2009-04-15
With UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband set to deliver a speech promoting nuclear energy on a visit to Hunterston tomorrow, SNP Westminster Energy spokesperson Mike Weir MP has seized on an admission of the dangers of nuclear power by a senior British Nuclear Fuels Ltd executive.
Speaking on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, David Bonser said … "the Government have decided to go ahead with nuclear power here in the UK. Now, of course, there’s lots of risks around that…"
Mr Weir said:
"David Bonser’s assessment underlines exactly why Scotland is right to reject the development of dangerous, unnecessary and costly new nuclear power stations.
"Nuclear is unreliable as well as unnecessary. Installed capacity of renewables in Scotland already exceeds installed capacity of nuclear power. We can achieve secure, clean, low carbon energy by harnessing Scotland's vast green potential, tackling climate change without adding to the burden of toxic radioactive waste.
"The risks and uncertainties of nuclear power, in terms of waste disposal, decommissioning, security and health concerns, or cost, are far too great.
"Without nuclear power, Scotland has the natural resources to generate clean, green power. Harnessing that potential can meet our future energy demands several times over, while tackling climate change.
"There is more than enough green and renewable potential in Scotland to provide a diverse, low carbon electricity supply, so the argument that we need nuclear is totally redundant.
"Ed Miliband is wasting his breath on his nuclear lecture tour, and he should recognise that the Scottish Government has made clear that it will not allow unwanted and unnecessary new nuclear stations in our country."
Note:
1. Transcript from BBC Today Programme:
DAVID BONSER: "the Government have decided to go ahead with nuclear power here in the UK. Now, of course, there’s lots of risks around that, and what we will be doing, together with the Government, through the planning permissions and so on, is to make sure that new designs are designed properly to deal with all sorts of hazards, including the potential risk of sea level rises.
2. Bonser Biography:
David Bonser has spent his career with British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) since 1971 in design, construction, commissioning and operations, working in both the enrichment and reprocessing businesses. He has been Director of BNFL's Thorp Division, Company Development Director, and Director of Engineering, Waste Management and Decommissioning. He was appointed to BNFL's board of directors in October 1999. In 2000 he was appointed Transformation Director, in which post he is working to transform BNFL to position the company for a future "Public-Private Partnership" (the UK government's initiative to introduce private sector finance into public sector enterprises). He has also retained responsibility for BNFL's engineering functions
http://www.snp.org/node/15137
Showing posts with label Green Power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Green Power. Show all posts
Monday, September 21, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Greenpeace Launches Nuclear Free Vermont Tour
Solar Truck tours Vermont to Promote Clean, Safe Renewables
March 25, 2009
Brattleboro, Vermont, United States — This Saturday, March 28th, the 30th anniversary of Three Mile Island, marks the kick-off of a month-long Vermont tour of the Rolling Sunlight, Greenpeace’s solar truck, starting in Brattleboro.
Partnering with VPIRG and Citizen’s Awareness Network, the Rolling Sunlight will visit farmer’s markets and universities, film screenings and galleries, to talk to Vermonters about the energy they want in their state.
The Rolling Sunlight will demonstrate the practical uses of solar energy by powering the sound systems for events, and making solar-powered hot chocolate and other treats.
Vermonters have the unique opportunity to close down Entergy’s aging reactor, Vermont Yankee, and to choose clean, safe renewable energy for the future of their community.
The Vermont legislature has given itself the authority to reject the relicensing of the reactor in 2012.
“Fortunately for Vermonters, we're in a unique position to choose our own energy future," said James Moore of VPIRG.
"Vermonters are telling their legislators loud and clear that we want an energy future based on local, renewable power.
If our leaders listen to the people, we'll have a cleaner energy future.
If they listen to Vermont Yankee's corporate owners, we'll get 20 more years of dirty and dangerous power we can't afford."
“Thirty years ago today, at Three Mile Island, we saw one of the worst nuclear disasters in history, and Pennsylvania is still seeing the effects of that radiation.
The Public Oversight Panel's report released last week detailed the extent that Entergy Nuclear management is neglecting maintenance and repair.
We don't want Vermont to be the next Three Mile Island.
We have great renewable alternatives available to us that put Vermont’s safety first,” said Ed Anthes from Nuclear Free Vermont by 2012.This is a critical year for Vermont.
The NRC’s re-licensing process has become nothing more than a rubber stamp that does not adequately reflect the safety concerns of Vermonters.
When Entergy took over Vermont Yankee in 2002, they began running it harder than ever before. Over the years, we have seen the effects of inadequate maintenance, and an aging reactor that is ready for retirement.
The collapse of a cooling tower in 2007 was a direct result of Entergy pushing the reactor beyond its limits without the necessary maintenance.
“We don’t need Entergy here in Vermont: the people don’t want it, and a clean energy future, based on renewables like wind and solar, small hydro and efficiency, is possible,” said Chris Williams from Vermont Citizens Action Network.
“This 30th anniversary of the meltdown at Three Mile Island is a timely reminder that there is nothing safe about splitting atoms.
The Rolling Sunlight will tour the state and rally Vermonters to shut down Vermont Yankee.
The people of Vermont, not the corporate CEO's or some federal bureaucrat, can choose clean and renewable energy sources that don't threaten the state with the prospect of a nuclear accident and radioactive contamination," says Jim Riccio, Greenpeace’s Nuclear Policy Analyst.(Tell the State of Virginia, we want clean & renewable energy, not Nuke Power or Uranium mining!)
Contact:Molly Dorozenski, Greenpeace Media Officer, mdorozen@greenpeace.org,646-862-1509Ben Walsh, Greenpeace, bcwalsh.vt@gmail.com, 802-223-8421 x6383
March 25, 2009
Brattleboro, Vermont, United States — This Saturday, March 28th, the 30th anniversary of Three Mile Island, marks the kick-off of a month-long Vermont tour of the Rolling Sunlight, Greenpeace’s solar truck, starting in Brattleboro.
Partnering with VPIRG and Citizen’s Awareness Network, the Rolling Sunlight will visit farmer’s markets and universities, film screenings and galleries, to talk to Vermonters about the energy they want in their state.
The Rolling Sunlight will demonstrate the practical uses of solar energy by powering the sound systems for events, and making solar-powered hot chocolate and other treats.
Vermonters have the unique opportunity to close down Entergy’s aging reactor, Vermont Yankee, and to choose clean, safe renewable energy for the future of their community.
The Vermont legislature has given itself the authority to reject the relicensing of the reactor in 2012.
“Fortunately for Vermonters, we're in a unique position to choose our own energy future," said James Moore of VPIRG.
"Vermonters are telling their legislators loud and clear that we want an energy future based on local, renewable power.
If our leaders listen to the people, we'll have a cleaner energy future.
If they listen to Vermont Yankee's corporate owners, we'll get 20 more years of dirty and dangerous power we can't afford."
“Thirty years ago today, at Three Mile Island, we saw one of the worst nuclear disasters in history, and Pennsylvania is still seeing the effects of that radiation.
The Public Oversight Panel's report released last week detailed the extent that Entergy Nuclear management is neglecting maintenance and repair.
We don't want Vermont to be the next Three Mile Island.
We have great renewable alternatives available to us that put Vermont’s safety first,” said Ed Anthes from Nuclear Free Vermont by 2012.This is a critical year for Vermont.
The NRC’s re-licensing process has become nothing more than a rubber stamp that does not adequately reflect the safety concerns of Vermonters.
When Entergy took over Vermont Yankee in 2002, they began running it harder than ever before. Over the years, we have seen the effects of inadequate maintenance, and an aging reactor that is ready for retirement.
The collapse of a cooling tower in 2007 was a direct result of Entergy pushing the reactor beyond its limits without the necessary maintenance.
“We don’t need Entergy here in Vermont: the people don’t want it, and a clean energy future, based on renewables like wind and solar, small hydro and efficiency, is possible,” said Chris Williams from Vermont Citizens Action Network.
“This 30th anniversary of the meltdown at Three Mile Island is a timely reminder that there is nothing safe about splitting atoms.
The Rolling Sunlight will tour the state and rally Vermonters to shut down Vermont Yankee.
The people of Vermont, not the corporate CEO's or some federal bureaucrat, can choose clean and renewable energy sources that don't threaten the state with the prospect of a nuclear accident and radioactive contamination," says Jim Riccio, Greenpeace’s Nuclear Policy Analyst.(Tell the State of Virginia, we want clean & renewable energy, not Nuke Power or Uranium mining!)
Contact:Molly Dorozenski, Greenpeace Media Officer, mdorozen@greenpeace.org,646-862-1509Ben Walsh, Greenpeace, bcwalsh.vt@gmail.com, 802-223-8421 x6383
Friday, March 27, 2009
Nuclear Is Being Touted as a “Green” Energy Source
Comment: Canadians do not want Nuke Power or Uranium Mining, they want true "Green Energy too and so does the US!!!!
One could be forgiven for thinking we’ve overcome the problems associated with nuclear power.
Everywhere you turn, nuclear is being touted as a “green” energy source and a solution to global warming.
Our prime minister (Canada) recently sang the benefits of both nuclear power and uranium mining in a speech to a business crowd in London, England.
“As the largest producer of uranium, we can contribute to the renaissance of nuclear energy, a no-emissions source that will be expanding here in Britain and around the world,” Stephen Harper said.
If only it were so easy.
Those of us old enough to remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island also remember a time of concern about nuclear waste, nuclear-weapons proliferation, accidents at nuclear power plants, pollution from uranium mining…
Have those problems gone away? Has science found a way to deal with them?
Unfortunately, the answer is no – and those aren’t the only problems.
Nuclear power is also expensive and heavily subsidized by taxpayers’ money, and it isn’t even totally emissions-free.
Although nuclear energy’s ability to provide large-scale continuous power makes it tempting, we have better ways to deal with our energy needs.
To start, waste from uranium mining and nuclear power plants is a serious issue, especially considering that much of that waste is highly radioactive.
Although we can recycle some waste from power production, we still haven’t really figured out what to do with most of it.
One method for large-scale storage is to bury it, but that’s basically a policy of out-of-sight, out-of-mind – we don’t yet know the full consequences.
It’s also expensive and the waste has to be transported over long distances where the probability of a mishap is very real.
And although nuclear has a relatively good safety record compared to some other large-scale energy technologies, the consequences of an accident can be far worse – as we learned when a reactor at a nuclear power plant in Chernobyl, Russia, exploded in 1986. It sent radioactive fallout into the air over Russia, Europe, and even parts of North America and led to an increase in cancers in the areas with the highest concentrations of fallout.
If nuclear energy really does expand “around the world”, as Prime Minister Harper predicts, the dangers of weapons proliferation will continue to grow.
Nuclear power plants also take a long time to build and are incredibly expensive – and are notorious for going massively over budget. Canada has subsidized the nuclear power industry to the tune of $20 billion over the past 50 years.
Just think of what we could have done by putting that kind of money into renewable energy.
Nuclear energy isn’t even all that green when it comes to global warming.
If you look at the life cycle of nuclear power, the technology produces greenhouse gases at every step, from energy-intensive uranium mining and transportation to constructing and decommissioning power plants. (Looking at the life cycle of energy technologies hasn’t been always been a common practice, but it’s an important step that has allowed us to identify problems with energy sources that look attractive at first glance, such as corn-based biofuels.)
If we were to look forward instead of backward, Canada(and US) could become a leader in energy technology and innovation.
As costs for renewable energy go down, costs for old-school technologies like nuclear power and fossil fuels continue to rise.
Advances have also been made in power-grid management, meaning renewable sources can be more easily integrated into energy systems.
The government of B.C. has recognized that nuclear energy isn’t a panacea; in April, it banned uranium mining in the province.
Keep in mind that uranium is a limited resource.
The European Commission estimated in 2001 that global supplies of uranium could last as few as 12 years if capacity increases substantially and will only last from about 40 to 70 years with current usage rates.
Prices have already been skyrocketing as uranium becomes scarce.
As we rethink our energy future in light of the dangers of further increasing greenhouse gases, we have an enormous opportunity.
I believe that rather than putting all of our faith in big technology (big dams, coal plants, nuclear), investing in a decentralized grid of diverse, small-scale renewable energy sources would be far more resilient and reliable.
We should all get behind renewable energy in order to avoid the dangers and expense of an expanding nuclear industry.
But there’s something else we can do: use less energy.
Conservation means we could avoid having to build expensive power plants, and we’d also have cleaner air and some real solutions to global warming.
Many people have already switched to more energy-efficient appliances, as well as finding other ways to reduce energy consumption. (Like hanging clothes outside, cutting back your heat, insulate your homes)
All of those small things add up to make a big difference. People really do have the power.
Take David Suzuki’s Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.
One could be forgiven for thinking we’ve overcome the problems associated with nuclear power.
Everywhere you turn, nuclear is being touted as a “green” energy source and a solution to global warming.
Our prime minister (Canada) recently sang the benefits of both nuclear power and uranium mining in a speech to a business crowd in London, England.
“As the largest producer of uranium, we can contribute to the renaissance of nuclear energy, a no-emissions source that will be expanding here in Britain and around the world,” Stephen Harper said.
If only it were so easy.
Those of us old enough to remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island also remember a time of concern about nuclear waste, nuclear-weapons proliferation, accidents at nuclear power plants, pollution from uranium mining…
Have those problems gone away? Has science found a way to deal with them?
Unfortunately, the answer is no – and those aren’t the only problems.
Nuclear power is also expensive and heavily subsidized by taxpayers’ money, and it isn’t even totally emissions-free.
Although nuclear energy’s ability to provide large-scale continuous power makes it tempting, we have better ways to deal with our energy needs.
To start, waste from uranium mining and nuclear power plants is a serious issue, especially considering that much of that waste is highly radioactive.
Although we can recycle some waste from power production, we still haven’t really figured out what to do with most of it.
One method for large-scale storage is to bury it, but that’s basically a policy of out-of-sight, out-of-mind – we don’t yet know the full consequences.
It’s also expensive and the waste has to be transported over long distances where the probability of a mishap is very real.
And although nuclear has a relatively good safety record compared to some other large-scale energy technologies, the consequences of an accident can be far worse – as we learned when a reactor at a nuclear power plant in Chernobyl, Russia, exploded in 1986. It sent radioactive fallout into the air over Russia, Europe, and even parts of North America and led to an increase in cancers in the areas with the highest concentrations of fallout.
If nuclear energy really does expand “around the world”, as Prime Minister Harper predicts, the dangers of weapons proliferation will continue to grow.
Nuclear power plants also take a long time to build and are incredibly expensive – and are notorious for going massively over budget. Canada has subsidized the nuclear power industry to the tune of $20 billion over the past 50 years.
Just think of what we could have done by putting that kind of money into renewable energy.
Nuclear energy isn’t even all that green when it comes to global warming.
If you look at the life cycle of nuclear power, the technology produces greenhouse gases at every step, from energy-intensive uranium mining and transportation to constructing and decommissioning power plants. (Looking at the life cycle of energy technologies hasn’t been always been a common practice, but it’s an important step that has allowed us to identify problems with energy sources that look attractive at first glance, such as corn-based biofuels.)
If we were to look forward instead of backward, Canada(and US) could become a leader in energy technology and innovation.
As costs for renewable energy go down, costs for old-school technologies like nuclear power and fossil fuels continue to rise.
Advances have also been made in power-grid management, meaning renewable sources can be more easily integrated into energy systems.
The government of B.C. has recognized that nuclear energy isn’t a panacea; in April, it banned uranium mining in the province.
Keep in mind that uranium is a limited resource.
The European Commission estimated in 2001 that global supplies of uranium could last as few as 12 years if capacity increases substantially and will only last from about 40 to 70 years with current usage rates.
Prices have already been skyrocketing as uranium becomes scarce.
As we rethink our energy future in light of the dangers of further increasing greenhouse gases, we have an enormous opportunity.
I believe that rather than putting all of our faith in big technology (big dams, coal plants, nuclear), investing in a decentralized grid of diverse, small-scale renewable energy sources would be far more resilient and reliable.
We should all get behind renewable energy in order to avoid the dangers and expense of an expanding nuclear industry.
But there’s something else we can do: use less energy.
Conservation means we could avoid having to build expensive power plants, and we’d also have cleaner air and some real solutions to global warming.
Many people have already switched to more energy-efficient appliances, as well as finding other ways to reduce energy consumption. (Like hanging clothes outside, cutting back your heat, insulate your homes)
All of those small things add up to make a big difference. People really do have the power.
Take David Suzuki’s Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Water Worries Shape Local Energy Decisions
Comment: Uranium Mining & Milling, Nuke Power, Coal Plants uses huge amount of water!
MARCH 26, 2009
Scarcity Forces Electricity Companies to Rethink Power-Plant Plans, Providing an Opening for Renewable Sources
Last month, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, a utility that provides power to mostly rural areas, agreed to conduct a major study to see if it might meet growing energy needs through energy efficiency and not a big, new coal-fired power plant, as it had proposed for southeast Colorado.
One reason for the move was a challenge by Environment Colorado, an advocacy organization, about the amount of water a new plant would require.
Changes like these are happening with increasing frequency, particularly in the arid West, as mounting concerns about water begin to shape local energy decisions.
Mark Harrison/The Seattle Times
A wind farm in Kittitas, Wash. Some similar projects, especially in the arid West, are gaining momentum because their water needs are minimal.
In some cases, power companies are pulling back from plans to build traditional power plants that require steady streams of water to operate. In others, renewable-energy projects such as wind farms or solar arrays are gaining momentum because their water needs are minimal.
Tri-State no longer is sure what it might build in southeast Colorado but it is going ahead with plans to build a 500,000-solar-panel project in northeast New Mexico in partnership with First Solar Inc.
"There's no water requirement with solar," said Mac McLennan, senior vice president for Tri-State, based in Westminster, Colo.
Advocates for alternative energy are discovering that water issues may prove to be as important a selling point for the industry as reducing carbon-dioxide emissions.
"The more we wean energy companies off consumptive use of water, the better for everyone," said Craig Cox, executive director of the Interwest Energy Alliance, a Colorado trade group that represents power-project developers.
The electric-power industry accounts for nearly half of all water withdrawals in the U.S., with agricultural irrigation coming in a distant second at about 35%. Even though most of the water used by the power sector eventually is returned to waterways or the ground, 2% to 3% is lost through evaporation, amounting to 1.6 trillion to 1.7 trillion gallons a year that might otherwise enhance fisheries or recharge aquifers, according to a Department of Energy study.
The study concluded that a megawatt hour of electricity produced by a wind turbine can save 200 to 600 gallons of water compared with the amount required by a modern gas-fired power plant to make that same amount.
Earlier this month, Jeff Bingaman (D., N.M.), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, noted during a hearing that the "nexus" of water and energy is becoming an issue "in [power plant] permitting decisions across the country."
Landowners in the far northeast corner of California were riled recently by Sempra Energy's proposal to build a coal-fired power plant just across the state line in Nevada.
One reason residents objected was that the plant would have required vast amounts of water for cooling. "Use of groundwater is always a sensitive issue up here because we don't have much," said Jack Hanson, a member of the Lassen County Board of Supervisors.
Sempra pulled the plug on the project in late 2006, citing, among other things, water use.
Since then, another big energy proposal has surfaced, but it hasn't kicked up much opposition: A dozen companies are considering building hundreds of wind turbines along Lassen County ridgelines. So far, 17 meteorological towers have been erected to verify wind speeds.
In turn, conventional power plants are turning to technology that aggressively cuts water use as they weigh the costs of installing more complicated cooling systems versus leaning on scarce resources.
A power plant recently put into service by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., a unit of PG&E Corp., in the Northern California town of Antioch has a cooling system to cut its water intake from 40,000 gallons a minute to 1.6 gallons. In the past, power plants commonly were built with "once-through cooling," in which water was drawn from waterways, used once, and then put back. But the Antioch plant uses a "dry" cooling technique that recirculates water in a closed system, reducing evaporation.
Environmental groups that oppose coal and nuclear power plants are discovering that water can be a powerful tool to challenge power companies.
In 2004, Riverkeeper Inc., an environmental organization in Tarrytown, N.Y., along with six states, sued the Environmental Protection Agency over the use of once-through cooling by as many as 500 older power plants in the U.S. The suit charges that the practice violates the Clean Water Act because it harms aquatic life and fails to utilize the best technology available, a requirement of the federal act.
The case, now before the U.S. Supreme Court, stands to test how water-use issues will determine which power plants continue to operate as well as what kind of plants are built.
Nuclear plants face particular scrutiny, since they require more water than any other form of steam generation.
Virginia Power, a unit of Dominion Resources, is facing a legal challenge over its right to draw one million gallons of water a minute per reactor from a man-made lake it uses to cool its North Anna nuclear power plant and into which it discharges heated water. The utility built the lake in 1978 exclusively for the plant's cooling purposes.
A group called the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Inc. argued that heat is a form of pollution and said the state water board shouldn't have renewed the plant's water permit.
Last month, a state court upheld much of the environmental group's case; the utility plans an appeal.
Dominion says the man-made lake is a private body of water and therefore shouldn't fall under the federal Clean Water Act.(Well, the river that forms the lake is not private, belongs to the people of VA)
Water is also emerging as an important point for analysts in the investment community.
"We definitely have noticed more companies having water issues," said Swaminathan Venkataraman, an analyst at Standard & Poor's credit-rating agency.
"If it continues, it will give renewables another important advantage."
Write to Rebecca Smith at rebecca.smith@wsj.com
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Home-Grown Power
Comment: We want Real Green Power, no Nuke Plants, no uranium mining, no Clean Coal(joke-clean coal is a joke)!!
By IAN BOWLES
Published: March 6, 2009
Boston
PRESIDENT Obama has laid out an ambitious agenda for dealing with our energy needs and climate change: he proposes to double the supply of renewable energy within three years, establish a cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions and use federal stimulus dollars to help homes, businesses and governments use energy more efficiently. This is the right blueprint for increasing the number of green jobs, encouraging economic growth, ensuring that the United States has the energy it needs at reasonable prices, and reducing the risk of global climate change.
But as Congress translates this grand plan into legislation, lawmakers should resist calls to add an extensive and costly new transmission system that would carry electricity from remote areas like Texas, the Great Plains and Eastern Canada to places with high energy demands like Boston, Chicago and New York. This idea is being promoted by energy companies and by elected officials who see it as an economic development opportunity for their particular state or region. Long-distance transmission lines are needed, they argue, to ensure that the president’s energy goals are met.
But there are better — and cheaper — ways to get more clean power flowing to the big cities.
Renewable energy resources are found all across the country; they don’t need to be harnessed from just one place.
In the Northwest, the largest amount of green power comes from hydroelectricity.
In the Northeast, the best source may be the wind over the ocean, because it blows harder and more consistently there than on land. Offshore wind farms have been proposed for Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island.
In the Southwest, solar energy can be tapped on a large scale.
And in the Southeast, biomass from forests may one day be a major source of sustainable power.
In each area, developing these power sources would be cheaper than piping in clean energy from thousands of miles away.
Unlike our federal highway system, which is needed to transport goods across the country, or the “information superhighway” of the Internet, which is the fastest way to carry information around the world, long-distance transmission lines have no inherent value.
On the contrary, the farther electricity is transported, the more of it is dissipated. “Line loss,” as this is called, gobbles up an estimated 2 percent to 3 percent of electricity nationally.
And of course, the longer the power line, the more expensive it is to build. In New England, we estimate the cost per mile at $2 million to $10 million. The closer electricity is generated to where it’s used, the better.
Another component of President Obama’s clean energy vision is the creation of a smarter power grid. But that has little to do with high capacity transmission lines that carry electricity in bulk over hundreds of miles.
Building a “smart grid” means upgrading the local grid from a simple delivery system to an information system that can let consumers know the times when power is cheapest, thus enabling them to adjust their use to save money.
This flattens out electricity loads and minimizes periods of peak demand. Smart grids will also be able to identify and fix power failures instantly, and someday may even send signals to specific household appliances like thermostats, washing machines and refrigerators to switch them on when demand is low or turn them off during times of peak energy use.
The cost of building transmission lines to connect new power plants to the grid ought to be covered the way we cover it in the Northeast, by folding it into the price of the power that the lines deliver. That allows the market to help keep prices as low as possible.
In Massachusetts, we get about 5 percent of our power from hydroelectric plants in Quebec. Our distribution utilities are negotiating to install a second transmission line for Canadian hydropower, which would be paid for through long-term power-purchase contracts approved by the New England states whose residents use that power.
Developers of remote wind-power farms in eastern Canada have said they would also like to sell us electricity, but unless the combined cost of the power they could provide and its transmission is competitive with our other renewable energy choices, their projects won’t get approved.
That’s the way it should be.
For a clean energy future, we need a smart grid and we need more renewable energy.
The Obama administration is offering welcome support for both. Beyond that, what we need is a level playing field that enables energy providers to compete fairly with one another.
The cost of transmission should be incorporated into the overall cost of bringing clean energy to market.
Then let the chips fall — and wind turbines rise — where they may.
Ian Bowles is the secretary of energy and environmental affairs for Massachusetts.
By IAN BOWLES
Published: March 6, 2009
Boston
PRESIDENT Obama has laid out an ambitious agenda for dealing with our energy needs and climate change: he proposes to double the supply of renewable energy within three years, establish a cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions and use federal stimulus dollars to help homes, businesses and governments use energy more efficiently. This is the right blueprint for increasing the number of green jobs, encouraging economic growth, ensuring that the United States has the energy it needs at reasonable prices, and reducing the risk of global climate change.
But as Congress translates this grand plan into legislation, lawmakers should resist calls to add an extensive and costly new transmission system that would carry electricity from remote areas like Texas, the Great Plains and Eastern Canada to places with high energy demands like Boston, Chicago and New York. This idea is being promoted by energy companies and by elected officials who see it as an economic development opportunity for their particular state or region. Long-distance transmission lines are needed, they argue, to ensure that the president’s energy goals are met.
But there are better — and cheaper — ways to get more clean power flowing to the big cities.
Renewable energy resources are found all across the country; they don’t need to be harnessed from just one place.
In the Northwest, the largest amount of green power comes from hydroelectricity.
In the Northeast, the best source may be the wind over the ocean, because it blows harder and more consistently there than on land. Offshore wind farms have been proposed for Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island.
In the Southwest, solar energy can be tapped on a large scale.
And in the Southeast, biomass from forests may one day be a major source of sustainable power.
In each area, developing these power sources would be cheaper than piping in clean energy from thousands of miles away.
Unlike our federal highway system, which is needed to transport goods across the country, or the “information superhighway” of the Internet, which is the fastest way to carry information around the world, long-distance transmission lines have no inherent value.
On the contrary, the farther electricity is transported, the more of it is dissipated. “Line loss,” as this is called, gobbles up an estimated 2 percent to 3 percent of electricity nationally.
And of course, the longer the power line, the more expensive it is to build. In New England, we estimate the cost per mile at $2 million to $10 million. The closer electricity is generated to where it’s used, the better.
Another component of President Obama’s clean energy vision is the creation of a smarter power grid. But that has little to do with high capacity transmission lines that carry electricity in bulk over hundreds of miles.
Building a “smart grid” means upgrading the local grid from a simple delivery system to an information system that can let consumers know the times when power is cheapest, thus enabling them to adjust their use to save money.
This flattens out electricity loads and minimizes periods of peak demand. Smart grids will also be able to identify and fix power failures instantly, and someday may even send signals to specific household appliances like thermostats, washing machines and refrigerators to switch them on when demand is low or turn them off during times of peak energy use.
The cost of building transmission lines to connect new power plants to the grid ought to be covered the way we cover it in the Northeast, by folding it into the price of the power that the lines deliver. That allows the market to help keep prices as low as possible.
In Massachusetts, we get about 5 percent of our power from hydroelectric plants in Quebec. Our distribution utilities are negotiating to install a second transmission line for Canadian hydropower, which would be paid for through long-term power-purchase contracts approved by the New England states whose residents use that power.
Developers of remote wind-power farms in eastern Canada have said they would also like to sell us electricity, but unless the combined cost of the power they could provide and its transmission is competitive with our other renewable energy choices, their projects won’t get approved.
That’s the way it should be.
For a clean energy future, we need a smart grid and we need more renewable energy.
The Obama administration is offering welcome support for both. Beyond that, what we need is a level playing field that enables energy providers to compete fairly with one another.
The cost of transmission should be incorporated into the overall cost of bringing clean energy to market.
Then let the chips fall — and wind turbines rise — where they may.
Ian Bowles is the secretary of energy and environmental affairs for Massachusetts.
Renewable and Affordable
Comment: I know the Wind in Piedmont is different everyday but I have seen smaller wind mills on the web that picks up less than 2-3 mile wind.
Green Answers, Blowing in the Wind
By Megan GreenwellWashington Post Staff Writer Thursday, March 12, 2009; Page B01
As smoke rose from the power plant just across Cuckold Creek, one of the first residential windmills in Maryland began providing the Elliott-Robinson home with a greener source of electricity yesterday.
The couple spent $23,000 to put up a personal windmill in their back yard, which will decrease their dependence on the traditional power grid and the power plant whose smokestacks loom over their home in Charles County.
For Maryland residents who can't afford a personal windmill or don't live on one of the windiest sites in the state, a cheaper and more convenient option for using wind power also became available yesterday.
For the first time, 1.73 million Baltimore Gas and Electric and Pepco customers in Maryland can lower their electric bills by buying renewable energy credits through the Rockville-based company Clean Currents. The company has offered the credits for almost three years but always at a premium over regular utility rates.
"Usually renewable energy requires an upfront investment, but we're in a unique situation where you can choose green power and save money at the same time," said Gary Skulnik, Clean Currents' president. "It almost never happens."
The decreased rates are the result of a steady decline in wholesale energy prices. Utility companies set their customers' rates periodically and have not reduced them to reflect the lower prices they are now paying for energy to produce electricity. But Clean Currents and other companies have taken advantage of the downturn in the price and are offering residents as much as two years of power for 10 to 15 percent less than the utilities' summer rates. They use some of their revenue to promote wind farms and the use of wind power.
Clean Currents also sells wind power credits to District residents, but they pay a slight premium above traditional Pepco rates.
Robert Dobkin, a spokesman for Pepco, said the alternative offered by Clean Currents is what choice is all about. But he cautioned that renewable energy companies have run into financial trouble in the past and have been forced to cut their programs.
The electricity is generated by wind-powered turbines across the country, primarily in Texas, and sent east on the mid-Atlantic electric grid. About 2,500 residents and businesses signed up for the company's service before the price cut, and Skulnik said he expects that number to increase dramatically.
"There's no cost to you, you don't have to install any equipment and it takes less than five minutes on a Web site," Skulnik said. "There's no excuse not to do it."
Carlos Fernandez-Bueno, who sold Ken Robinson and Sheryl Elliott their windmill, said renewable energy credits make sense for most residents. Robinson has fought the owners of the power plant across the creek for years, and he wanted the satisfaction of providing his electricity. During the winter, the 33-foot-tall windmill will provide more electricity than his home can use, so his meter will run backward and the Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative will issue him a credit.
Fernandez-Bueno sold 85 windmills last year but none in Maryland, where most counties don't have specific permitting processes for them. It took Robinson 18 months to secure the permits for his, mainly because nobody had ever tried to build a windmill in Charles and the zoning board didn't have a proper application form.
Yesterday, the mess was a distant memory for the couple, who threw a party to celebrate their success and their 40 percent overall reduction in dependence on the power grid. With a crowd of almost 200 cheering wildly, a draft horse set in motion the pulley system that raised the windmill. Screws were tightened, an elementary-schooler pushed a button and the blades began twirling.
"Look how fast it's going!" Elliott exclaimed as the device gained momentum. "My heart is pumping; I feel like a little kid!"
In some areas of the country, homeowners who want to build windmills have faced opposition from neighbors who object to the noise or aesthetics, but Robinson and Elliott's neighbors celebrated with them.
"My only problem with it is that I'm jealous," said Julie Klingenstein, who lives up the street.
"Maybe they'll share some of their electricity with all that money they're saving."
Green Answers, Blowing in the Wind
By Megan GreenwellWashington Post Staff Writer Thursday, March 12, 2009; Page B01
As smoke rose from the power plant just across Cuckold Creek, one of the first residential windmills in Maryland began providing the Elliott-Robinson home with a greener source of electricity yesterday.
The couple spent $23,000 to put up a personal windmill in their back yard, which will decrease their dependence on the traditional power grid and the power plant whose smokestacks loom over their home in Charles County.
For Maryland residents who can't afford a personal windmill or don't live on one of the windiest sites in the state, a cheaper and more convenient option for using wind power also became available yesterday.
For the first time, 1.73 million Baltimore Gas and Electric and Pepco customers in Maryland can lower their electric bills by buying renewable energy credits through the Rockville-based company Clean Currents. The company has offered the credits for almost three years but always at a premium over regular utility rates.
"Usually renewable energy requires an upfront investment, but we're in a unique situation where you can choose green power and save money at the same time," said Gary Skulnik, Clean Currents' president. "It almost never happens."
The decreased rates are the result of a steady decline in wholesale energy prices. Utility companies set their customers' rates periodically and have not reduced them to reflect the lower prices they are now paying for energy to produce electricity. But Clean Currents and other companies have taken advantage of the downturn in the price and are offering residents as much as two years of power for 10 to 15 percent less than the utilities' summer rates. They use some of their revenue to promote wind farms and the use of wind power.
Clean Currents also sells wind power credits to District residents, but they pay a slight premium above traditional Pepco rates.
Robert Dobkin, a spokesman for Pepco, said the alternative offered by Clean Currents is what choice is all about. But he cautioned that renewable energy companies have run into financial trouble in the past and have been forced to cut their programs.
The electricity is generated by wind-powered turbines across the country, primarily in Texas, and sent east on the mid-Atlantic electric grid. About 2,500 residents and businesses signed up for the company's service before the price cut, and Skulnik said he expects that number to increase dramatically.
"There's no cost to you, you don't have to install any equipment and it takes less than five minutes on a Web site," Skulnik said. "There's no excuse not to do it."
Carlos Fernandez-Bueno, who sold Ken Robinson and Sheryl Elliott their windmill, said renewable energy credits make sense for most residents. Robinson has fought the owners of the power plant across the creek for years, and he wanted the satisfaction of providing his electricity. During the winter, the 33-foot-tall windmill will provide more electricity than his home can use, so his meter will run backward and the Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative will issue him a credit.
Fernandez-Bueno sold 85 windmills last year but none in Maryland, where most counties don't have specific permitting processes for them. It took Robinson 18 months to secure the permits for his, mainly because nobody had ever tried to build a windmill in Charles and the zoning board didn't have a proper application form.
Yesterday, the mess was a distant memory for the couple, who threw a party to celebrate their success and their 40 percent overall reduction in dependence on the power grid. With a crowd of almost 200 cheering wildly, a draft horse set in motion the pulley system that raised the windmill. Screws were tightened, an elementary-schooler pushed a button and the blades began twirling.
"Look how fast it's going!" Elliott exclaimed as the device gained momentum. "My heart is pumping; I feel like a little kid!"
In some areas of the country, homeowners who want to build windmills have faced opposition from neighbors who object to the noise or aesthetics, but Robinson and Elliott's neighbors celebrated with them.
"My only problem with it is that I'm jealous," said Julie Klingenstein, who lives up the street.
"Maybe they'll share some of their electricity with all that money they're saving."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
