Making Policy By Sticky Dots

Close to 100 people showed up at the Rutland Holiday Inn last night (April 1st) to discuss nuclear power, in general, and the future of the Vermont Yankee plant, in particular.  Some of these people had driven more than an hour to make this event and you could imagine that most of them (us) had other – and, perhaps, better -- things to do.  But, then, this is Vermont where the big questions about nuclear power have never been settled.  In Vermont, it is still 1979.  Three Mile Island has nearly melted down and Jane Fonda is playing a fearless reporter in The China Syndrome.  Time to split wood, not atoms.

Meanwhile, in 2008, the rest of the world is feverishly building nuclear power plants, upgrading those already in existence, and reprocessing spent fuel to keep the reactors running.  France is getting some 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants.  In Japan, it is about 1/3rd.  The  Vermont Yankee nuclear plant generates about that proportion of the electricity consumed in Vermont. 

But while Japan is building more plants, Vermont debates closing down Yankee.  This debate is never-ending and sometimes seems almost theological in nature.  That is -- more about faith than reason.  Most of the people who came to the Holiday Inn were not there to discuss the finer points of nuclear engineering and technology.  They had come to express their “concerns.” 

“I’m concerned that if Vermont Yankee is relicensed, it may cause my death or the death of someone I love.”

The woman leading a break-out discussion group dutifully wrote this on a large sheet of poster paper. When she had filled that sheet, she removed it from the easel and taped it to the wall.  At the conclusion of the evening, those of us in attendance would be asked to “vote” on which of these concerns most closely matched our own.  We would do this by placing a “sticky dot” (sheets of which were to be handed out) on those lines, written on poster paper, that most closely matched our own thoughts or, more precisely, “feelings.”

The results of this exercise in “dotocracy” would be included in a report which the Public Service Department will, by law, deliver to the legislature for guidance when it debates whether or not to shut down Vermont Yankee. 
Which would be just dandy according to most of the people who’d come to the Holiday Inn to express their “concerns.” 

They made many assertions about the good things that would inevitably follow if the plant were closed.  Such as:

•    closing would allay fears and anxieties
•    Vermont would be freed up to lead the nation in the development of alternative energy sources
•    closing Yankee would reduce the incentives for reprocessing of spent fuel
•    but increase the incentives for building wind farms
•    and lower taxes since we won’t have to subsidize Vermont Yankee any longer
•    reduce greenhouse gasses since it won’t be necessary to mine and process the uranium necessary to run the plant.
•    promote millions of dollars in new job growth in clean energy industries.

One woman complained that the questions proposed for discussion were “biased.”  In favor, naturally, of the pro-nuke side.  A man in the same discussion group wondered if there weren’t some Vermont Yankee employees in the room.  The implication was that the company was trying to pack the house. 

If so, then Entergy (parent company of Vermont Yankee) should stick to making electricity, oppressing the masses, and doing whatever it is that big, bad corporations do and leave the grass roots stuff to people who understand it and know how to do it right.  Like the earnest young man who insisted that Vermont could cover the loss of 1/3rd of its electricity not by going on the grid to purchase power (which would be generated by burning fossil fuels), or by building renewable methods of generation, but through conservation.

“After all,” he said amiably, “sixty years ago, most of Vermont didn’t even have electricity.”

Well, QED, dude.

The evening’s exercise in policy-making by sticky dots was important enough to merit coverage by the Rutland Herald.  And eventually the results of the “voting” will make their way into a report which will be studied (in theory) by the legislature when it debates whether or not to pull the plug on Yankee.

And that, right there, is reason to be "concerned."

   
       

Comments

[GreggB]

Nuclearness aside. We had a meeting with a state employee, I think they were handing out tax money, they gave us a survey that heavily relied on sticky dots. Scary- but it appears elementary school teachers are now running VT.

[James Ehlers]

I urge anyone with an interest in remaining in the modern world to read the book "The Bottomless Well" by Huber and Mills.

Bill Gates, in his review of the book, is quoted as saying, "This is the only book I've ever seen that really explains energy, its history, and what it will be like going forward."

I have read it several times, and even with my prior experience as an electrical officer in the US Navy, I learned a great deal from the book.

If Vermont is truly interested in leading the way in alternative energy sources, we would begin building nuclear plants to hasten the hydrogen economy and the boon it portends for our transportation system, our environment, and our nation's foreign policy.

As for the people who want to make do without electricity or with less, let them lead by example, especially the next time they seek medical care. I have yet to see a wood-burning MRI. And, if that fantasy were to become a reality, Vermonters would have to begin cutting trees on their own property, as well as in the National Forest, to fuel their "future" in antiquity. Vermont's public majority, currently, would rather look at trees than cut them. Quite a conundrum we have created for ourselves.

Our lack of education in these areas may well soon manifest itself in a lack of lights.

Sincerely,
James Ehlers

[Brattleboro_conservative]

I would suggest another book for Mr. Ehlers to read, "Atlas Shrugged".
It's time to pull the plug as it were, on Vermont. Give the loony left in this state a taste of what it's like to live back in the 18th century. When the looters, liars, and moochers have to live without electricity, gasoline, or even coal, what then will they do without the internet or any other modern convenience (like indoor plumbing). Me? Well I'm moving somewhere else, like New Hampshire...

[Karen Kerin]

Sticky dots are a favorite lefty exercise. The truth is small shop built on the naval design nukes are needed now. In four more years we may lose one third of our reliable 24/7 power and then four years later HQ gets revenge for the ice storm suit. Who will be able to afford to live here then?
If we start now, we may be able to get some small reactors on line in time to save us before the small, but vocal minority move us back into the dark ages.