Vermont just replaced its only only nuclear reactor with fossil fuels obtained from fracking

[FA_Q2]

Very stupid move. Nuclear is probably the cleanest and greenest source of energy that put source the most.

--- yeah until you get to the waste left behind.

Oopsie.

"that put source the most". I gotta remember that one.
Nice link by the way. Break a sweat on that didja?

Nuclear waste is a lot less of a problem than the waste from fossil fuels. Nuclear is the cleanest and safest power generation around. The opposition to it is buried in blind fear of something that most people know nothing about at all.

Alternatives are fine and we should utilize them as they come up to snuff but the backbone of our power generation should come from nuclear.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

--- yeah until you get to the waste left behind.

Oopsie.

Even after that. Liberal paranoia doesn't mean nuclear waste is actually an insoluble problem. Liberals simply don't want it to be solved.

shoot it into outer space....

LOL..That was my first thought.
Any reason this wouldnt work other than the expense?
Obviously you wouldnt want to put it in orbit,but why not a one way trip to the sun?
Of course we'd have to make sure and send it in the daytime...

If the rocket blew up on the launch pad you would have a big mess on your hands.

Why use a rocket? Better off with a slingshot - a LOT less power and a lot less waste.

A big ass rail gun would be the shit!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Very stupid move. Nuclear is probably the cleanest and greenest source of energy that put source the most.

--- yeah until you get to the waste left behind.

Oopsie.

"that put source the most". I gotta remember that one.
Nice link by the way. Break a sweat on that didja?

There is a place to store spent fuel that was designed and built costing you and me billions. But that was one of the first things Obama did, shut down Yucca Mountain. Why? After billions of dollars is he putting your and my children at risk with on site storage? WTF is wrong with him? Oh right he was kissing Reid's ass to pass Obamacare.

The mountain has issues, not to mention the people there who don't want the waste you created. Imagine that.

 

[kiwiman127]

Another colossal fail for the AGE cult:

Vermont just replaced its only only nuclear reactor which had accounted for 71.8 of the state 8217 s electricity production with fossil fuels obtained from fracking Dan from Squirrel Hill s Blog

For the past 42 years, Vermont’s only nuclear power plant was responsible for 71.8% of the state’s electricity production. This huge amount of electricity was generated by a single nuclear reactor.

Vermont has just shut down this reactor.

The replacement energy source for this shut down reactor is shale gas, a fossil fuel whose combustion causes global warming, and which is obtained from fracking.

And all this time, I had thought that liberals in Vermont were against fossil fuels, fracking, and global warming.

Meanwhile, France, which gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear power, has the cleanest air in the industrialized world, and the cheapest electricity in Europe.

There are new nuclear power plants currently under construction in the U.S., but all of them are in Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee, which are not exactly thought of as bastions of liberalism and environmentalism.​

Well, I'll be keeping my eye on the Vermont/Washington DC obituaries for Bernie Sanders' name.

 

[bripat9643]

Very stupid move. Nuclear is probably the cleanest and greenest source of energy that put source the most.

--- yeah until you get to the waste left behind.

Oopsie.

"that put source the most". I gotta remember that one.
Nice link by the way. Break a sweat on that didja?

There is a place to store spent fuel that was designed and built costing you and me billions. But that was one of the first things Obama did, shut down Yucca Mountain. Why? After billions of dollars is he putting your and my children at risk with on site storage? WTF is wrong with him? Oh right he was kissing Reid's ass to pass Obamacare.

The mountain has issues, not to mention the people there who don't want the waste you created. Imagine that.

No, the mountain only has a bang of liberal Luddites trying to make issues.

 

[Freewill]

Very stupid move. Nuclear is probably the cleanest and greenest source of energy that put source the most.

--- yeah until you get to the waste left behind.

Oopsie.

"that put source the most". I gotta remember that one.
Nice link by the way. Break a sweat on that didja?

There is a place to store spent fuel that was designed and built costing you and me billions. But that was one of the first things Obama did, shut down Yucca Mountain. Why? After billions of dollars is he putting your and my children at risk with on site storage? WTF is wrong with him? Oh right he was kissing Reid's ass to pass Obamacare.

The mountain has issues, not to mention the people there who don't want the waste you created. Imagine that.

Sigh, always counter with opinion.

Here is what the NEI said: Nuclear Energy Institute - Yucca Mountain Myths And Facts Opponents Distort Or Ignore Research

Here is what the Institute for Energy Research has to say:

First, Yucca Mountain has undergone a 30-year-long process of scientific examination and has been accepted by law (see Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended in 1987) as the only permanent nuclear waste repository in the United States. Since people are reluctant to live near a nuclear waste dump, the territory on which the depository was supposed to be constructed is highly unlikely to be ever re-used for agricultural needs or settlements. Furthermore, U.S. taxpayers have already spent $15 billion in studying and development in the project so far, making its abandonment in favor of a yet-undiscovered alternate location a hugely uneconomic decision.

Moreover, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 required utilities that generate electricity using nuclear power to pay a fee of one tenth of one cent ($0.001) per kilowatt-hour into the Nuclear Waste Fund, which would be used to help pay for Yucca Mountain. At some point, the Federal government needs to move forward and provide a return on that investment. [4]

Lastly, the inability of federal policymakers to neither agree on the Yucca Mountain site nor come up with alternatives exposes American taxpayers to millions of dollars gone down the drain while nuclear energy’s future remains stuck among the papers on the desks of the Department of Energy officials.

And here are pros and cons

Yucca Mountain: Pro & Con

 

[orogenicman]

Another colossal fail for the AGE cult:

Vermont just replaced its only only nuclear reactor which had accounted for 71.8 of the state 8217 s electricity production with fossil fuels obtained from fracking Dan from Squirrel Hill s Blog

For the past 42 years, Vermont’s only nuclear power plant was responsible for 71.8% of the state’s electricity production. This huge amount of electricity was generated by a single nuclear reactor.

Vermont has just shut down this reactor.

The replacement energy source for this shut down reactor is shale gas, a fossil fuel whose combustion causes global warming, and which is obtained from fracking.

And all this time, I had thought that liberals in Vermont were against fossil fuels, fracking, and global warming.

Meanwhile, France, which gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear power, has the cleanest air in the industrialized world, and the cheapest electricity in Europe.

There are new nuclear power plants currently under construction in the U.S., but all of them are in Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee, which are not exactly thought of as bastions of liberalism and environmentalism.​

Really? I thought global warming was a myth according to you and your buddies? You can't have it both ways, bubba.

 

[orogenicman]

Very stupid move. Nuclear is probably the cleanest and greenest source of energy that put source the most.

--- yeah until you get to the waste left behind.

Oopsie.

"that put source the most". I gotta remember that one.
Nice link by the way. Break a sweat on that didja?

There is a place to store spent fuel that was designed and built costing you and me billions. But that was one of the first things Obama did, shut down Yucca Mountain. Why? After billions of dollars is he putting your and my children at risk with on site storage? WTF is wrong with him? Oh right he was kissing Reid's ass to pass Obamacare.

The mountain has issues, not to mention the people there who don't want the waste you created. Imagine that.

Sigh, always counter with opinion.

Here is what the NEI said: Nuclear Energy Institute - Yucca Mountain Myths And Facts Opponents Distort Or Ignore Research

Here is what the Institute for Energy Research has to say:

First, Yucca Mountain has undergone a 30-year-long process of scientific examination and has been accepted by law (see Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended in 1987) as the only permanent nuclear waste repository in the United States. Since people are reluctant to live near a nuclear waste dump, the territory on which the depository was supposed to be constructed is highly unlikely to be ever re-used for agricultural needs or settlements. Furthermore, U.S. taxpayers have already spent $15 billion in studying and development in the project so far, making its abandonment in favor of a yet-undiscovered alternate location a hugely uneconomic decision.

Moreover, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 required utilities that generate electricity using nuclear power to pay a fee of one tenth of one cent ($0.001) per kilowatt-hour into the Nuclear Waste Fund, which would be used to help pay for Yucca Mountain. At some point, the Federal government needs to move forward and provide a return on that investment. [4]

Lastly, the inability of federal policymakers to neither agree on the Yucca Mountain site nor come up with alternatives exposes American taxpayers to millions of dollars gone down the drain while nuclear energy’s future remains stuck among the papers on the desks of the Department of Energy officials.

And here are pros and cons

Yucca Mountain: Pro & Con

Institute for Energy Research - SourceWatch

Erm,

The Institute for Energy Research (IER), founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organization registered by Charles G. Koch and Robert L. Bradley Jr., advocates positions on environmental issues including deregulation of utilities, climate change denial, and claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless.

 

[HenryBHough]

If GW cultists would just turn off their computers and park their SUVs permanently the world would be a more peaceful place. No, wait, they'd have to get rid of the steel wheels on their roller blades and eliminate the ball-bearings on their beanie propellers. I think that last one is the sticking point......

 

[bripat9643]

Another colossal fail for the AGE cult:

Vermont just replaced its only only nuclear reactor which had accounted for 71.8 of the state 8217 s electricity production with fossil fuels obtained from fracking Dan from Squirrel Hill s Blog

For the past 42 years, Vermont’s only nuclear power plant was responsible for 71.8% of the state’s electricity production. This huge amount of electricity was generated by a single nuclear reactor.

Vermont has just shut down this reactor.

The replacement energy source for this shut down reactor is shale gas, a fossil fuel whose combustion causes global warming, and which is obtained from fracking.

And all this time, I had thought that liberals in Vermont were against fossil fuels, fracking, and global warming.

Meanwhile, France, which gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear power, has the cleanest air in the industrialized world, and the cheapest electricity in Europe.

There are new nuclear power plants currently under construction in the U.S., but all of them are in Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee, which are not exactly thought of as bastions of liberalism and environmentalism.​

Really? I thought global warming was a myth according to you and your buddies? You can't have it both ways, bubba.

What about the OP indicates AGW is not a myth? If anything, it indicates precisely the opposite. I lefty state like Vermont is build a huge new source of greenhouse gases. Obviously the lefty politicians and the voters there don't believe all the hype about AGW.

 

[bripat9643]

Very stupid move. Nuclear is probably the cleanest and greenest source of energy that put source the most.

--- yeah until you get to the waste left behind.

Oopsie.

"that put source the most". I gotta remember that one.
Nice link by the way. Break a sweat on that didja?

There is a place to store spent fuel that was designed and built costing you and me billions. But that was one of the first things Obama did, shut down Yucca Mountain. Why? After billions of dollars is he putting your and my children at risk with on site storage? WTF is wrong with him? Oh right he was kissing Reid's ass to pass Obamacare.

The mountain has issues, not to mention the people there who don't want the waste you created. Imagine that.

Sigh, always counter with opinion.

Here is what the NEI said: Nuclear Energy Institute - Yucca Mountain Myths And Facts Opponents Distort Or Ignore Research

Here is what the Institute for Energy Research has to say:

First, Yucca Mountain has undergone a 30-year-long process of scientific examination and has been accepted by law (see Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended in 1987) as the only permanent nuclear waste repository in the United States. Since people are reluctant to live near a nuclear waste dump, the territory on which the depository was supposed to be constructed is highly unlikely to be ever re-used for agricultural needs or settlements. Furthermore, U.S. taxpayers have already spent $15 billion in studying and development in the project so far, making its abandonment in favor of a yet-undiscovered alternate location a hugely uneconomic decision.

Moreover, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 required utilities that generate electricity using nuclear power to pay a fee of one tenth of one cent ($0.001) per kilowatt-hour into the Nuclear Waste Fund, which would be used to help pay for Yucca Mountain. At some point, the Federal government needs to move forward and provide a return on that investment. [4]

Lastly, the inability of federal policymakers to neither agree on the Yucca Mountain site nor come up with alternatives exposes American taxpayers to millions of dollars gone down the drain while nuclear energy’s future remains stuck among the papers on the desks of the Department of Energy officials.

And here are pros and cons

Yucca Mountain: Pro & Con

Institute for Energy Research - SourceWatch

Erm,

The Institute for Energy Research (IER), founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organization registered by Charles G. Koch and Robert L. Bradley Jr., advocates positions on environmental issues including deregulation of utilities, climate change denial, and claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless.

So?

 

[IDNeon]

Very stupid move. Nuclear is probably the cleanest and greenest source of energy that put source the most.

Until it blows up and takes out 1/4th of all your agricultural production like chernobyl.

I'm mixed on nuclear power. Yes it's highly effective but only the French have designed safe reactors.

And the psychotic US govt will never allow them to be built in the US because they cannot be used to produce weapons grade plutonium.

 

[orogenicman]

Another colossal fail for the AGE cult:

Vermont just replaced its only only nuclear reactor which had accounted for 71.8 of the state 8217 s electricity production with fossil fuels obtained from fracking Dan from Squirrel Hill s Blog

For the past 42 years, Vermont’s only nuclear power plant was responsible for 71.8% of the state’s electricity production. This huge amount of electricity was generated by a single nuclear reactor.

Vermont has just shut down this reactor.

The replacement energy source for this shut down reactor is shale gas, a fossil fuel whose combustion causes global warming, and which is obtained from fracking.

And all this time, I had thought that liberals in Vermont were against fossil fuels, fracking, and global warming.

Meanwhile, France, which gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear power, has the cleanest air in the industrialized world, and the cheapest electricity in Europe.

There are new nuclear power plants currently under construction in the U.S., but all of them are in Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee, which are not exactly thought of as bastions of liberalism and environmentalism.​

Really? I thought global warming was a myth according to you and your buddies? You can't have it both ways, bubba.

What about the OP indicates AGW is not a myth? If anything, it indicates precisely the opposite. I lefty state like Vermont is build a huge new source of greenhouse gases. Obviously the lefty politicians and the voters there don't believe all the hype about AGW.

My question had to do with global warmng deniers, in complaining that a nuclear power plant is being shut down (it is, after all, way past its retirement age), are using, erm, global warming as an argument for keeping it open. Proving yet again that being a denier of global warming, like baing saved by Jesus, requires one to lose all sense of irony.

 

[Freewill]

Very stupid move. Nuclear is probably the cleanest and greenest source of energy that put source the most.

Until it blows up and takes out 1/4th of all your agricultural production like chernobyl.

I'm mixed on nuclear power. Yes it's highly effective but only the French have designed safe reactors.

And the psychotic US govt will never allow them to be built in the US because they cannot be used to produce weapons grade plutonium.

Why do you say that the French have safe reactors implying that the US does not? Not one person has died in an accident related to commercial nuclear power accident. Our worse accidents were due to human error, or stupidty, greed or whatever not plant design. People like you who don't really know what they are talking about that make declarative statements really should crack a book. OR prove what you are saying. Show us where the US is using the spent fuel from COMMERCIAL nuclear reactors to make weapons grade plutonium. Should be simple.

As for the French:

Nuclear power in France - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nuclear safety[edit]
Monique Sené is a nuclear physicist and one of the co-founders of the Groupement des scientifiques pour l'information sur l'énergie nucléaire (GSIEN) (Association of Scientists for Information on Nuclear Energy) and its first president.[19] As of March 2011 she was Honorary Research Director at the National Centre for Scientific Research and president of GSIEN.[61] Although she is not an opponent of nuclear power per se, Sené is a high-profile critic of the French nuclear power programme due to concerns about its safety, the handling of nuclear waste and its imposition without public debate.[62]

In 2012, France's Nuclear Safety Authority (the ASN) released a report announcing a sweeping safety upgrade to all the country's reactors. The ASN's report states plainly that a loss of coolant or electricity could, in the worst cases, see meltdowns at nuclear reactors in hours. It also lists many shortcomings found during 'stress tests', in which some safety aspects of plants were found not to meet existing standards.[63] It will now require all power plants to build a set of safety systems of last resort, contained in bunkers that will be hardened to withstand more extreme earthquakes, floods and other threats than plants themselves are designed to cope with. It will also adopt a proposal by EDF to create an elite force that is specifically trained to tackle nuclear accidents and could be deployed to any site within hours. Both moves are a response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster.[64]

 

[Freewill]

Very stupid move. Nuclear is probably the cleanest and greenest source of energy that put source the most.

--- yeah until you get to the waste left behind.

Oopsie.

"that put source the most". I gotta remember that one.
Nice link by the way. Break a sweat on that didja?

There is a place to store spent fuel that was designed and built costing you and me billions. But that was one of the first things Obama did, shut down Yucca Mountain. Why? After billions of dollars is he putting your and my children at risk with on site storage? WTF is wrong with him? Oh right he was kissing Reid's ass to pass Obamacare.

The mountain has issues, not to mention the people there who don't want the waste you created. Imagine that.

Sigh, always counter with opinion.

Here is what the NEI said: Nuclear Energy Institute - Yucca Mountain Myths And Facts Opponents Distort Or Ignore Research

Here is what the Institute for Energy Research has to say:

First, Yucca Mountain has undergone a 30-year-long process of scientific examination and has been accepted by law (see Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended in 1987) as the only permanent nuclear waste repository in the United States. Since people are reluctant to live near a nuclear waste dump, the territory on which the depository was supposed to be constructed is highly unlikely to be ever re-used for agricultural needs or settlements. Furthermore, U.S. taxpayers have already spent $15 billion in studying and development in the project so far, making its abandonment in favor of a yet-undiscovered alternate location a hugely uneconomic decision.

Moreover, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 required utilities that generate electricity using nuclear power to pay a fee of one tenth of one cent ($0.001) per kilowatt-hour into the Nuclear Waste Fund, which would be used to help pay for Yucca Mountain. At some point, the Federal government needs to move forward and provide a return on that investment. [4]

Lastly, the inability of federal policymakers to neither agree on the Yucca Mountain site nor come up with alternatives exposes American taxpayers to millions of dollars gone down the drain while nuclear energy’s future remains stuck among the papers on the desks of the Department of Energy officials.

And here are pros and cons

Yucca Mountain: Pro & Con

Institute for Energy Research - SourceWatch

Erm,

The Institute for Energy Research (IER), founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organization registered by Charles G. Koch and Robert L. Bradley Jr., advocates positions on environmental issues including deregulation of utilities, climate change denial, and claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless.

So what? What is the Koch brothers reason for wishing to destroy the planet through GW? You really think they would destroy the planet just to make more money, really? Or is it just that they are an easy target and believe differently then you?

The gist of the OP is that Vermont Yankee is being shut and a fossil burning plant built in its place which would seem to me to get those GW fearist all riled up.

 

[orogenicman]

--- yeah until you get to the waste left behind.

Oopsie.

"that put source the most". I gotta remember that one.
Nice link by the way. Break a sweat on that didja?

There is a place to store spent fuel that was designed and built costing you and me billions. But that was one of the first things Obama did, shut down Yucca Mountain. Why? After billions of dollars is he putting your and my children at risk with on site storage? WTF is wrong with him? Oh right he was kissing Reid's ass to pass Obamacare.

The mountain has issues, not to mention the people there who don't want the waste you created. Imagine that.

Sigh, always counter with opinion.

Here is what the NEI said: Nuclear Energy Institute - Yucca Mountain Myths And Facts Opponents Distort Or Ignore Research

Here is what the Institute for Energy Research has to say:

First, Yucca Mountain has undergone a 30-year-long process of scientific examination and has been accepted by law (see Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended in 1987) as the only permanent nuclear waste repository in the United States. Since people are reluctant to live near a nuclear waste dump, the territory on which the depository was supposed to be constructed is highly unlikely to be ever re-used for agricultural needs or settlements. Furthermore, U.S. taxpayers have already spent $15 billion in studying and development in the project so far, making its abandonment in favor of a yet-undiscovered alternate location a hugely uneconomic decision.

Moreover, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 required utilities that generate electricity using nuclear power to pay a fee of one tenth of one cent ($0.001) per kilowatt-hour into the Nuclear Waste Fund, which would be used to help pay for Yucca Mountain. At some point, the Federal government needs to move forward and provide a return on that investment. [4]

Lastly, the inability of federal policymakers to neither agree on the Yucca Mountain site nor come up with alternatives exposes American taxpayers to millions of dollars gone down the drain while nuclear energy’s future remains stuck among the papers on the desks of the Department of Energy officials.

And here are pros and cons

Yucca Mountain: Pro & Con

Institute for Energy Research - SourceWatch

Erm,

The Institute for Energy Research (IER), founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organization registered by Charles G. Koch and Robert L. Bradley Jr., advocates positions on environmental issues including deregulation of utilities, climate change denial, and claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless.

So what? What is the Koch brothers reason for wishing to destroy the planet through GW? You really think they would destroy the planet just to make more money, really? Or is it just that they are an easy target and believe differently then you?

The gist of the OP is that Vermont Yankee is being shut and a fossil burning plant built in its place which would seem to me to get those GW fearist all riled up.

They could give a shit about the environment. They have demonstrated this fact time and time again. Check out the number of EPA violations levied against their companies. It's called greed. Yes, really. And they aren't alone. I've encountered hundreds of people in the petroleum and chemical industries who are just as callous as they are.

The Vermont plant is being shut down because it is years past its retirement age (it is 43 years old), and no longer economical or safe to keep it running.

 

[HenryBHough]

It's patriotic to pay more for electricity!

Don't believe me?

OK, then ask Your Kenyan Emperor to repeat His mantra on the subject.

 

[Pogo]

Very stupid move. Nuclear is probably the cleanest and greenest source of energy that put source the most.

Until it blows up and takes out 1/4th of all your agricultural production like chernobyl.

I'm mixed on nuclear power. Yes it's highly effective but only the French have designed safe reactors.

And the psychotic US govt will never allow them to be built in the US because they cannot be used to produce weapons grade plutonium.

Why do you say that the French have safe reactors implying that the US does not? Not one person has died in an accident related to commercial nuclear power accident.

Not "one", true.... thousands.

Wood River, Rhode Island 1964 (1)
Chernobyl, Ukraine 1986 (50 killed directly, up to 4000 indirectly from exposure)
Mihama, Japan 2004 (5)

None of which, except for the WHO Chernobyl estimate, along with the long litany of lesser "events" that happen almost daily, counts those including innocent civilians exposed to radiation downwind/downstream --- including TMI and recently Fukushima.

I still see seafood in the store that was canned in Poland. I still won't buy it. Way too close to Ukraine. But somebody is selling it.

Then of course there are the oxymoronically-called "near misses":

We won't count Idaho Falls (1961) as you did qualify "commercial". But it's the same technology; the fact that some entity does or doesn't make money on it doesn't affect that.


"Hey, you got a storage space? I tell ya what, I've got this waste product here, would you mind storing it? It's only gonna be lethal for a period of time longer than humans have existed on earth. What could possibly go wrong?"

 

[HenryBHough]

Pogo:

"Pollock" is a kind of fish.

It doesn't mean "made in Poland".

 

[Pogo]

Pogo:

"Pollock" is a kind of fish.

It doesn't mean "made in Poland".

Henry:

Fish isn't "made". It's "fished".