Emotion and Vermont Yankee: Rod Adams Guest Post

Rod Adams

Late last month, I wrote about my sorrow at Vermont Yankee closing in a post We are not Spock: Emotion and Nuclear Power, published at ANS Nuclear Cafe.  In this post, I wrote that nuclear opponents appealed to emotions: "I am so afraid!"

In contrast, in my support of nuclear energy, I think I was channeling Spock: "Support of nuclear energy is logical."  I should not have been merely "Spock." I wrote about my need to be fully human, to be emotional, about nuclear energy.  I acknowledged my deep sorrow about Vermont Yankee closing.

This post at ANS gathered a wonderful comment stream.  I will be using some of these comments as "guest posts" over the next few weeks. These comments truly expand and enhance the original post, and the ideas in the comments should not be buried in the comment list.

Here's the first of those guest posts: this one by Rod Adams. Adams hosts a widely-read nuclear blog along with podcasts.  For years, he has been a very effective advocate for nuclear power.  In his comment at the ANS blog, Adams looked into the long-term roots of sorrow about Vermont Yankee, including the many years of harassment of Vermont Yankee by the state of Vermont.

At his own blog, Atomic Insights, Adams wrote a post in response to my post: Nuclear Professionals can, and should get emotional.  Adams blog is excellent and widely read: this particular post has around 70 comments!  In the post, Adams talks about his own deeply-held feelings about nuclear energy, and how we need to give ourselves permission to reveal our emotions. We need to reveal both our passion for nuclear power, and our sorrow when a plant closes.

Without further ado or further referrals to Rod's blog, I present the comments that Rod Adams made about sorrow and Vermont Yankee. He made these comments on my "not-Spock" post at ANS Nuclear Cafe.

------------
Meredith:

You are not alone in your sorrow. It is not just the loss of a single mature nuclear power plant, but the implications for our incredibly rich democracy. We inherited an amazing place from our forebears, but we are on a risky course of self-destruction.

You mentioned that Entergy made it’s decision based on “economics”, but the financial attributes that drove that decision are almost entirely fabricated. Sure, VY cost a lot to operate. Who can forget the description of the massive effort to find a leak of nearly pure water because it had a few milligrams of tritium in it, the armies of lawyers who were billing Entergy for months during a sustained effort to defend the company’s private property interests in a facility that most certainly was doing the public a lot of good, and the requirement for Entergy to pay all of the costs of its professional opponents in the form of the Public Oversight Panel chaired by Peter Bradford and employing Arnie Gundersen as its engineering advisor?

http://www.vermontbiz.com/news/july/arnie-gundersen-and-peter-bradford-vermont-yankee-public-oversight-panel

Sure, other power sources beside VY were selected for long term purchase contracts by the Canadian company that owns most of the monopoly electric utilities and a substantial portion of the Canadian gas that will be burned in the replacement power plants. If I am not mistaken, that is the same company with divisions that will be compensated for building the necessary transmission lines to carry the new power supplies.

http://www.masslive.com/business-news/index.ssf/2013/09/vermont_yankee_nuclear_shutdown_makes_ne.html

Shumlin and his co-conspirators are deeply involved in companies that supply industrial wind farms and have worked hard to ensure they are compensated for those monstrosities by fees placed on everyone else.

https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2010/09/07/vt-man-with-shumlin-ties-at-center-of-controversy/

This is a sorrow-making situation that cannot be addressed with rational arguments. It is time for us to get emotional about the huge costs that are being imposed for no good reason other than to take from the poor and give to the rich. We need to resist the modern Sheriff of Nottingham (Shumlin) and his henchmen (Bradford, Cooper, Gundersen, etc.).

I think it’s time for a new blog – Yes Nuclear Energy.

Rod Adams, Publisher, Atomic Insights

126th Carnival of Nuclear Energy up at Entreprenuclear

The 126th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is up at Entreprenuclear.  This is the first time Entreprenuclear has hosted the Carniva. He has written are quite a few excellent posts on his blog, however.  One of my favorites is his post: Debunking Antis (Peter Bradford)--the Weight of Lies.  It reviews Bradford's Wall Street Journal article, and basically takes it apart. The post has a good song video, too.

On to the Carnival itself!

Rick Maltese has two posts, both ultimately about government and nuclear energy. One post is more about politics and nuclear energy, but sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. A post by Leslie Corrise also debunks Peter Bradford's Wall Street Journal article.  Rod Adams posts about a rational discussion of nuclear: Rod has been following George Monbiot and Theo Simon's blog discussion.  At ANS Nuclear Cafe, Howard Shaffer reports on the founding of the anti-nuclear movement, as reported by two founders visiting UMass Amherst last week.  Also at the Nuclear Cafe, Margaret Harding blogs from an American Nuclear Society meeting in India.  At this blog, I write about San Onofre.

Nuclear Diner describes Russian plans to raise two sunken submarines.  Atomic Power Review's Will Davis describes the Toshiba purchase of the Shaw group holdings in Westinghouse.

On to Japan, and to emergencies of various types. Jim Conca writes in Forbes about the Japanese attempts to set up new regulatory authorities.  Well, the title of Conca's post is "Fukushima slugfest" about how the new regulatory authority will work.   Meanwhile, the Fukushima Fifty are ashamed to show their faces in Japan.  Radiation phobia has led to severe discrimination against anyone affected by Fukushima. William Tucker writes about this at Nuclear Townhall.

While we are on the subject of Japan, we should note Leslie Corrice at Hiroshima Syndrome examines recent Japanese data and comments that it is possible that none of the reactors at Fukushima had a reactor pressure vessel "melt-through."  In other words, the melted material probably stayed in the pressure vessel, where it belonged.  Finally, on the subject of emergencies, Gail Marcus at Nuke Power talk describes how emergency planning for nuclear plants increases the planning capabilities of the communitie. This leads to more effective emergency planning for floods and chemical spills. She gives powerful examples of this effect of nuclear plants on their communities.

Come to the Carnival!  Enjoy!  It is always a treat to go to the Carnival!

Expert Witnesses in the Vermont Yankee Trial

Brattleboro and Vigils

Today, the Entergy vs. Shumlin-and-Vermont lawsuit begins in Brattleboro. As this post is published, I will be down in Brattleboro, participating in a rally in support of nuclear energy and Vermont Yankee. Opponents will also be there. Here's a link to an article by Olga Peters about the lawsuit and various plans for other events. I am one of the nuclear supporters described as planning the "counter-vigil"on September 12. In my press release, I called it a rally, not a vigil. But what the heck. At least we were mentioned!

Expert Witnesses

There has been a fair amount of legal maneuvering before the trial. One issue has been the qualification of expert witnesses. This article (originally in the Brattleboro Reformer) describes Entergy attempting to disqualify three of the state's expert witnesses, and the state's answer to Entergy.

The three witnesses that Entergy wanted to disqualify are Bruce Hinkley, Peter Bradford, and William Steinhurst. Here's a link to Hinkley's declarations about the preliminary injunction. I cannot find any similar filings by Bradford or Steinhurst on the Attorney General's website. Peter Bradford is a professor at Vermont Law School, and William Steinhurst is a consultant in energy regulation.

Why the Challenge?

I am not a lawyer, so I asked a couple of lawyers why Entergy was challenging these witnesses. These are the answers I got:

• Challenging expert witnesses before the trial is pretty standard stuff. As a matter of fact, it's called the Daubert standard.
• Well, it sounds like some of these guys are experts in law. The judge gets to decide the law. Judges don't allow "expert witnesses" to get involved in the judge's area of expertise! Lawyers, the legal team, argue legal matters before the judge. Expert witnesses don't testify about legal interpretations.

Actually, these are the translations (into English) of the answers I got. My translations may be wrong. In which case, it is nobody's fault but my own.

That's why they pay real lawyers the big bucks.

And the Judge Rules

Judge Murtha has already ruled on this matter, and you can see his direct ruling here. It is clear and simple and less than two pages. (Every now and again, I have hopes of understanding this stuff!) The ruling basically says that Judge Murtha will let them testify, but they better not testify about the law.

To aid the parties in conducting expert depositions, however, the Court notes it will not consider expert testimony on purely legal issues and does not expect to hear such testimony at trial. Ultimate legal issues are matters that counsel can and should argue to the Court -- such matters do not require the imprimatur of an “expert.” Opining that state laws are not preempted is a legal conclusion and not helpful to the Court...The Court will hear testimony based on personal knowledge, experience in the nuclear industry, and research of legislative history but, as noted, the Court will not hear or rely upon opinions on ultimate legal issues to be determined by the Court.

A Different View

For a more light-hearted view of qualifying an expert witness, I include this two-minute clip from the movie My Cousin Vinny.

Automotive Expert


My Cousin Vinny

— MOVIECLIPS.com