It's too easy to permanently close a nuclear power plant in the United States
http://atomicinsights.com/its-too-easy-to-shut-down-a-nuclear-power-plant-in-the-united-states/
unless we nationalize the new clear fleet, owners have final say.
We could stop subsidizing "pie in the sky" wind and solar projects to stabilize the overall market! Alternatively, while I'm not a big fan of federal subsidies; we could give nuclear plants the same benefits on account of them being "greener" than the wind and solar alternatives!
Quote from: Radwraith on Dec 13, 2015, 01:21
We could stop subsidizing "pie in the sky" wind and solar projects to stabilize the overall market! Alternatively, while I'm not a big fan of federal subsidies; we could give nuclear plants the same benefits on account of them being "greener" than the wind and solar alternatives!
NY State is already pursuing that for the plants up on Lake Ontario,...
even that is not enough business incentive for players such as Entergy,...
the 2016 Final Rules for Enhanced Security & Transportation,...
and FLEX,...
will be (is/are) the death knell for too many,...
particularly for the smaller single unit sites,... [coffee]
Quote from: GLW on Dec 13, 2015, 01:30
NY State is already pursuing that for the plants up on Lake Ontario,...
even that is not enough business incentive for players such as Entergy,...
the 2016 Final Rules for Enhanced Security & Transportation,...
and FLEX,...
will be (is/are) the death knell for too many,...
particularly for the smaller single unit sites,... [coffee]
I think you are definitely correct on this one, especially for the small single unit plants. But part of the problem I see on this, especially with the recent Entergy closing announcements, is Entergy never really comes right out and says this (about NRC constantly expanding the original Design Basis). I think they should, to focus attention on this problem. But Entergy may feel caught between the rock and the hard spot. They are a fairly large player and may not want to risk antagonizing NRC.
Just from my [2cents]. Security and security related regulations, began picking up in the mid/late 70's (during my first NPP plant visits and work in the late 60's and early 70's , security was basically reception) and continued through the 90's, continuing to grow larger and larger. After 9/11, security, in most facilities, became the largest organization on site. Nothing against security, but, it is all OH and when Income - (Operating Costs + OH) results in a loss then the facility becomes a liability and subject to closure (removal from the system). :old:
There are ZERO legit reasons why Security should be the largest department at a Commercial Nuclear Power Plant and economically its disastrous......and beyond ridiculous.