This Blog is 92% Nuclear*

Posted on 2/6/2007 by Erik Moe

nuclear energy chicago
Yikes! I had no idea that Chicago’s electricity was so heavily weighted to the nuclear side until I opened up my latest ComEd bill and was greeted with this pie chart mandated by “the Electric Service Customer Choice and Rate Relief Law of 1997.” That’s the deregulation transition law that had frozen electric rates for the ten years prior to my moving here (nice timing).

I didn’t think the city was powered by magic fairy dust, but did think there would be more dirty coal and at least a little more than 1% renewable energy. ComEd is owned by Exelon, the same not-so-great company that owns Philadelphia’s PECO. In Pennsylvania they offered me an opt-in wind energy program that has seen lots of people electing to pay higher rates for renewable electricity. There seems to be no comparable program here (I think the program was mandated by the state of Pennsylvania). It’s true that anyone can go out and buy green energy credits on their own, but having the option appear on your monthly electric bill surely raises awareness and participation quite a bit. Still, green energy shouldn’t be a luxury item — it should be a mandated part of the mix for the entire system, as it is in some progressive states.

*Technically, the server that hosts this blog is in Arizona. I don’t have the breakdown for that state.

UPDATE 3/15/2011 on the occasion of the disaster at Japan’s Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi plant: I now live in D.C. and use servers in California and Virginia to host the blog. I have no idea what the nuclear breakdown is for any of those three locales, but the national number is around 19.5% according to Wikipedia.

This entry was posted in Blog, chicago, minny, philly, the political. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Antonio

    Solar Energy, The Momentum Has Started
    Solar energy is the most abundant natural resource we have, and that technology has been around for awhile, but it wasn’t practical from a financial perspective until now. Why should the customer have to pay out more for renewable energy when is cost less to produce. When we can provide the average homeowner with the ability to produce their own electricity and keep the saving instead of paying for Commercials, Stadiums and other corporate greed we are making headway in solving our energy crisis.
    There is a solution! I recently learned of a company that has figured out how to get Clean, Safe, Affordable Solar Power to the masses, and they do it without requiring any significant investment on the part of the homeowner. Thats right they have taken the down the traditional barriers to Solar Power. This company is helping homeowners convert to solar the easy way through a rental agreement. The customer gets a worry free solar system custom designed for 100% of their current consumption of electricity & an electric rate that is frozen at or below today’s rate for up to 25 years. We need to do something, we can be part of the solution and not be part of the problem. This program is an easy way that you can have an impact on the environment and our pocket book. [LINK REMOVED]

  • http://erikmoe.com Erik

    Antonio – Your comment is somewhat related to this blog post. Also, you speak glowingly of and link to a company headed by an entrepreneur named Antonio. Is this a coincidence? Or did you only recently learn of the company you are running? It looks like that company is doing good work, but I think you’ll find the blog community to be more receptive to your business if your comments suggest a little more dialog and a little less cut-and-paste pandering to the whims of search engine algorithms.

    OK – If you really want to see what Antonio is talking about, you can visit his business at three w’s dot solar power the number four all dot com.

  • http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com Eric McErlain

    There are three nuclear reactors in Arizona that account for about 25% of the electricity generated in the state.

    http://www.nei.org/documents/States_AZ.pdf

    As for Illinois, it generates a greater percentage of its electricity from nuclear energy than any other state.

    http://www.nei.org/documents/States_IL.pdf

  • http://headlessblogger.blogspot.com/ Headless Blogger

    Erik – You are getting 93% of your power from green energy – I reluctantly throw in that 1% from biomass (“Is that CO2 coming from the burning biowaste Batman?”).

    Those nukes are greenhouse gas misers. Why would you want to pay more to buy electricity produced by migratory bird chopping machines?

  • http://erikmoe.com Erik

    I do realize that nukes are pretty green. At least when they don’t explode, aren’t attacked, and the waste is kept under lock and key until the end of time. I’m just not sure I trust big energy companies to not cut corners between now and the end of time.

  • Joffan

    Nuclear power plants don’t explode* and aren’t attacked. The waste, all 25tons/yr for a big plant, needs looking after (or preferably reprocessing) for a few hundred years, and this activity has been taken on by the US government (paid for upfront by the utility).

    You can believe me when I say I’m envious of the amount of nuclear you have on your bill, because 1) your bill is lower as as a result, and 2) you are not polluting the atmosphere and killing thousands with particulates.

    * Of course Chernobyl did indeed explode, probably twice (steam and hydrogen), although the 10-day fire was the main radioactivity spreader. There are environmentalists who would argue that the Chernobyl disaster was a pretty green event, setting aside an area of country where wildlife can flourish. (Look a little further out and there are those who would approve of population reduction too, although Chernobyl didn’t do such a great job of that).

  • http://headlessblogger.blogspot.com/ Headless Blogger

    Erik – I don’t mean to pick on you, I’m just having fun with some clean energy myths. It is the so-called environmentalists that complain about geese hitting windmills and CO2 from any source. I was just throwing their arguments at you.

    BTW – The PWR’s & BWR’s run by Excelon cannot explode, have not been attacked (just for laughs, try it sometime), and the beauty of nuclear waste is that it makes one particular place extremely nasty, but doesn’t float wherever the wind blows like the emissions from that biomass plant. The long-term repository will be run by the U.S. government, not some greedy capitalists – if only the U.S. Congress will allow it to open.

    Cheers.

  • http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com Rod Adams

    Erik:

    I am quite jealous about the portion of your power supplied by nuclear fission. It takes me back to a fine time in my life when it was almost completely powered by uranium, not only for power, but for water, air, and propulsion. (I was the Engineer Officer on an atomic sub for several years in the 1980s).

    A friend of mine just posted an interesting article running some land use numbers that compared nuclear power against wind – I always wonder why people that are concerned about the environment give both solar and wind a pass when it comes to their effects on unspoiled vistas, their incompatibility with trees, and their effects on the local weather patterns.

    Enjoy your clean, low impact electricity. The plants are in good hands that have earned more trust than you are giving by operating safely for several decades.

  • Kit P

    Erik, what is your most important criteria for electricity? It should be that electricity is available when you need it. The availability of the US nuclear plants is 99%.

    I am a mechanical and environmental engineer who has worked at many navy and commercial reactors, Yucca Mountain too. In the US, commercial nuclear power is 100% safe and clean.

    I have lived near Chicago and also California. While in California, I designed and built my own solar system. What I learned 20 years ago was that I could not make an honest living selling solar panels. Things have changed in 20 years and I now think it is possible to make an honest living making electricity with solar panels. Looking at Antonio’s web page, maybe he has found a business model for doing it. This is not an endorsement but I would investigate it if I was still living in California.

    For Chicago, wind power might be the best renewable. However, I personally would not pay extra for it since it reduces the cost of making electricity with natural gas.

  • http://wesupportlee.blogspot.com Ruth Sponsler

    Eric -

    You’re in Chicago! Your power bill reflects a really neat Chi-town heritage – that of Enrico Fermi and the first sustained nuclear chain reaction. Your power bill also reflects a progressive heritage!

    If you look at the history of the nuclear scientists who came to Chicago as refugees from fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, you’ll find the fascinating history of people like Enrico Fermi, Leo Szilard, Lise Meitner, and Albert Einstein (at Colombia U, not in Chicago). The tie-in with progressive ideas is because so many of the nuclear scientists who came to Chicago and other universities in the U.S. and England were refugees from fascism.

    Franklin Roosevelt was President in 1942. Probably the most socially progressive president we’ve had except perhaps John F. Kennedy.

    Your lights come on whenever you flip the switch…without releasing health-damaging particulates or acid-rain-causing sulfurr dioxide. In addition, your lights are climate-friendly – very little CO2!

    Crank up your favorite music and celebrate Chicago’s heritage and contribution to emissions-free, reliable electricity! Nothing to feel guilty or hesitant about!

  • PowerNerd

    Erik,
    Since 92% of your power is reported to be nuclear, I’m curious how much Commonwealth Edision says you are paying for it.
    The all-in cost for nuclear power has been estimated at $18 a megawatt-hour or about 1.8 cents a kilowatt-hour. (That’s only for the power, not the cost of Comm Ed getting it to you, which should be listed separately.)
    The difference between your price and that 1.8 cents is, simply put, the cause of much of the political fuss in Springfield.
    To be sure, the share of your electricity not coming from nuclear is an expensive piece. And, to be sure, the power supply part of your power bill is the result of competitive bidding.
    But there are a lot of people out there who think if you’re getting most of your power from nuclear, you should be paying something closer to the real production cost.
    It’s a big debate…

  • UptownRising

    As a LEED accredited architect, I applaud any use of green energy credits. However, you would really need to have a lot of disposable income to voluntarily pay more money for electric power that you have already effectively paid for.

    I want to see green power directly subsidized by the govenrment–and perhaps green power percentage mandates in exchange for the free land (transmission line easements) we already give away to the large corporate power companies. I want EVERYONE to pay for green power, not just a few forward-thinking individuals. If you think about it, it’s almost like being taxed for having good sense!