Coal fired plant proposed on the grounds of decommissioned Yankee Maine Nuke site.

[NNadir]

This is rich.

Three separate investment groups are considering Wiscasset as a possible site for a new kind of power plant that would burn gas extracted from coal.
All three groups are looking at the same parcel: the former Maine Yankee nuclear power plant property.
One group, made up of people with ties to the coal industry, visited the site in September and met with state and local officials. That group plans to return again this winter, said Mark Bigge, a Bath entrepreneur who recruited the investors.
The other two groups invest in energy projects around the world, said Poe Cilley, marketing director for Point East, which owns the parcel. She said all three groups have contacted the company in recent months.
"It would be a great thing for Wiscasset if we can get it," Cilley said.
No group has submitted a plan.
The 430-acre site does not include the section that housed the nuclear reactor dome, which was on Bailey Point, a peninsula that juts into the Sheepscot River.
Investors are looking for sites in the Northeast to build coal gasification plants because they stand to make a lot of money if they get one approved, said Rich Silkman of Competitive Energy Services, an energy broker and consultant. He said the region is dependent on natural gas, which is an expensive fuel. Coal, though, is cheap and plentiful.

http://business.mainetoday.com/news/070103coal.html

I am not permitted to state the obvious here.

Among the reasons that the people of Maine, in their wisdom, decided to close the Yankee Maine Nuclear plant - well not all the people of Maine, only those with febrile imaginations - is that Maine did not need the power. There was the usual clap trap about Maine's wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, wonderful conservation, solar, tidal, wind, wood blah, blah, blah.

But what they are building is coal.

Why? One reason could be that they've been listening to Amory Lovins, the consumer from Colorado. Another apparently is because they did not replace their nuclear plant with conservation, solar, wind, wood blah, blah, blah. They replaced it with dangerous natural gas which produces dangerous fossil fuel waste - that would be carbon dioxide. There is no permanent or even temporary repository for dangerous fossil fuel waste and the default position is to dump the dangerous fossil fuel waste in an unrestricted form into earth's atmosphere. The dangerous fossil fuel of choice - natural gas has become too expensive for Mainers:

To wit:

Investors are looking for sites in the Northeast to build coal gasification plants because they stand to make a lot of money if they get one approved, said Rich Silkman of Competitive Energy Services, an energy broker and consultant. He said the region is dependent on natural gas, which is an expensive fuel. Coal, though, is cheap and plentiful.
"Anything you can do that is cheaper than natural gas looks attractive to some degree or another as a source of electric power," Silkman said.

Laugh or cry?

Anything that is cheaper than natural gas?

Again, laugh or cry?

I have discussed Maine's decision to replace Yankee Maine Nuclear Station with dangerous fossil fuels previously but I had no idea, no idea at all, about the telling decision listed here, to choose the worst fossil fuel.

[Dead_Parrot]

1. That's nice

Maybe we can find a grid-connected Maine resident with an interest in energy to give us their opinion on gas vs coal (and how both are better than nuclear, of course).

[NNadir]

27. Hey, did that resident ever show up?

[phantom power]

2. Laugh.

[bananas]

3. Federal Government Urged to Remove Spent Nuclear Fuel

"failure to remove spent nuclear fuel from the three New England sites"
"A decision on the appeal is not expected until sometime in 2008"

"As during decommissioning, Maine Yankee continues to have a community advisory panel whose purpose is to enhance open communication, public involvement and education on the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel at Maine Yankee and to advocate for its prompt removal."

Eh? It's been decommissioned, but still an "interim storage" site?
And how many exo-years is "prompt removal"?

"Fuck it, just build a coal plant on the site."
That's the "pro-nuke" solution.
(which is not a solution at all).

http://www.maineyankee.com/public/default.htm

Click on Photos to Enlarge

February, 2007

Federal Government Urged to Remove Spent Nuclear Fuel

On September 30, 2006, U.S. Court of Federal Claims Senior Judge James F. Merow issued a favorable ruling for Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, and Yankee Atomic Electric Company in their litigation with the federal government over its failure to remove spent nuclear fuel from the three New England sites. The judge awarded Maine Yankee $75.8 million in damages. The federal government has appealed Judge Merow's decision. A decision on the appeal is not expected until sometime in 2008, therefore delaying the damage award from being credited to ratepayers anytime soon. Also, the ruling does not solve the problem of spent nuclear fuel remaining at the plant sites and the federal government is urged to remove the material promptly. To read the press release, fact sheet, and federal court decision on this issue, please go to public document room.

In October 2005 Maine Yankee was notified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission that its former plant site has been successfully decommissioned in accordance with NRC procedures. The NRC amended Maine Yankee's license, reducing the land under the license from approximately 179-acres to the 12-acre Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, located on Bailey Point peninsula.

Maine Yankee's primary purpose going forward is the safe storage of the plant's spent nuclear fuel and Greater than Class C waste Storage in accordance with its NRC license and all applicable regulations while pursuing opportunities with the State and others for its removal from the site as soon as practicable.

As during decommissioning, Maine Yankee continues to have a community advisory panel whose purpose is to enhance open communication, public involvement and education on the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel at Maine Yankee and to advocate for its prompt removal. The Community Advisory Panel on Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage and Removal last met March 30, 2006 at the Chewonki Foundation's Center for Environmental Education in Wiscasset. The next CAP meeting is 6:00 p.m. Wednesday March 28 at Chewonki. Please click on document room for additional information about the CAP.

More information about Maine Yankee is available on our website, or by contacting ISFSI Manager Jim Connell at 207-882-6321 or [e-mail].

[phantom power]

4. I don't want to seem radical, but the "pro-nuke" solution would be...

building a ... um... nuclear power plant.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. I *suspect* he's angry

Real angry.

I'm starting to think this is a culture war for many people.

For me, it's a source of despair. I'm not bummed out that some people disagree with me, but that in spite of so many ways to avert disaster, so little is being done.

--p!

[bananas]

8. I am angry

but I'm not real angry.
I'll let you know when I'm real angry.
Big Fucking Hint: it won't have anything to do with anything as trivial as nuclear power plants.

In about five years, I will be real fucking angry.
In the meantime, I am just moderately angry.
Just moderately angry with the "pro-nuke" fuckheads.
I don't mean the people who think nukes are a good thing,
I mean the fuckheads who think nukes are the only solution,
as Waxman put it, "a magic solution".

[Dead_Parrot]

7. That's crazy talk. nt

[bananas]

10. I will try to find a link

you will not be disappointed! :evilgrin:

[Dead_Parrot]

11. Huh?

PP: The pro-nuke position would be to build a nuke plant.
Me: That's crazy talk.

Not sure why you'd need to link to it, it's all in this thread. Or should I use more smilies?

[NNadir]

6. Too bad they just couldn't dump in the river and in the air like a coal plant.

One things for sure, that coal waste after being dumped in the air is going to do wonderful things for the Maine Lobster. How much mercury will a Maine lobster contain now?

Were it me, I'd perfer it if years of operations could all be contained in a few sealed casks, but that's just my opinion.

What the status on the tidal power, wind power, solar power and biomass that was going to replace the nuclear plant by the way? Just a fucking lie?

[Shallah Kali]

9. Mainers didn't close Maine Yankee. The Co. that owns it did. To many expensive, extensive repairs

.

[Eclipsenow]

12. Has exponential growth in consumption been counted?

Hi all,
I know global warming sucks but as a bit of a peak oiler, I wonder if we are missing another question. Shouldn't we be not just asking if it's clean energy but if there's enough energy?

Here's the deal. Exponential growth in a finite system is impossible, it will have to stop sometime. The 3 most deceptive words in the language of energy reporting are the 3 words... "at current rates". It's a lie! There's never BEEN such a thing as "at current rates" since the start of the industrial revolution! Oil use rose by 7% for a long time there, up until the political chaos of the 1970's oil crisis, and so it's use DOUBLED every TEN YEARS!

That is, in the 1960's the world used more oil than had ever been used in human history.
Then in the 1970's we did it again, and used more oil than had ever been consumed in all of human history (including the 1960s!)

For more on this see Professor Bartlett's 1 hour video at...
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461

Richard Heinberg reports on a German paper that concludes that just as all eyes are turning to Saudi Arabia for peak oil, all eyes are now focussing on China and the USA for indications about peak coal!

About 90% of coal reserves are concentrated in 6 countries: USA, Russia, India, China, Australia and South Africa. The USA alone holds 30% and is the second largest producer. China is by far the largest producer but contains only half of the reserves of the USA. Therefore the development of these two countries is a key for future coal production.

... The EWG report’s authors, taking these factors into account, state: “it is likely that China will experience peak production within the next 5–15 years, followed by a steep decline.” Only if China’s reported coal reserves are in reality much larger than reported will Chinese coal production rates not peak “very soon” and drop rapidly.

http://www.energybulletin.net/27524.html

[NNadir]

14. We used to be the world's largest oil exporter.

Saudi Arabia was once seen as the "United States" of Arabia.

Japan attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor because we cut off their oil. Since they were dependent on this oil, they decided to attack Pearl Harbor to clear their flanks for the attack on the (then) Dutch East Indian oilfields (Modern day Indonesia).

[gulfcoastliberal]

28. What's the reason for inc. consumption? Overpopulation!

Sorry but at the rate humans breed, we've insured a huge human cost due to all the energy we burn for everyone. It's going to get really ugly.

[razzleberry]

13. just start building

if the Sierra Club would plan and construct a
zero emission power plant for this site,
I think the permits would be forthcoming.

[NNadir]

15. What kind of "zero emissions" plant would they build?

[razzleberry]

16. meant as sarcasm

I agree with a lot of what you wrote.

...................
I grow weary of, enviro advocates who ...

think that the poor should stay poor.

would spare no environmental expense,
as long as the expense is on somebody else

want to turn somebody else's city's power plant off

expect a poor person in Africa to write a check
for a million bucks, to get FREE electricity

advocate various taxes on the poor,
at the same time that fuel tax on the flight
to Acapulco is zero

etc.

[Eclipsenow]

17. We need renewable technology

But, there's this whole thing about renewable technology being RENEWABLE! it does not run out.
Now, what we should do to really stuff Africa is get them all hooked on using oil, coal and gas for their basic infrastructure, and then YIPEE we'll reach world peak gas and coal much faster and they can join in our oil and coal crash as we run out of the cheap stuff and starting a bidding war over the rest.

It's not when the oil runs out that's the problem. It's not when coal runs out either.
It's when the surface, black, cheap to mine coal, the "easy" coal runs out that we hit a crisis point.

If there is no technology that can keep our electricity grid running at the same cheap price as coal, then should we really get developing nations hooked on a cheap electricity lifestyle in the first place? Or should they have Western input in the state of the art energy efficiency designed New Urbanism townships and eco-cities so that they bypass the absolute debacle and chaotic economic mess coming our way as we try to undo 70 years of disastrous suburban flimsy energy-hogging McMansion building?

Or should we get have them join us in a lifestyle that has no future?

They should have electricity, but in a system that will work into the future. If our grid goes down catastrophically and permanently, the water stops coming out the taps and that's game over man.

[mainegreen]

18. Oh god damn it. This is retarded. I don't want any effing coal plants up here.

:mad:

[NNadir]

19. I suppose you could fight it.

I don't know how excited people will get about this one. It's not like it will generate any passion.

[freethought]

20. Used to live right in that area, don't think this will thrill locals

I used to live on Westport Island. I could walk about 20 minutes from my house to the a place where one could see the Maine Yankee just some hundreds of yards away. For some people the plant was a permanent fixture of the view just out of their back doors, porches, or windows.

The town of Wiscasset used to derive tax revenues from the plant, this lightened the property tax burden on the homeowners in Wiscasset and Westport Island. When the plant owners decided to decommission the plant they had to make a settlement with town for the future lost tax revenue. I don't recall how much the settlement was, I'm sure it was in the millions of dollars. There is also an oil fired plant in Wiscasset too.

Maine Yankee was a small nuclear plant as nuclear plants go. I don't recall it having any violations or major issues in the time I lived near it. It was pretty quiet overall and there was no emissions stack that could be seen for miles. It was a small plant quietly hidden from the view of the tourists who drive on Rt.1 every season. Wiscasset is declared the "prettiest little village in Maine" on a sign as you drive into the center of town.

I don't think this is going to go down well with the townspeople. They were willing to tolerate a nuclear plant so long as it was hidden from view, run without accident, and paid taxes to the town.
But a coal-fired plant? I have my doubts. Some people will obviously see dollar signs that the town may be able to collect from the plant. I would even speculate that the owners will negotiate some absurd sweetheart deal to locate the plant there.

[phantom power]

21. The axeing of the 8/11 proposed coal plants in Texas gives me some hope.

A little hope. Like a pico-hope. Or maybe a nano-hope.

[Dead_Parrot]

25. I've discovered a there's a Planck Hope

Where one Planck Hope equals 0.00000000000000000000000000000000066260693 Deep Sighs of Relief. It's the feeling you get when someone installs a 1KW PV array.

[phantom power]

26. Heh!

:rofl:

[NNadir]

22. As nuclear power plants go, Maine Yankee was a dog.

It performed poorly over all and was no star among nuclear reactors.

The best outcome would have been for someone who knew how to operate reactors to have bought the plant. There are lots of people who know how to run nuclear reactors. Today just about every reactor is a cash cow and a great benefit on the side for humanity. It's a win/win.

All that said, the worst performing nuclear plant - short of course of Chernobyl - is far superior to the best coal plant.

Every nuclear plant that is shut means more fossil fuels.

This coal plant will do something Maine Yankee never did: KILL.

The killing started however when Maine Yankee was replaced with dangerous natural gas.

[freethought]

23. I know the owners did try to find a buyer for the plant

But no luck.
It baffles me somewhat that the plant was not so successful. In Massachusetts there was a small nuclear plant in the rural part of the state called Yankee Rowe, totally decommissioned some time ago.
But like Maine Yankee it was small as nuclear plants go but had a spotless safety record. Many attribute that to the small plant and "simple" plant design.
Maybe it was poor management.
Could be something with economies of scale? In order for a nuclear plant to be successful economically , does it need to be big? Does increasing the wattage output decrease the cost per unit output?

I'm not against nuclear power, my maine issues are with safety, waste disposal, and what is done with the plants after their useful life. It seems as if the bigger and more complex the plant, the greater probability of something going wrong, usually at the hands of people.

[NNadir]

24. You've asked a number of really good questions.

I am not familiar with the inner workings of the plant, but most early nuclear plants were small. Most did pretty well after shakedown periods. The first commercial reactor in the world, Calderhall I in Britain operated for 47 years at 50 MWe. It was obsolete almost from the time it was built, and yet functioned fairly well, because there were other reactors of its type.

The Shippingport reactor in the United States, which was built and brought on line in about three years time in the mid 1950's operated for 25 years and was 60MWe. During it's last fuel cycles it operated as a light water breeder reactor using thorium. It cost $72M to build and it was essentially, an aircraft carrier reactor located on dry land.

For a long time the nuclear industry operated in a piecemeal fashion with few interactions between companies. After Three Mile Island, free interchange between nuclear utilities began and many nuclear companies consolidated. This has allowed the free interchange of experience and operating knowledge, to the benefit of the entire industry.

I am not sure how well Yankee Maine integrated itself into this process. My impression is that their maintainence program left something to be desired.

The profitability of nuclear facilites depends on delivering energy at or near capacity continuously over long periods. This is called capacity utilization, the perecentage of time the reactor operates a it's name plate capacity. Most nuclear facilities today operate at 90% of capacity or better - the highest capacity utilization of energy electrical generation form known. (Coal is second at about 70-75%; gas plants run between 30%-70% depending on location and purpose, hydroelectric plants run when the climate lets them do so, but are fairly reliable, wind plants run at between 10% and 40%, about 20% average, and the trivial solar industry runs at from 20-25% capacity even in deserts.)

Thus it is in the interest of the holders of nuclear plants to maintain a culture of safety and maintenance to prevent unplanned shutdowns. With experience, nuclear utilities that have adopted these strategies have all converted their reactors into cash cows that provide the cleanest and safest exajoule scale energy known to the human race.

It is too bad they demolished and decommissioned the reactor. It may have proved possible to reconstruct it. Brown's Ferry-1 was left in SafeStor for several years, refurbished and recently came back on line in Alabama. It began operating only a few weeks ago. These has saved millions of tons of carbon dioxide per year by preventing the construction of new coal facilities.

I favor an immediate phase out of existing coal and a ban on all new coal.

As for your question about so called "nuclear waste," this is a trivial issue. Nuclear energy is the only form of energy for which the "waste" can be contained, the only form for which the vast majority of the materials collected constitute a valuable resource.

[jpak]

29. Nonsense

The "people of Maine" did not shut down Maine Yankee.

There were 3 voter initiated referendums to shut down Maine Yankee in 1980, 1982 and 1987.

They all failed by wide margins (60 to 40%) - the "people of Maine" voted to keep it open - not shut it down.

The owners of Maine Yankee - not the "people of Maine" - made the decision to close the plant in 1997. The steam generators developed extensive cracks that had to be repaired or replaced. The owners decided that it was uneconomic to do so and closed the plant abruptly in 1997.

Furthermore, unnamed out-of-state investors - not "people of Maine" are behind this proposal.

It will not fly.

Maine generates 40% more electricity than it consumes and exports electricity to southern New England. The state does not need this plant and the PUC will be very reluctant to grant approval for its construction.

Also, there is a transmission bottleneck at the ME/NH border that will make it difficult to transmit power from Maine to Mass and beyond. If people in Mass and CT need the power, they should build new capacity in their own states - not in Maine.

Finally, Maine is part of a NE compact that seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Maine's Democratic governor has enacted legislation to do this. Building a coal-fired plant in Maine is not part of the plan.

Sorry if this bursts the BS bubble...

:evilgrin:

edit: the "people of Maine" did not replace MY with gas fired plants - those plants were in development before MY closed and produce power for southern NE, not Maine. Not even distantly related to the decision to close MY.

[NNadir]

30. I have been informed by a person from Maine that Mainetoday is lying.

They would never build a coal plant in Maine. Never. No way Jose. Never happen. Couldn't. Absolutely not. Liar! Liar! Pants on Fire! That article is full of shit. They're making it up.

Maine is 100% powered by renewable tidal. Solar. Wind. No Nukes! No way. No coal. Couldn't happen. No fucking way.

Oh yes, I've been informed that New Jersey, where I live, is also 100% solar because in spite of the fact that my Brother-in-law was quoted $40,000 for a new solar system (after the tax break) solar systems in New Jersey only cost $16,000, I mean $10,000, I mean they're free. Solar power is FREE! Got that!?! Free! Free dammit, free!

Zillion solar roofs!

So popular are solar roofs, that when you look say at this satellite map of Princeton New Jersey (where the rich folks live) you are just struck by the brazillions of solar roofs:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Princeton&layer=&ie=UTF8&z=18&ll=40.347264,-74.66888&spn=0.001733,0.003616&t=k&om=1&msid=112464189096017575239.00000112025bf84935a5c&msa=0

Every one has one, see?

Well they would...if...if...if...it weren't for Ronald Reagan.

Speaking of shit head actors serving as full of shit Governors of California, let's use the satellite to look at the latest results of the brazillion solar roof program in California.

El Cajon:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&q=&msa=0&z=18&ll=32.831212,-116.932388&spn=0.001911,0.003616&t=k&om=1&msid=112464189096017575239.00000112025bf84935a5c

Brazillions of solar roofs!!!!!

San Jose:

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=San+Jose&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&z=15&ll=37.390209,-121.929016&spn=0.014457,0.028925&t=k&om=1&iwloc=addr

Brazillions of Solar Roofs.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Topanga+Canyon&sll=37.390209,-121.929016&sspn=0.014457,0.028925&layer=&ie=UTF8&z=18&ll=34.105142,-118.590261&spn=0.001883,0.003616&t=k&om=1&iwloc=addr

Portland, Maine:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Portland+Maine&layer=&ie=UTF8&z=16&ll=43.66247,-70.25583&spn=0.006582,0.014462&t=k&om=1&iwloc=addr

Brazillions of solar roofs!

I am always be informed by people who know next to zero about New Jersey, all about the wonderful solar energy brazillion solar roofs bill here. It is true that you see <em>some</em> solar power here, but you have to <em>drive</em> a long time to see <em>two</em> of the brazillion solar roofs around here. Recent reports say that all the brazillion solar roofs in New Jersey is like taking 7000 SUVs off the road, which of course, has nothing at all to do with the fact that there are millions of SUV's here.

As for Maine and what the fuck it does with fossil fuels the data can easily show exactly what the fuck Maine has done, at least in the period between 1990 and 2004.

Maine renewables in 1990: 16.6%. Maine renewables in 2004: 16.6%

Maine fossil fuels in 1990: 39.9%. Maine fossil fuels in 2004: 66.2%

Maine nuclear in 1990: 23.1% Maine nuclear in 2004: 0%

The shutting of nuclear plants always leads to the burning of fossil fuels.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept04me.xls

QED.

When the gas goes out of Maine, either the lights go off or they burn coal. All the blowhard shit about wind, all the sun-shiny crap about brazillions of solar roofs, and a flood of "could" statements about tides make not one bit of difference.

Maine, by the way, has the highest asthma rate in the nation:

http://www.timesrecord.com/website/archives.nsf/56606056e44e37508525696f00737257/8525696e00630dfe05256e2a00566c51?OpenDocument

"Maine has the highest asthma rate in the nation and asthma is aggravated by ground-level ozone pollution," said Jerry Reid, assistant attorney general for the Maine Attorney General's Office in Augusta. What concerns Reid is that Maine lies in the paths of emissions such as ozone from coal-fired power plants in the southern and western United States.

Of course, the fact that they burn wood like a bunch of starving Cameroonians has nothing to do with it, it's all the fault of the midwestern coal plants.

Burning wood is clean and without any cost, even if about 4 million people per year drop dead from burning wood.

In other Maine news, the Readington Wind Farm was rejected, and the rejection is applauded by the Southern Appalachian Hiking Society: http://americanhiking.chattablogs.com/archives/044720.html

Meanwhile the Maine government talks mindlessly about what wind "could" do, if only the Maine government didn't spend all of its time banning wind plants:

• Wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and biomass resources—coupled with energy-saving renewable technologies such as passive solar heating and lighting, solar hot water heating and geothermal heat pumps—could provide a large and growing share of America’s energy. A consistent emphasis on renewables in public policy and in research and development funding could bring many of these technologies into the mainstream—but not if America’s investment dollars are staked on coal.

http://environmentmaine.org/envmaine.asp?id2=25568

Oh well, better to complain about <em>everything</em> other than repeating your fantasies out loud. When the fuck is Maine going to get started with all this wonderful "passive solar heating and lighting, solar hot water heating and geothermal heat pumps?"

Don't worry. Be happy.

Come back in 2025. Maine actually will still have 16.6% of its energy from renewables, and it will still be wood, but they will have lots and lots and lots and lots of precious excuses. It was all Dick Cheney's fault that they're building coal plants like wild in Maine. Why if Dick Cheney had only invested in wind, solar, biofuels, tidal blah, blah, blah...

The same excuses will be muttered in Germany, where they will also be sinking the earth under a cloud of coal.

Nuclear energy saves lives. Banning nuclear costs lives.

QED. QED. QED.