WHAT WILL VERMONT BUILD FOR NEW ENERGY?

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Don't we?

The Vermont Energy Partnership, a bunch of Vermont institutions, apparently pretty heavily invested in nuclear energy – intellectually as well as materially – hasn't heard thew news: Wind energy is now a mainstream, reliable force in the energy sector. The Partnership claims wind can’t meet more than 10% of Vermont’s electricity needs. That's just a simple case of being misinformed. Isn't it?

If it's just information Vermont Energy Partnership needs, here it is: The wind industry grew 45% last year, built almost a third of new U.S. electricity generation and is on track to do at least as well if not better this year. The Department of Energy says wind can generate 20% of U.S. electricity by 2030.

But the problem could be more than simply being misinformed.

James Moore, clean energy advocate, Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG): "Vermont Energy Partnership is a questionable organization with facts that don't check out…All this is a lightly veiled attempt to downplay renewable energy solutions and support Vermont Yankee."

Vermont Yankee is the state’s 620-megawatt nuclear power plant. Entegy is the owner/operator. Entegy is a key member of the Vermont Energy Partnership that doesn’t think wind can do the job.

A Decade of Change, VPIRG’s 2006 report, found Vermont could get 80% of its electricity from New Energy sources by 2016 – 55% from Vermont-generated sources plus the hydroelectricity it now gets from HydroQuebec – if it made the commitment to building the infrastructure.

A Vermont Environmental Research Associates (VERA) report found Vermont has a 6,000-megawatt wind energy potential. If 10% of that were developed, Vermonters would be able to choose between building wind (a source of electricity that requires no rare and expensive uranium, produces no undisposable radioactive waste and has very little risk of a meltdown) and expanding Vermont Yankee, the nuclear power plant (which, of course, requires rare and expensive uranium, churns out undisposable radioactive waste and must be ever vigilant against a meltdown).

Who was that with the report about how wind won’t work for Vermont? Oh, yeah, the guys with the financial investment in Vermont Yankee.

Vermont’s electricity demand is growing. The state is going to need new generating capacity. Building it is a huge taxpayer expense. Estimates put new nuclear generating capacity costs at somewhere between $1.5 billion and $7 billion per megawatt. It’s hard to know which number is more accurate. Nobody is really building new plants all the way to completion because construction is so complicated and cost overruns and delays are so common. Anybody who’s ever dealt with a contractor knows to count on the higher number.

Moody’s, June 2008: "Nuclear plant construction poses risks to credit metrics, ratings…"

The same issue of Moody’s put the costs for new wind and new solar at $2 million to $3 million per megawatt.

Moody’s did stipulate there is an intermittency factor to consider with wind and solar so it might be necessary to build twice as many megawatts of the New Energies.

So the cost of building new nuclear and the cost of building new wind or new solar are about the same. Was there something a couple of paragraphs up about nuclear plants having an on-going need for rare and costly uranium? And something about nuclear plants generating undisposable radioactive waste?

Does anybody have the numbers on the costs of supplying a wind installation with wind or a solar power plant with sun? What do wind installations and solar power plants do with their waste? Oh, and what are the chances of radioactive contamination in the event of a wind installation meltdown?

Full disclosure: VPIRG has board members and trustees associated with the wind and solar industries.

It’s a free country. Anybody who likes the idea of making bad economic investments in public power projects that could make citizens glow in the dark is free to support them.

A possible Vermont future...(click to enlarge)

Harnessing the wind; Debate rages on future of wind power in Vt.
Bob Audette, August 12, 2008 (Brattleboro Reformer)

WHO
Vermont Energy Partnership (Entergy, the Brattleboro Development Credit Corp., Central Vermont Public Service, Efficiency Vermont, IBM, Vermont Business Roundtable, Vermont Chamber of Commerce, Vermont Grocers' Association); Vermont Yankee; HydroQuébec; Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG); Vermont Environmental Research Associates; Public Service Board (PSB)

WHAT
With Vermont’s electricity demand growing rapidly, there is a need for new generation capacity and a dispute is emerging over whether to build new nuclear power or new wind power.

...Another possible Vermont future. (click to enlarge)

WHEN
- 1997: Last new Vermont wind energy to go on line.
- 2006: Publication of Wind Power in Vermont: A Primer from Vermont Energy Partnership.
- 2006: VPIRG report finding Vermont could get 80% of its electricity from New Energy by 2016.

WHERE
- Vermont currently has 6 proposed wind projects:
(1) The Deerfield Wind Project/Searsburg Expansion: 15 to 24 wind turbines, currently 6 megawatts, expansion would add 45 megawatts
(2) The East Haven Wind Farm (rejected by PSB): 6 megawatts.
(3) The Equinox Wind Farm (in the permitting process): 9 megawatts.
(4) The Glebe Mountain Project: Cancelled
(5) The Lowell Wind Project (proposed): 12 to 26 turbines, 18 to 39 megawatts.
(6) The Sheffield Wind Power Project: 20 turbines in Sheffield, 6 turbines in Sutton.


WHY
- The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant has a 620 megawatt capacity and provides about 75% of Vermont’s electricity.
- HydroQuébec provides 390 megawatts to Vermont.
- The balance of Vermont electricity comes from out-of-state purchases of coal- and gas-fired power.
- Vermont peak demand requirement: 1000 megawatts.
- Development of 10% of Vermont’s wind potential would put turbines on 78 of Vermont's 517 miles of Appalachian Mountains ridgeline.
- VPIRG is member-funded. Board members include representatives from Businesses for Sensible Priorities, Spruce Mtn. Design and the Lintilhac Foundation. Trustees include the founder of NRG Systems and the director of Earth Turbines, the director of the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, a director from Seventh Generation and the founder of Solar Works.

Time to choose? (click to enlarge)

QUOTES
- Vermont Energy Partnership report: "While wind power is a popular and growing source of electricity generation in the United States ... it continues to face regulatory obstacles and local opposition…And while there is clear potential for an expansion of wind in the State of Vermont, even fully developed, wind can only meet a fraction of the state's electricity needs. To ensure that Vermont has a dependable supply of clean and low-cost electricity, base load providers such as Vermont Yankee and HydroQuébec must continue to serve our state into the future…"
- Amory Lovins, CEO, Rocky Mountian Institute: “All the meager nuclear orders nowadays come from centrally planned electricity systems, because despite strong official support and greatly increased U.S. subsidies, nuclear power’s bad economics make it unfinanceable in the private capital market. Official studies compare new nuclear plants only with coal- or gas-fired central stations. But all three kinds of central stations are uncompetitive with windpower and some other renewables, combined-heat-and power (cogeneration), and efficient use of electricity, all compared on a consistent accounting basis…” (See Nuclear power: economics and climate protection potential)