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

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more