{"id":12815,"date":"2024-09-19T19:48:23","date_gmt":"2024-09-19T19:48:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/?p=12815"},"modified":"2024-09-19T19:56:35","modified_gmt":"2024-09-19T19:56:35","slug":"how-wisconsin-could-triple-its-nuclear-power","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/?p=12815","title":{"rendered":"How Wisconsin could triple its nuclear power"},"content":{"rendered":"

This post originally appeared at https:\/\/www.badgerinstitute.org\/how-wisconsin-could-triple-its-nuclear-power\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Federal report touts nuclear power plant sites, including Kewaunee, as \u2018ideal\u2019 for new reactors<\/em><\/strong><\/h4>\n

A federal report this month<\/a> is touting two Wisconsin nuclear power plant sites \u2014 one operating, one shut down \u2014 as attractive locations for installing new nuclear electric generating plants.<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"
Kewaunee Power Station<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Department of Energy researchers evaluated 54 operating nuclear power plants nationwide and another 11 recently retired plants as potential sites for new reactors.\u00a0 Such sites would be \u201cideal places to start building new reactors,\u201d a DOE statement<\/a> put it, because \u201ccommunities surrounding these plants already support nuclear energy,\u201d and because infrastructure needed to connect a plant to the power transmission grid already is in place.<\/p>\n

The report does not specifically name either Wisconsin site \u2014 or, for that matter, most sites in other states \u2014 but Wisconsin has one currently operating nuclear power plant, Point Beach Nuclear Plant<\/a>, 9 miles north of Two Rivers, and one closed but intact plant, Kewaunee Power Station<\/a>, about 4 miles north of that.<\/p>\n

Point Beach, which has two reactors now, can produce about 1,200 megawatts of electricity and supplies about 16%<\/a> of the power used in Wisconsin. Kewaunee, with one reactor, had about half that capacity, and was closed in 2013<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The report comes as nuclear power seems to be getting new attention.<\/p>\n

In Michigan<\/a>, a nuclear power plant that closed in 2022 may be restarted after the state\u2019s Democrat governor reversed course a month before the shutdown and began supporting the continued use for the Palisades Nuclear Generating Station. The plant\u2019s owner, a decommissioning company, secured a $1.5 billion federal loan to cover recommissioning costs, and it lined up a customer for the power.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the Midwest Independent System Operator, or MISO, which shifts electricity between utilities in the upper Midwest to meet demand, warned this summer<\/a> that the region\u2019s power supply could fall short by 1 to 3.7 gigawatts next summer,\u00a0 due to member utilities shutting down<\/a> large coal-fired power plants as they add generating capacity from intermittent sources such as wind turbines and solar panels.\u00a0 Wisconsin utilities have delayed plans<\/a> to close coal-fired plants amid the looming shortages.<\/p>\n

The DOE report identified<\/a> 20 existing nuclear plants where operators already had canceled plans for more generating capacity or sought Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing for new reactors and a total of 41 plants with capacity either for a large \u201cadvanced\u201d reactor of the kind that just went into operation in Georgia<\/a>, or a smaller \u201cadvanced\u201d reactor about the size of each of Point Beach\u2019s existing units. Either Wisconsin site, the report indicates, could accommodate either size.<\/p>\n

The report\u2019s authors calculate that if all the sites\u2019 potential were used, it could add as much as 95 gigawatts of generating capacity nationwide \u2014 about 80 times the current capacity of Point Beach. The report suggests that Wisconsin could triple its nuclear-powered electric output by adding reactors to the two sites.<\/p>\n

A third and much smaller nuclear power plant, the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor near Genoa, was closed in 1987<\/a>, and its plant and equipment have been entirely removed<\/a>. It did not figure in the DOE report.<\/p>\n

The report also tallied up the number of coal-fired power plant sites that have the infrastructure to host new nuclear power plants. None were in Wisconsin.<\/p>\n

The analysis involves only the possibility of conventional reactors, mentioning the Westinghouse AP1000<\/a> design; \u201cadvanced\u201d refers to evolutionary design changes. The analysis did not include \u201csmall modular reactors<\/a>,\u201d a newer design only recently certified<\/a> by federal regulators and not yet commercially deployed. La Crosse-based Dairyland Power Cooperative has separately said it\u2019s looking at<\/a> the possibility of using small modular reactors in Wisconsin.<\/p>\n

The report doesn\u2019t offer any federal funding, promise any new regulatory pathway or make any other commitment to new nuclear plants.<\/p>\n

But the report is a signal of official interest in nuclear power\u2019s potential as an electricity source \u2014 one that emits no carbon dioxide while producing power much more reliably<\/a> than do wind turbines or solar panels. The Biden administration\u2019s acting assistant secretary for the DOE\u2019s Office of Nuclear Energy, Michael Goff, called attention to the study in a statement<\/a> that also touted an online tool to quantify ways of reducing the capital costs of building nuclear power plants.<\/p>\n

Patrick McIlheran is the Director of Policy at the Badger Institute.<\/em><\/p>\n

Any\u00a0use or reproduction of Badger Institute articles or photographs requires prior written\u00a0permission.\u00a0To request permission to post articles on a website or print copies for distribution, contact Badger Institute President Mike Nichols at\u00a0mike@badgerinstitute.org<\/a>\u00a0or 262-389-8239.<\/em><\/p>\n

var gform;gform||(document.addEventListener(“gform_main_scripts_loaded”,function(){gform.scriptsLoaded=!0}),window.addEventListener(“DOMContentLoaded”,function(){gform.domLoaded=!0}),gform={domLoaded:!1,scriptsLoaded:!1,initializeOnLoaded:function(o){gform.domLoaded&&gform.scriptsLoaded?o():!gform.domLoaded&&gform.scriptsLoaded?window.addEventListener(“DOMContentLoaded”,o):document.addEventListener(“gform_main_scripts_loaded”,o)},hooks:{action:{},filter:{}},addAction:function(o,n,r,t){gform.addHook(“action”,o,n,r,t)},addFilter:function(o,n,r,t){gform.addHook(“filter”,o,n,r,t)},doAction:function(o){gform.doHook(“action”,o,arguments)},applyFilters:function(o){return gform.doHook(“filter”,o,arguments)},removeAction:function(o,n){gform.removeHook(“action”,o,n)},removeFilter:function(o,n,r){gform.removeHook(“filter”,o,n,r)},addHook:function(o,n,r,t,i){null==gform.hooks[o][n]&&(gform.hooks[o][n]=[]);var e=gform.hooks[o][n];null==i&&(i=n+”_”+e.length),gform.hooks[o][n].push({tag:i,callable:r,priority:t=null==t?10:t})},doHook:function(n,o,r){var t;if(r=Array.prototype.slice.call(r,1),null!=gform.hooks[n][o]&&((o=gform.hooks[n][o]).sort(function(o,n){return o.priority-n.priority}),o.forEach(function(o){“function”!=typeof(t=o.callable)&&(t=window[t]),”action”==n?t.apply(null,r):r[0]=t.apply(null,r)})),”filter”==n)return r[0]},removeHook:function(o,n,t,i){var r;null!=gform.hooks[o][n]&&(r=(r=gform.hooks[o][n]).filter(function(o,n,r){return!!(null!=i&&i!=o.tag||null!=t&&t!=o.priority)}),gform.hooks[o][n]=r)}});<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n
\n

Submit a comment<\/h2>\n

\n

“*<\/span>” indicates required fields<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\nYour name*<\/span><\/span><\/legend>\n
\n


\n

<\/span><\/p>\n


\n

<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n