A tale of two nuclear plants on Lake Michigan (all info from Wikipedia):
1) Kewaunee Power station was the 4th built in Wisconsin and the 44th built in the USA. Construction began August 6, 1968, the plant was commissioned on June 16, 1974. Operation was uneventful, there was a minor water leak on April 27, 2006, although no radioactivity was released and the plant remained operational. In 2008, application was made to the NRC for an extension of the original operating license for another 20 years, this was granted, the plant could have remained in operation until 2033, and further extensions could have been applied for and probably would have been granted.
On October 22, 2012, Dominion Resources announced they would shut down and decommission the plant in Mid-2013. Dominion's chairman and CEO said "the decision was based purely on economics. Dominion was not able to move forward with our plan to grow our nuclear fleet in the Midwest to take advantage of economies of scale". Lower natural gas costs and resultant lower electricity prices created an electricity market in which the plant could not compete. The plant came offline permanently on May 7, 2013.[2][5] Plans for decommissioning are uncertain: as a private owner rather than a public utility, Dominion cannot rely on charges imposed on utility customers by state regulators; however, the firm has a substantial reserve fund earmarked for this purpose and a cause of action against the Department of Energy for failure to remove spent fuel. There is also the chance that the energy market might improve due to economic or political changes.[2]
The SAFSTOR (SAFe STORage) nuclear decommissioning option was selected. During SAFSTOR, the de-fuelled plant is monitored for up to sixty years before complete decontamination and dismantling of the site, to a condition where nuclear licensing is no longer required. During the storage interval, some of the radioactive contaminants of the reactor and power plant will decay, which will reduce the quantity of radioactive material to be removed during the final decontamination phase. A reduced workforce will move fuel assemblies from the reactor into the spent fuel pool.[6]
Construction cost: $776.15M (2007 dollars). One 566 MW PWR which averaged 84% of rated capacity for 40 years and could probably have done so for another 40 years after that, assuming a second 20-year extensoin had been applied for and granted. Lifetime average annual power output was 3,752GWh. This was more expensive than natural gas fired power plants, not counting any expenses arising from the carbon dioxide produced by burning gas, of course.
The reactor was defuelled and the usable fuel is stored in the "Moon Pool" of the nearby (and still operational) Point Beach Nuclear Plant. The reactor main and emergency cooling systems remain operational, and lake water is being circulated contunuously. Even if the station were to be abandonned, there is no longer any need to actively cool the defuelled reactor core. Tons of cooled spent fuel rods still exist at the site in buried dry cask storage, awaiting the US Government to fulfill it's promise of permanent storage - or recycling as new fuel.
Kewaunee cannot be safely reactivated and re-licensed. It falls short of current requirements for a new NRC license, and cannot be safely modified to current spec for decades to come.
2) The Point Beach Nuclear Plant is located a few miles South of the decommissioned Kewaunee plant. Again Wikipedia:
On November 28, 1966, following Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW) endorsement and a brief public hearing, Alfred Gruhl, Glenn Reed, and Sol Burstein[4] turned the first symbolic spades of dirt for the official ground-breaking. In May, 1967, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), predecessor to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), issued the official construction permit (number 32) for Point Beach Unit 1. The Unit 2 construction permit (number 47) was issued approximately a year later.[4]
On October 5, 1970, the AEC issued its full-term, full-power Operating License (DPR-24) for Point Beach Unit 1. The loading fuel into the reactor commenced almost immediately. On November 2, 1970, operators achieved initial criticality, with the nuclear-powered electricity being produced for days later, on November 6. Full commercial service was reached on December 21, 1970, just 49 months from the initial groundbreaking ceremony. After delays from nuclear power opponents, Unit 2 was granted a full-term, full-power operating license (DPR-27) on March 8, 1973, almost 1 1/2 years behind the original schedule.[4]
Due to steam generator tube degradation and failures caused by intergranular stress corrosion cracking, Unit 1 was operated at approximately 75-80% of full power from December, 1979 until October 1983, when replacement steam generators were installed.[5] The Unit 2 steam generators were replaced in 1996-97.[6]
In 2005, the approved the license renewal application for the Point Beach plant, extending the operating license from forty years to sixty.[7][8] in 2011, the NRC approved a 17% increase in power output (a.k.a. extended power uprate) from both units. This entailed significant upgrades to several plant systems and components, including safety-related pumps and valves, as well as the turbine-generator sets.[9]
Present nameplate capacity at Point Beach is 1182 MW. Average annual energy produced is 10,153 GWh, cheaper than natural gas. Since going online it has averaged 98.06% of capacity, and has a perfect safety record with no radioactives released. Several failures have occurred in the (multiple redundant) steam turbines, and the re-designed units are proving considerably better than the originals.
Conclusion: Both of these plants had unblemished safety records with no nuclear accidents. Both are/were regarded as good places to work by the locals. One is profitable because it has twin reactors and multiple turbine generator sets. The smaller of the two had essentially the same expenses for security and operations, but could not produce enough power to compete with fracked natural gas.
There are some beautiful beaches near to and even between these two power stations, and the area is cheap and uncrowded, and I'm interested. I'd much rather live near to one or both of these sites than any of several coal plants in the state, all of which have heavily contaminated the areas around them with toxics (including radioactives) from the stacks. This legacy of coal is a major problem from coast to coast, but mainly in the NorthEast.
Posted: Fri 15 Dec 2017, 21:20:09
.jpg)