SMITH: ‘LET’S TALK ABOUT WIND … AND BIOMASS AND SOLAR AND HYDRO’

So said Rep. Tony Klein at a recent joint legislative energy committee meeting. After hearing the recommendations of the Governor’s Energy Generation Siting Policy Commission, Rep. Klein asked if we are asking the right question. Is the issue the siting process, or is it the specific technologies?

The answer is both. The siting process (the Public Service Board Section 248 process) and the specific renewable energy technologies being deployed are both in need of review and re-evaluation.

The commission’s discussions were limited by their charge to look only at new electric generation, including fossil fuels such as a natural gas plant. In their numerous all-day deliberations, commissioners danced around talking about specific technologies, and focused on the process through which electricity generation is sited.

At the joint energy committee’s recent all-day meeting, legislators were thankfully open to hearing about the issues of “now” – already sited generation projects – plus transmission lines, pipelines, energy efficiency and non-electricity energy developments that have been dominating some people’s lives as society seeks to develop yet more energy infrastracture (aka energy sprawl).

Towns and members of the public dealing with wind, biomass and solar renewable energy projects, and gas and electric transmission lines share common ground where the PSB process is concerned. The process requires an inordinate amount of money and time to participate. Citizens, through an accident of their location, must become involved in three rounds of pre-filed testimony, three rounds of discovery, opportunities for depositions, and last minute deals in the form of MOUs between ANR and developers, all on an immovable schedule with deadlines week after week after week. This makes for a daunting undertaking, even for attorneys paid to participate.

The imbalance at the PSB process is nothing new. The late activist Joe Bivins wrote before he died in 1997, “In this setting, no one represents the community’s interests in social or environmental justice. When the doors to the courthouse are opened only to the few, justice will not be found within at all.”

Of all the technologies, big wind turbines create the most issues. Biomass is next, followed by solar. Fortunately these issues are quantifiable and finite. Once identified, conversations can follow.

Jane Palmer of Monkton is one of those citizens. She spoke during the public comment period of the legislators’ meeting, and brought with her some, but not all of the paperwork she and her organic farmer husband have accumulated since they became intervenors in the Vermont Gas Pipeline case in April. In six months she has accumulated four large boxes full of paperwork, which she brought into the room on a hand truck.

The commission never discussed the details of the PSB’s process, or whether it is the right regulatory body to review the siting of renewable energy projects, which have local and regional land use impacts. There is a discussion to be had about the benefits of the current PSB process versus the Act 250 process, which is better equipped to address the kinds of issues raised by solar, biomass and wind installations.

Federal official: Half of U.S. nuclear power comes from disarmed Russian warheads

Wednesday, October 9, 2013 20:20 EDT

Topics: Rose Gottemoeller ♦ united states

 

• 15

   
• 
• 

Uranium fuel from 20,000 disarmed Russian warheads are generating about half of US nuclear power in a spinoff from a landmark disarmament accord, a top US official said Wednesday.

But the deal under which 500 tonnes of Russian weapons-grade uranium has been used to light and heat American homes will end next month because Russia believes its former Cold War rival has been getting energy on the cheap.

Rose Gottemoeller, U.S. under secretary of state for arms control, told a UN committee the 1993 accord was a disarmament success.

Arms control experts call it the “megatons-to-megawatts” deal and hail the accord as a little known but important example of the United States and Russia pressing disarmament.

Gottemoeller called the Highly Enriched Uranium Purchase Accord a “significant non-proliferation accomplishment”.

Signed after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the deal was concluded as the two countries sought ways to get rid of warheads under their 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

The weapons level uranium is downgraded in Russia and the low enriched product “is delivered to the United States, fabricated into nuclear fuel and used by nearly all US nuclear power plants to generate half of the nuclear energy in the United States,” Gottemoeller said.

“Approximately 20,000 nuclear warheads have been eliminated under this unique government-industry partnership,” Gottemoeller told the UN committee.

Over the past 15 years, the Russian uranium fuel has accounted for about 10% of all electricity produced in United States, she added.

The 500 tonnes of uranium traded is the equivalent of about 10 billion barrels of oil, according to experts. A smaller amount of uranium from disarmed American weapons is also used to generate power.

US officials will go to St Petersburg in November to mark the loading of the final Russian containers which should arrive in the United States in December, Gottemoeller said.

“We look forward to celebrating this historic achievement,” she said.

The United States tried to extend the accord, but Russia refused saying the price was too low, diplomats said.