Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday June 04 2017, @10:55AM   Printer-friendly
from the needs-more-wealthfar dept.

New Jersey Spotlight reports

Three Mile Island may be the next nuclear power plant to be shuttered by its owner unless it gets financial help to keep the facility afloat.

Exelon Corp., the owner of the Pennsylvania generating station, announced yesterday it will retire the plant by or about September 30, 2019 absent any change in that state's policies dealing with nuclear power.

The announcement is the latest by an owner of a nuclear plant to threaten or close its facility unless given financial assistance to make the facility profitable, a drama that could play out soon in New Jersey with its three nuclear units operated by the Public Service Enterprise Group in South Jersey.

If Exelon follows through on its threat, it would mean the Oyster Creek plant in Lacey Township, also owned by the Chicago energy giant, could outlast TMI, the site of the nation's biggest nuclear accident when it had a partial meltdown in 1979.

Oyster Creek, the country's oldest commercial nuclear plant, agreed to shut down at the end of 2019 under a settlement worked out with the Christie administration in 2010.

[...] Environmentalists oppose extending the incentives renewable sources obtain to nuclear, because unlike solar, wind, and water, the former is not sustainable. “It’s not renewable; you have to keep buying the fuel,’’ said Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday June 04 2017, @11:25AM (14 children)

    by kaszz (4211) on Sunday June 04 2017, @11:25AM (#520173) Journal

    Not renewable and forces regular buying fuel etc. But for now it may be what's needed because it won't release CO2 and alternatives are not fully reliable and able to regulate output on demand. So until alternatives have better capabilities nuclear may have to stay. If the nuclear fuel is used as now, it may reach a fuel availability peak in 2035 when price may take of ie peak-uranium. But if breeder and accelerator reactors are used, it may last for billions of years.
    Any plants shall be Gen 3 or better of course to avoid safety issues.

    One question though, if the plant shuts down. Will there be enough power to go around?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 04 2017, @12:48PM (11 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 04 2017, @12:48PM (#520188) Journal

    I share that opinion. Nuclear probably isn't the best thing in the world, but if civilization is to continue without major disruptions, we must accept that nuclear and/or coal are going to be needed for the foreseeable future.

    Most of us have been at least mildly amused at the kooks who make such a big deal of going "off-grid". It's fun to laugh at them, spending small fortunes to avoid using polluting energy. But, at least they can be respected for living by what they believe. All the rest of us vote with our wallets, each and every day.

    Everyone who wants the coal plants shut down, should just disconnect from the electric grid. Just stop using coal-powered electricity, NOW! Ditto with nuclear. You know you're getting nucelar generated electricity, so just shut it off, NOW!

    As I say, the kooks are mildly amusing, but they are honestly amusing. Those of you who bitch, complain, and moan about polluting power sources are almost all hypocrites, because YOU CONTINUE TO USE WHATEVER IS AVAILABLE!!

    BTW - nuclear is kinda "renewable". http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/uranium-and-depleted-uranium.aspx [world-nuclear.org]
    Far less renewable than sunlight, but still - it doesn't have to be thrown out after use.

    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday June 04 2017, @12:54PM

      by kaszz (4211) on Sunday June 04 2017, @12:54PM (#520193) Journal

      I have however to say that solar panels + batteries is actually a economical realizable solution. Even if grid power for now is still cheaper. One benefit is redundancy against the grid.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2017, @02:58PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2017, @02:58PM (#520227)

      Those of you who bitch, complain, and moan about polluting power sources are almost all hypocrites

      That may be true (people, in general, have double standards), but not really for the reason you suggest. You can "vote with your wallet" and you can actually, you know, vote. It seems that the regulatory hurdles put in place due to NIMBY as well as a lot of lawsuits has been much more effective at stopping nuclear energy than if some people just disconnected.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2017, @04:03PM (7 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2017, @04:03PM (#520248)

      Coal isn't required for the forseeable future unless you've got an extreme lack of foresight. We've got the means necessary to shut them down in the near future. The only thing keeping them alive is subsidies. Spend those subsidies on other forms of power and the coal plants go tits up. You don't see Europeans depending on coal powered plants the way we do. They're actually moving aggressively to shut them all down.

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-19/europe-s-coal-power-is-disappearing-quicker-than-anyone-thought [bloomberg.com]

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 04 2017, @04:24PM (6 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 04 2017, @04:24PM (#520253) Journal

        "We've got the means necessary to shut them down in the near future."

        Oh, really? Take another look around. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 [eia.gov]

        Right now, today, a little less thatn 1/3 of US electricity is generated by coal. 19% is nuclear. Natural gas is another 1/3. Sorry - I'm bouncing between fractions and decimals - bad, bad, bad. Have some copy/pasta:

        Natural gas = 33.8%
        Coal = 30.4%
        Nuclear = 19.7%
        Renewables (total) = 14.9%
        Hydropower = 6.5%
        Wind = 5.6%
        Biomass = 1.5%
        Solar = 0.9%
        Geothermal = 0.4%
        Petroleum = 0.6%
        Other gases = 0.3%
        Other nonrenewable sources = 0.3%
        Pumped storage hydroelectricity = -0.2%4

        Now, this entire discussion concerns shutting down nuclear, because the money isn't there. The same discussion is going on regarding coal. Add those figures together - coal and nuclear energy account for 1/2 or 50% of the electricity generated in the US. Natural gas is the ONLY serious "clean" contender, and it is only 1/3 of the total right now.

        Now, understand this: ALL RENEWABLE ELECTRICAL GENERATION COMBINED ONLY ACCOUNTS FOR ABOUT 20% OF AMERICA'S ELECTRICAL NEEDS!!

        Do you understand that? Are you prepared to go on a ration system? You WILL reduce your electricity use by 80% if coal and nuclear plants are shut down tomorrow. And, there is no guarantee that your ration will be meaningful. Residential electricity? Think again - it's unecessary. Wear woolen longjohns to stay warm. Cook with gas, or don't cook at all. There are grocery stores everywhere - you don't need to run a refrigerator. Lights? Buy kerosene, or burn candles.

        The remaining available electricity will be required by hospitals, police, military, and industry. A mere home owner won't get squat.

        Would you like me to help you pull your head out? Or, are you comfortable like that?

        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday June 04 2017, @04:59PM (1 child)

          by Thexalon (636) on Sunday June 04 2017, @04:59PM (#520267)

          Natural gas is the ONLY serious "clean" contender

          Natural gas isn't even remotely clean. The idea that it might be is complete BS put out by the natural gas industry. One only need to look at the consequences of fracking to get natural gas to know how much that claim is utter nonsense. About all you can say in its favor is that it's better than coal.

          Now, understand this: ALL RENEWABLE ELECTRICAL GENERATION COMBINED ONLY ACCOUNTS FOR ABOUT 20% OF AMERICA'S ELECTRICAL NEEDS!!

          It does now. But why is it that you are assuming that proportion is set in stone? In 2000, renewables accounted for about 10% of America's electrical needs, about about 310 Twh. Since then, wind capacity went from about 6 Twh to 200 Twh. Solar power started to take off really after 2010 or so, and has gone from less than 1 Twh to about 40 Twh. What exactly is stopping us from continuing that trend and building up more renewable power capacity? And indeed, the fact that the old-school nuke plants are begging for government cash to stay afloat suggests that they are not even the cheapest way to continue providing electric capacity.

          The remaining available electricity will be required by hospitals, police, military, and industry. A mere home owner won't get squat.

          Alternately, I invest in some panels or windmills or both, and a battery system, and now my home has electrical power that doesn't rely on the grid at all, and I'm pretty darn comfortable. The idea that the only choices are "Nukes and coal forever" and "no electrical power for anybody" is a false dichotomy.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 04 2017, @05:26PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 04 2017, @05:26PM (#520278) Journal

            Natural gas, from traditional sources, which do not include fracking, is much cleaner than coal. It's not much cleaner than any other petroleum or gas, but it's a helluva lot cleaner than coal

            "set in stone"? It's where the investors are putting their money. It will change, but the poster to whom I was responding says the resources are there now. Maybe in Europe, but not in the US. I remind you that almost all of our solar panel production for years to come are already contracted to Europe. Unless we build more solar panel plants, there are no resources for appreciable growth in the US market. Eventually, yes, but not immediately.

            If the coal and nuke plants are shut down tonight, you'll be competing against millions of Americans when you try to buy the very limited supply of solar panels.

        • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday June 05 2017, @12:12AM (1 child)

          by butthurt (6141) on Monday June 05 2017, @12:12AM (#520465) Journal

          Coal = 30.4%
          Nuclear = 19.7%

          [...] You WILL reduce your electricity use by 80% if coal and nuclear plants are shut down tomorrow.

          30.4% + 19.7% = 50.1%

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 05 2017, @12:21AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 05 2017, @12:21AM (#520467) Journal

          Would you like me to help you pull your head out?

          In his brave, new world, he'll need the insulation. You have to wonder at the delusion of people who think nothing of immediately getting rid of 50% or 80% of a country's energy supply, yet can't handle a differing opinion. You'd think the latter would be the easier thing to deal with.

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 05 2017, @06:20PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 05 2017, @06:20PM (#520885)

          Thank you, Runaway, for that data and link.

          I'm not sure if this is what you're trying to say, but my view angle is that there's a much-too-common misconception: that we consumers can possibly make a dent in the problem by "voting with our wallets". Most of us common folk / consumers only have control of our personal residential energy consumption choices. I tried (in vain) to find data on electricity consumption by sector. I can find energy consumption, but the bulk of residential energy goes into heating. Suffice it to say, residential electricity consumption is probably 5% of total electricity production, so our collective vote is moot. We can spend all week philosophizing and discussing it, but again, our voices go unheard.

    • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday June 05 2017, @05:16PM

      by urza9814 (3954) on Monday June 05 2017, @05:16PM (#520848) Journal

      Everyone who wants the coal plants shut down, should just disconnect from the electric grid. Just stop using coal-powered electricity, NOW! Ditto with nuclear. You know you're getting nucelar generated electricity, so just shut it off, NOW!

      What about people who pay a premium for "renewable" grid energy? I mean obviously they aren't getting specific renewable electrons, but in theory at least they're buying renewable.

      Kinda pissed about the options available in my area for that though...specifically because none of them include nuclear. I bought into the "100% wind" program, because while I REALLY don't think wind is an ideal solution, it's the best one available to me at the moment. The other "green" choice is a renewable mix that includes hydro (worse than wind, limited availability and requires flooding large areas) and biodigester (better than just letting the stuff rot I guess, but still never going to be a major power source, and it's not necessarily carbon free or renewable either.) The standard grid mix up here is 27% nuclear and ~50% fossil fuel. I'd like to "vote with my wallet" to support nuclear but there's no way to do that. I can support stupid methods of clean energy or I can stay at the default, mostly support fossil fuels, and send the message that I just want it cheap and dirty. And I live in an apartment so there's no possible way for me to go off grid right now either.

      As for "using whatever is available" -- they don't give you many options and in many locations electric service is a legal requirement (ex: see Rhode Island Code - § 45-24.3-8 (e), any dwelling within 300 feet of a power line MUST have electric service.) So yeah, people "use whatever is available" because they aren't given any other choice.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2017, @03:08PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2017, @03:08PM (#520232)

    Nuclear isn't able to regulate output on demand. This is a real problem for any country that might choose to pursue nuclear for a substantial portion of their power. We consume massively more energy during the day then we do during the night. For nuclear to be used efficiently, you'd have massive excess of output that would need to be stored for during the next day at which point that 'massive excess' becomes a deficit of energy. It's a similar situation to solar, but in reverse in that in terms of optimal usage you end up overproducing at night and under producing during the day.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by driverless on Sunday June 04 2017, @03:36PM

    by driverless (4770) on Sunday June 04 2017, @03:36PM (#520242)

    Also, it wouldn't really go completely dark, bits of it will continue to glow for quite some time.