DOE Energy Goals and Reality:

DOE Goal: “Efficient transformation of the nation’s energy system and secure U.S. leadership in clean energy technologies”

Transformation Reality – Fossil Fuel Dominance: According to the energy flow chart, the United States is dominated by fossil fuel consumption with renewable energy sources playing an insignificant role. Renewable energies could help reduce green house gas emissions, but are not sufficiently plentiful to matter.

Transformation Reality – Imported Oil: The United States imports 60 percent of its crude oil needs. In about 11 years that figure will be 100 percent.

Transformation Reality – Millions of Passenger Cars Depend on Crude Oil: There are 137 million passenger vehicles in the United States and almost all operate on fuel derived from crude oil. Does the DOE have a plan to power that many vehicles based on a different fuel type? What about compressed natural gas as a fuel?

Transformation Reality – U.S. Leadership: “Denmark’s clean-tech investments equal 3.1 percent of GDP. Using that measure, China ranks second, spending 1.4 percent of GDP on clean tech. The U.S. ranks 17th, with clean-tech investments accounting for 0.3 percent of GDP.”

DOE Goal: “Enhance nuclear security through defense, nonproliferation, and environmental efforts.”

Reality – Unreliable Nuclear Plants: “Of all 132 U.S. nuclear plants built (52% of the 253 originally ordered), 21% were permanently and prematurely closed due to reliability or cost problems, while another 27% have completely failed for a year or more at least once. The surviving U.S. nuclear plants produce ~90% of their full-time full-load potential, but even they are not fully dependable. Even reliably operating nuclear plants must shut down, on average, for 39 days every 17 months for refueling and maintenance, and unexpected failures do occur too.”

Reality – Imported Uranium: The United States imports nearly 90 percent of its uranium needs. Russia supplies 23 percent, while Kazakhstan provides 15 percent, among others. Does that foreign dependency on uranium represent nuclear energy security for the United States?

Reality – Unsafe Nuclear Waste Storage: Storage of spent nuclear fuel has not yet been resolved. Spent fuel is stored at nuclear plants, and could lead to disastrous consequences caused by earthquakes.

Reality – Risk of Nuclear Plant Melt Down: Some nuclear power plants lie dangerously close to earthquake faults. Diablo Canyon in California and Indian Point Energy Center near Manhattan are examples. What plans do the DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRC) have for these and similar cases? Where is the nuclear security to prevent disaster?

Regarding U.S. nuclear safety, The Hill reported, “A federal report recommending a suite of new safety measures at the country’s nuclear power plants lacks ‘rigorous analysis,’ the nuclear industry said. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the industry’s national trade group, faulted the 90-day report released by a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) task force last week for not including a detailed analysis of the disaster at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi power plant.”

According to the Associated Press, “Japan’s nuclear safety chief said Wednesday the country’s regulations are flawed, outdated and below global standards, and he apologized for their failure when a tsunami crippled one plant last year. Haruki Madarame admitted Japanese safety requirements such as for tsunami and power losses were too loose and many officials have looked the other way and tried to avoid changes.”

Exported diesel fuel also includes home heating oil that has been exported in greater quantities for the past several years. I wrote about this matter in my blog of October 18, 2011. That post noted, “Oil companies are making profits from exported distillate fuels and federal subsidies, while state and city government are vainly attempting to provide heating oil assistance to financially stressed families. Although oil companies are free to sell products to whomever, nevertheless they are not entitled to totally unnecessary subsidies. Some portion of those subsidies could be diverted to poor families for home heating oil payment assistance, while the remaining subsidies could support renewable energy R&D, especially to decrease the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) generated from solar PV and off shore wind.”

Representative Markey concluded, “An energy agenda that places oil above all is not helping Americans find work or achieve energy security. As we build America’s clean-energy future, we also must also ensure that our domestic oil and natural-gas resources stay here in America.”

Those comments were reinforced with an article in the Boston Globe (February 9, 2012), “Officials question safety of Seabrook power:”

“Citing safety concerns, a growing chorus of local politicians is urging the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to halt the relicensing  process for Seabrook Station until a long-term solution is implemented to address concrete degradation at the plant.”

“Concrete surrounding an electric control tunnel at the nuclear power plant has lost almost 22 percent of its strength and is showing signs of an alkali-silica (ASR) reaction because of more than a decade of ground-water infiltration, according to an NRC inspection report released in May 2011.”

“The degradation was discovered during a below-grade inspection of the accessible portion of the foundation, including the tunnel, a safety structure with vital electric cables that support the cooling system used when the reactor is shut down.”

How many more Fukushima-Chernobyl wakeup calls are needed to put safety concerns ahead of profit motives?

That observation was confirmed in a recent article in the Boston Globe (January 31, 2012), “Green electricity finds few customers in Mass:”

“Five years after NStar became the first Massachusetts utility to allow customers to buy electricity supplied by a wind farm, its Green program has failed to catch on. Less than 1 percent of the company’s nearly 900,000 customers have enrolled.”

“The dismal response resembles lackluster participation in similar renewable energy programs offered by other utilities, worrying state officials as they push toward a goal of generating 20 percent of electricity from renewable energy by 2020.”

“The NStar program has faltered because of the recession and falling fossil fuel prices, which resulted in a greater surcharge for wind energy. Environmental activists are frustrated and question whether utilities have done enough to publicize the programs.”

Electricity from renewable energy makes sense from environmental impact and domestic accessibly perspectives. However, cost to the consumer is more important. 

Nationalizing U.S. energy assets offers the potential for affordable domestic energy prices by controlling supply and demand, especially during periods of hardship. It is noteworthy that 94 percent of the world’s oil assets are in the hands of national oil companies (Statoil of Norway, Petrobras of Brazil, etc.), and not the international oil companies (e.g. BP, ExxonMobil, Shell, etc).

In contrast, “The share of electricity produced from renewable energy in Germany has increased from 6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to over 20 percent in the first half of 2011.” (See below). In percentage increases, Germany’s solar increased by 6X,  and wind by 4X compared to the United States.

Germany plans to replace its 17 nuclear power plants with renewable energy sources in 10 years. When, if ever, will the United States be able to replace even one of its 104 aging, risk-laden nuclear power plants with renewable energy sources?

U.S. Renewable Energy Consumption from 2006 -2010

German Renewable Energy Consumption in 2009

U.S. RENEWABLE ENERGY INCENTIVES

“States offer a variety of grant programs to encourage the use and development of renewables and energy efficiency. Most programs offer support for a broad range of technologies, while a few programs focus on promoting a single technology, such as photovoltaic (PV) systems. Grants are available primarily to the commercial, industrial, utility, education and/or government sectors. Most grant programs are designed to pay down the cost of eligible systems or equipment. Others focus on research and development, or support project commercialization. In recent years, the federal government has offered grants for renewables and energy efficiency projects for end-users. Grants are usually competitive.”   A total of 27 incentive programs are listed below:

FINANCIAL INCENTIVES (11)

• Green Building Incentives
• Industry Recruitment/Support
• Leasing Programs
• Loan Programs
• PACE Financing
• Performance-Based Incentives
• Personal Tax Incentives
• Property Tax Incentives
• Rebate Programs
• Sales Tax Incentives
• Utility Rate Discounts

RULES, REGULATIONS & POLICIES (16)

• Appliance/Equipment Efficiency Standards
• Building Energy Codes
• Contractor Licensing
• Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS)
• Energy Standards for Public Buildings
• Equipment Certification Requirements
• Generation Disclosure
• Green Power Purchasing Policies
• Interconnection Standards
• Line Extension Analysis
• Mandatory Utility Green Power Option
• Net Metering
• Public Benefit Funds
• Renewables Portfolio Standards (RPS)
• Solar & Wind Access Policies
• Solar & Wind Permitting Standards

• During this 10 year period, only 38 MW of wind turbines has been installed with a potential of 1000 MW. (See Additional Wind Potential Tables in this link). At that rate, 1000 MW of installed wind power will be reached in about 250 years.
• Assuming maximum wind power is available, the resulting energy production is 3 kWh/person/day compared with retail consumption of 20 kWh/person/day in MA. This wind energy generation would be only 15 percent of the requirements of more than 2,600,000 retail electric energy customers in MA. (Please see backup calculations below)
• Installed wind power of 1000 MW would occupy nearly 51,000 acres. In contrast, a gas fired power plant would be confined within 30 acres. 
•  Two gas fired power plants would generate over 1000 MW at 60 acres, nearly the same as 1000 MW of wind turbines occupying 51,000 acres
•  Capital cost of on shore wind turbines is approximately $2400/kW. Compare with capital costs of combustion turbines ranging from $700/kW to $900/kW.

A Path Forward 

Given these wind energy results from the past ten years, does it make sense to continue with Renewable Energy Credits (REC), Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and a host of tax incentives in MA? Where is the business case for wind energy in MA? Although wind energy generation in MA is not promising, it is possible for MA-based industries and universities to import electricity from other states. For example, Harvard University concluded an arrangement with First Wind in Maine to become the largest institutional buyer of wind energy from a renewable source in New England. First Wind will supply more than 10 percent of Harvard’s electricity. Implicit in this arrangement is the fact that Maine has nearly 10 times more available land area (556,000 acres) for wind, as well as 10 times greater potential wind capacity (11,251 MW) than Massachusetts. Encouraging technical advancements in wind turbine design  may increase the viability of wind energy technologies so that they can be competitive with their fossil fuel counterparts and not require government subsidies.

Backup Calculations:

MA On Shore Electricity Production from Wind

On shore wind = 1000MW > 1000MW [(1kWh/d)/40W]/2,647,529p ~ 9 kWh/day*persons

Capacity factor ~ 0.33  > on shore wind electricity production = 0.33 x 9 kWh/d*p = 3 kWh/d*p

MA Retail Electric Consumption

MA electric consumers (residential) = 2,647,529;    618 kWh/month, average

(618 kWh/mo*p) (12 mo/365d) ~  20 kWh/d*p

The use of the conversion factor, 1 kilowatt hour/day/40 watts (1kWh/d/40W), stems from a fellow physicist, David JC MacKay, who wrote, Sustainable Energy — without the hot air (2009). This conversion factor is intuitively reasonable because it is expressed in kWh, which most folks recognize from their electric bills. For example, the average retail electric bill in MA is 618 kWh/month.

New England Nuclear Plants: This region has 5 nuclear reactors, one each at Vermont Yankee, Seabrook, Pilgrim and 2 reactors at Millstone (units 2 and 3). The reactors at Vermont Yankee, Pilgrim and Millstone (unit 2) were commissioned in the 1970s. Commissioning dates for Millstone (unit 3) and Seabrook were 1986 and 1990, respectively. Operating license renewals have been granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Vermont Yankee (2032), Millstone (unit 2, 2035; unit 3, 2045), and Seabrook (2026). The license for Pilgrim is schedule to expire in 2012.

Lifespan: The design lifespan is usually 30 to 40 years. Although most elements in a nuclear power plant can be replaced, the reactor vessel cannot be replaced after it is no longer neutron leak proof. That lifespan limitation applies to 3 of the 5 reactors in New England. Government and industry experts are now considering the possibility of operating lifetimes of 80 years.

Uranium Imports: In my blog post of March 24, 2011, I wrote that the United States imports more than 90 percent of its uranium needs, where 23 percent comes from Russia and 15 percent from Kazakhstan. These statistics do not inspire confidence about reliable, secure fuel access to power New England nuclear plants.

Storage of Spent Fuel Rods: Congress passed a law in 1982 authorizing the creation of a national storage facility for spent fuel rods. The execution of that law ceased when the Obama administration canceled plans for storage at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. “New England plants…have already generated over 4200 tons of spent fuel…but the plants have no clear financial plan on how to pay for long-term storage. The spent fuel sits at or near…regional reactors in either pools of water or dry cement fortifications known as ‘dry casks,’ which cost between $6 to 8 million annually per plant to secure.”  “If water is lost from a densely packed pool as the result of an attack or an accident, cooling by ambient air would likely be insufficient to prevent a fire, resulting in the release of large quantities of radioactivity to the environment.”

Decommissioning: There is considerable cost pressure to extend nuclear plant operating lifetimes due to expense and time of decommissioning these installations, as well as cost and time to construct new nuclear plants. For example, three such decommissioning occurred in New England: Yankee Rowe ($608M, 1991), Maine Yankee ($635M, 1996) and Connecticut Yankee ($820M, 1996). The decommissioning process can take decades.