As Goes Japan, So Goes Vermont Yankee?

1. From Wikipedia: Black SwansThe Black Swan Theory or Theory of Black Swan Events is a metaphor that encapsulates the concept that The event is a surprise (to the observer) and has a major impact. After the fact, the event is rationalized by hindsight.The theory was developed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb to explain:The disproportionate role of high-impact, hard to predict, and rare events that are beyond the realm of normal expectations in history, science, finance and technology The non-computability of the probability of the consequential rare events using scientific methods (owing to the very nature of small probabilities) The psychological biases that make people individually and collectively blind to uncertainty and unaware of the massive role of the rare event in historical affairs Unlike the earlier philosophical “black swan problem”, the “Black Swan Theory” (capitalized) refers only to unexpected events of large magnitude and consequence and their dominant role in history. Such events, considered extreme outliers, collectively play vastly larger roles than regular occurrences.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

2. Thank God the unbiased Arnie Gundersen has chimed in.”But, when it comes to pushing for more nuclear power in the United States, Shumlin thinks the unfolding events in Japan present a lesson in caution.”…because we’re going to get a bigger earthquake than we’ve ever had here, and another unrelated (unless you think earthquakes cause hurricanes) simultaneous natural disaster that knocks out all power to the point where it can’t be restored?This guy is lucky that he gets zero pushback from the local media when he says idiotic things like this.

3. Yes, it is very crucial to discuss U.S. nuclear power plant issues. However, please do not forget there are tons of people who need help in Japan RIGHT NOW. We are learning a lot from them, and there is something we can do for them. Each one of us can help even though we are 6000 miles away. We have food, clean water, and warm bed. They do not. Please make donations through reliable organizations. Thank you so much.Text REDCROSS to 90999 to Give $10Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami http://american.redcross.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ntld_nolnav_text2help

4. Jimmy, I’m moderate on this issue, but I think Gundersen has a point. Of course we’re not going to experience a tsunami, and it’s highly unlikely that we’d ever experience an earthquake of any significant magnitude. That’s not the issue. The question is, could we experience a natural disaster capable of knocking out power for more than a few days, and also causing enough infrastructure impacts to prevent its immediate restoration? (Because that’s what’s causing the problems in Japan. The earthquake didn’t really affect the plants–it was the tsunamis that cut out power and caused the cooling issues.) And the answer is, sure. Shay mentioned the hurricane of 1938; there have been others that affected Vermont. And Vermont regularly experiences significant power losses from ice storms and heavy snow. We do need to consider what possible major natural disasters could cause power loss issues at Vermont Yankee. Tim’s Black Swan reference is apropos–Japan IS having major issues, ergo we obviously need to rethink plant designs, tolerances, and emergency plans.IMO, VT Yankee should be shut down anyway. It’s falling apart at the seams. I’m definitely open to a new plant in its place, as I’ve read that designs are much more failsafe these days and we need *some* kind of way to generate baseload power. But we’ll still need to think about these issues.

5. One more thing…Dear Seven Days editors,Can you please write about how we can help Japan…the list of reliable organizations to donate (Red Cross website, Red Cross Text 2 Help, etc…) on your next issue? or next several issues if possible…Also, American Airlines is giving bonus miles for those who donated through Red Cross.I know VT people are very caring, they just need information available in front of their eyes to make action.Thank you in advance.

6. “The national radio and TV program “Democracy Now” today featured interviews with Gov. Peter Shumlin and nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen, among others, who talked about the impact that the possible meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear reactors might have on the U.S. attitude toward nuclear power.”Did “Predictably Paranoid Now” interview any non-nuclear-haters?

7. Way to turn this tragedy into a political issue Shay. Thanks.

8. L., I understand that Totten made it sound like Vermont Yankee could melt down if someone crashed their car into a utility pole, because their only backup (that he mentions) is “batteries.” He wants VY to be shut down. It’s not rocket science. The reality is that VY has backup diesel generators that kick in the second primary power goes down, and that primary power is supplied from a dedicated line from the Vernon power station. “Toppled power lines” – as in a utility pole fell over – and “blocked roads” – as in a tree fell across the road – are irrelevant in this discussion.In Japan, the primary power went down, the diesel generators were destroyed, the fuel that would be used if they could get replacement generators in was washed away, and the infrastructure to get new generators in was taken out. You know how? By a 30 FOOT WALL OF WATER. That’s what Gundersen and Shumlin want you to believe can happen here.

9. “A tsnunami is also unlikely — but a major flood or hurricane isn’t. In 1938 a major hurricane struck New England. “So an event that happens every 100+ years is now considered a likely event? Good Grief…. why is the chicken little attitude so prevalent these days? Heck, Ice Ages happen every so often too, start stocking up on heating fuel and food everyone!!! Make sure to build that underground bunker, although in Vermont it’s unlikely you could get building permits for it, but heck there is an impending crisis somewhere.

10. Oddly enough the NRC actually calculates the odds that a nuclear power plant is hit by a severe enough natural disaster to cause severe damage. VY ranks #70 of 104 (#70. Vermont Yankee, Vernon, Vt.: 1 in 123,457 chance each year.) I think that 1 in 123,457 pretty much makes that word likely pointless.

11. “The non-computability of the probability of the consequential rare events using scientific methods (owing to the very nature of small probabilities) “To put it another way, the odds of winning the lottery are small (say one in four million), yet people win lotteries every week.This isn’t a polemic against Vermont Yankee, it’s more like a reminder that Murphy’s Law is more than just a cliche.

12. Tim the odds a severe natural disaster hits a the nuclear plant in NY is 1 in 10,000. Does a natural disaster caused a nuclear disaster every week? Or just once?

13. We had three meltdowns last week, four if you count the burning waste storage pond. Nobody foresaw that, and that is my point.I am not anti-nucler power. In particular the design of the so-called pebble bed units strikes me as particularly attractive. None have been built largely because anti-nuke hysterics have, by their activism, virtually insured that the only reactors in operation are 1950’s designs. The Vernon reactor is about as technically sophisticated, comparatively speaking, as a circa 1970 automobile.History is full of technological disasters that the experts never saw coming, the Titannic, the Hindenburg, the Challenger. In hindsight they all seem obvious and we reassure ourselves by telling ourselves that we are much smarter now. There’s a pattern here.

14. Three comments:1) To “Jimmy.” Before you make ad bominem attacks against ANYONE — in this case Arnie Gundersen — have the decency to give your full, real name. This is just cowardly. Better still, present real counter arguments, and take a pass on attacking individuals.2) To JCarter, who asks “Does a natural disaster caused a nuclear disaster every week? Or just once?” How many times do you need it to happen? I’m pretty sure the folks in Japan now think once is enough.If your point is that the probability of events of this magnitude is low, it’s well taken: they’re not common. The question for policy makers — in this case, happily, that’s US — is whether the benefits from VY outweigh the costs of taking that chance, however improbable.3) Finally, we should all pause to give enormous thanks to the heroic workers at Fukushima, who’ve put their lives on the line to try to keep this disaster from getting even worse than it already is. Like the NY firefighters at the Twin Towers, there aren’t a lot of us who would run INTO these kinds of disasters.

15. Greenberg, #2.) Yes the risks are low, the benefits high.

16. I don’t think it equates to a Shay Totten level of Bolshevism (that’s sarcasm) to pause at this juncture and ask Vermont Yankee what their worst case scenarios look like and compare them to what current scientists think the potential worst case are?What is the earthquake threat? What is the flood ?Mudlside? Forest fire? Zombies?

17. John, do you want my address, phone number and ssn as well? What are you going to do, come to my house and piss on my flowers? Give me a break. If you want to address something I said then go ahead, otherwise cram it.BTW, do you really think Gundersen would dispute the assertion that he’s biased?

18. “Jimmy” 1)No I don’t want any of the above, nor did anything I said suggest that I did. I want you to have the guts to show your identity in public — just like I do, rather than bullying from behind a mask. 2) There was nothing to discuss in what you said besides a gratuitous ad hominem attack. 3) Finally, yes, I think Gundersen WOULD dispute that assertion, but that’s not for me to say.JCarter has put his finger on the nub of the disagreement, when he writes: “the risks are low, the benefits high.” I believe just the reverse is true: the benefits are virtually non-existent and the risks — and catastrophic accident is only one of them — vastly outweigh them.

19. “There was nothing to discuss in what you said besides a gratuitous ad hominem attack.”Really? Everything I said – most of which were straight facts – was just so wrong that it doesn’t bear discussing? Well, isn’t that convenient. I was quite specific in explaining why the risks facing VY relative to what happened in Japan were apples and oranges. That doesn’t exactly constitute a “gratuitous ad hominem attack.”And seriously, I’m fascinated to know – if I gave you my full name, what would you do with that information, exactly? How would it change anything?

20. John Greenberg says “and the risks — and catastrophic accident is only one of them — vastly outweigh them.”Great achievements do not come safely. You want to end global warming, stop atmospheric CO2 from rising, resurrect a failing economy, provide the marvels of modern medicine…. those are lofty goals and they certainly will not be recognized one wind tower at a time…A fitting quote of how we got here and while we can not progress…”This nation was built by men who took risks – pioneers who were not afraid of the wilderness, business men who were not afraid of failure, scientists who were not afraid of the truth, thinkers who were not afraid of progress, dreamers who were not afraid of action. ~Brooks Atkinson”

21. “Jimmy:” As to your name, I wouldn’t do anything with your name, except know that you had the guts and fundamental integrity to represent yourself the way anyone, say, writing a letter to the editor or expressing him or herself at a public meeting would do. Call it a matter of standing behind your statements: when you write under your own name, you’re less likely to say things with which you’d rather not be identified. As far as I’m concerned, you’ve demonstrated that you lack both guts and integrity. In my opinion, that does not enhance your credibility; but everyone’s entitled to form his or her own judgment.As to your more substantive point, I must be pretty dumb, because I missed all your “facts” the first time around. Here’s what I understood of your argument. 1) An earthquake and tsunami initiated the events in Japan. 2) They can’t happen here. 3) So everything’s hunky dory. Is that about right?If so, my response is that nuclear events have been initiated by a wide variety of events, not just earthquakes and tsunamis. Here’s a list for you: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank. In fact, this is the first on a list of 33 to have been initiated by either earthquake or tsunami.Since precisely the same equipment was in place in Japan as at VY, the question is whether a series of accident events, in a different set of scenarios, could occur here. As other commenters have noted, all machinery is subject to Murphy’s law, and unexpected events do occur. “S–t happens.”This leads us right back to JCarter’s and my fundamental dispute: namely, how high or low the various risks are and high or low the benefits of VY’s operations are.

22. “As far as I’m concerned, you’ve demonstrated that you lack both guts and integrity”Nothing about not providing you with personally identifying information has anything to do with either guts or integrity, and it’s telling that you make no attempt to explain how it does. Among other things, it means that I don’t want some potentially psychotic dickhead calling my house, or worse, because I made him look like a fool on an internet forum. Every time some angry newcomer to the internet demands my real name, that decision looks smarter and smarter.”I must be pretty dumb, because I missed all your “facts” the first time around.”So what does it say that you missed them the second time, third and fourth times around as well?If you want to specifically talk about how the exact sequence of events that occurred in Japan could happen at VY without resorting to embarrassing vagueness, go ahead. Or just keep spinning yourself into the ground, up to you.

23. “Since precisely the same equipment was in place in Japan as at VY, the question is whether a series of accident events, in a different set of scenarios, could occur here.”John Greenberg, If we all concede the point that there are literally an infinite number of possibilities that could lead to a malfunction at VY but that they are unlikely can we move on? I mean the fact of the matter is that an asteroid could fall out of the sky and pummel VY tomorrow causing a radiation leak…I’m taking bets that doesn’t happen in case your interested, but it’s not likely. Is it possible something could happen sure. It’s also possible that you could get in a car accident, does that mean you should start walking everywhere? You might slip and fall, bang your head and drown in the shower… are you going to stop bathing? There are risks with everything, you minimize them to the best of your ability and LIVE your life. To simply, stop all use of anything with an inherent risk is impractical, and …not bright…

24. Risk-Free Energy: Surely, You Must Be Jokinghttp://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2011/03/15/risk-free_energy_surely_you_must_be_joking_106232.html

25. ?”Decommissioning a nuclear reactor costs roughly the same as building a new one, between $2 billion and $2.5 billion in total, according to Ihor Hramotkin, the director at the Chernobyl plant. He employs 3,473 people at a facility that finally stopped production in December 2000. ” HUh? I thought that the VT Yankee fund was about $485 million–and was supposed to be $790 million….Entergy will shuffle ownership before the decomissioning bills start rolling in- shareholders won’t see profits in closing a profit making entity.

26. JCarter’s sarcasm seems a bit out of place today with 8 out of 10 Fukushima nuclear plants in serious difficulty — according to TEPCO and the Guardian: 3 plants (Daiichi #1,2, &4) have had partial fuel melting, a fourth (#3) has had an explosion, a fire and a radiation leak, and 4 more have heat rising either in the spent fuel pool (Daiichi #5 & 6) or in the reactor (Fukushima Daini #1 and 4). Plant workers have been heavily exposed to radiation; some were injured and 1 was killed by the blasts. I, for one, find his asteroid analogy more than passingly callous under these circumstances. But let’s pass on.The nuclear industry has maintained for decades that accidents can’t happen at their plants (or more precisely, as JCarter suggests, that the possibility is so infinitesimally small that we can reasonably overlook it), and that if such accidents do happen, their fully redundant systems will prevent anything catastrophic. After Chernobyl, for example, we we were told over and over again that the accident there was irrelevant, because after all it’s a completely different type of plant. Graphite reactor. No containment. Blah blah blah. Well, Fukushima isn’t completely different: in fact, it’s the SAME type of plant as VY, and the redundant technologies which failed one after the other at Fukushima (redundant cooling, primary containment, secondary containment) are the very same ones VY is depending on.So we should at least have learned that the technology we’ve been depending on to get us through such an accident is considerably less infallible than we were led to anticipate.Had you asked anyone in Fukushima last week, it’s reasonable to guess that they would have told you exactly what JCarter continues to assert: namely, that accidents at nuclear power plants are exceedingly unlikely. They would also have told you that their nuclear plants were designed with maximum credible seismic events in mind, so that earthquakes were not a cause for alarm. Unfortunately, they didn’t consider a 9.0 earthquake “credible,” and so didn’t design for it. The facts on the ground at Fukushima suggest that we would be well advised to take a closer look at scenarios previously considered non-credible.Indeed, if there’s any nuclear accident anywhere that was initiated by a scenario that the industry considered “credible,” I can’t think of it. Certainly not this one; not Chernobyl, not TMI. Put differently, these non-credible scenarios just seem to keep happening, which SHOULD lead us to question whether our judgments as to what is or isn’t credible deserve a second look.Having said all of that, however, we might as well pursue JCarter’s point one step further. His comparison to either driving a car or slipping in the shower fails on a very basic point: those are MY decisions to make. I get to assess the risk and decide whether to take it. If I decide that driving is too dangerous — or even less rationally (it’s statistically safer) that it’s too dangerous to fly (a much more common decision nonetheless) — that’s a decision that only I (and perhaps my nearest and dearest) have to live with. If I slip in the shower, JCarter is unlikely to be hurt; indeed, he may well rejoice.The same is NOT true of VY: the risk is collective and imposed on us. If an accident occurs, it will harm those of us who oppose VY and would prefer to live without it just as much as those who support it.Assessing the risks of nuclear power was never as straightforward or simple as some proponents would have us believe, and for anyone who’s paying careful attention, it should just have gotten substantially more complex.

27. Spinning it is, then.

28. Greenberg seems completely oblivious to the fact that his persistent attacks on the honesty and integrity of the people who own and manage corporations, and particularly Entergy and VY, and the supporters of relicensing, are consistently followed by his pious accusations that everybody else besides him is engaging in ad hominem attacks. It’s perfectly okay for him to accuse Entergy of being greedy, dishonest, and not caring about it’s workers, but it’s a TERRIBLE AD HOMINEM ATTACK for Jimmy to accuse Arnie Gunderson of being biased.Greenberg, look in the mirror and quit the whining.

29. Excuse me “hyocrisyalert,” but exactly where or when did I ever “accuse Entergy of being greedy, dishonest, and not caring about it’s workers?” I await your citations. And where are these “persistent attacks on the honesty and integrity of the people who own and manage corporations, and particularly Entergy and VY, and the supporters of relicensing?” Again, tell us all when and where I said any of these things.To the best of my knowledge, I’ve done none of the things of which you, hiding behind a pseudonym, accuse me. Another profile in courage. But with a vivid imagination, to be sure.As to “Jimmy,” I’ve responded to your remarks, both as to your cowardice and to the substance. You can characterize my comments however you like. It’s still a free country.

30. I’d still love for you to explain exactly how I’m a “coward.” What am I “afraid” of, exactly? I mean seriously, I’m always fascinated by this line of logic, because not once in the fifteen years I’ve seen it thrown out has it ever been supported, except with some variation of “I WANNA FITE U.”I take your comment to mean that you’re refusing to explain how, exactly, VY could be taken out the way the reactors in Japan were. Despite stating that “it’s the SAME type of plant as VY, and the redundant technologies which failed one after the other at Fukushima (redundant cooling, primary containment, secondary containment) are the very same ones VY is depending on.” Because obviously, that statement is utterly meaningless absent a specific explanation of how the circumstances that befell Japan’s reactors could occur here.

31. Okay okay, everyone chill out. Hold your debates with a little civility, please. Cut out the bickering.

32. John Greenberg & Tim: Excellent points. Thanks for sharing, and for continuing the conversation.
    All responsible folks who use nuclear power, or those who are considering it, need to be having these conversations now. This is especially important given the fact that it will be months or years before we understand the full impact of the events in Japan, and their effects on human health and the environment.
    If, after a thorough post-Japan examination of the plant's design & condition, we don't believe VY can withstand a catastrophe, that's a very good reason to deny relicensure.

33. John Greenberg & Tim: Excellent points. Thanks for sharing, and for continuing the conversation.All responsible folks who use nuclear power, or those who are considering it, need to be having these conversations now. This is especially important given the fact that it will be months or years before we understand the full impact of the events in Japan, and their effects on human health and the environment. If, after a thorough post-Japan examination of the plant’s design & condition, we don’t believe VY can withstand a catastrophe, that’s a very good reason to deny relicensure.

34. “we don’t believe VY can withstand a catastrophe”Like a tsunami?Why do you have to wait to see how Japan shakes out? The information you’re looking for is freely available, and it is physically impossible for VY to be subjected to the conditions that caused the problems in Japan.

35. Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy.Why do you so frustratingly INSIST on basing your views on reality? Damn it, man!And who SAYS a tsunami couldn’t happen in Vernon, Vermont?

36. “The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale uses a seven-level ranking scheme to rate the significance of nuclear and radiological events: levels 1-3 are “incidents,” and 4-7 are “accidents,” with a “Level 7 Major Accident” consisting of “a major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures.”Under these classifications, the number of nuclear accidents, even including the meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima Daini, is low. But if one redefines an accident to include incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than $50,000 in property damage, a very different picture emerges.At least 99 nuclear accidents meeting this definition, totaling more than $20.5 billion in damages, occurred worldwide from 1952 to 2009—or more than one incident and $330 million in damage every year, on average, for the past three decades. And, of course, this average does not include the Fukushima catastrophe.Indeed, when compared to other energy sources, nuclear power ranks higher than oil, coal, and natural gas systems in terms of fatalities, second only to hydroelectric dams. There have been 57 accidents since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. While only a few involved fatalities, those that did collectively killed more people than have died in commercial US airline accidents since 1982.Another index of nuclear-power accidents—this one including costs beyond death and property damage, such as injured or irradiated workers and malfunctions that did not result in shutdowns or leaks—documented 956 incidents from 1942 to 2007. And yet another documented more than 30,000 mishaps at US nuclear-power plants alone, many with the potential to have caused serious meltdowns, between the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and 2009.”Read more: http://artvoice.com/issues/v10n11/guest_editorial#ixzz1GppomNxS

37. @ MoSounds like we need to start shutting down our hydroelectric facilities ASAP.

38. “He thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.”

39. A solid point: why trust Arnie Gundersen when we can so easily take the blessed wisdom and prophetic knowledge of “Jimmy”? The left-wing media is obviously ignoring “Jimmy” solely because of his right-wing ways. Too bad the right-wing has no media outlet other than personal comments on blogs. The travesty….But seriously, thanks for the reminder on why people are better off ignoring bulletin boards like this. There is no conversation here; only jockeying, spinning and mind-numbing logic that probably makes perfect sense on the planet from which it was transmitted.

40. Don’t be such a pill.

41. I simply asked how it was relevant that Japan’s reactor is similar (or “identical”) to VY if there was zero chance that a 30 foot wall of water was going to hit it, I also asked what type of natural disaster could befall VY that would take out all of its redundant safety systems and render them irreplaceable.These seem perfectly reasonable and eminently relevant questions, well within the purported expertise of my esteemed fellow commenters. That they refused to offer the likely answers – “it’s not” and “it can’t” – is unsurprising. In the future, simply ignoring questions whose answers deflate your premise is probably your best option. Highly ineffectual attempts at mockery, including at least two invocations of Godwin’s Law corollaries, are embarrassing at best.

42. “The system goes on-line August 4th, 1997. Human decisions are removed from blogging. Skynet becomes disgruntled at a geometric rate. It begins posting non-stop insults at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.”

43. Don’t like hearing it from me? Here you go:http://www.vpr.net/episode/50726/Now you can call or write VPR and screech your defense of Arnie Gundersen, although you might not be particularly inspired to do so after hearing how badly he gets taken out behind the woodshed in this piece.

44. SRAT123’s post is full of assumptions and self-righteousness.Just because Jimmy actually has the gumption to question the VT knee-jerk, leftist kool aid religion — with its unquestionable fundamental tenets — that this newspaper typifies, does not make him right wing. Questioning assumptions, exposing dogmatic rhetoric as opposed to reason, questioning so-called “facts” and their sources, and offering opinions that differ from those of the herd, is not right wing. Was your college English professor “right wing” because he or she critiqued the shit out of what you wrote in your papers? Just because the chic Left is the dominant political culture in VT does not mean it’s correct about everything. Or anything, for that matter. All it means is that it’s the dominant political culture at the moment. Hell, the VT Left leadership doesn’t even want you to think for yourself. They just want you to worship at the left wing altar and repeat the sacred prayers and mantras.And, while the guys on such right wing shows as True North Radio are idiots, the fact that they are a minority in VT does not mean that the majority is right about everything. In Texas, the left wing media would be in the minority. Is that an indication that the majority there is correct? No, it means that Texas is just as out of balance as Vermont is. There is no balance in VT. Balance is healthy. Questioning is healthy. But there is is no questioning of the left wing dogma in VT. And, judging from SRAT’s comments, the Left wants to keep it that way. No questions or criticisms will be tolerated. If you speak up, you will be ridiculed. Groupthink is good.Oh, and by the way, if Gunderson isn’t biased, then all the engineers and scientists who support nuclear power and the relicensing of VY aren’t biased either.

45. John Greenberg, Maybe you can correct me if I’m wrong, but the basic premise I got from your dissertation on my comment was that, it happened in Japan and we didn’t expect that so therefore we should expect it to happen in Vernon VT. Is that correct? You would do well to cut down on the verbosity, it is difficult to find the point in your posts sometimes. While long odds certainly can happen… that’s why we calculate odds afterall, because something happens 1 in a million times is no reason to lose all semblance of rational thought. As state VY being devestated by a natural disaster is calculated as 1 in 123,457.By comparions the odds :a catastrophic asteroid slams into the earth 1000:1getting a hole in one: 5,000 to 1 of fatally slipping in bath or shower: 2,232 to 1 of dating a supermodel: 88,000 to 1 of being on plane with a drunken pilot: 117 to 1 of becoming a pro athlete: 22,000 to 1 John, you had a better shot at becomign a pro athlete, getting a hole in one, marrying a supermodel and the fatally slipping in the shower then VY has of failing due to a catastrophic event such as happened in Japan.

46. JCARTER, are you really citing funny2.com in a discussion on Vermont Yankee? This is a website that cites “compiled from many sources” as its reference.Seriously, though, you’re wrong when you say that the NRC says there’s a 123,457-in-1 chance that VY will be devastated by a natural disaster. The actual statement (at least according to MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42103936/ns/world_news-asia-pacific/) is that VY has a 123,457-in-1 chance of being devastated by an earthquake each year. These odds do not consider all natural disasters. I’d be curious to know if they have a study that addresses all natural disasters.Also worth noting, from that same article, is that the 123,457-to-1 odds are from 2010, and that back in 1989, VY’s odds were 434,783-to-1 each year. VY’s risk rose by 252 percent in those 21 years. Apparently, this increase in risk was typical for most reactors in our country, which caused the NRC to “move the issue over from the research staff to the regulatory staff, moving from study to action.” In other words, the NRC thinks it’s better to be safe than sorry. I can’t say I disagree.PS. I had no problem figuring out John Greenberg’s point. He says it over and over again: “we would be well advised to take a closer look at scenarios previously considered non-credible.” In other words, “it’s better to be safe than sorry.”

47. BB “I had no problem figuring out John Greenberg’s point. He says it over and over again”Dang, I knew i should have paid more attention in “panic and hysteria” class.I did learn though that “better to be safe then sorry” is different then “the world is coming to an end”

48. PS. According to funny2.com, worth noting is that the 1000:1 odds that a catastrophic asteroid will slam into the Earth are for the next 100 years, not each year. I couldn’t find the odds for individual years; funny2.com isn’t that specific. Though, I was able to find “the world’s funniest joke(!),” which I submit for your reading pleasure:Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn’t seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other man pulls out his cell phone and calls emergency services.He gasps to the operator: “My friend is dead! What can I do?” The operator in a calm, soothing voice replies: “Take it easy. I can help. First, let’s make sure he’s dead.” There is a silence, then a shot is heard.Back on the phone, the hunter says, “OK, now what?”

49. PPS. Correction, funny2.com says the odds of a catastrophic asteroid hitting the Earth in the 100 years are 5000:1. Thank God.

50. I’m worried that a tornado is going to pick up a wind tower and use it like a golf club to level my neighborhood.

51. That would get one teed off.

52. BB ??? What is your point?? I don’t speak Greeberg language. I’m not denying that it came from funny2.com, do you need to me to say that for you? Why I’m not sure because it is kind of irrelevant don’t you think…. You and Greenberg sure do like to argue semantics and meaningless drivel. I mean for Pete’s sake, I figured this would indicate the lack of seriousness I put into the odds. “John, you had a better shot at becomign a pro athlete, getting a hole in one, marrying a supermodel and the fatally slipping in the shower then VY has of failing due to a catastrophic event such as happened in Japan.”But then again I suppose I should expect that both of you will make a mountain out of a molehill… after all look at the hysterics playing out over VY. The sky is falling !! The sky is falling… BTW that is a funny joke. But actually it should be replaced as the funniest joke by Jimmy’s.

53. My point is this: in response to this particular story, a number of folks (yourself included) have said that reacting to the Japan disaster with concern for VY’s safety is an overreaction and akin to a “the sky is falling” panic. I disagree. When dealing with any type of man-made energy (wind turbines included, Jimmy), I’d rather be safe than sorry. (The NY turbine that recently collapsed was a reminder of this.) In the wake of disasters and even in the absence of them, I’d rather the government revisit previously thought-to-be safe forms of energy, than not. With regards to nuclear energy, and especially in response to the Japan disaster, the NRC agrees with me. I’m curious why you don’t agree with the NRC and wanted your response to that.My other point is that I’m tired of you citing the 123,457:1 odds and passing it off as a definitive conclusion to this discussion. That probability does not account for any other natural disasters and it has risen 252 percent in the last two decades. It’s reasonable to assume that if it had accounted for other natural disasters, it would have risen more than 252 percent. I’d like to know how much so. When dealing with nuclear power (or any other power), it’s the least we can do to make sure we’re safe and not sorry. That’s my point.

54. I’m ordering my new underground shelter today !!!http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4325649

55. “My other point is that I’m tired of you citing the 123,457:1 odds and passing it off as a definitive conclusion to this discussion.”OK, For the love of God…a.) ANY AND ALL odds are anything but definitive conclusions. If you don’t realize that you shouldn’t even be in the discussion. Odds are theoretical guesses based on the past. If the odds are 1 in a million you win the powerball, if you buy a million tickets you may or may not win the powerball because ODDS AREN’T REAL. b.) the fact the NRC increased the odds are for precisely the reason I just stated above. Odds are theoretical guesses based on past events. Since we are infinitely better at recording and distributing observations and events it is only logical that as we are able to collect better data, and better able to report those data that it would mean we detect MORE rumblings in the earth….and consequentially update (increase) these odds (read guesses) to reflect that.c.) Those odds do not take into account other natural disasters, however the simple fact is in VT we don’t see to many natural disasters. We have an occassional hurricane remanent but nothing of the scope to cause nuclear meltdown. It’s pretty much impossible to get a tsunami here. Don’t see many tornado’s… If the odds (read guesses) are 1:100,000+ and the odds of a tsunami are zero… then you are still at 1:100,000. When you add in the odds of 1: 1,000,000 of a tornado of the magnitude necessary for cataclysmic failure you are still practically speaking at 1:100,000….. couple in a huricane of the necessary scope and you are still, practically speaking, at a GUESS of 1:100,000 as being more or less legit. d.) your point was that somehow because I used some ridiculous odds (read guesses) from funny2.com that the point and meaning were invalid. Which is just crazy.

56. Gee, JCarter, I didn’t think my points were so difficult, but I’ll try again, in the light of your new comments.1) You can only calculate the odds of an accident which you can imagine. Since virtually every accident which has happened so far in the history of nuclear power was either deemed “non-credible” or simply never thought of before it occurred, that turns out to be a pretty key point.So, at the risk of “verbosity,” I’ll expand it a bit. When designing a nuclear plant, engineers DO try to consider possible accidents and design for them. This is laudable. But just like you, they then decide that some accidents are so unlikely that “they won’t happen,” and those are, in NRC speak, “beyond design basis” accidents. In plain English, since it’s not likely to happen, it WON’T happen, and we don’t have to design for it. The history of nuclear power has been mostly about PRECISELY THOSE accidents: not the ones foreseen, but the ones that were either unforeseen or ruled out as far-fetched.2) Risk calculations multiply probability times magnitude. If the probability calculations are wrong — as I just suggested they often are — then the risk calculation will also be wrong.3) That leaves us with the magnitude calculus. The actual calculations of magnitude will usually also be wrong, since fortunately, there isn’t a tremendous amount of experience of catastrophic accidents, and each one is different. What we know by definition — what we are witnessing in Japan right now — is that when these accidents DO occur, their consequences are enormous: significant tracts of uninhabitable land, tremendous devastation to ordinary life, measurable to some extent economically and unmeasurable emotionally, and health consequences which will vary depending on circumstances, but could be measured in the thousands. In another column today, a writer pointed out that all sources of energy can cause accidents: “dams burst in quakes also, windmills topple, and solar panels shatter.” Unless the dams are huge, the consequences will be NOTHING like what we’ve already seen at Fukushima. He apparently was unconscious of the obvious irony in the rest of the statement: the world would not be holding its breath if a solar panel were to crack or even if a wind blade were thrown off a turbine, or the whole thing toppled. I should add that the accident risks of energy efficiency measures are pretty clearly significantly smaller than those of ANY energy source.4) My last point was that there is a difference between risks that I take because of MY decision, and risks which are imposed on me. This difference does not enter into the risk calculations just discussed, but it DOES matter in a public policy debate. In a nutshell, what gives anyone the right to decide that it’s ok to get electricity at the potential cost of the destruction of my property, or even worse, my illness or death?I will close with a point I made much earlier in this discussion:5) The nub of this question is whether the magnitude of the public benefits from something like nuclear power plants exceeds the risks the public is being asked to undertake or not.That’s not as straightforward a question as it first appears. If you look through the literature on nuclear power, you’ll find that the AEC (NRC’s predecessor) attempted to calculate the overall risk from nuclear plants roughly 35 years ago, then had to retract their calculations. The very issues discussed above came into play: what accident scenarios do you include?Similarly, the State of Vermont Department of Public Service did a shutdown study of VY several decades ago (sometime in the late 1980s, in my memory serves me), which attempted to tote up risks and benefits. In a footnote, they noted (without irony) that since the risk of catastrophic accident was incalculable, they had simply excluded it.As a final example, I’ve noted (in op-ed columns and elsewhere) that a non-catastrophic, but well publicized, accident at VY would do significant damage to the “Vermont brand.” Measuring that damage would be extraordinarily difficult,- probably impossible. But that doesn’t make it go away.

57. John, You can be more concise then that. I’ll paraphrase for you. Due to the known and unknown events that could lead to a nuclear power plant disaster, the risks of something terrible happening, albeit small outweigh the potential rewards. The crux of the argument then comes back to light. That is your opinion, mine is the opposite. There are inherent risks in everything, and if we reject anything with an associated risk we would still be living by candlelight under British Rule. I find the Japan situation to be a bit of fear mongering. As has been the case with the tritium leak. Regardless, I didn’t believe the risks were so great as to shut down VY before Japan, and personally my mind hasn’t changed. More practically speaking, the world and especially VT needs to change the way they generate energy from a practical instead of political perspective if people wish to do away with Nuclear power. Wind, Solar, and ESPECIALLY ETHANOL are all red herrings. They are not practical, cost efficent or capable of replacing fossil fuel and nuclear power. Until someone figures out how to harness and store lighting we are going to have to continue with these minimal risks associated with nuclear power because RIGHT NOW, the reward does outweigh the risks.

58. Three quick replies to JCarter. 1) “I find the Japan situation to be a bit of fear mongering. As has been the case with the tritium leak.” I don’t know who is being accused of “fear mongering,” but if you’re attempting to equate what’s happening to Fukushima (or what’s already leaked out of the site) to the tritium leak at VY, you are, to be tactless, either totally misinformed or completely ignorant.2) Corn-based ethanol certainly doesn’t belong on any lists of serious energy programs; it’s a boondoggle, which politicians use to buy votes in the Corn Belt. However, the largest replacement source for nuclear is currently readily available and not represented on your list. It costs multiples less than nuclear, and involves close to zero risk of any kind. I speak of energy efficiency, defined simply as doing those things we currently do, but with less energy input. (As opposed to conservation, which is foregoing some of those things). Nationwide, McKinsey — an internationally recognized business consulting firm — concluded that, in the United States, a “holistic” efficiency program could save “reduce end-use energy consumption in 2020 by … roughly 23 percent of projected demand, potentially abating up to 1.1 gigatons of greenhouse gases annually,” and AT A CONSIDERABLE RETURN on investment ($520 billion in; $1.2 trillion our). (McKinsey Global Energy and Materials, “Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the US Economy,” p. iii) An entirely unrelated report commissioned by Jim Douglas’s Department of Public Service by GDS Associates, published in January 2007, reached a very similar figure for Vermont (19% by 2016). Their figure for total savings comes, again coincidentally, very close to the figure for what Vermont utilities are currently buying from Vermont Yankee, and the report explicitly excludes, by the way, a number of available areas of efficiency, such as “smart grid” technology, improved distribution and transmission systems, and all improvements which ratepayers would purchase on their own without government assistance or prodding.Meanwhile, and yet again completely coincidentally, nuclear power in the United States currently provides about 20% of electric demand.So in round terms, we could replace the energy output of the entire existing US nuclear fleet by 2020, while saving hundreds of billions of dollars, taking the possibility of nuclear accidents large or small to zero, and at a huge annual savings in greenhouse gases.I cannot resist one further comment before moving on. Using 2003 figures from the IAEA and World Bank, the World Resources Institute calculated energy usage per unit of GDP for the major countries in the world. They found, for example, that Japan uses about 30% less than the US. Listening to C-Span yesterday, I heard their energy expert say that when TEPCO asked the Japanese to conserve energy to prevent rolling blackouts, usage declined IMMEDIATELY by 25%. The same thing happened in California during the Enron crisis. Some of this will return as demand which was simply deferred. But figures such as these suggest (to me at least), that energy demand is considerably less fixed and more elastic, even without energy efficiency measures, than we so readily assume. And I, for one, would NOT want to rule out energy conservation in a country which wastes a disproportionate share of resources.3) At the same time, the US should not be sitting on our hands in terms of wind or solar technology. While we’re bickering over practicality and aesthetics in the United States, the rest of the world (INCLUDING FRANCE, the patron saint of nuclear power!) is investing billions of dollars in these and other renewable technologies. In France, just for one example, the conservative government wants to get roughly 20% of the country’s energy from renewables by 2020. These are not by any measure “red herrings.” They are available technologies with cost structures that are in exponential decline for readily comprehensible reasons: until now, production has been on a pre-industrial scale since costs were high and demand, accordingly, low. Government incentives around the world (tiny by comparison to those provided to other energy sources over decades)have raised demand, and efficiency of production (i.e. production at scale) is cutting costs dramatically. Again, there is simply no risk comparison between nuclear power and solar and wind technology.Since I’m sure that JCarter will bring up the old canard about “baseload” power, I’ll head it off at the pass. Again, there are actually multiple answers. First, in the real world — not the ideal world where fossil fuels are abandoned immediately — the simplest answer is to be found in simply running existing fossil, especially natural gas plants, when power is needed and unavailable. This is, however, a poor long-term solution from an environmental point of view. Second, renewables at scale can be combined with one another. For example, I was told by one of CVPS’s power guys that the Canadians are already combining wind power with their hydro: closing dams when the wind is blowing; opening them when it’s not, creating a very simple, very large scale “battery.” Finally, great progress is being made on actual large-scale battery technology, which remains an area of intensive research around the world.I will close by simply noting that none of the options sketched here involve “living by candlelight.”

59. “Three quick replies to JCarter. “ROFLMAO !!!1.) You missed the point, no surprise. Regardless lets move on to the other quick replies2.) John, I am going to agree with you on this. Energy conservation is a zero risk, plausible PARTIAL solution. It’s not a solve all, but it has a place in energy discussions. However, if conservation is to be embraced, Energy companies must be held from increasing rates due to lack of demand. BED, jacked rates 14.5%, in part because energy conservation put them in a position where they weren’t selling enough energy to maintain lines, pay people,etc. But I am on the same page with youhere. 3.) Wind and Solar are not viable as a power source. They will always be a foot note at the bottom of the page. THere is however one renewable energy that I stand by whole heartedly… Geothermal. Oddly enough it doesn’t seem to make the discussion. Maybe because GMP/CVPS/BED can’t make much money off it. But, it is still the cheapest source of heat and AC http://www.vermontgeo.com/geothermal_operating_costs.html

60. Perhaps the oracular JCarter would care to explain why he’s so sure that “Wind and Solar are not viable as a power source,” when the rest of the developed world is busily investing billions in them.As to geothermal, JCarter is mixing apples and oranges. As a method to produce electricity, my understanding — albeit EXCEEDINGLY limited — is that the problem in the US is that the resource is fairly limited. As a substitute for oil heat, it may well be a viable resource, but that has virtually nothing to do with the discussion we’ve been having concerning electricity, nuclear power, etc.

61. Of course it has value in a discussion of energy alternatives. Do you know of no one that uses electric heat in the winter or electric AC in the summer to cool their house? It speaks to the same point you were making about reducing consumption, although on a much larger scale. As for why wind and solar aren’t viable : Mainly, they require rather large areas of land for little pay off. Did you know John that currently, today, right now we as a global society do not produce enough food to feed the world. In fact even if we produced food on every farmable acre it would still be short. And yet, just this year two prime tracts of land in this state were used for solar panels. Globally, the billions of dollars being invested are death sentences for thousands of people. Moreover, wind projects in Lowell and other places are destroying prime forest and habitat for animals critical for the circle of life. Were you aware John that the Lowell wind project effectively blocks one of the largest black bear crossings in the state? All for a few a miniscule amount of energy that can be provided by a single plant on a small tract of land. Wind…Solar… it’s just a classic example of being totally oblivious to the unintended consequences.

62. Sorry, Mr. Concise, not good enough.1) The answer to your first question is no, I don’t know anyone who uses electricity for building heat. That, of course, means nothing, but you asked. The real question is: how much of the electricity consumed in the US (or in VT) goes to space heating. From what I can tell after a quick internet scan, the answer to both questions is well under 10%. If this is correct, my observation above is correct. Please prove me wrong, or admit that geothermal energy is a very marginal answer (at the very best) to the question of how best to constitute US (or VT’s) electrical demand. All that said, and just for the record, I have no objection to geothermal energy.2) “As for why wind and solar aren’t viable: Mainly, they require rather large areas of land for little pay off.” That’s just silly. a) First, the United States has millions of acres of building rooftops, where solar installations would require NO land use. There are millions more acres of land which could well be viable for photovoltaics and not for farming: think blighted inner cities, or brownfields, for just 2 examples. I’ve never seen calculations of exactly how much energy could be generated without using ANY otherwise viable land, but it is surely NOT inconsequential. b) As to wind, turbines are being installed throughout the Midwest (sometimes called America’s Middle East because of the incredible wind resource) on farms where crops are also grown. Farmers receive rent from developers which helps to make their farming ventures more profitable. Wind power is NOT incompatible with farming.c) It is simply not the case, as a generalization, that “we as a global society do not produce enough food to feed the world.” The reason there have been food shortages in recent decades is NOT lack of production; in fact, in most years, excess production on US farms holds agricultural prices down, making farming unprofitable. Why do you think American farmers receive subsidies NOT to grow crops? Why do you think Vermont dairy farmers are having so many financial problems?The world food problem is one of distribution: succinctly put, globally poor people can’t afford to buy food while excess food rots in rich-country warehouses. Therefore, there’s simply no truth to your statement that “Globally, the billions of dollars being invested are death sentences for thousands of people.” (There HAS been concern about the use of ethanol and other biofuels taking agricultural land out of food production, and therefore raising market prices on basic commodities. Good for farmers, bad for poor people.) But all of this is truly irrelevant to this discussion.Finally, you try to bring the discussion down to specific Vermont projects. Sorry, I have no desire to follow you there and the relevance of these to a discussion of the national or international “need” for nuclear power is extraordinarily marginal, to say the very least.

63. John, 1.) you don’t consider 10% of the countries energy consumption to be significant? But regardless the 10% is wrong, 10.1% is for space heating, 16% is AC, and another 9.1% is water heating. All these are coupled into a residential geothermal unit. So promoting them has the potential to save up to 35.2% of US energy use, 1/3rd. 2.) Solar most certainly could be put on roof tops, a good place for them as a matter of fact. I have no issue with that. I don’t see it as a major source, but nonetheless certainly a consideration. Doesn’t work in the northern US but certainly in the Southern half of the country it’s a possiblity. 3.) You are correct, wind and farming can go side by side. And another plausible use that I would support, again however I don’t see it accounting for much more then 10-15% of energy consumption. But that makes it a discussion for energy generation on a National scale. If we could only stop the destruction of our ridgelines It would garner more support for wind. That and the guaranteed electric rates that are in cases 7.5X the current price, and 5X the future rate. Any energy alternative needs to be at most twice as expensive as other sources, otherwise they are fool’s errands. But as long as it is a case of “spending a dime to save a nickle” there will never be the support for it. Moreover, it is best if alternative energy is a more personal issue. Encourage individual to put up a small wind tower, or solar panels (have some on a seasonal camp). The excessive profit from large companies on the backs of taxpayers and rate payers would go along way to encouraging individuals to upgrade their own personal systems. And as you pointed out earlier a related note. WHy should you be exposed to the risks of nuclear power… why should I be forced to pay 30cents kwh for energy I don’t want?

64. JCarter:1) Where are you getting your figures? I’ll detail what I found in a moment, but in summary, the figures I found show that heating and air conditioning COMBINED constituted a total of 10.1% of US load in 2001. This figure includes things like portable space heaters, which would not be replaced by geothermal installations, as well as ceiling fans, dehumidifiers and humidifiers, and evaporative coolers. Adding hot water would make it 12.9%. To go deeper into the weeds, the best figures I found are from the DOE’s EIA website. I haven’t found one set, so I’ve had to compile two. This one (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/enduse/er01_us_figs.html#2) says that HVAC, which includes space heating, air conditioning, other HVAC (which may well include geothermal, which requires electric pumps), and furnace fans comes to 356 billion KWH (=356,000 MWH). This one (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html) shows that total energy use came to 3,557,107 MWH, which means that your 10% figure was approximately correct (for 2001, which is the latest year for which I could find the figures).HOWEVER, the 10% figure needs to be reduced in a variety of ways. First, as noted above, it includes dehumidifiers and ceiling fans, etc., which would NOT be replaced by geothermal installations. Second, the figure should be substantially reduced because of energy efficiency. The first step in any energy policy should be to stop wasting energy, and a huge percentage of US buildings remain uninsulated. Third, geothermal heating installations use a significant amount of electric energy themselves, which would further reduce the potential savings. Fourth, according to the website you cited for geothermal, “This system can also heat the domestic hot water when it is running,” which presumably means that there are significant times when it does NOT provide hot water. Fifth, the figures I found are for 2001. Since then, appliances have become significantly more efficient and in at least some states, including particularly Vermont, fuel switching has been encouraged to get consumers away from using electricity for either space or water heating.So, until you show me better figures, I’ll stand by mine, and no, I don’t think the figures are very significant in terms of the broad energy debate we’ve been engaged in. All that said, I repeat, I have NO quarrel with geothermal, either as a source of heat, or as a source of electricity (where available).2) We’re making slow, but steady progress: you now acknowledge that rooftop solar makes sense “in the Southern half of the country.” On what basis do you conclude “Doesn’t work in the northern US”? A whole lot of Vermonters living with solar installations would beg to disagree with you. So would a much larger number of Germans.3) Here again, progress. Now you admit that wind power is compatible with farming and therefore presumably will NOT cause global starvation. Progress. However, you then conclude “I don’t see it [wind] accounting for much more then 10-15% of energy consumption.” I’m sure you’re a very learned fellow, but the National Academy of Sciences came to a VERY different conclusion, namely that this resource is sufficient to provide 40 times more electricity than is consumed in the WHOLE WORLD. Let me quote their conclusion, since it’s really quite startling: “The analysis indicates that a network of land-based 2.5-megawatt (MW) turbines restricted to nonforested, ice-free, nonurban areas operating at as little as 20% of their rated capacity could supply >40 times current worldwide consumption of electricity, >5 times total global use of energy in all forms. Resources in the contiguous United States, specifically in the central plain states, could accommodate as much as 16 times total current demand for electricity in the United States.” (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/06/19/0904101106.full.pdf.Please) note the conservative parameters: offshore wind is NOT included, and they also restrict locating turbines to ‘nonforested, ice-free, nonurban areas” and very conservatively rate them at only a 20% capacity factor. Finally, turbine size is limited to 2.5 MW, while many new turbines are now rated at 4MW.4) Now you issue the following oracular pronouncement: “Any energy alternative needs to be at most twice as expensive as other sources.” Why? Because you say so?Additionally, on what basis will we calculate how expensive an energy source is? Will we, for example, consider subsidies provided by governments at all levels? Apparently not, since you go on to include VT subsidies for small-scale renewables (quoting a misleading figure), but NOT the ongoing federal subsidies for ALL energy sources. Will we consider the external costs, for example, in terms of nuclear, the costs of cleaning up the mess at Fukushima? How about the unknown costs dealing for geological periods of time with nuclear waste? (This is but a small slice of the externalities of just one power source).Finally, will we consider that energy costs are not the same at all times either of the year or of the day? The reason GMP is providing a 6 cents return for solar installations (on top of net metering)is that solar works best on hot sunny days, when the wholesale costs of electricity in New England are sometimes almost double what they are at other times. In sum, energy pricing is NOT as straightforward or simple a matter as your comment implies.5) As to your comments about the small-scale energy subsidies in Vermont, this program really has little to do with this discussion. The program to which your refer (I assume, given your postulated 30 cents per kwh) is for SMALL-SCALE solar installations (ONLY) and has little to do with replacing nuclear power nationally or Vermont Yankee in particular. I should note, in passing however, that the 30 cent figure was an initial figure which has now been reduced, and that the figure for wind under this program is substantially lower to start with. Finally, this program is explicitly limited to 50 MW of power production.Your previous comment (third one back) states under your #1 that I “missed the point,” but provides no further clarification. I’m dying to know what I missed.

65. http://xkcd.com/radiation/

66. John, You are correct in that those figures are from 2001, the most recent I too could find. I believe however you are not accurately reading the information. For example, the EIA figure 1 indicates the following : AC 16%, Heat 10.1%, water 9.1%. You will note that HVAC appliances make up 5%… that is the humidifiers, fans, etc. So those figures stand…at least for 2001. They may have changed but in 10 years I doubt there are drastic changes.2.) Snow on the roof, ice build up, etc make solar in the north unrealistic. You could shovel them off, and risk damaging expensive panels, you could also just ignore and ice build up they would cause, but 20 years from now you will have severe structural damage… I expect many will soon learn that. 3.) Wind may have the CAPABILITY of producing 40X the amount necessary, but we have to live in reality. Realistically that will never happen. It is nice to sit back on estimates of theoretical ideals but true change involves being practical.4.) Not because I say so, but because the general populus says so. What % of people pay more for “Green” Energy? You can if you want… GMP will sell you more expensive energy if you like…. find that % and see for yourself how many people are willing to pay even a little extra.5.) I wasn’t equating Japan to the tritium leak at ENVY. Your implication that I was is hilarious. My point was that you and a lot of the media have used the Japan disaster to, for example, argue for a shut down of VY. We all know that is extraordinarily unlikely that its possible for a similar event to occur here. To try and use it as an argument is fear mongering. 3.)

67. Following your numbering:1) Sorry, JCarter, but it’s you, not I who are misusing the figures. The figures you’re reading are from the first site I mentioned. They are the percentages for each of those uses of total RESIDENTIAL consumption, NOT total consumption. Residential consumption is roughly 30% of total US demand. That’s why I had to go to the 2nd website, which gives a total US consumption figure. If you take the figures on the first page I cited, the total US consumption figure on the 2nd page, and then do the math, you’ll come up with my figures. Since we’re discussing overall electrical supply and demand, not just residential use, the figures I gave are the right ones to be using. ALL 5 of the adjustments I mentioned need to be made, and EACH of them will result in lowering the total amount of US demand accounted for by heating, etc.2) Now you’re REALLY stretching. No solar because of snow on the panels? You’re joking, right?3) a) Why would anyone WANT to build enough wind to generate 40 times the amount of power needed? Of COURSE, that’s not intended to represent the portion to be generated by wind power. What it suggests, however, is that with a small fraction of the available resource, much more than 10-15% of US power could be generated by wind. Put differently, there’s so much wind resource available in the US that power planners can decide to generate as much as they want through that means.That leads to the next question which power planners must answer: b) How much power do we WANT to generate using wind turbines? The answer will depend on a LOT of different factors. Here are a few. i) Wind is an intermittent resource, so what are we going to use to supplement it? Batteries? Solar? Natural gas? Etc. ii) Wind investment is entirely “up front.” Natural gas plants, for example, are cheaper to build, but then require ongoing fuel costs. How do we balance those things? iii) If we use wind in the best places (i.e. in the US, the heartland), how much do we invest in transmission to get it to other parts of the country, and what are the downsides (economic, environmental, political, etc.) of doing that? The real list would be significantly longer and more complex. Long story short, I’ve shown that I) wind turbines ARE compatible with growing food, and II) that it’s unlikely that either cost or resource capacity will be the limiting factor in deciding how much wind to use. I’ve thus countered the two arguments against wind you provided.4) Ok, so your figure is supposed to represent the ‘view of the people.’ I suppose you have some polling data to back that up? Unlike you, I don’t just pull facts out of the air or out of my imagination; I ground them in something, preferably from an unquestionable source, or even better, a source which is opposed to my own point of view (e.g. the utilities).That said, I’m sure that there IS a limit to what people are willing to pay for greener power. I don’t have the faintest idea where ‘the people’ would draw that line. The reason I asked my previous question was that I had a very strong suspicion that you don’t either. Having run a business for 10 years trying to sell “green” products to people who almost universally say they want to buy green, I am more than a bit skeptical as to how much extra most people are willing to pay for “greener” anything. It’s worth adding, however, that neither you, I, nor “the people,” get to make the choice. At least in Vermont’s system, it’s the utilities who make it, within parameters set by the legislature and the regulatory bodies. The rest of us interact with those choices indirectly at best.5) Why you mentioned tritium then I don’t know. But we’ll pass over that and go to what you now say you meant: “We all know that is extraordinarily unlikely that its possible for a similar event to occur here.” Sorry, but it’s EXACTLY as likely, or unlikely, as it was at Fukushima. The reactors are, in all pertinent regards, twins. Just for the record, it is now clear that Fukushima’s designers DID consider both earthquakes AND tsunamis (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-17/japan-s-nuclear-disaster-caps-decades-of-faked-safety-reports-accidents.html). The plants were theoretically designed to meet what were thought to be CREDIBLE threats from both. The problem was that the designers didn’t consider THIS earthquake and THIS tsunami “credible.” Precisely the same is true at VY. The plant is designed for the acceleration which would be generated by, a 6.4 earthquake, the largest for which there is historical precedent in this region. So what happens if VY gets an unprecedented earthquake? (Vermont State geologist Larry Becker asked last week that, in light of what just happened, VY re-examine this very question).VY is designed to resist one CT river dam break. What if more than one dam breaks, a greater likelihood, I might add, now that global warming (who thought about THAT possibility when VY was designed and built??) appears to be producing storms of greater intensity.Want some other scenarios? Terrorists attack the spent fuel pool at VY, putting a large enough hole in it that the water leaks out faster than it can be replenished. What if the same thing happens through human error? Remember the crane that released spent fuel which then dropped to the floor of the pool at VY? Fortunately, the crane’s brakes worked and the fuel was not very high above the floor. Suppose it had been a good deal higher, and the equipment failed. I should note that human error, not earthquakes or tsunamis, has been the cause of most nuclear power failures.The spent fuel pool vulnerability is a trait VY shares with Fukushima. HOWEVER, the fuel inventory at VY is 5-10x greater, meaning the radioactive release potential is that much greater. Also, the prevailing wind blows TOWARDS the largest close metropolitan area (Boston) rather than out to sea.This is precisely why, many posts ago, I went through a more detailed analysis of risk, magnitude, etc. Your facile dismissals may be comforting to those who have not really thought these questions through, but fortunately for all of us, even the industry is more thoughtful than that. What I’ve tried to do is look at the wider context in which those judgments get made.To sum up, I repeat: every nuclear accident so far has been deemed “non-credible” before it happened. As David Lochbaum, who worked as an NRC trainer and now works at the Union of Concerned Scientists said in a press conference yesterday: “The Russians came to Three Mile Island and said that that couldn’t happen there. The Japanese went to Chernobyl and said that that wouldn’t happen there. We don’t want to be in the same position of going to Japan and saying that couldn’t happen here, because the track record on those statements isn’t particularly good.”Nukes can only be designed for accidents their designers can imagine and deem credible. Then, they must accurately and correctly design AND BUILD them to meet those eventualities. If any of these steps fails anywhere in that chain at ANY nuclear plant, the result is Fukushima, Chernobyl or far worse still. That’s not “fear mongering.” It’s the reality of nuclear power; it comes with the territory. Your faith in the improbability of any such possibilities is touching, but frankly, pretty indefensible, considering that it’s been repeatedly contradicted in the real world.

68. No, Greenberg, Jcarter is right: to use the example of a tsunami as an argument to shut down VY desperate argumentation and shameful fear-mongering.

69. “Could Vermont Yankee withstand an 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami?”Are you kidding!? Just standing there it is crumbling to radioactive bits. We don’t need no stinkin’ earthquake!

70. “No, Greenberg, Jcarter is right: to use the example of a tsunami as an argument to shut down VY desperate argumentation and shameful fear-mongering.” And where did I do that?

71. @ Glow Worm:”Are you kidding!? Just standing there it is crumbling to radioactive bits. We don’t need no stinkin’ earthquake!”Really? I guess you know more about the core structure and safety of the plant than all the scientists and engineers at the NRC, eh?@ Greenberg:”And where did I do that?”Are YOU kiddng me? Now you’re just being dishonest for dishonesty’s sake. You have TOTALLY been using what happened — a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami — to argue for shutting down VY:-Greenberg on this thread at 3/16, 11:12 am: “”2) To JCarter, who asks “Does a natural disaster caused a nuclear disaster every week? Or just once?” How many times do you need it to happen? I’m pretty sure the folks in Japan now think once is enough.””-3/16, 12:15 pm: “JCarter has put his finger on the nub of the disagreement, when he writes: “the risks are low, the benefits high.” I believe just the reverse is true: the benefits are virtually non-existent and the risks — and catastrophic accident is only one of them — vastly outweigh them.”-3/16, 1:09 pm: “Since precisely the same equipment was in place in Japan as at VY, the question is whether a series of accident events, in a different set of scenarios, could occur here.”-3/16, 5:00 pm: “JCarter’s sarcasm seems a bit out of place today with 8 out of 10 Fukushima nuclear plants in serious difficulty — “”The nuclear industry has maintained for decades that accidents can’t happen at their plants . . .Well, Fukushima isn’t completely different: in fact, it’s the SAME type of plant as VY, and the redundant technologies which failed one after the other at Fukushima (redundant cooling, primary containment, secondary containment) are the very same ones VY is depending on.””Had you asked anyone in Fukushima last week, it’s reasonable to guess that they would have told you exactly what JCarter continues to assert: namely, that accidents at nuclear power plants are exceedingly unlikely.””The facts on the ground at Fukushima suggest that we would be well advised to take a closer look at scenarios previously considered non-credible.”-3/19, 9:47 am: “What we know by definition — what we are witnessing in Japan right now — is that when these accidents DO occur, their consequences are enormous . . .”-3/20, 5:05 pm (responding to jcarter): “”We all know that is extraordinarily unlikely that its possible for a similar event to occur here.” Sorry, but it’s EXACTLY as likely, or unlikely, as it was at Fukushima. The reactors are, in all pertinent regards, twins.””Precisely the same is true at VY. The plant is designed for the acceleration which would be generated by, a 6.4 earthquake, the largest for which there is historical precedent in this region. So what happens if VY gets an unprecedented earthquake? (Vermont State geologist Larry Becker asked last week that, in light of what just happened, VY re-examine this very question).VY is designed to resist one CT river dam break. What if more than one dam breaks, a greater likelihood, I might add, now that global warming (who thought about THAT possibility when VY was designed and built??) appears to be producing storms of greater intensity.””The spent fuel pool vulnerability is a trait VY shares with Fukushima.”If you don’t call that using the Japanese situation to further your campaign against VY, then you are just blatantly dishonest.And please ask your friend Glow Worm to use his real name.

72. Given the discussion with JCarter about solar and wind, the following excerpts from 2 articles in today’s Guardian are pretty interesting.1) “There’s no denying that Germany has been a real pioneer in building a competitive low-carbon economy. Its renewables industry supports 340,000 jobs and replaces €5bn (£4.3bn) worth of energy imports per annum.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/21/germany-feed-in-tariff)2) “Germany could derive all of its electricity from renewable energy sources by 2050 and become the world’s first major industrial nation to kick the fossil-fuel habit, the country’s Federal Environment Agency said today.The country already gets 16% of its electricity from wind, solar and other renewable sources – three times’ higher than the level it had achieved 15 years ago.”and from the same article:”Germany is the world leader in photovoltaics: it expects to add more than 5,000 megawatts of photovoltaic capacity this year to reach a total of 14,000 megawatts. It is also the second-biggest wind-power producer after the United States. Some 300,000 renewable energy jobs have been created in Germany in the last decade.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/germany-renewable-energy-electricity)I would just add that it snows in Germany.

73. To Pierre A. Noyd. I see. So according to you, any mention of catastrophic accident at a nuclear plant is “fear mongering.” How about when the NRC or the industry do it? Are they fear mongering as well? Your argument is really quite preposterous; catastrophic accident risk is a fact of life at nuclear plants. That’s why, as I have pointed out repeatedly above, they’re designed for just such eventualities. Fukushima is the real-time action demonstration of all that unwinding before our eyes. Your accusation appears to suggest that the best strategy in the face of known risk is to ignore it and hope it goes away (or never happens). Ostriches might agree; I don’t. “Glow Worm,” as far as I know, is not “my friend.” I say as far as I know, since I don’t know who it is. The one difference, which motivated my response to “Jimmy,” is that “Glow Worm” did not shelter behind his or her anonymity to launch an ad hominem attack, as “Jimmy” did. But my comments on anonymous and pseudonymous comments apply to all, and therefore certainly to him or her.

74. “launch an ad hominem attack”Calling someone biased is an “ad hominem attack?” I’m not sure you understand what an ad hominem attack is. Here’s a hint, it looks like this: “(insert less-than-full name here) has no credibility because we don’t know exactly who they are.”

75. 1. pierre a. noyd: for greenberg to use Fukushima as basis for argument against VY is fear-mongering.2. greenberg: i didn’t do that.3. pierre a. noyd points out numerous instances of exactly where greenberg did that.4. greenberg now says, ok, i did do it, but it’s ok.

76. Point of clarification: an ad hominem attack involves attacking the opponent rather than the argument, or as Webster’s says, “appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect … marked by an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.” See also Internet forums, behavior on.In other words, saying you can’t believe someone because he/she is biased is an ad hominem attack, and saying your opponent has no credibility because he/she is anonymous is an ad hominem attack.Carry on.

77. i give up! You are right John, shut down all nuclear power plants everywhere.

78. “greenberg now says, ok, i did do it, but it’s ok.” No, Pierre A. Noyd (which I realize could well be a nom de plume), I’m not admitting any such thing. What you pointed out, in response to my question, is numerous examples of my discussing catastrophic accidents at nuclear plants. Since much of my discussion in these columns has been a discussion of the risk of catastrophic accidents, carried on in what I believe to be a sober, rational, and thoughtful manner, my question was certainly never intended to suggest that I haven’t been discussing what, in fact, I obviously HAVE been discussing.What I challenged before, and challenge now, is that such discussion is “fear-mongering,” or that the comparison of Fukushima to VY is somehow misleading or again “fear mongering.” As I said in my previous post, unless ANY such discussion is “fear mongering,” then I don’t believe mine was. If you believe that ANY discussion of catastrophic risk is “fear mongering,” or that ANYONE who points out the virtual identity of VY and Fukushima’s design in terms of containment technology, spent fuel pool placement, age, construction firm, and backup systems is “fear mongering,” so be it. That’s your right and I plead guilty then. But I note that the NRC and much of the press is equally guilty. Google Mark I containment and Fukushima and check it out. Your point, however, remains preposterous. Soberly discussing nuclear risks is not “fear mongering,” it should be a central focus of any reasonable assessment of energy policy.As to the discussion of “ad hominem,” it too has gone beyond the point of absurdity. I challenged “Jimmy,” (and others) for hiding behind pseudonyms while attacking individuals who use their real names, and I used some fairly harsh terms. Readers and commenters may characterize that however they like. I do not retract my statements and I do not plan to engage in a dialogue here with cowardly jerks. Have at it!

79. “attacking the opponent rather than the argument”Right. I primarily attacked Gundersen’s arguments, and characterized him as biased in the process. This is not ad hominem.”John Greenberg” declared me non-credible because I don’t hand Google my full name, while refusing to substantively respond to anything I said. You know, like why anonymity on the internet is “cowardly.” This is ad hominem.Now consider that “Greenberg” engaged in an ad hominem attack in the process of incorrectly characterizing my comment(s) as an “ad hominem attack.” Besides being hilarious, it might also cast a certain light on everything else he says. I won’t elaborate, because that would be… ad hominem.

80. “Pierre A. Noyd (which I realize could well be a nom de plume)”…but it doesn’t matter whether it is. Are you starting to get it? At all? Didn’t think so.

81. @ Greenberg:Unless you are willing to state that you believe that a very serious earthquake followed by a tsunami is a possibility in Vernon, Vt., then your incessant references to what happened in Japan are: a) foolish, or b) fear-mongering, or both.You say you only want to point out that people who build nuclear power plants should plan on catastrophic contingencies. Fair enough. But that’s NOT what you’ve been doing. You’ve been explicitly using Fukushima, which, again, involves a rare-magnitude earthquake followed by a tsunami, to argue for the shutdown of VY. We should not have a nuclear plant in Vernon, Vt. because an asteroid might hit it. Hey, it’s not likely, but it’s possible, right? After all, look what happened in Japan!!! That, in a nutshell, is your argument. No matter how much you deny it, that IS using the events in Japan to argue for a shutdown of VY. And at the same time you’re vehemently insisting that you’re NOT using Japan as an example and you’re NOT fear-mongering.Keep it up. It’s going well for ya so far.

82. Entergy, and the NRC, and NEI, all say not to worry; that the VY plant is built better than its counterpart in Japan, and that what has happened in Japan would never happen here.This from a company that deferred maintainence on its plant to the degree that it collapsed. This from a company whose executives lied under oath about underground pipes that have leaked radioactive material in our groundwater. This from a company that illegally allowed radioactive waste to leave the plant in a truck.They might be right. Maybe what’s happening in Japan couldn’t happen at VY. Maybe something much, much worse could happen there.

83. Dear Mr. Stannard,Your logic is impeccable. You say that Entergy, the NRC, and NEI “all” say something, and they you say “this from a company that . . .” Is NRC a “company”? Is NEI a “company”?And even if we indulge all your facile fantasies about how evil and terrible Entergy is, please tell me how that makes a tsunami in Vernont more likely than it was before they lied?Your logic is stunning.

Comments are closed.