I was greeted with a pleasant surprise this morning: an on-line article informing me that new nuclear power resources may be coming to Wisconsin. According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Dairyland Power Cooperative of La Crosse wants to build a system of small-scale reactors that would serve tens of thousands of customers in Southwest Wisconsin–along with parts of Minnesota, Iowa, and Illinois.
In your mind, you are probably picturing the Driftless Area being ruined by a giant monolithic concrete structure flanked by huge cooling towers surrounded by miles of fence and razor wire that needs to be located next to a large body of water. Congratulations, you are officially old. Today’s nuclear reactors are much smaller, modular units that are about 65-feet tall and do not require the huge amounts of water needed by those built in the 1960’s and 70’s.
And anyone that tells you that there is no need for nuclear power generation in the future is being intellectually dishonest with you. Tucked away deep in the studies and reports that we “will be able to generate all of the electricity we need through solar, wind, and geothermal” is the requirement for “energy management”. “Energy management” in a nutshell is bending consumption to meet supply, instead of increasing supply to meet demand. And for a proposed system dependent heavily on weather conditions to be nearly ideal at all times, that is going to be a huge problem.
And that is why NuScale is offering nuclear as a solution. While their proposed facilities could fully power the grid, it will instead operate as a constant in the background to supplement what is produced through “renewable” sources. And when demand increases (think hot,muggy summer nights or bitter cold winter days), it can also increase its production–avoiding the need for rolling blackouts seen in California (where the transition to renewable sources is not keeping up with the increase in demand from the population).
Modular reactors can also be scaled up or down to provide individualized power production as well. Manufacturing facilities that require large amounts of power could buy their own smaller units, or co-op larger units to serve all of their energy needs, and effectively take themselves off the grid with a steady source of electricity not tied to wind speed, sky conditions, or the purchase of storage batteries.
And nuclear holds the key to the other great challenge facing parts of the US: potable water shortages. Have you ever wondered how major cities have blossomed along seacoasts in desert settings like the Arabian Peninsula or Israel? They use desalination plants to draw in ocean water and convert it into drinkable fresh water. It’s a process that requires a lot of energy, so some of those countries pair their desalination facilities with nuclear power plants.
Of course, the Journal-Sentinel article includes the “other side” from nuclear energy opponents–this time quoting someone from the Physicians for Social Responsibility-Wisconsin group (who are doctors, not engineers)–who flatly oppose anything but use of wind and solar for energy production. But nuclear is contained in all energy plans put forth by the Biden administration and the current bureaucrats at the Department of Energy, mainly because they are the ones that need to actually come up with viable solutions.
So you can either live in irrational fear by spending your time watching The China Syndrome (made by anti-nuclear activists Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas, and Jack Lemon for a reason) and documentaries about Chernobyl (which is like watching disaster movies starring the Three Stooges), or you can embrace your inner isotope and welcome the real energy solution of the future. It’s better than sitting in the dark on a -25-degree January day wishing your fully-electric apartment (which was required by your city’s building codes) had enough heat to keep you alive.
