We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Nuke Pro • 4 years ago

If they are operating, i.e. selling at a loss, then they are a net loser to the state of Illinois, in no way could that be a net positive.

Illinois is exporting the power of 3 plants to other states. 3 plants are not profitable.

Does anyone need an explanation on this? Could it possibly be more obvious....shut those plants down.

Teri • 4 years ago

Nuclear related industries will do anything to keep their money coming into their pockets and pretend renewables aren't capable of supplying enough electricity. (Safely, I might add.) And even China and Japan already know which way the new wind blows. Did you think Abe speaks for all of the investors and people there?

Woohooo! Time for talk is over.( http://news.yahoo.com/shale... ) <-Click it!

>One by one, Japan is turning off the lights at the giant oil-fired power plants that propelled it to the ranks of the world's top industrialized nations. With nuclear power in the doldrums after the Fukushima disaster, it's solar energy that is becoming the

Solar power is set to become profitable in Japan as early as this quarter, according to the Japan Renewable Energy Foundation (JREF),
freeing it from the need for government subsidies and making it the last of the G7 economies where the technology has become economically viable.

Japan is now one of the world's four largest markets for solar panels and a large number of power plants are coming on stream, including two giant arrays over water in Kato City and a $1.1 billion solar farm being
built on a salt field in Okayama, both west of Osaka.

"Solar has come of age in Japan and from now on will be replacing imported imported uranium and fossil fuels," said Tomas Kåberger,
executive board chairman of JREF.

"In trying to protect their fossil fuel and nuclear (plants), Japan's electric power companies can only delay developments here," he
said, referring to the 10 regional monopolies that have dominated electricity production since the 1950s.

Japan is retiring nearly 2.4 gigawatts of expensive and polluting oil-fired energy plants by March next year and switching to alternative fuels. Japan's 43 nuclear reactors have been closed in the wake of the 2011 meltdown at the Fukushima power plant after an
earthquake and a tsunami – since then, renewable energy capacity has tripled to 25 gigawatts, with solar accounting for more than 80 percent of that.

Once Japan reaches cost-revenue parity in solar energy, it will mean the technology is commercially viable in all G7 countries and 14 of the G20 economies, according to data from governments, industry and consumer groups.

A crash in the prices of photovoltaic panels and improved technology that harnesses more power from the sun has placed solar on the cusp of a global boom, analysts say, who compare its rise to shale oil.

"Just as shale extraction reconfigured oil and gas, no other technology is closer to transforming power markets than distributed and
utility scale solar," said consultancy Wood Mackenzie, which has a focus on the oil and gas industry.

Oil major Exxon Mobil says that "solar capacity is expected to grow by more than 20 times from 2010 to 2040." Investors are also re-discovering solar, with the global solar index up 40 percent this year, lifting it out of a slump following the 2008/2009 financial crisis........<

This article goes further explaining that solar is already happening and more to come, but by now I think you realize that nuclear is obsolete. :)
Anyway, whose descendents will love being stuck with babysitting deadly waste piles, the ones already sitting on sites all over the globe for 250,000 years? Sigh. I wish them well.

Alan Reid • 4 years ago

You know Teri i think some big surprise is going to manifest for the humans using solar to throw off the yoke of usury choking the little guy to death. Nice post.

Atoms4Peace1 • 4 years ago

Like I told my long haired friend, we dont need to wait for 250,000 years. We can burn actinides like plutonium in special burner reactors like the IFR, which was proven in the 1990s.

Now as for shale, you do realize that when fracking releases gas, it also releases uranium in the shale. So the uranium pieces float to the top and get in the groundwater. All for more cheap gas.

Alan Reid • 4 years ago

And Every single one of those so called fixes is not a reality. How and when this is done is moot next to the mess to get to this point now. We all know just how bad reality is and the reality waiting in wait beyond the industry lie-scape.

Alan Reid • 4 years ago

I like how the pay wall came down after the second comment i made. Had to slip in the others under the door from Disqus. (Thanks Boys! Nice).

OnTheLine543 • 4 years ago

Here are some facts about nuclear energy that you won't hear from the pro-nuclear cult --->
[1] Each nuclear power plant releases dangerous radiation into the air and water during their daily operations. This radiation pollutes the environment from tens to thousands of years.

This radiation has names like:

* Cesium 137, which can cause liver, breast, pancreatic cancers and more; plus heart attacks and heart disease, birth defects, miscarriages...

* Iodine131, which causes Thyroid problems and Thyroid cancer

* Strontium 90, which causes bone cancer

* Tritium, which crosses the placental barrier and causes birth defects

[2] Nuclear power plants also releases large amounts of CO2 and also large amounts of radioactive CARBON-14 which converts
to CO2 in the atmosphere and is detrimental to human health.

[3] Let's not forget the Cancers, Cancer-deaths, and Childhood Leukemias caused by nuclear energy:

Quote from Dr. Ernest Sternglass --->

“…The official measurements carried out by the Office of Radiological Health, and by the government, and the Public Health Service, they measured the radiation doses around the first big reactors in Dresden near Chicago, and they found that indeed there were doses
almost as high as half of the normal background, and according to Dr. Stewart’s finding, that would mean an increase of 40-50% in
childhood cancers and leukemias around the fence of every nuclear plant.”

SOURCE: youtube /watch?v=hN7rcjSnxZs

[4] Let's also not forget Dr. John Gofman's research which stated that approximately 20 nuclear power plants cause an additional 32,000 cancer deaths PER YEAR.

So taking those numbers, the U.S. has 100 power plants in operation, so multiply 32,000 X 5 and that means nuclear energy causes an additional 160,000 cancer deaths per year, using Dr. Gofman's numbers.

[5] Nuclear power plants use massive amounts of water. Each nuclear power plant uses up to 30 MILLION gallons of water PER

[6] Nuclear waste is the largest form of long-term debt any country with nuclear energy will ever have. The cost to store, guard and maintain nuclear waste is INFINITE and will bankrupt every country with it.

Atoms4Peace1 • 4 years ago

1. Wrong. Industrial made radiation is less than 0.1% of all terrestial radiation, which also includes all the isotopes you mention.

2. False. The C14 released in reactors is benign. The K40 in your own body is more damaging to cells. But the imune system takes care of it

3. No proof or evidence of childhood cancers, just antinuke hysteria and media hype

4. Gofmans work was not validated. The numbers assumed LNT which was not proven for the level of emissions.

5. All steam cycle plants use water.

6. The entire actinide volume would only fill the 1 yard line to the end zone of a football field. We can burn actinides in burner reactors like IFR

Alan Reid • 4 years ago

To heck with the money issue. What is going to happen AFTER your nice Exelon plant blows up and you all are boo hoo like the folks of Fukushima? I would look farther than the nose on your faces this time, The drums say Illinois beware of potentials you don't fathom.

Atoms4Peace1 • 4 years ago

This reply shows the ignorance of enenews antinukes. PWRS and BWRs don't blow up. Go beat your drums at your next kumbaya.

Alan Reid • 4 years ago

John Candy had a jet boat ride...Suck My Wake was it's name.
The men running AtomsForPeace are the fat guy, Suck my wake is the toys they play.

Nuke Pro • 4 years ago

LOL nuke is so "essential" but how come nothing bad happens when a 1000MW plant scrams (emergency shutdown).....ya, because nuclear is not needed. Slam Dunk!

Atoms4Peace1 • 4 years ago

I bet you dont know the origin of SCRAM, or the person that was the original without doing a Google Search or going to Wikipedia. But do it anyway and learn something about atomic history.

Nuke Pro • 4 years ago

I bet you bought into the "ax Man" lie, like all the other nuclear lies. In reality, it is just like what nukers do, like they did at Fukushima, they run away, they scram out of there.

Nuke Pro • 4 years ago

Shut these old clunkers down. Illinois exports the equivalent of 3 nuke plants to other states, 3 nuke plants are not profitable.

Tell me why shutting them down even need to be discussed. Besides stealing money from a captive audience.

Atoms4Peace1 • 4 years ago

Because Chicago is still in the NBA playoffs and millions of people want to sti
watch them on television. Reliable electricity for the masses is required. Carpetbagging haule.

Alan Reid • 4 years ago

Mankind is just going to have to understand the energy luxury of Atomic power is not going to continue. A 1000000 thousand year long mess for 40 years NBA games? Now who looks stupid and shill like.

SticksAndStones55 55 • 4 years ago

Chicago could easily be powered ENTIRELY with Renewable Energy.

See how here: http://thesolutionsproject....

And all you have to do is scroll through the headlines at Enenews dot com to learn why nuclear energy should no longer be an option.

bob • 4 years ago

this is utter nonsense

Nuke Pro • 4 years ago

Bob, please make a point...i mean back it up, what the heck are you saying? thanks

Timtruth • 4 years ago

Do you have any clue how may wind turbines or how many acres of solar panels it takes to replace one average reactor? And I'm not talking just at peak times, I mean all the time. At night, calm days, extremely weather days.... A reactor pumps out full power in all of those situations. And I would love for you to tell me of an instants when one of the Illinois reactors had to shut down because of water temp. Load drop sure but shut... Not that I recall. Have you read the study put out by Illinois? Specifically the part that talk about the cost to rate payers if the reactors close? Not just on bills, but the economic impacts. None of which wind or solar could possibly make up for.

Alan Reid • 4 years ago

Ah. I see so Renewable sources of energy cost too much then? Well not if you run the cost to operate full cycle...then well i could buy and squash nuclear over that playing field. See how we play? We play the long game. In the long game Nuclear is doomed on the fuel disposal timeline the human has ZERO experience in keeping safe. Look at just one reactor explosion Fukushima #3.. that one is killing the Pacific right now and will for some time down that 240000 year long decay process for Plutonium.

Atoms4Peace1 • 4 years ago

We dont need a 240000 year decay process for plutonium. We can destroy plutonium in reactors.

Nuke Pro • 4 years ago

The size of the plant matters not, what a silly argument. Have you ever driven across southern illinois? You worried about space? And yes I know exactly how much space it takes.

Atoms4Peace1 • 4 years ago

No you don't know how much space it requires. 10 GWe. Not a 20,000 acre pot farm.

Timtruth • 4 years ago

Wow... There is so much wrong with both of your comments, I don't have the time to set you straight. All I am going to say is David if you don't like 'big box' generation then invest in your own and spare us your crying. Because you know on those - 30 days you would be screwed. And January... Your comments are laughable! Clearly the thoughts of a greeny who believes every b. S. Article you read. People like this are the ones that sit here and cry but won't put there money where there mouth is...

T.G. Crewe • 4 years ago

New study: 95 % renewable power-mix cheaper than nuclear and gas.


Atoms4Peace1 • 4 years ago

Its not good for baseload, its not good for the country. Gas is cheap now because of fracking, which releases uranium trapped in shale into the environment.

So you are pro-gas, you are actually favoring putting the stuff you hate in aquifers. Nice.

Guest • 4 years ago

Ah Tim you have been reading old publications or just choose to ignore the mounting evidence that renewables are reliable and getting better. Decentralization and microgrids have a strong future ahead while giant fossil fuel burning plants are moving to the past.

Springfield should be asking the big players in Illinois Energy what they did in order to get into this predicament without a forward looking plan to address the, apparent, skyrocketing costs to operate.

january37 • 4 years ago

Illinois has done enough for Exelon!

In today's dollars the Clinton plant cost $8.82 Billion to build. Excelon bought it in 1999-2000 for $40 Milliion. Anyone want to guess who got stuck for the $8.78 Billion difference? (Visit NEIS.org, to learn about 2 previous bailouts for Exelon's failed business model.)

But the cost of nuclear power, either as weapons or as electrical plants (bearing a huge carbon footprint in construction and maintenance) can ever be paid by our generations. The unseen costs of nuclear power are huge, including: 1. the cost of the Manhattan Project, 2. the cost of researching the isolation of U238 and its subsequent huge industrial-secret implementation, 3. the cost of lives lost in military and commercial accidents, 4. the cost of experimentation with more than 1000 atmospheric nuclear explosions -- the American West, the Marshall Islands, 5. the monetary cost of accidents, like the 2nd generation Chernobyl containment structure and the wholly inadequate cleanup of Fukushima/Daiichi, 6. the cost of future birth defects, organ disease, and specific cancers.

Nuclear power is not a force amenable to human control. No only should we not be supporting it, but any further research money should be devoted to dealing with the scourge we have unleashed on 3,400 human generations -- 100,000 years of Plutonium and Cesium 137 (well, that's only 301 years if you don't count the mutations that will be passed on forever.)

We should be devoting our money to helping earth's struggling biota (hey! humans are biota!).

simpleman56 • 4 years ago

You can't measure the cost & damage nuclear plants & the waste that has to be baby sitted for ever, plus they don't have no answers to storing the waste, they put the waste on top of the reactors at Fukushima, reactor 3 SFP went miles into the Jet Stream Covering all of N. America & on to Europe & it cycles each day & drops its deadly radiation out by rain, snow & there is no way to stop Fukushima, the brain washed are clueless & suck in the propaganda & lies from the mining of Uranium & the land, water it leaves to deadly to live close to or down wind, the same goes for nuke plants, wake up fast people, read www.enenews.com, read & watch the videos in the comment section. I have family in Ill., & they live down wind from these nuke crap plants, cancer has took their Dad, the grand children have been fighting off different form of cancer from birth.
How long before the rate of cancer deaths in N America wakes up the masses? It's already to late, Fukushima is HERE.

T.G. Crewe • 4 years ago

That is a lot of scary stories there.

Why then is there far more human death, disease and environmental destruction both in building and operations of Fossil Fuel plants? Nuclear is the bridge to the future not more fracking, coal and oil. It has proven routinely to be a safer bet that everything but renewables.

anonymous droidbot • 4 years ago

Nuclear is mutation to our DNA. Each accident proves this fact. Nuclear kills

DavidKraft • 4 years ago

"...but the plant remains uneconomic and may prematurely shut down absent Illinois legislative changes to outdated policies that do not allow nuclear energy to compete on a level playing field with other zero-carbon resources,” the [Exelon] company said in a statement.
“These results underscore the importance of keeping units in service that produce highly reliable, 24/7 power,”

No, actually, if my rates were to rise 5,000% the results argue for me to begin organizing for locally generated power distributed on microgrids, and to pull the plug completely on these money-grubbing leaches. It's actions like this which will accelerate the move away from the anachronistic "big-box" utility model of the 19th/20th centuries, and towards local distributed generation based on renewable energy, local distribution and aggressive energy efficiency

Hey Illinois Legislature -- FIX the renewable energy portfolio (RPS) BEFORE you give away the energy store in "negotiations" with Exelon!

Alan Reid • 4 years ago

I will say here that most running plants under the governorship of the men at the switches today run with a duty cycle the whole plant was not EVER made to endure. A duty cycle of 50% was how they were built to run. Most still running are running with as high a duty cycle as the hardware will endure. Running a 50% DC plant at 98% DC until a problem is detected is not too smart if you want to keep these plants safe. Woo Hooo rock and roll other wise!

Nuke Pro • 4 years ago

ya Alan, soup up those old clunkers with uprates and MOX, run the shite out of them until they blow!

Corporate profit max theory combined with nuke is downright insane