Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Pollapalooza
Next Post: It’s just a bill
Posted in:
* Sen. Sue Rezin in Crain’s…
As Illinois families and businesses continue to struggle with tightening budgets, lawmakers must prioritize reducing energy costs. There are many factors that play into price increases, including global markets, economic pressures and restrictions of production. However, there is something we can do right now to lower costs — eliminate the state’s arbitrary moratorium that has been restricting the construction of new nuclear power plants for over 35 years.
Illinois is one of just 12 states with such a restriction on the construction of new nuclear power facilities. This restriction has remained in place even though our state has more nuclear power reactors than any other state, which have efficiently and safely produced carbon-free electricity for Illinois residents for roughly four decades. […]
This is why for the past two years I have filed legislation that would delete the language from our books that prohibits construction on any new nuclear power plants, and have advocated that our state take a long and serious look at emerging advanced small modular reactors (SMRs) or so-called “micro nukes.”
“Micro nukes” are small reactors that can be located in small factories, or even inside already existing legacy coal-fired power plants that are scheduled to be decommissioned under Illinois’ Climate & Equitable Jobs Act (CEJA). An important factor is that these smaller nuclear reactors can be placed in pre-existing coal-fired power plants, which means we wouldn’t have to spend as much time and money building new infrastructure as we currently have to for new renewable projects.
* From the US Energy Department…
Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are a key part of the Department’s goal to develop safe, clean, and affordable nuclear power options. The advanced SMRs currently under development in the United States represent a variety of sizes, technology options, capabilities, and deployment scenarios. These advanced reactors, envisioned to vary in size from tens of megawatts up to hundreds of megawatts, can be used for power generation, process heat, desalination, or other industrial uses. SMR designs may employ light water as a coolant or other non-light water coolants such as a gas, liquid metal, or molten salt.
Advanced SMRs offer many advantages, such as relatively small physical footprints, reduced capital investment, ability to be sited in locations not possible for larger nuclear plants, and provisions for incremental power additions. SMRs also offer distinct safeguards, security and nonproliferation advantages.
* Stanford…
“Our results show that most small modular reactor designs will actually increase the volume of nuclear waste in need of management and disposal, by factors of 2 to 30 for the reactors in our case study,” said study lead author Lindsay Krall, a former MacArthur Postdoctoral Fellow at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC). “These findings stand in sharp contrast to the cost and waste reduction benefits that advocates have claimed for advanced nuclear technologies.”
* Environmental Working Group…
There is no realistic prospect that SMRs can make a significant dent in the need to transition rapidly to a carbon-free electricity system. The prospects of timely contributions by even the light water designs, with NuScale being the most advanced in schedule, are dismal. The prospects for reactors of other designs, like those with graphite fuels or sodium cooling, are even more so.
It will be a tough road for SMRs to achieve cost parity with large reactors. And that cost will still be far too high.
* The Question: Should Illinois at least partially lift its no-nuke construction ban to accommodate small modular reactors? Make sure to explain your answer. Thanks.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 12:26 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Pollapalooza
Next Post: It’s just a bill
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Lifting the ban does not bother me, the massive subsidies they will demand at the expense of proven clean energy technologies do.
Comment by illinoyed Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 12:35 pm
No. Illinois already had the most nukes in the country.
Comment by Must win Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 12:36 pm
Yes, but …
There needs to be standardized design(s) for these plants. Lack of standardization led to disasters (Three Mile Island) and cost over-runs (WPPS). Notice DoD doesn’t have those problems.
Comment by Anyone Remember Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 12:38 pm
Yes. I would love to see deployment of this technology in Ameren territory. Power availability is becoming a big issue downstate, and renewable projects are not coming online fast enough to offset the coal plants that have already gone offline.
Comment by sulla Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 12:41 pm
No. Not small ones. the concern about safety is too great for small ones that could be accessed. I would not object to construction of larger ones. France does not seem to have a problem with nuclear power. The bigger point is to have a comprehensive energy policy, using all means necessary, wind, solar, water and nuclear.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 12:42 pm
No, for the reasons given, plus the fact that Exelon didn’t want to keep the existing ones running without extra grease.
And stop UI from placing one right in the middle of Champaign, about 50 yards from the nearest private residence.
https://npre.illinois.edu/about/illinois-microreactor-project
Comment by Jibba Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 12:43 pm
“No. Illinois already had the most nukes in the country”
Energy infrastructure is capital-intensive and needs to be looked at from a long-term perspective. Yes, Illinois has many nuclear power stations. All of these are in their second license renewal phase - it is unlikely that they will get third extensions. Most will be obsolete in roughly 40 years. We rely on nukes and it makes sense to have a plan to replace like for like. The planning, site review, environmental review, and construction can take over 10 years for a new power station. Lifting the moratorium on new plants makes sense.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 12:48 pm
Yes, I am pro nuke as a general rule. Nuclear power in the US has proven to be very safe. My question, and please correct me if I am wrong, is didn’t Excelon tell us they had too much capacity?
There is no question that we need a massive increase in capacity to match the growing needs, I don’t know if small reactors are the best way or not, but nuclear power has been given a bad wrap for years.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 12:48 pm
Absolutely. Climate change is real. Let’s explore every option we can. This isn’t about who’s favorite technology gets subsidized. This is about solving a problem.
Comment by Franklin Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 12:49 pm
Yes, lift the ban. No reason to ban them. None will be commercially viable until mid-2030’s (by their own projections) so if at that time they are lowest cost and improve reliability, why not use them? In the short term, no state subsidies which should otherwise go to renewables and batteries to address coal and gas closures immediately.
Comment by Atlas Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 12:55 pm
Yes. So much of the opposition about nuclear energy comes from fear, uncertainty, and doubt, a propaganda tactic for which I have little patience generally and when it is based on concerns that have been solved. The French can recycle nuclear waste so it’s not like we’ll be stuffing it into redwoods. We can do these things too.
Comment by Nuke The Whales Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 12:56 pm
Is this a paid post from ComEd lobbyists, Rich?
Comment by Drury's Missing Clock Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 12:57 pm
Go for it. I don’t have a problem with glowing in the dark.
Comment by Glengarry Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 1:01 pm
Yes and to pick up from an earlier comment, make it a standardized design that can be approved once and once approved just put in appropriate places (probably zoned industrial).
We seem to be out of good choices and while renewables have a lot to offer, they don’t do baseline as well as nuclear.
Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 1:03 pm
==eliminate the state’s arbitrary moratorium that has been restricting the construction of new nuclear power plants==
There are yearly threats to close the ones we have. What makes you think anyone is going to build a new one?
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 1:03 pm
absolutely. although it’s not going to be much help. Illinois better do something because 2045 will be here before you know it and a reliance on renewable will not be realistic or attainable.
Comment by Blue Dog Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 1:09 pm
I say yes. I’d be interested to see what the market demand is. Could the state potentially issue licenses for a limited number to be operated? I’d imagine emphasis could be placed on the legacy coal plants mentioned and other
Comment by no use for a (nick)name Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 1:10 pm
Yes, the state should lift the ban. We’ll need something we can use to handle base loads when conditions are not ideal for solar and wind. We could keep Gas Plants around to handle that but it seems wise to allow a few pilot plants to get spun up and further their development. It would be nice to use hydroelectric power except this is IL kind of flat.
Comment by Mason born Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 1:11 pm
We should remove the ban entirely. Not only has our current fleet operated incredibly safely, but new reactor designs are even safer. Yes, SMRs are likely a ways away, but they’re making more and more progress as more investment comes in. GE Hitachi recently inked a deal with an Ontario nuclear plant to build North America’s first SMR, hopefully to be finished by 2028.
Companies in Illinois have already been talking about using SMRs and other nuclear tech to help their operations. The IMA supports a repeal for that reason. With safer, larger-scale designs and genuine concerns about not inventing the battery storage technology needed to maximize wind and solar energy, Illinois needs to repeal the ban if we’re going to meet our clean energy goals.
Comment by Panther Pride Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 1:12 pm
I’m fine with lifting the ban, but I don’t have high hopes for the project. The issue of waste is a big issue if you are going to create a lot more reactors and more waste, we need to find a place that is willing to take it (spoiler–Nevada is not).
Also, the power companies shouldn’t be building any, but buying power from those who do. That reduces the pressure on rate increases because then it’s left to the market. If we need to subsidize the market, do it as a start-up not as an ongoing issue for the local utilities.
We can probably create reasonably decent reactors that don’t produce so much waste, but we need the government to take the lead in figuring out the design. It’s clear left to their own devices, power companies are going to keep creating dinosaurs or not creating nuke plants–see the most recent overruns in Georgia.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 1:14 pm
No.
Illinois is -still- dealing with ComEd’s botched nuclear construction in the 80’s / early 90’s: recent bailouts most obviously, but also ComEd dealt with the budget pressure in the 90’s by underinvesting in delivery infrastructure, leading to the poor reliability, one of the justifications it gave for needing formula rates in 2011, at the start of its bribery scheme.
If you want to see how nuclear construction is going these days, google vogtle
We have cleaner, cheaper alternatives.
Comment by Abe Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 1:18 pm
Any expansion of nukes (standard, SMRs, etc.) shouldn’t take place until we know that there’s a viable option for disposing of their waste.
Comment by Phil Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 1:18 pm
Completely irrelevant whether we lift the ban or not. New nukes take too long and cost way too much to build. The market has cast its verdict on new nukes so whether there’s a moratorium or not will have zero impact on whether we build one here (hint: we won’t).
Comment by New Day Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 1:18 pm
Nuclear energy is much more efficient and reliable than other non-fossil fuel sources. Technology advances also make waste much less of an issue. France can handle having 70% nuclear energy of their total electric energy production. It’s odd that the environmental community seems opposed to this source, but pushes unreliable, expensive, and inefficient sources instead.
Comment by phocion Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 1:18 pm
Get rid of the ban. Coal plants are burning low-quality coal and emitting tons of radiation into the atmosphere.
At least the waste from a reactor can be contained and tracked.
Comment by SammyG Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 1:20 pm
2045 is right around the corner. There isn’t a snowballs chance that renewable can replace fossil fuels. We better do something.
Comment by Blue Dog Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 1:20 pm
@Jibba - Thank you for the link to the proposed microreactor at my Alma Mater. Very informative.
I was unaware of the existence of the TRIGA facility when I attended many years ago. But then I seldom ventured North of Green Street.
My first reaction when considering the “Question of the Day” was that I was not inclined to be favorable to its passage. However, considering that this project would apparently be a joint venture with an established company it only makes sense that it should be pursued. The University has a reputation as a world class research institution and this facility could only further enhance this reputation. The opportunities for making some significant breakthroughs in this technology is perhaps unlimited and should be encouraged.
I will reserve a final answer until more questions are answered but feel that the UIUC project should definitely be pursued.
Comment by illini Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 1:21 pm
Yes, repeal it. We have a lot of work to do to clean up our grid and we need all the tools in the box. Lots of room for improvement in our ability to site and build these, which will be best addressed by getting sone experience doing that. Reactor developers are actively looking for places to build their initial units, but they won’t consider states like ours where it’s illegal. Lift the ban.
Comment by Alan Medsker Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 1:22 pm
==I would love to see deployment of this technology in Ameren territory.==
This is also a very important point. Despite nuclear making up, on average, at least half of IL’s daily electricity production, most of it is not in MISO/Ameren territory. With the delays in solar and wind deployment and the real concerns about inadequate tech to make wind and solar the other half of Illinois’ power, we’re talking about real energy inequity here. Some of the poorest regions in the state are suffering from the highest utility bills. I’m not saying the lack of nuclear energy is the cause of that, but it could certainly help.
Comment by Panther Pride Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 1:24 pm
Go Nuke or Go Home
Comment by Unionman Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 1:38 pm
I’d say yes, lift the ban.
LaSalle County’s nuclear power station, which is in Rezin’s district, has one reactor down now for scheduled maintenance. Why can’t we start with a couple SMRs to see what their actual nuclear waste output and generating capacity are?
When LaSalle station went online 50 years ago, it went WAY over budget. I can’t imagine what a similar plant would go for today. Putting SMRs in shuttered plants seems like a good thing to try.
Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 1:44 pm
The Stanford study doesn’t seem to address lead-bismuth reactors where once the fuel is spent you could -in theory- intentionally cool the reactor and allow the lead to cool around the core.
Lead-bismuth has an adverse political history (gained interest in USSR service so US Naval influence was entirely against even testing the technology for decades) and was disfavored for a number of reasons but could lead to self-sealing, almost plug-and-play or “disposable” nuclear cores for smaller local reactors.
Conceptual Engineering for a Small Modular Reactor (SMR) power plant … https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/conceptual-engineering-small-modular-reactor-smr-power-plant-based-lead-bismuth-fast
Comment by sewer thoughts Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 1:46 pm
Yes, for many reasons already stated.
That said - I am very much in favor of small reactors. I would love to see smaller cities and municipalities deploy these as a way to decentralize power and increase redundancy in the power grid. And, not incidentally, perhaps allow for competitive rates with power providers.
Comment by Name Withheld Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 2:01 pm
Illini…please note that the reactors under consideration by UI are completely untested in commercial application (to my knowledge), and therefore are simply unsuitable for installation in the middle of a city. Install one at the current Clinton plant that has existing security and monitoring? Sure. But they want to run the steam heat system from it, so they require an on-campus location. Hard no. Personally, I would get their engineering prowess to instead work on generating steam efficiently from electricity, which could then be done at the Abbott power plant.
Also, the TRIGA reactors were never used for electrical generation, and therefore only operated for brief bursts, not continuous reaction. Whole different animal.
Comment by Jibba Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 2:02 pm
===Why can’t we start with a couple SMRs ===
They’re not available yet and it could be a long time before they are.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 2:05 pm
End the ban.
Years ago I worked for a company and with people who built large fossil and nuclear power plants. Construction overruns were more a construction management problem than a technology problem. Building systems inside a factory is much easier to manage.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 2:08 pm
Lift the bans. We should keep all options open for energy. We could also use more of those cooling lakes for fishing…
Comment by The Magnificent Purple Walnut Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 2:22 pm
Absolutely not, for literally dozens of reasons lurking in the details. The elephant in the room not addressed by Sue Rezin and other nuke supporters is that 1.) this is a MORATORIUM, not a BAN; and 2.) set up to prevent Illinois from holding more high-level radioactive waste than necessary awaiting the federal government removal of the waste for PERMANENT DISPOSAL, not storage somewhere else. This was supposed to have happened in 1997 and didn’t; and the feds say it can’t happen before 2048 the earliest.
More reactors means — MORE WASTE, with no place to go.
Further, small modulars are a CEJA killer. none currently commercially exist, and won’t until the 2030s, so they are no timely climate solution. They would compete for BOTH market share AND transmission access, damaging renewables deployments from CEJA.
Comment by Dave Kraft, NEIS Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 3:36 pm
Yes.
If we really want a diverse energy grid we have to explore and use all options.
Comment by btowntruth from forgottonia Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 3:44 pm
CEJA killer
Comment by Franklin Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 5:04 pm
“They would compete for BOTH market share AND transmission access, damaging renewables deployments from CEJA.”
Renewables can compete just fine, especially by the time nukes are ready to be deployed. Thanks.
Comment by New Day Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 6:03 pm
Yes. Climate change makes this an entirely different discussion from when the ban was put into place.
Comment by IT Guy Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 6:39 pm
No, except an experimental permit for Thorium based reactors.
Illinois should apply for the federal program to pay existing nukes to stay open for the next 10 years.
Also, build power lines to bring in wind energy from out of state. The in-state windmills and solar cells will help but will not be enough.
Comment by DuPage Monday, Feb 27, 23 @ 10:07 pm