Skip to main content

Local Pols Picking on Vermont Yankee

Over at The Prog Blog, Rep. Sarah Edwards of Vermont is attacking Patrick Moore for his efforts in support of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant:
Moore said Vermont should be held up as an example of how greenhouse gases can be reduced, and that the rest of the country should follow our lead. “Vermont has the lowest per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the United States for one single reason, your power supply,” he said. While Moore is right about Vermont having low per capita greenhouse emissions, his rationale is way off base.

Moore believes that there is literally no future without nuclear power. Many of us believe there is another way to create a sane energy future in Vermont. It lies with focused economic development related to conservation, efficiency, and new, renewable energy technologies. Rather than lauding our aging nuclear power plant, we would like to see Vermont play a strong leadership role in the renewable energy industry.

[...]

As a shameless campaigner for nuclear energy, Moore presented a wholly biased view to the committee. He neglects the danger of creating high-level nuclear waste. He claims nuclear power is cheap but fails to examine the total cost. He doesn’t mention the fact that the federal government has provided massive subsidies to the industry since its inception. Since 1974, the industry has received $47.9 billion, while $12.4 billion has been given to renewables and $11.7 billion has been devoted to efficiency. Imagine how it would be if those numbers were reversed.
As we've noted before, folks like Rep. Edwards like playing fast and loose with the numbers when it comes to energy and subsidies. For a little dose of the truth, see these posts by David Bradish and N. Nadir.

For our complete file on Vermont Yankee, click here.

Comments

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…