A report released Wednesday in Illinois weighs the economic and environmental pros and cons of helping nuclear power giant Exelon Corp. which has said three of its six generating stations in the state could close if the harsh realities of the energy sector's economic landscape do not change soon.
Exelon is considering closing the Quad Cities, Byron and Clinton power stations due to finances that run in the red. The company has been lobbying the state to provide economic relief by recognizing the benefits of nuclear as a carbon-free source of electricity. The relief could come in the form of a punitive fee or tax on carbon-emitting power sources. On a national level, electricity generation from fossil fuel facilities creates 32 percent of the country's greenhouse gas pollution, which threatens global climate stability.
More than half of the electricity used in Illinois is generated by fossil fuels, the Chicago Tribune reported.
The multi-agency report released this week said that a plan to help level the playing field for Exelon would save “hundreds of millions of dollars or more” on infrastructure improvements that would be needed if the state had to replace the electricity generated by the three power plants with electricity imported from outside of the state.
However, closing the plants would not result in local power outages, because the three threatened plants export a large percentage of their electricity out of the state, the Illinois Power Agency said.
A carbon tax plan would push the price of electricity up 17 to 21 percent over 28 years, but a closing the plants would result in a 10 percent to 16 percent hike in wholesale power prices, the report said.
The report said that on balance closing the plants could benefit the state in terms of jobs. There would be 2,500 jobs lost if the plants closed, but 9,600 jobs could be gained by 2019 if the state invested in renewable power sources, the report said. Pointing to another balancing point, the report said $1.8 billion in economic activity would evaporate if the plants closed, but $120 million in energy efficiencies would be the result of an investment in renewables.
On the environmental front, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency said there would be a price to pay for having the state rely more on fossil fuels. The immediate price tag for the environmental and health backlash between 2020 and 2030 could rise to $18.6 billion. Presumably, there would be long term expenses based on climate destabilization, as well.
Exelon did not react immediately, except to thank the state for looking into the issues.
Anonymous comments will be moderated. Join for free and post now!
We need to build new refineries and nuclear power plants.
Technology has came a long way.
It's hard to feel sorry for Exelon, since they were pushing so hard for deregulation 15 to 20 years ago. This is a just a very good example of being careful what you wish for. It is easy, however, to feel sorry for all the Exelon employees who would find themselves out of very good paying jobs, if those plants were closed, with no real prospects of finding any other work in the nuclear field. I hate to say it, but something ought to be done to save these plants, but there should be some very strong strings attached to any money "The Government" gives Exelon.
exelons local power suppliers must love them right about now...suggesting a fee on carbon producers after selling all of their comed fossil plants about 20 years ago...welcome to Illinois folks
