Skip to main content

Back to Easton

A couple of weeks ago, we ran a story about the efforts of a small town to bring a nuclear plant to its area back in the seventies. It didn’t happen back then, for various reasons, and Easton, N.Y. remains now as it was then, a small farming town. So imagine my surprise:

About 50 people, including a member of [Rep. Chris Gibson's (D-N.Y.)] staff, attended last week's [town] board meeting at which the board voted to create the [nuclear] study committee. Gibson, the freshman Republican congressman from the 20th District, has made constructing a nuclear power plant in the district one of his priorities.

That district, of course, includes Easton. Most of the story is bare speculation, but I found it interesting that the echo of the past has made an impact on the present:

[Farmer George] Allen was a high school senior when the [original nuclear] plant was proposed, and remembers seeing a model of the facility at his school. Years later, after he had bought the utility land, his three kids used to swim in the old reactor pit, which is 60 feet deep and full of "crystal-clear water."

And Allen seems an ideal constituent:

"But I do think it is smart for the town to do some study of this issue," said Allen, who attended last week's Town Board meeting to speak in favor of the study committee. "There should be good information, rather than hearsay or how someone just feels about it."

Bravo, George Allen.

I have no idea whether a nuclear plant in Easton is a long shot  - no one has expressed interest in building one as far as I know – and I suspect the residual excitement over the first plant gives Easton a sort of extra enthusiasm. I find this – shall we say? – imprint on the town’s DNA uniquely intriguing. Plus, if it succeeds, Eastern New York would do nothing but benefit. I hope Easton gets its nuclear plant.

Comments

Di said…
My husbands family lives there, he grew up swimming in the river/canal up there. The area is beautiful so why not destroy it.... In light of the problems in Japan this past wkend may make many of them think differently. Think it may be time to consider options like wind power or solar. Don't have to worry about trying to get rid of contaminate from them.
Robert said…
The idea was floated by one Board member at a Town Board meeting in February 2011. By the time the Board met again in March 2011, they had a resolution written up to look into the feasibility of nuclear power and ONLY nuclear power, which they voted to pass, and they appointed the committee in April 2011. The pace at which this all happened was astounding, given that the Board sometimes takes two or three meetings to decide whether or not to trim a bush.

At no time was a public referendum held, no attempt was made to have a public forum to see how the town residents felt about any of this. The Town Board agenda is not published in advance, so the 50+ people who showed up to protest did so because they had read about the issue in the newspaper and came to the meeting to see if there would be an opportunity to voice their opinions. Their only opportunity to have a voice was during the public comments section of the general Board meeting -- and the overwhelming sentiment of the residents was NOT to proceed with the resolution, and to forget the whole idea.

The Town Board ignored requests to bring this issue to the town at any kind of structured and advertised public forum, and even refused to include looking into the feasibility of sources of renewable energy like wind and solar in the wording, and they voted in the resolution (4 in favor, one against) despite overwhelming opposition from the public.

Having a nuclear power plant in Easton is NOT ingrained in our DNA. It is being forced on us by a Town Board looking to curry favor with Mr. Gibson. In particular, Steve Mueller -- the member of the board that started this whole thing -- seems to have an agenda that he is pushing. What everyone is wondering is . . . what it is and why?

Popular posts from this blog

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...