backtop


Print 101 comment(s) - last by johnsmith9875.. on Sep 4 at 1:31 PM

America's aging nuclear is headed to the retirement home

Two weeks ago Entergy Corp. (ETR) won a bitter fight with the State of Vermont to keep the East Coast state's only nuclear power plant open.  The reactor sits near Brattleboro, Vermont on the southern tip of the state near Massachusetts.  The reactor was a Mark 1 boiling water reactor (BWR) design, similar to the reactors that melted down at Fukushima after being struck by an earthquake and tsunami flooding.

I. Giving up the Ghost

The single reactor Yankee Power Station, first commissioned in 1972, had already secured a 20 year extension --good through 2032 -- from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), but had been battling Vermont state regulators since 2010 who wanted to close the aging plant.

In its fight to keep the reactor open, Entergy first won a decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont's U.S. District Judge J. Garvan Murtha who ordered [PDF] the state to allow the plant to continue to operate.  The state appealed that decision.  But in early August, the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New York ruled [PDF] that the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 [PDF] and the Federal [Water] Power Act of 1920 [PDF] (TITLE 16 U.S.C. Chapter 12 ) overode a pair of state laws that the state claimed gave it the power to regulate nuclear safety.  The decision effectively banned the state from shutting down the reactor which the NRC approved of.

But in an ironic twist Entergy decided to shut down the reactor anyway, acknowledging the financial barriers facing the plant's continued operation.

Yankee Nuclear Plant
Entergy scored a pyrrhic win in its battle to keep the Yankee Nuclear Power Station open.
[Image Source: AP]

Entergy in a press release said that it expected the plant to about "break even" this year fiscally, but could lose as much as $50M USD per year on average over the next several years.  By shuttering the plant, Entergy plans to save $150M to $200M USD in total costs by 2017.  However, it has already taken a charge of $181M USD on the shuttering plan, and expects an addition $55M to $60M USD in costs relating to employee pension and severance. 

Most of the plant's 630 employees -- plus an undisclosed number of contractors -- will be terminated, although a skeleton crew will be kept on during the plant's decommissioning -- a process which could last for decades if Entergy has its way.

Bill Mohl, president of Entergy Wholesale Commodities, comments, "Simply put, this decision was based on economics."

II. Nuclear Power is Struggling Financially

While nuclear fuel is relatively inexpensive, plant maintenance is not trivial; for example since Entergy acquired the Yankee plant in 2002, it has spent $400M USD -- or roughly $40M USD -- on upkeep.  When you pile on the cost of lengthy legal battles with "green" minded activist parties on the local and state level, nuclear isn't quite so cheap.



To make matters worse, nuclear has had to compete fossil fuels, which are booming amid the explosion of natural gas and oil extraction from hydraulic fracturing ("fracking").  The surplus of fossil fuels has driven down prices, which Entergy notes in its press release on the closure.

Fracking regions
Fracking proejcts have greatly cut U.S. fossil fuel costs.
[Image Source: U.S. Energy Information Agency]
 
To add insult to injury, nuclear -- which receives a stick from the government (on a state level at least) via legal fees -- has to compete with alternative energy like wind and solar that are lavished with tax credits and other incentives on a state and federal level.  As Entergy puts it:
 
Wholesale market design flaws that continue to result in artificially low energy and capacity prices in the region, and do not provide adequate compensation to merchant nuclear plants for the fuel diversity benefits they provide.

Professor Henry Lee, director of the environment and natural resources program at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government warns, "Nuclear power is in big trouble economically." 

III. Vermont is Happy to See Nuclear Jobs Leave

And not everyone is sad about that.  Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin (D) commented:

Entergy's announcement today confirms what we have known for some time.  Operating and maintaining this aging nuclear facility is too expensive in today’s world.  Vermont utilities no longer have contracts with Vermont Yankee, and our regional grid is not reliant upon it for stability.  Vermont has made clear its desire to move toward more sustainable, renewable sources of electricity, and many of our surrounding states are doing likewise.

Vermont Yankee was built with an expectation that it would operate for a limited period of years.  While it is no secret that Vermont and Entergy have disagreed on how long that should be, it is now clear that Vermont Yankee is a part of the energy past, and will not be a part of our energy future.

The state says it will work to provide resources to the displaced workers.

Vermont protesters
Protesters picket Yankee power plant back in 1986. [Image Source: AP]

The cost of decommissioning the Yankee plant is estimated $566M USD; fortunately Entergy during the plant's profitable years established a trust which today is worth $582M USD and growing.

A growing controversy exists regarding the aging reactor's decommissioning cycle.  Entergy is asking the NRC to allow it to put the reactor in "safe-storage" -- an up to 60-year period to allow the reactor to cool down before completing the decommissioning.  Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) disagrees with the plan and says he will challenge it, stating, "Entergy must go through a decommissioning process as soon as possible."

In addition to potential dangers of uncooled nuclear waste, decommissioning the plant too soon could impact Entergy financially by giving its trust less time to mature.

IV. Over Half the Nation's Nuclear is Nearing End of Life

America's aging nuclear industry has been facing a firestorm of criticism ever since the March 2011 meltdown in Fukushima.  Despite the fact that the Fukushima failure was due to negligence -- the operator defied its engineers' advice to waterproof backup generators to save on costs -- the incident has had a powerful impact in shifting American public opinion against nuclear power.

That shift has helped the government escape criticism for giving solar and wind power handouts that it won't give nuclear power.  It has also driven some states to try to kick out aging nuclear plants -- including Vermont.

Of the 104 reactors in 65 commercial plants in 31 states in the U.S., twenty-three -- or roughly a fourth -- are 40 years old or older.  Another forty-two reactors are 30 years old or older.  These older reactors tend to not only be the least efficient -- causing them to struggle more to compete with cheap fossil fuel power and artificially cheap alternative energy -- they also require more in maintenance.

Nuclear Reactor
Over half of U.S. reactors are over 30 years old. [Image Source: Corbis]

Currently the nation gets about 20 percent of its power from nuclear energy.  But that could dip to 10 percent or less within a decade if the older plants are decommissioned and there's little new growth.

So far this year five reactors have been scheduled for decommissioned.  Three of them -- San Onofre 2 and 3 near San Diego and Crystal River 3 in Florida -- had underwent botched maintenance efforts and would have required expensive repairs.  And the Yankee plant had mounting legal costs.  

V. Handful of New Projects Can't Keep Pace With Shutdowns

But one of the reactors -- the Kewaunee Power Generating Station in Kewaunee, Wisconsin shut down "purely for economic reasons" due to the falling price of natural gas.  Owner Dominion Resources, Inc. (D) had kept the reactor -- a more efficient 556 MW pressurized water reactor (PWR) design -- well maintained and had little in the way of current legal issues.

Nuclear analyst Peter A. Bradford, a former member of the NRC and a former head of the New York State Public Service Commissiontold The New York Times:

That’s the one that’s probably most ominous.  It’s as much a function of the cost of the alternatives as it is the reactor itself.  Kewaunee not only didn’t have a major screw-up in repair work, it didn’t even seem to be confronting a major capital investment.

With the five closures, the nation's number of reactors is expected to dip to 99 by next year -- the lowest level in decades.

Some new modern reactor designs are incoming.

Reactor design
The AP1000, to be used in Georgia and South Carolina Plants [Image Source: Westinghouse]

The Tennessee Valley Authority is constructing a new reactor in its state, two reactors [PDF] are being built in Georgia (as an addition to the two-reactor Vogtle, Georgia plant), and two more are being constructed in South Carolina at the Virgil Plant, which currently has only one active reactor.

Nine other license applications are under review, according to an NRC page.  However, the recent industry tribulations are apparent from that page; eight other license requests were abandoned (marked "suspended") for various reasons -- in many cases costs.  Licenses typically take five years or more to obtain.

Chinese plant construction
China is already building a number of AP1000s, even as the U.S. nuclear industry wanes. 
[Image Source: Westinghouse]

The rate of construction clearly isn't keeping up with closures.  And that has some wondering whether nuclear power in the U.S. is destined for a slow ride off into the twilight, killed by cheap fossil fuels, alternative energy protectionism, and zealous "environmentalist" litigation.

Source: Entergy



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Still the Cheapest
By Reclaimer77 on 8/28/2013 6:01:54 PM , Rating: 4
In terms of electricity production costs, nothing is even close to nuclear. Productions costs for fuel operations and maintenance expenses for nuclear bring it to 1.72 cents/kwh. Coal-fired plants produce electricity at 2.37 cents/kwh, and natural gas plants have an average cost of 6.75 cents/kwh.

It's really a shame that close-minded ignorant morons with more time on their hands than sense have artificially driven up the cost of nuclear power far beyond it's actual.




RE: Still the Cheapest
By kmmatney on 8/28/2013 6:51:39 PM , Rating: 5
Obviously, these older plants have higher costs, or they wouldn't be closing for economic reasons. Hopefully the few newer plants they are building will be much more efficient and cheaper to maintain.


RE: Still the Cheapest
By Amedean on 8/28/2013 9:40:48 PM , Rating: 5
Interned as a mechanical engineer for Duke Energy, I can attest this article is mostly hyperbole (Jason Mick style). The biggest reason these plants are being shut down is because they are old....really old!

The reluctance to building new power plants have little to do with activists (Greenpeace endorses nuclear power) nowadays, building a nuclear power plant is expensive (recovering economy) so companies are reluctant to invest billions of dollars in lengthy projects when coal powered plants are easier to set establish and coal is cheap.

No drama, mostly economics...


RE: Still the Cheapest
By FITCamaro on 8/28/2013 9:50:20 PM , Rating: 4
It also has to do with the high potential of investing billions to build a plant when it might never open due to lawsuits.

And coal plants are being shuttered as well as the current administration is highly against coal. I mean look at this where the World Bank is saying they won't even finance building coal plants anymore.

http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2013/06/world-ba...


RE: Still the Cheapest
By Amedean on 8/28/2013 10:30:01 PM , Rating: 1
Lawsuits are a reality for all major construction projects.

quote:
And coal plants are being shuttered as well as the current administration is highly against coal.


Only place I here this is in entertainment news, certainly not in industry....


RE: Still the Cheapest
By Jaybus on 8/29/2013 3:40:29 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, but lawsuits have been continuous for nuclear plants for 40 years. It has added substantially to the cost of operating nuclear plants. Additionally, while legal fees due to government regulation artificially add cost to nuclear, government subsidies artificially reduce the cost of wind and solar. I am completely behind government sponsored research in wind and solar, but the production subsidies are harmful in every way.

Those 104 reactors providing 821 billion kWh in 2012, 19% of the US supply. World solar production was 93 million kWh in 2012, or 0.093 billion kWh. The US nuclear plants produced 8,828 times as much as the World's solar plants. Germany is making big claims, but reading the fine print shows that they also import a tremendous amount of nuclear-generated power from France. So did they really shut down their nukes by building out solar? Or do they now supplement imported power with domestic solar? Seems more a political thing than economic.


RE: Still the Cheapest
By jwcalla on 8/29/2013 4:17:57 PM , Rating: 3
Just doing a search for "nuclear government subsidies" indicates that nuclear energy is one of the heaviest-subsidized forms in the US. In some cases it's even more than solar and wind.

And that excludes the fact that when there's an accident, the utility / operator won't be able to afford the clean-up.

How much is it going to cost the Japanese taxpayer to clean up the Fukushima accident? What is the negative economic impact from having several towns evacuated and essentially closed for years? Who is going to pay for the relocation costs of the residents, and compensate for the lost homes and farmland?

The "total cost" of nuclear energy doesn't seem to be as cheap as advocates say.


RE: Still the Cheapest
By spaced_ on 8/30/2013 5:16:47 AM , Rating: 1
Thankfully a nuclear fallout hurts the company as much as everyone else.

So there's an economic incentive not to f*ck up.

A nuclear plant sabotage, or stealing of fuel is just another risk that drives costs up though. The risk has to be mitigated somewhat and that costs money. Don't forget waste management and disposal. Other sources of electricity generation simply don't have these types of problems or costs associated.

A corrupt energy company, with corrupt workers selling fuel, or corrupt economists managing the company, a corrupt government official turning a blind eye to safety, or a corrupt security worker leaking information whilst pocketing substantial amounts of money. I mean that's an impossibility that any of that could EVER happen right?

Sounds like nuclear power is the silver bullet to all america's problems. Go forth and conquer, America!


RE: Still the Cheapest
By Jaybus on 8/30/2013 11:51:21 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know that I'm advocating for nuclear. It would be great if say solar could replace the nukes and would be cheaper and safer. But how is it possible to replace nukes with solar? The current World solar production is more than 8,000 times less than just the US nuclear production (which is only 30% of World nuclear production). It just doesn't look feasible in the near term. I very much doubt that solar or wind can be anything more than supplemental for many years to come. The choice is then nuclear or natural gas. Maybe solar will some day be adequate, or maybe the National Ignition Facility will someday figure out a fusion reactor.

Those maybes are why I advocate government sponsored research in those areas. I do not advocate subsidizing solar production, as it is not yet ready for scaling up enough to replace nukes, let alone coal. The entire solar infrastructure, beginning with wafer production capacity, is inadequate for that level of scaling.


RE: Still the Cheapest
By The0ne on 8/30/2013 2:51:17 PM , Rating: 3
No they are not. Even now you have prime examples of nuclear plants that have gone beyond their projected budgets. Every country is the same. It sounds and looks great when you keep stating over and over that it is cheaper than oil, coal and whatever but overall nuclear is EXTREMELY costly. They are heavily subsidized by governments, more so than green energy technologies and from the scale of the cost for one they are quite large.

People take this to lightly by simply stating it's more efficient when really they have absolutely no clue as to how the industry works to begin with.


RE: Still the Cheapest
By Mint on 8/29/2013 3:37:40 AM , Rating: 2
Coal plants aren't worth it now in the era of cheap natural gas, especially the old ones that have low efficiency. That's the biggest reason that they're being shuttered.

Natural gas is 1.5-2x more efficient than coal at turning heat into electricity, and has a tiny fraction of the emissions, even if you ignore CO2. Getting most of the sulfur and particulates out of coal combustion is just too much of a headache compared to using natural gas.

The fuel cost is down to <3c/kWh nowadays with natural gas.


RE: Still the Cheapest
By spaced_ on 8/28/13, Rating: -1
RE: Still the Cheapest
By Reclaimer77 on 8/28/2013 10:51:03 PM , Rating: 4
Wind is not an option for large scale power generation. Not even close. It would take about 7,000 wind turbines to generate the same electricity that ONE nuclear facility provides. And that's a BEST case scenario. The amount of land that would require is enormous. Not to mention the noise that would produce and threat to wildlife.

The fact that you advocate wind so fervently pretty much disqualifies you from any knowledgeable position on large-scale power generation.


RE: Still the Cheapest
By spaced_ on 8/28/13, Rating: -1
RE: Still the Cheapest
By ebakke on 8/28/2013 11:33:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why is every country including yours investing so heavily in wind if nuclear is the answer?
Because countries (read: governments) invest for political gains, not economic gains. Duh.


RE: Still the Cheapest
By spaced_ on 8/28/2013 11:55:40 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose all that renewable energy the Chinese are building is to help their single political party gain something politically.

Hang on a minute...


RE: Still the Cheapest
By futrtrubl on 8/29/2013 3:33:09 AM , Rating: 3
Actually yes, it is. China (the government) has invested heavily in solar companies to corner the market worldwide and are now due to lack of demand have to create domestic demand for the industry. It's an oddly opposite direction to what happened when they completed their intensive road infrastructure blitz locally and then had to create international demand to support the industry they had created (in Jamaica (local issue for me) as a specific example and central Africa for another among others).


RE: Still the Cheapest
By Nagorak on 8/29/2013 7:20:55 AM , Rating: 2
While there may be some truth to what you're saying, the fact is China has no shortage of demand for power of any type. You can't even see the sky in many of their cities due to the overwhelming pollution. They would be well served to put all that excess solar capacity to use and shelve some of the coal power plants they are building. Pollution there is already beyond critical levels in China.


RE: Still the Cheapest
By spaced_ on 8/30/2013 4:42:32 AM , Rating: 3
I didn't realise the Chinese people had the option of voting for another political party thereby making renewable energy a political issue in China. Thanks for clearing that up.

In other news, sounds like an economic and security strategy.


RE: Still the Cheapest
By half_duplex on 8/29/2013 10:06:00 AM , Rating: 3
China developed a massive solar industry for the most part to take advantage of the sophomoric American President that was voted into office in 08.

Nuclear plants slowly die due to the constant barrage of lawsuits. Solendra dies even when funneled millions of tax dollars.


RE: Still the Cheapest
By whickywhickyjim on 8/29/2013 10:14:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why is every country including yours investing so heavily in wind if nuclear is the answer?


Because most utilities are forced to by their regulators. It's called renewable portfolio standards. Most utilities are in business to earn a return on their investments. Nuclear plants have a fair amount of risk associated with them because they are very costly to build and take 10+ years to construct. Power companies can't start recovering their investments until the plants achieve commercial operation. Wind projects, in contrast can be built in a few months to a year, and are comparably very cheap. And sometimes, when nuclear plants are finally completed, regulators refuse to allow them to operate -- google the Shoreham plant in New York. Wind is also heavily subsidized, and generally gets preferential ratemaking treatment. In contrast to nuclear, it's very certain that they are going to make a quick buck on wind. That's why they are being built.


RE: Still the Cheapest
By spaced_ on 8/30/2013 2:06:12 AM , Rating: 1
Yep, economically wind and gas makes sense. Nuclear doesn't.

Coal is less economically attractive now in most countries due to carbon taxes/trading schemes but how does that affect nuclear? It doesn't.

People seem to forget nuclear is heavily subsidised as well.

I find it quite funny I was voted down simply for pointing to a few facts. The reality is there's countries outside of the United States of America that do things differently.

Guess what? We never voted for Obama and he doesn't rule our countries.

We have huge uranium deposits, but not a single nuclear plant.

Get your head out of the sand, technology and manufacturing has improved and gas is cheap, that's why nuclear is struggling.

Why do you all love nuclear so much? It has huge risks associated and it's comparatively expensive to maintain. If something does go wrong then what?


RE: Still the Cheapest
By tnicks on 8/28/2013 7:14:21 PM , Rating: 1
It's Vermont, what do you expect?


RE: Still the Cheapest
By Mint on 8/28/2013 7:18:56 PM , Rating: 2
Those are old figures for natural gas from before the fracking boom. Natural gas is now $5 per 1000 cubic feet, which has 1.05 GJ of energy. At 60% efficiency, a modern CCGT plant needs only 2.8c of natural gas per kWh.

CCGT is a hell of a lot cheaper than nuclear with far less risk and a fraction of coal's pollution. I'm pro-nuclear, but at the moment it can't compete in the face of such cheap gas in the US. We're going to have to wait until molten salt designs get developed.

Here's a presentation from David LeBlanc:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4brIE0zlKWU
He's starting a company to develop a minimally complex molten salt reactor with the aim of getting commercial backing from oil companies that need high temperature steam to extract oil from tar sands.


RE: Still the Cheapest
By s_p_kay on 8/29/2013 7:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
Good presentation on molten salt plant designs. Too bad our political establishment and voting public are so poorly educated in science and technology and unwilling to consider modern nuclear reactor designs. All systems have strengths and weaknesses, I agree the natural gas drilling technologies make it a very attractive fuel for modern plant designs but nuclear energy should also be part of a diverse solution to electric energy production also. Solar and wind are politically popular but can never produce a substantial percentage of the nations power at a cost-effective price.


RE: Still the Cheapest
By Mint on 8/29/2013 10:51:39 PM , Rating: 2
Well, never is a long time :) At least with wind, I think there's potential with high altitude designs, particularly the Google-acquired Makani Power. They developed on a clever way (originally a 1980's idea) to reduce material requirements up to 90% while getting steadier power and the ability to go offshore with minimal cost.

But as technology currently stands, I agree with everything you said. I really hope MSRs work out in the next decade. They can become a panacea for low cost, emission-free energy.


RE: Still the Cheapest
By spaced_ on 8/28/2013 7:36:32 PM , Rating: 2
You should probably update the wikipedia page bro.

Looks like all those close-minded ignorant morons who wrote it aren't as smart as you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_b...


RE: Still the Cheapest
By bingbong on 8/28/2013 9:21:27 PM , Rating: 2
Are you sure it is just close mindedness.
While there seems to be something fishy going on with regards to anti nuclear at the moment It amazes me how the article talks about fossil fuels being too competitive. Uranium is a fossil fuel and is becoming increasingly scarce and at lower concentrations requiring increased investment for mining, extraction.
Security costs and insurance costs have risen plenty.
Private insurance companies are often not willing to insure them leaving Govt to do it.
Cooling demands put stress on fresh water supplies which are needed elsewhere effectively limiting the plant.
The lower temperature, around 600deg due to safety in most nuclear plants is not as efficient as some high temp coal plants.
That particular model of reactor has had warning bells ringing since the 70s.

While I appreciate the technology, we are still talking about a complex way of boiling water. There are plenty of reasons why a measured approach needs to happen here.

Of course GE and many large commercial entities which have plenty of media clout want you to write off anyone who questions nuclear as being an ignorant moron.
This approach is ignorant in itself.


RE: Still the Cheapest
By spaced_ on 8/28/2013 10:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While there seems to be something fishy going on with regards to anti nuclear at the moment


Does your fishy have 3 eyes?


RE: Still the Cheapest
By Nagorak on 8/29/2013 7:31:13 AM , Rating: 2
Nuclear is just too expensive and that's why it's dying. You can try to spin it however you like, but facts are facts. No one is willing to spend the billions it costs to build new plants. The old plants are already at the limits of their useful lives, and they are of older, less safe designs. And then we still after all these decades haven't figured out what to do with the waste, which really is something that should have been solved before the first plant even started operating.

Nuclear doesn't make sense economically even though the U.S. government has largely indemnified the nuclear power industry against the cost of damage caused by nuclear incidents. Sorry, but this "space age" technology has just fallen flat on its face. Much as you and other proponents might cry about it, the age of nuclear power is coming to an end.

It's also odd that the article above points out that Fukushima's meltdown was due to negligence by the operator, as if that indicated nuclear power wasn't unsafe. Does anyone seriously believe that none of the nuke plant operators in the U.S. are cutting any corners? In fact you can find many safety violations at plants in the U.S. Funny how everyone is trying to save as much as they can on maintenance on something that's so "cheap" to run...


RE: Still the Cheapest
By ammaross on 8/29/2013 1:11:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And then we still after all these decades haven't figured out what to do with the waste...


Actually, the new nuclear plant designs can run on the waste of the old plants and take that waste practically to depletion, making it very cheap to store since it's basically inert. However, these new plants can't be built due to froth-mouthers like you who sue when someone even whispers of a nuke plant being built within 100 miles of you. Then there's the gov't officials that you lobby to push heavy "green"-subsidies to compete against.


RE: Still the Cheapest
By spaced_ on 8/30/2013 2:29:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, the new nuclear plant designs can run on the waste of the old plants and take that waste practically to depletion, making it very cheap to store since it's basically inert.


Who cares? Fuel is a comparatively low cost when considering to build a nuclear plant.

Why not look at the bigger picture and realise this isn't the 1970's anymore. Surprisingly, the technological and manufacturing landscape was very different back then. The power a nuclear plant provided for it's cost back then, made economic sense.

Today, it doesn't.

Hello and welcome to 2013.


RE: Still the Cheapest
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2013 2:24:19 PM , Rating: 2
Virtually nothing you said was true. ALL power plants cost billions to build, idiot. The reason nuclear is so expensive is mostly because of the crushing weight of oversight, lawsuits, just all the red tape. Years of "environmental impact" studies and every other artificial barrier that can possibly be thought up.

quote:
And then we still after all these decades haven't figured out what to do with the waste


More FUD. Actually an outright lie.

quote:
Much as you and other proponents might cry about it, the age of nuclear power is coming to an end.


Hmmm, tell that to France. They might disagree.

The age of nuclear power in American might be coming to an end, but that's because of stupidity and short-sightedness. Also the economy aint the greatest. The technology itself is so superior to anything else out there, it's not even funny. For large scale power generation nothing even comes close.

If half of what you said was true, for the reasons you suggest, NOBODY would be building or using nuclear power anywhere.

quote:
as if that indicated nuclear power wasn't unsafe.


There is no such thing as an inherently unsafe technology. Only in how it is applied and engineered. The Fukushima plant was engineered poorly, maintained poorly, and ran poorly. It was also built in a VERY high-risk geographical location.


RE: Still the Cheapest
By jwcalla on 8/29/2013 3:17:12 PM , Rating: 2
What percentage of a nuclear power plant's build cost is lost to red tape?


RE: Still the Cheapest
By spaced_ on 8/30/2013 2:15:11 AM , Rating: 2
Gee good question.

One which I'm sure none of the people in this comments section can answer, nor if they found said answer, would wish to tell you as then they might start to see why nuclear is actually just expensive compared to other alternatives.


RE: Still the Cheapest
By spaced_ on 8/30/2013 2:23:54 AM , Rating: 2
If virtually nothing he said was true, why do you have zero data to dispute what he said?

quote:
Hmmm, tell that to France. They might disagree.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Fran...

Again. You need to update the wikipedia article bro, looks like France is wrong and you're right.

They're reducing their nuclear power from 75% to 50% because new nuclear plants are more expensive than old ones .

Might be a good idea to get your head out of your arse and look around the world a bit one day.


RE: Still the Cheapest
By AiponGkooja on 9/1/2013 2:06:48 PM , Rating: 2
Did you even read the article? It cites one project as proof of that claim. Did you do your research and look into that project? It happens to be a "first of a kind" design that is requiring more R&D and regulatory changes mid-project, and is taking much longer than anticipated. All combined, those significantly raised the cost of the project. They expect construction time for future projects to be "40% shorter... taking full advantage of the construction experience from both previous projects (citing two others in China)"

The reduction in reliance on Nuclear from 75% to 50% (production) is advocated due to their current plants not being flexible enough to meet demand. During non-peak seasons, they generate MUCH more power than they need, and have to find places to export it to. During peak seasons, they do not generate enough, because they've spent so much time advocating the use of electric space and water heating. They OVER-invested in nuclear, to the point that they tried to find ways to use more power.

ie. They want to reduce the percentage of nuclear supply because it is not ideally suited to meet peak power demand, and they have adopted a lot of wasteful energy consumption practices.

This isn't saying nuclear is bad and too expensive (France still provides extremely cheap power to consumers, and power is their 4th largest export), it's saying that nuclear can't currently meet 100% of consumption needs in a non-wasteful way.

That took me 10 minutes. Research is hard.


RE: Still the Cheapest
By spaced_ on 9/3/2013 7:37:57 AM , Rating: 2
No it cites zero projects as proof of that claim. That project just happens to be super expensive and way over-budget anyway. But nothing to do with my argument.

It does however, cite the fact that France is reducing their nuclear capacity from 75% to 50%. Which is a direct contradiction to what Reclaimer77 was spouting out of his rear end.

If you wish to spend another productive 10 minutes of your time researching, it might be an idea to look up how much electricity generation by fuel type costs nowadays. I've already posted several links to some data.

New nuclear is expensive, mostly because you have to spend billions building a plant. Old nuclear is not so expensive - the plant already exists. This article cites $400mil over 10 years for a 70's plant in Vermont. Far less than building a new plant.

So when do you get your ROI on a new nuke plant? In 30 years? 50 years? Most people can't wait that long. Particularly people who want to make money.

If you can understand, France also needs to import electricity during peak demand due to their over-reliance on nuclear, hence why Germany came to their rescue even after it shut down 8 of it's own nuke plants. This is another of nuclear's many disadvantages and why it's not a silver bullet answer to all things electricity generation related.


RE: Still the Cheapest
By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 8/29/2013 1:50:07 PM , Rating: 2
It'd be nice if these plants were replaced by LFTRs built onsite, which could take spent fuel and recycle/reprocess it for their own fueling.. Kill a whole bunch of birds with one stone!


RE: Still the Cheapest
By Etsp on 8/29/2013 3:19:53 PM , Rating: 2
I'd prefer if you'd avoid using that particular metaphor when discussing nuclear power. The eco-nuts will assume you're being literal...


Pro nuclear, but...
By MichalT on 8/28/2013 7:45:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'm primarily pro-nuclear, but these old plants have got to go away. They are substantially less safe than the new designs.




RE: Pro nuclear, but...
By Omega215D on 8/28/2013 8:55:40 PM , Rating: 2
That would be the best solution, unfortunately plenty of idiots out there would rather the plant not be replaced with a newer nuclear plant and instead with something "safer."

They plan on shutting down Indian Point in NY but there's a possibility of no new nukes going up in its place.


RE: Pro nuclear, but...
By spaced_ on 8/28/2013 10:48:28 PM , Rating: 2
That's ridiculous, why on earth would anyone want to replace a nuclear plant with something 'safer' and 'cheaper'?


RE: Pro nuclear, but...
By KurgSmash on 8/29/2013 2:53:22 AM , Rating: 1
There is nothing cheaper and safer than nuclear.


RE: Pro nuclear, but...
By Nagorak on 8/29/2013 7:43:26 AM , Rating: 2
I've never heard of a wind farm leaking vast amounts of toxic pollution into the ocean.

It's pretty obvious at this point that there are plenty of things cheaper and safer than nuclear. You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but the economics do not lie. If nuclear were indeed the panacea its proponents made it out to be, plants would be springing up all over the place and a few pesky lawsuits wouldn't be enough to stop it.


RE: Pro nuclear, but...
By half_duplex on 8/29/2013 10:13:54 AM , Rating: 1
You, and those who think like you, are idiots. And sadly, you have the right to vote, type on the internet, and breed idiot children to take your place.

Comparing nuclear to wind, solar, etc in terms of "cheaper and safer" is like comparing a 4 door sedan to a bike.


RE: Pro nuclear, but...
By chrnochime on 8/29/2013 7:45:40 PM , Rating: 4
Nice of you to skirt his post about nuclear meltdown. The new plant designs might be great, but we are stuck with these existing unsafe plants, and no amount of foaming from your mouth is going to change that fact.

Don't tell me that fukushima incident is perfectly fine for the environment and people. Look at all those mutated veggies that resulted from the meltdown.

You nuclear nuts can vote me down all you want, but the fact remains is that your argument rest on nuclear plants being safe WHEN replaced with the new designs. Without that happening your argument falls flat on its face.


RE: Pro nuclear, but...
By spaced_ on 8/30/2013 2:59:27 AM , Rating: 3
The data doesn't lie. Gas and wind is popular because it's economically sound. Safety is just one of many economic factors.

But hell what do I care. My home country benefits economically if america goes nuclear.

Forge ahead keyboard redneck warriors!


RE: Pro nuclear, but...
By Mint on 8/29/2013 11:18:29 AM , Rating: 2
Wind and solar have indirect pollution effects.

If you build 1GW of wind, you'll need 1GW of natural gas to ramp up and down (not good for efficiency) as wind power varies to build real 1GW combined capacity, with natural gas being used for about 2/3 of the energy and wind 1/3 (due to capacity factor). That natural gas is extracted largely with fracking (which has pollution concerns far more relevant than rare Fukushima type events). Wind and solar power output are correlated over geographically huge areas, so there's no way of using them alone. That's why natural gas tycoons like Pickens are pro-wind.

Well, there is pumped hydro storage, but there simply isn't enough of it available at reasonable cost, and it too causes ecosystem damage.

Then there's the vast amount of materials needed with wind/solar relative to other more concentrated sources of energy.

There's no free lunch in energy. You have to look at numbers and weigh things relatively. Nuclear waste is a far more manageable problem than atmospheric or groundwater pollution. I'm not saying fracking is deal-breaker, but we need to keep an eye out for long term effects, because they're not negligible.


RE: Pro nuclear, but...
By KurgSmash on 8/29/2013 12:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
Look up the numbers. Nuclear, _per TWh_ (which is probably the part you're missing) is incredibly safe. And that's with these old, busted reactors we insist on keeping around. If we invested in new designs it would be even safer.

And, again, per watt it's...competitive. Not the best, but when you combine the two dimensions (safety/cost) nothing beats it.


RE: Pro nuclear, but...
By jwcalla on 8/29/2013 2:14:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah it's "safe" until there's an accident, that's the problem.

The issue here is that you're dealing with the possibility of being forced to evacuate a huge city like Tokyo or NYC or DC in the event of a major accident. And leaving the place uninhabitable for decades.

I recognize the risk is small, but the consequences are huge.

Is it really worth taking the risk? To eliminate a little CO2? I don't think it's wrong to raise the question.


RE: Pro nuclear, but...
By M'n'M on 8/30/2013 9:47:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is it really worth taking the risk? To eliminate a little CO2? I don't think it's wrong to raise the question.

How safe is it to keep adding CO2 into the atmosphere ? If it's catastrophic but takes 100-200 years for the effect to happen, does that mean we shouldn't be concerned about it now, when power plants will last 50+ years ?


RE: Pro nuclear, but...
By johnsmith9875 on 9/4/2013 1:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
Fukishima created a 30km dead zone around the plant, and its looking to be the next Chernobyl permanent exclusion zone, in a country that doesn't have land to lose because its so small.
Can you name any coal, gas or wind farm accident that has displaced 1,000,000 people due to an accident?


Energy costs down?
By dgingerich on 8/28/2013 6:53:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
To make matters worse, nuclear has had to compete fossil fuels, which are booming amid the explosion of natural gas and oil extraction from hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"). The surplus of fossil fuels has driven down prices, which Entergy notes in its press release on the closure.


How come my electricity bill has continued to rise with the same usage, +/- 5%, over the last 6 years? I've been tracking what Excel Energy says I use for the last 6 years. Equal months across each year (comparing September to September and May to May, etc) My usage has fluctuated by barely 5%. July 2013 is only 0.2kWh below July 2007. Yet, my electricity bills are now over twice what they were in 2007, July 2013 is $254 while July 2007 was $107. (For a two bedroom apartment! It's nuts!) Granted, the actual rate hasn't increased that much, but my "Electrical Commodity Adjustment" charge is now more than half my bill.

I don't get the comments by so many people who say energy is cheaper. It's not! It's up. Way up. It's been going up constantly since Obama took office! Also, Excel has added all this new wind power that they said wouldn't increase our costs. Yeah, sure thing Excel.

I have to dispute the claims that electricity cost is down.




RE: Energy costs down?
By Totally on 8/28/2013 7:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
Don't get me started on the ongoing robbery by FPL.

Chances are your utility company is privately owned and publically traded company. They have to please their investors. Also it's not like we can switch to someone else for electricity.

"Deal with it" -- your local utility


RE: Energy costs down?
By KITH on 8/28/2013 7:30:45 PM , Rating: 3
You're being charged the extra costs involved in 'going green'.

There are costs for green power production and costs in decreasing carbon based power production. The less power being produced the more it has to be purchased from outside sources at spot prices.


RE: Energy costs down?
By Captain Awesome on 8/28/2013 8:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
You probably live somewhere hot and have your air conditioner set below freezing. Do you have ice built up in a lot of places?


RE: Energy costs down?
By dgingerich on 8/29/2013 9:56:58 AM , Rating: 2
I live in Colorado, where summers are about 90F, but I also live in a 1986 (the pinnacle of cheap apartment building) third floor apartment with a black roof in a state that has over 300 sunny days per year. In the summer, it can get over 110F in my apartment without the A/C or my computers running. I know that because I tried it for the month of June. It would take over 6 hours to get the apartment back down to 80F at night. It's not much fun to come home to an apartment that's 110F and not be able to sleep until after midnight because it is so hot. (I'm actually moving in September to a newer, 2nd floor, 1 bedroom apartment, and that should keep the A/C bills down. It's also in another city and on another electric grid with a different company.) Also, I keep my A/C set to 80F in this place because I wanted to keep the electricity bill down. On top of all that, Excel started doubling the electricity rate, at the request of the Denver city council, for people who used over a certain amount, and I'm always on that list. So, yeah, there are reasons for my high electricity bill.

However, I still used the same rate of electricity when I was in my previous second floor 1 bedroom apartment, kept at 70F, with two Core i7 900 series computers, one with dual GTX470 video cards and the other with 8 hard drives and a raid controller. I reduced my computer power consumption, but moved to an apartment that requires much more A/C usage to keep cool enough to live in.


RE: Energy costs down?
By ShieTar on 8/29/2013 5:03:04 AM , Rating: 2
You seriously pay $254 a month on electricity in the US? Prices in Germany are around 0.33$ / kWh, and I pay about 50$ a month including about 10$ of fixed cost. Do you heat or cool with electricity?


RE: Energy costs down?
By dgingerich on 8/29/2013 10:53:17 AM , Rating: 2
Well, over half my bill is something designated "Electrical Commodity Adjustment."

http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Xcel_Energy_(XEL)/E...

So, while the rates are pretty low on the bill, they're actually over twice what they show because of this ECA cheat.


RE: Energy costs down?
By whickywhickyjim on 8/29/2013 3:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
The ECA is a fuel clause. They pass through their commodity costs of fuel to ratepayers through this rider -- this isn't something PSCO (Xcel) is making money on (although there are some other items that flow through this rider). Off the top of my head, it sounds like your home may have some insulation issues.


By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 8/29/2013 1:55:33 PM , Rating: 2
My peak summer monthly bill is about $200, for a ~200sqm ranch house, and that includes about $30 to charge my Volt. Also, everything's electric, no gas service to the house, but winters in Texas are pretty mild.


RE: Energy costs down?
By Dr of crap on 8/29/2013 1:01:25 PM , Rating: 2
You sir are paying WAY TO MUCH!

I also have Excel energy and I have a 4 bedroom house. My electric and natural gas bill combined is only $190 per month averaged throughout the year. You need to move or complain big time!


nuclear energy
By jwcalla on 8/28/2013 8:54:43 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's somewhat negligent to say that the Fukushima Daiichi accident can be dismissed as mere "negligence". It's too early to even know the full sequence of events and the causes of the failures. But the information we do have at this point does point out some very significant design flaws. People seemed content with the early explanation that the backup diesel generators got wiped out and that was the end of it. (After which a curious person would ask why there isn't better redundancy.) Well the generators survived at the Fukushima Daini plant and they just barely held back three meltdowns there.

It is time to question if this is a good way to create electricity.

For those who say nuclear energy is cheap, how much of the cost is subsidized by governments... and when there is an accident, who is expected to pay for the cleanup costs?




RE: nuclear energy
By spaced_ on 8/28/2013 11:26:59 PM , Rating: 2
Nuclear is a cheap fossil fuel in comparison to coal/gas.

Compared to fuel provided by the sun, the wind, the tides, the earth's core, it's quite expensive over time when you compare it to a fuel that is essentially free.

Mind you, nuclear has it's place. Not that my country has a single plant. We do export plenty of uranium to the US and other countries though. So actually come to think of it, the US should build more nuke plants so we can sell more nuke to the US and take their money. Screw this free from the sun and the wind hippy crap. The US should totally just build more nuke plants and buy more fuel from us.


RE: nuclear energy
By KurgSmash on 8/29/2013 2:55:15 AM , Rating: 3
Umm.. Uranium is not a fossil fuel.


RE: nuclear energy
By ShieTar on 8/29/2013 5:15:30 AM , Rating: 2
Sure it is. Oil is dead trees, Uranium is dead stars ;-)

On the other hand, Wind and Solar are not actually renewable, because we use up the suns hydrogen.


RE: nuclear energy
By half_duplex on 8/29/2013 10:16:51 AM , Rating: 3
We also use up the most scarce resource on the planet, land.


RE: nuclear energy
By johnsmith9875 on 9/4/2013 1:31:03 PM , Rating: 2
Solar power isn't viable, the sun will run out of energy in 2 billion years, we really must conserve its light.


RE: nuclear energy
By spaced_ on 8/30/2013 3:47:06 AM , Rating: 2
Apologies. My mistake. Should read simply 'fuel'.


RE: nuclear energy
By Nagorak on 8/29/13, Rating: 0
RE: nuclear energy
By M'n'M on 8/30/2013 9:27:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Compared to fuel provided by the sun, the wind, the tides, the earth's core, it's quite expensive over time when you compare it to a fuel that is essentially free.

Are you including the cost of the power plant you must build and have sitting ready to provide power when the wind doesn't blow ? If not, you're comparing apples (steady power) to oranges (wind power). How much of the worlds power could be steadily supplied by wind at the cost you cite presently ? How much extra will each kW-hr cost when you have to build wind towers in places where it's more expensive to build (perhaps at sea) or where the wind isn't as frequent ? That is after all the prime, cheap, have-a-lot-of-wind locations have been built out and you still need more power.


RE: nuclear energy
By spaced_ on 8/31/2013 12:58:41 AM , Rating: 2
It's one of many factors and one of the disadvantages of wind. It isn't always blowing or blowing strongly.

Wind power generation can vary fairly drastically usually from 30-100% capacity. Similarly, solar PV has an extremely low penetration in ANY energy market (except micro-generation). The sun isn't on 24/7 and people want electricity at night. Solar thermal overcomes that issue somewhat but again it's still economically less sound (today) than other alternatives.

You can get 24/7 high baseload from geothermal or tidal or other free fuel systems, but geothermal again is only economically feasible in a few geographical locations and I've not heard of tidal for quite some time.

Fuel such as wind, sun, etc. is free. You don't need to get people to dig it up, refine it or transport it, or buy it from another country. Nature provides it for free. Compared to nuclear fuel you don't need to secure it, audit it, dispose of it and manage it's entire lifecycle. All of these activities require a human to do something. Slavery is no longer allowed. You have to pay money for these things - it adds up and adds up over time.

There's plenty of high-wind areas that make wind economically sound and transporting electricity over long (relatively speaking) distances is easy. Building wind farms is a cheap and low risk investment. Even in the US there's plenty of land. Here's a hint, you don't build wind farms near cities or urban areas. Land there tends to come at higher cost.

Nuclear had made plenty of sense economically in the past, particularly in the 70's and particularly with all the government subsidies. However, new methods of generating electricity have become more economically attractive. Look up the data provided by the EIA. Even solar PV is getting close to nuclear in terms of cost - but has far less risk associated. Hydro is still one of the cheapest forms of electricity generation - cheaper than any new nuclear plant - but again it's only feasible depending on geography.

New nuclear may make economic sense, in some situations today . Low geographical concerns outside of earthquakes and sufficient cooling. It has an advantage of having high baseload power. The same as geothermal, coal and gas. It has the advantage of fewer CO2 emissions over coal and gas. But old nuclear plants are often economically still sound, much moreso than constructing new ones. Obviously this old one in Vermont was going to start leaking money. In developing countries that have high power demands and growth, high population, low land mass that have few other options, it may make economic sense. If they have uranium deposits they may be able to create an export industry.

In a few years time, the cost of wind will have dropped another 15% or so. The cost of solar will have dropped further. Strides in biomass and other alternative forms of energy will make them more attractive as well.

Odds are new nuclear will fade into obscurity over the next few decades as other technology will produce electricity substantially cheaper with far fewer economic and other risks attached. It's actually already happening. Today.

If anyone wishes to dispute any of these statements, please provide data that shows otherwise. I'd be quite interested.


RE: nuclear energy
By AiponGkooja on 9/2/2013 2:53:17 AM , Rating: 2
Wind power generation does vary drastically. But it's from 0-100%, with the average being just over 30%.

I question where you get your 'facts,' as well as how you try to display them.

http://www.windaction.org/documents/38449


It's not just cheaper gas
By DanNeely on 8/28/2013 5:01:49 PM , Rating: 3
US total electric consumption is down 2.2% from 2008 to 2012.

The numbers too look at are the orange output lines from electricity generation. (The gray output line is waste heat.)
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2013/Jul/im...
https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/energy/energy_...




RE: It's not just cheaper gas
By niva on 8/28/2013 5:30:24 PM , Rating: 2
That is very interesting to look at... have we peaked out in terms of energy use? I thought we were constantly demaninding more and more energy simlar to how we demand more and more bandwidth for cell phone services :D

That was a joke, really appreciate those graphs.


RE: It's not just cheaper gas
By DanNeely on 8/28/2013 6:59:32 PM , Rating: 2
Until recently US energy growth was steadily going up; Europe with higher general energy prices and more govt spending/regulation to push efficiency (ie Kyoto Accord compliance) peaked a while back. Since the major recent efficiency push in the US coincided with the recession and ongoing slow recovery it's not easy to separate the effects out. Unfortunately you'll have to check back in 5 or 10 years for an unambiguous answer.


RE: It's not just cheaper gas
By dgingerich on 8/28/2013 7:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
It's probably due to two things: more efficient devices (from moving from a tower to a laptop computer, and more efficient processors in computers, to newer A/C and refrigerators) and switching to a more mobile lifestyle, where phones and tablets are used more for internet surfing than bigger, full service computers. (I fear for the sight of our future generations due to those phones and tablets, too.)


RE: It's not just cheaper gas
By ShieTar on 8/29/2013 4:51:48 AM , Rating: 3
Those two effect private energy consumption, but there is a third factor: Both the US and the EU have outsourced industrial work to Asia, most specifically China, over the last two decades. That is whats driving the rise in consumption in China mostly, even more than the increasing quality of life of the Chinese population.

Also, to the above comment: The "peak" is true for some, specifically the richer, parts of Europe, but overall its still increasing due to the economic development of eastern Europe leading to increases in quality of life and electrical power consumption.

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/EG.USE....

Also, efficiency is increasing mostly in private households, energy-intensive industry does not have to participate in the rising costs of the energy transition, and thus sees no reason to change its processes. We've got lobbies too, you know.


RE: It's not just cheaper gas
By spaced_ on 8/29/2013 12:49:10 AM , Rating: 2
The fine print at the bottom states that only retail electricity sales are included and not self-generation.

In my country we've gone from 20,000 rooftop solar PV installs to over 1,000,000 in the past 5 years. I imagine if you look at US data it has a similar trend. There's several other factors, but this is a biggie I reckon when looking at those graphs.

Interesting to see coal generation has dropped significantly in those figures and gas and wind have significantly increased. Supports the other economic data floating around.


RE: It's not just cheaper gas
By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 8/29/2013 2:01:03 PM , Rating: 2
Energy use is a pretty good proxy for economic health. When the economy's bad, energy demand goes down. Also, to some extent, cheap energy drives economic growth, so any technology that can drive energy costs way down (such as LFTR) will leave more capital available for more innovative uses and more left over from a paycheck for folks to save or spend as they see fit.


RE: It's not just cheaper gas
By ShieTar on 9/2/2013 3:47:18 AM , Rating: 2
That true when looking at a single nations development over time, but there are also differences in efficiency, i.e. how much economy can people get out of a certain amount of energy. And on that aspect, Europe has started to increase its efficiency faster than either the US or China over the last decade.


Where Does Vermont Get its Energy?
By DaveLessnau on 8/28/2013 9:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
I found this at http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=VT
quote:

- Vermont had the second-lowest per capita natural gas consumption of all States in 2010.
- Nuclear power accounted for about three-fourths of the electricity generated within Vermont in 2011, a higher share than any other State.
- Twenty-one percent of Vermont’s net electricity generation in 2011 was from conventional hydroelectric power.
- Vermont has a voluntary goal of generating 25 percent of electricity consumed in the state from renewable energy resources by 2025.
- In 2010, Vermont had the Nation's lowest carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation.

Note that 2nd item: Nuclear power, 75%, more than any other state. I don't know how they expect to live if they keep closing down their major energy sources.




RE: Where Does Vermont Get its Energy?
By DaveLessnau on 8/28/2013 9:50:09 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I guess I really have to ask that question: from where does Vermont think they're going to get their electricity? Honestly. That nuclear plant produced fully 75% of their electricity. They have no coal-fired (oh, the horror). They have very few natural gas fired plants. I doubt they'll increase their hydroelectric plants lest they harm a little fishy. I'd guess solar is just not an option way up there. Apparently, according to that site I referenced, wind power might be an option because of their hilly terrain. But, I can't imagine how they'll recoup 75% of their total electricity use through that. I guess they (or most of them) won't freeze to death in the winter since it seems 60% of them use fuel oil to heat their houses. But, what they'll use to light their houses and businesses and run their economy, I don't know.

The amount they've been paying for their electricity is 43% of the US average. They're in for a rude awakening when those prices spike in the near future.


RE: Where Does Vermont Get its Energy?
By spaced_ on 8/28/2013 10:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
Surprisingly, electricity can be transported quite quickly, over long distances through wires.

States don't have electricity borders afaik so can physically traverse more than one state.

If Vermont is paying 43% of national average for electricity and 75% of their electricity is from that plant, I can see why it's shutting down. Simple economics.


RE: Where Does Vermont Get its Energy?
By DaveLessnau on 8/28/2013 11:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
I assume someone, somewhere, has to pick up the slack. Does it have to be fairly local? IOW, are the neighboring states the ones who will have to pick up the load or can the imported electricity come from all the states? If it's the neighboring states, do they have the excess capacity to carry 75% of Vermont's electricity demands?


By jwcalla on 8/29/2013 12:13:55 AM , Rating: 2
I think you're misreading that 75% number. That's the amount generated by the plant in the state of VT. But VT is actually an electricity exporter, so they're not consuming all of that. Vermont Yankee is right on the border of both NH and MA.


By spaced_ on 8/29/2013 12:23:09 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah someone has to pick up the slack, but how much of it is there? I don't know. How dense is the population in vermont? (i.e. how many air-conditioners, hot-water systems, stoves, ovens and kettles do they need?)

If you take a look at the link you posted: http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=VT

There's a map that shows where the generators are located, in neighbouring and other states.

There is transmission loss distributing electricity. It varies on a number of factors including distance, so it's one of many factors when buying electricity from a generator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transm...

But transmission loss isn't significant. 6.5% or so in the US on average.

Given the Vermont nuke plant was exporting about 60% of electricity provided to their own state and the Vermontians were only paying 43% of national average, I'm not surprised the plant closed really. Market too competitive, operating costs too high on aging plant. Can't imagine legal issues affected the economics much.

As this dude said:

quote:
Bill Mohl, president of Entergy Wholesale Commodities, comments, "Simply put, this decision was based on economics."


By jwcalla on 8/29/2013 1:16:47 AM , Rating: 2
According to a report on Fairewinds, the Vermont Yankee plant wasn't selling any electricity to VT utilities. However, VT utilities were purchasing some nuclear-generated electricity from out-of-state nuclear plants.

This plant simply couldn't compete in the energy market. This seems to be a growing trend in the nuclear industry with the advent of cheap natural gas from the recent shale gas drilling.


By Nagorak on 8/29/2013 7:35:49 AM , Rating: 2
The article indicated that Vermont utilities don't buy their power from the plant. Even though 75% of the power generated in Vermont, and probably the power actually used by its citizens, is nuclear, they apparently weren't paying to use that power.


By Integral9 on 8/29/2013 12:32:08 PM , Rating: 2
Got Moose?


YEA WE WON
By btc909 on 8/29/2013 12:19:42 AM , Rating: 2
Freaking morons. You should be pushing to build a modern nuclear power generating plant and decommissioning the old nuclear plant.

Same mickey mouse BS with San Onofre. Yes it was in a bad location, find another location.




RE: YEA WE WON
By spaced_ on 8/29/2013 1:57:10 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah what idiots.

They were losing money maintaining an old nuke plant, so they're decommissioning it just as you suggested. How stupid.

They may or may not spring up a new one as you suggested. It probably depends on some crazy factors like cost or something.

What retards.


RE: YEA WE WON
By PaFromFL on 8/29/2013 8:22:13 AM , Rating: 2
It would be so easy to get popular support if they would just paint the nuclear plants green, or perhaps rainbow colors in Vermont. What US citizen of average intelligence would protest against a green power plant?

Maintenance is expensive, but seldom as expensive as constructing a new plant. The government should subsidize nuclear plants so that they will be around when the speculators and lawyers drive the cost of fossil fuels through the roof (again). Governments should try to damp out the excesses of capitalism, not encourage them (e.g. housing boom/bust).


Get rid of environmental groups
By FITCamaro on 8/28/2013 9:45:09 PM , Rating: 2
Environmental groups should not be able to sue on my behalf to shutter or stop nuclear energy. If a plant is following all laws there should be no legal basis to sue on either. A handful of morons should not be able to stop the rest of us from being able to have cheap, safe, stable energy.




RE: Get rid of environmental groups
By Nagorak on 8/29/2013 7:37:48 AM , Rating: 2
And they haven't stopped you from having that.


Tease....
By futrtrubl on 8/29/2013 3:25:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But in early August, the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New York ruled [PDF] that the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 [PDF] and the Federal [Water] Power Act of 1920 [PDF] (TITLE 16 U.S.C. Chapter 12 )

uh, what.. what did they rule? Don't leave us hanging.




RE: Tease....
By jjlj on 8/29/2013 4:33:42 PM , Rating: 2
Glad I'm not the only one scratching my head. WTF?


By chromal on 8/28/2013 8:16:56 PM , Rating: 2
It's probably a good thing that Gen-II reactors are being deemed uneconomical by their operators. This will help make way for Gen-III/III+ and eventually Gen-IV reactors, effectively an enormous safety upgrade for us. It was always expected and planned for that the reactors opened in the early 1970s would be shuttered and replaced with newer designs forty years later.




oh DT...
By BillyBatson on 8/28/2013 9:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
why are there so many errors in this article? It doesn't seem l;ike anyone proof-read it before posting, words are missing etc.




Typo
By Sivar on 8/28/2013 10:46:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
since Entergy acquired the Yankee plant in 2002, it has spent $400M USD -- or roughly $40M USD -- on upkeep.

Roughly is right. :)




"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki