Skip to main content

Statement from NEI President and CEO Marv Fertel on Closing of Kewaunee Power Station

By Eric McErlain
Earlier this morning, Dominion announced that it would be closing the Kewaunee Power Station, a 556 MWe nuclear facility located about 27 miles outside Green Bay, Wisconsin.The following is an official statement from Marv Fertel, NEI's President and CEO, concerning the announcement.
"Nuclear energy remains a reliable, cost-effective producer of electricity for America’s homes and our economy. As stated by Dominion, the company’s decision to close Kewaunee is based on the fact that it did not acquire additional reactors in the Midwest markets, so it could not achieve the economy of scale needed to be economical in that low-price power market.

"Dominion is one of the best nuclear energy facility operators in the country and is committed to nuclear energy in other states it serves as part of the company’s electricity portfolio. Nuclear energy is vital to meet America’s growing electricity needs today and to ensure the secure, reliable and low-carbon power for decades to come. Nuclear energy facilities lead the electric utility sector in reliability and are among the lowest cost electricity producers for American families and the economy. They will play a vital role as America transitions to a lower-carbon electricity portfolio."
Kewaunee Power Station, located near Green Bay, Wisconsin.
The following passage comes from Dominion's press release regarding the closure:
"One thing that should be perfectly clear is that the employees of Kewaunee have been doing an outstanding job, and this decision is in no way a reflection on them," (Dominion Chairman, president and CEO Tom) Farrell said. “I want to thank them for all they have done, and Dominion will work to make the transition as smooth as possible for them and their communities.”
For more information on the facility from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, click here.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
This is really bad news. You have a fully amortized plant, a license renewal, and a good operating record, yet it is somehow uneconomical to continue operating? I don't buy the "it's too small" argument, especially with people beating the drums for "small" modular reactors. I have been to Kewaunee. It is a good, clean operation. Surely someone in the nuclear generating business could take it over and make a go of it.
October 22, 2012 at 11:59 AM
Engineer-Poet said…
Perhaps it wasn't economical given the organizational overhead.  If sale to Entergy wasn't considered, the shareholders ought to raise a stink.
October 22, 2012 at 2:25 PM
Anonymous said…
Exelon is so close, yet they won't touch it? Oyster Creek had a similarly dire outlook in 2000, yet they got picked up for a song by Exelon after prepping for for shutdown for several years. Could it be due to Wisconsin opting out of the energy market liberalization trend that many states leaped into during the late 1990s? Or, with OC now staring once again down the barrel of decommissioning after only 10 of its 20 year license extension, are smaller, older reactors simply falling out of vogue, regardless of market regulation.
October 22, 2012 at 3:24 PM
Anonymous said…
The real reasons behind the KNPP closure is that the local utilities that previously owned KNPP had planned for it to be retired (and PBNP as well). The Utilities in Wisconsin have built about 1200 MW of new coal fired units, with another 600 MW Unit comming on line shortly that are in the regulated utility rate base. WPS, the key power buyer from KNPP built Weston 4 as the planned replacement for its large portion of KNPP. The power contract with WPS is expiring; and the local utilites do not need to buy base load power as they have built replacement plants. Currently there is not a huge other power market in the midwest to sell the full output of a nuclear plant to(even a 500+ MW one); and at least for the next couple of years other electrical options are available. KNPP is a great plant - but, it is now a Merchant Plant and their is no current power market to support it. While I suspect that may change in 5 - 10 years - it is likely cheaper to just decomision the plant than pay to keep it arround until then in the hopes that a future power market would develop.
October 26, 2012 at 11:04 PM
Anonymous said…
But I don't understand why they can't be cost-competitive with those other (fossil) plants. Surely the marginal costs for power generated are lower because of lower fuel costs. KNPP is a mature plant. It's contruction costs have been paid. That leaves fuel and O&M as the cost drivers. I was always under the impression that nuclear plants had a cost advantage on the fuel side. Can they bring their other O&M costs down to make it more competitive? It would seem a review of plant operational costs would be in order before any kind of knee-jerk reaction to decommission, unless, again, all they are interested in is raiding the decommissioning fund.
October 31, 2012 at 9:28 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more