This week’s winner of the “Ignoranus Award” — what the Washington Post Style Invitational once defined as “someone who is both stupid and an asshole” — goes to James Conca for his Sept. 1, 2013 Forbes piece titled, “Who Told Vermont To Be Stupid?” In it, Conca writes that:
“The Great State of Vermont threw away cheap clean energy this week out of ignorance and fear. Vermont chose to be stupid, and will hurt the environment as a sidebar.”
After paying lip service to the “official reasons” Entergy cited for closing the 41-year-old plant, Conga declared that “we all know the real reason. Nasty politics and ignorance. The latter is forgivable and rectifiable with a little homework. The former is not.”
Ugh. There’s nothing more infuriating than someone smugly calling you stupid and lazy for not doing your homework — who was too lazy to do his own. Here are some quotes from the author who claims to “cover the underlying drivers of energy, technology and society.” It appears he could use some extra time in study hall:
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Oh please… all they are doing is turning an ancient boiler into a storage facility for the spent fuel rods… quit the smoke and mirrors… It’s sister plant in Rowe, Ma (built in the same year by the Navy) blew up 20 some years ago, the Albany station showed it completely immersed in foam, just the reactor dome peeking through and then voila! news blackout. It was decommissioned. Vermont Yankee is on a river… have you heard of Hurricane Irene that overflowed just about every river and stream in Vermont? or Fukushima? get a grip and move into the future. You may not be giving your readers the best attitude or advice in this really silly and demeaning (for you) article. Do you live near spent fuel rods on a river? Do you like eating Vermont products like brown and speckled trout, apples, blueberries, all kinds of amazing and delicious produce, maple syrup, our incredible artisan cheeses, wines, beers (ever had a Heady Topper?) just to name a very few.. just leave us to our business and get back to giving GOOD advice to your readers… move on without the silliness and vitriol and we just might let you come visit our beautiful State….maybeh.. http://www.yankeerowe.com/
Holy Cow… the pot..kettle… geez Ken. I know this guy got under your skin for the “stupid” remark but take a deep breath…
The article is so biased and skewed its unbelievable. I mean it’s seriously terrible.
Please read the incredible thread that accompanies the Forbes article. Several Vermonters – led by Bob Stannard – respond. I’m wondering if the author wants to visit to visit Vermont for a debate. I only wish Fred Tuttle was here to help another flatlander understand just how “stupid” Vermonters are!!
Ditto. Good grief, Ken. Your piece, reeking of your personal opinions and your anti-VY, anti-nuclear, anti-Wall Street, and anti-corporate venom, shows that your bias meets or exceeds the ignorance you accuse Conca of. In fact, it appears you used Conca’s piece as a convenient foil to spout your own left-wing opinions. Good thing for you he wrote that piece, huh?
Let me save you folks the trouble of going to the article. Here it is with my rebuttal. Conca accuses Vermonters of not doing their homework. Bad form.
In a week when we
celebrated one of the greatest speeches in history, we also saw discrimination
win over science. Again. Ideology defeated reason. As a
scientist, I was saddened in a way I am not usually wont.
The Great State of
Vermont threw away cheap clean energy this week out of ignorance and fear.
Vermont chose to be stupid, and will hurt the environment as a sidebar.
IN HIS OPENING REMARKS CONCA STATES THAT “DISCRIMINATION
WINS OVER SCIENCE†AND THAT “VERMONT THREW AWAY CHEAP CLEAN ENERGY OUT OF
IGNORANCE AND FEARâ€
THIS IS NOT TRUE. THERE WAS NO SCIENCE INVOLVED IN ENTERGY’S DECISION TO CLOSE ITS
PLANT. ENTERGY CLOSED ITS PLANT BECAUSE
IT WAS NO LONGER ECONOMICALLY VIABLE.
VERMONT DID NOT “THROW AWAY CHEAP CLEAN ENERGY….†VERMONT UTILITIES CEASED BUYING VY POWER,
BECAUSE IT WAS NOW LONGER FINANCIALLY A GOOD DEAL.
Move up http://i.forbesimg.com t Move down
Earlier this week, Entergy Corporation announced
plans to close and decommission its Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant in
Vernon, Vermont. The power station was producing 0ver 70% of the State’s power,
carbon-free. I guess we don’t have to envy Vermonters anymore.
THIS STATEMENT IS PRESUMABLY INTENTIONALLY
MISLEADING IF MR. CONCA DID HIS HOMEWORK AS HE ACCUSES OTHERS OF NOT
DOING. YES, 70% OF THE POWER PRODUCED
INSIDE VERMONT CAME FROM THIS PLANT, BUT AT NO TIME DID VERMONT EVERY RELY ON
70% OF THIS POWER. TYPICALLY, WHEN I FEEL
SOMEONE IS INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING ME (MUCH LIKE ENTERGY’S EXECUTIVES BEFORE
THE PSB I TEND TO LOSE RESPECT FOR THEM).
The station will stop
power production after its present nuclear fuel runs its course and move to
safe shutdown at the end of 2014. The station will remain under the oversight
of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission throughout the decommissioning process and
for the decades following until final disposition of its waste, and the
building itself, is finalized.
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT LEAVING OVER 600 TONS
OF SPENT FUEL IN AN UNDER-PRETECTED POOL FOR 60 YEARS IS SAFE; GOOD FOR YOU. I DON’T.
The official reason given
by Entergy ETR +0.33% was a combination of financial
factors including:
– abundant low-cost
natural gas from fracking,
THIS IS THE REASON WHY THEY ARE CLOSING.
– financial investments
required by an increasingly onerous regulatory environment brought on by
unfounded fears from the Fukushima disaster even in the face of a stellar
safety record and a completely different safety case, and
HAVING TO MAINTAIN AND UPGRADE THEIR PLANT
TO MAKE IT SAFER IS ANOTHER REASON WHEY THEY’RE CLOSING. IF ONE WERE TO LOOK AT THE TRACK RECORD OF
THIS PLANT; I.E. DO THEIR HOMEWORK, THEY MIGHT NOT CALL VY’S SAFETY RECORD
STELLAR.
– wholesale market design
flaws that maintain artificially low energy and capacity prices in the region,
and actively suppress the benefits of the lowest costing energy that merchant
nuclear and hydroelectric plants have long provided the people of Vermont (Marv Fertel, NEI).
IN RESPONSE TO THIS ALLEGATION THE ISO IN
YESTERDAY’S PAPER DECLARED THAT THE MARKET IS NOT SKEWED AND THAT THIS WAS NOT
A REASON TO CLOSE THE PLANT.
But we all know the real
reason. Nasty politics and ignorance. The latter is forgivable and rectifiable
with a little homework. The former is not. Dr. Art Woolf, Professor of Economics at
University of Vermont, put it best in the BurlingtonFreePress
–
AGAIN, THIS IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND
COULD HAVE BEEN VARIFIED BY DOING A LITTLE HOMEWORK. THE OVERWHELMINGLY 26-4 SENATE VOTE AGAINST
CONTINUED OPERATIONS BEYOND 2012 WAS ACHIEVED PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF ENTERGY
LYING BEFORE THE PSB & THE LEGISLATURE.
“The current [upward]
trajectory of electricity prices is likely to continue as Vermont mandates
production from much more expensive renewables and provides a variety of
subsidies to producers of renewable energy. Electricity from wind can cost up
to 20 cents per kilowatt hour and solar between 20 and 30 cents. Compare that
to the current wholesale price of electricity from Hydro-Quebec, which costs
about six cents per kilowatt hour [similarly for natural gas]. Vermont recently
decided not to purchase electricity from the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant,
which was selling electricity to the state for less than five cents a kilowatt
hour†(Electricity Prices in Vt Among Nation’s Highest).
Vermonters should only be
paying 8¢/kWhr, not the 18¢/kWhr they’re paying now, nor the 20¢/kWhr they’ll be
paying in the next few years.
These upside-down cost
situations occur because what we pay for electricity has little to do with what
it costs to produce it. The real costs of producing electricity such as
construction, fuel, O&M, decommissioning, have little to do with what its
price on the wholesale market. The price has more to do with financing, tax
credits, subsidies, mandates, power purchase agreements, weekly power bidding,
and other non-technical drivers. These determine the price in a virtual orgy of
artifice and short-term profit arrangements, spiced up with a bit of political
shenanigans. (An excellent discussion of this is given by Michael Overturf of ZF
Energy
Development in The Price for Power.)
WOOLF’S COMMENTS DO NOT REFLECT “NASTY
POLITICSâ€. IF ANYTHING HE POINTS OUT
VERMONT’S COMMITMENT TO TRY TO DO BETTER WITH RENEWABLE FUEL THAT DOES NOT RUN
THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH ALL OTHER FUELS.
This situation resulted
directly from many years of very effective and concerted lobbying to bias
elected officials in Vermont against nuclear energy. The public let them.
Entergy was not prepared to counter this anti-nuclear push. They even seemed
oblivious to its magnitude and effect, and bumbled communications and response.
Or maybe they just got tired and resigned to letting Vermont get what it
deserves.
WERE IT NOT FOR THE FACT THAT CONCA HOLDS
HIMSELF OUT TO BE ONE WHO DOES HIS HOMEWORK AND SOMEHOW GETS HIS WORK PUBLISHED
IN FORBES, THIS PARAGRAPH WOULD STRIKE ME AS HILARIOUS. BUT IT’S NOT.
TO SAY THAT “ENTERGY WAS NOT PREPARED TO COUNTER THIS ANTI-NUCLEAR PUSHâ€
IS A LIE. I SAY IT’S A LIE, BECAUSE IF
CONCA HAD DONE HIS HOMEWORK HE WOULD HAVE DISCOVERED THAT AT ONE POINT THERE
WERE NO FEWER THAN 22 LOBBYISTS WORKING ON ENTERGY’S BEHALF. ENTERGY OUTSPENT THE ANTI-NUKE LOBBYING
EFFORT BY TEN FOLD; AT LEAST. ENTERGY
WAS NOT OBLIVIOUS EVEN A LITTLE BIT.
THEY WERE BUMBLERS, BUT THEY WERE KEENLY AWARE OF THE FIGHT. HIS ASSERSIONS HERE ARE JUST WRONG.
You know, folks, I
understand nasty politics, but there is only one reason for being
ignorant. Not doing your homework. I’m a scientists and even I don’t like
to do homework. But you need to do your homework.
AGREED. TOO BAD MR. CONCA OPTED NOT TO DO SO WHEN HE
WROTE THIS PIECE.
Most Vermonters were led
blindly into throwing away the cheapest, cleanest energy available. Energy that
made Vermont one of the lowest carbon emitters per capita in the world, a feat
that will no longer be possible. Vermont Yankee is already mostly paid for, it
had 20 years left, and mothballing it won’t save any money for the State, or
reduce the risks that much either. The best thing to do with a nuclear power
plant is to run it. Mothballing an active reactor ahead of its time is a wicked
expensive waste.
THE OPENING SENTENCE OF THIS PARAGRAPH IS
NOT TRUE. VERMONTERS DID NOT THROW AWAY
ANYTHING. VERMONT UTILITIES OPTED TO GET
A FAIR DEAL BY PURCHASING THEIR POWER FROM OTHER SOURCES. HE ALSO STATES THE VY HAD 20 YEARS LEFT. NO NUCLEAR POWER PLANT HAS EVER LASTED 60
YEARS. AS A “SCIENTIST†DOING HIS
HOMEWORK HE SHOULD KNOW THAT THIS STATEMENT IS FALSE.
Vermont Yankee has
produced almost 200 billion kWhrs since it began operations. If this energy had
been produced by coal or gas, over 50 million tons of carbon, sulfur and
nitrogen would have been emitted into our atmosphere. But Vermonters were smart
and ahead of their time. Vermont Yankee contributes about $500 million to the
local economy employing 600 highly skilled professionals and funding the 1,800
indirect jobs associated with them. This closure will be a huge blow to the
local economy. Does this matter to anyone?
YES, EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THERE WILL BE AN
IMPACT IN SO. EASTERN VERMONT. WE’VE
SEEN THIS COMING FOR 40 YEARS. DID THE
DOUGLAS ADMINISTRATION PROPERLY PREPARE THIS AREA OF THE STATE FOR THE
IMPENDING CLOSER OF THE PLANT IN 2012?
While about 30% of
Vermont’s electricity comes from hydro and methane digesters, without nuclear
power the State’s GHG emissions will increase, especially as natural gas use
for power generation is increasing faster than any other source.
PROBABLY NOT TRUE. VERMONT’S UTILITIES HAVE ALREADY REPLACED VY’S
POWER WITH HYDRO AND NUCLEAR; BOTH OF WHICH ARE CARBON FREE; AT LEAST ACCORDING
TO CONCA.
Better yet, ISO New
England Inc., the Regional Transmission Organization (RTO), is rushing to fill
this new electricity shortage with oil and gas. 2.3 billion kilowatt-hours of
new oil-fired generation will dump 1.6 million metric tons of CO2 into the air,
and 4.1 million more tons will be emitted by increased gas-fired production,
just to compensate for this unnecessary execution.
VY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ONLY 2% OF THE
GRID. TO SAY THAT THE “ISO IS RUSHING TO
FILL NEW ELECTRICITY SHORTAGE…†IS FALSE.
THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF CHEAP ELECTRICITY, WHICH, BY THE WAY, IS WHY
ENTERGY IS CLOSING VY.
As a member of the
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), how will Vermont square this huge
increase with other members?
VERONT STOPPED BUYING VY POWER OVER A YEAR
AGO AND THUS FAR HAS NOT EXPERIENCED “HUGE INCREASESâ€.
Closing Vermont Yankee in
the end will cost Vermonters about $200 million per year for the next 20 years.
But Vermonters escaped the worst of that other “wholesale market flawâ€, the
default credit swap and other financing ideologies, and haven’t been hurt at
all by the economic slump of the last few years, so the people of Vermont won’t
even notice the lost $200 million. I mean it’s not like it’s 10% of their total
State tax revenue or anything.
NO ONE HAS ANY IDEA WHAT THE COST IMPACT
WILL BE OVER 20 YEARS. THERE ARE MANY
VARIABLES THAT IMPACT OUR FUTURE. I LOOK
FORWARD TO MR. CONCA REVISING HIS COMMENTS IN A FEW YEARS.
Now when children ask,
“Why do I have to do my homework?†parents can point to Vermont on the map and
say, “That’s why!â€
THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED
THAT THEY DESERVE AN “F†ON THEIR HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT IS MR. CONCA.
Oh, my responses are in CAPS; not that I’m screaming at this guy, but so that you can distinguish my words from his.
Ken is right to be angry. Conca’s piece is rife with inaccuracies and is insulting to the State of Vermont. I wouldn’t expect you and Jcarter to think so as you are both in the tank for Entergy. I understand and you’re entitled to do so. But this column by Conca is full of misleading statements. He accuses others of not doing their homework, which leads me, at least, to believe that he must’ve done his homework and intentionally lying to us.
At least he’s consistent with the Entergy execs., which means that he won’t go over well with the majority of Vermonters.
Ken, I won’t hold it against you that Stannard is sticking up for you.
Stannard, I am hardly “in the tank” for Entergy (whatever that even means). You should not assume that I agree with everything Conca wrote. All I’ll say is that you and I disagree on virtually everything about the state’s policy toward VY, and that I agree with the four federal judges who found that the Vermont legislature pursued a vendetta against VY and acted illegally. Did the state’s hostile, confrontational, politically-motivated attitude (including the use of propagandistic terms like “Entergy Louisiana”) over the last several years contribute toward Entergy’s decision to close VY? I believe it did.
You will believe whatever you choose to believe. You can’t point to one piece of legislation that the Vt. General Assembly passed that regulated safety. Shumlin ran on closing VY and got elected; twice. VY finally closed because they were going to have to open their books to the NRC.
If you think that name calling was responsible for VY’s closure then there’s no point in me continuing any dialog with you.
Glad you like my rebuttal
I never mentioned the word “safety.” The fact that you raised that issue yourself, and deny that the Legislature regulated it, shows how defensive you are about it. The federal judges were right.
And “dialog?” You don’t “dialog” with anyone.
“But this column by Conca is full of misleading statements.”
As is the column by Picard, the difference of course is I’m not sticking up for Conca…
YES, 70% OF THE POWER PRODUCED
INSIDE VERMONT CAME FROM THIS PLANT, BUT AT NO TIME DID VERMONT EVERY RELY ON
70% OF THIS POWER. TYPICALLY, WHEN I FEEL
SOMEONE IS INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING ME (MUCH LIKE ENTERGY’S EXECUTIVES BEFORE
THE PSB I TEND TO LOSE RESPECT FOR THEM).
Come on Bob, it’s clear Conca was making the point that 70% of the power produced came from VY…… VT is stupid because the carbon offsets they have been selling just went bye bye.
As a member of the
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), how will Vermont square this huge
increase with other members?
VERONT STOPPED BUYING VY POWER OVER A YEAR
AGO AND THUS FAR HAS NOT EXPERIENCED “HUGE INCREASESâ€.
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about… you aren’t even addressing his point. VT was selling carbon offsets based on the power coming from VY. That no longer will happen and now VT will have to alter the sales they have with the RGGI. They may even have to start buying them…
Before you bitch about others not doing their homework…
I would argue that Conca was attempting to (mis)lead people to believe that 70% of Vt’s power came from this plant.
You would argue that because you don’t want Conca to have a valid point. Your bias is so great that your perceive all points that show VY had some benefit as intentionally misleading and inaccurate. Perception maybe reality but that doesn’t mean your not delusional.
can’t we all just get along? heh
Actually, that’s not true. I would be delighted if Mr. Conca had a valid point. Like I said, to the average reader, one could be led to believe that Vermont relies heavily on this plant. As you know, we’ve not relied on the plant for over a year.
Go a read Conca’s article.. He lectures Vermont and Shumlin about doing homework, yet when it comes to it, his column is distorted, wrong on facts and misleading. He holds himself out as a scientist who does the necessary research.
Somewhere along the line the man is lying. Either he didn’t do the research, in which case he has no right to lecture others; or he did do the research and is intentionally misleading people.
I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he was true to his word and did his homework, and thus intentionally untruthful.
Like I said, go read his column and get back to me. I may be away from my computer and unable to promptly reply to your kind words.
Bob, I did read the article and if you do so objectively you see that Mr Conca is correct on the facts. Where he fails is in presenting them in a way so there is no doubt what he is saying or getting at.
You highlighted where you disagree and Bob, those are not facts. Most of your responses aren’t even addressing his actual statements, the rest are arguing semantics and opinions. You come off as an argumentative two year old on a nationally read website. Get a grip on yourself Bob.
I’m not going to go through and pick things apart, I’ve pointed out two already and the best you came up with was ‘in your opinion he was attempting to mislead his readers…’
you are guessing about his motives and that my friend is why you look the fool…
That’s your opinion and as I’ve said before you’re entitled to it.
Conca says that Entergy was unaware of the fight in Vermont and out gunned by anti-nukes. At best that is laughable. I thought I was pretty clear in pointing out that there was an army of lobbyists working on Entergy’s behalf. On our side we had James Moore, of VPIRG, and me.
That’s a fact, not an opinion. You are free to interpret my words any way you wish. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Come now Bob, you are engaging in the deliberate misleading nature that you accuse Conca of.
Conca didn’t say Entergy was unaware of the fight…. he said they were oblivious to the magnitude.
There’s a difference there.
There also wasn’t just you and James Moore. There was also the barrage of ads that ran during Scummy’s election bid funded by Bitterdork, not to mention the unending quotes from Arnie Gunderson that were run in the media.
These are all certainly lobbying efforts and (perhaps more effective ones then that waged by you and Moore) especially the crap that came out of Scumlin’s campaign I would bet in fact did catch Entergy off guard.
It would be interesting though to see the actual numbers of money spent between Entergy and that spent by opponents (including Super PACS) on lobbyists / TV ads / and Propaganda.
“Like I said, to the average reader, one could be led to believe that Vermont relies heavily on this plant. As you know, we’ve not relied on the plant for over a year.”
Actually, even after Vermont stopped buying power from VY, the state did continue to “rely heavily on this plant.” Not for purchasing electricity, but economically. Of course, by the time the disastrous economic effects of the closure of this plant, which was bullied out of existence for purely political reasons by the crass and ambitious Peter Shumlin, are truly felt, and Windham County is in a deep depression, Fast Talking Millionaire Pete will have long left the Guv’s office and will be elsewhere, and will have long forgotten about the poor folks in Windham County.
Well, I’m on the Cape & don’t have access to much info down here, but I can tell you that Entergy ran a never-ending media campaign that I seem to remember ran around $1 mil. Entergy outspent all other entities combined.
Go look up what they paid McLean, Meehan & Rice and Gerry Morse. It was a lot of money. I got paid $65; then $55/yr. Last year I worked for no compensation.
The other folks you mentioned weren’t paid lobbyists. As usual you are comparing apples to oranges. You disagree with my words challenging Conca. OK, Entergy was aware of the magnitude of the effort against them. It’s not only misleading, but completely false to say otherwise.
They were paying the aforementioned firm 10’s of thousands of dollars to be on top of the effort. Their lobbyist are some of the best in the business. I think they would disagree that they were oblivious to the magnitude of the effort against them.
An herein lies the problem. I was there. I saw what was happening. I know what happened. Neither you, nor Conca, were there. Conca should have called Entergy’s lobbyist to see if they were oblivious. That would’ve been doing his homework; something he says others haven’t done.
I’m old. I don’t time to waste on you. Go live happily ever after in your world of hating Peter Shumlin. The project I’ve worked on for 6 years I’ve won. I’m happy. You’re not. Life is good.
Thanks Ken.
Bob, I feel sorry for you. You have so much hatred for anything Entergy it has affected your ability to critically read, think and respond to anything regarding it. Everything is about “winning”… so much so you don’t seem to realize that even though you won, you’ve actually lost.
You retired Bob and yet you sit on this site and on the Forbes site arguing semantics and stupid shit, like to what degree Entergy was or was not aware of the lobbying effort against it, with people while presumable vacationing on the Cape. Jesus Christ Bob!! That is just sad.
As a Vermonter I apologize that something in this state caused you to hate it so much that it has consumed your life. Enjoy your retirement Bob knowing that you “won.”
You’re confusing hate with debating. I don’t hate Entergy; its execs or its lobbyists. You were the one who defended Conta’s words. I disputed them.
No need to feel badly for me. I’m fine. Yes, I’m bias, opinionated and will speak out when I see someone distorting the truth as I see it. That’s the way it is.
If only that were true.
And no matter what you say Bob, you don’t debate. A debate requires that both parties are capable of hearing the others points and responding appropriately. Your hate disallows you from doing so and ergo from having a debate.
Go enjoy your retirement Bob. No need to debate anyone any more … you “won”
You two are well and truly off the topic of the post now. Time to go do something constructive.
You are perfectly within your right to dispute what I say; as am I to dispute what you say. Mr. Conca wrote an article that I felt was rife with inaccuracies, patronizing and chastised others for not doing “homework” when it was clearly apparent that he had not done so.
You, and jcarter don’t agree with me and agree with Conca. Wonderful. I’ve argued my points (debated) and you all say I’m hate-filled. Fine. You can say whatever you want to say about me. I’m bald. I’m fat. I’m old. I’ll dispute most of those (I am kinda bald), and probably no matter what I say I’m not going to change your mind.
What I won’t do, however, is sit back and let patently false statements stand. I will dispute, argue and debate them. I see it from you two all the time, which is why I challenge you.
You don’t like to be challenged so you say that I’m hate-filled. I just say you’re wrong. It’s pretty simple really.