Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Entergy Places Fuel Order For Vermont Yankee, Despite License Expiration In March 2012

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-26-11 12:11 PM
Original message
Entergy Places Fuel Order For Vermont Yankee, Despite License Expiration In March 2012
Unless a court intervenes, the clock is winding down on the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor. Its initial license expires next March, and the state of Vermont is blocking a permit that it needs to run beyond then. But its owner, Entergy, which is suing the state in federal court over the permit, announced on Monday that it would order a new load of fuel for the plant, essentially betting that the legal proceedings will come out in its favor.

Fuel for reactors is ordered in batches, and at Vermont Yankee, in Vernon, on the Connecticut River just north of the Massachusetts border, the fuel is supposed to last four and half years. The next refueling is scheduled for October, when one-third of the fuel bundles are supposed to be replaced at a cost of about $50 million.

The shutdown for refueling, which is supposed to last about 30 days, will cost about $92 million, according to Chanel Lagarde, a spokesman for the company. The plant will bring in 800 to 1,000 temporary workers for the job, which includes various maintenance tasks, the company says.

The plant was last shut for refueling in April 2010. Entergy stressed at the time that it had run for 532 days continuously without having to shut down to address a problem; one of the arguments by plant opponents is that it should be retired because it is unreliable.

EDIT

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/biting-the-bullet-vermont-yankee-orders-fuel/?partner=rss&emc=rss
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-26-11 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thus proving that their recent court argument was less than entirely honest.
Edited on Tue Jul-26-11 12:37 PM by FBaggins
I'm sure we all find that shocking.

The move does show, however, that they're more optomistic about the outcome of the case than I see reason for them to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 03:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC