Showing posts with label Sierra Club. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sierra Club. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Atoms Not Dams. Surprising Facts for Earth Day.

Clip Art Courtesy of Jim Scherrer
Earth Day is the day we consider how we affect the planet we live on.   Let's look at some surprising facts about just how good nuclear energy is for the earth.  Every day is Earth Day when you support nuclear energy! 

And when I say "surprising facts," I mean that I was surprised.  And I love nuclear energy!

The biggest power plants in America are nuclear

James Conca at Forbes describes the Ten Biggest Power Plants in America---Not What You Think.  They are "not what you think" because Conca looks at the power produced by these plants, rather than the nameplate size of the plants.

Yeah, yeah, we all know that nuclear has a great capacity factor.  But in terms of power-produced, did you know that the biggest plant in America is Palo Verde? It is the plant that produces the most electricity.  The Grand Coulee Dam comes in third, after Palo Verde and Brown's Ferry Nuclear Station.  As a matter of fact, seven out of ten of the "biggest" are nuclear.

Vermont Yankee made more power per year (lifetime average) than Hoover Dam

There's a comment on Conca's post by Edward Leaver.  Here's part of the comment:

Lake Mead is still the nations largest artificial reservoir…..Hoover Dam’s generation capacity is 2.1
Hoover Dam
More massive than Vermont Yankee
Less electricity per year
GWe, or was until drought-lowered water levels forced downgrade to 1.6 GW. It’s used primarily for load balancing California nuclear and regional coal; for all the mighty Colorado, Hoover’s plant factor is just 24%, and 24% of 2.1 GW is but 500 MWe…. Vermont Yankee  is was 620 MWe, 87% lifetime CF, for 537 MW average, handily beating Hoover.


Something to think about the next time someone explains how Vermont absolutely NEEDS to buy power from HydroQuebec, no matter how many Canadian rivers are impounded and how many square miles of forest are drowned. 

Hydro Power makes 7% of U.S. Electricity. Nuclear makes 19%

Well, yeah. I knew that nuclear made 19% of U.S. electricity.  But somehow, I thought nuclear was running neck and neck with hydro power as the best source of low-carbon power.  I mean, there are big dams all over the U.S.: TVA, the dams on the Colorado,  the dams on the Columbia. Not to mention dams on smaller rivers.

And all those hydro plants add up to less than 7% of U. S. electricity.  About a third of what our nuclear plants made.  And they take a lot of land and they change their local ecology.

In the old days, I was a member of the Sierra Club.  I was in college and the club was for "Atoms not Dams." And the club advocated for Wilderness Areas instead of ridge-top wind turbines.  And it was truly about saving the earth and the wilderness.

Sigh.  I am showing my age.

But I am still young enough to be surprised by how good nuclear energy is. Every day is Earth Day when you support nuclear energy! 

-------
End notes:

Wikipedia lists Hoover Dam as having a capacity factor of 23% not 24%. In his comment, Mr. Leaver seems to be giving Hoover the benefit of the doubt.

Well, okay. I still love the Grand Coulee Dam song by Woody Guthrie.

Saturday, June 7, 2014

Opponents Make Assertions, Shaffer Tells Truth

Can-Can Dancers by Toulouse Lautrec
CAN and CAN and the Supposed Horrors of Decommissioning

Howard Shaffer went to a local Sierra Club meeting about the horrors and dangers of decommissioning Vermont Yankee.

Luckily (snark alert) two anti-nuclear groups are ready to step into the breach and make sure the decommissioning is done right!  These groups are Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) and Citizens Action Network (also known as CAN).

Leaders of the two groups did their Sierra Club presentation as a "tag team," switching back and forth, from one to the other. Therefore, this meeting could be described as a CAN-CAN show.

Howard Shaffer went to the meeting and wrote a blog post about it at ANS Nuclear Cafe blog: A CAN-CAN Dance around Vermont Yankee Decommissioning.

Howard Shaffer
Equipping Us With the Answers

Shaffer's post is better than being at the meeting.  Instead of sitting in a room full of nuclear-hostile people, while hearing a bunch of assertions and untruths, you can read Shaffer's post.  Shaffer does more than just list the things they said--he immediately answers them in his post. His post equips all of us with answers.

Shaffer deserves a hazardous-duty-for-the-blood-pressure award for attending this meeting.

Thank you, Howard Shaffer!

http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2014/06/05/a-can-can-dance-around-vermont-yankees-decommissioning/

Saturday, January 5, 2013

Why the Rush to Industrial Wind Isn't Good for Vermont: The Press Conference

At a press conference Thursday two Vermont senators announced proposed legislation for a three-year moratorium on new industrial wind development on Vermont's ridges. Rob Roper of the Ethan Allen Institute made four-minute video at the conference: it has some amazing graphics of wind development.


 

Two recent articles also cover this press conference:

Brattleboro Reformer: The Local Ridges

An article by Mike Faher in the Brattleboro Reformer describes the press conference, and connects it to the town of Windham's fight against industrial wind on its local ridges. (The town of Windham is in Windham County, which is also home to the town of Vernon and Vermont Yankee.)

Eight pro-wind groups made a lengthy statement against this proposed legislation. The groups include the local Sierra Club,  Citizens Awareness Network (their website is nukebusters.org), and  the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance. The Reformer article says:  In the groups' press release, Kilian characterized wind-power opposition as "the extreme voices of those who refuse to take responsibility for our energy future."

(Snark warning  I just LOVE it when nuclear-opponents-and-wind-promoters insult people that way. Winning people to your side by name-calling.  Go for it, guys! Do some more of this! End snark.)

Vermont Digger: The Governor's Opinion and the Bill Itself

An article by Andrew Stein in Vermont Digger includes a video of the conference, a link to the draft bill itself, and an interesting correction (the correction, IMO, is not the reporter's fault...)

Here's the correction: Gov. Peter Shumlin said on Friday that he is still vehemently opposed to the idea of a moratorium on utility-scale wind development. VTDigger originally reported that Shumlin indicated earlier this week that he was not completely opposed to the idea.  

The Digger article has a lengthy comment stream, including many comments by my friend Willem Post. Post is a world-wide authority on wind power and its problems. He has many excellent posts on wind power  on The Energy Collective website.  Thousands of people follow his posts there. He is also an occasional guest blogger on this blog.

--------

Rob Roper made the video above. Roper is President of the Ethan Allen Institute, and the Energy Education Project (I am director) is part of the Ethan Allen Institute.

I blogged about this press conference a few days ago: A Wind Moratorium Press Conference in Montpelier. That earlier post includes information about Vermont Electric Cooperative and wind power.

Friday, February 3, 2012

Natural Gas Interests and the Sierra Club and Vermont

Natural Gas Interests

The Sierra Club has accepted $25 million in funding from natural gas companies. It is not clear to me that the Club has actually revealed all their fossil fuel funding. This story was broken yesterday by Time Magazine's Bryan Walsh.

This is fresh news. While there is still some news on the Vermont Yankee front, it is pretty repetitive stuff. As reported by Bob Audette in the Brattleboro Reformer, nuclear opponents attempt to maneuver the Public Service Board by saying the same old things. Their news will be on-going for a while. It's time to follow this Sierra Club news.

I Told You So?

Rod Adams of Atomic Insights kept blogging that nuclear opponents were probably in the pay of the natural gas industry. Many of us were leery of anything that looked like a "conspiracy theory." It looks now like Adams was right about some of the opponents. Here's a 2009 post from Rod Adams about Carl Pope of the Sierra Club extolling natural gas.

To find some more Adam's posts on the natural gas connection, search the Atomic Insights blog for posts labelled "smoking gun."

Local Natural Gas

I have never thought that all local opponents were funded by the natural gas industry. Also, I think natural gas has an important place in the energy future of the country, as I wrote at ANS Nuclear Cafe. But I don't like to see gas companies wrapping themselves in green to try to destroy nuclear power.

In 2010, I discovered that the Conservation Law Foundation, a fierce opponent of Vermont Yankee, received money to help build a new natural gas plant in New Hampshire. I wrote a post about the gas plant: Follow the Money. The Conservation Law Foundation didn't like some subsequent publicity they received after that post. Oh well. I'm not popular with them. Sometime during high school, I stopped trying to be popular with everyone!

Gaz Metro and Vermont

Meanwhile, in 2012, Gaz Metro, a Canadian gas company, is positioned to take over most of the energy infrastructure in Vermont. The new Comprehensive Energy Plan for Vermont talks a good game about an all-renewables future, but the near-term recommendations center on an expanded gas pipeline (built for Gaz Metro by increased rate-payer fees during construction, before any gas flows through the pipeline). Another part of the plan is to build small and medium-sized gas plants. For an overview, I suggest Howard Shaffer's excellent post: The Vermont Energy plan relies too much on fossil fuels.

One gas company funded the Sierra Club, and another one is taking over Vermont energy infrastructure. That doesn't mean that all nuclear opponents are funded by natural gas, but clearly, some of them are.

An Overview of the Gaz Metro Takeover Plans

The Sierra Club revelation was new to me, but I was aware of the Vermont issue with Gaz Metro. In recent months, I wrote a series of articles for True North Reports on the Gaz Metro takeover of Vermont infrastructure. I plan to update these articles and post them on this blog over the next week or so.

Meanwhile, you can read the original posts here:



-------------

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Chernobyl and the Montshire Museum

This blog is about my experiences with the local Sierra Club and other anti-VY organizations. I conclude the post with some notes about their tactics, and their vulnerabilities.

If you are interested in learning about Chernobyl, let me suggest a posting in the new blog, Nuclear Fissionary.

The Ad

As I mentioned in an earlier blog, a meeting "Voices of Chernobyl" was announced in the local paper, without a clue as to who was sponsoring it. The advertisement said "Should we relicense the (sic) Vermont Yankee" and then urged people to come to a playreading about Chernobyl at the Montshire Museum. The ad had a phone number, no name, no organization except the Montshire was mentioned. I called the phone number, but the person did not answer my question about who was sponsoring the show.

Earlier this year, there was an odd advertisement for a "debate" in Putney which was not a debate at all. I resolved to look into this Montshire meeting. Who was doing this? And how did they get it into the Montshire?

The Meeting

As soon as I got to the Montshire, I was greeted by Denis Rydjeski, the president of the local Sierra Club and recent organizer of an anti-Vermont Yankee letter writing bee. A Sierra Club banner hung from the table at the back of the room. As I walked in, Denis praised my blog and thanked me for coming to the meeting.

I asked why the meeting had not been announced as a Sierra Club meeting, and he answered that he had carelessly forgotten to mention it in the paper. There were two areas in the paper where the meeting was announced. A paid ad, and a "calendar of events" announcement. In both places, only the Montshire was named.

Actually, the meeting had a lot of sponsors and a list of sponsors was given to everyone who attended:

The play about Chernobyl was pretty much as you would expect, so I won't waste your time.

After the play various people spoke.
  • My friend (and occasional co-blogger) Howard Shaffer bravely and effectively explained the difference between Chernobyl and boiling water reactors. The moderator asked him to stop talking because he was taking up too much time.
  • Chris Williams of Vermont Citizen's Action Network stated that people who don't believe Chernobyl killed vast numbers of people are like Holocaust deniers, and these people have to be confronted.
  • Paul Gunter of Beyond Nuclear explained that the material in the core at Vermont Yankee isn't surrounded by graphite which can burn, but the core material could escape from containment and enter the air as an aerosol, doing just as much damage as Chernobyl. He didn't happen to mention what would turn the core into aerosols.
The back table at the Montshire was covered with brochures (single color and glossy), pamphlets, bumper stickers shut it down now!, anti-Yankee campaign buttons, and lists of legislators to contact. I have but one regret...that I didn't take a camera. The sponsor list and the table were anti-nuke dreams come true. All the literature was aimed at influencing the legislators to vote against the renewal of the Vermont Yankee license. This was a political meeting with a clear political agenda, two days before the Senate vote.

I wondered how the Montshire felt about this. Or do they know?


The Montshire

Some background. Last summer the Coalition for Energy Solutions gave a public talk at the Montshire, and I was one of the organizers. I went to the administrator in charge of scheduling, and told her the Coalition wanted to use a room at the Montshire. We wanted to talk about conservation, and about Vermont Yankee.

The woman in charge of scheduling was very clear that the second talk was not welcome...the Montshire did not host anything political. Anything political goes against their guidelines for hosting non-profits.
The Director, or his designee, has authority to decline or cancel any event that adversely affects the Montshire’s neutral stance on political, social, environmental or economic issues.

The Director

Since the "Director, or his designee" has the power to control the types of meetings that are held at the Montshire, I called the Director the day after the Chernobyl meeting.

I spoke to David Goudy, director of the Montshire museum. He was very thoughtful, and said that the person who told me that I couldn't speak about Vermont Yankee last summer was just plain wrong. He would welcome me holding a meeting about Vermont Yankee, and it would not violate the Montshire charter to discuss the political implications of an energy source. However, they don't host political meetings at the Montshire. No rallies for candidates or anything like that.

I mentioned (well, more than mentioned) that I thought the advertising reflected badly on the Montshire. It looked like the Montshire was not only hosting a political meeting, but sponsoring it. Goudy said that he and the staff had been concerned by the ads. The ads looked as if the meeting were a museum event. He said he had planned to take (or had taken, I'm not sure) some action about preventing this sort of thing in the future, even before I had called.

For the Future

In some ways, ths is old news. The early "don't talk about Vermont Yankee at the Montshire" was a mistake, and the Montshire director wasn't happy with the Sierra Club ads. It was all a mistake, it won't happen again, and it's all no-problemo.

For the future, though, we should keep track of these things. Misleading advertising (It's a debate! or At the Montshire!) appears to be a tactic of the anti-nuclear groups. With misleading ads, they can hold political meetings in venues where the tax status and charter might say that political meetings cannot be held. So, if we can prove it, we can politely bring this to the attention of the directors of the venues. "Are political meetings okay here? Because one was just held..."

In my opinion, the anti-s are putting some of our best institutions in a vulnerable position, and we have to defend those institutions. The government is loaded with debt, and looking eagerly for revenue sources. Don't let the new source be your local museum or library. Fight misleading ads whenever you encounter them.


Thursday, January 7, 2010

Potluck with the Walkers


Because I am with the town Energy Committee, I decided to go to the potluck "event" for the Anti-VY walkers, who are spending the night in White River Junction. I call it an "event" because it wasn't supposed to be all-about-VY, it was supposed to be about how to cut our electricity use by 1/3 so we don't have to keep VY running. The Energy Committee was very interested in how the neighborhood group was going to address this.

I admit, at first I was seriously crabby about this event. I don't like the idea that anti-VY and pro-conservation were all blended together. As a matter of fact, I called it a "wolf in sheep's clothing." Still, I decided to go, especially if nobody else from the Committee could go. Nobody else could go. It was up to me.

The potluck was at a private residence, and I called the hostess and said I was pro-VY and I was only coming for the conservation part of the meeting, for the Town Energy committee. She didn't seem totally pleased, but she was very polite. I said the same thing to others at the potluck, walkers, friends of walkers, etc. I said I was there for the Energy Committee about conservation, my personal views were pro-VY, and I wasn't there to argue. I also brought Vegetarian Baked Beans I had made from the Not Your Mother's Slow Cooker cookbook. Navy beans and maple syrup and summer savory. Pretty good, if I say so myself! And they are vegan, so they are a good potluck dish.

The beans were well accepted, and so was I. I had a great conversation with an anti-VY walker from Brattleboro who builds energy efficient houses. We talked about my house, about solar hot water (a good idea, under most circumstances) and just had a great time. As he said: we don't have to agree on everything. Even some of the people who were annoying at the Putney clown-farce turned out to be sweet at this meeting. They thanked me for being brave enough to come. I thanked them for being so welcoming.

Actually, the potluck made me sad in some ways. Putney made me sad, but that was an angry kind of sad. "Will Nukem" "Wet Dreams" "No increase in global warming from shutting down Yankee!" Insults and lies, in other words.

This potluck made me sad in a deeper way. I remembered starting out in the energy field, a member of the Sierra Club, eager to promote renewable geothermal energy. Excited about the Geysers in California, a geothermal field that was being developed. Only to find the Sierra Club was strenuously trying to block the power plant. "We're not against geothermal energy; but this is not the right place for a plant." Of course. Some other plant, some other place, might be just fine. Sure.

This potluck made me sad for all the nuclear plants, and all the renewable plants, that "weren't the right plant." And all the fossil plants that got built instead.