89th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers up at Idaho Samizdat

The 89th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is up at Idaho Samizdat. Dan Yurman has put together a great Carnival. Some features include:

• Make Your Smartphone into a Radiation Detector from Nuclear Diner
• Myths and truths of nuclear liability insurance from Atomic Insights
• Reports on the Blue Ribbon Commission Final Report from NEI Nuclear Notes

This Carnival also includes two new blogs (new to the Carnival, at least):

• TalkNuclear from the Canadian Nuclear Assocation
• i-Nuclear which covers world nuclear, and is based in UK.

This is a great Carnival! There's more, of course: new reactor types, Russian nuclear icebreakers, cultural bias and nuclear energy. Come to the Carnival! Enjoy your Sunday evening with the best reading in the nuclear world!

In local news, not the Carnival, I recommend an op-ed by Howard Shaffer. The Vermont Energy plan is supposedly about moving to renewables. Actually, the plan is about burning more natural gas and coal. Shaffer: Energy plan relies too much on fossil fuels.

Careers in Nuclear with an AA Degree and Art In Nuclear. Nuclear Science Week Special.

This is National Nuclear Science Week, and with everything else going on, it almost escaped me. Here's a taste of it: Careers and Art.

Careers: John Wheeler and the Value of A Nuclear Education

When Howard and I visited a charter high school in Massachusetts, many of the students had questions about jobs in the nuclear industry:

• What kinds of jobs are available in nuclear energy?
• What are the requirements to obtain these jobs?

John Wheeler posted about nuclear energy careers this week. I wish we had John Wheeler's blog post available when we went to the Massachusetts high school. However, Wheeler hadn't yet written his post at that time!

In Explore a Great Career In Nuclear Energy, Wheeler gives an overview of nuclear careers, especially careers that start with the new curriculum for an Associates (AA) degree in Nuclear Energy. This uniform nuclear program is available at 40 community colleges around the country. The degree is recognized at all nuclear plants in the U.S. After graduation with this degree, jobs at power plants start at around $45,000 a year. Actually, these are careers, not just jobs, with a clear path to more responsibility, education, and money.

Since two years at a community college usually costs no more than $6,000, a nuclear AA degree is probably the most cost-effective career program available. Also, these nuclear jobs cannot be outsourced to any other country, because the plants are right here.

And some nuclear plants aren't right here. There's a huge number of new builds abroad, and some of those countries are already recruiting experienced American workers. A young person with a spirit of adventure can choose a wonderful international career.

Art: Knowledge Through Art

Jobs are important, and so is art. Suzanne Hobbs Baker is founder of PopAtomic Studios, a not-for-profit enterprise whose motto is Energy--Knowledge Through Art. (I am on the Board of Directors of PopAtomic.) We carried several PopAtomic Posters at our rallies in support of Vermont Yankee.

Baker was recently chosen to give a TEDx talk, and I embed it below. Also, a hat tip to Atomic Insights and Nuclear Street. Both blogs embedded this talk before I got around to it.

For More Fun with Nuclear Science Week

I encourage you to visit:

• Nuclear Science Week website for overviews and activities
• Nuclear Clean Air Energy site for links to presentations about nuclear science and by nuclear engineers, including what it is like to be a young woman working in nuclear energy
• ANS Nuclear Cafe, with a series of posts and picture galleries of some of the Nuclear Science Week activities
• Atomic Power Review, with a Nuclear Science Week post every day this week, including a beautifully illustrated post on Russian nuclear icebreaker ships.

The State and the Control-H Defense: A Guest Post by Cavan Stone

I am no lawyer but after reading the ruling it looks like a pretty cut and dry case of federal preemption.

Of course the legislature did not help their case by leaving so much evidence in the legislative record that they were regulating Radiological Safety. It's clear that the legislature was trying to conceal its motivations. They bungled so much that The Daily Show would have a field day with it. It's comical that they would think the judge would not catch on to their widespread use of the replace button (Ctrl-H) in Microsoft Word when they blurt out right in the public record, "Okay, let’s find another word for safety."

Luckily, if we look at the past cases referenced, judges (including Judge Murtha) are well aware of States legislatures' use of the replace button to “nullify nearly all unwanted federal legislation by simply publishing a legislative committee report articulating some state interest or policy – other than frustration of the federal objective – that would be tangentially furthered by the proposed state law."

While this ruling is a major victory for nuclear, I don't think this case will be the last preemption case. Rather we could very well see an arms race between state legislatures improving their skill at concealing their motivations and the federal judges' ability to discern them. Thankfully, at the moment, the judges are more legally astute than the legislatures.

Yet, legislatures appear to be getting more clever as evidenced by what's happening in New York right now. This is why we cannot let up. As noted in the legislative transcript, what drove the legislature is that they keep seeing citizens with "concerns that you can’t address directly the way they want them to be addressed.”

We need to show our elected officials that a large majority does not support this action. Instead, we want legislation based upon the scientific findings from trusted, unbiased civil servants in places like the VT Department of Health and the NRC. Due to their results, we find Vermont Yankee to be a source of public good. Thus we enthusiastically support it.

About Cavan Stone

Cavan Stone is a physics graduate student who works with the Energy Education Project of the Ethan Allen Institute. He has had other guest posts on this blog. for example: Where Does Our Energy Come From? This Control-H post first appeared on the Save Vermont Yankee Facebook Page. If you are on Facebook, stop by the page and Like it! You can see posts by Stone, Shaffer and others on the Save Vermont Yankee Facebook Page.

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

Keyboard graphic from Wikipedia

Hostess Twinkies from Wikipedia, in honor of the Twinkie Defense. That is Meredith's comment, not Cavan's.

The Decision and the Next Decisions plus Some Relevant Links

The Next Decision Is the State's Decision

Judge Murtha ruled on the Entergy case last week, and the ruling came down completely for Entergy. That's my opinion, at least. The question is: will the State appeal? There was certainly a lot of talk in the early days about the "losing party is certain to appeal" and "fighting it all the way up to the Supreme Court."

Talk is cheap. Lawyers are expensive. Judge Murtha ruled on three points. In my opinion, some of the points are not easily subject to appeal. Will the State actually appeal? That's the next decision.

According to WAMC radio and WCAX TV, Governor Shumlin is discussing a possible appeal with Attorney General Sorrell. Shumlin will not announce a decision until midweek. In other words, he may announce his decision tomorrow.

Or Maybe It is Entergy's Decision. Will Entergy Sue the State For Expenses?

I think my local paper, the Valley News, has the best scoop on the possible appeal in its front-page article by John Gregg today. In the article, I learned that any appeal must be filed within 30 days. The State might appeal some parts of the ruling and not other parts. (What would that do to the full decision? I am SO not-a-lawyer!) The State of Vermont might be liable for some of Entergy's legal fees, specifically for the arguments about the commerce clause. It's worth reading this article. Too many of the articles in the local papers are just moaning and complaining about the ruling. This one has some good information.

If the State Appeals

I think the state has very little ground to appeal Murtha's ruling. The Judge's ruling stands on three sturdy legs. The first leg of the ruling is the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The second leg is contract law. The third leg is state pre-emption of NRC prerogatives. Let's look at these issues separately in terms of a possible appeal.

• A state can't insist a business in the state give good prices in-state and higher prices out-of-state. That violates the Commerce Clause of the Consitution, and even AG Sorrell thinks Entergy could collect legal fees from the state on this subject.

• Nobody can change a contract unilaterally. In this case, a state can't change a contract unilaterally. This is standard contract law AND a clause of the Constitution AND this issue was the basis for one of the first cases decided by the United States Supreme Court. The Georgia state legislature tried to break its own contracts by passing a new law. The Supreme Court did not allow Georgia to do so. As of 1810.

• The NRC has the responsibility of regulating issues of radiological safety. State actions attempted to pre-empt this federal prerogative. Perhaps the State could attempt to gather evidence that it was not considering radiological safety in its Senate vote. However, with the other two legs of the ruling in good shape, weakening the radiological pre-emption leg would not lead to the verdict being overturned.

Some Useful Links On the Case:

John Gregg article on State Reviewing VY Appeal.

Guest post on Next Steps After the Decision, by Howard Shaffer, on this blog.

Guest post on Rule of Law Upheld, by George Angwin, on this blog

Vermont Tiger post by Decision, (More Like A TKO) by Geoffrey Norman

ANS Nuclear Cafe Post by Howard Shaffer Priorities for 2012 in Vermont Politics (about the Clean Energy Development Fund, Hurricane Irene and the ruling)

Three excellent posts by Steve Skutnik of Neutron Economy.

Vermont Yankee Lives to Power Another Day

A Brief Summary of the Vermont Yankee Decision

Why the Vermont Yankee Case Matters

The first Skutnik post describes the State's case as similar in negotiating style to Darth Vader's methods: the contract is what I say it is!

Oh. I can't resist. I am embedding the video to which Skutnik links.

All About Me

I am back from the hospital and doing well. I'm not on heavy-duty painkillers anymore, but my life DOES seem like a round of naps and physical therapy (which tires me enough to want another nap). I'm not at full speed, so you can expect more guest blogs and so forth for at least another two weeks. Still, I am blogging. Friends don't let friend blog on opiates.

Thank you to everyone who wrote with concern. I am absurdly and insanely grateful to George Angwin and Howard Shaffer for their truly excellent posts on this blog!

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

Statue of Justice from the Czech Republic. She is holding a book of the law. I have always liked this image better than the traditional "scales" image. The scales don't visually acknowledge that the weighing is not a stand-alone activity, but is done in context of the law.

Beyond the Federal District Court Decision. Guest post by Howard Shaffer

When it bought Vermont Yankee in 2002, Entergy agreed to apply for Certificates of Public Good from the Public Service Board. It applied for and received certificates for a power up-rate and for used fuel storage in dry casks. It also applied for a certificate for operation after March 21, 2012.

The Public Service Board held hearings on the certificate for continued operation, and these hearings were apparently completed. Thus, the Board is ready to either issue a certificate or refuse one. I expect the Board will not act until the Attorney General reviews the District Court decision and officially advises the Board what actions it may take. Then the Board would either issue a Certificate of Public Good, issue one with conditions, or refuse to issue one.

There are a number of factors the Board may consider while deliberating on whether to issue a certificate. Let us evaluate some of these.

Safety

One thing the Board cannot consider is safety!!

The environment

The plant has a forty-year record showing no negative effect on its environment, as is required by its license. No basis here for "not in the general good."

The water quality permit

The Public Service Board and plant opponents are suing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission claiming that its extension of Vermont Yankee’s license was invalid because the application did not contain proof of compliance with the Clean Water Act. The plant currently operates under an extension of its water quality permit from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.

To us non-lawyers, this is a murky business. If the plant’s current permit is not valid, why does the State let the plant operate? On the other hand, if the plant does have a valid permit, why sue the NRC? Moreover, if the claims in the suit are valid, how come there was no action on this during the five years the NRC was considering the license extension? In the end, it is difficult to see why this is the business of the Public Service Board rather than of the permit issuer, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.

If the suit fails, there is no basis for a negative finding because the plant is still required to obey the terms of the permit without any Board intervention. If the suit succeeds, then the status of the water quality permit becomes irrelevant.

Economics

Vermont utilities will be buying no power directly from Vermont Yankee after March 21, so the price of its electric power is irrelevant. The price of electricity for Vermont rate payers will be based on the wholesale market rate determined by the grid operator. Part of this grid power will be from Vermont Yankee, and its wholesale price will be higher than the contract price paid before March 21. Vermont utilities have made no new contracts with Vermont Yankee, apparently expecting the plant to close down.

Vermont ratepayers may, however, benefit from the agreement made at the time Entergy purchased the plant. Vermont utilities will get half the profits realized at any wholesale price above 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour.

Vermont Yankee has a large payroll and purchases many services in Vermont. In addition, the plant pays a large part of the cost of the Emergency Plan for the area around it. Brattleboro and neighboring towns are required to have a plan because of the railroad, among other things. It seems the Board could find that the economic impact of Vermont Yankee is positive.

Reliability

The plant has been very reliable. Reliability affects the price the plant has to charge, and this affects profits. Lack of profits would mean that the revenue expected from the above 6.5 cents sales would not be received. It would seem that possible lack of expected, but not guaranteed, revenue is not a basis for a finding of “not in the general good.”

Esthetics

There have been no complaints of noise or other esthetic problems. The plant erected a fence to hide the Dry Casks from being seen from the river, the far shore, or the field north of the plant. It does not seem there is a basis for finding negative esthetic effects.

Conditions

The history of actions and legal obstructions by plant opponents may cause the Board to require improved communication with the public as a condition of granting a Certificate of Public Good.

Examining the Court’s Decision

The news has carried stories since the District Court decision reporting that State agencies are researching ways to prevent plant operation. It remains to be seen what “rabbits will be pulled out of what hats.”

District Court Upholds the Rule of Law. Guest post by George Angwin

From her hospital bed, Meredith asked me to post a brief note about and link to Judge Murtha's ruling today on the Entergy challenge to the Vermont legislature. The ruling essentially enjoined the State of Vermont from enforcing attempts to close the plant or cripple its operations.

I have paraphrased below the key conclusions of the ruling. Its full text is at

http://www.vtd.uscourts.gov/Supporting%20Files/Cases/11cv99.pdf

Judge Murtha ordered:

1. The State shall not enforce Act 160 to compel Vermont Yankee to shut down after March 21, 2012, because it failed to get legislative approval for a Certificate of Public Good.

2. The State shall not enforce the provision of Act 74 that requires legislative approval to store spent nuclear fuel after March 21, 2012.

3. The State shall not condition the continued operation of Vermont Yankee on requiring that it sell power to Vermont utilities at rates below wholesale market rates.

My street-talk version of these injunctions is that Judge Murtha is telling the State of Vermont that:

1. You cannot unilaterally change the terms of the 2002 contract between the State and Vermont Yankee.

2. You cannot use the spent nuclear fuel to shakedown Vermont Yankee.

3. You cannot extort ruinously low wholesale rates for Vermont Yankee power.

This ruling re-affirms the rule of law, which is the basis of our prosperity and our freedom.

Personal: Meredith's operation went well, and I expect to bring her home tomorrow.

The Politics of Fear. Guest Post by Robert Hargraves

Fear sells. Fear for child safety lets Verizon Wireless sell tracking of kids’ cellphone locations, though child abductions have not increased. Fear of household invasion is raising sales of household alarms and security devices, though crime rates have fallen. Fear of disease sells unnecessary full body CT scans, discovering pseudo diseases that raise health care costs.

Frank Furedi, at the University of Kent, cites fear of genetically modified crops, mobile phones, global warming, and foot-and-mouth disease. He argues that perceptions of risk, ideas about safety, and controversies over health, the environment and technology have little to do with science or empirical evidence.

Politicians use fear. Bush used fear of Hussein’s atomic bomb development to rally support to invade Iraq. Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski argued that the use of the term War on Terror was intended to deliberately generate a culture of fear, because it “obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue.” Furedi continues, “Politics has internalized the culture of fear. So political disagreements are often over which risk the public should worry about the most.”

Vermont politicians have used fear this way. Arousing fears of Vermont Yankee has enabled politicians to posture themselves as public saviors, focus on a single topic, and get elected. Yet this power plant is the safest, carbon-free, least expensive source of electricity Vermonters can have.

Yet fear causes flight — back to nature — back to the forest and the Tree of Souls in Pandora in Avatar. Producer David Cameron knew his audiences’ emotions when he designed this best selling film grossing over $2.7 billion.

Frightened people think of natural power — from windmills, waterfalls, sunlight, and wood-burning — will save us. The arousal of fear and the flight to renewable energy obscures the facts about their risks, costs, and environmental impacts. If we accept green, renewable, natural energy as the ultimate goal, then we also thoughtlessly accept the proffered stepping stone of natural gas, even if it does emit more CO2.

This is an emotional conflict — fear vs nature. Einstein said we can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. So let’s try another level of consciousness — rationality. Listen to fear messages and consider their sources and content. Do they come from scientists, engineers, regulators, or radiation oncologists? Do they have numbers? What are the costs? What risks are acceptable? One in 77 people end their lives in traffic accidents, yet we accept this death rate as the price for driving. Can we be rational about the risks, costs, and environmental impacts of Vermont Yankee?

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

Dr. Robert Hargraves teaches Rethinking Nuclear Power at Dartmouth ILEAD. Hargraves and I co-taught Energy Safari at Ilead. Hargraves promotes the development of thorium reactors through his book, Aim High, and through videos.

In terms of this blog, he is perhaps most famous for his video Vermont Yankee Explained, and for his post, Vernon, New Hampshire. In that post, he suggests that the town of Vernon should secede from Vermont.

This op-ed has also been published by True North Reports.

The illustration is The Scream by Edvard Munch, from Wikipedia