ANO accident and Ted Rockwell death: Update and Links

On Sunday, I wrote a short blog post about the fatal accident at ANO 1, and the death of Ted Rockwell, nuclear pioneer.  Here's an update.

ANO 1

Will Davis wrote an excellent update on the ANO 1 accident.  It is at his blog, Atomic Power Review,  and I hope he will be writing more updates in the future.   The first sentence of his post reads: As of this morning, there has been exceedingly little new information released about Sunday's industrial accident at ANO Generating Station.  So true!  His post also ends with a list of unanswered questions.

I am going to add one more question to Davis list: why no pictures?  There are pictures available somewhere. I have seen people on twitter refer to pictures, but no pictures have been released to the public.  Some pictures may be gory and should not be generally released, out of sympathy to the people who suffered.  But in other accidents have the same constraints of good taste and empathy, and they release some pictures.  This accident was tragic: there is no reason to also make it mysterious.

UPDATE: A comment sent me a link to a picture of the accident. http://www.vertikal.net/en/news/story/17159/

NRC and OSHA are investigating.  Davis posts includes a time-line of events and links to many press releases, from Entergy, NRC, and OSHA. I also recommend this article from Power Engineering Magazine: Entergy Confirms Death During Refueling. It provides context, including comments on other accidents.

Ted Rockwell

Ted Rockwell, a pioneer of nuclear energy and a tireless crusader for it, passed away quietly in his sleep on Sunday, jus a few months before his 91st birthday.  I simply cannot do a better job of eulogizing him than Rod Adams did today at ANS Nuclear Cafe: Ted Rockwell, Atomic Pioneer and Tireless Campaigner for Facts.

I also recommend Rockwell's site:
Learning About Energy http://www.learningaboutenergy.com/
with the provocative sub-heading: "Much of What You Know Simply Isn't So."

The site also has links to several of his books.  I recommend his book The Rickover Effect.  I close with a short clip from Rod Adams; Ted Rockwell speaking about Small Modular Reactors in 2009.

A Fatal Rigging Accident at ANO1

Two very sad things happened today.

1) A fatal accident at ANO1 today. ANO1 is on a refueling outage. They were moving a generator stator out of the turbine building. It fell, killing one person and injuring others.  I am sure there will be more news later.  Here's the Entergy press release.  In terms of industrial accidents, nuclear energy is one of the safest technologies around.  That generic fact is very little comfort when someone dies.  My thoughts and prayers are with the families.

2) This just in, and no links on it yet.  Ted Rockwell, nuclear pioneer and author of the book, The Rickover Effect, passed away today. I will update this post when I know more.

In other news, Will Davis assembled a fine Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers #150 and posted it this morning.  Reading the Carnival might be a small, upbeat partial-antidote to this day of sad news.  (I wasn't even sure I should post this link, but Davis did a lot of work, and I hope people will read it.)

Vermont Supreme Court Won't Close Plant During PSB Hearings

Vermont Supreme Court 

Request: Shut It Down NOW, Your Honors!

In January, an intervenor went before the Vermont Supreme Court, asking that court to shut down Vermont Yankee immediately.   I blogged about it at the time:  Unique Request: Opponent Wants Vermont Supreme Court to Rule Before PSB Rules. 

The Supreme Court hears appeals after lower courts or judicial bodies have ruled. In this case, the intervenor asked the Supreme Court to rule while a lower-court (the Public Service Board, a quasi-judicial body) was still holding hearings on the same subject. That was unique!

 I predicted that the case would be dismissed because courts don't like to step on the processes of other courts.

Answer: Case Dismissed, Please Go Away, You're Bothering Us

Yesterday, the Vermont Supreme Court denied the petition to close Vermont Yankee.  Andrew Stein at Vermont Digger wrote about it today: Vermont Supreme Court denies New England Coalition's petition to close Vermont Yankee.   A quote from the ruling:

NEC fails to demonstrate, as predicates for the injunctive relief sought, that it exhausted its administrative remedies and that it has no adequate legal remedy.  ....  NEC has not requested, nor has the Board issued, an order directing Entergy to cease operating Vermont Yankee on the grounds advanced by NEC here.  Nor is it established that Board enforcement of Condition 8, if applied for, would necessarily be covered by the federal injunction enjoining enforcement of Act 160.....

Dismissed

In other words: "Why are you asking us, the Supreme Court, to rule about this?  There's a perfectly valid legal process underway, and we see no reason to derail it."

It Was Only Procedural

The attorney for the intervenor seems happy that the Supreme Court ruled only for procedural reasons.  According to the Digger article: Jared Margolis said: "The substantive issue that we brought before the Supreme Court has not been determined to be invalid”

Of course the Supreme Court would rule for procedural reasons.  Courts try avoid stepping on each other's toes!

In my opinion, the intervenor petition was a waste of taxpayer money (court costs) and simply a way to harass Vermont Yankee.

As I included in an earlier blog post, here's a minute-and-a-half WPTZ video of the January Supreme Court hearing that led to the decision yesterday.

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.

Vermont Yankee Financial Analysis: The Write-Down and More

Vermont Yankee : Value Written Down from $518 Million to $162 Million 

In April of 2012, Entergy wrote down the value of the Vermont Yankee power plant from $517 million to $162 million.  Andrew Stein's article at Vermont Digger provides a summary of events and speculation, and many useful links: Entergy document cites drastic fall in value of Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, raising questions about its viability.

The Stein article is well-written and well-referenced, but I found aspects of it confusing.  I decided to put together my own timeline and some comments.

April 2012: Entergy writes down plant value.

Entergy  announced a "write-down" of the value of the Vermont Yankee plant in an earnings call on April 26. 2012.  For some reason, this was not widely reported.  I have files of "important articles" and I can't find an article about this one.  I didn't blog about it--I wonder if I noticed it.

However, the Entergy announcement was picked up by some of the business news services. Here's Yahoo Finance, April 26, 2012 Entergy swings to loss on write-down, warm winter.

Personal Comment: When I worked for a major software company at one point, I came in to work one morning and discovered that our earnings call the day before had shown a loss of (I think) $200 million dollars on revenues of (?) $100 million for the quarter.  I was terrified.  Did I still have a job?  Were we on the brink of folding?  Massive lay-offs ahead?

The old-timers reassured me that if the company had a moderately bad quarter, it would take every write-off it could take, that same quarter, and things would look terrible. But they weren't terrible.  They weren't good, but the company was just setting up so that nothing would get in the way of the next quarter, which would look like a spectacular rebound.

If you note, in the Entergy call above, they were showing less earnings because of a warm winter.  Here's an article today by an analyst at Seeking Alpha, Natural Gas Prices Bode Well for 2 U.S. Producer Chesapeake Energy.  Here's a brief quote: From the April 20, 2012 natural gas price nadir of $1.90/Mcf, natural gas prices have risen to $3.96/Mcf today March 25, 2013. That's more than double.  In other words, if you had an asset that whose value depends partially on natural gas prices, since April 2012 was the low point for natural gas prices, it was a great time to take a write-down.

By the way, I am NOT an investment advisor of any kind.  I know some things about energy, but only a little about corporate decision making such as write-downs.

November 2012: Entergy Files with the Security Exchange Commission 

In November 2012, Entergy filed a letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which referenced the VY write-down.  Stein at VTDigger links to this letter, and here's the link (caution--it's a long document,  and may be slow to load). Most of the summary material that concerns Vermont Yankee is on page 12 and following: Entergy Wholesale Commodities (mostly the nuclear plants).  Page 14 shows the Asset Impairment figure (write-down of Vermont Yankee value).   Page 16 shows that the net revenue for the nuclear fleet decreased from $1,541 million to $1,391 million (2011 to 2012) or about 10%. Page 17 shows revenue per MW decrease from $55.20 to $49.84 in the same time period.  (Remember, however, that 2012 was the nadir for natural gas prices, which have since doubled, bringing electricity prices up with them.)

Personal Comment: In looking through the rest of this report, I cannot see any reason to believe that the nuclear plants were operating at a loss in 2012, though they certainly were not making big a profit as they made in 2011 (or that they will make with rising gas prices in 2013).  Entergy's forward-looking guidance for the nuclear plants is on page 28 and looks profitable, to me at least. However, I am not a financial analyst, and I welcome reader input on this issue.

January 2013: UBS Analyzes Entergy and Says that Vermont Yankee is vulnerable to closure

Once again, there is a well-referenced article by Andrew Stein at Vermont Digger on the UBS Analyst report, which includes a link to the report itself. Page 4 includes a chart showing the nuclear fleet as contributing to Earnings Per Share (EPS) for the next five years.  It also refers (same page) to the "recent rally" in natural gas prices, but seems to think that ISO-NE and FERC will alleviate "the perceived supply constraint."

Personal Comment:  This UBS report does not mention the asset write-down of VY.  It also seems to claim that the rise in natural gas prices are a glitch, easily remedied by ISO-NE action.  In my opinion, it is not easy to get a pipeline built in the Northeast.  I think the analyst doesn't live around here!

I expect natural gas prices to rise overall, and especially here.  Supporting this,  I recommend the Seeking Alpha analysis linked above.  I also recommend Vermont Electric Cooperative CEO's Hallquist's guest post on my blog about natural gas, wind and the grid.  I recommend Matt Wald of the New York Times article about gas prices: In New England,  A Natural Gas Trap.  I am not a financial analyst, but even to me, this UBS analysis seems very incomplete. The overall rise of natural gas prices is not just a "perceived supply constraint."

Note: Yes, I know am not up to March 2013 yet in this analysis.  But this post is long enough.  I will do another one soon--January to March.

Postscript:  I have a post up today at ANS Nuclear Cafe about Framing the Discourse.  It describes nuclear opponents "framing" and word-choice, and calls for short frames written by nuclear advocates.  I will write a post about this on my own blog in a few days, but right now, I hope people will submit a lively comment stream of frames at the ANS blog.   Stop by the ANS Nuclear Cafe post and add your two cents (actually, add your five words).

Blowing in the Wind: Threats and Reactions

Threats and Defiance on SB 30

Senate Bill 30 would mandate heightened environmental oversight for wind energy projects.  It would require such projects to undergo Act 250 permitting: Act 250 is Vermont's tough land-use law that was put into effect in the 70s, when it looked as if Vermont would turn into one vast ski resort.

In the post Comments or Threats: Wind in Vermont, I described how a wind developer (Jeff Wolfe of Gro-Solar) wrote an open letter to John Campbell, President Pro Tem of the Vermont Senate. Wolfe said that:  if you support this bill, not only does that support end, but I will help recruit and support opposition to you in the next election, and will put my money where my mouth is. Wolfe also said that Campbell was falling for (the) lies, deceits, fake science and name-calling of the Koch brothers.

The political analyst at the Valley News, John Gregg, interviewed Campbell after he received this letter. As Gregg wrote: Campbell... said Wolfe “has publicly threatened me and tried to intimidate me to vote one way, and I think it would send a bad message” were he to change his vote.

Comments from the Editors

The Valley News is a mostly-liberal-leaning paper. It ran an editorial against this attempted intimidation: Hardball in Vermont: Environmental Fight Turns Nasty

The first paragraph includes: Jeff Wolfe delivered an unmistakable message to state Sen. John Campbell of Hartford that the game being played is hardball — or maybe moneyball.

Jeffrey Wolfe
from a press release

Later in the editorial: Indeed we haven’t seen yet a convincing case that large-scale wind energy can play a significant role in reducing carbon emissions in Vermont, which would be the only rational basis for sacrificing a landscape that plays such an important role in the state’s economy and self-identity. 

The Ethan Allen Institute (sponsor of the Energy Education Project that I direct) is a free-market think tank, and no fan of the strict Act 250 reviews.   They wrote: Green thuggery/ hypocrisy rears its head. 

In this editorial,  the Ethan Allen Institute suggests that Vermont amend Act 250 to exempt  ANY endeavor in any field in which Vermont would, in fact, like to see more jobs.  They also wonder what would happen if an ordinary large company (as opposed to green-renewable company) threatened a House or Senate leader over a piece of legislation?

Campbell Takes A Stand

John Campbell
Vermont Senate website

As noted above, Campbell thought it would send a bad message if he changed his vote after this letter. In a recent article by Andrew Stein at Vermont Digger, Campbell went further. Campbell delays S.30 vote until Tuesday, citing Wolfe's threat, desire for full Senate vote. 

“Quite honestly, because of that letter being put in Digger … if I don’t vote on this thing, it looks like I actually paid attention to this threat that was put forward,” he said. “I just won’t do that. That’s everything that’s wrong about the system.”...

Campbell told VTDigger that because of Wolfe’s comments he feels “it’s imperative” that he votes on the bill.

This week, Campbell is presiding over the the Senate for Lt. Gov. Phil Scott who is away, which means Campbell can’t vote on the bill unless there is a tie.

Campbell is delaying the vote on this bill until he can actually vote on it.

(Note: there's a fascinating  comment section on this article.  One comment claims that though the Senate may pass the bill mandating Act 250 oversight, the House probably won't pass it.  Stay tuned, as they say...)

---------

Monday Morning Update:  I want to share today's op-ed by  Annette Smith, a Vermonter who has been campaigning against Big Wind for many years. The title says it all: Respecting our Communities and Environment.  She also has some interesting comments on what is likely to happen in the Vermont House (all the action now is in the Vermont Senate).

Comments or Threats: Wind in Vermont

Turbine 9, Lowell Mountain
From Ver Mont's albums

Senate Bill 30 mandates Act 250 oversight for wind projects. It has strong bi-partisan support in the Vermont legislature.  (I blogged about this yesterday.)

 In the past two days, letters on both sides of this issue were referenced in the Valley News, my local paper.  The contrast in tone between the two letters is astonishing.  Read for yourself.

Urging Heightened Oversight for Wind

Eric Rosenbloom, a resident of Hartland, is opposed to wind development.  In his recent letter to the editor (Why Fear Act 250 Wind Review?) he explains it is not worth destroying our ridges for the small amount of energy that we can obtain from wind.  Quotes from his letter:

These projects, especially on otherwise fiercely protected ridgelines, are not green. The environmental (not to mention financial) costs far outweigh the necessarily minuscule benefit from a diffuse, intermittent and highly variable source...

If industrial-scale wind (and solar) are indeed beneficial to the environment and communities, locally as well as globally, then its marketers have nothing to fear from a more democratic and environmentally rigorous permitting process. If they do indeed have reason to fear, that’s precisely why we need to say yes to S.30.

If You Vote For Act 250 Oversight of Wind, I Will Do My Best to Destroy Your Political Career

In contrast, Jeff Wolfe wrote a recent letter against SB30.

Some background:

• John Campbell is Vermont Senator from my town of Hartford.  He is a moderate Democrat, and President Pro Tempore of the Senate.  He has announced that he will vote for SB 30.
• Jeff Wolfe, president of Gro-Solar from White River Junction (also in my town of Hartford), wrote a letter to Senator Campbell, and he posted it on Vermont Digger.   

Some quotes from the Wolfe letter, as posted on the Digger website:

I was astonished to hear that you personally support S.30....This anti renewable energy effort is well documented as being funded by the Koch brothers and their allies. I’m truly surprised and stunned that you are falling for their lies, deceit, fake science, and name-calling. As the ‘leader’ of the Vermont Senate, I expect more from you.

John, I’ve supported you for a lot of races. But if you support this bill, not only does that support end, but I will help recruit and support opposition to you in the next election, and will put my money where my mouth is. 

 John Gregg, political analyst in the Valley News reported Campbell's reaction to Wolfe's letter.  Gregg's column is Tower Power.

Campbell... said Wolfe “has publicly threatened me and tried to intimidate me to vote one way, and I think it would send a bad message” were he to change his vote.

“For him to have associated me with the Koch brothers, I find it a bit ironic,” Campbell said, referring to the industrialists who have funded numerous conservative causes, some linked to the Tea Party movement. “The Koch brothers, what they are known for is their bullying tactics, intimidation and threats ... that’s pretty much the activity (Wolfe) is engaged in.”

Compare and Contrast:

Now that you have done the reading, here's the quiz:

• Which letter makes a reasoned argument?
• Which letter uses personal attacks ("Koch brothers") and future threats ("I will help recruit and support opposition to you..")?
• Which letter is "green"? 
• Which letter-writer holds the moral high ground? 
• Which letter-writer thinks he holds the moral high ground?
• Who gets to decide Vermont land-use?

Update:  Today's Valley News Editorial  against Wolfe letter to Campbell

Hardball in Vermont: Environmental Fight Turns Nasty

Two quotes from the editorial:

The first paragraph includes: Jeff Wolfe delivered an unmistakable message to state Sen. John Campbell of Hartford that the game being played is hardball — or maybe moneyball.

Later in the editorial: Indeed we haven’t seen yet a convincing case that large-scale wind energy can play a significant role in reducing carbon emissions in Vermont, which would be the only rational basis for sacrificing a landscape that plays such an important role in the state’s economy and self-identity.