Slashdot Mirror
Vermont Nuclear Plant Seeks Decommission But Lacks Funds
mdsolar (1045926) writes with this bit of news about the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant shutdown. From the article: "On Friday, the Vermont Public Service Board voted to authorize Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., the operators of the Vermont Yankee electricity generating station ..., to close down their nuclear power plant by the end of this year. Because Entergy planned to shut the Vermont nuclear plant down prior to its licensed end-term, the board was required to approve the shutdown....
Entergy has reserved just over $600 million to date for decommissioning the Vermont nuclear plant, according to the Department of Public Service. This amount will not be adequate to meet the costs of full deconstruction, estimated at more than $1 billion according to the company's 2012 Decommissioning Cost Analysis report."
Entergy has reserved just over $600 million to date for decommissioning the Vermont nuclear plant, according to the Department of Public Service. This amount will not be adequate to meet the costs of full deconstruction, estimated at more than $1 billion according to the company's 2012 Decommissioning Cost Analysis report."
Then you pay the costs associated with them.
If they've failed to properly provide for shutdown and decomissioning costs then it's their problem, they should be forced to pay them rather than pleading poverty and being allowed to walk away from their responsibilities
Of course. It's so silly that no other industries ever get subsidized by tax dollars.
Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
You regulate the electricity costs, so your fingerprints are all over it already, "The People".
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Well, that is how they stay competitive with all the other subsidized industries.
"Consequences, Schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." -- "Ali Baba Bunny" [1957, Chuck Jones]
That may be the most relevant one I've ever seen.
This issue demonstrates that arguments about the low lifetime cost and impacts of nuclear power tend to externalize significant costs. Decommissioning can be added to waste handling/storage and subsidized insurance.
Partly true, but the real problem is that though out the lifetime of this plant, the expected costs for decommissioning have gone though the roof by a mass of changing rules, laws and policies which have conspired to not only raise the costs but shorten the useful lifespan of the plant. As such, this is not really the operator's fault, but the cold economic facts of changing political climate are really to blame. IMHO...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
It's still the Sun, providing reliable, local service for over 4 billion years.
Neither to the extent, nor in the manner of nuclear. Other industries get tax breaks, free use of government research, etc.
It's worth pointing out that nuclear power actually gets a negative subsidy. They have been charged a fee for nuclear waste disposal... but the nuclear waste disposal program was cancelled, and there is no replacement plan.
The fee was suspended by court order last November... but the money collected has not been refunded.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Um. The plant was originally licensed to operate for 40 years. It is falling apart. Literally: a few years back one of the cooling towers collapsed. Buried pipes are leaking, and nobody knows where the pipes are or where the leaks are. Sources for backup power have dried up because the providers don't want to be held liable in the event of an accident. The idea of extending its operating permit for another 20 years was incredibly irresponsible. The State of Vermont refused to certify its continued operation, but the courts overrode the state.
It is bloody unfortunate that the low cost of shale oil is what finally did the plant in, but closing it is the right move. The only decent alternative would be an extremely costly remodel, which would not likely be cheaper than closing it and building a new one with better technology. The alternative Entergy wanted was to keep running it, and damn the safety concerns, because they wouldn't have to pay if it failed catastrophically anyway.
Nothing the State of Vermont did caused the plant to be shut down. It was entirely Entergy's own stupidity on multiple levels. First they decided to run as a 'Merchant' plant, refusing to sign a contract to provide VT with power (ironic as it was us who bore the burden of the threat of some disaster, etc). They could have locked in a profitable rate but they were stupid and greedy and screwed themselves. Secondly they were INCOMPETENT, or at least in many instances managed to LOOK incompetent. Parts of the cooling tower fell down, they lied to the regulators about tritium leak issues, etc. Thirdly they failed to do basic good cost accounting, for instance not planning for the replacement of a condenser who's rebuilding was MUCH MUCH more expensive than they 'guessed' it would be.
As for the decommissioning cost thing, this is not some new thing or a bolt out of the blue. The original operators sold the plant to Entergy to get out of these liabilities and Entergy never properly funded the fund. It was a routine matter of discussion in VT TEN YEARS AGO that this day would come. What they did back then was come up with a plan to 'invest' the fund in something-or-other and then decommission in 60 years using the projected proceeds (and then of course get hammered in 2008, like they cared). After that they tried to spin the plant off so they too could escape from the burden of dealing with the twin messes of decommissioning and waste disposal.
Overall Entergy has been rather dishonest and conniving, not to mention a bit less than totally competent at some level. Mark my words, the state will end up getting boned. Everyone will be paying for decades, yet magically "Nuclear power is cheap!" continues to be the mantra. All I can do is roll my eyes.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
Carbon still needs to be disposed of too, we're just allowing coal plants to pretend it doesn't. Simply because it floats away and negatively impacts everyone across the globe a slight bit, most of whom are in other countries.
In other words, yes, you're right, fossil fuels externalize the costs of waste disposal while nuclear does not. To me, that's an argument in favor of subsidizing nuclear rather than coal: it's a lot easier to deal with nuclear waste that's in one place rather than deal with the effects of carbon in the atmosphere.
The owner of Vermont Yankee is Entergy Corp. and they are HUGE.
Looking at their most recent annual report filed in February of 2014. This company made about a billion dollars in profit last year. They might not like having to pony up another 500-600 Million dollars over the next 5 years, but it's not like they couldn't. It would barely be a blip on the radar in the grand scheme of things for them. It's obvious they will easily pay for this and the government won't have to take over.
Tell me again why this is news?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
In theory, the government subsidies are intended to further social goals that the free market cannot adequately address without regulation.
In practice, the government subsidies are treats that the political powers (such as congressmen) hand out to economic powers (such as favored contributors).
Since our economic powers have evolved into multinational corporations that actively oppose our social goals and purposely subvert our cultural values, this means that the government subsidies are quite often doing the exact opposite of what they are nominally intended to do.
Excuuse me? You think some Johnny-come-lately power plant, by virtue of having been here for a mere 42 years, has some kind of special right to continue operating outside its safe lifetime at the risk of all the homeowners in the area, just because some of them arrived after the plant was built? As it happens, I grew up about five miles downstream of the VY site, and was 7 when it started operations. But even if that weren't the case, your logic is offensive. A brief incumbency in the neighborhood does not give a corporation special privileges with respect to imposing its externalities on its neighbors. The natural heritage that exists in the general area of the VY power plant has tremendous value, and should not be placed at risk in the service of short-term expediency.
The Vermont Yankee plant has been in operation since 1972, and generates about 4700 GWh each year. So over its lifetime it has probably generated about 190,000 GWh of electricity. $1 billion in decommissioning costs works out to about 0.5 cents per kWh (vs an industrial/commercial/residential cost of about 10/14/16 cents per kWh in Vermont). It does not substantially change the lifetime cost of the electricity generated.
All the states I know of require nuclear plant operators to collect these decommissioning costs in a fund. That is, part of their revenue from electricity sales must be placed into a trust fund specifically for decommissioning the plant in the future. That the Yankee plant has insufficient funds despite 41 years of operation suggests accounting fraud, regulatory incompetence, or inflated decommissioning costs more than it does non-viability of nuclear power. The San Onofre nuclear plant operated a similar amount of time, had about 3.6x the generating capacity when it was shut down, and was also shut down prematurely. It has a $2.7 billion decommissioning fund which is expected to exceed the costs, so they are planning to refund the excess to customers.