Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu Nuclear Plants Closing

Author Topic: Nuclear Plants Closing  (Read 30619 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline OldHP

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 502
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 276
  • Gender: Male
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: FitzPatrick joins Pilgrim and VY
« Reply #25 on: Feb 26, 2016, 01:03 »
  At the site I currently work at, security is 25% of the total work force.  That is a lot.  I had no idea it was that large. 

My first venture into a NPP (NY/NE joint chapter HPS at IP-1) in the 60's, security was about 8 people (one on shift at all times), Ops was biggest (generally a SRO an, RO and 2 Ops per shift), thus 20 to 24).  In the early 70's security wasn't many more (built to two a shift).  Mid - Late 70's airport type security, but still less than 10%.

Post TMI the explosion in number of Techs needed for operations and outages (thanks INPO).  In the 80's I'd have 120 on site during an outage (partly because of the OT limit).

Then - 9/11 happens - and someone said, "what if they had targeted a Nuclear Power Plant", (OMG - INPO, NRC, etc.).  Currently, 25 to 30 percent of an operating plant staff just happens to be security!  What have we come to?  OH is eating plants alive!

  JMHO [SadPanda] :old:
Humor is a wonderful way to prevent hardening of the attitudes! unknown
The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. Regan

Offline Bonds 25

  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
  • Total likes: 78
  • Karma: 148
  • Gender: Male
  • HP Tech......Well Thats My Title Anyways.
Re: FitzPatrick joins Pilgrim and VY
« Reply #26 on: Feb 26, 2016, 09:00 »

Then - 9/11 happens - and someone said, "what if they had targeted a Nuclear Power Plant", (OMG - INPO, NRC, etc.)

  JMHO [SadPanda] :old:

Then it would have saved thousands of lives!! Also, how can massively increasing your Security headcount at a Nuke Plant stop madmen from hijacking a plane and smashing it into containment? Terrorists are much smarter than that......which is why they chose Skyscrapers. Are there ridiculous amounts of razor ribbon and hundreds of Security Guards at all these Skyscrapers now?

Security now being the largest department at a Nuclear Power Plant because of 9/11 is......how can I say this.....pretty G***amn dumb.

Modified for language
« Last Edit: Feb 26, 2016, 12:02 by Nuclear NASCAR »
"But I Dont Wanna Be A Pirate" - Jerry Seinfeld

Offline OldHP

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 502
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 276
  • Gender: Male
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: FitzPatrick joins Pilgrim and VY
« Reply #27 on: Feb 27, 2016, 01:18 »
1. Then it would have saved thousands of lives!!
2. Also, how can massively increasing your Security headcount at a Nuke Plant stop madmen from hijacking a plane and smashing it into containment?
3. Are there ridiculous amounts of razor ribbon and hundreds of Security Guards at all these Skyscrapers now?
4. Security now being the largest department at a Nuclear Power Plant because of 9/11 is......how can I say this.....pretty G***amn dumb.
Modified for language 

Totally Agree:
1. All the lives in NY and on the planes!
2. Tell Me, oh INPO and NRC how this happens!
3. Probably less, because the owners/operators understand ground security couldn't have prevented it!
4. True, but I'd probably call it pretty F*****G dumb, a word I don't like and don't use very often.

 :old: [beer] [pillow]

Humor is a wonderful way to prevent hardening of the attitudes! unknown
The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. Regan

Offline Rennhack

Re: FitzPatrick joins Pilgrim and VY
« Reply #28 on: Apr 14, 2016, 06:34 »
Fitz gets it firm date. Pilgrim will get its date soon. 
Pilgrim "No Later than June 1, 2019"

Pilgrim May 31, 2019

nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2016/04/14/entergy-says-it-will-refuel-pilgrim-npp-once-more-041401

Offline Rennhack

Re: Nuclear Plant's Closing
« Reply #29 on: Jun 05, 2016, 03:14 »
I changed the title of this thread, and added the latest closures to the original post.

Offline Brett LaVigne

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 514
  • Total likes: 21
  • Karma: 1371
  • Gender: Male
  • This aggression will not stand, man.
Re: Nuclear Plants Closing
« Reply #30 on: Jun 09, 2016, 04:38 »
several more years to go,...

perhaps you heard the funding is pretty much done,... :-\
All of the significantly contaminated systems are gone. There will be work there for years to come, but mostly for the local hires. Twas the best job I ever had...
I Heart Hippie Chicks!!!

chuckdhuff

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Plants Closing
« Reply #31 on: Jun 21, 2016, 01:37 »
Looks like it's time to add Diablo Canyon to the list for 2025.

Offline doctorbill

Re: Nuclear Plants Closing
« Reply #32 on: Jun 26, 2016, 10:24 »
Fermi 1 is back in SAFSTOR

Offline GLW

Re: Nuclear Plants Closing
« Reply #33 on: Jul 20, 2016, 10:58 »

......when nuclear loses it's economy of scale, it no longer makes sense as a commercial business venture,...

perhaps some viability if run as a public benefit corporation,...

but, there you go,... [coffee]

New York (six months later),...

once upon a time in the "business" of operating nukes under the NYPA as public benefit corporations,...

divested to the private sector a dozen plus years ago to shed the "nuclear liabilities" from the backs of the New York taxpayer:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/appendices/nuclear-power-in-the-usa-appendix-2-power-plant-pu.aspx

Power Plant Purchases

In mid-1999, the 670 MWe Pilgrim plant was sold to Entergy by Boston Edison for $14 million plus $67 million for fuel.AmerGen, the joint venture of British Energy and PECO Energy (now Exelon), completed its purchase of the 930 MWe Clinton nuclear plant and the 790 MWe Three Mile Island plant at the end of 1999. However, its plan to acquire control of the two-unit Nine Mile Point nuclear power station (614 & 1140 MWe) was derailed by a minor shareholder exercising its veto. Constellation later bid successfully for the units.In 1999, AmerGen won the Boldest Successful Investment Decision award from the Financial Times. AmerGen was cited as "a huge success ... with expected strong financial returns" and "a bold investment which has created new confidence in the US nuclear industry."In March 2000, Entergy Corporation reached agreement to buy the New York Power Authority's (NYPA) Indian Point 3 (965 MWe) and Fitzpatrick (778 MWe) nuclear power plants for $967 million, topping a bid by Dominion Resources. The complexity of the transaction is indicated by the terms that included $636 million for the two mid-1970s units, nearly $171 million for the fuel, $92 million to reduce NYPA's decommissioning obligation, and other amounts related to power purchase. There are also provisions for further payments if licences for the 25 year old plants are extended. NYPA retains the $630 million decommissioning funds and pay them when required, while Entergy accepts the $250 million risk of any adverse tax ruling on these. Up to 500 MWe of the combined output is available to NYPA at 2.9 cents/kWh, the remainder at 3.2 or 3.6 cents/kWh. The sale closed in November 2000......

_____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________

what was old is new again, welcome to the rebirth of the public benefit nuclear power plant paradigm:

Cuomo nuclear plan blunts criticism by combining with renewables

http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2016/07/cuomo-nuclear-plan-blunts-criticism-by-combining-it-with-renewables-103962

....As a political maneuver, the plan yielded little public criticism because it combined two different energy sources and an upstate job protection program. There was mostly public support for the plan even though monthly utility bills will now increase by about $2 a month as residents across the state pay energy giant Exelon above-market rates for the nuclear energy produced at the four upstate reactors.
Billions of dollars, perhaps more than $8 billion, will go to nuclear reactors, according to some estimates. Major environmental groups that worked to close California’s last nuclear reactor a few weeks ago were silent, including some that told POLITICO New York on background that they could not oppose a plan that gave unprecedented support to clean energy. The deal means New York is among the first states to put a price on carbon, to enact a policy that recognizes the social cost of fossil fuels, such as their role in creating climate change. It also recognizes nuclear as a power source that should be propped up by the state if it can’t survive on the open market. Nuclear facilities across the country are struggling to compete against cheap natural gas, which has driven down power prices.Under the plan, the four reactors in upstate New York will receive $1 billion in ratepayer subsidies in the next two years, and billions more after that.....
« Last Edit: Jul 20, 2016, 11:11 by GLW »

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

Offline GLW

Re: Nuclear Plants Closing
« Reply #34 on: Jul 20, 2016, 11:06 »

....I haven't been impressed with the Entergy Model in recent years, just my opinion.


It makes money and sheds money pits, seems to be a pretty capable business model,...

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

chuckdhuff

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Plants Closing
« Reply #35 on: Jul 20, 2016, 12:21 »
It makes money and sheds money pits, seems to be a pretty capable business model,...



Current Plants in Regulatory Column 4
Pilgram
ANO1
ANO2


Rest of the Entergy Fleet:
Fitz
IP - Unit 3 in Column 2
Palisades
Grand Gulf
River Bend - Column 2
Waterford
Cooper


45% having issues, 27% in Column 4


Just saying.....

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/actionmatrix_summary.html#topofpage

Offline GLW

Re: Nuclear Plants Closing
« Reply #36 on: Jul 20, 2016, 01:57 »

Current Plants in Regulatory Column 4
Pilgram
ANO1
ANO2


Rest of the Entergy Fleet:
Fitz
IP - Unit 3 in Column 2
Palisades
Grand Gulf
River Bend - Column 2
Waterford
Cooper


45% having issues, 27% in Column 4


Just saying.....

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/actionmatrix_summary.html#topofpage

we're parsing,...

you're focused on exemplary regulatory ratings,...

the regulatory ratings are sufficient to stay in business,...

the "business" is turning a profit where a profit can be made, and shedding losses where losses are projected or are being realized,...

the "company" is not a nuclear power plant company, it is a company which owns some nuclear power plants,...

the company is doing okay to fine, the nuke plants not so much, by the regulatory metric you reference... 8)

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

chuckdhuff

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Plants Closing
« Reply #37 on: Jul 20, 2016, 02:59 »
we're parsing,...

you're focused on exemplary regulatory ratings,...

the regulatory ratings are sufficient to stay in business,...

the "business" is turning a profit where a profit can be made, and shedding losses where losses are projected or are being realized,...

the "company" is not a nuclear power plant company, it is a company which owns some nuclear power plants,...

the company is doing okay to fine, the nuke plants not so much, by the regulatory metric you reference... 8)


I can agree with those statements. My original post which you partially quoted was in reference to my humble opinion of how the plants appear to be ran. If I was buying stock in an energy company, they would definitely be in the conversation based on current share values and dividend yields. 


Of course, not all that long ago there was talk of how great NRG was doing and look at it now....

Offline GLW

Re: Nuclear Plants Closing
« Reply #38 on: Jul 20, 2016, 03:46 »

I can agree with those statements....



also keeping in mind that the plants you listed are also divided between multiple concerns within Entergy....

Entergy Utility Owned:

ANO 1 &2
Grand Gulf
River Bend
Waterford 3


Entergy Wholesale Commodities Owned:

Fitz
Pilgrim
IP
Palisades


Entergy Wholesale Commodities Management Services:


Cooper

plus the offline outlier,

ENVY:


VY





there's a lot more than a soundbite involved with all this stuff,.... :-\

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

chuckdhuff

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Plants Closing
« Reply #39 on: Jan 10, 2017, 02:23 »
I changed the title of this thread, and added the latest closures to the original post.


After the stay of execution's that have been passed in NY and IL, probably time to pull Fitz, QC, and Clinton off the list in the OP?

Offline Red Gold

Re: Nuclear Plants Closing
« Reply #40 on: Jan 11, 2017, 12:09 »
I note that every plant in GLW's list owned by Entergy Wholesale Commodities has either been sold or is slated for closure.

chuckdhuff

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear Plants Closing
« Reply #41 on: Jan 11, 2017, 09:20 »
That is correct. They must have decided they are done with the Yanks.

Offline GLW

Re: Nuclear Plants Closing
« Reply #42 on: Jan 11, 2017, 11:01 »
That is correct. They must have decided they are done with the Yanks.

seems that way,.....


............................. .......

plus, it's Entergy, and the loozeeanna boys seem predisposed to play hardball when it comes to Yankeez, IIRC, the company is structured to facilitate that disposition towards things west of the Pecos and north of the M-D line,...

now, the zero emissions credits are a bit of a surprise, too late for Kewaunee and VY, perhaps not too late for Ft. Calhoun as they are not past the point of no return just yet,....

yup, pert much,.........

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

Offline scotoma

Re: Nuclear Plants Closing
« Reply #43 on: Jan 12, 2017, 04:28 »
Get out of the nuclear wholesale market any way you can. The power purchase agreements are only a stopgap.

Offline SloGlo

  • meter reader
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5749
  • Total likes: 185
  • Karma: 2641
  • Gender: Male
  • trust me, i'm an hp
Re: Nuclear Plants Closing
« Reply #44 on: Jan 12, 2017, 10:51 »
woo sayed the war between the states was over..  👀
quando omni flunkus moritati

dubble eye, dubble yew, dubble aye!

dew the best ya kin, wit watt ya have, ware yinze are!

Offline Rennhack

Re: Nuclear Plants Closing
« Reply #45 on: Jan 15, 2017, 05:30 »
After the stay of execution's that have been passed in NY and IL, probably time to pull Fitz, QC, and Clinton off the list in the OP?

Done.

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2021 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?