Skip to main content

View Diary: Court to Vermont: "Drop Dead" (200 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  One that understands nuclear power (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NYFM, erush1345

    perhaps?

    There hasn't been a single death associated with VY since it began operation.  

    The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

    by fladem on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 07:23:43 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  So in the face of this (19+ / 0-)

      Crumbling, poorly maintained, relic of a plant people aren't allowed to take action till it kills someone? Nice.

      48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam "Compassion is the radicalism of our time." ~ Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama -7.88, -6.21

      by Siri on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 07:41:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, until there is definiteive proof (9+ / 0-)

        that it has killed someone.  That is the standard that nuclear power advocates want plants to be held to.  Unless you can show unequivocally that the plant in question has killed more people than a coal plant would then it should keep going forever.  Damn the increase in deaths that may be related to it.  Or the general increase in background radiation, which can't have anything to do with the increase in cancer rates we've seen since the introduction of nuclear power.

        There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

        by AoT on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 08:29:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nifty how they spin that, (5+ / 0-)

          isn't it? In order for a nuke to be definitively 'proved' to have caused a death, the person would literally have to be vaporized on the spot - in front of a dozen witnesses that must include medical researchers and judges. But the nuke apologists can go on and on about the thousands and thousands of deaths 'caused' by coal every year, even though there is no definitive cause-effect there. Just a general statistical increase they are allowed to blame on coal, while denying the very same general statistical increases due to radioactive contamination.

          I think that's called "having your cake and eating it too."

          •  Yes there is and both the NIH and the EPA (0+ / 0-)

            established the carcinogen relationship between respiratory aliments and coal dust. It's a well established fact that even coal-ADVOCATES don't dispute, which is why it's all about "clean coal" these days. There have been far more epidemiological studies around the effects of living down wind from coal plants than from nuclear plants. It's clear that coal kills and kills thousands.

            I know fossil-apologists like Joy above doesn't like to hear it but only nuclear will shutdown coal plants...which as part of generation is the biggest in terms of absolute quantity AND per unit of energy, producer of GHG emissions or has that escaped this discussion?

            Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

            by davidwalters on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 10:56:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Pitiful (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Joieau, lunachickie

              Nukes are dying, they will go the way of DDT. Stopped. Only a Lyndon Larouche cultist would think otherwise.

              •  Randy, you better wake up. Get out of your (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bryfry

                little world where ever it is. The nuclear industry is actually growing. The countries that have stated  they are abandoning nuclear energy can be counted on one hand. Those that are expanding it are in the double digits. Dozens of reactors are being built right now! around the world.

                I explained is this to Wasserman some time ago, I think he 'gets it' now...you have to stop projecting what you "like" or want to see as if the world is following it. It is not.

                Nothing has slowed down really: oil, gas, hydro, solar, nuclear, wind. It's ALL being built. You better wake up because underestimating your 'enemy' will leave you in the dust...

                Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

                by davidwalters on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 01:49:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's not my name (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lunachickie

                  Well maybe the President/Chu's plan will fall apart due to the unreasonable cost and maybe even an awakening of good, smart people who don't want nukes and the United States will at least be a little safer than the countries who pursue it. I find your hopeful outlook discouraging and fiscally shallow. Renewables will outpace nukes and they will eventually fade into the dark shadows of terminally bad ideas.

                  •  Well that *their* plan may fall apart (0+ / 0-)

                    is likely on the face of it, just as their plan for more unreliables will fall apart (Solandra, "clean coal", etc etc). Has nothing to do with the tech but the politics.

                    Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

                    by davidwalters on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 07:24:38 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Global Nuclear Generation Capacity Falls (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                randallt

                http://vitalsigns.worldwatch.org/...

                http://www.mnn.com/...

                Post-Fukushima nuclear power generation could decrease 15 percent
                IEA's lowered nuclear power forecast reflects the 'pessimistic view' that the energy source has developed in the wake of Japan's nuclear woes.

                http://www.environmental-expert.com/...
                New Investments In The Nuclear Energy Industry Decreased In Q3 2011

                Of course, the trend can change any time, but right now it is pointing down. No two ways about it.
                ;-)

                „Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.“ - Bertolt Brecht

                by translatorpro on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 02:29:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You don't get it. I never said it was (0+ / 0-)

                  increasing relative to other forms of power. Apples and oranges. I'm saying it's expanding from it's 435 nuclear reactors to another 100 over the next 10 years or so.

                  What's expanding relative to other forms of energy is gas and coal.

                  My point is that more and more reactors will be coming on line in the next few years, not less and less which is implicit in the statement that nuclear "is dying". FAIL.

                  Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

                  by davidwalters on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 02:55:15 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What some of you don't get (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Russgirl, randallt, translatorpro

                    is the fact that shoddy workmanship takes all forms, including--clearly, demonstrably--in the nuclear power industry.

                    You can try spinning this nine ways from Sunday, and it'll be just as laughable on the tenth time, too. Until the human beings that build these things are infallible, your defense of it is the only glaring FAIL that I see.

                    It is time to #Occupy Media.

                    by lunachickie on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 06:40:05 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Really? You mean the thousands killed (0+ / 0-)

                      every day or...decade from nuclear? Or those plants all melting down? In fact, "shoddy workmanship" isn't even what lead to the Fukushima meltdown. I know...just say 'anything' but that nuclear provides most of the worlds non-carbon/GHG emissions and can be used to shut down gas and coal plants. it doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to work, and it does, safely. If all you have is a collapsed cooling tower and you want to sacrafice the planet for fear there may be TWO collapsed cooling towers, then you don't really care.

                      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

                      by davidwalters on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 07:27:11 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  How much longer (0+ / 0-)

                        do you intend to sidestep the point being made here about "workmanship".

                        Because you can put out all the nuke-industry talking points you want--none of it addresses that point. None of it.

                        It is time to #Occupy Media.

                        by lunachickie on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 04:12:34 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

    •  Right. Anyone who looks at that photo with (7+ / 0-)

      concern "just doesn't understand nuclear power".

      LOL

    •  One who really "understands" nuclear power... (12+ / 0-)

      would be totally unsurprised at this kind of maintenance failure.  This industry has been in failure mode since its inception and only the coercive policies of the NRC keeps the lid on news and information, safely away from the mostly disinterested public, so that no realistic policies will ever be identified and implemented.  
      A great quote I read during the Fukashima debacle was

      "The first thing to melt down during a nuclear incident is the truth."
      Which has been proven absolutely true every single time we have even been informed about a nuclear "event."

      And then comes winging this flying turdette,

      "There hasn't been a single death associated with VY since it began operation."

      Well, that's great.  Instead of having some horrible accident with bodies and obvious destruction,  we have instead the insidious upwardly creeping death rate for millions of people with slowly increasing cancer rates as we raise the effective background radiation flux for the whole environment.  
      Not to render your statement as basic corporate denialist whitewashing, no...
      Well, maybe yes. And perhaps well deserved at that.

      No Nukes!

    •  Do you know this old one (8+ / 0-)

      A guy see a friend falling past his office window ,
      he leans out the window and asks , Hows it going ?
      The guy falling says , So far so good .

      There hasn't been a single death associated with VY since it began operation.
      How many deaths were there at the Fukushima plants before 11 March 2011 ?

      "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

      by indycam on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:30:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  yet. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ColoTim, Tamar, shaharazade

      Had there been a single death at Fukushima the day before the quake?  (I don't actually know the answer to this -- but if there had been, it hadn't had any large-scale incidents.)  

      Now, VT isn't earthquake central, but parts of it had major hurricane flooding last summer.  

    •  No. Sorry, fladem, this is just wrong. (4+ / 0-)

      With a process so dangerous and so vital, maintenance and repair on the entire plant needs to be kept at a very high standard.  If the corporation doesn't have the funds to do that successfully, it has no business running a nuclear power plant and should get out of the industry.  And if it is using a Bain capital style model of buying up substandard or crumbling plants, making money off of them and socializing the losses, as they say, its corporate charter should be revoked.

      Your defense of this is that nobody has yet been killed?  Does that mean we cannot require them to maintain a reasonable and safe standard of operations until somebody has been killed, thus proving that there is a problem?

      Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 12:17:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  100% agreement. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NYFM, SouthernLiberalinMD, erush1345

        For a Fukushima accident to happen at VY a few things have to happen. All external grid power has to vanish (this does happen as the big North East 2003 black out showed), both diesel generators FAIL to start, axillary portable pumps become inoperable and the grid power is not restored in time.

        For both diesel generators not to start would be the destruction by some force of the fuel tanks and/or the flooding of the intake pumps. This has never happened anywhere in the world but the tsunami caused destruction of Fukushima's fuel tanks. Thus ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.

        The new passively cooled power plants non-pumping, natural circulation emergency cooling should the above conditions be met. They are 100 times safer.

        VY, MAYBE, has to, or be compelled to, institute measures that assure onsite cooling in the event of a grid blackout condition. every plant should. All in fact do.

        As Gen III plants and later Gen IV plants come on line, we can phase out fossil AND older nuclear plants.

        We should nationalize any company that claims it can't make needed upgrades.

        Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

        by davidwalters on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 12:35:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right. I may not be an advocate of nuclear (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lunachickie, Russgirl, erush1345

          but if we're going to have it, I am a total advocate of competence and requiring such of corporations charged with such important matters.

          Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 03:11:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I actually for getting corporations out of the (0+ / 0-)

            electrical energy business. Public power entities already are known to provide better service at cheaper prices than investor owned ones. I think, even with Entergy's lying, our nukes are extremely well run as proven by their safety record. If the future of nuclear in the US (and the world) is based on our record, it is a 'good thing' not a 'bad thing'. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep at 'em with both regulatory reform and tightening, where appropriate, safety issues.

            Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

            by davidwalters on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 07:29:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  if it's ok with you, as a resident of Vermont, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      carolyn urban, lunachickie, Russgirl

      I would like to make sure it stays that way. Unexploded nitroglycerine meets the same criteria you put out there, but that doesn't make it safe, either.
      This plant is old, it as been pushed harder for more power (profit) at the end of its original life span, it has numerous unresolved problems, and its owners have been caught repeatedly lying under oath about basic safety.
      It is not a safe thing.
      Eventually, there will be a failure due to one or more of the facts I listed above. This is an old plant run by dishonest people.

      BTW, Vermont does not have a power supply problem, and does not need the power from this plant. It's other states that are buying this power. Why should Vermont hold all the risk for this?

      Class war has consequences, and we are living them.

      by kamarvt on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 02:02:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ugh. It's not 'pushed harder and harder' (0+ / 0-)

        since all plants run at 100% capacity when they can. When the don't run that way its for schedule outages or something IS wrong. There is no 'eventually fail' concept.

        It's not a state vs state thing. If that plant closes then the power it's "selling to other states" IS made up by gas and coal. The only reasons other states are not taking the risks is because of people like you who have successfully fought nuclear in those states. NH, NY and Mass all have nuclear power plants so not sure there is no 'shared risk'.

        Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

        by davidwalters on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 02:58:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  please feel free to address (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Russgirl, kamarvt

          this part of the post...

          it has numerous unresolved problems, and its owners have been caught repeatedly lying under oath about basic safety

          Now what would they have to LIE ABOUT?
           

          It is time to #Occupy Media.

          by lunachickie on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 06:42:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  20% increase in power output (0+ / 0-)

          was the first thing Entergy went about when they bought the plant.
          I am not talking about the existing capacity of the plant at time of purchase.  They turbocharged the reactor when it was about ready to be retired. Shortly afterward, tritium-laced water started showing up in test wells around the reactor. surprise, surprise.
          As for eventual failure not being a "concept'; try this for a thought experiment;
          1. put a pot of water on the stove.
          2. walk away.
          Eventually, something will fail. Entropy is a concept that transcends any industry.

          Entergy is not living up to its commitment to maintain the plant. When caught, its executives lie. That eventually means catastrophe.
          this is not a difficult concept, unless one transposes ideals and policies over actual behaviors.
          i might be convinced that VY could be run safely for some time before being shut down, but i cannot be convinced that safety is a paramount concern for the owners, and proof abounds that Entergy is a dishonest caretaker, and cannot be trusted.

          Maybe you misunderstand my pov; i am not so much anti nuclear as i am anti corruption, anti foolish risk, and anti lying for profit at the expense of public safety.

          Class war has consequences, and we are living them.

          by kamarvt on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 05:25:27 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think it's good to address this in any event. (0+ / 0-)

            They did not 'turbo charge' the generator. They increased the turbine generator set to increase out put (20? sounds way to high for me). This meant they rebuilt the turbine and generator, making it essentially brand, spank'n new, a good thing. The US nuclear fleet has 'uprated' (the engineering term) many reactors to the tune of 4000 MWs or about 4 new nuclear plants without building even one. This is good, not bad.

            Tritium leaks so far have been extremely minor. That they lie about it is criminal and should be prosecuted. I'm all for that.

            Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

            by davidwalters on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 07:33:37 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Crickets! (0+ / 0-)

          Hint: ignoring the points won't make them go away...

          It is time to #Occupy Media.

          by lunachickie on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 04:13:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site