VY operators sue Vermont over their own poor career choice

wow (4.00 / 4)

who can i sue for taking on lots of student loan debt for going to art and architecture school?

the unemployed have got it all wrong, job hunting, trying to go back to school, working odd jobs until something better comes along! they just need lawyers!

---

by: bmike @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 09:48:31 AM UTC

That's a great idea (0.00 / 0)

I should sue the United States Department of Ed because my loans are too expensive.  That's brilliant.

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

---

by: JulieWaters @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 10:06:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

ha! (4.00 / 1)

yeah, i'm pissed that i can't run VY with my BFA! what? specific training for specific plants / equipment?

its not like its rocket science or brain surgery, its just nuclear plant operations! hell, homer does that on TV!

!

---

by: bmike @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 12:17:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmm, if this suit works (4.00 / 1)

I could sue a large multinational for buying out my former employer and never have to work again! Bwa-ha-ha!!

In short, I have exactly no sympathy.

---

by: simplify @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 19:48:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm suing the DoD and SecState (4.00 / 4)

I majored in Soviet Studies.  I'm pissed we won the Cold War and gotta sue somebody...

Become a fan of our grassroots campaign on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/todd4v...

---

by: ntoddpax @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:44:09 AM UTC

maybe you can help (4.00 / 2)

I'm curious; what did we get for "winning" the Cold War?

I recall something about a "peace dividend" and opportunities for economic conversion of military industrial capacity for other purposes. How's that going?

 

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:51:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We quickly swapped it for war-profiteering. (4.00 / 1)

Even in this crippled economy, some few Americans, and a whole lot more foreign nationals, are already filthy (and getting filthier) rich thanks to a decade of war.

---

by: Sue Prent @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:59:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

St. Ronnie (4.00 / 1)

---

by: bmike @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 12:19:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Um... (4.00 / 2)

The deed to Afghanistan?

Become a fan of our grassroots campaign on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/todd4v...

---

by: ntoddpax @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 15:11:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We all knew this day was coming (4.00 / 3)

This is something I've been saying for years:

We've known this day was coming since 1972!

Anyone that makes the argument that we can't shut down VY (such as these operators, or the IBEW) are so full of crap: they have known this day was coming for 40 years!  If they feel the need to sue someone it should be their employers for making the false claim that their jobs were safe for another 20 years.

And what if VY runs for another 20 years (gods forbid!)?  Will they file lawsuits in 2032 for closing the plant then?  Will the plant owners demand, and receive from a lapdog NRC another extension to runt the plant until 2052?

These deluded souls need to be treated appropriately, according to the merits of their suit: laughed out of court in 5 minutes and charged hefty fees for wasting the court's time.

---

by: Comrade Rutherford @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 14:36:06 PM UTC

some alternatives... (4.00 / 3)

1) The decommissioning process will take decades, and with their familiarity with nuclear power and some additional training, these folks could be at the forefront of the next wave in nuclear power - its gradual demise.

2) There are plenty of aging Boiling Water Reactors circa 1970-80s that the NRC is going to relicense, all of the BWRs in the US (34 more) are GE Mark I, just like VY.  Can't imagine there is much new to learn.

3) They could take Japanese classes.

---

by: Undamned Yankee @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 18:24:46 PM UTC

Same old song (4.00 / 2)

I ran into a telecomm company in my career that refused to adopt a new technology because they feared it would cannibalize their old cash cow.  Cost them a lot of money and competitive edge as a result.

Similarly, IBM originally failed to acknowledge the usefulness and viability of computers, because they made their money on punch card tabulating machines.  In the end, Watson realized they could make googobs of money with the new devices as the backend to their existing products, and subsequently migrate away from card machines.

To assume that your very specific job, product, etc cannot ever go away, especially in a technological era where things change on a dime, is folly.  Of course, a lawyer I knew once told me, "any idiot with 250 bucks can file a lawsuit."

Now if you excuse me, I'm going to check on my investment in that new buggy whip company...

Become a fan of our grassroots campaign on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/todd4v...

---

by: ntoddpax @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 20:51:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

IBM (4.00 / 1)

Of course, IBM again missed the boat when personal computers came along.  Instead of taking over that market they gave it away to some geek from Washington state and his rip-off software company called Micro$oft.

---

by: Comrade Rutherford @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 21:11:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yup (0.00 / 0)

But DEC missed it worse!

Become a fan of our grassroots campaign on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/todd4v...

---

by: ntoddpax @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 23:00:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Classic Disruptive Technology Scenario (4.00 / 2)

Sustainable energy is exactly the kind of disruptive technology that will displace fossil nuclear energy technologies.

Typically, as a disruptive technology emerges, the old market scoffs at it, pointing out its limitations, how much it costs for what you get, convincing themselves that, since it's not the perfect replacement for their current products, it's not worth pursuing.

In the mean time, their established customer base, when asked what they want, tell the dinosaurs that they want more of the same, or with a few better features tacked on.

Meanwhile, back at innovation ranch, a whole different segment of the market is paying a premium to buy the disruptive tech, because something about it better fits their needs. As the disruptive tech matures, its price drops, its features increase, a market in accessories begins to grow, and all of a sudden, with seemingly no warning, the dinosaur's customers recognize the value of the disruptive tech for themselves. They like the new price point, and are happy to buy accessories to custom tailor its performance to their needs.

The dinosaur product then withers and dies.

We are very close to this with wind and solar.

In Europe, even without storage, they are finding that wind, by keeping peaker plants offline, is lowering energy costs for everyone. Wind is displacing just enough of the energy used at peak-use times to keep certain plants from having to power-up at all. In places where they've implemented smart grid technology, they've also managed to eliminate the purported issue of intermittency - because the wind is always blowing somewhere in the smart grid region, the power from the currently-active wind is being sent to where it's needed when another area's wind is quiet.

Solar is having a similar impact in Germany - and is starting to gain some critical mass in CA, where we'll see a repeat of the peaker plants not having to start up.

Do you remember the hot-shot Enron grid operators' phone recordings, while they were manipulating the electrical grid to create blackouts and brownouts during a mega heat wave: joking about stealing money from Grandma Millie while they were literally killing elderly people from heat stroke?

They were manipulating the peaker plants.

A lot of vulnerability is removed from the system if we reduce the need for human intervention to keep the grid stable - that's what a smart grid combined with solar & wind will do.

---

by: simplify @ Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 15:29:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is how messed-up attitudes toward labor issues are in the U.S. right now. (4.00 / 4)

If these workers want to sue someone, they should be suing Entergy for misleading them into thinking the plant would operate beyond its expiry date; or for so mismanaging the plant that they left little likelihoood it could be relicensed.

How about suing the NRC for systematically undermining safety regulations and enforcement so that Entergy was allowed to mismanage the plant into an indefensible state?

Talk about delusional behavior!

---

by: Sue Prent @ Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 00:28:14 AM UTC

Sue, they can't sue Entergy cause... (4.00 / 3)

Our tax money gives bailouts to the Corporate Reich to hire lawyers to stop any civil suit precedents being set against them.  And, of course, our Supreme Court helps them too.  The lawsuit against the State of Vermont is just another way of a Corporation saying:  "The people better not get uppity, cause we've got the money and power to stop them.  And, heh-heh, we'll be using their money to do it."

Corporate PERSONHOOD.  Shall we sing a few lines of "We Shall Overcome?"  Shit.

---

by: PeteySweety @ Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 19:22:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stunt? (4.00 / 3)

Vermont's AG appears to think so and suggests someone follow the money financing the case.

In fact, Sorrell even questioned whether Cleary [the attorney for the plantiffs]actually wrote the complaint.
"Entergy is behind this litigation," he said. "I would be shocked if Entergy is not financing this case."
Putting a human face on its case instead of having to defend itself as a corporate entity might serve Entergy better, considering its reputation in Vermont, he said.

http://www.reformer.com/localn...

---

by: BP @ Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 11:03:08 AM UTC

nice (4.00 / 4)

we don't have a right to health care but these guys think they have a right to operate a nuclear power plant

we are so deep into the rabbit hole we may never see the sun again

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 11:53:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

yeah, (4.00 / 2)

backwards and upside down, inside out, for sure.

i'm flummoxed why, if VT decides to let the certificate expire, someone, somewhere, can say it still may operate.

this isn't a military base, or vet hospital, or anything federal. its a f'ing for profit business (that just so happens to be 'regulated' by the feds, and heavily subsidized by the american people)...

we can say no to billboards, casinos, strip clubs, mines, biomass plants, - whatever - based on zoning, economics, pollution, act 250, etc... but we don't have the right to say no to a megacorp power company, wielding some of the most dangerous materials we've yet cooked up...

rabbit hole indeed.

---

by: bmike @ Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 03:03:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Entergy Louisiana is at it again (4.00 / 1)

The latest antics, attempting to spin the true motives for their woes- corporate wide dishonesty & gross mismanagement of VY- as a human tragedy is incredibly ridiculous & another stunning example of arrogance.

Continuing to use their puppets, er, highly paid employees w/six figure income as 'poster children', the supposed victims of VT's decision to close their mismanaged crumbling reactor w/rotting nuclear waste-leaking pipes & move to safer clean energy is not new.

The demand that they are owed something from VT & rights have been violated displays the same odd disconnect as the out of state corporate interests the employees represent. Their support for a forced occupation & war to subjugate the tiny state of VT, reprehensible.

Newest chapter, VT now up against & under seige from the the nuclear industry represented by NRC's reported move to pressure the DOJ to nullify our states rights, makes their actions all the more devious & destructive.

---

by: stardust @ Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:45:06 AM UTC