Take A Breath

Politics by Emerson Lynn

President Barack Obama this week backed up his promise to support nuclear power by tripling U.S. loan guarantees to $54 billion. The president’s pledge to help the nuclear power industry build more reactors is central to his mission of creating “green jobs”, diversifying our energy portfolio, and addressing global climate change.

In Vermont, we are in the process of shutting down our only nuclear power plant, thus making our energy portfolio less diverse, more expensive, and costing us 640 high paying “green jobs”. It also adds mud to our environmental boot.

Aren’t the people driving the ship in Washington and Montpelier on the same political team? Why don’t the folks here look at Vermont Yankee jobs as “green” when the Obama team does? Why is the Obama team pushing the nuclear power option as part of its global climate change initiative, and we’re doing precisely the opposite?

The answer has little to do with objective analysis. It’s about relationships. It’s about personalities and politics. The immediate problem is one created out of whole cloth by Entergy, the folks who own and operate Vermont Yankee. They misled state regulators regarding the presence of underground piping carrying contaminated water. The regulators, and the governor – both supporters of nuclear power – reacted as they should have by demanding accountability. The governor took it a step further by reversing course, saying the vote to relicense Vermont Yankee should not happen this legislative session.

The company has a mountain of work ahead to restore the lost trust.  It’s debatable as to whether the company has the ability to achieve this goal.

But what’s essential is that we debate the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power, and Vermont Yankee’s ability to produce it safely and at a price advantageous to Vermont. This isn’t an issue about personalities.

The first step toward such a debate is the need to clear the obstacles. Entergy has made the first move by removing Jay Thayer, Entergy’s top executive in Vermont. But that’s a mini-step. Its significance won’t be understood, or recognized until the tone and the information coming from Vermont Yankee begins to change. The company also has to step up its efforts to convince legislators, and all Vermonters, that it truly wants Vermont Yankee’s license to be extended and that it will work through the obstacles necessary to gain that confidence.

If it’s a debatable proposition within Entergy – then spare us the agony and we’ll move on.

If the plant’s continued operation is important to Entergy, then the company needs to educate us. Put things in perspective. Be transparent. Make us part of the conversation. This isn’t “any other state”, it’s Vermont, the one state in which the Legislature holds the cards. The Legislature – by extension – is us. The public needs to be convinced as well.

But this debate also requires the Legislature to step back and take a breath. Contrary to what some legislators contend, we don’t have sufficient information on which to base a decision as to whether or not the plant’s license should be extended. Obviously. If we did, we wouldn’t be fumbling around trying to figure out whether the plant had underground piping, or where the tritium leaks were, or whether the leaks posed a risk.

We have lots yet to learn. And it will take time. The most irresponsible course would be to push through a vote this session. It would be a vote based entirely on emotion, not reason. It would be nuts to shut down Vermont Yankee based almost entirely on the fact that an employee misled state officials as to the presence of underground piping. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

This should be a debate – as outlined by the Obama administration – about the larger issues of global climate change, about what constitutes a “green” job, about nuclear power’s role in our energy future, and about how important a reliable source of affordable baseload power is to Vermont’s economy.

The Obama administration is placing a heavy bet on nuclear power being part of the nation’s renewed efforts to wean us from the Middle East’s oil. Most of Europe is making the same bet. So is China. Big time. The obvious implication is that we can’t get from here to there pursuing wind, solar, or other renewable energy options. That’s the Obama administration’s conclusion.

Vermont needs to guide its debate in the same direction.  The debate needs to be about the basics, not personalities, and not politics. Whether or not this is possible will be determined, in large part, by Entergy. The company needs to pull off a big sales pitch and it will need to do it quickly, thoroughly, and above all, with complete transparency.

In turn, the Legislature needs to act responsibly as well. The issue is too important to react in the moment. Legislators have plenty on their plate without picking up the complicated, and very critical issue of Vermont Yankee’s operations, and how the plant’s future dramatically affects the state’s energy needs.

Let’s all step back and allow things to settle down so that we can determine what is real and what isn’t.

(Emerson Lynn is editor and publisher of the St. Albans Messenger where this essay first appeared.)

Comments

[Tom]

We're actually ahead of other places that might replace coal plants with nuclear. We're moving on to replace nuclear with greener power.

I see this is a leadership issue. We can hang on to the past, regardless of how rickety it is, or we can move ahead.

China is moving ahead. They plan to be the place that we go to buy solar and wind generation equipment as those technologies mature and become cheaper. And they will. The EU is moving ahead. India is moving ahead. Brazil is moving ahead.

We can move ahead also. Why would we want to be the last buggy whip maker?

There's plenty of power out there. The utilities have plans in place in case VY is shut down. It may be a bit more expensive at first, but I bet over the twenty years it'll be cheaper to shut it down now.

[MAP]

Sounds like a plan, but the reality of the situation requires Entergy to make a dramatic move to gain the confidence of the populace. The message that must be delivered has to be completely credible and above and beyond reproach. Vermonters need to know Entergy's long range plan for the plant, they need to know that the company is committed to operating the facility in a safe and efficient manner and at the end of the day Vermonters need the assurance that the the necessary funds exist to properly de-commission the facility. Given their immediate past history, this is going to require a lot of energy and a willingness to reform and atone for the mess that they have created.

[Gary Richardson]

An excellent column by Mr. Lynn. When he mentioned the 640 jobs produced by Vermont Yankee, he didn't mention the thousands of jobs in Vermont that depend on a stable, dependable, and affordable source of power. Vermont Yankee produces about a third of our power. If our Legislature causes the shut down of Vermont Yankee and the 640 jobs with it, I believe that we will lose, over a fairly brief period of time, literally thousands of additional jobs from the companies that cannot overcome their increased power costs. The Vermont residents and those people outside Vermont who did whatever they could to force the ending of VY will be happy if they are successful, but the Vermont businesses and the jobs these businesses created will be gone - and they won't be back. What a shame.

[DirtyJobsGuy]

As an old Nuke who no longer works in the nuke side of the business, VT always looks like it's usual collection of ex-hippies and left loonies. But realistically without VY there will be little generation left in the state. No one will build any replacements with the state rules using any technology, so the local power companies will have to buy on the outside market. The state will lose whatever influence it had over the local power market (plus losing well paid VY jobs).

I remember talking with an Engineer at the dam in White River Junction. He told me if they had to add any equipment it had to go on the NH side because of the various VT environmental restrictions. The same would be on any new generation in the area.

[T. Shea]

"

We're actually ahead of other places that might replace coal plants with nuclear. We're moving on to replace nuclear with greener power.

I see this is a leadership issue. We can hang on to the past, regardless of how rickety it is, or we can move ahead.

China is moving ahead. They plan to be the place that we go to buy solar and wind generation equipment as those technologies mature and become cheaper. And they will. The EU is moving ahead. India is moving ahead. Brazil is moving ahead.

We can move ahead also. Why would we want to be the last buggy whip maker?

There's plenty of power out there. The utilities have plans in place in case VY is shut down. It may be a bit more expensive at first, but I bet over the twenty years it'll be cheaper to shut it down now.

Posted by: Tom "

Why would we want to be the last buggy whip maker?

Because it's better than being the last snake oil salesman. Or the last pet rock salesman.

[Dennis Lukas]

To Tom, you were kidding right? World wide 155 new nuclear plants are being or schedualed to be built. And yes let us just send China some more money for worthless products.

[DJB]

It is audable for Vermont to go green - totally in sync with our image. What is difficult to rationalize is where are we going to put all the windmills to make up this green power? Our state that prides itself on its 80% pristine landscape, certainly a major draw for tourists, is going to deal with, "not in my back yard". We have enough regulations killing putting up a microwave tower to say nothing of a windmill in a state that is not particularly known for wind - except in certain places where you can't put them.

[Daniel Foty]

Crimus, Tom - did you forget to put the (sarcasm) (/sarcasm) tags around that?

Talking and wishing won't overcome physics (funny how that works out). We went over this whole thing a good nine months back, as you can read here:

http://www.vermonttiger.com/content/2009/05/rhapsody-in-green-the-nightmare-continues.html

The disastrous ten-year effort in Germany to try this route led to increased use of dirty coal and politically-damaging Russian natural gas - and also nearly threw away Germany's marvelous nuclear engineering industry. Fortunately, in recent months, Germany is finally coming to its senses and is walking away from this self-imposed foolishness.

China plans to open **24** new nuclear fission electric-generating plants by 2020. At the same time, solar panel manufacturing is proving to be anything but clean (which is one reason that it's concentrated in China).

I'll stop there. Rainbows and unicorns won't keep the lights on or jobs going.

[Vermont Woodchuck]

" It may be a bit more expensive at first, but I bet over the twenty years it'll be cheaper to shut it down now."

I don't know what a 'bit' is; it might be what the other half calls a 'while' when I'm waiting in the car.

That bet sounds like a man holding a full house at the blackjack table. After VY closes, with what do you bluff, stand or hit in this game?

[Bill]

Your federal taxes are going up next year. Your state taxes are going up next year. Your local taxes are going up this year and next year. After VY closes,your power bill is going way up. I'm what you call a miser. It is the root of the word miserable. Somehow the bills have got to be paid. Elect Peter Shumlin and I'll really start bellyaching.

[bob zeliff]

Getting rid of Thayer does is not remake or fix Vt Yankee problems. How many others must have known of the burried pipes, both senior and lower level workers at Yannkee ? More than a few I bet! None came forward! The same ones who have built one of the worst maintenance records.
Entergy is all about profits. They are milking the Vt Yankee cash cow. They do not hide it. They want to sell Vt Yankee, keeping the cash for themselves, to shell company who is highly leveraged (max. debt) to hold the bag in so the new shell company will not have enough money to do proper maintenance let along cover the short falls in de commisioning costs. Guess who will pay. Vermonters, in sharply increased future rates from Vt Yankee. Evan now, during a recession, when there is a surplus of base load power, Vt Yankee wants a 50% increase for their power. Where is that extra money going? Into the plant ? into the decommisioning fund? Don't hold your breath.
Note this argument against Vt Yankee was only on the bad business case for Vermonters.
On top of this, if a new nuclear plant was proposed, Vt Yankee would not meet the current requuirements. Why would we want to keep an old, poorly maintained, worn out plant for another twenty years that does not meet the current NRC plant requirements. Who is the grandfather clause good for. Vermonters?

[Chris Campion]

The simple fact is we're paying the price now in wrestling with the challenges of VT Yankee that happen with any power supplier with a terminal shelf-life - there's an end to the plant's lifecycle, at some point, the hard part is coming to a decision as to where/when that will be.

What would have made this type of decision much easier to do was to have built, 10 years ago, a new plant that would have supplanted VT Yankee's power supply in a phased-in model, so the transition would be cleaner, decisions would have been easier, and Vermonters would not now be staring at a series of choices that seem to all involve increased costs. We might have bitten off a smaller increase in costs 10 years ago in terms of financing for a new plant, in the form of financial incentives for a new power supplier (incentives borne by taxpayers/users of the power supply), but instead we chose to ignore the elephant in the room until it inevitably clears its throat and demands attention.

It's easy to demonize the now, and Entergy has done a good job of helping slap some horns on their head. What we're not doing, is taking a look back and realizing how short-sighted and ridiculous our public policy has been regarding power in VT, and how now it's really going to bite us in the soft, fleshy parts. I'm not looking to find targets to blame; what I am looking for is a lesson to be learned today over the mistakes of the past, so we do not repeat them again in the future.

Profits are often spoken of as some kind of horror show, and used as a cudgel for Entergy. No business, especially one operating nuclear power plants, is going to thrive long-term by avoiding maintenance costs - it's simply unprofitable, yet profits are used to describe entities like Entergy in a negative light. Let's remember that profits are what keep the lights on - in any business, a mom and pop shop, IBM, state buildings, colleges - whether or not an entity is for-profit or non-. Profits should be embraced, not disdained, and anyone who is currently employed will be glad of their organization's profitability - and so will their families be.

[the vermont patriot]

I am disturbed by this conversation on several levels:

1. First and foremost; how can anyone talk about nuclear power without even mentioning radioactive waste? This is irresponsible to the core. The fact of the matter is that our self-indulgent, short-sighted, me-now culture cannot even talk about how we are creating a radioactive dead zone that will stay here on the beautiful banks of the Connecticut River for MILLENIA. There is no action that we are taking that is so profoundly bad for our future generations then the creation of such an evil by-product. This factor alone should eliminate any desire to build more nuclear power plants.

2. My Confusion: It is here, on the VermontTiger, that I was first introduced to the controversy that CO2 may not even be a factor in climate change (Thanks to Daniel Foty). But while my skepticism grows (I’m not totally convinced), there are others that are using reduced CO2 emissions to promote the growth of the nuclear industry. Which is it, VermontTiger? You can’t have it both ways (without being hypocritical).

3. Green Jobs: This moniker has become completely meaningless since it means whatever the speaker wants when they want it.

4. The rap against renewable energy: While, yes, the creation of solar panels is not the “greenest” of processes, much of that is tied to the use of aluminum as well as purifying silicon. Do the opinionators of this website suggest we shut down all industry that is reliant on these two resources? What would that do with our business/technology industry as a whole? Anyways, anything in the manufacturing of solar panels is small potatoes compared to the hazards of uranium mining and purification. Solar panels when they are installed will produce very clean energy for an undetermined time (the first commercial panels from the 70’s are still producing). Renewable energy also means hydropower, biomass, passive solar and solar hot water, all technologies with a low chemical footprint.

5. Probably the most disappointing aspect of this conversation is the sense of ENTITLEMENT people feel to endlessly receive unlimited amounts of cheap electricity. Vermonters survived quite well without electricity for nearly 200 years. Now, we feel the state must guarantee us cheap limitless power. Plus, there are many who feel that through measures of private and public CONSERVATION, we could significantly reduce our electricity needs. But, of course, our Republican administration favors cuts in our energy efficiency programs. And in regard to wind turbines marring our landscape, have you ever heard anyone refuse to come to VT because of those hideous powerlines scarring our mountainsides? Or those terrible scars cut by ski areas into the sides of our mountains? Or how we’ve criss-crossed our entire state with that black gooey tar?

It seems natural to me that CONSERVATIVES would be into CONSERVATION, not a technology that will leave a poisoned landscape for millennia of generations.

[Daniel Foty]

As an aside, if anyone has any doubts about where thinking/planning in China is sitting (actions speak louder than words and all that), consider this very recent news story:

"Australia signs huge China coal deal"

"An Australian firm has signed a $60bn (AUS$69bn; £38bn) deal to supply coal to Chinese power stations.

"Under the deal, the firm [Resourcehouse - ed.] will build a new mining complex [in Australia - ed.] to give China Power International Development (CPI) 30m [metric - ed.] tonnes of coal a year for 20 years.

"Most of China's power stations rely on coal.... Coal is used to generate about 80% of China's power supplies...."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8501777.stm

[Vermont Woodchuck]

"5. Probably the most disappointing aspect of this conversation is the sense of ENTITLEMENT people feel to endlessly receive unlimited amounts of cheap electricity. Vermonters survived quite well without electricity for nearly 200 years."

Unbelievable! I posted the following as satire and doncha know...
http://vermontwoodchuck.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/luddite-living/

[the vermont patriot]

While I do admire the gumption of the Luddites (they got "stones"), I'm not advocating the elimination of electrical use. I am saying that we do not need to endanger millenia of generations to satisfy our gluttonous electrical needs. VY has lied, deceived and prevaricated to protect their profit margin. We can only expect more mishaps and breakdowns. Do we need a large scale disaster to smarten up?

[Daniel Foty]

Unbelievable, indeed, VW.

Do I have the storyline right here? That health care is a "right," but electricity is an optional and unnecessary extravagance?

Well, I guess when we're all back to toiling each day with an ox-drawn plow.... there are the "green jobs"....

[Brattleboro_conservative]

Vermont Patriot,
The land underneath VY is no longer useable anyway. Whether Entergy has lied or deceived is no longer the point. Where were you and your enviro-twit friends when the plant was first proposed, in diapers perhaps?

[Vermont Woodchuck]

Dan, you have the story line correct.

After surgery with sharpened chert, the patient is hustled to the cautery. Post-OP is a comfortable bed of sun warmed stones (Ludddite preferred) followed by interment.

Perhaps some light reading: "The Century of the Surgeon"
I read this as a kid in high school.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2235227.Reader_s_Digest_Condensed_Books_Lobo_The_Century_of_the_Surgeon_By_Love_Possessed_Duel_with_a_Witch_Doctor_Warm_Bodies