SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the just-preparing-for-thorium-and-molten-salt-reactors? dept.
from the economic-realities dept.
Utility Dive reports
Entergy Corp. plans to shutter its 680 MW Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Mass. no later than June 1, 2019, the company said this week.
AP reports that financial factors drove Entergy to make the decision, including tough market conditions, reduced revenues, and increased operational costs. Entergy said it did not anticipate the economics of the plant to change in the near future, either through a rebound in power prices or a different market structure.
The exact timing of the closure will be decided next year, but the company has already informed the ISO New England that it intends to stop participating as a capacity resource.
CounterPunch continues
Entergy is also poised to shut the FitzPatrick reactor in New York. It promises an announcement by the end of this month.
Entergy also owns Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 some 40 miles north of Manhattan. Unit 2's operating license has long since lapsed. Unit 3's will expire in December.
[...] Meanwhile, like nearly all old American nukes, both Pilgrim and FitzPatrick are losing tons of money. Entergy admits to loss projections of $40 million/year or more at Pilgrim, with parallel numbers expected at FitzPatrick. The company blames falling gas and oil prices for the shortfalls.
[...] the boom in wind [and] solar, increased efficiency, and other Solartopian advances are at the real core of nuke power's escalating economic melt-down.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday October 22 2015, @03:18AM
You're the absolutist type I see, guess I wasted my effort. Since I'm this far in I'll try and correct the misconception... Chernobyl being one of the worst nuclear events in human history IS a reason for hope since the surrounding area has bounced back considerably. It appears that we won't have to wait thousands of years before the land is habitable again. THAT was the point, a big whoosh over your head.
I much prefer solar/wind/hydro to nuclear, but there are issues with energy storage. Also, having a stable source of power is a good thing, whether coal, oil, gas, or nuclear. If we can solve the energy storage issues, then I'm am 100% for using all renewable sources of power.
Why is any slack needed for other energy production? They are all doing fine. Nuclear is the one that scares people and brings about irrational behavior. I have no idea where each would land, but comparing the full cost per kilowatt would be a good study. How much power and pollution goes into manufacturing solar / wind farms for how much return? How much for nuclear? Most battery tech is highly polluting and requires a huge amount of power to create in the first place. Bio fuel trades food for fuel, and has the possibility of swiftly ruining our topsoil... With energy use only on the increase, and set to seriously spike as we transition to electric vehicles, the power density of nuclear may become a more important factor. The only other solutions I can imagine are huge wind/solar farms across the Earth and connected by a network of huge power carrying cables (hopefully room temp superconducting cables by that point) so that global demand can be stably supported.
It seems like you have made up your mind and chosen any "green" tech to simply be superior, but I hope I have brought up a few points that help you see that every option is just that, another option. There are pros and cons for everything and it is best to keep an open mind or you will get sold down the river by someone somewhere.
There are so many factors, setting one option up for failure ahead of time is a terrible method of discussion.
~Tilting at windmills~