I read the article on the area nuclear plants and their need for more money from us, the consumers, to keep them open.
More than a few years ago, Commonwealth Edison told us about all the benefits from nuclear power. I asked how it was possible for Wisconsin to buy power from ComEd and sell it to their customers at a much-reduced cost – less than we pay for the same electricity.
The spokesman couldn't explain this, except the plant ran at high rate of production to keep efficiency higher. Lower costs of production should have been available to us as well.
"Decommission/tear down fund" was to be added to each year of production, for the eventual elimination of the sites. How large is that fund? Is there such a fund?
The "clean" energy that plants produce never seems to address the waste generated every day. It began being stored in the ponds at the plants "until some process was invented to either relocate it to a safer depository or a breeder reactor built to process it back into usable fuel."
Now it's being put into canisters, stored onsite above ground. The breeder reactor wasn't built. Won't this additional operation cost us even more money?
In 1948, they were looking at two different types of nuclear reactors. One was the type we're enjoying at this time. The other was a Thorium Molten Salt Nuclear Reactor. Thorium didn't get the nod because it doesn't, as I understand, produce nuclear weapon grade material.
Thorium reactors had been studied well into the 1970s. If we had built them, things may have worked out differently. Google "thorium molten salt nuclear reactors."
The article states "clean coal" is among the better ways of generating power. Illinois has enough coal to run power plants for a long time.