Vt. Yankee nukes itself

Vt. Yankee nukes itself

There are 17 comments on the Berkshire Eagle story from Feb 25, 2010, titled Vt. Yankee nukes itself. In it, Berkshire Eagle reports that:

Left with no other choice, the Vermont Senate Wednesday voted to start the clock ticking on the demise of the state's only nuclear power plant.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Berkshire Eagle.

wilbur

Boulder, CO

#1 Feb 25, 2010
the fiefdom of vt. would like nothing better than to retutn to the horse and buggy age......the eagle should join them.
Ken

Newfane, VT

#2 Feb 25, 2010
What a fitting heading:

"Vt. Yankee nukes itself"
Bobby Knows

Cropseyville, NY

#3 Feb 25, 2010
After that vote I would give the Vermont Senate nothing but GLOWING reviews in the way they handled this matter.
Observer

Haydenville, MA

#4 Feb 25, 2010
Kinda wondering what the nay-sayers are proposing as an alternative. Shopping at Yankee Candle?
GrnMntBoy

Walpole, NH

#5 Feb 25, 2010
Observer wrote:
Kinda wondering what the nay-sayers are proposing as an alternative. Shopping at Yankee Candle?
I would say shopping for a power source that does not leave us a waste product for the next ten thousand years! How about Yankee Renewable Power?
Jethro

Devault, PA

#6 Feb 25, 2010
GrnMntBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
I would say shopping for a power source that does not leave us a waste product for the next ten thousand years! How about Yankee Renewable Power?
Put Al Gore in front of a windmill
professor

Gansevoort, NY

#7 Feb 26, 2010
Sooner they close all businesses in Socialist Vermont sooner they get back to the caves. It serve them right. The only "business" should be left in VT is Yankee Candle and maple syrup production. They will drink that syrup under candle light (if the got money to buy it). And socialist Mr. Bernard Shnider will be sitting in their Senate under the candle light, trying to find something else they can put out of business. So next will be Yankee Candle and maple syrup producers. Very miserable dying State.
Middle Ground

Peabody, MA

#8 Feb 26, 2010
Yankee Candle is out of Mass. Vermont is too anti-business for Yankee Candle to operate there. Actually Yankee Candle produces tons of merchandise that has a bad carbon footprint. Paraffin wax is a big greenhouse gas emitter when burned.
Bud Wieser

Gansevoort, NY

#10 Feb 26, 2010
<<We agree with Mr. Obama that nuclear power should be part of the nation's green energy >>
Unbelivable mutual understanding and love to "green/' energy. Beagle loves Obumma. But does Obumma know it?
professor

Gansevoort, NY

#14 Feb 27, 2010
A 15 mpg clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year uses 800 gallons of gas a year.

A 25 mpg vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year uses 480 gallons a year.

So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.

They claim 700,000 clunkers were turned-in, so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.

More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars

So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.

We spent $8.57 for every dollar we saved.

I'm pretty sure they will do a great job with our health care, though.

Woodman

Williamsburg, MA

#15 Feb 27, 2010
The nuclear industry was always a farce and a waste of tax payers money. No insurance company would ever insure a nuclear power plant so the gov't has to pay the costs. At a cost of 15 billion each they are too expensive for private businesses to build so they get heavily subsidized, by the tax payer again. And they need constant infusions of large amounts of cash to sell electricity at a competitive price of 6 to 18 cents a kilowatt. Take away tax payers subsidies and the whole nuclear industry goes belly up over night.
shartflhs

United States

#16 Feb 27, 2010
Woodman wrote:
The nuclear industry was always a farce and a waste of tax payers money. No insurance company would ever insure a nuclear power plant so the gov't has to pay the costs. At a cost of 15 billion each they are too expensive for private businesses to build so they get heavily subsidized, by the tax payer again. And they need constant infusions of large amounts of cash to sell electricity at a competitive price of 6 to 18 cents a kilowatt. Take away tax payers subsidies and the whole nuclear industry goes belly up over night.
Let's see where you are getting your data, because it is all wrong. All nuclear power plants are insured. They just aren't insured for the catastrophic accidents like chernobyl but then that can't happen with a light water reactor. Yes they are very expensive but I haven't heard figures as high as 15 billion, actually more like 4-5 for the first ones. Subsequent ones will be cheaper. Nuclear power is cheaper by a long shot, Didn't VY offer to sell to VT at 6.2 cents? Do you really think that they were going to sell at a loss? Check what other sources are selling for and then how much are they subsidized by the govt. What subsidies are YOU talking about? State one that exists that isn't just in your mind. Obama and congress are giving them loan guarantees to build new ones, but that is only a guarantee, no money changes hands. Only if the utility defaults on the loan.
Ted

Elfrida, AZ

#17 Feb 27, 2010
Shartflhs, Loan guarantees allow the utility to borrow money at a below-market rate. Substantially below, in this case. If that's not a subsidy, I don't know what is!

professor, your math is interesting, but what you neglect is that the cash for clunkers program was not a conservation program - it was a jobs program for the American car industry. I happen to agree with you that it was probably not the best way to spend that money--I wish it had been spent improving public transit--but the fact that it saved about .1% of our annual oil consumption is just a happy bonus, not the goal of the expenditure.
Woodman

Williamsburg, MA

#18 Feb 27, 2010
shartflhs wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see where you are getting your data, because it is all wrong. All nuclear power plants are insured. They just aren't insured for the catastrophic accidents like chernobyl but then that can't happen with a light water reactor. Yes they are very expensive but I haven't heard figures as high as 15 billion, actually more like 4-5 for the first ones. Subsequent ones will be cheaper. Nuclear power is cheaper by a long shot, Didn't VY offer to sell to VT at 6.2 cents? Do you really think that they were going to sell at a loss? Check what other sources are selling for and then how much are they subsidized by the govt. What subsidies are YOU talking about? State one that exists that isn't just in your mind. Obama and congress are giving them loan guarantees to build new ones, but that is only a guarantee, no money changes hands. Only if the utility defaults on the loan.
This is just one of many articles I have read about the nuclear industry. http://www.truthout.org/106093Levine It has the costs of currently building a nuclear plant in it. No nuclear plant is self insuring, the gov't caps damage limits and helps pay the premiums. If you Google "nuclear subsidies" you will find numerous articles that are not only in my mind.
shartflhs

United States

#19 Feb 28, 2010
Woodman wrote:
<quoted text>
This is just one of many articles I have read about the nuclear industry. http://www.truthout.org/106093Levine It has the costs of currently building a nuclear plant in it. No nuclear plant is self insuring, the gov't caps damage limits and helps pay the premiums. If you Google "nuclear subsidies" you will find numerous articles that are not only in my mind.
Yes they are insured. I never said anything about self insuring. They pay for insurance like any other business but there are limits to what the insurance companies will pay and this is where govt. takes over, but the govt. does not pay premiums. One example is Hartford Steam Boiler, they are big in the nuclear insurance business. Do you really believe everything you read on the internet? There is an old saying "believe half of what you see and nothing about what you hear". You want subsidies go look at wind and solar power. There are subsidies there, and I am not against them. We need solar, wind, or any other clean energy. Nuclear is not the enemy, you really need to get rid of the fear-mongering and learn who the enemy really is.
Number 19

Northville, NY

#20 Feb 28, 2010
wilbur wrote:
the fiefdom of vt. would like nothing better than to retutn to the horse and buggy age......the eagle should join them.
Is it leaking or not?
just2add

Rensselaer, NY

#22 Feb 28, 2010
professor wrote:
A 15 mpg clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year uses 800 gallons of gas a year.
A 25 mpg vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year uses 480 gallons a year.
So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
They claim 700,000 clunkers were turned-in, so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.
More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars
So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.
We spent $8.57 for every dollar we saved.
I'm pretty sure they will do a great job with our health care, though.
The quote should be based on avg, a cars life span of 10 years so the $350 million should be X 10 years...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Entergy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Weird 29 mins ago 7:16 p.m.Bird droppings blame... (Mar '16) Mar '16 Rubio s Foam Partays 4
News S&WB taps New Orleans capital projects director... (Jan '14) Jan '14 setup 1
News Entergy Provides Preliminary Third Quarter Earn... (Oct '13) Oct '13 Fukushima Radiati... 1
News Entergy Corp. (ETR) Updates FY13 Earnings Guidance (Oct '13) Oct '13 Fukushima Radiati... 1
News Entergy Recognized as Worldwide Leader in Clima... (Oct '13) Oct '13 Fukushima Radiati... 1
News Nuclear power plant in Mississippi emits smoke ... (Sep '13) Sep '13 BDV 2
News VY still lobbies for new license (Oct '10) Oct '12 Mike Mulligan 134
More from around the web