Dominion Announces Plans To Close Kewaunee Nuclear Power Station In 2013 217
An anonymous reader writes "Due to low electricity prices in the Midwest, and an inability to find a buyer for the power station, Dominion will be shutting down and decomissioning Kewaunee Nuclear Power Station. One of two operating nuclear power stations in Wisconsin, Kewaunee's license from the NRC was not due to expire until the end of 2033."
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
... the times of low electricity prices will then be over soon.
You still have low electricity prices in the USA. In the UK prices have doubled in under a decade [castlecover.co.uk]
Re:Nuclear Waste Storage facility (Score:4, Informative)
My understanding is that in the US, that's prepaid to the federal government on a charge-per-unit-energy basis, so that's already paid for (give or take any shortfall or surplus compared to the actual net present value of the cost of storage).
Re:And if it were not sufficient? (Score:4, Informative)
Do we go back and ask for more from the company running this?
So it would seem, according to the Unites States Nuclear Regulatory Commission [nrc.gov], although the point is a moot one in light of the fact this particular fund appears to be sufficiently funded.
Although there are many factors that affect reactor decommissioning costs, generally they range from $300 million to $400 million. Approximately 70 percent of licensees are authorized to accumulate decommissioning funds over the operating life of their plants. These owners – generally traditional, rate-regulated electric utilities or indirectly regulated generation companies – are not required today to have all of the funds needed for decommissioning. The remaining licensees must provide financial assurance through other methods such as prepaid decommissioning funds and/or a surety method or guarantee. The staff performs an independent analysis of each of these reports to determine whether licensees are providing reasonable “decommissioning funding assurance” for radiological decommissioning of the reactor at the permanent termination of operation.
Re:The real reason nuclear power is not taking off (Score:1, Informative)
Not to mention the radioactivity those coal plants produce.
Re:Nuclear Waste Storage facility (Score:4, Informative)
A big chunk of it has been spent building the Yucca Mountain depository in Nevada. Whether it ever gets used for storage of spent nuclear fuel is another matter.
we're actually AHEAD of schedule... (Score:5, Informative)
In September 2010, the German government announced a new aggressive energy policy with the following targets:
Increasing the relative share of renewable energy in gross energy consumption to 18% by 2020, 30% by 2030 and 60% by 2050
Increasing the relative share of renewable energy in gross electrical consumption to 35% by 2020 and 80% by 2050
Increasing the national energy efficiency by cutting electrical consumption 50% below 2008 levels by 2050
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit. Oh, and you forgot Mitt Romney's actions-that-speak-louder-than-lies position on coal plants [politifact.com] in your rush to make this a Democrat-only political football.
Coal is taking a hammering because they compete in exactly the same areas a natural gas. Natural Gas is at an all-time low in price and an all-time high in availability.
Two independent financial firms say the Marcellus isnâ(TM)t just the biggest natural gas field in the country â" itâ(TM)s the cheapest place for energy companies to drill.
The Marcellus could contain "almost half of the current proven natural gas reserves in the U.S," a report from Standard & Poorâ(TM)s issued last week said.
http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/reports-marcellus-shale-reserves-larger-and-cheaper-to-develop-1.344086 [ohio.com]
Geology.com has reports [geology.com] of super-sized fields that are turning up there.
Output from the Marcellus - a rich seam of gas-bearing rock that straddles Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio and West Virginia - has jumped nearly ten fold since 2009, flooding pipelines and playing a central role in pushing futures prices to ten-year lows earlier this year.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-energy-natgas-marcellus-idUSBRE89E12B20121015 [reuters.com]
Local radio up in the Eastern West Virginia Panhandle has run stories about the switch from coal to natgas and the jobs issue. It starts with people who've been in the coal business for generations complaining about losing jobs -- then finishes with THOSE SAME PEOPLE saying they moved over to natgas jobs that PAY MORE and ARE SAFER. They just had an emotional tie to the coal, which has employed their families for generations which took some getting over.
People may bitch about fracking, but it doesn't hold a candle to the environmental damage caused by mountaintop removal and coal mining. Coal mining is also one of the single most dangerous jobs in the country.
The coal isn't going anywhere. It'll still be there if we ever need it. But pure economics is driving the industry to natural gas and coal is the primary loser -- and rightfully so. It is more expensive to produce, more dangerous to both the producers (miners) and end users (people who breathe), more difficult to transport in quantity (can't use pipelines), cleaner (natgas doesn't leave coal dust messes in homes that use it for heat) and all-around substandard to natural gas.
This is capitalism and the free market at work, baby. Or are you one of those planned-economy socialists longing for the good-old days of Marx, Lenin and Mao?