Morning Read: A vote on North Country nuclear power?
The Glens Falls Post Star is reporting that a woman in the Washington County town of Easton wants a community referendum on whether a nuclear power plant is appropriate for the area.
“I am not an activist. I’m a private person, but this makes me sick to my stomach, [Judith Schneibel told the newspaper.]
“This defies logic. This is monumentally stupid,” said the retired town resident, who can be found most days of the week trekking across the agricultural landscape with her homemade cardboard sign that reads: Opposed to nuclear power? Tell the Town Board. Sign petition here.
Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation’s aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.
Vermont, of course, is also embroiled in a fight over the future of the aging Vermont Yankee reactor, which state officials want mothballed as soon as the company’s current license expires.
So what do you think? Is nuclear power a good economic engine for the North Country? Or is this a risky industry which brings more questions than answers?
When you get done in the Glenns Falls area, would you mind coming north to Massena? Our “leaders” are still looking into nuclear power despite what recently happened in Japan. Despite the on going information about the risks and how STILL the radiation problems are growing from the Japanese nuclear disaster in Fukushima. We JUST WANT MONEY NO MATTER WHAT THE RISK is the message Massena sends. We don’t care! MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY. Your health? Who cares about that, by golly this economy needs a nuclear plant! Stupidity up here is at the molecular level now, trust that.
It is still possible to make a rational argument in favor of nuclear energy, but after Japan’s experience, I dont think anyone outside of Iran will be building them anytime soon.
Okay, no nuclear, no wind, no co gens, no dams for hydro, no giant solar arrays, no geo thermal, no biomass, no coal, no gas………
The future looks bright.
When they started building nukes they said they’d have a solution to the waste problem before it became a problem. Now it’s a problem and they don’t have a solution. They aren’t any closer to a permanent solution either. This isn’t like windmills (or most of the energy sources Bret mentions) that can be shut down/dismantled if the problem turns out to be larger than the benefit. The waste is here for 100,000 plus years, more than 25 times longer than all of recorded history. How does that equate to a bright future?
I don’t think they are economically feasible. So why would we subsidize the development of nuclear power with taxpayer dollars, then subsidize figuring out what to do with the waste for the next 100 years?
I think it goes back to the false dream of energy independence, there will NEVER be energy independence in a global economy.
If we want a risky energy that actually can pay right now in profits, jobs and energy production we should look at expanding hydro-frac technologies, natural gas extractions, cleaner ways to make coal and expanding where we can look for oil.
Nuclear does not pay and never goes away, you can’t turn it off if it does not work as Jim mentioned above.
What’s amazing/funny about the Washington County situation is having a congressman who WANTS a nuclear plant in his district. It’s not like someone suggested putting a plant here and Chris Gibson didn’t object. No, he’s out there suggesting it, raising the possibility, pointing out the advantages. Hey, why not? Can we get a hog farm? And why are we trucking all those tons of PCBs to Texas when we’ve got so much open space locally? Can we take NYC’s trash? What about another burn plant? How about this for a slogan: “Washington County, we accept what no one else will”? Just call us IMBYs.
Based upon the recently passed “Article X”, wouldn’t Albany take the lead on this issue? If that’s true, a community referundum serves little purpose.
Seems like there was a big to-do over the 750-kV lines some years ago.
We all didn’t grow three heads.
Same circus, different clowns.
There are companies that are developing small nuclear reactors and the Tennessee Valley Authority has just ordered 6 of them. The reactor’s small footprint might be perfect for the ADKs. Their size also lowers the Japan-like potential of a meltdown. Additionally, while there is a small fault line in Quebec that can affect the ADKs I am not sure if the magnitude of quakes have been that larger in recent years. Seems like an interesting way forward.
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/37861/?p1=A3
This is one where the naysayers win. The regulatory landscape is impossible. Once environmental groups open up to the realities of what type of environmental degradation is required to produce rare earth elements required for wind and solar power generation nothing much will be left as far as alternative energy goes. Everything has a down side. If we could come up with a way to safely (pretty hard to do) send this nuclear waste into the dark void of space then we could have the almost perfect source of green power. BTW don’t build your nuclear power plants in one of the most seismically active places on the planet! It isn’t nuclear that is the problem in Japan it is the ground the plants are built on.
Let us say you could could figure out a way to safely get rid of nuclear waste, such as deep space for example, the larger question is why? Why go to all of that trouble and huge expense, the cost of nuclear development will not equal the benefits.
If nuclear power can compete on an even playing field without government subsidy than I would be more in favor of it, but right now nothing can compete with natural gas, and coal.
In truth, we should use less energy, which would mean we would need to generate less energy. But that can’t happen as people need their inground swimming pools, SUVs to go get groceries, & have to be able to wear shorts inside during the winter months.
@ It’s Still All Bush’s FAult: I think your point deserves more discussion. This new law has been lost in the end-of-session noise. I think you are correct. These decisions are no longer in the hands of the localities. Albany now decides siting issues, as I understand it.
Sure Scratchy.
But think about what you are saying; are you willing to tell people what they can buy and what they can’t buy, what is politically acceptable purchases and what is not?
I don’t think we have an energy issue, we have plenty of energy as you point out people are willing to pay to drive an suv or keep the heat at whatever they can afford, there is plenty of energy to do that.
We have a pollution problem not an energy availability problem, we have plenty of natural gas and coal, we have enough carbon based fuel to live like this for another couple of hundred years.
It is worth noting that the chair of Gibson’s Nuke panel is Bill Teator who is a lobbyist for, guess what? the nuclear power industry! He was also tied to previous local Republicans John Sweeney and Jerry Solomon.
http://poststar.com/news/local/article_fd079eee-3f9c-11e0-b2a1-001cc4c03286.html
There is more on Bill Teator on ChrisGibsonWatch.com
http://www.chrisgibsonwatch.com/
Mervel, In scratchy’s defence, we don’t need to “tell people what they can and cannot buy”. We must simply let the market…remember the free market..do it’s work. We must stop funding and feeding these energy projects, then stand back and see which ones are actually feasible, and let simple market economics do the job. As soon as people are allowed to pay the ACTUAL costs for their energies, change will happen.
Fracking would disappear if government support was eliminated.
tootightmike,
I agree with you about letting the market determine the true prices of these energy sources. If we remove the tax breaks from the carbon based companies and remove the subsidies from the wind, solar and nuclear side, I think we would have a much clearer picture. In addition we do need some sort of a carbon tax to take into account the public cost of cleaning up pollution caused by carbon fuels.
We can get rid of nuclear waste by dumping it all on our enemies along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border.
Along the lines of ADIKinLA’s post, I would suggest reading the article “Next-Gen Nukes” in the recent special issue edition of Popular Science. The article discusses various new generation mini nuke plant designs as well Thorium fueled plants that might be ideal for building here in the United States.
If you research Thorium nuclear plants, you may come to the realization that we made a grave error in the early days of nuclear development when we moth balled this technology in favor of uranium fueled technology due to its far greater potential for creating atomic weapons. Another casualty of our always present (it seems to me anyway) quest to kill our fellow man more efficiently. For some time now scientists, engineers, and policy makers have been advocating a return to Thorium fueled reactors due to their safety, efficiency and more environmental friendly advantages compared with Uranium fueled reactors. It seems its time may have finally arrived.
Whether you dispose of the waste in outer space or on the A/P border, please do not consider using the St. Lawrence Seaway in the transportation route.
I would add that in January China approved the construction of a Thorium fueled reactor. The United States military as well as Google has expressed interest in building Thorium fueled reactors due to their advantages of being sited close to urban centers or sprawling population centers (like individual military bases or large energy consuming data centers). The hope is that these particular organizations, due to their huge size and purchasing power, may spur a movement toward Thorium fueled reactors and away from traditional uranium fueled reactors.
Even with Military and corporate support, the transition to Thorium will likely be slow. The more we can educate the populace on the advantages of Thorium fueled reactors the better. It seems to me that environmental groups should also get behind this push as the move to Thorium is an excellent compromise when considering our energy needs of the future.
Building more nuclear power plants of the type that currently exist is insane.
If you removed all the subsidies from nuclear there is no way it would be competitive.
If you took all the money spent on energy production tax subsidies for a couple of years and invested it in retrofitting buildings and other energy conservation projects you could significantly reduce future energy consumption.
But we shouldn’t have to convince anyone. If a particular nuclear technology works in a cost efficient way than private money would invest in it and it would be built. I certainly don’t want my tax dollars used to subsidize the construction of nuclear plants or the disposal of the waste and certainly not to market the concept to voters.
There’s no doubt part of the equation has to be about energy conservation. However, we’re a bit hamstrung vis a vis subsidies as the entire electrical grid is subsidized to some degree given utilities (which are subsidized by definition) control, for the most part, the grid. What we really need is a complete rethink about not only how we generate and use electricity, but how we distribute it as well. For instance, rebuilding a digital, highly efficient national grid incorporating micro-grids, digital technology, efficient storage systems, etc., alternative generation (solar, wind, geo-thermal, etc…) In other words the question of building new traditional nuclear or Thorium nuclear are but one topic within a much larger discussion.
The problem I was getting at is that if people don’t want energy production or exploration nearby (be it nuclear, windmills, hydrofracking, etc.), then they should voluntarily reduce their consumption.
Ideally governments should take the lead in reducing energy consumption. Adjusting the thermostat a couple degrees, double side printing paper, more tele and video conferencing to reduce travel expenses, turning off the lights and computers after workers leave, direct deposit of paychecks, etc. are all ways governments could reduce both energy production and spending.
I would also add that the prison closures will reduce energy consumption.
I do agree with your sentiment scratchy; we all want it all. We don’t want to give up anything.
Sending nuclear waste into deep space is a GREAT idea– to search for extra terrestrial life.
After the first rocket-full leaves our solar system and enters another, the residents there will send it right back with a note:
“No Thanks”
At least we’ll end “is there other life out there?” debate
A more serios thought comes to mind about retired Admiral Rickennaur or Rickenhoff (Ricken-somethingoranother) gave congress a tongue lashing saying not only could he build the perfrect nuke plant- he stated he was in charge of a bunch of them already- they’re called submarines.
Any “old timers” recall this?
While legislation has (very quietly) passed giving the power of siting ALL energy plants (nuclear, gas — from fracking . . . why do you think they really passed the bill?, etc.) into the hands of the State, there are items built into the law allowing comment by the EPA, local planning groups, etc.
This is why it is so important for any residents in Easton who are against what the Board/Gibson are doing to take a stand now, coordinate, and get organized in advance, so that — should this get to a further stage — we are ready to fight harder, immediately. And in the meantime, we can encourage the Board to rethink their position based on the will of the people.
The State isn’t going to want a huge, well-coordinated, publicized fight on nuclear power, when they will probably be dealing at the same time with the siting of new gas plants, etc, that are more economically feasible. But the time to fight is NOW!
fishes’eddy. It was Admiral Rickover, and the nuclear navy has had some problems of their own with spills and contamination. One of their top research and training facilities is in West Milton, just outside of Saratoga. Also there is an associated site the Knolls Atomic Labs in Niskayuna which I believe is in the middle of a cleanup of radioactive waste as we blog.
“If a particular nuclear technology works in a cost efficient way than private money would invest in it and it would be built.”
Mervel, this just isn’t true. The private sector has plenty of cash on hand right now, and isn’t using it for R&D. It’s hoarding it. The Internet’s a good idea, right? Then how come the private sector didn’t build it and government subsidies did?
Same way with railroads and highways.
Corporations focus solely on short-term profit and keeping costs down, which is anathema to new ideas–and their consequent short-term losses in developing them–being generated.
Right now NYS rate payers have protection from paying for the cost (and cost overruns) of building new utility plants. But states like Iowa, Missouri & Georgia are looking at overturning similar legislation — of course at the request of the utility companies — and New York won’t be far behind. With the high price tag and almost certain cost overruns that building another nuclear power plant would entail, I’m wondering why more energy storage plants aren’t being proposed instead. Interesting article in Business Review — apparently the grid has excess energy that, if not stored, just goes to waste. Plant saves energy AND costs less to build than a nuke plant. (Plus no radioactive waste?): http://tiny.cc/qvnnq
Oa,
Yes I think that is a fundamental disagreement we would have. Yes government plays a role and an important one but the goods and services we have in a particular economy are determined by what we want and what producers are able to make at a profit. There certainly have been cases of government resources helping, but the products themselves come from the market as they should. Even if the government leads the way why should it invest in a technology that will never pay for itself? The cost of all of the safety issues surrounding nuclear energy will never equal the benefits.
“Even if the government leads the way why should it invest in a technology that will never pay for itself?”
Because you often can’t tell in advance what will pay for itself and what won’t. Space exploration had no chance of paying for itself, at least in the short term, but what it spun off in terms of computer technology and other innovations (Velcro!), has been a huge boon to the U.S.
And to be clear, I’m not challenging your dislike of nukes. I agree with you there. Just your general overall initial assertion that the private sector is always more efficient. It’s more efficient in keeping and gathering dollars in hands of the owners of capital today. It’s not always more efficient for the individual consumer or the society over a longer haul.