Nuclear Blogger Carnival 269, 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.

Nuke Power Talk - Gail Marcus
Climate Change and Science

At Nuke Power Talk, Gail Marcus reports on an article that echoes a theme she's been concerned about for years--that some actions taken in the name of conservation, or of combatting climate change, are actually short-sighted or counterproductive.

Neutron Bytes - Dan Yurman
Entrepreneurial Startups Tackle Advanced Nuclear Reactor Designs

Almost three dozen firms representing $1.3 billion of investor money are pursuing technological innovations in the field of nuclear energy. A June 2015 report by the Third Way, a Washington, DC, think tank, details the mix of firms includes small startups and big-name investors like Bill Gates.  All are placing bets on a comeback for nuclear energy working to get their respective technologies to market in an increasingly carbon-constrained world.

Northwest Clean Energy Blog - Meredith Angwin
Small Modular Reactors for the Northwest

Recently, the Washington State legislature has allocated money for a study of siting Small Modular Reactors (SMR) in the state.  Energy Northwest has an agreement with NuScale for future use of their reactor. At a recent meeting in Boston, NuScale reported on its plans for obtaining an NRC license.   In this post, Meredith Angwin describes the meeting and NuScale's plans.

Neutron Bytes - Dan Yurman
Greens target license renewal for Diablo Canyon nuclear plant

Seismic issues and demands for cooling towers are potential points of leverage

This month the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) kicked off the restart of the  license renewal for the twin 100 MW Westinghouse PWR type nuclear reactors at the Pacific Gas & Electric  Diablo Canyon site located on California’s Pacific Ocean coast 200 miles north of Los Angeles.

Green groups see the development of an environmental impact statement (EIS), required as part of the license renewal decision process, as a key opportunity to raise two sets of issues.  The first is seismic safety and the second is a demand for the plant to go from an open loop to closed loop cooling system by building cooling towers.

Make no mistake about how these concerns are presented by the California environmental movement. It is stridently anti-nuclear and has just one objective, and that is to end the operation of the reactors.

Yes Vermont Yankee - Bruce Parker Guest Post
Vermont Utilities Buy Nuclear Capacity from New Hampshire: Guest post by Bruce Parker

Now that Vermont Yankee is closed, Vermont utilities have asked the Vermont Public Service board to approve new contracts with Seabrook.  Post by Bruce Parker includes details of the utility requests, interviews with utility executives, and an interview with Guy Page of Vermont Energy Partnership.

Vermont Utilities Buy Nuclear Capacity from New Hampshire: Guest post by Bruce Parker

Utilities buy nuclear capacity from New Hampshire as Vermont dismantles nuke plant

By Bruce Parker  /   July 8, 2015  / Vermont Watchdog

DECOMMISSIONED: Vermont Yankee, an electric generating nuclear power plant located in Vernon, Vt., generated 620 megawatts of electricity and provided 71 percent of the state’s electric generation before lawmakers and environmentalists pressured it to cease operations.caption

Utility companies in Vermont are buying nuclear capacity from New Hampshire while Vermont dismantles its former electricity-generating nuclear powerhouse.

“We got a 20-year contract with NextEra, which is not very typical,” David Hallquist, CEO of Vermont Electric Cooperative, said of his company’s move to stock up on low-cost nuclear generation.

“The generators who are going to be around a long time, such as a nuclear plant, are going to sell long-term contracts. And with the volatility of the forward capacity market … we expect upward pressure (on prices) to continue,” he said.

Hallquist said his company filed a petition with the Public Service Board the last week of June to get approval of the long-range contract with NextEra, a Florida-based energy company that operates a nuclear power plant in Seabrook, New Hampshire. The nuclear plant is attracting business as officials in the Green Mountain State work to decommission Vermont Yankee, a nuclear plant that formerly supplied 70 percent of all electricity generated in Vermont.

Vermont Electric Cooperative, the state’s largest locally-owned electric utility, seeks up to 10 megawatts of capacity from the Seabrook nuclear plant. Hallquist says locking in a long-term rate on nuclear capacity makes sense due to nuclear power’s affordability relative to other power sources.

“Capacity in New England used to be fairly inexpensive relative to today — and that was just two years ago that it was relatively inexpensive. The capacity charge was just $3 a megawatt-month back two years ago. Today it’s $10 a megawatt-month,” he said.

To keep the lights on and prevent blackouts, electric utilities purchase both energy and capacity. Energy, measured in megawatt hours, is the electricity currently being consumed. Capacity, in contrast, is stable backup power that utilities use to manage peak loads that draw upon the grid. The amount of capacity utilities need is determined by ISO standards set by 13 independent system operators across the country. Those operators monitor grid use and provide oversight to keep the grid stable.

Since Vermont Yankee closed in 2013 — in part due to hot pressure from Gov. Peter Shumlin and the state’s renewables-minded Legislature — utility companies in the Green Mountain State have scrambled to find reliable sources for their forward-capacity needs. According to Hallquist, wind and solar power are useless as sources of capacity.

“The problem is when you’re doing capacity you’ve got to make sure it’s there when you need it. So solar and wind, because it’s an intermittent resource, you can’t purchase it as a capacity tool. You can only purchase (it for) energy,” he said. “ISO New England has to make sure the generation is available when the load is there, and you can’t necessarily count on solar and wind for capacity, because it’s weather dependent.”

NEW HAMPSHIRE STRONG: Vermont utility companies are planning to purchase nuclear power capacity from New Hampshire’s Seabrook Station Nuclear Plant due to the plant’s stable generation and highly affordable rates.

Halquist’s company isn’t the only utility stocking up on next-door nuclear. In January, Green Mountain Power petitioned the Public Service Board for a 16-year, 150-megawatt contract purchase of nuclear from Seabrook.

“What we have filed for is a purchase that is mostly capacity and a little bit energy. We need that to help with our capacity obligations,” Dorothy Schnure, spokesperson for Green Mountain Power, told Vermont Watchdog.

Schnure said the company’s nuclear request underwent Public Service Board hearings in early June and now awaits approval.

“We went out to bid because we needed more capacity to help stabilize prices, and this was the lowest of the bids,” she said.

“Vermont at its peak uses about 1,100 megawatts of electricity. So you have to have enough generation, or capacity, available to satisfy that peak.”

Green Mountain Power uses nuclear generation for energy use as well as capacity, which is why its petition includes both. According to Schnure, the company hoped to reduce the nuclear energy in its portfolio but now intends to increase it.

“Originally, it was set to decrease to 50 (megawatts) and then decrease again to 40 megawatts. (As) part of this recent filing we slow the energy ramp down. Instead of going from 60 to 50 to 40, it goes from 60 to 50 to 55. So, going out into the future, we get a little bit more energy from Seabrook than we originally were getting in the original contract,“ she said.

In 2013, Entergy announced it was closing Vermont Yankee due to financial considerations. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission extended the plant’s operating license 20 years starting in 2011, and in 2012 Entergy won a court battle preventing the Vermont Legislature from shutting down its operations, which lawmakers attempted in 2010.

At the plant’s scheduled closing last December, Shumlin said he “long advocated for the closing of this plant.”

“I believe the ceasing of operations … after nearly 43 years represents a positive step for our state and our energy future. (T)hanks to investments in renewable energy such as solar, Vermont’s energy future is on a different, more sustainable path that is creating jobs, reducing energy costs for Vermonters and slowing climate change,” Shumlin said in a statement.

But Guy Page, communications director for the Vermont Energy Partnership, a coalition that advocates for clean, low-cost electricity solutions, said recent nuclear purchases tell a different story.

“There is a very sad irony to this situation. The source of power that had been demonized by Vermont’s energy leaders is now being embraced because it’s a decent, clean, low-cost solution to their energy problem,” he said.

“While it’s true it’s a good deal and it’s low carbon, Vermont is not getting the jobs. Vermont is not getting the tax revenue. Vermont is not getting the incredible donor benefit of having a large generous employer in their backyard.”

Page said Vermont Yankee, in addition to offering clean low-cost power, provided Winham County with good-paying jobs, money and volunteers for homeless shelters, and public safety emergency responders.

“That free infrastructure that was there because of the generosity of these people, they won’t be getting that from Seabrook.”

Page claims the situation in Vermont compares with Germany, which closed nuclear plants after the Fukushima disaster in Japan, but had to install coal plants to make up for the lost electricity generation.

“We’ve lost Vermont Yankee, and who knows what else we’re going to lose. What they’re saying is let’s double down on natural gas, let’s build more pipelines, let’s build more renewables,” Page said. “No one in power is talking about, gosh, maybe we ought to keep our existing nuke plants around. … It’s so easy to say no and wave a flag and feel good. But what are you going to do in its place?”

Contact Bruce Parker at bparker@watchdog.org


Bruce Parker is a reporter for Watchdog.org. Contact him at bparker@watchdog.org and follow him on Twitter @WatchdogVT

Sign-up for our Vermont Watchdog email list to receive the latest news and in-depth coverage.

COPYRIGHT
© 2015 Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity

-------

This article originally appeared at Vermont Watchdog Org on July 8, 2015, and is used with permission.

Guy Page of Vermont Energy Partnership is quoted near the end of this post. Page is a frequent guest blogger at this blog.  David Hallquist, CEO of Vermont Electric Co-Op, is quoted near the beginning of this post.  Mr. Hallquist has published a guest post on this blog.

Meredith Angwin sends her appreciation to Bruce Parker, Guy Page and David Hallquist for their appearance on this blog.

Vermont Utilities Seek Power: from Seabrook, from Solar. Guy Page Guest Post

Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant

Vermont utilities seek more nuclear power from Seabrook, 80 acres of solar planned for Rutland Town, and more

By Guy Page
Communications Director, Vermont Energy Partnership

Just because the Legislature has gone home doesn’t mean Vermont has taken a holiday from energy deals and projects. Far from it! In June alone, the wheels were turning to bring more hydro, nuclear (you read correctly), natural gas, and solar power to Vermont – or in the case of hydro, at least through Vermont.

Nuclear – in June both Green Mountain Power (GMP) and Vermont Electric Co-operative (VEC) petitioned the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) to buy nuclear power from Seabrook nuclear power plant in New Hampshire. Both deals would run from 2018 – 2034. Details are preliminary at present, but VEC’s petition calls for up to 10 MW of power. GMP, for its part, hopes the contract will help cover peak load needs. This will be the second GMP contract with Seabrook; the state’s largest utility entered into a baseload power contract in 2011.

Meanwhile at Vermont Yankee, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has given the shuttered plant permission to access the decommissioning trust fund to help pay for spent fuel management, much to the consternation of the State of Vermont Department of Public Service. VY has also arranged about $150 million in private financing and has said that all spent fuel management monies will be reimbursed when the U.S. Department of Energy returns the funds set aside for the unopened national spent fuel repository.

Hydro – the Vermont Conservation Law Foundation has endorsed the construction of the TDI cable project beneath Lake Champlain, following the Quebec-based company’s decision to deliver $283 million for Lake Champlain cleanup. If built (2019 start date), the TDI project would carry hydro power south under the Lake, make landfall at Benson in Rutland County, and then traverse Vermont underground. Southern New England is regarded as the priority customer for the 1,000 MW of TDI power. The cost is expected to be 9-10 cents per kw/h, including the cost of construction, Vermont energy experts say. At least it will not suffer the fate of the Quebec high power transmission lines that were damaged from above in December, 2014, causing a power loss to almost 200,000 southern Quebec customers. Norman Dube, 53, a Quebec resident who allegedly had a labor dispute with Hydro Quebec, dropped unnamed objects on the power lines from an airplane, according to CBC coverage of his trial, which began this month.

Natural Gas - The PSB held hearings June 22-23 in Montpelier on the embattled Phase One (to Middlebury) Vermont Gas Pipeline Project. It was concerned that the cost estimate had jumped about 85% to $154 million. No decision on the project’s future was expected this week. However, supporters of New England regional fuel diversity note that the unexpected cost increases should be a cautionary tale to supporters of the “just build more gas pipeline” solution to New England’s projected energy supply shortfalls. Over-reliance on any one form of power – be it price-volatile natural gas or Quebec hydro-power – is risky for both reliability and affordability.

Solar – State energy officials, speaking at a June 24, Montpelier discussion of the revised Comprehensive Energy Plan, said instate solar development will be very heavy during the next 18 months, to take full advantage of federal tax credits for renewable energy construction before they expire Jan. 1 2017. As if to illustrate, the Rutland Herald reported the planned construction of two Cold River Road, Rutland Town solar farms totaling 55,000 panels spread out over 80 acres. One of the projects already has PSB approval, but will be appealed by Rutland Town to the Vermont Supreme Court.

-----

Guy Page of VTEP is a frequent guest blogger at this blog.  This article has also appeared in several publications in Vermont, including Vermont Business Magazine.

Layoffs Possible at Vermont Yankee

Illustration of "Okuns Law"
A relationship between
GDP and unemployment rates 

Lay-offs Possible at Vermont Yankee

A few days ago, a reporter called to ask me if I had heard anything about layoffs at Vermont Yankee.  I hadn't.

However, within a day or so, a different reporter, Andrew Stein at Vermont Digger, had written an article about the (probable) impending layoffs: Vermont Yankee owner: 'Expect workforce reductions'. Using leaked internal documents, Stein concluded that Entergy workers were "essentially being asked to reapply for their jobs" including filling out an 18 page form.  Apparently, this is part of  Entergy's "Human Capital Management Initiative."  Stein  estimated a 10% reduction in force, which would be 65 layoffs among the work force of 650 people.

When the Stein article appeared, I also received an email from Entergy. It was apparently the same Entergy statement that was quoted in the Stein article. The statement included the words: "workforce reductions will be one result of this initiative."

So I guess layoffs will happen at Vermont Yankee.

Reactions

For Vermont, this Vermont Yankee announcement comes closely behind an announcement of layoffs at IBM: the Essex Junction IBM plant is laying off 419 people. IBM is one of the state's largest private-enterprise employers.  In the Vermont Digger article on the IBM layoffs, Governor Peter Shumlin is quoted as saying that businesses in Vermont are desperate to hire the great workers now being laid off at IBM.  I hope that is the case.  However, to me, Vermont seems more hard-scrabble than Shumlin claims.

The Vermont Public Radio article on the Vermont Yankee layoffs quoted two people who are opposed to the continuing operation of Vermont Yankee.

• The state is advocating against Vermont Yankee receiving a Certificate of Public Good from the Public Service Board. Geoff Collins is the state's lead lawyer in the hearings.  Collins said that the layoff  "would appear to have an impact on the magnitude of the economic benefit that they’re (Entergy is) claiming." He wouldn't speculate on the amount of effect the layoff would have on the economics for the state.
• Ray Shadis, a long-time plant opponent, asked if Entergy was "asking permission to go ahead and lose money for another 20 years?"    

In Context

For once, I don't have cheery upbeat things to say.  I wish these layoffs weren't happening.  However, it doesn't mean Entergy is going to shut the plant down.  If anything, it shows a commitment to keep operating the plant.

Entergy's "Second Quarter Earnings Guidance" press release listed various reasons for revenue shortfall.  In my experience, companies almost always arrange a layoff when revenue drops.  They announce the layoff,  and then the company's stock usually goes up. A few months later they are hiring again.  That's my experience in working for big companies, anyhow.

In Context With Other Nuclear Plants

However, I think Entergy will try to continue to run this plant lean, and will not hire again very rapidly.  I tried to analyze plant staffing, and I came to the conclusion that Vermont Yankee has been at the high end of the staffing curve.

Vermont Yankee is a stand-alone plant, which means it has to have its own security, chemistry lab, and many other things. It cannot share these relatively fixed costs  with another unit.  For example, a chemistry lab needs about the same equipment and staff to serve a double-unit power plant instead of serving a single unit plant. So a chemistry lab is a higher overhead cost for a single-unit plant.

I did an ad-hoc financial review of plant staffing: how many people does a plant employ per MW?  With a short investigation, this is what I found.

Seabrook Station

• Vermont Yankee is 620 MW and employs 650 people.
• Indian Point (two units) is 2050 MW and employs 1,100 people (from Wikipedia)
• Duane Arnold is 615 MW and employs "more than 500" people (from Wikipedia) or 600 people (Duane Arnold fact sheet) 
• Dresden Station (two units) is 1734 MW and has "approximately 800" employees (Exelon description)
• Seabrook Station is 1244 MW and has 1,100 people in its workforce (Seabrook fact sheet)

Single or Double

The double units (two units on one site) have less than one employee per MW: they have closer to one employee per two MW.  Therefore, the double units have a clear cost advantage.  The single units run slightly less than one employee per MW. Vermont Yankee is running slightly more than one employee per MW, which is why I said it was at the high end of the staffing scale, as far as I can tell.

By the way, people knew about the economies of scale at the time these plants were built. Both Vermont Yankee and Seabrook were supposed to be one part of a two-plant site.  That didn't happen, unfortunately.

I am not happy writing about layoffs.  Getting a job is never easy, and losing a job is always hard.  But I decided to write this because I don't want to be Pollyanna.

Layoffs as Part of Business

There will be layoffs at Vermont Yankee.  I hate it and I hope that none of the people that I know are laid off. (That is selfish of me, but there it is.) However, from my analysis, these layoffs do seem to be a business decision, and will only bring the staffing down to the levels (employees per MW) at other stand-alone plants.  The "will they be able to run the plant safely?" and "are they about to go out of business?" stuff strikes me as just the usual negativity from people who hate the plant.

That said, I hate the fact that there will be layoffs.  I just hate it.

Specific Power Sources in Vermont: VTEP Report

Vermont Energy Partnership releases overview of Vermont electricity, lists specific power sources

MONTPELIER - A publication released today by the Vermont Energy Partnership (VTEP), “Vermont Electricity at a Glance," examines Vermont's electricity portfolio. The publication includes the rates charged by each Vermont utility, the type of generation and amount of power supplied in megawatt-hours, the amount of renewable power, and (in most cases) the specific power generators and/or contracts.

“Vermont Electricity at a Glance” also portrays Vermont’s statewide increase in power rates in comparison with neighboring states. In 2012, Vermont’s electricity rates rose five percent while rates stayed level or fell in New York or all other New England states (except Rhode Island, also five percent).  To view the publication, please click here.



The Vermont Energy Partnership (http://www.vtep.org) is a diverse group of more than 90 business, labor, and community leaders committed to finding clean, safe, affordable and reliable electricity solutions for Vermont.

--------------------------

Guy Page

The note above is a press release from the Vermont Energy Partnership: it was sent by Guy Page, who has frequent guest posts on this site, such as Transitioning to Renewable Power: What It Might Look Like.

This new VTEP overview report contains the facts and figures on Vermont's electricity supply right now.

Some highlights:

• Vermont's electricity retail electricity price rose from 14 cents to 15 cents per kWh, while most other states retail prices fell (Rhode Island's price also rose). 
• Vermont used 1.8 million MWh of "system power" (bought from the New England grid) in 2012, while they used only 0.8 million MWh of "system power" in  2011. In 2011, Vermont Yankee contracts were in place.
• Since Vermont classifies large hydro as renewable, Vermont electricity supply is slightly more than 50% renewable.  This includes the power from Hydro Quebec.
• Green Mountain Power bought approximately 0.3 million MWh from a combination of  Millstone and NextEra (Seabrook) nuclear plants .  These purchases were  separate from GMP's purchases of "system power"  from the grid, which also included these plants. 

This VTEP report is well worth studying!

For example, I note that if you add the nuclear plant purchases to the new "system power" purchases, you get 1.3 million MWh.  Vermont used to purchase approximately 2.0 million MWh from Vermont Yankee.  I urge you to read the report and draw your own conclusions about renewables, Vermont Yankee, and the new expanded role of "system power" in Vermont.

The Price of Power in the Northeast

I wrote an op-ed for the Valley News (my local paper) on price of power in the Northeast.  Nuclear plants are providing the backstop against electricity price rises due to the rising price of natural gas.  I am proud that my op-ed is on the front page of the Valley News Perspective section. Vermont's Surplus of Power Uncertainty

The paper came late to my doorstep today.  Before it had even arrived, I had an email from a member of my town selectboard thanking me for the informative article.  That sort of thing just makes me glow!

A hearty thank you to Martin Frank, editor of the Valley News.  He helped me achieve clarity as well as brevity on this subject.  That is what a good editor can do.  I am grateful.

Let me also encourage you to read the 135th Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers, now posted at ANS Nuclear Cafe.  As usual, the best of the nuclear blog scene, and all in one place for easy reading.

When Did "Nuclear" Become a Four Letter Word? A guest post by Cheryl Twarog

Cheryl Twarog is the wife of a Vermont Yankee employee. She's holding the THNX VY sign in the picture above, taken at the St. Patrick's Day rally. Twarog wrote this guest post about her recent experiences in energy education.

--------

At the St. Patrick's Day rally for Vermont Yankee I had a conversation with another mother, who happens to live near the plant. We talked about our firm belief that children should be taught HOW to think, not WHAT to think. We spoke of how we encourage our own children to learn the facts supporting all sides of an issue (yes, even nuclear power) before forming an opinion. It turns out that this was a timely discussion.

Last week an educator from a local utility company made the rounds in the elementary school where I work. She pays a visit each year for the purpose of educating the children about electricity. Topics include energy safety, consumption, conservation, and production. I have a lot of respect for her, as she is always kind, professional, and generous with her time. Every year I listen intently, waiting for her to at least acknowledge the existence of nuclear power. This seems to be one of those inconvenient facts that is conveniently left out of every lesson.

This year I inquired about the percentage of power that the company obtains from Seabrook. She politely directed me to the company's website. Well, after years of listening to her tout the benefits of wind and solar power, as well as the wonders of a Portsmouth plant that burns cocoa bean pods instead of wood, I decided to do a little more fact checking: "But you do have a contract with Seabrook?" She answered "Yes", then she continued on to say, "But we don't talk about 'that'. We only discuss the sources that are in the area."

Hmmm... First I was surprised that she referred to nuclear power as "that." Who knew that "nuclear" is a 4-letter word! Then I wondered how Portsmouth could be considered to be local, while Seabrook is not. I would have liked to see all of the facts given. It would have been appropriate to give a complete list of the types energy sources the company uses without cherry picking which ones to include or exclude.

As parents, we rightfully spend so much time and thought educating our children to be fair and analytical thinkers, so they can separate fact from fiction, rational thought from emotion, and science from politics. Maybe we should expect the same from the educators.

----------

Notes about the illustrations.

The photo at the top was downloaded (with permission) from the Vermont Yankee Facebook page album of the St. Patrick's Day Rally. I thank Vermont Yankee for letting me use the picture. It shows Cheryl Twarog and one of her sons and her husband (both with green hats). The man at the forefront of the picture is Bill Schulze. (I didn't know that man's name, but Michael Empey told me. Thanks to Michael! )

The map shows the Schiller biomass and coal plant at Portsmouth (orange balloon, above) and the Seabrook station (red balloon, below). Schiller Station is 150 MW, of which 50 MW is biomass. Seabrook Nuclear Station is 1,200 MW. The Vermont Yankee plant is near Brattleboro, at the left of the map (not marked with a balloon, sorry!) Many VY employees live in nearby towns in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Clicking on the map will give you a clearer image.

Broken Windows, Ruined Roads, the Glory Days of the Railroad, and Nuclear Decommissioning

The Seen and the Unseen

The Broken Window Fallacy says that destroying something (breaking a window), and then fixing it (hiring a glazier), stimulates the economy. The broken window fallacy was first described by the French economist Bastiat in 1850.

In the broken window story, a hooligan breaks the baker's window. The baker then pays a glazier to fix his window. However, this does not stimulate the economy. If the baker didn't have to pay for fixing his window, he might have bought something else (a new suit from the tailor) with the money.

The point of the broken window fallacy is that we can see what we get after the window is broken. We see the glazier getting paid.

However, we can't see what we don't get. We can't see the the tailor not being paid.

Irene's Broken Window in Hartford Township

There has been a lot of destruction of roads and property in my township. Irene broke the windows, for sure. However, it is a small town, the money has to come from somewhere, and this article in the Valley News describes the "unseen." The article describes some of the things my town had hoped to do, but will not be doing in the near future, because we have to fix the roads.

The town has decided to:

• cancel the Glory Days of the Railroad Festival this Saturday, because there is too much clean-up to be done
• cancel or postpone a bond to fix up the ice rink
• cancel or postpone a bond to fix up the town hall, a drafty and energy-inefficient Victorian edifice

After Irene, the town will see people employed on the roads, but people will not be employed to improve the municipal building or ice rink. What we don't get is visible in this case. We won't have a festival, we won't have a good ice rink, we won't have insulation in the municipal building. We will get the roads fixed, but we will be poorer (less fun, no improved town infrastructure) due to Irene's broken windows.

The "unseen" is visible in my township, and it isn't pretty.

Nuclear Decommissioning

In recent weeks, I wrote two articles on the jobs effect of nuclear decommissioning. Governor Shumlin repeatedly states that decommissioning Vermont Yankee will be a great jobs bonus and economic stimulus for the southern part of Vermont. He claimed that "several hundred" plant workers would continue to be employed for "five to six years." The Governor also said that decommissioning would "fuel the economy" of southern Vermont by a billion dollars over ten years.

Who is the Glazier in Decommissioning?

Decommissioning a working power plant is like throwing a brick through a window. It doesn't take many highly skilled people (compared to running the plant). It doesn't take much money (compared to running the plant).

The "glazier repair bill" isn't the actual decommissioning costs, though they may be part of the bill. (It depends on how you look at it.) The true repair bill is

• the cost of either new power plants (which will be needed eventually, but this is twenty years too early)
• and/or the higher cost of power bought from out of state.

Out of state power is far more likely: we are already buying nuclear power from Seabrook. New power plants and transmission lines in Vermont usually attract fierce opposition. I think we will buy from out of state. Governor Shumlin practically commutes to Canada, setting up new power deals.

Vermont will spend our money on out-of-state glaziers. We will see the money be spent, money that could have "fueled" the Windham County economy for twenty more years. What we would have spent the money for, here in Vermont...that will be unseen.

Related Information

In a recent post, I described the broken window fallacy in terms of the possible job stimulus of Hurricane Irene's destruction, or of decommissioning a nuclear plant. In both cases, destruction is not a job stimulus.

I also have two articles on decommissioning. My first article, Decommissioning Vermont Yankee: the Governor vs. The Facts, appeared in True North Reports on August 14. This showed that 80% of the plant employees would be laid off within six months to two years.

My second article was posted yesterday: Will Decommissioning Vermont Yankee Funnel a Billion Dollars into the Vermont Economy? The answer is "no." In a ten-year period, about $200 million can be expected in salaries for contract workers decommissioning the plant. If the plant is running, in ten years, $650 million in salaries are earned by plant employees. In other words, plant-related employment would drop by about two-thirds. Scarcely an economic boom!

Zion plant from Wikipedia

Contact the Public Service Board about the Seabrook Power Purchase

Recently, I blogged about a Public Service Board (PSB) hearing that was scheduled for August 10. In this hearing the PSB asked for input about the Green Mountain Power purchase of power from Seabrook Nuclear Plant. The PSB has to approve that purchase.

Here's the PSB web page about the hearing. The power purchase is PSB Docket #7742.

About the Power Purchase

Recently, Green Mountain Power announced that it would purchase 60 MW of Seabrook Nuclear Plant electricity, at a good rate, to replace some Vermont Yankee power. I wanted to let the PSB know that I like nice, reliable nuclear power, but they should remember that we also have a nice reliable plant in Vermont. So I went to the August 10 hearing.

The hearing was held in six interactive TV studios in Vermont. Each studio had a technician in attendance, and several large TV screens so you could see the members of the Public Service Board, and also see images of all the other five studios.

I was the only member of the public present at any of the studios.

Lonely Splendor: I speak my piece

In lonely splendor, I testified for five minutes. I said that Vermont Yankee was also a lovely plant, so why were we sending our money and jobs to Seabrook. A few days before, I had sent an email on this subject to the Commissioners.

After I finished talking, the commissioners said they had "received and read" my email. This means it was not lost in a pile of emails! If you want to comment on this subject by email, your voice will also be heard. Here are the addresses. Mention Docket 7742.

The email addresses are PSB.clerk@state.vt.us and vtdps@state.vt.us (Public Service Board and Department of Public Service).

For background information, here's a post I wrote recently on the subject of the recent power purchases, including Seabrook: Power Purchases in Vermont Not Really Replacing Vermont Yankee but Adding Greenhouse Gases

A post just about the Seabrook purchase: Nimby and Nukes

And a recent post by Vermont Law School professor Donald Kreis on related power purchases:

Transparency troubles for CVPS and its silent partner?

Strictly speaking, only the Seabrook purchase is open for comment on this docket, but I wanted to put this purchase into context.

Action Items:

First Action Item: write an email with your opinion of the purchase! In case you have forgotten: PSB.clerk@state.vt.us and vtdps@state.vt.us (Public Service Board and Department of Public Service).

Second: Remember that you can make a difference. I talked to the technician, and he said this kind of interactive meeting with the PSB was common. The PSB announces the meeting. Nobody shows up. The Commissioners and technicians go home after fifteen minutes (I didn't actually delay them, it turns out.) He said that occasionally an interest group will pack a meeting, but most meetings are just like this one. So if a subject is of interest to you, don't be shy. Go out and SAY something. You will be heard.

Hearing and Letter-Writing on Seabrook Power Purchase

The Seabrook Deal

In May, Green Mountain Power made a deal to buy around 60 MW of power from Seabrook Nuclear Plant in New Hampshire. There was general rejoicing: Liz Miller, the commissioner of the Vermont Department of Public Service, said "GMP has struck a deal for a price that looks good... Keeping costs down for Vermonters is great for the state's economic development."

Ms. Miller was appointed by Governor Peter Shumlin. Shumlin has been trying to shut down Vermont Yankee, despising its low-cost power and in-state job creation. Therefore, this hearty embrace of nuclear power from a neighboring state depresses me. In my blog, I have discussed this purchase in terms of:

• NIMBYism
• local job and tax loss
• spiritual bankruptcy
• ineffectiveness in filling the electricity gap if Vermont Yankee goes off-line.

I guess that pretty much covers it! Nuclear power is clean and reliable, but why should we substitute out-of-state power for in-state power?

Luckily, there is now a way to make our thoughts known on this subject.

The Public Service Board Hearing AND Email Addresses

Go to the Hearing: On Wednesday night, August 10, the Public Service Board will hold a hearing on the Seabrook power purchase. The hearing is being held by interactive TV, all over the state. You can go to TV stations in Bennington, Lyndonville, Montpelier, Springfield, White River Junction of Williston at 7 p.m. Here's the PSB web page with the meeting information, prefiled testimony to read, and so forth.

Send an Email: You can email your opinion to the PSB. This information is not on the website, but I emailed Sarah Hofmann of the Public Service Board for information.

Hofmann wrote: To submit electronic comments to the Board they should go to PSB.clerk@state.vt.us and the DPS email is vtdps@state.vt.us

(I gather you should send your comments to both addresses).

Send Snail Mail: You can also send comments by snail mail.

Hofmann wrote: The comments go to the Public Service Board with a copy to the Department of Public Service. The Board's address is: 112 State Street, Montpelier, VT 05620-2701. The Department's address is the same but with the zip code of 05620-2601.

I think email would be easier than sending two letters.

Share your opinion with the Public Service Board.

It's Not About Seabrook

I was a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) specialist in my career. I'm not against Seabrook, a perfectly lovely PWR.

But why substitute it for Vermont Yankee?

Power Purchases in Vermont: Not Really Replacing Vermont Yankee But Adding Greenhouse Gases.

The chart above comes from the Vermont Department of Public Service website. Dave Lamont of that department drew this chart in March of this year. It shows the "committed resources" for Vermont's electricity supply. Vermont uses approximately 6000 GWh electricity per year. The chart shows power plants and utilities that have agreed to sell power to Vermont.

We can see the more-than-2000 GWh from Vermont Yankee (bottom left gray area) coming to an end in 2012. We can also see old Hydro-Quebec (HQ) contracts coming to an end in 2016 and new HQ contracts starting around that time frame, for slightly less supply than the old contracts.

The most noticeable thing on the chart is all that white space to the right of 2012--the who-knows-where-it's-coming-from part of Vermont's electricity supply. Roughly half the electricity supply after 2012 on this chart is white space: it simply isn't there.

Recently, new announcements of power purchases by Vermont utilities have re-assured people in Vermont that there's going to be plenty of electricity anyhow, if Vermont Yankee closes. However, there is less in these contracts than meets the eye, in my opinion.

The New Contracts

The big new contract is GMP (Green Mountain Power) with Seabrook Station Nuclear power plant in New Hampshire. GMP is going to buy 60 MW of power from Seabrook. That is about 1/3 of the power that Vermont obtains from Vermont Yankee. To see this amount on the chart above, draw a line at about 700 GWh above the existing lines. As you will note, the big supply gap is still there. For example, adding 700 GWh in 2017 (when the current HQ contracts phase out and we are on the new HQ contracts) moves the total supply to around 3600 GWh out of 6000 GWh required. Okay. So that's only 40% white space now. When we factor in the Seabrook purchase, only 40% of the electricity is "who knows where it is coming from?"

However, today's news included more announcements of power purchases, this time by Central Vermont Public Service (CVPS). CVPS bought 0.57 GWh through the end of 2012. The new contracts are opaque: CVPS said they held a "structured auction," and got a good price (4.75 cents per kWh). However, CVPS won't release the names of the auction winners. Nobody knows what kind of power CVPS bought. It's probably fossil based, because the Northeast grid is fossil based.

CVPS also had to get ready for the Vermont Yankee outage, and needed to buy power for that. As the Reuters article says: The contracts will also fill Central Vermont's energy needs during the planned Vermont Yankee refueling outage this fall, the utility said.

The Seabrook power purchased by GMP is available for many years, but the agreements announced today by CVPS are only for power through 2012, when the old and new HQ contracts are also both available. It's a short-term power purchase agreement.

That Chart Again: The Short-Term Power Purchase Agreements

Looking at that Committed Resources chart again, at the head of this blog, we can notice two new things.

• First, look at the medium blue area called Vermont PPAs. These are various short-term power purchase agreements set up by the Vermont utilities. With a PPA, the utilities hopes to get a better deal than they would receive from the spot market. PPAs are never arranged too far in advance, or for very much power. These CVPS deals announced today are just more PPA deals, which are usually not accompanied with such hoopla. Of course, anything that claims to replace Vermont Yankee power will be a major announcement, nowadays.
• Second, these CVPS contracts extend only through the end of 2012, so they could only be covering the small amount of white space at the top of the chart, through 2012. They have no effect on the big white space to the right of the chart.

It's hard to see what all the excitement was about.

Time for Perspective: Greenhouse Gases

Up until now, I have been describing the Committed Resources chart at the top of this blog post. It's not the only chart the Department of Public Service prepared for their March presentation.

Below is a companion chart, showing the sources of greenhouse gases for Vermont. While Vermont Yankee is running, the electricity section of the greenhouse gas emissions is low. However, after 2012, look at those emissions grow! By 2015, the electricity sector in Vermont is making more greenhouse gases than all the heating of all Vermont buildings (RCI fuel use). By 2020, with autos and home heating emissions steady, the electricity sector has grown to be the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases.

I have noticed that the emission chart says "electricity supply high-emission scenario" but I don't see a low-emission scenario in the presentation. I can think of a low-emission scenario, though.

If Vermont Yankee keeps operating, that is a low-emission scenario, and a very good one.

Notes: You can double-click on the charts to enlarge them.

I also blogged about the Committed Resources chart at ANS Nuclear Cafe.

North of the Border, East of the Border: Nuclear, Wind, Hydro and Vermont

A friend asked me what I thought of the recent Green Mountain Power (GMP) contract to purchase electricity from Seabrook Station. My blog yesterday on the Seabrook contract has links, charts, cost comparisons and so forth. Today, I decided to share my note to my friend, amended for this post.

Yes Nuclear! Yes Inexpensive Electricity!

Dear Friend,

You sent me a link to Emerson Lynn's blog post about the Seabrook contract and asked my opinion. Yes, I am glad to see this agreement between GMP and Seabrook. I am happy to see a good power purchase agreement for Vermont, and since I am pro-nuclear, I am glad to see power coming reliably from another nuclear facility. I don't consider the difference in price to be substantial: VY bid 4.9, but VY could probably match the Seabrook price (4.7 cents) especially if VY can sell the rest of their power at market prices.

In his post, Lynn describes the "negotiated deal" with HydroQuebec (HQ). The only deal so far with HydroQuebec replaces the power from current HQ contracts: those contracts end in 2016. The new HQ deal does not replace any Vermont Yankee power. This Seabrook contract also only replaces some of the power from Vermont Yankee. There is still a gap in Vermont's power supply for the future.

In other words, many of the uncertainties have not been removed, and power prices are still capable of rising if Vermont Yankee is not in the mix. Much power is bought "at the market" and taking low-priced supplies out of the mix will affect the price.

Still, the Seabrook purchase news is basically good news, and very hopeful for Vermont's future.

NIMBY Alert

At another level, this news is also troubling. It shows a NIMBY attitude that I don't like. "We hate nuclear plants in-state, but we are delighted with cheap power from out-of-state nuclear plants." A friend of mine asked if Vermont is going to end up with hydro plants and nuclear plants lined up on our borders in neighboring countries and states. They would provide Vermont's baseload supply, while Vermont builds nothing by wind turbines. I am sorry to say this could happen.

Aside: Actually, Vermont is not even building wind turbines. It is buying wind turbine power from New Hampshire. GMP made a recent deal for the output of a wind farm in NH, while GMP's Vermont wind project, Lowell Mountain, appears stalled by local opposition. End aside.

The power plants lined up on Vermont's borders will pay taxes and fees to their own states or countries, not to us. They will employ people in Canada or at the New Hampshire seacoast, not Vermonters. The power grid will still have to adjust to the new sources of power, certainly raising some transmission costs. In other words, the purchase from Seabrook is good news, but doesn't mean we don't need Vermont Yankee.

Every time I make a presentation about VY economics I explain that the existing economic studies are about payroll loss and tax loss to the state. No study addresses loss of Vermont jobs because of increased cost of electricity. (I generally show a picture of an iceberg at this point of the presentation---that is, the loss of jobs due to electricity price rise is the hidden effect.)

So, this business of "gosh, we have low-cost power so we are saved" means that "gosh, we have some low-cost power so maybe we are back to having only the economic losses predicted by the studies." That's $60 to $100 million a year loss in economic activity and about $10 million in taxes, including the Clean Energy Development Fund.

Spiritual Problem

The economic loss is a big problem, but maybe not the biggest. Howard Shaffer is fond of saying that Vermont Yankee is Vermont's fair share of the grid. We can't just take from the grid; we have to give back. As a fair share, VY is quite benign. No coal trains, no flooded valleys, no NOx from gas turbines.

However, as I see Vermont right now, though people talk about "community" this or that, many really don't see themselves as part of a community about electricity or jobs or pretty much anything. When I mention job loss if Vermont Yankee closes, one or two enterprising types in the audience will challenge my statement. They will stand up and with a bit of a smirk, remind me that many people who work at Vermont Yankee live in neighboring states. In other words, the loss of a job by a person who lives in Massachusetts but works in Vermont is not a loss that should concern Vermonters.

This attitude drives me nuts.

We buy our power from HQ in Canada. We buy nuclear power from New Hampshire, and even buy wind electricity from New Hampshire. We want to take and take and never give back a kWh to anybody else. The rest of the world exists to supply us.

To me, this is beyond an electricity problem. This is a spiritual problem. I truly worry about this state.

Well! Thank you for asking my opinion, though I probably gave you FAR more opinion than you wanted!

Hope to see you soon!

Best,

Meredith

Lilac image from Wikimedia

It's a lilac image because I have a beautiful lilac bush in full bloom right next to my study window. You can think of the illustration as lilac stationary for a note to a friend.

Nimby and Nukes: Vermont Utility Makes a Deal with Seabrook

The Deal

Yesterday Green Mountain Power (GMP) announced a deal to buy electricity from Seabrook Station in New Hampshire. The deal was at a very good price, 4.66 cents per kWh, less than Vermont Yankee's recent offer price of 4.9 cents, and far less than the 5.8 cents from Hydro-Quebec that led to general rejoicing earlier this year.

The amount of power purchased from Seabrook varies between 15 and 60 MW from year to year. In 2012, GMP will buy 15 MW of power from Seabrook. This amount goes up to 60 MW in 2015. According to the article, GMP now buys 100 MW from Vermont Yankee. (GMP and Central Vermont Public Service share most of the approximately 200 MW that Vermont Yankee supplies to Vermont.)

The GMP-Seabrook contract is for 23 years. However, Seabrook's license is up in twenty years. Seabrook, like Vermont Yankee, is a top-performing plant and New Hampshire doesn't have an Act 160. So I guess signing for twenty-three years is okay for a plant in New Hampshire. Assuming they continue to operate well and get an NRC license renewal, New Hampshire will not stop Seabrook from operating.

There is Still A Big Hole in the Power Supply

So, approximately 60 MW of the 200 MW of Vermont Yankee's instate power will now be replaced by Seabrook power at good price. In Vermont, rejoicing has begun, as shown by Emerson Lynn's post A Nuke Deal for Vermont: the Price is Right at Vermont Tiger. With low prices for IBM, IBM will stay in Vermont. So will Green Mountain Coffee Roasters. The price in this contract is certainly right, but it is a price I am sure Vermont Yankee could match.

Still, 60 MW purchased from Seabrook instead of 600 available from Vermont Yankee (counting the power used by the neighboring states) leaves a significant hole in the power available to the grid. Once again, I use the Department of Public Service graph for electricity supply for Vermont to illustrate.

The filled-in areas in the chart below are committed resources. There's a lot of blank space, not filled in, to the right of 2012. Seabrook's 60 MW is not going to fill it.

Also, in my opinion, the power supply situation is worse than it appears on this chart. Note that the light-blue area near the top expands from almost nothing right now to about 500 GWh in 2016. This is wind energy. But wind energy is simply not coming on-line quite that fast, as I see it. Also, recent studies have shown that capacity factors for inland wind farms are far lower than expected. In a recent blog by Willem Post at the Energy Collective, he notes that measured wind turbine capacity factors in Maine and Vermont have been about half of what might be expected. Therefore, in my opinion, this chart overstates the amount of wind energy that will be available within three to five years.

As usual, double-click on the chart to see a bigger version.

Have We Been Saved By Seabrook?

I don't think so. I am delighted that we will be getting some power, clean reliable nuclear power, at a good price from our neighboring power plant. This may keep the price of electricity down in the region. It will certainly help lower the price of electricity sold by Green Mountain Power. (I buy my power from Green Mountain Power, so I'm happy!) However, there's going to be a lot of power bought at the market prices if Vermont Yankee closes, which is why we have this quote from Green Mountain Power.

"This power contract isn't about Vermont Yankee," said Mary Powell, president of Green Mountain Power. "As we all know, Vermont Yankee is trying to work its way through their challenges, from a legal and regulatory perspective. If they manage their way through that, we've always seen that it would be our desire to have conversations with them."

Jobs and Vermont Yankee

I like to see the emphasis on low electricity prices to keep jobs in Vermont. However, I need to point out that the two major studies of the effect of closing Vermont Yankee did not address the effect of electricity prices on jobs. These reports only looked at job loss and tax loss from shuttering the plant. These reports are the Legislature's Consensus Report, and the IBEW Economic Report, which I have mentioned many times in the past. Their conclusions are that if Vermont Yankee closes:

• Job loss is estimated at 1100 to 1300 jobs.
• Revenue loss is $60 to $93 million a year
• Tax loss is $6 to $12 million a year.

These facts have not changed.

Closing Vermont Yankee will still have a devastating effect on the economy of southern Vermont. This is true even if we buy some power at a good rate from another nuclear plant.

End Note: I had a post yesterday at ANS Nuclear Cafe about solar and the grid. I feel that people need to understand the role of the grid in net-zero solar installations.

Update: Art Woolf blogged at Vermont Tiger yesterday about this purchase and reliability. Woolf's post started with James Moore's of VPIRG's statement: We’d prefer to see our state’s utilities moving away from all forms of dirty and unreliable power, including nuclear energy.

Second Update: NEI Nuclear Notes also has a good post on this: Replacing the Foot You Shot Yourself In.

Image of Seabrook Station from Wikipedia

Vermont Committed Power chart from Presentation by Dave Lamont of Vermont Department of Public Service, March 2011

Vermont Yankee: Worth the Effort

The new blog, Nuclear Townhall, has an excellent feature: the debate of the week. The most recent debate was Should Atlas Shrug? The question was simple:

Should we fight for older, embattled plants?

Perhaps we should simply allow Vermont Yankee, Indian Point and Oyster Creek to close. We should let people see the consequences of losing baseload power.

The essay about allowing the plants to be shut down down was written by William Tucker, a strong nuclear supporter and author of the book Terrestrial Energy. Tucker floated the idea that one of the best arguments for nuclear might be-- the bad things that will happen when the plants are closed.

Keep the Plants Running

Seventeen comment posts answered this essay. Most disagreed strongly with the idea that a few old plants don't matter. Of course, I added my voice to the vote in favor of keeping these plants operating.

Here are some other excellent comments on that essay:

• Neutron Nerd said: And assuming these plants operate reliably, these local challenges can be test cases for our message, raison d’etre and the strength of our business case. Shame on us if we fail, particularly given the dynamics of these states and their dependence on nuclear energy.

• Dan Yurman pointed out: I disagree that the older plants should be sacrificed to appease critics of nuclear energy. The loss of one plant will set off a domino effect that could cascade through the industry. The reason is once you start closing plants because of age, where do you draw the line. How old is not old enough?

• Rod Adams added these words: One thing we need to do is figure out a way to help people like Meredith fight for continuing operations against organizations who - so far - appear to have unlimited resources in their fight to shut down the plants. The really amazing thing in Vermont is that the state laws actually put the burden on Entergy to fund the efforts of people like Arnie Gundersen and Peter Bradford.

• Gwyneth Cravens noted : Indian Point has a dedicated line to the NYC subway system and to government-held buildings. Only fossil fuel combustion could replace that nuclear plant. ...When I say to people who belong to Riverkeeper, which has been actively trying to shut down Indian Point for years, that they’re campaigning for increased fossil fuel combustion, they come up with tortured arguments to the contrary and speak in vague terms about more renewables, like water turbines in the East River. They do not understand what base-load is.

The Seabrook Cartoon

All of these posts in favor of operating plants were confirmed (in my eyes) by a cartoon in my local paper this morning. The cartoon was by Mike Marland for the Concord Monitor. It shows "Seabrook" holding a request to extend power generation and also pointing to figure labelled "Vermont Yankee." However, the "Vermont Yankee" figure is leaking, leaning on a cane, alarms are going off (clang clang clang) etc.

As that cartoon points out, the fate of Vermont Yankee will affect Seabrook. If anti-nuclear activists are successful at shutting down Vermont Yankee, Seabrook and Indian Point will be next.

Vermont Yankee and My Gentle Readers

Most of the arguments on the posts were based on the facts that we need these plants for day-to-day life, and that shutting down some plants can lead to shutting down more plants.

Do we have some more specific arguments we can make in favor of Vermont Yankee? Of course I have, but I'm always talking in this blog. I want to hear your opinions.

------

A statue of Atlas holding up the world, from Santiago de Compestela. Should he shrug?