FitzPatrick to Close in 2016 or 2017

[Rennhack]

FitzPatrick NPP to Halt Production in 2016 or 2017
http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2015/11/03/fitzpatrick-nuclear-power-plant-to-halt-production-in-2016-or-2017/

Entergy to shut 849 MW FitzPatrick nuclear power plant as soon as 2017
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/washington/entergy-to-shut-849-mw-fitzpatrick-nuclear-power-21396728

FitzPatrick, a roughly 840-megawatt boiling water reactor that came online in July 1975, joins these plants that will be closing in coming years: Pilgrim, in Plymouth, Mass., by June 1, 2019, and Oyster Creek, in Lacey Township, N.J., by Dec. 31, 2019.

The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, in Vernon, Vt., generated electricity for the last time in December of 2014. Entergy also owns Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee while Exelon owns Oyster Creek.

"Current and forecast power prices have fallen by about $10 per megawatt-hour, which equates to a projected annual loss of more than $60 million in revenues for FitzPatrick."

The company will decommission the unit using the Safstor method. Under the Safstor option, which is being used at Vermont Yankee and will be at Pilgrim, a plant is placed in a safe, stable condition for as long as 60 years until decommissioning work is completed.

Entergy said October 13 it would permanently shut its 728 MW Pilgrim plant in Massachusetts as early as the spring of 2017, citing identical issues.
The company's 635 MW Vermont Yankee plant shut permanently at the end of December, with economic reasons also cited.

The 845 MW Palisades plant in Covert, Michigan, has a power purchase agreement with Consumers Energy Co. that runs "to April 2022," Denault said during the conference call, in response to an analyst's question about the future of this plant.

Exelon Generation sought a similar reliability assessment in 2014 for its Ginna nuclear plant located elsewhere in upstate New York. The ISO study concluded Ginna's output was needed for reliability.

Exelon and Rochester Electric & Gas asked the state's public service commission to approve a reliability support services agreement under which the utility would pay a premium for Ginna's electricity. The initial proposal was set to run from April of this year through September 2018, but was amended last month to end in March 2017, as the utility said new transmission lines would be available sooner than anticipated to replace Ginna's generation.

[Marlin]

Why Cuomo Is Trying to Save One Nuclear Plant and Shut Another

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-02/why-cuomo-is-trying-to-save-one-nuclear-plant-and-shut-another

[Bonds 25]

Article could have been just 5 words

"Because Cuomo is an idiot"

There couldn't POSSIBLY be a situation where NYC would "realistically" have to be evacuated due to Indian Point. Fukushima has proven even the worst POSSIBLE situation doesn't require evacuation outside of.....say 5 miles. If anything the evacuation (and associated hysteria) will do MORE harm.

I'm getting very sick and tired of these perfectly good Nukes being taken down  

[GLW]

Article could have been just 5 words

"Because Cuomo is an idiot"

like father like son,...

I DnD'd Shoreham,...

I'm getting very sick and tired of these perfectly good Nukes being taken down  

In the current scheme of finance, many of the little units and/or single unit sites are barely viable to not viable,...

The industry has done almost all it could with two year fuel, et al; but the avalanches keeps on coming:

- 9/11 and the massive security inefficiences entailed (terrorists winning)

- Yucca Mountain shelved and disassembling (politicians winning)

- Skull Valley emasculated (politicians again)

- natural gas (that's just ignorant, fractured (sic) energy policy, aka politicians winning)

- inability of an "educated" populace to be able to make risk benefit & critical thinking based decisions (illuminati winning)

- there's more, but I gotta go,...


The cool thing is, there are a spate of boilers coming up for DnD,...

And that's a new thing in the commercial DnD arena,...

It's been dam near nothing but PWRs for the last 25 years plus a one off gas reactor,...

Gotta love new challenges!!!!!,...

[Bonds 25]

Being a BWR House Tech, Id rather not think about that 

[Bonds 25]

Your recent edit has confirmed you are quickly becoming my favorite poster.

I can't think of anything more ridiculous than Security being the largest department (like my plant) at a Nuclear Power Plant. Terrorists are MUCH smarter than the Government (NRC) gives them credit for. They literally don't give a rat's ass about commercial Nuclear Power........because, once again they are smart.

[tolstoy]

Why Cuomo Is Trying to Save One Nuclear Plant and Shut Another

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-02/why-cuomo-is-trying-to-save-one-nuclear-plant-and-shut-another

My vote is for the Feds to take over these sites that are unprofitable for their owners and operate them as government non-profits. It is a waste of the enormous costs of the facility and a waste of highly trained personnel to close these down. Keeping an array of electrical generation options is wise and we can help ensure that all citizens have adequate and sustainable power. 

[SCMasterchef]

 I like the idea someone smart enough to run a series of nuclear power plants rather than shutting down good operating nuclear reactors.  However, our government currently cannot manage itself with all of the rift currently going on between the so-called people parties of the Republicans and Democrats.  Look at the screwed up Department of Energy, what makes anyone with common sense think these morons could run nuclear power when they can't manage a National Laboratory.  TVA, oh yes, they have been the top producers of nuclear power over the years and they just got a new unit at WB.  We'll see over the years how that turns out.  If we really believe that a government agency has the capability to operate these facilities than lets find a partisan agreement to let them do it.  It makes sense for the climate change issues rather than building new fossil facilities.  We might have to shutdown the govenment in December because the morons that we, as a public, have put in office are so corrupt so how would the government be able to afford to operate nuclear power plants.  Well I guess we, as a government, could say that we will buy the plants being shutdown and refurbish them to the level needed to be competive in the energy market place but where would we get the money we're shutting government down in December!  Lets ask someone in Congress to give up their income from lobbyists to buy them, that would be a good source of income!  Lets use the money from what would be saved by not sending military troops to countries we have no business being in in the first place, that would be a good source of income!  Hell we can't even put food on the table of millions of Americans let alone buy up closed/closing nuclear power plants.  But I still like the idean of not closing nuclear power plants because they are no longer profitable by the energy companies owning them.

[Marlin]

My vote is for the Feds to take over these sites that are unprofitable for their owners and operate them as government non-profits. It is a waste of the enormous costs of the facility and a waste of highly trained personnel to close these down. Keeping an array of electrical generation options is wise and we can help ensure that all citizens have adequate and sustainable power. 

  You are talking about a government that could not operate a brothel at a profit, bankrupting it after it was confiscated for taxes.  

  OK there is TVA

[SloGlo]

The cool thing is, there are a spate of boilers coming up for DnD,...

And that's a new thing in the commercial DnD arena,...

It's been dam near nothing but PWRs for the last 25 years plus a one off gas reactor,...

Gotta love new challenges!!!!!,...

same old, same old.. moor volume witches grate four shippers and r.a.m. processors, butt the rest remains the same.

[Rerun]

Make money and you won't be shutdown. Its simple. Its not the governments job to ensure you are making money.

[Bonds 25]

Make money and you won't be shutdown. Its simple. Its not the governments job to ensure you are making money.

Yeah, unless you're in the solar or wind industry.....

[Rennhack]

Good article:

http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/11/fitzpatricks_owner_failed_to_adapt_to_changing_marketplace_your_letters.html

[RRhoads]

I wonder if Entergy & Exelon overbought.....Entergy owns 11 Nuclear plants & Exelon owns 23 reactors.....Somehow there ARE small BWRs in the NE and Midwest that are operating and profitable enough to continue operating.....Not saying that ONE or two factors alone don't contribute to the end result, but I don't see anybody asking the question of owning too many Nukes

[Marlin]

I wonder if Entergy & Exelon overbought.....Entergy owns 11 Nuclear plants & Exelon owns 23 reactors.....Somehow there ARE small BWRs in the NE and Midwest that are operating and profitable enough to continue operating.....Not saying that ONE or two factors alone don't contribute to the end result, but I don't see anybody asking the question of owning too many Nukes

   Why would that contribute? Consolidation is normal cost cutting maneuver by business. Was there too much overhead in corporate, probably not, but I don't know. Was there a lack of autonomy for the individual plants to operate efficiently, each plant has a license there is a limited influence there even some benefit with resource sharing.
   I really don't know the answer just playing devils advocate but I lean toward it was not a major contributor to closures.

[fiveeleven]

Inability of a company to adequately forecast the future power market and based on short term bucks deregulate. Lo and behold a few years and many a million later - davy jones locker with most hands lost. Great local opportunity for slum lording however - many cheap houses available. Oh yeah the property taxes.......

[Rerun]

Solar and Wind are not that big a part of the grid. Sorry. Low gas prices are killing nuclear and will for a long time. Not once did Entergy mention Solar or Wind. I can replace Fitz with an equivalent Gas plant with 1/10th the people at 325 Million. It will make money within a year. Why wouldn't I choose that option?

[hamsamich]

hello?  global warming politics?  not that I agree with them but the politics behind carbon producing fossil fuels gets bigger every year.  have you been living in a vacuum recently?

[Rerun]

I can put a Gas Turbine or even a coal plant with the same carbon emissions that a nuke has. It costs more than a regular coal plant but its more than possible. The utilities are not in business to lose money. It IS a bottom line industry. The politicians neither own nor run the nukes. It isn't the best run industry to begin with. If you are losing millions a year and you can generate safer energy at a fraction of the cost... Nuclear along with Cheap gas killed itself.

[GLW]

Solar and Wind are not that big a part of the grid. Sorry. Low gas prices are killing nuclear and will for a long time. Not once did Entergy mention Solar or Wind. I can replace Fitz with an equivalent Gas plant with 1/10th the people at 325 Million. It will make money within a year. Why wouldn't I choose that option?

In an economy with an infrastructure based solely on profit, at the expense of all else,...

that is the answer,...

that is a significant part of why nuclear is failing,...

my thought is we have enough natural gas to power the transportation segment of our economy for three hundred years plus,....

three hundred years of self sufficiency at current technology levels,...

to burn THAT to push electrons down a wire is to me, to be, a bit short sighted,...

better to maintain or improve our standard of living for many generations to come than for a single generation,...

we are burning our food for transportation fuel, and our transportation fuel to make the lights go on,...

we're assinine,...

...The politicians neither own nor run the nukes.......

nope, but they do make the rules, like the rules of no long term repository feasible, viable, allowable,...

they don't own the gas or oil either, but they can sure shutdown the pipelines to get it from point A to point B,...

if I live in Nebraska, I cannot heat my home with fuel from Pennsylvania if the politicians get in the way of me getting that fuel,...

at fair market price,...

ergo, you don't have to own it to run it,...

the politicians play a part,...

so does INPO,...

and as far as "cheap gas" is concerned, "they" keep spouting how gas is cheap, and gas has become an increasingly larger part of the power generation end of my electric bill,..........which does not get cheaper,....

I'm not seeking to debate back and forth because these are just my observations and outlooks,...

nuclear has to be able to pull it's own weight or it will go away,...

is nuclear pulling it's weight as part of a comprehensive, reliable, long term national energy policy?

or trying to survive in an all about the now, let tomorrow take care of itself, free for all?!?!?!?!

in the former; commercial or public-benefit (TVA, NYPA, et al) nuclear does have a place,...

in the latter; commercial nuclear is the proverbial buggy whip and public-benefit is pedantic...

[hamsamich]

i didn't say it was cheaper or more expensive.  the reason nuclear is being reconsidered today is because of it's carbon footprint.  i really doubt you can run fossil plants with a lower carbon emission rate it makes no sense.  but even if that is the case the perception is nuclear is carbon free.  if nuclear was what you say it is there is no way we would be building new nuclear plants in the US, china and other places.  you continue to ignore reality and you keep asking the same question.  this is the answer.  doesn't matter if you or I agree with it.  it is what it is.  get over it.  Politicians and public perception will continue to have a large impact on the type of energy most countries produce if you can't see that I don't think you are being honest with yourself or this board.

[Bonds 25]

I can put a Gas Turbine or even a coal plant with the same carbon emissions that a nuke has. It costs more than a regular coal plant but its more than possible.

That's funny, last I checked Nuclear Power represented ~65% of all low carbon emitting production. Coal and Natural Gas.....0%. I've been told (by you) that you're smart, so how are you going to build coal and/or a gas plant with the same emissions as a Nuke when coal (fancy or not) and gas are NOT low emission sources of energy production?

I assume there are no drug tests where you work?

[SloGlo]

That's funny, last I checked Nuclear Power represented ~65% of all low carbon emitting production. Coal and Natural Gas.....0%. I've been told (by you) that you're smart, so how are you going to build coal and/or a gas plant with the same emissions as a Nuke when coal (fancy or not) and gas are NOT low emission sources of energy production?

I assume there are no drug tests where you work?

yore government with no talk of nuke generation.

http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

[hamsamich]

http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/electricity.html

had to click on something else, go down the page a bit.

[SloGlo]

watt, this bit?

"The remaining generation comes from nuclear (about 19%) and renewable sources (about 13%), which includes hydroelectricity, biomass, wind, and solar.[1] These other sources usually release fewer greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuel combustion, if any emissions at all."

wail, nuke generation id mentioned, my bad, butt its relationship in the carbon emitting production isn't. at least knot in an arguable fashion.
their is moor data regarding how the government plans to elevate the cost of fossil fool power generation than they're is championing the power production via non-organic means.