Governor Peter Shumlin's efforts to challenge the safety of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power plant does not mark the first time that a Vermont governor went toe to toe with the plant. In 1985, when I was governor, I learned that the plant had falsified inspection reports for years and that thousands of unchecked parts may have been installed.
The plant had an unplanned shut down for eight months to replace the entire recirculation piping unit. Both plant officials and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had kept me in the dark. The state's nuclear engineer concluded that probably violations had occurred in the "storage and handling program for safety related materials." Plant officials issued denials. Who was right? How could I assure Vermonters that the plant was safe? That is the same question that is being asked today.
Governors have the responsibility to protect the safety of their citizens. If the plant accidentally releases radiation, the governor takes immediate action, ordering an evacuation, issuing iodine pills. But the governor had no power to prevent an accident in the first place.
My first step was to obtain an impartial evaluation of the plant. It was not so easy to get the safety question answered because "experts" were divided into two camps, either anti nuclear or pro nuclear scientists. After many insistent phone calls to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I reached the New England regional director. We toured the plant together and as a result, he ordered a complete inspection of Vermont Yankee. He was as concerned as I was, and recommended major safety changes in the plant which were implemented. I established a new position -- an on site nuclear inspector to act as liaison between the NRC and the state.
I went a step further. I brought a resolution to the National Governor's Association, which stated that governors should have more authority over the safety of their nuclear power plants. Governor John Sununu was not pleased. He saw this as a direct attract on the approval of New Hampshire's Seabrook plant, which had been beset by demonstrations. In one outburst, he told my staff person, "I'm going to raise a million dollars to defeat your governor."
When Chernobyl occurred in 1986, calls for a shutdown of Vermont Yankee began. The question remains: how can the public know whether a nuclear power plant is safe to operate? What was underscored in the recent Vermont court case is that safety questions are decided by the federal government. The state, can, however, make an economic argument -- a more difficult task.
The best solution would be for a more safety-oriented Nuclear Regulatory Commission to work with Vermont and decide whether Vermont Yankee's lifespan is safe to extend.
To succeed, the NRC would have to change course from being a nuclear energy salesman to being a nuclear cop.
Check out these high quality pictures of Fukushima. There is no reactor 3 at building three. It blew up and disintegrated in a way that the nuke industry promised could never happen. It was all about losing power. Nuke plant melt down (and then sometimes blow up) if their umbilical cord is taken away. Tell me about 4 or 8 hours of battery backup.
This dangerous technology is a sham, and and authority having jurisdiction should be allowed prevent plant license renewal and approval of new plants.
http://nukepimp.blogspot.com/p/pictures-high-quality.html
If they lose water or pump power, they melt down.
Eve y on of them is a ticking time bomb.
Vermont needs to invest massively in waste bio char and bio fuels, probably wind too. Solar seem marginal, but maybe.
Waste bio char bio fuels is an amazing technology, well suited to the lands where the sun rarely shines, but the forest and fields are productive.
Everything that human use from the land, food, clothing, and shelter, eventually get dumped,
and that's when we convert it to energy with a 300-1000% energy gain, unlike corn ethanol.
Using Virgin crops and crop land should be illegal, corn ethanol double the price of corn impoverishing millions of people worldwide.
Waste, or as you may hear it called "second generation bio fuels" are the only way to go and perfect for backing up solar and wind using existing fossil fuel gen and storage.
http://www.plancanada.com/biochar_basics.pdf
2$ per watt bio char energy plant. 150 Gt/y waste bio mass, 100 GW electricity
http://buildaroo.com/news/article/biofuel-from-human-waste-project-england/ 15% energy needs!
http://www.biochar-international.org/
http://nukepimp.blogspot.com/p/astronomy-and-carrington.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-stein/400-chernobyls_b_1171129.html.
It is not 1940 anymore where all things nuclear had to be kept secret so the other side doesn't get the weapon before we did.
Yankee is falling apart and far too many things were done on the cheap. A failure could result in death and illness of millions both in the state of Vermont but anywhere downstream and downwind of the plant. The company has not acted in good faith on way too many issues and NRC just rubberstamps- the cooling towers were perfectly safe, then they collapsed, there were leaking pipes and the denial the pipes even existed.
I hope the state of Vermont pursues this, and this is not even the worse plant in the country, but a little research shows, it's pretty bad.
One is to support a Pawn shop, and one is on Ebay. How appropriate.
Here is the excerpts and the full text
http://nukepimp.blogspot.com/2012/01/vermont-yankee-lawsuit-actual-text-102.html
So what gives a state the right to regulate interstate commerce?
The Atomic Energy Act gave the sole responsibility for nuclear safety to the NRC. So what basis does the state have in regards to nuclear safety? none.
State's have rights but within the confines of the US constitution. Singling out a business and then using the power of the state to force it out of business is wrong and unconstitutional.Also, if you and I enter into and unlawful or unconstitutional agreement it is not enforceable regardless of whether we both signed it.
I'm sure many of Vermont's businesses would be "voted out" if all business was up to the majority vote and/or the whims of politicians. That's why we have the constitution and the rule of law.
Nuke has failed and poisoned us time and time again.
99 accidents, serious ones that couldn't be covered up, and THEY do try to cover them all up
http://nukepimp.blogspot.com/p/nuke-accidents-civilian-and-military-99.html
You can take tin foil hat off regarding the secret accidents.
The real reason it makes common sense is economics. When available every nuclear power plant in the country is the first choice and is operated at 100%. There is no other fuel that is operated in this fashion. Why? Because it is the most economical. As is well pointed out on this website those greedy capitalist will always look at the bottom line first.
And if you change that? Up goes your electric bill.
Should the nation have used people who ran grocery stores or perhaps journalists to pass judgment on the merits of license applications for nuclear power plants? The highly educated and experienced managers, scientists and engineers from the NRC, National Labs and military nuclear programs who encompassed the bulk of knowledge on nuclear power are the logical choice to regulate it.
Many of these regulators, who know the enormous potential of nuclear power, could be expected to be proponents of the technology. That is not to say, that these same people, who also know the immense risks associated with a large concentration of power in a small footprint, would also be tough and demanding regulators working to ensure the safety of the public. I would expect no less of other technologies such as medical vaccines or airlines.
I commend Govenor Kunin for her approach in involving expert advice and investigation. Her balancing of the rewards with the risks is to be commended.
Sign me: One of those highly educated, 30+ years of experience, engineers who support nuclear power and don't work at Vermont Yankee.
Those who can use common sense, and detect the largest lies of nuke, are all that is needed, nuke has failed us time and time again. Here are some of the lies.
http://nukepimp.blogspot.com/p/largest-lies-of-nuke.html
Oh but they are so biased, right?
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_101