Skip to main content

Thumbs Up for New Nuclear in Wisconsin


Kewaunee
Still some steps left legislatively, but this is a big one:

A Wisconsin Assembly committee has given its unanimous endorsement to ending the state's 32-year-old moratorium on new nuclear power plants.
Why strike it down now?
Those who favor ending the ban say it's no longer needed due to the quality of today's reactors. They also say clean nuclear power would help the state meet a proposed federal rule to lower carbon emissions.
If we were being querulous, we’d say there’s nothing  particularly awful about the current crop of reactors (including Wisconsin’s Kewaunee, which shuttered over market issues), but whatever. Good news is good news.

We’ll keep an eye on this one.
---
Speaking of Kewaunee, the New York Times has an article about the impact of its closing on the local community. It’s very sad.
“I thought it would be there forever,” Mr. [Kenneth] Krofta said as he stood in his yard, which is dotted with purple wildflowers and Queen Anne’s lace. “They’ve been a very good neighbor. I wish it could have stayed open. Closing it down didn’t do any good.”

If Wisconsin allows new nuclear build, let’s hope the  electricity marketplace recognizes the full value of a new facility – not only as an emission-free electricity powerhouse, but as an economic powerhouse for the state and its people. This article doesn’t talk about that, but hopefully, the folks in Madison are.

Comments

jimwg said…
Most likely they did this more as a shallow feel-good PC public progress action than real since they know that the popularity and demand for nuclear power in the U.S. is in the toilet and none are likely going to see daylight outside the drawing board in our lifetimes.

James Greenidge
Queens NY
jim said…
Very good and in ways touchingly sober article towards the end.

But is this REALLY an open-minded shift "thumbs up"?

One of my fave movies which I saw at its NYC premier is "Marooned," and one of the major points that went off the radar to many viewers is that the one-man Russian spacecraft suddenly turns up unannounced near the end to offer O2 to the two nearly oxygen deprived U.S. astronauts in a busted spacecraft -- even though the Russian had already been in orbit for a while -- and more pointedly arrives AFTER the U.S.'s rescue spacecraft is on the way. It took a long while for it to sink in that the lone cosmonaut was NOT about to trek over and "help" three astronauts whom he really couldn't save and kept mum about doing anything till it was clear the U.S. rescue craft was on the way. Wisconsin's sudden soft heart towards nuclear feels just like that cosmonaut, suddenly cheerleading for more nuclear knowing that no rescue -- no reactors being built -- is in sight.

James Greenidge
Queens NY

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…