50 Comments » - Homebody - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 11:13 am: 40+ yo elder millennial here, pro nukes. They are one of the safest, cleanest forms of reliable energy production we have. Nuclear waste is far less dangerous and easier to handle and contain than CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. While geothermal and hydro are similarly clean and generally reliable, they are not suitable for most places. Wind and solar are very effective and very clean, but similarly not always reliable or suitable for all locations. It always blows my mind how a certain brand of lefty eco activist type managed to demonize nuclear power to such a degree that we stopped building them. All it resulted in was more reliance on the definitely worse fossil fuels. - RNUG - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 11:16 am: I support more nukes, but do it like the Europeans do. Instead of each project being a customized one, settle on 2 or 3 design, one each for small, medium, and large output, and standardize the production of those units. And, as most of you know, I’m in my 70’s these days. - JS Mill - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 11:21 am: Absolutely pro nuclear power for all of the reasons stated by @Homebody and @RNUG. I especially agree with @RNUG regarding standardization of plant construction which would likely save money and time. - TheInvisibleMan - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 11:22 am: Support building more reactors. Many more. In the big picture of all aspects of the production chain, nuclear is one of the safest and least polluting options to generate power. While accidents are certainly bad and create significant but localized damage that lasts a long time, even that damage is miniscule in the bigger picture comparison to the pollution generated by coal or gas even without a disaster happening. Coal especially releases more radioactive waste right into the air than nuclear ever will. Power generation designs have vastly improved over the earlier generations, making it one of the safest options today. I would be perfectly comfortable living within a mile of a nuclear plant, but I can’t say the same for coal or gas even extending that radius out to 10 miles. Similarly, I’d be perfectly comfortable living directly adjacent to a solar farm. Generationally, I’m at the early end of genX. Politically, I’m Bernie Sanders-ish. Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ - Three Dimensional Checkers - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 11:22 am: I generally support nuclear power. It is low carbon, baseload generation. It needs very strict regulations, obviously, but seems safe in Illinois as long as the operators are capable. Millennial, Democrat. I might have a different perspective than my peers. It seems like Germany made a mistake in decommissioning its nukes. I do not think we should give up basically carbon free generation when there are still dispatch issues with renewables. - lake county democrat - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 11:25 am: Strongly support (and I like RNUG’s suggestion). At least with the present state of technology there is no realistic way of meeting the “2.0 deg Celcius” target (the 1.5 target is now hopeless) without using nuclear power as a bridge. - Jerry Gutman - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 11:29 am: Would be interested in a Thorium reactor. The State should invest in hydroelectric generators on our dams and locks. Not interested in Uranium reactors. Would like to see one or two of our shuttered coal plants put back online. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 11:30 am: ===Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste=== That is most definitely not what your linked article claims. - Dupage - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 11:31 am: Yes to existing plants, with scheduled refurbishing and enhanced security. Conditional yes to small reactors as long as they have security equal to the large reactors, no subsidies, unlimited liability insurance and change in bankruptcy laws so they could not have an accident and escape liability by declaring bankruptcy. - Interim Retiree - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 11:31 am: I am w/RNUG on standardized facilities, so yes, build. 71 years old. - Neef Jr. - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 11:31 am: Pro-nuke. Make sure they have PW and PLA language on them like the state has for Wind and commercial sized solar projects so we can add them top the CEJA Act to get more people employed in the industry. … I’m still early 50’s - Who else - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 11:39 am: Gen Xer here and, likely as a result of my Gen X status, I have a knee jerk reaction to the notion of expanding nuclear power. I don’t think you’ll ever be able to convince me that the potential for horror is outweighed by the promise of clean power. That said, I’m not the one that needs convincing. And my opinion is even more irrelevant when considered in the context of the facts: we do not have enough power to run all the things we want to run. So just like with budgets, we either have to cut things from the queue or generate more power. Neither choice is ideal and each comes with tangible and political risks. But cuts to technology innovation and the jobs that come with that (all of which requires increasing power) are extremely unlikely. So we’re going to have bring nuclear power back into mix to move forward and I’m going to have to sit with my discomfort. - froganon - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 11:41 am: I strongly oppose more nuclear power plants. Radioactive waste from the Fukushima reactors is still pouring into the ocean. Radiation specific to Fukushima has been detected in water, marine organisms and the atmosphere around the world according to NOAA. The area around Chernobyl is still too toxic for people to live. Additionally, we have no solution for storing the waste. The waste we have already generated still has no permanent storage site. The “lefty, eco-activist types” don’t have the power to shut down nuclear power production. It’s the stark terror of understanding that the people charged with permitting and construction didn’t think building reactors in a place where three tectonic plates meet and is vulnerable to tsunamis would be a problem. Not to mention that the reactor design stores the spent fuel rods on top of the reactors. It’s cheaper to build that way. My trust in private companies, governments and the people responsible for keeping things safe is zero. - FormerParatrooper - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 11:49 am: I agree with many, standardize and build them. My only concern is the waste generated. Where does it go and how long until it is safe? Late 50s. - Dance Band on the Titanic - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 11:56 am: I was a teenager during the Three Mile Island meltdown. I still support nukes. - Cornerfield - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 11:58 am: Definitely pro-nuke for reasons already mentioned. I’m a boomer, albeit I was born the last year for that designation. - thechampaignlife - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 12:05 pm: Millennial here throwing in my support for nukes as well. In addition to standardizing the designs, the State should have the right to transfer or take over operations if the operator moves to shutter the plant or substantially cut production. It might even be worth considering have a State-operated plant. - Benjamin - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 12:11 pm: Hi, early-40s here. Yes to new nuclear reactors, both large and small. My only caveat would be that the cheapest sources of carbon-neutral energy are currently wind and solar, and energy storage is getting cheaper, too, so we should be buying those first. But if we need more baseline power, or costs come down with newer generation reactors, I’m all for more nukes. - Dorian - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 12:40 pm: Do not build more nuclear plants - we don’t need them and they are dangerous. A) technologies already in hand can add storage capacity to the grid to store *truly* renewable sources such as wind and solar blunting the ‘base load’ false argument often offered as a need for nuclear and B) nuclear of all kinds adds risks compared to real renewables (”When there’s a huge solar energy spill, it’s just called a nice day!”) - waste can get out, tritium leaks, the use, storage, transportation and handling of some of the most dangerous substances humans have created adds unnecessary risk to our power generation. We don’t need nuclear power so we shouldn’t use it. Oh, and nuclear is far more expensive and takes much longer to install than real renewables and storage. I’m a gen-X’er. - Zion resident - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 12:40 pm: Opposed. Zion is stuck with 65 dry casks of nuclear waste near the shores of Lake Michigan with no solution for the long term storage of this waste. In addition nuclear is the most expensive method to produce electricity and Illinois is already subsidizing four nuclear plants through FEJA and CEJA. Early 70’s. - Give Us Barabbas - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 12:42 pm: This boomer has always supported nuclear energy. I follow the development of the new small reactors with great interest because they solve all the issues that the previous generations of design had. These are gas cooled with a zero void coefficient. That means no leaky radioactive cooling water. It’s cooled by helium, and if you disrupt the cooling, the reaction cannot continue and the reactor shuts down to a low safe heat level. This design can be standardized and built in factories then delivered to a site. Including installing them on existing coal fired plant premises to replace the coal or gas fired boilers. They are modular, the more demand you have, the more units you can add. The spent fuel is safer for storage because it’s embedded in little ceramic pellets within the fuel rods. These can be dry cask stored or dropped down a lined bore hole into ground below if needed. - Kathleen - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 12:43 pm: I absolutely oppose the construction of any new nuclear plants of any size. They produce highly radioactive waste that remains deadly for over 24,000 years! We don’t know how to safely store the tons of waste we have already created. Nuclear is the most expensive and dangerous way to boil water. Do the math. Investing in truly renewable energy is good economic sense. The only reason new nukes are being pushed is to provide the plutonium used in nuclear weapons. I’m 65 yrs old. I’d like to see all nuclear power plants closed in my lifetime. - Trap - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 12:44 pm: Support. Bring down the insanely high prices to heat and cool homes. - Rachel - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 12:55 pm: Boomer here. No more nukes. The reactors are somewhat better now as are the containment devices. But the back end waste disposal issues are not resolved - at all. The spent fuel rods that come out of the reactor are some of the most radioactive substances on earth and we have no safe place to put this stuff. Most utilities have re-racked their on site pools to the point where safety is already compromised, the rods are extremely dangerous to transport and no permanent, safe storage solution has been found although the quest for one stretches back forty years or more. The cost for long term storage of spent fuel, assuming a place can be found, is going to be astronomical and is not usually figured in the nuclear generation cost calculation. - Anyone Remember - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 1:06 pm: “… but do it like the Europeans do.” Ding ding ding ding! In mid 1950s the White House received a proposal to do so (also based upon US military experience). Reply was “No, that’s (non-Illinois centric word deleted)!” Support if standardized. - RNUG - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 1:10 pm: == we have no solution for storing the waste. == The ‘waste’ can be recycled / reused in breeder reactors. This nation, and others, have pretty much opposed them because they also can / do create bomb quality material and need to be secure / tightly controlled to prevent the material falling into the wrong hands. FWIW, the first breeder was fired up around the end of 1951 at Argonne Labs. And Illinois, primarily through Argonne Labs, has led the research into nuke power. I still remember my tour of the labs in the late 1960’s because our physics teacher was also a researcher at the lab. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 1:13 pm: ===they also can / do create bomb quality material=== Yeah, that’s kind of a big issue. - Siualum - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 1:14 pm: Late 60’s here. I support nuclear power. I realize the spent fuel is an issue, but at least so far its not been a disaster. I would guess there have been many more people killed mining coal than uranium. Plus, nukes pay pretty hefty property bills and employ quite a few people at better than average wages. - frustrated GOP - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 1:14 pm: I think the real question needs to be: What is the most economical fuel format that has the lowest cost to us at the end? Also, another question: Do all the people in favor of more nukes know that all the spent fuel is currently on-site? Nothing is leaving the State for elsewhere. So there is a lot of spent radioactive fuel sitting in our state. - Cool Papa Bell - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 1:25 pm: GenX. Very supportive of existing power plants and new ones. We need to produce as much carbon free electricity as possible, nuclear power is an excellent way to do that. And we know how to store spent fuel, we are doing it right now. We also know the best way to have go to long term storage, its just that we don’t have the will to actually accomplish it. - Twitter Cat Lady - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 1:29 pm: Millennial: support with caveats. I believe nuclear power can be generated safely, but not economically. - Notyourgrandpa - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 1:33 pm: There are ways to store this material. And it takes up a very small area. What’s better? Contaminating our entire earth with smog or keeping a small area dedicated to waste? Wind and solar suck. Fusion will be become a reality soon too. This is the future. See ya there! - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 1:41 pm: ===There are ways to store this material=== For 10,000 years? - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 1:43 pm: Look, I’m not opposed to nuclear power, per se. But some of y’all are just whistling past some very big issues. - Give Us Barabbas - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 2:00 pm: The plutonium argument is not germane in this case- triso fuel used in the ceramic pellets cannot be refined into bomb quality materials. Spent fuel can be disposed of in thorium cycle reactors, or it can be stored in a concrete lined bore hole that goes straight down into an inert layer of the earth. Again, much of the anti nuclear arguments are based on outdated information or old situations that don’t apply. Storage and disposal is a political issue not a technical one. I live near a coal fired plant with open pits of coal ash near a stream. It’s a bigger concern environmentally than any nuclear plant. - Mason born - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 2:01 pm: Gen x here. My 2 cents is we need more Nuclear. We need a means to scale up to base load esp on short notice. If we get a period of time where renewable are less effective like winter for solar, we need a means to supply that base load. We add more electric demand daily with electric heating, vehicles, industry, etc. (Not complaint just reality) The more we add to the grid the more important it is to have a means to ramp up production on short notice. With the tech we have now it’s Natural Gas, Coal, or Nuclear. If we want to reduce Carbon output it’s Nukes. Fair points on Waste storage, we really should develop a national plan for that, though it would probably require Congress to act which seems impossible. Nuclear plants making bomb grade waste is a concern but not impossible to deal with. - Mason County - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 2:03 pm: It’s the Devil vs.the Deep Blue Sea. Much clamor for EV’s. OK, but where to get the energy to run them. Certainly not more coal or petroleum based sources as that defeats the purpose and hydro option is limited. Really enough solar and Wind Turbine capability? Nuclear seems, at least at this stage of my thinking, seems to be a needed source. But I do have trepidations and there would be a lot of NIMBY opposition. - Donnie Elgin - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 2:29 pm: Need more Nuclear and they need to be large utility-scale plants. Illinois already has a population that is accustomed to Nuclear which is a plus. The newer designs like the Westinghouse AP1000 are a very safe and proven platform. Unfortunately, JB’s CIJA has us stuck with only unproven SMR plants for now. - yinn - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 2:32 pm: I’m on the cusp of Boomer and Gen X (”Generation Jones”). As a teen, I joined the opposition against Bailly. Sometimes I’d like to think we’re responsible enough to have nuclear in the mix, but then I think about Coldwater Creek, which is still killing people regularly. https://tinyurl.com/4wbnzc74 - Homebody - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 2:47 pm: @Rich ==For 10,000 years?== We have far more immediate needs and concerns than that, unfortunately. It is hard to worry about 10,000 years from now when we’re seeing the impact of the boom of 20th century worldwide development in terms of rising ocean temps. If more nukes buys us another couple hundred years of stability to work on the 10,000 year problem, it is more than worth it. - Hank Sauer - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 2:59 pm: Nuclear made sense then and now . Probably safer than the Lion batteries - Lefty Lefty - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 3:11 pm: So much going on here. You may assume from my nickname that I’m a “lefty eco-activist type,” but I left that worldview in my 20s. Now I’m a 50-something earth scientist, still a leftist but doing my best to base my opinions on facts. So in no particular order: With better batteries - large-scale ones - there is no need for nuclear power. Wind, water and solar-generated power will be generated then stored for later use. It’s already happening and it’s referred to as a utility-scale battery energy storage system (BESS). The nuclear energy industry must be evaluated cradle to grave, just as the others should be (ands also battery development ofc). Uranium mining is incredibly destructive and more dangerous to workers and communities than coal mining. If I recall my nuclear engineering classes from the 1980s, breeder reactors are completely different from other designs and result in the creation of plutonium (ie weapons material) which is why they never caught on here. France built some. Zion has high-level radioactive waste stored inside just as every other reactor in the US does. Why? Because there is no national consensus on what to do with it. There’s far more of it than can be “recycled.” No community wants the trains full of it slowly moving through town. Nowhere on the surface of the earth (to a reasonable, cost-effective burial depth) is stable in a 10,000-year timeframe. I could continue but need to make a buck, lefty lefty or not. If there is a 10 to 15-year turnaround from proposal to energy production (which is fast), all of that effort can be put into clean techs. I understand the attraction to restoring this industry, but I lean toward that horse having left the barn. - old guy - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 4:10 pm: I’m still a 1970’s lefty anti-nuker. But willing to look at the better tech for small uniform nuke w/ plans for waste, security, and saftey. And waiting to trust an industry that has never been trustworthy - New Day - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 4:14 pm: Whether I support or oppose nukes is almost irrelevant. 50something support. But nukes take the longest time to permit and build. If you want to build a new conventional nuke, think 2040. If you want an SMR, thing 7-10 years. Same goes for new gas which you couldn’t get permitted here anyway. There is one solution to the current challenge and it’s more of the power that is both quickest and cheapest, renewables plus batteries. - Abe - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 4:39 pm: Gen Xer here just a little older than a millennial. Anybody remember how ComEd built more nuke capacity than needed in the 1980s, with delays and cost overruns, leading to some of the highest electric rates in the country, and then facing budget pressure ComEd did not invest enough in its distribution network, leading to severe reliability problems and financial dire straits for ComEd…which they only got out of through legislation (and a corrupt scheme) in 2011, and how the legislature has now passed two bailouts for the IL nukes because they can’t compete on cost? Seems relevant. Per dollar of investment, clean energy solutions – such as energy efficiency and renewable resources – deliver far more energy than nuclear power, and can come online faster and with less risk. There is currently five times more solar than nuclear power worldwide. We have real solutions. We don’t have to - and shouldn’t - keep chasing nuclear dreams. - Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 5:37 pm: Willing to consider more nukes, but, as mentioned, there are a lot of issues to address throughout the life cycle - mining is very problematic as is waste storage. These can be addressed, but doing so raises the cost and will still pose risks to the communities near the mining, processing, generation, storage, and disposal facilities. All that needs to be compared to the life cycle issues associated with every other energy source - none are green but some are better than others. For me, the bottom line is that we need to use less energy. Everything from projects to insulate homes to expanding public transit in all forms to encouraging (and enabling) people to walk and bike. I also feel compelled to respond to this comment: == [Spent fuel] can be stored in a concrete lined bore hole that goes straight down into an inert layer of the earth== There is no such thing as an “inert layer of earth.” While some places may be more secure than others, there is no perfectly safe location. Groundwater moves through all of the crust, the surface conditions change, and the crust is in constant motion. We can store the waste in places that are currently stable, but we have to be able to indicate to future generations where that stuff is and ensure they leave it alone but are also are able to move it conditions dictate. It’s a problem we have yet to solve. - Give Us Barabbas - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 6:06 pm: Not to bore ya with bore-holes but… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal#:~:text=Deep%20borehole%20disposal%20involves%20drilling,two%20kilometers%20of%20the%20hole. - ArchPundit - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 6:50 pm: I’m generally okay with nuclear power, but saying we are going to just fix the problems so let’s go ignores we need to fix the problems. Standardize the reactors is a great idea, but what about when the producers exert influence to make the designs cheaper (never mind that they keep finding new and interesting ways to do cost overruns in places like Georgia). Let’s make sure we can do something with the waste and security–just saying we need to do it needs ignores that we haven’t. How do we move past that? Where are we getting the uranium from? And how are we mining it safely? The thing is solar and wind with batteries is dirt cheap and nuclear is not. So how much do we want to invest before fixing these issues? - ArchPundit - Tuesday, Dec 3, 24 @ 6:52 pm: Oh, Gen X right in the middle. - Odysseus - Wednesday, Dec 4, 24 @ 12:30 am: 53, so GenX. I strongly support building more nuclear power. At a minimum, we should have plans to put another reactor on the current sites. I would love to see less incompetent management. Hoo boy, the people we have in place now are terrible people. And you can store the nuclear waste in my backyard. TrackBack URI Uncivil comments, profanity of any kind, rumors and anonymous commenters will not be tolerated and will likely result in banishment. Name/Nickname - Required E-mail - Not required URL - Not required