orangehaired-troll

Trump’s energy agenda, vague as it is, has been essentially to promote “clean coal,” nuclear and to deny climate change and dismantle federal climate change and “renewable” energy programs, of course with no move to eliminate subsidies for coal and nuclear.  The “transition team” sent a big laundry list of questions to the Department of Energy, and it’s pretty broad.  It’s also something that would be both telling and intimidating to receive.  Looking at this, there’s no doubt where they’re headed.

Here’s the document — read it and see what you think… and note how many of these questions are “Can you provide…” which are easily answered with just a “Yes” or “No” and that’s the end of it!

DOE – Trump Transition’s Questions

But wait… there’s another version (similar, but different order, etc.):

DOE – Trump Transition Question #2

I think Trump needs somebody to write his questions for him, somebody new that is.  He obviously didn’t come up with this, but his staff person who did, well, if they worked for me, “YOU’RE FIRED!”

mickeymouse

Here we go again, the Annual Hearing for the Power Plant Siting Act.

ppsa-2016

The full Notice:

16-0433 Notice of the Power Plant Siting Act Annual Hearing

Now’s the time to dig back into the cobwebs of memory of all the dockets over the last year, and the last 20+ years, and let them know how the Power Plant Siting Act is working, and more importantly, how it’s not working.

Comments are open until January 20, 2017.  To file in eDockets (highly recommended), go here, and log in.  If you don’t have an account, register (it’s simple, and fast) and then file in docket 16-18.

Note something different, this year they’re going to go over pipeline projects:

iiid2Recently, I’ve been involved in a project working toward increased meaningful and effective public participation in a pipeline docket, and what’s going through my head as I attend meetings, conference calls, and read very long intense emails, is that this is exactly what we’ve been talking about at these Power Plant Siting Act hearings for TWENTY YEARS!  This is exactly what we’ve been working to deal with in the Certificate of Need Minn. Ch. 7849 rulemaking for THREE YEARS!  These are exactly the same issues I’ve been raising in docket after docket, gaining a remand in one, some “adjustments” in others, and even to the appellate court a couple of times — MCEA had more success in this (see the EIS decision here).  And so little changes.

2000 Summary of Proceedings

2000 Report EQB

2001 Summary of Proceedings

2001 Report EQB

2002 Summary of Proceedings

2002 Report to EQB

2003 Summary of Proceedings

2003 Report to EQB

2004 Summary of Proceedings

2004 Report to EQB

2005 Report to PUC

2006 Report to PUC – Docket 06-1733

2007 Report to PUC – Docket 07-1579

2008 Report to PUC – Docket 08-1426

2009 Report to PUC – Docket 09-1351

2010 Report to PUC – Docket 10-222

2011 Report to PUC – Docket 11-324

2012 Report to PUC – Docket 12-360

2013 Report to PUC – Docket 13-965

2014 Summary Comments– Docket 14-887

2015 Summary Report – Docket 15-785

OK, folks, time to saddle up for another cattle drive!  Let’s get to it!

And on December 20… sigh…

ANOTHER Fukushima earthquake!

November 21st, 2016

fukushimaearthquake

There’s been another earthquake at Fukushima.  One report says 6.8, 6.9, and another says 7.3.  Aftershocks starting.  Both say tsunami warnings.  This is where we’ve had the worst nuclear disaster, meltdown, contamination, in history, and it’s now going to get worse.

From the Guardian, in Japanese:

Fukushima residents urged to flee as 7.4 magnitude quake in Japan

Live updates from ABC HERE

Daniel Smith reports (UPDATE – cooling equipment back online):

Cooling equipment stopped in power plant 

According to NHK, cooling equipment for the spent nuclear fuel pool in the reactor No. 3 of Tepco’s Fukushima No. 2 power plant has stopped. But the water in the pool is currently enough to keep it cool, NHK reports.

The nuclear regulatory agency says that so far, the cooling water has not leaked out, and Tepco are preparing to resume operation of the cooling system within an hour or two.

The water supply has stopped, however, the nuclear regulatory agency says that so far no abnormalities have been observed.
Other reports:

Japan earthquake: 7.3 magnitude quake strikes off Fukushima – tsunami warning issued

Earthquake near Fukushima triggers small tsunami and shakes buildings in Tokyo

Japan earthquake: 6.9 magnitude quake prompts tsunami warning …

Magnitude 7.3 Earthquake Strikes Off Fukushima in Japan, Tsunami Warning Issued

20161006_0934531

It was a long, long day. Bottom line? Based on the record, and based on acknowledgement of Xcel’s peak demand history, we can shut down Sherco 1 & 2 now without missing it, and by 2025 or so, shut down Prairie Island and not have to pay for significant rehab to keep it running.

Here is the PUC webcast:

 

Here is my handout, noting the 700-788MW overstatement of peak demand forecast.

Legalectric_Handout_IRP

peakdemand_2002-2016

If you start with Xcel’s 2015 actual peak demand, and extrapolate using the 0.3% annual increase out to 2030, here’s what it looks like (click for larger view):
forecast_adjusted

These are the charts that they’re using, starting with inflated forecasts of 9,409 and 9,442MW for 2016, note how far off the resulting 2030 “forecast” is — it’s 800 – 1,234 MW off!
staffp12

With the “forecast” that much off, it’s as absurd as the CapX 2020 2.49% annual increase. Staff questioned the forecasts in the Briefing Papers, Commissioner Lange raised forecasts right off the bat, and Commissioner Schuerger claimed it was at least 300 MW off (don’t know where that 300 MW came from). These discrepancies havce been noted, and they should dig deeper, because the numbers used by Xcel do not add up. Were they lying in the SEC filings or are they lying now? Why isn’t Commerce challenging this, given admissions of the existing surplus? This forecast overstatement, plus admission of under-utilization of grid (meaning grid has been overbuilt, DOH, CapX 2020 and MVP projects are not “needed” in any sense) raises a few issues:

1) This misrepresentation is NOW equivalent to at least one coal plant, and by the end of 2030, or by the time presumed for shut down of Sherco 1 and 2, it’s much more than that.

2) This misrepresentation avoids consideration of shut down of Sherco 1 & 2 NOW, and shutdown of Prairie Island at the 2024-2026 time frame, and avoidance of $600-900 million in capital costs, or more, for Prairie Island.

3) This misrepresentation circumvents discussion of the admitted surplus now existing, even Dr. Rakow admitted to that at least twice in Thursday’s discussion. Where there is surplus, they can sell it elsewhere, and that is, after all, the purpose of CapX 2020 and MVP transmission.

Got that? We can shut down Sherco 1 & 2 now without missing it, and by 2025 or so, shut down Prairie Island and not have to pay for significant rehab to keep it running. This is not rocket science. It’s as simple as using actual peak demand as a starting point and not making up numbers as they have been doing.

Decommission Genoa nuclear?

September 17th, 2016

20150412_160822_resized

There’s a NRC meeting on Tuesday about the “License Termination Plan” coming up:

6-8 p.m. on Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Courtyard Mariott

La Crosse Downtown/Mississippi Riverfront

500 Front St. South, La Crosse, WI 

Now think about it… why tear down what’s left of the Genoa plant?  So asks George Nygaard!  Shouldn’t this be a historical site?

Closed in 1987, Genoa nuke plant preparing for demo

My father worked on the conventional side of the Elk River Allis nuclear plant, a demonstration project way back when.  That was decommissioned back in the early 70s and is now a garbage burner.  When the demonstration project was completed, and they tried to sell it, no local utility wanted it!  Good call!  Genoa was another matter, and Dairyland bought it for $1.  Still not a great deal, because here we are now spending millions on decommissioning.  How much?  See below… they’re not telling.

Here’s the NRC page, with zero links:

La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor

Where’s the info on this?  Here’s the press release, does it say why are we having a meeting?

NRC to Discuss La Crosse License Termination Plan…

Well, it looks like it’s to discuss the “License Termination Plan” according to their notice. But what’s to comment on?  Why is there no link?  After much digging, FOUND IT!  From the NRC’s page:

La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor, License Amendment Request for the License Termination Plan.

Accession Number: ML16200A095

Date Released: Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Package Contents

Look at this — how do we comment on redactions?

costs_redacted

costbyactivity

Some other docs:

Decommissioning Funding Plan for Independent Spent Fuel

Decommissioning & decontamination cost study update