Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bananas

(27,509 posts)
Tue Oct 23, 2012, 01:36 AM Oct 2012

Wisconsin Nuclear Reactor To Be Closed

Source: New York Times

The owner of a small nuclear reactor in Wisconsin said Monday that it would close the Kewaunee Power Station early next year because it was unable to find a buyer and the plant was no longer economically viable.

The decision was viewed as an early sign that the wave of retirements of old generating stations across the Midwest is now stretching from the coal industry into nuclear power, driven by slack demand for energy and the low price of natural gas.

After receiving a 20-year extension from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in February 2011 to continue operating Kewaunee, Dominion, based in Richmond, Va., put the power station up for sale. At 556 megawatts, it is about half the size of the largest plants now operating and is the only reactor at the Carlton site, rendering costs higher per unit of power than sites with two reactors. Dominion had hoped to buy several reactors in the Midwest that could share some overhead expenses with Kewaunee, but did not succeed.

<snip>

In some regions, the average selling price of a megawatt-hour today is less than $50 at times. But a survey of the industry by the Electric Utility Cost Group, an industry consortium, found that one quarter of nuclear plants with the highest costs were spending an average of $51.42 to produce a megawatt-hour from 2008 through 2010. And costs have gone up since then.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/business/energy-environment/dominion-to-close-wisconsin-nuclear-plant.html?_r=0



"unable to find a buyer and the plant was no longer economically viable"
We'll be hearing that more often.
Better to shut it down than to try keep making a profit by dangerous uprates and corner-cutting.
18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Wisconsin Nuclear Reactor To Be Closed (Original Post) bananas Oct 2012 OP
Well, that is good news. Bummer for the expense of building it AllyCat Oct 2012 #1
Yah no kidding darkangel218 Oct 2012 #2
darkangel218 Diclotican Oct 2012 #6
This message was self-deleted by its author darkangel218 Oct 2012 #7
darkangel218 Diclotican Oct 2012 #9
It will be 39 years old when it closes. Throckmorton Oct 2012 #3
"time for the wrecking ball" - and where is the nuke waste going, like the spent fuel rods wordpix Oct 2012 #11
Moved to dry casks over the next 5 to 7 years. Throckmorton Oct 2012 #16
K&R for more fossil fuels! XemaSab Oct 2012 #4
Thanks for the fuel rods! Kolesar Oct 2012 #8
xactly - the fuel rods are all sitting on coastlines & in river flood zones across the country wordpix Oct 2012 #12
Haha, I grew up near there Myrina Oct 2012 #13
Yes, this is such wonderful news... daveMN Oct 2012 #5
really? eggplant Oct 2012 #10
Using variously electricity and natural gas daveMN Oct 2012 #14
Nuclear power accounts for 100% of radiation leaks from energy plants. eggplant Oct 2012 #15
Burning coal releases XemaSab Oct 2012 #17
Hehe daveMN Oct 2012 #18

AllyCat

(16,177 posts)
1. Well, that is good news. Bummer for the expense of building it
Tue Oct 23, 2012, 01:39 AM
Oct 2012

but would rather see it shut down along with many, many others around the country and world.

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
2. Yah no kidding
Tue Oct 23, 2012, 01:51 AM
Oct 2012

Last edited Tue Oct 23, 2012, 06:33 AM - Edit history (1)

I was in Europe during the Chernobyl disaster. It was horible, they gave us iodine pills in school. I'll never forget how scared everyone was..

Diclotican

(5,095 posts)
6. darkangel218
Tue Oct 23, 2012, 06:23 AM
Oct 2012

darkangel218

I also remember Chernobyl, even though I might have been to young to really understand how dangerous it was... I did had a grasp about it, but I think I might not have got the full brunt about it before later when I was reading about it... Thankfully (of sorts) we had a "sensor" home when it come what to watch on the TV, and I think it might have been for the best sometimes...

Diclotican

Response to Diclotican (Reply #6)

Diclotican

(5,095 posts)
9. darkangel218
Tue Oct 23, 2012, 09:00 AM
Oct 2012

darkangel218

Aha, I guess "dear leader Ceausescu" was safeguarding the safety of his people when he, and the Party was not telling how things was I guess I have never been to Romania - but I have been a few times in Bulgaria - in the area of Dobrudja in the north of the country many times between 1986 and 1991.. More or less the same in Bulgaria I guess in many ways.. Even thou Ceausescu is said to be some of an extreme.. I know a few things about Romania in the 1980s - it was not exactly a party to live there in the 1980s...

I don't know about that they bussed people up to Ukraine - but i would not be surprised if they did - the dictatorship of Ceausescu was rather weird in many ways - and he had some rather unpleasant treats to use people as he pleased if it worked him favor with the russians - who he was in debt in to by loans and credits for his ambitions to make Romania a "power to reckon with"... He even invoked the old idea that romanians is descendants of roman soldiers who was stationed there after Emperor Traian conquered the land more than 2 millennium before... (I'm not sure about that, but the romanian language do have a lot of latin in it, and it also use the latin alphabet )

Many in East Europe was listening to Free Europe in the days before the berlin wall was been tearing down... For the ones with a radio, and the antenna to listen to Radio Free Europe it was one of the ways to get to know how the world was even if the party line in the country say otherwise.. Must be conflicting to say at least to hear one things from the government - and a different thing from Radio Free Europe..

Nuclear plants - and the offspring's nuclear weapons IS extremely dangerous, horrible things that should not have been invented... Or at least have fair stricter guidelines to safeguard the population.. The civilian nuclear industry, should at least have the same guard lines when it come to nuclear power, as the US navy have.. At least they have not yet have nuclear disasters - even though they do have had their share of mishaps.. But compared to the mishaps who have been the norm in civilian nuclear plants - the US navy is known for their security on ships and submarines...

Hopefully, in the near future we will have new, more clean forms of energy to our disposal so we can get rid of all this nuclear plants we have today.. Even though it will take a LONG time before the last plant is cleaned off the land... Even a small nuclear power plant takes at least 20 to 30 years to get rid of - and it cost at least as much as it was costing to build it...

Diclotican

Throckmorton

(3,579 posts)
3. It will be 39 years old when it closes.
Tue Oct 23, 2012, 01:55 AM
Oct 2012

The expense is long covered, and Dominion lost 39 million dollars operating it in 2011.

It is old and worn out, time for the wrecking ball.

wordpix

(18,652 posts)
11. "time for the wrecking ball" - and where is the nuke waste going, like the spent fuel rods
Tue Oct 23, 2012, 10:05 AM
Oct 2012

being stacked in pools that were designed as "temporary"---for 40 years---these asshats should NEVER have been allowed to build without solving that problem in the first place.

I hope the nuke industry dies immediately but don't think that'll be the end of it. We the taxpayers will be in charge of the waste they leave behind.

Throckmorton

(3,579 posts)
16. Moved to dry casks over the next 5 to 7 years.
Tue Oct 23, 2012, 10:01 PM
Oct 2012

Like was done to Maine Yankee, Connecticut Yankee, and others. There it will sit until after I am dead and gone.

It is unlikely that this plant, being a single unit site, will spend any time in safe store, like Millstone 1 and Dresden 1 are currently doing.

The building will then be demolished to below grade, and grass planted over the place.

Kolesar

(31,182 posts)
8. Thanks for the fuel rods!
Tue Oct 23, 2012, 07:42 AM
Oct 2012

We'll just go ahead and park them on Lake Michigan for the next 10,000 years.

wordpix

(18,652 posts)
12. xactly - the fuel rods are all sitting on coastlines & in river flood zones across the country
Tue Oct 23, 2012, 10:20 AM
Oct 2012

The nuke industry seems to be saying, "What, our fuel rods? YOU take care of them, we're outta here."

Myrina

(12,296 posts)
13. Haha, I grew up near there
Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:35 AM
Oct 2012

There is a state park and beach within a couple miles of Kewaunee's plant. Brave folks who'd boat or scuba near it claimed the lake water offshore was usually warm. And there's a fishing village nearby, too. Yum.

daveMN

(25 posts)
5. Yes, this is such wonderful news...
Tue Oct 23, 2012, 04:46 AM
Oct 2012

Shut 'em down, because nuclear is scary... never mind that the burning of fossil fuels is destroying the planet

daveMN

(25 posts)
14. Using variously electricity and natural gas
Tue Oct 23, 2012, 04:51 PM
Oct 2012

What is your point? (Seriously, what is it?) I am not saying we should immediately stop using all fossil fuels. (Even if I did no one would listen)

Electricity generation accounts for 40% of US Carbon dioxide emissions compared to 34% for transportation. Meanwhile, nuclear accounts for 20% of our electricity; if we allow that number to drop, solving our problem becomes that much more difficult.

I realize I am not taking the popular position around here by being pro-nuclear, but I for one would prefer to see coal plants shut down rather than nuclear.

eggplant

(3,911 posts)
15. Nuclear power accounts for 100% of radiation leaks from energy plants.
Tue Oct 23, 2012, 05:38 PM
Oct 2012

Carbon dioxide can be cleaned up. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, ... not so much.

Arguing against coal is laudable (despite it being a cheap, US-available fuel), especially in favor of clean technology (solar, wind, tidal), but pro-nuke?

You explain how to make a safe plant and how you are planning on dealing with the spent fuel, and I'll listen.

XemaSab

(60,212 posts)
17. Burning coal releases
Tue Oct 23, 2012, 10:07 PM
Oct 2012

carbon dioxide, particulates, acid-rain causing chemicals, VOCs, ozone precursors, nitrogen oxides, lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic, sulphur... and radiation.

daveMN

(25 posts)
18. Hehe
Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:12 PM
Oct 2012

After I posted that I was thinking 'too many percentages'...

Now, your '100%' line may seem like common sense, but it's not even close to true. Actually, a coal plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear plant under normal conditions (link)

Your real point, that nuclear is responsible for 100% of nuclear accidents, is of course true, even if rather meaningless. Fukushima and especially Chernobyl were tragic. These accidents have identifiable causes:

For Chernobyl, still the worst accident, the Soviet RBMK type reactor is an inherently unsafe design with serious flaws, including a high positive void coefficient - meaning that as water in the reactor turned to steam, it actually accelerated the nuclear reaction (the opposite is true for US reactors.) In addition, the workers at the plant had inadequate training and experience and had disabled many of the safety systems to run an experiment. These plants lack a containment structure like the ones found on western plants, so that after the explosion, the reactor core was exposed to the outside, leaking huge amounts of radiation.

At Fukushima, flooding from the tsunami disabled the emergency generators needed to power coolant pumps. Even with the reactors shut down, the decay heat caused them to melt down when power could not be restored to the pumps. However, this accident could have been prevented had Japan taken proper precautions to protect against tsunami flooding; in fact, it showed that the plant was capable of withstanding a large earthquake alone. If they had acted sooner to flood the reactors with seawater, disaster could have been averted; they didn't do this because they were holding on to hope that they could avoid irreparable damage.

Despite these accidents, nuclear power overall has a good safety record; Chernobyl was the only accident to result in deaths (56 including deaths from thyroid cancer) and the technology in that case was the exception rather than the rule. There have been lessons learned from Fukushima and Three Mile Island. Currently operating nuclear plants are safe and the next generation of reactors will be even safer, with standardized and simplified designs and passive safety systems.

Are there some concerns with nuclear? Of course; but we need to weigh the benefits and risks of our various options. Coal and oil have far more real and serious impacts on your health, and their use is leading us down the road to ecological disaster.

The concerns about spent fuel are overblown, as there are various options to deal with the problem. A permanent storage facility has so far been politically impossible to achieve, but that does not rule it out as an option. This waste would be secure if it is buried in properly designed containers in a stable geological formation. The waste can also be reprocessed to make it less harmful, greatly reduce the amount of time it takes to become harmless, reduce the volume of waste, and to gain more energy from the uranium. The separated plutonium created in this process can be used in mixed oxide fuel to deal with proliferation concerns.

I'm glad we can agree that coal is bad and clean energy is good; renewables are great, and I naturally want to see greater use of them. However, progress so far has been slow and it will be a long time before we are able to get all or even most our energy from them. In the meantime, we still have a problem with fossil fuels. This is why I say that as we get a greater proportion of our energy from renewables we should be using that capacity to shut down coal-fired plants while at least maintaining our current proportion of electricity from nuclear.

Sorry this post got so long. As an illustration of the relative safety of nuclear, I'll leave you with a link to this graphic which illustrates the difference in the number of deaths from coal, oil and nuclear: link

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Wisconsin Nuclear Reactor...