Vermont nuclear power plant to shut down in 2014
by Courtney Gordner
The State of Vermont versus the Vermont Yankee power plant was an ongoing battle that continued for years over the closure of the power plant. The battle began shortly after the Louisiana-based Entergy bought the plant in 2002 from a New England company. State officials made it clear that they did not want the plant to ne renewed after it expired in 2012.
The Court Battle
The controversy was so large and state officials desire to have the plant shutdown that it hindered the company from being able to renew their license. This led both the State of Vermont and the Vermont Yankee power plant to go to court to dispute whether it was clear if state officials could shut it down.
Federal judges stated that there was no merit to the states predisposition about the power plant and that as long as Vermont Yankee power plant held itself to the rules and regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, they had all rights to keep the plant open.
Reapplying and being reauthorized after 2012, the power plant was granted a 20-year extension on their license before having to reapply for a new one.
The battle between Vermont Yankee power plant and the state of Vermont ended in favor of the power plant, giving Entergy the peace of mind of knowing it could continue to operate with no interference.
Now, one year later, it looks as though Entergy is going to be the demise of itself – declaring its shut down by 2014 and going into a “safe store” procedure.
The Shut Down
Entergy explained to the public that the grueling battle between them and the state had nothing to do with their decision to shut down.
In a short-explanation, an Entergy representative explained that the power plant was just plagued with unfortunate economic circumstances. Since the boom of natural gas, the prices for selling natural gas had decreased exponentially since its opening in 1971, even with RKI single gas monitors. Moreover, the plant is simply too costly to operate and has design flaws that make it impossible to recover from in certain aspects.
The Operations to Happen
The expected shut down will occur in 2014, where 630 employees are being dismissed from their posts and sent home indefinitely. This job loss, while minimal compared to other company closings, will affect the Vermont economy in a negative manner.
However, as an “economic solution” Vermont officials are satisfied with the outcome.
The reactor, which once hot tends to stay hot, will continue to burn up to five years after the shutdown of the plant. In order to keep it from heating up, the reactor will wind up underwater for the remainder of the time to keep it cool.
Courtney Gordner is a blogger with a passion for all things on the internet regarding politics, business and social media! Read more from her on her own blog, www.talkviral.com. You can also follow what she has to say on her Twitter page.
UPDATE:
Meanwhile, in California, a prominent nuclear power plant is closing there as well:
The closure of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station will cost billions of dollars – but the exact cost has yet to be determined, officials said.
But sides are lining up for the battle over who will be forced to bear the brunt of the financial pain.
“There’s no way ratepayers should have to pay more of these costs,” said Jamie Court, President and Chairman of the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, arguing that investors should foot the bill. “They made the bad bet.”
Court was responding to Monday’s full-page newspaper advertisements in which San Onofre’s majority owner, Southern California Edison, put customers on notice that it believes they have responsibility.
“If a utility asset must be retired before the end of its expected life, the utility recovers from customers its reasonable investment costs,” the statement read in part.
The issue ultimately falls under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). San Diego Gas & Electric and the city of Riverside hold minority stakes in the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, sometimes known by the acronym “SONGS.”
San Onofre’s first nuclear reactor had closed as scheduled in 1992. SONGS continued to generate power with two other reactors.
But they were shut down in January 2012, after leakage was discovered in the cooling systems of replacement steam generators installed in the previous three years. This past June, Edison announced it had given up hope of resuming electricity generation at San Onofre and would seek approvals to decommission the plant.
Edison expressed hope of recovering some incurred costs from insurers and from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, the designer and supplier of the problematic generators that cost more than $600 million.
A clause in Edison’s contract sets a $135 million limit on Mitsubishi’s potential liability. Edison has indicated it believes that does not apply in this case.
Closing a nuclear power plant involves a number of different types of expenses. Because reactor components are highly radioactive and remain potentially dangerous for thousands of years, the process of dismantling the plant, securing radioactive components, and restoring the site is complex and costly.
The full plan for decommissioning is not expected to be ready until the middle of next year, Edison Executive SP Stephen Picket told the California Senate Energy Committee at a hearing in Sacramento on Tuesday.
Edison has estimated the cost will be on the order of $4.1 billion. Significantly, much of that is already funded from a dedicated trust account.
And UPI asks: can more closings be far behind?
The closing of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant could be indicative of more shutdowns to come, experts say.
It is the fifth such announcement in the nation’s nuclear energy sector this year. San Onofre’s two reactors in California, Kewaunee in Wisconsin and Crystal River 3 in Florida are also being retired.
Vermont Yankee’s owner, New Orleans-based Entergy Corp., cited competition from cheap natural gas and high costs tied to regulation as reasons for its decision to close the plant, announced this week.
Natural gas now accounts for more than half of the New England region’s net electricity generation.
But the move comes amid an increasingly worsening situation at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant which melted down in 2011 following a 9-magnitude earthquake and subsequent tsunami. The Vermont plant features a boiling-water reactor, similar to the reactors that failed at Fukushima.
Go the link to read it in full.