Why I think the Dual Zion Nuclear Facility should be re-opened and not decommissioned (Demands citizen action)

As one who lives in the Village of Lake Bluff in Lake County, Illinois (I can see the now-shuttered dual Zion Nuclear Facility when standing on Lake Bluff's beach.), my concern goes back to 1998 when the Facility was prematurely shuttered, even though both plant licenses were not due to expire until 2011. Nuclear license extensions are routinely granted for an additional 20 to 30 years and more by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

There will undoubtedly be some individuals who will say that I'm beating a dead horse. For years there have been rumors that Zion was closed because of safety issues, even that radioactive waste was being discharged into Lake Michigan, an allegation which could never have happened.

Some facts about the dual Zion Nuclear Facility:

1. Zion was operated for several years until pre-maturely mothballed in 1998 for "economic" reasons. A 1998 Tribune article reported that it was economics rather than safety that was behind the closing of Zion.

2. Exelon's response to a citizen in 2008, one who had direct involvement with all the nuclear plants here in Illinois as a Westinghouse engineer, and who was spearheading the reopening of Zion, was once again told by John Rowe, CEO of Exelon, that Zion was closed because of economics.

3. In 2007 Exelon reportedly estimated that it would cost between $1.5 to $2.0 billion to restart Zion. This amount is incredibly cheap when compared to building a new plant of equal size. Zion's infrastrcture is already in place.

4. A recent report indicated that Exelon has been ranking in good profits, despite the recession for the past ten years.

5. When the dual Zion Nuclear Facility was shuttered in 1998, some of the steam turbines had cracked due to their design. Westinghouse, however, changed its design from curved to straight to fix the problem. Two other Illinois Nuclear Plants experienced the same problem at the same time with their stearm turbines, but new ones were ordered and were replaced at a very nominal cost. These plants are still in operation.

6. Exelon has never provided any detailed explanation underlying its public statements as to why it will not restart Zion.

Questions to be answered include:

1. Since economic reasons can be discounted for the closing of Zion, might it be that Exelon knew the restarting of Zion would inject more supply into Exelon's market area to drive down prices?

2. By keeping Zion shuttered, might Exelon's thnking been all along about its profit line by withholding energy supply to the public in order to manipulate and maintain high market prices?

3. Why is Exelon so interested in having Zion decomissioned? According to Illinios Senator Michael Bond of Grayslake, IL, a contract was to be signed last month by Energy Solutions to dismantle Zion (It has not yet been done according to my knowledge.).

4. Is Exelon guilty of intentionally desiring to waste an asset -- which customers have already paid for in full in the amounts of billions of dollars -- in order to manipulate the market to maintain higher prices for consumers (a possible illegal action)?

5. If economics really was the reason for Zion's shuttering, why didn't Exelon sell the plant to a third party so that its 2,100 MG of power could remain on the power grid?

6. Are there others like me who feel that Exelon/Com Ed is a powerful energy monopoly here in Illinois, and that special deals are and have been made between Exelon/Com Ed and the Illinois government to maintain power and clout?

I have presented what I realize is only a sketcy outline of what I call the Zion/Exelon saga or Zion/Exelon shennighans. Perhaps the big question is: Why is Exelon withholding 2,100 MW of low-cost, emission-free energy supply from the market place?

Wind and solar power will never cut it for the mass production of energy. Both would not even merit attention if not for the huge subsidies given by both federal and state governmets. It is but a pipe dream for Illinois to have mandated that 18% of its energy should come from wind by 2025.

Given that coal and oil are being falsely maligned and credited with producing CO2, resulting in Global Warming, where is America's energy going to come from in future years?

There is not a single wind farm in the world that pays for itself without massive subsidies. It would take a wind turbines array covering 300 square miles to produce 1,000 MG of power. The dual Nuclear Facility at Zion produces 2,100 MG of power on only few acres.

What many people forget is that the wind doesn't blow all the time, nor can it be stored. When there is no wind, backup power is needed.

Every single source of energy besides fossil fuel and nuclear is either less convenient, more expensive, or both. Right now there is no alternative that is economically competitive with oil, coal and nuclear.

It is not only unfortunate, but crippling for this nation's economic engine if the government attempts to use the BP oil rig disaster as reason to pass a version of "Cap and Trade."

In conclusion, I would like to share a pithy comment by Howard Hayden, Prof. Emeritus of Physics at the University of Connecticut, who assisted me in my understanding of nuclear and wind power as an expert on wind, solar and nuclear power:

"We are not going to run this country on chicken manure, sunbeams and breezes. It is an unconscionable waste of money to subsidize phony energy sources and to look fo rthe Holy Climate Knob in the sky."