Vermont just replaced its only only nuclear reactor (which had accounted for 71.8% of the state’s electricity production) with fossil fuels obtained from fracking

For the past 42 years, Vermont’s only nuclear power plant was responsible for 71.8% of the state’s electricity production. This huge amount of electricity was generated by a single nuclear reactor.

Vermont has just shut down this reactor.

The replacement energy source for this shut down reactor is shale gas, a fossil fuel whose combustion causes global warming, and which is obtained from fracking.

And all this time, I had thought that liberals in Vermont were against fossil fuels, fracking, and global warming.

Meanwhile, France, which gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear power, has the cleanest air in the industrialized world, and the cheapest electricity in Europe.

There are new nuclear power plants currently under construction in the U.S., but all of them are in Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee, which are not exactly thought of as bastions of liberalism and environmentalism.

 

 

Advertisements

February 1, 2015. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Environmentalism, Politics.

23 Comments

  1. EDell replied:

    There you go again, mindlessly and unthinkingly posting right wing nonsense without verifying anything or at least getting to the real story. Here’s the real story for those to lazy to seek it out:

    The decision to close Vermont Yankee in 2014 was based on a number of financial factors, including:

    A natural gas market that has undergone a transformational shift in supply due to the impacts of shale gas, resulting in sustained low natural gas prices and wholesale energy prices.

    A high cost structure for this single unit plant. Since 2002, the company has invested more than $400 million in the safe and reliable operation of the facility. In addition, the financial impact of cumulative regulation is especially challenging to a small plant in these market conditions.

    Wholesale market design flaws that continue to result in artificially low energy and capacity prices in the region, and do not provide adequate compensation to merchant nuclear plants for the fuel diversity benefits they provide.

    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/entergy-to-close-decommission-vermont-yankee-221304391.html

    Good thing you never took journalism. You wouldn’t have lasted long in the field. And the saner half of the population always wonders white right wingers are such dim bulbs.

    • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

      Your article AGREES with what I wrote.

      According to YOUR article, they closed the nuclear reactor, and replaced it with fossil fuels.

      If you think that anything that I wrote is wrong, please quote me on my wrong claims.

      • EDell replied:

        They closed it because it was becoming too expensive to maintain, not because of any Democratic policies. So what do you expect Vermont to do once a private nuclear energy company decides to shut its doors, go without any form of electricity? They’re going to go with what’s available, affordable and, ideally, efficient. It has nothing to do with your idiotic claim about Democrats forcing nukes out of business in favor of some alternative, which was your right wing cry.

      • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

        So now you finally admit that I was right: you admit that Vermont did indeed close the nuclear plant, and you admit that they did indeed replace it with fossil fuels which cause global warming, and which were obtained by fracking.

        Vermont could have built a new nuclear reactor like Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee are doing, but instead, they chose to switch to a fossil fuel which is obtained by fracking, and which causes global warming.

        If so-called “backwards” states like Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee can build nuclear reactors to reduce global warming, then why can’t a “progressive,” “liberal, “”enlightened” state like Vermont do the same?

  2. happypappies replied:

    EDell I am not a “right winger” I am a person. This is what your link said – In this news release, and from time to time, Entergy makes certain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Except to the extent required by the federal securities laws, Entergy undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

    That is not any conformational at all and it looks like a corporate dodge to me. Something that Democrats always accuse Republicans of.

    Oh, and another thing, if you want to use terms like lefty and righty – rest assured it is always the lefty’s that resort to passive aggressive character assassination.

    • EDell replied:

      Spoken like a true right winger. By the way, did you even understand what my point was? No, of course not. Get back to me after you’ve read what Dan wrote and then read my response within the context of what Dan wrote. Don’t let your right wing thinking get in the way of making the connection.

      • happypappies replied:

        Are you serious? Dan is the one you were criiquing for not knowing what was going on? You are the one who did not read your article as I took that statement- In this news release, and from time to time, Entergy makes certain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Except to the extent required by the federal securities laws, Entergy undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.-directly out of your article – then I clicked the next link and there was an generic web page. Just because you can throw insults around doesn’t mean you are backing them up. I think Global Warming is real and I think it is a bad trend that the Canadian Oil is working it’s way down like that. companies Like Suncor making 21 billion dollar mergers and that is just one of them.

  3. Greg Peterman replied:

    Fossil fuel combustion causes global warming? Do you guys really believe in that hoax?

    • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

      Yes, I do believe it. And I also believe it’s a great reason to build more nuclear power plants.

      • EDell replied:

        Yeah, like nuclear plants don’t cause their own environmental hazards, like when the Vermont plant had its radioactive leak into the water just a few years ago (care to have that glass of radioactive water with your meal?), never mind 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and the damaged Japan plant that’s still leaking into the Pacific a couple of years after that storm hit – mmm, tasty radioactive tuna. About the only safe form of energy delivery on a mass scale is hydro.

      • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

        I never said that nuclear power was perfect.

        However, when done the way they do it in France, it is the best way to make electricity. Nuclear power gives France the cleanest air of any country in the industrialized world.

        Even before Chernobyl happened, communist eastern Europe already had the worst pollution in the world.

        The situation in Japan is sad, and I hope the world has learned how to avoid repeating it.

        I have lived in Pennsylvania for my entire life of 43 years, and I have never heard of anyone getting sick or killed from the Three Mile Island incident.

        I haven’t heard of the Vermont leak killing anyone or making anyone sick. But I hope the nuclear industry learned from it.

        The new Westinghouse AP-1000s that are being built in Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee are far more advanced than the plants that France has been using, many of which were built in the 1970s. The AP-1000 was built using huge amounts of brand new information that did not exist in the 1970s. The AP-1000 is safer, cleaner, more efficient, and better in every respect.

        i agree with you that hydro is far better than fossil fuels. But hydro is limited based on geography.

    • hanelyp replied:

      +1 Greg. The greenhouse gas models are proven rubbish.

  4. jrfoxx replied:

    Excellent points Dan. The same issues that drove Maine Yankee to closure. Edell, we get your point. Too bad your totally off base. Vermont Yankee was a very profitable plant. It had nothing to do with cheap natural gas and all tpo do with constant legal hurdles placed on the plant from left leaning intervenes. But Vermont can be happy getting energy from Canada and fossil fueled plants that don’t include nasty clean Nuclear energy. Oh yeah, the nuclear fuel will remain on site forever so you lose. .

    • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

      Thanks!

    • EDell replied:

      If Vermont Yankee was a very profitable plant, how come they find themselves only at the break-even point with nowhere to go but down from here? What “legal hurdles” there were for the plant were surmounted a couple of years ago when the state’s court overruled the state and allowed the plant to continue on with business as usual. And there’s nothing clean about nuclear energy when you have to enclose the waste and try to find safe ways to bury it so that it can work off its toxicity over thousands of years without leaking into the environment, on land, below it, into the water and/or air.

      • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

        Nuclear waste is so concentrated that it only takes a tiny amount of space to store it.

        By comparison, the waste from burning fossil fuels pollutes the entire earth.

        Nuclear power gives France the cleanest air of an industrizlized country.

      • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

        Actually, shutting down the old, outdated Vermont nuclear plant was a good idea. But they should have replaced it with a brand new Westinghouse AP-1000 nuclear reactor, instead of with shale gas, which is a fossil fuel that is obtained from fracking, and which causes global warming.

  5. EDell replied:

    danfromsquirrelhill whined:

    So now you finally admit that I was right: you admit that Vermont did indeed close the nuclear plant, and you admit that they did indeed replace it with fossil fuels which cause global warming, and which were obtained by fracking.

    —–

    No, that’s just your wishful thinking. They closed it down, but not for the reasons you feverishly pretend it happened.

  6. EDell replied:

    danfromsquirrelhill said more stuff:

    Nuclear power gives France the cleanest air of an industrizlized country.
    ——-
    Not according to real-time indicators:

    http://aqicn.org/map/france/

    ——-
    danfromsquirrelhill said some more stuff:

    Actually, shutting down the old, outdated Vermont nuclear plant was a good idea. But they should have replaced it with a brand new Westinghouse AP-1000 nuclear reactor, instead of with shale gas, which is a fossil fuel that is obtained from fracking, and which causes global warming.

    ——-
    For that to have happened, they would’ve had to begun planning for it at least 10 years ago, not to mention scrape up all the cash into building a new one, about $5 billion, and the time it would take to build one, 5-7 years. The US has problems trying to figure out what to do in the next month or year, forget trying to envision what’s needed a decade in advance.

    • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

      Your pollution map does indeed disagree with my article from “60 Minutes.” Perhaps they were measuring different forms of pollution.

      If “backward” southern states such as Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee can make plans far enough ahead to build new nuclear plants, why can’t an “enlightened,” liberal state like Vermont?

      In 2011, the Vermont nuclear plant was approved for 20 more years of operation. So why not just continue running it until they could replace it with an AP-1000?

      • happypappies replied:

        Well, you know how those Liberals are. They are all “Dead Broke” lol

  7. happypappies replied:

    You know as well as I do that they got bought off by the Canadian Companies. It is that simple. Money talks. It’s hard to do the right thing.
    Dan thank you for bringing this to our attention

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback URI

%d bloggers like this: