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

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …