John McCain just put it right out there last Wednesday: the answer to our pressing energy needs? Go nuclear.
While on the hustings in Michigan, and while ridiculing Barack Obama's suggestion to keep car tires inflated for better gas mileage, McCain suggested that 45 nuclear power plants built by the year 2030 would help decrease America's reliance on oil, sending shudders of revulsion over anyone who still has images of 1986's Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster chemically burned on their brains.
Let's for a moment, set aside the Simpsonian three-eyed fish your mind's eye has conjured and give it a think: maybe these wouldn't be "your father's nuclear plants." And maybe there's more to gain than cheap energy: like scores of good old American jobs.
Months before Chicago-based energy giant Exelon announced their comprehensive plan to offset or eliminate over 15 million metric tons of greenhouse gases - the equivalent of taking almost three million cars off roads and more than Exelon's own carbon footprint - by 2020, John Rowe, the company's President and CEO, was getting nuclear power on Chicago's radar.
At a May Executives' Club of Chicago breakfast, Rowe pitched his plan to corporate America's elite. After ticking off reasons why natural gas reserves and coal coupled with wind, solar, and water power schemes are both unsustainable and too expensive he pitched nuclear (which I'm very happy to report he pronounced correctly) energy.
"I can't imagine society dealing with carbon without nuclear energy...to sustain [American's] way of life," he said. "The alternatives range from being substantially inconvenient to catastrophic."
In a room full of investment bankers and business wonks twisting in their seats, Rowe admitted the very term "nuclear" was enough to turn people off, but he insisted it was the only foreseeable path to energy independence. A path fraught with challenges but loaded with opportunities as well.
"One plant costs five to seven billion dollars and eight years to build, and even if we started now the new ones wouldn't replace those out of service - we need hundreds of new plants," he said.
And that's where the opportunity comes in. According to Rowe, a guy who has invested heavily in Chicago schools - many of them in rough inner-city neighborhoods - a nuclear push would require human capital on an epic scale. "We can design and operate them, but who will build them?" he asked. "We need people to build these things, everything from PhDs to welders to make it happen. We need people."
Imagine if you will the full weight of Chicago's corporate and governmental resources trained on a city full of young brown and black student cash cows - millions of dollars poured into neighborhood schools in 'hoods and townships across Illinois designed to build the next generation of resident engineers and skilled laborers tasked with building the next generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants across America!
Savor it: Chicago, epicenter of the world's sustainable energy brain and brawn trust.
Hey, it could happen...because at the end of the day it's all about making money. And at the end of Rowe's speech it was apparent that it's also about leveraging influence.
Peruse the latest polls on voter attitudes toward pro-nuclear candidates and you'll find no surprises: a July USA Today/Gallup poll found - shock! - that more Republicans (58 percent) feel favorably toward a pro-nuclear power plant candidate than Democrats (51 percent). They were certainly similar in May.
Rowe was clear on this point: "It's not going to be cheap and convenient but it will be a lot less [costly] if we face these issues squarely. And we need the political will to get these things done."
Perhaps McCain, and Chicago's corporate ruling class, were listening.
Follow Esther J. Cepeda on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@ejc600words
Second, the thing you seem to be most excited about is that because nuclear power plants need smart Homers to run things, Chicago Public Schools will suddenly have surplus cash and would automatically become efficient at nurturing and training students....just bcause of an infusion of cash. (First of all, where would this cash appear from? )
The truth is, I do have faith in the general safety of nuclear plants. I swim in the water at Indiana Dunes...in the shadow of that ominous cooling tower. But the real issue, which you avoided altogether, is that the nuclear waste (byproduct from fuel production) is radioactive and will remain so for over 100 times longer than civilization has existed. So what could we (someone) do in 700,000 years, when a brilliant architect uncovers the treasure at Yucca Mountain, but is unable to read the sign that says "Danger"? Even if it's NOT held safe for that long, think for a minute about how long civilizations last...think about how the U.S. treated historic treasures when we invaded Baghdad...allowing invaluable pieces of human history to be carted off from previously secure museums. What if these looters invaded a stash of radioactive waste instead of old vases?
http://www.icc.illinois.gov/industry/publicutility/energy/electricity/EnvironmentalDisclosure.aspx
10 years, a trillion dollars or so, convert 90% of the US energy to wind solar and plug in hybrids.
That's it. 13 years, then we are into uranium wars. The ONLY commercially available reactor in the next 30 years, are the once through that require fresh uranium every two years for their 2 week refueling shutdown.
Then we a left with 1 million years of deadly intractable waste. The Yucca mountain storage facility is 150,00 acres, poisoned for 1 million years, worth 16,000 Trillion dollars if solar panels were put there instead, more with homes. Yucca is on a fault line, and the salt was deposited by rivers, which may come back.
Nukes are so unsafe, they cannot get private insurance.
search: nuclear power plant terrorist attack
9 us soldiers broke into a nuke reactor in a test.
reprocessing adds just 25% more energy at the cost of 100 times more radioactive waste. It's also uneconomical.
There are NO commercial breeder reactor. Every one has had major technical problems because of the "fast" hot sodium coolant. all ave been shut down. No one is even working on them any more.
All other ways of extending the 13 years of nuke fuel are still science fiction.
It really get frustrating, that the facts get out there. Then the nuke people repeat all the lies, over an over again. Stop it.
Nukes are a deadly Con Game.
http://www.iaea.org/inis/aws/fnss/abstracts/abst_1180_4.html
Also note the huge mass of radioactive parts that must be replaced on a continuing basis. Note also it only had a 73% up time.
These reactors are a gateway to bombs. It requires a complete plutonium extract capability just to run them. They are being used for burning up weapons grade plutonium, that's good. Used up all the plutonium, reduce any long term radiation, but it's way too dirty and dangerous for worlds electricity generation.
Why do we have to do "everything" if solar and wind and natural gas will suffice and are far cheaper? Even "clean" coal is better the deadly dirty nukes.
I'm pleased every time I get to see the wind power fields expanding to the west along 88 and south of 80/94 just north of Peoria. I think they are a beautiful site to see, and welcome lots more of them!
Please, let's stop looking for cheaper ways to deal with the problem. It's time to build the new renewable energy infrastructure, yes right here in Illinois, from soy biodiesel to wind and solar power, All of it-except nuclear power. We need to do away with this lethal and very costly industry. We can't afford to pollute the planet this way any more, and we all know it.
No more nuclear plants. Start living like we have to leave this place better than we found it!!
You see, no single solution exists, and none of us are going to get anywhere by trying to paint a solution with a brush the size of our egos.
A Chernobyl-style disaster cannot happen with a Western reactor. Chernobyl was a reactor with a positive-void coefficient. If the cooling system fails, it continues to heat up. No such reactor was ever built in outside the former Soviet Union. The current designs are safe; they can withstand impacts from jets, and have not been subjected to a terrorist attack to date. Nuclear waste in new reactors is often recycled into new nuclear fuel - see breeder reactors. The result is roughly a cubic meter per year of waste, which can safely be stored in a remote, secure location.
Now consider that nuclear reactors are quite efficient when compared to coal-fired plants. They also release no carbon emissions. They also provide a large amount of power but consume a small amount of space. Rejecting nuclear power, one of the greatest technological feats of the 20th century, out of hand because we can't be bothered with educating ourselves in the engineering advances acheived in the field since the 1960s is quite illogical. Nuclear power, as it exists today, is efficient, safe, and clean - and I wish your article had spent more time on the technological advances that have been made in the field. Not particularly because I think it's a good idea, but since you brought it up anyway.
Are you naive or are you just a shill, trying to curry favor with those who have money and influence? Of course, John Rowe, the CEO of a big energy corporation, wants more nuclear plants---particularly since his company is one of biggest nuclear energy companies in the country. Duh.
Exelon Nuclear, a division of Rowe's Exelon Corporation, operates the largest nuclear "fleet" in the nation and the third largest "fleet" in the world. Exelon’s has ten stations – with 17 reactors – and they're lusting for more, guaranteed, ultimately by American taxpayers, who will have the liability passed on to them.
Way more jobs for inner city kids---and everyone else---would be created in an economy moving towards clean, renewable energy sources. Don't be fooled. It will be cheaper, safer and much more economically stimulating if we pursue a green energy future as opposed to one that insists on all of our energy from large, centralized sources that benefit rich investors and pass the costs and risks on to the general public.
Don't be fooled by a slick speech you saw at a downtown, corporate breakfast, Esther. You're smarter than that.
But, those alternatives do not necessarily benefit the people running the giant, centralized utilities and their investors. They've made a big investment in their current infrastructure. If I were the CEO of one of these utilities, making gobs of money, I wouldn't want to look for alternatives either. I'd convince myself that everything was safe and good. A lot of money can do that to smart people.
The "highly paying" (sic) jobs you talk about are available in alternative, green energy as well. It's just a matter of investing there as a society instead of in technologies that are a slow death for humanity and the planet.
I'm neither naive, nor anyone's shill but I am prone to taking information with a grain of salt and wondering what the best possible outcome could be.
You, also, are not naive Steve...you know T. Boone Pickens isn't investing in wind or buying up water pipes becuse he has a heart of gold. But all innovation starts with self interest. I'm not buying into this fantasy that off-shore drilling will solve anything and with the rest of the world investing in nuclear, we shouldn't be left behind.
Yes we need to develop ALL resources, yes we should stop livin' it up and find a better way, but I don't think we should ignore an alternative just because someone is going to make money off of it.
thanks for writing!
Esther
This column is nonsense, Esther. Let me get this right: You advocate building more nuclear power plants, particularly close to one of America's most heavily populated regions? Huh?
Nuclear energy costs much more than any other form of energy. It creates waste that will remain extremely toxic for millions of years. A plant could melt down and destroy everything around it for miles, maybe hundreds of miles.
And every nuclear power plant makes terrorists salivate: What a target each one becomes!
Solar, wind, biomass and efficient use of energy make much more sense, are much cheaper and much safer.
What kind of propaganda are you listening to anyway? Are you trying to help John McCain?
Renewable energy? Maybe, but renewable energy sources are not always available.
http://www.linktv.org/programs/australian
Did you know that insurance companies do not indemnify nuclear reactors? Wonder why that would be...
Nuclear power is simply unsuitable for the future of this country. Do we need to relive another Chernobyl? Who's going to gamble with the lives of all those "brown" people you mention in your article. And yes, a columnist used the term "brown" when talking about people that happen to live on the South Side of Chicago.
Instead of spending billions of (tax payer) dollars on a dangerous technology, why not invest in renewable and green energy sources. There are many to choose from: geothermal, solar, wind, tidal. No, there is not a "silver bullet" that is going to solve our energy needs right this moment. But, by taking small steps, investing in the future and educating citizens on conservation, we can take small steps on the way to energy independence that are going to pay off in the future.
Developing the technology, and implementing it, would also create zillions of jobs.
I've read your column in the Sun Times for years now, and while I don't always agree with you, I've NEVER disagreed with you more than I do right now!
This article assumes that Nuclear power can be made safe. It CAN'T! It is NEVER safe.
This article assumes that Nuclear power plants could actually be built by 2030. While this one is possible, it is unlikely in the extreme, since it takes anywhere from 20-30 years for a Nuke plant to go from nothing to built.
This article assumes that we would be able to provide enough jobs in Chicagoland by making Nuke plants. We could have many, Many, MANY more jobs created by encouraging green industries!
This article assumes that we would have cheap power in Chicagoland if we build Nuke plants. We wouldn't. Nuclear Power costs many times MORE than coal power, oil power, natural gas power, solar power, and wind power. The ONLY reason that it is being sold at ANYTHING close to equal footing is because it is the most subsidized energy industry in the USA.
And finally, you forget to mention the fact that EXISTING Nuclear Power Plants in IL have a history of radioactive leaks! Just last year we heard about another plant leaking radioactive water!
The high costs of nuclear plants is true, however, when amortized over a 40 to 60 year lifetime, the costs become very low. Finally, you are living off of the nuclear power from the plants in your area. Check it out.
Do you think the odds of a meltdown in the Chicago metro area will be increased or decreased if more nuclear power plants are built in the region?
Are you saying there is no better, safer or cheaper way to boil water---which is all the reactor does to produce energy---than using nuclear energy?