Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant To Close In 2014

Posted by Unknown on from the watching-the-future-die-before-our-eyes dept.

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."

45 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. It's a shame, but... by ggraham412 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... burning hydrocarbons is really cheap.

    1. Re:It's a shame, but... by GarethIwanFairclough · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... burning hydrocarbons is really cheap.

      For now.

    2. Re:It's a shame, but... by rubycodez · · Score: 4, 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.

    3. Re:It's a shame, but... by dj245 · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    4. Re:It's a shame, but... by alexander_686 · · Score: 2

      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.

    5. Re:It's a shame, but... by Zalbik · · 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.

      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

      2) We should use this time to invest in new technologies. As hydrocarbons become more expensive, governments should be subsidizing the alternatives, so that these alternatives are proven and ready by the time we need them.

      3) There is going to be a transition period where were are still primarily using hydrocarbons. This is ok

      4) Mistakes will be made with the new technologies (e.g. Fukushima). This doesn't mean we should stop using them....it means we should use them more wisely. We also have made mistakes with the existing technologies (e.g. BP Gulf Oil Spill), but we keep using those.

      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.

    6. Re:It's a shame, but... by mellon · · Score: 4, 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.

    7. Re:It's a shame, but... by jythie · · Score: 2

      Not only is it cheap, but the human cost is nice and far away, and many people feel that it is their own fault for living in poor areas.. thus if they just worked harder they could live somewhere like the people in Vermont do.

    8. Re:It's a shame, but... by alexander_686 · · Score: 3, 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.

    9. Re:It's a shame, but... by dj245 · · 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.

      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. 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 time. Everything will get more expensive but it may not be immediately clear (to consumers) why.

      Furthermore, you can't replace hundreds of power stations in a couple years. There isn't the engineering capability or millwright manpower to run all those projects, and the OEMs can't supply that many machines anyway. There are restrictions all along the supply process, from the forging delivery time/throughput to the large lathes to the large (1000ton) cranes which are required to assemble this kind of machine. None of that capability can be built up quickly, and throwing money at that problem won't provide immediate results.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    10. Re:It's a shame, but... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      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 hydro.
      Base power can be generated with every technology. Base power is only an artificial / mathematical term to describe the minimum power you always feed into the grid.
      Historically you used long running cheap plants that are constantly powered close to the maximum. In our days you use the plants that are "most economic" (which means often law or market reasons that are beyond "cheap fuel"). Most economic in Germany e.g. is wind power for base load. The reason is law: the power MUST be fed into the net. You would pay on top of that if you used it to fill a pump storage plant instead of powering down of a "base load" coal plant.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:It's a shame, but... by mellon · · Score: 4, 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.

    12. Re:It's a shame, but... by mellon · · Score: 2

      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.

    13. Re:It's a shame, but... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      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 wonder why no-one is building them instead of other types of nuclear plant? Hint: it's not because of "greenies".

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:It's a shame, but... by alexander_686 · · Score: 2

      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 market should be able to figure out all of the impacts and deliver the biggest bang for the buck.

    15. Re:It's a shame, but... by Unknown+Lamer · · Score: 3, 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.

      --

      HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
    16. Re:It's a shame, but... by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 2
      I don't know about any formal green movement, but the Green Party is pretty clearly opposed to nuclear power generation.

      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.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    17. Re:It's a shame, but... by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      no, their fear of nuclear power causes fallback to the convenient alternative, fossil fuels.

    18. Re:It's a shame, but... by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 2

      I'd say I sidestepped your point more than I missed it; I was just taking the opportunity to spread Green Party awareness.

      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.
      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 to happen, realistically? Renewables made up 5% of our electrical generation last year (roughly 2/3 wind, 1/3 biomass, negligible solar and geothermal). You're talking about increasing that capacity fivefold. Fivefold!

      While I think we all agree that real renewables are "better" than nuclear, in the ideal sense, but pragmatists among us do honestly see it as a contest between nuclear and fossil fuels. We're not trying to disingenuously ignore renewables, and we don't see anything inherently wrong with them. We just don't think it's happening, because, well, it's not happening. It could happen, but it's not. Instead, people are burning coal and gas. So while yes, it's true that we could shut down nuke plants and build up wind farms, that's not what's happening. It might happen in Vermont, and that would be great. However, looking at the breakdown detailed above, combined with the ridiculously low prices of natural gas, I can see how some might see that as a bit of a gamble.

      While I admit that Vermont might just be hippie enough to swap nuclear for renewables, I think that generally speaking, when a nuke plant closes in this country, that generating capacity is replaced by a fossil fuel burner.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  2. All about the money by schneidafunk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Please don't read too much into this, it's a straight economical decision: "The company noted that the estimated operational earnings contribution from Vermont Yankee was expected to be around breakeven in 2013, and generally declining over the next few years. "

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:All about the money by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re: All about the money by Bugler412 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      a couple thousand pounds of radioactive waste over the life of the plant is a hell of a lot easier than the 800 TONS A DAY of flyash you need to dispose of from a similarly sized coal station.

    3. Re: All about the money by TWX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One of the biggest nuclear plants in North America is about 80 miles from where I live, and is not adjacent to any river or other large, natural body of water...

      You don't have to dump water into a river or stream if you design your plant to not need that source of water...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re: All about the money by WillAdams · · 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.

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    5. Re: All about the money by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      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?

    6. Re:All about the money by Anonymous Coward · · 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 Orleans-based plant owner Entergy Corp., targets taxes that increase the reactor's annual state tax levy from about $5 million to about $12.8 million, according to a statement released by Entergy."

    7. Re:All about the money by bsolar · · Score: 2

      It's actually not a new tax, it's the old tax which was supposed to last until the expiration of the license. Then the license was extended, and the tax was extended accordingly:

      Supporters of the new taxes said they were designed to replace money the plant paid the state under agreements in 2003 and 2005 that saw the state drop its opposition to the plant boosting its power output by 20 percent and to the plant's plan for storage of more highly radioactive nuclear waste on its grounds. Those agreements lasted until March 21, the end of the plant's initial 40-year operating license. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a 20-year license extension last year.

      "If they are continuing to operate then they ought to operate under the same conditions that they operated under before," Klein said Tuesday.

      Not to mention that it's not a particularly high tax, at least according to this article:

      “I firmly believe the tax is reasonable. It is less than the tax rate on wind projects, and it is comparable to the generating tax on nuclear plants in Connecticut.

    8. Re: All about the money by JeffOwl · · Score: 2

      I don't know whether it would be better or not, but because it is proprietary, the public is not informed of exactly what the chemical make up is, and in what proportions it is mixed prior to being sent into the ground. We kind of know in general but each company has its own formula. The fluid is 99% water and sand, but also contains things to control pH, inhibit scale build up, kill bacteria, and probably a lot more. But it's regulated by the EPA so you know is must be safe.

    9. Re: All about the money by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. Excellent summary by nycsubway · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    http://github.com/gbook/nidb
    1. Re:Excellent summary by mellon · · Score: 2

      [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.

  4. Re:Great. by PvtVoid · · Score: 2

    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, meaning that the current fund is about 12% short of the projected cost.

  5. Re:Cheap electricity? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    http://fairewinds.org/media/in-the-news/engineer-says-state-could-face-expensive-clean-up-if-vermont-yankee-closes
    "$200 million bill to replace its condenser"
    http://fairewinds.org/media/in-the-news/report-says-vermont-yankee-not-generating-enough-cash
    "a quarter of billion dollars in repairs" ~ post-Fukishima modifications and condenser..

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  6. Waste-disposal costs by SirGarlon · · Score: 2

    I'd be interested to see a comparison of the costs of nuclear waste storage with those of carbon sequestration. Nuclear energy would perhaps look more competitive then.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  7. Re:Great. by PvtVoid · · Score: 4, 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.

  8. What about the leaks? by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, 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.

  9. I'm super pro-nuclear but ... by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, 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.

  10. Vermont Yankee: lying incompetent by Petronius+Arbiter · · Score: 2

    Vermont Yankee is also a lying incompetent organization.

    1. They denied that there were tritium leaks although they knew. Then they said that they were unable to locate the leaks' source (and so couldn't fix them). IIRC, they also denied that the tritium was reaching the Connecticut River.
    2. A few years ago, a wooden cooling tower collapsed from lack of maintenance (i.e., wood rots). Do you want to trust an organization that cannot maintain a simple wood structure with running an obsolete nuclear reactor?
  11. Too bad the folks in Fukishima can't eat fish..... by duckintheface · · Score: 2

    like their ancestors did 3 years ago.

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
  12. Vermont gov't opposes nukes by nerdbert · · Score: 3, 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.

  13. Re:Too bad the folks in Fukishima can't eat fish.. by RaceProUK · · Score: 2

    They can still eat fish - they just get it from somewhere else.

    --
    No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
  14. Re:split wood not atoms by mellon · · Score: 2

    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.

  15. Nuclear power has a negative learning curve by mspohr · · Score: 2

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/17/2158951/pandoras-promise-nuclear-powers-trek-from-too-cheap-to-meter-to-too-costly-to-matter-much/
    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.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    1. Re:Nuclear power has a negative learning curve by TheSync · · Score: 3, 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 that will be the post powerful in the world. The Taishan nuclear plant 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.

  16. Re:Great. by jagilbertvt · · Score: 2

    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