By Joe Bossen
As time has ticked through and across manifest destiny’s legacy, generations of citizens’ and elected officials’ values have waxed and waned. We now find ourselves at a nifty little spot in our history punctuated by our love of putting things into categories—dichotomies more often than not. Democrats and Republicans, pro-life and pro-choice, economic well-being and environmental well-being (humans being part of that—the only— environment) are standout examples of this. But just what is the fallout of compromising all that middle-ground on life’s issues? You know, where all that reality stuff happens? It is beginning to feel as though we cannot advocate something better without being dubbed liberal, idealistic, or even radical? Since when did livable wages, using appropriate technologies, businesses and politicians that are accountable, and even peace become radical?
These are perhaps too many questions for a little column like this, but thoughts to this tune were running through my head as the handful of Club Activism members and I sat through the Department of Public Services’ (DPS) meeting on the relicensing of Vermont Yankee in Rutland on April 1—anyone who couldn’t make the meeting can still contribute their opinions at www.vermontsenergyfuture.info.
For anyone who has never heard of Vermont Yankee (VY), or never dove too deep into its implications before, here’s a quick background: VY is a 652 megawatt water-cooled fission reactor (though it takes 26megawatts just to run the plant, enough power to service over 42,000 typical New England homes) that began operating on the shores of the Connecticut River in 1972 and currently provides about 36% of Vermont’s power. The better half of its power gets exported to adjacent states via the regional grid (more comprehensive information is available at www.VPIRG.org).
Right now Vermont Yankee is the setting for a very subtle and provocative conflict between a range of values, world views, and futures. The neat thing about being a citizen-stakeholder in Vermont at this point in time (which if you’re reading this you are) is that VY was only licensed to operate until 2012, after which—thanks to Vermont’s legislature and Act 160—Louisiana-based corporation Entergy (www.entergy.com) must prove to the Vermont legislature via a Certificate of Public Good that it is in the people of Vermont’s best interest that their nuclear reactor be allowed to continue to operate. Act 160 also required the DPS to seek out citizen’s perspectives on the decision: hence the meeting in Rutland on April 1.
So is nuclear power in the best interest of Vermonters? The DPS meeting showcased the range of possible answers to that question. Beyond the GMC folk, Rutland Area Student Peace Alliance members, and the Phantom Theory Theater Tour, the attendance was dominated by people fairly on in years, a number of which were true blue Vermonters that I’ve come to know through other circles.
The spirit of dichotomized thoughts was palpable in the breakout discussions that took up the bulk of the evening. By the time it was over, people’s Pro-Yankee and Anti-Yankee stances were firmly fastened to their sleeves. Implicit in both sides’ focus was their world views, where the true divide in their sentiments was rooted.
Those who had taken the time to read up on the consequences of nuclear power, the track record of VY, or the alternatives to nuclear that are superior in social, environmental, and economic contexts, were naturally opposed to the relicensing. Those who had taken the time to drive to Rutland on-the-clock for Entergy, or a similarly entrenched LLC, asserted their fears of the economic (which they made synonymous with social) wellbeing of the state. To be fair there were also some folks that simply didn’t want to see people they know lose their jobs at the plant or for electricity rates to go up (Vermont’s fixed rate contract with VY entitles us to the lowest electricity rates in New England, a significant factor in the viability of industrial development.)
What the core of both arguments breaks down into for me is the simple question of ‘What do you value’: the wellbeing of the fraction of the population who stands to gain by the relicensing, or the entire population of New England who stands to gain by its replacement? Again, there is admittedly a lot of gray between the two that I can’t possibly do justice to here. I’d like to think everyone would opt for the latter of these two stands, but we have adopted worldviews that often lead us to false conclusions and wrongful associations.
Again, is Vermont Yankee’s existence in the public interest? That’s a question I think every citizen and family member needs to reconcile on their own, with access to pertinent information. So let’s just look at the three main categories this conversation seems to always come back to: economics, safety, and the environment.
Economics
The nuclear industry has received over $100 billion dollars from US tax payers for research, security, and liability protection (no insurance company would insure a nuclear plant, so the government opted to give them a free ride in terms of risk and accountability.)
Wind generators are taxed at three cents per kilowatt-hour in the State of Vermont; Governor Douglas shot down an energy bill provision that would have taxed VY just one cent per kwh. Since uranium, like oil, is a finite resource, it will only get more expensive the more we use it, as there will be less and less of it in harder and harder to reach places. Few cost-benefit analyses have fully considered the costs to the American people of the perpetual guarding the waste requires.
The opportunity costs of being dependant upon VY is a profound consideration as well; our electricity bills send millions of dollars out of the state each year instead of winding up in our own communities via cooperative energy projects and even private in-state energy firms that could stake claims in a decentralized energy infrastructure
Safety
Many plants that are similar to the VY, such as Maine Yankee, have already been closed because of safety concerns
A transformer fire shut down VY periodically in 2004. This past summer a cooling tower broke The same day as the DPS meeting that we attended, the plant reduced their generation to 45% after a condenser leak was discovered.
Since the plant began operation, more than 900 reportable events in regards to safety, security, and technical problems have occurred.
Also the reprocessing of radioactive waste into weapons has caused some concern to more than a few people (especially since VY misplaced several fuel rods for three months time in 2004).
Environment
Recent studies have concluded that the green house gas footprint of nuclear energy when viewed in its lifecycle is no better than natural gas plants of comparable size.
The mining of uranium is fossil fuel-intensive, destroys swaths of habitat, and much of the mines exist in politically conflicted parts of the country.
Beyond all of that, imagine all that Vermont could represent, all the jobs that could be created by the proliferation of renewable energies and conservation measures; the transitional unemployment resulting from the plant’s closing can’t cast a shadow on that.
While the opportunity exists for rebuttals and alternative considerations to all I’ve just listed, these are all at the end of the plain day facts. The information is readily available, and I would be happy to refer anyone to the sources I got my information from. You could try the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service for two lovely examples of the conflicting world views at play through all of this.
Whatever your opinion, please think, then participate.Check out the story below ro see what people your age are doing.
