rowcount: 0 Welcome to THE COMMONS -- News and Views for Windham County, Vermont
Not-for-Profit, Award-Winning Community News and Views for Windham County, Vermont • Since 2006
Voices / Letters from readers

Why is the Legislature an anti-nuclear bully pulpit?

And what was Robert Alvarez trying to say?

The writer, a former project manager in the Nuclear Group at the Electric Power Research Institute, currently directs the Energy Education Project of the Ethan Allen Institute.

On April 18, Robert Alvarez spoke to the Vermont House Natural Resources and Energy Committee about spent fuel storage at Vermont Yankee. I attended a large portion of that meeting, and I also collected his handout. The legislature is considering a tax on spent fuel.

At the meeting, Alvarez spoke at length about the dangers of spent fuel. He advised that, for safety, much of the spent fuel should be taken out of the fuel pool and placed in dry casks. He also spoke about taxing the fuel and about decommissioning.

In other words, he gave the standard anti-nuclear talk.

Upon questioning, Alvarez admitted that the organization he works for, the Institute for Policy Studies, is opposed to nuclear energy, and he further admitted that he has no technical degree, though he has been a politically appointed “senior policy advisor” in the Department of Energy.

My first reaction was to wonder why the Vermont Legislature had invited Alvarez to testify.

My second reaction was to try to figure out what he was trying to say.

Why did he talk about safety? Has safety got something to do with taxation? The Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulates safety at nuclear plants. Hopefully, Vermont does not plan to spend more money trying to regulate nuclear safety and then losing court cases.

If the legislature was trying to figure out how to tax Vermont Yankee, it seems like legislators would need a tax expert, not someone to tell them scary things about radiation in the spent fuel pool.

Anti-nuclear activists claim the spent fuel pools burned at Fukushima, but they didn’t. Why was our committee listening to these scare stories, with no engineer to testify in rebuttal?

The new NRC commissioner, Allison MacFarlane, visited Fukushima in December and walked all around the unit 4 plant. She could not have done so if there had been fires and criticalities in the fuel pool.

And what does any of this have to do with taxation?

I would like our legislature to be more than a bully pulpit that gives anti-nuclear activists an opportunity to get press coverage.

Meredith Angwin
Wilder

Like what we do? Help us keep doing it!

We rely on the donations and financial support of our readers to help make The Commons available to all. Please join us today.

What do you think? Leave us a comment

Editor’s note: Our terms of service require you to use your real names. We will remove anonymous or pseudonymous comments that come to our attention. We rely on our readers’ personal integrity to stand behind what they say; please do not write anything to someone that you wouldn’t say to his or her face without your needing to wear a ski mask while saying it. Thanks for doing your part to make your responses forceful, thoughtful, provocative, and civil. We also consider your comments for the letters column in the print newspaper.

Comments

We are currently reconfiguring our comments software. Please check back if you’d like to read or leave comments on this story. —The editors

Originally published in The Commons issue #200 (Wednesday, April 24, 2013).

Share this story

Links

Related stories

More by Meredith Angwin