Talk:Energy in Vermont

Article really about electricity only not "energy"
Why is this article not titled "Electricity in Vermont"? It says literally nothing about the fossil fuel imports for vehicles, heating, and use of wind or water energy for purposes other than generating electricity (like industrial mills still in operation on some rivers).

Equating energy with electricity alone is a bit premature even in late 2015. Definitely needs a change of title or more information about how Vermont runs vehicles, heats buildings and makes industrial use of power without electric generating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.30.183.72 (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. Avoiding article history, I will concur that usage of petroleum for fuel for vehicles, and fuel oil to heat homes, probably overwhelms electric use. Despite the fact that wood pellets are cheap, few Vermont homes have converted for lack of general experience and cost of new furnace.
 * Also, food is energy to power people. But apparently we're not going there yet!
 * Also, "Energy in Vermont" doesn't seem quite right. A slightly more accurate name would be "Energy usage in Vermont" or "Energy production in Vermont."
 * So the question remains, do we change article name or await updates? Student7 (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, this article needs to be renamed. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Power plant lifetimes
I still don't understand the significance of this statement: "When nuclear power plants were first constructed through the 20th century, they were designed for a lifetime of 30-40 years." Why is this here? What point are we trying to make? Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The plant was closed at (roughly) the length of its lifetime. It may be that natural gas makes such plants obsolete. It may be that management became exhausted after 40 years of politicking. The reader may decide. Student7 (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Again I don't see the point. We already gave the plant owner's version of why the plant was closed. If there is another version, we should say that, and cite a source. If there is no other version, then there is no point in saying what the design life is, and certainly not in this context, where it sounds like we're expressing an opinion about the plant owner's version. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)