Skip to main content

Maine House Tables Nuclear Study Group Proposal

Maine Representative Bob Walker is concerned about his state's energy future, so he introduced legislation in that state' House of Representatives to create a nuclear energy study group to prepare to build new nuclear power plants.

Unfortunately, the effort was defeated:
A roll call vote this week, which divided along party lines, approved a motion to “indefinitely postpone” the Walker amendment, effectively killing it.

Rep. Walker submitted the legislation to amend LD 1851, a bill to establish the State of Maine as a member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a 10-state agreement designed to reduce emission of carbon dioxide by electricity generating plants. That bill has been passed by the Legislature.

The Walker amendment would have created the Maine Nuclear Power Council to explore the need for carbon-free alternatives for power generation.

The council, consisting of seven members, would have been responsible for examining ways to reduce Maine’s reliance on fossil fuels to produce electricity, while lowering the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.

It also would have coordinated the planning for potential construction of a nuclear power facility, including location research and environmental impact. The council would have reported annually to the legislative committee with jurisdiction over energy matters.

“Sooner or later, we will need nuclear power to meet the energy needs of Maine and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions,” said the first-term legislator from Lincolnville. “Our major power plants run on fossil fuels — oil and natural gas. Not only are these finite resources that will eventually run out, but they pump CO2 into the atmosphere.”
Until it was decommissioned in 1997, Maine Yankee produced 45% of the state'e electricity -- a shortfall that has been made up by building new natural gas-fired generating capacity that comes part and parcel with rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Please note that a similar legislative task force in Wisconsin just completed proposed legislation to lift that state's moratorium against new nuclear build.

Comments

Anonymous said…
After seeing what a determined and vocal minority were able to do to Maine Yankee, I don't think any sane CEO would invest in another nuke within driving distance of Boston.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…