Vermont Senate votes to close nuke plant in 2012

DAVE GRAM

The Associated Press

MONTPELIER, Vt. - The Vermont Senate has voted to block the state's only nuclear plant from operating after 2012.

Vermont is the only state in the country with a law giving its Legislature a say over a nuclear plant's relicensing. Wednesday's 26-4 vote against a 20-year extension of Vermont Yankee's license marks the first time lawmakers have formally weighed in on the question.

Supporters of the move to close Vermont Yankee say it's getting old and less reliable and that its owner, New Orleans-based Entergy Corp., has not proven itself trustworthy. Backers of keeping it open say Vermont needs the energy from the plant and its good-paying jobs.

The vote may not be the final word. Lawmakers could come back next year , after the November elections , and reverse themselves.

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/business/20100224_ap_vermontsenatevotestoclosenukeplantin2012.html

Rec'd to cancel the unrec.

But I wonder if an old, abandoned nuclear power plant is worse than an old, operational nuclear power plant.

Entergy would have done themselves a real favor by being up front and honest. It's the lying that has done them in, not the physical problems at the plant.

Are they planning on running on coal plants burning in other states?

check your facts. don't just post BS.

Vermont gets 34% of its power from Vermont Yankee.

72.1% from nukes (I never just said Vermont Yankee) 21.4% from hydroelectric, 6 percent from other renewables, and none from coal. Regardless, where does Vermont plan on making up the difference?

I'm absolutely positive your source is wrong, or you're looking at the wrong data. Maybe if you showed me your source I could explain why it's wrong. The fact is it's 34%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Yankee_Nuclear_Power_Plant

"It provided Vermont with nearly three-fourths (73%)<1> of its electrical generating capacity<2> prior to the 2006 uprate and meets 35% of the overall energy requirements of the state."

So 73% of the power (prior to 2006) being generated in Vermont came from this plant. That's 35% of what the state needs. (It's importing power from some other state, presumably).

there's a big difference between power generation capacity, actual power generated, and power used.

75% of the power that Vermont generates comes from this plant, they're already importing power from other places which burn coal, and now they'll need more.

Seems this is just NIMBYism writ large.

Vermont does not get any power from "other places which burn coal".

Vermont currently gets near Zero from coal. Vermont will continue to get near zero from coal, regardless of what happens with Vermont Yankee.

Before you continue demonstrating your lack of understanding of this complicated debate you should read some of the studies put out by people who have been studying these issues for decades.

I highly recommend this document as a starting place:

http://www.vpirg.org/download/2009-VPIREF-Repowering-VT.pdf

When Vermont purchases power, the individual utility companies purchase from other suppliers (not states).

To attempt to answer your question, the 2005 breakdown of energy supply in Vermont was as follows:



Not much has changed since then.

I highly recommend you take a deep breath, check out the study I linked to before, and learn a little more about this complicated issue, rather than jumping to conclusions and having a knee-jerk reaction not based on reality.

and less than 3% to the New England grid.

Finally!