RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Wasserman writes: "The Vermont Yankee atomic reactor goes permanently off-line today, Dec. 29, 2014. Citizen activists have made it happen. The number of licensed U.S. commercial reactors is now under 100 where once it was to be 1,000."

Women from Vermont, Massachusetts and New Hampshire chained and locked the main gate of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant on Earth Day in 2011. (photo: The Nuclear Resister)
Women from Vermont, Massachusetts and New Hampshire chained and locked the main gate of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant on Earth Day in 2011. (photo: The Nuclear Resister)


Activists Permanently Shut Down Vermont Yankee Nuke Plant Today

By Harvey Wasserman, Reader Supported News

29 December 14

 

itizen activists have made it happen. The number of licensed U.S. commercial reactors is now under 100 where once it was to be 1,000.

Decades of hard grassroots campaigning by dedicated, non-violent nuclear opponents, working for a Solartopian green-powered economy, forced this reactor’s corporate owner to bring it down.

Vermont Yankee is the fifth American reactor forced shut in the last two years.

Entergy says it shut Vermont Yankee because it was losing money. Though fully amortized, it could not compete with the onslaught of renewable energy and fracked-gas. Throughout the world, nukes once sold as generating juice “too cheap to meter” comprise a global financial disaster. Even with their capital costs long-ago stuck to the public, these radioactive junk heaps have no place in today’s economy—except as illegitimate magnets for massive handouts.

So in Illinois and elsewhere around the U.S., their owners demand that their bought and rented state legislators and regulators force the public to eat their losses. Arguing for “base load power” or other nonsensical corporate constructs, atomic corporations are gouging the public to keep these radioactive jalopies sputtering along.

Such might have been the fate of Vermont Yankee had it not been for citizen opposition. Opened in the early 1970s, Vermont Yankee was the northern tip of clean energy’s first “golden triangle.” Down the Connecticut River, grassroots opposition successfully prevented two reactors from being built at Montague, Massachusetts, where the term “No Nukes” was coined. A weather tower was toppled, films were made, books were written, demonstrations staged and an upwelling of well-organized grassroots activism helped nurture a rising global movement.

A bit to the southwest, in the early 1990s, it shut the infamous Yankee Rowe reactor, which had been hit by lightening and could not pass a verifiable test of its dangerously embrittled core.

But Vermont Yankee persisted. Entergy, a “McNuke” operator based in New Orleans, bought Yankee from its original owners about a dozen years ago. It signed a complex series of agreements with the state. Then it trashed them to keep Vermont Yankee spiraling ever-downward.

But hard-core organizers like Deb Katz’s Citizen Awareness Network never let up. Working through a network of natonal, state and local campaigns, the safe energy movement has finally forced Entergy to flip the off switch.

Protestors hold signs during a vigil to support the closing of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant at the Statehouse Monday, Jan. 23, 2012 in Montpelier, Vt. (AP Photo/Toby Talbot)

Protestors support the closing of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant at the Statehouse in January 2012 in Montpelier, Vermont.

Vermont Yankee is the fifth American reactor forced shut in the last two years. Two at San Onofre, California, were defeated by citizen activism. Wisconsin’s Kewaunee went down for economic reasons. Crystal River in Florida was driven to utter chaos by incompetent ownership.

Five reactors are officially under construction in the U.S. But their fate is also subject to citizen action. Two others targeted for Levy County, Florida, have recently been stopped by ratepayer resistance.

Throughout the U.S. and the world, the demise of atomic energy is accelerating. Some 435 reactors are listed worldwide as allegedly operable. But 48 in Japan remain shut in the wake of Fukushima despite the fierce efforts of a corrupt, dictatorial regime to force them back on line. Germany’s transition to a totally nuke-free green energy economy is exceeding expectations. The fate of dozens proposed and operating in China and India remains unclear.

But the clock on the inevitable next disaster is ticking. Cancer rates and thyroid problems around Fukushima continue to accelerate. Massive reactors like California’s Diablo Canyon and Indian Point, New York, are surrounded by volatile earthquake faults that could reduce them to seething piles of apocalyptic rubble, killing countless thousands downwind, gutting the global economy.

Every reactor shutdown represents an avoided catastrophe of the greatest magnitude. As the takeoff of cheap, clean, safe and reliable Solartopian technology accelerates, greedy reactor owners struggle to squeeze the last few dimes out of increasingly dangerous old nukes for which they ultimately will take no responsibility. Vermont Yankee alone could require 60 years for basic clean-up. Fierce debate rages over what to do with thousands of tons of intensely radioactive spent fuel rods.

It remains unclear where the money will ultimately come from to try to decontaminate these sites, but clearly they are all destined to be dead zones.

As will the planet as a whole were it not for victories like this one in Vermont. This weekend the No Nukes community will celebrate this accursed reactor’s final demise.

Many hundreds more such celebrations must follow—soon!



Harvey Wasserman's "Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth, AD 2030" is at www.solartopia.org. He is senior advisor to Greenpeace USA and the Nuclear Information & Resource Service, and writes regularly for www.freepress.org. He and Bob Fitrakis have co-authored four books on election protection, including "Did George W. Bush Steal America's 2004 Election?," "As Goes Ohio: Election Theft Since 2004," "How the GOP Stole America's 2004 Election & Is Rigging 2008," and "What Happened in Ohio."

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
-33 # brycenuc 2014-12-29 13:42
The only nuclear accident that killed or harmed anyone was the one at Chernobyl which killed 56 workers from the initial blast. No one was harmed at Fukushima or Three-Mile Island. Thousands were killed by the Tsunami at Fukushima. There is no residual contamination at any closed or operating U. S. power reactor sites. The only radioactivity is well-contained within the fuel elements which are inaccessible to anyone and will decay to harmless levels in less than 30 years. The problem with the U. S. nuclear industry has been the unwarranted fears generated by an uninformed public to which the regulators have responded.

The same fear mongers who shut down nuclear power are now shutting down fossil fuels because of the fraud of global warming.

The greatest threat to our future is the ignorance of the electorate.

I agree, however, on Wasserman's characterizatio n of the GOP's election thievery.
 
 
+22 # lnason@umassd.edu 2014-12-29 14:09
I have serious misgivings about nuclear plants in spite of their excellent safety records here and in France and in developed countries generally.

If the plants were actually as safe as nuclear engineers claim, they would get insurance on the free market (e.g., Lloyds) and would be subject to safety inspections by high quality risk assessors (e.g., Marsh and McLennan). As the Price Anderson Act mandates, today we have the taxpayer on the hook for both insurance and inspections.

This unfortunate situation also introduces the probability that a conflict of interest will arise and safety might easily be sacrificed to regulatory capture.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
+7 # tedrey 2014-12-29 15:02
I quite agree with you here.
 
 
+15 # Malcolm 2014-12-29 14:13
Bryce, I almost skipped this article, since it's so easy to do so when things are going SO RIGHT!

Your claims are just that-claims. Other sources estimate huge numbers of mostly cancer caused deaths from nuclear accidents, and even "normal" radioactive leakage from operating nukes.

"No residual contamination at any closed or operating U.S. power reactor sites"? That's an interesting statement! I can't speak for other sites, but I've actively protested both both Trojan and Humboldt Bay nukes, both of which are still storing fuel rods, many, many years after being shut down as too dangerous to continue operating until their PLANNED shutdown. I'd call that HIGHLY contaminated!

"HARMLESS LEVELS, after thirty years"? Where did that come from? What happens at this magic point in time? Have the physics rules of half-life been been violated somehow?

"FEAR MONGERS"? Excuuuuse me? Does concern about one's health, and the health of his family and friends in the face of toxic chemicals make someone a fear monger? Or does the denial of these dangers make someone a bloody Pollyanna?

By the way, I played an active role in decommissioning Trojan, in particular, spending 11 days off work, as a member of Trojan Decommissioning Alliance, when we were the FIRST, but not last, protest group to occupy a nuke plant. Btw,I am NOT an AGW believer, so please don't lump me in with those well intentioned, but perhaps gullible, people.
 
 
+5 # joan 2014-12-29 19:16
Quoting Malcolm:
Btw,I am NOT an AGW believer, so please don't lump me in with those well intentioned, but perhaps gullible, people.


Gullible? Congratulations on your successful activism, and my thanks for it, but it's a little mystifying. You believe the scientiic consensus that explains the dangers of nuclear radiation, but not the scientific consensus that tells us of the dangers of climate change (and has ended the debate on whether it's "AGW" or not)? On what basis do you decide which scientific consensus to believe and which to scoff at gently?
 
 
+3 # Malcolm 2014-12-29 19:30
Thanks for asking, Joan; that's a valid question.

Actually, it has NOTHING to do with "consensus." I study the issues, use my science background, and rely on logic to make decisions. I actually was a believer in AGW prior to seeing Gore's Inconvenient Truth. When I saw all his seemingly deliberate misinformation, I decided I'd better stop believing the party line, and started really digging in. What I've learned is that there's plenty of misinformation coming from both sides, but also that climate alarmists have failed to prove their theories. If AGW is a serious issue, they've failed to convince me.

Similarly, there's lots of misinformation coming from both sides of the nuclear power debate. And again, my background in science convinces me that nukes are a very bad idea. I reached that conclusion at least fifty years ago, and every time we have another disaster, I become more certain I was right to oppose it. But this has NOTHING to do with "consensus". Consensus has been proven-repeated ly throughout history-to be fairly meaningless

I would also point out that many-possibly most-people base their views on what they hear from friends and political party leaders. This is certainly understandable, as not everyone has the requisite education to judge all the rhetoric for themselves, but it certainly seems to cause people to become upset with those of us who don't follow the flock on every single issue!.
 
 
-1 # moonrigger 2014-12-30 11:34
Malcolm, do you drive a 50 year old car? Nukes come a long way in 50 years. My views have changed as new tech and discoveries have advanced or reversed ideas I held in the past. It is good to be cautious, but at some point we need to face facts & do a risk:benefit analysis in the here and now. The fact is, no one in America has been killed by a commercial nuclear power plant. No other power generating industry can claim this, including solar and wind. Maintaining wind generators, especially, is very dangerous & costly. Only the largely landed gentry can afford to install them, not people living on small lots. We get Solar when the sun is out, or wind, when it's sufficiently windy, and then we have to STORE the excess in batteries, which must be safely housed, and contain large amounts of HEAVY METALS that must be disposed of by hazmat. Powering up our society is a huge problem, & we keep adding to the load with each and every new powered device. Think of how many little lights are on in your household compared to the 1980s, i.e. indicating your computer is charged, your security system is on, or your coffee maker, or shaver. All those battery chargers for your cordless tools and appliances. If we go to electric cars, we'll need way more. Try to get all those Kw hours out of your solar array. Not happening, unfortunately. Wish it were otherwise, but I believe in being REAL, not continuing to live in a world conjured up in pipe dreams from the 60s.
 
 
+1 # Malcolm 2014-12-31 00:14
Moonrigger:
1) Surely you must know that your claim that no one has died in usa from a nuclear powner plant is challenged by many studies. Who knows for sure?
2) Fact is, though, even if no one has died YET (which is highly doubtful), the risk is enormous. Surely you must know why nukes can't be built without Price Anderson?
3) surely you must know that any form of power can be stored very efficiently by using pumped energy hydroelectric (converting electrical energy to potential energy?
4) surely you know how wrong you are about not being able to power all those gadgets you're referring to with solar? I've been doing just that for years. My first 3Kw system will be paid off in a year or two, while the second ones payback period is a mere 5 years. And the price continues to fall. I produce enough electricity with 6Kw to power my entire house, plus part of my son's house, next door. I also charge my electric vehicle with the PV System.
5). Why are you misleading people? Che buono?
 
 
0 # moonrigger 2015-01-02 15:25
Malcolm, You did not provide facts to refute what I said, mostly opinions. Not everyone can invest in the amount of solar panels required to keep their power needs going without interruption off the grid. I've built solar collectors from scratch, and yeah, it's possible to buy smaller panels for your gadgets. Presently solar is a sizable investment with a long pay-back period--at least 10 years or more, while most panels begin to degrade about then, and have to be replaced. Hopefully, the repugs won't have cancelled the tax deduction on Chinese, Japanese or US made panels. Ask any grid manager about how difficult it is to keep the grid balanced with so many sources to contend with. They love nuclear because it's the most predictable. I protested many nukes in the past before I became educated and I am not trying to mislead anyone, quite the opposite. At this point I'd rather we put a dent in climate change than stand on a principle I can no longer justify.
 
 
0 # Malcolm 2014-12-31 00:14
Solar ROCKS! And no, I don't drive a 50 year old car. I drive a 7 year old electric Club Car and a 15 year old Ford pickup. Your point?
 
 
-3 # Seadog 2014-12-29 20:36
"The same fear mongers who shut down nuclear power are now shutting down fossil fuels because of the fraud of global warming.

The greatest threat to our future is the ignorance of the electorate." Really?
 
 
-1 # moonrigger 2014-12-30 10:39
Global warming isn't a fraud. However, you're correct about the safety record of nuclear in America, where it is the single most regulated industry in the energy sector. I spent many years in solar and renewable, and know that renewables can only supply a fraction of what we need. This is not to disparage solar, wind, etc., but to imagine we will be able to switch to electric cars powered by renewables alone, in time to head off climatological disaster, is, alas, folly. The old nukes are being closed, but they will be replaced by new ones that have been designed to be far safer. The new nukes are as different from the original designs as the Tesla is from the crank-type horseless carriage. In a few years they will be brought online, and their refueling outages will not take weeks, nor require the level of risk known today. These are just the facts. I totally support solar and all renewables that work to our advantage, and don't create problems down the road. Remember, it ain't easy to repair wind turbines, and they aren't operational 24/7. Because of this, the grid managers who ensure we get adequate levels of power uninterrupted have a hell of a job trying to balance it all out. Without at least one source operating continually, we would be having daily outages or brownouts like they do in third world countries. If you doubt this, do your homework. Without nukes, we won't be able to rid ourselves of coal. Gas creates more CO2.
 
 
+1 # Malcolm 2014-12-31 00:22
"These are just the facts"? Guess what? We've heard that song before. I quote Ronny Rerun, referring to GE'S "peaceful atom" nuclear power scam:

"Safe. Clean. TOO CHEAP TO METER" stated as "JUST THE FACTS" Didn't exactly turn out that way, did it?
 
 
0 # moonrigger 2015-01-02 15:28
Wow, Malcolm. I think you should get yourself a TV show so you can prove to the world how they can all drive electric cars and finance their solar panels the way you've managed to do. How much was your initial investment? Forget Ronnie Raygun and that era. It's as done as the baguette sized cell phones and 8 track tapes. You'll see. I'm not here to fight with you, just to reveal things a lot of folks don't know about, because their minds closed on the subject a couple decades ago. I was there. I get that.
 
 
0 # cymricmorty 2015-01-01 08:50
Wrong spot so deleted.
 
 
+1 # tonywicher 2015-01-02 02:16
I agree with you that the anti-nuclear hysteria is way overblown. As is the "climate change" hysteria. The answer to unsafe nuclear is safe nuclear reactors. But what we really need is an international Manhattan Project level of effort to develop clean fusion energy reactors.
 
 
0 # moonrigger 2015-01-02 15:33
Yeah, I've been waiting for clean fusion for decades. Wish the powers that be hadn't stomped out the R&D on that back in the late 70s. It's hard for many older activists to accept that solar and wind aren't problem free, that want to believe all higher tech solutions are the work of the devil. But there are a couple really great programs in full force and development that will turn the industry on its head, rendering the older nukes obsolete. I guess the more rabid folks commenting on my remarks imagine I want to put the US at risk for a major disaster. Yeah, after devoting 30+ years of my life to environmentalis m. Oh well!
 
 
-13 # lnason@umassd.edu 2014-12-29 14:03
While I have serious misgivings about nuclear energy because our federal government insures nuclear private power generation facilities at taxpayer expense (Price Anderson Act), this closure will only force generation companies to make up the shortfall by burning fossil fuels. This means that instead of this energy usage resulting in zero carbon emissions, we will experience significant carbon emissions from a coal- or gas-fired plant.

Global warmists may therefore legitimately weep over this "victory." I am not among them -- I think modern coal- or gas-fired plants are our safest option for meeting energy needs -- but one might think that warmists would have more of a mixed reaction.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
0 # moonrigger 2015-01-02 15:35
Right you are. Just because they're closed doesn't mean they're going away. All closed plants require security and constant monitoring, which is why many are going to shut down the old reactors and build the new ones on the same sites.
 
 
+13 # Malcolm 2014-12-29 14:23
I'd like to be first in line to say CONGRATULATIONS to Deb Katz, and all others who bravely Confronted the massive forces trying to destroy the planet with their horrible nukes! WAY TO GO, PEOPLE.
 
 
+13 # Malcolm 2014-12-29 14:31
I suggest anyone who believe nukes are, have been, or ever could deliver "safe" power, read up a bit. Here's a good place to start:

http://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/trojan_nuclear_power_plant/#.VKGxHZ_ALs

This is a factual tale of a bunch of greedy people who lied, cheated, poisoned, and otherwise mistreated the citizens of-mostly-Orego n and Washington, and whose nuclear waste is still poisoning the original site, down stream of Portland on the Oregon side of the Columbia River, and who barged the entire reactor upstream for a hazardous burial at the infamous Hanford, Washington "disposal site".

We occupied the site for some 11 days in 1977, and continued the fight until the plant was identified-FINA LLY-as being too dangerous to live. Its GHOST, alas, continues to threaten the Hanford area, and the mighty Columbia, which receives a never ending supply of waste through leakage of rotting waste containers from Trojan and other sources.
 
 
+14 # Vardoz 2014-12-29 14:31
Using nuclear energy to boil water is insane and as we see in Fukushima has the ability to kill for hundreds of generations. 3 reactors a still melting down and radiation is already hitting the West coast up to Alaska. Also those who manage these very dangerous and aging reactors are negligent and lie about the dangers and leaks. We should be investing in clean energy as fast as possible.
 
 
0 # moonrigger 2014-12-30 10:50
Vardoz, what you don't know is how the Fukushima disaster came about. The Japanese were warned not to site it where they had known issues with earthquakes and tsunami potential. They were warned to build breakwaters. They were warned by our own NRC to ensure they had adequate backup power, which they ignored. Not having a similar agency at the time, they went ahead, resulting in the terrible disaster still with them today. Comparing our industry with theirs is like comparing our agriculture with that of the Chinese. I realize you are passionately anti-nuke, but as Stewart Brand deduced, as well as many other environmentalis ts, heading off global warming can't happen as long as we keep relying on coal or any other fossil-fuel plants, and we can't possibly make up for all the electricity we need with renewables alone. Check out the charts on this if you don't believe me. Old nukes, like old smoking V8s, are being phased out. New nukes, like fuel-efficient vehicles, are here to stay unless we come up with something beyond any known technology today, and that's a fact. Oil and coal have been fighting nuclear since the 50s, because it will put them out of business. Given the choice, I'd rather live near a new nuke than have my yard fracked or worry about more coal ash spills trashing the rivers and aquifers we depend on.
 
 
0 # Malcolm 2014-12-31 00:28
You again said "that's a fact". I again say I've heard similar "facts", e.g. "Safe, Clean, Too Cheap to Meter".

Riiiiight. :-P
 
 
+1 # pres 2014-12-29 15:03
The oil and coal industries sure love it!
 
 
-16 # Rod Adams 2014-12-29 15:26
It is nice to have people like Wasserman who are so proud of their actions to close nuclear plants that they pat themselves and their friends on the back.

In a few years, when the price tag for their action begins to include a pile of unpaid bills, hundreds of newly unemployed or underemployed people and some increasingly wealth fat cats selling natural gas into a constrained market, it will be easier to point fingers at the culprits that decided it was a good idea to close a reliable, emission free power plant.

Many of the anti-Vermont Yankee activists spent a great deal of time characterizing the plant as unreliable, using the famous photo of a collapsed cooling tower, but few people know that the plant operated for well over 600 days in a row (since April 2013) before shutting down just after noon today. Through most of 2014, its average production was more than 98% of its rated power output.

Many of the people who supported the political changes that made the plant uneconomical had no idea what they were doing because their leaders did not tell them the truth.

They did not understand that tritium was a non-issue and not worth a $20 million clean-up. They did not know that there is a technical difference between an underground pipe and a buried pipe. They had no idea that shutting down a nuclear plant inevitably means a greater dependence on natural gas in a place where there is already an insufficient supply.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
 
 
-1 # moonrigger 2014-12-30 11:00
Thanks for the clarification. My one issue with the nuclear industry is its poor PR record. This has enabled the uneducated to be swayed by the sensationalist media, rather than common sense. It took awhile to change my own mind about nuclear until I got enough facts, so I know how difficult it is to admit I was allowing non-experts to influence my judgment, rather than see the larger picture. I still fully support renewables, but know we'll never be able to depend on them for ALL our energy needs, unless we as a nation decide to go back to a very primitive lifestyle--whic h we all know ain't happening. Since shutting down San Onofre and all their other nukes, CA has seen a 10% increase in their energy bills. Once Diablo goes, it will get worse, as Californians will be forced to buy energy from Arizona and other states. Politically speaking, the states with the most power win, and the Southern states are buying more nukes, folks. They will be dictating more than the price of your kilowatt hours in the near future, you can depend on it. Energy is power. The more you can generate locally, the greater control you'll have over your present AND future.
 
 
+9 # reiverpacific 2014-12-29 16:09
@Rod Adams.
SUCH an unbiased post, innit!
Yours is a dinosaur's voice howling like a lonely Banshee in the wilderness!
All that "Unemployment" nonsense is typical industry propaganda flying in the face of much of the rest of the world as your ship slowly sinks.
The sustainable industries like Solar, Wind, Wave and who knows what else are growing exponentially as the costs come down and will employ many more people and instigate college courses that will shut you out forever.
And can you say "Fukushima" spilling and polluting the pacific as it drifts eastwards, or "Hanford"? which radioactive detritus is seeping out though Bechtel's poorly-designed and constructed concrete tanks, through the groundwater seams into the Columbia River.
And I'll tell you something else from my own experience: I worked with a former nuclear construction engineer who was fired by Westinghouse for pointing out inaccuracies and many uncoordinated anomalies in the drawings and specs for a plant! Even you must know that the whole industry is rife with shortcuts with many engineers and contractors who are so bent, they'll have to bury them with a screwdriver!
I invite you to read or listen to anything by Dr Helen Caldicott, a pursuing nemesis of y'r industry who has it analyzed in fine detail.
Sleep well.
 
 
-1 # moonrigger 2014-12-30 11:07
Reiver, Helen Caldicott is a physician, not an engineer. I respect her opinions, but she is not the final arbiter on what is safe. The NRC catches up with mistakes made by engineers in nuclear construction, because they regularly review all documentation and conduct inspections that catch these things. I agree about the leaks, but understand there is a significant difference between DOE projects, and commercial power generation plants. DOE projects are NOT overseen by the NRC, while commercial nukes ARE. This is HUGE. Activists should be insisting that DOE nuclear projects be subjected to the same regulations as commercial plants, since the entire purpose of the NRC is to protect the public, pure and simple.
 
 
-12 # Lescorrice 2014-12-29 17:33
Reiver...FYI. Rod is as independent as it gets, and so am I! Neither of us indulge in propaganda. The facts and nothing but the facts, with some opinion thrown in on occasion. BTW, I have the #1 independent site for Fukushima News (http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html) and there is nothing going into the Pacific since December of 2011. It's all assumption based on worst-case scenario. But, I am sure you won't check it out because your mind isn't open to the truth. And, appealing to Helen Caldicott? You sure like those street corner prophets of nuclear doom. She's a crack=pot, always has been, and always will be. Bigots are like that.
 
 
+2 # Malcolm 2014-12-29 19:45
I'm sorry for doubting you, Lescorrice, but would you please show me some evidence that all the reports I've been reading about the plant operators trying to stop radioactive groundwater by FREEZING IT, the hundreds of tanks leaking radioactive contaminated water into the sea, that there are spent fuel pools, standing high above the ground on seriously damaged supports, in danger of collapsing in another quake, and so forth are NOT TRUE?

Thanks.
 
 
-6 # ericlipps 2014-12-29 18:43
Of course, say all nuclear power plants everywhere on earth were shut down tomorrow: what would we do with the fuel? What would we do with the wastes ALREADY IN EXISTENCE?

I'm no fan of the nuclear industry, but I keep having the uneasy feeling that anti-nuclear folks are AFRAID we might find practical answers to such questions, because that would weaken their case against continued use of nuclear power.

And yet if we DON'T find answers, particularly to the waste problem, we're doomed already anyway. And I refuse to accept that.
 
 
+3 # reiverpacific 2014-12-29 20:21
Quoting Lescorrice:
Reiver...FYI. Rod is as independent as it gets, and so am I! Neither of us indulge in propaganda. The facts and nothing but the facts, with some opinion thrown in on occasion. BTW, I have the #1 independent site for Fukushima News (http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html) and there is nothing going into the Pacific since December of 2011. It's all assumption based on worst-case scenario. But, I am sure you won't check it out because your mind isn't open to the truth. And, appealing to Helen Caldicott? You sure like those street corner prophets of nuclear doom. She's a crack=pot, always has been, and always will be. Bigots are like that.

The implication that my "Mind isn't open to the truth" from one who doesn't know me, my education nor my life experience all over the planet diminishes your specious defensive-presu mptuous response. I check out every reference point given from all sources.
And the fact that you consider Helen Caldicott a Crack=pot (sic) and "Street-corner prophet" puts your legitimacy at vanishing point.
She is a worldwide respected Doctor specializing in Gynecology medicine which sparked her pursuit of in-depth research and subsequent opponent of both nuclear power and weaponry.
Your every word makes you appear more like a crank-evangelis t for an industry developed for apocalyptic war and destruction first and power generation as the generating medium.
Your blinkers blind you.
Rant on, I'm done.
 
 
+3 # Seadog 2014-12-29 20:41
The public has no idea how much spent fuel is sitting on these plant sites. In the end all of it will be left for us to figure out how to store for 10K yrs. while it very slowly degrades. Good luck on that one. Nuclear energy is without a doubt The dumbest way on earth to boil water.
 
 
+5 # Bill999 2014-12-29 21:16
Hanford, a military effort, was mentioned earlier by someone but there is no other mention of the contribution of our military in nuclear weaponry. If the army had no interest in this we would have no nuclear power reactors. We cannot treat this as two separate problems. The greedy, lying bastards (generals, politicians, industry magnates) have been snookering us all along by using a complacent press to spread their lies about "peaceful nuclear energy".

Depleted Uranium shells we used in Iraq have rendered real estate there unlivable for the thinkable future. How much damage are we willing to accept?
 
 
-1 # BKnowswhitt2 2014-12-29 21:48
All and i mean all of France is run by nuclear power. Thanks to shale and surface mining including fracking .. especially what's going on in n Dakota .. Opec is trying to bust them and make them go broke .. that's exactly why your gas prices and price per barrel of oil has gone down ... good news for all the western economies ... seeking alternatives to energy and going green is good .. shutting down the grid to those in the northeast in the onset of winter not so good .. wasserman .. you can't run the current grid demand on solar or wind .. so let's go green yeah but lets stop the 'windbaggery' of blowhardness and come up with some real world solutions ...
 
 
0 # reiverpacific 2014-12-29 23:02
Quoting BKnowswhitt2:
All and i mean all of France is run by nuclear power. Thanks to shale and surface mining including fracking .. especially what's going on in n Dakota .. Opec is trying to bust them and make them go broke .. that's exactly why your gas prices and price per barrel of oil has gone down ... good news for all the western economies ... seeking alternatives to energy and going green is good .. shutting down the grid to those in the northeast in the onset of winter not so good .. wasserman .. you can't run the current grid demand on solar or wind .. so let's go green yeah but lets stop the 'windbaggery' of blowhardness and come up with some real world solutions ...

France is beginning to look at alternatives -thanks to neighboring Germany's solar example; and my native Scotland's wind-wave leadership.
Every significant advance -in ANY field- has it's resigned, head-in-the-san d naysayers but they are eventually buried in the natural flood of progress.
Nobody's talking about "Current" but I look forward to the day I can afford solar and the local PUD owes ME a sum monthly.
Enjoy 'y'r quicksands.
 
 
0 # Malcolm 2014-12-31 00:39
Reiverpacific, I recommend you speak to Energy Trust of Oregon, or visit their website. Unless things have changed for the worse recently, you almost can't afford NOT TO go solar, since you live in Oregon. My last 3Kw system cost me less than seventy CENTS per watt, after federal and state tax credits and ETO's grant.

This system cost me about $2200, and is saving me over $400/year.

My older system of the same size cost $6700. The good news is that it's been up and running for many years (12-14, I think), and has required no repairs, no cleaning, no maintenance, no nothing. Just keeps on keeping on :)
 
 
0 # BKnowswhitt2 2014-12-31 11:50
Good info. Don't tell me Germany is run on solar power .. no countries grid can run just from that alone. My point is Nuclear has been run cleaner and accident free in France for 20 or more years .. i am for alternative energy .. and 'unloading' the grid from one source controlled by private interest ... there is progress .. and all energy sources Big Oil and Coal should be allowed to co exist amongst it .. and keep pushing for clean solutions .. rather than the inflammatory extreme greenie lies about carbon causing global warming .. a big hoax .. and more real world solutions of which you do offer some .. thanks, ...
 
 
0 # Corvette-Bob 2015-01-01 14:44
We need to come up with a new power source. I am not sure what is available but we need something new, because none of the sources that we have now all have shortcomings.
 
 
+1 # tedrey 2015-01-02 07:58
One badly regulated plant (and there are many) can horrifically undo all the good that nuclear power has provided. I have often pointed out that the nuclear industry refuses to accept civil or criminal responsibility for any negative consequences that may eventuate from their activities. They will never sign any such contract; they know they are playing Russian roulette with the lives and health of the public, and the loaded bullet will come.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN