Oct

21

The media is buzzing about nuclear power as the silver bullet. Two commercial nuclear power plants are in the process of coming out of retirement.

The odds of the two retired nuclear plants successfully navigating their way out of retirement are high. The Michigan unit (Palisades) won a $1.52 billion federal loan guarantee, $300 million from the state, [significant] tax benefits, and bipartisan support from state lawmakers. In addition, Palisades has already signed long-term Power Purchase Agreements for the full power output with rural electric co-ops Wolverine Power Cooperative and Hoosier Energy, which serve rural communities in Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana. DOE will also provide $1.3 billion in funding to two Michigan area power cooperatives to boost power purchases from the Palisades plant.

The Pennsylvania unit (Three Mile Island) is about two years behind Palisades. Their 20-year offtake agreement is with Microsoft. They may decline federal loan guarantees but take advantage of aggressive tax advantages (federal loans have feisty terms).

Both plants will require extensive and high-paying workforces. They will generate significant state and local property taxes and create economic multipliers for local, state, and regional areas.

While each plant may appear old, its components are relatively new. Over the years, each plant has undergone preventive maintenance that required replacing components and maintaining federal safety standards. While each plant is relatively small (under 900 MW), they can safely run for an additional 20 years with routine maintenance.

The validity of the proposed restart schedules is a question. I wonder if they can access new fuel in time because of a rigid queue to support the nation's nuclear fleet. I also question whether there is enough time to overcome the hurdles of the federal regulator (NRC). These are external activities that developers can manage but cannot control.

The natural question is about other nuclear plants. Specifically, how many more retired nuclear plants can be restarted? The answer is that it depends. It depends on how far a plant has been decommissioned, who owns the title, the degree to which the state supports continued operations, whether government incentives can overcome costs, and how desperate consumers are for power.

David Lillienfeld comments:

I find it hard to believe that the community around TMI is going to accept a restart all that easily.

Carder Dimitroff replies:

Thank you. This is an important point. TMI has two nuclear power plants (two reactors and two generators). Only one unit was involved in the TMI incident. Until it retired in late 2019, the other had operated reliably for 40 years after the incident. It retired for financial reasons, and local property taxes jumped when it did.

Not all, but most communities hosting nuclear power plants appreciated the employment, economic, and tax benefits the facility provided. When plants approached retirement age, community leaders sought opportunities to extend or replace the facility.

With one operating unit, TMI was the biggest employer in the county, with nearly 700 high-paying workers. Local businesses depended on the plant for their economic success. In addition, schools and other government departments enjoyed robust budgets while average homeowners' property taxes remained relatively low.

For these reasons, most communities would likely support continued operations. As always, some will want to see the asset permanently decommissioned. While there are no public safety issues that differ from those of any other nuclear plant, those most concerned about TMI would have moved years ago.

David Lillienfeld responds:

There was a documentary about TMI made in the last decade (I think). There were a lot of local residents who registered anger that the reactors had been built there in the first place. I'm not so confident that they would have moved by now. That said, your comments about the economics make a strong case for moving forward with a restart. I guess the big winners are Microsoft shareholders.


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search