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

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.

Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …