BATNA vs BATNA vs WATTA in Vermont

Students at International Negotiation Tournament
University of Toronto vs. University of Tromso
Wikipedia

Hostage Negotiations

In deciding on issues about Vermont Yankee decommissioning, I hope that the state of Vermont will not be overly influenced by the agendas of anti-nuclear groups. I hope so, but I worry.

For example, the Keene Sentinel wrote a recent editorial urging people to be reasonable about getting Vermont Yankee decommissioned. Among other things, the Sentinel encourages the state to not require a "residential quality" cleanup of the site.  However, the title of the editorial perturbed me:  Hostage negotiations: State regulators need to be strict but reasonable, in VY decommissioning fight. 

Decommissioning "fight"? "Hostage negotiations"? Really?

The editorial itself includes more "hostage" terminology. "At the same time, it’s been disappointing to see how quick NorthStar has been to try to hold the state hostage over the issue. The company certainly has the right to negotiate for the best deal it can get, within safety standards. But NorthStar CEO Scott State has reportedly said he’ll pull out of the deal if the firm doesn’t get its way on the “residential quality” issue —" 

Then I realized ---this is simply a matter of BATNAs.  Not hostages, but BATNAs. (More about BATNAs later.)

At some deep level, the state realizes that it doesn't have much of a BATNA, and this makes it angry.

Now I have to back up and explain what I am talking about. I'll start with the "fight," and on to the BATNAs.

The Fight

Entergy wants to sell Vermont Yankee to a consortium of businesses headed by NorthStar. These companies have expertise in decommissioning, and plan to decommission Vermont Yankee in ten years or so, which would be better for most people than the Entergy plan of letting the plant be in SAFSTOR for sixty years.

However, Entergy and NorthStar need a Certificate of Public Good  from the state in order for Entergy to sell the plant to NorthStar. And the state considers this request to be a "fight."

In general, the state usually wants two things when Entergy needs a certificate of public good.  Money and power, or rather, money and control.

Money: In return for a Certificate of Public Good (CPG), the state usually wants to get some money for projects that the state wants to do. This is standard in Vermont, and perhaps elsewhere.  I consider this sort of request to be a "tribute" payment, and I wrote about this in a post in ANS Nuclear Cafe in 2013: Millions for education. but not one cent for tribute. For example, in the past, Vermont has granted Entergy a CPG after Entergy promised to give money to a fund to help clean up Lake Champlain. You must understand that Lake Champlain is in the northwest portion of Vermont, and Vermont Yankee is in the southeast corner.  They are in different watersheds, too. Entergy funded part of the Lake Champlain cleanup, because the state "asked it" to do so, not because Entergy operations had affected Lake Champlain.

Nowadays, however, Vermont Yankee is shut down. The plant has only one source of money: the decommissioning fund.  The NRC will not allow Entergy to use that fund for random projects, such as cleaning up Lake Champlain. Therefore, the state's ability to get money is limited.

Control:  The state wants control of the Vermont Yankee decommissioning. Control issues include:

• According to whose rules does the clean-up proceed? 
• Clean-up the site to "residential standards" or industrial standards?  
• How deep does NorthStar need to excavate the site?  
• Can NorthStar rubbilize the existing buildings on site and use them for fill, or must NorthStar haul the building rubble away and buy other rubble for fill? 
• Will NorthStar get the site ready for another industry that can provide jobs, or should the area be untouched and fallow, to allow the "earth to heal" for two hundred years? 

The State may take a more or less extreme position on these matters, but there wouldn't be a "fight" if the State were just trying to work out a safe, effective site restoration.

So, now we have the state in one corner, and Entergy/NorthStar in the other corner.  We understand the fight.  But what are those BATNAs?

BATNA versus BATNA

The BATNA concept was introduced in the groundbreaking book on negotiations: Getting to Yes.   Most managers are aware of the concept.

Classic decision tree

A BATNA is the "Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement" and the negotiator with the strongest BATNA usually "wins" the negotiation.  The negotiator with the strongest BATNA gets a result closer to what he wanted, while the negotiator with the weaker BATNA obtains fewer of his goals.

So what are the BATNAs here?  What are the state's "alternatives?"  What are NorthStar's "alternatives?"

It would seem that the state and NorthStar have each other over a barrel. If the state doesn't give NorthStar a certificate of public good for the sale, NorthStar can't do the project.  If NorthStar considers the state requirements to be too onerous, it can walk away from the project, and the state will be left with a plant that will most probably be in SAFSTOR for decades.  Assuming that both parties want a successful project, which one has the better BATNA?

Well, NorthStar does. NorthStar has the better BATNA.

The NorthStar and Vermont BATNAs

This job would be good for NorthStar, but if the state requirements would cause the company to lose money on the job, it can walk away and bid on a different project instead.  There are plenty of fish in the sea, and plenty of cleanup projects on land. Tens of other possible projects are NorthStar's BATNA.

Meanwhile, the state has only this one power plant, which it wants to see decommissioned promptly.  If the state (or Entergy) had a reasonable chance of seeing several other qualified groups line up to bid on the decommissioning, the state would have a strong BATNA. NorthStar would be just one choice out of many. But the state doesn't have such a BATNA.  There are few companies qualified to do a major decommissioning, and I don't see any of them lining up to work in Vermont. They are mostly busy, and mostly working in other states that don't have the same anti-nuclear (and anti-business) bias.

The state has a weak BATNA.  As a matter of fact, I can't really define it beyond "learn to love SAFSTOR." No matter how thoughtfully and delicately NorthStar mentions its strong BATNA, the state is going to feel "held hostage." The iron laws of negotiation are holding the state hostage. I'm sure it is not comfortable.

BATNA versus WATTA

If you noticed, my discussion of the negotiations had the assumption that both the state and NorthStar would want a speedy and effective decommissioning at Vermont Yankee.  I am not going to mince words here.  There's a set of third parties in this negotiation--the anti-nuclear groups. They have their own agenda. Unfortunately, my experience is that the State of Vermont bows to any pressure exerted by an anti-nuclear group.

The anti-nuclear groups do not want a quick clean-up. As described in a recent commentary in Vermont Digger, one of the opponent groups is eager to see  a very long process. As Amelia Shea writes:

"...the question (is) of how best to protect the residents, the land and the water long into the future from the harbingers of birth defects, cancer and genetic illness. New England Coalition is advocating for intensified environmental stewardship of the site and to let the land lie fallow after the cleanup in order to achieve that goal...."

In other articles, nuclear opponents have suggested that the land lie fallow for 200 years, to "heal" from having the Vermont Yankee plant in place. This "healing" is not measurable: the opponents don't define a criteria for "healed-land".

So the nuclear opponents actually have their own agenda, and their own BATNA. Their BATNA is to encourage WATTA.  Worst Alternative To Technical Accuracy.

For the opponents, the plant spending decades in SAFSTOR is no big deal. They see SAFSTOR as just the beginning  of a several-century process of "healing." The state doesn't have a good BATNA to begin with.  If Vermont bows to the nuclear opponents and their agenda, Vermont may well end up with the plant in SAFSTOR followed by WATTA.

 Optimist

This glass is half full 
The glass is also refillable

I am a natural optimist.  I think hard-working people can make situations work out to a be a win-win, or at least, not a lose-lose.

So I hope Vermont will not end up with WATTA, but rather, Vermont  will work out an acceptable agreement with NorthStar. I hope that Vermont Yankee will be effectively and rapidly decommissioned.

I am an optimist.

Unfortunately, in Vermont, it is easy for an optimist to get disappointed.

Timeline, Layoffs and an Insult

Fuel Removed and NRC Notified 

On January 12, Vermont Yankee sent a letter to the NRC: it stated that all fuel has been removed from the reactor and placed in the spent fuel pool.  It further stated that the reactor is no longer producing power. The letter was reported by WCAX.

There's a time-line to decommissioning here, and the letter is part of it.  First, Vermont Yankee filed its PSDAR (Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report) with the NRC on December 23, 2014. (They had told the state of Vermont that they would file by the end of the year.  The plant went off-line forever on December 29, 2014.)  There is a 67 day comment period, during which people can comment on this document: the comment period ends on March 23, 2015.  As I understand it, either on March 23 or sometime thereafter when the NRC accepts the PSDAR, Vermont Yankee will be officially in the status of "decommissioning" rather than holding an operation license.  At that point, Entergy will be able to access the decommissioning funds for decommissioning activities.

Layoffs Coming Next Week 

Fuel Pool at Areva

Meanwhile, next week, many people will be laid off at VY. How many people?  I have seen conflicting numbers in the newspapers, and so I called Martin Cohn at Entergy this morning for an update. (For the most recent complete newspaper article, I recommend Susan Smallheer's article in the Times Argus.)

When I talked to Cohn, he explained that some numbers have not changed: There are 550 people working at the plant right now, and after the layoffs, 316 people will be working there. Those numbers have been announced for a long time.  In other words, 234 people will not have jobs at the plant next week.   However, as Cohn said, other numbers are more of a moving target.  Cohn said that as of ten o'clock this morning: 40 people are retiring and  80 people are transferring to other Entergy plants. Of the remaining 114 people, only 8 people remain jobless, as of his knowledge.

Soft Landings Aren't All Soft

Virginia Magnolia
They don't grow in Vermont

I am happy that so many people are having a fairly soft landing. Still, even soft landings can be hard.  Many Vermont Yankee people are leaving the area, including leaving their friends, their kids' schools, their churches, their doctors, their favorite restaurants, their church choirs, or their poker buddies.

My husband's family moved cross-country when he was eleven, because his father lost his job.  My husband still remembers, quite vividly, the sadness and dislocation, even though the new place was (of course) interesting and new.  The new place was also difficult and odd and painful.  His mother was especially hurt by the move: she had a very active engagement with her local church, and a basement with shelves full of home-canned fruits and vegetables. These fruits and vegetables could not make the move, and they represented something.

My husband was also hurt: the three boys that were his cousins and best friends lived fairly close by until they moved.   As a matter of fact, while my husband's father was fighting WWII and my husband was a pre-schooler, my husband lived with these boys and their parents. When George was eleven years old and his father moved, these cousins disappeared from his young life, for years.  Catching up with these cousins later wasn't exactly the same. (Though now, they all are great friends and visit every year or two.)

I have basically been so sad about Vermont Yankee layoffs that I have found it difficult to blog.

So, I will switch gears from sadness to anger.  That might help.  Alas, my anger is not about the plant itself right now.  It's more personal.
----------

New Insults to Bloggers, Including Me

Now, I realize this may seem a rather self-centered section of the post.  Skip it if you want.  There are bigger issues, and I discuss them above.

This section is about an insulting blog post from an anti-nuclear group.  Yes, insulting anti-nuclear posts are a dime a dozen.  So why am I writing about this one?  Here's the story.

 On New Year's Eve I wrote a  blog post, For the Happiness In My Life.  In this post, I looked at the good things in my life as a way of dealing with the sadness of Vermont Yankee closing. My post started out with the statement: "To say I have been miserable about Vermont Yankee going off-line is putting it mildly."

A rather nasty anti-nuclear group put up a post on their blog called Nuclear Industry Goes Hysterically Ballistic About Vermont Yankee Shutdown.  No, I'm not going to link to it...you can probably find it on-line if you care to read it.  In that post, the author quoted a bunch of us pro-nuclear bloggers, including me, as examples of "hysterically ballistic."  For me, he quoted the paragraph  starting: "To say I have been miserable about Vermont Yankee..."

Well, that was a good example of "hysterically ballistic," wasn't it? (Sarcasm alert.) And yes, some of us bloggers answered and some of the answers got published and other bloggers got banned from his blog and it was all a tremendous waste of time and energy.

At any rate, when he quoted the pro-nuclear bloggers, he named the bloggers.  Except for two.  One he didn't name was "NEI blog" which kind of makes sense, though the authors generally sign their posts.  They have a lot of authors.  The other blogger he didn't name was me.  I was "a blogger at Yes Vermont Yankee." He named the male bloggers, to put it bluntly.

Was this guy dumb and couldn't figure out who wrote that post?  Or is he the kind of person who doesn't notice that women have names? I don't know.  At any rate, I have added my picture and name to my blog now.  I probably should have done this ages ago. Now everyone can see the person who writes most of the posts. Therefore, I suppose that some good came out of the situation.

And yes, I deliberately did not use his name in this blog. This was not an oversight on my part.  It was deliberate.

Rally for Vermont Yankee, 2011

The High-Cost Consequences of New England's Energy Choices

Collage from "Green Lemons into
Lemonade"

Why Are My Electricity Bills Getting Higher?

Green Lemons into Lemonade is a Facebook Page of pro-nuclear art and satire.  I think you will like it if you like it (small pun).

The collage above shows the consequences of New England energy choices.  The woman on the left is Patricia Richardson, 78 and retired. She lives in Massachusetts,  has had energy audits on her house, and had insulation installed. Because electricity prices rising by 30 to 45% for the winter, her energy bills are still increasing. She wants to know why the prices are going up, and she doesn't feel she is getting a solid answer. She is quoted in  a New York Times article on the future of energy prices in New England:  Even Before Long Winter Begins, Energy Bills Send Shivers in New England.

Why are prices going up? Part of the answer is that Vermont Yankee (and coal plants) are going off line. The New England gas pipelines cannot carry enough fuel to make up for the electricity production of the shuttered base load plants.

But...besides pipelines....

Another  reason for the high prices is the actions of the women in the right-hand picture.  They are Vermont Yankee opponents, dressed for a fun anti-nuclear demonstration. One carries a sign saying: "Vermont Yankee is Killing Us All."

Decisions and Consequences

New England is closing coal plants and my favorite nuclear plant. Meanwhile, locals fight hard against expanded gas pipelines.  To understand New England energy decisions (and their consequences), I recommend James Conca's clear and well-referenced post at Forbes: Pipeline and Nuclear Shortages Send New England's Utility Bills Soaring.  As Conca writes:

Not sure why New Englanders are so surprised (at the price rises). It was their choice to throw all-in for natural gas and renewables in a land of harsh winters. But they’ve refused to build new gas pipelines. And they’re shutting a nuclear plant that has 20 years of cheap reliable cold-resistant energy left on it.

That pretty much sums up the New England energy scene.  Thank you, James Conca.

"No Safe Dose" is Bad Science. Updated. Guest Post by Howard Shaffer

Linear Function Graphs
from Wikipedia

Update: Robert Hargraves new Video "Radiation is Safe Within Limits" is now posted at Rod Adams blog. Adams gives a shout-out to this post, also.  These two posts make a very good pair!


 The non-existent risk of low level radiation

At his blog, Atomic Insights, Rod Adams recently posted Resolving the issue of the science of biological effects of low level radiation.  In this post, he encouraged people to sign a letter urging the American Nuclear Society (ANS) to address the issue of unreasonable fear of low levels of radiation.  There is now a great deal of evidence that, below a threshold value, increases in radiation exposure do not lead to increases in cancer.

Adams provided a link to the letter, which urges the  ANS to ask for a review of newer evidence (studies done after 1956) concerning the use of Linear Non Threshold (LNT)  to predict cancer deaths from radiation.  LNT asserts that there is no threshold for increased cancer risk.

 "Protecting" against very low levels of radiation increases the cost of nuclear plants, but the LNT model says we must protect against any level of radiation, no matter how small.  Rod and I are happy to assert that LNT increases the cost of building and operating nuclear plants, but does not lead to an increase in public health outcomes.

The crowd goes wild

Once Rod had posted, the comments came thick and fast, starting with a one-line comment that Rod was tilting at windmills.   (I encourage you to read the comments and join the conversation.)

I  was very impressed with Howard Shaffer's comment, and I obtained his permission to use it as a guest post, as below.  I did a few edits, with his permission.

------

The consequences of assuming No Safe Dose: By Howard Shaffer 

Bob Hargraves, Meredith Angwin and I have all gone  head to head with the nuclear opponents and the Helen Caldicotts brought in to Vermont. We have gone through all the logical arguments on cost, alternatives etc. We needed to be face to face, up close in public meetings in order to FEEL the fear that is driving their single minded opposition. Fear that drives elderly ladies to repeatedly chain themselves to the plant gates and get arrested, and many other examples.

As for evidence, see the election results here in Vermont.

Let me repeat part of my post from ANS Nuclear Cafe, A CAN-CAN Dance around Vermont Yankee Decommissioning:

In Vermont, in the very emotional political fight over Vermont Yankee, we directly experienced the effects of the misuse of BEIR VII. Deb Katz  http://www.nukebusters.org/ and others endlessly repeat “any amount of radiation is harmful” to energize the opponents AND make EVERY event at the plant seem like the “sky is falling.”

Enough FEAR has been created to keep driving the opponents, so they always find a new issue. Now it is “all fuel in Dry Casks NOW” which is also being used in the SONGS fight.

We need to get a BEIR VIII. I believe that it will take Congress requiring it in an appropriation bill to get it done. We also need Congress to set the time limits on exposure from High Level Waste Repositories to a few hundred years, not thousands as decided by a court case. end post

Perhaps ANS can get Ann Bisconti to do a poll asking what people believe about radiation.

The Fear Campaign

The LNT issue is in the middle of the largest issues of our time, starting at the middle of the last century.

• The Environment as limited. History shows that we believed the earth to have unlimited resources and be an unlimited sewer. (At one point, the chemical industry saw chemical injection underground as a legitimate disposal method. Where were the studies on the effects done before this was started?) Fear of fouling our own nest and ruining the earth is legitimate.
•  Fear of nuclear war. Einstein was right that World War IV would be fought with sticks and stones.
• Out of these came fear of planetary pollution from atmospheric weapons testing. The BEIR committee was persuaded by powerful personalities to extend the evidence from the excess cancers in atomic bomb victims to low levels of exposure and to “zero” exposure (which does not exist). This was done to boost the fear campaign they thought was needed to get the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty. 

"Ban the Bomb" was a Fear Campaign. I agree with the goals of that particular campaign.  But  history shows that Fear Campaigns get out of hand and have a life of their own. Forgive me for using Racism, Suppression of Women, and Anti-Semitism to name a few. None of these are supported by evidence, but take a long time to erase.

Howard C Shaffer III

The irony of nuclear power is that it meets these fears by providing a bridge – a long one- to a planet of total sustainability. The opponents of nuclear power have never answered the question of HOW we get from here to there. For example,”What do we do about Coal Miners?”

We who believe in nuclear power have a lot of work to do. It’s time to face up, as Rod says, to the realization that the public needs to be told that some of them bought into a Fear Campaign that outgrew its original purpose and the facts were not true. The campaign was well motivated but the wrong approach.  It is time to get back to the facts.

Opponents Make Assertions, Shaffer Tells Truth

Can-Can Dancers by Toulouse Lautrec

CAN and CAN and the Supposed Horrors of Decommissioning

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

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

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

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

Howard Shaffer

Equipping Us With the Answers

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

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

Thank you, Howard Shaffer!

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

The German Experience: Seen by Environmentalists, and Seen by Nuclear Opponents

Communication

Triple Falls, Dupont State Forest, North Carolina
From: Farmers, City Folk and Renewable Energy
at ANS Nuclear Cafe

I consider myself a pro-nuclear communicator, and I often blog about effective communication.  However, communicating effectively means considering your audience.  I have come to the conclusion that there are two kinds of people who are opposed to nuclear energy:

• Environmentalists who have lumped nuclear with "other bad stuff," but may not have given the matter much thought. They often come to realize the role of nuclear energy in providing very low carbon electricity.
• People who are just plain against nuclear energy. Period. End of story.

You have to know who you are talking to.  For example, these two groups will have very different assessments of the recent German experience.

Environmentalists

Many environmentalists (people interested in a healthy environment) are beginning to embrace nuclear power.  The movie Pandora's Promise is about one such set of environmentalists.  Similarly, Armond Cohen, a leading environmentalist in California, noted that greenhouse gas emissions in California rose substantially when San Onofre went off-line. Cohen also realized that renewable sources, such as wind turbines, require huge amounts of land to make the same amount of power as a relatively small nuclear plant.

As described in this VPR interview, Cohen explains why he has reluctantly shifted from being an anti-nuclear activist to someone who now argues that we can't afford to dismiss nuclear power.

At the Washington Post last month, Stephen Stromberg wrote Why Environmentalists Should Hope Nuclear Power Sticks Around.  He illustrated his article with a chart showing the two low-carbon power sources in the United States: renewables and nuclear.  By 2040, U.S. renewables are expected go from producing 12% of our electricity (today) to 16% in 2040.   Nuclear energy's contributes 19% today and 16% in 2040. It is an important part of our low-carbon future.

Meanwhile, in Europe, greenhouse gas targets remain in place, but renewable targets are being scrapped.  Gail Marcus of Nuke Power Talk gives an excellent overview in her latest blog post: Good News From Europe: Reasoned Approaches to Energy Policy. 

Opponents of Nuclear Energy

At Canadian Energy Issues, Steve Aplin has several posts that show that Germany's greenhouse gas emissions have risen, despite their investment in renewables. This is because the Germans are phasing out their nuclear plants.  Two excellent posts are:

• Money for Nothing: German wind turbines and solar panels useless during coldest, darkest part of the year.
• Reducing carbon pollution from electric power generation: what works?

In the second post, Bas Gresnigt (from The Netherlands) comments that the German people are happy with the German electrical grid, because they are pleased to see nuclear be phased out.

The German Experience as an Opponent Experience

Which brings us to a question: what is the purpose of the German energy transition?  If it is about greenhouse gases, it frankly isn't working, as Steve Aplin (and others) point out.

But maybe it isn't about environmentalism, lowering the carbon footprint, or anything like that.  Maybe it is mostly about being opponents of nuclear energy. Rod Adams posted about fossil fuels versus nuclear energy: Smoking gun research continuing in earnest. This post was published in early December 2013, and now has 145 comments.

At the base of a turbine
Lempster wind farm
New Hampshire

I want to draw attention to one comment. Once again, Bas Gresnigt was commenting, and someone brought up the increased carbon plus increased electricity cost of the German experiment.  The question was

"Does the current German electricity market situation really make sense to you?"

Bas Gresnigt answered it as below (here's the link, so you don't have to read 145 comments.)
Here's his answer:

Very sensible market design.
You will agree if you measure that market with the German targets in mind (in order of importance):
1. Nuclear out
2. Democratize energy
3. 100% renewable
4. Less CO2
5. Affordable costs
etc.

I contacted Gresnigt and asked him if I could use this quote. He was kind enough to give permission, though he felt the brief statement of this quote was somewhat unfair to his arguments.  I hope he will comment on this blog post.

Back to Communication

People looking at the German experience can look at it as a colossal failure (higher carbon dioxide, higher prices) or a great success (phasing out nuclear plants). For a group for whom "anything is better than nuclear energy," no amount of communication is likely to make a difference.

For environmentalists concerned with land use and with greenhouse gases, nuclear communicators can use the German experience as an example of a situation in which, as they say: mistakes were made.

Howard Shaffer Post at ANS Nuclear Cafe: What are opponents doing nowadays?

Vermont Yankee

Howard Shaffer's most recent contribution to ANS Nuclear Cafe was posted yesterday afternoon.

Vermont Yankee: Now What Are Opponents Doing?

In this post, Shaffer describes the many ways opponents are attempting to generate political cover for the ways in which the plant's closing will affect the state, and the related ways in which they continue to foster fear about the decommissioning process, the last few months of the plant's operation, etc.

Governor Shumlin

Vermont Yankee management and the Shumlin administration are in closed-door meetings at this time.  Who knows what they will resolve?  Who knows what they are even discussing, since almost everything about the decommissioning is in the hands of the NRC and Entergy, not the state?  I suspect the discussions are another case of the state attempting to extract Dane-Geld from Entergy.

In the meantime, I recommend reading Shaffer's post for the most up-to-date information on the current "controversies."  Comment on the post, too!  (The opponents are commenting.)

Vermont Yankee: Now What Are Opponents Doing?

Whack-A-Mole on Anti-Nuclear Claims: Sometimes It's Necessary

I think of pro-nuclear advocacy as something better and finer than a game of Whack-a-Mole.

You know, the game. You whack down one ridiculous accusation, but two more pop up.  It isn't my favorite game.  I like to talk about the benefits of nuclear power. I don't try to answer everyone who claims it is horribly dangerous. Duty doesn't always call me.

"Duty Calls"
Famous XKCD cartoon

 But sometimes, it's whack-a-mole time.  "A charge unanswered is a charge believed" is a political truism.  Sometimes, we have to answer.

Scaremonger Week

Last week was Scaremonger Week in the media, with three separate articles with ridiculous accusations against nuclear energy.  I am pleased to see that nuclear advocates are answering.

Today's ANS Nuclear Cafe post is Scaremonger Week in the Mainstream Media. The post has links to the scary articles and links to the answers. Congratulations to Paul Bowersox for putting this post together, and for all the people (James Conca, Howard Shaffer, the Nuclear Energy Institute team, James Hansen, and others) who actually answered the accusations.

1. The first article is about "nuclear plants vulnerability to terrorism." This was written by a student whose graduate work was partially funded by the Department of Defense.  The press release makes it sound like an official DoD study. Semi-amusingly, a comment on the ANS blog post calls it  Pentagon-commissioned study, despite the fact it is nothing of the kind.  Ah well. If that were the only problem with this "study."
2. The second article was a "nuclear submariner" challenging the pro-nuclear film Pandora's Promise. This article appeared as New York Times opinion piece.  The Grey Lady didn't do a very good job on qualifying the writer, whose nuclear experience is more limited than it might appear. (Please see update below.)   Read the "editor's choice" and "reader's choice" rebuttals to this post.
3. The third was in Russia Today.  In some ways, it is the most fun, because it is the most outrageously ridiculous.  Tokyo will be evacuated when Fukushima waters contaminate its groundwater? Billions will die?  Good grief!  Howard Shaffer answers this one. Yes, our own Howard Shaffer.  By the way, I had no idea that Russia Today is such a popular site. As Bowersox writes:  RT is the 2nd-most-watched foreign news channel in the United States, with 1 billion views on YouTube (more than Fox News). The article above [about Fukushima] has 23,000 Facebook ‘likes’.

Woman Playing Whac-a-Mole

Whack-a-Mole--Sometimes It Matters

I admit...no matter how many you whack, more of these articles arise. They say the same-old, same-old, sometimes with a new twist--Tokyo water! Pentagon-commissioned!  

People who know about the subject answer.  Links to the answers are in the ANS Nuclear Cafe article. Do the authoritative answers get the kind of play that Russia Today can provide?  Maybe not.  But thanks to the knowledgeable nuclear advocates, the answers are out there, the answers are available.  

The answers are available, and that is worth a lot.

---------------
Update:

In an earlier version of this post, I said that the "nuclear submariner" who wrote the New York Times article,  Dr. John Miller, Ph.D., had not served on an active boat.  Actually, Miller did serve on a boat at sea.  He was on a boat during operations for about a year, and then he was assigned to the same boat while it was in dry dock for about two years.  I apologize for the error.

I also said that Miller was not an engineering officer. Again, I apologize for the error.  However, my statement was wrong but the issue is more complicated.  As far as I can tell, Miller took engineering training but he was a supply officer while assigned to his boat. I do not know enough about the operations of the Navy to follow all this and be accurate in what I say about his background.  To me, it doesn't seem very strong to be a supply officer and yet claim to be an expert on nuclear operations. But I really don't know.  My husband was a tin can sailor (enlisted man who served on a destroyer). So I know little about submarine officers and their duties.

Those of you with Navy backgrounds or interest might want to follow the comment stream on Rod Adam's blog post about Arnie Gundersen: Was Arnie Gundersen a Licensed Reactor Operator and Senior VP Nuclear Licensee?  In the comment stream, Miller and other Navy Nukes discuss Miller's background. 

The Local Scene: Shaffer At ANS Nuclear Cafe

Howard C Shaffer III

Today, at ANS Nuclear Café, Howard Shaffer posted about Vermont politics and energy issues--Power Play: People Politics, Electricity, Nuclear.

When Shaffer told me he was going to write an overview post for ANS, my first reaction was "don't!"  Now I am very glad he has written it, and I recommend all readers of this blog to follow the link and read it also.

So why did I say: "don't write it"?  Of course, I was wrong, but why did I say it?

You see, Vermont energy is highly-politicized situation with a constant stream of court cases, events and hearings.  In my own blog, I usually attempt to clarify one aspect or another.  I rarely give overviews.  There's just too much going on (I think). There are court cases, protests, Public Service Board hearings, Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel hearings, hearings in various legislative committees, etc. etc.  In my blog, I pick this or I pick that to write about.  Which is nice, of course.

But Shaffer's post shows why we need more than just Meredith's viewpoint.  My one-issue posts don't give the true idea of how wild and political energy policy is in Vermont.  Read Shaffer's post, for everything from the Comprehensive Plan, to wind, to flotillas on the Connecticut River to...well, everything.

Thank you, Howard, for writing this.

Pandora's Promise: Nationwide now

Pandora's Promise Launches Nationwide!

Pandora's Promise is a documentary in which prominent environmentalists explain how they began to favor nuclear energy.

• The film begins its nationwide release this week. 
• Here's a link to the film website.
• Here are the places where you can see the film--in quite a few cities nationwide.  For example, Pandora's Promise will open at the Kendall Square Cinema in Boston on Friday, June 14.
• Nuclear Energy Institute has a very complete blog post, The Unofficial Guide to Pandora's Promise, with links to reviews. It also contains several film clips.
• CNN Films has acquired Pandora's Promise for cable broadcast this fall.

The official trailer is embedded below.



Reaction, Eyes Open

I was lucky enough to see the film about a month ago at Dartmouth College, with the director in attendance. The film opens people's eyes to possibilities that they had not considered.  Watching the film is not intended to be a road-to-Damascus experience about nuclear power.  Instead, the film hopes to encourage people to think about energy supplies in a new way.

For example, Terry Tempest Williams claims thirty years of antinuclear activism.  She attended the same showing that I attended, and she wrote this in The Nation:

For me, this film’s strength was not that it changed my mind, which it did not, but that it expanded it. I am interested in having an open conversation about nuclear energy. Climate change is real. We know we must wean ourselves off fossil fuels. So what are the alternatives? Are renewable energy sources enough for the energy-poor around the world?

Reaction, Eyes Closed

Not everyone was has eyes that can actually open.  Robert F. Kennedy Jr. saw the film on Tuesday of this week.  After the showing, he discussed it with the director, Robert Stone.  Well, I guess Kennedy thinks he discussed it.  It sounds to me as if he went on a rant. Apparently, Kennedy thinks that insults are very effective in convincing people.

Kennedy said the film was "an elaborate hoax" and the environmentalists in the film were "liars."    Their exchange was moderated by Andrew Revkin of the New York Times. After Kennedy had accused everyone in the film of working for (or being paid-off by)  the nuclear industry, Mr. Revkin said this to him: "You invest in solar, why should I believe you?"  Read the whole story at the NEI blog post: Robert Stone and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Clash After Screening of Pandora's Promise.

Also, an anti-nuclear organization has been printing up something called "Pandora's False Promises." I gather it is 38 pages of opinion and scare-stories. I have heard (rumor only) that they are handing out copies to people at the movie showings. Luckily, a recent Ph.D. in nuclear engineering refutes their document point by point in his blog post: Pandora's Revenge.   Thank you, Nick Touran, for this careful and well-documented rebuttal!

What you can do

Of course, go see the movie!  Write about it on your FB page, and perhaps post a review at the Internet Movie Database (or other places, such as Rotten Tomatoes).

If you go to a public venue, you might think about taking a copy of Touran's blog post with you, in case you get leafletted by the opponents.  You could hand a copy to them. Turn-about is fair play, right?

I am so glad that we now have this excellent movie available, and that many people will see it.  Robert Stone is an award-winning director, and he devoted years of his life to making this movie.  And now we all can enjoy it.

Christmas Links: Cookies and Friends, A Christmas Carol, and the Carnival

Rockefeller Center Christmas Tree

Links of the Season

Friendship and Food:  ANS Nuclear Cafe usually uses a guest post from me late in the month.  Consequently,  I have a holiday season post up today: The Other Side of the Cookie: Anti-Nuclear People in Our Lives.

We can all get along, if we try. We all want the best for our children.

Dickens and Harry Reid: The ghosts of Christmas Past (in terms of nuclear waste), Christmas Present (France and the WIPP) and Christmas Future visit a group of U S Senators in a Nuclear Waste Carol. This informative and funny post is from the Heritage Foundation.

136th Carnival: The most recent Carnival is up at Atomic Power Review, including Will Davis's signature guess-this-picture at the front of the post.  Then there's Rod Adams on climate change skeptics in the pro-nuclear community (can't we all just get along?), a great reading list on nuclear from Dan Yurman, and Gail Marcus celebrating 70 years of nuclear fission.  Plus much more.   A year-end treat, for sure!

For all my readers who celebrate Christmas, have a Merry Christmas with friends, family, food, music, and spiritual renewal. And even presents under the tree!

A Safe Plant and the Same Few Protestors: Guest Post by Steve Moriarty

Hello.  My name is Steve Moriarty; I live in Greenfield, MA and have worked at VY for 34+ years.


Prior to that, I worked all around NE for New England Power Service Co., a construction company that services all NE plants.

My background is electrical construction/maintenance, Materials Management, Quality Assurance and Quality Control.

In that first job, I traveled from fossil plant to fossil plant in NE.  Some were oil and some were coal.  I also work at a few Hydro stations.

In 1977 I was assigned to VY. When I first visited the site I was pleasantly surprised.  It was clean, organized and run proficiency.

It was nothing like the dirty fossil plants that I was working in previously.

I soon saw that extraordinary attention was and continues to be paid to safety of the public, workers, and environment.

Procedure adherence was not an option it was and continues to be the standard operating procedure.

I was so impressed by the workplace and the personnel at VY; that I took a permanent position at VY and have been here since (now 39+ years combined service).

I met and married my wife, raised two children in Franklin County.

The bulk of my state taxes are paid to VT.

My daughter worked here as a summer employee while attending college.  She is a Microbiologist and is now married with two healthy and happy children.

My son is a Mechanical Engineer.  He worked here for two summers as an intern, and that experience set him up for success.  He too, is now married and healthy.

I would not have allowed either to work here, if I didn't truly believe it was a good and safe place to work.

Both of my children and my wife cannot believe the day to day difficulty that I must go through as a nuclear worker just to be able to do my job.

This defensive posture, that all nuclear workers are forced to assume, is not a daily task of workers in most professions.

My son noted that "there really aren't many young people speaking out  against your plant".   This was based on discussions over the nuclear  option at UMASS Amherst, while at college.

I got to thinking, and I too realized that I have been looking at the same faces for 10-20-30 years. (i.e. really not a lot of people speaking out against Nuclear, "just the same few").

I also asked my son him what he has heard at college and in the workplace, relative to nuclear power and its future, and his response was that many students in the Engineering program and engineering professionals are in favor of nuclear as a viable green source of energy.

Some, of course, like the idea of wind, solar, or hydro; but they also realize the nuclear power is needed, as well.

One thing that was agreed on was that this country's reliance on coal and oil was something they don't want.

They all seem to be very concerned about the environmental damage being done by fossil fuel, let alone the problems associated with obtaining those fuels.

So, what's the point?  The point is that if "these same few" spent as much energy on working with us to make the next generation of nuclear power plants even better, we all could gain.

It may be time to stop the 10-20-30++++ years of protesting and redirect that energy toward valuable and welcomed input to the future, all of our futures.

Nuclear power is here, it has proven its value, and it can be even more valuable to the environment and our energy demands into the future.

Thank you for your consideration, and I hope you see the real value of allowing Entergy-Vermont Yankee to operate into the future.

________

Steve Moriarty wrote this statement by email and submitted it to the Public Service Board on Docket 7862.  He was kind enough to send me a copy to be used as a guest post.  Moriarty's post and Stuart Endsley's recent guest post are boots-on-the-ground comparisons of nuclear and fossil plants.  Their words may be well known to utility workers, but they cover a subject that you rarely see in print.  Endsley's post: Acid and Air, the Environmental Effects of Non-Nuclear Electricity. 

Welcome to New Blogs from Nuke Roadie and Milton Caplan Plus a Link to My Post At ANS Nuclear Cafe

Two Great New Blogs

Nuke Roadie: The first blog, Nuke Roadie, was started this month by Nuke Roadie.  Nuke Roadie is known to many of us in the nuclear blogosphere for his blog comments, Facebook page, and twitter feed @nukeroadie.  Nuke Roadie is a contract worker in the nuclear industry. (Yeah, you might have guessed that.) I have appreciated his excellent comments on my blog and other blogs.  I have been following him on FB and Twitter for years. I am delighted to see his new blog!  I have added it to the Yes Vermont Yankee blog roll.

MZConsulting Blog: The second blog, Milton Caplan MZConsulting Blog, is not a new blog.  I had just never encountered it before.  Milton Caplan commented on my blog post at ANS Nuclear Cafe.  This led me to check out his company's blog.  MZConsulting is a Canadian company, consulting in nuclear energy, and Mr. Caplan is chair of the World Nuclear Association Economics Working Group.  You can read a little more about Caplan here. As you could expect, these blog posts are thoughtful and authoritative. I have added this blog to my blog roll.

The Search for Nuclear Happiness at ANS Nuclear Cafe

On Tuesday, I posted at ANS Nuclear Cafe on my methods for seeking happiness while supporting nuclear energy.  The Search for Nuclear Happiness includes my favorite techniques to support both nuclear energy and my own personal satisfaction.  One technique involves brownies--- or actually, coffee-and-brownies.  Well, actually, it's not about the brownies, it's about getting together with other supporters! I believe supporters of nuclear energy have a Brownie Deficit, because we don't hang out enough together.  Nuclear opponents are constantly getting their groups together for this and for that.  Such meetings energize them.

Meetings with our pro-nuclear friends can energize us.

Eat brownies, enjoy your friends, and read pro-nuclear blogs!