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

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap
1 comment
Read more

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

By
Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu
Post a Comment
Read more

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin
Post a Comment
Read more