Mark, I'm not going to "google" the links for your sources. That's your job.

"Or do you think Entergy should be paid to operate at a loss,..."

If Entergy was operating the plant at a loss, why did it sue the state to keep Vermont Yankee open?

"The groups, which included nuclear scientists, members of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the Washington Legal Foundation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, all agreed that the license extension granted to Vermont Yankee by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be upheld and the plant should be allowed to continue to operate."

U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others join Entergy in lawsuit against Vt

"[Or do you think Entergy should] make the ratepayers keep the dinosaur running?"

Yes I do, because customers are paying higher rates to shut "the dinosaur" down (Vermont now has the fifth most-expensive electricity in the country).

"And no, GHG emissions for power generation did not go up in Vermont in the years since the 2014 shutdown"

And yes, they did. After this article came out:

New England CO2 emissions spike after Vermont Yankee nuclear closure

Green Mountain Power had a problem: how to launder their dirty electricity? First, they outsourced 60% of their generation to Canada and ISO-NE (doesn't count if they emit carbon elsewhere, right?). Then, they took all their hydro/renewable generation and doubled its value, on paper, using the scam of "Renewable Energy Credits":

"Vermont utilities actually count toward their renewable requirements does not always align with the actual sources of power for their customers, due to a renewable credit trade scheme that is perfectly legal.

"Critics say Vermont’s renewable energy standard encourages utilities to buy cheap renewable energy certificates, or RECs, from out of state that wouldn’t meet renewable requirements elsewhere.

"That means companies can tout in-state energy generation projects like wind and solar, sell the renewable “credits” to other states, then purchase cheaper credits from out-of-state projects like hydropower, and still count it toward their renewable targets.

"So although Vermont is leading the way on some renewable indicators, the numbers don’t tell the full story."

Renewable energy trade scheme comes under scrutiny

Above: chopping down trees and using "natural gas" (methane) to light them on fire is what Green Mountain Power calls "biomass"

"Using wood, wood pellets, and charcoal for heating and cooking can replace fossil fuels and may result in lower CO2 emissions overall."

What, by raking leaves and picking up twigs from the ground? I'm not surprised if that's the best you can do,for 150 years Vermonters have exaggerated how close they are to nature. Now if only they left their saws and steam shovels at home...

But instead of casting childish insults (the last refuge of a dying argument), I'll leave it to other readers to judge whether Vermonters today are "maximizing the amount of carbon tied up in trees" - or mining, sawing, and raping their local habitat for every dime they possibly can. It's a grand tradition which predates the American Revolution.

This photo of the Montepelier Statehouse (ca. 1900) shows the care Vermonters' ancestors took in preserving the state's beautiful forests by "maximizing the amount of carbon tied up in trees".

Say Goodbye to Some of Vermont's Most Intact Forests (2019)

"The Green Mountain National Forest wants to clearcut your wild backyard, and it doesn’t want to hear what you think about the environmental impacts.

Without an in-depth, site-specific analysis, or customary public comment opportunity, the Manchester Ranger District of the Green Mountain National Forest is racing to cut 15,000 acres of Vermont’s most intact forests, in an effort it calls the Early Successional Habitat Creation Project.

In simple terms, creating 15,000 acres of “early successional habitat” means a total area one-and-a-half times the size of the city of Burlington, spread across parcels in southern Vermont, will go from forest to stumps.

Approved on June 28 by Forest Supervisor John Sinclair, up to 12,000 acres could be clearcut or receive similar treatment, benefiting relatively few species at the expense of overall biodiversity. Included in the proposed harvest are more than 4,000-acres across eight different Inventoried Roadless Areas, some of which have been proposed for Wilderness designation by Congress within the last 15 years. As planned, the project could jeopardize chances for these Roadless Areas to receive additional protection."