Letter: Nuclear expansion is not realistic

The recent guest view on "Option for nuclear expansion is important to clean-energy future" raises a lot of questions and fails to address many issues regarding nuclear plants. Construction of nuclear power plants requires a massive amount of money and a lot of time.

The authors suggest that lifting a state moratorium on building nuclear power plants is going to support communities losing coal power plants; however, the time it takes to build and license a nuclear power plant makes this suggestion unrealistic.

Additionally, the guest view does not address who would pay for building new plants, but it suggests the option for future nuclear investment. Ratepayers may not respond well to being asked to supplement new power plant construction as an investment.

A major concern is what to do with spent nuclear fuel and the steps required to safeguard this waste. There is no nationwide solution to spent nuclear fuel storage, so plants are currently storing this waste on site under very intense protection. Currently, spent nuclear fuel still sits on the property of the closed nuclear power plant in Zion. This plant was closed over 25 years ago. This has left the community without revenue from the plant or revenue from development of the land as waste still sits on the site and cleanup continues.

Lastly, nuclear power plants require a lot of water in order to cool the reactors and Illinois has struggled with increasing droughts and heat. We can expect erratic rainfall, drought and excessive heat to continue, which will make cooling of reactors difficult.

Illinois cannot afford an expensive suggestion such as construction of more nuclear power plants, with no long-term solution planned for storage of spent nuclear fuel, while wind and solar are cost-effective and easy to build.

Laura Davis

Inverness