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 …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…