Skip to main content

Exelon’s Nuclear Deeds of (C)Omission

This is from an Exelon press release, but it’s the kind of thing nuclear advocate want because it’s a company touting the benefits of nuclear energy:

Continuing its progress toward a clean energy future, Exelon announced today that it reduced or avoided more than 18 million metric tons of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2013, surpassing its goal of eliminating 17.5 million metric tons of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per year by 2020.

And how did it do that?

  • Retirement of fossil plants and company energy efficiency and process improvement efforts that resulted in a reduction of more than 9.8 million metric tons of GHG emissions;

  • Addition of 316 megawatts (MW) of emission-free energy through uprates across the nuclear fleet;

There’s more bullet points – these are the top two.

More:

Exelon’s industry-leading fleet of nuclear power plants plays an important role in its low-emissions profile, avoiding 82 million metric tons of GHG emissions per year. At a time when nuclear power plants face a combination of economic challenges that threaten their continued operation, Crane noted that the Exelon fleet and nuclear power in general remain essential to meeting the nation’s climate goals.

“Our reliable, always-on nuclear fleet produces enough affordable, carbon-free energy to power 17 million homes annually,” Crane said. “It is part of a U.S. fleet that provides 64 percent of our nation’s carbon-free electricity, up to a quarter of which could be at risk for early retirement. Losing that generating capacity would forfeit more than half of the progress to date in meeting U.S. climate goals. Our energy policies must ensure that existing nuclear energy plants are preserved.”

Loud and proud, as they say. Let it ever be so.

---

But look at it the other way. Nuclear power plants may do good via a structural absence – no greenhouse gas emissions- but where there is a deed of omission, there can still be a deed of commission:

Folks in the Clinton area have enjoyed an economic cushion the last 30 years or so, courtesy of Exelon Corp.'s Clinton Power Station.

The nuclear plant, which began commercial operation in 1987, employs 652 people and has an annual payroll of $54 million.

And that’s not all:

Last year, Exelon paid about $13 million in taxes to area governments, with the biggest chunk — $8.5 million of it — going to the Clinton school district.

During the last few decades, tax revenues from Exelon helped build a new courthouse for DeWitt County, a modern library in Clinton and new elementary and junior high schools in town.

Writer Don Dodson goes on to note that Exelon has said it may close facilities if the economy and electricity demand don’t improve and maybe both the press release and this story can be seen as part of a drive to show why that would be a bad idea. If that’s so, fine: it is a bad idea. It would be bad for greenhouse gas emissions and very bad for Clinton.

It’s worth Exelon fussing about it, if that’s what it’s doing and very much worth raising the stakes against the idea of closing nuclear plants

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …