Archive for Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Lawmakers approve nuclear incentives

May 7, 2008


— The Legislature on Wednesday approved a bill that supporters said would encourage expansion of nuclear energy in Kansas.

"The world is moving toward nuclear power," state Rep. Don Myers, R-Derby, said.

Senate Bill 586 would require the Kansas Corporation Commission to allow an electric utility to raise its rates to recover prudent expenditures in the development stages of a new nuclear generation facility.

It also would allow the construction costs for a nuclear facility to be included in customer rates before the plant is operating.

Opponents said the bill gave too much to utilities. "We are transferring risks here from the investors to the ratepayers, and I don't think that's a prudent policy," said House Democratic Leader Dennis McKinney of Greensburg.

But both the House and Senate approved the bill to send it to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius for consideration.

Kansas has one nuclear power plant -- Wolf Creek power plant near Burlington, which would be the most likely location for any expansion of nuclear energy.


Evan Ridenour 10 years, 1 month ago

Nuclear power is a good thing... but the way this bill is structured is a bad thing for us consumers. Utility companies are highly regulated for a reason, giving them the ability to hike rates for the reasons stated in the article removes any reason for utility companies to go ahead with nuclear power investment using proper prudence. The rate payers will be up for paying for every risky mistake the utility companies make and so they will have every possible reason to want to take as many risks as possible to make a big profit because if they screw up... they have all the rate payers to pick up the pieces.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 10 years, 1 month ago

This bit of corporate a$$kissing looks like certain veto-bait.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 10 years, 1 month ago

If nuclear is so financially feasible and safe, then why does it need the Price-Anderson Act? "Wind and solar are great; but you're at the mercy of nature-so it's not quite as efficient or reliable"The sun never stops shining and the winds never stop blowing. So what are you talking about?

notajayhawk 10 years, 1 month ago

Gee, nazi_on_the_bus, you're just having a bad day all around, aren't you? The legislature moves to expand nuclear power, the SLT gets final approval, don't these people around here listen to the clown??? (What's next - naming a holiday after Christopher Columbus?)By the way, nice story on Shoreham - I suppose you skipped over the original projected cost before the rich whackos on Long Island decided to intervene? But hey, I suppose I should thank you for making my point.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 10 years, 1 month ago

So does that mean you think the Price-Anderson Act should be repealed, notajayhawk? (It's OK if you wait till you're out of timeout to answer.)

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 10 years, 1 month ago

The Price-Anderson Act was last renewed in 2005, and covers any plant constructed through 2026.

notajayhawk 10 years, 1 month ago

Nuclear power is only expensive to build because of the delays caused by loonies like nazi_on_the_bus. Compare the huge costs of the Shoreham nuclear plant (that was shut down before ever generating electricity) to the virtually identical one across the Sound in Connecticut. Milllstone was completed just 5 years from receiving a permit for $101 million; Shoreham was delayed and delayed by protests and lawsuits, took 11 years to build, and cost $6 Billion, and the only difference was the misguided idiots who kept it from being completed as quickly and cheaply as Millstone III.

kugrad 10 years, 1 month ago

Nuclear power is financially unfeasible without massive government subsidy. This is why there have been so few nuclear plants built worldwide in the last 25+ years. Warren Buffet, master investor, and his crew spent 15 MILLION dollars investigating the economic feasibility of nuclear power and he concluded that there is NO way it makes economic sense. Wind and Solar energy have come a long way and are widely used in some states, yet the likes of Dick Cheney, and other former oil execs, tell us the same thing they said in the 70's, these technologies are good but just "not ready yet." The truth is that this is true about nuclear power, not solar and wind. Nuclear power is simply not economically feasible.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 10 years, 1 month ago

"It is dark right now at 10:30:"Just because you can't see the sun, doesn't mean it isn't shining. And even when it's cloudy, solar energy can still be converted to a significant amount electricity."It also takes more than a slight breeze to produce eletricity through that wind turbine."Actually, it takes only a bit more than a slight breeze to produce electricity.But the important point is that over the entire surface of the earth, the wind is blowing and the sun is shining in very large percentage of that surface area, 24/7. Coupled with conservation measures, improved energy storage methods and a modernized power grid, they could supply all the power we need.

Bruce Bertsch 10 years, 1 month ago

Nuclear power is a good thing as long as you aren't storing the waste in your backyard. In other words, where are you going to put the waste. The group of utilities that built Wolf Creek were the smallest in the US. Also, the online record of Wolf Creek is pretty sad. If you can find a waste repository, its a far better option than coal.

sinedie 10 years, 1 month ago

Wind and solar are great, but transmission lines are needed for wind. Solar panels are very expensive, and not very efficient. These alternatives are still low return in exchange for high investment, which makes them unattractive.The most important (and least expensive) thing we can do NOW is conserve. Unfortunately that requires a slight to moderate change in our habits, and most people are not receptive to this. So, we're all for safeguarding the environment unless it bothers us to do so :)

Commenting has been disabled for this item.