Skip to main content

Illinois and the Nuclear Low Carbon Portfolio

PrintWashington state, as we’ve seen, is moving full speed ahead with legislation to explore the possibility of nuclear energy in that state, especially the revenue-raising, job-creating possibility of manufacturing small reactors there. This is heartening, of course, not to mention a good move by the state.

Generally, nuclear energy measures in the states have come and gone and often come around again. State legislatures have shorter sessions (in general) than their federal brethren, so a lot of promising sounding bills hit the wall of sometimes very short meeting schedules – this is true of everything that is not directly budget-related. Some bills, such as repealing the moratorium on uranium exploration in Virginia*, get really close to passing, then the session ends. Of course, some bills just don’t pass muster and get voted down. It happens.

But the Washington legislation points to new possibilities for nuclear energy action in the states, even if, as they say, one swallow doesn’t make a spring. How about two?

The Illinois Senate Energy and Public Utilities Committee today passed Senate Bill 1585, legislation to establish a Low Carbon Portfolio Standard that would bolster Illinois’ clean energy leadership, support the state’s nuclear energy facilities and protect jobs, consumers and a reliable electricity supply, according to a press release.

Well, that’s now really nuclear per se, is it? But wait:

The LCPS would require ComEd and Ameren to purchase low carbon energy credits to match 70 percent of the electricity used on the distribution system. It is a technology-neutral solution, which means it would allow all low carbon energy sources – including wind, solar, hydro, clean coal and nuclear – to compete on equal footing.

There we go. This is actually significant because it points to an assessment – a realistic assessment, we’d say – that a “low carbon” standard has a much better chance of getting a state to its goals in reducing carbon dioxide emission that the more common “renewable” standard that many states have instituted. A renewable energy standard certainly sounds good – and the intention is certainly good – but renewable energy is still too limited in output and reliability to get you where you want to go. Including nuclear energy in the standard does not throw wind and solar under the bus of practicality, but it recognizes that all of them have a place.

That’s important: even if you think the nuclear energy industry has glommed onto its emission-free properties to propagate itself  so what? It does do that and it is worth propagating to fulfill a supremely important policy goal. With all the current technologies lined up, it’s really the only one that can. (Hydro is also effective, of course, but environmental concerns make it very difficult to build new dams.) One doesn’t have to be a cynic to get that – nuclear energy may not have been introduced to produce carbon emission-free energy, but it has always done so.

Still, this is a committee vote – this legislation could still get caught short further along the line. We’ll see.

So, Illinois. Even two birds are worth one in the bush – or something. It will be interesting to see if other states follow its lead and introduce “low carbon” standards that nudge nuclear energy into the carbon emission reduction tent. It’d be smart policy, that’s for sure.

* We should also mention the role of governors. Virginia’s former Gov. Bob McDonnell favored lifting the ban, current Gov. Terry McAuliffe, well:

One of the attendees asked the governor about Uranium mining, hoping he'd flip and support the idea. McAuliffe said much what he said during the 2013 gubernatorial campaign: The risk is too high. Show me some science that says our water will absolutely be protected, and I'll consider it.

Win some, lose some.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Folks, please check the location of Clinton on the map. It should be further east.

--E. Michael Blake
Anonymous said…
Folks, please re-check the location of Clinton. It's not that far west.

--E. Michael Blake

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 …

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…

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…