Unintended Consequences from Decommissioning Funds: Guest Post by John Alan Rodericks

Late last month, I wrote about my sorrow at Vermont Yankee closing in the post We are not Spock: Emotion and Nuclear Power, published at ANS Nuclear Cafe.  There were very insightful comments on that post, and they deserved further discussion.  I obtained permission to use some of these comments as guest posts on my own blog.  This comment is by John Alan Rodericks.

-----------

Thank you for this well-written and thoughtful post.

Account book 1909

I view this conversion of decom money to cash flow as THE issue of the future in this post-deregulated electric power generation world — an unintended consequence of an ill-conceived plan. As such, it echoes the theme that is prevailing in the electric power industry at this time… what was once the domicile of engineers is now the domain of accountants.

My estimates are that it will cost about $500-700 million to replace VY’s megawatts with a highly efficient gas-fired 2-and-1 combined cycle plant that will be dispatchable in much less time and have a much smaller staff (assuming they can get the needed natural gas capacity). However, this will come at the expense of fuel diversity and proper market function as margin prices become easier to manipulate thorough strategic and calculated fuel hedging. Pilgrim likely will not be far behind.

New England could well find itself in a mess and it will be too late to do anything about it.

-----------
John Alan Rodericks wrote this about himself and his post:


I have worked in electric power generation for 32 years with (former) Cambridge Electric Light Co. as a plant operator.... Although I have never worked in nuclear, I've read extensively about it and have a number of friends who have been in nukes for many years. I am disturbed by the trend which is developing in New England, despite the advent of supposedly abundant shale gas. In my time I've seen cycles play out, and view this as just another one.

I hope for a more thoughtful discussion about nuclear going forward, although Vermont Yankee seems like fait accompli. We must learn the lesson from it.

Renewable Energy Mandates Pose a Threat to Nuclear : Guest Post by Jeff Walther

Renewable Energy Mandates, and How They Threaten Nuclear Energy and the Grid

Guest post by Jeff Walther


I think the most immediate threat to clean nuclear electricity generation, right now, is not anti-nuke protests, nor corporate indifference, but state “Renewable” Energy Mandates. The clause in the states’ RE mandates which require that “RE” be taken on the grid in preference to other energy sources is the greatest danger to affordable base load generators, and to the whole institution of reliable, affordable electricity for the consumer.

This is how it works. When wind or solar generation start supplying 10% – 15% of total electricity, their theoretical generating capacity is much higher because they have capacity factors of about 20%. So wind installations which supply 15% of the energy needed in a year, have a name-place generating capacity of 75% of the power needed at any given time. They don’t generate 75% of the energy because the wind mostly doesn’t blow.

But, fairly frequently, for brief periods, those wind installations, which can only supply 15% of yearly energy needs, will all get good wind, and then, they’ll generate 75% of the power the grid needs. When that happens, for that brief period, the RE Mandate requires that steady, constant, reliable generators, such as nuclear shut down or otherwise stop generating.

The Base Load Generators Suffer

Shutting down and starting up again are expensive and even damaging for base load generators. Now, this might be an okay situation: why not drive the inflexible base load off the grid? But the grid cannot do without the base load. Because, most of the time, the wind isn’t supplying 75% of the power. A lot of the time, it’s not even supplying 15%. That’s just what it averages out to over the year.

So the grid cannot do without steady, reliable, affordable generators, but it could do quite nicely without expensive intermittent wind and solar.

Yet, state legislated RE Mandates are pushing the necessary and affordable base-load off the grid.

I cannot think of a single piece of legislation better designed to drive up the cost of electricity and drive away grid reliability, even if I was legislating from scratch. “RE” Mandates are the enemy of the consumer.

The problem is that the connection is subtle and the public still believes that RE Mandates exist to benefit them and the environment. The truth is, that RE Mandates, combined with the recent “privatizing” of grids and generating capacity, are designed to drive out grid reliability and drive up energy costs for all consumers.

Renewable Energy "Maturity"

Given public perception, the goal should be to modify RE Mandates, so that “RE” does not receive priority on the grid; sell this as “proving” RE maturity, and get nuclear electricity generation included in the definition of “Renewable Energy”. Repealing them entirely is probably impossible.

The true opponent in the near and short term is the requirement in RE Mandates that intermittent sources be given priority on the grid. Changing that should be the single most immediate target of pro-nuclear activists. Public opinion about nuclear, and the NRC regulatory framework matter almost not at all, when existing nuclear generation can be driven off the grid by this single point of legislation and a small percentage of Unreliables penetration.

Amateur Rocket Launch

--------

Late last month, I wrote about my sorrow at Vermont Yankee closing in the post We are not Spock: Emotion and Nuclear Power, published at ANS Nuclear Cafe.  There were very insightful comments on that post. I obtained permission to use some of these comments as guest posts on my own blog.

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


Jeff Walther possesses two B.S. degrees in engineering: aerospace and electrical. He also holds a J.D. degree and is licensed to practice law in Texas. All his degrees are from the University of Texas at Austin.  He used to work as an aerospace engineer, and currently is an electrical engineer at a medium-size start-up.

Walther describes his leisure activities as follows: "On the weekends, when I'm not coaching one of my son's baseball games, I try to make it out to Hutto, TX for one of the Austin Area Rocketry Group's rocket launches."

Time to Count the Carbon: Guest Post by Donb

Pandora's Promise

Yesterday's CNN presentation of Pandora's Promise went very well, with lots of great pro-nuclear comments around the Internet.  I was particularly pleased to see so many pro-nuclear comments on the #pandoraspromise Twitter stream.

Cumberland Power Station
From Wikipedia

One of the fundamental messages of Pandora's Promise is that nuclear power can help to slow climate change.  Nuclear power is the  only abundant, reliable, low-carbon source of electricity.

Counting the Carbon

With that prologue, I go back to the guest posts I promised. There were wonderful comments on We are not Spock: Emotion and Nuclear Power. I am using some of these comments as guest posts on this blog.

Donb's comment was short and to-the-point.

Meredith-
On the day that VY shuts down, you need to start a counter on the ‘Yes VY’ website that shows the extra tons of CO2 being generated because the VY plant is not making its megawatts.

Donb
-------
Don B frequently comments on energy blogs.  He always has something relevant and cogent to say.
-----

Steve Aplin of Canadian Energy Issues has a carbon counter on his blog. Actually, he has several. Steve and I are among the few pro-nuclear bloggers that cover just one geographic area.  (Or at least, most of the time we blog about one geographical area.)

I am stealing a screen shot from Canadian Energy Issues to use on my blog. Okay, Steve?  Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and all that?

Meanwhile, all my readers---visit Canadian Energy Issues!

The Right Side of History and Pandora's Promise: Guest post by Angwin and Cravens

Emotion and Nuclear Power

Nuclear power supporters are on the right side of history.

In supporting nuclear power, we can appeal to facts, and  we can also appeal to emotion.

I am pleased to have two comments from We are not Spock: Emotion and Nuclear Power available as guest posts on this blog.

I am also happy that Pandora's Promise, a documentary favorable to nuclear energy, will be shown on CNN tomorrow night at 9 pm Eastern time.

Gwyneth Cravens:  (Comment on We are not Spock)

What a perceptive and thoughtful essay this is! And there are many reasons to feel sad about a nuclear plant closing; you do a good job of listing some of them.

One more: the shutdown of Vermont Yankee is a victory for the fossil fuel industry, which does not control its unhealthy pollutants the way the nuclear industry does.

About Cravens:

Gwyneth Cravens is one of the stars of Pandora's Promise.   She is the author of Power to Save the World, which describes her journey from protesting nuclear power to supporting nuclear power.  Cravens visited Vermont in 2011 and spoke in Montpelier and Burlington, in favor of nuclear power and Vermont Yankee (illustration is the poster from her Burlington talk).

Michael Angwin:  (Comment on We are not Spock)

Michael Angwin

John Milton wrote, ‘Truth is strong’. So, don’t abandon the facts.

But emotion has a part in this debate. We on the pro-nuclear side are entitled to draw attention to those whose lives will be affected negatively by the closure, including the employees whose jobs are lost and the wider world whose lives will be less prosperous and healthy.

Those who want to close nuclear power plants choose declining prosperity and a deterioration of our environment. We should keep saying this. We are on the right side of history.

About Angwin:

Michael Angwin is currently the Chief Executive of the Australian Uranium Association, which is now merging with the Minerals Council of Australia. On this blog, I described how Michael Angwin won a nuclear debate in 2012.  That was my first introduction to Michael Angwin, who is undoubtedly distantly related to my husband, George Angwin. Both of them have roots in the St. Just area of Cornwall.

Pandora's Promise on CNN

Tomorrow night, Pandora's Promise will appear on CNN at 9 Eastern, 8 Central time.   This documentary interviews leading environmentalists, including Gwyneth Cravens. They describe their journey to supporting nuclear energy. It's a world-wide project, including footage of Fukushima and of areas of the world with high natural background radiation.  I urge you to watch it.

Unless, of course, you are reading this blog in Europe, where the TV stations have refused to air Pandora's Promise.  Will "banned in Germany" get the kind of excited response that banned in Boston used to inspire?  Watch  the movie and decide. 

Pandora's Promise--showing that supporters of nuclear energy are true environmentalists.

Emotion and Vermont Yankee: Rod Adams Guest Post

Rod Adams

Late last month, I wrote about my sorrow at Vermont Yankee closing in a post We are not Spock: Emotion and Nuclear Power, published at ANS Nuclear Cafe.  In this post, I wrote that nuclear opponents appealed to emotions: "I am so afraid!"

In contrast, in my support of nuclear energy, I think I was channeling Spock: "Support of nuclear energy is logical."  I should not have been merely "Spock." I wrote about my need to be fully human, to be emotional, about nuclear energy.  I acknowledged my deep sorrow about Vermont Yankee closing.

This post at ANS gathered a wonderful comment stream.  I will be using some of these comments as "guest posts" over the next few weeks. These comments truly expand and enhance the original post, and the ideas in the comments should not be buried in the comment list.

Here's the first of those guest posts: this one by Rod Adams. Adams hosts a widely-read nuclear blog along with podcasts.  For years, he has been a very effective advocate for nuclear power.  In his comment at the ANS blog, Adams looked into the long-term roots of sorrow about Vermont Yankee, including the many years of harassment of Vermont Yankee by the state of Vermont.

At his own blog, Atomic Insights, Adams wrote a post in response to my post: Nuclear Professionals can, and should get emotional.  Adams blog is excellent and widely read: this particular post has around 70 comments!  In the post, Adams talks about his own deeply-held feelings about nuclear energy, and how we need to give ourselves permission to reveal our emotions. We need to reveal both our passion for nuclear power, and our sorrow when a plant closes.

Without further ado or further referrals to Rod's blog, I present the comments that Rod Adams made about sorrow and Vermont Yankee. He made these comments on my "not-Spock" post at ANS Nuclear Cafe.

------------
Meredith:

You are not alone in your sorrow. It is not just the loss of a single mature nuclear power plant, but the implications for our incredibly rich democracy. We inherited an amazing place from our forebears, but we are on a risky course of self-destruction.

You mentioned that Entergy made it’s decision based on “economics”, but the financial attributes that drove that decision are almost entirely fabricated. Sure, VY cost a lot to operate. Who can forget the description of the massive effort to find a leak of nearly pure water because it had a few milligrams of tritium in it, the armies of lawyers who were billing Entergy for months during a sustained effort to defend the company’s private property interests in a facility that most certainly was doing the public a lot of good, and the requirement for Entergy to pay all of the costs of its professional opponents in the form of the Public Oversight Panel chaired by Peter Bradford and employing Arnie Gundersen as its engineering advisor?

http://www.vermontbiz.com/news/july/arnie-gundersen-and-peter-bradford-vermont-yankee-public-oversight-panel

Sure, other power sources beside VY were selected for long term purchase contracts by the Canadian company that owns most of the monopoly electric utilities and a substantial portion of the Canadian gas that will be burned in the replacement power plants. If I am not mistaken, that is the same company with divisions that will be compensated for building the necessary transmission lines to carry the new power supplies.

http://www.masslive.com/business-news/index.ssf/2013/09/vermont_yankee_nuclear_shutdown_makes_ne.html

Shumlin and his co-conspirators are deeply involved in companies that supply industrial wind farms and have worked hard to ensure they are compensated for those monstrosities by fees placed on everyone else.

https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2010/09/07/vt-man-with-shumlin-ties-at-center-of-controversy/

This is a sorrow-making situation that cannot be addressed with rational arguments. It is time for us to get emotional about the huge costs that are being imposed for no good reason other than to take from the poor and give to the rich. We need to resist the modern Sheriff of Nottingham (Shumlin) and his henchmen (Bradford, Cooper, Gundersen, etc.).

I think it’s time for a new blog – Yes Nuclear Energy.

Rod Adams, Publisher, Atomic Insights