The Replacement for Vermont Yankee Was…Natural Gas: Mike Twomey Guest Post

The Replacement For Vermont Yankee Was . . . Natural Gas
By Mike Twomey

Several years ago, while the legal and public relations battle raged over the future of Vermont Yankee, anti-nuclear activists -- and some elected officials -- confidently predicted that, if the plant closed, its output would be replaced by wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources.   Pro-nuclear advocates expressed doubts about that future, arguing instead that the loss of a baseload nuclear plant would inevitably lead to greater reliance on fossil fuels.  Similar debates continue with respect to Pilgrim (Plymouth, MA), Indian Point (Buchanan, NY), and other nuclear facilities.

Now that 2015 has come to a close, we have an opportunity to evaluate the facts. ISO-New England (the non-profit, independent entity that ensures the reliability of the electric grid in New England) publishes data that shows daily generation by fuel type.  That data shows that in 2014 (the last year of Vermont Yankee's operation) natural gas-fired generators supplied 43.1% of the energy in New England, while nuclear provided 34%.   In 2015 (the first year since 1972 without Vermont Yankee) natural gas-fired generators supplied 48.6% of the energy in New England, while nuclear provided 29.5%.

Comparing these two charts shows the growth of natural gas on the grid
2014 and 2015
Blue is natural gas
Red is nuclear

As you can see in the chart below, the contribution of other sources of energy in New England remained essentially unchanged in 2015 compared to 2014 (the largest change was that coal-fired generators contributed one percent less in 2015 compared to 2014 (3.6% v. 4.6%).   The contribution of wind and solar remained vanishingly small in both years (wind was 2.4% in 2015 and 1.7% in 2014, while solar was 0.4% in 2015 and 0.3% in 2014).

Double-click to enlarge chart 

Generators in New England produced approximately the same amount of total MWhs in 2015 and 2014 (106.7 million MWhs in 2015 v. 107.2 million MWhs in 2014).  Taking into account the unusually mild weather in late fall of 2015, these figures deflate another prediction by anti-nuclear advocates that Vermont Yankee's baseload contribution could be replaced, in part, with energy efficiency.

The bottom line is that, without Vermont Yankee, nuclear's carbon-free contribution to the New England electric grid fell by 5.3 million MWhs in 2015 compared to 2014. Over that same time period, the contribution of natural gas-fired generators increased by nearly 5.7 million MWhs.   According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, natural gas-fired generators produce 1.21 pounds of CO2 per kWh (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11).  Using that formula, the additional MWhs of energy from natural gas-fired generators in New England in 2015 compared to 2014 equals approximately 3.1. million metric tons of additional CO2 in 2015 compared to 2014.  To put that in perspective, 3.1 million metric tons of CO2 is equivalent to adding more than 650,000 passenger vehicles to the roads in New England during 2015.

About this post:

This post first appeared in Linked-In on January 2, 2016 and is reprinted here with permission from Mike Twomey.  This post is a good companion piece to the recent post at this blog:  Vermont Yankee was replaced by natural gas: Doing the numbers.

The conclusions of the two posts are the same---because facts are facts.

The earlier Doing the Numbers was based on EIA data. This current post by Mike Twomey is based on ISO-NE (New England grid operator) data.   Mike Twomey's post includes data through the end of 2015, while the other post only includes data to the third quarter of 2015.

About the author:  

Mike Twomey is Vice President for External Affairs at Entergy. He is involved in many areas of negotiation and outreach concerning the nuclear plants. For example, Twomey was quoted in an October post at Vermont Digger: Entergy may move fuel into dry casks sooner than anticipated. In that article, he explains the financing of dry cask storage at Vermont Yankee.

Vermont Yankee was replaced by natural gas: Doing the numbers

Vermont Yankee energy was replaced by natural gas.  That's the bottom line.

Three Quarters Compared

During the first three quarters of 2014, (January through September) Vermont Yankee was running.  During the first three quarters of of 2015, it had shut down.

Scott Luft writes the ColdAir blog, which is mostly concerned with Canadian energy issues. http://coldair.luftonline.net. However, in early December, Luft tweeted some comparisons of energy sources in the Northeastern U.S.,  before and after Vermont Yankee shut down.  Similar charts are below.

Changes in Fuel Usage: New England Grid
Comparison of first nine months 2015 to similar 2014
Comparison of first quarter 2015 to last quarter 2014

The rise of natural gas with the fall of nuclear

First look at the top chart--the nine-month comparisons.  About 1500 GWh more electricity was produced in the first nine months of 2015 than in the first nine months of 2014 (see the "all fuels" line).  Almost all of the change in electricity (top chart) was produced by an expansion of the use of natural gas, making up for the drop in nuclear and coal. There was also an expansion of utility-scale photovoltaic energy, but the vast majority of the change in power supply was expanded use of natural gas.

One anti-nuclear commentator challenged these results, saying that looking at the first three quarters was a clever way to cherry pick data and avoid the true story of what really happened. Nuclear and natural gas use both fell between the last quarter of 2014 and the first quarter of 2015.

And indeed, they both did (second chart).

This wasn't anything to be proud of, however.  The first quarter of the year is quite cold in the Northeast, and people use natural gas to heat their homes.  Therefore, many natural gas-fired power plants cannot obtain fuel.  Oil and coal take up the slack.  Nowadays, natural gas plants are equipping themselves to be dual-fired, so they can burn oil.

Nuclear went down, natural gas wasn't available, and oil and coal use went up.  Nothing to celebrate. We're not looking at "green" energy expanding.

You can double-click to expand the charts.
------

History of the charts

After I saw Luft's tweet, I contacted Scott Luft and asked him about his sources. Luft very kindly re-produced his sources and spreadsheets.  Luft's information came from several queries to the EIA data browser.

Luft had pulled the information into spreadsheets. Later, my husband George pulled the same data into the Macintosh spreadsheet that he likes better. Then he made the charts from the data.  The data from his spreadsheets is shown below.  It is all based on queries to this EIA database.

Deepest appreciation to Scott Luft and George Angwin.

History of the anti-nuclear comments

Also, Scott Luft compiled a "storify" of his twitter interchange with Mark Z. Jacobson on this subject.    In my opinion, Jacobson comes off badly in the exchange. It doesn't take complex work to show the flaws in Jacobson's arguments.  You simply start with quoting him directly, and the facts take it from there.

Happy New Year! Industry Beginnings and Some Blog Accomplishments

Dawn

Industry Beginnings

Let's start by referencing Brian Wang's post at Next Big Future: Ten new nuclear reactors were connected to the grid in 2015. Wang lists the new reactors (mostly, but not all, in China). Then he lists fifteen more reactors that should be connected to the grid in 2016 and another fifteen in 2017. Yes. That's a new nuclear plant approximately every month, from 2015 through 2017.

Another post about new nuclear, this one by Will Davis at Atomic Power Review: SEVMORPUT Completes Trials after overhaul: Signs for the Future. The Russians decided to overhaul a nuclear icebreaker rather than scrapping it.  Russia and China are building more nuclear ships, some of which are designed to provide power to neighboring land.  These ships are the traditional Small Modular Reactors. This type of reactor is having its own renaissance.

And there seem to be more and more blog posts like this one, about forward progress on new types of reactors and improved fabrication of all kinds.  This particular post, at the Areva blog,  describes cooperation between Areva and Washington State University students toward building a cart that can transfer uranium pellets between Areva buildings in Richland Washington. WSU Tri-Cities Senior Project Team Achieves Next Design Stage.

Blog Accomplishments

Six years of the Yes Vermont Yankee blog.  This year marks the sixth year of the Yes Vermont Yankee blog.  I started it in 2010 as a New Year's resolution. (I decided to blog because I was tired of writing lengthy emails to my friends.)  The blog was immediately welcomed by the blogging community, for which I am grateful.

Northwest Clean Energy Blog  I am proud to be an occasional blogger at the Northwest Clean Energy blog of Energy Northwest. It's a relatively new blog, but its Year In Review report by Wordpress showed some great  2015 accomplishments. These included 26,000 views, with viewers all over the world.   Here's the Northwest Clean Energy post on 2015 in Review.

Looking Forward

If we look at the Northeast (which I plan to do in the next few days), the nuclear view can get depressing. However, when we take a longer, broader view of nuclear, we can see significant new plants coming on-line in non-European areas, and many new initiatives in the Southeast and Northwest of this country.  Furthermore, pro-nuclear bloggers continue to grow in number, strength and influence.

I look forward to this year with some hope.  Especially when I look past the Northeast and into the bigger world. 

Save Fitzpatrick: An Opportunity to Help

Fitzpatrick Nuclear plant is now the subject of a hard-hitting website, Upstate Energy Jobs.  The name of the site's video expresses why Fitzpatrick should be saved: This is What Closing a Power Plant Looks Like. (Video is also embedded below.)

You can take action to save the plant. On the home page, there are links to Sign the Petition and a link to Contact the Governor.   I urge you to follow both links.  Also, I encourage you to explore the website, which includes links to news about Fitzpatrick.

From the About page of the website:  Upstate Energy Jobs is funded by the County of Oswego Industrial Development Agency.  All hail to the sensible people of Upstate New York!  (My husband was born and raised in Upstate New York.)

Go to the Home Page, sign the petition, write an email to the Governor. I am grateful to Oswego Industrial Development Agency for building a page with convenient links--to help us make a difference.




Sad side note: Can you imagine any official Windham County governmental organization doing anything to save the jobs at Vermont Yankee?  I can't.  Looking back at everything, I am amazed by the lack of community feeling in greater Windham County.  End note.

Since upstate New York has a local movement that is trying to save the plant, let's help them.

Guest post by Guy Page on Decommissioning Advisory Panel

NDCAP Advisory Opinions

Preserving the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Fund

            By: Guy Page                   

On November 12, 2015, the Vermont Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel (NDCAP) held its first public discussion regarding four NDCAP-sourced advisory opinions about controversial aspects of Vermont Yankee decommissioning. The full text of each opinion appears on the NDCAP website. The following comments about each opinion are made with regard to the prompt, safe decommissioning of Vermont Yankee.

Advisory Opinion #1, Engaging Host Communities

Authored by the Windham Regional Commission (WRC), this opinion recommends “that an organization such as the National Association of Development Organizations be supported to convene host communities to inform federal policy” by documenting the local experience of past decommissions, assessing community impacts of deferred vs. non-deferred decommissioning, and forming a Host Community Decommissioning Task Force to provide local government insight to the NRC. On this opinion there are two areas of concern:

Fair Representation: At the public hearing, discussion immediately focused on the definition of “host community.” A longtime Vermont Yankee opponent insisted on no special preference for Vernon, the physical host of VY and its strongest supporter. A Vernon panelist noted in response that Vernon will be more impacted than any other community by decommissioning decision making. NDCAP needs to ensure that any new organization fairly and equally represents the actual needs of the host communities, and therefore must not be influenced by political or ideological interests.

Financial Support: WRC should clarify: does “supported by” mean financial support? And if so, who pays? The logical choice would be the communities themselves, because they are presumably acting in their own interests. No funding support plan should involve the Decommissioning Trust Fund (DTF). For this reason Entergy, too, should not be billed, because it would likely submit this expense for reimbursement to the DTF as a cost of decommissioning.

Unless these two issues can be satisfactorily resolved, the responsibility of advising the NRC on behalf of host communities should continue to rest with the individual communities, the NDCAP, and the State of Vermont.

Advisory opinion #1 was approved November 12 with minor changes. The three remaining opinions await public discussion.

Advisory Opinion #2: Vermont Department of Health Groundwater Monitoring Through License Termination

This opinion argues for the elimination of groundwater testing for extremely low concentrations of radiation, as adopted by the State of Vermont in 2014 per a new testing laboratory contract, because it no longer promotes public health or safety. Expensive testing that was valid during the tritium releases and when the reactor was operating is now unnecessary and redundant. Wherever possible, redundant, expensive measures that have outlived their usefulness should be eliminated.

Advisory Opinion #3 – An independent fuel storage installation

The spent fuel opinion would abandon the proposal for a second fuel storage pad (Pad II) adjacent to the current pad, now before the Vermont Public Service Board, in favor of another more distant pad. The opinion alludes to several past statements by Entergy legal counsel and the Public Service Board suggesting that when the intensive physical work of decommissioning begins (possibly in 2032), a third pad may be necessary. The opinion suggest saving time and money over the long haul by building it now. 

Saving time and money is essential to the prompt, safe decommissioning of Vermont Yankee. That’s why Entergy’s plan for Pad II should proceed. The permitting process alone for another new pad would be time-consuming and expensive. The geological and soil-testing standards and testing are extremely rigorous. Therefore, it is not certain that an approved third pad will be available, much less needed. Meanwhile Vermont Yankee wishes to move the spent fuel into dry cask storage on the proposed Pad II as early as 2017. Most agree that dry casks are the safest, most secure onsite storage configuration. While the fuel pool storage is satisfactory and NRC-approved, Windham County would prefer dry cask storage. It should also be noted that the sooner the fuel is loaded into dry casks, the sooner it can be made transportable, should the federal government finally fulfill its three-decade old promise to claim spent fuel from all reactors nationwide.

In short, the sooner spent fuel can be safely moved into dry casks on adjacent pads, the better.

Advisory Opinion #4 – Continued Funding for Radiological Emergency Funding Plan

The final opinion would require continued funding for the Radiological Emergency Funding Plan (RERP) past its scheduled expiration date in 2016, with the scope of the plan and its cost to be determined by the State of the Vermont and the impacted towns. This also includes Department of Health independent (and redundant) monitoring at the site through the SAFSTOR or dormancy years.

The risk of radioactive exposure now is less than when VY was operating, and will decrease as the years pass. Therefore, funding should be scaled to the varying level of risk. However, VTEP asserts the State of Vermont should not oversee the scope and cost of the ongoing emergency planning, for the following reasons:

1)      Nuclear safety must remain the prerogative of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This is a matter of settled law that the State of Vermont has unsuccessfully challenged once before. The State of Vermont and its communities may and should inform, advise and request, but they must not assume any safety-related decision making authority. The NRC has a seasoned staff of independent safety experts and a strong safety record and should continue to hold responsibility for safety oversight at the plant.

In the current and future safety environment, the recommended level of emergency response is unnecessary and overly-expensive. Even though the reactor will be empty and cold, and spent fuel slowly decaying in the fuel pool and dry casks, this opinion would maintain 12 of the 13 RERP emergency response capabilities suitable for an operating nuclear power plant. Furthermore, the State of Vermont and the towns surrounding Vermont Yankee might regard “emergency” funding as a budget-plugging windfall. In fact, Entergy Vermont Yankee will be at about 20% of its operating staff which is largely based on the reduced risk and soon-to-be NRC-approved Emergency Plan changes. 

2)      Decommissioning would be delayed. This opinion is in conflict with the State’s insistence that unnecessary spending be limited so that the DTF may accrue. According to one Vermont Yankee estimate, continuing the RERP would cost $120 million over a six-year period. As this large sum would almost certainly be withdrawn from the DTF, decommissioning would be significantly delayed.

It is important to note that Entergy representatives have repeatedly told NDCAP their company’s reason for business is energy generation, not plant decommissioning. The company’s stated, primary goal for Vermont Yankee isn’t profit, but safe, prompt decommissioning and site restoration. In support of this commitment, Entergy entered into a time-saving Master Settlement Agreement, submitted the PSDAR well before deadline, arranged a $145 million line of credit to streamline spent fuel management, has proposed to move fuel into dry casks by as soon as 2017, and is $5 million under budget in its aggressive campaign to close down non-radiological systems and buildings.

The Vermont Energy Partnership (www.vtep.org) is a diverse group of more than 90 business, labor, and community leaders committed to finding clean, affordable and reliable electricity solutions. Its mission is to educate policy makers, the media, businesses, and the general public about why electricity is imperative for prosperity, and about the optimal solutions to preserve and expand our electricity network. Entergy, owner of Vermont Yankee, is a member of the Vermont Energy Partnership.

Nuclear Blogger Carnival 287, The Paris Edition

Pro-nuclear flag designed by Robert Hargraves

UN colors, world grid

Dan Yurman on flag origin and meaning

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.

This week, the majority of the posts are about nuclear and Paris (COP 21), nuclear and carbon, and nuclear and climate change.

-----

From Atomic Insights: Rod Adams

James Hansen takes stage at COP21 to explain carbon fee and dividend

James Hansen and the Citizen's Climate Lobby have a plan to gradually add a waste disposal fee to fuels that produce CO2 when burned to produce energy. The plan uses market forces to help properly price energy alternatives so that the full cost is visible. Instead of giving the money to appointed bureaucrats to select recipients, the plan returns all collected money back to citizens in an equal amount per person.

Read the post, but pay close attention to the much better than average discussion.

----

Northwest Clean Energy: John Dobken

How Serious About Climate Change Are We, Really?

Ramp-up, from Breakthrough Institute

John Dobken takes on the reasons why opponents claim that nuclear can't help with climate change.  There's "can't build them fast enough." Wrong.  Nuclear has ramped up faster than any other low-carbon source of electricity.  There's the "free-market" argument. This argument seems to be suspended when people discuss a wind ramp-up.  Dobken's well-illustrated post should be on everyone's quick-reference list for climate change issues.

Neutron Bytes: Dan Yurman

UK gets ready for Small Modular Reactors

Two significant US vendors, Westinghouse and NuScale, are making serious efforts to develop the market for SMRs in the UK.
--------

Energy Reality Project:

Post by Rick Maltese

Letter box in Paris

COP 21 and What is Missing From the Table

Solutions are missing. I make a case in a shorter than usual post about doing more than reductions. I suggest reversing CO2. After hearing James Hansen's interview by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now this is very relevant. He talks about "honest" accounting. The idea that fossil fuel companies be held accountable for the costs to environment and society by charging them or fining them for the damages created by their carbon emissions. That is a solution that gets closer to the real problem. Using words like "penalty" and "reward" are more needed. Nuclear needs to be rewarded for clean non-emitting reliable energy. Dirty fossil fuels need to be punished.

Guest post by Robert Rudolph Hasspacher

How Would Advanced Aliens Size Up Our Reluctance to Use Nuclear Energy

The title suggests that they would see our choices as foolish. Making poor choices instead of sensible choices makes us seem less advanced than we think.

-----

Yes Vermont Yankee: Meredith Angwin

Books for Climate, Books for Your Nuclear Family
In honor of the Paris conference, Angwin features two books about nuclear energy and climate change:

• Climate Gamble: Is Anti-Nuclear Activism Endangering Our Future
• Greenjacked!: The derailing of environmental activism on climate change

Backwards to the Future: Carbon and Pollution Rise in New England

It's back! Fossil fuel burning is on the rise again in New England during the winter. Nitrogen oxide pollution, sulfur dioxide pollution, and carbon emissions are rising right along with it.  Graphs from a NESCOE presentation. 

-------

Scotch Whiskeys

Gail Marcus: Nuke Power Talk

Another Link Between Alcohol and the Atom: Whiskey and Radioactivity

In a lighter mode.  Over the last several years, Gail Marcus has reported several times at Nuke Power
Talk on interesting “connections" between alcohol or food and radioactivity—particularly, ways in which one can benefit the other.  This week, she reports on a new one:  a finding that the grains left over from whiskey making may be useful for biosorption of radioactive environmental contaminants.

Backwards to the Future: Carbon and Pollution Rise in New England

Pollution on the rise

On November 19, Heather Hunt, executive director of NESCOE, gave a presentation to the Northeastern Section meeting of the American Nuclear Society.   The presentation was titled New England Infrastructure Challenges.  Howard Shaffer and I drove down together, though it is always a bit of a struggle to drive to Boston and back again in an evening.  

In this case, the drive was well worth it.  Hunt's presentation about  proposed transmission lines, gas pipelines, and gas pipeline constraints was excellent.  As a matter of fact, you can see it for yourself. The presentation is posted online here: 

http://nescoe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/NuclearSociety_19Nov2015.pdf

I was especially struck by one slide, showing the trends for carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). After years of lower pollution in New England, pollution trends from electricity production have reversed. Pollution from the electricity sector is on the rise. 

Slide by NESCOE, Based on EPA data
Courtesy NESCOE

Why is Pollution Rising?

The title of the talk was New England Infrastructure Challenges.  That is also the answer to the question.

For a while, pollution was falling as gas made more power and coal made less.  But then the gas constraints hit: there just isn't enough gas available for electricity production in the winter.  At that point, the grid operator pulled out all the stops to meet the demand. Coal, diesel, every fossil fuel and its brother were called into play. Some of the fossil fuel plants were called up ad hoc to meet demand, and some were part of the grid operators Winter Reliability Program, which depends on burning oil.  I describe this in a post from January 2014.

The Cold Truth on the New England Grid This Week, a High-Carbon Fuel Mix.

More pipelines for gas, and more transmission lines to Hydro Quebec, could alleviate this gas-crunch problem.  But such things take a long time to build.

However, it takes a very short time to decide to shut a nuclear plant!  Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim will no longer make clean energy for the New England grid.  Therefore, the demand for oil-fired and coal-fired and diesel-fired generation will rise during cold snaps, until all the new infrastructure can be built.

If the new infrastructure is actually built.  The number of people who will lie down in front of "fracked-gas"pipeline construction rivals the number of people who hate nuclear.  As a matter of fact, they are often the same people. I recognize some of them at meetings.

New England is going backwards to the future.

About NESCOE and about the Consumer Liaison Group of the grid operator

NESCOE  is the New England States Committee on Electricity. The important word is States.  This is a small committee, with members appointed by the Governors of the New England States. It keeps track of electricity issues as the states would perceive them.  I think NESCOE is a very good idea. Without it, the states would be individual and alone in trying to understand the implications of ISO-NE decisions. (ISO-NE is the grid operator.)  Heather Hunt is the Executive Director of NESCOE.  I appreciate her courtesy in sending me the slide above.

As it happens, I will see Hunt again tomorrow.  I am a member of the Coordinating Committee of the Consumer Liaison Group (CLG) for ISO-NE.  We are meeting in Boston tomorrow, and Hunt will be on the panel at our meeting.

Attendance is free: I encourage you to attend.  The subject is Transmission Planning in New England.    I share the announcement below, and you can find more information at the CLG web page for the meeting.