Skip to main content

Used Fuel, Carbon Emissions and Vermont Yankee

From the Boston Globe:
Activists released a new report Friday indicating Vermont has more radioactive nuclear waste per capita than any state in the nation, which they said underscores the need for approval of a climate change bill that would tax the Vermont Yankee plant.
Which led Ruth Sponsler to respond:
Vermont Yankee's spent nuclear fuel is contained and hidden away where it hurts no one. If there's more "nuclear waste" per capita in Vermont than in other states, that means that Vermont is releasing less fossil fuel waste to the open atmosphere. That means Vermont residents breathe less sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and nitrous oxides per capita - - - because nuclear energy is substituting for fossil fuel generation.
Here's hoping somebody's editor at the Boston Globe reads Ruth's response. For a previous post on anti-nuke efforts to increase taxes on Vermont Yankee, click here.

Comments

David Bradish said…
Vermont's population is about 650,000. Total cumulative spent fuel in Vermont is about 540 metric tons which equals 1.19 millions pounds. Total spent fuel per capita thus is 1.83 pounds. And this is over the entire lifespan of Vermont Yankee.

I haven't read the report so I don't know what numbers they came out with. But these numbers should more than anything tell people that the amount of waste per capita from nuclear is trivial.
Anonymous said…
What the article doesn't note, but Governor Douglas correctly has, is that Vermont also has bragging rights to having the cleanest air and smallest carbon footprint of all the US states. I cannot help but think that this is due in no small measure to the presence of Vermont Yankee as a major contributor to electricity supply in the state and region. Interesting how this inconvenient truth somehow slipped by the attention of the Glob.
Anonymous said…
The US Census Bureau source you linked to gives a 2006 population estimate for Vermont of 623,908.

It doesn't change your basic point, but I'm wondering how that number rounds up to 650,000? Why not just use the correct figure, especially when you're taking the per capita waste figure out to 2 decimal places?
David Bradish said…
Allright. The correct figure is 1.91 pounds per capita. When I'm looking at populations by state the numbers are generally in millions. I then don't quite focus too much on tens of thousands. 650,000 was a nice round figure in my mind. At the same time, population data are estimates and were taken from the middle of the year. Whereas the used fuel data is from the end of the year and is also rounded.

If I were writing a report I would be specific. But since this dialogue is only in a comment string, I don't feel the need to be exactly dead on with estimates.

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…