Clearing the air
RE: A fair comparison to Vermont Yankee, Nov. 29:
I did not say I have fulfilled my responsibility. I said “I am living up to my agreement ...” Big difference.
If you think for one minute that nuclear generated power is not subsidized then we live in two different worlds.
As for the 80 million tons you say have been saved by Vermont Yankee I can only point out that all the savings have not come from Entergy. In the years this company has been in charge of the plant it has gone downhill dramatically. That is the point.
They use the water from the Connecticut River, designed to be used only as back-up cooling, in order to save a million dollars a day which is the cost of using the cooling towers. The environmental damage of the heated water entering the river outweighs the CO2 savings. Doubly so since the CO2 savings were there anyway but the river discharge was not.
My clean air club does not have radioactive waste lying around on my property. A pretty significant difference.
My power does not come with a daily “release of radioactivity into the air that is allowed and ‘considered’ safe.”
It is also fair to point out that those market rates were not low enough to generate power contracts with Vermont utilities.
It is also fair to point out that the continued running of Vermont Yankee by Entergy is a disaster of such proportions, should it occur, that Irene and Sandy would pale in comparison.
If I am wrong that is not an issue. If you and fellow supporters are wrong how will you explain it to the coming generations?
Anyone who understands complex systems knows and agrees that those systems can not be successfully managed by intervention.
Alfred S. Blakey
BarreMORE IN Letters
- Most Popular
- Most Emailed
- MEDIA GALLERY