U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Vermont
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 07-03-2015, 09:53 AM
 
3,844 posts, read 3,336,427 times
Reputation: 3796

Advertisements

Why oh why did Vermont's politicians force the premature closure of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon last December? That facility had at least 20 more years of life producing clean, cheap energy. To duplicate that plant today would cost $12 to $15 billion and take at least 10 years to complete.

Now it turns out that it will take $1.2 billion to completely decommission the facility and the trust fund only holds $654.4 million. The plant will become a dormant hulk unless the balance of the decommissioning funds are provided somehow. See link below.

VT official: Vermont Yankee trust fund process is 'broken' - Brattleboro Reformer
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-03-2015, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Venus
5,032 posts, read 3,419,020 times
Reputation: 8563
20 more years? I don't think so. How many times did we hear about a tritium leak here, a leak there. How about the collapse of the cooling tower in 2007. Not to mention that they let hot water into the river and what it did to the fish population of the Conn. River. Sometimes I think it was just held together by duct tape & bubble gum.

And nuke energy is NOT clean. What to do with the spent fuel? The spent fuel will be radioactive long after we, our children, & grandchildren are gone from this earth. I wouldn't say that was clean.

As for the $$$$$$ to decommission and clean up, that is for Entergy to deal with. My worry is that they are going to try to stick it to the State of Vermont. I just hope the state doesn't let them.



Cat
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2015, 08:54 AM
 
809 posts, read 716,416 times
Reputation: 1343
Look, we are talking about Entergy, the company that has done what it could to avoid paying into a decommissioning fund. At one point, they tried to set up a shell company responsible for doing that, but the state was smart enough to realize that when the fund would prove almost criminally insufficient, the asset-free shell company and not Entergy would be the only one at risk. Don't go blaming government! For more about just how bad Entergy, ready The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. They were a nobody until Britain gave them hundreds of millions to ruin their nuclear plants, and in my opinion they've been grifting ever since.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2015, 03:02 PM
 
3,844 posts, read 3,336,427 times
Reputation: 3796
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatwomanofV View Post
20 more years? I don't think so. How many times did we hear about a tritium leak here, a leak there. How about the collapse of the cooling tower in 2007. Not to mention that they let hot water into the river and what it did to the fish population of the Conn. River. Sometimes I think it was just held together by duct tape & bubble gum.
The tritium leak was fixed. Tritium emits beta particles which are electrons that cannot even penetrate human skin. Part of the cooling building collapsed because of the erosion of a wood beam. Why the original plant was not built with those iconic concrete hyperboloid cooling towers that save energy I don't know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatwomanofV View Post
And nuke energy is NOT clean. What to do with the spent fuel? The spent fuel will be radioactive long after we, our children, & grandchildren are gone from this earth. I wouldn't say that was clean.
Nuclear power plants emit no CO2, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, mercury, cadmium, molybdenum and other trace elements. They don't kill birds with their whirling blades and they produce power when the sun goes down and on cloudy days. Because of the loss of 650 megawatts of power that the Vermont Yankee was producing, Vermont (and New Hampshire) utilities must import power mostly through New York State. New York State ISO then imports power from Ontario and the PJM, a lot of which is coal fired.

Note: All of New England has a power generation deficit due to lack of natural gas pipeline capacity.

The best way to dispose of spent nuclear fuel is to reprocess it and consume the recovered fuel in a nuclear reaction. The republocrat congress has not been able to pass a permanent solution to the problem of spent nuclear fuel rods. They are a bunch of nincompoops.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2015, 03:33 PM
 
191 posts, read 166,611 times
Reputation: 312
Default As an ousider with an interest in how places allocate power both in production and distribution.

This is particularly directed to those that support Vermont Yankee closure.

What alternative/substitute power supplies were planned to replace the nuke?

Hydro-electric? Coal fired generators? Natural gas generation? Wind and/or solar? Do without? Rely on the goodness of strangers? What?

This HAD to come up in planning for shutdown. It HAD to; nobody is dumb enough to shut off the power from your one main source without thinking "Where is our electricity coming from tomorrow?"

If there ARE feasible plans, please share with the class.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2015, 07:14 PM
 
Location: Venus
5,032 posts, read 3,419,020 times
Reputation: 8563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wells5 View Post
The tritium leak was fixed. Tritium emits beta particles which are electrons that cannot even penetrate human skin. Part of the cooling building collapsed because of the erosion of a wood beam. Why the original plant was not built with those iconic concrete hyperboloid cooling towers that save energy I don't know.



Nuclear power plants emit no CO2, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, mercury, cadmium, molybdenum and other trace elements. They don't kill birds with their whirling blades and they produce power when the sun goes down and on cloudy days. Because of the loss of 650 megawatts of power that the Vermont Yankee was producing, Vermont (and New Hampshire) utilities must import power mostly through New York State. New York State ISO then imports power from Ontario and the PJM, a lot of which is coal fired.

Note: All of New England has a power generation deficit due to lack of natural gas pipeline capacity.

The best way to dispose of spent nuclear fuel is to reprocess it and consume the recovered fuel in a nuclear reaction. The republocrat congress has not been able to pass a permanent solution to the problem of spent nuclear fuel rods. They are a bunch of nincompoops.

Can you say Chernobyl? How about Fukushima?


Accidents can and will happen. And when it happens the place is dead for a VERY long time. Both of those places are inhabitable now. I would rather have a few killed birds than the killing of the land.


I, for one, happen to be VERY glad that VY is closed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip OK View Post
This is particularly directed to those that support Vermont Yankee closure.

What alternative/substitute power supplies were planned to replace the nuke?

Hydro-electric? Coal fired generators? Natural gas generation? Wind and/or solar? Do without? Rely on the goodness of strangers? What?

This HAD to come up in planning for shutdown. It HAD to; nobody is dumb enough to shut off the power from your one main source without thinking "Where is our electricity coming from tomorrow?"

If there ARE feasible plans, please share with the class.
Vermont only got 1/3 of its power from VY as of 2009.

In 2014, 27% of Vermont's net electricity generation was produced by renewable energy, including hydroelectric, biomass, wind, and solar resources. Vermont is basically going solar. There are solar farms going up left and right in the state. Many people are upset that these farms are all over the place but I would much rather have solar farms than a nuke plant any day. Wind is very controversial in this state. I don't think they should be on mountain ridgelines but I do think they should be in the Champlain Valley.

Vermont is also trying to get a natural gas pipeline going. Again, there is a political battle on that one. Who knows who will win this one.

Here are the stats. http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=VT


Cat
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2015, 10:31 PM
 
3,844 posts, read 3,336,427 times
Reputation: 3796
Besides curtailing fish runs and spawning activity, hydroelectric dams like those on the Connecticut River produce significant amounts of both CO2 and methane. Hard to believe but true. See link below.

Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed - environment - 24 February 2005 - New Scientist

Burning wood and especially bark emits a lot of dangerous compounds besides stinking up the area for miles. See link below

The Chemical Composition of Wood Smoke

Vermont Yankee also supplied power to New Hampshire. The folks in NH wanted to shut down the coal-fired Merrimack Power Station but can't now because of the VY closure. That plant operates 24/7. Electricity prices there are bound to go up a lot more than they already have.

As to the proposed new nat gas pipelines, Kinder-Morgan's "Northeast Energy Direct" pipeline has run into significant opposition. And what about the effects of "fracking" on the environment?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2015, 11:01 PM
 
191 posts, read 166,611 times
Reputation: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatwomanofV View Post
Can you say Chernobyl? How about Fukushima?

In 2014, 27% of Vermont's net electricity generation was produced by renewable energy, including hydroelectric, biomass, wind, and solar resources. Vermont is basically going solar. There are solar farms going up left and right in the state. Many people are upset that these farms are all over the place but I would much rather have solar farms than a nuke plant any day. Wind is very controversial in this state. I don't think they should be on mountain ridgelines but I do think they should be in the Champlain Valley.

Vermont is also trying to get a natural gas pipeline going. Again, there is a political battle on that one. Who knows who will win this one.

Here are the stats. http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=VT

Cat

Is there sufficient solar energy available to generate a significant fraction on the electrical power needed for Vermont? I ask because, when I took a serious look at solar energy in college, a long time ago, I admit, the total solar energy needed to power Las Vegas (yes I know Vegas is a power hog, much more so now than in the late 1970s) would have taken about 1/3 of the area of the state of Arizona, even if the solar collectors could work ay 100% efficiency. Even if my numbers are off by a factor of ten, that still is a huge acreage that would be shaded and presumably be unusual for any other use.

Also, if you rely on solar and wind, what is your "back up plan" for when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine? about the only thing I know that provides that "instant on" capability is natural gas, but I understand there is real resistance to petroleum fuels in Vermont.

Another pitfall we ran across, concerning the use of coal was that while Wyoming coal was generally low sulfur (less of an acid rain problem) it was relatively high in trace amounts of Uranium; high enough to suggest at the time that burning coal (as was advocated by the then Carter Administration could actually put more radiation into the atmosphere than generating power via then current nuclear reactors (and this was about the same time as Three Mile Island).
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2015, 06:47 AM
 
809 posts, read 716,416 times
Reputation: 1343
SkipOK~~

Some good points there! About the same time you estimated the solar requirements for Las Vegas, it was calculated that theoretically the entire US could be solar powered by covering 1% of the land mass with panels. I say "theoretically," because obviously the grid and storage requirements need to be computed as well. So it's not the adequacy of sunlight-- Germany, which is further north than Vermont, already uses solar for 40% of its power nationally.

There is a woman here in Vermont-- and I can never remember her name-- who is an expert on microhydro power generation. She has said that 100% of our needs can be met through microhydro, so that gives us a good reason not to worry about cloudy days.

What we do have to worry about is our consumption. In 2000, there were three times as many cars on the road as there'd been in 1970, but the US didn't have three times as many people. Somebody has figured out that the planet can sustain conversion of carbon-based energy sources-- coal, wood and petroleum-- if the average per capita consumption is not more than 2,000 watts a day. They identified one such person-- an elderly lady in Britain who lived in a row house and occasionally took a train to visit her daughter. The average American, however, uses 12,000 watts a day. As the writer of the NYRB article pointed out, we are not likely to be willing to reduce our lifestyle by 80% to keep the planet livable. But we could learn!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2015, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Venus
5,032 posts, read 3,419,020 times
Reputation: 8563
We are at a crossroads in energy. Solar & wind seem to be the wave of the future but I think it is just the beginning. I think there will be other renewable technologies that will be developed in the next decade or so that will answer all our energy needs. And yes, we do need to reduce our consumption, too.

We (as in the general sense of the word-meaning the world) need to move away from fossil fuels and nuclear. Both are very dangerous to this earth. It is getting harder and harder to get oil-look what happened to the Gulf 5 years ago. Also the boom in natural gas is at the cost. Fracking is causing earthquakes as well as undrinkable water.

Another form of energy no one is really looking into is tidal energy. I know Vermont can't since we don't have any coastline. But, I hope more coast states will invest in it.



Cat
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Vermont
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top