President Obama has made a push to promote the construction of nuclear power facilities as part of his long-range energy plan. This has met with opposition from environmental groups and others with concerns about safety and the environment. To further confuse the issue, a number of nuclear power plants are reaching the end of their 40-year licenses, and the debate is ramping up concerning whether licenses should be extended.
Nowhere is this more hotly contested that in my own state of Vermont, where Vermont Yankee’s license expires in 2012. There has been a very active antinuclear campaign for a number of years that has tried to shut down the plant. The movement has gained substantial momentum lately as Vermont Yankee has had several “age related” problems, from a cooling-tower failure to tritium leaks in underground piping, which is contaminating groundwater on the site. These and other issues bring into question whether the plant can safely and reliably be operated after its license expires.
Adding to the mix, the Vermont legislature is in a unique position, having authority to approve the re-licensing. Why they have this authority will take too long to explain here, but suffice it to say that there is a lot of political grandstanding on the issue. What’s at stake for Vermont is the closure of an electrical generating facility that provides 30% of our baseline power at a very affordable rate. Vermont enjoys some of the cheapest electric rates in the northeast due to favorable pricing for power from Vermont Yankee and Hydro Quebec. With these two sources comprising the substantial majority of our baseline power, Vermont also has one of the most “green” energy portfolios of any state in the U.S.
The decision whether Vermont Yankee should be closed in 2012 should be based on whether the plant can operate safely and reliably for another 20 years. This is an engineering assessment, not a political one. That said, watching our state legislators discuss the issue is on the one hand entertaining, but on the other hand rather disconcerting as the real issues and arguments take a backstage to misinformation and misrepresentation. This is a good time for engineers to start speaking up and taking a more active role politically as debates such as this take place throughout the U.S. I’ve been involved in the debate in Vermont, trying to bring the discussion back to the facts and a reasonable risk analysis of alternatives. Wish me luck!
