Guest columnists Alan Medsker and Angelica Oung: Unfounded fear of 'waste' should not slow our move to nuclear power

We'd like to congratulate the Daily Herald on the recent timely and level-headed editorial in support of nuclear power as a way of helping Illinois decarbonize, gain energy security and create good-paying jobs. However, we'd like to take exception to the characterization of nuclear waste as "a significant problem."

What is called "waste" is in fact slightly used nuclear fuel. These metal and ceramic assemblies still contain more than 90% of their original potential energy when they are removed from reactors. The technology exists to reprocess and recycle this material so that it can produce energy again and again, and the eventual leftovers are orders of magnitude smaller in quantity and in radiological longevity.

This isn't science fiction; it's something that is already done in France, Russia and Japan. The reason why we don't do it in the U.S. right now is that with uranium currently so inexpensive, fuel recycling isn't cost-effective. So in the meantime, this material is carefully tracked and stored on-site at nuclear power plants in big steel and concrete casks designed to keep the residual radiation in and keep the elements out.

In effect, it is just a valuable resource waiting for us to get around to using.

The way "nuclear waste" is being portrayed as a threat is just not accurate. Humanity creates plenty of other waste in far greater quantities that we can't contain anywhere nearly as well. Mercury, cadmium, lead and arsenic are some examples. None of this toxic waste gets safe, no matter how long it sits. Contrast that to a slightly used fuel assembly, which when it is removed from a reactor, embarks on an exponential trip to becoming less radioactive.

Last summer, we toured a storage facility at the decommissioned Zion nuclear power station, near Waukegan. There are 65 barrels of used nuclear fuel there, standing in an area that's smaller than the typical church parking lot. That's all used nuclear fuel after Zion produced carbon-free energy for 25 years.

Zion was prematurely shuttered in 1998. Had we kept it running, it could have provided all the power to replace the Waukegan coal plant next door (and then some), in addition to keeping lots of great jobs in the community and increasing the tax base.

By the way, each cask of slightly used nuclear fuel awaiting recycling represents as much as 2.2 million tons of CO2 that was kept out of the atmosphere since we didn't have to burn fossil fuels to generate that power.

Which brings us to the thing we all should be highly concerned about: climate change.

Here in Illinois, we know nuclear energy well. Six nuclear stations with 11 reactors provide more than 50 percent of our electricity and make Chicago one of the lowest carbon cities in the world. Among other benefits, we also enjoy low and stable power bills in this new era of fluctuating gas prices thanks to our nuclear power plants.

We are on the verge of passing SB 76, the repeal of the nuclear construction moratorium. As the editorial correctly pointed out, this important issue has brought together Republicans and Democrats in our state out of an urgency to respond to the climate crisis. It's about time. We encourage citizens to tell their state representatives to ask their leadership to allow SB 76 to be called and voted on before the end of the Spring session.

We can't let misplaced and overstated fear stand in the way of progress. Instead of wringing our hands about nuclear waste, let's stop fearing this fuel for the future and remember that it's simply being safely stored for later use.

Meanwhile, we have hard work ahead to clean up our electricity mix, while maintaining the reliability and affordability of that energy to Illinois citizens. Let's pass SB 76 and allow nuclear energy to lead the way,

• Alan Medsker is Illinois coordinator for The Campaign for a Green Nuclear Deal. Angelica Oung is a writer and researcher for Decouple Media.