They Write Letters, Don’t They?

They write letters:

Shutting down Yankee would be disastrous.

So true. This is written by PJ Beaumont, who wrote a letter to the Bennington Banner’s editors to say so. And more:

We received a flier in our mail from "Green Mountain Future," recommending Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant be shut down. The flier distorts the facts about Yankee, implying that the water tower leak contained radioactive water (it didn't) and throwing out of context the past minor radioactive leak (the Vermont Department of Health determined it posed no significant adverse health threat).

The flier was put out by a recently formed group with the "Democratic Governors Association" purportedly backing it. The purpose of the flier is to make an issue of Vermont Yankee to get Democrats elected, even when the Democrats know in the end Vermont Yankee has to stay open, regardless of who is governor.

Beaumont is right on the facts – I might substitute “no significant adverse health threat” for “no threat whatever” - and the supposition in the second paragraph – well, who knows? But if Beaumont is right, the Green Mountain Future’s effort backfired:

We may well be the most historic generation in history. We are the first generation to realize that burning millions of years worth of accumulated carbon (essentially earth's trash) in 150 years may not have been a good idea. Unlike the Titanic, we have no lifeboats for our Earth. If we upset the very powerful but delicate balance of what makes Earth habitable, we have nowhere to go.

Future generations are going to analyze our response. Until power generation with nuclear fusion is feasible, we are going to have to use the best primitive weapon we have against global climate change, nuclear fission.

This is one of the best because most straightforward pieces I’ve ever seen on the value of a nuclear energy plant – might have hesitated on “primitive weapon” myself, but let’s give Beaumont whatever metaphors work – and a reminder that newspaper readers are not passive consumers of information.

---

To be fair, despite Beaumont’s quotes around it, Green Mountain Future is real enough, although its purpose seems to be to attack one of the gubernatorial candidates – the Republican, current Lieutenant Governor Brian Dubie - over his support for keeping Vermont Yankee operating. Maybe those quotes are appropriate after all.

Green Mountain Future, a new independent organization, launched today with a TV campaign to address key policy issues facing Vermont, including the environment, the economy and energy.

The inaugural ad highlights Dubie's stance on the issue of keeping Vermont Yankee open despite “major concerns” about safety at the nuclear power plant.

You can see the ad at the link. It all has a certain, shall we say, ordure about it. (I’m neutral on the Vermont governor’s race – that’s for Vermonters to decide – but fair Is fair.)

Candidate Dubie enjoys a moment. Peter Shumlin is his Democratic counterpart. In a recent Rasmussen Reports poll, the two were within the margin of error. Yes, another squeaker.

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...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog