Skip to main content

Small Coalition Takes to Task Flawed Report from the Vermont Public Interest “Research” Group

Even though VPIRG is considered a research group, based on the coalition’s critique of their report, looks like much research wasn’t done at all on how to supposedly power VT without VY. Meredith Angwin from Yes Vermont Yankee sums it up:

I belong to a group, Coalition for Energy Solutions. We are all local energy professionals: one physicist, one chemist (me), and four engineers. Some of us have active careers and companies, some are semi-retired. At any rate, we felt that this VPIRG report [pdf] overstated the ease of replacing Vermont Yankee with renewables, and understated the costs. (Actually, they didn't state the costs.) We began doing research for a report on the costs and engineering feasibility of their recommendations.

It has been a long road, in which we evaluated the capacity factors of wind farms in Maine, called foresters to assess the sustainable yield of our northern forests, and tried to assess the costs and reliability of cow power. And of course, we argued with each other, and improved our estimates, and argued and improved some more. All six of us seem to be from Missouri...Show Me! We finally finished the report: well-documented, a little geeky, low on graphics, but we backed up every straight-forward number, and argued out every estimated factor. Let's put it this way: I think it's the best report out there on renewables for Vermont, and I'm not just saying that because I am one of the authors.

Here are a few nuggets from the coalition's report (pdf):

We believe that the [VPIRG] Report has not provided all the impacts, numbers, and assumptions on which its conclusions are based. There is no way to understand how its results were obtained. Therefore, there is no way to judge whether the results are realistic. – p. 8

The Report does wind power no service by overestimating available wind energy that is feasible to use. – p. 15

It is good and prudent planning to ask what will happen if the Report’s projections do not come true. What if building wind turbines on the ridges is stalled by intervenors? What if Vermont runs out of money and stops subsidizing home solar and home wind turbines? What if nearly doubling the output of Vermont’s forests is analyzed and found to be a poor forest-management choice for sustainability? - p. 24

Throughout the Report there are many examples of hoping for good things. It speaks of “aggressive goals” “smart energy storage technology” – whatever that is, “optimal charging pattern” and “emerging technologies.” All of us want the best for Vermont, our country and the world. It is reasonable to expect that technologies will improve and prices will fall, because that is our experience. However when it comes to planning for the future, it is not prudent to plan on technology improvements and price decreases on a schedule. Plans should include contingencies for “what if it doesn’t come true.” It is better to be cautious and have a backup plan and be pleasantly surprised than to have a rude awakening. For Vermont’s electric power future the “rude awakening” would come in the form of very high prices due to purchasing large amounts of energy from the New England grid. – p. 26

Well done on the research, this critique should hopefully get Vermonters thinking more realistically about their energy choices.

Comments

There is a summary critique of the VPIRG recommendation at the end of my talk to the Hanover NH Rotary about Vermont Yankee.
http://home.comcast.net/~robert.hargraves/public_html/VermontYankeeRotary.pdf
or with audio at
http://www.slideshare.net/robert.hargraves/vermont-yankee-to-hanover-rotary

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…