Nuclear reactors are closing and we are counting

The United Bank of Switzerland (UBS), the second largest bank in the world, headlined that “Nuke Retirements are coming” in its September 24, 2015 global financial research issue of US Electric Utilities and IPPs. The international investment giant projects “a growing capitulation in the nuclear sector as the prospects for protracted downturn remains front and center.”   UBS forecasts, “We see both ETR (Entergy) and EXC (Exelon) as substantially exposed to this thesis: it has specifically emerged in recent days that not just ETR’s Fitzpatrick but also the Pilgrim unit could well be shut in lieu of investing to improve profile up to NRC levels. Further, we see EXC as highlighting this nuclear retirement thesis further with not just its Ginna plant in NY and Oyster Creek (NJ) plants poised to retire in 2019, but also now its Three Mile Island unit is at risk beyond known the ongoing saga in Illinois over support for Quad Cities, Clinton, and even Byron.”  UBS admits that its forecast “could well underestimate total retirements” as actual retirements might prove more aggressive particularly for the other single unit nuclear power stations. With Exelon’s two unit Quad Cities nuclear power plant in Illinois still posting losses, UBS sees the nuclear power corporation’s “plans to retire the plant as entirely credible (and seemingly committed to investors) should Illinois fail to produce a sufficiently attractive scheme” in spite of the fact that 50% of its nuclear assets are clustered in the state.

There is even more good news to be found in this particular UBS forecast where, “In turn, if retirements move forward as contemplated, we see a real corresponding uplift to the renewable industry as this becomes the growing source of 'plugging' for any further holes in meeting prospective carbon targets.” The UBS assessment undermines the pro-nuclear industry’s most prevalent false argument that “No Nukes” means more coal. It clearly doesn’t.

You can keep pace with these anticipated nuclear power plant closures and more by periodically visiting our website’s “Reactors are closing” page.

Pilgrim’s progress towards permanent closure

Entergy’s Pilgrim nuclear power station in Plymouth, MA is closer to permanent shutdown principally because of the reactors failing performance, mounting cost of inspecting and maintaining this inherently dangerous post-Fukushima technology and a steadily rising competitive “head wind” of abundant renewable energy.

It is clear to be seen that Pilgrim is in a financial melt down along with its parent company. Entergy’s stock has fallen 30% in the past year. It is of such increasing concern that even the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave the Fukushima-style reactor the dubious distinction of being one of the most unsafe nuclear power plants in the country.

However, the 43-year old reactor is long overdue for permanent closure for more than its bad economics, failing performance and risky operation. This particular nuclear power station is infamous for being the focus of legislatively mandated epidemiological study conducted by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) published in 1990 and re-published in 1996. The state health department’s case control study investigated the 22 towns in southeastern Massachusetts around the Pilgrim reactor and found a four-fold increase in a rare adult leukemia in the population that worked and resided the closest and the longest to the reactor.

We continue to support the tireless effort of the many citizens and groups who labor to hasten the closure of this dirty, dangerous and expensive nuke.  Shut it down, now.

Cue up the bailout plea: Entergy might close aging FitzPatrick nuclear plant in New York State

Entergy's FitzPatrick atomic reactor (NRC file photo).The subject line above is Scott Stapf of the Hasting Group's Tweet pointing to an article at Syracuse.com. The dirty, age-degraded, dangerous, expensive, uncompetitive Fukushima Daiichi twin design (a General Electric Mark I Boiling Water Reactor) on the Lake Ontario shore in upstate NY (see photo), couldn't close a moment too soon!

"Exelon mulls closure of unprofitable Quad Cities nuke plant"

As reported by the Chicago Tribune, Exelon must decide by the end of September whether or not Quad Cities' two reactors will continue operating past May 2017 -- the current cut off for their electricity generation capacity commitments. The dirty, dangerous, expensive, age-degraded and uncompetitive reactors have been hemorrhaging money.

Increasing the likelihood of a permanent shutdown, Exelon's Quad Cities has failed to clear PJM capacity auctions; Exelon lobbyists have failed, thus far, to convince IL state legislators to fork over $1.5 billion of ratepayer money to prop up its troubled reactors; and the DC PSC rejected Exelon's takeover of Pepco, by which it had hoped to funnel Mid-Atlantic ratepayer money to IL to bail out its troubled reactors.

The article did not mention that Quad Cities Unit 1 and 2 are General Electric Mark I Boiling Water Reactors, identical in design to Fukushima Daiichi Units 1 to 4.

"Gas deal could signal Southern’s drift from new nuclear projects"

As reported by the Atlanta Journal Constitution, a $12 billion deal merging Southern Co. and the AGL natural gas utility could mark the end of the "nuclear renaissance" for Southern.

The article reports:

This deal signals that “the nuclear renaissance is over for Southern,” said Robert “Bobby” Brown, a regulatory lawyer and former member of Georgia’s utility regulator, the Public Service Commission.

The article goes on:

The Atlanta company is building two new nuclear power units at its Vogtle site in Georgia and an advanced-technology coal-fired plant in Mississippi. Both those projects are years behind schedule and have resulted in billions of dollars of cost overruns that will be born by Southern’s shareholders or customers, or both. (emphasis added)

The Obama administration awarded Southern and its partners at Vogtle 3 & 4 a whopping $8.3 billion in federal taxpayer-back loans and loan guarantees. If the project defaults on its loan repayment, federal taxpayers would be left holding the bag.

That's 15 times more money than was lost to the U.S. Treasury by the Solyndra solar loan guarantee default. And Vogtle 3 & 4's risk of default is higher than Solyndra's was determined to be when the solar loan guarantee was awarded.

In addition to taxpayer subsidies, Vogtle 3 & 4 has been financed by "Construction Work in Progress" -- surcharges on ratepayers' electricity bills that are illegal in most states.