Two videos today. A snarky video debunks fear-mongering. A sincere video is about love.
A good pair.
Snarky
Let's start with the snarky video. I want to introduce you to Thunderf00t, maker of in-your-face videos laughing at people who are reality-challenged about radioactivity. This is a typical video.
Unfortunately, half his videos seem to be pro-atheism, and they make fun of religion. When he makes fun of the religion "nuclear is the worst thing in the world," I am okay with that. "Anti-nuclear" is a religion of sorts, in my opinion.
However, when Thunderf00t makes fun of regular religions-- well, I believe in free speech, but I don't like the videos. Just sayin'. Do watch his pro-nuclear videos.
"Fukushima mutated my cat" is one little Valentine present to those who read the blog.
Sincere
My husband sing in a Barbershop group. So, as usual, I am spending Valentine's Day alone while he sings love songs to other women.
Okay. Don't feel sorry for me. We had our fancy dinner with red wine and a terrific box of chocolates last night. That is pretty traditional, for the wives of men in Barbershop groups.
A video of sweet love songs is my other little Valentine present to those who read the blog.
Happy Valentine's Day!
Showing posts with label Valentine fun. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Valentine fun. Show all posts
Friday, February 14, 2014
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Thoughts on Money: Revenue Sharing and Decommissioning Costs
My op-ed about Vermont Yankee economics appeared in the Valley News this Sunday. In that article, I discussed the state position in the appeals court hearing in New York last month. The state tried to make the case that Vermont Yankee had a negative economic effect on Vermont and its utilities. Nothing could be further from the truth. Vermont Yankee is an economic asset to the state. Also, if grid prices rise, the revenue-sharing part of the Memorandum of Understanding could send more than half a billion dollars from Vermont Yankee to state utilities. My "half a billion dollars" number comes from a quote from the attorney for the state, who apparently thinks that if Vermont Yankee shared money with Vermont utilities, that would be a Bad Thing.
In the past few days, several local people told me that they had never heard of the revenue share arrangement before I wrote about it in the op-ed. They had no idea that Vermont Yankee might be paying a $500 million dollar bonus to local utilities.
Yesterday, I received an email from a local man who is basically in favor of Vermont Yankee. He asked if perhaps the revenue share money could be added to the decommissioning fund? I wrote him a long response answering his question. I decided to share my email here, with a few changes.
--------
Hi and thanks for the email! Actually, revenue sharing is one issue, and decommissioning is a separate issue.
Revenue Share:
The purchase agreement for the plant (Memorandum of Understanding between Entergy, former owners, and the State Department of Public Service) requires ten years of revenue sharing. This contractual obligation kicks in after 2012 and when the grid price is above 6.1 cents. This revenue share money goes to the utilities.Vermont Yankee gives this money to the utilities, and the plant cannot use it for anything at the plant, including decommissioning.
Decommissioning:
Decommissioning is a separate issue and a somewhat complicated one. Three interlocking points.
1) The NRC supervises decommissioning funds and makes sure they are adequate.
Decommissioning is a separate issue and a somewhat complicated one. Three interlocking points.
1) The NRC supervises decommissioning funds and makes sure they are adequate.
When the stock market dropped around 2010, NRC required many plants (including VY) to add tens of millions of dollars to their decommissioning funds, because NRC judged that the funds had fallen below the required level. NRC does, indeed, watch these things.
2) What is "adequate"? Greenfields?
2) What is "adequate"? Greenfields?
NRC requires that the decommissioned site be radiologically safe and ready for another industrial facility. Many opponents want to raise the cost of decommissioning (Conservation Law Foundation has a branch, Conservation Law Foundation Ventures, that actually does decommissioning legal work, for money.) Opponents want to raise the costs, both for their own gain and to harass nuclear plants.
For example, for Vermont Yankee, opponents are pressing the idea that the site should be "greenfield" with ALL underground concrete structures removed, switchyards removed...basically, a cow pasture. This would cost Yankee tons of money, estimated at more than $40 million dollars. "Greenfield" or "not-greenfield" is not something the NRC cares about, one way or the other. The NRC criteria require that a dismantled industrial site should be safe, and it should be ready for another industrial facility, not a cow pasture. If a state wants a cow pasture, that is between the state and the power plant.
In the Vermont legislature, nuclear opponents are trying to pass a bill to require Vermont Yankee to instantly add "greenfield" money to a decommissioning fund.
Conservation Law Foundation Ventures...gaining money from legal work about decommissioning for a nuclear plant and helping with site planning and popular acceptance for a gas-fired plant. They definitely stand to gain, monetarily, if Vermont Yankee is closed. My words in italics are not precisely their words. I suggest your read their boasts for yourself.
http://www.clfventures.org/our-results/facility-owners/
3) What is "adequate"? SafStor?
For example, for Vermont Yankee, opponents are pressing the idea that the site should be "greenfield" with ALL underground concrete structures removed, switchyards removed...basically, a cow pasture. This would cost Yankee tons of money, estimated at more than $40 million dollars. "Greenfield" or "not-greenfield" is not something the NRC cares about, one way or the other. The NRC criteria require that a dismantled industrial site should be safe, and it should be ready for another industrial facility, not a cow pasture. If a state wants a cow pasture, that is between the state and the power plant.
In the Vermont legislature, nuclear opponents are trying to pass a bill to require Vermont Yankee to instantly add "greenfield" money to a decommissioning fund.
Conservation Law Foundation Ventures...gaining money from legal work about decommissioning for a nuclear plant and helping with site planning and popular acceptance for a gas-fired plant. They definitely stand to gain, monetarily, if Vermont Yankee is closed. My words in italics are not precisely their words. I suggest your read their boasts for yourself.
http://www.clfventures.org/our-results/facility-owners/
 |
| Indian Point, from Wikipedia |
Both the Vermont Yankee Memorandum of Understanding and the general NRC rules allow the plant to be mothballed (SafStor) for up to 60 years before full decommissioning is complete. This allows the plant to be less radiologically hot when decommissioned. It also allows the decommissioning fund to grow through accumulated interest while the costs of decommissioning (in constant dollars at least) actually sink, because the plant is less hot.
The opponents constantly say they "won't allow SafStor" but actually, they can't stop it. If Vermont Yankee chooses to decommission using SafStor, they have both federal and state permission. At the federal level, SafStor is in their license and part of NRC policy. At the state level, it's in the Memorandum of Understanding.
Many plants have used SafStor, but usually only for a few years. However, sometimes (for example Indian Point) a small plant was built, retired, and two bigger plants were built next to it. In that case, the small plant (Indian Point 1) may well be in SafeStor for more than 40 years, because decommissioning the small one might interfere with the other plants' operation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center
------
Ah, Valentines Day!
My husband is off singing love songs to other women. Yes, it's the annual Barbershop Singing Valentines Fundraiser! So I am sitting around writing overly-long emails.
The opponents constantly say they "won't allow SafStor" but actually, they can't stop it. If Vermont Yankee chooses to decommission using SafStor, they have both federal and state permission. At the federal level, SafStor is in their license and part of NRC policy. At the state level, it's in the Memorandum of Understanding.
Many plants have used SafStor, but usually only for a few years. However, sometimes (for example Indian Point) a small plant was built, retired, and two bigger plants were built next to it. In that case, the small plant (Indian Point 1) may well be in SafeStor for more than 40 years, because decommissioning the small one might interfere with the other plants' operation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center
------
Ah, Valentines Day!
My husband is off singing love songs to other women. Yes, it's the annual Barbershop Singing Valentines Fundraiser! So I am sitting around writing overly-long emails.
Here's an example...not his group.
Have a lovely day my friend!
Best,
Meredith
Have a lovely day my friend!
Best,
Meredith
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Valentine's Day
It's Valentine's day, and once again, my husband is going to go out with a bunch of guys and sing love songs to women I have never met.It's called being married to a Barbershopper!
Right this very moment, if you want to, you can call the Barbershop Harmony Society near you and get a Singing Valentine arranged. Amaze (and embarrass?) the person you love. The Singing Valentines are the main fundraiser for many choruses, and it can truly be called a fun-raiser!
The video below is the Westchester Chordsmen, and my husband is in the North Country Chordsmen. None of the guys in the quartet below are as handsome as George is, but they sing almost as well as his quartet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)