The Energy Amplifier and Vermont Yankee

But What About the Future?

The other day, I discussed the lively debate in Nuclear Townhall about whether older plants were worth fighting for.

Let's face it. It is awfully tempting to just go with the renaissance, and forget about these older plants. Does it really matter whether a plant is extended for twenty years or not? We are building new plants, after all, and there are new designs and everything is getting better and better...I guess.

I don't believe this reasoning. I met my first fake-environmentalist thirty years ago, when I was in geothermal. He said that the Geysers power plant should be allowed to expand only when "all the environmental problems of geothermal were solved."

This is a common tactic: we don't want this old thing, with this outdated technology. Let's wait to build with the new, wonderful technology which is just around the corner.

If we don't fight for current plants, we play into this method of opposing every plant.

The Energy Amplifier

My experience with the Energy Amplifier shows the problems with this approach.

About a year ago, a group of us from the Coalition for Energy Solutions were invited to a meeting in Brattleboro by three very nice people who were dedicated to shutting down Vermont Yankee. We came to the meeting, of course. The people wanted our support to build an Energy Amplifier at the Vermont Yankee site. This untested type of reactor would use thorium (a good thing) but would require a particle beam to run the reaction, since the reactor would be sub-critical. As a matter of fact, they did not want us to call the system a "reactor."

They were quite sincere and hoped this new technology be very safe (unlike Yankee, in their opinion). The new technology would also would burn up the spent fuel from Vermont Yankee, material that they consider to be very dangerous and nearly impossible to handle.

However, light water reactors like Yankee are already very safe. In France, spent fuel is reprocessed without particle accelerators. (I've been to France and seen the reprocessing.) In my opinion, the amplifier proponents in Brattleboro were solving non-problems.

Nevertheless, the amplifier proponents were sincere, and we were happy to meet them. The divide between our groups was not very broad. We all had respect for each other and there was no fear-mongering or accusations of lying or anything like that.

On the other hand, shutting down an operating reactor to build something that MIGHT work seemed farfetched to me. It's similar to shut-it-down and let's-build-wind-turbines. "Let's close the proven technology and build the untested one." The people supporting this approach may be sincere, but the approach itself is unreasonable.

Note: What did I mean by may be sincere? In my opinion, the Energy Amplifier supporters in Brattleboro were sincere, but the geothermal "environmentalist" was just trying to stop the Geysers plant from expanding. An argument for using untested technology is not proof of sincerity or its absence.

The Future and the Past Are Part of Each Other

In my opinion, we have to fight for the future. We have to test and build new types of reactors. But we won't have a good future unless we use the resources the past has given us. Resources like Vermont Yankee, Indian Point, and Oyster Creek.

------

Wikimedia graphic of part of the Hadron Accelerator.

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?

The Daily Show, Welcome, and Thanks

The Daily Show

Like other nuclear bloggers, I wrote about the dangers of fracking shale for natural gas production. Pro-Nuclear Democrats has an excellent series of posts on this topic.

I called my post Natural Gas and A Waltz, and I included a comic song by Tom Lehrer. To my surprise, fracking shale was also discussed on the Daily Show, which was much funnier. This is the first time I have gone head-to-head with Jon Stewart in the stand-up-comedy area, and Stewart won. Of course, he's more willing to be bleeped by his producers. (Okay. That was sour grapes).

Actually, my blog post and Stewart's show make a good pair. The last half of his show is about fracking shale. (The first half is about the oil spill, and there's the usual smarmy stuff in the middle.)

Welcome!

Welcome to new Nuclear Blogger Steve Hedges of Nuclear Townhall! His comprehensive blog has a multi-link first page resembling the Drudge Report. William Tucker, author of Terrestrial Energy, interviewed Ted Rockwell for Nuclear Townhall. It's a fascinating interview, and well worth reading. Here's a quote from Rockwell about tritium:

Yet the good people of Vermont voted to close the power plant, which has reliably produced enough electricity to meet 85 % of their needs. I recognize that there were other issues with the utility and its relations with the regulator. But TRITIUM was the scare-word that grabbed the headlines. And it was tritium that led to the closure of the medical research reactor at the Brookhaven National Lab on Long Island, New York. Although the underground leakage plume never reached outside the restricted reactor area, and the plume itself was within permissible levels, U.S. Senator Alphonse D’Amato said, “Those bastards are killing my people, and I’m not going to let them get away with it.”

A sad story about another state over-reacting to tritium, but one we need to know about. Welcome, Nuclear Townhall!

Thanks!

I want to start by thanking Nuclear Townhall for mentioning one of my posts in the best-of-the-blogs list on the lower right of the page.

And continue by announcing the Seventh Carnival of Nuclear Energy, hosted by Charles Barton at Nuclear Green. I thank Charles for including my posts, and mentioning my "death defying tritium drinking act." Though really, Charles, I can't find enough tritium to be death-defying. I'll just go eat a banana or something.

Intellectually, this Carnival is truly a feast. Links to posts on spent nuclear fuel, and a lively debate on Small Reactors, started by Dan Yurman and followed by the Carnival from blog post to blog post. Barton did a terrific and thoughtful job of putting this together.

-----

I took this photo of the carousel in the main square of Avignon, France.

Natural Gas and a Waltz

Reading my fellow-bloggers posts recently, I was struck by the fact that I spend almost no time talking about fossil fuels. Jason Ribeiro at Pro-Nuclear Democrats took on natural gas, and Nuclear Fissionary compared coal to nuclear. I did no comparisons.

I'm changing that, but not in a depressing way. We'll have music and maybe dancing while we discuss fossil fuels. Even though the Sierra Club has come out for natural gas, and the CLF has invested heavily in natural gas, well, natural gas has its problems.

So I'm going to steal a video clip about natural gas from a post by blogger Jason Ribeiro at Pro Nuclear Democrats. (Jason, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, as well as the most annoying.)

Fracking Shale

Most natural gas is found in sandstone formations, but the big excitement now is finding gas in shale formations. Fracking shale for natural gas means injecting a nasty mix of chemical underground to open up paths for the gas to travel to the gas wells. These chemicals can contaminate aquifers that are used for drinking water. The gas companies will not reveal which chemicals are being injected. A recent Scientific American article explores some of the problems. The City of New York has set a moratorium against fracking beneath its watershed lands.

Is fracking shale really a problem? In many cases, I think that concerns about energy technologies are overblown. There is no free lunch, no form of energy without its drawbacks. Furthermore, people have stimulated ordinary (sandstone-based) gas wells with injection for a long time. Oil and gas wells have been stimulated with hydraulic fracturing since 1947. The technology should be well known and (hopefully) controllable. Perhaps the outcry against fracking the Marcellus shale is another environmental-scare-of-the-month story?

I don't think so. The Marcellus shale is a shale, not a sandstone. Sandstones are the usual reservoir for oil and gas reserves. Fracking shale is not the same thing as stimulating a traditional gas well.

My Friend Shale

In my opinion, shale is our friend. Sandstones have high porosity and high permeability. Shale can have high porosity (holes) but has low permeability (few connecting holes). Therefore, shale is the barrier between different types of water-containing layers. For example, a groundwater aquifer may contain agricultural run-off and be unsuitable for drinking water. However, that shallow aquifer is usually separated by a layer of shale from a deeper drinking-water aquifer. The impervious rock that defines an artesian aquifer is usually shale.

If you fracture sandstone, you can hope for a layer of shale to protect local aquifers from the fracturing chemicals. If you fracture shale, on the other hand, you can expect no protection of aquifers. As a matter of fact, you are destroying that protection by making the impermeable shale permeable.To fracture shale, you have to add permeability to a rock that basically doesn't have any. It's harder than stimulating sandstone. You have to try harder, blast harder, use more chemicals. All that stuff.

All in all, fracking shale is dangerous for aquifers. It's a good idea to have a moratorium on fracking the Marcellus shale.

Singing and Dancing

When anti-VY activists do their song and dance how we don't need VY, they often say that we have recently found lots of local natural gas.

They are talking about shale. They are talking about possibly destroying our aquifers.

It's kind of like the Tom Lehrer song about Wernher Von Braun. In this song, Werner explains that the consequences of his rockets are "not my department."

Once Vermont Yankee is closed, who cares where the energy comes from? From the point of view of an anti-VY activist: "It's not my department." Using Marcellus shale to substitute for VY will be a problem for everyone in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. It won't be a problem for the anti-VY activists. It's not their department.

The Local NRC and the Local Earthquake

It's been an exciting two days at Vermont Yankee.

Yesterday Vermont Yankee managers held a meeting to release a report on the root cause analysis of the tritium leak. A blocked pipe was the main cause of the leak, and more aggressive groundwater monitoring should have been implemented.

Last night, the NRC held a meeting about the 2009 operations evaluation of Vermont Yankee. They gave the plant a clean bill of health, while local activists claimed it was run more badly than a hot dog stand. I admit to being annoyed when a long-time activist is identified as a person who simply "lives near the plant." They mostly live about twenty miles away in Massachusetts. Still, the weather is far too lovely for me to be angry about this.

But is it earthquake weather? Today there was an earthquake, felt from Canada (the center) to New York City. Due to the earthquake, Vermont Yankee had to file a report to the NRC stating that an "unusual event" had taken place. VY stayed at full power. As an article today notes,, the plant suffered no damage.

Lots of excitement, but the plant is running, the earthquake didn't affect it, and the tritium leak is over.

Perhaps we can just enjoy the long days of summer for a while. My daylilies are doing well. Thank you for asking.

Daylily photo from Wikimedia.

NRC Review Meeting Tomorrow Night

Tomorrow night, June 22, at 6 p.m., the NRC will host its annual review meeting for Vermont Yankee. The meeting will be held in Brattleboro Union High School, and there will be an informal meeting starting 4, with the formal meeting starting at 6. Vermont Digger published the NRC press release, and you can also read the official yearly letter from NRC.

Basically, everything at the plant is code green (just fine) as you can see on the NRC website. Also, as I noted in a previous post, the NRC Demand for Information was completely satisfied. The NRC report on its Demand for Information includes piping diagram reviews, staffing reviews, and whether Vermont Yankee had given the NRC complete and accurate information. The NRC was satisfied with all aspects of its Demand for Information review.

Is The Meeting Going to Be Dullsville?

The meeting should be dull. Everything is in order at Vermont Yankee. Everything is green and good to go.

Unfortunately, the anti-s seem to have taken to heart the old lawyer's saying about how to win a case:

• If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts.
• If the law is on your side, pound on the law.
• If nothing is on your side, pound on the table.

Nothing is on the side of the anti-s. Vermont Yankee is up and running well, and the NRC is here to tell about it. The anti-s are left to pound on the table.

In my opinion, that makes them more physically dangerous. With nothing of substance to say, they will resort to street theater. As I noted in an earlier post:

I can understand why the NRC would choose to hold a closed meeting. The public meetings are not just contentious, they can be dangerous. In spring 2009, local activist Sally Shaw attended an open meeting with NRC and Entergy. She walked up to the table and spread manure on papers and into water glasses. Letters-to-the-editor applauded her actions. In a separate incident about Vermont Yankee, the PSB building was attacked with deer-urine.

(By the way, Sally is remains proud of her actions, and chose to continue to trumpet her behavior in the comments of this recent Vermont Digger post.)

I went to an April 19 meeting held by the NRC in Brattleboro. Signs were held up, and there was a bit of shouting, but the presence of several police officers near the front of the room discouraged any more aggressive activity.

Tomorrow Night At Brattleboro

I will be there. Howard Shaffer will be there. The anti-groups will be there in full force, I expect. I have to hand it to them: they are a dedicated bunch and quite happy to come and pound on the table together.

If you are pro-nuclear, come and support Vermont Yankee! I hope to see you at the Brattleboro High School Auditoriium tomorrow night.

Guest Blog: Renewables and Vermont

My friend Guy Page of Vermont Energy Partnership wrote this op-ed piece, which I am happy to post as a guest blog. Here in Vermont, we face the constant question: if Vermont Yankee closes down, will windmills, solar installations, cow power spring up to take on the electrical load?

As you may have noticed from my earlier posts about the Coalition for Energy Solutions report Vermont Electric Power in Transition, the answer is No.

Guy Page wrote a report detailing sources of renewable energy in Vermont, and sources planned for the future. His report is fact-based and hopeful. Still, if you ask the question: "Can Renewables Power Vermont?"---the answer is still No.

Renewables Alone Cannot Power Vermont

By: Guy Page

Here in Vermont and across the nation renewable energy sources are a hot topic of discussion. And as Vermont works to hammer out our energy future, renewable energy sources will certainly play a growing, important part.

Today, however, the sources categorized as renewable by the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), including wind, solar, biomass, methane, certain hydro, and geothermal, among others, meet a small fraction of the nation’s energy needs. So what role do renewable energy sources currently play in Vermont, and what is their potential in the next five to ten years?

The Vermont Energy Partnership analyzed these and related questions in a recent report which inventories current and pending renewable power sources, both in-state and in the immediate region, as well as the potential for energy efficiency and conservation.

To ensure that the lights, TV’s, computers and refrigerators stay on at our homes and businesses Vermont requires output of 700 megawatts (MW) at average demand, 1000 MW at peak demand (one megawatt is enough to electricity for approximately 800-1,000 average homes). The report finds that at present, in-state renewable sources generate about 84 MW. Seventy MW comes from two woodchip burning plants, Burlington’s McNeil and a facility in Ryegate. Conservation and in-state hydro power make notable contributions now, but have modest growth potential in the near future.

While many factors could change the amount of renewable power the state has in the future, the report also finds that using reasonable and practical assumptions, new renewable power generation may increase by 95 MW in the near future, provided the state’s new Feed In Tariff program performs superbly and four major, as-yet-unbuilt wind farms come online and generate electricity as expected.

In Vermont terms, 95 MW is a lot of new electricity. Once online, it would represent almost a tenth of our peak load. Yet it is clear that in the foreseeable future in-state renewables and efficiency cannot begin to replace either Hydro-Québec (which the state recently designated a renewable energy source) or Vermont Yankee, the state’s two largest electricity providers which each provide about a third of Vermont’s electricity, absent an unexpected and unprecedented change at all levels of policy making.

The Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) program sets a cost-based price for renewable power projects of 2.2 MW capacity or less. Once a FIT project is built and approved, Vermont utilities are obligated to buy the power at the approved, above-market rate. Vermont law caps, for now, the combined capacity of all FIT generation at 50 MW. Because capacity always exceeds output, particularly for renewable projects, 25 MW of FIT output is a prudent and perhaps optimistic estimate.

Although biomass generation produces most of the current in-state renewable power, costs less than solar or wind, and supports the state’s logging industry, its growth appears uncertain. The Ryegate contract may not be renewed by utilities after 2012. Several new proposals are in preliminary stages, while other, more mature proposals have hit significant snags.

The Vermont Energy Partnership recognizes that any inventory of Vermont’s electricity generation is a snapshot and a work in progress. The energy industry is dynamic, and with the push to support renewable energy sources at the federal, state and local levels, it is possible that additional capacity will flourish.

But given our established needs and the likelihood of significant additional demand for electricity after the recession, we cannot afford to put all of our eggs in one basket, especially a basket that has yet to prove its ability to meet our needs. Vermont cannot depend on renewables and energy efficiency alone to meet our current, or future, energy needs.

Maintaining our hydro and nuclear power sources provides two important factors in allowing Vermont’s renewable energy capacity to grow: time and money. Time will come from securing long-term power agreements with these power producers, and money will come in part from the Vermont Clean Energy Development Fund, which benefits greatly from the operation of Vermont Yankee.

The renewable energy industry is dynamic, exciting and will certainly play a role in meeting Vermont’s energy needs. But like any project, we must factor into our energy discussions the limits, costs and long-term potential.

Guy Page is VTEP communications director and author of the above-mentioned report. VTEP (www.vtep.org) is a diverse group of more than 90 business, labor and community organizations and leaders committed to finding clean, affordable and reliable electricity solutions to ensure Vermont remains a great place to live and work. The membership includes Vermont Yankee owner Entergy.