Illinois and the Nuclear Low Carbon Portfolio

Washington 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.

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog