Problems on the horizon

The Wall Street Journal reports this headline (may be behind $firewall)

Electricity Demand is Far Outpacing New-Supply Sources

with a focus on New England, Texas, and California, with  New England in the worst shape.  Peak demand is rising and supply is not keeping up.  In New England (Vermont is part of it, unless we secede from the U.S., in which case we'd also, I assume, secede from New England), peak electricity demand will increase by 2,300 megawatts (about 4 Vermont Yankees) and capacity will increase by only 170 megawatts.  Available capacity on the peak summer day will fall from  11.8% to 4.9%.  Read all about it at the North American Electricity Reliability Council  (NERC--don't you just love acronyms) website.

Vermont's electricity grid is linked to New England's, and if Vermont Yankee goes offline in 2012 and we lose HydroQuebec contracts around that time, there's not going to be any spare New England capacity to bail Vermont out.  The result will be skyrocketing electricity prices, as Vermont utilities will be forced to pay the spot price for power.  It won't be a pretty sight. 

This is like the crumbling state highways and bridges.  If you don't invest in infrastructure, eventually you have to pay a very high price. 

Comments

[Karen Kerin]

THE ENERGY DEBATE

In the law courts we swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Why should it be different in the court of public opinion or the reportage of the media or the debate of the law makers? I submit that it should not be different, but it has been on the topic of our energy problems. All we have heard is reducing our usage of energy and an absurd array of flawed alternatives which do not merit serious consideration because they are either unreliable (like the wind) or insufficient to make a real difference (like biomass, solar and the worst one, converting food grains to ethanol). Certainly we will face a huge jump in price for Hydro Quebec when the contract comes up in 2015, a mere eight years from now.

An advanced nation is advanced because it uses energy to be far more efficient than its competitors. How on earth can one run a factory when the electricity may not be available? Or how do you finish baking a cake when the power is shut off? We all depend on the flip of the switch instantly providing light, air conditioning, or some other power assisted device coming to life at our command. Other nations understand that idea and are building power generation at a furious rate, allowing them to exceed us in efficiency. And most of them are building nuclear generating systems, which we have not done for nearly thirty years. It explains why we face a sudden jolt upcoming for the cost of power and why IBM and numerous other good employers are fleeing the state.

I am looking at the best alternative, small shop built nuclear plants using the designs our fifty year old nuclear navy has used without incident. Let’s examine what that would do in addition to being something that could be locally owned rather than vulnerable to outside influences.

Placed wisely around the state we would have green power that does not contribute to global warming and does not blight the landscape with ugly high voltage lines running all over our beautiful mountains. We would have the least expensive reliable electricity possible and after the fuel is expended, the reactor goes back to the manufacturer for decommissioning. We would have a waste heat stream of steam that could be used for greenhouse growing of foods that would eliminate the transportation costs of foods now shipped in during the off season. Or the steam could be used by a large number of industries that need steam for such things as kiln drying lumber, processing food products or even providing hot water for commercial and residential use. During less than peak demand times, the electricity could by electrolysis of water make hydrogen to power vehicles when fuel cells become affordable technology.

We can have small reactors like this very quickly because they have a small footprint on the ground, they are very safe and we have a large supply of retired naval people already trained in the operation of the small reactors. What is not to like about my idea?