{"id":16738,"date":"2025-06-05T21:19:13","date_gmt":"2025-06-05T21:19:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/?p=16738"},"modified":"2025-06-05T21:58:34","modified_gmt":"2025-06-05T21:58:34","slug":"real-answer-to-siting-nuclear-plants-yes-here","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/?p=16738","title":{"rendered":"Real answer to siting nuclear plants: \u2018Yes, here.\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

This post originally appeared at https:\/\/www.badgerinstitute.org\/real-answer-to-siting-nuclear-plants-yes-here\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Wisconsin bill signals openness to abundant, reliable power<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n

Rep. David Steffen is one of the authors of a bill<\/a> that would give utility regulators a year to pinpoint where in Wisconsin would be good places to put new nuclear power plants, and at first blush, you wonder why.<\/p>\n

\n
\"Generated<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Didn\u2019t the feds do a study on this? Yes, they did, last fall<\/a>, pointing out that transmission lines and friendly neighbors already surround Wisconsin\u2019s one operating nuclear power plant, Point Beach, and the closed-but-usable<\/a> Kewaunee Power Station.<\/p>\n

All good, but we\u2019re going to need a lot more sites than that, said Steffen, a Republican from Howard.<\/p>\n

Federal air rules already have led Wisconsin utilities to close large coal-fired plants that long formed the backbone of Wisconsin\u2019s power supply. More\u00a0closures seem baked in \u2014 even as plans blossom<\/a> for what Steffen described as \u201ctremendous increases in demand that we already have and more that will spike very quickly.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIf we start taking options off the table,\u201d he said, \u201cwe had better be prepared to put some others back on the table.\u201d<\/p>\n

So the bill would require the Wisconsin Public Service Commission to identify sites, both near existing power plants and elsewhere, that could host new plants. These include \u201csmall modular reactors,\u201d the factory-made, theoretically cheaper and simpler units<\/a> that are beginning to be installed in China<\/a> and are\u00a0 close to use<\/a> in America.<\/p>\n

The bill would put a time limit, albeit extendable, on the PSC\u2019s decision whether to issue the necessary \u201ccertificate of public need and convenience\u201d that new power plants need. The PSC testified in favor of SB125, the version of the bill that passed the Senate, 28 to 5, in May. Now making its way through the Assembly as AB108, the measure cleared the Committee on Jobs and Economy on Wednesday, 8 to 2. The governor has signaled support for the concept.<\/p>\n

Involving the state\u2019s utility regulator in drawing up the map \u2014 instead of just giving it a veto later \u2014 should \u201caccelerate the decision-making times,\u201d Steffen said.<\/p>\n

And more: \u201cIt is a big Bat-Signal in the sky for the nuclear industry,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Others might see the signal, too.<\/p>\n

Predictions of rising Wisconsin power demand are driven by plans for data centers<\/a>, the electricity-gulping organs of the online economy. States covet them for jobs and tax base.<\/p>\n

Minnesota just lost<\/a> a giant prospect when Amazon Web Services in late May killed its plan for a data center that would have cost \u201cbillions.\u201d Exact reasons are hazy<\/a>. There was a dispute about sales taxes, but it probably didn\u2019t help when regulators said<\/a> Amazon couldn\u2019t install 250 backup generators at the site until it proved<\/a> that it needed to keep its power on.<\/p>\n

Wisconsin doesn\u2019t require such power-plant style certificates for backup generators that don\u2019t feed power to the public, so we\u2019re a little ahead. Minnesota still has a ban on any new nuclear power plants \u2014 Wisconsin repealed its moratorium in 2016 \u2014 and that, too, makes a difference.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn fairness, they are looking for reliable megawatts no matter the source right now,\u201d said Isaac Orr, a founder at Always On Energy Research, a policy consultancy, about data centers. Natural gas would do the trick, he said, but nuclear plants are legendarily reliable<\/a>, so if Wisconsin regulators show support, \u201cI think it\u2019ll probably help attract interest from data center companies.\u201d<\/p>\n

Reliability would help. We Energies boasted that its 1,500 acres of solar panels<\/a> in Kenosha County, rated as being able to produce<\/a> about 17 percent of what the Point Beach Nuclear Plant can, now includes giant batteries that can store up to four hours of power for when the sun isn\u2019t shining. That\u2019s helpful, though to be clear, federal data<\/a> show that the solar panels in March produced not 17 percent of Point Beach\u2019s output but 3.6 percent. And nights last longer than four hours.<\/p>\n

Solar power \u2014 and wind, the other popular \u201crenewable\u201d source \u2014 have other issues. Both require enormous amounts of metal<\/a> for vast arrays of blades and panels \u2014 by one recent Finnish government study<\/a>, many times more metals than have been mined in recent decades.<\/p>\n

All of which suggest we can\u2019t build a future on solar and wind.<\/p>\n

Energy policy is a set of collective decisions and consequences, sometimes involving a day without electricity, as Spain\u2019s recent solar-powered disaster<\/a> showed. Wisconsin already has gotten warnings: Utilities throughout the upper Midwest have closed so many reliable old coal plants that the regional grid operator warns about running short of electricity<\/a>. Austerity impends.<\/p>\n

Steffen suggests Wisconsin should opt for abundant energy instead. He amended the siting bill, estimated at a parsimonious $1 million<\/a>, to ensure that nuclear fusion was examined, too. Several Wisconsin-based start-ups<\/a> hope to have workable prototypes in a few years. Steffen is also hoping to get the state to sponsor a summit of advanced nuclear researchers and would-be manufacturers, again to show that Wisconsin would be a welcoming place.<\/p>\n

All of it, if passed into law, would give a very real answer to the where-to-put-it question.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Answer: Wisconsin.\u00a0<\/p>\n

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

Any\u202fuse or reproduction of Badger Institute articles or photographs requires prior written\u202fpermission.\u202fTo request permission to post articles on a website or print copies for distribution, contact Badger Institute Marketing Director Matt Erdman at\u202f<\/em>matt@badgerinstitute.org<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Submit a comment<\/h2>\n

\t\t\t\t#wpforms-55718.wpforms-block-c36c5c89-bdb7-4029-91d4-0618bc121563 {
\n\t\t\t\t–wpforms-button-background-color: #9e1b2f;
\n–wpforms-field-size-input-height: 43px;
\n–wpforms-field-size-input-spacing: 15px;
\n–wpforms-field-size-font-size: 16px;
\n–wpforms-field-size-line-height: 19px;
\n–wpforms-field-size-padding-h: 14px;
\n–wpforms-field-size-checkbox-size: 16px;
\n–wpforms-field-size-sublabel-spacing: 5px;
\n–wpforms-field-size-icon-size: 1;
\n–wpforms-label-size-font-size: 16px;
\n–wpforms-label-size-line-height: 19px;
\n–wpforms-label-size-sublabel-font-size: 14px;
\n–wpforms-label-size-sublabel-line-height: 17px;
\n–wpforms-button-size-font-size: 20px;
\n–wpforms-button-size-height: 48px;
\n–wpforms-button-size-padding-h: 20px;
\n–wpforms-button-size-margin-top: 15px;<\/p>\n

\t\t\t}<\/p>\n

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.<\/p>\n
Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\nName *<\/span><\/legend>\n
\n