Skip to main content

Statement from NEI President and CEO Marv Fertel on Closing of Kewaunee Power Station

Earlier this morning, Dominion announced that it would be closing the Kewaunee Power Station, a 556 MWe nuclear facility located about 27 miles outside Green Bay, Wisconsin.The following is an official statement from Marv Fertel, NEI's President and CEO, concerning the announcement.
"Nuclear energy remains a reliable, cost-effective producer of electricity for America’s homes and our economy. As stated by Dominion, the company’s decision to close Kewaunee is based on the fact that it did not acquire additional reactors in the Midwest markets, so it could not achieve the economy of scale needed to be economical in that low-price power market.

"Dominion is one of the best nuclear energy facility operators in the country and is committed to nuclear energy in other states it serves as part of the company’s electricity portfolio. Nuclear energy is vital to meet America’s growing electricity needs today and to ensure the secure, reliable and low-carbon power for decades to come. Nuclear energy facilities lead the electric utility sector in reliability and are among the lowest cost electricity producers for American families and the economy. They will play a vital role as America transitions to a lower-carbon electricity portfolio."
Kewaunee Power Station, located near Green Bay, Wisconsin.
The following passage comes from Dominion's press release regarding the closure:
"One thing that should be perfectly clear is that the employees of Kewaunee have been doing an outstanding job, and this decision is in no way a reflection on them," (Dominion Chairman, president and CEO Tom) Farrell said. “I want to thank them for all they have done, and Dominion will work to make the transition as smooth as possible for them and their communities.”
For more information on the facility from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, click here.

Comments

Anonymous said…
This is really bad news. You have a fully amortized plant, a license renewal, and a good operating record, yet it is somehow uneconomical to continue operating? I don't buy the "it's too small" argument, especially with people beating the drums for "small" modular reactors. I have been to Kewaunee. It is a good, clean operation. Surely someone in the nuclear generating business could take it over and make a go of it.
Engineer-Poet said…
Perhaps it wasn't economical given the organizational overhead.  If sale to Entergy wasn't considered, the shareholders ought to raise a stink.
Anonymous said…
Exelon is so close, yet they won't touch it? Oyster Creek had a similarly dire outlook in 2000, yet they got picked up for a song by Exelon after prepping for for shutdown for several years. Could it be due to Wisconsin opting out of the energy market liberalization trend that many states leaped into during the late 1990s? Or, with OC now staring once again down the barrel of decommissioning after only 10 of its 20 year license extension, are smaller, older reactors simply falling out of vogue, regardless of market regulation.
Anonymous said…
The real reasons behind the KNPP closure is that the local utilities that previously owned KNPP had planned for it to be retired (and PBNP as well). The Utilities in Wisconsin have built about 1200 MW of new coal fired units, with another 600 MW Unit comming on line shortly that are in the regulated utility rate base. WPS, the key power buyer from KNPP built Weston 4 as the planned replacement for its large portion of KNPP. The power contract with WPS is expiring; and the local utilites do not need to buy base load power as they have built replacement plants. Currently there is not a huge other power market in the midwest to sell the full output of a nuclear plant to(even a 500+ MW one); and at least for the next couple of years other electrical options are available. KNPP is a great plant - but, it is now a Merchant Plant and their is no current power market to support it. While I suspect that may change in 5 - 10 years - it is likely cheaper to just decomision the plant than pay to keep it arround until then in the hopes that a future power market would develop.
Anonymous said…
But I don't understand why they can't be cost-competitive with those other (fossil) plants. Surely the marginal costs for power generated are lower because of lower fuel costs. KNPP is a mature plant. It's contruction costs have been paid. That leaves fuel and O&M as the cost drivers. I was always under the impression that nuclear plants had a cost advantage on the fuel side. Can they bring their other O&M costs down to make it more competitive? It would seem a review of plant operational costs would be in order before any kind of knee-jerk reaction to decommission, unless, again, all they are interested in is raiding the decommissioning fund.

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…