Nuclear Power Could Fuel Chicago's Economy

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.

Comments

[andresfusion]

Great article! Nuclear energy is part of the solution, and it should be expanded. Countries that have the best environmental record rely heavily on nuclear power, like France, Finland and sweden among others. Renewable are an intermittent sources of energy that would actually complement the baseload power of nuclear and will replace dirty coal and other fossil fuels. If we really believed Global Warming to be a serious treat they would support every source that doesn't spew CO2 into the atmosphere. ¨Senator Obama realizes this, from Obama's website "Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non- carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table"

[danod]

Esther: You were not clear on this, but Chicago already gets a significant amount of its power from nuclear facilities. Check your ComEd bill, it's like 1/4 - 1/3 of the power.

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?

[danod]

correction: I meant "archaeologist", not "architect"...though, they may be the same thing in 700,000 years.

[waylonsmithers]

ComEd reports that about 80% of the power it sold last year was from nuclear plants, as best as it can tell. See here for details:
http://www.icc.illinois.gov/industry/publicutility/energy/electricity/EnvironmentalDisclosure.aspx

[waylonsmithers]

Also, that "ominous cooling tower" near the Dunes is actually not for a nuclear plant. NIPSCO's Michigan City plant is a conventional coal plant. There are no commercial nuclear power plants in Indiana.

[research]

You can round up to 1 million years. The IAEE will support you.

[research]

See my profile for details, calculation and links.

10 years, a trillion dollars or so, convert 90% of the US energy to wind solar and plug in hybrids.

[research]

Wind and solar are already cheaper then nukes, the fuel is free forever, roof top solar and wind reduce grid load, and solar peaks at air conditioning peak electrical demand. no storage will be needed till solar exceeds 100% of the peak load. Natural gas can provide the cheapest to install backup power.

[research]

If the world goes to nukes, we have only 13 years of easy uranium. We already import most of our uranium.

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.

[luxellion]

You might check out the BN-600 breeder reactor, which is currently in operation.

[research]

I took a preliminary look at it. It's an experimental reactors. read the about the radiation releases, leaks, and 28 emergency shut downs, and see if you feel confident.
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.

[research]

http://books.google.com/books?id=OnQd2gYRv6UC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=BN-600&source=web&ots=Lx96KoHn-z&sig=P1JjWp60fYSiTAaVDk5SHPDPQfE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=42&ct=result#PPA248,M1

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.

[Donkihoti]

Why, why does this keep coming up? Nuclear power is ultimately a negative in terms of making money, as the costs of handling, storing and keeping safe the radioactive waste left over for 40,000 years will inevitably outstrip the value of the electrical power they produce over the lifetime of the reactor. It's a utility bill for this year that you get to pay over and over practically forever.
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!!

[luxellion]

The pollution from nuclear power pales in comparison to that from oil, coal, and even the manufacture of solar panels. to term it 'lethal' doesn't make much sense either. Also consider that current wind turbine designs are subject to ULF emissions that have been linked to many health problems in nearby residents. Biodiesel from soy will likely inflate food prices just as ethanol did for corn.

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.

[research]

1 million years of billions of tons of deadly waste poisoning 150,000 acres of Yucca mountain is far worse than any other option. wind and solar are already cheaper then nukes, and they are faster to install.

[LuckyBlessed]

Cities are using trash to create electricity. Yes some green house gases, but the cost to the public seems much less. http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/15280775/detail.html

[luxellion]

A bit disappointed to hear the following quote, ' maybe these wouldn't be "your father's nuclear plants."', but not have it followed up on.
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.

[LeftRight]

They are safER. I will grant that one. However, they are NOT safe!! Just like ANY power plant is not "safe", and just like rubbers allow for a person to have SAFER sex, but not SAFE sex!

[snesich]

Esther,

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.

[Daytona]

I believe that you are the one who has been duped. Chicago already gets a significant fraction of its power from nuclear. While I think that the slant of the article is somewhat unique, nuclear plants provide not only clean power but the jobs are highly skilled and highly paying. Utilities also have great benefits to offer with handsome salaries.

[snesich]

Nuclear energy is the exact opposite of "clean power". It creates waste that is toxic beyond anything imaginable---and for much longer than any of us can imagine. And, when there is a meltdown---and mathematical reality demonstrates that it's only a matter of time before this happens---the lives of millions are destroyed forever. It's insanity, particularly when there are numerous alternatives for generating electricity.

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.

[LeftRight]

And this means that we should get MORE of our power from nukes???? The fact of the matter is that nuclear power is NOT clean, even if it doesn't emit any greenhouse gases! It is dangerous, dirty, potentially useful to a terrorist, and cannot provide the power that we need for our society. And you're claiming that we need to use MORE of it????

[EstherJCepeda]

Hi Steve, thanks for writing.

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

[Mildmannered]

I am in favor of nuclear power, but wonder who is going to pick up the tab. About $8B for a new reactor and about $90B to build Yucca.

[snesich]

Boo. Boo. Boo!!!

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?

[Daytona]

You are being mislead by inaccurate information. Nuclear fuel is very unattractive to terrorists because it just is not accessible to either you or them. After is has been cycled through the reactor, it is simply too bulkly and too radioactive to handle. The material in the fuel is not bomb grade as some think.

Renewable energy? Maybe, but renewable energy sources are not always available.

[snesich]

So you're saying that a terrorist could never fly a plane into a nuclear reactor? Or a big truck, full of explosives, couldn't be driven up to a nuclear facility? Wake up and smell the coffee, buddy...

[LeftRight]

Renewables are ALWAYS available, in some form or other! The fact of the matter is that the fuel is not attractive to terrorists, but the PLANT is! The further fact is that nuclear is dirty, potentially dangerous, and more expensive than pretty much ANY other power source!

[goodneighbor420]

if you think nuclear power is so good, you should watch this documentary before you proceed

http://www.linktv.org/programs/australian

[Daytona]

I hate to tell you this, but this has nothing to do with nuclear power. It is related to weapons. The two are not the same.

[diavolos]

What about nuclear waste? What about the possibility of catastrophe? Your article addresses neither of those points. Millions of peoples' lives are potentially at stake, and you don't even mention that.

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.

[ckdogs]

I also enjoyed your Sun Times column, and disagree totally with this view. When you can tell me where we'll put all the nuclear waste - I'll reconsider. Also - Chicago is a major population center. If an accident occurs, we're all wiped out, and our lake is radioactive for eons. What about wave energy? Turbines in the lake - deep under water - would not be unsightly, and waves go on forever.
Developing the technology, and implementing it, would also create zillions of jobs.

[LeftRight]

Esther,

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!

[pbrme]

Power Plants are "sitting ducks" for any attack (foreign or domestic). Where's the waste go? Also, plants are wildly expensive to get up and running. No Nuclear for this Chicagoan.

[Daytona]

Wake up. You are already using nuclear power. Chicago probably gets about 20 to 30% of its power from local nuclear plants.

[Daytona]

First of all, nuclear plants are not sitting ducks are you think, but are secured facilities. Even if undesirables got access into the plants, its just too difficult to access the nuclear material and even if you could access it, you could not remove it from the facility. The material within the plant is not even close to weapons grade.

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.

[Daytona]

Unfortunately, your assumption that nuclear power is unsafe has already proven to be untrue. Chicago is already being run with nuclear power. Most likely you are enjoying its benefits. Wake up and small the roses.

[snesich]

I'm well aware that Chicago is already using nuclear power for part of its electricity. How does that make it safe? Did you ever study statistics? Do you actually think that a nuclear power plant will never melt down? Ever? Are you willing to gamble with that many lives simply to boil water that moves turbines?

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?

[LeftRight]

Yes, you're right, I am using power provided by Nuclear power plants, and you know what, my rates are HIGHER than they would be with coal. Am I saying that coal is the answer, of course not, but Nuclear is MORE dangerous than coal, and more expensive! Why would I want that??