E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Jim Cole / AP
93-year-old anti-nuclear activist Francis Crowe, center, and her friend Anneke Corbett are escorted off the property of Entergy Corp. in Brattleboro, Vt. after being arrested for trespassing.
BRATTLEBORO, Vt. -- A 93-year-old anti-nuclear activist was among more than 130 protesters arrested at the corporate headquarters of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant Thursday, the first day of the plant's operation after the expiration of its 40-year license.
Frances Crowe, of Northampton, Mass., said she wants Vermont Yankee to cease operations because she feels it's a threat to the people who live nearby.
"As I was walking down, all I could think of was Fukushima and the suffering of all the people, and I don't want that to happen to New England," said Crowe in referring to the Japanese nuclear reactor damaged last year after an earthquake and tsunami.
Fukushima disaster response frighteningly similar to Chernobyl
When asked how many times she'd been arrested, she answered: "Not enough."
A heavy police presence and ropes blocked off access to the offices in Brattleboro. The arrests were made calmly and without any confrontation, with obvious signs that protesters and police had worked out the logistics beforehand.
Unlawful trespass
Brattleboro Police Chief Gene Wrinn said in a statement that more than 130 people had been arrested for unlawful trespass. He said after being processed, they were later released.
The Brattleboro Reformer reported that Thursday's protest was the largest in Vermont in 25 years.
A company spokesman said work continued as normal at the plant 10 miles south in Vernon.
"We greatly appreciate the backing of our supporters and respect the rights of opponents to peacefully protest," said a statement issued by company spokesman Larry Smith. "Inside the gates, our employees will not be distracted. As it is every day, their focus on safety will be laser sharp."
'Shut it down'
A crowd estimated at more than 1,000 gathered in a downtown Brattleboro park before they marched the 3 ½ miles to the headquarters. Some marched on stilts. Others with painted faces carried signs that read "hell no, we won't glow." Many chanted: "Shut it down."
Gov. Peter Shumlin was sympathetic to the protesters.
"I am very supportive of the peaceful protesters gathered today in Brattleboro to express their — and my — frustration that this aging plant remains open after its agreed-upon license has expired," he said.
Jim Cole / AP
Hundreds of anti-nuclear activists march to the local corporate offices of Vermont Yankee owner Entergy Corp. in Brattleboro, Vt., on Thursday.
In a coordinated action in New Orleans, the headquarters of Vermont Yankee's parent company, Entergy Nuclear, another group of seven activists was arrested after going into the building and refusing to leave, police said. The Journal News reported that five others also were arrested at Entergy offices in White Plains, N.Y.
Loyola University law professor Bill Quigley said the New Orleans protesters live near the Vermont plant and traveled to Louisiana to request a meeting with Entergy CEO J. Wayne Leonard. They didn't get that meeting before they were arrested.
"We're trying to tell Entergy that the whole world is watching, and you can't pollute in one area of the country without consequences for everybody," Quigley said.
Radioactive tritium leaks from 48 US nuke sites
The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued the plant a 20-year license extension, but the state of Vermont wants the plant to close and the two sides are fighting a legal battle. In January, a federal judge issued an order that allows the plant to continue operating while the legal case continues in court.
Handcuffed
While the protesters gathered on the Brattleboro Commons, Vermont Yankee supporters sat across the street and watched. A half-dozen signs saying "VT4VY" were posted on the lawn.
"The thing is these people are not going to realize it until it's too late what a benefit it is down there. I feel bad for them. I don't think they're looking at the big picture," said Steve Shaclumis of Brattleboro.
Some protesters, including Crowe, were released immediately with citations to appear in court. Others were handcuffed and led onto a waiting school bus. It was expected they would be taken to a police station and then released.
According to The New York Times, the cost of decommissioning a single reactor is estimated at $400 million to $1 billion.
The newspaper reported on Tuesday that Entergy "is at least $90 million short of the projected $560 million cost of dismantling Vermont Yankee."
The Associated Press and msnbc.com staff contributed to this report.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
When they get released and go home let us hope they have a permanent Brown out at their house. If they are truely concerned they would be living in a cave
Hey Sammy, you don't need to live in a cave without nuclear energy. There happens to be many alternative forms of energy that are safer and economically viable.
When you consider all the costs associated with nuclear power besides all the government subsidies, like finding the fuel, extracting it, processing it, transporting it, building the plant and decommissioning it, it's not viable. That's why it's heavily subsidized. That doesn't even include the fact that we still haven't dealt with the storage costs of all the spent fuel that's dangerously siting on-site.
And finally add the health care and environmental cleanup costs associated with nuclear power, including constant leaks and discharges, and you have an unsafe and economically non-viable energy source. And the whole world knows what happens when something goes wrong like Chernobyl and Fukushima: death and mutation for generations.
What a stupid way to boil water! (But a great way to get nuclear bomb materials.)
the fact is we use to much power, we burn to much coal and pollute our waters, and the mind set on wind, and solar will not let us get where we need to be with generation. Flat out we need to turn off the lights or generate more. YOU CHOOSE
I am sick of a small, vocal group of Chicken Littles deciding the future for the rest of us. There are 104 active reactors producing clean electricity in the U.S. and it's been proven with proper planning, excellent engineering, and the right location, nuclear power plants are the cleanest and most efficient way to produce large quantities of electricity.
With regard to Vermont Yankee, that plant is 40-years old. 1972! A lot has improved in both methods and materials since then. Perhaps if the vocal minority didn't hamstring progress a replacement plant could be build.
As a disclosure, I am in no way associated with the energy, construction, or manufacturing industry. I'm just sick of not using the best methods to provide electricity.
An YES! You can build a nuke plant in my town.
Many forms of alternative energy... And the feasible ones that could replace coal immediately are???
A Nuclear power plant produces three times the energy of a Coal power plant. There are 600 coal plants providing 40% of the electricity and 100 nuclear power plants providing 20% of electricity. Yes, something can go wrong. But weighing all of the options, in my opinion nuclear is an acceptable risk.
And unless you have an alternative energy source that is immediately capable of replacing 60% of the energy needs, fight for safer nuclear plants.
By all means, continue to develop wind and solar and others, but don't get rid of nuclear right now.
I look forward to the day that this plant, or any other plant in the New England region has an INEVITABLE (yes, inevitable) meltdown, creating a several square mile no-go zone. Why? So when I am an old lady, I can move into these areas and live a nice quiet life with a wood stove, my garden of radioactive veggies, and my fellow old-ladies. You see, when you are rather old, it is not likely for the radiation to get you before old age does. Theres a big population of elderly living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone where children and young adults cannot go.
Think of it as a great Republican retirement plan - The new deal for our post-industrial MadMaxian world!
"Hell no, we won't glow." "No more dirty coal." "No more oil." "No fracking." "No expoitation of natural gas." "No pipelines, no refineries."
Those are the arguments out there today. Anyone stopped to think about the consequences if say all those anti sentiments were to succeed? How about:
Coal power plants shutting down- lost power and employment (happening)
No nuclear power- no way to fill in the gap from the large hole left without a coal powered supported grid = brownouts(lower capacity) and higher delivery prices due to demand loads.
No oil/no refining/no pipelines- Oil derivitives are used for heating, transportation, manufacturing, etc. Take oil out of the equation and you've got a lot of unsupported industries and people without heat.
No natural gas/no fracking- If you don't harvest natural gas it gets out anyways. Take natural gas out of the equation and you've just taken out an alternate transportation fuel and a huge proportion of the population's heat and hot water.
So, in summary you've taken out major sources of energy, heating, transportation, etc. What happens because of that- prices go way up, capacity goes way down, you have brownouts, no heat, no hot water, can't cook, etc. But people can't afford more energy costs and they don't want to live with less...... Yep, we're screwed. How about "green" energy- Well, we've seen where that's gotten us to date (political pandering, overspending through cronie capitalism, and failure).
I'm all for green energy, but you can't make it magically appear and efficient. Technology takes time. Refine what you've got now, build to better standards, encourage reinvestment and conservation, and transition when viable alternative energy sources are available.
terra plant ?
I think it's great for people to be aware of the dangers of nuclear energy or any other kind. What these protesters fail to realize is that even with a meltdown every 50 years, nuclear reactors are still cleaner than oil. Solar is cleaner and maybe wind turbines too, but solar is cost prohibitive and wind turbines slaughter birds by the thousands while disrupting whale migration several hundred miles away via inaudibly low frequency noise. Nuclear is the way to go, but I wouldn't want to live next to the reactor when it could be burried a few miles down and have ground water for backup.
The Yankee plant has already leaked radio active water into the ground at this site contaminating the ground water. This plant is very old, operating beyond its service life. This plant failed to pass inspections instead of fixing it regulators just relaxed the rules.
I really don't believe the Green Mountain Boys (hero's of the 1st American Revolution) actually came from Vermont. Guess the bloodline got really thin over the years.
-ZUKSAM
and your PROOF of this happening or happened is......?
P.S. please post proof of your information (where you got it from a reputable and reliable sources and not your OWN opinion).
I can see it now a Vermont Protest..........."Honey get grandma and we will head down to the park.......eat some pancakes then walk down to the nuclear plant.......the police then said they will drive us back in a bus to their station.....we will be home by lunch".
I bet they even forgot to turn out the lights when they left and thus wasted more electricity. And what form of electricity do they want to support?
Hundreds march against Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant ...
Judge: State can't shut down Vermont Yankee over waste issue ...
Radioactive element found in fish far from Vermont nuclear plant ...
sammy your comment is silly almost childlike. nuclear energy is dangerous and this is an old plant. these people are probably way more knowlegable then you are about the benefit and problems with nuclear energy.
@Tao of Wow
You realize the last article you posted (Radioactive element...) provides evidence that the Vermont plant did *not* leak any contamination into the groundwater? And that the trace contamination detected in the wildlife was most likely from above ground nuclear testing and the Chernobyl disaster?
Nuclear energy doesn't have to be unsafe. We are using designs from the 60's! It's like looking at what happened with the Ford Pinto and declaring all cars unsafe.
Newer designs are much safer. Please investigate Generation 4 nuclear designs before making your decisions.
The ultimate answer is fusion power, but that is not here now and is still aways off (at least that is what they tell us). So that means we are going to have to use the other known means available to us. Unfortunately we will have to use some fossil fuels, like it or not, but we can continue reducing that use with alternative energy, specifically solar (better than wind for many reasons, but wind can still have a small part - eitherway the more we use the cheaper it will get) and yes nuclear power. But that doesn't mean we have to use the current form of nuclear power reactors, light water reactors. This is the one thing these people have right (assuming they focused the topic down and understand this concept) and that I can agree with. There should be no light water reactors once their operating license runs out.
Like scubasteve says above, what we need to be doing is switching to the latest generation and design of reactors which are those that use thorium for the fuel. Many could go on the same site as the current nuclear plants as a start. This in my opinion is the answer. Thorium based reactors for the bulk of power, combined with solar, and then a mix of other sources like some hydro, wind, ect. and an ever shrinking amount of fossil fuel power until we get to the day fusion power comes around. That is my thought on the matter and I encourage anyone to look up thorium based nuclear reactors, clearly the way to go (for base power) with the choices we have right now.
It is time
@Navy555,
I live 30 minutes from this plant and am pro nuclear. The plant is in fact leaking tritium contaminated water into the ground and near by rivers. It has been reported several times over the last couple years. Google tritium leaks and Vermont Yankee and you will find numerous occurrences over the past couple years. This plant is aged and needs to be shut down and maybe a new one in its place. I also lived happily and safely near the nuclear plant in San Clemente CA and my children do not have three eyes and four arms. Chernobyl was a terrible nuclear accident that left a lot of people displaced and with out work, homes and a way of life for a very long time. But look at what is happening there now. Animal life, and yes, people are thriving there. No three legged birds are being found, no mutated animals. All have some levels or radiation, but plant, and animals are thriving. We need a solution and safe nuclear may just be it. I don't usually comment on news stories, this is actually my first time, but thought this was important enough to add my 2 cents..
Where does one start with this one? First off, Brattleboro, Vt appears to be far inland and in no danger of a tsunami. Secondly, people think that they would actually glow from radiation exposure? Sure certain paints used to glow because of radioactive ingredients (long time ago), but I've never heard of reports of humans glowing. Third, this company has "Yankee" in it's name. Maybe they are advocating candlelight as opposed to nuclear energy. Just imagine how pissed the protestors would be if the company were called "Vermont Rebel".
First off, go google "Vermont Yankee 2007 cooling tower collapse". Second, The thing is falling apart by its self, and despite us telling them NO countless times and our state laws preventing this, Entergy has desperately tried to find anything than can to continue, as you can see they have no intent of shutting down. No one actually thinks they are going to glow they are just being silly :P
And third the company is not called "Vermont Yankee" that is the name of the plant its self, The company that owns it is Entergy.
wow, Lord - great example of homo sapiens hubris. You think that the only thing that can go wrong is a TSUNAMI? Why do I get the feeling you were born AFTER Chernobyl and the 3-Mile Island event? There is no such thing as fail-safe. More no-go zones will be created by catastrophic failure of these plants. Its a matter of how many and how often. It WILL happen.
We need energy - but at what price? I think creating "death-zones" of miles of land for thousands of years kinda wipes out any benefits of several decades of "abundant and clean" energy. Pretty selfish of us. Well, sure - so if one of these plants goes, several square miles will be wiped out for a couple thousand years. BUT HEY! I gotta have my tv!
Right...? sure.......
I have given up being disgusted by the antics of my fellow man, and have decided to just enjoy my front-row seat at the great freak show.
Did you drive a hybrid to one of these protests? Or are you just watching it on your tv and going on the internet to post about it? Probably going back and forth opening up the fridge multiple times, standing in front of the cool because your A/C is already broken because you had it on max because its getting hot out there.
And I love your conclusion, might as well have said. "Yeah, I understand all thats going wrong better than everyone else in the world, but am doing nothing about it and will continue to do nothing because everyone else is stupid." You're a loser.
So do you suggest just shutting the plants down and replace them with what? "Clean" coal power plants... as if there were really such a thing. Natural gas? Do you propose converting many naval vessels to deisel engines. adding to dependence on oil, or limiting subsurface time for certain vessels? Nuclear power isn't the problem, twenty or thirty year old plants on older technology is a problem. They absolutely need to be shut down after being replaced by newer and safer designed nuclear plants.
And by the way... I was born before Chernobyl and 3-Mile Island... but I don't fear nuclear energy. Go ahead and keep pulling the blanket over your head when you sleep. Duck and cover.
Fukushima radiation headed across Pacific Ocean
I really hate glow in the dark protesters!
It removes the need to grab your torch! The new saying will be just Grab your Pitchforks and Esmerelda since Esmerelda glows!
When the protest was over they all got in thier Oil powered cars, Stopped by the market and purchased fruits inported from Chile on oil burning ships , planes and trucks,went home and turned on thier lights, thier TV's, Thier I-PADS, thier MACs... turned up the heat, opened thier gas & electric bills and complained about how high they are.
February 10, 2010
Vermont Yankee Leaking Nuclear Waste Into Connecticut River
by Eesha Williams
The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant is leaking cancer-causing tritium, a form of nuclear waste, into the Connecticut River, a spokesperson for the Vermont Department of Health said on February 9, 2010...
During that time the level of radioactive pollution being sent into Vermont’s groundwater by VY has increased by 800 percent. That radioactive pollution now also has reached four times the federal limit for drinking water and it is continuing to grow.
Radioactive pollution now has been detected in two new test wells beyond the initial one. No one currently is able to even map the area of ground water being polluted or to predict how far that pollution will spread. No one is able to say whether it will sink from its currently detected relatively shallow depths into deeper aquifers, which would greatly compound the complexity of even attempting any cleanup. No one can accurately estimate the cost of that cleanup or tell us how it will be paid for. And, finally, no one is able to predict when or if the source of this radioactive pollution will be identified and stopped.
Reference - http://valleypost.org/node/358
But the NRC - APPROVED a 20+year extension of their license...
"We have tracked the plum of tritium contaminated groundwater as it moves slowly towards the river, and this new finding confirms that the tritium has traveled from the Yankee site to the CT River," said health Commissioner Harry Clen, MD. The samples were taken on 18 & 25 Jul 2010.
In addition, the Health Department reported earlier this month that Strodium-90 was detected in the editable portions of fish taken 9+miles upstream of Vermont Yankee site, on 9Jun2010. Today the Health Department received lad results that confirmed the accuracy of that finding.
Reference - http://www.topix.net/forum/city/brattleboro-vt/TFOORUB4VFKLI2R56
I wouldn't put much stock in a department that can't release a report with correct spelling. C'mon! You're going to trust their high education and expertise? HA!
Hey Hog. Your an idiot.
Mary Jones-1616541,
Be nice, the nuclear engineers out of work need to do something...
Better them commenting on Newsvine than having them build or work on nuclear facilities...
Hey Mary Jones, you might want to check your spelling before declaring someone else an idiot. What you meant to say was "You're an idiot."
You're welcome.
Before anyone worries about Tritium, it's non-technical name is HYDROGEN, it's SO radioactive that its most dangerous emission CAN'T even penetrate human SKIN, and it has a maximum half-life of a staggering 14 DAYS, which means it can't build up in your system and actually make you sick.
OOH, SCARY!!!
Oh, yeah, and if they tell you the leaks "exceed EPA limits," remember that the EPA limit on exposure to Tritium is 1.3% of BACKGROUND radiation... in other words, less than what you're getting from reading this message on your computer RIGHT NOW. You'll get more radation exposure from eating a BANANA.
Mary...sarcasm?? My detector isn't up to speed yet this morning. Just in case though...*you're.
Before anyone worries about Tritium, it's non-technical name is HYDROGEN, it's SO radioactive that its most dangerous emission CAN'T even penetrate human SKIN, and it has a maximum half-life of a staggering 14 DAYS, which means it can't build up in your system and actually make you sick.
From Wikipedia.
Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen, which allows it to readily bind to hydroxyl radicals, forming tritiated water (HTO), and to carbon atoms. Since tritium is a low energy beta emitter, it is not dangerous externally (its beta particles are unable to penetrate the skin), but it is a radiation hazard when inhaled, ingested via food or water, or absorbed through the skin.
To further explain:
Tritium is potentially dangerous if inhaled or ingested. It can combine with oxygen to form tritiated water molecules, and those can be absorbed through pores in the skin.strong>em>
Mary Jones-1616541, this is useless. Third suspension in five weeks. You're suspended for a week for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
Iran wants to go nuclear so why don't we drop all of those canisters full of nuclear waste on the nuclear facilities -- we'll call it "foreign aid".
I guess if you like cancer you would vote to keep this one open?
i guess if you like car accidents you would vote to keep cars on the road.... simple statistics, your much much more likely to be hurt in a car accident than from a nuke plant.
Maybe they should change their chant from " hell no, we won't glow" to " hell yes, let's leave a mess '' or "hell yes, the nukes are fine. We're all dead, but at least we shine " !
tragic as a car accidents my be the road is only close or detoured for a bit, As in the Fukishima the "road" is closed for generations.
if all the protesters would put up solar, and windmills. wonder if they could replace the power plant. all that time and cash to go protest could of been used to make power for there house and 10 of there freinds.
i am betting not a one has any way to power not only there house, off the grid. there all still tied in to the grid and want that power to be stable and there 24/7
You need 10,000 wind turbines or 30 square miles of solar panels just to equal the output of the average nuclear reactor. Not plant. Reactor. I just don't see it happening.
Kill the protestors. Build nuke plants. If they leak, cause death, more job openings for cleanup, operations, maintenance. Win, win. Kill the protestors. Move on.
Bunch of morons.
Nuclear power has existed for around sixty years now, and there have been a grand total of THREE accidents worth talking about; Chernobyl was a Soviet-era plant that may as well have been constructed out of bubble gum and tinfoil, Three Mile Island's miniscule significance was inversely proportional to the amount of media attention it got, and Fukishima was caused by one of the largest natural disasters in recorded history, which nobody could ever have predicted or prepared for.
So yes, nuclear power is perfectly safe.
If you count all the nuclear power plants ever built:
1. Then count the number of reported incidents of partial or complete core meltdowns. The failure rate is OVER 4%...
2. Then count the numbers of serious nuclear incidents where radioactivity was released into the environment. The failure rate is over 25%...
There have been at least eight meltdowns in the history of the United States. All are widely called "partial meltdowns."
Of the 99 serious nuclear incidents, 57% (56 out of 99) of all nuclear-related accidents have occurred in the USA.[5]
1. Three mile Island cost over a Billion USD to contain & clean-up...
2. Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (2011), is still not stabilized and is projected to take another 30+years to contain and clean-up...
3. Chernobyl disaster during 1986 in Ukraine. That accident killed 56 people directly, as well as damaging approximately $7 billion of property. A study published in 2005 estimates that there will eventually be up to 4,000 additional cancer deaths related to the accident among those exposed to significant radiation levels.[14] Radioactive fallout from the accident was concentrated in areas of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. Approximately 350,000 people were forcibly resettled away from these areas soon after the accident.[14]
4. There are many more, just do the research... start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_accidents
So yes, nuclear power is perfectly safe... Ha! Ha!
opps I left out the oldest and worst nuclear polluted site in the world...
4. The Windscale fire of 10 October 1957 was the worst nuclear accident in Great Britain's history, ranked in severity at level 5 on the 7-point International Nuclear Event Scale.[1] There was a release of radioactive material that spread across the UK and Europe.[4] The final removal of fuel from the damaged reactor was scheduled to begin in 2008 and continue for a further four years.[9] Official estimates are that up to a hundred people may have died from the contamination. The cleanup cost over a hundred million pounds.[1]
'The cleanup cost over a hundred million pounds', was incorrect for the Windscale site...
"Huhne said that decommissioning Britain’s nuclear ‘legacy’ will cost £54 billion. I was told the real figure is likely to be double that. Just clearing Sellafield will cost £50 billion, including removing enough radioactive soil to fill 77 lorry loads every day for 20 years."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113327/The-toxic-pond-Europe-Sellafield-cost-10bn-make-safe--Harold-Wilson-wont-pay-it.html#ixzz1pw8H6yX3
The only good thing about nuclear energy is that it's cheap and very profitable. The worst thing about it is the waste is radioactive forever. No matter what eventually that water will end up back in the environment and noone really knows how many species will be impacted. Noone knows how the contaminated water will effect the genetics of those species exposed to it over time but it can't be good. We need sustainable energy NOW. We need to develope wind, solar, hydro and bio energies at whatever cost. The energy companies should be required to absorb the cost of developing them, since they have been making so much for so long, off dirty energy.
The anit-nuclear crowd has been crying wolf for too many years with too few credible facts. Nothing is perfectly safe, but considering the trade space of risk/reward, an energy source that is free of carbon emission is a preferable alternative to belching vast quantities of CO2.
The answer is not to shut them down, the answer is to get next generation technology on line and improve the safety level.
1. Three Mile Island was mainly caused by operator error
2. Fukishima was basically an act of God
3. The Russian RBMK reactor was designed by a bunch of Soviet scientists who had a very weak understanding of nuclear physics. The design was basically a bomb that had to be actively stopped from melting down
4. It's hardly fair to compare an experimental military reactor(that was pushed beyond it's design limits so Britain could attempt to build their own thermonuclear bomb), to plants designed for civilian power generation.
Nuclear power is pretty much the only option for power going forward. Instead of trying to stop new plants from being built, we need to focus on building the safer, Generation 4 designs.
Fukashima is not a good example what could happen? Risks and rewards? who gets the risks and who gets the rewards?
Fukishima is a good example of an extremely worst-case scenario.
The earthquake knocked out the connection to the power grid as well as the roads needed to access the plant.
The tsunami damaged the backup generators and the backup batteries were only designed to last for a few hours.
Also, the design used at Fukishima was from the 60's. Current generation designs have passive safety measures so something like Fukishima couldn't happen.
If you are really interested in safe, clean nuclear power (and have an open mind), I would suggest you look into the Generation 4 designs. My personal favorite is the Molten Salt Reactor.
Thanks for the info i will look it up. there is also I believe it is called terra power. which uses less water and half's the decay time which means half storage time. and lets face it storage is a issue. Also I don't think these plans are the newer designs that you are talking about.
The fact that there are very dangerous consequences for a worst case scenario, affecting generations. what is a plan if that happen in any area of the US?
Also I think it would be wise to look at history I do believe that there was protest as well in the 60's against Fukushima.
I looked into TerraPower. They use what's called a Traveling Wave Reactor design (one of the 4th generation designs I mentioned) which is actually a variation on the Molten Salt Reactor which turns depleted uranium into plutonium and then fissions the plutonium to generate power (and more neutrons to turn more depleted uranium into more plutonium and so on).
A similar (and more technically feasible) design would be the Thorium Molten Salt Reactor design. This design takes Thorium (a waste product of coal mining) and uses the neutrons produced to transmute it into Uranium-233 which is then fissioned and so on...
The benefits of both these reactor designs are:
1. They operate at atmospheric pressures so pressure explosions are impossible.
2. They are already in a liquid state so a "meltdown" is impossible (can't melt something that's already melted right?).
3. A "Loss-of-Coolant" accident (Chernobyl, 3-Mile Island) couldn't happen because the fuel and the coolant are the same thing.
4. If power were ever lost (like Fukishima) the Molten Fuel could be drained into storage basins where it would be held at a sub-critical (non-fissioning) mass.
5. The nuclear waste produced by these reactors decays to the same radiation level as natural uranium in ~300 years. Currently produced nuclear waste takes ~10,000 years.
6. More dangerous nuclear wastes (the ~10,000 year stuff from #5) can be "burned" in these reactors, generating power and turning it into the less bad (although, admittedly still bad) ~300 year stuff.
AC, It's late and I'm tired so I am not going to go point by point through your statements.
You like to talk about the number of people who have died or are projected to die as a result of various accidents. Lets put those into perspective though. Here in the U.S. about 40,000 people die every year as a result of flu. Flu is naturally occurring though, so let's talk about something man made. We average about 40,000 (yep, about the same number) deaths every year as a result of automobile accidents. Apparently, automobiles are far more dangerous than nuclear power plants and the newest generation of power plants will be, by far, the safest and most efficient yet!
Finally, I wish I could find the number for this one, but I haven't. Let's just say, that you would be very surprised if you were to find out how many people have died and die every year as a result of pollution produced by fossil fuel power plants.
Nuclear power certainly isn't perfect, but at our current level of technology it is the safest, least polluting, and most efficient means of producing electricity available.
tiredofhypocrites-794827,
Ignoring the numerous incidents, whether they were cause by; human, design, or equipment failure...
The MAJOR problem with nuclear power, is the SAFE disposal of the radioactive waste and used fuel rods...
For 60+years of power, you are generating massive amounts of thermal pollution, THOUSANDS of tonnes of used fuel rods and unknown tonnes of material that has become radioactive during the operation of these reactors...
With NO - SAFE, 'Long-Term' storage site and numerous temporary sites that are going to result in environmental degradation and have to be guarded/secured for CENTURIES...
It is NOT - The safest, least polluting, and most efficient means of producing electricity available.
AC, you are completely ignoring the fact that the new designs recycle spent fuel, in essence, burning it up. The amount of waste is much less, and it can be used. Mix it with the same cheap ingredients used to make glass, melt it all down, cast it into rods. These will be both radioactive and hot, hot enough to run a boiler buried underground, (providing shielding), which then runs a turbine producing electricity. This has already been done in France, (producing the rods).
Darthdon,
The current technology is able to only reprocess used fuel rods several times. Then the Plutonium levels become to-high for the rods to be SAFELY reprocessed...
France has been doing this for decades and their reprocessing waste is then dumped into the English Channel...
This only includes the fuel rods... Nothing about the Millions of tonnes of radioactive material from the old reactors. Which France and other Countries are just leaving in place or sinking it into the World's Oceans, like the US Navy & Russia does...
AC, a coal fired plant that could produce 1,000 megawatts of power (about average for a nuke plant) will produce about the same thermal pollution as the comparable nuke. It will also produce millions of tons of greenhouse gasses. Even if you don't believe in global warming, you can't deny the impact that those gasses will have on lakes, rivers, and wildlife as a result of acid rain. Nukes produce no greenhouse gasses.
You also have to take into account the impact of the coal mining and the transportation of coal to the plants and you would need a huge storage area at the sight for all that coal. Coal mines produce a pretty good amount of pollution themselves, mostly in the form of water pollution.
It would take 89 - 100 ton railroad cars each day the plant was in operation. That train would be more than a mile long.
Once the coal arrives at the coal plant it usually goes to a lay down yard until it is needed. There is a certain amount of air pollution produced just in moving the coal from the hopper cars to the lay down yard and from the lay down yard to the furnaces. Another problem with coal lay down yards is fires. These fires start spontaneously and will continue to burn as long as there is coal for fuel. These fires produce a bit more air pollution than just the coal dust. Lay down yards often use sprinklers to keep the dust down and to help control the fires, but they don't prevent dust and the fires will burn no matter what. They are just slowed down by the water. The runoff water from the sprinklers is a problem because it has a lot of pollutants.
One thing most people don't know is that coal has a fairly high background radiation. If you were to walk around a nuke plant with a Geiger counter it would read normal to less than normal background radiation, even right next to the reactor containment building. If you were to do the same thing around a coal plant, the clicking would drive you crazy.
Did you know that the amount of nuclear material required to produce all of the electricity that you have used and that you will use for the rest of your life, would fit in something about the size of a cigarette pack. That's for the older plants. The nuke plants that they want to build now are much more efficient.
You are correct in saying that the nuclear waste is an, as yet, unresolved issue. Currently, all spent fuel is stored on-site at the various nuclear plants around the country. In theory, it can stay there forever, but that's not very practical since it would require security, electricity and water forever and no utility wants to sit on a big pool of water that does absolutely nothing, for several years. It's not that expensive to store the spent fuel, it's just not convenient. It's unfortunate that a few means of disposal have actually been constructed but when it came time to put them into operation, the locals who benefited from the construction, suddenly decided against allowing an operating permit. This problem is working its way through the courts now and should be resolved, at least partially, within a few years. Also, newer means of disposal are being developed.
AC, you said that the U.S. Navy sinks their radioactive waste in the ocean. That was proposed at one time but never happened that I know of. Spent fuel is sent to the Naval Reactor Facility in Idaho Falls, Idaho. The section of a submarine that contained the reactor is sent to Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state.
I worked construction (civil and electrical test) on nuclear plants. I was amazed by the concerns for safety and attention to detail, that goes into the construction of one of these plants. I have also worked under regulations from the FCC and FAA and I can tell you, the NRC regulations were far more strict than anything required by any other organization I am aware of.
I didn't mention oil fired power plants because I believe we have already used up half of the world's oil and believe that in the next 30 years we will see oil pass $200, $300 and maybe even $500 a barrel. As a result of dwindling oil supplies, all oil fired plants will be gone within those 30 years.
As I said before, "Nuclear power certainly isn't perfect, but at our current level of technology it is the safest, least polluting, and most efficient means of producing electricity available." I would much rather life next to a nuclear plant than I would a coal plant. The fact is, you couldn't pay me enough to live next to a coal plant.
I remember the Yankee nuke plant. It was one of the very first civilian nuke power plants in our country. There has been many protests about it for decades. Vermont is very small and very upper-middle class east coast culture. I don't know how Vermont will provide for its electricity if this plant closes (too classic of the 93yo saying she has not been arrested enouph times)
They should close them all down world wide. Radioactive waste is the worst pollution ever invented by man.
Radioactivity is not man made, it is a natural phenomenon.
TJP77: yup its safe and alwalys will be safe somewhere : Until it happen next to you :
The problem with "shutting down" a nuke power plant is that you can NEVER "shut down" the nuclear material in the plant.
Yes, yes, yes, SHUT down all the big bad nuke plants,
BURN MORE COAL,, save money, BURN AMERICAN COAL.
----------------------
Or better yet, burn ARAB OIL to produce electric ( sarcasm)
Yes, shut it down because as you know. When i think of Vermont it reminds me of Fukushima, an power plant on a volcanic island near an active fault line, that is at an ocean front location......ok not really. when i think of Vermont i think of snow, Canadian wannabes and maple syrup.
It's not like they can just flip a switch and shut the place down. the fuel rods have to cool and the pool has to be drained and...other stuff has to happen to actually get the place shut down. That costs more money than keeping it open. so until the state can find an alternative source of power that is readily available to switch the grid over to i don't see this place closing down.
VY has had several serious failures, its parent company lied to the State regarding safety issues at the site, it continues to get a highly preferential rate for its water discharge permit (which releases heated water into the Connecticut river) and Vermont has already contracted alternative energy sources in the event VY is closed. The biggest problem a lot of people in this area have is the ongoing dishonesty and prevarication Entergy has engaged in when dealing with the State and the resulting suspicions regarding its actual safety. There is disagreement regarding this but some nuclear engineers recommend major modifications and some outright decommissioning as VY is the same design as Fukisima. VT does have earthquakes. VY's only real selling point anymore is the jobs that would be gone. And anyone who thinks VT is an upper middle class culture doesn't know the state. There are a lot of reasons to live in VT - money isn't one of them!
okay, the problem is that most reactors were designed for 40-50 yr lifespans before being replaced. however the us has not allowed this to happen. basically new technology was supposed to make nuke plants easier and safer but the gov't has not allowed but 1 new nuke plant to be built since 1979. i would like to see some company build a thorium reactor though.but until then at mininum i believe the gov't should allow a existing nuke plants to build new reactors ans phase out the old ones.
AC- cherynobl was a reactor that was poorly maintained and had no containment vessel. the ussr took over an office building and stuck the reactor inside. stupid at best, criminal at worst. no comparison to western reactors.also when you include every reactor ever built in the us dont forget to count the navy. 0 failures in 50 years.
Chernobl was the same design that the USA used to produce their fist Atomic Bomb...
This carbon-pile reactor was constructed under the seating stands of a stadium at the University of Chicago...
Carbon-pile reactors do not use containment vessels, they are usually constructed in a concrete, steel lined pit...
Just as your assertion that Chernobl was built in a office building, the US Navy. 0 failures in 50 years...
WRONG - see http://oc.itgo.com/kitsap/nuclear/clymer.htm & http://www.user.dccnet.com/welcomewoods/Nuclear_Free_Georgia_Strait/cdi.htm
Not publicly reporting the INCIDENTS, does not make them go away...
lol.
(Got to love my Yankee family)
Shut it down!
Civil nuclear reactors are safe with solid data. They provide continuous energy and radioisotopes for different health care treatments; a good example is a cardiac stress test where Technetium99 is used in millions of patients on daily basis. This 93 years woman might have few stress tests from these isotopes and might have some radiation therapy for some tumors; people are exposed to heavy radiations from non-nuclear sources than from human made nuclear source on daily basis. Even if you live in cave, some accident might happen like earth quake or tornado; then you need a cave mentality. France is prospering on nuclear energy. Germans and others might shut down their nuclear reactors, but will import energy from France out of French nuclear reactors. Fossil fuels, coal, natural gas resources are depleting rapidly as India, China and Brazil and many others have joined the club. Only reliable alternative is nuclear energy from fission reactions till unlimited energy from fusion . Even at present if you do not have oil and Gas as source of energy
and you have a massive population in your country, you need nuclear reactor. Of
course you have other energy sources like electric fish and many other
radiolucent insects, you can kill few Whales and use their oil for oil lamps and still can run a good life, short of that, if you planning to run $150-500 electric bill on monthly basis, you definitely need a 2000 MW nuclear reactor in you neighborhoods .
Cut off their power.
I would imagine that none of these people use electricity. In much the same manner as the OWS people never drank Starbucks or listened to iPods. Gotta love it.
Seriously? Stay in the 60's and 70's you funny old hippies.
If you didn't notice the China Syndrome was FICTION!
It was a movie with Jane Fonda for petes sake.
The Germans already figured many different ways to keep the Uranium cool even if all the water was released.
I lived in Europe for almost 20 years and the never had a problem. Not even with SOCIALISM Bill O' REILY!!!!!!
All that crap is manufactured into your head by those who want to maintain their power and wealth. Hmmm, maybe those who have stock in OIL perhaps?
Maybe those who would rather see mankind suffer so him and HIS family are the only one's who have a unfair advantage by being born into wealth while other struggle for daily survival. You tell me.
It would really be nice if my own countryman would get their head out their back sides just for once in this lifetime for Christ sake.
Do you know anything, Mary Ann, of the history of Vermont Yankee? Anything at all???
Maybe you should do a little reading up on it. AC Robertson has done a good job further up this thread of summarizing its troubled history.
Actually I do and most of it overblown.
Leaks were repaired and guess what, nothing is 100% and you live with what you got.
That said, build a new one with modern materials, engineering and technology advancements.
We are in a new era of advancement so enough of your fears.
If they had any common sense they would build new facilities close to the working sites, transfer the improved power and grid then shut down and remove the old sites.
Use your brain America.
Sure, listen to good old TBoon Pickens, your billionaire buddy who drives a natural gas limo to work every day. The same environmentalist who bought up land over one of the largest Aquifers in the United States and with the help of his neighbors is trying to pump all the free water out and re-sell it to Texas.
Nobody in the US is interested in advancing the human race only their wallets.
No one except maybe the neil degrasse tyson's of the world.
Once again I sit in frustration because so many are blind.
Not one thing you just said indicates you know the history of the plant.
In February 2010, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 against
re-licensing of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant after 2012, citing radioactive
tritium leaks, misstatements in testimony by plant officials, a cooling tower collapse in 2007, and other problems.
This being the same plant that was relicensed by the NRC to operate for another 20 years, against the wishes of the State.
Because unlike so many others, the politicians understand radioactivity? Is that why they voted against? Just curious.
Maybe not Bohnman.
But they know liars when they encounter them. Unlike the NRC, apparently. Either that or they just care more.
Misstatements in testimony. LOL.
I think most of us call that "lying".
It appears that it takes a liar to know a liar.
(I haven't looked up anything about this plant in particular so I'm not saying that the plant should or shouldn't be kept in operation)
I haven't looked up anything about this plant in particular so I'm not saying that the plant should or shouldn't be kept in operation.
Well, then. So ends any type of real conversation with you about this.
Thanks for the non-statement about that which you know nothing.
As opposed to you who is clearly an anti nuclear activist and put your foot in your mouth over and over and over.
In which post did I say that this plant should not be shut down?
I do believe that nuclear energy, while it does have it's drawbacks, is well worth the risk. You on the other hand think that it is not worth the risks just because you are afraid of the word radiation or the word nuclear. Just like the majority of public you are afraid of it because that is what you have been taught. That is why you bring up accidents that occurred 40 years ago as relevant today or bring up a plant that was built 40 years ago that is now having problems. You have no context in the statistics you use.
Yes we can't have a real conversation because you refuse to admit when you are wrong. And you are wrong about nuclear energy in general. Maybe not this plant in particular.
That is why you bring up accidents that occurred 40 years ago as relevant today or bring up a plant that was built 40 years ago that is now having problems. You have no context in the statistics you use.
Let me explain this to you. Very slowly. So you can understand.
What happened 40 years ago IS as relevant as what's happened today in terms of the world's nuclear pollution levels. It. doesn't. just. go. away. There is no reset. There is no "freebie". Each mistake that we make in radiation release just adds to the overall problem. Whether it's experimental or military or commercial - doesn't matter. Doesn't matter if it happens on the other side of the earth. It all accumulates. That s*** stays around for a very, very long time. it doesn't go away. A little more here. A little more there.
Apparently that hasn't occurred to you yet. You can't even be bothered to find out the facts surrounding this particular plant and why people are protesting it. So pardon me if I dismiss anything you have to say about this matter.
So what you are saying is that we haven't learned anything from any of the accidents that occurred 40 years ago? Otherwise you wouldn't be bringing them up.
As a Chemist, Yes I know the crap stays around for a long time. But much of it has already been around for a long time previous to man's dabbling in radionuclides. The crap over time does go away.
I can definitely understand your argument that any accident adds to the amount of radioactivity that is in the earth, but in my opinion, the benefits of removing pollution from coal burning plants by using nuclear is an acceptable risk for the time being. Especially since we have learned from the accidents that have happened and the flawed designs that have been improved.
So what you are saying is that we haven't learned anything from any of the accidents that occurred 40 years ago? Otherwise you wouldn't be bringing them up.
No. That's. not. what. I'm saying.
I bring them up because we are still physically dealing with the aftermath of our nuclear follies from the past.
Here's just one example of what I'm talking about.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_20108641/rocketdyne-radiation-is-still-abundant
Look at these retarded liberals. They would rather live in caves.
WHERE DO YOU THINK POWER comes from retards!!!
The cost for powering the entire country on solar power: 13 trillion roughly (10,000 square miles of panels) The national debt: 15.5 trillion. I guess that money got wasted.
I'm going solar.
Also sh*t does happen; even in unlikely places. Remember that earthquake that hit DC a year ago and damaged the Washington Monument? Now picture a slightly bigger one and a nuclear plant.
Also sh*t does happen; even in unlikely places. Remember that earthquake that hit DC a year ago and damaged the Washington Monument? Now picture a slightly bigger one and a nuclear plant.
Yeah, and what's really funny is the damage Vermont Yankee has already done to the environment without having experienced anything like that at all.
Nuclear power is not clean. It just replaces one kind of pollution with another.
we only use oil and nukes because of those who profit from it.15th century windmills are todays wind turbines.is this the best we can do with todays technology?solar cells are too expensive.why is it we spend so much on wind and solar power thats too expensive?
everyone wants to blame the bankers for a lot of the problems in the world,but its the oil companies that keep everyone broke.they work together to keep everyone poor.
every home should have a device in it that can produce electric.same with cars trucks planes and boats.this technology is available now,but it is held back by those who profit from the old technology.this has happened all thru history.the oil companies have bought up the most patents on fuel saving devices.
no to nukes or oil for power.there is better cheaper technology for power.
gimpy, if you've got the funds, I've got the means. I've reached out to various state departments and even the Department of Energy, and the best I've gotten is "That sounds like a good plan." but no action.
So Indigo,
You have new technology that would replace nuclear? Why not start small? Sell it to your neighbors. I wish you luck if you do have something.