Vermont Nuclear Plant Seeks Decommission But Lacks Funds 179
mdsolar (1045926) writes with this bit of news about the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant shutdown. From the article: "On Friday, the Vermont Public Service Board voted to authorize Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., the operators of the Vermont Yankee electricity generating station ..., to close down their nuclear power plant by the end of this year. Because Entergy planned to shut the Vermont nuclear plant down prior to its licensed end-term, the board was required to approve the shutdown....
Entergy has reserved just over $600 million to date for decommissioning the Vermont nuclear plant, according to the Department of Public Service. This amount will not be adequate to meet the costs of full deconstruction, estimated at more than $1 billion according to the company's 2012 Decommissioning Cost Analysis report."
Entergy has reserved just over $600 million to date for decommissioning the Vermont nuclear plant, according to the Department of Public Service. This amount will not be adequate to meet the costs of full deconstruction, estimated at more than $1 billion according to the company's 2012 Decommissioning Cost Analysis report."
and yet even more (Score:3)
and yet even more subsidies for the nuclear industry will follow.
Re:and yet even more (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course. It's so silly that no other industries ever get subsidized by tax dollars.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course. It's so silly that no other industries ever get subsidized by tax dollars.
It is silly to justify something stupid by pointing out that we also do other stupid things. That is just circular logic that results in a lot of stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
... the same reasons we subsidize other forms of power generation.
The reason is to channel money to politically connected special interests. It is stupid for that to be tolerated in a democracy, but the beneficiaries are concentrated, while the victims are diffuse, so it happens. Voters can often be conned into believing that these subsidies are in their own interests (hey, cheaper power!) without realizing that the taxes they pay to finance the subsidies far exceed the savings on their utility bills.
Negative subsidy [Re:subsidy] (Score:5, Informative)
Neither to the extent, nor in the manner of nuclear. Other industries get tax breaks, free use of government research, etc.
It's worth pointing out that nuclear power actually gets a negative subsidy. They have been charged a fee for nuclear waste disposal... but the nuclear waste disposal program was cancelled, and there is no replacement plan.
The fee was suspended by court order last November... but the money collected has not been refunded.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11... [nytimes.com]
Bogus (Score:3)
Re:Bogus (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, yes, you're right, fossil fuels externalize the costs of waste disposal while nuclear does not. To me, that's an argument in favor of subsidizing nuclear rather than coal: it's a lot easier to deal with nuclear waste that's in one place rather than deal with the effects of carbon in the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What would actually happen in this situation is that homeowners would get shafted, just like they always are when government-sponsored corporate welfare goes wrong (e.g., the crash of 2008). So no worries about the government running out of money. As a neighbor to Vermont Yankee, I am keenly aware that if it were to have a serious radiation-releasing accident, I would simply have to walk away from my rather substantial real estate investment. This is why it always pisses me off when people rant about
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nuclear gets the biggest subsidy (Score:5, Insightful)
Excuuse me? You think some Johnny-come-lately power plant, by virtue of having been here for a mere 42 years, has some kind of special right to continue operating outside its safe lifetime at the risk of all the homeowners in the area, just because some of them arrived after the plant was built? As it happens, I grew up about five miles downstream of the VY site, and was 7 when it started operations. But even if that weren't the case, your logic is offensive. A brief incumbency in the neighborhood does not give a corporation special privileges with respect to imposing its externalities on its neighbors. The natural heritage that exists in the general area of the VY power plant has tremendous value, and should not be placed at risk in the service of short-term expediency.
Re: (Score:2)
And the cost to the atmosphere from burning all that fossil fuel is also a subsidy...I note you conveniently have forgotten it. So a nuclear accident can take out a region, global warming or acidifying the oceans can take down the entire planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Your cite mentions $1T in some unspecified "worst case scenario", e.g., simultaneous earthquake/tsunami/terrorist-attack/landslide/zombie-apocalypse. Sorry, not very credible, and certainly not to be conflated with "estimated clean-up costs".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:and yet even more (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, you pegged it. (Score:4, Insightful)
In theory, the government subsidies are intended to further social goals that the free market cannot adequately address without regulation.
In practice, the government subsidies are treats that the political powers (such as congressmen) hand out to economic powers (such as favored contributors).
Since our economic powers have evolved into multinational corporations that actively oppose our social goals and purposely subvert our cultural values, this means that the government subsidies are quite often doing the exact opposite of what they are nominally intended to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Then what about massive subsidies for coal and oil industries?
Let me know when every single power plant, every car is required to collect its waste and deposit it for storage. Only then you can call it equal.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, let me know when automobile waste has a half-life equivalent to that of nuclear waste, then.
It's a false equivalency. Yes, coal and oil subsidies are bad, but that doesn't mean the Bush/Cheney nuclear subsidies aren't substantially worse.
Nuclear was on the way out until Cheney stepped in and threw regulated capitalism out the window [wikipedia.org] in favor of Soviet-style centralized economic decisionmaking.
But I thought nuclear power was cheap (Score:2, Interesting)
This issue demonstrates that arguments about the low lifetime cost and impacts of nuclear power tend to externalize significant costs. Decommissioning can be added to waste handling/storage and subsidized insurance.
Re:But I thought nuclear power was cheap (Score:4, Insightful)
This issue demonstrates that arguments about the low lifetime cost and impacts of nuclear power tend to externalize significant costs. Decommissioning can be added to waste handling/storage and subsidized insurance.
Partly true, but the real problem is that though out the lifetime of this plant, the expected costs for decommissioning have gone though the roof by a mass of changing rules, laws and policies which have conspired to not only raise the costs but shorten the useful lifespan of the plant. As such, this is not really the operator's fault, but the cold economic facts of changing political climate are really to blame. IMHO...
Re: (Score:3)
For those that speak of nuclear subsidies...on a $ per KWh generated basis, nuclear subsidies are nowhere close to other energy technologies.
Re:But I thought nuclear power was cheap (Score:5, Informative)
Um. The plant was originally licensed to operate for 40 years. It is falling apart. Literally: a few years back one of the cooling towers collapsed. Buried pipes are leaking, and nobody knows where the pipes are or where the leaks are. Sources for backup power have dried up because the providers don't want to be held liable in the event of an accident. The idea of extending its operating permit for another 20 years was incredibly irresponsible. The State of Vermont refused to certify its continued operation, but the courts overrode the state.
It is bloody unfortunate that the low cost of shale oil is what finally did the plant in, but closing it is the right move. The only decent alternative would be an extremely costly remodel, which would not likely be cheaper than closing it and building a new one with better technology. The alternative Entergy wanted was to keep running it, and damn the safety concerns, because they wouldn't have to pay if it failed catastrophically anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
What a waste – Vermont Yankee is in beautiful condition [atomicinsights.com]
The NRC recently extended the operating license for 20 more years, so apparently any issues were minor or have been addressed. It sounds like your claims are significantly exaggerated, and that there is no safety concern.
Most of Vermont's electricity came from that plant, and closing it is only going to result in burning more fossil fuels and increased prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because the NRC is noted as a really strict regulator that never gives nuclear plants the pass on safety issues. Oh wait, no it's not.
It's not accurate to say that most of Vermont's energy came from Vermont Yankee, although certainly quite a bit did. We import a lot of energy from Hydro Quebec, and we are adding renewables at a rapid pace. So yeah, Vermont Yankee going offline will change things, but we'll manage. Indeed, losing a source of subsidized power will create more opportunities for
Re: (Score:2)
What you call the "real" problem is actually re-stating the GP's point - that is, during the lifetime of the plant, some of the externalizations mentioned by the GP have been internalized through the rules you mentioned. Is that unfair? P
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, but you understand that all the financial arrangements for the decommissioning of this plant where made starting nearly 50 years ago based on the assumptions of the day. Plus they managed to come up with 1/2 to 2/3 of what they need despite the regulatory changes and wholesale electricity. Finally, owner's of Vermont Yankee can afford to cough up the costs if they get amortized over a few years. They had a billion dollars in just profit in 2013. They won't like coming up with the money, but they can
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, you mean they cannot just throw the highly poisonous nuclear waste into the sea anymore?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you mean they cannot just throw the highly poisonous nuclear waste into the sea anymore?
To be fair, it IS still legal to have a man in blue and red underwear gather nuclear waste into a gigantic net, fly it into space, and hurtle it into the Sun.
It's not a method that is popular with the public nor critically acclaimed, but it is still legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But I thought nuclear power was cheap (Score:4, Interesting)
All the states I know of require nuclear plant operators to collect these decommissioning costs in a fund. That is, part of their revenue from electricity sales must be placed into a trust fund specifically for decommissioning the plant in the future. That the Yankee plant has insufficient funds despite 41 years of operation suggests accounting fraud, regulatory incompetence, or inflated decommissioning costs more than it does non-viability of nuclear power. The San Onofre nuclear plant operated a similar amount of time, had about 3.6x the generating capacity when it was shut down, and was also shut down prematurely. It has a $2.7 billion decommissioning fund which is expected to exceed the costs, so they are planning to refund the excess to customers.
If you take the profits (Score:5, Interesting)
If they've failed to properly provide for shutdown and decomissioning costs then it's their problem, they should be forced to pay them rather than pleading poverty and being allowed to walk away from their responsibilities
Re:If you take the profits (Score:5, Interesting)
Except in this case the plant was approved for twenty additional years of operation in 2011 and is now being shut down.
Therefore, contrary to your assertion, they were properly planning for the costs but that planning did not encompass irrational public opinion shutting down the plant ahead of schedule.
The people therefore who demanded it be shut down will also be the people who pay the extra costs associated with shutting it down.
Re:If you take the profits (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
But the legal effort to resist the state's efforts cost the utility money as did the public relation campaign.
The real reason here is that electricity rates have dropped do to Natural Gas production and operating/decommissioning costs have risen since the plant was commissioned due to changing regulations. All this as conspired to give us the problem we now have and like it or not, pretty much everybody will be paying for this in some way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But the legal effort to resist the state's efforts cost the utility money as did the public relation campaign.
The lawsuit cost them a trifle and they won an important precident for their industry. And the PR campain went on for decades and achieved jack squat. Entergy made it clear they couldn't care less about it. These are not the reasons they closed.
The real reason here is that electricity rates have dropped do to Natural Gas production and operating/decommissioning costs have risen since the plant was commissioned due to changing regulations. All this as conspired to give us the problem we now have and like it or not, pretty much everybody will be paying for this in some way.
Like I said. The real reason it closed is economics. Nothing else really mattered. If they thought the plant would turn a profit they would surely continue to operate it.
A lot of nuclear plants are uneconomic (Score:2)
Different power sources have differences (Score:3)
It turns out that natural gas and renewable energy are making a lot of nuclear plants uneconomic.
Not really. Nuclear and renewable cover different portions of the demand curve. Nuclear is good for baseline power-- 24 hours a day. Renewable (other than hydro) tends to be a variable power source. Solar, in particular, is a good source for daytime peaking power, particularly in summer. Valuable-- but a different portion of the demand curve
Natural gas is indeed changing the structure of the electrical power market. One significant reason it's changing it is because gas turbines can vary output rapidl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least the cost will be better for bargain hunters. They already can put together small economical systems with decent ROI.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Utility scale solar and wind is almost as cheap as coal on a per kw basis and prices continue to fall. With all the cheap gas for the night time energy use (and how ridiculously cheap NG generators are) it's no wonder utilities are running away from nuclear.
Exactly (Score:4, Interesting)
Nothing the State of Vermont did caused the plant to be shut down. It was entirely Entergy's own stupidity on multiple levels. First they decided to run as a 'Merchant' plant, refusing to sign a contract to provide VT with power (ironic as it was us who bore the burden of the threat of some disaster, etc). They could have locked in a profitable rate but they were stupid and greedy and screwed themselves. Secondly they were INCOMPETENT, or at least in many instances managed to LOOK incompetent. Parts of the cooling tower fell down, they lied to the regulators about tritium leak issues, etc. Thirdly they failed to do basic good cost accounting, for instance not planning for the replacement of a condenser who's rebuilding was MUCH MUCH more expensive than they 'guessed' it would be.
As for the decommissioning cost thing, this is not some new thing or a bolt out of the blue. The original operators sold the plant to Entergy to get out of these liabilities and Entergy never properly funded the fund. It was a routine matter of discussion in VT TEN YEARS AGO that this day would come. What they did back then was come up with a plan to 'invest' the fund in something-or-other and then decommission in 60 years using the projected proceeds (and then of course get hammered in 2008, like they cared). After that they tried to spin the plant off so they too could escape from the burden of dealing with the twin messes of decommissioning and waste disposal.
Overall Entergy has been rather dishonest and conniving, not to mention a bit less than totally competent at some level. Mark my words, the state will end up getting boned. Everyone will be paying for decades, yet magically "Nuclear power is cheap!" continues to be the mantra. All I can do is roll my eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
And the economics of your energy supply are heavily affected by subsidies and regulatory costs, both of which are directly influenced by public opinion.
Some people look at economics as a science, but it seems as if the economics of anything related to energy are more of a popularity contest.
Re: (Score:2)
"Entergy announced last August that it intended to shut down the reactor late this year for economic reasons."
Try to keep up at the back there please ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We need to start having "radiation leaks" in terms of units that people can understand, like "bananas."
Would you really care if you were instead told that it was leaking tritium equivalent of "3 bananas per day" into the ground water?
Radiation is a part of life on Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps you could express the amount of radiation leaked by a nuclear plant by comparing it to the normal operation of a coal power plant.
On average, a nuclear plant leaks about 10 milli-coal-plants [ornl.gov] worth of radioactive material. Which is why you see the coal industry being hit with billions of dollars in cleanup costs every time they dump radioactive uranium and thorium in the form of coal ash [scientificamerican.com].
Oh, wait. You don't, really. Because coal power plants aren't regulated the same way nuclear plants are th
Re: (Score:3)
That and when the coal industries get in bed with local government, then you get the coal ash slurry dumps like what happened in North Carolina. And those coal slurry accidents are not all that rare. And as usual, the locals take it in the neck when it happens.
Re:If you take the profits (Score:5, Informative)
Bananas are not good units to use because the potassium they contain is not very dangerous to humans. The body maintains a fairly constant level no matter how many you eat, passing the excess out.
Compare that to what is being released from, say, Fukushima. It bio-accumulates and ends up sitting inside your organs for decades, slowly irradiating them. Although the radiation level is low it is also constant, which is why your risk of getting cancer goes up.
People who use the banana equivalent dose don't seem to understand this rather basic and crucial fact. It's also why you don't hear experts on the subject using it.
Re: (Score:3)
What if all companies released 3 bananas worth of radiation into the ground water per day, because there is no penalty?
Nothing would happen. That's the outcome of releasing insignificant amounts of radiation into the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
The tritium leaks aren't likely a problem at all, except that they indicate that the infrastructure is decaying. It's unfortunate that people go "oh noes! tritium" when really they should be going "oh noes! plant is falling apart!"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
All nuclear power plants should be using modern negative-feedback self-limiting designs that consume most of their fuel, resulting in relatively short lived radioactive waste.
Can you please explain how this helps the interests of the fossil fuel corporations? I fail to see the relevance to this conversation when we're talking about government regulators.
Re: (Score:2)
Therefore, contrary to your assertion, they were properly planning for the costs but that planning did not encompass irrational public opinion shutting down the plant ahead of schedule.
Uhh... no.
Their plan is to idle the plant and let the decommissioning fund appreciate.
What it really sounds like is the State of Vermont & the NRC made some poor assumptions about decommissioning costs and didn't require the operator to set aside enough money over the last 42 years.
Irrational public opinion has nothing to do with this, even if Entergy wasn't shutting the plant down because of profitability concerns.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not the NRC or Vermont's fault. The plant was life-extended another 20 years. Entergy however sees it as uneconomic, so they applied to Vermont and the NRC to approve
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose that you just started University. Tuition and expenses run about $20,000 a year and you have $75,000 in a trust fund to pay for it all, so you should be able to make it through your four year program without having to go into debt. Yay!
After your first year you have around $57,000 left but your on-campus housing is shut down without warning. This raises your costs for the next year to $25,000 because you have to move into a more expensive place, but you can manage that.
By the start of the third
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say, at the point where you started $5,000 short
Before that could be a problem you would have to have "forgotten to invest the money so that it appreciates by 4% per annum". If you made that mistake then perhaps financial planning really isn't for you.
and then assumed that tuition wouldn't go up.
...by 100% by the time you finish.
Re: (Score:3)
If they've failed to properly provide for shutdown and decomissioning costs then it's their problem, they should be forced to pay
Who are "they"? The decommissioning charge tacked onto utility bills is set by the public utility commission, which is a government entity. So if the people responsible are held accountable, then "they" are the taxpayers of Vermont who voted in the past to push costs off into the future ... which has now arrived.
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. VY sells power to utilities. They are supposed to factor the cost of decommissioning into the cost of the power. The utilities then charge what they have to to pay for the power they buy. The PUC just makes sure that they get a fair return, but no more, based on actual costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you would think that was the case. Problem is, these "people" are corporations and the humans behind the corporations rotate in and out of seats regularly. So it's just not as simple as all that is it?
To that end, one thing that is most definitely true: When commissioning a nuclear plant, the cost of decommissioning should be paid for in advance or at the very least, paid for over the first years of its operation to an account set aside specifically for decommissioning. (I'm not a brilliant person s
Re: (Score:2)
(P.S. Yes, I know they already do that. I guess what I'm rhetorically getting at is that either someone has been raiding that honey pot or they didn't estimate decom costs well enough... you know, accounting for the devaluation of the US dollar and all that?)
Re: (Score:2)
Alas, Fed policy changes with the winds, so anticpating the devaluation of the dollar is really hard to do.
Face it, ten years ago, would anyone have been believed if they'd said that the Fed would start printing a trillion dollars a year in (what was then) the near future?
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you do nuclear power. Nuclear power is associated with "might" and gives you the bomb as side-product. Without that, it would never have made it past any halfway competent economic modeling.
that's ok (Score:3)
the government (us citizens) always foot the bill for building and decommissioning nuclear plants. why should the actual businesses have to pay their own expenses?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You regulate the electricity costs, so your fingerprints are all over it already, "The People".
Re: (Score:3)
What's needed is a full accounting and transparency. Then and only then will people be able to make good decisions. And the private sector is guilty of cooking books and "selling" things as well, unless fear of regulators or lawsuits causes them to come clean. And that means personal responsibility from the managers who make the decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that the "managers who make the decisions" are likely all retired and many are dead by now right? This plant was commissioned in 1972, 44 years ago which means that the decision to build was made over 50 years ago now. If the average age of this management team was 40 years old, that puts the average age now at 90 years, which means a good portion of that group are likely dead. I don't know how you suggest we "hold them responsible" for this.
What needs to happen is what will likely happen
Re: (Score:2)
There is something fairly wrong with this article, as it's generally believed that the costs of decommissioning a nuclear power plant are on the order of 300-400 million. 600 million should be adequate.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, except those are the fantasy numbers that the nuclear industry and its dog, the NRC, publish. We're talking about REAL costs, what you actually pay, not the bogus ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people just want to believe the crap they are getting fed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
wait, what? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think a single aspect of the summary was accurate. They didn't need approval from Vermont to shutdown, they needed approval to run the plant until the end of the year. And of course they don't have enough money to decommission the plant today - they only made the decision to close the plant about a year ago. The plant needs to continue saving up money in their fund until they have enough to decommission the plant - no surprises there. So what is the point of this story?
No (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of Slashdot's most beloved features - the hourly Two Minute Hate.
Re: (Score:3)
The plant was originally licensed for 20 years and had an expected design lifetime of 40 years, that is 2012. The fund was set up in 1972 and should have been managed such that it would be adequate in 2012 to shut the plant down. Thus the point is quite valid since said funds clearly are short by 40% or so. Entergy tried to extend the lifetime of the plant by another 20 years (and succeeded, they can legal go ahead and run it until 2032 and I believe even do so at a higher power output). They didn't need 'a
Increased rates (Score:2)
Looks like all the customers will be paying more for their power.
Most appropriate tag line ever (Score:4, Funny)
"Consequences, Schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." -- "Ali Baba Bunny" [1957, Chuck Jones]
That may be the most relevant one I've ever seen.
Your only source for safe, cheap, nuclear energy: (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. It's a shame we can't harness it properly. (note: it takes almost as much energy - 95% as fossil fuel - to produce a working solar collection system as that system will provide over its entire life)
Bogus (Score:2)
Some one doesn't know (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. It's a shame we can't harness it properly. (note: it takes almost as much energy - 95% as fossil fuel - to produce a working solar collection system as that system will provide over its entire life)
This is uttermost nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact : what you wrote is utter bullshit.
Another fun fact : you need to invest more energy in order to get 1kWh worth of oil than 1kWh of solar electricity.
Use the 600 million for new reactor (Score:2)
Regardless, while having new cheap reactors running on-site, you can then slowly dismantle the old reactors, while using the rest of the equipment.
Re: (Score:3)
Gosh yes, and we should just leave this nuclear plant to rust in the middle of a flood plain, you know full of all kinds of fuel. You realize this is a GE MK1, the same as the reactors at Fukushima, with all the same design flaws, the nice spent fuel pool on the top floor, etc. Sorry, cleanup isn't an OPTION, its a necessity.
nothing adds up here (Score:2)
And then there's why the heck are they shutting it down early? If it's safety reasons, just fix the safety issues. I bet that doesn't cost a billion.
Need to consult Tepco (Score:2)
Why is this important? Entergy has tne money... (Score:4, Insightful)
The owner of Vermont Yankee is Entergy Corp. and they are HUGE.
Looking at their most recent annual report filed in February of 2014. This company made about a billion dollars in profit last year. They might not like having to pony up another 500-600 Million dollars over the next 5 years, but it's not like they couldn't. It would barely be a blip on the radar in the grand scheme of things for them. It's obvious they will easily pay for this and the government won't have to take over.
Tell me again why this is news?
What I don't understand is ... (Score:2)
why they don't just sell their spent fuel? It shouldn't be difficult to find buyers in, say, the Middle East.
No problem (Score:2)
Use the allocated funds to remove the radioactive components.
Then simply dial 1-800-GOT-JUNK and they'll take care of the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, the last time I used CASH-4-URAnium they took five billion years and I only got half the quoted value for my stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Fail.
The real reason the economics don't work for private companies is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Short version: Private investors who make 20-odd year investments want guaranteed returns of 1000%. This multiplies the cost of the plant by an order of magnitude just to pay back the initial investors.
Solution: Let governments build them.
Wrong (Score:2)
In addition, much of the issues is the initial starting price which is typically doubled due to opposition.
What is needed is to require that once a license is approved, then it is over for protests.
In addition, building a massive nuke reactor in place is the WRONG way to do it. By goin
Re: (Score:2)
... because they fail to count half the costs when they do their calculations.
And changing government regulations over the last 40 years of operation hasn't *ever* been a cost driver.
You can only calculate costs into the future 50 years when you know all the variables that drive cost. In this case, they didn't do too bad considering that most of the initial calculations would have been done in the 60's, there has been significant regulatory changes since then and they have nearly 2/3rds of what they need. 600 Million is chump change when we are dropping $1 Trillion/year onto our de