Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant To Close In 2014 249
stomv writes "Vermont Yankee nuclear plant is to close in late 2014, about 20 years before its (extended) NRC operating permit expires in 2032. Vermont Yankee is a merchant plant, which means that it sells its energy and capacity on the open New England market. The three reasons cited by Entergy, the owner, for closing are: low natural gas prices, high ongoing capital costs of operating a single unit reactor, and wholesale market flaws which keep energy and capacity prices low and doesn't reward the fuel diversity benefits that nuclear provides."
It's a shame, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Excellent summary (Score:5, Insightful)
I've heard this story on NPR, which tends to be known for accurate reporting and lack of sensationalism. This was an excellent summary on Slashdot. I hope the editors, or what's left of them, continue to pick stories that are factual and not sensational. The comments on Slashdot resulting from those type of stories are often more readable too.
For the story itself, it's interesting to see the business side of nuclear and the real reasons why plants are built and decommissioned. ie, its not always about environmentalism or NIMBY. Nuclear is a decent way to generate power compared to fossil fuels because the nuclear by-products can be contained more assuredly than greenhouse gases, assuming that all of the environmental factors are taken into account. Those environmental factors however are what make it difficult to accept because its very expensive to ensure everything is contained.
Re:It's a shame, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
... burning hydrocarbons is really cheap.
For now.
Re: All about the money (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's a shame, but... (Score:1, Insightful)
"No, they will always be cheap, as long as they are available."
I don't think you understand what "always" means.
I'm super pro-nuclear but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Vermont Yankee is the oldest running plant. It should be decommissioned in favor of newer designs.
Part of the dysfunction of the current nuclear regulatory regime is that it's so expensive and difficult to open a new plant, that we end up with an older set that has a worse operating-cost and safety record than could be achieved with new technology. It's a bit like setting new-car safety and economy requirement so high that people continue to repair and drive their decades-old models -- sure it looks good on paper, but the reality is a net decrease in safety and economy.
So yeah, Vermont Yankee, please shut it down. And let's build something from the last few decades to replace it (and maybe some of the other 60s-era designs) which will undoubtedly be a huge safety increase.
Re:It's a shame, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
... burning hydrocarbons is really cheap.
Particularly Natural Gas. For the purposes of argument, let us disregard any environmental concerns for a moment and look at what is happening in the US-
1. Natural gas is cheap in the US. Really really cheap. It is at historical lows. Not only that, but it is much cheaper compared to the rest of the world. The US natural gas price is 1/4 the price that Europe is paying (wholesale, before taxes), and 1/3 the price of even Russian natural gas. Natural Gas is stupidly, unbelievably cheap. Coal power stations are no longer competitive based on fuel costs + labor costs + relative efficiency.
2. The vast majority of new power stations (by Megawatt) in the US are, and have for the last 10 years, been natural gas. There was a "mini coal boom" in 2007-2012 but this only added a couple of gigawatts to the grid, and there are no orders for new coal power stations.
3. Nearly all natural gas used in the US is produced in the US or in Canada/Mexico. Shipping natural gas using methods other than pipelines is prohibitively expensive (for the North American market). It is energy-intensive to store, compared to oil or coal which can just be deposited on a ship. This means that if China found massive quantities of cheap natural gas, North America can not benefit from the low cost.
4. Thanks to deregulation, in most areas of the US power plants are built based on cost/KW in the near term. Subsidies are taken into account which leads to some green technologies being used, but for the most part we don't built coal-burning plants or nuclear power stations "to diversify the generation mix". The cheapest option (now) is taken. Power generating companies might worry about fuel price risk, but they aren't building coal power stations to reduce that risk.
What happens when the cheap American gas runs out, or demand begins to become large enough to influence the price? The US would then be saddled with hundreds of power stations using a fuel which is suddenly 3-4 times more expensive than it used to be. The consequences for the economy will be disastrous.
Re:It's a shame, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Comparing nuclear power vs. solar power is kind of like comparing apples to oranges. You yourself kind of hit it on the head about nighttime battery power.
Under the current grid you can get 10% to 20% of your power from wind & solar. After that things break down. Economic storage is a nut that is yet to be cracked (and in my mind one of the key factors holding back the industry). That is why you need base power from nuclear, coal or hydro.
I would also question you on why you are paying 14% more for cow power. Is it to reduce greenhouse gasses? The debate is still going if cow power helps or not. For most people adding another 6 inches of insulation in the attic would be cheaper and has a higher impact.
Re:Nuclear power has a negative learning curve (Score:4, Insightful)
Nuclear power's time has past.
Then you'll be surprised to know that China is now building a 1,750 MWe nuclear reactor [world-nuclear-news.org] that will be the post powerful in the world. The Taishan nuclear plant [wikipedia.org] will have two such Areva EPR units, slated to begin operation in 2014 and 2015.
Moreover, China has 17 nuclear power reactors in operation, 28 under construction, and more about to start construction. Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give a four-fold increase in nuclear capacity to at least 58 GWe by 2020, then possibly 200 GWe by 2030, and 400 GWe by 2050. And China's policy is for closed fuel cycle.
I'm not surprised that we are closing the smaller, less efficient, and probably less safe old plants in the US, but it is unfortunate there are only a handful of newer, larger, more safe nuclear plants being built in the West.