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

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…

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 …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…