Nuclear and Renewables

Nuclear proponents have been really touting that tech online lately. It would be nice to be able to stop events like this from happening.If a distributed - farm scale powerplant ever became available, it would be nice if it wouldn't turn the farm into a superfund site. :)

Nuclear and Renewables

My last post was a serious one,although the sarcasm was pretty heavy. I really don't expect the regulatory environment to allow distributed scale nuclear installations anytime soon. However, I'm guessing it wouldn't be impossible to scale down compments to distributed scale.Here's an example, though the scale is still quite large that touts its ability to supply electricity, district heating, desalination , etc. Kind of sounds like my swimming pool idea in the previous post. Here's another example - 1 megwatt At any rate, I feel that most of the new energy tech breakthroughs these days favor distributed applications. I'll be including some examples in upcoming posts. I've also promised to offer some critiques on other energy tech besides nuclear. They are upcoming as well, although you could start with my featured post, listing some amazing inconsistencies with MidAmerican energys reporting of wind property taxes. As I have mentioned before, Mid American,county officials, state regulators, etc are welcome to comment on that information and I'll include their comments here. In short, if anyone sees problems with my calulations or wants to assist in getting to the bottom of this issue. Please submit some info. In the meantime, the explanation for this photo is in my featured post as well.

I haven't sent this property tax information to the state ombusman office... and Iowa has a new elected attorney general. Maybe it's time to ask reach out there again. Thanks for stopping by.

Nuclear and Renewables

Yeah, nuclear is not really my expertise, but I thought that I might comment on all the online " debate" over whether the grid should be powered by nuclear, wind solar battery, fossil generation, or grid demand managaement,and what mix of these. Proponents of these positions are usually inflexible, and I frequently get the feeling that they omit facts in order try and make their case. I have questions... so let's start with Nuclear. One of the issues that I've heard with nuclear is that it is unable to ramp output up and down fast enough to respond to wind and solar variablity. That job ususally is done by natural gas generation. Not much info to be found on this subject, but I did find this post on thirdway.org saying no problem ! I found another one from Germany that wasn't so sure.

Next question What happens when things go wrong? As covered by this post on Twitter.

And what about those small nuclear reactors that I keep hearing about? proponents claim saftey issues and ramping issues can be addressed by these, But how small can they be ? Can i install one at the farm and and get electricity, and maybe free heat for the house and a pool? Just spit balling here. Could I sell any excess power to the grid for a fair price? If a sfety issue rose, it seems like it would be easier to remove a tiny reactor than a utility scale one. I'm well documented on my support of and belief in distributed energy. So here I'll mention Mr. Shellenburger, whose hard core endorsement of nuclear only seems to advocate for centralized nuclear generation. Really now, how small can these things be made? And it would be interesting if he would address my security concerns with an overcentralized grid (apologies if he has done that). And in the link above he also is dissappointed on dependence on imported energy. I truley don't understand stopping natural gas production in Europe either, until other options are ready.but as for german reluctance on using nuclear,I remember reading that Germany recieved some fallout from the chernobyldisater years ago. Hmmm, can't find it currently . Sorry about the snarky ness, but maybe these questions should be answered. Oh and I'll probably be devoting some time asking some questions to proponents of the demand management, wind - solar , Fossil folks as well. I know that not many people seem to read blogs anymore, So I'm probably at the "tldr" length so I'll call it a day. If you have any comments or useful info on my questions above I'll probably include them if you aren't bugging me about investment schemes...

Monopoly Utilities And Solar In Iowa

I wrote this post about MidAmericans effort to monopolize solar during last years state legislative session. Please check the other post. I mentioned that the surcharges the utility wanted to impose   were unfair to customers with solar, as customer owned solar provides a net benefit to the grid. I included information available online from the state municipal utility association that agreed with my position. Here's some more information from my REC newsletter that also supports my position.

 

 A distribution coop in northern Iowa mentions they buy wholesale electricity at 7 cents per KWH, and their solar array also offsets peak electric demand of 5 cents per KWH. That gets pretty close to most Iowa utilities retail rates. The information I posted previously was more detailed about the costs that utilities were avoiding, including calculating avoided peak demand from 2 to 3 PM at a much higher rate. The RECs generation arm may be able spread peak costs over their service territory, but I'm speculating . I still believe MidAmerican was full of it last year, and these utilities own information seems to back me up. Ample evidence that customer owned solar is offsetting peak demand liability for the utility. Yet, utilities in Iowa still assess demand charges to their customers who have solar 

So a group including solar trades associations, certain environmental groups, livestock groups, and probably some others have been negotiating with MidAmerican about this legislation, which stalled last year when a number of house Republicans wouldn't support the bill as written. The Iowa environmental council announced that a "deal" had been reach in their latest newsletter.

      Not much for details, but it looks to be solar only. Why are they excluding wind, anaerobic digesters,etc? It also looks like future customer owned solar will be treated differently than current ones. Current net metering Iowa law only applies to rate regulated utilities, so probably half of Iowa doesn't have net metering now. The agreement also states an intent to move to value of solar tariff.
I've been a proponent of fair electric pricing for non utility owned generation, but not a tariff just for one technology (solar). I see a lot of wind turbines installed by livestock barns and I'll bet many of them are not able to use net metering. Heck, what if a group of farmers want to build a wind project in the megawatt range?
Doesn't look like a good "deal" to me.

The legislature seems to have the ability to require all Iowa utilities to offer net metering.  A good friend wrote this work. He can contact me if he wants credit.

   
 With these legal precedents (I'm not aware that purpa has been gutted) Senator Joe Bolkcom drafted a bill to require net metering statewide. It was one of Gov. Chet Culver's campaign goals. Democrats couldn't get the bill out of a subcommittee, despite controlling house , senate, and governors office.
See why I occasionally question if MidAmerican has too much influence at the statehouse?
Here's the work sheet for the solar bill. Net metering in Iowa (for those who have it) has been increased to 1 megawatt, but you get the picture.

    

      

Opponents to the MidAmerican bill last year also took to using new messaging , saying MidAmerican shouldn't be allowed to monopolize the solar industry. There was no outcry when legislation was passed years ago that allowed MidAmerican to monopolize wind in Iowa, and I would imagine some of these same groups supported that legislation. By the way legislators, It's not too late to pass legislation for distributed wind not owned by utilities. 

  

Here.   

I served with Laura on the IEC board of directors. I resigned several years ago. Laura has a different take on the "deal"   

So , I can't get excited about this "deal" 

Cons-only written for one technology, and only one kind of distributed generation - behind the meter installations . What else was agreed to that the kids and grandkids above might not like?

Pros- not much, Iowa fell short when they passed net metering in the 80s. The "deal" falls short again. After the court cases mentioned above were reached, it seems that we could get better distributed generation laws in Iowa. 

This doesn't look like it makes any significant progress for distributed generation not owned by utilities.

I'll be keeping an eye on this.    

  

Iowa Utilities Board Opens Docket On Wind Turbine Blade Disposal

The IUB has opened a docket on "disposal of wind facilities", as noted in the email I received today.

 I'm guessing this has to do with the MEC wind turbine repower and resulting blade disposal issues .
My previous posts on this subject can be found here. The link in the email was functioning earlier, but when I returned tonight to read it, it's gone and no mention of the docket number shows on the IUB search engine.

 

I guess I'll have to try and find the previous board order on the MEC repower also. I'd be surprised  if this issue hadn't been thoroughly investigated by the board in the repower docket, or other previous wind dockets for that matter. Maybe the board feels that previous testimony by the utility wasn't accurate in light of the blades getting land filled, but we won't know the reason for the docket until the board order is accessible and the docket proceeds.

The des moines  register covered wind turbine blade disposal back in November. I believe the article quoted a MEC employee stating what amounted  the industry had hoped that recycling options would be available when needed So I'm wondering what the utility told the IUB in the repower docket.
I'd encourage readers to check out dm reg article. The Iowa Environmental Council, who supported the wind repower, is also quoted in the dm reg article. The disposal of the decommissioned wind components was surely discussed in detail. If not, why not, Did the board and interested parties do their jobs and research this?  Please check the link above to my previous posts for more information on this topic.

While the register covered the blade disposal issues, it makes no mention if they contacted the IUB for information on what the repower docket specified on parts recycling. It also mentions that the repower was done at no cost to the rate payer, though federal tax credits were used, so the tax payer is paying for the repower. Also, since the counties that are home to the wind facilities have been denied additional property tax income from improvements resulting from the repower so far, the counties loss seems to be MEC's and the rate payers gain.

The DM reg also made no mention of the numerous MEC property tax irregularities I've found (also lost revenue to the counties?). I contacted Donnell Eller, the writer of the blade disposal article above, about the property tax issues I've found back in 2017, She never replied, but since I posted about MEC land filling their wind turbine blades in May of 2019, I guess I'm now wondering if the register found the blade story on my blog and didn't give me credit :) .

 She definitely received the email.

The dm reg is welcome to contact me . I'd gladly assist them in a more thorough covering of these issues.  There's a whole lot more to the MEC wind story than what's appeared in the print and tv media.
As this  IUB docket proceeds, I'll throw in my 2 cents as I did in my previous posts. Don't let the utilities land fill 10 year wind turbine blades when they told the IUB that the blades would last 30 or more years. Maybe recycling solutions would be avail in that 30 year time. And... solutions to this issue are clearly needed. I'll also again mention that Warren Buffets utility (and Alliant) can afford to properly dispose of their wind turbine blades. Since they have essentially achieved a monopoly on wind generation in Iowa, they should figure out a solution to blade disposal. It seems that Buffet's utility could also afford to accurately pay the taxes, Not sure that is happening with all the irregularities I have found.

UPDATE -The IUB link is back up this morning. Yes, it's the blade disposal issue that caused the IUB to start this proceeding. Really? This wasn't sorted out before the utilities were given the go ahead to repower? The enviro groups that endorsed the repower didn't research this? Here's the order.

  

More to come, including updates about MECs effort to kill net metering in Iowa last year, and a more complete list of the public officials that have been contacted about the MEC wind property tax irregularities that I've found.

  

 Here.










   

MidAmerican Wind Repower

Above picture taken at the MidAmerican Pomeroy project.


So, how is MidAmerican disposing of the blades from their wind repower?  At their project near me, Contractors told myself and several local residents, they were to be land filled in southern Iowa some where. If true, that raises a lot of additional questions. Previous posts about the wind repower here noted the utility submitted filings at the state utilities board that properly maintained wind turbines have a life span of 25 years or more. Yet, since the repower was approved, many of the replaced blades will be retired a decade or more early because of the utilities desire to take advantage of federal tax credits.

My previous posts on this subject noted the lack of discovery available to local governments on taxable property added with the repower and rate increases for consumers. Now there is a disappointing equipment disposal on a touted green energy project?

I'll probably do some additional digging here. Did MEC tell the state utilities board that the blades would be disposed of this way? Did the environmental groups that supported this repower know the blades would be land filled? Did these environmental groups negotiate for options besides disposal?
Did they ask? Did entities purchasing green credits from MEC know of the blade disposal method ?

So, the issue about what to do with retired wind turbine blades is admittedly a difficult one, as this article notes. However, a good place to start would seem to be not retiring turbine blades early just to qualify for a tax credit.

 

Of course, comment is welcome from MEC to clarify if the blades are really being disposed of in this manner.   As MEC also promised to contact me about the property tax issues I've wrote about here, (they haven't yet) I may be waiting a while .

UPDATED

I noticed this issue getting discussion on agtwitter.
So, yeah , it's twitter , be prepared for lots of politics and opinions (and anger)  on renewables , but I thought these comments were relevant to my post on this. 

 

 

So, I should check out nearby Fort Dodge for the salvage yard.

Since they felt obliged to put up a sign, these blades are evidently causing lots of discussion.

Yet this trucker comment on this thread notes his fellow trucker friend is hauling Iowa blades to a Nebraska land fill. This matches what contractors have told numerous residents near MidAmerican's Pomeroy project.

So, when things like this happen (repower decision driven by tax policy?) It's another reason why we need a local owned renewable policy , instead of one controlled by monopoly utilities. Of course, if MEC would simply go on record about how they're disposing these blades, it would solve a lot of the speculation here. I haven't seen MEC do that yet, so if anyone has seen otherwise, please send it my way.


Here's my periodic reminder that I'm a big renewable energy lover. It's just time we move beyond the current renewable policy into a more distributed, locally owned policy. 

In the meantime, IMO, Warren Buffet's utility company should be able to afford to properly dispose of their wind turbine blades, and accurately pay their taxes.  As usual, MEC is welcome to provide more information,  about the blade disposal, and the wind tax issues I've wrote about.

   

here




 

MidAmerican Wind Property Tax Update

As I have mentioned before, the state auditors office called , telling me the office was looking into many MidAmerican tax issues that I've posted about. When visiting the auditors web site to contact them for an update, I noticed the following:

 I seems to me that the tax discrepancies I've been posting probably fall into the categories that require public officials to report them to the auditors office. Now, I'll bet that many of the public officials I've notified about these items I've found with MEC tax filings didn't know of this requirement. I certainly didn't. Someone contacted the state treasurers office about my property tax posts.  The Treasurers office did refer it to the auditors office. I wonder how many public officials I've contacted about this actually let the auditor know there were potential issues. Especially the Department of revenue, who told me "they were not going to devote resources to this". Surely they would notify the auditor if they were not going to review the issues I sent them. Bleedingheartland noted that there appears to be some turmoil at DOR. I wonder if the staff members on phone call when I was chewed out are still there.

 You can review the many MEC tax discrepancies I've identified here. Many of the public officials I've notified about this are listed there. Look for a more complete list as I review my email history. It wouldn't be much of a list though, if the first public official I contacted about this had called the auditors office.

Another example of MidAmerican having too much influence on state and local officials? I'm thinking that's possible...       

here