Much about politics, but little about fish.

Herring larva in drop of water
Matchstick for comparison

River Water, Sea Water and Nuclear Plants

My article Keeping cool under pressure describes the many ways that "water quality issues" are used by states to attack the continued operation of nuclear power plants.

 Vermont Yankee, Oyster Creek, Indian Point, Turkey Point, Diablo Canyon, and Columbia Generating Station have been accused of overheating rivers and/or causing the death of billions of fish.  Well, the death of billions of fish eggs or larva (larva are newly-hatched fish).  These accusations have closed down plants or made them far more expensive to operate.

My article appears in the May 10 edition of Nuclear Engineering International Magazine. The section about  Turkey Point is a separate call-out in that article, due to the unusual canal-based  cooling at Turkey Point. 

In reality, the reason most fish eggs don't grow up to be adult fish is--other fish.  Fish eggs are an important food source for fish, so fish lay thousands of eggs. An American Shad lays about 30,000 eggs per year.  A salmon lays a more modest number, around 3,000.  A fish egg usually does not become an adult fish, and this has nothing to do with power plants.  It's about other fish: the fish that like to eat fish eggs.   

Some links

I am always very pleased to write an article for an important magazine such as Nuclear Engineering International.  However, "read my article" seems a rather thin blog post.  So I finish this post with a couple of links that can supplement my magazine article.

Diablo Canyon: The owners of this power plant recently announced that the plant would close by 2025. This article describes the upgrade-your-cooling-system issues the owners would have faced if they had chosen to stay open.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/environment/article39459930.html

Indian Point: The plant has ristorph screens and proposes adding wedgewire screens.  Opponents continue to push for expensive cooling towers, but offer no reason to believe that cooling towers will be better for the fish. http://www.lohud.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/04/26/indian-point-entergy-wedgewire-screens-cooling-towers/8238627/

Vermont Yankee: Vermont lost a lawsuit that asked the NRC to deny Vermont Yankee's license extension because Vermont Yankee didn't have the proper state-level water permit.  Even some of the plant opponents said that such concerns have to be raised before appropriate commissions, rather than in lawsuits. http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2012/07/vermont-loses-lawsuit-against-nrc-about.html#.V37lAjYXH3F

Oyster Creek: State of New Jersey closes plant, ostensibly to protect Barnegat Bay.
http://www.nj.gov/dep/barnegatbay/plan-oystercreek.htm

Columbia Generating Station: This blog post has an excellent graphic that compares the water use of the power plant with the volume of water flowing through its water source, the Columbia River, near the plant. https://northwestcleanenergy.com/2014/11/01/environmentalists-need-to-decide-if-science-matters-or-not/

Turkey Point: There is no evidence that any effluents from the plant  or the plant canals will  harm drinking water, or will affect Biscayne Bay.  Still,  some groups are suing the plant for causing vaguely-stated environmental harm. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/us/nuclear-plant-leak-threatens-drinking-water-wells-in-florida.html?_r=1

-----

I enjoyed putting these supplemental links together, but I do hope you will read the article itself: Keeping Cool Under Pressure. 

Nuclear Blog Carnival 172 at Yes Vermont Yankee Today

The News About Vermont Yankee

This was the week of the shocker. On Tuesday morning Entergy announced that Vermont Yankee would not refuel in October 2014.  Instead, it will shut down at that time.

I know many people at Vermont Yankee, and they were all as surprised as I was.  Entergy had just won a major federal court decision. We all thought we had every reason to believe Vermont Yankee would remain open for many more years.

Entergy management said it was shutting down because it was no longer economically viable.

There is more news and better news in other parts of the nuclear world, but this is the Yes Vermont Yankee blog, and I will start with reactions to Vermont Yankee closing.

My first blog post, Vermont Yankee to Close in 2014, was merely a posting of the FAQs from Entergy about the closing. However, it has an interesting comment stream so I have linked to it.  My second blog post was my own FAQs: Questions I Frequently Ask Myself About Vermont Yankee Closing.

Entergy listed three main reasons that they needed to close Vermont Yankee:

• The low price on the grid, due to natural gas 
• The unfavorable economics of a small nuclear plant
• Design flaws in the local wholesale electricity market

My post contains a lot about the low price on the grid (I don't think this would have been enough of a reason, without other reasons) and the design flaws of the pricing on the New England Grid (a fair number of links, too.  The grid operator is paying an extra $78 million to oil-fired plants, for energy reliability in winter.  No such payments are going to nuclear.)

Fervent anti-nuclear bike riders
refuel themselves on bananas

Jim Conca at Forbes Geopolitics of Energy

Meanwhile, Jim Conca posted at Forbes. His post is clear and direct:  Who Told Vermont to Be Stupid?

The Great State of Vermont threw away cheap clean energy this week out of ignorance and fear. By closing the Vermont Yankee nuclear power station, Vermont chose to be stupid, and will hurt the environment as a sidebar.

That is probably the question I should have asked myself: Who Told Vermont to Be Stupid?

The Wider View

Looking outside of Vermont (and I am very glad to do so, right now) we have news about nuclear builds and the importance of nuclear energy in energy diversity.

Brian Wang of Next Big Future:

Saudi Arabia and China press on with nuclear energy while the US will close a reactor in 2014

(So true.  Every now and again I think of leaving Vermont. Perhaps my thoughts don't take me far enough.) 

Commercial antimatter production could enable antimatter catalyzed fission and fusion

A new state of high pressure matter can efficiently generate soft xrays and could make explosives 100 times more powerful than chemical.  This is a table-top experiment (really) with carbon bucky-balls.  Amazing. They call the little explosions "nanostars."   

Gail Marcus of Nuke Power Talk 

In the Yosemite Fires and Energy Supply, Another Vulnerability,  Gail Marcus considers the situation on the West Coast, where the Rim Fire is still blazing near Yosemite.  She notes a Wall Street Journal editorial that points out the the vulnerability of our energy supply in areas prone to wildfire.  Some types of facilities (particularly large-scale solar and wind) are sited in wildfire-prone areas, and they have long transmission lines, also vulnerable to fire..  She suggests that the solution is more diversity.  We think of diversity in terms of types of fuel, but we should also consider diversity in terms of  terms of size and location of power plants.

Dr. Robert Hayes at NewsOK Science and Technology Blog

Dr. Robert Hayes at NewsOK describes how irradiation of food is a safe method of preservation.  We heat food (cook it) and that often makes it safer. Similarly, irradiation to kill pathogens makes food safer.

The FUD Fighters!  Starting with Snopes

In the nuclear industry, there's always some FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt) being spread. Our two FUD Fighters for this blog post are Rod Adams and Les Corrice.  They are both fighting the FUD of "radiation from water leaks at Fukushima is a terrible problem and it is going to kill us all (after it kills all the fish in the Pacific)".

Before I go to their blog posts, however, I want to give a hat tip to Snopes. Snopes has pointed out that the "radiation is spreading through the Pacific" graphic that has gone viral on the Internet...is really a graphic of wave height from the Tohoku earthquake.  Snopes Fukushima Emergency. The graphic has nothing to do with radiation.

The FUD Fighters!  Our own bloggers

Our own FUD fighters on those same leaks: Adams and Corrice.

Rod Adams at Atomic Insights

Rod Adams describes the Fear Mongering over the Water Leaks at Fukushima Dai Ichi. Bottom line, despite all word to the contrary, there is no reason for anyone to be concerned that “contaminated” water from the damaged Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station is going to cause them any physical harm, now or in the future. The only way my bottom line statement could possibly be wrong is if some really nutty activists decide to occupy the site and drink directly from the water tanks that have been assumed to be leaking. Those nutty activists would have to be very patient people, because they would have to drink that water for many years before any negative effects might show up.

And a companion piece:

Update on Fukushima water leaks – unrepresentative sample used to support fear mongering

Les Corrice at Hiroshima Syndrome

From The Hiroshima Syndrome/Fukushima Commentary

1) Is Fukushima Daiichi’s Wastewater Really Toxic?
First, just how toxic is strontium? Second, is the level of contaminated water that may have reached the sea worthy of being labeled “toxic”? Strontium itself is not worthy of being called “toxic”. The label can only be applied because of Sr-90's radiation. Is that enough?

2) New INES Rating at Fukushima Demands Clear Public Communication
It is imperative that Tepco and the IAEA make clear and decisive public communication about today's upgrade to INES level-3. The upgrade is entirely due to the leak from a wastewater storage tank, and has nothing to do with the other groundwater contamination issues at F. Daiichi. This must be stressed and any Press outlet that connects the upgrade to the groundwater issues must be publically admonished.

 Over and Out for Now

This has been a tough week for people who care about Vermont Yankee.  But there's good news other places in the nuclear world.

Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, takes place next week.

May it be a good and sweet year for everyone.

Update: ANS Nuclear Cafe always announces the latest nuclear energy Blog Carnival.  Today's Carnival announcement at ANS  says some very nice things about me.  Thank you, Will Davis and the others at ANS!

CNN Hatchet Job about Vermont Yankee

The Hatchet is Raised

CNN doesn't want both sides of the story on Vermont Yankee. A CNN show is airing today and tomorrow: U S Nuclear Plants Similar to Fukushima Raise Concerns. The show is basically a hatchet job on all Mark 1 reactors, with extra-special attention to Vermont Yankee. The trailer includes extensive interviews with Arnie Gundersen, scary music, and a segment that makes the NRC look like a bunch of stone-walling idiots. Watch the trailer if you have a strong tummy.

Why do I say CNN doesn't want both sides of the story? Well, some of it is just seeing the trailer. Some of it is personal. CNN called me in November about getting both sides of the story, but they never called back or interviewed me. They never interviewed Howard Shaffer or any other plant supporter whom I know. To me, it's all adding up to a show that Helen Caldicott would love. It will air tonight and tomorrow night at 8 p.m. ET and PT. But you can make a difference!

The Audience Strikes Back

Pro-nuclear bloggers have already put up some excellent blog posts about this show:

Eric McErlain at the Nuclear Energy Institute blog Nuclear Notes wrote a Preview of CNN's Report on Vermont Yankee. His post includes a video of American nuclear plants withstanding flood, tornadoes, earthquakes and hurricanes...all in 2011! McErlain also notes that CNN never called the Nuclear Energy Institute about this program. (So it's not just me, Eric. I'm glad to know that...)

McErlain also posted Some Facts on Vermont Yankee That Didn't Make the CNN Report and How Safe is Vermont Yankee? Ask the NRC, not CNN. The latter has great links to the NRC reports on VY safety and operation.

Meanwhile, at Atomic Power Review's February 17 post, Will Davis has links to everything you would possibly want to know about Mark 1 reactor safety and containment. Great job, Will!

The more general audience has also struck back. At the main CNN page about the upcoming video, there are over 1000 comments at this writing. Many of the comments are pro-nuclear. At a webpage CNN wrote about the comments on the original page (the page about the page is called overheard on CNN) CNN notes that the comment below has the most "Likes".

Jack Baker: "We have been using nuclear power for over 50 years, and there have been very few serious incidents, and only a couple of incidents with injuries or radiation release. And considering that the quantity of waste by-product is significantly less than any other type of power generation, including natural gas, how can people be so adamant against nuclear power?"

You Can Take Action and Let People Know What You Think

The first and most simple action would be to go to the CNN page about the video, register, and post a comment. You can also post a comment on that page through Facebook or Disqus or Twitter. Most of the people who have commented on the page are using screen names. If you want a screen name, I think that the CNN registration is the easiest way to get one.

You can also comment on the

CNN Presents Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/cnnpresents. I just did. Obviously, my name appears on the comment. (Update. My comment disappeared from FB and will probably appear on the CNN page. I should have expected that...)

You can also tweet to @cnnpresents and @amberlyon (Amber Lyon is the reporter.) I recommend that you tweet while the show airs, sometimes called live-tweeting. Live-tweeting would probably be most effective way to comment with Twitter.

Don't sit by while extremely biased reporting and scary music set the nuclear agenda for Vermont. Say something!

Vermont Yankee Explained by Robert Hargraves

My friend Dr. Robert Hargraves has a Ph.D. in physics, teaches Rethinking Nuclear Power at ILEAD, and co-founded the Coalition for Energy Solutions (I am a member). Many people who read this blog may also remember his post: Vernon New Hampshire? He also presented the history of Vermont Yankee at the first Ethan Allen Energy Education Project meeting. I also gave him a Blue Ribbon on this blog for all the work he does for nuclear power, including thorium reactors.

Yesterday he posted this six-minute video, Vermont Yankee Explained. I love it.

Send it to your friends, too! Here's the link, as well as the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR_tg8338_c&feature=youtube_gdata_player

The Sound and the Fury and Some News

It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

The Sound

Macbeth was talking about his life, but he could have been talking about the upcoming Vermont Yankee relicensing vote.

Yesterday, my local paper had a top-of-the front page article: Many Vt Senators in the Valley Say They'll Vote Aganist Vt Yankee The article was in the Valley News Friday February 19, and was written by John Gregg. In this article, Senator Mark MacDonald says

"I think we'll vote no, and I don't think it will be close." However, a few sentences later, the article says "MacDonald also said a no vote was not necessarily a 'stake in the heart' of Vermont Yankee's future, since a vote in favor of Vermont Yankee could still potentially occur in 2011 or 2012. The company might also still take the matter to court."

(This paper does not keep a strong archive on-line, and this link may go dead fairly quickly. I have quoted the important part.)

In other words, the upcoming vote is advisory. A "no" vote would certainly be a set-back for Entergy. If the split takes place completely along party lines, a 23 to 7 vote would be a major setback. But, despite all this excitement, the vote means very little. The legislature can chose to vote the opposite way next year. Or the whole matter can go to court instead of being voted upon.

By the way, as usual in politics, the vote situation is not intuitively obvious. The bill that will be voted on would instruct the Public Service Board (PSB) to allow Vermont Yankee to operate past 2012. If the Senate votes no, the House does not see the bill, and the PSB is not instructed to renew Vermont Yankee's license. So, if they vote "no"- -basically, nothing happens. The PSB is not instructed in any way, though a 2006 law, passed by the Vermont legislature, says PSB must be instructed by the legislature in order to rule that continued operation of Vermont Yankee is in the best interests of Vermont.

I think this is going to be settled in court, but that is another blog post entirely.

The Fury

Anti-Vermont Yankee efforts have been stepped up. For example, there have been ads and announcements in our local paper that the following event is taking place: (quoted from Valley News Calendar)

Voices from Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster, play reading and discussion by theater professionals and community leaders of the one-act play: 7 p.m., Montshire Museum of Science, 1 Montshire Road, Norwich. Free. Refreshments provided. 802-885-4826 or drr@dartmouth.edu.

In an ad for the performance, the title is "Should the (sic) Vermont Yankee be re-licensed."

I called the number, and discovered that this play is written by a Vermont woman and is being performed throughout Vermont, with "nuclear experts" in the audience. In speaking to Mr. Belenky on the phone, he assured me that these experts would have arguments that I would find "hard to counter." Unfortunately, I messed up the phone conversation by saying that I didn't really want to talk much about this, we wouldn't have much to say to each other, but I wanted to know more about the performances. This gave him the perfect opening to explain how everyone has to be open to dialog, and he never heard of someone saying something like this about a conversation etc.

This was my bad. It was completely my bad. I don't know why I am writing it here. Self-flagellation, I guess. Admission that I am suffering from a bit of burn-out. I do try to have a dialog. I really do. But a person can hear this junk about an RBMK reactor being just like a LWR reactor only so many times. I think I have heard it enough.

The charter of the Montshire Museum does not allow it to host political meetings. So I suppose this playreading about Chernobyl-and-Vermont-Yankee is considered educational.

Tomorrow afternoon, there's a big anti-VY meeting in Brattleboro, with a full cast of anti-VY groups. Here's the list from that announcement

Paul Gunter, executive director of the Washington, D.C., -based nuclear watchdog group, Beyond Nuclear;
David Dean, Vermont State Representative and Riverkeeper for the Connecticut River Watershed Council;
Clifford Hatch, organic farmer in Gill, Mass.;
Dr. Ira Helfand, co-founder and past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility;
Deborah Katz, executive director of Citizens Awareness Network;
Clay Turnbull, staff member of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution; and
Chris Williams, organizer, Vermont Citizen Action Network.

Chris Williams used to be with Citizens Awareness Network. I think the Vermont Citizen Action Network is relatively new. Some of the Usual Suspects are not attending the rally tomorrow. VPIRG and the Union of Concerned Scientists seem to be missing. We face quite a crew around here.

And they are well-funded. There was a half-page, full color ad opposite the opinion page in our local paper, with the usual cooling tower picture and exhortations to write your legislature. I am sure this ad appeared in all local Vermont newspapers. Meanwhile, in electronic media, anything with the word nuclear triggers a Google Adsense ad to shut Vermont Yankee. I see this on most of the pro-nuclear blogs I read.

We are such a small state. 700,000 people, and not growing. Where does all this money come from?

Old News Or New?

Arnie Gundersen wrote a note about a phone call from an anonymous whistle blower claiming that Vermont Yankee repaired a leak in the same area two years ago. Vermont Digger has the story. I link to the document obtained from the Department of Public Service. This story will be heavily covered in future days, no doubt. We have faith that Mr. Gundersen is not being devious or dumb in sharing his report of the phone call.

Tritium, Oil, and Kale

With all the endless hassles about "who said what to whom" about piping at Vermont Yankee, I decided to do a cheerful post for once. Just for a change. Then I will return to our regularly scheduled difficulties.

First of all, a big thanks to Rod Adams for his perspective on the tritium leak at Vermont Yankee. He points out that the EPA describes tritium as one of the "least dangerous radionuclides." A person would have to drink swimming-pools worth of the stuff to receive a lethal dose. They'd drown first. Rod compares this tritium leak to massive oil spills that are ignored by the press.

Oil spills are dangerous. Oil is carcinogenic. In general, the negative health effects of petroleum hydrocarbons are ignored by the press and the population. It would be funny if it weren't sad.

In Montpelier, my friend Howard Shaffer told a legislator that this tritium leak was a spill, like spilling oil on the floor of your garage, but just like the oil, it could be cleaned up. "Well, at least the oil won't give me cancer," the legislator answered. (She will be not be named in this blog. I try to protect the clueless.)

Hydrocarbons are sources of cancer-causing compounds. Here's a nice little how-to article about changing your oil, with the usual warnings about not getting it on your skin, and a note that most landfills will not accept used oil, even in sealed containers. The government warns you to avoid prolonged contact with motor oil, as it caused skin cancer in laboratory animals.

Another thanks is due to John Wheeler, whose podcast compares this tritium leak with earlier leaks at San Onofre. John uses a Brazil nut analogy instead of the banana analogy I used, to compare drinking from the test well with ordinary exposure to beta-particles. We both point out that the amount of radiation in the test well is a fraction of the amount we get on a daily basis.

Sometimes there are unintended consequences to blogging. I fear that someone will read this and decide to give up bananas and Brazil nuts. I may have scared some people. They may be coming to the erroneous conclusion that tropical fruits are radioactive.

I hope these readers understand that potassium is slightly radioactive, but it is also a necessary part of everyone's nutrition. (However, people with some types of kidney disease must avoid potassium.) If you don't have kidney disease, and you don't want tropical fruits, please eat some spinach or kale. Half a cup of cooked greens has about the same amount of potassium as a banana.

Tritium is Three

The on-going issues about tritium at Vermont Yankee have been moving fast and furiously. I've had a hard time drawing a line and saying "Okay, I'll blog about it now." For example, one day there's a newspaper article that there
is tritiated water in a second test well and then, the next day, look again, there's no tritium in the water in the second test well. Let's face it, this stuff gets confusing.

I finally decided there are three issues about the tritium, and I would have to blog about them separately.

Fact: There's tritiated water at one test well at Vermont Yankee.

Issue 1: Is this tritiated water a health hazard?

Issue 2: Does the tritium in the test well show that Vermont Yankee is being managed in an incompetent manner or is too old to be run safely?

Issue 3: Did Vermont Yankee managers and/or engineers lie about having underground tanks that contain tritiated water?

As you can guess, the third question has garnered the most press.

Only the first issue is technical. I will address it in the next post. The next two issues (are the managers incompetent? did the managers lie?) join few facts with much opinion. I'm still deciding whether to post on these issues.

So, here goes. Three questions. Probably three posts over the next several days. The first one today, on health effects.

Tritium Again

What can I say. Vermont Yankee is making it hard for people who defend it. I still consider Vermont Yankee to be a good plant, and worth relicensing, but this tritium leak is troubling. Governor Douglas is talking about "breach of trust." Public Service Board Commissioner O'Brien practically called the company a bunch of liars. The Burlington Free Press reported:

O'Brien said he didn't see how the misinformation could be described as miscommunication. "What they clearly communicated to us is not true," he said. "There was not a miscommunication here."

So, were the potluck people right? Did Entergy lie to us?

The potluck people were expressing both the facts (Entergy said there were no underground pipes carrying tritium) and their belief system (nuclear people tell lies all the time, you can count on them to lie to us again).

I will start by expressing my own belief system. Something went wrong, and it was pretty big, but the engineers did not lie under oath.

I can't prove that, of course, but it is what I believe. Starting from there, what explanation do I have for all this? Two possibilities.

First possibility is that the spokespeople were asked ambiguous questions. It has been reported that Entergy said one thing to one group of regulators and another thing to a different group. This could happen very easily if the two groups asked slightly different questions.

Engineers tend to give very specific answers. Sometimes they take the time to spend half an hour helping you qualify your question, and sometimes they just answer it. The latter is dangerous because they are making a set of assumptions about your question, and those assumptions may not have much to do with what you asked. And a few months later, with a different group, they may make a different set of assumptions, due to a slightly different question.

That's a "communications" possibility.

My second possibility is more technical. I decided to look at other plants that had tritium leaks. Specifically, I read about Oyster Creek. In late August, Oyster Creek discovered that it had a tritium leak from a pipe within the condenser building. This was not an underground pipe. Tritium was leaking through through the concrete walls of the building.

The preliminary report from the NRC suggests the leakage is passing through the condenser building wall, which is about 4 feet thick. Staff at Oyster Creek have excavated around the wall and found leakage coming from that area. This suggests that the leak is located inside the wall, Sheehan said.
The aluminum pipe is surrounded by a sleeve, so plant personnel would be able to make repairs to the pipe without excavating the wall, according to Sheehan.

If Entergy was asked about tritium leaks before August of this year, they would not have had this information about Oyster Creek. They would only have been looking at heavy-duty, water-carrying underground piping as a possible source of tritium. It is quite possible that the Vermont Yankee tritium leak also has nothing to do with underground piping. I don't know.

I hope they find the leak soon. In this hope, pro-Vermont Yankee and anti-Vermont Yankee people are united.

Tritium and Liars

I told myself I wouldn't use the L-word, Liar, to describe people who don't like nuclear energy. I hear it often enough from them, heaven knows. "Liar" is one of the first things said, under most circumstances.

For example, at the anti-VY walker potluck I attended, someone made an announcement that tritium (really, tritiated water) has been found by a test well near Vermont Yankee. Yankee dug those wells to look for tritium, since it has been a problem at other plants. As you can see from this newspaper article, Yankee found a very small amount of tritium. Bill Irwin is the head of the Vermont Public Health department radiological unit. A quote: "The level discovered in the well wouldn’t cause any appreciable dose if it were to be consumed, said Irwin."

The level discovered in the well is less than the EPA limit for drinking water. Vermont Yankee is getting busy looking for its source.

Now of course, at the potluck, I expected the Walkers to be jubilant about the discovery of tritium, and they were. More ammo for their side. However, what I didn't expect was the chorus of "So, they lied to us again! They lied to us about tritium. They said there couldn't be any tritium and look, they lied." The L-word was being thrown around fast and furiously.

Now, I think it is very unlikely that a company would drill test wells to detect something and simultaneously say there is no possibility that there is any of that substance for miles around. More likely, Vermont Yankee said that they felt it was very unlikely that they would find tritium. That wasn't a lie. They hadn't found any yet, for Pete's sake, in any of their wells. For decades.

Quick to accuse, do the walkers themselves tell lies? Between us, Howard Shaffer and I have been to three events of the anti-Vermont Yankee walkers.

1) A debate with a nuclear expert. The expert was actually a comic actor. This was never announced.

2) A potluck, supposedly including talks by experts about conservation in the home. No experts arrived and conservation was barely discussed.

3) A potluck with a "panel of experts" at Vermont Law School. My friend Howard was the only expert there. No other experts attended.

Okay. I'm not going to use the L-word about the walkers. But I'm thinking it.

Where Were the Experts?

Howard Shaffer, a nuclear engineer and former congressional fellow, is our guest blogger today. Howard met with the Anti-VY walkers at Vermont Law School. The official walk website lists this event as Potluck followed by discussion including presentations by experts.Vermont Law School, program with discussion group Here is Howard's report.

The Anti-VY walkers began their walk on January 2. On the day I met them in Royalton, they had covered five miles in temperatures in the teens. They were hanging out in the Yates common room at Vermont Law School, during school vacation, when I got there at 5:30. Potluck was at 6. I have been to the Law School many times since I returned to this area in 2002. I have an essay in their Journal of Environmental Law. The school is known as the leading school in the country for environmental law.

There were about 40 people there, not all Walkers. I asked about how they were faring. They said they were OK, and they thanked me for asking. The organizer from Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) asked why I was there. I told him that I had been doing Public Outreach for nuclear for over 30 years. A student from Keene State College talked to me. One of her relatives works at Sikorsky, as does one of my sons. She talked about the replacement life of helicopter parts, and extended this to not relicensing Vermont Yankee. She was the typical “fire hose” talker, hardly letting a word in edgewise, and raising every issue, from corporate salary, indigenous peoples rights, and waste, to cost and how shutting down VY will promote renewables.

The website advertised a presentation by experts, but there were none. Everyone sat in circle and introduced themselves. There were a few students from the Law School, including one who came to study Environmental Law and shut down VY. I said I was a PE in nuclear engineering in Vermont. I had come to VY 40 years ago this coming summer as a Startup Engineer after submarine service. I have been doing Outreach for 30 years. After introductions the floor was opened to statements, moderated by one of the organizers.

Concerns were the usual: fear of radiation, the waste, and the VY plant somehow blocking alternative energy supplies. There was the usual quoting of the regulations that “No amount of radiation is safe.” Hattie Nestel said that uranium starts emitting when it is dug up and above ground. An emotional man said that the plant routinely emits radiation and if VY is shut down, then since Yankee at Rowe, MA, Connecticut Yankee, and Maine Yankee have been shut, there would be a 100 mile area in which an organic farm could be located. One person said the plant doesn’t make any money, which is why Entergy wants to puts its merchant plants into a company called Enexus that would only own six merchant nukes. Another said that VY is a cash cow. (No one mentioned the contradiction.) One law student asked where the power would come from if the plant is shut down.

The meeting ended at around 8:00 so that the Walkers could get their house assignments for overnight. One walker from Massachusetts works with special needs children. Her uncle was a physicist and her brothers are engineers. She hugged me. Another thanked me for coming. Others told me how brave I was for coming to the meeting. I replied that I knew they didn't hit people.

How We Can Win in Montpelier

In theory, our Vermont legislators shouldn't give a darn about most of the walkers, because they don't vote in Vermont. In fact, with all five Vermont Democrat gubernatorial contenders declaring against Yankee, the legislators will be paying attention. We must be sure that our voices are also heard.

The Vermont State House, Montpelier, Wednesday January 13, 2010, noon to four p.m.

What can we do? Well, some of us can go to the legislature that day, hopefully with signs in support of Vermont Yankee. Among other things, it will be a great way to meet me, your faithful blogger. I will be the extremely beautiful older woman with a sign: Yes Vermont Yankee. Okay, easy to recognize.

Here's a map for parking in Montpelier.

(Look, if the anti-s can stage a fake debate, I can tell you I am beautiful. At least the sign will be recognizable.)

If you can't come then write your legislator. If you haven't got a legislator because you don't live in Vermont, write anyway. Most of the walkers come from out of state, after all.

To write your legislator (or somebody's legislator) go this website for the legislative listings. The directories contain email addresses. The committee lists and the district list contain names, which must be cross-referenced to the directories. If you don't have a representative and want to write someone, email one of the members of the committees on Natural Resources and Energy.

Let's have a presence as this fight begins.

What We Need to Do

My husband and I drove past the Anti-VY walkers yesterday morning. "Gee, there aren't many of them," he noted. So true.

To shut down Vermont Yankee, fifteen to twenty people are walking the whole way from Brattleboro to Montpelier, and others are joining them at various points. We only saw about a dozen people walking yesterday.

Let's assume, though, that there are twenty dedicated walkers. At the potluck Thursday night, I learned that half the walkers come from Massachusetts, a quarter from New Hampshire and a quarter from Vermont.

Do the math. That's five people from Vermont. This is how they plan to impress the Vermont legislature? They also claim to be carrying a petition with 1600 signatures. Again from the tri-state area, in the same proportions, no doubt. Probably 400 signatures from Vermont. Less than the number of people who work at Yankee.

In other words, a bunch of outsiders are planning to march into Vermont's capitol, roar around, and influence our elected representatives. It is difficult enough that Vermont is the only state that lets the legislature have a hand in nuclear licensing. But why are we letting people from Massachusetts vote about it by petitioning and demonstrating in our legislature?

Their numbers are small, and with a little effort, we can beat them.

They are going to be at the State House noon to four p.m. on Wednesday, January 13. We will be there too.

Either in person, or by email. Read the next post to find out how.

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.

The Old Playbook

"Don't let them scare you about global warming. Shutting down Vermont Yankee won't make any difference to global warming."

Deborah Katz of Citizens Awareness Network said this in Putney on Saturday night. She was speaking to a group of dedicated anti-nuclear activist and a few members of the public (me and Howard). The talk was open to the public.

A question arises: who are "they" who are going to "scare you" about global warming? In general, people who are concerned with global warming are liberals, and people who are not as concerned are conservatives. So are the liberals are going to scare you about global warming and ask you to keep nuclear plants open?

Liberals are not supporting nuclear in Vermont, where all the Democratic candidates for governor have spontaneously and unanimously come out in favor of shutting the plant down. On the other hand, Vermont Tiger points out points out that unions have endorsed Vermont Yankee. Unions are usually a Democratic constituency. Meanwhile, the current governor of Vermont, Douglas, is a Republican. Douglas is strongly in favor of relicensing.

The common ground between Douglas and the unions is jobs and job creation.

So where does this leave us? Who are They who are trying to scare you about climate change? For that matter, who are you who should resist being scared? And are jobs a liberal issue, a conservative issue, or everyone's issue?

This leaves us with the fact that the anti-Yankee forces are using a very old playbook. Their playbook comes from the days before anyone was worried about global warming. Their playbook comes from when days when people felt quite comfortable with the idea that middle-class jobs were available and secure. That was then, and this is now.

Recently, there have been two terrific posts about the use of the Old Playbook. I intend to post about this also, but right now, I have to go to an Anti-Vermont Yankee walkers meeting, this one in my own town of Hartford, Vermont. Oddly, I am not going there to argue, but as a part of the town Energy Committee. The group is meeting about Vermont Yankee AND about energy conservation. I hope to report back to the Committee about how the conservation part of the meeting turns out.

In the meantime, I urge you to read both posts:
Rod Adams posting about the Shoreham bag of tricks, including heating oil companies providing financial support for anti-nuclear activism.
Steve Aplin posting with a Canadian perspective, including Copenhagen.

A Debate with a Comedian

A man dressed in a suit, and Deb Katz, dressed more casually, took the stage. A moderator introduced William Newcomb from NuCorPAC (he was never referred to by his real name) and Deb Katz from Citizens Awareness Network. The moderator asked the questions and thanked people politely, as if this was a real debate.

At first, I got more and more angry, but then I settled down. After ten minutes, anyone would understand that "Will Nukem" was not from the nuclear industry. He was actually very funny, good theater. His answer to "what should we do with the waste" included not worrying about it since it will flow down the river to Massachusetts ("You people in southern Vermont have done enough. Let Massachusetts do its part") and putting it on trucks to spend a week in every township in Vermont ("Spread the burden. You have done enough, But don't send it to Montpelier. We gotta stay on good terms with Montpelier."). At the end of the debate, he literally danced off the stage, singing "Nuke is Green" and clapping his hands. You gotta hand it to a good actor.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, Deb Katz was not as good an actor. She had the world by the tail: a hand-picked comedian to oppose her, a very receptive audience. This apparently encouraged her to make remarks that I considered nonsensical. For example, she said: There are people missing from our homes, from around our tables. People who will never come back. We must make sure this stops. ( or maybe...make sure this does not continue...my notes are only my notes).

It sounded for all the world like she thought death itself would stop if Vermont Yankee goes out of service. Death would stop, the gene pool would be safe forever? That's a pretty powerful nuclear plant, bringing "Death into the World and all our woe." Whoops, that quote from Milton was about Adam's fall, not Vermont Yankee!

Katz also said that "you shouldn't let them scare you about global warming. If Vermont Yankee is out of service, it won't make a bit of difference about global warming." It made me nostalgic to hear James Moore of VPIRG, who admits that closing VY will lead to using more fossil fuels "for a few years." In Moore's oft-stated opinion:"Relicensing Vermont Yankee would be a twenty-year solution to a three-year problem". At least, he admits a possible problem.

I was also surprised that Deb Katz was potty-mouthed. This was a public forum and at least parts of it were recorded. Yet she raised giggles and applause from the audience several times by referring to the nuclear industry as having "wet dreams." She also said that Entergy planned to "shtup us again." ("Shtup " is a very coarse Yiddish word). Finally, she got quite a hand with the statement that "don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining." Well, I guess all applause is good applause.

After the meeting, one of the organizers asked us if we had enjoyed ourselves. We both said it had been very entertaining. I said that I had been a little surprised that, at the end, they had not introduced the man who played Will Nukem, but instead had him be "Will Nukem" the whole time. They should have told the name of the actor, at least at the end. The organizer admitted that had confused some people, and they probably should have done something at the end to introduce him. It didn't seem like a big deal to him, however.

I wonder if there were some people at the meeting who thought that Nukem was a real industry representative. In the question period, almost all the questions were addressed to Nukem, not Katz.

I am often somewhat depressed on the drive home from these events. This one was no exception. I will try to have more upbeat posts in the future.

Potluck and Genetics

When Howard and I walked into the community building for the potluck and the debate, we felt right at home. There were about fifty people there, perhaps less, and many of them were "the usual suspects"--people we had seen at many hearings.

By the way, this isn't a youth movement. Most of the people were on the far side of fifty (as I am, myself). They may be remembering their days as college-age protesters, but they aren't college-age protesters.

Howard had debated against Deb Katz in the past, and she greeted him nicely and asked if he wanted to be on the platform with her. "Of course," he answered. She never invited him up there. She had arranged to debate with a comedian, after all. I saw some people I knew, including an anti-VY man who is getting interested in thorium reactors for the future. We email occasionally, and greeted each other with honest warmth. People made sure that we had food, soup, cookies.

We sat at the table. At each place setting, there were two handouts. One was a short yellow piece containing a poem and a quote. The quote was from Gayle Green's book "The Woman Who Knew Too Much."

"And cancer is not the worst of it. Alice Stewart warns. Even more dangerous than cancer is the threat to future generations That's what you really need to be afraid of. It's the genetic damage, the possibility of sowing bad seeds into the gene pool from which future generations are drawn. There will be a buildup of defective genes into the population. It won't be noticed until it is too late. Then, we'll never root it out, we'll never get rid of it. It will be totally irrevocable."

A sentence at the top of the page stated that Alice Stewart, M.D., was born in Great Britain in 1906 and investigated the dangers of exposure to radiation.

This piece gave me the chills. First of all, it had that early-20th-century tang of eugenics (those irrevocable bad seeds) and eugenics led to untold misery. Second, it seemed to imply that radiation from un-natural sources was the main cause of mutations, and without such radiation there would be no bad seeds! Forget about crossover patterns between chromosomes and every other source of mutation that has been operating since the dawn of life. I leaned over to Howard, desperate to discuss this. But we couldn't talk, because the debate was about to begin.

Prologue to a Fake Debate

When discussing Vermont Yankee, it is always hard to know where to start, and how much to assume that people know. I will begin with some basics. The Vermont Yankee plant was owned by a consortium of utilities, and in 2002 it was sold to Entergy. At that point, various agreements were set up in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which is worth a couple of blog posts on its own.

When Vermont Yankee's original license runs out in 2012, it requires the approval of the Vermont Legislature before the Public Service Board can issue a Certificate of Public Good for a renewed operating permit. This legislative involvement is highly unusual. License extension usually requires an NRC ruling and approval by the state PUC or Public Service Board, but legislatures don't get involved. To meet the 2012 license expiration date, the legislature must vote this year or next to approve or not approve the license extension.

The fact that the legislature has to approve a license extension is seen by many as a referendum on nuclear. Anti-s from all over the country have flooded into Vermont. I met a man from the Citizen's Awareness Network who had been dispatched here from the Great Plains. He was fighting a coal plant for them. Greenpeace has opened an office in Vermont, specifically targeting Vermont Yankee. And don't get me wrong, these people are well-funded. I don't know where they get their funding, but their funding sources are clearly national, and right now, they have focused their attention on Vermont.

And now, on with our story.

Currently there is a walk from Brattleboro to Montpelier to shut down Vermont Yankee. The protesters plan to arrive in Montpelier with a petition to the legislature, etc. As part of the walk, there was supposed to be a potluck and debate about the plant in Putney on Saturday night. A "debate" means that someone was defending Yankee, so I was very interested in attending and supporting that person. According to the web announcement at the time, a man named William Newcomb, of NUCORPAC (Nuclear Corporation PAC) was supposed to be the pro-nuclear debater. He was to debate Deb Katz, of Citizens Awareness Network. When I looked at the anti-VY walk site, however, it claimed that Ms. Katz was debating "Will Nukem".

I couldn't figure this out. Who was William Newcomb? Nobody I knew had ever heard of him. And were the organizers making fun of the poor man's name by calling him "Will Nukem"? Also, Nucor is a steel company: there is no nuclear NUCORPAC.

I emailed the organizers, and they emailed back quickly and politely. They explained that "Will Nukem," is a comic role played by our actor friend Court Dorsey. (taken from one of the emails I received.) They assured me that it would still be an interesting and informative debate. I suggested that announcing it as a debate was misleading, since the pro-nuclear debater was a comic actor, but nothing was changed. The "debate" was widely announced and open to the public.

I resolved to go and hear this. Howard Shaffer and I decided to drive down to Putney together.

A word about Howard Shaffer III. He was a Submarine Engineer Officer, is a P.E. in Vermont and New Hampshire, was Startup Engineer at Vermont Yankee, and was a Congressional Fellow in 2001. He is in NEI's third party expert program and is a nuclear power advocate. Howard wrote an excellent commentary on nuclear energy for the Vermont Law School Journal. Howard and I often go to hearings and other VY-related events together.

It was a dark and stormy night (well, snow was threatening) when Howard and I got into the car to drive to Putney and hear the debate with Will Nukem. Tune into the next post to read about the debate.

Thanks and Links

I posted my first blog last night, and by the time I awoke this morning Dan Yurman and Rod Adams had both posted kind words about my blog on their blogs. Thank you, Dan and Rod!

Dan Yurman posted about new nuclear bloggers here

Rod Adams posted about this blog here

And Kirk Sorenson welcomed me here

With this post, I am also adding some site links and a blogroll.

About This Blog

Yes Vermont Yankee is a blog in support of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. Vermont Yankee is due to be relicensed in 2012, but is fighting fierce opposition from well-organized groups. For example, some anti-Yankee people are currently walking from Brattleboro to Montpelier. They are gathering accolades and publicity along the way.

The walkers apparently don't care that shutting down Yankee will mean burning more fossil fuels. Their leaders say that we will only burn more fossil fuels for a "short time" if Yankee is shut down. They claim that renewables will take over in three to five years. Will Vermont really have hundreds of megawatts of renewable baseload power in five years? I don't think so, and no reputable analyst thinks so.

Still, the anti-Vermont Yankee walkers accept the idea that Vermont will burn expensive fossil fuels for electricity for "three to five years" -- or maybe ten years, or maybe forever. They apparently don't concern themselves with global warming or pollution from fossil-fired plants. They just want to shut down Yankee, and they are very organized.

The Vermont Yankee power plant has been an asset to Vermont by providing safe, clean, reliable, inexpensive power. It has provided good jobs, charitable donations, and taxes. Yankee's low-cost electricity encourages business and employment in Vermont. Vermont Yankee has been, and can remain, a boon to the state and the region.

It is time that Vermont Yankee supporters become organized. This new blog can be a place where we can trade information. I hope it will become a rallying point for plant supporters.

You might wonder who is writing this blog. Do I work for Vermont Yankee? No. I am Meredith Angwin, a physical chemist. I have worked most of my life for the power industry. My background includes fossil fuels (patents in NOx control), risk management for natural gas pipelines, economic and corrosion assessments for geothermal energy, and corrosion control in nuclear power plants. I currently earn my living as a writer. Though I accept contracts from electric utilities and equipment suppliers (among other companies), this blog is not part of any paid work. It is completely my own, and I am responsible for its contents.

One final word. There are many excellent pro-nuclear blogs, and one of my friends asked why I wanted to start another one. However, most other blogs tend to cover the whole world, including nuclear construction in China, the latest word from Congress, and so forth. I live in Vermont, and I have started this blog specifically to concentrate on Vermont Yankee issues.