Ten Things to Consider Before we Start Building Nuclear Plants in Illinois Again

As lawmakers in Washington scramble to figure out how to avert the financial catastrophe caused by "toxic assets," our lawmakers in Springfield are preparing to vote on jumpstarting a new generation of the mother of all toxic assets, nuclear power plants.

With 11 operating and 3 closed plants, Illinois already has the most nukes in the nation. ComEd customers get about 60% of their power from nuclear plants. (to see the chart, go here and click on Commonwealth Edison Company)

But in 1987, around the time that construction was completed on the last nuclear plants, the legislature voted to place a moratorium on new nuclear plants in Illinois, until the United States "has identified and approved a demonstrable technology or means for the disposal of high level nuclear waste"

A bill to lift the moratorium to allow new nuclear plants is now pending in Springfield, and set for a vote April 3. This is such an awful idea, for so many reasons, it's hard to pick, but here are my top ten:

1. The last nukes built here were horrendously expensive. While we've not had a Chernobyl or Three Mile Island-type accident, the economic impact of these plants has been nothing short of catastrophic, sucking billions of wasted dollars out of the state economy.

Illinois' three most recent nuclear plants, at Byron, Braidwood and Clinton, were all completed years behind schedule, and each one a billion or more dollars over budget. Byron and Braidwood came in at five times the original cost estimates. Clinton at ten times. Because of the huge costs of the nukes, for most of the 1980s and 1990s ComEd charged residential electric rates that were almost double the rates charged by neighboring utilities without nukes.

(For a meticulous blow-by-blow of the battle between ComEd and its customers over the costs of its nuclear program, see this treatise by James Throgmorton. In a better world, at least one legislator would ask a staffer to skim this book before they vote to start building nuclear plants again.)

2. The nukes we already built have been fantastically unreliable. Five of Com Ed's newest nukes have endured outages of a full year or more. The Clinton plant and both LaSalle units shut down for repairs in 1996. LaSalle 1 wasn't back in service until the summer of 1998, and LaSalle 2 and Clinton weren't running again until 1999. The two units at Zion were enduring similar long outages before ComEd decided to pull the plug on them permanently, in 1998.

People often ask about wind energy: "What happens when the wind isn't blowing?" but that issue seems trivial when compared to huge plants that break down and need years of repairs to get going again.

3. There is still no place to put the waste. In fact, a national waste repository is even more remote now than it was in 1987 when the moratorium was passed. Earlier this month, new Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced that the administration was abandoning plans to put a national nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Although the federal government has spent 22 years and 13 billion dollars developing the site, they have decided to go to Plan B. And currently, there is no Plan B. So while they begin to figure out what Plan B is going to be, the waste stays here on site, and Illinois remains the biggest nuclear waste dump in the U.S. for the foreseeable future.

4. Reprocessing is not a solution. The industry lately has been saying that if we can't dump the waste somewhere, we can just "recycle" it, the way France does. (Funny that many of the same voices who are so appalled by France's socialist tendencies are also so enthralled by its socialist nuclear industry.)

You know who really wants reprocessing even more than the nuclear power companies? Terrorists. Reprocessed waste is even more useful for a suitcase bomb or other fanatical mischief than the regular waste. If reprocessing was a dodgy proposition pre-9/11, it is simply unthinkable in the post 9/11 world.

5. After the debacle of the 1980s nukes, new laws were enacted to ensure that new plants would be needed, affordable, and sited in the right place. Those laws have all been repealed. The Illinois Commerce Commission, which rubber stamped the last round of plants and came to sorely regret it, no longer has even the rubber stamp. Along with the ICC, the state EPA and the Department of Natural Resources have been stripped of authority over siting of new power plants. Once this moratorium is lifted, no Illinois state agency needs to approve a nuclear plant for it to be built. And no state agency will have authority to stop it.

6. The task force that the legislature created last year to study this issue and report back has not studied the issue, and not reported back. After being created in July of 2008, the task force held their first and only meeting in December, where the chairs announced that there was no time to conduct any investigations or prepare any report, and they would seek to be reauthorized for 2009. But even in the absence of any serious analysis of these complicated issues, many legislators are ready to vote right now to green light more nuclear plants for Illinois.

7. More nukes will prevent the cleaner energy we really need. The state does indeed need to get busy getting the carbon emissions out of our electric grid. The best way to do that is to start adding substantial amounts of wind energy and efficiency to the system. But unlike renewables, which can be gradually added to the system, and scaled up or down to meet changing needs, nuclear plants come in only one size: humongous. If the state decides to go with a 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant, that's 1,000 wind turbines that don't get built. If we spend $5 billion on a new nuclear plant, that's $5 billion that isn't being spent to improve end-use efficiency (updating or replacing energy-wasting appliances, equipment and processes).

After decades of being completely shut out by the nukes, renewables and efficiency are finally getting their foot in the door of the Illinois market. But ComEd spent more money on legal fees fighting over the costs of the last round of nuclear plants than they have ever invested in renewables or energy efficiency.

8. If we need to spend money to create jobs (and we do), there are better things to spend it on than nuclear plants. Nuclear fission is the most capital intensive energy technology, meaning the biggest share of the money goes to the steel and concrete needed to build the thing, and relatively little goes to pay salaries of people working there. Compare with labor intensive renewables like wind and especially, energy efficiency, where a much bigger share of the total costs goes to pay people. If you are trying to create jobs, nuclear plants are the worst choice.

9. We're still not sure what the final cost will be for the plants we already have. Estimates of the costs to decommission the plants (take them apart and store the pieces) vary widely, in part because none of the Illinois plants have been fully decommissioned. Although the original plan was to take the plants apart at the end of their useful lives and decontaminate or store the radioactive pieces somewhere, Com Ed has thus far gotten approval to postpone the process, even for plants like Dreden #1, and the two Zion plants, which have been shut down for over ten years. Other plants, such as the other Dresden units, got license extensions as they neared the end of their license lives.

As decommissioning cost estimates continued to rise, it became clear that ComEd would not have enough money put aside to pay for the eventual dismantling and clean up of the sites. But they solved that problem a few years ago, by putting what money they did have into the stock market. How's that plan working guys?

10. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The moratorium passed in 1987 with huge majorities in both houses, of Democrats and Republicans, upstate and downstate. They didn't need to pass that law. No one asked them to, and at the time it seemed completely unnecessary. But that moratorium was a message in a bottle from the lawmakers of twenty years ago, saying in effect, "Going nuclear was a huge mistake that we all regret. It's made a mess of our electric system, our regulatory system, and worst of all, the state's economy. Please, don't go down this road again."

Having witnessed the Wall Street bailouts, the nuclear industry is drunk with possibilities, and elbowing their way up to the trough. But this boondoggle won't be paid for by future generations of federal tax payers. This will be billions of wasted dollars that Illinois families and businesses are going to have to start paying right away through their electric bills. And it will further postpone the real transition to sustainable energy that we so urgently need.

The bill is expected to come up for a vote on April 3. Interestingly, nearly none of the 33 listed sponsors was around when the moratorium originally passed. Here's hoping that when the general assembly votes next week to revisit the nuclear option, they take a moment to think about what happened last time.

Comments

[Reaniel]

You, sir, is clueless...

MOX fuel does not require weapon grade plutonium in the mixing stage, though it "can" use weapon grade plutonium (you know... from the bombs we don't actually need?)

MOX reprocessing plant DO NOT refine plutonium to weapon grade usable in your so-called suitcase bomb, so get a clue before you start bashing a technology you don't understand.

[snilon]

France is not problem free when it comes to nuclear. Take a look at this article:

http://www.alternet.org/audits/132852 "The French Nuclear Industry Is Bad Enough in France; Let's Not Expand It to the U.S."

And unless you are volunteering to have the waste stored in your back yard, you are making the point that there is no certainty of it's safety. And if you are willing to live with the waste in your back yard, please tell me where that is, so I can make sure we are not neighbors.

[QM2SS]

Jimmy,

With all due respect, I think you are less than forthcoming with respect to presenting the entire picture of the nuclear power industry, it's safety record, it's present day usage and associated benefits from same. What you have failed to include in your submittal is the reality that we have scores of nuclear reactors operating on behalf of our nation on a daily basis and are building more as we write these missives. Our nuclear powered Navy has been operating with efficiency for decades. In fact, the U.S.S. Enterprise alone operates eight nuclear reactors as its power source. In addition to surface craft, scores of nuclear submarines have been quietly operative since our initial unveiling with the U.S.S. Nautilus in the late 50's.

My point is, we are not new at this. The usefulness of this power source has been quietly demonstrated for some 60 years, and it is somewhat disingenuous of you to omit this fact for public consideration. While I'm no expert on the nuclear power industry, I am a qualified ex submarine sailor (Skipjack Class - Fast Attack - Nuclear) and take some issue with your omissions regarding the value of nuclear power as a means in helping resolve our energy issues. While I certainly believe we should pursue all viable avenues in order to free ourselves from carbon contamination and the Middle East stranglehold, I don't think we should take well regulated and monitored nuclear power off the table.

[Jimmy Seidita - Huffpost Blogger]

"What you have failed to include in your submittal is the reality that we have scores of nuclear reactors operating on behalf of our nation on a daily basis and are building more as we write these missives. "

Look here for a map of the operating reactors in the U.S.: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/map-power-reactors.html

Notice how many of them, especially around the Great Lakes, are > 30 years old.

Not sure what you mean about "building more as we write these missives". There are no new plants under construction in the U.S. Some utilites, including Exelon, have begun the process of seeking a license for a new plant.

[QM2SS]

Jimmy,

Perhaps my wording has misled you somewhat. What I mean by "building more" is simply the fact that nuclear reactors are being produced and put into service for propulsion systems on U.S. Naval vessels, particularly submarines but increasingly surface craft as well. The Navy still operates its nuclear power schools for the purpose of educating and training U.S. Naval personnel, both officers and enlisted men (Jimmy Carter being one), for duty on these nuclear powered vessels. While we land based citizens do not derive immediate and usable access to these power sources, never the less, that technology is, and has been, in place for decades and I suspect that our expertise in their manufacture and operation has advanced considerably as well. While I don't want to hold myself up as an example as I am not alone, I not only worked in a nuclear facility environment I lived there and actually bunked mere feet from the reactor compartment. Apparently it can be done with no attributable effects, at least in my case and others of the crew I was with who I am still in communication with.

[yuenzzzz]

Hey Jimmy, this is a really great top ten list. Nuclear Power plants are expensive, but they are a viable option to bridge the gap between our current energy needs and the sustainable energy sources of the future. The waste can be very easily dealth with now, and they can be safely discarded. I do agree that other forms of energy must harnassed, and that the technology has to be greatly advanced for us to get there.

You can post this to our site http://www.toptentopten.com/ and then link back to your site. We are looking for top ten lists and our users can track back to your site. The coolest feature is you can let other people vote on the rankings of your list.

[DanCTC]

Jimmy,

Good points! If we just dropped all the subsidies, we wouldn't have to worry about more nuclear plants being built in Illinois and elsewhere.

Thanks for the memories!

Dan

[GRLCowan]

Nuclear power is not subsidized.

Large-scale primary energy sources in general are specially taxed; for instance, the $250 million price of the natural gas a 1-GW gas-fired electricity plant consumes in a full-power year includes around $40 million for government. Using uranium in its stead reduces the total fuel mining price to $15 million or less, making it hard for government and its dependents to get the $40 million they may consider their traditional due.

But governments' loss due to uranium is not uranium miners' gain. It is the citizens' gain.

That is why, although the subsidy lie is often heard, countries that express a determination to get off the nuke tend not to do so. If there were subsidies, it would be easy.

--- G.R.L. Cowan
Internal combustion made continent:
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/

[Parducci]

France and many other countries have had great success with nuclear power plants. The US has an irrational fear of nuclear power stemming from the accident at Three Mile Island. Most of the issues that you raise stem from excessive or pointless regulation.
1. Excessive regulatory costs.
2. Shutdown for regulatory not practical reasons.
3. 99% of all nuclear waste can be safely recycled, as the French do. It need not be stored.
4. This is the fear behind the US law against recycling. But if that's the case, why don't the terrorists just get the recycled waste from France?
5 and 6. I have no information on these.
7. Nuclear energy IS clean energy.
8. Value judgement. I disagree.
9. Costs variable because of costly needless waste storage.
10. That's exactly what you are doing....living in a world of perpetual Three Mile Islands.
Nuclear energy is safe, clean and inexpensive once it is released from the grips of those who are bound by irrational fears.

[Yves Papa]

"3. 99% of all nuclear waste can be safely recycled, as the French do. It need not be stored."
The French did not figure out how to do that yet, and they are now hoarding the waste in a storage center. "...as the French do..." is yet another example of the lies and deceits its proponents put out to get the voter's buy in.

[Yves Papa]

Q: "4. This is the fear behind the US law against recycling. But if that's the case, why don't the terrorists just get the recycled waste from France?"
A: Simply because the French did not start recycling yet, and don't have any recycled waste available to steal.

[tjfdownsouth]

http://www.heritage.org/press/commentary/ed010108d.cfm

[Yves Papa]

"7. Nuclear energy IS clean energy. "
Ok, then, the only problem is that we can't figure out where to put the waste or how to recycle it.
Oh, and do you feel like a swim in that storage pond in La Hague? You may like the suntan this nice blue light will give you.

[Jimmy Seidita - Huffpost Blogger]

"2. Shutdown for regulatory not practical reasons."

Click on the links and read the reasons for the long outages at LaSalle etc. There are many of them, and they are not trivial. There were multiple serious problems with practices and equipment, including some Homer Simpson-type stuff, like employees hiding radioactive material in the pants of other employees, as a prank.

If these plants can't withstand regulatory scrutiny, they should try a technology where the consequences of a foul-up are not so dire.

The plants have been running much better the past 10 years or so. I dearly hope that this is the result of improved performace, and not, as you seem to suggest, just less oversight.

[Semaj51]

Actually, the state with the highest number of operating nuclear plants is Virginia, most of which can be found at the Norfolk naval base. Perhaps the answer to future nuclear plants is not the "humongous" plants the author is against, but to utilize the highly developed, reliable, and effecient nuclear plants found on our carriers and subs.

We need 24/7 power sources to cover periods when wind or solar power is not available. There are few hydro dam sites available, geothermal is limited to a few areas in the country, and power from tidal forces is decades in the future. To get rid of the fossil fuel plants today, there is little choice but nuclear. We have the industrial organization today to build the ship-size nuclear plants.

[rf-hawaii]

Wind and solar can be made 24/7 in a myriad of ways, from one of many energy storage methods to augmentation with existing sources.

Tidal effect generation is happening now. Saying it's decades in the future is wishful thinking that it won't garner funding. If we spend on bad alternatives the good ones will be starved for funds.

[Semaj51]

The best you can hope for solar is 60% reliability. As for wind, 20-30% is the average. And by what methods are you storing energy - batteries, thermal storage? The current existing sources for augmentation involves either using fossile fuel power plants, dams, and (surprise) existing nuclear plants.

There are many different small prototype tidal effect generator facilities around the world, but currently there is only ONE commercial-scale tidal power plant in the world. And tital power plants have the same major problem as geothermal - limited number of effective sites. Tidal systems need areas with fast currents and the best potential sites are in select coastal areas in New England states and the San Franscisco Bay.

If we really want to rid ourselvesof fossile fuels NOW, than we must take realistic, real world solutions.

[Parducci]

Maybe the Navy should consider wind powered ships.