RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Nuke critics oppose relicense



Toolbox

By JOHN CURRAN THE ASSOCIATED PRESS - Published: November 20, 2009

BURLINGTON — Hoping to sway lawmakers, two of the state's most famous residents and one of its former governors joined groups opposed to the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant on Thursday in announcing a push for Town Meeting Day votes on whether the plant should keep operating past 2012.

Ice cream icons Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield and former Gov. Phil Hoff lent their voices to those who want the Legislature to turn thumbs down on Vermont Yankee's request for a 20-year license extension.

Cohen, who's from Williston, said the nuclear power plant flies in the face of the state's image as having a pure environment. He said an accident at the aging plant could destroy lives, property and the local economy.

"The economy, the tourism economy and the wonderful image, the wonderful halo it's created for a whole raft of food products, is all based on the image of the purity of the environment in Vermont," Cohen said.

The plant, which opened in 1972, has endured in recent years a series of mishaps that have prompted calls for its closure.

Plant officials and other proponents, however, contend that it offers reliable "emission-free" power generation and that its power helps keep electricity rates down.

Typically, nuclear plant regulation falls to the federal government, through the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Vermont is the only state that has reserved say-so for license extensions, so the battle for Vermont Yankee is in the Legislature, which could vote on it in the session that begins in January.

While Town Meeting Day votes on it would be only advisory in nature, Vermont Yankee opponents see them as a tool to persuade lawmakers to vote no when the relicensing comes to a vote in Montpelier. Last year, 36 towns approved anti-Vermont Yankee resolutions; two rejected them.

South Burlington attorney James Leas, one of the organizers of the effort against the plant, said the goal is to get the scores of towns that didn't vote last year to do so on Town Meeting Day, which falls March 2.

Cohen called Vermont Yankee a threat to the state's clean-and-green image, which helped Ben & Jerry's Homemade Ice Cream succeed. A major accident at the plant could ruin it, he said.

Hoff, a Democrat who served from 1963 to 1969, said the power of Vermont lies in its people, and he said grassroots opposition was the key to closing Vermont Yankee.

State lawmakers say they need to know how much Vermont Yankee will charge for its power before voting on whether to renew its license. They set a Nov. 1 deadline by which Vermont Yankee was to reach new power purchase agreements with utilities Green Mountain Power Corp. and Central Vermont Public Service Corp., but the deadline passed.

The plant owners now hope to reach power purchase agreements by Dec. 18, and if they don't they will present an offer to the state Public Service Board anyway, Vermont Yankee communications manager Larry Smith said.

Smith touted the nuclear power plant's 650 full-time jobs and the $100 million it helps contribute to the state economy.

"We continue to stress there is tremendous economic benefit for continued operation of Vermont Yankee," he said. "We feel we have a good story to tell the people of Vermont and the Legislature."








READER COMMENTS


"solar would produce a bit of power but would need hundreds of acres of solar panels and 24 hours of sunlight a day to have any impact on renewable energy production"

The sun does not shine 24 hr/day in Germany either but they installed over 3300MW of solar in a 4 yr period. In fact, VT has 20% more sun than Germany. As for your comment about needing hundreds of acres why don't you try to learn a little bit about the concept of distributed generation?
-- Posted by John Ward on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, 10:10 am EST

report this comment



MS
I did read the article you mention in which Bob Young is quoted, but Bob Young's statement had nothing by way of specifics, and in any case, is not germane here. The question we're debating is not whether rates will go up, but whether shutting VY in 2012 will impact rates, and if so, how. There are many reasons other than VY why VT rates might increase, including, but not limited to market price rises, general inflation, renegotiation of the HQ contract, etc.
The article on which we're all commenting is about nuclear critics. Mark Wilson's comment is addressed to 2 of them (Ben & Jerry), so he's clearly discussing the rate impact of closing VY, not the generic rate situation, and that is the comment to which I responded.
In other words, the question is whether VY's rate after relicensing will be higher or lower than those offered elsewhere, and what impact shutting the plant down would have on consumer bills. Without power contracts, we do not know what VY will charge. We should not make assumptions based on the existing contract which was negotiated as part of the sale of the plant. That was my original point, and it remains valid.
-- Posted by John Greenberg on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, 8:06 am EST

report this comment



solar would produce a bit of power but would need hundreds of acres of solar panels and 24 hours of sunlight a day to have any impact on renewable energy production
-- Posted by bruce meyer on Fri, Nov 20, 2009, 2:36 pm EST

report this comment



And perhaps M S could explain to us why "solar in (sic) not a viable alternative in VT"
-- Posted by John Ward on Fri, Nov 20, 2009, 12:55 pm EST

report this comment



JG --
Apparently you didn't read the article in published by the RH in the not so recent past where CVPS anticipates electric rates rising by 30% over the next 5 years. That time period would include if VY is re licensed or not..
Personally, they should shut it down but build a new plant right next door. The "green" energy industries can not provide the same amount of power at a reasonable rate. Solar in not a viable alternative in VT.. and there are too many NIMBY's to allow wind towers on the ridgelines.. What other energy sources are available.. Hydro, maybe... Coal.. yeah.. right, that would be ironic wouldn't it..
-- Posted by M S on Fri, Nov 20, 2009, 10:29 am EST

report this comment



Perhaps Mark Wilson would be kind enough to share with the rest of us how he knows that there will be any "difference when your electric bill goes up" if Vermont Yankee is not relicensed. Last I heard, there are no power contracts for the post-relicensing period, meaning that I, at least, have no idea what price Entergy plans to charge for Vermont Yankee's power. If Mr. Wilson would be kind enough to share the source of his certainty with the rest of us, I'm sure we'd all appreciate it. Otherwise, his observation is completely groundless.
-- Posted by John Greenberg on Fri, Nov 20, 2009, 8:51 am EST

report this comment



Ever wonder why nobody is building any new nuclear plants? Its because wholesale electric markets are now deregulated. Nuclear power is so expensive that it cannot compete in a free competitive market.

So all you guys wanting more nuclear power, it will only happen in a Socialist public owned power system, as exists in France. You guys want Socialism?
-- Posted by Ray Makul on Fri, Nov 20, 2009, 8:51 am EST

report this comment



Great point Mark. I love the comment "could" cause a problem. These rich people could care less about the financial impact on the rest of us. They don't want nuclear energy, wind farms, coal, etc. etc. Where in Gods name do they expect us to get power from. I guess if BS was electricity each of these opponents would be a power house.
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Nov 20, 2009, 8:21 am EST

report this comment



Maybe Ben and Jerry will help make up the difference when your electric bill goes up.

Yes I agree we should shut Vermont Yankee down, after we build two new nuke plants!
-- Posted by Mark Wilson on Fri, Nov 20, 2009, 5:46 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout