Skip to main content

Replacing the Foot You Shot Yourself In

Vermont is bound and determined to close the Vermont Yankee nuclear energy facility over a leakage of tritium last year that harmed no one - at all. While the leak should not have occurred, the cause of it was located and sealed and no one inside or outside the plant was harmed by it. More about tritium here

But the Vermont legislature saw it as an opportunity to close the plant, an action that Vermont  Yankee's owner, Entergy, has filed suit over. The NRC has issued a license allowing the facility to operate an additional 20 years and Entergy would like to do that. We'll see if Entergy's suit prevails - I'm not a lawyer and have no special intelligence on it. You can read more about the suit here.

So let's leave that all on the side of the road and focus on the possibility of Vermont Yankee closing. Care to guess how much of Vermont's electricity is generated by nuclear energy?

72 percent
. Let that sink in - clearly, the Vermont legislature hasn't - and it's largely from Vermont Yankee, the only nuclear facility in the state. There are no coal plants and only a little natural gas (0.1%) - a little renewable energy (5 percent). Hydro (also renewable, of course) is number 2 at 22 percent.
Unwilling to gamble on Vermont Yankee, Green Mountain Power Corp. is looking instead to a nuclear plant in neighboring New Hampshire for power.The company has reached a 23-year power purchase deal to get electricity from Seabrook nuclear plant in Seabrook, N.H., officials said Tuesday.
That's called irony. Now, in fairness, Green Mountain is looking elsewhere, too, so this isn't a one-to-one swap:
The agreement, combined with a recently approved power pact with Hydro Quebec and plans to build a wind project in Lowell, helps Green Mountain Power make good on its promise of providing reliable, low-cost and low-carbon power, she said.
You'll notice that Quebec and Massachusetts benefit, but not Vermont. If the facility closes, Vermont loses about 300 jobs there - and more around the facility - and the state taxes from the facility - with no replacement. That's bad, however you look at it.

But we were intrigued by comments gathered by reporter John Curran:
Representatives of two of the company's biggest customers -- IBM in Essex Junction and Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, in Waterbury -- welcome the power deal, saying the cost and low-carbon footprint of nuclear power were appealing.
"Appealing" - we'll take it. But not everyone is happy.
"We'd prefer to see our state's utilities moving away from all forms of dirty and unreliable power, including nuclear energy," said James Moore, clean energy program director for Vermont Public Interest Research Group.

Well, you've always got the other foot.

Comments

Meredith Angwin said…
Vermont Yankee supplies about 200 MW of power to Vermont. Green Mountain Power made a deal for 15 to 60 MW from Seabrook. It's not exactly a replacement. To say nothing of the 400 MW of power that VY sends to neighboring states.
SteveK9 said…
Wonder what the 'wind power' from Lowell will cost. Assuming it gets built.

By the way, I live in NH so to Green Mountain Power 'you're welcome'. I wish we would build Seabrook 2 (probably won't happen soon) then we could sell more power to MA and VT.
Will Davis said…
Last time I made a post about Vermont Yankee on Atomic Power Review, MAN, did I get some vitriolic comments and e-mails! Those anti-nuke activists are whackos. They claim that Vermont's whole essence is its clean living and its natural tourist-friendly environment, so VY must go. Great; I hope that all the extra coal smoke caused by the increased demand that'll be supplied elsewhere causes acid rain all over Vermont.
Anonymous said…
Funny you left out that the seabrook deal is cheaper than vy.

And that the legislature is acting on behalf of the people of vermont who are done with entergy, not necessarily nuclear power.

People say it's just politics driving this decision. Of course it is, that is how the public is represented, through political action. If the projet of vermont want vy anf entergy out of their state, that's their prerogative.
Meredith Angwin said…
I have two blog posts about this deal, one with geeky comparisons of costs and so forth
http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2011/05/nimby-and-nukes-vermont-utility-makes.html
and one that is mostly opinion.
http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2011/05/north-of-border-east-of-border-nuclear.html
I am aware that it is blatant self-promotion to link to my own blog in a comment on someone else's blog, but I think that the first post has some interesting numbers that people might like to see.
Also, Will:.
Yes indeed. Coal smoke. While Vermont is in the ISO NE grid, the grids are interconnected, and the entire western border of Vermont is New York State. So, without VY, it is quite reasonable that we will draw more power from New York State, because it is close. Just for fun, SourceWatch on coal plants shows there are 48 coal plants in New York, though I admit that most of them are more southerly than the Vermont border. Not all, but most
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Existing_coal_plants_in_New_York
Joffan said…
Anon
If the projet of Vermont want VY and Entergy out of their state, that's their prerogative.

Except that the rule of law is still in force, and contracts undertaken cannot be broken arbitrarily. Business operates under the contract of stable and reality-based regulation, not the whims of politicians. If an enforcement action is not supported by evidence, it can and should be challenged in the courts.

Meanwhile, Shumlin tells us "Your word is your bond in Vermont" but then does all he can to avoid being bound by the contract agreed with Entergy. Refer to Meredith's blog for more on that.

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…