On
Aug. 27, 2013, Entergy announced it was not ordering fuel for Vermont
Yankee nuclear power plant, and it would close at the end of 2014. The
plant went off-line permanently on Dec. 29, 2014.
Now,
in August 2015, it is two years since the announcement, and seven
months since the plant shut down. What are the consequences, so far?
The environment and the grid
The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.
Opponents
of Vermont Yankee were fond of saying that Vermont Yankee had to be
shut down “so we could build renewables.” Others, more quietly, extolled
the virtues of natural gas. The natural gas proponents were pretty
subdued (“it’s bridge fuel to renewables and we don’t need much of it
because we’re a small state” etc.). Natural gas advocates had to be
subdued. Vermont has active opposition to new gas pipelines. Vermont is the home of Bill McKibben, one of the main founders of 350.org, a climate policy group. He leads anti-fossil fuel protests all over the country.
So, did Vermont get renewables?
Not
really, Vermont has big plans for renewables, but the renewables aren’t
available yet. And Vermont Yankee is shut down, right now. Vermont
basically did three things: Bought more from the grid (largely fossil
fuels including natural gas); tried to buy more from HydroQuebec (but it would take new transmission lines to carry the power), and is buying more from Seabrook Nuclear Station in neighboring New Hampshire.
When the local utilities asked the Public Service Board for permission to buy more from Seabrook,
it caused some uproar. Guy Page of Vermont Energy Partnership wrote a
short report on Vermont utility plans. As he said: this report hit a nerve. Many articles raised the important question: How green is Vermont, really?
The Seabrook purchase
Let’s
look a little closer at that Seabrook purchase. Vermont utilities
buying from Seabrook is great for Seabrook: the plant gets a good,
long-term power purchase agreement. But it doesn’t change Seabrook’s
actual electricity output. The Seabrook purchase is basically a piece of
paper. Vermont Yankee no longer makes electricity. Where is the actual
replacement electricity going to come from?
The
simple answer is natural gas. In other states (not Vermont!) natural
gas plants are being built to make up for the closing of Vermont Yankee
and coal plants.
Invenergy will build this 900-MW gas plant in Rhode Island.
The latest announcement is for a 900 mega-watt natural gas plant, to be built in Rhode Island. The headline in a utility trade newsletter describes the situation: Newly planned 900 MW gas plant will help meet grid operator capacity concerns.
So,
as we saw in California with the closing of San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station, the environmental result of closing a nuclear plant
is increased carbon emissions. (In its study on Columbia Generating
Station, IHS CERA found that Columbia prevents 3.6 million metric tons
in annual carbon emissions. Columbia will keep doing that year after
year for another 30 years. That’s not an insignificant contribution to
cleaner air.)
Well, that’s about pollution and the grid and so forth. What about the people of Vermont Yankee and the area?
The people and the economy
When
pressing for Vermont Yankee to be closed, Gov. Shumlin described the
possibility of closing the plant as giving a “billion dollar bonanza” to
Vermont. What on earth was he thinking? There’s no billion-dollar
bonanza. There’s a drop-off in employment, a killing of the local towns,
and general misery.
Let’s look at the VY timeline.
Entergy kept the plant at full employment until about a month after
shutdown. In late 2014, there were 550 employees (down from over 600
earlier in the year). In January, a month after the plant went off-line,
234 people were laid off. This left 316 people at the plant. At that
time, the end of January, all fuel was in the spent fuel pools (or on
the existing fuel pads).
When
the plant closure was announced, Entergy also announced that most of
the 316 people remaining in 2015 would be laid off in April 2016. At the
end of April, staffing will drop to 127 people. At that point there
will be almost no activity except security and some monitoring.
Sometime
around 2020, there will be another burst of activity at the plant as
the fuel in the fuel pool is transferred to dry casks. (I suspect that
little of this activity will be done by people who used to work at the
plant. Contractors usually do this type of crane work.) Then the plant
will be in SAFSTOR for many years before finally being dismantled. (Read
more here).
I wasn’t alone in this. Lots of people knew that there was no “jobs bonanza.” There were economic reports
done by the legislature and by IBEW (the main Vermont Yankee union).
The blog posts above link to these reports. The reports showed that over
1000 jobs would be lost near the plant: (plant jobs and
multiplier-effect jobs). Not that it mattered to plant opponents.
The plant closed, and people paid attention
As
the plant closed, people actually began to pay attention to the lack of
jobs and the depressing effect of the closure on the local economy. A
tri-state group did a study of the effects of the closure on the
Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts area in which plant staff mostly
live. They released the report as a news dump on Christmas Eve last
year, This report has been described as “stark.” True enough.
This report showed that the plant closure would lead to the loss of over 1000 jobs
in the region. Well, a very predictable report. Many people did
economic analyses in 2010 and predicted this outcome. Sheer misery. The
anti-nuclear energy ideologues perpetuate a myth that there are more
jobs in decommissioning than actually running the plant. Another point
on which they are catastrophically wrong.
Entergy tries to help
Entergy has been amazingly pro-active in trying to help the community.
First
off, they made a deal with the state of Vermont to give $2 million a
year for economic development, for five years, $10 million total. The
state has received $4 million to date, but only disbursed about
$800,000. The state keeps revamping its guidelines for receiving grants
from this money. Gov. Shumlin has the final say on how the Entergy money
is disbursed.
Entergy
has also made soft-landing deals for the taxes it pays to the school
district in town, and recently announced a new grant of $350,000 for
nearby towns in New Hampshire.
Nothing helps enough
Let’s
be blunt. Entergy is very public-spirited, but its resources for
Vermont are limited. It can’t put back the over $60 million dollar
payroll that ended when the plant shut down.
Vermont
Yankee is not generating any revenue. By the NRC rules for
decommissioning funds, these funds cannot be used to pay taxes or for
charity. Such funds are only for physical decommissioning of the plant.
In other words, whatever Entergy pays to help the Vermont area comes
directly out of Entergy’s ability to help support operating plants.
Vermont
Yankee is closed, and that area of the country is forever the worse for
it. More carbon dioxide in the air, fewer jobs in the area. Perhaps
Seabrook and the new natural gas plant are winners, but it isn’t a very
nice victory.
I am going to end this with a quote from an anonymous comment
on my blog: it's from a VY employee who got a new job quickly and
supposedly had a “soft landing.” I think his comment sums up part of the
human side of the story.
(Posted by Meredith Angwin)
|
Michele Kearney's Nuclear Wire - Major Energy and Environmental News and Commentary affecting the Nuclear Industry. Nuclear Activities
No comments:
Post a Comment