Majority of Vermonters Want Vt. Yankee Closed

[bananas]

These things are getting old and rickety, they don't last forever.

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=9042182

Majority of Vermonters Want Vt. Yankee Closed

Burlington, Vermont - September 19, 2008

<snip>

When asked if Vermont Yankee should be relicensed in 2012, 52 percent said no, 29 percent said yes and 19 percent were unsure. Opponents to Yankee-- and even state officials-- say the results are not surprising given all the recent problems at the plant.

<snip>

"It's important that the legislators across the state of Vermont understand that two-thirds of their constituents are very concerned or concerned about this facility and they think it should be closed down on time," Moore said.

This polling was all done before even more problems came to light this week.

<snip>

"There's never this is the problem and it's done. It's, oh we have this problem, oh we have this problem and oh by the way that builds on the last problem. People are frustrated with that. Vermonters are smart people and they realize something is going on and we need some straight answers," Wark said.

<snip>

[petersjo02]

1. Sure wish you'd added some context to your post,

so I'd know what the heck a Vermont Yankee is and what the heck you're talking about.

[phantom power]

2. Vermont Yankee is a nuclear plant.

[loyalkydem]

3. Thanks Phantom Power

I had to google it just to figure out what the OP was talking about.

[phantom power]

5. Vermont Yankee gets discussed fairly frequently here on E/E.

Just an instance of assumed shared context, I think.

[petersjo02]

4. Yes, thanks to phantom power n/t

[bananas]

6. Sorry about that!

Vermont Yankee is an old nuclear power plant which is coming up for relicensing.
Vermonters don't trust the NRC and want independent oversight by people they can trust,
but the NRC and the nuclear industry and Republican politicians are fighting them every step of the way.
This post from July is an example of what's going on: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x160168

[NNadir]

7. The majority of Vermonters want to dump dangerous fossil fuel on the rest of humanity if this trash

is true.

Every single nuclear plant that has been shut by public stupidity - there are zero exceptions - has been replaced by dangerous fossil fuels.

There are ZERO exceptions.

I note that there is a video available of the Democratic Nominee confronting an idiot in Vermont on this mysticism and ignorance.

[joshcryer]

9. I wouldn't place much merit on the poll, most people in VT are going to be seeing...

...a different perspective than you. Since the plant is experiencing a lot of problems those problems make it to the local news, and people see those problems as "not worth the trouble."

At least the article in question ends with the rather reasonable statement, "Yankee officials say with more information Vermonters will be in a much better position to make a decision on the state's energy future."

Basically making a swipe at sensationalist news that wants to make problems out to be worse than they are.

[kristopher]

11. I love it.

The NEI's way of describing calls for "independent oversight" is to relate it to "public stupidity"?

Why am I not surprised...

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

13. I'm anti-nuke, and I hate fossil fuels.

I just proved you wrong.

But let me explain why I am anti-nuke. First, it is an extraoridinarily expensive technology for what it gets you, second, the most economical plants are around 1GW, forcing utlities to be more centrally located, this goes against my whole individualist bent.

And finally, because the only *long term* viable fission alternative are breeder reactors I'm appalled that anyone thinks a world full of them would be a safe place. Depending on such a technology to "solve" the worlds' energy problems is simply assinine.

I'm anti-nuke because the economics suck.

I'll be putting up windmills next summer to provide all my power needs.

(Mind you my comments about oil shale are not to suppose that I am "pro-oil-shale." I fear that the oil barons are going to tear into pristine Colorado wilderness to get at the oil. And I refuse to believe that either oil is running out or that the oil barons aren't actively looking at alternate ways to get at it!)

[NNadir]

17. You know zero about the subject.

I am personally sick to death of "individualists" who kill for their idiot biases.

The world's largest "individualist" distributed energy scheme is the automobile, a fucking environmental disaster.

I suspect you won't give a rat's ass where your batteries go when you dump them. Nor will you give a fuck about the heavy metals from your yuppie windmills.

Clearly you couldn't give a rat's ass about the 6.5 billion people on this planet who can't go out and buy windmills for their stupid yuppie estates.

In general, I am sick to death of stupid yuppies lecturing about economics, and worse about reactors, since they clearly know doodly squat about either.

Basically 100% of the anti-nukes don't know shit from shinola about nuclear power, which is the safest, cleanest, most reliable and cheapest form of energy known.

Libertarianism is idiocy.

[bananas]

20. You know less than zero about the subject.

[kristopher]

24. No.

Idiocy resides in the claims made in your post. You claim that all opposition to expansion of nuclear energy is based exclusively on ignorance and prejudice is absurd on its face. Your claims that nuclear energy is cleaner than renewable infrastructure is absurd on its face.

The arguments themselves are PROOF that you motives have nothing to do with your protestations of concerns about environmental justice and equity. As only one example, who is going to pay to build the necessary infrastructure for distribution of centrally generated electricity in these poor countries you pretend to be so concerned about? Your proposal to build nuclear plants to generate electricity for the highest and rising per kwh price available, PLUS the price of the grid (unable to determine, but bound to exceed the price of the plant) shows your "concern" is not for the poor, it is for the corporations building and operating the plants.

[joshcryer]

28. People like you have needed education about certain misconceptions you're spreading here.

I might not be a nuclear fanatic but I can do research and see when someone is spouting propaganda.

Every square inch of earth is covered in free energy.

Nature has considered this distribution of energy quite fine if I do say so myself.

If you want me to get links about the economics of nuclear power, then I can happily do so (the IEA is a simple google search). I know for a *fact* that it is an expensive technology. This is undeniable. This is why nuclear doesn't just magically take over because there are huge risk factors, and this is why when they do build one they build them bastards big as all hell.

So please spare me the vitriol.

You remind me of another poster in the "Gun" forum, one who is obsessive, and hateful toward people, for no particular reason at all.

[kristopher]

16. ....

:nopity:


The problem with that load of crap is the arguments you employ. Scientifically and analytically they are exactly equivalent to the arguments put forth by your alter ego, the environmental skeptic crowd. You cannot address the weaknesses and drawbacks that condemn nuclear energy so you resort to false logic, misinformation and carefully cherry-picked, half true misrepresentative anecdotes laced with insults and feigned concern about justice for the poor and the environment.

That is bullshit and you know it. If your primary interest were those goals then your analysis wouldn't ignore and gloss over the weaknesses of nuclear and you would place the development of new technologies in their proper and well understood economic and technological context.

Instead you choose the same route of misinformation and misdirection that characterizes the Republican sponsored climate change denial industry.

A coincidence?

I think not.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

22. All you have is misrepresentation, insults and misinformation.

That's it, nothing else.

[NNadir]

23. Actually for a fluffy kiddie to know what misinformation and misrepresentation IS

they would need to be able to understand information.

Like this for instance: http://www.externe.info/

That is not the case here.

The external cost of energy is widely understood, throughout the scientific community world wide. It's not a mystery. Nuclear wins. Hands down.



Have a whiny, fluffy day.

[kristopher]

25. No it isn't a mystery

But as all informed people know, assessing the externalities of nuclear energy requires different modeling than with other energy sources. For example, nuclear proliferation isn't covered, is it? Another is that the long term storage problem isn't quantifiable under externality models designed for non-nuclear risks.

This claim of yours is proof of the concept I offered: you can only argue with misrepresentation and misinformation. Your claim ignores the unique external costs of nuclear by the totally dishonest tactic of implicitly claiming someone is able measure and quantify them. They can't and your argument fails.

[NNadir]

26. Um kiddie? Did you READ the report? No?

Why am I not surprised.

I note with contempt that you couldn't care less whether the cost of oil war, oil terrorism, oil weapons diversion - all things that actually occur somewhere other than in the stupid fantasies of anti-nukes, are covered in the external cost of oil.

On the contrary, you spend half your time here doing apologetics for the car CULTure.

[kristopher]

27. More bullshit.

Pointing to the external costs of oil as if the only choices available are nuclear or fossil fuels. That is false; it is a "stupid fantasy" of those with large financial interests in nuclear power's continued subsidization by the public sector.


That website is full of "reports"; which one did you have in mind.

[joshcryer]

29. Note that on their results page their one number for PV is comparable to nuclear.

Which is pretty telling when you consider that nuclear accounts for over 58% of all energy R&D in the past 30 years!

[Meeker Morgan]

8. So back to burning coal or what? n/t

[One_Life_To_Give]

10. How was the Poll question asked?

I think everyone here can agree there are a number of negatives asssociated with letting VT Yankee continue to operate. It's like asking if we should close the local landfill. The real question is was the question asked as if there were no consequnces to doing this? Or what alternatives were either given or assumed? I think we can be preatty sure it wasn't proposed to build a new Coal Plant in Downtown Burlington. But the power has to come from somewhere and will be in somebodies backyard.

[joshcryer]

14. It was a stupid online poll, says so in the article.

Yet people are trashing VT people for it for completely asinine reasons.

[bananas]

19. No, it was a telephone poll

The article doesn't say it was an online poll.
It does say:

"Research 2000 asked 400 people about safety concerns with Vermont Yankee and if they'd be willing to pay more for power if the plant closed."
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=9042182


According to the Research 2000 website, all their polls are conducted by telephone:

"All of our surveys are conducted by telephone. We will design a questionnaire in consultation with our client. The telephone interviewing is conducted and supervised by a professional staff and results are coded and processed into a statistical format. Our poll reports include methodology, overall results, selected crosstabulations, as well as written analysis and recommendations"
http://research2000.us/category/services/

[bananas]

21. And the nuclear industry does sleazy push-polling

From last October:

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071012/NEWS02/710120341/1003/NEWS02

Poll by Vt. Yankee owner called biased

October 12, 2007

By Louis Porter Vermont Press Bureau


MONTPELIER – A telephone survey apparently done this week on behalf of the Vermont Yankee plant's parent company, Entergy Nuclear, has irked some Vermonters who got the calls. They complained that the questions were slanted and designed more to influence their opinions than gauge them.

"If this wasn't a push poll I will eat my hat," said Marjorie Power, a Montpelier resident who happens to have once been a hearing officer for the Public Service Board that regulates utilities.

<snip>

Kendall Gifford, who works for the Windham Regional Commission on housing, transportation and community development issues, also got the call apparently from Entergy's polling firm.

The questions were "really bizarre" he said.

"It was clearly not a legitimate get-your-honest-opinion poll," he said. "I could not tell for sure where it came from or what the intent was."

<snip>

[joshcryer]

15. So does anyone know if it's back up to running at full capacity?

Or is it still running at half capacity due to the issues surrounding the plant.