Nuke critics easily win procedural vote

[bananas]

Source: Associated Press

The Vermont Senate has easily defeated an effort to delay an expected vote to close the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant in 2012.

By a vote of 24-6, Senators rejected a bid to send to committee a bill that would authorize the Public Service Board to issue Vermont Yankee a state license to continue operating for 20 years beyond its currently scheduled closing date in 2012.

The vote clears the way for the Senate to vote on the underlying bill. It's expected the measure will be voted down, meaning the Senate is calling for the plant to close in two years as currently scheduled.

After more than 2 1/2 hours of debate Wednesday, the Senate broke for lunch. Debate was to resume Wednesday afternoon.

Read more: http://www.wggb.com/Global/story.asp?S=12037529

---

:applause:

[TheWraith]

1. Good, that thing is old and needs to be replaced.

The newer technologies are so far ahead of that thing that it's like a Model T driving around on the interstate.

[HopeHoops]

3. I was in a nuclear power plant control room in 1985 - it was straight out of the 60's!

There's actually a good reason for that. Once the design passes initial approval, even slight changes can introduce huge delays. They are essentially tied to the technology of the original design. It was like stepping back in time to a pre-Star Trek era - actually, that's exactly what it was. I imagine the thing hasn't changed in the 25 years since I was there.

But technology aside, until they figure out how to safely store the spent fuel rods (and other contaminated items), we have no business building new plants or renewing licenses on marginal plants. Yeah, I know all of the pro-nuke rhetoric about how much power one plant produces vs. other technologies. I don't suppose those pro-nuke people would mind a little harmless nuclear waste stored in their neighborhood now would they?

[TheWraith]

5. That's the way a lot of high-end technology works.

Most of the US military's high-end jets were designed in the 1970s. Even our brand new ones are the product of 1990s technology.

That said, we do safely store "spent" fuel rods every day. And no, I wouldn't mind having them stored in my neighborhood at all. In contrast I certainly would mind having a coal plant next door.

[Javaman]

41. How about storing them in your basement? LOL nt

[TheWraith]

42. My basement is barely large enough to store my firewood.

The firewood I need because of the price fixing from fossil fuel companies, the same fossil fuel companies that fight tooth and nail against nuclear power, including funding anti-nuclear "grassroots" groups.

[Javaman]

45. ahhh, right.

If you are so happy with nuclear power, then store the waste in your basement.

The waste is always someone else's problem. "sure store it in my town!!" that's great until it's right next door to you.

I'm not anti-nuke, in fact far from it, I'm just anti-radioactive waste.

If there is a clean safe method to do away with it, great!

But alas, there isn't. Storing it in some underground location only passes it on to future generations to deal with. That's not doing away with it.

Cheers!

[TheWraith]

46. What a nice way to move the goalposts.

When I said clearly I didn't have any problem storing it in my home town, suddenly I'm disingenuous if I literally CAN'T store it in my fucking BASEMENT? Talk about dishonest.

And yeah, there are clean ways to do away with it. 97% of that "waste" is perfectly good uranium that can be reprocessed into fresh fuel rods, such as they do in Europe. The other 3% can potentially be sorted out into industrially useful isotopes and used elsewhere.

[Javaman]

47. LOL I moved no goal posts...

I asked if you would store them in your basement and you gave the excuse that you had to much firewood. You came up with excuse, not me.

LOL

If there is a way to reuse the waste, why isn't it done?

[fascisthunter]

2. Good! (nt)

[closeupready]

4. Good!

:woohoo:

[garybeck]

6. Senate votes to close Vermont Yankee nuclear plant in 2012

Source: Burlington Free Press

After more than four hours of debate, the Vermont Senate voted 26-4 against recommending that the Public Service Board act on Entergy Vermont Yankee's request for a 20-year extension of its license to operate a nuclear plant in Vernon.

The outcome of the vote means the bill won't move to the House for review or a vote.Several senators tried to delay the vote by sending the bill to a committee to consider the economic impact of closing the plant in 2012, but their effort failed. Amendments to modify the bill also failed.



Read more: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20100224/NEWS02/100224050/Senate-votes-to-close-Vermont-Yankee-nuclear-plant-in-2012

---

This goes far beyond the question of whether or not nuclear power in general is good. This is one of the oldest nuclear power plants in the country. Recent tests have found it is leaking radioactive Tritium and Cobalt into surrounding waters. An inspection found over 60 safety issues, only 17 of which have been addressed. There have been fires and coolant leaks at the plant. The original design of the plant was to last 40 years and that is expiring so it logically follows that it should be shut down.

[gratuitous]

7. Waiting for the pro nuke crowd

They will vehemently and omnisciently explain just why a nuclear power plant that was pushing it to go 40 years should get another 20 years for its chance to poison the Northeast. I understand that radioactive tritium and cobalt are actually good for you, but I don't quite remember why, so I'll wait to see that, too.

[garybeck]

10. tritium and cobalt are yummy.

i'm not sure if they're good for you, but they're yummy.

even if you're a nuclear power advocate, it should be obvious that all power plants have to be decommissioned at some point. This one has lived out its lifetime. It has an old design that is no longer permitted for safety reasons. It's time to let it die.

[djysrv]

27. re; Waiting for pro nuke crowd

Right here

http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2010/02/vermont-senate-votes-against-reactor.html

[gratuitous]

28. My anti-virus program squashed about five attacks at that website

Thanks for your input.

[djysrv]

40. re My anti-virus program

The blog is hosted by Google's Blogger software. There are no malware threats there.

[bananas]

38. Reactor-Grade Plutonium Can be Used to Make Powerful and Reliable Nuclear Weapons

I just want to address one point in your blog entry, your statement:

For the curious on the first claim, see Stephen Packard’s outstanding recent post “Why you can't make a bomb from spent fuel.”

Stephen Packard is wrong.
Richard Garwin has written quite a bit about the subject,
I just posted one of his articles in the Science forum:
"Reactor-Grade Plutonium Can be Used to Make Powerful and Reliable Nuclear Weapons"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x63502

[bananas]

39. Barry Brook sticks his head further in the sand

From the comments at that Depleted Cranium blog entry:

http://depletedcranium.com/why-you-cant-build-a-bomb-from-spent-fuel/?cp=2#comment-21772

64
Barry Brook Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:10 am

A friend/colleague of mine, who has significant experience in nuclear energy, sent me the following in response to my link to this post

———————–

The statement, “As it turns out, the spent fuel from a modern power reactor, such as a BWR or PWR reactor is completely unusable for a nuclear weapon,” is incorrect.

One of the best declassified statements on the utility of reactor-grade plutonium for use in weapons can be found in a DOE Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation report, “Draft Nonproliferation and Arms Control Assessment of Weapons-Usable Fissile Material Storage and Plutonium Disposition Alternatives”, 1996 (pg. 35), which cites a classified LLNL report, and gives the conclusion:

“At the lowest level of sophistication, a potential proliferating state or subnational group using designs and technologies no more sophisticated than those used in first-generation nuclear weapons could build a nuclear weapon from reactor-grade plutonium that would have an assured, reliable yield of one or a few kilotons (and a probable yield significantly higher than that). At the other end of the spectrum, advanced nuclear weapons states such as the United States and Russia, using modern designs, could produce weapons from reactor-grade plutonium having reliable explosive yields, weight, and other characteristics generally comparable to those of weapons made from weapons-grade plutonium. The greater radioactivity would mean increased radiation doses to workers fabricating such weapons, and military personnel spending long periods of time in close proximity to them, and the greater heat and radiation generated from reactor-grade plutonium might result in a need to replace certain weapon components more frequently. Proliferating states using designs of intermediate sophistication could produce weapons with assured yields substantially higher than the kiloton-range possible with a simple, first-generation nuclear device.”

The more recent LANL and LLNL figure-of-merit papers help generalize these conclusions across a greater range of materials. The major issue, of course, is that the weapons labs cannot declassify the specific design information and analysis that leads to these conclusions.

The statements about reactor grade plutonium refer to typical reactor grade plutonium (e.g., that discharged from typical LWRs). The speculation about the composition of the plutonium used in the 1962 test is immaterial to the conclusions in the various declassified statements.

From the perspective of proliferation, it is also important to note that a state would choose to divert the most attractive material it would have available, and that all nuclear energy systems will have low-burn up material (LWR first-core off-load fuel, top and bottom tips of fuel pins, etc).

From the perspective of theft of material by terrorists for use in nuclear explosives, all isotopic compositions of plutonium are of large concern. The LANL/LLNL figure of merit papers show this to be the case.

————————————–

My response, for what it’s worth, is as follows:

Is it your (LANL/LLNL) point that there is a theoretical possibility that any reactor-grade Pu could be used in a bomb, if it was made with sufficient expense, technology for cooling, methods for minimising the risk of a fissle etc.? i.e. are you arguing that it is not technically correct to say it CANNOT be done? If so, even if correct, is that really relevant in the real world?

I’m not persuaded that the theft of material by terrorists, as opposed to nation state, is for nuclear explosives is a credible threat, unless you mean for a radioactive dispersive device. And for nation states, I cannot envisage a situation where they would ever bother to go down the RGP route, when the U-enrichment of research-reactor path is so much ‘easier’. But I cannot claim any special expertise in this area beyond what I’ve read, so you and the LLNL guys may well be correct. Yet, looking at this problem from a general scientific perspective, extracts from classified documents which contain no empirical or experimental verification of statements do little to convince me of the veracity of viewpoint, which in the absence of this verification, is little more than a statement of authority.

—————————————

Barry is told explicitly that a "proliferating state or subnational group" can make a nuclear weapon with "assured, reliable yield of one or a few kilotons (and a probable yield significantly higher than that)" but Barry sticks his fingers in his ears and doesn't listen because it's not what he wants to hear. It's not "little more than a statement of authority", the classified material has been extensively reviewed by Garwin, Holdren, and many others.

[DeSwiss]

8. Great!

Now let's close the rest of these hulking, toxic anachronisms and stop fucking up the planet!

- K&R

[SPedigrees]

9. The rest of the country may be on the road to ruin, but our state still shines.

Thank you for posting. I had not yet heard the results of the vote until I read your post.

[garybeck]

11. that's because it just happened a few minutes ago :)

:toast:

[SPedigrees]

14. Ah, that explains much. ;-)

[momdogz]

29. Love my state Vermont!

Now lets lead the way on health care for all residents!

[fascisthunter]

12. good for Vermont

[dixiegrrrrl]

16. Same here...good on them !!!

[nyc 4 Biden]

13. Great News!!

[pleah]

15. K AND R!

[defendandprotect]

17. Lots of old ones which should be shut down -- congratulations!!

There are 106 around the nation -- about two in every state --

evacuation plans are always a sham --

and it takes 6 months to properly shut down a reactor so let any terrorist

who may be coming our way know that!!!

Health risks are low keyed and denied --

Waste is a nightmare --

And basically Obama is out of his mind in putting taxpayer money into any new ones!!

[bluedigger]

21. They shut down Maine Yankee a few years ago.

They molded the waste into lobster shaped ashtrays and sold it to tourists. That's what I heard, anyways...


:hide:

[defendandprotect]

26. I'd be in favor of moving the White House to a nuclear power site . . .

:evilgrin:

Just to keep them thinkin' on these things!

[swilton]

18. Great news for Vermont and the country

I hope that there is a movement for a policy initiative to clean up that site....Anyone know what happens to the waste from the leakage?

[Rapier09]

19. Keep Vermont Green

Just not that kind of Green.

[malakai2]

20. To be replaced with?

Will it be coal, oil, or natural gas?

[bananas]

22. It's falling apart - it's reached the far end of the bathtub curve.

It's only a small fraction of the New England grid, it can easily be replaced with efficiency, wind, and solar.
To keep it running increases the likelihood of catastrophic multiple component failures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve

[Jennicut]

23. It was old. Too old to be operating anymore. As a New Englander, I would say shut it down.

[jtrockville]

24. This is a good thing. Adios Vermont Yankee.

[djysrv]

25. Vermont Yankee

The vote is symbolic. There are serious issues.

Details here: http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2010/02/vermont-senate-votes-against-reactor.html

[AnOhioan]

30. Vermont Scuttles Plans for Reactor

Source: Wall Street Journal

The Vermont Senate blocked efforts by Entergy Corp. to win a 20-year license renewal for its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, an action that could encourage opponents of nuclear energy in other states.

The Senate vote, which was 26 to four, marks the first time a license renewal has been thwarted, and it sets the stage for the plant's closure by 2012, when the license expires.

The vote was striking because the state relies on the plant for a third of its electricity. In the past, license renewals have been routine, allowing energy companies to squeeze more life out of aging plants. To date, the NRC has renewed 59 reactor licenses, and 19 are pending.

The vote, which reflected fears about safety after leaks of radioactive tritium were discovered at the plant last year, is a blow to Entergy, which had planned to spin off six reactors, including Vermont Yankee, into the nation's first stand-alone nuclear power company, to be called Enexus Energy Corp.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704240004575085771093093364.html?mod=WSJ_business_whatsNews

[timeforpeace]

31. It generates a third of the state's electricity? How are they going to replace that amount?

[NNadir]

32. It's going to the industry that OWNS the anti-nuke industry: gas.

Actually nuclear power in Vermont provides 55% of Vermont's electricity, without a single loss of life. The other large fraction of electricity in Vermont is hydroelectric at 27%. The next largest supplier is oil, at 9.1%, followed by so called "renewables" - mostly wood in Vermont's case at 7%.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept04vt.xls

The anti-nuke lie is some kind of pixilated crap about tritium, but EVERY SINGLE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT that was shut by public ignorance and public stupidity, 100%, has been replaced by dangerous natural gas.

You will not hear a word of protest from all the tritium scaremongers, not one of whom understands shit from shinola about the science of tritium, about all of the people who died from breathing stuff like levoglucasans from burning wood, or particulates from oil, or about those who will die world wide because there is no means to deal with dangerous natural gas waste, or dangerous oil waste, or dangerous coal waste.

You will hear no tears from them about dangeorous fossil fuel wars, or dangerous fossil fuel terrorism, both of which are more or less routinely observed, but you will hear all about their dumb ass fantasy life involving make believe nuclear wars and some thing they saw on TV about nuclear terrorism.

You want to know why Vermont is trying to destroy its cleanest energy infrastructure and replacing it with filthy infrastructure? The answer is ignorance.

[miyazaki]

33. +1000 n/t

[Mopar151]

34. As usual, from the usual source....

VT is sick of Vt.Yankee because of 2 things - blatant lies and shoddy maintainence! Blatant lies, by the plant's absentee ownership, about underground pipes containing tritium - first they said they did'nt exisist, and then that they wer'nt leaking (much). The cooling tower collapse sure did'nt do much for their credibility in these parts - did'nt take a nuclear scientist to figure out that you ought to check wooden beams that are alternately wet, dry, and freezing - Any Vermont farmer that ever fixed a barn floor or a shit spreader coulda told 'em.
Those Vermonters are a funny bunch - when you lie to 'em, they start wondering how many other lies you told 'em! That ain't ignorance, it's just horse sense.

[ozone_man]

35. Horse sense includes suspecting that Enexus

was constructed to lock in profits while offloading the responsibility of decommissioning to a shaky, debt ridden shell corporation. If they went belly up, we would be stuck with decommissioning costs. And they would likely be greater with a leaky nuclear plant.

http://vtdigger.org/2010/01/27/smith-and-shumlin-tritium-leak-could-double-cost-of-decommissioning-yankee/

[Mopar151]

37. Ayuh... Seen a fella talked like that up to Tunbridge Fair

Sellin' Snake Oil, he was... And they don't want to be left holding the bag if Enexus blows town in the middle of the night, 'cuz it's happened before...With the Goldman Group, and good ol' Charlie Kelton, and Lyndonville Savings Bank, and a few more.

[NotThisTime]

36. K&R if they'd only admitted and worked towards solving their maintenance issues

[booley]

44. and maybe not lied

about having underground pipes

[booley]

43. Uhh this guy might know something

The man who first sounded the alarm bell on Vermont Yankee is a nuclear engineer. His name is Arnie Gundersen. Two years ago he was appointed to an oversight panel to study the plant. He and his wife Maggie are contracted consultants to the Vermont legislature. Arnie Gundersen was a nuclear industry executive for many years before blowing the whistle on the company he worked for in 1990, when he found inappropriately stored radioactive material. Arnie Gundersen joins us now from Burlington, Vermont.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/24/in_historic_vote_vermont_poised_to

Just because one industry will take advantage of another's misfortune or that one problematic energy source may end up replaced by another with it's own problems, it does not necessarily follow that that that means the issues with nuclear power are "scaremongering".