A 2007 cooling tower collapse at Vermont Yankee didn’t exactly reassure Vermonters that the plant was well-built or well-operated.
GreenWorld seems to have garnered a lot of new readers this week–not that we expect them to stick around long: rather, there’s been a jump among nuclear power advocates and industry members. On Monday, we published a piece titled Nuclear industry goes hysterically ballistic over Yankee shutdown. It quickly became one of our most-read posts ever–in just two days it would have made our Top Ten Stories of 2014 list.
The post prompted some comments from the pro-nukers, a few of which we published Tuesday, and then a whole raft more. And then we started getting complaints (within about 12 hours or so) that we hadn’t published these comments yet–as if we’re a 24/7 operation staffed to the gills here (hint: we’re not). I’m it, and I don’t even work on GreenWorld full-time, I have a lot of other responsibilities too: like fundraising, running our website, writing our Alerts, and a lot more.
So, no folks, I don’t always publish comments promptly. Sometimes I don’t publish them at all. I’ve rejected many comments, from all side of the spectrum, that I found offensive, or that were overly rhetorical, or just added nothing new to a piece or discussion.
And yesterday I didn’t publish anything. You see, it was Christmas on the Orthodox calendar, which means the family was off to the Ukrainian church for service, lunch, and a little performance that my two youngest daughters were part of. In other words, it was a holiday for me.
I should perhaps point out that this is an anti-nuclear, pro-clean energy blog; I don’t write it for the pro-nuke audience (as they don’t write their blogs for us). I strive, whether it’s me writing a post or editing someone else’s article, to be accurate and credible. But we make no pretense of being objective. We don’t have to do the “he says, she says” thing that too often serves to obfuscate than illuminate an issue. We believe, with every fiber of our beings, that a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy system is precisely what our nation and our planet both need and deserve. Only such a system will effectively address our climate crisis, and provide us with the safe, clean and affordable power the 21st century requires.
Given who we are, and who we write for, we also feel no obligation to post pro-nuke comments just because they are submitted. We often do post them, so people who choose to can debate, but we don’t feel obligated to. Still, today, I thought I’d let the other side have their shot. Instead of just posting their comments in the comments section, I’m putting them in this piece. A few of these I might not ordinarily publish, but thought I’d include them so you can get an idea of what has been coming in. I’ve added a few brief points at the end, but I’m not replying to them all (and some of them are just repeating points I already replied to and discredited). You can reply if you’d like.
If there is one theme here, it’s that many people just don’t understand the changes that are underway in the generation and distribution of electricity; changes that make the concept of baseload power–whether from nuclear or fossil fuels–obsolete and indeed cause it to interfere with the clean energy sources of the present and future. Although we’ve written a lot about these changes last year, we’ll continue to do so in the coming year: it’s clearly something that is not yet well understood, perhaps the same way that cell phones–and the enormous changes they would bring to our lives and culture–were not well understood at the beginning either (perhaps for good reason, the idea that people carrying around shoebox-sized phones to make staticky phone calls would lead, within a generation, to more computer power in our pockets than high-end PCs of just a few years ago, could be seen as laughable if one didn’t know what was coming).
Another common thread in these comments is the clear anguish many of these people feel over Vermont Yankee’s shutdown. I get it. While Entergy portrayed the shutdown as a purely economics-driven decision, it was in essence a political decision, just as former Governor Mario Cuomo’s actions to prevent the completed Shoreham reactor from ever operating was a political decision. Cuomo was skeptical of nuclear power to begin with (as his son Andrew is as well) and with 80% of the public on Long Island opposed to Shoreham, there was no way he could let it operate. Similarly, the overwhelming majority of Vermonters were opposed to continued operation of Vermont Yankee, including virtually all of the state’s political establishment (who, of course, were responding to that overwhelming public majority). Entergy could have tried to keep VY running, but it would have faced continual and expensive challenges in the courts, the legislature and the streets. Add those pains to the reality that the reactor couldn’t generate electricity competitively in the present marketplace, and Entergy’s decision was easy.
Political decisions have winners and losers. The winners feel good, the losers feel bad. Like I said, I get it, and probably everyone reading this has experienced that too.
I remember vividly how I felt, as a young editorial assistant at the American Bar Association’s Washington lobbying office, coming to work the day after Reagan was elected the first time, sweeping in a new Republican majority to the Senate. I was crushed. My immediate boss, a pretty tough woman, was near tears all day (even more so when she realized we would have to put a photo of new Judiciary Committee Chairman Strom Thurman on the cover of our next issue). Most of the people in the office spent the day walking around like sudden PTSD cases. At least the very few Republicans there (the ABA is non-partisan after all, and had to keep good relations with both parties) weren’t into gloating.
And I’ve been on the other side too. The only time I’ve ever bought a case of champagne was in preparation for an Election Night 1992 party at my house. My then-wife, whose family hailed from Arkansas, had no doubt Clinton would win, and I was pretty sure too. After twelve years of the GOP in the Oval Office, it was time. It was a big noisy party, and when the networks declared Clinton the winner, we brought out the champagne and got even louder. Our next door neighbors, Republicans, came over and congratulated us. It was a thoughtful gesture, but I could see in their eyes the pain of losing.
We repeated that party again in 2008, at the same house. There were new next door neighbors, African-American women who, since I didn’t live there anymore, I didn’t know. But when victory was declared for Obama and he began his Grant Park speech, I ended up jumping up and down and hugging one of them for nearly his entire talk. I never did get her name. That’s the joy of winning. And there is similar joy in seeing Vermont Yankee finally close. I make no apologies for that.
So here are some comments from the losing side; your responses are welcome:
The rise in the “operating costs” of nuclear power plants has little or nothing to do with the fact that they, like you and I, are “aging.”
As Ken Silverstein pointed out in his Forbes column today (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2015/01/05/can-nuclear-energy-compete-in-todays-energy-markets/), the main culprit is the rising cost of alterations forced onto the industry.
What Silverstein did not say is that those alterations are the result of political pressure by activists — or competitors — who seem to believe that every world event is a good excuse for new regulations on US nuclear plants.
Terrorists fly into office buildings – impose new security requirements on nuclear plants, including Aircraft Impact Assessments on projects whose contracts have already been signed and whose state regulators have already approved the project cost and schedules.
Rivers rise in the midwest – impose lengthy shutdowns and modifications.
A tsunami damages the backup power supplies for coastal plants located in the ring of fire – increase requirements on inland US plants that have already been modified in ways that would have prevented the damage.
An off-gas condensate with a few microcuries of tritium/liter leaks – impose clean-up programs far in excess of EPA requirements and send the Chairman of the NRC to visit with local antinuclear activists to see what else can be done to add more costs.
What you and your friends seem to have overlooked is that electricity that is not generated by nuclear plants that are forced off of the grid “for economic reasons” is almost 100% generated by fossil fuel combustion.
Though you claim to be opposed to fossil fuel, the biggest financial beneficiaries of your actions are people involved in the fossil fuel value chain.
You repeatedly point out that the nuclear fuel cycle requires some fossil fuel burning. Do you think that similar amounts of fuel are NOT required to mine the concrete, steel, copper, glass and rare earth materials associated with wind turbines and solar panels, to transport those large collectors to the remote sites where their energy sources are most available, and to return to those remote locations regularly to conduct equipment cleaning and other maintenance?
Let’s get together and talk about this stuff again. You really need to remove your antinuclear blinders and start to recognize that the technology you have been fighting is one of the tools we all need to achieve a better world.
I think Rod Adams actually said that the closure was not justified on economic grounds. The plant is not making a loss. I think the closure makes sense from the owners point of view. With energy scarcity, plant operators can drive up profits, and customers will end up paying more. Capitalists can make higher profits with less reliable more scarce electricity. We saw what electricity scarcity could do 14 years ago during the California energy crisis.
I don’t think “hysterical,” “ballistic,” or “near unanimous” mean what they think you do. Your excerpted comments seem quite rational and measured, and I know plenty of people around here who are not happy about this, especially as we are opening $200 electricity bills every month.
Anyway, good luck getting us to carbon free without nukes. It just isn’t gonna happen no matter how hard you wish.
They way you have talked about some really good people in this piece is rude and ugly.
The general tone of this piece is horrible. To have quoted Meredith’s lament about job losses as something to crow about is insensitive in the extreme.
To suggest nuclear is not low-carbon is completely and utterly wrong and you are at odds with the IPCC and about 60 studies of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions in saying so.
At this juncture of the climate challenge it is utterly absurd to be lobbying, and encouraging others to lobby, to close hundreds and thousands of megawatts at a time of low-carbon generation; all scarce resources of time, effort and funding that are badly needed in the fight against coal, oil and gas. To be all-but-ignoring the transformative nature of the gas developments in the US and pretending all change is about renewables right now is foolish. ANYONE currently involved in energy knows you have the order of those things backwards
Suggesting renewables alone have the climate/energy challenge in hand is denial of the highest order, as speaker after speaker made clear at the recent launch of the World Energy Outlook energy projections to 2050 in Canberra. There is no excuse for this deliberate blindness
This “21st century grid” you refer to will be interesting, but the type of advances Cooper refers to will be making dramatic and important improvements to network operations at the margins, they will not be displacing the value of stable electricity supply from stable suppliers. The proof is the determined effort to use storage to enable renewables to provide supple more like nuclear provides it in the normal course of operations.
This piece is divisive, inaccurate, and biased. It is blinkered in its view, unsophisticated in its analysis, and aggressive in tone. It is deeply unpleasent in the way it has chosen to characterise people who are hard working, people you are free to disagree with in ways that still respect them as sincere individuals. This piece is criminally irresponsible in the vigorous advocacy of closing large amounts of low-carbon supply.
It ought not be beyond any of us to be honest about the strengths and weaknesses of different technologies to build a clean energy future together, as I have done here in the Australian context. Many of my friends in the renewable industry, who are sincerely concerned about climate change, feel the same way.
How unfortunate it is that people like you seem to think the success of renewables is somehow tied to working to grind nuclear out of existence. It’s galling.
And the energy costs in the northeast take a sharp turn upward.
I didn’t know your solar panels worked at night.
What brand did you buy?
So basically the supply of electricity was reduced and jobs were lost. In addition a supply of carbon free reliable base load electricity was lost. This is not a good thing.
Solar and wind cannot replace nuclear because although all produce power one is controllable and reliable (nuclear) and the other two are (solar and wind) not controllable and not reliable.
Until power is priced on its value ,whether it be carbon and/or reliability the market is skewed.
congratulations on shutting down Vermont’s #1 source of CO2 free green energy. I hope the funding that your organization gets from the natural gas lobbies helps you sleep at night.
A few brief comments:
Andrew: We get zero funding from any fossil fuel industry. We believe in a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy system, which doesn’t provide much incentive for fossil fuel interests to fund us–since we’d just turn it around and use it against them.
Mark: Ever hear of electricity storage? You would if you read GreenWorld regularly. It’s the fastest-growing sector of the electricity business.
Decarbonize: Other than a shot at Forbes’ James Conca, who can take it, we didn’t characterize anyone in any manner, much less one that was “rude and ugly.” If quoting people accurately is somehow disrespectful to them, that’s their problem, not ours. We never said nuclear is not low-carbon. It is. We object to calling it carbon-free. It is not. We did not “crow” about job losses; we said nothing about jobs in our first piece, but in later comments to those posted by Yes Vermont Yankee, we sympathized with plant workers and we laid the blame on Entergy for knowing it would be closing VY and not acting to develop new clean energy projects that are both needed and that it could retrain VY workers for. Renewables employ far more people per megawatt/hour of power produced than nuclear. However, like most Vermonters and people throughout New England, we do not believe saving a few hundred jobs is justification for keeping a dangerous and expensive nuclear reactor open. It is the nuclear utility industry that is trying to roll back Renewable Energy Standards and fight against renewables precisely because it understands, unlike you, that the two ultimately are not compatible. As we have pointed out repeatedly in these pages, the old concept of baseload power works to prevent full deployment of renewables into the grid (not that we’re near that point in most states now, but some European countries actually are nearing that point already).
Rod: Bad analogy. As I age, it costs a lot more to keep me alive–about $200k last year in chemo alone. The same is true for nukes; as they age, their capital costs increase. You are just about the only person I’ve ever seen actually advocate for not implementing safety improvements based on lessons learned from nuclear accidents and other experience. I have no qualms in saying I’m very confident the vast, vast majority of Americans would disagree with you here, as do I.
“You really need to remove your antinuclear blinders and start to recognize that the technology you have been fighting is one of the tools we all need to achieve a better world.” Not gonna happen. I’d make the opposite argument to you. If we can achieve a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy system, as we are convinced we can, why wouldn’t we? The prevention of lethal radioactive waste generation alone would be ample reason to go the clean energy path. Removing the threat of meltdown that hovers over far too many Americans–and people across the globe–would be another. There is simply no reason to accept either the routine or more catastrophic accidental risks that nuclear power poses when there are safer, cleaner and cheaper ways of providing the power we need.
Your turn, readers.
January 8, 2015
Your contributions make publication of GreenWorld possible. If you value GreenWorld, please make a tax-deductible donation here and ensure our continued publication. We gratefully appreciate every donation of any size.
Comments are welcome on all GreenWorld posts! Say your piece above. Start a discussion. Don’t be shy; this blog is for you.
If you’d like to receive GreenWorld via e-mail, send your name and e-mail address to firstname.lastname@example.org and we’ll send you an invitation. Note that the invitation will come from a GreenWorld@wordpress.com address and not a nirs.org address, so watch for it.
If you like GreenWorld, you can help us reach more people. Just use the icons below to “like” our posts and to share them on the various social networking sites you use. And if you don’t like GreenWorld, please let us know that too. Send an e-mail with your comments/complaints/compliments to email@example.com. Thank you!
GreenWorld is crossposted on tumblr at https://www.tumblr.com/blog/nirsnet