Taxing Behavior Around Vermont Yankee

Some folks in Vermont want to raise taxes on Vermont Yankee to help pay for a "clean energy" fund. Considering that the state is already running a budget surplus, Vermonter Cool Blue has other ideas:

[Th]e owners of the Vermont Yankee power plant already contributes $2.5 million a year into the state's Clean Energy Development Fund.

So what does the Legislature want to do with this obvious good Green neighbor? Why, tax it more, of course.

In the name of Global Warming.

So they can buy buses.

Which pollute the air and spew greehouse gases.

Make sense to you?

I'll leave that up to my readers.

Comments

Anonymous said…

Cool Blue's being disingenuous so they can appear witty. Yes, buses powered by petroleum emit CO2...but less than the cars and SUVs that many of their riders would be driving otherwise to make any given trip.

Maybe they should leave this one alone until those nuclear-powered buses are available.

May 8, 2007 at 11:57 AM

Brian Mays said…

Then build trams or buses that run on electricity, like they have in Europe, not buses that run on petroleum.

In France, these electric buses are nuclear powered, since the vast majority of the electricity comes from nuclear power plants. These buses are available and are being used today, so I think that it is appropriate to point out the hypocrisy of the Vermont legislature.

May 8, 2007 at 1:44 PM

Anonymous said…

Just when you think Vermont can't get any weirder

May 17, 2007 at 5:39 PM

Wednesday Update

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...

Fluor Invests in NuScale

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...

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog