Skip to main content

Jon Wellinghoff Light and Dark

06 One of the speakers at this year’s Nuclear Energy Assembly was Jon Wellinghoff, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. He had stirred up a bit of controversy a couple of weeks ago by seeming to dismiss not only nuclear energy but all baseload energy in favor of, we think, smaller electricity grids that would be able to make do with a combination of renewable energy sources and natural gas. Here’s what he said about nuclear on Clean Skies TV (transcription: see here to be sure we haven’t misquoted):

From a cost standpoint, from the numbers I’ve seen, the plans [for nuclear energy] seem very costly. They look much more expensive than the alternatives, including not only renewables but also energy efficiency. Also combined heat and power and other distributed systems that would use natural gas. So, I think there are a whole plethora of alternatives that are less expensive that the nuclear alternative.

He was more explicit with the New York Times a little earlier:

"I think baseload capacity is going to become an anachronism," he said. "Baseload capacity really used to only mean in an economic dispatch, which you dispatch first, what would be the cheapest thing to do. Well, ultimately wind's going to be the cheapest thing to do, so you'll dispatch that first."

We don’t agree with any of this, although it falls short of absolute hooey. (Baseload doesn’t just mean cheapest, though, it means most reliable, too: that part is hooey.)

So we were a little intrigued to see if Wellinghoff was going to wriggle away from his comments or, better, expand on them a bit so we can grasp his ideas about distributed systems.

Let’s let Greenwire’s Peter Behr take over the story:

But Nuclear Energy Institute President Marvin Fertel finally took up a microphone to ask what was arguably on everyone's mind in the room.

"I can't let this question go by," Fertel said, adding, "you've been quoted [as saying] you didn't see a need for baseload, either coal or nuclear, if we could just get distributed generation and renewables" added at a sufficient scale.

"I didn't say that," Wellinghoff replied. His point, he said, was that renewable energy, energy demand management, new technologies and other strategies could create "a new paradigm" for the industry.

"It is conceivable in this scenario that you may not need large central station plants," he said. "That's one scenario. That doesn't mean that scenario is in fact going to occur. But it is a scenario that is rational.

"There may be other scenarios that are rational, as well, including incorporating significant nuclear and coal into our system. Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter what might be a rational or irrational scenario. What matters is what the markets will do."

We’ll go for wriggle.

We meant to find something a little less dour for Mr. Wellinghoff. But this seems to be his official portrait, so there he is.


Brian Mays said…
Hmm ... it seems to me that this "new paradigm" that Wellinghoff talks about is old news. It has been tried before.

It has been tried in California, where they have exported much of their heavy industry, they have refused to build new "traditional" baseload plants (i.e., coal and nuclear -- although they are not to pure as to refuse to import increasing amounts of coal- and nuclear-generated electricity from across the border), and they have heavily emphasized efficiency, conservation, and electricity generation from renewables and natural gas. Today, California is a poster child for how not to run an economy. After they were so brutally abused by Enron less than ten years ago, how can anyone take California's energy policies seriously?

It has been tried in Germany, where they have been actively encouraging renewable energy via feed-in tariffs (an example of "what the markets will do" when the playing field is not level because of government fiat). The result? Earlier this year, the German environmental minister was on record saying that Germany needs to build at least eight new very large coal plants. They need new power, and they need "baseload" power, in spite of the contributions of conservation, renewables, distributed energy, and all of the other government-mandated energy "solutions" that they have tried.

Based on experience, I'd say that Wellinghoff's "new paradigm" is dead on arrival, and it is a dangerous "paradigm" unless your purpose is to either wreck the economy or enrich the coal and natural gas producers (as part of the processes of directing much less money to the renewable energy lobby). In any case, "rational" is not a word that I would choose to describe this scheme.

My question is this: when is the Obama administration finally going to rein in this guy? He's obviously out of touch with reality and is beginning to become an embarrassment to the administration.
anony-Mouse said…
THe point is that Mr. Wellinghoff has no idea what he speaks about, and what he is charged with directing.

Electricity distribution grid requires the frequency to be kept constant, thus electricity in has to be equal consumption at all times. The only way we figured out as of yet is to have a strong "baseload" component with enough inertia in turbines and generators to absorb quick changes, and ~20% additional capacity in spinning reserves, which can be quickly ramped up if needed.

Mr Wellinghoff seems to demonstrate lack of technical insight into reality of what he should be responsible for, arguing instead about plausibility of some fairy tales scenarios.

I would not be surprised if his next suggestion was a DC system which has no frequency to worry about in the first place.

Popular posts from this blog

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.

Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…