In Vermont, a Debate Swirls Around an Aging Nuclear Plant

[jpak]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/business/28nuke.html?ref=business

BRATTLEBORO, Vt. — After part of a cooling tower collapsed last August at Vermont’s only nuclear power plant, the company that runs it blamed rotting wooden timbers that it had failed to inspect properly. The uproar that followed rekindled environmental groups’ hopes of shutting down the aging plant.

The proposed closing, albeit a long shot, has gained some support this year among Vermont politicians. The discussion here is bringing into sharp relief a conflict between two objectives long held by environmental advocates: combating nuclear power and stopping global warming.

Nuclear plants supply nearly 20 percent of the nation’s electricity, and they do so without emitting the carbon dioxide that is the principal cause of global warming. Vermont’s 36-year-old plant, which feeds into the regional power grid, represents a third of the state’s electrical generation.

Antinuclear groups who are arguing for closing the plant hope to replace the lost electricity with renewable generation from wind turbines, solar power and the combustion of plant material. Additionally, they cite the potential for cutting electrical demand by making homes and business more efficient.

<more>

[havocmom]

1. Why should DHS worry about terrorists hitting the plants when failure to inspect does this?

It isn't the 'terrorists' from far away that put us most at risk. It's the ones in corporate boardrooms who figure any risk for a buck is fine.

20%? The nuke plants only provide 20% of the juice the nation needs? When one considers the length of time the spent rods need to be contained along with the problems of hot water and occasional release of bad air, along with structural failures and the risks from earthquakes, that is one hell of a bad number. 20% for ALL that risk?

How much better off would be have been if the nuke people had not lied about safety when they were touting this power source as being benign? How much better off would we have been if the choice had been to spend the resources on wind and solar?

Time to junk the whole idea of nuke as safe power for the grid and get damned serious about other methods. Tell the board room terrorists to get on board or be left at the dock.

[glowing]

2. yes, it would.. but I'm not sure Obama will agree on this one.. He has

had some major backing by nuclear industry.. One of the reasons I preferred Edwards and Clinton.. the taxpayers get soaked for billions in the building of these plants.. they aren't as "safe" as the industry touts. The waste has no home to be sent to. AND we have alternatives that are cheaper and safer than this industry.. it just doesn't make as much money for them.

[One_Life_To_Give]

3. No good option

In the short term it's either keep Vermont Yankee running till alternatives are online or raise rates on people already being clobbered by energy prices.

With 36 years of spent fuel and permanently contaminated land and buildings already there. How much is the additional risk?