Commentary

Tom Evslin: Is Vermont better off without Yankee?

Editor’s note: Tom Evslin is an entrepreneur, author and former Douglas administration official.

[V]TDigger says: “… [soon to be ex-Gov.] Shumlin contends the state is better off without Vermont Yankee’s 605 megawatts of power production due to a new emphasis on renewables and efficiency.”

No less an authority than climatologist James Hansen, who is certainly one of the scientists most alarmed by the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, says in an article written with three colleagues:

“To solve the climate problem, policy must be based on facts and not on prejudice. The climate system cares about greenhouse gas emissions – not about whether energy comes from renewable power or abundant nuclear power. Some have argued that it is feasible to meet all of our energy needs with renewables. The 100% renewable scenarios downplay or ignore the intermittency issue by making unrealistic technical assumptions, and can contain high levels of biomass and hydroelectric power at the expense of true sustainability …

“… a build rate of 61 new reactors per year could entirely replace current fossil fuel electricity generation by 2050. Accounting for increased global electricity demand driven by population growth and development in poorer countries, which would add another 54 reactors per year, this makes a total requirement of 115 reactors per year to 2050 to entirely decarbonise the global electricity system in this illustrative scenario. We know that this is technically achievable because France and Sweden were able to ramp up nuclear power to high levels in just 15-20 years.”

Being done in China, of course. In the U.S. this means getting Yucca Mountain open. It was first designated as a repository for nuclear waste in 1987. We’ve paid for it many times over in charges on nuclear plants, but the waste from our current plants is still in their onsite storage pools, largely because Sen. Reid managed to block opening Yucca. He’s gone; time to open Yucca for current and future waste and start building new nukes.

I am NOT advocating massive subsidies for nukes or a prohibition of competing power sources. I am advocating lowering the incredible high cost of building a nuclear plant through regulatory reform and making sure that it is recognized as being carbon-free and smoke-free and Sulphur-free and nitrous-oxide-free etc., etc.

I am advocating lowering the incredible high cost of building a nuclear plant through regulatory reform and making sure that it is recognized as being carbon-free and smoke-free and Sulphur-free and nitrous-oxide-free etc., etc.

• Wherever there are standards for the amount of “renewable” energy utilities must buy, make sure these are changed to be “emission free” as Hansen suggests. If there are no such standards, nukes will have to compete on price (which I think they’ll be able to do).

• A couple of standard reference designs should be pre-approved. This means that the approval process for each proposed new plant does NOT have to include and should not include the design of the plant itself. Only site-specific issues need to be considered. Permits for new designs should be possible, of course.

• Limit the permitting period to two years. The answer may well be “no” for any specific plant. That frees resources to look to site elsewhere.

• Once a permit is granted, do NOT allow “protests” to disrupt construction. Period. Of course legal appeals are possible, but, once the initial permit has been granted, appellants who want a stay of construction should have to post a bond equal to the cost of the delay which will be forfeited if the appeal is lost.

By the way, steps three and four need to be taken for all infrastructure projects. Interestingly, developers of wind projects in Vermont are finding their projects delayed by harassment as well even after permits are granted.

Just think, once we have enough nuclear plants, we won’t have to footnote that Teslas run on 50 percent coal-derived energy.

The net effect of building more nuclear plants, especially if done without subsidies, should be cheaper and not more expensive power. So, if it turns out that fears of climate change were overdone, we will still have improved the energy supply, especially in developing countries.

But, if you believe in the need for subsidies and mandates, you really should heed Hansen’s advice and insist that they be available to re-establish nuclear power.

Hard to see why this isn’t something we all agree on – unless, of course, we have a vested interest in some other source of energy. Although Yankee needed an update, it’s a shame we can’t continue to enjoy its green low-cost electricity anymore.


Commentary

About Commentaries

VTDigger.org publishes 12 to 18 commentaries a week from a broad range of community sources. All commentaries must include the author’s first and last name, town of residence and a brief biography, including affiliations with political parties, lobbying or special interest groups. Authors are limited to one commentary published per month from February through May; the rest of the year, the limit is two per month, space permitting. The minimum length is 400 words, and the maximum is 850 words. We require commenters to cite sources for quotations and on a case-by-case basis we ask writers to back up assertions. We do not have the resources to fact check commentaries and reserve the right to reject opinions for matters of taste and inaccuracy. We do not publish commentaries that are endorsements of political candidates. Commentaries are voices from the community and do not represent VTDigger in any way. Please send your commentary to Tom Kearney, [email protected]

Email: [email protected]

Send us your thoughts

VTDigger is now accepting letters to the editor. For information about our guidelines, and access to the letter form, please click here.

 

Recent Stories

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Tom Evslin: Is Vermont better off without Yankee?"