11 Comments - anotheretiree - Thursday, Nov 9, 23 @ 10:14 am: So still not…”Too Cheap to Meter”. - New Day - Thursday, Nov 9, 23 @ 10:23 am: The entire debate over the nuke moratorium bill was one of the most meaningless I’ve ever seen in the Capitol. Much gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair over something that will never happen. Illinois is a deregulated state which means companies have to finance the plants themselves or go to the GA for a special deal. Zero chance this will happen anytime in the near future. This plant is just the latest proof that nukes are just too damned expensive - whether they’re big (like the $30 billion Mississippi plant that was supposed to cost $10 billion) or small like this one. But woohoo, you guys proved to your benefactors that you could get a meaningless bill passed through the GA. Sigh. - Jibba - Thursday, Nov 9, 23 @ 10:27 am: https://npre.illinois.edu/about/illinois-microreactor-project - Blago's Hairline - Thursday, Nov 9, 23 @ 10:34 am: Do you think Nuclear Fallout would improve Mark Maxwell’s Mole Sauce or make it worse? I saw his WCIA cooking appearance and I’m of the mind that a little nuclear waste would be the perfect additive. - JJJJJJJJJJ - Thursday, Nov 9, 23 @ 10:53 am: I still support repealing the moratorium. This way nuke companies can look at Illinois. If the market deems it impossible then so be it, but I did not find the reasons to exclude the possibility compelling. If a nuke company came to the GA and asked for money that would be a different debate and we could have it that day. I’d be skeptical. For what it’s worth nuke folks will point out that their type of energy is unique in that it is both carbon free (like renewables) and can handle the base-load demands of a grid (like gas and coal). It therefore is challenging to compare to either. They of course argue that more incentives are warranted to reward this type of energy for the unique ability to be both carbon-free and carry the base-load. I’d still love to hear from someone how we get to 0 carbon without nuclear. Point me to states/countries that have done it. - New Day - Thursday, Nov 9, 23 @ 11:27 am: I found these comments from the Union of Concerned Scientists particularly interesting and revealing: “The termination of NuScale’s agreement with its one and only genuine customer is a clear demonstration of the fragility of the so-called advanced nuclear power industry. The industry is largely driven by an oversupply of reactor developers who are searching for utilities and other end users willing to pay premium prices for experimental, untested technologies,” Edwin Lyman, director of Nuclear Power Safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in an email. “However, even with the potential for large government subsidies, such customers justifiably remain wary. Small modular reactors will generate more expensive electricity than large reactors (which themselves are not economical to build at present). Despite all the hype about the promise of SMRs circulating in the media, they cannot overcome the fundamental principle of economies of scale,” Lyman continued. Lyman further noted that for all its problems, “Nuscale is one of the designs with the best prospects for commercialization because of its similarity to conventional light-water reactors.” The failure of the UAMPS/NuScale project “does not bode well for the dozens of other, more exotic reactor types in various stages of development that are being touted as the next best thing in nuclear power, such as sodium-cooled fast reactors, gas-cooled reactors and molten-salt reactors,” he continued. “They will be even riskier bets than NuScale for the foreseeable future.” - New Day - Thursday, Nov 9, 23 @ 11:32 am: “I’d still love to hear from someone how we get to 0 carbon without nuclear. Point me to states/countries that have done it.” I don’t disagree, but the economics of nuclear simply don’t work. $89/mwh (which undoubtedly would have ballooned even higher) just doesn’t work when you have cheaper carbon-free options (renewables plus storage). The bigger question is what happens when the older nukes begin to come off line which will happen as they are very long in the teeth. That will be an ENORMOUS amount of power to replace. - Jibba - Thursday, Nov 9, 23 @ 11:36 am: I’m supportive of lifting the ban with the exception of allowing them within municipal limits. That is simply crazy given the lack of testing and commercial rollout. UI is wanting one because it saves them hundreds of millions of dollars to replace their steam heating source. I understand the feds are paying a lot of the cost, so, it is apparently economical only under situations where it gets a huge subsidy. - RNUG - Thursday, Nov 9, 23 @ 12:23 pm: /rant warning … Why do we (the US) keep trying to reinvent everything instead of looking at proven designs from other countries? Europe has figured out small scale nukes. Yes, they’ll never be as cheap as coal was, but they do have a viable design. And yes, I realize Germany has shut down their nukes, but I believe that was more of a “green” issue than an economic one. /rant off Anyway, with the moratorium lifted, there is at least the opportunity to figure out if nukes make economic sense in the current energy mix. Personally, I don’t think they will, but you never know. Once burned, twice shy. They used to say you could never lose money investing in utilities. Illinois Power managed to disprove that with Clinton. - sulla - Thursday, Nov 9, 23 @ 1:40 pm: “Recent studies from regional grid operators show a significant reduction in current energy generation capacity…” Denzler is correct. In Ameren’s territory, we have seen a massive reduction in available capacity since 2021 and it’s causing downstate communities to miss out on economic development projects. Every option for new generation needs to be on the table. - Give Us Barabbas - Thursday, Nov 9, 23 @ 3:45 pm: We have some opportunities in Illinois to shift old, closing coal fired plants to small nuclear. That would keep those communities growing. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.