In response to the op-ed on VTDigger Eaton: Legal tactics are de facto push for shutdown of Vermont Yankee, Bob Stannard commented:
This piece is so misleading it’s difficult to know where to begin.
Eaton refers to the Senate vote as “hasty and ill conceived”. He fails to mention that Gov. Douglas, Entergy and its supporters had been clamouring for a vote for many months prior to session beginning. Once the plant leaked tritium from pipes that we were told, under oath, didn’t exist then the Senate decided to agree with the administration and hold the vote.
He says that Entergy has offered a rate of 5-cent. He doesn’t say that it was for only 10mgw (out of the 650mgw the plant produces) and it was for only one year. After that the rate went to market price.
He states that we would be depriving other states of low-cost power, yet fails to mention that the subsidy to Vermont has been more than made up by charging the other states much higher prices. I seem to recall that they’ve been charging Mass. 12 or 15-cents.
He says that renewables call for heavy subsidies, but fails to mention that nuclear power is THE most heavily subsidized power source. Were it not for taxpayer’s support there would be no nuclear power industry today; and it’s been around for 60 years. An industry that cannot stand on its own after 60 years is one that should cease. In this context he failed to mention the inconvenient truth of the costs of long-term storage of the waste…
We know why Entergy wants to keep the plant going. It stands to make billions of dollars. What Vermont will be left with will be a high-level nuclear waste dump and a site that will, in all likelyhood, be cleaned up at taxpayer’s expense.