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)
Re:It's a shame, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
... burning hydrocarbons is really cheap.
For now.
Re:It's a shame, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
for centuries, as that's how much supply we have. bet those anti-nuke greenies are very happy. one pound of natural uranium supplies the energy of 16,000 pounds of coal, and our "spent fuel" is actually a gold mine of energy to get six or more times the yield again while at the same time transforming it to short lived wastes. Used in breeder, one pound thorium has the energy of 300 lbs. uranium or 4,800,000 pounds of coal! there's a real solution to driving technology, civilization and quality of life forward. not burning a fire like hominids did a 400,000 years ago.
Too bad the folks in Fukishima can't eat fish..... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They can still eat fish - they just get it from somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
Somewhere far, far away, yes. The offshore contamination in Fukushima prefecture doesn't just affect people who live there, you know. Fish don't pay attention to legal boundaries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we're really happy. (I assume by "greenies" you mean citizens of the Green Mountain State.) Of course, decommissioning the reactor will probably release more radioactivity into the environment than operating it did, but in the long run this is good news for the region. The middle of a major agricultural producing state is a really dumb place to put a nuclear reactor. We produce a shitload of solar, and are putting in more, and we produce a lot of power with methane digesters (there is no shorta
Re: (Score:2)
Yet TMI (Three Mile Island) sits on and island (duh) in the river in between farms and residences, not to mention it's just downstream (about 2 miles or so) from a mid-sized airport. I fail to see how your location is any different from ours considering it's cheaper to send the electricity that way than it would be to put the plant in the middle of nowhere and have to jump through hoops to disperse the
Re: (Score:2)
Now if only we could get the NIMBY idiots to stop screaming bloody murder about how ugly wind turbines are. Because I mean, really. That's just stupid. I think they add to the scenery!
Still, It's hilarious that they finally won this protracted legal battle to keep operating and are like "Okay! We're shutting down the plant!" I was like "Wait, what?!" when I heard that on VPR, lol.
Re:It's a shame, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
An agricultural region is the perfect place to put a nuclear reactor... dense, centralized power generation, leaving the fertile land for growing food instead of generating power.
Re: (Score:3)
bet those anti-nuke greenies are very happy.
Of course not. Do you even know what the green movement is about? What an idiotic thing to say.
Look, I understand you are upset about your favourite energy production technology being in a bit of a down-turn right now, at least outside of China. Hay, maybe you could move to China! But seriously, Vermont is moving to green energy, not building new coal plants. If you had any idea what you were talking about you would have known that.
By the way, how's that commercial scale thorium reactor working out? Ever wo
Re: (Score:3)
And no, they're not just opposed to old-school nuclear:
We oppose the development and use of new nuclear reactors, plutonium (MOX) fuel, nuclear fuel reprocessing, nuclear fusion, uranium enrichment, and the manufacturing of new plutonium pits for a new generation of nuclear weapons.
So that pretty much rules out fast breeder reactors that would mitigate (if not outright eliminate) nuclear waste storage issues. I still vote for them because they don't accept campaign contributions from corporate persons, but they really do suck ass when it comes to nuclear power.
Re: (Score:3)
no, their fear of nuclear power causes fallback to the convenient alternative, fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:3)
However, you bring up a good point. Is there, realistically speaking, another alternative when it comes to base load power?
Here's a breakdown of where our electricity came from in 2012. [eia.gov]
Coal, gas, and nuclear account for roughly 86% of our electrical production. While it's entirely possible to phase out the 19% we get from nuclear and replace it with renewables, how likely is that t
Re: (Score:2)
No, they will always be cheap, as long as they are available.
And availability will decline, ultimately forcing prices up.
Re: (Score:3)
Not for the next 20 years, which is the current life of the reactor.
If we lived in a rational world and nuclear power was the rational answer (I don’t want to get into a debate about current nuclear reactors verse future solar panels right now) the answer would still be to tear down the reactor today and replace it with a more modern one.
Re: (Score:2)
Not for the next 20 years, which is the current life of the reactor.
OK, I'll concede that's likely, though not certain.
If we lived in a rational world and nuclear power was the rational answer (I don’t want to get into a debate about current nuclear reactors verse future solar panels right now) the answer would still be to tear down the reactor today and replace it with a more modern one.
The problem is, we'll shut it down and replace it with coal--well, maybe gas in the best case. As for your proposed debate, yeah I wouldn't want to get into a debate about current nuclear vs future solar panels either ;-)
Re:It's a shame, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, Vermont is building out more and more solar capacity, and also wind (with some resistance), and cow power (methane digesters). A lot of our power comes from Hydro-Quebec. I don't know of any new coal plants being proposed—I expect they would see massive resistance.
The "flaws" in the market that Entergy is complaining about are that nobody wants them here, so nobody is giving them preferential treatment, whereas we are giving solar, methane and wind preferential treatment, generally on a voluntary basis. For instance, my wife and I pay a ~14% premium to get cow power rather than nuclear, and we generate most of our power on-site with solar, but relying on Green Mountain Power to satisfy our nighttime needs rather than using batteries.
Vermont opposed renewing the permit, but the NRC overrode us. We refused to certify the plant for continued use, so the federal government overrode local law, on the basis of conversations legislators had outside of the legislature, which I thought was pretty lame. So unfortunately there is no love lost between Vermonters and Entergy, and that's no doubt part of why it's been expensive for them to continue to do business here.
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: (Score:3)
Under the current grid you can get 10% to 20% of your power from wind & solar. What do you mean with that? "current grid"? Basically the grid has not much to do with the way how power is generated.
After that things break down. What do you mean with break down? There is no theoretical maximum you can generate with wind and/or solar. 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
Re: (Score:2)
While there is no theoretical limit on the amount of power they can produce(well, there is, but it is more than enough energy for the foreseeable future.) there are practical problems of moving that power around. Take a look at today’s article “US Electrical Grid On the Edge of Failure” on Slashdot. I believe Europe’s grid is in better shape the US, but I know Germany has issues with moving wind generated energy from where it is produced to where it is needed.
Winds are variable and
Re: (Score:3)
Is sunshine really so scarce in the winter in Germany? In Vermont, we generated a ton of power this past winter. Germany is a bit further north, but it's not north of the Arctic circle or anything. I would assume that the panels are angled higher, and that the day is a bit shorter, but I suspect they still generate quite a bit of solar in the winter.
Re: (Score:2)
There is not really a storage question.
The solar plants should be thermic so they can run over night.
If you have enough wind plants you can shut some down to avoid feeding in the surplus power (so you don't need to store it).
Sure it would be nice to store all surplus energy ... however there is no "technical requirement" to be able to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
For solar it is about storage. Solar cells and wind power are about the same cost and can even compete with coal once you have factored in coal’s negative externalities. Thermic is a form of storage and I don’t know of one thermal plant today that has a cost structure that can compete with solar cells.
As for wind, there are times when the wind just does not blow. No number of wind turbines will solve for that problem. You can make this work on the assumption that it is always blowing somewhere b
Re:It's a shame, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
We have 24" of insulation in our roof, 16" in our walls, and our windows are triple-paned with a overall U value of .10 (equivalent of R-10). Our base power comes from hydro. There is actually no controversy I'm aware of about methane digesters—they are good for the environment, and while they probably release the carbon faster than it would be released through normal bacterial decomposition, they are still carbon neutral, because they represent a complete carbon cycle, from photosynthesis through to combustion. We pay the 14% extra in order to avoid buying energy from Entergy.
BTW, site-generated solar means that even though I'm running the AC right now, I'm exporting 2400 watts to the grid. This is being used to run other peoples' air conditioning. But consuming the power I generate on-site means that we don't pay the tranmission penalty, so it's a bigger win than it appears to be.
Re: (Score:3)
The issue is not with the methane digesters per se, it is with the cows.
Buying cow power subsidizes the cost of cows resulting in more cows.
Cows generate a lot of methane that is not captured.
More cows mean more marginal pasture land is put into use and farmed which is (probably) increases greenhouse gases.
If we did not add any new cows, net gain. If this does take off and we add more cows, net loss.
Maybe. There is a whole complex web out there. Which is the primary reason why I favor a carbon tax. The mark
Re: (Score:2)
Not for the next 20 years, which is the current life of the reactor.
OK, I'll concede that's likely, though not certain.
America has immense amounts of frackable gas. Enough for more than a century at current consumption rates. Furthermore, we are rapidly developing technology to frack oil, which also releases gas. In the past, if this gas byproduct was not economical to collect, it was flared off. But flaring is now illegal in America, so the gas will be dumped onto the market even if it is below cost (the profit will come from the oil). For better or worse, gas will be cheap and plentiful for a long, long time.
Re: (Score:2)
the answer would still be to tear down the reactor today and replace it with a more modern one.
At any particular time with any sort of thing that gets better over time, you can make the argument that its better to ditch what you have and invest in the new tech. Ie, getting a new car for the better milage. But obviously at some point you have to sit on what you have in order for it to be economical-- you cannot save money by buying a new car every year for the lower gas and maintenance costs, because the sunk investment kills you.
Re: (Score:2)
For your point the answer to that you make predictions about the future and then discount the cash flows according. If it is under 10 years you can probably make a better good guess.
But that was not my point. I was just completing replacing an older(60s design?) single reactor with a multiple reactor of current design.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Well it's a good thing hydrocarbons won't "suddenly run out"
Don't get me wrong, I think we should be seriously cutting down on the number of dead prehistoric plants that we burn for fuel, and looking at all o
Re: (Score:3)
Well it's a good thing hydrocarbons won't "suddenly run out"
Don't get me wrong, I think we should be seriously cutting down on the number of dead prehistoric plants that we burn for fuel, and looking at all other alternatives (nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, etc). My point is more that:
1) We have time to make this transition
5) Alarmism doesn't help the cause of getting off of fossil fuels. Absurd statements like "fuel suddenly costing 3-4 times what it used to" just make people disregard the real concerns of incremental inflation due to fuel costs, and climate issues to due burning fossil fuels.
The price of natural gas is incredibly volatile. [eia.gov] Saying that the cost could triple or quadruple is not an absurd proposition. This price for this commodity has frequently doubled and halved in the space of a year. Natural gas in the US currently is overabundant- supply and demand doesn't have much effect on the price. That will change at some point. It is harder to conserve industrial natural gas (compared to automotive gasoline) since the costs trickle down to consumers over a significant period of tim
Re: (Score:2)
What you can do relatively quickly is improve efficiency. Insulation doesn't take long to install. Rather than building more capacity the US should look at improving efficiency. It's cheaper and improves people's lives much more.
Re: (Score:2)
What you can do relatively quickly is improve efficiency. Insulation doesn't take long to install. Rather than building more capacity the US should look at improving efficiency. It's cheaper and improves people's lives much more.
While it doesn't take long to do it right often is not cost effective. Replacing single pane glass with efficient insulated windows in an older house can run several thousands of dollars; paying back that upfront cost can take many years. As a result, people generally do not do that sort of an upgrade to better insulate the house. Better insulation is a great idea but absent realizable economic benefits will not help very much in reducing demand.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You make it sound like someone is going to turn off the spigot one day. When prices become unbearable, we'll go back to the cheaper options; even nuclear if it's viable.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You make it sound like someone is going to turn off the spigot one day. When prices become unbearable, we'll go back to the cheaper options; even nuclear if it's viable.
This is already happening in certain cases. There have been several instances of power stations in the Northeast failing to start when dispatched because the pipeline company could not supply enough gas. This gets a bit of attention within the industry, but not much press in the wider media. Here is one example. [courier-journal.com]
When you buy this much gas, there is a choice- guaranteed flow throughput or best-effort. Best-effort gas service is obviously cheaper, but can lead to the problem of not having the gas when i
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Im sort of surprised, I had understood nuclear to be cheaper once the initial investment had been sunk.
Anyone know how easy it is to revive a plant like this later if the market changes?
Re: (Score:2)
Prices for solar are dropping, though, and Vermont has been aggressively pursuing carbon-neutral sources for power. This is the "market flaws" they cited in their announcement. We green mountain boys aren't so keen on shoring up their broken business model at the cost of our farms.
All about the money (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:All about the money (Score:5, Informative)
Operational earnings generally declining because the State of Vermont instituted a 100% tax increase on this reactor alone. They completely singled out this business in an effort to shut it down. It is 100% a NIMBY situation driven by environmentalists in a liberal state where taxpayer money and economic sense are no object.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/09/vermont_yankee_nuclear_power_p_4.html
From last Sept:
"MONTPELIER, Vt. — The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against the state over taxes on the plant that the Legislature passed this year.
Vermont Yankee had already won a round in federal court over the state's efforts to close the reactor in Vernon, 120 miles south of Montpelier. That case is now on appeal at the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.
The new lawsuit, by New
Re: (Score:2)
I think this interpretation is unlikely to be true. We've been trying really hard in Vermont to get Vermont Yankee shut down, and I think it's been quite expensive for them. We've been working on making our energy infrastructure independent of Vermont Yankee, and we've done a good job. So yeah, you can call it economics, but what it really is is an effective decision on the part of the people of Vermont to stop using nuclear power by voting with our pocketbooks.
Re: (Score:2)
except for the part where they warm the river waters to the point of killing a lot of the life in there
Re: (Score:2)
So don't use natural bodies of water for cooling?
Re: (Score:2)
The water is not the problem. The simple trick you employ is to use coiling basins, that cool the water back to normal levels. But then you can use that water straight again...
In addition, this is a problem that every power plant has that basis their power generation on heating water to drive turbines; including solar.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I am not suggesting water is the issue. I am suggesting using a river is the issue. Like you mention using man made cooling reservoirs is the solution. The bean counters however don't like that as it means they can't externalize this cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar thermal, perhaps, except that solar thermal generally uses a high-temperature fluid for heat transfer, not water. Solar electric doesn't generate excess heat. I don't know of any solar thermal plants in Vermont.
Re: All about the money (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't have to dump water into a river or stream if you design your plant to not need that source of water...
Re: (Score:2)
So where do they plan to get water for emergency cooling from? They must have a pretty secure long term backup source somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
there are alternative ways of cooling
Re: (Score:2)
Easy solution there is to co-locate a fish hatchery w/ the nuclear power plant and use the warm water from the plant to keep the hatchlings comfortable.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany seem to be on the path to avoiding both.
Re: (Score:2)
No, by burning coal [bbc.co.uk].
Re: (Score:2)
That article is FUD.
The current coal plants in building are replacing older inefficient or dirty coal plants.
The plans for that are decades old, as it takes a decade and more to get a "plan for a plant" approved and the construction running.
So claiming we would build "right now" new coal plants that replace nuclear plants that are shutting down over the next years is "idiotic".
On top of that everyone knows that we are building up huge wind and solar capacities ... I don't get why people reiterate the myth t
Re: (Score:2)
We're pretty strongly and effectively opposed to fracking in Vermont. I used to live on the Connecticut river south of VY, and it kept ice from forming on the river, which really changes the ecosystem, so that's a real concern. If we were switching to natural gas, that would be a problem, but we aren't.
Re: (Score:3)
proprietary
Somewhat off topic, but this such a scare-word. Why exactly would a non-proprietary chemical be better? What makes it proprietary, and how do you know its proprietary?
Maybe we should start using FOS fracking chemicals?
Re: (Score:3)
A better word might bet "secret". Although some companies do reveal what kinds of chemicals they pump into the ground the exact content is a commercial secret. We know it's bad, just not how bad and in exactly what way.
Proprietary usually means closed and secretive.
Re: (Score:2)
Its a bad news as the nuclear power is most eco friendly
Really? I thought the waste products were a bit messy and expensive to contain until they decay.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reprocessing, low in volume and concentrated so relatively easy to manage.
As compared to gas drilling, which is resulting in widespread distributed environmental damage. It just doesn't attract as much attention because a single gas incident is just a drop in the bucket - the problem is that regulation and enforcement are so lax in the gas drilling industry that all the drops in the bucket amount to a downpour.
Re: All about the money (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
not in a smart reactor design, wastes that decay in decades rather than tens of thousands of years can be produced. We have to get off the stupid 1950s reactor designs and onto the proper ones that as a bonus cannot melt down even if power fails to cooling system
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.
Waste-disposal costs (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people would love to see a real cost comparison between nuclear and other power sources. Also between oil, coal and natural gas and other power sources. It's a source of great frustration that we always see the comparisons done with all the externalities unaccounted for. So nuclear gets a pass for waste storage and for indemnity. Gas gets a pass for the damage fracking does to the environment. Coal gets a pass for the shit it dumps into the atmosphere and groundwater. Etc. A real cost
Re: (Score:2)
Vermont isn't building any new coal plants though, only renewables. For the comparison to be of any value in evaluating this decision the cost of nuclear has to be compared to the cost of wind and solar.
Re: (Score:3)
[citation needed]
It's certainly true that there is the NRC, which in theory regulates heavily, but they are widely considered to be in the pocket of industry, and relatively toothless. My experience certainly supports this theory.
What about the leaks? (Score:5, Informative)
Much of the high operating cost is probably related to the Tritium leaks and other maintenance problems. The legislature tried to force the plant to close but failed. Ultimately, this plant needed a lot of maintenance and it is probably a good sign that we are willing to close down leaky plants rather than just keep renewing their licenses and running them into perpetuity. One of the common complaints with nuclear plant politics is that they keep running them long after their usable lifetime, which is a pretty big environmental risk. It's just too bad that we aren't building a new one in its place.
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: (Score:2)
This is unlikely to happen, but it would certainly be preferable to continuing to operate VY as it is.
Vermont Yankee: lying incompetent (Score:2)
Vermont Yankee is also a lying incompetent organization.
Vermont gov't opposes nukes (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not like Vermont hasn't been doing its best to stop Yankee from operating. They've tried to deny the nuke plant a license (www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130814/NEWS03/308140006/Vermont-Yankee-focus-shifts-to-Public-Service-Board-after-appeal-court-ruling) and have been battling Entergy for years about operating the plant and has been escalating the costs of operating Vermont Yankee.
The government of Vermont has done its level best to kill the plant and it's succeeded. Good or bad, you decide, but it's a case of representative democracy getting what it wanted.
Nice. (Score:2)
Let's hope they put enough dough aside to guard their ashes for 100.000 years from AlQaida.
Nuclear power has a negative learning curve (Score:3)
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/17/2158951/pandoras-promise-nuclear-powers-trek-from-too-cheap-to-meter-to-too-costly-to-matter-much/ [thinkprogress.org]
The closure of this aging power plant was inevitable.
The construction of new nuclear power plants is plagued by the same issues. Nuclear power is just too costly even with the substantial subsidies it currently receives. The issues of nuclear waste and proliferation only make the case more difficult.
Nuclear power's time has past. It never was very good and now the financial and technical problems are overwhelming.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Free market (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, I suspect 100% taxation doesn't even begin to cover the externalities that a nuclear power plant imposes on its neighbors. Funny how those externalities never get called "free market manipulation" when they are granted to nuclear power companies by government fiat.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a start. And then, watch how long the dismantling goes and how high the costs will be end the end - and watch very closely who foots the bill...
Vermont Yankee has $543.2 million already set aside in a decomissioning fund. Current estimates of the cost to decomission are about $620 million [gazettenet.com], meaning that the current fund is about 12% short of the projected cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great. (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks for the figures - do you know who will fund the deficit? The taxpayer like in many european countries?
Read TFA. The NRC is requiring Entergy Nuclear to provide a letter of credit to cover the shortfall.
Re: (Score:2)
Practically speaking, OP is probably correct in assuming that in the long run, the state of Vermont or the Feds will be stuck with some substantial costs. If they have to, Entergy will probably declare bankruptcy or get their local legislators to relieve them of the responsibility to pay the full cost through some bit of legislative chicanery.
Re: (Score:3)
They apparently have 60 years to decommission the plant.
"Although the plant will close by the end of next year, its legacy will live on at the Vernon site on the banks of the Connecticut River. Entergy has 60 years to decommission the plant under a plan approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The time will allow the company to accumulate money in a fund set up to pay for dismantling and cleaning up the site."
http://digital.vpr.net/post/citing-economics-entergy-close-vermont-yankee-end-2014 [vpr.net]
Re: (Score:3)
"$200 million bill to replace its condenser"
http://fairewinds.org/media/in-the-news/report-says-vermont-yankee-not-generating-enough-cash [fairewinds.org]
"a quarter of billion dollars in repairs" ~ post-Fukishima modifications and condenser..
Re: (Score:2)
one pound uranium == 16,000 tons coals. one pound thorium == 300 pound uranium == 4,800,000
clear to me what the smart way forward is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
one pound uranium == 16,000 tons coals. one pound thorium == 300 pound uranium == 4,800,000
For clarity sakes you did not mention in what way they are ==, is it in damage to the environment, ability to generate power, what, is it cost per kw production..
Power plants typically take the heat generated by their fuel, which must then be converted into electrical energy, generally by heating water to steam to turn turbines. With that considered, the kWh below is of the heat output. Conversion to electricity is within the usual turbine efficiencies.
Then there's the fly ash problem. Fly ash
Re: (Score:2)
> 1kg of uranium can generate 24,000,000 kWh
Uggg, did you actually read what you're quoting? Here, let me quote the explanation that accompanies the number you're quoting:
"With a complete combustion or fission"
Of course we don't have "complete fission", and only a percentage of the fuel undergoes conversion into power. Just below the number you quote is this statement:
"Thus, 1 kg natural uranium - following a corresponding enrichment and used for power generation in light water reactors - corresponds to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fly ash can be 100 times as radioactive as nuclear waste
That is complete nonsense.
The highest radioactivity in fly ash from uran and thorium is barely at the edge that it is economically worthwhile to use fly ash as a resource to produce uran.
There are two kinds of nuclear waste: spend fuel rots and process materials that are left over when spend fuel rods get recycled to craft new rods.
Both kinds of waste are easy thousand times more radioactive than fly ash. (And both kinds use up much more space than t
Re: (Score:2)
S/he also didn't actually analyze the local energy market, which is in fact not particularly dependent on fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:3)
Hardwood certainly burns longer. But it's a crappy substitute for clean energy sources. Those signs would be funny if they weren't so sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Even your own sources call it a rumor and a conspiracy theory. Thats not terribly convincing.
Re: (Score:2)
The plant is ancient and creaky. In order to continue operating safely, a new plant would have to be built. If there were no opposition to such a plant, it would still cost far in excess of $1.1b. So sure, if you think continuing to operate a creaky old nuclear power plant just like the one in Fukushima is a good idea, then that $1.1b is just wasted money. As a neighbor of VY, I don't agree—I would prefer not to have my home rendered uninhabitable as a result of an accident.