While Georgia has been granted approval for the first new nuclear power plant expansion since 1978 (see article at http://www.pantagraph.com/news/national/feds-ok-first-new-nuclear-plant-in-years/article_cc9dba9e-5351-11e1-8ddc-001871e3ce6c.html), Illinois is holding fast on pursuing a proposed "Clean Coal" power plant in Taylorville, to be run by Omaha-based Tenaska Energy. I won't get into the details of the carbon capture technology that is not mandated, but strongly implied in the agreement between the developers and the state, but rather highlight the business and budgetary implications for the state.
First off, read the latest on the proposed plant here.
http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-9569-honor-system-for-air.html
The McLean County Chamber of Commerce - of which I have been a member for going on four years - is strongly opposed, because a part of Tenaska's agreement with the state requires Illinois businesses to purchase electricity from them at 2-3 times what they currently pay. Put in effect, that raises my store's electric bill by around $2,000 a month.
And for what? This requirement is not enough to make the project viable for Tenaska. Not only are they allocated $417 million in federal funds (we won't concern ourselves with those here), but Illinois has also guaranteed them $8.7 billion in tax credits over the next 30 years to make this project work.
One would think that the odd alliance between environmental groups (who realize that Illinois coal is inherently dirty, and that the state isn't technically requiring Tenaska to bury it in the ground, as proposed) and business interests (opposed to the concomitant exponential increase in small business energy costs) would be enough to kill the Taylorville project. But this being Illinois, a bad idea is never really dead - and this one has already passed the Senate and is awaiting a vote in the House. The future of energy in America is not strictly partisan, either, as President Obama has embraced nuclear power as a major component in the move towards independence from fossil fuels. However, in Illinois, "Clean Coal" clearly has gained the ear of powerful political figures in order to have made it this far.
I won't touch the third rail of nuclear power for long, but highly recommend you watch the Frontline investigation on the Fukushima meltdown (http://video.pbs.org/video/2187854464). The Japanese meltdown was preventable, and Illinois more so than the coastal states is largely insulated from the perils of hurricanes and tsunamis. As long as our diesel back-up generators are elevated enough to withstand a flood and shielded by concrete from tornadoes, we're good to go. And it's not like we're not already nuclear - I live only 20 miles from the Clinton reactors, which were built before I was born. The point: anything nuclear built with the latest Westinghouse design will be safer than anything that is still operational to date, and the sooner nuclear is acknowledged to be a major part of our energy independence, the better off Illinois will be.
Just imagine if those $8.7 billion in tax credits could be applied towards the state's backlog of unpaid bills. Also remember that my net taxable business income will take a $25,000 hit if Tenaska is approved; add that to similar reductions at businesses across Illinois, and any "benefit" that Tenaska might provide for the state will quickly dissipate in the form of diminished income tax receipts from businesses.
The recurring theme of this blog is that Illinois cannot afford to refuse any opportunities to pare down its debt. While the expansion of nuclear power would likely be accompanied by subsidies similar to those of Clean Coal, it would at least not further contribute to the high-cost environment which is driving business from the state. While I doubt Illinois is in any position to attract new businesses from out-of-state at the moment, the least our politicians can do is work to keep costs manageable for those already doing business here.
No comments:
Post a Comment