Study finds fault with VPIRG report

Full story: Brattleboro Reformer

It could cost between $4 billion and $8 billion to supply Vermont's electric needs from renewable sources, according to a report issued by the Coalition for Energy Solutions, a loosely associated group of energy professionals who study and evaluate energy options.
Comments
1 - 20 of 49 Comments Last updated May 3, 2010
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Little Rock, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
May 1, 2010
 
Anyone who has not read this report should take a look at it. Doesn't matter what your viewpoint on VY is. The report doesn't speak about VY at all. The report is about 30 pages long but is very interesting reading. The authors took to time to go into details. They talk about their assumptions very straight forward and explain how they came up with that assumption. They also have alot of footnotes that you can then go to their website and look at spreadsheets and other information that shows where they came up with the number they have in full detail.
www.coalitionforenergysolutions.org

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
May 1, 2010
 
This pretty well sums it up:
"Their analysis, if you can call it that, is disingenuous," he said. "It’s a Vermont Yankee support group manipulating the numbers to paint the picture that they want."-James Moore, VPIRG

"While the evaluation by Coalition for Energy Solutions does not discuss Yankee’s role in Vermont’s future electric needs, "The general opinion of the Coalition members, favor extending VY’s license while building renewables at an achievable pace."

It was also printed in this pronuclear activists blog as well. Author errantly claims he will not enter his e-mail address to VPIRG for their documents as it could result in fundraising spam. Fails to note that ea. one may be downloaded for future reference. I have never received any communication whatsoever from VPIRG, and I do it all the time.
http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2010/04/ve...

"It is reasonable to expect that technologies will improve and prices will fall, because that is our experience," they stated".

"However, when it comes to planning for the future, it is not prudent to plan on technology improvements and price decreases on a schedule."

Is anyone claiming this? It has a huge effect, yet they seek discount it entirely-why is this I wonder?

"What if nearly doubling the output of Vermont’s forests is analyzed and found to be a poor forest-management choice for sustainability?"

Is anyone planning on this either?

I think we can see where this bs is coming from and where it's going...
Rod Adams

Virginia Beach, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
May 1, 2010
 
As the author of the quite proudly pronuclear activist blog mentioned by northstardust I would like to know how anyone would know that a non-profit group would collect email addresses associated with a report and then NOT use those addresses to solicit funds?

It is a reasonable presumption that any business or non profit asking for email addresses is building a mailing list database for a purpose.

I freely and aggressively support the use of nuclear energy as a reliable, low cost, emission free power source that beats coal, natural gas and oil on economic and environmental grounds and all renewable sources on economic and reliability grounds.

If you want expensive, dirty, unreliable power you should fight hard to shut down a useful facility like ENVY.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
May 1, 2010
 
Rod Adams wrote:
As the author of the quite proudly pronuclear activist blog mentioned by northstardust I would like to know how anyone would know that a non-profit group would collect email addresses associated with a report and then NOT use those addresses to solicit funds?
It is a reasonable presumption that any business or non profit asking for email addresses is building a mailing list database for a purpose.
I freely and aggressively support the use of nuclear energy as a reliable, low cost, emission free power source that beats coal, natural gas and oil on economic and environmental grounds and all renewable sources on economic and reliability grounds.
If you want expensive, dirty, unreliable power you should fight hard to shut down a useful facility like ENVY.
They have every right to know who is downloading their materials. As I said, I have downloaded quite a few.

Unmasking nuclear industry not all they are involved with.

Although there are companies who do this, I do not give my address out freely. They have not to my knowledge and have not in my case done this.

I would like to hear what VPIRG has to say about this.

Your supposed inevitable options are typical of the balony pushed by you and other pronuclear supporters.

There is much new technology re renewable options, which proponents of the nuclear industry do not want to see become the booming industry that it is in many places and could be in VT as well.

Would also provide jobs for VTers to build and maintain, another plus.

Why not simply let VT go down this path? Afraid it may work as it has in other places and countries much larger than VT?

The fact is, there is competition in the energy market as there is in any other market. Some of are not fooled by the propaganda, where its coming from and where it is going, and not fooled.

A hell of a lot of lobbying going on in our small state. In the end, Vt will decide its future, pronuclear special interests will not.
Rod Adams

Virginia Beach, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
May 1, 2010
 
@northstardust - though there might be a lot of well paid lobbyists trying to influence energy choices in your state, I am not one of them. I am merely a distant observer who happens to have a fair amount of energy related education and experience. I have also had the privilege of serving all of the taxpayers in the United States as a career Naval officer; part of my motivation for publishing Atomic Insights - which is freely available to all - is to share some of that knowlege with the people who paid me to accumulate it.
Please - enlighten me with your understanding of the new technologies in wind that are anything more than just bigger and bigger windmills. Tell me how solar collectors are going to provide energy when the sun is not visible. Help me understand how many cows it takes - and how much food they need to consume - to provide even 10% of the annual output from a relatively small nuclear plant like Vernont Yankee.
Tell me what power source, other than fission, is clean enough to run inside a submarine like the ones that I used to sail on.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
May 1, 2010
 
Thank you for our service to our country.

I am not an expert, nor must I or anyone be to see the technology which is available and what it could do in and for VT.

I also do not have all the answers, here again, I do not need to have them.

W/a baseload, all of the technologies you're crtiticizing could play a role, as well as local hydro facilities.

This is my point.

Yankee supplies 2% to the NE grid and 30-33% to VT. It wants to give us less for more cost and then use our state to supply more to the grid.

Had they invested in VT in terms of proving themselves to be honest, a good neighbor by not fighting the state every step of the way re decisions, and abiding by our laws, would not have yielded much more than their obvious arrogance and disrespect for VT.

Not lawyering up and choosing secrecy to hide its culture of dishonesty, they would not be the liability they now have become, which is the most costly aspect to VT-energy costs aside.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
May 1, 2010
 
'Would have' yielded much morethan their obvious arrogance and disrespect for VT. Oops.
YourArbiter

Dover, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
May 1, 2010
 
VPIRG is not some neutral evaluator. They are an eviro spin business which uses the politcs of fear to generate the donations that support them. They readily jump on any current environmental issue for the purpose of enhancing their donations. Anyone who would cite them as any kind of legitmate source has serious problems themselves.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
May 1, 2010
 
YourArbiter wrote:
VPIRG is not some neutral evaluator. They are an eviro spin business which uses the politcs of fear to generate the donations that support them. They readily jump on any current environmental issue for the purpose of enhancing their donations. Anyone who would cite them as any kind of legitmate source has serious problems themselves.
'Serious problems'? Can't someone have an opinion w/out having 'problems'?

Fear mongering, oh yeah we've heard it all before. No one has a corner on the market btw and the shills for the nuke industry do their fair share.

VPIRG a player in all this and have opinions. Their opinions are well known.

This 'study' is likely a sham to serve as 'evidence' to quote from for the nuke shills, however they do not readily admit their politics, which VPIRG does. I'll take the 'enviro' shills over them any day.

Just more sketchiness from nuclear industry shapeshifting into the 'study' arena.

We don't need Sherlock on this one.
David Lewis

Issaquah, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
May 1, 2010
 
A recent assessment of the cost of electricity generated by various technologies can be found in the table on page 3 of "2016 Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources from the Annual Energy Outlook 2010" put out by the Energy Information Administration.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/2016level...

Basically, new build renewables are going to cost a lot more than new build nuclear. Existing nuclear is very cheap compared to any new build this report considers.

The EIA was created by Congress to "collect, analyze, and disseminate independent and impartial energy information to promote sound policymaking, efficient markets, and public understanding of energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment", according to the EIA website.
Mike Mulligan

Roslindale, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
May 1, 2010
 
I think the “Coalition for Energy Solutions” report is more credible than the VPIRG report.

It is just to bad the NRC and Entergy threw this plant in the gutter...they couldn’t figure out what nuclear plant behavior was acceptable for the region.

Bottom line across the board, what a pathetic level of technological advancement we use to produce electricity...it is a national shame with the level of advance technology we use in the nuclear industry.
Brattleboro Native

Little Rock, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
May 1, 2010
 
northstardust wrote:
<quoted text>
'Serious problems'? Can't someone have an opinion w/out having 'problems'?
Fear mongering, oh yeah we've heard it all before. No one has a corner on the market btw and the shills for the nuke industry do their fair share.
VPIRG a player in all this and have opinions. Their opinions are well known.
This 'study' is likely a sham to serve as 'evidence' to quote from for the nuke shills, however they do not readily admit their politics, which VPIRG does. I'll take the 'enviro' shills over them any day.
Just more sketchiness from nuclear industry shapeshifting into the 'study' arena.
We don't need Sherlock on this one.
Someone "can have an opinion without having problems" with about the same degree of success as anyone who is the least bit pro-nuclear or who disagrees with your point of view being dismissed as: "It’s a Vermont Yankee support group manipulating the numbers to paint the picture that they want." You shouldn't dish it out if you can't take it.
yourarbiter

Dover, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
May 1, 2010
 
Does anyone who posts on here have the married last name of Gunderson?
Mike Mulligan

Roslindale, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
May 1, 2010
 
I hate this presentation of a monoview of the world...the green thugs are no better than the pro nukes.
Mngurl

Essex Junction, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
May 1, 2010
 
Dear Northstardust,
I get this feeling you are a paranoid, do you smoke dope? Or at least dillusional?
I think it's so funny that you said you are not an expert and do not expect to have all the answers. Yet you expect everyone else to, but then you don't believe them when they do. It's sad that nothing seems to be good enough or perfect enough for you. I hope you don't have kids.
Last time I knew, solar, wind, cow power can all have detrimental affects on the earth. Especially cow power- great point. How much grain will be needed to support the herds? Do you support factory farming? This goes against the idea of free range, organically grown food. Watch the film Food Inc., very informative.
Oh well, nothing I say is going to make a difference.
NH DAD

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
May 1, 2010
 
Still cracks me up all you people who cry we have to have all the renewable power like the wind farm in Londondery they were talking about but all no cant have that you your back yard can you. All you people talk a big talk but there is no action but a bunch of kids crying over a toy in a sand box. Im all for wind power would love to see it built help out with the power needs just like replacing the Nuke plant with a NEW ONE.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Little Rock, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
May 1, 2010
 
There is no question to me that nuclear is the best baseload energy source out there at this point in time. That being said cow power is a viable source and should be used as well. The report we are discussing speaks to this point. Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas then co2. The cows are going to be fed no matter what so we are using a biproduct of something that is already in use to make power. In using this biproduct we replce one greenhouse gas with another greenhouse gas that is not as bad for the environment. The problem with cow power is the startup cost. Cow power can never make enough power in Vermont to replace hydro or nuclear, but we should take what we can get out of it.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Little Rock, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
May 1, 2010
 
northstardust wrote:
This pretty well sums it up:
"Their analysis, if you can call it that, is disingenuous," he said. "It’s a Vermont Yankee support group manipulating the numbers to paint the picture that they want."-James Moore, VPIRG
Does it surprise you that someone from VPIRG (who authored the report they analyzed) would try to say that their analysis was wrong? NSD, I suggest you read the report and check their information. Unlike the VPRIG report they put all the cards on the table, they explained where and how all the information was gathered. When they made assumptions they explained them, somethign the VPRIG report did not. They spoke about other factors that the VPIRG report didn't even look into. It seems to me after reading both they their report is in more depth and has more information.
Just curious

Little Rock, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
May 1, 2010
 
Since we were all so willing to follow Sen. Shumlin down the 30% primrose path, why would it be a surprise that renewables are not cost-effective? When his misstatements were exposed, we also learned that Germany has spent tens of billions to generate <1% of their electricity from solar. Solar has some useful applications, but homeowners (who could benefit moat from small solar on their rooftops) can not enjoy this benefit due to the high cost. Government grants are not the answer, either as we all end up paying the piper for them sooner or later. The simple fact is, technological leaps are required for this energy source to be commercially viable. Until these leaps are made, we can not depend on solar for baseload power.

Since: Feb 10

Dover, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
May 1, 2010
 
We don't need technological leaps we just need a huge tax on oil, gasoline and energy. Raise the cost of energy enough and these alternatives will spring up like mushrooms in a moist warm dark cellar. All we need to do is raise taxes on gasoline, stop off shore oil drilling, cap and trade and alternative tech will become economically viable on it's own.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Brattleboro Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Tectonic Shift (Dec '12) 23 hr Final Solution 383
Naulakha Thu Brian Harris 1
Dummerston skeptical of solar deal (Feb '14) Aug 11 Bob Story 4
Fukushima Worsening!-Thank Nuketards 4Ruining E... (Aug '13) Aug 7 Reactor Fuel Exposed 106
Man subdued during break Aug 7 JewsAgainstZionis... 2
A Christian Plot for Domination (Aug '11) Aug 5 A Symbol Of Hope 1,200
Putney Village Pizza: Now serving Turkish food Aug 4 God Wants IsraHEL... 3

Search the Brattleboro Forum:
•••

Brattleboro News Video

•••
Brattleboro Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Brattleboro Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Brattleboro People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Brattleboro News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Brattleboro
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••