Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: FBI: ‘Declarations that all active shooters must simply be mentally ill are misleading and unhelpful’
Next Post: Here’s How To Make The Tax Credit Scholarship Better
Posted in:
* Background from WTTW…
With its 11 nuclear reactors at six nuclear power plants, “Illinois generates more electricity from nuclear energy than any other state, accounting for one-eighth of the nation’s total nuclear power generation,” according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
That’s even with a ban effective since 1987 that forbids new nuclear power plants be built here.
Illinois legislators voted to lift the ban and open the door to so-called advanced nuclear reactors.
Advocates say nuclear power is a greenhouse gas emission-free option that would provide a smart energy alternative as Illinois law is moving coal-fired plants offline. Many environmentalists and other critics want Illinois to focus on wind and solar options as the state looks to meet a legal goal of 100% renewable energy come 2050.
Pritzker isn’t outright opposed to more nuclear energy, writing in his veto message that “there appears to be real potential for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which could, in the future, safely provide power for large energy consuming businesses in areas where their energy needs cannot currently be met.”
* Sun-Times…
State Sen. Sue Rezin, R-Morris, also plans to file a measure to counter Pritzker’s veto of a bill that would have lifted a moratorium on new nuclear power plants in the state.
The governor in August vetoed the moratorium lifting, writing it did not provide regulatory protections for the health and safety of Illinois residents, and there was an “overly broad definition of advanced reactor” that could open the door to large-scale nuclear power plants. Environmental groups like Sierra Club and the Illinois Environmental Council had asked for the veto.
But Rezin on Monday said she believes her new measure addresses the governor’s concerns. She said she is in talks with Senate President Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, and plans to introduce the measure as soon as possible. There are also other proposals in motion, including in the House.
“I would say that this compromise narrowly defines new nuclear down to the actual megawatt, as opposed to the amended version that he vetoed in the House that used the federal definition of new nuclear,” Rezin said. “So this new version is more specific, limiting the size by dividing the megawatts in the nuclear reactor.”
* More from the Daily Herald…
Chief co-sponsor Rep. Mark Walker, an Arlington Heights Democrat and longtime supporter of nuclear, said SMRs will be “really valuable for the future” despite concerns about waste and potential accidents.
“I understand people’s fear, but we haven’t had any issues with waste and accidents in Illinois in at least 60 years. I think it’s overblown,” Walker said. “The thing to keep in mind about issues with regulation and siting is you have to go through environmental studies, multiple contacts with communities, and all kinds of things that the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires anyway.”
Pritzker’s veto letter referenced a lack of “regulatory protections or updates to address the health and safety of Illinois residents who would live and work around these new reactors.”
The regulatory commission represents what Rezin calls “the most heavily regulated department at the federal level.” To answer Pritzker’s concern, the new bill would provide additional local oversight by the Illinois Emergency Management Agency.
* The Sun-Times editorial board is not so sure that safety issues are overblown…
But the technology to make the small reactors work is not ready. The first small reactor design obtained U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval in July for a facility in Idaho, but development will take years. Focusing on building wind and solar energy and storage should be the priority.
Besides dotting the state with more spent nuclear fuel storage sites or requiring the transportation of spent fuel to existing sites, additional reactors can pose a security threat. As retired Brigadier General Wendell Chris King, a specialist in hazardous waste management, said during a radio discussion in August, “How do I protect those [small modular nuclear reactors] from an external threat? And the more [reactors] you got, the harder it is to protect.” […]
Whether small nuclear reactors can be financially feasible isn’t certain. The first standard nuclear plant to be built from scratch in the United States in 30 years went into operation this year in Georgia, seven years late and $17 billion over budget.
Once the moratorium is lifted, it won’t be easy to impose it again if companies start making plans to build small nuclear reactors in the state. The time to lift the moratorium is after the challenge of safe nuclear waste disposal is solved.
Your thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 10:11 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: FBI: ‘Declarations that all active shooters must simply be mentally ill are misleading and unhelpful’
Next Post: Here’s How To Make The Tax Credit Scholarship Better
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I’m kinda ambivalent but lean towards “Building more nuclear power is good”. Nuclear waste is dangerous, but it’s also easier to contain than the millions of tons of CO2 and other pollution we put into our atmosphere with most other types of energy production, and sure, solar and wind are great, but the sooner we get away from fossil fuels the better. We’re actually pretty good at containing nuclear waste, and there’s relatively little of it because we can get so much energy out of a fairly small volume of fuel.
Comment by Perrid Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 10:23 am
I understand some of the uneasiness about nuclear power, but ‘ve yet to see a serious proposal for us to meet the 1.5 degree warming target (already likely a hopeless cause) without using nuclear as a green energy bridge. Lifting the ban is a good thing.
Comment by lake county democrat Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 10:23 am
==Focusing on building wind and solar energy and storage should be the priority.==
Has anyone stated this is going to stop being a priority? Did we repeal CEJA and everyone forgot to mention it? There are plenty of arguments against nuclear power that are worthy of debate, but this strange “wind and solar will suffer” line of discussion doesn’t seem based in reality.
Comment by VK Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 10:25 am
Nuclear power, it’s very French. The key is safety even as the power stations built now are with much smaller reactors. France seems to know what to do so let’s at least try. But at the same time, go full force on solar and wind. We aren’t the Windy City because of actual wind but we do have that wind in abundance. Need to use it in large and small ways. teach people. And I’m noticing more products where the solar element keeps batteries powered so even small things we do at home with solar can make a difference in our environmental lives. start with some holiday lights.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 10:30 am
Nuclear power is very toxic and am leery of anymore being built in Illinois. If they can’t regulate corporate polluters now or the lead, nitrates, run off, and PFOAs, etc. in our water and environment, how do they expect it to be safe? Fukushima is still leaking folks and I well remember 3-mile island. It is a forever toxin and who knows where all the waste is being buried, as well as the opportunities for terrorism, human error, or corporate neglect. Just my two cents for what it is worth.
Comment by Mister Ed Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 10:50 am
“”Nuclear power, it’s very French. “”
Oh thanks Amalia LOL
Comment by walker Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 10:59 am
The designs are completely new and untested. Let them go through a shakedown period first before we allow them here. And even then, only allow them to be installed within the perimeter of existing nuclear facilities, where security and safety monitoring occur. Allowing them to be installed as stand-alone facilities within city limits as planned in Champaign is hubris in the extreme.
Comment by Jibba Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 11:00 am
A point often lost on SMRs is that there are two currently in operation, just none in the US. Many are still in development but they’re not some “fantasy technology” that opponents make them out to be.
We need to use every non-carbon energy source we have and we needed to build more yesterday. Are there valid concerns about dealing with waste? Sure. However, Rep. Walker is 100% correct that we’ve had no issues with it in Illinois since reactors have been built. That’s a future problem. Fighting climate disaster is a now problem. Frankly, with climate scientists constantly revising sooner when we’ll fall off the climate cliff, we can’t stop at SMRs. We need large-scale reactors too. I hope they override the Gov.’s veto.
Comment by Panther Pride Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 11:03 am
I fear carbon emmissions far more than nuclear waste. And that is the comparison we need to make.
If we don’t trust the NRC and IEMA to safely regulate nuclear then we really need to act urgently to do something about all the nuclear we already have. It seems odd to trust them on the old nuclear and not the new stuff…..
On a less snarky note does anyone have the plans to get us to 0 without increasing nuclear? Did environmental scientists and engineers and what not crunched the numbers back when CEJA was passed? I wasn’t here, so I’m genuinely curious.
Comment by JJJJJJJJJJ Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 11:10 am
I support the small reactor idea. The existing nuclear generator fleet in Illinois is aging-out and is going to need replacements. I’m for renewables as well, as part of the overall mix of energy sources, but that’s not going to be enough, just wind and solar - not until a real breakthrough in battery storage comes and is proven. We need a base load power source we can rely on that’s not fossil-based, or Illinois will go from being a net energy exporter to an energy importer. That would be terrible for growth and for business.
The new, small modular reactor designs use a fail-safe design that can’t melt down; if you remove coolant, the reaction just stops thru natural physics processes. The used fuel storage can be handled in several ways, including using deep boreholes, re-processing the spent fuel, to use it again, or running it thru a thorium fuel cycle to speed its decay, while generating energy. These small reactors could be sited on the existing nuclear plant grounds in some cases, or plugged into former coal-powered generating stations, to convert them to clean energy production and save local jobs.
The defense argument is moot: the same security procedures would be in place for these plants as any others. But a terror threat against an SMR would be less dangerous, again, because the reaction stops right away if anything like cooling systems are disrupted. Nuclear materials are kept much safer than the toxic coal fly ash around coal plants, which ironically sports more radioactivity and cancer risks from heavy metals than a nuke plant does.
Comment by Give Us Barabbas Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 11:11 am
The French have a very good record using nuclear power. One reason might be, they require their plant managers to live within sight of the reactors, on the theory that you don’t defecate where you eat, and you don’t make decisions that could threaten your own family. I don’t think the same can be said for plant managers of large chemical plants or other dangerous sites. The key to safety is informed policy and oversight coupled with better technology. We can do that.
Comment by Give Us Barabbas Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 11:16 am
The French, they gave us democracy, existentialism, and…
…
Nuclear power plant updates.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 11:18 am
The costs and regulatory hurdles that would have to be overcome to build one are pretty immense I imagine. If anyone is willing to go through that, then I say let them, no arbitrary moratorium.
Comment by Nick Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 11:28 am
Climate change is either an existential emergency or it’s not. If we’re genuinely facing global catastrophe, we have to take risks and accept trade offs. Nuclear is a completely carbon-free technology.
Safety and storage concerns are real. But they’re problems for the future, and right now we need to make sure we have a future. I hope the GA moves forward on this.
Comment by vern Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 11:41 am
Get ready for the neighborhood nukes.
The fights over zoning and sitting for migrant housing, drug treatment centers, affordable housing developments and more will pale in comparison.
Such a self-inflicted error.
Comment by Oklahoma Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 12:00 pm
I’m for whatever gets David Kraft to hush up.
Comment by Lurker Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 12:19 pm
I’d rather live near a SMR than downwind of a pork or chicken CAFO operation… or the smokestack of a coal plant.
Comment by Give Us Barabbas Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 12:56 pm
Nukes nukes and more nukes. The safety record for American nukes is astonishingly good and far surpassing that of any other industry. The requirements to build a plant are burdensome for a good reason. They need to be safe.
Another way to look at it is political, but playing the long game…if we built enough nukes maybe we could put the Texas oil industry out of business and lower property taxes at the local level.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 12:59 pm
@- Give Us Barabbas - Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 11:11 am:
===….using deep boreholes….thorium fuel…===
I don’t know, maybe wait off until next year as there are too many unanswered questions at this point. Thorium + deep boreholes sounds dangerous. The Kerr-McGee Thorium disposal got into the aquafer beneath West Chicago. It is traveling and contaminating private water wells in its path, in areas of unincorporated DuPage County. The only solution was to seal the wells and run water lines from nearby towns that have non-contaminated water. Clean water is just as important as clean energy.
Comment by DuPage Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 2:24 pm
Crazy as it may sound, I bet there are some parts of the State where small modular reactors would be less controversial than wind.
Because:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34431835/nuscale-small-modular-reactors-government-grant/
Comment by Roads Scholar Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 3:54 pm
I think we all wish that nuclear power had started with the idea of being intrinsically safe, using ideas from these new designs. Sadly, engineers and their egos thought they were smart enough to anticipate every eventuality and overcome them, and they didn’t. I’m anticipating that these new designs will be safer, but since they have not been tested in the real world for problems (including manufacturing defects), then I don’t want to live next door to one. As for safety, they cannot have the same level of protection when the perimeter is only slightly larger than the building itself, nor will they have the security staff, nor will they have the same level of monitoring unless legislation requires it.
While there is a lot of support here for SMR, anyone want to have a crack at the idea that UI wants to install one right in the center of Champaign so they can use the waste heat to run their steam heating system? I’m a hard no.
Comment by Jibba Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 3:59 pm
The Kerr-McGee site was given a complete clean bill of health back in 2010, that wasn’t a reactor, it was a metal milling plant, and has nothing to do with Thorium cycle fuel in reactors, which can consume and reduce all kinds of nuclear waste. Maybe DuPage could can find some scary references that are more contemporary and relevant.
The borehole technology I mentioned is new; it goes down over three miles, well below any aquifers, and could make disposal of spent fuel easy and economical as well as stable and safe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal#:~:text=Deep%20borehole%20disposal%20involves%20drilling,two%20kilometers%20of%20the%20hole.
Comment by Give Us Barabbas Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 5:54 pm
==While there is a lot of support here for SMR, anyone want to have a crack at the idea that UI wants to install one right in the center of Champaign so they can use the waste heat to run their steam heating system? I’m a hard no==
I’d be a strong “yes” for a plant in Chambana; thermal co-generation would be great for heating the university campus for free as the reactor makes electricity. The first atomic pile was built at U of Chicago, after all, and universities have had great success running small research reactors for years as part of nuclear medicine and engineering research. People would flock to that area to study it, work with it, invest around it. It would be good for the local economy. U of I has been at the forefront of important technology development for a long time, and this idea would be another milestone.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 6:12 pm
Sorry that anon just now was me, forgot to sign it.
Comment by Give Us Barabbas Tuesday, Nov 7, 23 @ 6:13 pm