Skip to main content

Why Wisconsin is Looking at Nuclear Energy Again

By Eric McErlain
The Green Bay Press-Gazette has an update on the proposed legislation we reported on last month concerning a possible lifting of the state's moratorium on new nuclear build:
Some might consider the push for nuclear energy a step backward, but state Rep. Phil Montgomery says both can work together to build the energy supply.

The Republican from Ashwaubenon, who co-authored the state's renewable energy bill last year and chairs a special task force on nuclear energy, said nuclear power provides a larger and more constant supply of electricity to Wisconsin's energy portfolio. He said climatic conditions vary energy output for wind and solar, making them "peaking powers."

"What our task force showed is that nuclear is a vital part of that generating portfolio," Montgomery said. "And as plants and technology age, we are very much in a building mode again."

Two weeks ago, the task force proposed legislation that would make it easier to introduce new nuclear power plants in Wisconsin. Similar proposals in the 2003 and 2005 sessions failed.

Gov. Jim Doyle has not come out strongly against nuclear energy in his tenure, but according to spokesman Matt Canter, "He does not want Wisconsin to be a testing ground for nuclear power." Doyle would rather fund renewable energy sources that have been proven to be safe, efficient and environmentally friendly, Canter said.
Testing ground? Last time I checked, Wisconsin already had three nuclear reactors generating in excess of 9.9 million MWh of electricity in 2005.

Sounds like the test has already been passed, and with flying colors.

For more from our archives on Wisconsin, click here.
Labels:

Comments

Joffan said…
I'd like to rant briefly about terminology...

Wind and solar are not "peaking" sources, in the sense of providing for peak consumption. I'd prefer to call them "opportunity" sources - when they're available, we should take advantage of them, but day-to-day we can't to turn them as required. In combination with a limited hydro resource they make a great way to extend that hydro resource.
June 4, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Headless Blogger said…
"Gov. Jim Doyle has not come out strongly against nuclear energy in his tenure, but according to spokesman Matt Canter, "He does not want Wisconsin to be a testing ground for nuclear power." Doyle would rather fund renewable energy sources that have been proven to be safe, efficient and environmentally friendly, Canter said."

That clearly says "veto" to me. Doyle is not going to go against his leftist, no-growth base by allowing new nuclear construction in the state.
June 5, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap
1 comment
Read more

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

By
Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu
Post a Comment
Read more

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin
Post a Comment
Read more