Nuclear power plant: Hell no, we won't pay.

Status
Not open for further replies.

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_12154102

BRATTLEBORO -- No way, we won't pay.
In fact, if you try to force us through legislation, said a top executive from Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, we will file a lawsuit.

The Vermont Legislature has been debating a bill that would require Entergy to fully fund Yankee's decommissioning trust prior to receive approval from the state for continued operation past 2012.

"I don't want it to sound like a threat because it's not a threat, but Vermont Yankee does not make the kind of revenue that would allow this kind of payment," Jay Thayer, Yankee's site vice president, told members of the Senate Finance Committee Tuesday.

The decommissioning bill, which was recently approved by Vermont's House of Representatives, requires that Entergy pay $229 million into the cleanup fund between now and 2012.

Yankee is scheduled to shut down in 2012, but Entergy has applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to extend its license to 2032.

In addition to NRC approval, Entergy also must receive a certificate of public good from the Public Service Board and approval from the state Legislature.

Supporters of the legislation are concerned about recent fluctuations in the stock market and how they have affected the fund, which is invested by a number of Wall Street Firms in a variety stocks.

The fund was put at $359 million by Entergy representatives yesterday, which Thayer said is enough to guarantee the site will be cleaned up adequately, whether Yankee closes in 2012 or 2032. If Yankee does close in 2012 however, the plant would be mothballed, or put into SAFSTOR as the NRC calls it, to allow the fund to grow to the estimated $1 billion necessary to decommission it.

"If the plant closes in 2012, (Yankee) would remain in SAFSTOR for a period of time most likely, in a 15- to 20-year time frame," said Thayer.



Cliffs:
Entergy has put away about about one third of the estimated 1 billion dollar cleanup cost for Vermont Yankee.
The plan is to let the nuke plant sit for 15-20 years after it stops operating in the hope that the one third investment will grow to enough to decommission it.
The State of Vermont wants Entergy to put away additional money to cover one half of what it would cost to decommission it before they allow Entergy an extension of 20 years on the plant(it's the oldest in the country already)
Entergy says they will sue.


Does anyone really know how much electricity costs from a nuke plant? The government massively subsidizes nuke power to begin with, everything from processing and selling uranium at a huge loss to the taxpayer, to assuming responsibility if the plant has an accident, to spending billions on research and development of reactors, etc, etc.
And now even with massive subsidies nuke plants don't want to put away enough money to clean up their mess.


 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,368
45,801
136
Looks like the legislature got worried by the stock market dip and it's effect on the decommissioning trust and decided to "fix" the problem by trying to force Entergy to cough up 200M that they shouldn't have to based on previous agreements.

and...

Sarah Hofmann, public advocate for the Department of Public Service told the Legislature that forcing Entergy to fund the trust could be considered a breach of a memorandum of understanding between Entergy and the Public Service Board. Such a breach could mean a loss of a power purchase agreement negotiated between the state and Entergy, which would result in increased costs of $355 million from 2009 to 2012 for state ratepayers, she said.

A revenue sharing agreement between the state and Entergy would also be in jeopardy, she said, and the state might also be responsible for "hefty legal fees" if it ends up in court.

Though DPS is concerned about the status of the decommissioning fund, said Hofmann, the department feels the legislation would cause more problems than it would solve.

 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
Originally posted by: techs

Does anyone really know how much electricity costs from a nuke plant? The government massively subsidizes nuke power to begin with, everything from processing and selling uranium at a huge loss to the taxpayer, to assuming responsibility if the plant has an accident, to spending billions on research and development of reactors, etc, etc.
And now even with massive subsidies nuke plants don't want to put away enough money to clean up their mess.

The subsidies wouldn't be necessary if people didn't think every plant is like Chernobyl and ready to blow.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: techs
Does anyone really know how much electricity costs from a nuke plant? The government massively subsidizes nuke power to begin with, everything from processing and selling uranium at a huge loss to the taxpayer, to assuming responsibility if the plant has an accident, to spending billions on research and development of reactors, etc, etc.
And now even with massive subsidies nuke plants don't want to put away enough money to clean up their mess.
Nuclear power is cheaper than any other source, at least on a per kW-h basis. Whether the larger capital costs involved make it a better option depend on the length of time the plant functions.

But none of that matters here. What matters is that the state would rather mothball a functioning nuclear facility for 20 years rather than just let it continue to function for another 20 years, during which time it could produce clean power, pay more into the fund, keep the local jobs going, and keep making a company money. That's idiotic at best.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: techs
Does anyone really know how much electricity costs from a nuke plant? The government massively subsidizes nuke power to begin with, everything from processing and selling uranium at a huge loss to the taxpayer, to assuming responsibility if the plant has an accident, to spending billions on research and development of reactors, etc, etc.
And now even with massive subsidies nuke plants don't want to put away enough money to clean up their mess.
Nuclear power is cheaper than any other source, at least on a per kW-h basis. Whether the larger capital costs involved make it a better option depend on the length of time the plant functions.

But none of that matters here. What matters is that the state would rather mothball a functioning nuclear facility for 20 years rather than just let it continue to function for another 20 years, during which time it could produce clean power, pay more into the fund, keep the local jobs going, and keep making a company money. That's idiotic at best.

It's just more of the ignorance-driven anti-nuclear power crowd.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Strk
It's just more of the ignorance-driven anti-nuclear power crowd.
Yes, I always find it amusing (or is it depressing?) that the preferred tactic of the ignorant is to ask questions without answering them. For example, "Does anyone really know how much electricity costs from a nuke plant?" I suppose that when you're ignorant, all you can do is appeal to the ignorance of others.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
No worries.

Entergy will just have to cut back on that $1.5 billion stock repurchase this year ...
 

NaughtyGeek

Golden Member
May 3, 2005
1,065
0
71
Link

The above link has some financial data relating to the costs of nuclear energy versus others for those who want facts rather than biased bs.
 

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
Originally posted by: techs
Does anyone really know how much electricity costs from a nuke plant? The government massively subsidizes nuke power to begin with, everything from processing and selling uranium at a huge loss to the taxpayer, to assuming responsibility if the plant has an accident, to spending billions on research and development of reactors, etc, etc.
And now even with massive subsidies nuke plants don't want to put away enough money to clean up their mess.

You have no idea what you are talking about. The "subsidies" are on loan gaurantees for the capital investment to construct the nuclear plants. It's hard to even call them subsidies unless the plants default on their construction loans, which none have so far.

Subsidizing the processing and selling of uranium? wtf? Please learn a little bit about the nuclear industry before spewing out misconceptions and blatant lies. We get cheap uranium because our closest neighbor (Canada) has tons of the stuff, some of their mines have 20% enriched uranium, it is insane.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.