Obama's nuclear vision suffers setback as Vermont plant faces shutdown

[cali]

Barack Obama's new dream of a nuclear renaissance faces a major reality check tomorrow when the state of Vermont is expected to shut down an ageing nuclear reactor with a history of leaks.

It would be the first time a state has moved to shut down such a reactor, and follows Obama's announcement last week of $8.3bn (£5.4bn) in loan guarantees for the construction of two new reactors in Georgia. White House officials said the money would help spur a burst of new construction – the first since the Three Mile Island meltdown.

The Vermont Yankee, one of America's oldest reactors, has had several leaks of radioactive tritium dating back to 2005, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said yesterday.

The state senate is set to deny a request to extend its 40-year life span by an additional 20 years condemning the plant to close in 2012, said Peter Shumlin, the highest ranking member of the Vermont senate.

"It is not in Vermont's best interest to run this plant beyond its scheduled closing date in 2012. It is falling apart," said Shumlin. The 30-member senate, which is controlled by Democrats, is due to vote tomorrow morning.

<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/23/vermont-yankee-nuclear-reactor-to-close

[luckyleftyme2]

1. it is far safer to close than to deal with the aftermath

Several nuclear plants have been closed do to age! the one in my state was extended beyond its original planned life by 20Years.
you must be a typical right wing poster in here! because you show little foresight in planning to build a new plant! who else but a republican runs business to the ground without up grading?
since I have the expertise to have worked on several nuclear as well as hydro and fossil fuel plants I can tell you this is the normal process! they all have an expected life span -and they all reach a point that to pour more money to overhaul or to keep running is not cost effective!
oh yes an many have been extended that probably shouldn't have!
to talk is one thing -to know is entirely different:
stupid hmmm that depends who is qualified to make the statement!
roflmao

[cali]

2. wtf are you incoherently babbling about, sweetiepie?

go back to bed or get some coffee or some help.

[Political Heretic]

3. Uh.... what was that?

:wtf:

Are you sleeptyping again?

[zipplewrath]

4. He's not the most eloquent

But his basic point filters through if you do read it. There is nothing extrodinary about the closing of this facility, and as such will say little about the larger topic. The original post indicates this is one of the oldest plants around, that it now needs to be closed isn't particularly surprising. Potentially, the only way to extend them is to do work on the facility that can't really be fiscally justified.

[Political Heretic]

6. Ahhh, so calling it a "setback" is lame, he argues.

Got it.

[SidDithers]

5. You! Need! More! Exclamation! Points!...

because then we'll know you're series!!111!!.

Sid

[Statistical]

7. The article is hype & spin.

Reactors are given a fixed end-of-life date by NRC at time of first criticality based on numerous factors. This lifespan ranges from 25 to 60 years. Reactors are also given the potential for an extension of 20 to 40 years more years after retrofit. Yankee has reached that end-of-life date (well technically it will on March 21, 2012). Unless granted a 20 year extension Yankee is required under federal law to go cold by March 21st.

No plant is guaranteed an extension. They are decided on a case by case basis. Many plants do get extensions but about 1/3rd of all plants reaching end of life do not. The NRC looks at the design, the condition of the plant, the cost/time to retrofit, the safety & security record of the plant. Things like the peak output, capacity factor, and "replacement power" on the grid are also minor factors.

Given the safety record of this plant, its older design, the fact that it is a smaller plant, and its lackluster power performance (at least compared to other US reactors the likelihood of it getting an extension from NRC was slim to begin with.

If the plant is denied an extension then the regulatory system is working as designed.

[w4rma]

8. Two comments below the article with useful information

go2goal
23 Feb 2010, 4:35PM
I live in Maine......we closed down Maine Yankee nuclear power plant which stopped operating in 1997 after several safety issues were exposed by public interest groups once the assertions were investigated and confirmed by the NRC. The plant never made money and became way too expensive to continue operating......an economic reality even with today's current so called safe and low-cost designs. There is no cutting corners on N-plant design........if it's low cost, it's going to be high risk - PERIOD! Do you want to live next to a "low cost" n-plant? I don't think so.

I'm getting tired of Obama's knee jerk reaction to anything and almost everything.....this is another one of his knee jerks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Yankee_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Nuclear power has been around for over 50 years - it is not new and it no longer deserves government funding.... If it was a viable solution, the private sector would have invested in more plants by now. Even France is souering on n-plants.....and they get over 60% of their electricity from n-plants. Japan has a had numerous leaks and near-misses recently with their plants - some being of the latest designs. Are US engineers superior to Japanese or etc....? Probably not.

kasa
23 Feb 2010, 5:16PM
That´s the big problem with nuclear power. Just when you get all excited about cheap unending energy the cold reality like a nuclear winter bites back.

It´s not cheap.(cost of building, of decommissioning and building underground storage for waste)
It´s not safe.(Leaks, waste, terrorist target)
It doesn´t give energy independence(coup in Niger-3rd largest uranium supplier)
It won´t reduce CO2 emissions by any significant margin( France among biggest global emitters)

We need to reduce energy use and do it damn quickly.Sadly that doesn´t fit in with capitalist economics where ever increasing consumption is considered a basic tenet of our system.

[hunter]

10. By your reasoning solar and wind shouldn't be subsidized either.

They've been around longer than 50 years. They are not cheap. They are not safe. They don't give energy independence. And they won't reduce CO₂ emissions by any significant margin.

I support responsible development of solar, wind, and nuclear because I oppose coal and natural gas development.

The anti nuclear movement was complicit in the biggest environmental disaster in human history, one that has already killed millions of people, will probably kill billions of people, destroyed entire ecosystems, and altered the earth's climate for the worse. Using fossil fuels to generate electricity after the development of nuclear power will be seen as an unforgivable sin of our generation second only to our inability to limit our numbers.

[madokie]

12. Myself I say ramp up the natural gas plants to take the load off from the closing

of the nuke plants and get on with developing and building the alternates. Nuclear energy is neither cheap, safe nor clean and its as simple as that.

[Overseas]

9. K&R . //nt

[madokie]

11. It's not in anyones best interest to keep that plant going

Best I remember it's already had one extension. It needs to be torn down and a new one put in its place if they want to keep a nuke plant there. OOP's can't do that as the site would be way too toxic for the dismantling let alone the rebuilding. Shut 'm. down. all of them. now. is my advice,.

Nuclear energy is neither clean nor safe, never was and never will be.