Illinois -- home state of our new president-elect -- is the most nuclear-reliant state in the nation, with 11 operating reactors. The Illinois communities of Oak Park, Berwyn, and Riverside are particularly reliant on nuclear power: it's 75 percent of their juice, purchased from Commonwealth Edison, a local subsidiary of Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear utility.
So it is of some interest that each of those communities voted on a straightforward referendum on Tuesday. It went like this: "Shall our elected officials in Illinois take steps to phase out nuclear power in the state, replacing it with renewable sources such as wind and solar?"
The results? 68.0 percent Yes, 32.1 percent No.
(You can find the breakdown here.)
So do nuclear's biggest customers prefer renewables? Kinda looks that way.
More on this from Harvey Wasserman.
Two senators push to ramp up nuclear energy
Nuclear companies face reactor design problems, ethics questions
Comments
View as Threaded
Tasermons Partner Posted 10:31 am
07 Nov 2008
Or was it just a vague goal they hope to be aiming towards?
Permalink
analyse Posted 11:13 am
07 Nov 2008
Permalink
human power Posted 2:44 pm
07 Nov 2008
Ending our use of nuclear (and coal) is doable and it is doable NOW. Excuses are just that, excuses.
By the way, I don't know if the voters considered the location of Rancho Mistako, but, in the event of a large-scale release of radioactive material it was located upwind from Sacramento.
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 4:15 am
08 Nov 2008
SMUD does not reveal their actual energy source mix but they "project" 81% fossil fuel.
http://www.smud.org/en/community-environment/Documents/Po ...
of which 62% is natural gas.
California's high energy cost and regulations exported high energy consuming industries. They import out of state energy when they buy energy intensive products from out of state and out of country.
If the U.S. or the world followed SMUDs model we would be out of gas immediately. On the other hand if California mass produced floating offshore nuclear power plants they would have abundant power with much lower cost and much lower emissions.
Communities that want 100% renewable energy should get it, and pay the full price, and suffer the intermittency. The next referendum would have a much different outcome.
Things Everybody Should Know About Energy
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 8:39 am
08 Nov 2008
Why is it that everone mentions France as a role model for American nuclear power?
FRANCE FACTS: It takes almost 60 nuclear plants to power 90% of France.
France is the size of New England.
France has very little energy-intensive manufacturing compared to the United States.
France has only a sixth of the U.S. population.
The average French citizen uses much less energy than the average American.
And, France HEAVILY SUBSIDIZES its nuclear plants.
So, if it takes 60 nuclear power plants to provide 90% power to a country less than 1/10 our size, with almost 1/6 of our population, where there's much less industry and the average citizen uses much less energy, then just how many nuclear plants do ya think it'd take to power 90% of America?
By the time we finished construction on even a quarter of the needed nuclear plants, we could have achieved the same 90% goal with renewables. Not to mention the costs involved for that many nuclear plants would easily beat out even the most inefficient of renewables (considerin' that a single nuclear plant alone costs billions, and that's without subsidies).
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 6:10 pm
08 Nov 2008
The U.S. completed 5 nuclear plants a year for 20 years at a time when fossil fuel was dirt cheap and most people never heard about global warming.
If renewable are so much easier and faster, why is SMUD projecting 81% fossil?
Things Everybody Should Know About Energy
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:57 am
09 Nov 2008
Because SMUD tends to predict based on status quo.
They don't take into account any future policy changes, initiatives, incentives, or plans which could swing the balance of power into another direction.
A few years ago, they were nowhere close to predictin' the boom in wind energy that's happened in recent years.
Accordin' to predictions back then, wind would still be a fraction of a percent in total energy production, but it's now much more than what they predicted.
Remember, IT IS POSSIBLE to have a nationwide grid powered almost entirely by renewables.
The question is, what do we need to change from the status quo to get there.
The U.S. completed 5 nuclear plants a year for 20 years at a time when fossil fuel was dirt cheap and most people never heard about global warming.
That's 100 nuclear plants over 20 years.
We'd need at least 500 more to provide a nearly entirely powered nuclear-grid.
Even at a rate of 100 plants every 20 years, it'd take 100 years to build 'em all.
And construction time for nuke plants is likely to take much longer this time around due to new regulations and standards and increased opposition, not to mention shortages in materials and expertise.
Also, even when adjusted for inflation, nuclear plants are much more expensive to build now than they were back then.
Permalink
Tom Blees Posted 7:25 am
11 Nov 2008
Possible and feasible are two different things. If you're going to argue against nuclear, first learn about Generation III and, most especially, Gen IV nuclear technology. It shoots virtually all the antinuke arguments down in flames. As for France, if nuclear power was such a loser why would they already be planning their next generation of power plants, why do they have one of the lowest electricity rates (and cleanest air) in Europe, and why would they build so many that electricity is their 4th largest export? Are the French just stupid?
The irony of alleged environmentalists fighting against nuclear power will someday be seen for the absurdity that it is. Hopefully that day will come sooner rather than later, for global warming can be a harsh mistress.
You can learn about real solutions to climate change in my book. Check out the first chapter at my website.
Tom Blees, author of
Prescription for the Planet.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:36 pm
12 Nov 2008
Exactly.
And which is more feasible?
As I said, nuclear is much more expensive, and, in general, face much more opposition than renewables.
A nuclear network would also take much longer to construct, and see much less in the way of immediate returns.
Nuclear would also, most probably, haveta be massively subsidized.
As for Gen IV nuclear plants, yes, they do eliminate some major problems...however, there are very few of those plants, and almost none of the plants that are currently proposed in the U.S. (that I'm aware of) are Gen IV plants.
Also, Gen IV are more expensive than "conventional" nuclear plants, and they take even longer to construct and require even more expertise to run and operate (expertise which we are short on).
why do they have one of the lowest electricity rates (and cleanest air) in Europe?
Because they HEAVILY SUBSIDIZE their nuclear industry. They may pay less in energy bills, but they make up for it in increased taxes in order to subsidize it.
Are the French just stupid?
No, the French are IN FRANCE.
France: The country that's less than 1/10 the size of America.
With 1/6 the population.
Where there's less public opposition to nuclear power, and where the public doesn't mind payin' higher taxes to heavily subsidize it.
Where the average citizen uses much less energy than the average American.
And where there is not a great deal of energy-intensive manufacturing.
IF all of those things could be said for us, then an entirely nuclear powered grid could possibly be a very good idea.
But we are not France.
We're spread out, we're energy guzzlers (more so than any other country), we have a massive and growing population, we don't have a very large workforce of nuclear-based experts, the general public is more opposed to nuclear, and even more so to increased taxes for subsidies.
And most of all France's network is already in place.
In order for us to construct a network of nuclear plants large enough to satisfy our needs, we'd need many decades, at least, and more probably close to a century.
But we do NOT have that kinda time!!
We'd need at least 500 additional nuclear plants to power this country alone!
If we hoped to have a complete grid up by 2030 (any further than that, and any talk of helpin' to combat warming would be mute), we'd haveta construct nearly 23 nuclear plants every year!!
It's just NOT FEASIBLE.
In order to be effective against climate change, nuclear would haveta be a fast solution...and it simply is not. Not for us, anyway.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 7:50 pm
12 Nov 2008
1) Renewables can be put up faster than nuclear plants, and they have a better hope of shutting down coal plants.
The truth : Small scale renewable plants can be constructed quickly, but precisely because they are small-scale.To make a reasonable dent in the energy landscape (higher than 25% say), it takes lot more resources and time to construct a renewable infrastructure. Don't take my word for it. Greenpeace is giving dates of 2050 and 2090. In the meanwhile, as you know, we are totally cooked.
2) France is subsidizing its nuclear industry.
The Truth : This is a joke. They can probably subsidize it for their citizens. But why would they export it to foreign countries (which don't pay them taxes), at a low price. Do you think the French are so masochistic that they run an export industry in order to make losses ?
The problem with you is that you had an overdose of koolaid that you've been drinking from sources such as this and this : which are loosely disguised propaganda to keep natural gas industry in the electricity business. (even when natural gas prices are going sky-high). Who is there to benefit from this ? Not the environment, for sure.
For a more realistic estimate of nuclear power costs, check the IEA report or the practical costs of how much the ABWR reactors costed in Japan.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:31 am
13 Nov 2008
If nuclear power could be safely and economically mass produced it might at least compete on deployment speed, but then there are the inevitable NIMBY lawsuits. A 10 year R&D program might come up with a suitable design, testing might be rushed into that time period too.
But then the fuel, waste, proliferation, and decommisioning problems are left.
By then rooftop solar cogeneration, wind/wave power, plugin hybrids, ground source heating/cooling, distributed biogas fuel cell cogeneration, electric mass transit, and smart grid technology will be in full mass production and deployment mode.
Nuclear fission will most likely be obsolete by the time the new nuke R&D is completed.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:05 am
13 Nov 2008
Okay, so France exports energy nuclear energy?
How is that relevant, exactly?
They can't export it to us, and even if they could it wouldn't be anywhere close to what's needed to fulfill our needs.
Yes, France exports energy...but how does that effect our situation?
or the practical costs of how much the ABWR reactors costed in Japan.
Like France, Japan heavily subsidizes their power industry.
For that matter, the Japanese government owns huge stakes in the power companies. The power comapnies are partially nationalised.
The Japanes have also had a long history of nuclear accidents.
(From wiki):Accidents of note include: the fast breeder Monju Nuclear Power Plant sodium leak in December 1995 (the reactor is still shut down), the Tokai reprocessing waste explosion in March 1997, the criticality accident at the Tokai fuel fabrication facility in September 1999 and a widespread falsification scandal starting in August 2002 that lead to shut down all of Tokyo Electric Power Company's 17 nuclear reactors. Tokyo Electric's officials had falsified inspection records and attempted to hide cracks in reactor vessel shrouds in 13 of its 17 units.
Also, on 9 August 2004 five workers were killed after a steam leak at the Mihama-3 station. The subsequent investigation revealed a serious lack in systematic inspection in Japanese nuclear plants, which led to a massive inspection program.
But more importantly, you've still yet to address how we can feasibly add at least 500 nuclear power plants to our current grid in a reasonable timeframe.
Give me a reasonable scenario where can accomplish this feat, and I wouldn't oppose it as a possible solution.
'Cause I personally have pondered it, but I can't come up with a scenario where the addition of at least 500 new nuclear plants in a reasonable timescale is likely.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 2:01 pm
13 Nov 2008
I can do that too: 'Tasermons partner' is heavily subsidized by the Grays. He's an extraterrestrial fifth columnist.
Proof by boldface!
The subsidy mantra is particularly comical in those countries that have undertaken to shut down their nukes, and somehow don't get around to it, despite the oodles of subsidy cash that ought to be just waiting to be freed up when they do.
Still, what government department wants to be stuck with a bunch of money.
--- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
Permalink
vakibs Posted 8:55 pm
13 Nov 2008
I am copying stuff that I read from the book of Tom Blees. I think what Tom says is brilliant; do read his book. (Please correct me Tom, if I say something wrong)
Nationalize the electricity industry, and run it by public utilities. It is important to do so, irrespective of which source of energy you plan to use. Electricity comes under what is called as a natural monopoly. It is in public interest to run it for non-profit basis. Even if we don't nationalize the industry, monopolies automatically arise due to the nature of the power grid. Any country which has a nationalized electricity industry (India, China, France, Japan..) has stable and low electricity prices. Deregulation and private utilities only bloat up the costs and discourage investment in much needed infrastructure. Furthermore, electricity is not a consumer good. There is no need of choice (as in between coca cola and pepsi). The electricity demand for a society is well known, there is no need for market disturbances.
Remove limits on the amount of electricity that individual consumers can generate by themselves at home. This can be in the form of energy efficient buildings and instruments, solar panels on top of the houses, local biomass plants etc. In fact, subsidize the installation of any of these devices so that consumers are highly motivated to cut down electricity use.
Bring all the big electricity production plants under a single public utility company. Impose strict deadlines on the shutting down of all fossil fuel plants.
Have an open design of generation 3+ reactors (with every country sharing their intellectual property) and do mass production of these modularized reactors. When done like this, new nuclear plants can be constructed at a rapid pace, and at a very low cost.
Use these nuclear reactors and start replacing coal plants.
Revive the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) project and construct demonstration plants. Demonstrate the technology of nuclear batteries. Once these generation 4 designs are finalized, start building these reactors instead of generation 3 reactors (We will step into an era of no more nuclear waste and unlimited nuclear fuel).
Nuclear power will first be replacing coal plants in the G8+china+india (which contribute the maximum to CO2 emissions, and which already have nuclear weapons.. no question of nuclear proliferation). Very soon, the global nuclear power industry should be brought under a single umbrella and nuclear fissile material should be under the exclusive control of this inter-country organization. This global organization (called GREAT by Tom) will undertake the task of providing cheap energy to the developing world. Countries with no power grid (such as in Africa) will benefit by nuclear battery technology. All nuclear weapons should be eventually dismantled towards complete nuclear disarmament.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 12:38 pm
14 Nov 2008
Proof by boldface!
No...the proof is in the public accounting offices, not in the boldface.
The real truth is: Nuclear is not economically viable without massive subsidies.
Not tax credits, mind ya, or "temporary" subsidies that are no longer necessary once intial construction and operation are paid off.
Nuclear requires a constant infusion of government cash in order to survive.
Name one country with a network of nuclear plants that doesn't constantly subsidize or infuse government funds into their ongoing operation...
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:04 pm
14 Nov 2008
While this is possible in many parts of the world (and is already the standard in many places), and while it also may possibly be what's best for America...I somehow doubt that we'd be able to nationalize our electric industry.
Almost every energy company would lobby against it, and even if Congress and the Prez somehow didn't bow to their pressure, there would undoubtably many serious legal challenges to such a proposal.
Remove limits on the amount of electricity that individual consumers can generate by themselves at home.
This one is good idea. But caution must be taken so that some people don't decide to just put up a massive windfarm with dozens of industrial-scale turbines on their ranch, and then claim it to be "consumer generated", as some type of loophole.
Just got to get the legal typists to patch it up in such a way that people don't take advantage of it.
Bring all the big electricity production plants under a single public utility company
It'd be for the best, but as with No.1, the American political system makes such a thing extremely unlikely.
Impose strict deadlines on the shutting down of all fossil fuel plants.
This is good. And it's what will eventually happen (though whether it be under federal mandate, or due to shiftin' sentiment and a patchwork of other legal and economical issues has yet to be seen).
Have an open design of generation 3+ reactors (with every country sharing their intellectual property) and do mass production of these modularized reactors. When done like this, new nuclear plants can be constructed at a rapid pace, and at a very low cost.
I could see some countries proposin' this, but it would also face challenges.
For one, it would be very hard for some countries to share intellectual property concernin' nuclear energy with other countries.
Particularly since there's likely to be concern that some countries will may use it for more than just producin' nuclear energy.
Also, some countries gain an awful lot of economical and geopolitical power by havin' nuclear expertise that's sometimes in high demand, and it'd take alot to get those countries to concede to share that expertise.
No. 5 and 6 would rely on factors that are either too far into the immediate future to be seen, or that we don't know for sure is even possible (the feasibility of mass production of nuclear batteries, and total disarmantle of nuclear weapons, for example), so to comment on any possible flaws would be far too specualtive on my part. We'd haveta get through steps 1-4 first before we could get there (though ideally, the starts of steps 5 and 6 would be in the planning and conceptual stages even from the beginning, if that were to be the end result).
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:09 pm
14 Nov 2008
But have individuals and corporations own the electricty, trains, vehicles, distributed generation plants, solar panels, wind farms, smart grid devices and so forth.
Competition is preserved, but monopoly is prevented. In fact preventing monopoly protects competition and innovation.
There's a plan. Buy the utility companies out of their grid holdings, they use the buy out to innovate. Building out renewable energy and using smart grid equipment to exchange electricty and money with their customers.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink