Slashdot Mirror
Dominion Announces Plans To Close Kewaunee Nuclear Power Station In 2013
An anonymous reader writes "Due to low electricity prices in the Midwest, and an inability to find a buyer for the power station, Dominion will be shutting down and decomissioning Kewaunee Nuclear Power Station. One of two operating nuclear power stations in Wisconsin, Kewaunee's license from the NRC was not due to expire until the end of 2033."
... the times of low electricity prices will then be over soon.
Now comes the fun part, explaining to the tax payers and anyone else involved, why it stops producing electricity today, but they still pay for the cleanup and stoarage of the radiated materials for the next hundred or so years. Was that cost factored in to all the 'cheap energy prices' the electricity was sold for?
I mean, why would the Dominion need nuclear power plants in the first place? Are they out of dilithium?
And even if they did need nuclear power plants, why would they be in the Alpha Quadrant?
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
To my pro-nuclear friends: This is as clear evidence as you're gonna get why nuclear power is not taking off. It's not nut-job environmentalists, it's not NIMBY, it's not some grand conspiracy. Nuclear is just too freaking expensive to operate with any semblance of reasonable safety.
Thorium has some advantages but it's not really a new idea and particularly full of roses. Why do we need to switch to it? Not really a magic bullet. Just gradually move to better nuclear plants as time rolls on, whether Uranium or Thorium or Hydrogen-Fusion or what-have-you. Do the same with every power plant of every kind that we keep using. Phase out fossil fuels where we can.
I don't want to sound like a dick, but the bit about penning traps and black holes are so sci-fi that it makes you sound like you're choosing Thorium because it sounds cool and sci-fi-ish.
Windmills in space sound like a great idea! Satellites would look so much prettier with big turbines on them instead of all those blue panels.
Do we go back and ask for more from the company running this?
So it would seem, according to the Unites States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, although the point is a moot one in light of the fact this particular fund appears to be sufficiently funded.
Although there are many factors that affect reactor decommissioning costs, generally they range from $300 million to $400 million. Approximately 70 percent of licensees are authorized to accumulate decommissioning funds over the operating life of their plants. These owners – generally traditional, rate-regulated electric utilities or indirectly regulated generation companies – are not required today to have all of the funds needed for decommissioning. The remaining licensees must provide financial assurance through other methods such as prepaid decommissioning funds and/or a surety method or guarantee. The staff performs an independent analysis of each of these reports to determine whether licensees are providing reasonable “decommissioning funding assurance” for radiological decommissioning of the reactor at the permanent termination of operation.
Philosopher (n) - a wise person who is calm and rational; someone who lives a life of reason with equanimity
It's always funny to see the word clean next to coal.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to just switch off the cooling and let it blow itself up?
Exactly! If we can have solar sails, there's no reason we can't have solar windmills.
And I like it, because we can focus on next-generation technology. In the first half of 2012, 40% of our energy requirement can from renewable resources, which means we'll have the mature technology for sale when other countries want to switch :)
in the USA real consumer prices for electricity have fallen slightly over the same period!
So much for "this is a world problem" that the governments kept telling us
ITYF thanks to your idiotic chancellor that german power companies are starting to build coal fired replacements for those shut down nuclear plants. So much for germany being green eh?
Renewables you say? Would those be the windfarms in the north which are 600km from where most of the energy is needed in the south? And given that the wind doesn't always blow - what other renewables did you have in mind? Solar? Yeah , right, in northern europe... suuure. Hydro? Nope, not enough locations. Tidal/wave? Same problem as wind with power transmission. So what is this great hope you germans have for renewables?
Yes, but only if we all get superpowers as a result.
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
"They're all great to invest in, but none of them are as technology feasible right now as these new nuclear reactors."
OTOH you can get a fucking insurance to pay for any damages they may cause. The sexy new reactors still don't.
How was the plant paid for? I know that in my area that the power companies have managed to get the regulation authorities to increase the price of electricity long before the plant is ever built, letting the customers pay for the construction. And without giving the customers stock in the company, even though they are effectively forced to become investors. And this is done with the claims that the electricity is needed and it will keep rates low.
Now they want to shut down the plant? Because building it did help keep rates low? If it was financed completely with private money then they might just get away with that. But if it was financed with rate payer money. then there ought to be a hell of a lawsuit over this move that will drive down supply and drive up rates.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
In September 2010, the German government announced a new aggressive energy policy with the following targets:
Increasing the relative share of renewable energy in gross energy consumption to 18% by 2020, 30% by 2030 and 60% by 2050
Increasing the relative share of renewable energy in gross electrical consumption to 35% by 2020 and 80% by 2050
Increasing the national energy efficiency by cutting electrical consumption 50% below 2008 levels by 2050
The NY Times reports that the Kewaunee Power Station will close early next year because the owner is unable to find a buyer and the plant is no longer economically viable driven by slack demand for energy and the low price of natural gas. âoeThis was an extremely difficult decision, especially in light of how well the station is running and the dedication of the employees,â says Dominion CEO Thomas F. Farrell II. âoeThis decision was based purely on economics.â When Dominion bought the plant from local owners in 2005, it signed contracts to sell them the electricity, a common practice, but as those contracts expire, the plant faces selling electricity at the lower rates that now dominate the energy market. Other companies have also reported falling revenues, although they may not be on the verge of closing reactors because they are in regions where the market price of electricity is higher. The closing, which did not catch many in the industry by surprise, highlights the struggle of the U.S. "nuclear renaissance." A decade ago, the nuclear industry talked about a nuclear renaissance due to rising fossil fuel prices and concerns about meeting greenhouse gas emissions, but the nuclear revival did not occur in the United States as the cost of fossil fuels like natural gas fell and the federal government has been slow to put a price on carbon. "A number of nuclear units won't run their 60-year licensed lives if current gas price forecasts prove accurate," says Peter Bradford, a former member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "The determining factor is likely to come at the point at which they need to decide on a major capital investment."
Ponca City, We Love You
Instead, we should be shutting down OLDER reactors and bringing in smaller thorium reactors that can also burn up the stored waste. The time is coming when nations are going to tax for carbon emissions. When that comes, they will wish that they were on nukes.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Because the current uranium reactors are not very good and the ones under construction do not appear to be much better. In comparison the thorium experimental reactors showed a lot of promise and there's one under construction in India that will test it at a larger scale. "Just gradually moving to better plants" implies some sort of organic growth which isn't really possible with something so inflexible with such long lead times. The design for the AP1000 got started in the late 1970s and the first one is due to come on line this year or next. With such long times you could go through a few generations of small research reactors and set things up for a massive improvement instead of a giant project taking slow baby steps.
See, Star Trek is a fictional, ie not TRUE, account of a future where mankind is dominated by the military, ie Federation and Starfleet.
It is a common mistake to confuse it with Star Wars, which is a historical documentary of something "Long ago, in a Galaxy far far away".
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Don't worry - I'm from the future and I can tell you that soon some guy called Nixon will be elected and make that illegal. We also put a man on the moon!
Back to reality, "just about all the waste" is solid stuff so even in China not a lot per ton gets into the air, but they are burning a lot of it, and even though it has hardly any sulphur compared with US coal they are probably killing off a lot of people with air pollution.
The things are getting old and expensive to maintain so an economic decision is just getting an attractive coating of green paint.
The real choice to scrap nuclear was made quite a few years ago when there were no more plans to build reactors. You can't stop building reactors and then expect to be able to start again with no trouble two decades later.
Meanwhile the Bruce nuclear plant near Tiverton, Ontario will soon have an eighth operating reactor unit, and a total operating capacity of 6,300 megawatts and will be North America's largest nuclear plant.
I always wanted a troll of my very own. ;)
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
One of the key features of a nuclear power plant is that once you've paid the huge construction costs it's not that expensive to operate.
If they think they might ever need a nuclear plant in the future, they'd be much better off to mothball it until electricity prices go up.
Alex Jones is keeping up with his reputation, I am sure.
There is statement that the radioactive materials in one of the Japanese reactors could "spread throughout the world". Utter nonsense. Things are quite well contained now and there is little possibility of any fission reaction restarting. Yes, there is quite a bit of radioactive material at the site, but exactly how would it be spread? Much less, spread beyond a small area of Japan?
Even if 100% of the high-order radioactive materials were to be crushed into powder (which would be quite a feat in of itself) and dumped into the ocean, it would not be spread worldwide. Fishing might really suck for a long time around Japan, but that would be pretty much the extent of it.
We are not talking about a "On the Beach" scenario here, and never have been. The US and much of the world is at a crossroads today and if we abandon nuclear fission powered electrical generation, we will see a lot of natural gas used with commesurate CO2 emissions. Not necessarily a good thing. We are certainly going to see electricity shortages in the US soon, primarily because we haven't built anything major in the way of a power plant in a long time. Like 30-40 years. All that has been built have been sub-1000MW "peaker" plants that have been designed to operate for short periods of time when usage peaks. Of course all of those plants are running 24x7 today.
Do you like refrigeration for your food? I suggest thinking seriously about getting some sort of alternative electric source because the plug in the wall isn't going to be on 24x7 in the coming years.
In the UK prices have doubled in under a decade
That's because their North Sea natural gas supply has been used up. Output peaked in 2000. With gas fields, production increases rapidly after drilling, much faster than with oil. At the end of a field's life, it falls off rapidly, much faster than with oil. For oil, there are "stripper wells", producing less than 10 bbl a day as crude slowly seeps through cracks in the rock. The US has about a million of those, and it adds up. Gas doesn't work that way; it can be extracted at high speed, but when it's gone, it's gone for good.
an inability to find a buyer
Did they try putting it on ebay? If they keep the shipping costs down then I'm sure they could find a buyer for it.
Local pick up only.
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
...I still think anytime a Dominion installation in the Alpha Quadrant closes, it's a good thing! ;)
I'm honest enough to admit I lie to myself.
It seems I have been misunderstood.
First, thorium fuel cycle reactors, by nature of design, can't meltdown. They have far less waste than conventional reactors because and upwards of 90%+ can be recycled. Those are some serious advantages over conventional reactors that help eliminate many problems.
The part about penning traps was added in hope of giving any physicists a chuckle. Clearly we need dilithium to power our lightsabers before we ever use a slipstream.
Barack Obama (as proxy for Harry Reid) pulled the plug on that one.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8012171/President-Barack-Obamas-Yucca-Mountain-decision-is-a-blow-to-US-nuclear-power.html
We'll see if it ever moves again. Hopefully someone along the way will have more sense than this.