Last night at the public informational talk at the Guilford Broad Brook Grange, Rep. O' Donnell (Guilford/Vernon) said that Entergy has told her the Enexus deal is "off the table."
She also said she is in the process of writing legislation proposing a second nuclear power plant at the ENVY site.
The crowd was not a diverse as past events at VY might indicate and Rep. O'Donnell made it clear that she believes she represents a majority of her constituents when she puts her efforts behind retaining and relicensing Vermont Yankee until a safety issue is proven.
Budget woes and cuts to health/human services were also discussed.
Authored by: Rolf on Saturday, February 13 2010 @ 09:07 PM GMT+4
Well,
there is no proven method for storing high level nuclear waste, tons of which will be highly radioactive for thousands and thousands of years longer than any government has ever existed.
But that doesn't stop some from seriously proposing construction of new plants.
Authored by: mr.mike on Sunday, February 14 2010 @ 01:32 AM GMT+4
So why not build another reactor at VY? Think about it. Do you think that area is going to be the pristine farmland it was in 1955? The waste is staying there.
Besides that, VELCO is in the process of upgrading the grid from there to Bennington only to disconnect it from the generating source?
Why not build a new smaller safer reactor like the ones other countries are building?
Find the current leak. Fix it. Forget relicensing of the current reactor. Get a license for a brand new reactor on the site. Start building a new reactor now. And shut down the aging one when the new one is up and running.
My 2 questions to PR: Is this feasible?
And could the current reactor or containment stucture be used for spent fuel storage?
---
The four boxes that ensure liberty.
Soap Box
Ballot Box
Jury Box
Ammo Box
Authored by: PutneyReject on Sunday, February 14 2010 @ 01:38 PM GMT+4
The VY site is pretty small even for a nuke (~100 acres?) and I doubt they could build a new unit on the current site without completely dismantling the current unit.
The fuel would be moved into dry casks over 5-10 years probably.
Authored by: mr.mike on Sunday, February 14 2010 @ 11:15 PM GMT+4
But I've read where they (Japan or China) have built tiny reactors that generate like say 125 or more megawatts and they use helium for cooling. I guess helium will not absorb radiation so will not be harmful if it were to leak? They can be placed underground since they are gas cooled.
My thought is if VY is going to exist way beyond our lifetimes and the land is never going to be the same again. Why not utilize it for future generation?
I'm really surprised people in this area would even entertain the thought of a coal fired plant here.
---
If the First amendment doesnt work the Second will.
Authored by: mr.mike on Sunday, February 14 2010 @ 02:40 AM GMT+4
So what's your solution after shutting down VY? Christian. And please save me the conservation suggestion. What are we going to replace 650 megawatts with?
---
The four boxes that ensure liberty.
Soap Box
Ballot Box
Jury Box
Ammo Box
Authored by: paulgardner on Sunday, February 14 2010 @ 04:19 AM GMT+4
Our state wide electric usage is about 750 megs. About a third comes from Hydro Quebec. Another third from the NE grid and non VY internal sources. About 275 megs come from VY (the rest of VY's power goes out of state). 275 megs is what we need to replace.
Given that Entergy has already admitted we're going to be paying more for power in any new deal - market rate at least - where's the advantage to getting it from VY?
I don't believe that with the costs of building, running, decommissioning and safe waste storage literally centuries into the future that nuclear power makes any kind of economic sense.
In addition, like oil, uranium supplies will run out and that'll be the end of nuclear power. Let's put our efforts into tapping energy sources that are inexhaustible and clean.
Authored by: tomaidh on Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 03:30 AM GMT+4
There’s not gonna be another Nuke in Vernon.
They’re just too damn expensive to build. Obama’s
proposal to subsidize new ones with loan guarantees
is dead in the water due to serious lack of funds.
Coal, oil and natural gas will be economically
unviable due to inevitable fuel cost increases in near
future and the difficulty of getting said fuels to
Vermont.
However, it makes sense to build something there
(after cleanup), to take advantage of Yankee's
existing infrastructure. What seems most appropriate
is renewable biomass, augmented possibly by wind
and underwater turbines. It might even prove
feasible to pump cooling water to Brattleboro to heat
buildings.
Authored by: cgrotke on Sunday, February 14 2010 @ 08:14 PM GMT+4
I'm simple minded, so I believe you.
The future is clear: nuclear plants built in the 70's that leak tritium and
create radioactive waste are the only way to produce energy. Energy
research should stop.
Thank you for the intelligence and depth of your useful comments. It's
amazing that anyone thinks poorly of VY, given the name-calling and
insults being offered to them.
Authored by: PutneyReject on Sunday, February 14 2010 @ 09:07 PM GMT+4
I must be missing all the proposal put forward by the "progressives" here in VT to site 650 MWe of baseload power in the state, perhaps you could provide them for me.
Try creating more straw man arguments, it only makes you look foolish. I am all for wind/solar/tidal/geothermal/etc but since I understand how the grid works, I also understand their limitations, unlike the majority of posters here.
Pot meet kettle, I am more than willing to share ideas and have a thoughtful discussion here regarding power production but I learned very quickly that it's not going to happen in this little circle jerk of smug self importance you run here.
Authored by: AirBrattleboro on Sunday, February 14 2010 @ 10:03 PM GMT+4
You know.....the content of this discussion aside......it's posts like this that keep me from even wanting to read the usual vitriolic screeds from specific posters on iBrattleboro.
You write: "I am more than willing to share ideas and have a thoughtful discussion here regarding power production but I learned very quickly that it's not going to happen in this little circle jerk of smug self importance you run here."
"More than willing to share ideas" followed by the insulting condescension (not to mention childish and prurient) "little circle jerk of self importance you run here".
Way to stay classy, Mr. Reject. Way to show a willingness to share ideas.
---
**********************************************
Steve West
Host - "Live & Local"
WKVT 1490 AM
802.254.5286
Authored by: PutneyReject on Sunday, February 14 2010 @ 11:43 PM GMT+4
You forgot "smug" Mister "Says he keeps up on nuclear power but couldn't tell a neutron from hole in the ground big time radio show host."
Someone asks an honest question I try to give them an honest answer. Otherwise, I treat you no different than the birthers, truthers, creationists, astrology buffs, homeopathic medicine practitioners, AGW deniers, etc.
I'm sorry you are so thin skinned that a little sarcasm frightens you. Maybe Chris can add an ignore feature, most boards created after 1997 already have them.
Authored by: pjmelton on Sunday, February 14 2010 @ 11:54 PM GMT+4
Putney Reject, I am confused. Can you help me out with visualizing your metaphor here? Are you inside or outside the circle jerk? I'm female and don't really understand these Boy Metaphors. TIA!
---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR
Authored by: SpudHill on Monday, February 15 2010 @ 12:36 AM GMT+4
Considering these sorts of adult mature comments
"I am more than willing to share ideas and have a thoughtful discussion here regarding power production but I learned very quickly that it's not going to happen in this little circle jerk of smug self importance you run here."
Authored by: pjmelton on Monday, February 15 2010 @ 02:17 PM GMT+4
Perhaps I have helped take this conversation in an undesirable direction. My point was really that you are part of the conversation, while pretending to be a persecuted non-participant, a.k.a. a "reject." You could, you know, just participate instead of calling so much attention to the fact that you perceive yourself to be outside the circle or conversants.
When you are at parties, do you just walk into rooms where people are mingling and shout "I'm not part of this conversation!" over and over? It's just as bizarre a habit online as it would be in person.
---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR
Authored by: SpudHill on Monday, February 15 2010 @ 02:26 PM GMT+4
Well Melton once again proves to be the holder of "excellent parenting skills that can also be effective with adults" in this group. Take the advice Reject and you may find a less hostile response to your posts although the subject being a bit inflammatory one can't make promises.
oh and I'm sorry I said you were a circle jerk....kind of....well, yeah, okay
I
AM
sorry.
Simple Minded? Piffle! You Still Have the Wrong Number!
Authored by: paulgardner on Sunday, February 14 2010 @ 11:13 PM GMT+4
Vermont doesn't have to replace 650 megawatts of VY power, since as I mentioned we use 275 of the 650.
I think the state of Vermont is more ready than most to step up and replace outdated polluting power sources with clean new technology ones. If we had a little vision in the governor's office I think we could accomplish the goal in short time. Not only that, since wind creates 3 jobs for every one nuclear creates (per megawatt - this is all from memory from Michael Daly's presentation on the subject a year ago - correct me if I'm wrong) and biomass 5 - we get more jobs and cleaner at the same time.
The reason I think that all of VY's 650 megawatts are replaceable is that the NE grid cut 600 megawatts through efficiency measures in a single year (2008).
If New England were to commit right now building 100 or so wind generators per year for the next 3 years we could more than replace VY.
I really do think it's that simple on a technical level. Politically the process is complicated by money and misplaced emotion. It's a corporate shell game and we shouldn't play it.
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Sunday, February 14 2010 @ 04:59 PM GMT+4
That's a question some of us have been asking for years. Too bad we've had an administration that was so invested in the continued operation of VY that they refused to plan for any other contingency.
Authored by: javanyet on Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 06:49 AM GMT+4
The "spinoff" was nixed by New York state PSB last week, so this is no surprise.
Where I work we have a lot of Entergy folks in and out, including various consultants, and I heard one of them on a cell phone call to a colleague (because the entire world is a phone booth) saying "This is the worst mess of a project I've ever worked on."
Authored by: LisaFlanders on Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 01:15 PM GMT+4
I have a friend who's a consultant over at VY and he posted a comment on my Facebook page a week and a half ago saying that he wished they would just shut down. He also mentioned that he covers his badge when he's out around town (the implication being that Yankee has become such a total embarrassment to work for).
Authored by: Floyd on Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 02:58 PM GMT+4
I imagine property owners nearest to the plant are
probably feeling a bit uneasy at this point.
I knew someone who owned a house very close to the
plant and as it was it took them well over a year to sell
it and that was before the tritium leaks appeared.
Authored by: LisaFlanders on Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 07:08 PM GMT+4
Maybe PutneyReject should move to Vernon and become a Realtor specializing in nuclear waste-augmented properties. He and Patty could even open a brokerage together (since she may be looking for a new line of work after this unfortunate and misguided bit of legislation she's writing) and they could call it something snappy like Reactor Area Realty, or Tritium Homes and Gardens, or possibly even Nukely & Spiller Braidwood Country Realtors.
Authored by: SJD on Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 06:13 PM GMT+4
Obama announced more than $8 billion in federal loan guarantees today for the construction of the first nuclear power plant in the United States in nearly three decades.
Authored by: paulgardner on Tuesday, February 16 2010 @ 10:54 PM GMT+4
I'm very unhappy about this, but not surprised.
Candidate Obama supported building new nuclear power plants. However, it would be a bitter irony if Obama's legacy included a batch of nuke plants in minority and impoverished neighborhoods (In 2010 can you imagine a middle class or affluent neighborhood permitting the construction of a new reactor anywhere nearby?).
I can't. It'll be the poor once again that get stuck with the unwanted plants.
The whistleblower told Gundersen that about two
years ago the company experienced another tritium
leak in the same general location that involved a
drain pit in the advanced off-gas system, the same
place Entergy Nuclear is now excavating in hopes of
finding the problem.
"'Employee said that in addition to the current tritium
leak, there have been other leaks in the advanced
off-gas systems in previous years,'" Gundersen wrote
to the state Department of Public Service.
Gundersen said the employee gave such detailed
information it was obvious to him that the person
worked at the reactor. Gundersen himself is a former
nuclear industry whistleblower.
Gundersen said the employee told him the old leak
could not be isolated and a shutdown would have
been required to repair the leak, something the
company didn't do.
Is this a joke?