Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
That explanation leaves out a lot of relevant information, such as the radioactive material was tritium (heavy hydrogen) which is a material used in things such as wrist watches and gun sights. The leak from steam pipes was repaired a month after discovering the problem, and no water sources that humans interact with were contaminated.[
The 2 major factors for decommissioning the plant were:
1. Abundant natural gas undercutting the price of nuclear power
2. Anti-nuclear lobbying from anti-environmentalists
Age had little to do with it. The facility was already built, so there were no ongoing construction costs to contend with. Nuclear plants can conceivably operate for 100 years.
65% of the decommissioning costs are "costs associated with terminating the NRC operating license ($817 million)", whatever that means.
Finally, Vermont is still using nuclear power, only buying it from New Hampshire.
Vermont is the 8th most expensive state for electricity.
|
There were multiple tritium leaks as well as cesium-137. No doubt anti-nuclear sentiment was a factor. I also find that pretty reasonable when the local nuclear plant keeps leaking radioactive materials.
Personally I think age had a lot to do with it. Sure you can keep a plant going almost indefinitely but steel rusts and concrete breaks down. The older a plant is the more work is needed to keep it running safely. There comes a point where it doesn't make economic sense to keep patching the pipes and plugging the leaks.
There is a reason it was given a 40 year operating license when it was opened.
I'm not against nuclear power but I don't see how they can compete economically today given the huge cost to build a nuclear plant and then decommission it at the end of life.