Nuclear Debate in Vermont
Written by: Erin. D Rice
The controversy over nuclear power with its awesome potential and at the same time devastating consequences has been a popular subject for debate and topics in the news. It is also a subject that can divide groups with a common purpose such as environmentalists and politicians. Even small activist groups and common civilians can stand on opposing sides. The story of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant illustrates this dilemma.
The Vermont Nuclear Power Plant is located in Vernon, VT and run by its umbrella company, Entergy. The plant produces enough energy for one million homes and employs approximately 600 workers. The company states that rules and regulations are followed meticulously. They also contribute 19 million dollars to the state’s Clean Energy Fund.
For the last few years the plant has struggled with tritium leaks. The most recent being found in January 2010 in one of the monitoring wells on site. Though it was determined by the Vermont Department of Health that the levels found were not dangerous if encountered, concerns have been made over the leak possibly reaching the nearby Connecticut River, a major body of water. The source of the leak is still undetermined.
Vermont Yankee is in the process of renewing the license for the facility for another twenty years. This is where the division begins. Activists, environmental groups, and residents of three states (totaling seventy people) came together with a signed petition against the renewal of the VT Yankee’s license. On January 19th, they walked 126 miles from Brattleboro to Montpelier, VT, the state capital.
Governor Jim Douglas, one who has supported VT Yankee, is beginning to (like others) distrust Entergy and VT Yankee officials after several misleading or false statements, such as the existence of underground pipes. Entergy has been accused of being dishonest and deceitful.
Again, this issue highlights the common argument over nuclear energy. Some of the main objections many have heard or said pertain to the fear of possible accidents and nuclear waste disposal, while popular advantages boast no atmospheric pollution and reliable and powerful energy production. Both these points have legitimate examples, too. There have certainly been nuclear accidents, such as Chernobyl. In the case of VT Yankee, energy production, jobs, and monetary values are the good examples.
There are so many aspects to each side of this debate. This debate will continue and be more frequent as we increasingly rely on science to solve our problems. What is your opinion on nuclear energy? The situation of Vermont Yankee? Could more strict regulation help, or should we decide not to take the risk of producing nuclear energy?
Post your comments below!
January 30th, 2010 at 10:36 am
Important that we build a lot more Nuclear plants thoughout the country so we can go green. Wind and solar are not reliable and to power the entire country we would have to carpet bomb the landscape with panels and wind turbines. So Nukes are the way of the future. Relax and go with the flow
January 30th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
I like to have Nuclear as the last resort for the energy. We should do R&D in solar and wind to effectively use them before we invest too heavily in the Nuclear. The negatives of nuclear plants are not worth it at this time. So, I would say how the Greenpeace students said during the protest, “Retire Vermont Yankee”. Check out the picture of the protest at http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenpeaceusa09/4038607642/
January 30th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
We need an independant group to study and inspect the plant. It seems that there are secrets and they may not be safe ones. Nuke power would be fine if treated right. Lets don’t destroy ourselves for greed, make these plants operate safely at what ever expense is needed.
January 31st, 2010 at 2:50 pm
nuclear power is fine while the plant is operated honestly, and within its life span. How long before the reactor vessel starts to break down. Let’s face it nothing lasts forever, and has anyone ever heard what that expectancy is? There’s a lot of info we should know before we decide.
February 1st, 2010 at 11:35 am
nuclear power still doesn’t take into account the electromagnetic radiation exerted from high-tension power lines especially, along with all long-distance electric transfer. Or all of the land cleared for power lines or the massive amounts of metal involved. Nor does it take into account the usefulness towards R&D of sustainable practices or jobs available with the decentralization of electrical power, or the human factor of local and/or community co-operative resources sustainability or control. Where does the nuclear waste go and what about all of the steam created? So far they’re burying nuke waste in the earth and dropping it into the Mariana Trench. We’ll have irradiated ocean life and higher levels of cancer for the next 10,000 years?
February 2nd, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Update:
The link below will take you to an article that documents the timeline of the events surrounding the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant debate. Really good overview!
http://www.timesargus.com/article/20100202/NEWS01/2020361/1002/NEWS01