Nuclear Trashmen Profit From Unprecedented US Reactor Shutdowns

mdsolar sends this quote from Bloomberg: "More than 50 years into the age of nuclear energy, one of the biggest growth opportunities may be junking old reactors. Entergy Corp. (ETR) said Aug. 27 it will close its 41-year-old Vermont Yankee nuclear plant in 2014, making the reactor the fifth unit in the U.S. marked for decommissioning within the past 12 months, a record annual total. Companies that specialize in razing nuclear plants and hauling away radioactive waste are poised to benefit. Disposal work is 'where companies are going to make their fortune,' Margaret Harding, an independent nuclear-industry consultant based in Wilmington, North Carolina, said in an phone interview. Contractors that are usually involved in building reactors ... 'are going to be looking very hard at the decommissioning side of it.' [T]he U.S. nuclear fleet of 104 units is shrinking, even as Southern Co. and Scana Corp. build two units each. ... During a reactor decommissioning, the plant operator transfers radioactive fuel rods to cooling pools and, ultimately, to so-called dry casks for storage. Workers clean contaminated surfaces by sandblasting, chemical sprays and hydrolasing, a process that involves high-pressure water blasts, according to King. 'You do get to a point that you need someone to come in that has the equipment and the technology to actually dismantle the components,' she said. 'That typically is hired out.'"

Well, good!

[Antipater]

One of the biggest problems with nuclear power, agreed on by proponents and critics alike, is that the currently-operating plants are older-generation designs, repaired and refurbished to run long past their expected lifetime.

The natural gas boom is putting these older-gen reactors out of business. When the cost goes back up and nuclear becomes profitable again, we'll get the chance to actually implement the newer designs.

Re:How shocking!

[TapeCutter]

The companies who built the reactors payed into a government fund upfront, according to a WP link someone posted above there is currently $25 billion in the fund. I don't think $25 billion is going to clean up the mess but it's a start and also a strong sign that those companies were willing to put their money where their mouth was.

The US had a very advantageous head start on the nuclear industry but lost it in the 70's/80's when a couple of European countries started doing it properly by establishing a regulatory "life cycle" for reactors, their foresight turned nuclear power into a clean and stable industry in their own nations. America's lack of foresight, enthusiasm for instant profit, and general disregard for the environment, turned a new industry into a massively expensive white elephant. I was a teenager in the 70's, IIRC even way back then plenty of people were warning the US that it would end like this.

Same thing is happening now with America's attitude to AGW. As a species we are burning over 5 billion tons of coal a year, that's right 5 BILLION tons There still exists a huge opportunity to replace coal with a power source that doesn't fuck up the planet for everyone, from where I sit on the other side of the Pacific the US senate in particular seems determined to kill those opportunities and ensure that the "green energy" industry is stillborn.

Re:One man's garbage

[prisoner-of-enigma]

I call bullshit. I work in the nuclear power industry. The amount of screening and safeguards in place to prevent a single contaminated Kleenex from getting offsite is beyond belief. And by "contaminated" I mean something that might have a millirem's worth of stuff on it, not something seriously crapped up like you're hinting at. To intimate that substantial hunks of contaminated metals might systematically get offsite and somehow get smelted into a consumer product is so ridiculous as to be easily dismissed. Can you cite an example of "lots of radioactive steel parts" becoming cars?