It's finally happening! VT Senate to vote on Vermont Yankee's future

[garybeck]

Finally, it’s happening.

The Associated Press and Burlington Free Press are reporting that Vermont Senate leaders are now calling for a vote on whether or not Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant should be allowed to operate beyond 2012 when its license expires.

The plant was originally designed to last 40 years, and the license expires at this time. There have been numerous safety problems with the plant, including leakage of radioactive materials, fires, and coolant leaks. Recently an inspection of the plant found over 60 problems, most of which have not been addressed. Additionally, representatives from Entergy, the owners of the plant have been condemned for providing false information to government officials and an investigation is underway.

The Vermont Legislature must approve an extension of the license.

Senate leaders indicated the vote could take place as early as next week.

on edit, partial list of problems at Vermont Yankee in recent years:



• radioactive fuel rods “lost” for 3 months (April ’04);
• transformer fire (June ’04);
• cracks discovered in the steam dryer (2004, 2005 & 2008);
• “hot” shipment that left VY four times more radioactive than allowable federal limits (August ’06);
• cooling tower collapse and automatic shutdown of reactor due to stuck valve (August ’07);
• malfunctioning crane drops cask of high-level spent fuel four inches onto concrete floor of spent fuel area (May ’08);
• discovery of inadequate “fix” of previous year’s cooling tower collapse (July ’08); more cooling tower leaks discovered (September ’08);
• excess radiation exposure forces temporary evacuation of 12 workers (August ’08);
• excess radiation exposure forces temporary evacuation of 25 workers (October ’08);
• discovery of inadequate cooling tower support brackets (October ’08);
• Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) finding of inadequate testing of critical spray nozzles for metal fatigue (November ’08);
• temporary breakdown of emergency phone system and radio alert system (December ’08);
• two back-to-back leaks within two days of radioactive water inside the plant, one causing emergency repairs and a 60% reduction of power (January ’09);
• another leak (not radioactive), this time in switchyard, resulting in 30% power reduction (January ’09);
• federal report says Entergy finds radioactive contamination of soil surrounding reactor requiring removal of 135,000 cubic feet at a cost of $9.1 million once reactor shuts down (February ’09);
• January ’09 radioactive “steam” leak continues after two unsuccessful repair attempts (February ’09);
• Entergy reports another radioactive leak, the third of 2009, and says one of the earlier leaks (after three months of spilling thousands of gallons of radioactive water) was finally fixed a week before this latest leak (April ’09).
• Another leak is reported in the condenser that cools steam before returning it to the reactor as water (following a similar leak in April 2008 that technicians were unable to find), forcing a planned reduction of power “in the next several weeks” so that workers can attempt to locate and repair the leak until a new condenser (estimated to cost $100 million) can be installed in 2013 or 2014 (June ’09).
• radioactive tritium and cobalt found in testing wells surrounding the plant, determined to be entering Connecticut River; source still underterminted and not fixed.

[NNadir]

1. It's time for the gas lobby to rush in and pay them off to do stupid things.

Anyone who wants to shut Vermont Yankee is doing the dangerous fossil fuel industry a big favor.

I'll bet a billion bucks that we won't have any of the "tritium" freaks here in five years wondering about the concentration of particulate matter in lung tissue.

They. Couldn't. Care. Less. They never do.

Every single nuclear plant that has ever been shut by public ignorance and scare mongering by anti-science posturing has been replaced by dangerous fossil fuels.

The people responsible for these closures never come back to whine about the deaths from air pollution.

They. Couldn't. Care. Less.

Happily, the President of the United States is not quite as dumb as the people who are trying to destroy the largest existing climate change gas free energy infrastructure because they can't think.

[garybeck]

2. Yet another misleading, inaccurate, condescending rant from Nnadir....

the only fearmongering that's going on here is from YOU, and it's baseless.

you are factually incorrect in your statement:

"Every single nuclear plant that has ever been shut by public ignorance and scare mongering by anti-science posturing has been replaced by dangerous fossil fuels."

First of all it's not "anti-science." People like Arnie Gunderson are scientists and they advocate the closing of the plant becuase it's not safe. Don't make a fool out of yourself by trying to claim that Arnie Gunderson is not a scientist or that you understand the safety of Vermont Yankee better than he does.

Secondly, it is not true that when a nuclear power plant is shut down it is always replaced by fossil fuels. Look at Rancho Seco. It was shut down in 1989 due to a public vote. Today there is a large solar array at the same site, providing power for ~250,000 people. Additionally, if you compare SMUD in 1989 to today it is evident that that event was a cornerstone for the company in which they changed direction and set a goal to use more renewables. I don't know the numbers but I wouldn't be surprised if SMUD leads the nation in percentage of power from renewables. I would venture that SMUD's renewable energy production far exceeds the amount of power that Rancho Seco nuclear produced. So again, your statement is inaccurate (also known as false, or wrong).

Lastly, I take personal offense to you telling me what I care about and what I don't care about. You have NO IDEA what other people care about, in your twisted mind. Don't tell me that people who want to shut down a nuclear power plant don't "Couldn't. Care Less" about air pollution or fossil fuels. Not only are you wrong, but you are demonstrating a flaw in your personality. You see, you can't read people's minds, so don't pretend to think you know what people want or what people care about. Don't offend me and others by telling us what we care about. Just because we disagree with you doesn't mean we are stupid or we don't care. There are plenty of smart, educated, knowledgeable, scientific, and caring people on BOTH sides of this issue. To say the only knowledgeable, scientific, and caring people are on YOUR side of the issue only demonstrates your complete lack of understanding, your bias on the issue, and gives any objective person a valid reason to disregard anything you say.

[FBaggins]

5. One easy correction

Rancho Seco's generation capability was not replaced with solar. Putting a solar array on the same site is irrelevant.

The Oak Leaf solar array produces 750 KW (when the sun is shining). I think that the nuclear plant was rated at 913 MW (all day long).

That's more than 1,000 times as much power... likely more than 2,000 as much per day.


Care to try again? How was that generating capacity replaced? Hint... there's a 500 MW natural gas plant on the site right now. But I guess that's ok... since less than 1/1,000 of it's generating capability is being produced by a solar array.


BTW - 750 KW will not provide power for 250,000 people... even assuming the sun shines 24/7. An average inefficient electric clothes dryer uses about 750 kWh/year. So that new plant (assuming sunshine 12 hours a day) can dry the clothes of about 4,000 homes (they'll have to get the rest of their power somewhere else)... not "provide power for 250,000 people".

[garybeck]

8. facts....

1) Rancho Seco operated at an average of 30% rated output when it was operating

2) The array at Rancho Seco 2 MW, not 750 KW. just look here:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/utility_scale.html

I think your 750 KW might have been the original design but they have added phase 2 since then.

3) SMUD and DOE claim the array powers ~660 homes. According to the 2000 Census, California had an average of 2.9 people living in each household. That amouts to ~2000 people. I was incorrect, yes, on that one by a factor of several and I admit my mistakes. I thought I read that somewhere a long time ago but I guess I was wrong. Still 660 homes or 2000 people isn't bad. In fact it would power the entire town where I live.

[FBaggins]

9. A reply

1) Rancho Seco operated at an average of 30% rated output when it was operating

I doubt it was that low, but I doubt even more that this was because it couldn't produce more...It's normal to run a reactor well below the rated capacity. Solar rarely operates at anything close to its rated capacity. I doubt that their NatGas plant frequently gets to their capacity either... it was just an attempt to provide a basis for comparison.

2) The array at Rancho Seco 2 MW, not 750 KW. just look here:

You're correct. I must have been looking at old data. It's important to note, however, that the points you're making here are just matters of minor degrees. The reality (that the solar array doesn't come CLOSE to replacing the nuclear plant) stands. We're still talking about hundreds of times as much power available 24/7 vs a tiny amount available only when the sun shines (and the array is clean).

You should also note that the original rated power for SMUD's solar array there (after expansion) was 3.1 MW but degradation has it down to 2.3 MW in an annoyingly short period of time. At the time (1998) it was reported as the largest array of its kind in the US and the second largest in the world.

Still 660 homes or 2000 people isn't bad

It isn't bad at all. Where there is adequate base capacity in a system (which can't come from wind or solar), it makes all the sense in the world. SMUD is well ahead of most parts of the country at implementing greener power generation.

But the point remains that when they needed to replace the power generation of that nuclear plant, they had to go outside to bring power in... until they constructed a natural gas plant to pick up the base load. Nuclear wasn't replaced with solar. It was replaced with natural gas augmented by cleaner technologies.

[garybeck]

10. "It's normal to run a reactor well below the rated capacity."

Uh.... Vermont Yankee is 40 years old, has had numerous safety issues and radiation leaks, and it is operating at 120% of its rated output.

[FBaggins]

11. It's rated capacity was increased by 20%. That isn't the same thing.

has had numerous safety issues and radiation leaks

I've seen a few claims that appear to be overblown... can you tell me just the couple incidents with the highest INES scale score?

[garybeck]

13. semantics in my book.

it's operating at 120% of its original design capacity.

certainly different than Rancho Seco which according to Wikipedia:

"The plant operated from April 1975 to June 1989 but had a lifetime capacity average of only 39%"

but this is sort of off topic anyway

I'm not going to get into a discussion on what is "overblown" and what is a serious safety issue. The fact is that an independent commission found 90 problems that need to be addressed and last I checked I think 7 of them have been fixed. If I lived next to the plant, I would not feel safe. I don't care what the INES scale score is. the photo in the OP is enough for me.

[FBaggins]

15. Semantics?

Yes... words mean things. If you're going to use one fact to refute something I said... you should understand what I said and what the evidence you were presenting meant. The fact is that most nuclear plants run at about 90% of their rated capacity. That's different from changes in that rated capacity.

I'm not going to get into a discussion on what is "overblown" and what is a serious safety issue.

Why? Is it because you're counting on overblown nonsense to be regarded by policy makers as serious safety issues? Are the "90 problems" real safety issues or closer to "technician wore the wrong color shoes to go with his belt five days in a row" ?

I don't know and I don't trust either side to give me the straight facts. I do know that there is an accepted scale to measure incidents/accidents that occur at a nuclear plant.

If I lived next to the plant, I would not feel safe.

Sounds like one side has a very effective scare campaign going. I prefer facts.

the photo in the OP is enough for me.

Which proves my prior point, thanks. There's not a thing "scary" about the photo. That isn't a part of the plant that deals with anything really radioactive. It was just water.

[garybeck]

17. "It was just water"

no it's not "just water" it's coolant. if there is no coolant in your car, it overheats. If there is no coolant in a nuclear power plant, well, I wouldn't want to be there.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree

have a nice day

[FBaggins]

18. The "Coolant" was water.

So it isn't an environmental/health/safety concern that water is coming out.

YES, it's an obvious concern if the reactor isn't being cooled, but that wasn't the case (and it would shut down if it were).

IOW... the photo is an effective visual, but doesn't represent an actual threat.

[wtmusic]

19. Ha - people who live there want the plant to stay open

http://www.wptz.com/video/22220997/index.html

Apparently they do care what is "overblown" and what is a serious safety issue. :eyes:

Maybe you should stay out of their business.

[kristopher]

20. Not true - that is a typical Nuclear Energy Institute style distortion

Vermont residents favor closing by a 2:1 margin.

Feb 18, 2010

"Half of Vermonters want to see the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant shut down in two years, according to a poll released today. Only 27 percent support the continued operation of the Vernon reactor while 24 percent say they are not sure."
http://www.vermontbiz.com/news/february/vermonters-oppose-relicensing-vermont-yankee-new-poll-finds


"We also asked what Vermonters think about closing the 40-year-old Vermont Yankee and building a new nuclear plant in-state. Just this week President Barack Obama said he supports building new nuclear power plants and in Vermont the lawmaker who represents Vernon, where Yankee is located, is pushing a plan to build a new nuclear power plant there to replace Yankee. But our poll found overwhelmingly about two-thirds of Vermonters don't like that idea and do not want a new nuclear plant."

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=12008043

[madokie]

4. Even with our money I seriously doubt that any new nuke plants will be built

You notice I typed OUR MONEY didn't you. The reason for that is because the nuclear power industry can not and have not ever stood on their own feet. It's always been us paying for the too cheap to meter power.

[struggle4progress]

3. A splendid photo exhibiting the high quality engineering standards of the industry!

[Nihil]

6. Yep ... that's quality American Engineering Know-How for you ...

... just like in the car industry ...
:patriot:

:hide:

[phantom power]

7. mental image

[phantom power]

12. How do you think its going to swing?

[garybeck]

14. all indications are they're going to vote NO on the extension

which means Entergy will likely file a lawsuit and you might see it in the US Supreme Court before too long.

Hopefully Entergy won't be using any of that loan guarantee or bailout money to fund their case. :sarcasm:

[FBaggins]

16. Likely a "no" followed by a federal lawsuit.

Existing VT law says that the state legislature has to give explicit consent... but federal law says that only the NRC determines whether a plany is safe or not.

Oponents in the VT legislature are trying to shift the conversation to issues that would not be the subject of federal scrutiny (and thus a potential lawsuit), such a the plant's reliability... but there's some question re: how believable that is.