My Turn: Yankee key to state's energy future

[Henry]

My Turn: Yankee key to state's energy future

By Thomas Salmon

During 2009, state leaders will face tough energy choices that will affect Vermont for decades. We must focus on the most viable energy solutions to meet our short- and long-term energy needs.

One critical element is the license renewal of Vermont Yankee, a key in-state source of clean and efficient energy supply.

Recently, the Vermont Energy Partnership commissioned an independent assessment by energy consultant Dr. Howard Axelrod on the economic and environmental impacts of closing Vermont Yankee.

The report found that without the low-cost electricity that Vermont Yankee generates, the electric bill for Vermont homeowners, school and businesses could increase by as much as 39 percent, and our state's air quality and low per-capita carbon emissions, some of the best in the nation, would also suffer.

Vermont's reputation as an environmentally conscious state and our enviably low power rates will be at risk if Vermont Yankee closes. As I testified before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2006, "since 1972 when the Vernon plant came on line, the state of Vermont has avoided some 100 million metric tons of fossil fuel pollution." According to Axelrod, Vermont power plants emit the lowest, or second lowest, levels of major air pollutants in the continental United States.

Because of this, Vermont receives "carbon credit" money from neighboring states with less impressive records of air pollution. Millions of these dollars are reinvested in renewable energy projects. Supporters of renewable energy can thank Vermont Yankee for the carbon credits earned by its clean power generation.

But without Yankee, Vermont could be required to pay $63 million annually into the carbon credit system. That money would go to other states, and would be in addition to the rate hike. Without Yankee, carbon dioxide emissions from all sources statewide could increase 10,000 percent.

Long-range planning and looming breakthroughs in "green" technology one day will bring more renewable energy supply to Vermont. But in the near future, the supply of affordable, renewable energy will not meet demand, even when coupled with conservation measures.

Large-scale renewable energy in Vermont is still only in the exploratory stage. Limiting factors include regulatory obstacles and opposition by neighbors and interest groups. This explains, in part, why not a single Vermont power plant of any kind has been built in 25 years.

The visionaries behind renewable power need more time, and Vermont Yankee can give it to them. I believe that Vermont Yankee is the bridge to our renewable energy future. Green Mountain Power CEO Mary Powell has called for relicensing Vermont Yankee, and then gradually shifting from nuclear to renewable power. This is a vision that Vermonters should embrace.

Stripped of Vermont Yankee's power, and without sufficient access to renewables, Vermont utilities would be forced to turn to oil, gas and coal-fired plants in the Northeast. Axelrod shows that relying on fossil fuels would not only pump tons of pollutants into the air and cause us to lose our carbon credits, but would also raise power rates by an estimated 19 percent.

Many Vermonters might pay more to promote new technologies and renewable sources. But are we willing to pay more to replace clean energy with fossil fuels?

Times are tough here in Vermont. The economy is down. Taxes are high. Not-for-profit giving has dropped. We would be wise to keep our electricity rates as low as possible, for the benefit of all Vermonter residents, businesses, schools, and community service organizations.

I urge Vermont policymakers to make an informed, balanced decision in favor of Vermont's environment and quality of life.

Thomas P. Salmon of Rockingham is a former governor of Vermont, former president of the University of Vermont, founding member of the Vermont Energy Partnership and former chairman of Green Mountain Power Corp.

[Loctavious]

A well-written article that has a clear bent in advantage of Yankee.  Not that i disagree with the article's intent ( to use logic and reason to assert why we need to keep Yankee), but i do cringe at the fact that it's 95% a pro-Yankee argument.  I find that opponents become solidified even deeper into their points of view when they aren't addressed or considered by others.

I also would like to point out that fossil fuel power plants though HIGHLY polluting, don't generate waste that WILL STILL be highly toxic and dangerous  500 lifetimes from now.  One major drawback of Nuclear energy is that ITS waste is 1000x more dangerous than carbon-based waste.  Think there are terrorists out there designing the next big bomb based on coal power plant waste?  i don't think so.

Back to the article though, The Critical points made, albeit in a hasty fashion ( i'd take more time to cover my opponents views in my argument) is that we pay top dollar to live in this state because of all the wonderful things we have here - rural living next to suburban spreads,  Low crime rates, great envrionmental activities to name a few.  We DO NOT need the price tag of living here to become so expensive that this state becomes a giant gated community for the rich and wealthy - like you see everywhere in Florida.

[cedarman]

"opponents become solidified even deeper into their points of view when they aren't addressed or considered by others."

Like opponents of clean, nuclear energy ever consider the benefits of nuclear energy.  NO, they argue primarily on emotion.  Unfortunately, all of the facts and the reality of how the energy system and "grid" work have no impact on them.  They are extremist who are committed to one thing and one thing only, no matter what the cost.   To me, that sounds a lot like what we would label a terrorist organization.   They want to see one specific, short sighted goal achieved, no matter what the impact is to everyone else.

As for nuclear "waste" being dangerous for thousands of years, that wouldn't be such a problem IF the government would allow (and invest in) development of breeder reactors to utilized the left over "waste" from our traditional nuclear power plants.  There is a wealth of information available online about breeder reactors and the advances France, Japan and other technologically advanced countries are making on these technologies.

Our problem here isn't a lack of technology, it is that we have allowed  ECO-TERRORIST to start running this country and preventing any real progress.   We might not have energy crisis, and dependence on foreign fuel sources IF eco-terrorist enablers like Jimmy Carter hadn't taken steps to prevent development of neclear energy in the late 70's.  NOW, we are faced with a crisis because no new power plants have been built in the last 25 years thanks to our home grown terrorist who hold  us hostage through use the environment as a symbol of our future and our kids future.

I guess, IF they didn't have a cause to "fight" for, then they might have to actually get PRODUCTIVE jobs.

[Suzy]

Why are environmentalists labeled "ecoterrorists."  That's a bunch of BS and propoganda...just because I care about the health and safety of my fellow humans, and care about stopping pollution from seeping into our earth and blood streams does not make me an  "ecoterrorists. "  Don't you think that's a bit extreme?  I'd never consider terrorism as an alternative.   That's a stupid term like "feminazi."   I'd call these people heroes. 

[Suzy]

cedarman,

You work for the nuclear industry, don't you?  I don't want you to lose your livelihood, especially since I care about your family, but I'm pretty sure you work for VT Yankee, so you probably have a huge personal and financial interest in keeping that thing running. 

Just because I have an opinion about all this does not make me an eco terrorist.  I just want you to understand that.  I also have nothing to gain personally from my opinion.  In fact, I've probably suffered financially from all the work I've done uncovering all the problems with nuclear waste, so I am not doing this because I'm gaining anything other than peace of mind, saying what I think, and what I've found to be true about the nuclear industry.  It's taken lots of time and patience to try to learn about all this, and I firmly believe nuclear energy is not clean or safe, but I also live right next to a bunch of it. 

I know I'm not supposed to know about this but the Army mills depleted uranium over at INL, and it's supposed to be a national secret, but they incinerate the scraps, and DU is pyrophoric, so that's not cool.  It's all done in the name of homeland security....

Anyway, I'm going to go do something productive and get to work.  Have you checked out any of the web sites I've given you?  Do you work for VT Yankee? 

[cedarman]

No my dear Suzy, I don't work in any nuclear related industry.  I work in the other evil moster industry - pharmaceuticals (manufacturing, not sales).

[mirjo]

"I work in the other evil moster industry - pharmaceuticals (manufacturing, not sales)." (No comment necessary, the facts here speak for themselves, big pharma is vile, pun intended)however,  I don't hold it against you that you make the pills we have to take.

I just had to get in on this crabby exchange. Suzy I know you and know you are a peace loving, caring person that wouldn't harm a flea. I also trust in what you have to say. Cederman, I don't know you, but assess from your posts that you are somewhat cynical and bitter and likely to consider anyone with an opinion that differs from yours in favor of the environment, a radical "tree-hugger" who can't see the forest for the trees.

The truth of the nuclear energy matter lies in the middle, like everything else. Although I am not a total fan of nuclear energy because of the problems it does currently present, I do recognize it is or has the potential to be a clean, safe source of energy. Why the U.S. Can't get it's act together and get on board with the new technology is not  only mind boggling, it's ridiculously annoying!

What is also ridiculously annoying is the fact that people can't have different opinions, without sparking venemous dialogue from the opposing point-of-view. It always seems to be one side that launches personal attacks hmmm....anyone care to guess which side that is?

My guess is that it's the side in any controversial issue that isn't quite sure of its position and has to resort to such tactics. Case-in-point: Which group is proven to be more violent--even killing people: Those who are Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?? Who in this conversation has slung insults?

[CJB]

I don't think that your conclusion is valid.

"My guess is that it's the side in any controversial issue that isn't quite sure of its position and has to resort to such tactics. Case-in-point: Which group is proven to be more violent--even killing people: Those who are Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?? Who in this conversation has slung insults?"

I'm sure that if you ask Pro-life and Pro-choice advocates both will state that they are quite sure of their position and both sides (in some cases) are quite willing to sling insults.

[mirjo]

I was making a comparison--perhaps bad, ?? that the one slinging venomous insults in this conversation was the pro-nuclear person and pointed out that by comparison, it is a pro-life advocate that is usually bombing and killing people to make a point--a fringe sector of this group, but ironic just the same.