VY year in review: Spinoffs, license renewal and safety

There are 23 comments on the Brattleboro Reformer story from Jan 1, 2010, titled VY year in review: Spinoffs, license renewal and safety. In it, Brattleboro Reformer reports that:

The discussion about Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon wasn't confined to whether or not it should continue to operate past 2012, its original license expiration date.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Brattleboro Reformer.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
What-Me-Worry

Arlington, VT

#1 Jan 2, 2010
Good job, but you forgot to mention that they dropped a dry cask unit on their first try, because the brakes on a 35 year old crane failed.

They also had three leaks in three days on the opening week of the legislature. I think two of the leaks were radioactive.

This old, decrepit plant is in the news way too much. Would a solar or wind farm require this much manpower time to investigate? What about a geothermal or biomass project? Would these technologies dominate the news as this plant and its owner has? Not very likely.

Git 'er done. Shut 'er down.
Tamarac

Stowe, VT

#2 Jan 2, 2010
What-Me-Worry wrote:
Good job, but you forgot to mention that they dropped a dry cask unit on their first try, because the brakes on a 35 year old crane failed.
They also had three leaks in three days on the opening week of the legislature. I think two of the leaks were radioactive.
This old, decrepit plant is in the news way too much. Would a solar or wind farm require this much manpower time to investigate? What about a geothermal or biomass project? Would these technologies dominate the news as this plant and its owner has? Not very likely.
Git 'er done. Shut 'er down.
And you forgot to mention how many times you peed your pants, packed your bags and ran for the hills. I'm willing to bet it never happened? I wonder why haven't you felt the need?
-Vermont Yankee personnel get intensive 8 weeks of training each year- a key factor in recently receiving a Green Mountain Voluntary Protecton Program STAR flag from the Vermont Department of Labor for exemplary commitment to workplace safety. In addition VY has 7,000 hours of inspection by the NRC each year with an average of 92.5% capacity factor.
nukegonesouth

Hampstead, NC

#3 Jan 2, 2010
What-Me-Worry wrote:
Good job, but you forgot to mention that they dropped a dry cask unit on their first try, because the brakes on a 35 year old crane failed.
They also had three leaks in three days on the opening week of the legislature. I think two of the leaks were radioactive.
This old, decrepit plant is in the news way too much. Would a solar or wind farm require this much manpower time to investigate? What about a geothermal or biomass project? Would these technologies dominate the news as this plant and its owner has? Not very likely.
Git 'er done. Shut 'er down.
Have you calculated the size of the wind farm or solar field that would be needed to replace 75% of Vermonts electrical needs? I am guessing that would make the news...

The goobly gook of the newspaper sure does not qualify as an "investigation"
Right Wing Extremist

Springfield, MA

#4 Jan 2, 2010
...and despite another year of legislative harassment, VY has managed to keep our lights on....

I missed another detail left out of this article. The attempted arbitrary multi-million dollar, punitive "tax" the Montpeculiar loonies tried to slap on VY.(unsuccessfully, thank God.)

Among the many other harassment attempts laid on them by the enviro-wackos who have no viable alternative to the electricity they so want extinguished.

The NRC has VY under control. Quit the harassment loonies.

Thanks for re-capping your advocacy Bob.

In the mean time, those truly interested in supporting our society's power needs, understand that nuclear energy is a huge opportunity for more clean, safe electricity for many years to come.
Whit

Rochester, VT

#5 Jan 2, 2010
We need to take the big picture. One thing that shows is that you never want an operation like this to carry deep debts. Bankruptcy cannot be an option. Another is that the urgent task isn't to replace nuclear generation with alternative sources, but to replace coal. Until we've replaced the last coal plant, we need to run all the nukes we have, and more. Anyone claiming concern about the environment and human health who doesn't see this has blinders on, or wants to pretend that carbon emitted in Ohio, and weather from elsewhere, doesn't cross the Vermont border.
hmmmmmmmmmmm

Brattleboro, VT

#6 Jan 2, 2010
I find it funny that yet again Bob stated that the radiation being lower for the first 1/2 of 2009 was due to the plant being shutdown for a refueling outage. The last refueling outage at VY was the fall of 2008. The next is the spring of 2010. So if fenceline radiation was down in 2009 it was due to measures implemented by VY in order to decrease dose. Now just think of this as well the radiation in 2009 was down over 2008 yet in 2008 they had an outage. Hmmmmmmmm
jasper

Little Rock, AR

#7 Jan 2, 2010
The Vermont Department of Health stated radiation emissions were down in the first half of 2009, attributing the decrease to a six-week shutdown to refuel the reactor

The reactor was only shut-down for 22 days. My math puts it at one day over three weeks, not six. As stated in an earlier post, VY was shutdown in the fall of '08.
Get Real People

Augusta, ME

#8 Jan 2, 2010
Whit wrote:
We need to take the big picture. One thing that shows is that you never want an operation like this to carry deep debts. Bankruptcy cannot be an option. Another is that the urgent task isn't to replace nuclear generation with alternative sources, but to replace coal. Until we've replaced the last coal plant, we need to run all the nukes we have, and more. Anyone claiming concern about the environment and human health who doesn't see this has blinders on, or wants to pretend that carbon emitted in Ohio, and weather from elsewhere, doesn't cross the Vermont border.
Agreed, please continue.
Climategate

Brunswick, ME

#9 Jan 2, 2010
Whit wrote:
We need to take the big picture. One thing that shows is that you never want an operation like this to carry deep debts. Bankruptcy cannot be an option. Another is that the urgent task isn't to replace nuclear generation with alternative sources, but to replace coal. Until we've replaced the last coal plant, we need to run all the nukes we have, and more. Anyone claiming concern about the environment and human health who doesn't see this has blinders on, or wants to pretend that carbon emitted in Ohio, and weather from elsewhere, doesn't cross the Vermont border.
Yes Whit, you are right on, on this. Now if you could only see the light and vote "NO MERGER". I am not an AGW believer, but I do like clean air. I don't like big Gov. and dirty politicians. I honestly believe two seperate towns would make everyone happy. No animosity intended.
hmmmmmmmmmmm

Brattleboro, VT

#10 Jan 2, 2010
jasper wrote:
The Vermont Department of Health stated radiation emissions were down in the first half of 2009, attributing the decrease to a six-week shutdown to refuel the reactor
The reactor was only shut-down for 22 days. My math puts it at one day over three weeks, not six. As stated in an earlier post, VY was shutdown in the fall of '08.
Lets make sure we are 100% truthful on this...it was down for 22.5 days. I am assuming that the Reformer must have decided 36 hours equates to 3 weeks, or maybe in the misinformers world there is 3.75 days in a week. Either way they do the math it doesn't matter because the plant wasn't shut down at all in 2009. The antis are just trying to make excuses why VY has lower fenceline radiation in 2009 (even after dry cask storage was added). They are still clinging to the fiction that VY is a dirty plant ready to blow up at any moment.
Anon

Germany

#11 Jan 2, 2010
I drove by Vermont Yankee once, and it impregnated me with a family with radioactive rats. I think we should not relicense it, because it sucks giving birth to rats you didn't even want. Why rats, why me? This is the problem with nuclear power, just when you think it's safe and secure you get rodents in your womb.
Brattleboro

Wolcott, VT

#12 Jan 2, 2010
Whit wrote:
We need to take the big picture. One thing that shows is that you never want an operation like this to carry deep debts. Bankruptcy cannot be an option. Another is that the urgent task isn't to replace nuclear generation with alternative sources, but to replace coal. Until we've replaced the last coal plant, we need to run all the nukes we have, and more. Anyone claiming concern about the environment and human health who doesn't see this has blinders on, or wants to pretend that carbon emitted in Ohio, and weather from elsewhere, doesn't cross the Vermont border.
Find me an alternative source that is affordable and runs 24/365. You can not.
Brattleboro

Wolcott, VT

#13 Jan 2, 2010
Anon wrote:
I drove by Vermont Yankee once, and it impregnated me with a family with radioactive rats. I think we should not relicense it, because it sucks giving birth to rats you didn't even want. Why rats, why me? This is the problem with nuclear power, just when you think it's safe and secure you get rodents in your womb.
You are not in Vermont - we do not care what you think.
Climategate

Brunswick, ME

#15 Jan 2, 2010
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey there, assclown, I am in Vermont. I can appear to be from wherever I damn well please. Zoom, now I'm in Ecuador.
Touche'
Brattleboro

Wolcott, VT

#16 Jan 2, 2010
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey there, assclown, I am in Vermont. I can appear to be from wherever I damn well please. Zoom, now I'm in Ecuador.
Mind your words sir as they are not appropriate and you have been reported.
TNB

Memphis, TN

#17 Jan 2, 2010
Can we arrange for the Reformer to be shut down BEFORE VY??????????
Get Real People

Colchester, VT

#18 Jan 2, 2010
Brattleboro wrote:
<quoted text>
Find me an alternative source that is affordable and runs 24/365. You can not.
Vermont Yankee has an average capacity factor of 92.5%. The average capicity factor of coal is 73% and natural gas is 39%. I was interested in Whit finishing his thoughts about our first US objective should be to replace coal in order to reduce our total electrical generation byproduct(s). The difficulty with replacing coal is that it is domestic & abundant and therefore cheap. I beleieve that it is possible to greatly reduce the byproducts of coal, but that would also make it considerably more expensive.
Large scale solar has already been tried, failed and dismantled here in the US, so those thinking that we should go down that road again are fooling themselves or simply trying to fool others to get what they want.
Tree Hugger

Standish, ME

#21 Jan 3, 2010
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
OH NO! What the crap is topix going to do? BAN MY IP? OH LAWDS WHERE WILL I GET ANOTHER IP ADDRESS, CHINA?
Retard.
No class / low class response. We will take it for what it is, source considered & moving on.
not perfect

Chesterfield, MO

#23 Jan 5, 2010
Anybody know the last time vy had a death or a Major emergency? Seems to me its safer than snowmobiling.
New Clear Waste

Brattleboro, VT

#24 Jan 5, 2010
Get Real People wrote:
<quoted text> Vermont Yankee has an average capacity factor of 92.5%. The average capicity factor of coal is 73% and natural gas is 39%. I was interested in Whit finishing his thoughts about our first US objective should be to replace coal in order to reduce our total electrical generation byproduct(s). The difficulty with replacing coal is that it is domestic & abundant and therefore cheap. I beleieve that it is possible to greatly reduce the byproducts of coal, but that would also make it considerably more expensive.
Large scale solar has already been tried, failed and dismantled here in the US, so those thinking that we should go down that road again are fooling themselves or simply trying to fool others to get what they want.
Your use of the words "cheap" and "expensive" shows that you don't understand their meaning. Coal only appears cheap because the downstream costs are externalized, i.e. the heavy costs of pollution have to be paid by the suckers who suffer those effects. That means some people get the benefit of the coal while other people have to pay for the negative effects. That gives the users an incentive to burn all the coal they can and damn the victims.

If you "reduce the byproducts of coal", as you put it, by installing scrubbers or sequestering the carbon underground, that doesn't make coal use more expensive, it brings the overall costs up front, so that the people using the coal-generated electricity also pay for pollution mitigation. That makes sense.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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 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
News Troubled Michigan nuclear plant shut down for m... (Apr '12) Apr '12 BDV 1
More from around the web