Is nuclear power facing a reversal of fortune? | Science updates | -- Your State. Your News.

Jul 03rd
  • Login
  • Create an account
  • Search
  • Local Business Deals

Is nuclear power facing a reversal of fortune?

50mile111710_optBY ROGER WITHERSPOON

Entergy Corporation's low key announcement might well have been posted on Craig's List:

For Sale: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. Used, unpredictable radioactive leaks, poorly run, financially indebted, locally unpopular, politically shunned and currently not working. $180 Million — Or Best Offer.

"Selling an old nuclear plant is like trying to build a new one," said economist Mark Cooper of the University of Vermont Law School's Institute for Energy and the Environment. "No one in their right mind would buy it or try to build it today. Most of the projects that have been proposed in this country have been delayed or abandoned. The simple fact is that the economics of nuclear power today are terrible and the market for these things is just not there.

"Why Entergy thinks they can sell it is hard to see. Putting it up for sale is a sign of desperation. That's the last thing you do before you give up and walk away."

Walking away is not an option Entergy Corp. will comment on — yet. Nor will they declare that option off the table. "For now we are just exploring the potential sale of the plant," said Entergy spokesman Alex Schott. "It is one option that we feel is in the best interests of the shareholders and the 650 employees that work there."

The company does not have a lot to explore. The plant is turned off while Entergy officials try and plug a leak of radioactive fluid from 40-year-old pipes serving the reactor.

VermontYankee111610_opt"This latest incident at Vermont Yankee definitely hurt," said Justin McCann, senior industry analyst in Standard & Poor's Equity Division. "They announced they are looking to sell and two days later this radioactive leak had to happen and force a shut down. At the same time, they had an explosion at Indian Point.

"Any company interested would have to do their own inspections, of course, to see what needs to be done to run the plant profitably. But the bargaining will now all be on one side. Entergy doesn't have any leverage. Vermont Yankee has become a major headache to the company, and their bargaining power will be curtailed significantly."

The collapse of Entergy's $180 million, 2002 cash investment in the nuclear power plant providing 30% of Vermont's electricity, and its larger, mortgaged, purchase of the troubled twin reactors at Indian Point on the Hudson River in 2001, signal a remarkable reversal of fortunes for a well respected power company and the once high-flying prospects of the nation's nuclear power. The billion dollar corporation's rating by Moody's Investor Service has dropped to Baa3 — just one step above what is professionally termed "speculative grade" but is generally known as "junk" status.

Moody's noted in September when it lowered the company's rating that Entergy has borrowed $3 billion of its $3.5 billion line of bank credit for its nuclear operations and continuing problems at Vermont and Indian Point raised questions about the plants' future ability to finance repairs or replace and maintain aging equipment and systems.

"In addition, lower (natural gas) prices in the Northeast make it highly unlikely that the business will continue to generate as much cash flow" when current contracts expire in 2012, and will decline after that Moody's stated. Entergy, like the rest of the nuclear industry, bet its future on an exorbitant, continually rising, natural gas price which did not materialize due to the recession, energy efficiencies, and the increasing availability of huge natural gas supplies from previously locked shale sediments. Hydraulic fracturing may threaten future water supplies, but it has already begun draining the nuclear bank.

indianpoint2090810_optEntergy's two troubled nuclear plant sites — Vermont Yankee and Indian Point — have graphically shown the strengths and weaknesses of the nuclear industry and the extremely high hurdles involved in launching a new commercial nuclear era.

On the positive side, these plants are extraordinary money makers, with Indian Point's plants each earning upwards of $2 million daily. Nuclear plants nationally had a checkered operating past under the monopoly utilities like PSEG in New Jersey and Con Edison in New York, where Indian Point was offline two thirds of the time. But deregulation brought in professional fleet operators like Chicago-based Exelon, which partnered with PSEG in New Jersey to run Hope Creek and Salem; and Entergy, which bought Indian Point 2 and 3 and turned them in to steady, baseline generators producing electricity and making money 95 percent of the time.

That wasn't easy. Entergy pumped some $500 million into Indian Point to replace decrepit, unreliable, and unsafe equipment and to retrain nearly the entire operating staff. Within three years, Entergy improved Indian Point's standing with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) from that of the worst run plant complex in the nation to one of its best.

salem2090410_optAt that time, deep pockets and corporate good will meant a lot. The purchase of Indian Point 2 was held up for nine months due to legal challenges by the Westchester Citizens Awareness Network — the sister unit of CAN, Vermont Yankee's grassroots nemesis. WestCAN contended that Entergy Nuclear Northeast, (ENN), the Limited Liability Corporation running the power plants, did not have the financial wherewithal to cover damages to the region should anything go wrong.

That position was finally rejected by a Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Law Judge who held it was "inconceivable" that Entergy Corp would ever walk away from liabilities incurred at Indian Point even though it was legally shielded by a string of 21 LLCs under the ENN umbrella set up just for that purpose. Entergy officially took over Indian Point September 10, 2001.

It was a 24-hour, Pyrrhic victory.

The following morning, a United Airlines 767 flew over the Indian Point plants en route to crashing into the World Trade Center 25 miles south in Manhattan. Collateral damage was the destruction of the industry's myth that nuclear containment buildings were designed to withstand the crash of a 747. The NRC acknowledged that jumbo jets did not exist when these plants were designed in the 1950s and early 1960s, and they were, in fact, vulnerable to suicide attacks.

In 2003 former Homeland Security Commissioner James Lee Witt was hired by New York State to examine the emergency evacuation plans for the region around Indian Point. He concluded they could not possibly work and detailed flaws which had been systematically covered up by Entergy. That prompted the surrounding counties and the State to refuse to sign off on the plans and further tarnished the company's image. Three of the four surrounding county legislatures and scores of municipalities and school districts within 10 miles of Indian Point went on record urging the NRC not to relicense the plants.

Then, in 2005, Hurricane Katrina blew away another pillar of nuclear stability. Entergy Corp declared its damaged Entergy New Orleans LLC subsidiary bankrupt, and demanded the taxpayers pay some $600 million for repairs. President Bush rejected the request, saying it was obscene for the company to demand taxpayer funding while distributing dividends of more than $1 billion to its shareholders.

In the end, however, the company received some $400 million in public funds towards the restoration of its damaged power plant. But that shattered the myth of corporate responsibility so carefully constructed during the Indian Point court hearings just four years earlier. It would be noted by Public Service Commissions around the nation.

"Entergy came in as a trustworthy company and systematically destroyed that trust over the decade," said WestCAN organizer Margot Schepart. "Katrina proved that there was no such thing as corporate responsibility. We were right when we had said the profits would go south to the corporate headquarters, but if there was a problem, we were on our own and no money would come this way."

But Entergy was confident. In 2006 they filed applications with the NRC to extend Vermont Yankee's license 20 years past its 2012 expiration date. The following year they applied for extensions for Indian Point's reactors, which are due to expire in 2013 and 2015. It was then that the bottom began to fall out of the nuclear bubble.

Plumbing Problems

The aging infrastructure designed a half century earlier began showing signs of wear at nuclear sites around the country. Water contaminated with radioactive byproducts of reactor operations — including heavy elements like plutonium, iodine and cesium — were leaking out of the nation's 104 nuclear plants, including Indian Point and Vermont Yankee. The nation's worst radioactive leaks into the local environment occurred at Exelon's Braidwood plant, 30 miles south of Chicago.

LochbaumDAVID090810_opt"Exelon leaked over six million gallons over two years," said David Lochbaum, nuclear safety director for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Braidwood had two leaks of about three million gallons each, and 18 smaller leaks of about 300,000 gallons.

"All of those leaks came from pipe carrying radioactively contaminated water into the river. The assumption was that it would mix with the river water and by the time it got into people's drinking water supplies it would be diluted enough that it would not be a hazard. But instead of going into the river, it leaked into the water table and got into people."

It came as a surprise to most people that nuclear power plants, touted as "clean and safe" energy, regularly dump contaminated water and steam into the ground and air by design. It was unfathomable that neither the NRC, with its highly regarded corps of on-the-scene resident inspectors, nor the operators of the highly technical plant, nor its vaunted, redundant, electronic safety systems missed six million gallons of radioactive fluid dumped by accident.


Comments (5)
5 Monday, 22 November 2010 08:53
Computer Repairs Perth
Everything is well when it is used for human being. So, we expect nuclear power won't be used for destroying human being. You should bring more important article like this. thanks for your nice blog.
4 Saturday, 20 November 2010 22:25
Roger Witherspoon
It is unfortunate that many supporters of nuclear power resort to invective and bombast rather than deal with issues. Proving you are rude does nothing to alter facts nor does it add to public discourse.
1. comments are handled automatically, not by NJNR staff. Those deemed obscene or otherwise offensive are automatically deleted.
2.Fissionary's claim that Peter Bradford, a former NRC Commissioner, David Lochbaum, one of the nation's foremost nuclear safety engineers, or executives from Moody's and Standard & Poor's, or the Public Service commissions of New York and Vermont are all "professional antinuclear activists" is absurd. Lochbaum took a leave from UCS to spend 2009 working for the NRC, updating its safety manuals and training its inspectors. If you have credentials to match, please produce them to lend credence to your remarks.
3. The information in this story is all based on public record. If you have data you can actually document dealing with issues facing the existing fleet of 104 reactors please share it.
4. Your statements about dry cask storage are wrong. The bulk of the nation's high level radioactive waste remains in spent fuel pools. Plants are in the process of moving much of that material into dry casks as a way to make room in their pools for more high level, long lived, radioactive waste. No spent fuel less than 5 years out of the reactor is eligible for movement into dry casks. And according to the NRC, the danger of exothermic fire in spent fuels remains with fuel bundles at least until they are 30 years out of the reactor.
5. Discussions of research funded by Bill Gates and others has nothing to do with real issues facing the existing fleet of reactors. Confusing what MAY exist a half century from now with what actually does exist is a common mistake made by many observers like you two.
6. According to the NRC's Office of New Reactors, there are no processes which utilize spent fuel as fuel without creating equally long lived, highly radioactive byproducts. This Merlin Option, embraced by enthusiasts, has no standing at the NRC and there are no such reactors in operation anywhere.
Nuclear power has played an important role in the nation's energy mix. Like all forms of power, it has its peculiar strengths and weaknesses. the business community, at this juncture, does not consider nuclear power worth investing in. An argument may be made for committing more than $1 trillion to underwrite the development of 100 new nuclear power plants -- a position held by GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander.
But that argument will have to be based on more than the rude comments and wishful thinking you have presented here.
3 Thursday, 18 November 2010 13:43
John Farmer
The articles author seems to be very uneducated. He seems to have no conception of the facts about nuclear power. Currently our countries small amount of high level nuclear by products is being stored long term via dry cask technology. This technology enables use to encase fuel rods thus protecting them and shielding them from the public. Most of these casks only give off a dose on contact of 3mR/hr. This does not even meet the federal mandate far a Radiation Area. Our countries nuclear fuel rods are now being stored safety and there is no reason why they can’t continue to be stored safety

Eventually we will reuse the tremendous amount of power left in these fuel rods. Next generation nuclear power plants can also use these nuclear by products. We have built many successful test reactors that employ next generation nuclear technology. Bill Gates is working on the Tera Wave reactor. When built he thinks we can power the entire world with technology and not have to mine one gram of uranium for 500 years. The end by product of this kind of nuclear plant is ceramic material that will decay to below background in less than 400years. Also Bill Gates believes this technology can cut power cost in half thus pulling the 2.5 billion poorest people of our planet out poverty. If you want to learn more about his technology go to this site and hear Bill Gates address at the Ted conference.

In sum our planet needs nuclear today and tomorrow. The stakes are just too great not to pursue nuclear power.

2 Thursday, 18 November 2010 13:40
John farmer
Hey, I put up post that tripped this article to pieces. No later than 15minutes the post was gone. Surprise surprise surprise. I guess this Wheatheredspoonage author does not like legitimate science or criticism. These anti-nuke are all yellow when it comes down to it. Why they write if they can’t stand legitimate criticism?

1 Wednesday, 17 November 2010 21:57
Nowhere in this article do I see ANYTHING resembling balanced coverage. All this article consists of are a bunch of sensationalist soundbites from well paid, proffesional antinuclear activists.

I see nothing putting the radioactivity in context of say - a granite counter top or a banana - to which the health risk is comparable and I see anybody dropping dead from banana contamination any time soon.

Where is the testimony from an actual nuclear engineer or PHD from the industry? You know, someone who is actually QUALIFIED to provide comentary on the matter?

Where is your journalistic integrity and credibility Mr Witherspoon? It must be around here somewher......nope, don't see it.

Add your comment

Your name:

Follow/join us

Twitter: njnewsroom Linked In Group: 2483509