Recently I attended a workshop in South Burlington, one of a series conducted by the Department of Public Service to obtain public input, about Vermont's electricity future. As we approach the expiration of contracts early in the next decade for most of our base-load power, examination of Vermont's choices for sources of electricity will help inform the electric companies and policy makers. However, when the public has its say and new contracts are negotiated, expect to pay more, perhaps considerably more, for your electricity if ideology replaces common sense.
Unless Vermonters agree to recognize that we have limited choices to meet our base-load demand for electricity, we will pay more than necessary and risk our economy. The clamor for green energy, energy independence and renewable energy sources has been deafening. Also high on the public's list of issues is climate change and efficient use of electricity. However, we must see clearly through the trees of this tangled forest and realize that our near-term choices for the bulk of our electricity are realistically limited. We should not waste effort on frivolous hopes for marginal electricity sources that cannot sustain our future demand.
Because two thirds of our extremely reliable supply for many years must be renewed or replaced within 3-5 years, the only rational choices to meet our needs for 24/7 electricity, assuming we (specifically our Legislature) have the wisdom not to oppose them as a matter of policy, continue to be nuclear and large scale hydro from Canada.
It's unrealistic to think that wind, solar, small hydro, wood, cows or any other Vermont-based source of electricity can add significantly to our supply. For the moment, these are merely 'feel-good', but unrealistic choices; helpful, perhaps in 2050, but inconsequential in 2015.If folks are ideologically disposed to obtain their power only from those specific electricity sources, e.g., Vermont renewables, they should pay the higher price for their choice and not burden the general body of consumers with higher costs. CVPS does it now for cow-power. We must take great care not to substitute ideological, but impractical thinking for a rational, common sense approach to choosing our base-load electricity. These minuscule sources of power in Vermont, with the possible exception of wood-fired generators, simply cannot meet any significant part of our future base-load demand, certainly not in the near future. Therefore, our short term decisions should be based primarily on the least-cost power from the most reliable sources.
We should also test our demand forecasts for accuracy. Very important factors in that demand will be the efficiency achieved through conservation, the need for considerably more electricity if/as we move to plug-in electric vehicles to substitute electricity from the grid for petroleum. We should heavily weight the high side of the possible demand rather than the low side as we move deeper into electronic-intensive lifestyles and work environments. Determining the future bill for our electricity should be based on a number of demand/source scenarios and presented to the public and policy makers to identify clearly how much more they would pay.
Let's not impair the reliability of the sources or delivery of our electricity. Vermont has had a beneficial and rational electricity policy for many years, one that is already greener and less expensive than in other New England states. Let's not torpedo it with specious arguments about climate change or believe that wind, solar, more local hydro or biomass choices can provide any more than a tiny fraction of the electricity that we will need. To do so would jeopardize our economic health.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant
No comments:
Post a Comment