member of the American Nuclear Society, and recently served in the State Department in the Visiting Scholars program. This program enables specialists in the physical sciences to support State Department activities in  arms control, non-proliferation, and disarmament.

This article first appeared on November 4, 2015, in the Boston Herald.
http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/op_ed/2015/11/brown_closing_pilgrim_will_zap_environment_energy_grid 

Updated: Nuclear Blogger Carnival 285, Here at Yes Vermont Yankee

Once again, we are proud to host the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers, right here at Yes Vermont Yankee.  The Carnival is a compendium of nuclear blogs that rotates from blog site to blog site, and it is always a pleasure and an honor to host it.

I am happy to update it with new posts…and unhappy to update it with the news that the Fitzpatrick plant will close.

Nuke Power Talk -- Gail Marcus

Scary Energy Scenarios: My Real Fears on Halloween.

At Nuke Power Talk, Gail Marcus reflects on the Halloween holiday and conjures up futures that are scarier than ghosts and goblins.  When short-sighted policies and misinformed views dominate energy decisions, these futures can go from being scary to--being scary and being real.

Salaries by Degree Field (Update---new post)

In another blog from Gail Marcus at Nuke Power Talk, she reports on the results of a salary survey by academic degree field.  Engineering fields in general ranked high, and nuclear engineering was #2 for mid-career alumni out of 319 academic fields surveyed.

Energy Reality Project--Rick Maltese

Educating a new nuclear workforce: Guest post by Beth Kelly (Update--new post0

This is a post about filling new nuclear jobs in a hypothetical growing market.  However, unless you assume that all nuclear plants in the country will close within ten years (an unwarranted assumption), you must notice that about half the workers at nuclear plants will retire within ten years.  And that leads to job opportunities for younger workers.

Audio version of Chapter 8 of Maltese's book: Energy Reality, a Necessary Renaissance (Update--new post)

Rick Maltese is writing a book he titles Energy Reality: A Necessary Renaissance. He has been posting his chapters at patreon, a crowd-funding website.  This is the first audio sample.

Atomic Insights-- Rod Adams

Several important nuclear energy developments from the Westinghouse press office

Westinghouse announced that the first two  reactor coolant pumps for their AP1000 reactor have passed all qualification tests and should arrive at the Sanmen site in China for installation by Dec 31, 2015.

The next day, Westinghouse announced that they are buying the nuclear plant construction assets of CB&I, their partner at Plant Vogtle and VC Summer.

An excellent discussion of the facts and implications, and of course, a very lively comment stream.

 Yes Vermont Yankee--Meredith Angwin (update, bad news)

Ginna continues operation, surcharges in context, and Fitzpatrick

The Ginna nuclear power plant has been received some financial relief, and will keep operating for at least another 18 months. Sadly, Entergy announced today that the Fitzpatrick plant will close (the post include links to articles about Fitzpatrick.)  In this blog post, Angwin compares the financial relief to Ginna to other electricity surcharges, including Vermont's own local "Efficiency Vermont" charges (much higher than the Ginna per-household costs) and the cost of proposed carbon taxes.

ANS Nuclear Cafe--Ted Besmann

The Power of Nuclear Energy

In this post, Besmann describes some of the economic hazards that currently face the U.S. fleet of nuclear plants.  The EPA proposed clean power rule gives less than 6% credit to emissions reduction from nuclear plants, for example. At the same time, the EPA claims that it would be worth paying  an extra $12 to $17 dollars per ton of CO2 that is not emitted.  But this monetary value is theoretical and not available to nuclear plants.

Vermont Yankee closed: the consequences were completely predictable

Vermont Yankee Closed: The Consequences were 100% Predictable

Last Monday, American Nuclear Society's blog, ANS Nuclear Cafe, featured my post  Vermont Yankee Closes: the Consequences Were 100% Predictable  The consequences were not only predictable, they were indeed, predicted.

In this blog post, I give a historical summary of many predictions, over many years. They all calculated that closing Vermont Yankee would have cause huge economic effects on the region.  They predicted the economic losses in the region would be in the multi-hundred-million-dollar per year range.

Yes. All the economists predicted hundreds of millions in losses for the local area. Nine figures. Their economic-loss predictions range from  $100,000,000 per year to over $400,000,000 per year.  Some of the differences depend on whether the economists were looking at just-Vermont, or at the tri-state region.

In other words, huge.  And these predictions are coming true.

I ask the question: why were all these economic predictions ignored?  Why was the state of Vermont so eager to close Vermont Yankee down?

Please visit my ANS post and write some comments.  Share your thoughts and share the article.

More Press for Vermont and Vermont Yankee

Okay.  I am blushing furiously.  But here are some more links….

Besides writing the article for ANS Nuclear Cafe,  I was on Pat McDonald's TV show, Vote for Vermont: Beyond the Sound Bite.  I link to the video of my interview in this blog post: Vermont Energy with Pat McDonald.

Rod Adams

But wait, there's more!  Rod Adams embedded the video on his blog, Atomic Insights.  The blog post is titled: Meredith Angwin with Pat McDonald on Vote for Vermont.  But Adams didn't just embed it: he also summarized the conversation. He especially noted McDonald's shock about the source of New England renewables.

The morning of the show, I went to the New England grid operator site and took a screen shot of the percentage renewables and the percentage-what-type-of-renewable, and brought the screen shots to the show. They were very typical screen shots, though the low demand on the grid showed a higher percentage of nuclear than might be seen at other times.  But the shocker was the renewables.  McDonald didn't expect to learn that almost half of our vaunted New England "renewable" electricity consists of burning refuse, and most of the rest of our renewable mix consists of burning wood.  (See graphics below.)

If you don't have time to watch the half-hour video, read the summary at Adams blog.

But Wait, There's More!

The ANS Nuclear Cafe blog has a feature called "Friday Matinee."  Most Fridays, they embed a video on the blog.  Yes….this Friday…the video was the Pat McDonald show featuring me.  Video: ANS Member Meredith Angwin on Vote for Vermont.

You have SO many opportunities to watch the show. You can watch the video at my blog, Adam's blog, ANS Nuclear Cafe blog.  I do hope you will watch it….

There is still more.  The ANS post about economic predictability was reprinted in the Ethan Allen Institute newsletter (I am director of their Energy Education Project).  I was on Rod Adam's panel in a recent podcast: Atomic Update.  I will be on the Common Sense radio show this coming Tuesday, October 6 on WDEV.  The show is between 11 and noon, and you can listen on line and even call in, toll-free. (The date of the WDEV show is now correct.  An earlier version of this post had an incorrect date.)

Okay. That's enough for now.  I can't blush any redder, so I will quit writing.

Monday morning fuel mix on the grid
Renewables are 7%

And here are the renewables, the 7% above
 Consists of 48% wood, 45% refuse

"Every Nuclear Plant is a Jewel:" American Nuclear Society Facebook Page and more

The Compliment

About two weeks ago,  Linda Zec emailed me.  She is Online Communications Specialist at the American Nuclear Society (ANS).  She said ANS was putting new banners on the ANS Facebook page and the ANS Twitter page. These banners would change frequently, and each banner would feature an ANS member.

Would I like to be featured?

What a compliment this request was!  Of course I would like to be featured!

My husband is trying very hard to teach me to simply say "thank you" when I receive a compliment. My usual response to a compliment has been to fall all over myself explaining why I don't deserve it, etc.  George has been working with me about this issue for about fifty years now.  I am beginning to "get it."

Therefore, with great savior faire, I answered Zec.  I said: "Yes, of course I would like to be featured. Thank you for thinking of me."  (If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.)  At any rate, I did say "yes."

Zec explained that she didn't want a head-and-shoulders shot, but a picture of me with a background of my choice. I knew immediately that the "background of my choice" would be Vermont Yankee.  She also wanted a short quote from me.  She suggested that I check the existing ANS banner to get the idea of what she would like to see.

The Banners

So, the first thing I did was check the banner that was already in place at the ANS Facebook page.   Uh-oh.  It was the president of ANS, Gene Grecheck, with an absolutely wonderful quote about the world-wide importance of nuclear energy.  Here it is, below.

Oh dear. I looked at this.  I wondered if I should call Zec back and explain that I didn't deserve…and I couldn't come up with a good quote…but then my husband would be mad at me…Okay.  I'll do it.

Meanwhile, I needed a new picture.  I am extremely grateful to Martin Cohn, Senior Communications Specialist at Entergy, who arranged for me to visit Vermont Yankee. He took a wonderful picture of me with the plant in the background.

You can see the picture at the top of this blog post (where it will stay) and also at the ANS Facebook page and ANS Twitter page (where it will be replaced soon with other featured members of ANS).

The Quote

So, all I needed was the quote.  Basically, in thirty words, how do I feel about nuclear energy?

I rewrote my quote several times. Still, the center of the quote was always there for me.

I see the grid in my mind, with all its users and its power plants and its connections.  Within the grid, I see the nuclear plants as jewels.  They are reliable. They are safe. They make huge amounts of power.  They are clean: they don't spill out carbon dioxide and acid gases (such as NOx).  The jobs at nuclear plants are good jobs.  They help their communities by taxes, and they also have a culture of community involvement.

The nuclear plants are jewels, connected and shining in the great net of the grid.

So that is what I said.

Every nuclear plant is a jewel.  It provides good jobs and school taxes to its community, and clean reliable power to the grid.  We must advocate for the expanded use of nuclear energy.

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!

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

Bloggers Analyze Vermont Yankee Closure: Series Starting at American Nuclear Society Blog

Today, the American Nuclear Society blog, ANS Nuclear Cafe, started a series of posts that analyze Vermont Yankee's closing.   Today's post is Reflections on Vermont Yankee-1.   Seven authors have written their opinions, and their work will be published in three posts.

To quote the description of these posts: Seven authors – who have no official connection to Vermont Yankee, or to Entergy, have provided their opinions on the shutdown of the plant, its implications for the region, and possible implications for other nuclear plants in other areas of the country.

The authors are all nuclear advocates and/or pro-nuclear bloggers.

Today's post: It's the Politics, Not the Economics

Today's post has two authors.  I'm the first author.  My part is titled: The Price Is Not the Lesson.  I argue that the statement "it's just an economic decision" works as protective cover for plant owners and it works for plant opponents. However, the real reasons for closure include political opposition and heavy, targetted taxation.

The second author is Les Corrice, blogger at Hiroshima Syndrome.  His website hosts two blogs: Fukushima Accident Updates and Fukushima Commentary.  Corrice is also author of two books about the Fukushima accident.

Corrice's section is titled: The Unspoken Reason for Closure. As he writes: "In my opinion, the economic rationale is a smoke screen for an unspoken, over-riding reason.    V-Y has been under a socio-political attack for decades."

No, Corrice and I did not coordinate or collaborate on our posts. It's more a great-minds-think-alike situation!  I encourage you to read the entire post at ANS Nuclear Cafe and to comment on it.

Other posts, with other ideas, written by other bloggers, will be coming soon.

-------

Yesterday, in the Valley News, I had a guest column on the front page of the "Perspective" section of the Sunday paper.  In a few days, I will reprint the column at this blog.  In the meantime, I hope this link works.  Why Electricity Costs Spiked.  (I don't control the illustrations for my columns, of course.  I am pleased that this column is illustrated with a very nice picture of Vermont Yankee.)

Support Nuclear This Weekend. Email the EPA by Sunday!

Analysis of Ohio Carbon Dioxide Emissions
From American Nuclear Society (ANS) Webinar
November 26, 2013

The EPA and the Carbon Rules: It Situation Is Worse Than I Thought
But You Can Do Something About It

The Situation Is Worse Than I Thought

Several months ago, the Environmental Protection Agency issued its rules for cutting down carbon emissions from the utility sector.  The rules were complex and differed wildly, state by state.  States that used a lot of coal were required to cut back their carbon emissions by relatively small amounts.  I blogged about this backwards rule-making in my post: Exporting Our Carbon Problems: The EPA Takes a Flawed, State-by-State Approach to Greenhouse Gas Policy.

But.

The situation is much worse than I thought.  Through some convoluted process, the EPA gives states with nuclear power plants credit for only 5.8% of the carbon dioxide avoided by the presence of the nuclear plants. This is true for existing nuclear plants, nuclear plants under construction, etc.  If you substitute gas-fired for coal, you get 100% credit for the avoided carbon.  If you substitute nuclear for coal, you get credit for 5.8% of the avoided carbon!  As a matter of fact, if  you substitute a gas-powered plant for a nuclear plant, your state emissions look better according to the EPA.

Ohio: The Example of the EPA Calculation

Let's look at the example above, from today's American Nuclear Society Webinar.  If we actually calculate the Ohio electricity sector carbon intensity, it is  1201 lbs CO2 per MWh. (That's the column called "100% nuclear"....that is, 100% credit for nuclear.)  If we use the EPA rule of 5.8% credit for nuclear, the carbon intensity is 1338 lbs CO2 per MWh.

Okay, now look at the last column. If Ohio's nuclear plants were closed and new gas-turbine plants erected instead, then (by EPA rules) Ohio's carbon intensity would be 1306 lbs CO2 per MWh. The new gas turbines would yield an improvement compared to the EPA's earlier calculation of 1338 lbs.  

Of course, the actual carbon intensity, without the weird EPA calculations, would go up from 1201 lbs/MWh to 1306 lbs/MWh if the nuclear plants went away.

But we're talking about a regulatory agency here, folks. The question is: Is the EPA going to keep this crazy anti-nuclear rule?

You can do something about this!  Do it!

 The comment period on this rule closes on Monday.  It is open this weekend, and many anti-nuclear groups are really hitting hard at the comments.  However, you can comment also.  You SHOULD comment also.

The American Nuclear Society has an excellent page about this rule.  Here's the link to the page, and the page includes a link to the comment page.
http://www.ans.org/epa/

Here's a direct link to the EPA instead, if you prefer

http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/how-comment-clean-power-plan-proposed-rule

As the ANS page explains, comments can be very simple. The two points are just what you would expect. Encourage the EPA to:

1) Treat existing plants equally by including 100% of nuclear current output in the baseline CO2 calculation.
2) Allow states with new plants under construction to count the new clean energy generation toward their EPA emissions target.

A Note About Your Note 

The EPA will read the emails, but they pay far less attention to cookie cutter or anonymous comments.
Put your name on your comment, and make it as personal as you can.  Say why YOU think nuclear generation has to be given more credit.  Do you think it is because we need a level playing field, because your grandfather was a coal miner, because nuclear is the future, because nuclear is a very important clean air option?  Just a sentence or two, so it is not cookie-cutter.

Do it this weekend.

EPA is about to bust the best source of clean air electricity in this country.  This is more important than the doorbusters at your local mall.

Write the EPA this weekend!

Have a great happy Thanksgiving...and write the EPA!

---------

For those who want more information. Some blog posts:

Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan, by Nicholas Thompson at Nuclear Undone blog.  Includes quotes from NRDC (an organization opposed to nuclear energy) on how this organization shaped the new rule, working with the EPA. According to the NRDC, there was a danger (oh the horror!) that if nuclear were included, states with nuclear plants wouldn't be able to meet their targets if the nuclear plants were closed. Giving nuclear plants only 5.8% credit for their emissions reductions helped the NRDC achieve its goals.

The Details of the Clean Power Plan: So You Want to See the Numbers by Nicholas Thompson at ANS Nuclear Cafe blog.  The numbers.  A far more complete story than my explanation of Ohio emissions, but basically, the same story.

(Yes, I have already submitted a comment.  Maybe I will put it up here as a blog post later this weekend.)

Decommissioning Panel and Appointments: Good, Bad and Ugly

Appointments Thick and Fast

With Vermont Yankee shutdown coming soon, the state government is getting busy appointing people to advise about, supervise, and generally harass the decommissioning project.  Okay, okay, maybe that's too strong a way to describe it.  Instead, perhaps I can just borrow the headline from a recent article in the Greenfield, MA, Recorder. Anti-nukers on Vt. Yankee Advisory Panel. 

Well, that was a short blog post.  I guess I can quit now...

No, wait!  I still have things to talk about.  There are good things, there are bad things, and there are...ugly things.

Smiley from Wikipedia

The Good

The New Panel: The old Vermont Nuclear Safety Advisory Panel (VSNAP) is being replaced by the newly-mandated  Nuclear Decommissioning Citizen Advisory Panel.  Howard Shaffer describes the new panel in his blog post at ANS Nuclear Cafe: The Latest Sop to Nuclear Opponents.

(Gosh, the titles of the links aren't getting any better, are they?)

In his post, Shaffer notes that the old panel was pretty much a straight Vermont-Yankee-bashing experience.  The new panel may be better. The panel is larger, and includes representatives from Entergy and from the Vermont Yankee union (IBEW). Also, there will be representatives from neighboring states. Hopefully, the presence of these panel members will keep the panel from being a complete anti-nuclear attack-dog,  the way VSNAP was in the past.   As Shaffer describes it in his post, in the days of the VSNAP panel: The plant was in the position of being a witness to be cross-examined. There was no appeal to the panel’s findings. The meetings were covered in detail by the regional press. The panel, in effect, became a vehicle for anti-nuclear publicity.

With an expanded membership, hopefully the new decommissioning panel will be more than a kangaroo court.

The New Engineer: Vermont has always had a state nuclear engineer to advise the legislator.  In my opinion, Vermont didn't always pick the most qualified person, but that is just my opinion.  To my surprise, the newly-appointed state nuclear engineer is actually a qualified nuclear engineer. Oops, I forgot. The "nuclear engineer" job title has been changed to "decommissioning coordinator."

In the Rutland Herald (reprinted in The Recorder), Susan Smallheer reports about the new hire: Get to know Vt's decommissioning coordinator.  Anthony Leshinskie is a nuclear engineer, who used to work at Palo Verde.  In the article, Leshinskie is quoted as saying that Vermont Yankee appears to be a well-run plant, and he does not see the work force as demoralized. He notes that Entergy is not scrimping on continuous training (which makes the workers more attractive to new employers). Leshinskie said he was concerned that his role would be "anti-nuclear" but is now reassured that his job is technical, not political.

Ray Shadis, a long-time nuclear opponent, doesn't seem completely happy with this appointment. A quote from the Smallheer article:  What Vermont or any ‘reactor-occupied community’ does not need is a bureaucratic pussycat,” said Shadis. (Shadis did not actually accuse Leshinskie of being a pussy-cat, but Shadis is obviously worried about something here.) Shadis emphasized that he believes that  a state nuclear engineer should be a critic.

Frowny 
from Wikipedia

The Bad

Governor Shumlin, the President Pro Tem of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House appointed the six citizen panelists, all of whom are serving three or four-year terms. Vermont Business Magazine names the panelists in the article Shumlin, Campbell, Smith announce appointments to the Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel. As far as I can tell, a major qualification for these appointments was that the panelist was opposed to Vermont Yankee.

One of the panelists is David Deen, a legislator with a long history of opposing Vermont Yankee. He claims that the plant overheats the Connecticut River. In this article Deen describes Vermont Yankee as operating under a "zombie" water permit. He claims it has a fifty-five mile thermal plume that extends way downstream, keeping its thermal integrity of heating the river...all the way past the Vernon dam.

A second panelist, Derrik Jordan, is described as "a musician and social activist" by the Speaker of the House, who appointed him.

I don't know everyone on the panel, but I fear that the ones I don't know are probably of the same opinions as the ones I do know. For today, however, enough is enough.

The Ugly

Gargoyle, Wikipedia

Back in the days when the chairman of VSNAP was appointed by  Governor Jim Douglas, a Republican, the VSNAP meetings were a complete zoo.

At one meeting, people came in costume. A costumed man and woman pretended to have sex while pro-nuclear people were speaking, distracting the crowd.  At other meetings, members of the panel paced around and shouted "I am tired of being lied to!" They shouted down  the chairman, who was attempting to keep the panel moving by Robert's Rules of Order.  In another case, a panel member physically wrestled the microphone away from the chairman.

I was pretty naive then, and I couldn't believe what I was seeing.  But I saw it.

The meetings calmed down when the chairman of VSNAP was appointed by Governor Shumlin. There was no longer a reason to intimidate him or her. When the chairman was appointed by Shumlin, it meant that the agenda could be followed, with minimum interruptions.

My fear of the ugly. Now we have Entergy members and union members on the panel. That could be great or not-great. Great: maybe the new members can contribute.  Not-great: once again, the panel includes people worth intimidating

Will the bad old days come again?  I hope not, but I fear that they may.

Earthquake Anniversary: Updated and Unplugged

The non-fatal-tragedy

School buses
 They were used for evacuation
Older people fell off the seats and died
Chaos

Today is is the third anniversary of the earthquake and tsunami that devastated large portions of eastern Japan on March 11, 2011.  Approximately 20,000 people died in the tsunami and earthquake, but the focus of the media has always been on the Fukushima "disaster" or "tragedy."

Three nuclear power plants suffered meltdowns.  Nobody died of direct radiation, and it is unlikely that there will be any detectable rise in cancer deaths. In terms of deaths, the immediate deaths came from mishandled evacuations.   See my post from last year: Fukushima: the Second Anniversary.

Updated:

In Japan, some people are being allowed to move back to areas that had been evacuated for fear of radiation. Fuel rods are being successfully removed from Fuel Pool #4.  The story in Japan is slow, but progress is being made.

Instead of trying to update the situation myself, I will share some links:

• ANS Will Davis at American Nuclear Society ANS Nuclear Cafe: Fukushima Three Years Later.This is an excellent description of current status and lessons-learned, with many diagrams and links.
• NEI NEI has a linked series of pages on Fukushima Daiichi Recovery: The Facts. Authoritative, short, and clear
• Les Corrice at Hiroshima Syndrome. Corrice has updated his Fukushima Accident page twice a week since the accident.  His blog is very complete. He has also written two e-books: Kimin, Japan's Forgotten People (about the tsunami refugees), Fukushima, the First Five Days (accident chronology)
• Atomic Insights: Atomic Show #212 at Atomic Insights What Can We Learn from Fukushima?  This is a podcast with me, Les Corrice, Rod Adams, Cal Abel, and Will Davis.

Unplugged

Camera operator
From Wikipedia

Anti-nuclear activists are using today to "Unplug Nuclear Power."  They can't actually unplug nuclear power, so they are unplugging themselves by turning off their electricity for a day. Supposedly, this will "show that nuclear power is unnecessary." Activists have defined four levels of "unplugging" yourself from electricity.  In the first level, you "turn off extra lights and cut back on video games."   

My friends, these are real quotes.  I could not begin to make this stuff up!  Shall we have a "play a video game for nuclear" day, maybe?

I have great hopes that that the nuclear opponents will unplug themselves from those horrible electricity hogs: broadcast media.  If they see a reporter with a video camera at one of their rallies today, they should make her leave the premises. Otherwise, she will begin sending video to some broadcast media establishment, and that group will use a lot of electricity to broadcast the video clips.  This is totally against the spirit of "unplug nuclear power."  I hope the nuclear opponents won't let this happen.

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.

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!

Howard Shaffer Post at ANS Nuclear Cafe: What are opponents doing nowadays?

Vermont Yankee

Howard Shaffer's most recent contribution to ANS Nuclear Cafe was posted yesterday afternoon.

Vermont Yankee: Now What Are Opponents Doing?

In this post, Shaffer describes the many ways opponents are attempting to generate political cover for the ways in which the plant's closing will affect the state, and the related ways in which they continue to foster fear about the decommissioning process, the last few months of the plant's operation, etc.

Governor Shumlin

Vermont Yankee management and the Shumlin administration are in closed-door meetings at this time.  Who knows what they will resolve?  Who knows what they are even discussing, since almost everything about the decommissioning is in the hands of the NRC and Entergy, not the state?  I suspect the discussions are another case of the state attempting to extract Dane-Geld from Entergy.

In the meantime, I recommend reading Shaffer's post for the most up-to-date information on the current "controversies."  Comment on the post, too!  (The opponents are commenting.)

Vermont Yankee: Now What Are Opponents Doing?

Pay for Education, Not Tribute: Vermont Yankee ANS Nuclear Cafe

Viking Longship Reconstruction

Extorting Money from Vermont Yankee

On ANS Nuclear Cafe today,  I have posted a history of the extortion against Vermont Yankee, and some advice for the nuclear industry going forward:

Millions for education, but not one cent for tribute.

Vermont Yankee made  certain agreements with the Vermont Public Service Board. They made these agreements in order to get permission to run their plant and upgrade their equipment. These agreements were straight extortion.

According to these agreements, Vermont Yankee paid for cleaning up Lake Champlain (it's the other side of the state from the power plant) and for wind turbines.  In other words, in order to keep operating, Entergy paid for pet projects of the legislature and Public Service Board.

But to save money, Entergy closed the visitor center.

Keep the Visitor Center, Lose the Extortion

In my opinion, this was a backward strategy.  The visitor center was important.  The money for legislative-pet-projects was counter-productive.

I suggest nuclear plants should fund outreach (visitor centers and more).  They should fund their lawyers, when necessary.  They shouldn't give in to extortion and to paying Dane-geld.  Paying off the Vikings doesn't work.

Rudyard Kipling has a memorable poem about Dane-geld. It explains why trying to pay off the Vikings is a bad idea.  "Once you have paid him the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane."  The extortionists will certainly come back later, for more money.

Deliver the Public Service Board From Temptation

The Kipling poem includes some surprising advice. It suggests you should save the Vikings from

John McClaughry

themselves by not paying the Dane-geld:

"It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
  For fear they should succumb and go astray;"

John McClaughry of the Ethan Allen Institute wrote about this shake-down back in 2005, though he called it the extortion "simony" instead of "dane-geld."  In that article, McClaughry quotes the state auditor, who also wants to protect the Public Service Board from itself:

In November 2003, in return for Public Service Department support for a reactor power uprate, Entergy agreed to pay $7.8 million to cleanup algae in Lake Champlain, 180 miles away, plus $2.1 million to subsidize low income home heating. The deal was criticized not only by the anti-nuclear activists, but also by state Auditor Elizabeth Ready: “(Vermonters) health and safety could be placed at risk if utility regulation is allowed to become a pay-to-play endeavor, fueled by extracting millions from applicants for pet projects in order to get the Public Service Department’s stamp of approval.”

In other words, this sort of thing is just too tempting for the Danes and for the Public Service Board.

Instead of giving money to clean up Lake Champlain, or whatever pet project the Public Service Board requires, nuclear plants should spend money on outreach. And, if necessary, on lawyers.

Kipling and State Auditor Ready would agree: Do not put temptation in the path of any nation...or any Public Service Board.

Don't pay.

--------

I am sorry.  I cannot easily find a link to McClaughry's 2005 Commentary: "New State Revenue Technique: Simony."

John McClaughry is the founder of the Ethan Allen Institute. The Energy Education Project is part of that Institute, and I am the director of the Energy Education Project.