Skip to main content

Indian Point, Vermont Yankee, V.C. Summer

If you happen to live in New York's 26th Senate District, which contain the Indian Point nuclear plant and is represented by state Senator Liz Krueger, well, the senator would like to know what you think of the plant. She wants to close it, but to her credit, she does want to know what her constituents think. I would guess that a fair number of her constituents work at Indian Point or at one of the many businesses that benefit from its presence. Even constituents who have no connection to the plant might regret losing clean energy in favor of something other.

So go ahead. Tell Sen. Krueger what you think. She wants to know.
---
The Christian Science Monitor has up an interesting story on what the effect may be of the lawsuit brought by Entergy - actually, two of its subsidiaries - against the state of Vermont. Naturally, this is all speculative, with the possibilities ranging from "nothing" to "a whole lot." Read the post a few below to see what the lawsuit is all about, but essentially, Entergy says the state cannot close Vermont Yankee; only the federal government can do that.

Under existing law, states have definite – if strictly limited – rights regarding nuclear power plants. These included a say in the siting, economics, transmission, aesthetics and other issues. States do not have authority over safety and licensing. That resides squarely with the federal government.
The Vermont case could reinforce those states’ rights, expand them – or see them overturned entirely. Entergy argues the federal government has near-complete control over the licensing of nuclear power plants. If the case rises to the US Supreme Court, as some suspect it might, the ruling could sharply curb federal say on nuclear power plants inside state lines.
See? Everything or nothing. I guess you could argue that Entergy is only asking that the laws as it understands them hold force here, that it is not asking that any law be overturned or altered.

The article focuses on only one of Entergy's arguments:
"If this case were to change the 1983 court decision, then every state would lose the power they've had since joining the union," says Michael Dworkin, former chairman of the Vermont Public Service Board. "We're talking about a state's power over land use and all powers not expressly taken away by Congress. That's what's at stake if the company convinces the Supreme Court to take away those powers currently granted."
Well, no. Entergy in its suit notes that Vermont Yankee contributes electricity to states other than Vermont - this is true of most energy plants, since most contribute to multistate grids - and that falls under interstate commerce. And it is the federal government not the states that controls interstate commerce via the commerce clause of the constitution.

It is a complex case and will be interesting to follow. I cannot pretend to understand all the issues involved and we haven't yet seen Vermont's response to the suit. Very early days. Given that, the Monitor piece is pretty good withal and writer Mark Clayton will help you understand at least some of the issues here a little better.

---
Let's wrap up with some positive news:

Federal nuclear regulators say there are no environmental impacts from two proposed nuclear reactors in Jenkinsville that would prevent South Carolina Electric & Gas from getting a license to operate the plants.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said in a news release Tuesday that the environmental review began in January 2009 and included input from several public meetings.
That's pretty good. All things being equal, SCE&G will open two new reactors at its V.C. Summer site in 2016 and 2019.

And, from the Washington Post, reporting on a Post/ABC poll:
The 53 percent who approve of nuclear power are a mirror image of the 53 percent who said such power was unsafe in the wake of the 1986 meltdown at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine.
The poll results are mixed rather than outright positive, but they are heartening in that general support for nuclear energy might have dropped off a cliff but has not. Media furor tends to send numbers way up or way down depending on the issue and heaven knows pollsters like to do polls when emotions are high. So it's striking that the response this time - and from a fair number of polls - has been fairly tepid.

New York state Senator Liz Krueger.

Comments

Chad said…
It's VC Summer (not Sommer) and the owner is SCE&G (not PSE&G).

Popular posts from this blog

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …