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

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...

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

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog