Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
You might want to look at the facts. The two reactors being built here in the US are wildly over budget and overdue, and the same goes for the reactor being built in the UK.
Pilgrim had FIVE unscheduled shutdowns in about a year - that sort of undependability costs a lot of money. The fund they have to decommission it is $1,000,000,000 dollars, and I'll bet that won't cover the costs, and it won't be done by 2028. The original plan was to take as long as SIXTY YEARS.
The same company Entergy, that owns Pilgrim, also owns Vermont Yankee, and that plant is already being decommissioned - and I doubt they have enough money to do it right.
|
Any project can be mismanaged, and it sounds like this might apply to Pilgrim. Anecdotal evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions for the entire nuclear power industry though. Anecdotes are what politicians use to sway lazy-minded people onto their side.
My (nearly worthless) anecdote is that the latest 2 reactors to go online in the US went way over budget and got delayed for decades due mostly to fear, and yet they are still producing power at roughly 2.4 cents per kWh over the projected 40 year lifespan.
BTW- The Pilgrim plant will have served nearly 50 years by the time it's decommissioned. Not bad considering it was built with a 40 year production in mind. It's easily paid for itself in that time, and I wouldn't be surprised if Massachusetts residents are in for rate hikes. Where are they going to get the energy that has been supplied by the reactor once it goes offline?