Vermont has a population of 620,000. Of that, roughly 260,000 are expected to turn out to vote on Election Day.
The combined population of New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut is 11,300,000, quite a bit more than 260,000, and yet those 260,000 are about to make a decision that could have tremendous impact on the lives of those other eleven-plus million.
One of the major issues on the campaign trail in Vermont is the relicensing of the state's aging and dangerous nuclear reactor, Entergy Corporation's Vermont Yankee plant. The problems with this plant have been documented at the Huffington Post in the past, such as in this piece from Vermonter Charlotte Dennett. The plant is quite old, has been beset with problems (including multiple leaks of radioactivity -- most notably a sustained leaking of radioactive tritium into the ground, the source of which took weeks to determine), is routinely pushed to produce energy beyond its originally intended capacity, and has also frequently had that production dialed back or completely halted to deal with safety or functional concerns. This is why a recent poll indicated that 44% of Vermonters want the plant shut down, compared to 39% that want it to stay open. 17% were undecided.
Since that time of that previous posting from Dennett, the plant has been found to be leaking again. Radioactive steam has been seeping from a pipe that is part the plant's emergency cooling system. This is in addition to recent revelations that the tritium which was found to be leaking some time ago has hit at least one drinking water well, despite assurances that this wouldn't happen. These assurances, of course, came from the Entergy Corporation, which previously couldn't find the leak, and which turned out to be coming from pipes which a spokesman had testified before the legislature didn't even exist.
The track record on transparency and honesty from the Entergy Corporation is not good.
The plant was only meant to function for 40 years (an expiration date now coming due), and the push is on from the corporation and its political allies to relicense the plant for another 20, which would be unprecedented. This push comes despite its history of leaks, dramatic structural collapses, and even a fire, along with other mishaps and embarrassments.
And despite its location: right on the Connecticut River, roughly where the borders of Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts meet. Just upriver from Connecticut.
This puts the citizens of those other three states subject to the mood of the Vermont electorate this coming Election Day.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is, of course, supposed to preside over a regulatory regime for plants such as Yankee which -- as a federal agency representing all Americans -- is theoretically the great equalizer from on high. But as anyone active in these issues can tell you, their record of enforcement is lousy. In addition, the Obama administration has made a renewed federal commitment to nuclear power as part of the national energy portfolio and has already seemed loathe to meaningfully engage in any regulation that could negatively impact public support for such an expansion of the industry.
All of which is to say that the matter of the fate of this plant in the hands of Vermont lawmakers -- and ultimately, with an election approaching, that puts it in the hands of Vermont voters. The Vermont legislature has granted itself authority on the relicensing question, and a vote by the state Senate earlier in the year has put a stumbling block in Entergy's way -- at least for now. But the fact is that votes can be re-held, and the issue is a controversial one within the legislature, and between the two major party candidates for Governor; Republican Brian Dubie supports relicensing, Democrat Peter Shumlin does not.
But the fact is that nature abhors a vacuum, and the NRC's historic refusal to live up to its regulatory responsibility has created a regulatory and political vacuum.
So, whether they realize it or not, 260,000 voters in Vermont are filling that vacuum. They are about to make a decision that could prove to have an impact on the health and livelihood of many of New Hampshire's, Massachusetts', and downriver Connecticut's citizens -- and by extension could financially impact all those states' citizens.
Somehow, that just doesn't seem right.
Visit votegreengov.org and take the pledge to vote green in 2010!
The problems at Vermont Yankee have been well documented, but actual environmental and health impacts have been way, way, way overstated by those with an ideological opposition to nuclear energy. In actuality, these impacts have been virtually nil.
In addition, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission is a tough independent agency and its professionalism accounts for why the nuclear industry has such as strong safety. If there is any vacuum, it is one of knowledge about our energy choices and what they mean for our country.
This opinion piece proves that the writer is not versed in the facts. Plants can be described as nuclear, steam, electric and are a marriage of three technologies. We have almost 200 years experience with steam power, over 100 years experience with electric power and radiation and radioactivity use, and over 60 years with the combination.
The collapse was one cell of the 11 in one of the two cooling towers. The towers exist to protect the river from elevated temperatures, and aren't even required to run all year. The collapse shows that plant management put off repairs, consistent with use of resources. In fact, the area that failed was scheduled to be repaired the following fall, after the tower was shut down for the winter.
Many anti nukes say they believe that nuclear power blocks alternatives. In fact they are both growing around the world. Thirty two countries have nuclear power programs. When utilities had a monopoly and chose nuclear for all their projected needs, this did preclude alternatives. This has been changed by Legislative action, as it should be, because it affects everyone's costs, environmental and financial.
Other anti nukes are afraid because of the scare stories. This article is an example.
Let's get those leaks. How many offsite? Zero. And none of huge significance on-site, although they have been reported breathlessly as a huge number of pico-curies, without noting that "pico" means a "millionth-millionth". The detection of traces of tritium in an abandoned, on-site drinking water well at levels 20 times lower than safe drinking water limits is not the huge story suggested either.
Yankee's power is within its limits. The power upgrade of a few years ago was fully licensed and supported with equipment upgrades. The license extension from 40 years is normal. And so on.
There's the usual attacks on the NRC. Apparently if enough anti-nuke quote each other, somehow any derogatory nonsense that is claimed about it becomes "true", or at least truthy.
More interestingly, the local electricity grid is not stable enough to lose VY, according to the New England grid controller. When Yankee tried to drop out of the grid allocation process for 2014, the grid controller wouldn't allow it to preserve grid stability. So the election of a man is quite willing to play politics and ignore the truth to close Yankee - Shumlin - will indeed impact the whole area quite severely.
I agree with you that the tritium leak stuff sounds irrelevant. The cooling leak also sounds like it's inside the pressure vessel and in a drain.
If it can continue to operate safely, then keep it up.
44% of vermont residents want it closed? I wonder how many want a date with a top hollywood star.
Wasn't a war used to spend us out of the depression, too bad we can't get behind infrastructure the same way.
Replacement power, one way or another, would probably be a natural gas burning plant somewhere. Which is only slightly better than a coal burner.
probably get a combined cycle, coppiced wood-fueled plant, especially if they're willing to
go to the $/W levels they would have to spend on a new nuclear. It might also be ready in less than 15 years. I can't see them wanting to buy french.
By the way, Vermonters are doing something. We're becoming localvores, growing a lot of our own food and buying other vegetables, meat and poultry, fruit and dairy from small neighborhood farms, individual hunters and farmer's markets.
Smaller hydro-electric dams that were closed years ago are being revamped and put back into service. Bio-fuel plants are being built and more are on the horizon. Solar panels and energy-efficient homes are becoming common. We're trying to become as self-sufficient as possible. Are you, or is your state doing that?
You say, "by our collective votes..." Yeah, isn't this the problem? When our only voting choice is between a corrupt Democrat millionaire or a corrupt Republican millionaire, there is no choice but to continue the downward spiral. They all bow down to corporate greed instead of working for what's in the best interest of people. Unless you vote for independents with new, sometimes radical ideas, it's a losing proposition.
If worse comes to worst, at least we can sell maple syrup, cheese and other home-made items to the rest of you. We still work hard and actually produce real products unlike so many desk-jockeys who produce nothing but ill thought out opinions.