SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2017, @04:03PM (7 children)
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)
"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)
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.
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.
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
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)
30.4% + 19.7% = 50.1%
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 05 2017, @02:59AM
Yes, that was careless of me. Sorry.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 05 2017, @12:21AM
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
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.