Skip to main content

One for the Money in Wisconsin

commonstock There's been a veritable flood of good press on nuclear energy coming out of Wisconsin. The goal, of course, is to get the state's ban on new plants overturned. Now, a few good editorials don't make a Spring or even bring the swallows back to Capistrano, but we were interested to see this pickup of a Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal editorial:

We also think that it's time to lift the state's moratorium on talking about additional nuclear energy. Dr. Patrick Moore of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, CASEnergy, made a good case in Madison last week for nuclear power.

His basic argument is that although wind can provide some relief (and solar, far less) from the greenhouse gas emissions of coal plants, neither can provide the base load power provided by coal. Nuclear can, and at least it should be on the table. As should renewables, biomass and conservation.

Actually, the moritorium is about new plants; Wisconsinites can yak it up about nuclear energy all they want - which is what this editorial is doing.

The editorial is mostly about the Public Service Commission's rejection of a coal/biomass plant and, though it doesn't directly say so, one suspects that this plant, like a lot of coal plants, is facing hard times in a changing energy environment. While the editorial credits Alliant Energy for trying to do something viable with coal, it moves on to the lines above.

It is a notable couple of paragraphs: first, because nuclear energy is brought in as a secondary point of the piece, almost casually, as if this were a settled issue and it should be evident how Alliant should proceed. (It really isn't, but let's let that pass for the moment.) Defending nuclear is unnecessary is instead presented as a way forward. Second, this editorial has been picked up by a stock trading site, and the take-way to that site's readers is that nuclear might be something to take a look at when you visit your broker or study stocks. We can't disagree with that. Third, er, yay Patick Moore!

A little slice of capitalism for you. Get it while it's still hot.

Comments

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 …

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…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …