Vermont Yankee Powers Down While Vermont Protestors Flock Down to New York City to Protest Climate Change

Empire State Building

In New York City

In the Brattleboro Commons, the article about the Climate March in New York is titled The last opportunity to keep the climate cool?  According to that article, 1400 Vermonters are headed to New York  for the march. They are traveling in fifteen buses (some sponsored by Ben and Jerry's) and many cars. The marchers hope to convince our leaders to do-something about the climate.

(Note: Ben and Jerry's is a major opponent of Vermont Yankee, although the company needs prodigious amounts of power to make and distribute their product.  See my post on the Ironies of Ice Cream. )

In Vermont

Meanwhile, back in Vermont, Vermont Yankee is powering down for the last time.  As this article in WWLP writes in a headline: Vermont Yankee provided about 70% of the electricity generated in Vermont.  Replacement power is sure to come from fossil sources, though ISO-NE lists "alternatives, hydro and fossil replacement."  Local businesses are already hurting, as some  Vermont Yankee employees begin to move away.





Hypocrisy Rides Again

Poster from EcoWatch

Most of these marchers are in organizations that were eager to shut down nuclear energy. Let's  think about two leaders of the march:  Harvey Wasserman and Bill McKibben.

You can see the Wasserman  poster at the right. His group has a rallying cry: "Don't Nuke the Climate!" (I have updated the poster with the much-better parody poster, below!)

McKibben and I had quite an exchange at this blog post: Carbon Dioxide and Nuclear Energy.  (Check the comments section.) McKibben founded an organization against global warming, but he has been steadily opposed to Vermont Yankee's operation.

Thank you to Urs Bolt for this image

So, why do I call it hypocrisy? Maybe they really think that nuclear energy "nukes" the climate?  If they do, they simply have refused to look into the facts. Willful ignorance is a form of hypocrisy, in my opinion.

A few facts, please

First: The UN. With a few moments worth of investigation, the anti-nuke "Climate Worriers" could find out that nuclear power creates far less greenhouse gases than almost all other forms of energy.  If you look at the Wikipedia article on life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, you will see that the UN agency IPCC studied life-cycle emissions from many forms of energy.

According to IPCC:

• nuclear averaged 12 gCO2/kWh, 
• rooftop solar was 41 grams.
• combined cycle natural gas was 490 grams.  

Note that the IPCC is the agency that also tracks atmospheric carbon dioxide and warns us about global warming.

And yet, some people can claim the IPCC is truthful  about global warming  but dedicated liars about nuclear energy.  Well, whatever! The movie Pandora's Promise has a really good bit about this.  Comic relief! Watch the movie!

Next: Vermont Law School. But meanwhile, if people think they can't trust the IPCC, maybe they can trust Benjamin Sovacool, a leader at Vermont Law School and a dedicated foe of all nuclear energy? (Really, he's written anti-nuclear books). And Sovacool also did a life-cycle carbon dioxide footprint for various sorts of energy. I have no doubt that he did his level best to make nuclear look bad.

Sovacool's numbers are in the Wikipedia article. Sovacool calculated these life-cycle numbers:

• solar PV at 33 g CO2/kWh
• nuclear at 66 grams ("various reactor types") 
• natural gas combined cycle at 443 grams.  

Well, I guess Sovacool kind of bashed nuclear, huh?  But this doesn't  exactly show "Nuking the Climate," does it? I am sure he tried, though, gotta give him credit for trying...

It Really Rides. Hypocrisy Rides Again

According to the Vermont Agency for Natural Resources, as of a few years ago, 46% of Vermont's greenhouse gas emissions came from transportation, and 4% came from electricity generation. ( See page 22 of this pdf from the Agency.)

So what's with all these people getting into gasoline-fired vehicles and heading on down to New York City?  Aren't they GASSING the climate! Of course they are.

They are riding the climate to death!

And I suspect they feel very virtuous about it, too.

---
End note: Someone asked me  about the carbon dioxide footprint of this march. I don't know, but I welcome comments that would try to calculate it.

Vermont Yankee: State Claims "Economic" Argument for Closing Plant

A few days ago, I described the three court hearings about Vermont Yankee that will occur this week. Three Vermont Yankee Hearings: The Week of Living Lawyerly. The first hearing, in the Federal Court of Appeals, happened yesterday.

In this three-minute clip, Fox News describes the court hearing in New York yesterday. FOX44 - Burlington / Plattsburgh News, Weather



Economics? The State Has Financial Interests? Huh?

In this hearing, the State made a case that it wasn't interested in nuclear safety, no, not at all.  It was interested in money!  Specifically, it had financial interests.

First, it feared that decommissioning of the plant might cost the state money. It is not clear to me what this has to do with when the plant is decommissioned, but still. It's their argument, not mine.

Second, the state claimed that the existence of the nuclear plant would slow down the growth of renewables.  Entergy Lawyer Kathleen Sullivan answered that one. She pointed out that state utilities are buying less than 3% of their power from Entergy. Therefore the existence or non-existence of the plant makes no difference to Vermont power contracts. Vermont utilities will continue to make purchase agreements with renewable or non-renewable power sources, as they do right now.

You can hear the audio of the entire court case, embedded at the bottom of this blog. It's about 40 minutes long.

The State's Argument is Backwards

Economics is the pro-Vermont Yankee argument. At the same time that the legislature was speaking about safety, I spoke to Rotaries and other clubs and groups and schools.  I always explained how Vermont Yankee provided jobs, taxes, economic benefits to the region, and low-cost power that enabled other jobs.

The state is arguing that Vermont Yankee should be closed for economic reasons. That is simply incomprehensible.  I would talk to groups about economics, but the opponents would talk about safety.  As a matter of fact, this was a problem for me.  The opponent's safety arguments were bogus, but they were emotionally compelling.  Talking about economics had far less emotional content.

The Tritium, the Waste Dump, the Fish, and the S-word

I find this whole thing so topsy-turvey!  I sat in those hearings, when the legislators said "We can't use the s-word (safety) but we can use the r-word (reliability)" and then proceeded to discuss safety.  That is what I heard.  I was there.

Opponents (including Governor Shumlin) gave press conferences about strontium attacking the teeth of children. They spoke of how it was a no-brainer to close the aged, leaking plant.  They spoke of the "radioactive waste dump" on the banks of the Connecticut. Shumlin stated that you shouldn't eat the fish in the river--even as the head of the Department of Health publicly disagreed with him.  It was "we really care about safety" all the way with the opponents.

The opponents never effectively countered the economics argument.  They just ignored it.  Now the state claims an economic argument for closing the plant?

Here's a blog post about economics from two years, ago, with links to reports  Economics and Vermont Yankee. The grid price of electricity is temporarily lower now, but the other economic benefits remain exactly as stated.

State's Argument Does Not Work

Any way you cut it, economics is a pro-Vermont Yankee argument. Even the opponent lawyer had to go into elaborate "what-if" scenarios  to try to make an economic argument for the state. IF Entergy goes bankrupt AND the NRC fails to regulate the decommissioning funds etc.

 Expensive lawyers (hired with my tax dollars) can't give the state a credible economic reason to close Vermont Yankee.

-------
References, including an Audio of the Hearing

There are many news stories on this hearing. Most of the viewers conclude that the State did far better this time by hiring an outside attorney.  Cheryl Hanna said she didn't know how the ruling would go, but the state did better this time. WCAX also has a good three-minue video clip.

Cheryl Hanna of Vermont Law School just posted an analysis: the law is still probably on Entergy's side, but the State made a far better case this time.

 The Vermont Digger article by Andrew Stein is complete, and includes a recording of the actual testimony.

Here's the embedding of the recording from the Digger article: about 40 minutes.

Update: I embedded the Vermont Digger audio above, but it is not appearing on some computers. I don't know why it doesn't appear.  If you do not have the audio on your computer, you can hear it at Vermont Digger.