|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
No buying renewable energy credits for nuclear power?
NE states promote domestic nuclear in response to tariffs, off-shore wind problems
By Guy Page
There are three encouraging signs for promoters of more carbon-free nuclear power in Vermont.
First, a new bill sponsored by a Burlington Democrat would establish a ‘consortium on nuclear power feasability.”
Second, Vermont Public Service Commissioner Kerrick Johnson said at Gov. Scott’s press conference noon Thursday that hours earlier, the New England states are talking about making nuclear power a greater priority in the light of looming tariffs on Canadian natural gas and electricity, and declining federal interest in off-shore wind.
Third, Johnson said the Scott administration wants to remove the requirement to pay ‘renewable energy credits’ for nuclear power purchases, which currently provide about 19% of all Vermont electricity.
At present, neither nuclear nor ‘big hydro’ are considered ‘green’ enough (despite being carbon-free generators) to be exempted from a corresponding purchase of energy credits, which are then purportedly invested in renewable power.
Vermont ratepayers have to pay for additional renewable energy certificates….to round out nuclear energy supplies, that is about “$1.52 million a year,” Johnson said. “That quickly adds up. You can make a big dent in any energy tariff that might come down the pike with that one change alone.”
Nuclear as NE alternative to offshore wind – Johnson added that “I just had a conversation with my counterparts around New England this morning…. five out of the six New England states are reexamining their nuclear posture, what might make sense to pursue, with the current executive order with regards to the slowing down offshore wind. Where do we find low carbon energy supplies at scale that are cost effective in the next 10 years?”
New England currently has three nuclear reactors at two power stations: Seabrook in NH and Millstone (two reactors) in Connecticut.
The heightened interest in nuclear power may reflect a desire for new pathways to meet carbon reduction goals, more domestic carbon-free energy in the light of looming trade wars, and meeting growing demand from energy-hog artificial intelligence computers.
Dem-backed nuclear power bill – H.287, creating “a consortium on nuclear power feasibility,” is sponsored by Rep. Bob Hooper (D-Burlington) and co-sponsored by Reps. David Bosch (R-Rutland), Voranus Coffin (R-Cavendish), Joshua Dobrovich (R-Williamstown), James Gregoire (R-Fairfield), James Harrison (R-Mendon), Philip “Jay” Hooper (D-Randolph), Michael Morgan (R-Milton/GI), Mary Morrissey (R-Bennington), Michael Mrowicki (D-Putney), Woodman Page (R-Newport), Sandra Pinsonault (R-Dorset), and Kevin Winter (R-Ludlow).
The bill states that “on or before August 1, 2025, in order to assist in reaching the State’s climate goals and to provide for economic development opportunities, the Secretary of Administration shall convene the Vermont Small Nuclear Consortium to identify the obstacles to constructing small modular reactors in Vermont, including those in State and federal law.”
The Consortium would “review reasons why the prior nuclear generation facility [Vermont Yankee] closed, what obstacles and opportunities exist in both State and federal law, and what practical issues may exist that would prevent or facilitate a new facility from opening; hear from a variety of stakeholders on this issue, including representatives of relevant State agencies, representatives from developers, and proponents of small modular reactors; and examine financial resources available to facilitate the construction of small nuclear reactors.”
Small, ‘next-gen’ reactors are designed to produce baseload, on-demand power without the reputed danger and spent fuel disposal problems associated with 1960’s design nuclear reactors like Vermont Yankee in Vernon, which provided low-cost, carbon-free, baseload power meeting a third of Vermont’s total power demand.
The Vermont Senate refused to endorse a state power contract with VY past 2012. With no contract, VY was forced to sell power on the open market at a time when fracked natural gas had suppressed wholesale electricity prices. The plant also needed significant, costly upgrades required of all U.S. nuclear power plants following the Fukashima meltdown.
The 620 MW Vermont Yankee plant reactor has been fully decommissioned. The power transmission lines, as well as the spent fuel, are both still at the Vernon site. The ‘small nuclear’ reactor design was approved in 2023 by the Biden administration’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As designed, the plant could hold up to 12 modules, each generating 50 MW.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Energy
FYI Legislators: Wake Up and smell the Green Energy!!
https://nanonuclearenergy.com/
https://www.nuscalepower.com/
https://c3newsmag.com/five-of-the-worlds-leading-small-modular-reactor-companies/
Potential SMR site recommendation. Lowell-Eden former VAG asbestos mine site.
Very interesting.
Building a Nuclear Power station would be so beneficial in so many ways. Not the least of creating work for construction workers, good paying jobs for the station workers, and help to put the so called carbon emission problem to rest. I see this a win all the way around.
Finally, a common sense approach to renewable energy is being brought forward. From the sounds of the last paragraph, Vermont may have the physical groundwork and infrastructure in place.
Vermont’s in-state generation before and after the closure of Vermont Yankee: https://www.wvwelectric.com/eia/graphs/elect_fuel_mix_annual_graph_Vermont.html
The irony of this would be laughable if the fact that we had it and scrapped it wasn’t so tragic.
The United States Navy has been using nuclear powered ships without any serious problems since First Lady Mamie Eisenhower bounced a bottle of champagne off the steel hull of the USS Nautilus in 1954. About time we brought this readily available and tested technology to dry land in the form of small town-sized nuclear reactors. And it is backed by ten of thousands of trained nuclear power engineers and technicians, through the courtesy of the United States Navy.
Gotta love those Squids…
First things first: our electrical grid needs to be secured. We need a stockpile of backup transformers ASAP in the event of a major solar event or terrorist attack that could take down our grid. Nuclear plants need electricity to cool the rods. No electricity, no rod cooling equals a Nuclear meltdown.
Reactors need water to cool hot rods. In the event of an outage, independent generators onsite run all the pumps and electrics, this free and clear of the grid.
Lois, how many days of backup energy do the generators provide? If the generators run on diesel, gas, or battery, what happens if the grid is down long-term? How would more diesel or gas be delivered if all the fuel pumps, which run on electricity, are down?
Louis, I am talking about securing our grid against any mass solar ejections such as the Carrington event in 1859 that affected the telegraph system, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5215858/. Our entire infrastructure is computerized. If we have a major solar event, it could affect our entire grid along with frying all electronics. Are nuclear plants computerized? We also need to secure our grid and internet electronics systems from potential terrorist attacks before we build any more nuclear plants. Grid security is the #1 priority.
I wonder if they would feel the same if Trump OK’D those plants. Mr. President keep quiet about them please
Are these the same Dems that voted to decommission Vernon plant????
Has a solution been found for what to do with the waste?
Excellent point. SMRs, apparently, produce proportionately high amounts of radioactive waste. While SMRs are inexpensive and very safe in the short-term, long-term waste mitigation remains an enigma. Again, unless some alien being shows up and defies our current understanding of physics, Fusion (and specifically, compact Fusion) reactors are the end-game. We just have to use what we have as efficiently as possible to bridge the gap until we get there.
On a brighter note: Fusion reactor testing has demonstrated that fusion reactions can produce more power than they consume. And the length of time Fusion reactions can be sustained is increasing. China’s Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST), recently maintained an ultra-hot plasma reaction for 1,066 seconds, or nearly 18 minutes, at temperatures exceeding 100 million degrees Celsius (hotter than the sun). We’re getting there.
No, I may not live to see full-scale commercial fusion power. But I won’t live long enough to watch sea levels consume Florida either. At current warming and rising sea-level rates, that won’t happen for another couple of thousand years or so. Surely, we can perfect Fusion power before then.
Depending on the specific design there may not be as much waste. Most SMR concepts include modular designs where the reactors are returned to the factory for reprocessing. Some are actually designed to “burn” fissile materials produced. The whole SMR field is developing and changing rapidly with multiple designs, (not all NRC approved), and no doubt will change by the time such a project would be approved.
Thank you, Kevin
Whatever the ‘Dems’ decide is best for us, I hope the one aspect to their contemplation is the fact that they are not able to direct investment in energy production as well as the free market. Be it Natural Gas, Hydro Quebec, Small Modular (Nuclear) Reactors, or, one day, the holy grail of fusion energy, our legislators have no business subsidizing any of it. Let the market do its wonders. And let the market determine grid investments too.
If there is anything positive about the ‘Dems’ apparent and recent change of heart, it’s that this change illustrates just how uninformed and incompetent they have been in the past, and will likely continue to be.
Think about it. As the above listed next generation energy sources compete with each other, the return on investment will be dictated by reasonable metrics – not, for example, the Henny Penny knee jerk solar policy that has now disfigured our formerly picturesque countryside worse than roadside billboards ever could.
Yes, solar has practical applications. Like powering those remote speed-trap radar signs we see when approaching a school. Or, perhaps, electrifying a Tesla Powerwall for a day or two of backup power during an ice storm.
My guess, as an investor – the first step toward efficient LOW-COST electricity is to use what power sources we have at the ready – for electricity generation, Natural Gas, HQ Hydro-power, and existing large reactor nuclear like Seabrook. Next to come online will be the distributed SMRs mentioned in this article. And, finally, the holy grail, compact nuclear fusion reactors.
Again, my best guess. But I’m not imposing my opinion on anyone else. And the legislature shouldn’t impose their best guess on anyone either. Let the free market work its wonders. We’ll figure it out. We always do.
Scumlin put a nail in the coffin for Vermont Yankee.. and the owners of Yankee (amongst several owner) did their best to shoot themselves in the foot with small errors in cooling water leaks… low fuel cost made refueling the the reactor very expensive.. hence economics and politics doomed VY
Although highly debated and controversial, I recall the radio isotopes can be separated from the thorium salt and potentially be used for those with cancer who chose radiation treatment. There is research/experimentation? happening on this (I think at oak ridge labs)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/abs/pii/S0301421513003157
https://www.iaea.org/topics/molten-salt-reactors
Where is the bill in the legislative process?
Oh no. Does this mean that the anti-nuclear protests will start up again at the Montpelier Post Office?
I find this ironic. One thing I have always been good at is being able to look long distance down a path and know what’s coming. Back when the petitioners were going door to door to get signatures to shut down Vermont Yankee, I told them, “If they collectively agree to pay the difference on my light bill each month, I will sign.” Naturally, they did not.
They preached the dangers of nuclear power. I also told them that “all we need do now is piss off Canada.” I will say this now, “called it!”
Much of the world still used Nuclear power as it is carbon free and the spent rods when handled properly are of no harm to anyone. I hope the Dummycrats have learned their lesson.
I heartily endorse the Dems ‘epiphany’ on recognizing the virtues of low-carbon nuclear electricity generation. However the new enthusiasm for SMRs may be misplaced. SMRs are generally more expensive per KwH than a larger reactor due to costs of scale. They are more ideal for sites not readily or currently adapted for a large scale reactor. DuPont’s plan for an SMR at one of their chemical plants (Texas?) is case in point. It is ideal for 30-50Mw of on-site power and high temperature heat for chemicals manufacturing. Our Vernon site is very different. It already is capable of containing a large 5-600Mw conventional reactor with transmission lines in place( I believe Vernon was actually originally constructed to contain TWO reactors of that size). To get the MWs needed for this region, a single large reactor would make more sense than 10-12 SMRs in the same building.