BRATTLEBORO — For over a decade now, some Vermont politicians have been calling for the closure of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, with the full understanding that there is nothing that could immediately replace it and its near-zero carbon footprint.
We are told closing Vermont Yankee will require conservation and a switch to other green sources of electricity, such as wind and solar, which cost up to five times as much as nuclear energy. Since it takes time and money to build up these new renewable sources, the state is left with energy conservation to make up for the potential loss of its power until new energy sources are developed.
Vermont Yankee supplies one-third of Vermont's electrical needs. This means the state would need to reduce its electric usage by one-third if it wants to do away with nuclear power before we have its replacements on-line.
In 2003, we used 6 million megawatts of electricity. By 2005, we had reduced that to 5.9 million.In 2009 we reduced it again to 5.5 million megawatts. This is an 8 percent reduction over six years, including the recession of 2008 and 2009.
To meet the goal of continuing to reduce our electric usage by one-third, we would need to reduce our power usage, statewide, by another 25 percent by March, 2012, which is only six months away.
We could increase our purchases of more expensive power from New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts, or Canada, but they all use a mix of conventional and nuclear power, too, so what does that say about Vermont's commitment to removing nuclear power? It sounds a lot like “not in my back yard.”
Additionally, what do you think the price of Hydro-Quebec's electricity is going to do once it has no competition from Vermont Yankee?
It sounds good for the state to say it wants to remove nuclear power and shut down its one nuclear plant, but all of its energy plans for the past decade tell a different story. The age-old adage is still true: “You can't have your cake and eat it too.”