Posted on 05/08/2022 6:38:26 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The looming closure of the Palisades nuclear power plant at month’s end may push Michigan’s short-term climate goals out of reach, both industry experts and energy regulators agreed.
The loss of 800 megawatts of carbon-free energy from the nuclear plant along Lake Michigan near South Haven is likely to result in more greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere as the electric sector pivots to natural gas while more solar and wind generation comes online.
In Michigan, the state’s climate plan calls for 60 percent of the state’s power to come from renewable sources within the next eight years. Incremental goals in that plan are seen as a factor in the governor’s attempt to keep Palisades running: the plant’s closure will leave a vacuum in already available emissions-free energy.
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer made a last-minute play to keep the 50-year-old nuclear power plant operating past its long-planned closure date at the end of this month, after President Joe Biden last month announced a $6 billion program to rescue nuclear plants at risk of closing. Whether it will be in time for the Palisades remains unclear, though E&E News reported a top U.S. energy official recently confirmed the Michigan plant remains on schedule to close May 31.
That will mean more carbon emissions – at least in the next several years – from an uptick in natural gas plants that are cheaper to operate by power generation companies.
(Excerpt) Read more at mlive.com ...
You think they would keep nuclear power plants open to make it look like their wind/solar is working ,LOL
Yet another POWERFUL message to Putin that we don’t need his hydrocarbons anymore!
The article lacks information about why this plant is closing. As a facility engineer I understand that infrastructure gets old, sometime it’s cheaper to close than repair. But nuclear power plants aren’t exactly a dime a dozen....what’s the urgency to close shop?
South Haven used to be a nice rural community with affordable housing costs. I imagine losing this source of high quality employment will be an issue.
We are governed by the terminally stupid.
That means that those that elect the terminally stupid are also terminally stupid.
We have arrived at idiocracy
They go on about the carbon emissions not the energy.
Oy
The article lacks information about why this plant is closing. As a facility engineer I understand that infrastructure gets old, sometime it’s cheaper to close than repair. But nuclear power plants aren’t exactly a dime a dozen....what’s the urgency to close shop?
************
Suspicious. Would like to see unbiased engineers review plant closures over the decades. They may discover that leftist regulators have been taking plants offline at the drop of a feather, seeking any excuse.
The process is and has been death by a thousand cuts.
What is required is the deaths of the thousand cutters
Nuclear plants do wear out for sure.
Pushing it much past fifty years might not be wise. The thing I think about after that long is neutron embrittlement of the reactor vessel.
Yet another example of how the CO2 controversy is a pack of lies. Or, those who prattle on about it are incapable of coherent thought.
Both could be true, BTWay. Perhaps I should have prepared a list.
I’ll trade carbon for nuclear waste any time it’s not as dangerous.
Actual inspection of the reactor and all critical parts of this nuclear power plant should be done and then decision made whether the plant can continue operations and for how long. 50 years may not be the actual lifespan of a nuclear power plant.
A friend of mine just talked to one of the employees. This MLive article indicating that Whitmer is trying to save it is very likely propoganda. The employee said the plant is one of the best operating plants around, and that Whitmer has been sitting on her hands for a year in approving the funds to keep it. For some reason it’s not a priority.
The employee said he will be returning to work on the road.
Nuclear power facilities are required to have a rolling five year maintenance plan that’s monitored and approved by the NRC.
it’s unlikely that Palisades is decrepit.
as I mentioned elsewhere all nuclear facilities have a rolling five year maintenance plan that’s monitored and approved by the NRC, They don’t wear out in the sense of deterioration.
Coupons of the same material that was used to fabricate the 4” thick reactor vessel (RPV) are stored inside the RPV. During each refueling one is removed and tested for embrittlement.
If that occurred the plant would be shut down.
The TMI reactor involved in the incident was intended to be scrapped and replaced due to the extreme event. As a code vessel it was junk since the event was beyond what could be covered by code.
Wait a minute! I thought natural gas was clean energy…is it not?
We just came back from South Haven for a getaway. Beautiful town on Lake Michigan.
Entergy, the corporate owner of the plant, announced in 2017 that Palisades wasn’t making any money and would close in 2022. Palisades is running as well as it ever has, maybe better, but the price of fossil gas has crashed, dragging the revenue from electricity sales down 30 percent in the last few years.
I’m all for nuclear power. I would probably prefer smaller modular reactors that rather than the 1000 MW variety though.
I’ve was involved with naval nuclear for a long time mostly on the chemistry side, so I know about the inspections and rigorous testing in keeping a plant running. In reality if everything goes right a plant should be good for 100 years.
It’s just when things don’t go right that you have to consider. What comes to mind is the PWR Davis-Besse plant in Ohio that had been operating 30 years or so.
During an inspection they found a corroded spot on top of the reactor head with less than 1/2” left before breakthrough to primary coolant. Boric acid had been dripping on the head from a leak above. It had it’s inspections that didn’t catch it for a long time.
You have to do a good, honest cost/benefit analysis when your looking at extending plant life.
I believe that it takes 7-10 additional years to decommission a nuclear power plant.
Nuclear power plants are licensed and commissioned by the Federal government NRC and are Federal property, even if run by a corporate energy company.
Isn't that true ?
I’ve never heard of them being federal property.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) requires that all power plants submit the cost of construction broken down in a code of accounts for depreciation purposes. That’s for nukes and non nukes.
That Makes no sense if the federal government owned them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.