Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant to Close

Subtitle: Another one calls it quits - Losing Money

Three Mile Island nuclear plants,
containment domes as white circles at top right
credit:  NRC

The infamous Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania has one reactor still running.  The other one, the one that melted down after only one year of operation, has been closed with its radioactive fuel core removed.  Now, almost 40 years later, the financial losses are overwhelming, the government refused to provide tax dollars as still more subsidies, and the owners have announced the plant's closure in September, 2019.    (UPDATE:  It closed on Sept 20, 2019.  Cheers for another one closed, forever. )

So much for the nuclear cheerleader mantra that "nuclear plants last for 60 years."  No, they don't.   SLB has a list of the US' closed nuclear plants, see link.   Three Mile Island will join that list if and when it actually closes down, in approximately 10 weeks from today. 

At SLB, the opinion is that many more nuclear reactors in the US will shut down in the next few years, approximately half of the existing fleet, as the electricity market changes for the better, and nuclear plants cannot compete.  The combination of old plants, high operating costs, and tremendous pressure from low-cost wind and natural gas power, makes shutting them down the only practical solution.   However, a few states (notably Ohio) have chosen to give even more subsidies to their nuclear plants to keep them running and the workers employed.    One wonders how much largesse actually exists in the legislature and governor's office, when the plants require many hundreds of million $ invested to remain within the Federal safety regulations.   Who will purchase bonds to fund the investments, when at best the plants will run for only 10 years?

So, what actually happens when a nuclear power plant shuts down?  How does the grid cope?  Quite well, actually.   We have seen this demonstrated time and time again, in California, Nebraska, Massachusetts, and others. 

Many of the remaining power plants each increase their output to cover the load that the nuclear plant formerly supplied.    At night especially, some plants will not reduce output as much as when the nuclear plant was operating.   The grid remains stable, the customers are happy, and a high-cost provider is removed from the generation mix.   This is how regulated capitalism is supposed to work, the most efficient survive, and the least efficient fall by the wayside.  

One last point, about nuclear plants supposedly being zero-carbon sources of power.   No, they aren't, especially when they shut down.  That Three Mile Island plant will soon be a big load on the grid, drawing power 24 hours per day, to keep spent fuel cooled and various other needs.   That power intake is from the grid as a whole, which of course includes coal-fired power and natural gas-fired power.   That is not unique to Three Mile Island, as every closed nuclear plant continues to draw power from the grid in various amounts.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Houston, Texas

copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here

Climate Change................here  and here

Fresh Water......................here

Engineering......................here  and here

Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here  

Bigger Wind Turbines Onshore and Offshore in 2019

Subtitle: Wind Has Won

Two major events in both offshore and onshore wind occurred in 2019; both have enormous (some would say HUUUGE) implications for renewable energy worldwide.  The first event is the installation of the largest-ever offshore wind turbine generator (WTG), the GE-built Haliade 12X in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.  Yes, it is an onshore installation, not offshore, but that is for ease of access during testing and verification purposes.   The 12X has a nominal output of 12 MW, and a claimed annual capacity factor of 63 percent.   The economics of the 12 MW WTG are very favorable; such that a sales price of 5 cents US per kWh allows a nice return on the investment.   A major wind project offshore in EU has announced they will use the 12 MW turbines.   see link for details of the GE Haliade 12X. 

Meanwhile, GE has done it again.  This time in the onshore industry, where a major limit to increased size and better economics for WTG has been the inability to transport longer blades from manufacturer to the wind turbine site.   The US Department of Energy recently sent out a call for ideas to solve the transportation problem.   GE has since (March, 2019) announced their 5 MW WTG, the Cypress model, that has blades fabricated in two parts for ease of shipping.  At the site, the two parts are joined for installation and operation.   This also is huge for onshore WTG, since the almost double output brings down the sales price of electricity.   Adequate returns are provided at present with 4.3 cents per kWh from the 2.5-3 MW size WTG.  The 5 MW Cypress WTG will allow an adequate return at something below the 4.3 cents, most likely in the 2.5-3 cents per kWh range.   see link for details of the Cypress 5 MW. 

We can expect that many older WTG projects with 1 MW size and smaller will soon upgrade to the 5 MW WTG.  The repowering projects have excellent economics because the infrastructure is mostly in place.   Bigger turbines reach up higher into better wind, and provide a greater annual capacity. 

As I have said often before, wind has won.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Houston, Texas

copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here

Climate Change................here  and here

Fresh Water......................here

Engineering......................here  and here

Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here