Pantagraph.com | Letters | Illinois must increase supply of electricity

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

Alan wrote on Sep 11, 2007 10:41 AM:

" Incentives for electric conservation should be expanded for all users. Section 1331 of the internal revenue code is set to expire at the end of the year. By encouraging everyone to conserve through the mechanisms available today the need for more power can be alleviated. Looking at only the supply side and not the demand side is short sighted. "

Wally replies wrote on Sep 11, 2007 7:58 AM:

" Victor, do you go to No New Nuke meetings? Both of those facts were used at the Earlt site permit meetings by Sandra lindberg and they are both wrong. NUREG 1815 describes the fuel life cycle. A reactor load of fuel does produce 400,000 curies of radiation over the productive life of the fuel, but the gas is trapped in the matrix of fuel and is not released in any appreciable amounts. It decays away over time, far from human lungs. Heavy gases don't pool close to the ground. When is the last time you heard of a pool of Carbon dioxide (Molecular weight 44) sitting around in air (molecular weight 18)? And finally, altough you can statistical produce evidence of babies dying downstream of nuclear power plants, you cannot identify any bodies. They don't exist outside of a statistical world. "

To Fatso wrote on Sep 10, 2007 4:37 PM:

" I am interested in one of the 85 dollar generators. "

USN RET wrote on Sep 10, 2007 4:20 PM:

" VIC: as a former nuclear power plant operator in the navy I'm throwing the BS flag on your data If a fuel rod put out that much Krypton gas it would explode. Also your figures on the rad levels of expended fuel are way high. Might I suggest some remedial physics and chemistry classes? "

A Stoneage Fan wrote on Sep 10, 2007 2:03 PM:

" I say we revisit the stone ages. The Flintstones and the Rubbles had a respectable life without power other than using their feet to move their stone-age cars and dinosaurs to move big rocks. Instead of dinosaurs we can use elephants. "

Vic Connor wrote on Sep 10, 2007 12:24 PM:

" According to NUREG 1815, a document of the Nuclear Regulatory Committee, a typical nuclear powerplant generates 400,000 Curies of radiation that is spewed into the atmosphere, mostly Krypton-85. This is a heavy gase that stays close to the ground and gets into the water supply and plants downwind of the reactor. It may also account for the doubling of infant mortality of children downwind of nucelar powerplants. The first nucear powerplant starting operating in 1956 and this industry still does NOT know how to handle the tremendous amount of highly radioactive (a 1,000 to 100,000 times more radioactive than the original uranium fuel) spent fuel. "

Vic Connor wrote on Sep 10, 2007 12:18 PM:

" Actually, the newest generation of windmills is more compact than nuclear power, because no one wants to live by a nuclear power plant. A typical 1,000 Megawatt nuclear power plant takes 150 acres of land plus 500 acres buffer plus 1,000 acre lake or river for a total of 1,650 acres, where as the wind farm uses 300 acres for the windmills plus 600 acres for road access for a total of only 900 acres. In addition, they cause ZERO pollution and the nukes make many highly radioactive isotopes that do not normally exist on the Earth's surface. "

Wally sez wrote on Sep 10, 2007 10:24 AM:

" Golf fan has a valid point. We can get a lot of power by increasing the output of exisiting units. But, and this is a big but, we can't get enough power to meet demand and replace worn out, inefficient units that way. That is a work around, a stop gap measure. What we need is new units. Golf Fan concentrates on new nuclear units, but what about coal? Most people don't realize that there are about 16 proposed construction projects that will create 10 gigawatts of new energy on the drawing boards for Illinois. This new energy is enough to ensure our future, if we allow these projects to go forward. Or we can let the "environmentalists" win and continue to buy our electricity from out of state suppliers. What we do depends in large part on what WE do. "

to ???? wrote on Sep 10, 2007 9:02 AM:

" I'm a fan of wind energy, but windfarms simply cannot compare to the output of a nuclear power plant. "

Ameren wrote on Sep 10, 2007 7:22 AM:

" Wally, your check is in the mail, your new car will be delivery friday, and your new home is being built in Florida. Thanks much, Ameren . "

Golffan wrote on Sep 10, 2007 7:00 AM:

" "Wally": as you undoubtedly know, no new nuclear plant has come on line since 1996. Per your concern, construction of new nuclear power plants and/or the re-activation of shutdown reactors is drawing increased interest. A third option, and I think the more realistic in the short run, would be the 'uprating' of existing facilities to produce more power. Although the Energy Information Administration tell us that the 'uprating' of a plant generally produces less that a 10% increase in power, even that amount would, it seems to me, be quite significant. Of course, I don't know what licensing hurdles the 'uprating' of a plant would involve. But my guess is that they would be significantly less than getting a new facility blessed. "

Wally responds wrote on Sep 9, 2007 10:27 PM:

" The statement that the wind farms use only a fraction of the land they occupy is correct, but the same can be said for Cinton Power Station. The vast majority of their site is undeveloped. But, a more mportant point is that the wind generators are spaced about as closely as is practical, and the developers cannot get any more power out of that area. Wind is low density power. To replace Clinton power station, you would need about 60, 000 acres. The fact is that we need to build several power plants so that we can meet current and projected demand and replace out older, inefficient stations. Can wind generated power meet this need? I don't think so. So don't confuse the argument about land usage with the argument that wind can solve our power shortage problem. "

to Wally wrote on Sep 9, 2007 6:02 PM:

" I'll grant you that wind alone is not enough, but your acreage arguement is slanted. Even though, wind turbines need lots of space, they don't use up all of that acreage, because corn, beans and other crops are still planted in the area. The wind turbines themselves, and roads, only take a fraction of that acreage. "

Wally wrote on Sep 9, 2007 5:09 PM:

" Victor Connor's statement is inaccurate. Wind power reqires a larger amount of land per megawatt. But don't take my word for it, let's do the Math. Exelon's Clinton Power Station is located on about 14,000 acres, which icludes the 5,000 acre lake. It produces 1,043 megawatts for .0729 megawatts per acre. The Twin Groves Wind Farm leases 21,000 acres and produces a maximum of 398 megawatts for .0189 megawatts per acre. Wind can help reduce the cost of electricity, but it is a low density power and cannot replace central power plants. "

to: Wally wrote on Sep 9, 2007 5:09 PM:

" Your letter and your follow-up comments are valid and well reasoned . Just ignore the juvenille remarks that some have posted here. Too many 12 year olds have unsupervised access to computers and they are responsible for some of the comments on this site. "

Wally wrote on Sep 9, 2007 1:52 PM:

" It seems comments are concentrating on the peripheal issues, rather than the core of the matter. We need to adopt a philosophy that allows us to make progres to the future. Reflexive opposition to construction the infrastructure that we will need in a few years is a recipe for failure. I see clearly that without new electric power plants, we will be creating a severe business climate and increasing costs for people living here. It is as simple as that. "

Wally wrote on Sep 9, 2007 1:37 PM:

" Wind farms have their place, but they can't be counted on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Have you been by the wind farm out on Route 9? It is a massive, great stretch, proud towers with long arms whirling. But eah one produces maybe 3.5 Megawatts when they are working hard. It takes hundreds to produce what a small steam plant produces. No, regardless of wind power, the choice remains improvethe infrastructure, quit the mindless opposition to power plant consruction, or watch the local economy stagnate. "

Bart wrote on Sep 9, 2007 10:51 AM:

" Don't expect anyone to to understand Wally's letter. Common sense and reason are in shorts supply in BN. "

Vic Connor wrote on Sep 9, 2007 10:42 AM:

" Illinois is producing new electricity and in a most economical and sustainable way with wind power. Nuclear and coal-fired powerplants require tremendous amounts of fuel and fuel processing and in addition creat trillions of BTUs of heat in the process. The sun is already heating up half the atmosphere EVERY day and why not use it for making more electricity? It's by far the best and most economical way to make electricity and doesn't cause massive pollution like nuclear and coal. "

Wind & Solar: wrote on Sep 9, 2007 10:29 AM:

" These power sources MUST be backed up by reliable (coal, Nuke or hydro) power plants so that when the sun isn't shineing and the wind isn't blowing you're lights don't go out. We have the technology to build clean coal plants and Illinois has an abundance of coal. That should be high up on the list of things to get done. "

Fatso wrote on Sep 9, 2007 7:35 AM:

" Agreed, Wally: we should be increasing the supply of Electricity. Which I have tried to do. I still have a garage full of used gasoline electricity generators . I'm willing to do my part and sacrifice them for only $85 bucks a pop. For economy's sake, the price reflects the average customer's 'refund' offered by Ameren. By the way, before everyone packs their bags and heads for the great Southeast, it's worth considering that, by the time all those power plants are built, we'll all be able to purchase our own backyard miniature Nuclear power plant. We'll all glow in the dark. As well as the light. And producing our own power in abundance. Imagine, being able to plug in your t.v. into your most accessible body orifice. "

Good letter wrote on Sep 9, 2007 7:10 AM:

" You make valid points, Wally. "

???? wrote on Sep 9, 2007 4:28 AM:

" Have you heard about windmills? I think we are creating a lot of them and do you know what they are producing? Just like everything else are a lot of people going to claim they are not producing electricity? Hopefully many will not believe that. It is funny how instead of working together many choose to obstruct and villify. Just read or listen to the news. Hope that makes the naysayers happy. I think it just makes a lot of chaos and strife where none is necessary. "

How much they paying you Wally? wrote on Sep 9, 2007 3:11 AM:

" to try and BS the general public? Windfarms are up and running througout Illinois and more are due to go online soon. This will help eliminate much of the supply demand. Also Wally what you failed to mention in your letter is how the companies you work for buy electricity off of themselves at inflated prices only to pass that cost onto the consumer. Nice try Wally and I hope Ameren or Comm Ed buys you lunch for your effort. "

Ads by Yahoo!

Learn Forex Trading

Allheartchefs Discount Chef/Cooks Pants

2008 Diet Of The Year: