Skip to main content

Looking Back at Seabrook

We Support Lee takes a look back 30 years at the protest at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant:
The Seabrook facility now provides 1,244 MW of emissions-free electricity for New England. It is now owned by FPL, which is Fortune's Most Admired Electric Utility. FPL is a leader in addressing climate change through emissions reduction. FPL participates in the community and with education, doing such things as training Texas students in wind turbine technology.
Pretty good record if you ask me.


gunter said…

Funny that the blogger should mention that "this crowd [the Clamshell Alliance] did not get its wish" in the context of presenting this history lesson.

When I first got started with the anti-nuke movement in 1975, President Nixon had just launched his "Project Independence" to construct 1000 reactors units in the USA by the year 2000. Of the 255 or so units that were ordered only 130 received operating licenses.In fact, there are are only 104 units today with operating licenses. 75 of these reactors contributed to more than $100 billion in cost overruns with no credit to protests or interventions.

The nucleasr industy's megalomanic plan was decimated. That's the history.

No Nukes,
Paul Gunter, Clamshell Alliance [1976-1990]and currently with NIRS.
Rod Adams said…
I love it when I read good things about FPL. The company employed my Dad for 35 years and used to throw a heck of a good Christmas party and annual company picnic.

I will always treasure the memory of the egg tosses on the grounds of the old Cutler plant in South Dade county under the talk stacks of the plant.

It was also the company that first introduced me to nuclear power - Dad talked a lot about Turkey Point and St. Lucie when I was growing up. In 1977 (the year of the protests at Seabrook), when I was choosing my future profession, a career in nuclear was about as popular as a career in computers was ten years later. In other words, it was (and will be) the place to be.

Rod Adams
Anonymous said…
I've travelled through that area many times, and I've often admired the reactor from afar.

It is really criminal that unit two did not come on line. Many lives have undoubtedly been lost because of the use of fossil fuels instead, not that any one in the Clamshell alliance would dream of apologizing to these dead.

It may have been more excusable in an earlier time, when the success of the nuclear industry was less well proved, but in modern times - especially given the nature of the issues we face - an anti-nuclear position is not just economically and environmentally foolish - but is downright immoral.

I've made it clear that I was one of the anti-Shoreham activists and I very much morally regret my actions (even if I was not in any way a leader of this inane bit of my youth.)

I think Ruth is doing an outstanding job in pointing out that the anti-nuclear movement of the 1970's bears great moral responsibility for subsequent developments.

All rational people who care about the environment hope that the nuclear industry will be able to make up for lost time.

Anonymous said…

Seabrook was one of the nuclear plants that the so-called environmentalists used to use justify opposition to coal-fired units that some Northeast utilities planned to bring on line to displace the use of fuel oil, which was often used in plants in that region at that time. They told utilities that investing in nuclear units was a preferred alternative to constructing coal-fired plants. Then those same "environmentalist" groups turned around and stabbed Seabrook in the back by filing motion after motion, delay after delay, to drive it's cost up. A bunch of liars and backstabbers, the lot of them.
Anonymous said…
My sources indicate Ford and Nixon, wanted to construct 200, not 1,000, nuclear plants as part of Project Independence. The goal, as I understood it, was to displace oil for electricity production, which in the end nuclear did.
5602Eagle said…
I wonder why "this crowd" seems to be proud of the fact that 125 or so plants were cancelled resulting in how many billion tons of carbon emissions.
kconrad said…
Again, you fail to acknowledge that nuclear power during its construction, operation and dismantling requires massive amounts electricity that often comes from coal-fired sources. Nuclear power must be held accountable for those emissions in the overall "cost" of the plants.

Let's let the free market system apply to nuclear power and make the owners provide their own insurance - then let's see where the future of nuclear power lies.
kconrad said…
I am very proud of the fact that since the construction of Seabrook, not one more plant has been ordered here in the U.S.

We sit here in 103 sites in the U.S. with pre-deployed potential weapons of mass destruction - the praised Seabrook owners FPL were fined (an "unusual event" for the NRC to take that step) for having seriously compromised security.

The moral righteousness of your bloggers is laughable. The actual damage to our environment from the mining, milling and piling up of the wastes alone calls into question the morality of this industry. It is understandable that people who work in this industry have to do moral backflips to help justify a technology that has to be 99.99% certain in its operation or the compounding misteps can have incredible consequences.

Yes, there have been deaths from the use of coal - we here in the northeast are the "tailpipe" recipients. Had our government used even 1/2 of the impetus that went into the Manhattan Project to develop safe, renewable energy sources, our economy and our health and safety would be much less compromised.

Let's put the responsiblity and lack of morality where it belongs. The profit motive is consummate with nuclear - with safe renewables the profits, as with the energy, would be more dispersed throughout the economy, not in the hands of a few. Let nuclear stand the test of the free market and pay its way, with government subsidies and limits on citizen intervention. I dare say it will do itself in.

Popular posts from this blog

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.

Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…