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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-13-2007, 10:31 PM
 
Location: Vermont
1,442 posts, read 5,898,486 times
Reputation: 450

Advertisements

In Brattleboro, there is a lot of grumbling about the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. I happened to meet someone who works there and he minimized the danger.

How worried should I be about having a nuclear power plant nearby?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-14-2007, 05:29 AM
 
Location: N.H.
1,022 posts, read 3,194,899 times
Reputation: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by arel View Post
In Brattleboro, there is a lot of grumbling about the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. I happened to meet someone who works there and he minimized the danger.

How worried should I be about having a nuclear power plant nearby?
You shouldn't be worried at all. It is no diffrent than any other Nuke plant. You have to understand the PPL in VT are very Liberal with a NIMBY att. This is even more true in the Brattleboro area. Don't get me wrong they are nice ppl. But even nice ppl get confused sometimes. They want to save the world, but Don't want that safe clean Energy plant sitting there that they have to look at. LOL Several will even argue it isn't safe. But just ask this. Aside from 3 Mile Island and ("Churnoble" Spelled wrong) What Nuke plants have actually had a core breach? There are over 3000 Nuke plant's in the world. The NRC keeps a very close eye on them. I have friends that work in several and the clearance just to change a valve is unreal. You will find half the ppl that speak aginst nuke power don't understand it. Half still think Nuke fuel glows green.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2007, 08:45 AM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
17,764 posts, read 53,913,817 times
Reputation: 30045
I agree with the previous post. Nuke dangers are still overblown. I've become more of the opinion that a lot of the opposition to nukes in the 1950s through 1980s was a cold war issue. There was a flap in the Brattleboro area a while back that some of the scrap concrete from the plant was used to build a retaining wall, and it had some radiation. Never mind that the radiation was less than that naturally occuring in garanite, the eco-nuts and newspapers picked up the story and tried to run with it.

I think that sensible stewardship of the planet makes sense, but stuff like this makes the folks who care turn-off to the whole ecology crowd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2007, 06:28 AM
 
Location: hinesburg, vt
1,574 posts, read 4,415,780 times
Reputation: 395
I have no problems with Vermont Yankee. In just five years from now it seems possible that the plant will be shut down for good as it is approaching the end of its service life. That plant produces one third of our power needs here, so when it goes off line we will no doubt become dependant on purchasing higher cost fossil fuel generated electricity from outside. I agree we have to conserve power and limit waste and I have done my part by buying over time more efficient appliances, but for those who simply think that by screwing in lower wattage light bulbs will solve the energy problem they are not facing reality concerning power generation, distribution, and demand issues. On the other hand when alternative power generation methods such as wind and hydro are proposed the outcry is just as bad and the state permitting fees stifle such development. The sad reality is that it is certain that power costs will continue to escalate and that will economically hurt those least able to pay not to mention putting up further barriers to much needed responsible development.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2007, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Vermont
1,442 posts, read 5,898,486 times
Reputation: 450
Our dependency on foreign oil is so dangerous that I think the government should be paying incentives for alternative energy development.

I would think Vermont would be in the forefront of this, but I guess I'm wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2007, 02:33 PM
 
Location: Vermont
89 posts, read 289,797 times
Reputation: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by flu189 View Post
I have no problems with Vermont Yankee. In just five years from now it seems possible that the plant will be shut down for good as it is approaching the end of its service life. That plant produces one third of our power needs here, so when it goes off line we will no doubt become dependant on purchasing higher cost fossil fuel generated electricity from outside. I agree we have to conserve power and limit waste and I have done my part by buying over time more efficient appliances, but for those who simply think that by screwing in lower wattage light bulbs will solve the energy problem they are not facing reality concerning power generation, distribution, and demand issues. On the other hand when alternative power generation methods such as wind and hydro are proposed the outcry is just as bad and the state permitting fees stifle such development. The sad reality is that it is certain that power costs will continue to escalate and that will economically hurt those least able to pay not to mention putting up further barriers to much needed responsible development.
One of the good things is that people are finally starting to see nuclear power for the very viable solution that it is to our dependence on oil. Alternatives should be developed but we will find vary few as consistent and efficient as nuclear energy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2007, 07:32 AM
 
1,644 posts, read 2,103,083 times
Reputation: 1431
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhyrnut View Post
You shouldn't be worried at all. It is no diffrent than any other Nuke plant. You have to understand the PPL in VT are very Liberal with a NIMBY att. This is even more true in the Brattleboro area. Don't get me wrong they are nice ppl. But even nice ppl get confused sometimes. They want to save the world, but Don't want that safe clean Energy plant sitting there that they have to look at. LOL Several will even argue it isn't safe. But just ask this. Aside from 3 Mile Island and ("Churnoble" Spelled wrong) What Nuke plants have actually had a core breach? There are over 3000 Nuke plant's in the world. The NRC keeps a very close eye on them. I have friends that work in several and the clearance just to change a valve is unreal. You will find half the ppl that speak aginst nuke power don't understand it. Half still think Nuke fuel glows green.
agree 100%. I never give it a thought.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2007, 07:59 AM
 
Location: hinesburg, vt
1,574 posts, read 4,415,780 times
Reputation: 395
Last week former Vermont Governor Thomas Salmon (D) at a conference on energy and economic development here in Vermont was quoted "we are not going to get 600 megawatts by conservation." He has experience in the electrical energy field and is sounding the warning that starting in five short years our contracts with Hydro Quebec will be ending and he advocates extending Vermont Yankee's permit. We, or should I say our state legislatures, have known for quite some time of the impending loss of importing clean power and generating one third of our needs here via Yankee. The delay in action and not developing a responsible plan of action to deal with this issue will result in a bitter pill to swallow down the road both in terms of economic cost and environmental impact. Afterall, we will still get power, but it will come from sources that are more expensive and generated by conventional fossil fuel sources. I guess we can pull out the Montpelier rubber stamp "unintended consequences."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2007, 08:12 AM
 
Location: on a dirt road in Waitsfield,Vermont
2,186 posts, read 5,982,131 times
Reputation: 1126
Quote:
Originally Posted by flu189 View Post
Last week former Vermont Governor Thomas Salmon (D) at a conference on energy and economic development here in Vermont was quoted "we are not going to get 600 megawatts by conservation." He has experience in the electrical energy field and is sounding the warning that starting in five short years our contracts with Hydro Quebec will be ending and he advocates extending Vermont Yankee's permit. We, or should I say our state legislatures, have known for quite some time of the impending loss of importing clean power and generating one third of our needs here via Yankee. The delay in action and not developing a responsible plan of action to deal with this issue will result in a bitter pill to swallow down the road both in terms of economic cost and environmental impact. Afterall, we will still get power, but it will come from sources that are more expensive and generated by conventional fossil fuel sources. I guess we can pull out the Montpelier rubber stamp "unintended consequences."
Great post! The contract problem with HQ has been controversial for at least 15 years in Vermont. The future problem of high energy usage and the high cost when a public utility has to go out on the open market to purchase power when the demand exceeds the state grid is a problem for Vermont but not as bad as some other parts of the country. There was a excellent discussion on VPR yesterday about this as I was driving home from Rutland.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2007, 08:51 AM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
17,764 posts, read 53,913,817 times
Reputation: 30045
IIRC, most of Vt Yankee's power is sold to Massachusetts. Being in the private sector, the state does not get to choose how the output is proportioned.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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.

2005-2019, 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