SavannahBikini

Five years before a plant is set to close, she said, Luminant is required to have 60 percent of the cost available. Two and a half years out, the gap must be completely closed.
Luminant has about $385 million set aside to close its two plants in 2030 and 2033. Two years ago, that figure was $439 million. The cost of decommissioning the reactors is $824 million, almost $90 million than was estimated before.

-Plant operators appear to benefit from NRC rules that don't require them to set aside money to store old nuclear fuel, demolish buildings, or return the plant sites to pristine states. Although some states require a full site restoration, the federal government does not.

The Callaway Unit 1 reactor near Fulton, Mo., reported in March that meeting the NRC savings target for decommissioning would leave it far short of the real cost of cleaning up the site. It began with a story similar to those told by other plants: The cost to meet the minimum federal requirement for decommissioning rose from $358 million to $406 million in two years. Its savings to pay for it dwindled from $268 million to $236 million.

But a detailed study of the cost of decommissioning Callaway showed something far worse: The federal savings target was about $288 million less than what it would actually cost for a full dismantling, cleanup and safe storage of spent nuclear waste. The waste disposal problem has become especially acute since the federal government scrapped plans to store nuclear waste at a secure facility in Yucca Mountain, Nev. Instead, radioactive fuel rods are now stored in large concrete and steel canisters on plant grounds that are guarded around the clock and tested often for leaks.

The Vermont Yankee plant, in southeastern Vermont along the banks of the Connecticut River, was hailed as the future of power production for New England when it opened in 1972. Its license is set to expire in 2012, and its decommissioning fund has less than half the money expected to be needed.
As recently as December 2007, the fund held $416 million. Now it stands at about $384 million - a rebound from where it stood a few months ago but not even close to the estimated $932 million it will eventually cost to dismantle the plant.

Entergy Corp. is seeking a 20-year license extension for Vermont Yankee, and is hoping to have enough money in the fund to decommission the plant in the 2030s. Jay Thayer, the plant's vice president for operations, said that if the decommissioning fund continues to perform poorly, the company may ask for permission to idle the plant for as long as 60 years under the Safestor program. That would put off the dismantling until 2092.

We have about 104 Nuclear power plants, none have been built for three decades, their life span is only 40 years tops, we now have at least 17 ready for decommission, 27 are leaking cancer causing radiation. There are Grand plans of building 100 more by 2020, to "double" our energy power, but really it's just to replace the existing ones which will have to be disposed of at tax payers expense, & health, this is not Good Change, Decommission price range, $400 million, and you still have life killing, terrorist ready, nuclear waste. There's a reason none of these plants have been built for 30 years. And it wasn't fear of change, well, maybe fear of genetic birth defect change, cancer, death, ya, it was pretty much that kind of fear come to think of it...

Southern Co.'s lobbying draws complaints SHANNON McCAFFREY, AP

ATLANTA – President Barack Obama's award of billions of dollars in federal nuclear loan guarantees to Southern Co. has angered environmentalists who say the president is embracing the energy powerhouse that worked aggressively to defeat a key climate change bill championed by his administration.

The Atlanta-based company had nearly twice as many climate lobbyists as any other company or organization during last year's debate over cap and trade legislation, according to the Center for Public Integrity. The company hired 16 outside firms to supplement their stable of in-house lobbyists and spent $16.5 million on Capitol Hill lobbying in 2009. The company maintains the report overstates their lobbying role. Some environmentalists — while not surprised that Obama is moving forward on nuclear power — are upset that Southern Co. is the recipient of such federal largesse. "It's shameful," Georgia-based Sierra Club lobbyist Neill Herring said. "They gave a big wet kiss to their very worst opponent." more