This is the last of the three-part series presenting the opinions of nuclear industry experts on the closing of Vermont Yankee.  Thank you to Dan Yurman for helping to coordinate all of the authors/articles in this three-part series.

This is the second of three posts presenting the professional opinions of experts in the nuclear field on the Yankee Vermont closing.

Although the nuclear power station known as Vermont Yankee had another 18 years left on its license, it was shut down for economic reasons at the end of 2014. Entergy Corporation,the plant's owner, and others have cited the low price of natural gas in the region as deterministic, but the reality is that many other issues were also at play.

Vermont Yankee will go into decommissioning at the end of its current fuel cycle. The last day of operation for the nuclear plant is now set for December 29, 2014. Entergy, the owner, elected this course last year after financial analysis indicated the plant's unprofitability in a future of projected low natural gas prices.

Our Sierra Club local chapter recently sponsored a joint presentation-by two local anti-nuclear groups. A small audience of attendees heard of the horrors that citizens might expect during Vermont Yankee's upcoming decommissioning. The presenters claimed that their participation in decommissioning will be needed to insure that all goes well because Entergy, and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, can't be trusted. Included as usual was a litany of things about to go wrong-all caused by nuclear power!

"Another victory like this will ruin us"

The Art of the Deal is the title of a book by Donald Trump, and it certainly applies to a recent press conference in Vermont. The press conference, on December 23, 2013,   was about the eventual closing down of the Vermont Yankee power plant and was a big deal, a game changer, and a just-in-time Christmas present for many.

The shutdown of Vermont Yankee at the end of its current fuel cycle next fall has been announced. Now that opponents have been handed what they were working for, it might be expected that they would declare victory and go on to something else. This isn't happening. It would be normal for the state and local governments to be concerned about the economic impact of the shutdown, and begin to plan for it. But what are the "anti-nukes" doing? You might be surprised, if you didn't understand their real motive.

Since Entergy announced that it would close Vermont Yankee, I have been thinking about advice for nuclear plants going forward.  I mean, they haven't asked me for my advice, but what the heck.  I have lots of opinions, and 20-20 hindsight.

The fall in New England brings crispness to the air, beautiful mountainsides covered with leaves turning color, and a spur to activity before the coming winter. The nuclear debate continues to be spurred on as well.

On August 27, Entergy announced that it plans to close the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in the fall of 2014, when the plant's current fuel is depleted. Entergy plans to decommission the plant using the SAFSTOR option, which consists of defueling, mothballing the plant for a period, then dismantling it by the end of 60 years. Entergy said that it is closing the plant because it is no longer projected to make money, considering the estimated future natural gas prices. Electric power generated by gas is now over 50 percent of the ISO-New England grid.

"Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station generates 72.5 percent of the state's electricity while emitting no greenhouse gases."

Energy-related events in Vermont continue to be a jumble of citizen activism, political maneuvering, changes to the electric power system, and an overall focus on nuclear power.

The governor of Vermont last year established the "Energy Generation Siting Policy Commission" after citizens protested  a proposed wind farm (meanwhile, the legislature proposed a wind farm moratorium bill). The main purpose of the governor's initiative was to evaluate how much local input should be required in energy siting decisions.