Skip to main content

Fighting for Nuclear Energy in Vermont

By Eric McErlain
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.
January 31, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Fat Man said…
You guys have to put up a FAQ to allow us to rebut these lame assertions.
February 1, 2007 at 1:33 AM
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?
February 1, 2007 at 10:16 AM
Stewart Peterson said…
>>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.
February 1, 2007 at 9:55 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more