Skip to main content

The Value of Energy, Nuclear and Non-, in Illinois

lincoln-watertowerThey write letters:

Clinton Mayor Carolyn Peters joined the mayors of Morris, Oregon, East Moline, Braceville and Marseilles in letters sent to Gov. Bruce Rauner and top legislators like House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, stressing the importance of the plants to their cities and towns.

So this would be – the Northwest? (Oregon) France? (Marseilles). No , it’s the apparently broadly settled section of Illinois that hosts nuclear power plants, notably the Clinton station. And Clinton’s mayor isn’t mincing words:

“Illinois nuclear facilities provide thousands of good jobs; the kind of jobs you can support a family on...,” the mayors say in a letter dated Feb. 4. “Part of the upcoming debate in Springfield should focus on what these plants mean to their host communities. From our firsthand perspective, we can tell you that Illinois' nuclear facilities are essential to helping our communities thrive.”

Exelon, which runs all 12 Illinois reactors at 6 sites, has been quite frank that the economics of energy in its market have been a financial strain and could lead to plants closing:

Power-producing giant Exelon Corp. rounded out a phalanx of Illinois lawmakers and business leaders who said Thursday that three nuclear power plants could close unless consumers chip in to reward them for producing environmentally-friendly electricity.

We’ll come back to that phalanx of Illinois lawmakers, but first, let’s note that this is the coarsest possible way of saying that the Illinois legislature wants to ensure that its energy supply supports its goals, notably as the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan limiting carbon dioxide emissions comes barreling down the chute. Exelon isn’t exaggerating when it says it could close plants. Kewaunee and Vermont Yankee have already shuttered because their markets failed to recognize their value.

So that phalanx has decided that nuclear energy does indeed have value –but not solely and not at the expense of other energy sources.

The bills introduced in both the state Senate and House over the past week would enact the Illinois Low Carbon Portfolio Standard, helping to reduce carbon emissions, increase renewable energy and maintain a stable and secure electricity supply in the state.

Under the proposed legislation, utilities will be required to purchase low-carbon energy credits equivalent to 70% of the utility's annual retail sales to customers within the state. Qualified sources include energy from solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, tidal, wave and clean coal.

That doesn’t sound like nuclear special pleading to me, but an extension of President Obama’s all-of-the-above energy policy. Anything that can pull off the emissions reduction trick is welcome. 

The Chicago Sun-Times explains that this plan isn’t emerging from a vacuum. The state legislature has looked at what the loss of nuclear energy would mean to the state, much as Mayor Peters has done, but with a wider perspective. It’s not pretty:

Specifically, the report found that the closure of Illinois’ at-risk nuclear plants would lead to significant losses, including $1.8 billion annually in lost economic activity, nearly 8,000 jobs lost, decreased reliability, and substantial environmental costs of up to $18 billion stemming from increased carbon emissions. It also concluded that maintaining low and stable electric prices in Illinois was dependent on the continued operation of all existing nuclear generating stations.

The Sun-Times notes that the legislature recommended market-based solutions and that appears to have guided this new legislation. It doesn’t favor nuclear over its renewable or fossil cousins, but the inclusion gives it its due and recognizes that renewable energy sources alone will not get Illinois where it needs to go. After all, virtually all of Illinois’ electricity is made by nuclear (48 percent) and coal (47 percent), so finding a way to leverage them is to its benefit – and, of course, to the benefit of its citizens  as well. Plus, as Mayor Peters points out, it makes a lot of economic sense.

This is very early days for the Illinois legislation. The opening salvos in newspapers have been mixed, but early days for that, too. Including nuclear energy in an energy policy that aims to contain carbon dioxide emissions seems so obvious, yet Illinois may be the first state to codify it. This is a fascinating development and deserves close and continued attention.

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 …