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."
Not likely. The reason they're shutting it down is that it's being undercut by cheap natural gas. A small, single-reactor power plant is very inefficient. Most plants have two or more large reactors. Economy of scale.
Yes, the cost was factored in. All US nuclear operators pay 0.1c per kWh generated to the US government to deal with spent nuclear fuel. They also pay into a fund for decommissioning reactors at end-of-life; I don't know whether this particular reactor's fund is paid off.
I don't know if they're going to decommission this reactor quickly or not; British practice is to seal the reactor building after final defuelling, demolish the ancillary buildings like turbine halls etc. which have no radiological problems and let the reactor vessel "cool down" for about 80 years in a custodianship period. That costs very little to do (basically a wire fence, secure doors and a few watchmen) and at the end of that period the rest of the plant can be demolished like any other building, with maybe some asbestos to worry about.
Faster decommissioning of the site requires the reactor vessel, the only part which is noticeably radioactive, to be removed and then buried in a pit for a few decades after which it can be dug up and treated as regular scrap. All of the really radioactive material on the site is in the fuel rods and that is dealt with separately when the reactor is taken out of service.
One power plant in one place is economically unviable, therefore nuclear power is a bad idea always everywhere and there has never been opposition that could be described as irrational.
Also, restaurants won't ever take off because I know this one restaurant halfway across the country that closed down because ingredients cost too much and nobody would eat there if they used cheaper ingredients.
This whole thing seems like a non-story to me. "EXTRA! EXTRA! Random business venture you probably never heard of before this news article folds after almost 40 years!"
Nuclear is just too freaking expensive to operate with any semblance of reasonable safety.
Nuclear has to pay to clean up the mess. Whereas a coal plant can dump megatonnes of CO2 and sulphur into the air and just collect the money from selling power, leaving the rest of us to pay the cost for the next centuries.
Maybe Mitt Romney is a "Founder" (Shapeshifter)
It would account for his recent changes of policy if its not the real Mitt
Bullshit. Oh, and you forgot Mitt Romney's actions-that-speak-louder-than-lies position on coal plants in your rush to make this a Democrat-only political football.
Coal is taking a hammering because they compete in exactly the same areas a natural gas. Natural Gas is at an all-time low in price and an all-time high in availability.
Two independent financial firms say the Marcellus isnâ(TM)t just the biggest natural gas field in the country â" itâ(TM)s the cheapest place for energy companies to drill.
The Marcellus could contain "almost half of the current proven natural gas reserves in the U.S," a report from Standard & Poorâ(TM)s issued last week said.
http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/reports-marcellus-shale-reserves-larger-and-cheaper-to-develop-1.344086
Geology.com has reports of super-sized fields that are turning up there.
Output from the Marcellus - a rich seam of gas-bearing rock that straddles Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio and West Virginia - has jumped nearly ten fold since 2009, flooding pipelines and playing a central role in pushing futures prices to ten-year lows earlier this year.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-energy-natgas-marcellus-idUSBRE89E12B20121015
Local radio up in the Eastern West Virginia Panhandle has run stories about the switch from coal to natgas and the jobs issue. It starts with people who've been in the coal business for generations complaining about losing jobs -- then finishes with THOSE SAME PEOPLE saying they moved over to natgas jobs that PAY MORE and ARE SAFER. They just had an emotional tie to the coal, which has employed their families for generations which took some getting over.
People may bitch about fracking, but it doesn't hold a candle to the environmental damage caused by mountaintop removal and coal mining. Coal mining is also one of the single most dangerous jobs in the country.
The coal isn't going anywhere. It'll still be there if we ever need it. But pure economics is driving the industry to natural gas and coal is the primary loser -- and rightfully so. It is more expensive to produce, more dangerous to both the producers (miners) and end users (people who breathe), more difficult to transport in quantity (can't use pipelines), cleaner (natgas doesn't leave coal dust messes in homes that use it for heat) and all-around substandard to natural gas.
This is capitalism and the free market at work, baby. Or are you one of those planned-economy socialists longing for the good-old days of Marx, Lenin and Mao?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.