More

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant Faces Dim Prospects For Staying Open

DAVE GRAM   01/ 9/11 12:16 PM ET   AP

Vermont

MONTPELIER, Vt. — Vermont's piece of the nuclear age, launched four decades ago, seems to be coming to a close, even as advocates push for a renaissance of nuclear power in the United States.

The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant's initial 40-year license expires March 21, 2012, less than 15 months from now. And despite a safety and performance record no worse than many of the other 61 reactors that have won 20-year license extensions from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Vernon power plant's future looks short.

That's largely because it's located in the only state in the country with a law saying both houses of its legislature have to give their approval before Vermont regulators can issue a state license for the plant to continue operating.

The Vermont Senate voted 26-4 last February against letting the Public Service Board issue the new state license. That vote came a month after it was revealed that Vermont Yankee was leaking tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, into soil and groundwater surrounding the reactor on the banks of the Connecticut River. It also followed revelations that senior plant personnel had misled state officials about whether Vermont Yankee had the sort of underground pipes that carried radioactive tritium.

Entergy Corp., the New Orleans-based utility giant that owns Vermont Yankee, thinks it can turn its fortunes around.

"We continue to undertake the work to receive the approvals necessary to operate the plant past March" of 2012, Mike Burns, spokesman for the plant's owner, New Orleans-based Entergy Corp., said in an e-mail.

Rep. Tony Klein, an East Montpelier Democrat and chairman of the state House Natural Resources and Energy committee, has been a key player in issues related to Vermont's lone reactor in recent years. He does not see Vermont Yankee operating beyond its shutdown date.

"I don't think there's any chance in hell. ... If they've got a game plan, it's a strange one to me."

Thirty-seven of the nation's 104 nuclear reactors have had leaks like the ones reported at Vermont Yankee last winter. None of the tritium or other radioactive substances reported to have leaked later have turned up in public water supplies, and plant and state officials have said throughout there's no threat to public health and safety.

Vermont long has been known nationally as a hotspot for anti-nuclear sentiment, and the combination of the leaks and misstatements to state officials quickly made the political atmosphere toxic for Entergy.

Newly elected Gov. Peter Shumlin, then the president pro tem of the state Senate, orchestrated February's vote to block Yankee's re-licensing. In his gubernatorial campaign, he referred throughout his campaign to "Entergy Louisiana," emphasizing Vermont Yankee's out-of-state ownership.

Shumlin, who grew up less than 25 miles from Vermont Yankee in Putney, said he didn't give it much thought when the plant split its first atoms three days before his 16th birthday. Now he firmly believes the plant should close when its 40 years are up.

He called Entergy "a company we can't trust. The plant is old and leaking. There's no place to store the (radioactive) waste. The world has changed and we need to change with it. It's time for it to sleep."

The tritium troubles weren't the first black eye the plant had given itself in recent years.

In 2007, a cooling tower at the reactor in Vernon, in Vermont's southeast corner, collapsed, producing a spectacular photo of thousands of gallons of water spewing from a 6-foot-wide pipe onto a pile of rubble on the ground below.

Robert Stannard said seeing the photo prompted him to leave his job as head of a Bennington development group and go to work lobbying for an anti-nuclear group, Vermont Citizens' Action Network.

"If this company allowed degradation in maintenance to a degree that the plant was falling down, I felt I had to do something about it," Stannard said.

Others hold out hope Vermont Yankee will continue to operate.

William Driscoll, vice president of the manufacturers' group Associated Industries of Vermont, said he hoped the Legislature would repeal the law giving itself the power to decide the nuclear plant's fate.

"We would hope they would put this decision in the hands of the Public Service Board, which is where we believe it would be the best handled."

Driscoll pointed to a report issued last August by ISO-New England, which dispatches electric power around the six-state region, saying that losing Vermont Yankee could cause parts of the electric grid to become less reliable.

Nuclear critics scoff at that, noting the lights don't go out when the plant has an unscheduled outage because of mechanical or other problems.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

MONTPELIER, Vt. — Vermont's piece of the nuclear age, launched four decades ago, seems to be coming to a close, even as advocates push for a renaissance of nuclear power in the United States. T...
MONTPELIER, Vt. — Vermont's piece of the nuclear age, launched four decades ago, seems to be coming to a close, even as advocates push for a renaissance of nuclear power in the United States. T...
Filed by Zoe Triska  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 77
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
08:27 PM on 01/30/2011
How much did it cost to clean up Chernobyl?

Oh -- I forgot they never cleaned it up.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Overtone
See bio on the Aesop Institute website
08:00 PM on 01/14/2011
For alternatives that will be cost-competitive, see Green Light and Cold Fusion at www.aesopinstitute.org

A 10 kW Cold Fusion generator will be publicly demonstrated in Italy tomorrow, January 15, 2011.

It is a pre-production prototype and will compete with conventional nuclear on a cost basis from the get-go.

Here is the beginning of the future of a benign form of nuclear power.

Forget building new plants fueled by Uranium or Thorium.

Cold Fusion does not produce high-level nuclear waste.

And this opens the door to even better, revolutionary, cost-competitive, energy conversion systems that have been hard to believe might be real.
02:25 PM on 01/16/2011
Yeah its hard to believe all right. But take your word for it?

Until your mythical cold fusion, hydrino, or whatever scam of the month machine is actually being produced, all your spam does is play into fossil fuel interests.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Overtone
See bio on the Aesop Institute website
04:08 PM on 01/16/2011
None of these breakthrough technologies are yet validated, but that step is on the horizon.

Since existing solutions will not solve our energy problems, new realities are likely to prove extremely important.

But, skepticism is justified until they are well proven.

And that will prove very uncomfortable to fossil fuel interests.

By the way, both Shell and BP hold patents on cold fusion.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Overtone
See bio on the Aesop Institute website
02:58 PM on 01/17/2011
Someone asked about patents. See U.S. Patent 7,830,065 issued last November. More are in the works.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NWBrunette
Blessed Girl
12:09 PM on 01/13/2011
Good for Vermont. Time to move out of the dark ages and in to the future. One that doesn't put the lives of the entire community at risk just so some bigwigs can make a profit.
photo
PoloniumMan
"It worked." J. Robert Oppenheimer
01:18 PM on 01/13/2011
Nuclear fission is in the "dark ages?"

Which one of these is a more recent invention/discovery?
a) Windmills to perform work
b) Photoelectric effect (solar pv)
c) Nuclear Fission

a) 500-900 A.D. (maybe even earlier)
b) 1905
c) 1938
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NWBrunette
Blessed Girl
07:12 PM on 01/13/2011
"dark ages" thinking. Sheez, for some people you have to do everything for them. Try again now, read the original post all they way.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:41 PM on 01/17/2011
The photoelectric effect was indeed demonstrated in the *lab* before the first practical *device* based on nuclear fission was produced. But lab experiments and practical devices are apples and oranges. Your timeline is disingenuous. Solar panels are more advanced than nuke bombs.

If you're talking just about Scientific Theory, the atomic hypothesis significantly pre-dates the photoelectric effect -- by decades, at least.

And if you're talking about practical devices, my recollection is that today's photovoltaic solar panels evolved from those that were developed for the space program, which I am absolutely certain post-dates the Manhattan Project.

"The photovoltaic cell was developed in 1954 at Bell Laboratories.[4] The highly efficient solar cell was first developed by Daryl Chapin, Calvin Souther Fuller and Gerald Pearson in 1954 using a diffused silicon p-n junction.[5] In the past four decades, remarkable progress has been made, with Megawatt solar power generating plants having now been built.[6]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell

1954 is AFTER the Manhattan project. :-)

Have a nice day.
02:07 PM on 01/13/2011
Who stands to gain from this? Natural gas interests in the immediate area, coal interests in the larger picture.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
04:18 PM on 01/15/2011
Wind, solar and bio mass gain from this, and already have produced more generating capacity than will be lost to this plant.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
06:34 PM on 01/16/2011
http://www.revermont.org/main/technology/wind/ wind and bio fuels can easily supply all of Vermont's energy needs.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
JScott
John Galt's last name is McGuffin-Smithee
11:12 AM on 01/12/2011
So how's the progress on the National Iginition Facility at Lawrence/Livermore to get to burn point for nuclear fusion?
12:47 PM on 01/12/2011
Fusion remains a pipe-dream, at least 25 years from being implemented as a part of our power structure. Containment of the amount of energy produced continues to elude researchers, let alone initiating a fusion reaction.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fissionary
12:30 PM on 01/13/2011
The fusion reaction has already been initiated and contained. It is sustaining the reaction that remains a hurdle.
02:05 PM on 01/13/2011
Well... We know how to utilize fusion power today, but only if you want to build bigger than ever reasonably conceived. The only artificial fusion reaction that delivers energy that we've demonstrated is fission triggered inertial confinement.

So we could make a factory to manufacture H-bombs, drop them into a gigantic cavern, detonate them, and use a molten salt waterfall to capture the thermal energy. From there we use closed cycle gas turbines to turn the trillion or more watts.

Or we can keep developing alternative confinement technology that so far hasn't demonstrated more energy yield than was invested in the confinement.

So in the meantime, fission looks a little more realistic.
11:34 PM on 01/11/2011
James Lovelock, who made the concept of the Earth as one entity (Gaia) acceptable to the masses, promotes nuclear energy as the best source of energy to alleviate the consequences of Global Warming. Read-up and get your heads outta the '80's mindset against nuclear power. No other method is yet capable of producing enough energy as we consume. Not my first choice either, but it is out best viable alternative.
11:53 PM on 01/11/2011
also, France's nuclear power is reliable enough to provide near 80% of the entire country's electricity . . .
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
07:08 PM on 01/13/2011
They also export about 20% of their nuke power into the EU grids. Italy in particular IIRC is a big buyer.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
whysaduck
07:28 PM on 01/11/2011
Hopefully this will start a trend toward nuke plant phase outs. I came to think I wouldn't live to see the day. Let's not mess it up by buying into this propaganda about nuclear technology being a born again clean technology.
10:00 PM on 01/11/2011
Long live coal, huh?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
whysaduck
07:31 AM on 01/12/2011
How did you infer that me comment is an endorsement of coal???????
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
04:19 PM on 01/15/2011
Long live Wind, Solar and Waste Bio fuels. Duh.
03:25 PM on 01/11/2011
Wind, solar, geothermal and second generation biofuels are the future.
photo
climbing panda
there's a log in my cabin
05:04 PM on 01/11/2011
any idea when they will be reliably viable?
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
09:01 PM on 01/11/2011
Now, when combined with waste bio char/bio fuels.
06:12 AM on 01/12/2011
If we take the current Conservative attitude....never.
photo
George Hanshaw
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
11:41 AM on 01/15/2011
Wish in one hand, crap in the other, see which gets full first......
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
02:25 PM on 01/11/2011
Let's hope that the inspection and maintenance has improved since they let the cooling tower fell over. If not, then March 2012 might be letting it run a bit long.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tom95134
01:19 PM on 01/11/2011
If the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant is shutdown then who becomes responsible for it's demolition? Or does it just set there because there is no place to dispose of the contaminated material? And, if it just sets there, who is responsible for maintaining the facility is a state that insures it doesn't leak more contamination into the environment.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
02:47 PM on 01/11/2011
The Tax payers will pay for the cleanup, for 1000 of years.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
myth buster
07:06 PM on 01/11/2011
Flagged for baseless assertions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fissionary
12:36 PM on 01/13/2011
Genders, you need to read up. VY has paid for spent fuel management with every kWh generated. There is $34 billion in the nuclear waste fund all paid for by utilities. The same goes for decomissioning. The tax payers will pay nothing. However, fossil fuel utilities are allowed to carelessly pump millions of tons of noxious and greenhouse gasses into the environment - the taxpayers WILL pay for that, now more of that thanks to antinukes.