It's Time To Nuke Nuclear Power In Vermont

The Vermont legislature is debating whether to relicense the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant in Vernon, for another 20 years. The plant license expires in 2012 and the Vermont House has considered askingEntergy, the plant's owner to make payments to the state of over $500 million in 2011, through 2020. Legislators are concerned that Vermonters won't get stuck with a bill of up to a billion dollars to clean up the plant once it is mothballed.

Image: glennfay36, flickr

Under current regulations, the plant could be decommissioned over a 60 year timeframe. Many Vermonters are worried that as costs escalate, with the possibility of economic crisis such as the one we have now, that when the time comes, there may be no one around to pay that bill.

Entergy wants to extend the license for another 20 years, but some legislators say they won't agree to that unless they pay decommissioning costs up front. Entergy responded by saying that if the Vermont Legislature passes a bill to require decommissioning costs up front, it would prompt legal action. Entergy maintains that nuclear power is relatively clean and inexpensive power compared to fossil fuels. In fact, Governor Jim Douglas indicated he might veto the bill, calling it "a serious mistake." IBM in Essex Junction, Vermont is also against the House bill to limit the license extension and hold Entergy responsible for contributing up front to decommissioning costs.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Cooling Tower Leak

Image: glennfay36, flickr

We believe that the enormous decommissioning costs, not to mention the enormous costs and risks of transporting and storing nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years needs to be included in the estimated costs of nuclear energy. After all, who will be around to pay for the future unintended consequences of the power we are generating today? Many Vermonters are not convinced that Entergy will necessarily be there to pick up the tab. And as yet, even nuclear plant operators concede that there are "no solutions" for long-term radioactive waste storage.

How would extending the license of the old power plant be different than borrowing from our grandchildren and thousands of generations down the road? How do Governor Douglas, Entergy and IBM expect that the projected billion dollar costs will be paid? Is this responsible fiscal and environmental management? We believe the escalating decommissioning costs could be better spent funding clean energy now. What do you believe?

4 Comments

biofriendlyblog

January 5, 2010 10:06pm

I was reading this and it didn't make sense that there wasn't anything laid out ahead of time for the eventual decommissioning of the plant, then I read this on one of your links: "Before a nuclear power plant begins operations, the licensee must establish or obtain a financial mechanism – such as a trust fund or a guarantee from its parent company – to ensure that there will be sufficient money to pay for the ultimate decommissioning of the facility. Licensees must update the NRC on the status of these mechanisms every two years (annually within five years of the planned end of plant operations). This requirement provides the public reasonable assurance that funds will be available when needed to clean up a plant site and avoid costly legacy sites that must be cleaned up at taxpayer expense." Wasn't this done with this plant?

mamilee24

Interesting post. Thanks.

glenn

Unfortunately there was no trust fund established, and odd as it might seem, this is uncommon or unheard of. The anti-nuke people say that some politicians are too cozy with big business (the plant owners) and therefore not protecting the public and future generations. Some nuclear engineers say it will be impossible to ever decommission an single nuclear power plant- it is simply too expensive! Meanwhile, we can still remember the financial collapse of large companies a year ago, while executives walked away with huge bonuses. The government bailouts for potentially bankrupt nuclear plants will be astronomical.

Wow, that's outrageous. It's not surprising, but outrageous. Based on what I've seen it is a huge expense to decommission a nuclear power plant - in time, money and impact. Thanks for the additional information Glenn!