THE FALL COLORS ( a poem for all seasons, and for Junior)

Fall colors in the sun,

blood reds, gut purples

and those oranges from

the napalm mix it up,

a dazzle to delight the eyes,

the haze lifted and the bodies

cell-phoned back home

so everyone will know

you’re having a great time

and seeing lots of colors.

And while you wait for

the driver to take a leak

on a copy of some book

one of the locals left behind

before the air strike came in,

you text a message all about

your day and the places

the driver took you to yet

didn’t know the names of,

not that it matters cause

you’re kind of tuckered out

and a little sick from all

the bends and bumps the people

who live up here never fixed

as if they didn’t want you

to even come here and give

them all the business.

How stupid of them.

No wonder they’re all

so dull gray-looking while

you’re waiting for them to turn

for you to give you at least

a shot at making them colorful.

It’s been quite a tour,

even the driver has said he’s

never seen anything like it,

and wants you to feel how

deeply moved he is when

you round a curve and there

up ahead, the shot of a lifetime,

and you get it just right,

and the colors…why…

why they just dance like they

could come alive and suck you in.

So vivid.  You’ll never forget.

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

THE FALL COLORS ( a poem for all seasons)

Fall colors in the sun,

blood reds, gut purples

and those oranges from

the napalm mix it up,

a dazzle to delight the eyes,

the haze lifted and the bodies

cell-phoned back home

so everyone will know

you’re having a great time

and seeing lots of colors.

And while you wait for

the driver to take a leak

on a copy of some book

one of the locals left behind

before the air strike came in,

you text a message all about

your day and the places

the driver took you to yet

didn’t know the names of,

not that it matters cause

you’re kind of tuckered out

and a little sick from all

the bends and bumps the people

who live up here never fixed

as if they didn’t want you

to even come here and give

them all your business.

How stupid of them.

No wonder they’re all

so dull gray-looking while

you’re waiting for them to turn

for you to give you at least

a shot at making them colorful.

It’s been quite a tour,

even the driver has said he’s

never seen anything like it,

and wants you to feel how

deeply moved he is when

you round a curve and there

up ahead, the shot of a lifetime,

and you get it just right,

and the colors…why…

why they just dance like they

could come alive and suck you in.

So vivid.  You’ll never forget.

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

What can we honestly expect at Vermont Yankee?

Vermont is looking at a whole new relationship with Entergy; one in which the town of Vernon will see diminished returns in the way of taxes, and the entire region must rely upon the word of the energy giant that it will live up to its safety and decommissioning commitments despite any temptation to cut and run.

With Entergy anticipating a 40% cutback in staff at VY; all in all, it’s looking more and more like a cup half-empty situation.

That’s why stories about Entergy’s treatment of its workforce in other locations should have significance for us.

A case in point is the company’s Indian Point facility, where one employee whistleblower is suing Entergy for sidelining him after he complained to authorities about security issues.

In his complaint, Clifton “Skip” Travis Jr. alleges that Entergy allowed financial considerations to override good practice in implementing a new perimeter monitoring system without adequate training for staff.

“I understand they’re in business to make money … but my job, my concern, my obligation is to defend that facility against radiological sabotage,” Travis said during an interview Wednesday, frequently repeating his belief that a terrorist attack on the plant is inevitable. “It was never my intention to hurt them. … This is not a vendetta. This is holding them accountable.”

In his lawsuit, Mr. Travis says that the company rushed installation of a new security system in 2011 in order to avoid hefty fines from the NRC, and neglected important training components.  He maintains that subsequent tests of the system under simulated terrorist attack, have resulted in consistent failure.

Apart from frequent system crashes, poor training and operational policy seem to be key issues.

Travis claims that the company encourages security staff to bring laptops so they can watch movies and play video games to keep from falling asleep during their shifts. He said that many staff members routinely remove the batteries from the lights on their weapons so they can use them in their personal electronic equipment and often don’t replace them.

Further details of the lawsuit are equally hair-raising.  Quite apart from the treatment meted out to an employee with the temerity to cry foul is the company’s alleged reluctance at Indian Point to invest in adequate training and personnel.

Once Vermont Yankee has been moth-balled, will the monitoring staff be similarly distracted, undertrained and under-deployed? We’ve already experienced maintenance neglect while the plant was still turning a profit.

In Entergy’s endgame at these geriatric reactor facilities we see the flaw in for-profit operation of nuclear reactors. When they were all shiny and new, accompanied by hefty government incentives and insurance guarantees, operators were already looking every year to improve yield for their shareholders.

Once a tipping point had been reached at which no more efficiencies could be introduced without bending the rules, the NRC became engaged as an accomplice in enabling the continued profitability of aging reactors.

Now, there are some serious failures in the for-profit model, and Entergy Vermont Yankee, still under corporate control, is expected to transition to what is essentially a not-for-profit model, while upholding its safety obligations in the presence of escalating outside menace.

To me, that seems like an unrealistic expectation.  I wish it were not, but fear that it is.

_________________________________________________________________________

I am very proud to be associated with Fairewinds Energy Education in a non-technical capacity.  As always, the opinions I share on Green Mountain Daily are my own alone and not those of Fairewinds.

Field and Stream meets Future Shock

With hunting season descending upon Vermont’s fields and woodlands,  something new could be added to the mix.

The Dept. of Fish and Wildlife is considering a petition to ban drone assisted hunting.

Petitioners Eric Nuse of Orion, the Hunter’s Institute and Tovar Cerulli of the New England chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers are registering their concern on behalf of the many hunters who feel that introduction of drones would represent an unsportsmanlike use of technology that would harm one of Vermont’s most dearly held traditions.

Montana, Alaska and Colorado have all introduced legislation to ban the practice; all in response to a  2013 YouTube video of a drone-assisted  moose hunt in Norway.

This is not the first potential civilian use of drones to raise public concern.  

In December of 2013, retail giant Amazon announced that it was developing a drone delivery system. While adolescents and hipsters got goosebumps at the very thought, there was a general reaction of alarm at the idea that fleets of flying robots could soon descend on neighborhood streets.

Amazon quickly re-tooled the story to reassure everyone that the concept was still in its infancy and not happening anytime soon.

The latest news on Amazon’s drone program is that they have applied to the FAA for an exemption to the rules that restrict commercial use of drones.  If granted, the exemption will allow Amazon expanded opportunity for research and development.  

A July 14 Forbes article very carefully insists that Amazon’s experimental flight plans are confined to their own “airports” and will not bring the drones into public streets.  There is much made of advancing GPS technology and abort features that reduce the chance of anything going wrong.  

After all, they insist,  hobbyists have been flying radio-controlled model aircraft for years.

That is all well and good for now, but we had that peek into Pandora’s box last December and know what inevitably is in store for us.  Already Amazon is threatening to locate its fledgling drone program overseas if the FAA doesn’t give the company what it is requesting.

If you think stationary wind turbines represent an intolerable threat to flying wildlife, imagine a sky alive with tiny Cuisinart blades, whirling through the air, bobbing and weaving to try and avoid obstacles and one another.  

What could possibly go wrong?

It won’t just be Amazon populating the airspace, either.  Once the elastic is let out of FAA rules and the technology is fully enabled, everyone from Walmart to e-Bay will be on board with their own tiny fleets.

Thanks to the hunters, we may be able to keep them out of the woods in hunting season, but soon that may be the least of our problems.

 

Desperate Times for Nuke Operators

While the U.S. nuclear industry tries blowing sunshine up the skirts of its wary watchers, international members of that beleaguered brotherhood are finding it more and more difficult to make the nuclear argument believable.

Japan has been working overtime, against many experts’ better judgment, to restart its own nuclear program even while the Fukushima nightmare remains unresolved.  The problem is that the Japanese public are not going to be so easily led into believing it is in their best economic interests when there is so much real time evidence to the contrary.

Enter the oldest trick in the nuclear economics book:  allow operators to deflect some of the insurance obligation they normally would be required to absorb.  

The details have not been shared, but apparently the Japanese Diet will be considering a proposal to join an international pool of nuclear operators to spread the risk of loss from any future nuclear disaster:

Under the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, contributions from member states will cover part of the damage payments in the event of a nuclear disaster. (U.S.Energy Secretary Ernest) Moniz welcomed Tokyo’s plan, saying Japanese ratification would help the pact come into force, Japanese officials said.

The Price-Anderson Act, passed in 1957 and updated several times since, provides just such a scheme for  U.S. nukes.  It allows operators of nuclear plants to compete unfairly in the market to replace fossil fuel, and keeps true renewables (which must cover their own liabilites unassisted) at an economic disadvantage.

Enacted by Congress many years ago, Price-Anderson limits the industry’s liability from any single accident and spreads the cost throughout the entire U.S. industry, who “share” a common insurance coverage by agreement with the entire insurance industry.

It’s business benefitting business in the great capitalistic embrace.  The only problem is that the American taxpayers get to take up the slack should a Fukushima-scale event ever happen on our soil.

Meanwhile, the success of the nuclear industry under this gerrymandered insurance system has meant that development of true renewables has been held back;  probably to the ultimate economic harm of U.S. interests.

It’s what we do.

When Price-Anderson was implemented, the U.S. nuclear reactor “fleet” was still young and sound.  As the International community considers a similar arrangement, they are in a very different situation.  

Saddled with aging and increasingly unprofitable reactors, the spectre of Fukushima and a growing realization that thousands of tons of nuclear waste has no where to go, it is an industry whose cup is half empty.

Of all nations, France is the largest generator of nuclear energy, which provides a whopping 85% of its electrical power.  The country’s nuclear power authority, EDF, estimates that the cost of necessary repairs and safety improvements in the wake of Fukushima will total $71 billion or more by 2025.

If any of those necessary repairs and safety improvements are delayed or neglected due to declining profitability, in a shared insurance model, everyone’s risk could increase intolerably.

Why would anyone want to buy into that?

Desperate Times for Nuke Operators

While the U.S. nuclear industry tries blowing sunshine up the skirts of its wary watchers, international members of that beleaguered brotherhood are finding it more and more difficult to make the nuclear argument believable.

Japan has been working overtime, against many experts better judgement, to restart its own nuclear program even while the Fukushima nightmare remains unresolved.  The problem is that the Japanese public are not going to be so easily led into believing it is in their best economic interests when there is so much real time evidence to the contrary.

Enter the oldest trick in the nuclear economics book:  allow operators to deflect some of the insurance obligation they normally would be required to absorb.  

The details have not been shared, but apparently the Japanese Diet will be considering a proposal to join an international pool of nuclear operators to spread the risk of loss from any future nuclear disaster:

Under the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, contributions from member states will cover part of the damage payments in the event of a nuclear disaster. (U.S.Energy Secretary Ernest) Moniz welcomed Tokyo’s plan, saying Japanese ratification would help the pact come into force, Japanese officials said.

The Price-Anderson Act, passed in 1957 and updated several times since, provides just such a scheme for  U.S. nukes.  It allows operators of nuclear plants to compete unfairly in the market to replace fossil fuel, and keeps true renewables (which must cover their own liabilites unassisted) at an economic disadvantage.

Enacted by Congress many years ago, Price-Anderson limits the industry’s liability from any single accident and spreads the cost throughout the entire U.S. industry, who “share” a common insurance coverage by agreement with the entire insurance industry.

It’s business benefitting business in the great capitalistic embrace.  The only problem is that the American taxpayers get to take up the slack should a Fukushima-scale event ever happen on our soil.

Meanwhile, the success of the nuclear industry under this gerrymandered insurance system has meant that development of true renewables has been held back;  probably to the ultimate economic harm of U.S. interests.

It’s what we do.

When Price-Anderson was implemented, the U.S. nuclear reactor “fleet” was still young and sound.  As the International community considers a similar arrangement, they are in a very different situation.  

Saddled with aging and increasingly unprofitable reactors, the spectre of Fukushima and a growing realization that thousands of tons of nuclear waste has no where to go, it is an industry whose cup is half empty.

Of all nations, France is the largest generator of nuclear energy, which provides a whopping 85% of its electrical power.  The country’s nuclear power authority, EDF, estimates that the cost of necessary repairs and safety improvements in the wake of Fukushima will total $71 billion or more by 2025.

If any of those necessary repairs and safety improvements are delayed or neglected due to declining profitability, in a shared insurance model, everyone’s risk could increase intolerably.

Why would anyone want to buy into that?

Desperate Times for Nuke Operators

While the U.S. nuclear industry tries blowing sunshine up the skirts of its wary watchers, international members of that beleaguered brotherhood are finding it more and more difficult to make the nuclear argument believable.

Japan has been working overtime, against many experts better judgement, to restart its own nuclear program even while the Fukushima nightmare remains unresolved.  The problem is that the Japanese public are not going to be so easily led into believing it is in their best economic interests when there is so much real time evidence to the contrary.

Enter the oldest trick in the nuclear economics book:  allow operators to deflect some of the insurance obligation they normally would be required to absorb.  

The details have not been shared, but apparently the Japanese Diet will be considering a proposal to join an international pool of nuclear operators to spread the risk of loss from any future nuclear disaster:

Under the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, contributions from member states will cover part of the damage payments in the event of a nuclear disaster. (U.S.Energy Secretary Ernest) Moniz welcomed Tokyo’s plan, saying Japanese ratification would help the pact come into force, Japanese officials said.

The Price-Anderson Act, passed in 1957 and updated several times since, provides just such a scheme for  U.S. nukes.  It allows operators of nuclear plants to compete unfairly in the market to replace fossil fuel, and keeps true renewables (which must cover their own liabilites unassisted) at an economic disadvantage.

Enacted by Congress many years ago, Price-Anderson limits the industry’s liability from any single accident and spreads the cost throughout the entire U.S. industry, who “share” a common insurance coverage by agreement with the entire insurance industry.

It’s business benefitting business in the great capitalistic embrace.  The only problem is that the American taxpayers get to take up the slack should a Fukushima-scale event ever happen on our soil.

Meanwhile, the success of the nuclear industry under this gerrymandered insurance system has meant that development of true renewables has been held back;  probably to the ultimate economic harm of U.S. interests.

It’s what we do.

When Price-Anderson was implemented, the U.S. nuclear reactor “fleet” was still young and sound.  As the International community considers a similar arrangement, they are in a very different situation.  

Saddled with aging and increasingly unprofitable reactors, the spectre of Fukushima and a growing realization that thousands of tons of nuclear waste has no where to go, it is an industry whose cup is half empty.

Of all nations, France is the largest generator of nuclear energy, which provides a whopping 85% of its electrical power.  The country’s nuclear power authority, EDF, estimates that the cost of necessary repairs and safety improvements in the wake of Fukushima will total $71 billion or more by 2025.

If any of those necessary repairs and safety improvements are delayed or neglected due to declining profitability, in a shared insurance model, everyone’s risk could increase intolerably.

Why would anyone want to buy into that?

Desperate Times for Nuke Operators

While the U.S. nuclear industry tries blowing sunshine up the skirts of its wary watchers, international members of that beleaguered brotherhood are finding it more and more difficult to make the nuclear argument believable.

Japan has been working overtime, against many experts better judgement, to restart its own nuclear program even while the Fukushima nightmare remains unresolved.  The problem is that the Japanese public are not going to be so easily led into believing it is in their best economic interests when there is so much real time evidence to the contrary.

Enter the oldest trick in the nuclear economics book:  allow operators to deflect some of the insurance obligation they normally would be required to absorb.  

The details have not been shared, but apparently the Japanese Diet will be considering a proposal to join an international pool of nuclear operators to spread the risk of loss from any future nuclear disaster:

Under the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, contributions from member states will cover part of the damage payments in the event of a nuclear disaster. (U.S.Energy Secretary Ernest) Moniz welcomed Tokyo’s plan, saying Japanese ratification would help the pact come into force, Japanese officials said.

The Price-Anderson Act, passed in 1957 and updated several times since, provides just such a scheme for  U.S. nukes.  It allows operators of nuclear plants to compete unfairly in the market to replace fossil fuel, and keeps true renewables (which must cover their own liabilites unassisted) at an economic disadvantage.

Enacted by Congress many years ago, Price-Anderson limits the industry’s liability from any single accident and spreads the cost throughout the entire U.S. industry, who “share” a common insurance coverage by agreement with the entire insurance industry.

It’s business benefitting business in the great capitalistic embrace.  The only problem is that the American taxpayers get to take up the slack should a Fukushima-scale event ever happen on our soil.

Meanwhile, the success of the nuclear industry under this gerrymandered insurance system has meant that development of true renewables has been held back;  probably to the ultimate economic harm of U.S. interests.

It’s what we do.

When Price-Anderson was implemented, the U.S. nuclear reactor “fleet” was still young and sound.  As the International community considers a similar arrangement, they are in a very different situation.  

Saddled with aging and increasingly unprofitable reactors, the spectre of Fukushima and a growing realization that thousands of tons of nuclear waste has no where to go, it is an industry whose cup is half empty.

Of all nations, France is the largest generator of nuclear energy, which provides a whopping 85% of its electrical power.  The country’s nuclear power authority, EDF, estimates that the cost of necessary repairs and safety improvements in the wake of Fukushima will total $71 billion or more by 2025.

If any of those necessary repairs and safety improvements are delayed or neglected due to declining profitability, in a shared insurance model, everyone’s risk could increase intolerably.

Why would anyone want to buy into that?

What’s up Bruce Lisman’s campaign flagpole?

The Campaign for Vermont just sent me their monthly email newsletter the other day. So in order to see what they ran up Bruce Lisman’s flag pole this month, I visited the Campaign’s Facebook page.    

Among all the usual Campaign for Vermont centrist 'products' that were ‘on sale’ I did notice they have chosen to use an image of the Vermont state flag coat of arms for their Facebook profile picture. The Campaign for Vermont’s profile image design is a Vermont flag in the shape of  the state map with the word “Vermont” clearly visible.

For those not familiar with Facebook stuff, the cover/profile photo is the image that appears on every post and all updates they send out to their 15,000 plus followers. It acts a logo of sorts for all the C for VT’s Facebook posts.

Bruce Lisman, who founded the group, hired a new executive director this summer and reportedly stepped back from running the day-to-day operations. Rumors  that he wants to run for Vermont governor, denied by Lisman, hover over the C for VT. The new director claims the Campaign is not anything more than what they say they are – an issues-based centrist organization without secondary goals. One thing they definitely are is beholden for operating funds to Lisman – who has bankrolled all the organization’s activities from the start, to the tune of more than one million dollars. So Bruce may still have some bit of influence at C for VT.

The Campaign for Vermont’s official webpage also uses part of the flag coat of arms symbol. Both sites’ use of the flag is possibly illegal and a form of misuse of the official state symbol. The state seal and coat of arms may be used for commemorative medals or for public displays not connected with any advertising…” The entire statute can be found here .    

In 2012 the PAC Vermonters First and a Republican candidate for the state House of Representatives were asked by the Secretary of State to end their use of part the Vermont Flag in their advertisements. Secratary Condos explained at the time:

There are criminal penalties associated with misuses of the symbol, including imprisonment up to one year or a fine of up to $1,000; the attorney general’s office generally advises that Condos notify offenders and request the ad’s modification first.    

The intention behind the law, explained Condos, is “to make sure that people don’t think that the state is providing an endorsement of a candidate or a product. Originally, the law wasn’t there for candidates, but more for products, for people not to use it to try to sell a product.”    

Here, he said,[speaking in 2012] “the product happens to be a candidate.”

   

In this case the product happens to be Bruce Lisman and his Campaign for Vermont. Flag protection laws are certainly questionable with regard to free speech provisions of the U.S. Constitution, and there are plenty of gray areas. But right or wrong, there seems to be a recognized state law that prohibits this type of use for state flag.

Gonna strike the state colors Bruce?

Milne: tested and politically un-attuned?

When he first entered the race, Scott Milne reportedly arrived with pre-approved, but untested, political credentials. A complicated candidate declared Terri Hallenbeck in the Free Press. Milne was, she said, established and simultaneously politically attuned and politically untested. Well he’s being tested this week and he seems uniquely un-attuned politically.

Just days ago Scott Milne’s campaign manager left under mysterious circumstances (he apparently actually did leave to take a hike). Now it turns out one of his campaign staff workers, a man he hired to write press releases, has an interesting past relationship with facts. Scott Fletcher, a former editor for the Times-Argus, was fired from the paper in disgrace twelve years ago.  

Milne has hired five people to run his campaign. Among them is Scott Fletcher, the former managing editor of the Times Argus who was fired for fabricating three articles in 2002. Fletcher now writes press releases for Milne.  

Fletcher made up stories about a 16-year-old prostitute and heroin addict; another about a woman who left New York City after 9/11 to live in a cabin in Ferdinand; and a third based on the diary of a Charlotte woman who supposedly died in the Triangle Shirt factory fire. Fletcher was not able to provide Times Argus management with evidence that any of three women existed.  

Then as now Fletcher denies he fabricated any facts.

Surprisingly Milne was aware and untroubled by Fletcher’s past, yet remains confident in the man’s role in the campaign.

That role, Milne said, is “research and background stuff that he’s doing directly for me.” The candidate said he has no concerns that Fletcher is bringing forth anything but the truth.  

Fletcher elaborated on that, saying that he writes most of the press releases for Milne’s campaign and spends the bulk of his time in policy research and policy development

 

To campaign also means to struggle, and Scott Milne seems to be doing plenty of that this week, although ‘floundering’ might be a more accurate description. What better gift to the opposition could you give than hiring a man who was fired for making up stories to write your press releases?

Any pitch to voters Milne may have wished to make as a competent manager becomes more difficult after a week like this.