Jim Doyle Rethinking Nuclear Energy

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is reporting that Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle (D) is reconsidering his longtime opposition to the expansion of nuclear energy.

Gov. Jim Doyle on Wednesday agreed with a study panel's call to change Wisconsin's 1983 moratorium on nuclear power plants to prepare for the coming national debate over that type of energy.

At a news conference, Doyle told reporters that his Task Force on Global Warming took a responsible step by recommending changes in the law.

The task force asked that Wisconsin “begin to consider (nuclear power) without the hurdles that the current law puts up — where it can’t even be really thought about,” Doyle said. “I don’t think we should be sitting with our heads in the sand.”

The 1983 law “basically keeps you from even thinking about” the process of approving a new nuclear plant in Wisconsin, he added.

“Let’s at least allow the Public Service Commission to look at” that option, the governor said, referring to the state agency that regulates utilities.

Comments

Joffan said…

Well, it would be a move in the right direction, like it would be if I stopped kicking you, even I didn't actually help you get up from the ground where I knocked you down.

What happens next, I wonder... two years of wrangling in legislative committees?

August 7, 2008 at 1:56 PM

Brian Mays said…

Well, I don't know about you, but I prefer it when people stop kicking me.

August 7, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Wednesday Update

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...

Fluor Invests in NuScale

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...

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog