Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Court to Vermont: "Drop Dead"
A federal judge has told the people of Vermont that a solemn contract between them and the reactor owner Entergy need not be honored.
The fight will almost certainly now go to the US Supreme Court. At stake is not only the future of atomic power, but the legitimacy of all deals signed between corporations and the public. Chief Justice John Roberts' conservative court will soon decide whether a private corporation can sign what should be an enforceable contract with a public entity and then flat-out ignore it.
In 2003 Entergy made a deal with the state of Vermont. The Louisiana-based nuke speculator said that if it could buy and operate the decrepit Vermont Yankee reactor under certain terms and conditions, the company would then agree to shut it down if the state denied it a permit to continue. The drop dead date: March 21, 2012.
In the interim, VY has been found leaking radioactive tritium and much more into the ground and the nearby Connecticut River. Under oath, in public testimony, the company had denied that the pipes that leaked even existed.
One of Yankee's cooling towers has also collapsed...just plain crumbled.
One of Yankee's siblings---Fukushima One---has melted and exploded (VY is one of some two dozen Fukushima clones licensed in the US).
In the face of these events, the legislature, in partnership with Vermont's governor, voted 26-4 to deny Entergy a permit to continue. But the company is determined to continue reaping huge profits on a 35-year-old reactor -- long since amortized at public expense -- with very cheap overhead based on slipshod operating techniques where safety always comes second. Along the way Entergy has also tried to stick Vermont Yankee into an underfunded corporate shell aimed at shielding it from all economic liabilities.
To allow VY to continue fissioning, Judge John Murtha latched onto Entergy's argument that the state legislature committed the horrible sin of actually discussing safety issues. These, by federal law, are reserved for Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He chose to ignore the serious breach of contract issues involved. As Deb Katz of the Citizens Awareness Network puts it: "Entergy's lawyers cherry-picked legislators' questions about safety" from a previous debate relating to nuclear waste. "Judge Murtha supported the corporation over the will of the people."
The surreal nature of telling a state it can't vote to shut a reactor because it dared to consider the public health dates to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. To paint a happy face on the atomic Bomb, Congress essentially exempted the nuclear power industry from public accountability. It gave the Atomic Energy Commission sole power to both regulate and promote its "too cheap to meter" technology.
Some 67 years later, Judge Murtha says the legislature's encroachment on the province of safety means Entergy can violate its solemn legal agreement with the people of Vermont.
In practical terms, this could mean that any corporation can bust any public trust on even the flimsiest pretext. Let the corporate lawyers find some pale excuse and the company can skirt its contractual obligations. In the hands of the supremely corporatist Roberts Court, this case could join Citizens United in a devastating one-two punch for the unrestrained power of the private corporation.
It would also put the reactor industry even further beyond control of the people it irradiates.
Thankfully, the judge did not entirely rule out the possibility of the state taking some kind of action. Vermont's Public Service Board still has the right to deny Entergy an extension. Perhaps the commissioners will ban the word "safety" from all proceedings. If they do say VY must be shut, Entergy's legal team will certainly even newer, more creative ways to appeal.
Vermonters will stage a shutdown rally March 21. Local activism against the reactor continues to escalate.
No US reactor has been ordered and completed since 1973. Shutting Vermont Yankee or any other of the 104 American reactors now licensed might well open the floodgates to shutting the rest of them, as Germany is now doing.
Karl Grossman has suggested Vermont use eminent domain to shut VY, as New York did 20 years ago to bury the $7 billion Shoreham reactor, which was stopped from going into commercial operation.
However it happens, the people of Vermont are in a race against time to prevent another Fukushima in their back yard---which is also all of ours.
"When this rogue corporation is again rejected," says Katz, "the will of the people and democracy will be upheld. Lets commit to doing whatever we can to at last make a nuclear corporation keep its word."
49 Comments so far
Show AllWhere will Obama stand, 'after the election', on nuclear power? His friends at Exelon and GE know.
Federal subsidies to private corporations to build more with broad deregulation and lack of oversight. That's where he stands today.
It won't matter he'll be a private citizen back in Chicago after the election.
this is horrifying
This IS horrifying, but how did this happen... Did the Vermont Office of the Attorney General cause this??? Should a different legal argument have been used? Incompetance? Read about the backstory in this link.
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/frank09222003/
I don't undestand what the story (from 2003) in your link has to do with the nuclear power plant. Dean is no longer the governor of Vermont, and I doubt that Sorrell is still the Attorney General. So why bring this up?
It's known as "deflection." rosemarie is a troll.
q
Sorrel still is the 5 term, very smug and not all that great, Attorney General and Rosemarie is not a troll.
Thanks for the support. I thought everyone knew that it is the VT AG who represents the government in Court. One reason for the lack of information about how things are in Vermont is because of the censorship. Read this and hope it doesn't happen where you live.
http://mwcnews.net/focus/politics/16224-censorship-in-the-green-mountains.html
Yes, let's blame the victims... Always easier and much more satisfying.
---SWL
Thanks....
Globalization as an entity flickers in and out of focus with the demented and poisoned corporations, born of greed and now cancer ridden, the dementia of the form of 'personhood', the sheer psychopathology of the concept must be fought to the bitter end. What is heartening is to think in terms of bitter as - in 'bitter herbs'- which are medicinal.
Each time an entity decides policy in terms of overriding well being with profit, the poison intensifies. Occupy bitter and make them drink real, real deep astringent resistance
'personhood': Time to recognize that corporations are in fact people and name those people. Here is the list of American "Corporate Persons": (http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/) These 400 people own controlling interest in all major corporations and the vast majority of the stock of said corporations.
One of these people is making the news in this election cycle by funding the Newt. #8 Sheldon Adelson, casino magnet, put 10 million dollars into a Newt Super-PAC. His money is speaking loudly in our politics. Money is speech. Corporations are people, very wealthy people.
That is one seriously scary article. It is a glaring example of the detachment from reality of our government and legal system. When something as devastating as Fukushima cant wakeup these corporate whores, it is obvious that we as a species are screwed unless we can purge the halls of power of these sociopaths.
If there was a major radioactive spill/release from VY some fairly large to very large cities would be affected. In Massachusetts; North Hampton, Holyoke, Chicopee West Springfield, Springfield would be contaminated. In Connecticut; Windsor, Hartford, East Hartford, Wethersfield, Rocky Hill, and Middletown would be contaminated. Then eventually the radiation would reach Long Island sound, where it could slosh back and forth with the tides.
If when this does happen someday, Im sure we will hear that it could not have been foreseen, and the good people of VT, NH, Mass, CT, and NY will have to pay for the cleanup, and or live with the contamination.
It makes no sense for a democracy to have one unelected branch appointed for life -- the federal judiciary -- that can overrule any decision by elected officials.
The anti-federalists opposed this portion of the constitution. Alexander Hamilton, the spiritual forefather of Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, wanted this unelected judiciary to keep the democratic wishes of the people in check, because Hamilton, like most rich and powerful people, despised the people he ruled.
People talk about the need for various constitutional amendments, but no one seems to mention the need to eliminate this unelected branch of government.
"Liberals" seem to love the Supreme Court because of one or two favorable decisions over the course of over 200 years (like Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board of Education), but they overlook the hundreds or even thousands of US Supreme Court decisions that have taken the side of the ruling class against the people.
I know many judges and knew many of them before they became judges and not one of them was a truly skilled lawyer and many of them were at best mediocrities. We select our judges on a purely subjective basis -- who they know. Not a great system for fairness.
The reason federal judges are appointed for life is that James Madison did not trust elected officials to do the right thing when the public was clamoring over an issue. Thus the logic underlying an independent judiciary is that the judges are supposed to determine if laws or decisions by elected officials are consistent with the Constitution, not if they are popular with the public.
Consider the recent Supreme Court case dealing with a California law that imposed strict standards on the meat processing industry - stricter than the federal law. The Court unanimously determined that the federal law cannot be usurped by a state law. I suspect that most, if not all of the justices were appalled by what went on
in the meat-packing plant, but the decision was based on an interpretation of the Constitution.
The decision by Judge Murtha in the Vermont case seems obscene because he seems to have cherry-picked his way through the documents to give the energy company what it wanted. But that is why appeals courts exist.
Wise words, Tom. As to your observation that many judges were medicore lawyers (or worse), I think our society, for the most part, rewards mediocre thinkers. They are not the ones who will rattle the cage or upset the proverbial apple-cart. When one observes who Bush surrounded himself with, attorney wise, it becomes clear that those loyal to their leader were selected above those who had great insight into legal theory and how it might benefit the greatest majority of citizens.
I'd like to see the present Supreme Court impeached! Too many of their decisions, perhaps starting with the election debacle of 2000, have been toxic. Allowing NDAA and torture and the "unitary executive," their contribution to "checks and balances" is DOA.
While I agree with you that the Supremes are a blot on the body politic, and that we have no effective criteria for judicial impartiality that can hold a Justice of that court accountable should they go prove a radical/rogue body actually legislating and/or redacting federal policy, I wonder at your implication that elected officials of the US Gov. are not selected and marketed based on who they know. Isn't that what the Corporate State is all about?
But Hamilton also believed that the 3rd Branch of government would be the weakest and the least dangerous because it had "no influence over either the sword or the purse, ...It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." - Federalist Paper No. 78.
If Hamilton hadn't successfully fought off Jefferson's and Madison's attempt to pass an 11th Amendment to the Bill of Rights, dramatically constraining corporate power and preventing it from interfering in government, the Court would not have been able to get away with its fiction of corporate personhood and its plethora of corporate "rights".
fascism abounds through nearly every story on cd today (and most days)
i guess the moral of the story is that when you own the courts and the media and the politicians you get to do whatever the hell you like, think of corporations as the new plantation owners only in the old days the "massuhs" had to provide food and housing for their chattels, which they no longer have to do theses days - more profit
the relentless irradiation of the world and amerikan sheeple has been one of the reasons we see major cancer outbreaks all over the world - no getting around that old strontium
isotopes also create genetic mutations as they bind with dna
the nuclear industry is the greatest killer of mankind ever - move over mao, stalin and hitler
the big boy is the nuclear industry - killers of humanity
radiation is bad for adults, worse foo children and most harming to young girls
who wouldn't be proud to work in this business...
The ultimate motivation of contentions made on behalf of Entergy appears
to be the following: If a business entity has put money into a venture, it
ought not be permitted to fail. (I'm not saying it can't fail; I'm saying that
the contention on behalf of Entergy amounts to arguing it SHOULDN'T fail.)
Furthermore -- the motivation is -- if the business spends more money to
hire high-priced lawyers, those lawyers' contentions deserve more weight
than do the decisions of the legislature and the governor of a state: Money
talks. As has been said before, "The business of America is business." If
you're doing it for PROFIT, and paying wages to employees, you "deserve"
extra accomodation in "jurisprudence". All that is what Entergy is contending.
The brazenness of it!
Strictly violative of Jefferson's great phrase: "[governments'] deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed." What has been (so-called)
decided, and what may very well be affirmed at the highest judicial level,
cannot be allowed to stand. CANNOT be let go into a status of (so-called)
"jurisprudence"! Jurisprudence has become too ______, _____ prudent.
Too prudent in protection of the dictates of business.
It's our country! We only granted certain powers to the courts, so as to let
them handle some details of rational application of foundational principles
in specific cases. We DID NOT grant to any court a privilege of "legislating
from the bench". (Judge-made law). If we are in danger of being burdened
with negation of contracts -- which are supposed to be protecting the public --
then what else would that be, other than judge-made law? As other posts
tend to similar opinions, I say we're looking down the gun-barrel of fascism.
Such a situation as Entergy's case is how it starts: Guaranteed profits to the
profiteers! It must be stopped now.
The key legal issue is Entergy is not following the agreement they made with the Stae when the purchased the plant. Even a Libertartian would have a problem with that bald-faced crap.
The state of Vermont needs to draw up plans for a wind turbine "farm" on the site where Vermont Yankee is located and tell Entergy that they must remove their nuclear plant because it is in the way of progress and business opportunity.
Using the perfectly valid argument of economic malfeasance against a corporation would indeed be a breakthrough for this nation, but this idea does involve other ways of making profits (both monetary and environmental).
See that's why we need to vote Democrat! ... Obama will save us from bad judges like Murtha. He'll appoint only the good kinda judges. Vote dem for the sake of the judiciary!!
.
Oh wait ... what's that? Murtha was appointed in 1995..... by Bill Clinton(!) .... that can't be!
Court to Vermont: " DROP DEAD ".
One has to wonder how many Vermonters would literally have to die from the Yankee plant, before the court would reverse their decision and deny the permit!
All of them.
Yes... All of them.
Decisions, decisions. Who to hang first, judges or CEO's.
I'm still wondering what's going to kill us all first.
The crashing and meltdowns of more of these reactors.
The possibility that the neo-con drive for war with Iran and every other oil producing state will result in an global nuclear bomb exchange.
Or the consequences of runaway global warming caused by burning the fossil fuels.
I hope it's a race that isn't run, but fear that the 'competitors' are in the final lap.
In lieu of learning to age gracefully, or know a modicum of peace in retirement, I think about the three things you've mentioned too often. Of course I also think about very young children and the awful state of the world that will become their inheritance.
There is a 4th aspect you didnt mention: that which will be brought on by the upcoming Great Depression (II). As the U.S. dollar, soaked in the blood of imperialistic conquests, when not traded against the phony instruments of faux wealth as drawn up by Wall Street and its junk bond peddlers loses value... what then of the hungry, homeless multitudes? The billion guns on the streets of this land of the anything but brave may be put to local use.
Consider the gravest irony of them all: for the investment in "Defense" to the tune of how many trillions (spent on 800+ bases all over the globe, added to direct wars against Iraq & Afghanistan, and lower impact ones against Pakistan, Libya, and perhaps Iran) ... we citizens of the U.S. could not be less safe or secure if we tried.
Oh, and there's a 5th item to add to your list; The lack of access to genuine health CARE due to both a Lotto system of Insurance delivery, added to the array of toxic debris that all of us are daily exposed to as our waterways become littered in industrial run-off, big pharma's detritus, the remnants of fracking, and Goddess knows what else.
They'll offer us recycled toilet water while judges OK debilitated nuke plants' licenses, and they provide NO health care or treatment when so many citizens are thus exposed.
Land of the FREE
If you can pay THE price!
I am all for local control of this facility, and there may very well be good reasons for retiring the VY power plant. But everyone should keep in mind that, like it or not, whenever a nuclear plant is retired, it will be replaced with a coal or frack-gas power plant.
Perhaps the governor of Vermont should order that state's National Guard on to the plant property on March 21 and enforce the permit denial that way. It would force the five corporatist US Supreme Court justices to swallow hard and force them to choose between two creeds, state's rights and corporate rule, they hold dear in a very public manner. And if the corporatist five rule in favor of Entergy, the state of Vermont could then pull an Andrew Jackson (who, when the US Supreme Court ruled against a policy of his, indian removal, in Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia, simply told the justices that they did not command an army), and dare the Roberts court to try to enforce it.
NateW:
While I do not like "Old Hickory's" purpose concerning Native Americans,
it is the merest truism that (according to the Constitution) the SCOTUS
does not hold powers that the Constitution granted to the Executive and
the Legislative branches of federal government. Courts cannot legally call
out the army or the national guard. Unless the executive branch, which is
really the president, gives the order, no federal enforcement of the judges'
decisions will occur. I say moreover, if a decision clearly WOULD act so
as to endanger public health, then just let it lay unenforced. Furthermore,
the tenth amendment reserves to the state (here, Vermont) all powers not
explicitly granted to the federal government. Something has got to be done
about the federal courts, which are now working to "get around" all limitation
of checks and balances upon their inventive power. the STATE, VERMONT,
should be attentive to the needs of it's citizens, despite what the SCOTUS
may say.
there must be accountability here. the idea that a state can't discuss safety issues is insane. the atomic energy act must be repealed along with the price-anderson act, which protects the nuke operators from liability for their catastrophes. do that & we'll have solartopia right quick.
The focus of this article is on the right of the Vermonters to shut down a nuclear power plant in their backyard out of safety concerns. That is fine as far as it goes - and nuclear power has to be phased out, and the sooner it is done, the better it is for everyone. And targeting the permit renewal stage is a good tactic too!
What is missing in the article are numbers to do with electricity consumption in Vermont. And from WHERE will the shortfall be met after shutting down the nuclear power plant.
From Wikipedia:
>>As of 2010, most of the energy is purchased wholesale for distribution from Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant and Hydro-Québec. The costs from Vermont Yankee were about 3 to 5 cents per kilowatt hour.
In 2009, the state received 1/3 or 400 MW of its power from Hydro-Québec and 1/3 from Vermont Yankee. In total, the state got half its power from Canada and other states. It received 75 percent of the power it generated in the state from Vermont Yankee.<<
The power generation capacity of the Vermont Yankee has been reported to be about 620 MW, some of which it obviously exports to the grid, outside of the state.
But the main fact here is that Vermont gets 50% of its electricity supply **from Canada and other states** and **1/3 from Vermont Yankee**. That's a total of about 83% of the electricity supply to Vermont that will have to come **from outside the state** if the the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant gets shut down without any additional capacity built **within the state**.
Now, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong in getting a state's electricity supply from outside the state. Nothing at all! But my question is this:
Will the people of Vermont care where this power is coming from and how it is generated?
In particular, will Vermonters give a damn if this power is generated in coal-fired plants elsewhere in the country?
The websites dedicated to fighting this nuclear power plant's permit extension all talk about "energy conservation" and "efficiency" as a major factor that can meet the shortfall. That is GOOD! What I don't see anywhere is about the details. More importantly, what is stopping the Vermonters from working on "energy conservation" and "efficiency" right now?
I still have NOT found a good way to needle the people demanding the shut down of nuclear power plants while only making feeble murmurs about shutting down coal power plants too ("yeah, yeah, coal should go too...") without needlessly giving rise to suspicions about being a supporter of nuclear power. Frankly, I have better things to do, and I would challenge anyone to dig up any post where I have explicitly argued FOR nuclear power, other than saying that from a global warming perspective, coal power is more dangerous, and therefore should be shut down FIRST, unless the nuclear power plant is clearly sited in a seismically active region or otherwise shows signs of clear danger.
Being of the same type of reactor as the one that blew up at Fukushima One, there is EVERY REASON for the people of Vermont to seize this opportunity to shut down the Vermont Yankee reactor. My only challenge to them is to do a bit more to make it clear that this is not just another NIMBY activism at work, and to show that they really do give a damn about global warming and the dangerous contribution from coal power plants. Or better yet, after successfully shutting down this nuclear power plant (I hope they succeed), the same activists should work to shut down coal power plants everywhere in the country, and never lose sight of the numbers involved - such as about 45% of the electricity generation capacity in the U.S. from coal power plants at present!
Speaking of NIMBY activism, I would highly recommend to people to watch this documentary "Cape Spin: An American Power Struggle" that shows the ugly side of the American rich (and the not-so-rich) that makes them spend 10's of millions of dollars in **opposing** an off-shore wind farm, because of all kinds of claims - from affecting the view and real estate value to jeopardizing fishing! There's a 4-minute trailer available:
http://www.capespin.com/about-cape-spin
>>Film Synopsis:
"Cape Spin: An American Power Struggle" tells the surreal, fascinating, tragicomic story of the battle over America’s largest clean energy project. Cape Wind would be the U.S.’s first offshore windfarm…But strange alliances formed for and against: Kennedys, Kochs, and everyday folks do battle with the developer and green groups over the future of American power.
With full access to both sides, a commitment to impartial storytelling and fueled by a satiric ‘revolutionary’ soundtrack, Cape Spin is “a gripping and entertaining study of eco-capitalism and grassroots democracy”. “It proves that environmental films can be crowd pleasers, and not at all just about the environment.”<<
Some more random stuff from Wikipedia:
>>Over the past two centuries, logging has fallen off as over-cutting and the exploitation of other forests made Vermont's forest less attractive. The decline of farms has resulted in a regrowth of Vermont's forests due to ecological succession. Today, most of Vermont's forests are secondary.
Over 78 percent of the land area of the state is forested. Over 85 percent of that area is non-industrial, private forestland owned by individuals or families.
Dairy farming is the primary source of agricultural income. ... The number of dairy farms has been diminishing by 10 percent annually.
The number of cattle in Vermont had declined by 40 percent; however, milk production has doubled in the same period due to tripling the production per cow.<<
Thank you for this information. Good points.
Regarding getting electricity from "out of state," that is done everywhere. Utilities buy power from brokers who buy it from whomever can provide at the least cost. Ironically, a utility in Boise, Idaho might occasionally get its power from Vermont Yankee, if the cost is low.
Because Entergy offered the VT electrical distribution companies a price package they weren't willing to accept, and because it was assumed that the nuke would shut down, all VT utilities have already signed power purchase agreements with other power generators. If VT Yankee is relicensed, 100% of its power will go out of state. VT gets nothing from it but the "externalities" and nightmares.
I agree that Vermont should proactively support green power production, but you are almost trivializing the very real and immediate threat from this aging plant, a plant already leaking, a plant with many serious safety breeches and with a history of lying to the public. My wife and I and many Vermonters pay extra on our Green Mountain power bill to support green energy production. We know what you are saying and debated this throughout the state for years. It is the dangerous lies of VY that ended the debate and moved the remaining citizens and legislators to demand a shut down.
Vermonters should look at small scale hydro where appropriate and wind power, but need to proceed carefully and wisely . The country needs to stop spending on wars , clean up the nuclear mistake and start investing in clean energy.
If you read my post once again, jonabark, you'll see that I've indicated that I do hope that this plant gets shut down, using THIS opportunity of a permit renewal process. My challenge is a broader one, although in this instance it is somewhat targeted at Vermonters. The broader challenge, aimed at all the anti-nuclear power people is this:
Does your concern extend beyond your backyard? How much do you care about global warming? I mean, REALLY care? I have my SERIOUS doubts about how much the American people in general care about global warming. They will NOT be the most affected, and certainly they will NOT be the FIRST affected when catastrophic events set in, and that may have a lot to do with this lack of urgency.
Burning coal MUST stop, and it must stop now! Each kilowatt-hour of coal-based electricity is responsible for 1 kilogram of CO2. Once again, from Wikipedia:
>>In 2005, the inhabitants of the state used an average of 5,883 kilowatt hours of electricity per capita. Another source says that each household consumed 7,100 kilowatt-hours annually in 2008.<<
49% of 6,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity from coal power plants is about 3,000 kilograms or 3 tonnes of CO2. That is how much CO2 will be emitted as a result of electricity consumption from a national grid, **coming from coal power plants alone** by EACH Vermonter.
49% here happens to be the share of electricity generated from coal power plants in the U.S., even though the installed capacity is closer to 45% of the total. If you include the other thermal power plants burning oil and gas, together, these, with coal, account for more than 70% of all electricity generated in the US. Numbers for actual electricity generated (and consumed) will tell a different story from numbers for installed capacity - because not all types of generators run 24x7.
I have mentioned the role of meat and dairy production before. Globally, they are said to be responsible for as much as 51% of all greenhouse gas emissions.
Each time someone fills up and burns 110 gallons of gasoline, 1-tonne of CO2 is emitted.
These numbers add up. And the numbers from the rich countries have added up to monstrous proportions over the decades and centuries.
The average (per capita) carbon emissions attributed to each person in the U.S. is about 17.5 tonnes of CO2-equivalent, per year. It's 16.5 tonnes per capita for Canadians. (I have to say, I have seen other estimates of 19 - 21 tonnes for Americans and Canadians elsewhere). In contrast, for the average Chinese person, it is 5.3 tonnes per year, for someone from India, the average number is 1.4 tonnes, and for Bangladesh, the per capita emissions is 0.3 tonnes - per year, as per estimates for 2008.
So yes, a nuclear power plant in the neighborhood, especially one with a questionable safety record, is clearly a pressing threat and therefore should be tackled first. I just thought that this would also be a good opportunity to remind people in the U.S. (and other rich countries) that they are endangering the lives of people and other life forms all over the planet simply by going about their everyday lives, what they eat, how they commute and travel, what they do for their "leisure" and "entertainment", how they vacation, party, and all that. For example, here are the estimated numbers for Super Bowl (2010):
187,000: kilowatt-hours of electricity estimated to be spent at the Super Bowl stadium.
10,004,603: kilowatt-hours of electricity consumed by home TVs tuned in to the game.
Going by the national average, 4,900 tonnes of CO2 would have been emitted to supply the electricity for those watching the Super Bowl on TV ** from coal power plants alone ** not counting other emissions from oil and gas generators, car trips, power for refrigerators and freezers (to stock up on beer and other stuff to be consumed during the Super Bowl), etc.
It takes more than 25 years for a freshly-planted tree to absorb just 1 tonne of CO2. It takes shorter for older trees.
Anyway, this also why I said that I have NOT found a good way to talk about all this without offending people in some way.
>>"My wife and I and many Vermonters pay extra on our Green Mountain power bill to support green energy production."<<
Yes, I know that electricity rates in Vermont, on average, are at least 15% higher than the national average, with individual households perhaps paying even higher rates because of choices such as yours to support renewable energy.
>>"Vermonters should look at small scale hydro where appropriate and wind power, but need to proceed carefully and wisely..."<<
Don't know about the "proceed carefully and wisely" part - it may have to do with local issues such as land ownership, who gets to profit, etc.? Anyway, no matter what action is taken, they cannot ignore the numbers involved, and their implications on global warming, for this action to be meaningful.
Vermont has a right to require that all businesses be fully liable for damages (which nuke plants aren't), post a bond for a few billion and/or heavily tax the corp to make up the difference. In other words, make it financially impossible for them to continue operation.
Sorry, but the legislation passed in the 1950s (I believe it is called the Anderson Act, after the senator from Arizona or New Mexico), and renewed every so often limits the liability of companies which run nuclear power plants. Without that limit, no utility would even consider building one.
Then repeal it. It's the perfect attack/issue. They can't claim nukes are safe if they limit liability.
Lil' Bread & Puppet state vs. Big Nuke and his father, Fed Gummit.
What could go wrong?
---SWL
I don't understand what's so bad. Leave the reactor running, but the state can then disconnect all the wires leading out of the plant. Let's 'em run it all they want, but they can't sell the electricity and they can't do anything with the power they produce. If that doesn't work, put a $10K toll on the road leading up to the plant until it is abandoned...
If VY is going to be creative in their desire to break their contract, then the state should have lots of other options to stop them.
These are funny ideas. There has to be something like this the state can do. Are you a fellow Vermonter? You should write an open letter to Shumlin and the Vermont legislature.
There is also the question of how do you assure the safety if the reactor is closed. Here is a recently refueled reactor with 10 time the amount of spent fuel in pools on the roof that Fukushima had. If the plant is closed, how is this maintained, removed, paid for, whatever. I think that it all should be closed and cleaned up before we get 17 inches of rain on the Upper Valley of the Connecticut River and washes the plant to Ma. and the Long Island Sound.
What the court decision has done is to overlook the permanent horrors of Fukushima and assign "some risk" as being acceptable. The people see the risk, no matter how slight, to have unacceptable consequences. That is why the decision that the Fed can determine matters of safety is not applicable. The people will not accept any risk in this case of proven disaster beyond what rational sanity can endure.
The federal government no longer represents the people so it is no longer
legitimate. Vermont has a national guard. Surround the plant in March and
shut it down. The federal court say "to hell with the people of Vermont"
The people of Vermont say "to hell with the federal court".....
Nuclear weapons are not all owned by the military. This is a nuclear weapon of mass destruction and should be handled as such. The government should shut it down and take the assets of the owners to pay for it. All of the assets.