Skip to main content

Why Wisconsin is Looking at Nuclear Energy Again

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.

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.
"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.

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 Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…