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."

13 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 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.

    5. 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.

  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 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.
  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
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.