Skip to main content

Fighting for Nuclear Energy in Vermont

Patrick Moore is back in Vermont, fighting local anti-nukes over the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. From the Barrie-Montpelier Times Argus:
"Nuclear energy has key environmental benefits," Moore said. With as many as 30 new nuclear plants in the planning stages the United States is joining the rest of the world in a "nuclear renaissance," Moore said.

Some of the lawmakers were not impressed.

Rep. Sarah Edwards, P-Brattleboro, said that Moore only told part of the story, particularly when he said nuclear power was one of the cheapest sources of electricity.

"The federal government has been subsidizing this industry from the very beginning," she said. "My guess is if you look at the history of subsidies on that you will find a huge difference."

[...]

Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier, said that if renewable energy sources like solar and wind power got the same subsidies they would be as cost-effective as nuclear electricity.

"If only it could be as simple and as safe and as cheap as he is pretending it is the world would be a wonderful place," Klein said. "The facts tell a different story."
Actually, as both David Bradish and N. Nadir have determined, the story is quite a lot different than anti-nukes would have you believe. But then again, the real strategy isn't to tell the truth, it's simply to tell the same lies over and over again that you can't determined what the truth is anymore.

For more, visit WCAX-TV. For a previous post on another Moore trip to Vermont, click here.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
I'm getting really, really weary of this "subsidies" crap. Everyone I know who runs a nuclear plant pays their way for everything. They pay for the land. They pay for the plant hardware. They pay for personnel. They pay taxes. They pay for the fuel. They pay for the Yucca Mountain waste disposal facility. They pay for insurance. They pay for the "privilege" of being regulated by the feds. About the only thing they don't pay for is the air they breathe. But I guess that's next on the list for the anti-nuke wackos.
Robert said…
You guys have to put up a FAQ to allow us to rebut these lame assertions.
Anonymous said…
Very ironic that they would be fighting against Vermont Yankee. Here is a power plant that has generated huge amounts of GHG-free electricity over decades at economical cost, has never had a major accident, no injuries or deaths among the public or employees, in every way an example of the kind of clean, reliable, cost-effective power production that an ecologically-conscious state would want to have. Yet here these poeple are bad-mouthing the place and wanting to get rid of it. To replace it with what? They can't build more hydroelectric (with the one group out west agitating to blow up those dams on the Klamath River to let the trout through). The climate in New England isn't quite ideal for solar (besides the problem of what do you do at night). Wind is unreliable and can't carry the load and people will oppose it because it clutters up the views of those nice mountains and valleys. They don't want coal because it's dirty. Natural gas is expensive and not all that abundant in the Northeast. You could cut all the wood down in the Green Mountain forests and still not have enough energy. So then what?
>>So then what?

Blame 'the big corporations' for not providing enough electricity, pick a target, and sue it into bankruptcy. Repeat until the Canadians build a power line from one of their (potential) new nukes, and then say that the entire state runs on wind.

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…