tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post7517178693355265836..comments2023-04-07T05:19:44.951-04:00Comments on Yes Vermont Yankee: Hot Climate and Cold Fish: Gundersen's Debate MisstatementsMeredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-43714169625340310582011-03-05T18:35:05.379-05:002011-03-05T18:35:05.379-05:00Engineer-Poet. Thank you for the comments and the ...Engineer-Poet. Thank you for the comments and the link.<br /><br />There is nothing "implicit" about Arnie's endorsement of fossil and therefore, of natural gas. Arnie says quite explicitly that if the power made by Vermont Yankee was made by a fossil plant instead, we would "pump up global warming by 1/10,000 of a degree, but we're going to get shad back in the Connecticut River." This is in the same section of the audio as the rest of the fish story. <br /><br />Great video of mud puddles and joy! In just-<br />spring, when the world is mud-<br />luscious.Meredith Angwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-83230138947003136222011-03-05T18:17:40.035-05:002011-03-05T18:17:40.035-05:00On Gwyneth's topic, I note that Chesapeake is ...On Gwyneth's topic, I note that <a href="http://m.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/mar/04/injection-wells-shut-down-quake-concerns-mount/" rel="nofollow">Chesapeake is one of the companies forced to cease deep-well injection of wastes in Arkansas due to siesmic effects</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/product-compint-0000252703-page.html" rel="nofollow">Chesapeake Operating Inc.</a> is the operational arm of Chesapeake Energy, which does mostly oil and gas drilling. In other words, what Gunderson is implicitly supporting by hoping that VY shuts down.Engineer-Poethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06420685176098522332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-37114530570967773742011-03-05T18:11:54.576-05:002011-03-05T18:11:54.576-05:00"I prefer to think that George and I are teen..."<i>I prefer to think that George and I are teen-agers again! :-) </i>"<br /><br />If you start posting videos of you two getting freaky, I'm not coming back here.<br /><br />And along similar but entirely SFW lines, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmXMA34CeoQ" rel="nofollow">see this</a>.Engineer-Poethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06420685176098522332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-55690548784738197232011-03-05T18:00:50.143-05:002011-03-05T18:00:50.143-05:00It's puzzling why Gunderson and his supporters...It's puzzling why Gunderson and his supporters have failed to take a closer look at deadly, global-heating natural gas and the toxic waste from gas extraction. The 2010 death toll in the US from 1) an explosion at a natgas plant in CT and 2) a big pipeline explosion in CA: 14, with several others injured, and, in CA, a whole neighborhood wrecked. There have been zero deaths in the US from the operation of commercial nuclear power reactors. For Gunderson and others wishing to bring many gas plants to VT, I suggest a look at the high environmental costs that come with gas. See the NY Times article on the toxic waste fed into rivers by natgas extraction: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html . And, by the way, that toxic waste is radioactive and is put into public waters.<br /><br />No wonder the question often comes up about whether people campaigning to close nuclear plants receive $$$ from the natural gas industry.<br /><br />At nuclear plants all over the world, the slightly warmer, clean water discharged into rivers, lakes, or the sea attracts fish of many species. When I visited McGuire Nuclear Station in NC, you could see fisherman trolling near the outlet area. I'm told this is also the case in Sweden, where North Sea fish love the slightly warmed water from the power plant.Gwyneth Cravenshttp://CravensPowertoSavetheWorld.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-62596817352318106542011-03-05T13:48:33.306-05:002011-03-05T13:48:33.306-05:00Engineer-Poet. Thank you for the very helpful dis...Engineer-Poet. Thank you for the very helpful discussion of heat rates. In a response to Joffan's comment, I commented that I thought that nuclear and coal were pretty close in terms of heat rejected per kWh, but I didn't know how to check it.<br /><br />Yes. I would love to go over the opposition's statements with a fine tooth comb. I never seem to have the time to do so. I dip in and refute one ridiculous statement, and I ignore three others. I will accept volunteers to help! I might be able to get or make a transcript. Anyone who wants to have a little fun, dissecting statements, please email me at mjangwin at gmail.<br /><br />And yes, I prefer to think that George and I are teen-agers again! :-)Meredith Angwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-13289035794548724762011-03-05T13:37:00.791-05:002011-03-05T13:37:00.791-05:00Mr. Stannard. I did not hold up a banana. I show...Mr. Stannard. I did not hold up a banana. I showed a slide with a picture of a banana. <br /><br />I thought you were at the debate. Maybe you weren't.Meredith Angwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-27093913262186449042011-03-05T13:25:51.226-05:002011-03-05T13:25:51.226-05:00"It's kind of fun talking to my own husba..."<i>It's kind of fun talking to my own husband in the comment section, by the way!</i>"<br /><br />When you start yakking in text messages from opposite ends of the sofa, it either means that your marriage is over, or you've regressed to being teenagers again. ;-)<br /><br />The average heat rate of coal plants in the USA is about the same as nuclear (<a href="http://eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat5p3.html" rel="nofollow">EIA page on average operating heat rate</a>). These numbers are in BTU per kilowatt-hour. To get thermal efficiency, divide 3414 by the heat rate; to get heat rejected per kWh, subtract 3414 from the heat rate. Not all rejected heat goes to coolant, some leaves via the atmosphere.<br /><br />The average NG plant rejects much less heat than the average nuclear plant (~4740 BTU/kWh vs. ~7040) but adds far more than its direct output via GHG emissions; the GHGs will last in the atmosphere for centuries. The nuclear plant's thermal effects are almost exclusively local and very temporary.<br /><br />If one is facing a paid lobbyist in a debate, one should ask whether said lobbyist is pushing personal views or the position of an organization and whether the claims stated have been cited by source and checked for accuracy. As we can see, even if something has a source, it can be far from accurate and truthful information.<br /><br />I think it would also be valuable to record, transcribe and fact-check such debates in a formal manner. If the lobbyists have to stop using misleading claims, or better yet, if they and their parent organizations are forced to retract them, that's a huge win.Engineer-Poethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06420685176098522332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-65362048679572352502011-03-05T13:16:23.939-05:002011-03-05T13:16:23.939-05:00He sensationalizes, demagogues, dramatizes,...
Mr...He sensationalizes, demagogues, dramatizes,...<br /><br />Mr. Post, apparently you were not in attendance at the debate. These would be the words I would have used to describe Ms. Angwin's performance. Holding up a banana and comparing it to the tritium, cesium, strontium-90, cobalt-60 leaks at the plant would be considering what in your eyes?<br /><br /><br />You folks are having great difficulty winning on the issues and thus must resort to shooting the messenger. I get it. The plant, and the company that owns it, are very difficult to defend. You should all be commended for your valiant and steadfast support of this aged, leaking, collapsing facility operated by people who knowing lied under oath.Bob Stannardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-21958283956086794762011-03-04T09:56:35.374-05:002011-03-04T09:56:35.374-05:00If you look at the American shad migration from th...If you look at the American shad migration from the sea to the upper extent of their historical range in the CT River (bellows falls where before the dam, shad couldn't ascend the falls), it is not suprising to see that the numbers of shad progressing from Holyoke Dam to Turners Falls Dam drops off and again there is a drop between Turners Falls and Vernon Dams. That's because they are finding suitable spawning habitat downstream of Vernon. It is also important to note that shad runs are down along the entire eastern seaboard, not just in the CT River. Professional fisheries biologist postulate that overfishing coast wide has caused much of the decline and that in the CT River, feeding of striped bass on juvenile shad as they migrate back downstream has had a significant impact. Shad do quite well in warm water... Susquehanna river in PA/MD and others further south. If you google the CT River Coordinators office, you can get all kinds of info on annual fish runs in the CT River.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-19909421841509141212011-03-04T09:27:47.917-05:002011-03-04T09:27:47.917-05:00So why can't we get last year's fish count...So why can't we get last year's fish count from the Vernon Dam? Who is in control of that information...why is it restricted? You pays for counting the fish? <br /><br />Anyways, I think it is irrelevant to the story of VY. What a object waste of money building and maintaining those fish ladders over the decades. I rather feed hungry families and heat homes with those moneies, or educate and physical education programs for children. <br /><br />It really questions the conservation and environmental programs in general in the area...what and who does it serve?Mike Mulliganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06503388974475495672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-67027974451892575772011-03-03T22:15:28.302-05:002011-03-03T22:15:28.302-05:00I think Gundersen may be getting too old to be a c...I think Gundersen may be getting too old to be a consultant. <br /><br />He sensationalizes, demagogues, dramatizes, makes up situations (16 Shad, I/1000 of a degree)<br /><br />But he seems to serve the purposes of the politicos, where ever they may lead us.willem Postnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-5145738605628619892011-03-03T20:14:39.739-05:002011-03-03T20:14:39.739-05:00It looks to me like fishing guide David Deen went ...It looks to me like fishing guide David Deen went into business when there were tens of thousands of shad in the Connecticut, and for his personal profit showed his clients how to reduce the shad count to sixteen. This is troubling.John McClaughrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-42988409328158686682011-03-03T11:44:09.349-05:002011-03-03T11:44:09.349-05:00Well for full disclosure then I guess it should be...Well for full disclosure then I guess it should be also pointed out that you are a paid lobbyist. A lobbyist paid to oppose Vermont Yankee and nuclear power.<br /><br />Also I did listen to the debate very closely and I listened at the 46 minute mark and he very very clearly states there are 16 Shad "in the river". This information is just plain incorrect. You can look at the pages Meredith puts links to show his statement is incorrect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-15063134184257376612011-03-03T11:20:31.921-05:002011-03-03T11:20:31.921-05:00LOL @ Bob, shumlin can go on fox news and lie and ...LOL @ Bob, shumlin can go on fox news and lie and its acceptable ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-21852102579003128292011-03-03T07:29:39.347-05:002011-03-03T07:29:39.347-05:00Antinukes like Gundersen and Stannard are either i...Antinukes like Gundersen and Stannard are either intentionally dishonest or woefully ignorant by claiming Vermont Yankee has any part in the decline or restoration of the American Shad population in the Conn River.<br /><br />First: since VY began operation, the American Shad population has increased. This is a fact. Not that VY can claim credit for the increase, but the population is higher now than it was 39 years ago. Had I the credibility (or lack thereof) that antinukes have, I would help myself to the credit for this population growth. But then again, I have the burden of being right, so I won’t.<br /><br />Second: The driving factor behind previous declines in Shad population was hydroelectric interfering with migration paths and the introduction of predatory Bass into the river. If Deen was in fact a fishing guide, then he knows this.<br /><br />Third: Perhaps Gundersen would care to produce the thermodynamic calculation that says a 500 MW electric plant is heating 'the entire river' by 5 degrees. I would so love to see his numbers, if he indeed has them.<br /><br />Fourth: By promoting a natural gas plant to replace a nuclear plant, antinukes are again either intentionally dishonest or woefully ignorant when they claim to give a dam (pun intended) about climate change.<br /><br />Weather it be intentionally dishonest or woefully ignorant, antinukes simply have no credibility here, not that they ever really had any. But then again, when ones credibility isn't a concern, you can pretty much say what ever you want, be it truth or not. <br /><br />FYI: I was a professional fisherman for three years and a recreational one for life, I can say with the utmost certainty that for any person to claim proof that "16 fish" of a species exists at any given time and why is fantasy at best, a lie at worst.<br /><br />Gundersen is a liar. He is paid handsomely to do so.Jack Gamblehttp://nuclearfissionary.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-32787880505733258482011-03-03T06:25:23.514-05:002011-03-03T06:25:23.514-05:00Also, Entergy was fined an additional $82,000 for ...Also, Entergy was fined an additional $82,000 for "misleading" the Public Service Board. We'll avoid using lying.Bob Stannardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-14573738330261465922011-03-02T21:44:39.706-05:002011-03-02T21:44:39.706-05:00It might also be helpful to point out that the com...It might also be helpful to point out that the company that you are supporting, Entergy, has previously been fined $51,000 for false advertising. This company has a history of not telling the truth.Bob Stannardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-81262569314841451042011-03-02T19:00:09.829-05:002011-03-02T19:00:09.829-05:00I've known Rep. Deen since 1983. He is a dedi...I've known Rep. Deen since 1983. He is a dedicated lawmaker and cares deeply about our environment. VY discharges heated water into the Ct. River instead of spending the money to use the cooling towers year-round and that is Rep. Deen finds objectionable. <br /><br />Discharging heated water into our rivers is something that we should all find objectionable, especially when there is an alternative available. The alternative is not used because it would cost money, thus showing a truer cost of nuclear power from this plant.<br /><br />To keep their costs lower, they compromise the river. He does not agree with that policy. You can say that he has an agenda, which he probably does. His agenda is to ensure that the river is protected.Bob Stannardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-64794042927200296862011-03-02T18:33:41.619-05:002011-03-02T18:33:41.619-05:00Hmm, Arnie lying about the number of Shad in the C...Hmm, Arnie lying about the number of Shad in the CT River?<br /><br />I don't think so. In fact, David Deen says that there were only 16 Shad, that is sixteen (16) isolated American Shad in the Ct River. <br /><br />thank you for the opportunity to set the record straight. <br /><br />Claire Changclairehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00321196313271188275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-87602766130764372212011-03-02T18:16:23.509-05:002011-03-02T18:16:23.509-05:00It appears as though Mr. Gundersen was quoting a V...It appears as though Mr. Gundersen was quoting a VPR story of Feb, 2, 2011.Bob Stannardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-17570513644066518232011-03-02T17:53:55.590-05:002011-03-02T17:53:55.590-05:00Bob Stannard
Thank you for leading me to this ne...Bob Stannard <br /><br />Thank you for leading me to this news article. I was looking at government websites about fish and fisheries, not news articles about suing Vermont Yankee.<br /><br />Mr. Deen has a long fishing resume, but he also has a political agenda. According to various websites on voting records, he votes with the VPIRG plan most of the time and would like to see Vermont Yankee shut down. <br /><br />I have been searching all over the web for some kind of corroboration of his "16 fish" statement. As far as I can tell, Deen's statement is anecdotal, not an official fish count. Since he also has a political reason to say there are few fish in the river, I would need to see something more than his assertion before I believe him. If there are official, non-anecdotal numbers available, I hope you will share them with me.<br /><br />Also, in the same article, Deen says that the "entire river" can be heated five degrees by the power plant. That is patently ridiculous. He must mean something else. This statement damages his credibility. <br /><br />Here's the Deen quote about river temperature from that article:<br /><br /><i>And the question for us is does increasing the temperature of the entire Connecticut River 5 degrees damage the ecosystem</i><br /><br />Also, with all due respect to however many fish there are at any time, the shad stocks overall have been decreasing with overfishing. If you go to any of the government web sites I quoted, you can see it. If there were indeed thousands of fish in the 80s, with Vermont Yankee running at the time, and less fish twenty or thirty years later...well, you can blame Vermont Yankee if that fits your world-view, but it doesn't fit the facts. <br /><br />Speaking of credibility, Mr. Gundersen said there were 16 fish in the river. Listen to the recording yourself. If Mr. Gundersen learns to be less careless in his language in the future, my post will have been a great help to him. I do not have anything to apologize for.Meredith Angwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-57755099826102330712011-03-02T17:36:17.512-05:002011-03-02T17:36:17.512-05:00Mr. Stannard, it appears to me that Arnie has mis-...Mr. Stannard, it appears to me that Arnie has mis-used that quote then. The quote you gave was for 2009. Not 2010, not 2011, 2009. Also, according to the text you quoted,<br /><br />"(Deen) "In the case of the Vernon discharge, the number of fish in 1993 was some 37,000. In 2009 it was 16, not 16,000, but 16 fish."<br /><br />Arnie's statement was, "Before Vermont Yankee started there were 70,000 Shad per year in the river. Now there's 16. Not 16,000 - 16."<br /><br />It seems to me that Deen's statement above is a more qualified statement than what Arnie Gunderson said. I have to admit I don't know what the term "Vernon discharge" means, but it sounds an aweful lot like one single part of the river, not the *entire* river?<br /><br />Whereas Arnie's statement implies that the *entire* river is down to only 16 fish, today. So, if the "Vernon discharge" shows the state of fish in the entire river, and if subsequent fish surveys last year and this year (if this year's has been done yet), then I will accede that I'm incorrect in this, but if it is, as it sounds, a very localized count of fish, not representative of the river as a whole, then I would say that by the words Arnie chose when paraphrasing that quote do constitute a lie, because he, it seems, made the quote much less specific than Deen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-57272403083016873752011-03-02T17:15:17.463-05:002011-03-02T17:15:17.463-05:00For those looking for a reference to this quote, h...For those looking for a reference to this quote, here is the VPR story in which in ran.<br /><br />http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/90081/<br /><br />It appears Mr. Gundersen had it right on.<br /><br />Chad SimmonsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-75724772123316600302011-03-02T17:04:30.306-05:002011-03-02T17:04:30.306-05:00Dear Ms. Angwin, I think that inasmuch as Mr. Gund...Dear Ms. Angwin, I think that inasmuch as Mr. Gundersen was quoting a respected news source, VPR, that was quoting a respected naturalist and public official, Rep. David Deen, that at the very least you could take a moment to apologize to Mr. Gundersen.Bob Stannardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-10586934671215044932011-03-02T16:41:11.806-05:002011-03-02T16:41:11.806-05:00I would further note that Rep. David Deen is also ...I would further note that Rep. David Deen is also the Connecticut River Watershed Council River Steward.<br /><br />Again, he probably knows the reel (pun intended) truth about the Shad in the Ct. River.<br /><br />Your apology accepted Ms. Angwin.<br /><br />Bob StannardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com