Despite calls to slow down, NRC grants Vermont Yankee license renewal

Mar 21, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Boston Herald

ONTPELIER, Vt. - Federal regulators today gave the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant a 20-year license renewal, despite calls for reconsideration following the nuclear disaster in Japan.

Comments
21 - 40 of 343 Comments Last updated Apr 28, 2014
The NRC is a joke

Windsor, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Apr 26, 2011
 
4/25/11 Fairewinds asks NRC to delay licensing until Fukushima lessons are evaluated
http://greenmountaindaily.com/diary/7676/4251...
BDV

Decatur, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Apr 26, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

What lessons?

Fukushima Dai-Ni reactors, built to post_TMI standards have achieved cold shut-down in 48 hours after a 9Richter+40 foot tsunami.

Under the circumstances, if VY has passed the NRC review, any delay is totally unjustified.
XMarine

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Apr 26, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

1

ANY form of energy PLANT that cannot be turned off--COMPLETELY-AND BE SAFE TO DISASSEMBLE within a short cooling OFF period of time [one day/one week, or one month] and could THEN be dismantled with bare hands [maybe with just gloves] can NEVER be safe enough-period. NUKES ARE SUICIDAL.[Dimwit GREEDY AND LAZY CEO'S and POLITICIANS.
i Wonder what will "inherit" the Earth, next? Maybe the ants or roaches?[If they can survive the radiation]
BDV

Stone Mountain, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Apr 26, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

Neither oil nor coal burn products are safe to handle with bare hands. Soot was the first carcinogen discovered.
.
Radiation hysteria is not the answer. Not with oil at 112 dollars a barrel.
The NRC is a joke

Windsor, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Apr 27, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

Nuclear apologists play shoot the messenger on radiation

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-...

"nuclear industry proponents assert that low doses of radiation produce no ill effects and are therefore safe. But, as a US National Academy of Sciences report concluded in 2007, no dose of radiation is safe, however small, including background radiation; exposure is cumulative, so that each dose (whether, for example, from a medical x-ray or from passing through the whole-body scanners soon to be introduced in Australian airports) adds to an individual's risk of developing cancer during his or her lifetime."
BDV

Decatur, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Apr 28, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

However the costs risks associated with oil and coal use are to be overlooked.

.
Nuclear energy is not cost free, and is not risk free. It is however the lowest cost and the lowest risk of the available energy generation methods.
.
200 people died in US because they cannot afford to live in properly built houses. Demonization of nuclear energy is extremely costly to US citizens and to US economy. Until enough nuclear generating power is constructed to curb/contain the cost of oil/gas, we will continue to be indentured servants to BritishPetroleum-Shell and their petroshaikh pals in Arabia.
jgadsden

Jericho, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Apr 28, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

1

BDV wrote:
Nuclear energy is not cost free, and is not risk free. It is however the lowest cost and the lowest risk of the available energy generation methods.
..
sure, if you ignore the uranuim mining costs and the fact there is no waste program like nukes do, its low cost low risk...

hey if you ignore coal mining and coal waste disposal its pretty cheap and low risk too!
BDV

Decatur, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Apr 28, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

1

jgadsden wrote:
<quoted text>
sure, if you ignore the uranuim mining costs and the fact there is no waste program like nukes do, its low cost low risk...
hey if you ignore coal mining and coal waste disposal its pretty cheap and low risk too!
.
Absolutely. I agree 100%. There is no free lunch. Trouble is, when you run the numbers, nuclear comes out ahead. Nuclear is not free, but its the lowest cost.
.
Even for Fukushima Dai-Ichi, balance the cost on the people of Fukushima and for the japanese economy, with the same electricity being generated with coal or hydrocarbon (oil/gas) burning for 40 years. So even with the current disaster, Japan and even Fukushima come out ahead. Although Fukushima denizens richly deserve some fat compensation from "Japan Inc."
.
And then the nuclear demonization and radiation hysteria become a huge puzzle. But if overpriced oil and eternal (or until oil runs out) serfdom to Big Oil is the goal, then this stops being such a puzzle.
John T

Kendallville, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Apr 28, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

BDV is correct nuclear energy is the lowest cost and lowest risk of the energy generation methods. On a volume basis the energy density of nuclear fuel is 50 million times greater than coal. The uranium mine for an equivalent amount of energy is 50 million times smaller than a coal mine. Advanced generation closed cycle reactors fission 100% of the fuel. Since ca. 95% of the energy remains in the spent fuel from LWRs and several time more energy in the depleted uranium, represent fuel for advanced generation closed cycle reactors, no uranium mining will be necessary for several centuries even if all the the world's future electricity generation is nuclear.
Common sense should tell us that diffuse and intermittent sources even though renewable can not be as economical a power source as nuclear fuel.
jgadsden

Jericho, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Apr 28, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

1

BDV wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Absolutely. I agree 100%. There is no free lunch. Trouble is, when you run the numbers, nuclear comes out ahead. Nuclear is not free, but its the lowest cost.
.
.
I think your missing the point...
if there is no system for permanent waste disposal or treatment, WHAT IS THE COST???
right now nukes are putting up a fat zero as far as costs of waste...
think if the other energy sources stopped counting costs after energy production...
same for mininng...ask the cost of mining and you will get a fluff piece response about nuclear weapons turned to fuel, but uranuim mining is still poisoning many communities but its put up as a big fat zero for cost ...and is even cast as saving the world from bombs!(and in the next breathe nukes will tell you the mining issue is related to arms not power)

so yes, if you focus just on the generation stage ...the blah blah about nukes costs is true...
but in reality...its just smoke and mirrors...

I run a zero emission household if you dont count how and where I get my inputs and ignore all ouputs!
John T

Kendallville, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Apr 28, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

jgadsden wrote:
<quoted text>
I think your missing the point...
if there is no system for permanent waste disposal or treatment, WHAT IS THE COST???
right now nukes are putting up a fat zero as far as costs of waste...
think if the other energy sources stopped counting costs after energy production...
same for mininng...ask the cost of mining and you will get a fluff piece response about nuclear weapons turned to fuel, but uranuim mining is still poisoning many communities but its put up as a big fat zero for cost ...and is even cast as saving the world from bombs!(and in the next breathe nukes will tell you the mining issue is related to arms not power)
so yes, if you focus just on the generation stage ...the blah blah about nukes costs is true...
but in reality...its just smoke and mirrors...
I run a zero emission household if you dont count how and where I get my inputs and ignore all ouputs!
It is fossil fuel and renewables that are passing the external cost on to the communities. Nuclear is unique in keeping its spent fuel waste out of the environment. It is also paying a fee to deal with the spent fuel. The US government has collected $35 billion from the nuclear power plant rate payers. It has spent 10-12 Billion on Yucca Mtn and has an unspent balance of $25 Billion. Wind use 90 times more steel and seven times more cement to make an equivalent generating capacity to nuclear. Who is going to pay to clean up that mess in the future? Coal power plants according to EPA data cause 23,000 premature death annually not to mention the emissions of greenhouse gases. It is hardly worth mentioning the tiny impact of uranium mining as so little is required. Anyhow new generation reactor will consume the waste from the current reactors and mining of uranium will not be needed for hundreds of years.
jgadsden

Jericho, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Apr 28, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

1

John T wrote:
<quoted text>
It is fossil fuel and renewables that are passing the external cost on to the communities. Nuclear is unique in keeping its spent fuel waste out of the environment. It is also paying a fee to deal with the spent fuel. The US government has collected $35 billion from the nuclear power plant rate payers. It has spent 10-12 Billion on Yucca Mtn and has an unspent balance of $25 Billion. Wind use 90 times more steel and seven times more cement to make an equivalent generating capacity to nuclear. Who is going to pay to clean up that mess in the future? Coal power plants according to EPA data cause 23,000 premature death annually not to mention the emissions of greenhouse gases. It is hardly worth mentioning the tiny impact of uranium mining as so little is required. Anyhow new generation reactor will consume the waste from the current reactors and mining of uranium will not be needed for hundreds of years.
Monitoring the waste for TEN THOUSAND YEARS!!!
at what COST?
since there is no "plan" there is no associated costs...

"It is hardly worth mentioning the tiny impact of uranium mining as so little is required."

tell that to the MANY dead Navajo...and the ones who STILL cannot drink their water!

that you try to downplay these costs as minimal means you are either believing the lies or....
John T

Kendallville, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Apr 28, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

The wastes from fossil fuels are infinite. The nuclear waste after 500 years is low level alpha which is stopped by a sheet of paper and does not penetrate skin. Since next generation reactors will fission it, no special plan is necessary other than on-site dry storage. Radiation fear is over blown way out of proportion to its risk.
The NRC is a joke

Windsor, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Apr 28, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

1

America’s Nuclear Nightmare
By Jeff Goodell
April 27, 2011
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/ame...
"Five days after a massive earthquake and tsunami struck Japan, triggering the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl, America's leading nuclear regulator came before Congress bearing good news: Don't worry, it can't happen here. In the aftermath of the Japanese catastrophe, officials in Germany moved swiftly to shut down old plants for inspection, and China put licensing of new plants on hold. But Gregory Jaczko, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, reassured lawmakers that nothing at the Fukushima Daiichi reactors warranted any immediate changes at U.S. nuclear plants. Indeed, 10 days after the earthquake in Japan, the NRC extended the license of the 40-year-old Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor — a virtual twin of Fukushima — for another two decades. The license renewal was granted even though the reactor's cooling tower had literally fallen down, and the plant had repeatedly leaked radioactive fluid."
BDV

Stone Mountain, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Apr 29, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The NRC is a joke wrote:
But Gregory Jaczko, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, reassured lawmakers that nothing at the Fukushima Daiichi reactors warranted any immediate changes at U.S. nuclear plants. Indeed, 10 days after the earthquake in Japan, the NRC extended the license of the 40-year-old Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor — a virtual twin of Fukushima — for another two decades.
A very wise decision, given the excellent performance of VY twin reactors in DAI-NI Fukushima plant, which withstood a 9Richter earthquake and a 40 foot tsunami as designed.
jgadsden

Jericho, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Apr 29, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

BDV wrote:
<quoted text>
A very wise decision, given the excellent performance of VY twin reactors in DAI-NI Fukushima plant, which withstood a 9Richter earthquake and a 40 foot tsunami as designed.
why does this post remind me of the guys playing beautiful music on the deck of the titanic as it sank?

Do you mean the plant that repeatedly EXPLODED and has a TWENTY MILE radius of inhabitability? The one that spread radiation to NH???
BDV

Stone Mountain, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Apr 29, 2011
 
jgadsden wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean the plant that repeatedly EXPLODED and has a TWENTY MILE radius of inhabitability?
That confirms it. Antinukers don't have a clue what you're talking about. Just run around in circles yelling "the sky is falling".

DAI-NI, homeboi, DAI-NI. NOT Dai-Ichi. I've spelled it out in capitals to make it easier to understand my point, but even that was too challenging for ya...
jgadsden

Jericho, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Apr 29, 2011
 
BDV wrote:
<quoted text>
That confirms it. Antinukers don't have a clue what you're talking about. Just run around in circles yelling "the sky is falling".
DAI-NI, homeboi, DAI-NI. NOT Dai-Ichi. I've spelled it out in capitals to make it easier to understand my point, but even that was too challenging for ya...
Oh, sorry i missed that difference in letters that indicates a plant not in the national news for disaster....

but the plant in the news for disaster seems to make your point kinda silly, no?
As does your claim that we mistakenly believe the sky is falling?

I mean its right there in front of your face,JAp nuke workers DYING to protect their fellow man...wish we had some of that round here...
here we get, "but I'd lose my JOB!"
The NRC is a joke

Windsor, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
May 8, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

1

New York Times
Nuclear Agency Is Criticized as Too Close to Its Industry
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/business/en...

"Although the agency says plants are operating more safely today than they were at the dawn of the nuclear industry, when shutdowns were common, safety experts, Congressional critics and even the agency’s own internal monitors say the N.R.C. is prone to dither when companies complain that its proposed actions would cost time or money. The promise of lucrative industry work after officials leave the commission probably doesn’t help, critics say, pointing to dozens over the years who have taken jobs with nuclear power companies and lobbying firms. "...

"When the industry first set out in the 1980s to prove that the original 40-year licenses on its aging plants could be safely renewed for 20 years, two plants — Yankee Rowe in Massachusetts and Monticello in Minnesota — were offered as test cases. The N.R.C.’s criteria for relicensing essentially required that operators prove that they were in compliance with their current license and that they had an adequate plan to manage the aging equipment for the extra 20 years. That tripped up Yankee Rowe’s bid, because inspectors looking at its current operations found serious flaws in its reactor vessel. Rather than earn a renewal, the plant shut down with eight years left on its original license.

The failure threw the industry into turmoil. In 1992, Northern States Public Power, owner of the Monticello plant, complained that the agency was examining details beyond those necessary for license renewal.

With billions of dollars of revenue and investment at stake for each plant, the N.R.C. changed the rules in 1995, scrapping the requirement that operators prove they were complying with their current license. Instead, the renewal process would focus only on the aging management plan. The agency described the change as providing a “more stable and predictable regulatory process for license renewal.”

But James Riccio, a nuclear policy analyst with Greenpeace, said,“The N.R.C. rule change gutted a substantive process and replaced it with a rubber stamp. They placed industry profits ahead of public safety.” "...
BDV

Stone Mountain, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
May 9, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

"nuclear policy analyst with Greenpeace"
.
Now there's an unbiased fellow!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••

Truro News Video

•••
•••

Truro Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Truro People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Truro News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Truro
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••