• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The People of Vermont vs. Nuclear Power

DaveFagan said:
Vermonters Exercise Their Nuclear Option -- In These Times

How is it possible that the Nuke power companies and Nuclear Regulator agencies could cause citizens to be stuck with a metaphorical radioactive time bomb. Is this more sock puppets and Corporatism? Is this struggle an example of the citizens loss of power in this Nation. Perhaps we are a Corporatocracy?
Click to expand...

My hat is off to Vermont! Putting public health before corporate profit is rare in today's world.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
My hat is off to Vermont! Putting public health before corporate profit is rare in today's world.
Click to expand...

Finally, a response to the topic. The people of Vermont are suffering from tyranny because of the attempts to override the voice of the people by Corporatism (fascism), and that is the enemy. The people have made their choice. They do not want the Corporation in Vermont. This is a case of big business trying to railroad the people. It is not about a popularity contest. It is a state that has stated that the Nuclear long term liability is too high. Get out! They are having a little problem with the Get Out! Nukes have been voted out.
 
DaveFagan said:
Finally, a response to the topic. The people of Vermont are suffering from tyranny because of the attempts to override the voice of the people by Corporatism (fascism), and that is the enemy. The people have made their choice. They do not want the Corporation in Vermont. This is a case of big business trying to railroad the people. It is not about a popularity contest. It is a state that has stated that the Nuclear long term liability is too high. Get out! They are having a little problem with the Get Out! Nukes have been voted out.
Click to expand...



again, are you willing to show your resolve and push for Vermont to not buy any electricity that comes from a nuclear source?


yes or no.




Vermont Yankee is a General Electric boiling water reactor (BWR) type nuclear power plant currently owned by Entergy. It is located in the town of Vernon, Vermont, and generates 620 megawatts (MWe) of electricity. The plant began commercial operations in 1972. It provided 71.8% of all electricity generated in Vermont in 2008[1] and meets 35% of the overall electricity requirements of the state.[2]

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


So when you get a new source for 71% of your electricity, will you only support a law where it comes from non nuclear sources?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
again, are you willing to show your resolve and push for Vermont to not buy any electricity that comes from a nuclear source?


yes or no.







So when you get a new source for 71% of your electricity, will you only support a law where it comes from non nuclear sources?
Click to expand...
QUOTE"This new rhetoric to tone down the rhetoric is simply empty rhetoric."End QUOTE

I agree, your post seems to be empty rhetoric.
 
DaveFagan said:
QUOTE"This new rhetoric to tone down the rhetoric is simply empty rhetoric."End QUOTE

I agree, your post seems to be empty rhetoric.
Click to expand...




Why do you refuse to answer?


VT is dependent on nuclear energy for 71% of it's power. You cut that, where are you going to get it from? if you don't support a law demanding no VT power comes from nuclear sources, you are doing nothing but showing raging hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
Why do you refuse to answer?


VT is dependent on nuclear energy for 71% of it's power. You cut that, where are you going to get it from? if you don't support a law demanding no VT power comes from nuclear sources, you are doing nothing but showing raging hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
Quote"
Vermont Yankee is a General Electric boiling water reactor (BWR) type nuclear power plant currently owned by Entergy. It is located in the town of Vernon, Vermont, and generates 620 megawatts (MWe) of electricity. The plant began commercial operations in 1972. It provided 71.8% of all electricity generated in Vermont in 2008[1] and meets 35% of the overall electricity requirements of the state.[2]End Quote

You should read your own quotes. "meets 35% of the overall requirements of the state." So Vermont needs to replace 180 Megawatts (620 megawatts times 35%). I guess they'll have to install 90 windmills at 2 megawatts each. Or conserve 180 megawatts annually. Or subsidize in-home generators to the tune of 180 megawatts annually. Or build a few woood fired steam generators in each town to the tune of 180 megawatts. I getting to like the lyrics. Can you play the tune.
 
As somebody who lives in VT for most of the year I find it ridiculous that we are even having this discussion. Nuclear energy standards in VT are some of the highest in the country. Nuclear energy not only provides jobs in the state but also gives us a reliable source of power. The enviro-nut nonsense needs to stop in this state. We have what most states could only dream of. High energy standards, relatively cheap energy and some of the greenest countryside anywhere.
 
DaveFagan said:
Finally, a response to the topic. The people of Vermont are suffering from tyranny because of the attempts to override the voice of the people by Corporatism (fascism), and that is the enemy. The people have made their choice. They do not want the Corporation in Vermont. This is a case of big business trying to railroad the people. It is not about a popularity contest. It is a state that has stated that the Nuclear long term liability is too high. Get out! They are having a little problem with the Get Out! Nukes have been voted out.
Click to expand...

Given what is known about the "radioactive tritium leaks, misstatements in testimony by plant officials, a cooling tower collapse in 2007, and other problems." I've read about, it is little wonder the people of Vermont want this facility shut down. Safe nuclear power is one thing and this outdated and unsafe facility is quite another.

And, it only provides 600 jobs. I'm sure many more jobs will be created in developing and running the 35% replacement sources of energy needed while placing a much lower level of risk to public health.
 
Last edited:
DaveFagan said:
Quote"
Vermont Yankee is a General Electric boiling water reactor (BWR) type nuclear power plant currently owned by Entergy. It is located in the town of Vernon, Vermont, and generates 620 megawatts (MWe) of electricity. The plant began commercial operations in 1972. It provided 71.8% of all electricity generated in Vermont in 2008[1] and meets 35% of the overall electricity requirements of the state.[2]End Quote

You should read your own quotes. "meets 35% of the overall requirements of the state." So Vermont needs to replace 180 Megawatts (620 megawatts times 35%). I guess they'll have to install 90 windmills at 2 megawatts each. Or conserve 180 megawatts annually. Or subsidize in-home generators to the tune of 180 megawatts annually. Or build a few woood fired steam generators in each town to the tune of 180 megawatts. I getting to like the lyrics. Can you play the tune.
Click to expand...

90 windmills? I doubt it. Think MWhrs, or megawatt hours. The wind don't blow ALL the time...how will we store the juice for when the wind don't blow?
 
UtahBill said:
90 windmills? I doubt it. Think MWhrs, or megawatt hours. The wind don't blow ALL the time...how will we store the juice for when the wind don't blow?
Click to expand...

The Chinese have just developed super efficient wind turbines that only need 3 - 4 MPH winds to generate electricity. They have plans to mount them next to interstates and there would be enough wind from the traffic to operate them.

Vermont only needs to replace 35% of their energy needs, this can be done with combinations of conservation/solar/wind and their remaining 65% of sources.
 
Catawba said:
Given what is known about the "radioactive tritium leaks, misstatements in testimony by plant officials, a cooling tower collapse in 2007, and other problems." I've read about, it is little wonder the people of Vermont want this facility shut down. Safe nuclear power is one thing and this outdated and unsafe facility is quite another.

And, it only provides 600 jobs. I'm sure many more jobs will be created in developing and running the 35% replacement sources of energy needed while placing a much lower level of risk to public health.
Click to expand...

all good excuses to deny license renewal to BWR reactors, but PWR? New designs?
What are the other sources of power for Vermont? Does the state buy any nuclear power from Canada? Will that be shut off? Will coal be king in VT?
The world wonders....
 
Catawba said:
The Chinese have just developed super efficient wind turbines that only need 3 - 4 MPH winds to generate electricity. They have plans to mount them next to interstates and there would be enough wind from the traffic to operate them.

Vermont only needs to replace 35% of their energy needs, this can be done with combinations of conservation/solar/wind and their remaining 65% of sources.
Click to expand...

Wind from traffic? that is a new one to me....
but the conservation and efficiency gains are IMO the direction to go now, the technology exists already, and it is low tech...just needs to be applied..
 
UtahBill said:
all good excuses to deny license renewal to BWR reactors, but PWR? New designs?
Click to expand...

If the new designs allow tritium radiation leaks and the other problems listed in the study, then the design hardly matters.

What are the other sources of power for Vermont?
Click to expand...

It is broken down here:

Electric : Vermont Department of Public Service

Does the state buy any nuclear power from Canada? Will that be shut off? Will coal be king in VT?
Click to expand...

Why would it be. They are not saying they are opposed to nuclear power in wanting this facility shut down, they are saying the risks to human health from this particular facility is not worth the benefit.
 
Gladiator said:
What additonal forms of clean energy are promising, for which additional research might prove fruitful?




//
Click to expand...

Wind and solar. There's only so much that can be done with wind, but if you increase the efficiency of energy conversion you may yield better results. Semi-conducter technology for solar cells is continually evolving as well and research into the base dynamics is starting to yield higher quantum efficiencies. Essentially, if you could ever hit the theoretical limit for energy production out of solar cells, a farm the size of Oklahoma's pan handle would provide enough electricity to cover all the US demand. Of course, you wouldn't really put it all in one place like that; but it's a scale thing. There are other forms of energy which can still be investigated, some that haven't been thought up just yet. But we always come up with new ideas, it's what humans do.
 
a farm the size of Oklahoma's pan handle would provide enough electricity to cover all the US demand. Of course said:
This is the incorrect thought. This is what Centralized Distribution wants. Think Centralized Collection of Monies. De-Centralize to in-home, on site generation of utilities. It is not a backwards concept. It is what the MegaCorporations fear. It is not hard to make power. You have to realize that of all the Energy we use on this planet that 87% is waste heat. Inefficiency.
Click to expand...
 
:lol: @ a couple of windmills equalling a nuke plant.


So davey, willing to support a law stating no
Purchase of any nuclear sourced power for vt? Yes or no.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
:lol: @ a couple of windmills equalling a nuke plant.


So davey, willing to support a law stating no
Purchase of any nuclear sourced power for vt? Yes or no.
Click to expand...

Your words "a couple of windmills equalling a nuke plant." Only a complete fool would say such a thing. I think the larger windmills are 4-6 megawatt, but I'm not a proponent of Centralized Distribution of Electricity. Inefficient. No storage. It is a continuation of Centralized Collection of Monies and that is why it is subsidized. Subsidize it at in-home not at the Corporate level. Davey does not live in Vermont but believes in democracy and if Vermonters do not want nukes, it is their decision. If such a referendum were proposed in my area, I would vote to not purchase any nuclear power. For that matter, no distributed energies. That probably sounds farfetched to you, but I understand energy. That makes one of us.
 
Actually davey one of us sounds naive and ignorant. But dont let someone disagreeing with you stop you from launchig personal attacks. :lamo
 
DaveFagan said:
Your words "a couple of windmills equalling a nuke plant." Only a complete fool would say such a thing. I think the larger windmills are 4-6 megawatt, but I'm not a proponent of Centralized Distribution of Electricity. Inefficient. No storage. It is a continuation of Centralized Collection of Monies and that is why it is subsidized. Subsidize it at in-home not at the Corporate level. Davey does not live in Vermont but believes in democracy and if Vermonters do not want nukes, it is their decision. If such a referendum were proposed in my area, I would vote to not purchase any nuclear power. For that matter, no distributed energies. That probably sounds farfetched to you, but I understand energy. That makes one of us.
Click to expand...

You seem to have an obsession about centralizint anything/everything....
What education and/or life experience makes you an expert on energy, or decentralization?
 
UtahBill said:
You seem to have an obsession about centralizint anything/everything....
What education and/or life experience makes you an expert on energy, or decentralization?
Click to expand...


Decentralization of Energy Distribution Equals Energy Efficiency
10OCT2007

What does that mean? The energy used should be produced/generated/collected at the end users location/home/business. Solar energy collected is used to charge batteries for local storage or used directly as heat/hot water/greenhouse. An internal combustion engine drives a dynamo to generate electricity to be used or stored and the waste exhaust heat that contains the original 75% of the energy is captured for central heating or heating of potable water. A windmill is used to generate electricity for battery storage or pump water for storage or use. A night soil generator produces methane for cooking or heating. The wood cook stove or heating unit chimney pipe is tapped to collect wasted heat in water or a change of state material for heat storage capacity. The exhaust system of your car heats a change of state material with wasted hot gases to be tapped when the owner returns home in a reverse change of state heating process and stored or used in the owner’s facility/home/work area.
These processes all have one thing in common. The decentralization of energy distribution. Power/energy is not shipped to the end user with continual and multiplying losses. For example, the waste heat from a small electric generator becomes the central heating plant for the same home. Seventy five percent (75%) of the gasoline used in internal combustion engines is currently wasted as heat to the atmosphere (global warming). If we can store that heat, bring it home with the car and move the heat into storage in the home, then we could bring the efficiency up considerably. If the home is well insulated and has ventilation control, the final loss to the atmosphere will be minimized. Using solar power, wind power, methane from waste, biomass, and other renewables has always been for local distribution and usage.
Our current usage patterns for Petroleum and Natural Gas are abominable. We only use about 12-15% of the energy in the fuels and the remainder is lost to the atmosphere as waste heat. Is there any advantage to this decentralization? If we could collectively increase our efficiency and perhaps achieve 50% actual efficiency, we would only use one-third (1/3rd) of the world’s current annual usage of petroleum and natural gas. That would significantly affect the Global Warming scenarios. This efficiency would translate to dollar savings to be spent in the locales saved, benefiting twice from the same efficiency. Many jobs would be created at the local level implementing the energy decentralization efficiencies, thrice benefiting. This is the National/International plan to mitigate Global Warming and promote local economies. Could there be a down side to the decentralization of energy distribution?
The status quo of centralized energy distribution, such as existing nuclear, coal, petroleum and natural gas utilities, and the refiners/processors delivering current fuels to these status quo utilities would suffer reduced demand. The hue and cry from an entrenched bureaucracy that can afford big media coverage would be deafening. A group that promotes war for energy would certainly not give up easily. Power to the people would be the equivalent of revolutionary behavior to this well bankrolled elite. Think central bankers and large corporatists when you think elite. That would be the people who buy many of your politicians. What are you going to do?
 
DaveFagan said:
Decentralization of Energy Distribution Equals Energy Efficiency
10OCT2007

What does that mean? The energy used should be produced/generated/collected at the end users location/home/business. Solar energy collected is used to charge batteries for local storage or used directly as heat/hot water/greenhouse. An internal combustion engine drives a dynamo to generate electricity to be used or stored and the waste exhaust heat that contains the original 75% of the energy is captured for central heating or heating of potable water. A windmill is used to generate electricity for battery storage or pump water for storage or use. A night soil generator produces methane for cooking or heating. The wood cook stove or heating unit chimney pipe is tapped to collect wasted heat in water or a change of state material for heat storage capacity. The exhaust system of your car heats a change of state material with wasted hot gases to be tapped when the owner returns home in a reverse change of state heating process and stored or used in the owner’s facility/home/work area.
These processes all have one thing in common. The decentralization of energy distribution. Power/energy is not shipped to the end user with continual and multiplying losses. For example, the waste heat from a small electric generator becomes the central heating plant for the same home. Seventy five percent (75%) of the gasoline used in internal combustion engines is currently wasted as heat to the atmosphere (global warming). If we can store that heat, bring it home with the car and move the heat into storage in the home, then we could bring the efficiency up considerably. If the home is well insulated and has ventilation control, the final loss to the atmosphere will be minimized. Using solar power, wind power, methane from waste, biomass, and other renewables has always been for local distribution and usage.
Our current usage patterns for Petroleum and Natural Gas are abominable. We only use about 12-15% of the energy in the fuels and the remainder is lost to the atmosphere as waste heat. Is there any advantage to this decentralization? If we could collectively increase our efficiency and perhaps achieve 50% actual efficiency, we would only use one-third (1/3rd) of the world’s current annual usage of petroleum and natural gas. That would significantly affect the Global Warming scenarios. This efficiency would translate to dollar savings to be spent in the locales saved, benefiting twice from the same efficiency. Many jobs would be created at the local level implementing the energy decentralization efficiencies, thrice benefiting. This is the National/International plan to mitigate Global Warming and promote local economies. Could there be a down side to the decentralization of energy distribution?
The status quo of centralized energy distribution, such as existing nuclear, coal, petroleum and natural gas utilities, and the refiners/processors delivering current fuels to these status quo utilities would suffer reduced demand. The hue and cry from an entrenched bureaucracy that can afford big media coverage would be deafening. A group that promotes war for energy would certainly not give up easily. Power to the people would be the equivalent of revolutionary behavior to this well bankrolled elite. Think central bankers and large corporatists when you think elite. That would be the people who buy many of your politicians. What are you going to do?
Click to expand...

What am I going to do? stay on the grid. My lot isn't large enough to put on solar, wind, methane, gasoline generator, etc.
And batteries are poison in a box. Who will recycle the billions of batteries needed?
BUT, I am conserving. My energy bills are a lot smaller than most of my neighbors.
Not going to have a greenhouse either, not as long as I can get food at the grocery store.
We aren't going back to an agrarian society, it just won't work...

The advantage of a large grid is being able to get power even if the local plant has to shut down for repairs, or a storm knocks it offline.
A certain amount of centralized grid is a necessity.
Yes, a lot of energy is wasted during transmission, hard to avoid that.

Got any idea how much energy would be required to build the systems you want? Will there be a payback within an average lifespan? And how many of us have the funds to do such a thing? Banks won't lend money for that kind of thing, not even local banks.
 
DaveFagan said:
Decentralization of Energy Distribution Equals Energy Efficiency
10OCT2007

What does that mean? The energy used should be produced/generated/collected at the end users location/home/business. Solar energy collected is used to charge batteries for local storage or used directly as heat/hot water/greenhouse. An internal combustion engine drives a dynamo to generate electricity to be used or stored and the waste exhaust heat that contains the original 75% of the energy is captured for central heating or heating of potable water. A windmill is used to generate electricity for battery storage or pump water for storage or use. A night soil generator produces methane for cooking or heating. The wood cook stove or heating unit chimney pipe is tapped to collect wasted heat in water or a change of state material for heat storage capacity. The exhaust system of your car heats a change of state material with wasted hot gases to be tapped when the owner returns home in a reverse change of state heating process and stored or used in the owner’s facility/home/work area.
These processes all have one thing in common. The decentralization of energy distribution. Power/energy is not shipped to the end user with continual and multiplying losses. For example, the waste heat from a small electric generator becomes the central heating plant for the same home. Seventy five percent (75%) of the gasoline used in internal combustion engines is currently wasted as heat to the atmosphere (global warming). If we can store that heat, bring it home with the car and move the heat into storage in the home, then we could bring the efficiency up considerably. If the home is well insulated and has ventilation control, the final loss to the atmosphere will be minimized. Using solar power, wind power, methane from waste, biomass, and other renewables has always been for local distribution and usage.
Our current usage patterns for Petroleum and Natural Gas are abominable. We only use about 12-15% of the energy in the fuels and the remainder is lost to the atmosphere as waste heat. Is there any advantage to this decentralization? If we could collectively increase our efficiency and perhaps achieve 50% actual efficiency, we would only use one-third (1/3rd) of the world’s current annual usage of petroleum and natural gas. That would significantly affect the Global Warming scenarios. This efficiency would translate to dollar savings to be spent in the locales saved, benefiting twice from the same efficiency. Many jobs would be created at the local level implementing the energy decentralization efficiencies, thrice benefiting. This is the National/International plan to mitigate Global Warming and promote local economies. Could there be a down side to the decentralization of energy distribution?
The status quo of centralized energy distribution, such as existing nuclear, coal, petroleum and natural gas utilities, and the refiners/processors delivering current fuels to these status quo utilities would suffer reduced demand. The hue and cry from an entrenched bureaucracy that can afford big media coverage would be deafening. A group that promotes war for energy would certainly not give up easily. Power to the people would be the equivalent of revolutionary behavior to this well bankrolled elite. Think central bankers and large corporatists when you think elite. That would be the people who buy many of your politicians. What are you going to do?
Click to expand...

UtahBill said:
What am I going to do? stay on the grid. My lot isn't large enough to put on solar, wind, methane, gasoline generator, etc.
And batteries are poison in a box. Who will recycle the billions of batteries needed?
BUT, I am conserving. My energy bills are a lot smaller than most of my neighbors.
Not going to have a greenhouse either, not as long as I can get food at the grocery store.
We aren't going back to an agrarian society, it just won't work...

The advantage of a large grid is being able to get power even if the local plant has to shut down for repairs, or a storm knocks it offline.
A certain amount of centralized grid is a necessity.
Yes, a lot of energy is wasted during transmission, hard to avoid that.

Got any idea how much energy would be required to build the systems you want? Will there be a payback within an average lifespan? And how many of us have the funds to do such a thing? Banks won't lend money for that kind of thing, not even local banks.
Click to expand...


Personally, I don't think its an "either/or choice". I think we need to do everything we possibly can onsite, and have the grid as a backup but there will be much less load on that grid if we are producing a sizable portion of our power on-site, which is entirely cost effective even with today's techology and knowledge of passive solar design.
 
DaveFagan said:
I know, I know, you can absolutely assure me that this waste is manageable for thousands of generations. Sheesh, talk about pie in the sky. It is hypocrisy, clearly.
Click to expand...

Clearly not. Ditch the waste on the abyssal plains. Environmentally and geologically stable barren deserts, good for a hundred million years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom