6 Nuclear Plants Might Shut Down Soon
Read Time:3 Minute, 24 Second
As the U.S. slowly embraces and adopts alternative ways of producing energy, older methods are beginning to meet their demise. Whether it’s because of safety concerns or financial difficulties, the nuclear power industry is at the forefront of the energies that are being placed on the back burner. With that said, here are six nuclear power plants that might shut down sooner rather than later.
Fort Calhoun: Blair, Neb.
The Fort Calhoun plant is about 19 miles north of Omaha, Neb., sitting on the Missouri River. It became operational in the early 1970s, but hasn’t produced power for more than two years. It’s been said that Fort Calhoun is has committed a series of operational violations, made mechanical mishaps, and changed management in ways that have tarnished the plant’s image and reputation. Only taking care of the eight out of 25 major issues inspectors found, this plant is sure to stay offline and close for good.
Clinton: Clinton, Ill.
The Clinton Power Plant first became operational in 1987, serving Chicago and its neighboring residents. It’s capable of producing 1,000 megawatts, which is enough energy to power about one million average American homes. A decreased demand for nuclear energy and costly safety upgrades after the Fukushima disaster have caused the plant struggle to stay afloat financially. Although there’s no set date, the plant expects to lose money through 2016, making it highly likely to shut down.
Vermont Yankee: Vernon, Vt.
Operating since 1972, the Vermont Yankee is about five miles south of Brattleboro, Vt. Entergy purchased the plant in 2002 from local utilities, with its operating license being renewed in 2011. In 2007, the facility’s cooling tower partially collapsed. As a result, the plant cut its power supply by half while repairs to fix it took place. Although the state has failed to close the facility in recent years, Entergy has since said the plant will close at the end of 2014 because of financial difficulties.
James A. FitzPatrick: Scriba, N.Y.
The JAF has been operating on Lake Ontario since 1975. This is another plant owned by Entergy, as it bought it from the New York Power Authority in 2000. Although the facility has a license that doesn’t expire until 2034, it’s come under strict scrutiny for how similar it is to Japan’s Fukushima plant, which was damaged by a disastrous earthquake and tsunami in 2011. Not only is the plant struggling like others in the industry, but it’s also had declining performance data in recent years.
Robert E. Ginna: Ontario, N.Y.
Another plant located in New York on Lake Ontario, the Robert E. Ginna is one of the oldest functioning facilities in the country (1970). Although the plant still powers about half a million homes in New York, its age is becoming a risk factor that could lead to its closure in the near future. It’s also relatively small and sells electricity into the state’s deregulated and competitive market, making it a target for future closure. You can check the energy deregulation by state for more information on deregulated energy.
Palisades: Covert Township, Mich.
The Palisades power plant is about 75 miles west of Kalamazoo, Mich., and sits on Lake Michigan’s shores. Fortunately for local residents of past years, the plant has been the region’s biggest employer and taxpayer. Unfortunately today, the plant has had major operating issues, such as an 80-gallon leak of radioactive water, that have heightened safety concerns. Additionally, the metal around the nuclear reactor is some of the most brittle in plants across the country. If it’s not addressed, the plant could close its doors for good in 2017, which is when its license expires.
Nuclear power plants have been a hot topic issue in recent years. While environmentalists argue that these facilities are harmful and need to shut down, others say nuclear plants — when safely operated — are still an effective source of power that should be taken advantage of into the future.
Do you have thoughts or concerns on nuclear energy? Leave a comment below and let us know.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
Disposing of the radioactive waste is a problem that defies a solution, and as long as that remains the case I don’t see nuclear power becoming widespread. It’s unfortunate because it’s cleaner and more efficient, much more so, than fossil fuels.
My major concern about nuclear energy from the beginning has been the disposal of radioactive waste. A truly safe method of long-term storage for it has never been found. Now that plants are aging and safety concerns are mounting it seems time for alternative energy sources should be used.
More efficient use will help but the demand for energy is mounting faster than increases in efficiency. With electric vehicles hull-up on the horizon, they might easily exceed the demand for oil.
With over seven billion people on the planet, each wanting more refrigerators, air conditioners, toaster ovens, lighting, and heating, no real solution seems possible. Perhaps if three were only one billion people?