Skip to main content

Maine House Tables Nuclear Study Group Proposal

By Eric McErlain
Maine Representative Bob Walker is concerned about his state's energy future, so he introduced legislation in that state' House of Representatives to create a nuclear energy study group to prepare to build new nuclear power plants.

Unfortunately, the effort was defeated:
A roll call vote this week, which divided along party lines, approved a motion to “indefinitely postpone” the Walker amendment, effectively killing it.

Rep. Walker submitted the legislation to amend LD 1851, a bill to establish the State of Maine as a member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a 10-state agreement designed to reduce emission of carbon dioxide by electricity generating plants. That bill has been passed by the Legislature.

The Walker amendment would have created the Maine Nuclear Power Council to explore the need for carbon-free alternatives for power generation.

The council, consisting of seven members, would have been responsible for examining ways to reduce Maine’s reliance on fossil fuels to produce electricity, while lowering the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.

It also would have coordinated the planning for potential construction of a nuclear power facility, including location research and environmental impact. The council would have reported annually to the legislative committee with jurisdiction over energy matters.

“Sooner or later, we will need nuclear power to meet the energy needs of Maine and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions,” said the first-term legislator from Lincolnville. “Our major power plants run on fossil fuels — oil and natural gas. Not only are these finite resources that will eventually run out, but they pump CO2 into the atmosphere.”
Until it was decommissioned in 1997, Maine Yankee produced 45% of the state'e electricity -- a shortfall that has been made up by building new natural gas-fired generating capacity that comes part and parcel with rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Please note that a similar legislative task force in Wisconsin just completed proposed legislation to lift that state's moratorium against new nuclear build.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
After seeing what a determined and vocal minority were able to do to Maine Yankee, I don't think any sane CEO would invest in another nuke within driving distance of Boston.
June 15, 2007 at 7:25 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more