( By Eric Danner ) [Approx. Read Time: 1.5 minutes]
It is always refreshing to see a large publication raising questions about why nuclear power is not a larger part of the discussion of America’s energy future. It is a reassuring feeling to believe that there are journalists, other media outlets, and members of the general public who are starting to discover and embrace the facts about the current climate of the energy industry in America, and nuclear power’s place in its immediate future.
This article is from the Chicago Tribune and quite simply raises fundamental questions about why something that seems so obvious to some is not obvious to others. It becomes increasingly frustrating when the individuals who make the decisions which affect our country’s future are the same individuals who seem to be the least aware of the critical role that nuclear must play in the power-generating and economic future of the country.
The following is a short excerpt from the article:
“Refusing to build or use existing nuclear plants here in Illinois and across this nation could result in a substantial loss of this country’s standard of living, while keeping us overly dependent on foreign countries for oil, which is the exact opposite from what the Waxman-Markey bill promises.”
It is particularly interesting that the creation of additional nuclear power in Illinois to support the future energy need is not obvious to the state politicians there. Perhaps it has simply slipped their minds that their home state has the most commercial nuclear reactors of any state in the country.
Mr. Danner poses a very interesting question for the state of Illinois with his selected title, and I for one appreciate him bringing this important article to our attention. But would not a more appropriate question be “Why Isn’t It Obvious, Mr. President?”. After all the leader of the current presidential administration and our country hails from Chicago, I do believe. Perhaps he no longer reads the hometown newspaper given the swath of project closures he has dealt the nuclear industry. I am of course referring to the President both terminating the Yucca Mountain federal spent nuclear fuel repository (after $16.5 billion had been sunk into its design and construction) and ending the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) that would have created a federal nuclear fuel reprocessing center in SC to finally close the fuel cycle. The GNEP would have also eased profiliferation concerns by processing nuclear fuel from other nations and supported the development of actinide-burning, fast-spectrum breeder reactors to reduce the volume of high level waste by 95%. It seems the President feels it is acceptable to bury 90% of the useable energy still retained in our current nuclear fuel assembly designs. The one major program that has been spared so far, the Megatons to Megawatts Initiative to burn excess weapons-grade fissile material in power reactors, seems to have only survived the presidential scythe because it ultimately leads towards an end in the use of nuclear energy. The only logical conclusion that can drawn is that the state legislatures of Illinois are simply playing follow the leader.
My previous rant on this issue represents a growing frustration with the political resistance to the blossuming nuclear renaissance. It is my opinon that the President’s definition of “change” that was over-used in his campaign also extends to no more nuclear power plants in the United States. But after my blood pressure returned to normal I couldn’t help wondering why Zion is being mothballed at the same time utilities are actively pursuing twenty-six brand new plants, as noted the Chicago Tribune article. I found an extremely interesting blog on the subject that has been debated for over a year. It is located at:
http://nuclearstreet.com/blogs/atomic_insights/archive/2008/06/15/could-zion-nuclear-power-station-be-the-next-brown-s-ferry.aspx
You have to follow the links to find the discussion of the political and economic factors that led to Excelon’s (not ComEd anymore) decision to shutter both units. I was relieved to find that decision was not based upon strictly technical problems. Given the changes that have occured to alleviate the conditions noted when the debate was raging, it would seem at least conceivable that the lights may come up at Zion once again.