RR - I think most issues aren't ultimately 'liberal' or 'conservative' issues by their very nature, but problems with general perceptions that have been shaped by lobbyists and special interests (the coal and gas lobbies have always had issue with nuclear, and the wind and solar lobbies wants to keep the subsidies flowing - groups that are at opposite ends of the 'theoretical' political spectrum, but share a common goal). Our 'independent' media (being just another arm of large conglomerate corporations for sale to the highest bidder) do a poor job of presenting the complete picture, and 'biased' media simply scream nonsense in an echo chamber. As a result, people end up with a lot of misinformation that gives them incomplete views of an issue (which end up serveing the competing special interest groups - that may not actually line up with their political ideologies).

I'm a proponent of continued use of nuclear plants as a 'bridge' to minimize fossil fuel use until other technologies can evolve to fill the gap. They are fundamentally carbon-neutral, and their immediate replacements are not.

Thank you gov walker for doing such a great job!! GREAT JOB moving WI Backward!!

This should really go without saying, but your personal utility bill is not reflective of the fuel costs of different sources of generation. Utilities are no longer vertically integrated - since the creation of MISO (Midwest Independent System Operator) and the development of market-based generation pricing, the distribution portion of utilities pass through the true "market" cost of generation to the end customer. What this means is that all generation costs the same to the purchaser (regardless of fuel source), and then ultimately to the end customer - what's known as the LMP (Locational Marginal Price)... which also tends to socialize the costs of generation across the entire MISO footprint instead of letting individual utilities pass through their own direct costs (as was the case in the former vertically integrated days). On top of power purchasing costs, utilities then pass through their individual Capital and O&M costs (which is what differentiates the actual customer pricing between utilities). So a utility with a sparse load base (like WPS who has customers spread all throughout northern Wisconsin and Upper Michigan) tend to have higher costs associated with serving a small customer base spread over a large geographic area.

Now that you have a history of how utilities actually work these days, the other problem with your flawed logic is that Alliant owned 40% of Kewaunee (WPS had 60%) prior to the sale to Dominion a number of years ago. And Point Beach was owned by Wisconsin Electric (now We Energies) prior to sale to Florida Power and Light a number of years ago. And (this should go without saying) utility rates have consistently increased from year to year (regardless of which utility), so your bills from five years ago will inevitably be less expensive than your bills this year.

So no aspect of reality has any impact on your individual utility rates in the way you seem to believe.

RI -tell that to the people who used to live near Fukishima, Chernobyl, etc.

In 2009, WPS in Green Bay (power from the reactors in Kewaunee and Point Beach) charged .11739 per KWH while Alliant in Madison (power from coal and natural gas) charged .10153. That's more than 1.5 cents per KWH which comes out to about 14.25 per month (or $171 per year). I have 3 years of power bills from 2008-10 where WPS is consistently more than a penny per KWH more expensive. Don't tell me nuclear is cheaper.

650 more JOBS gone ReasonableIntellectual Thank you for trying to help those who do not get it. But they will not ever understand the reality of truth by anyone that shares the facts.

First two comments certainly what I expected. Wonder how many windmills they can mount to the top of the cooling towers and how many solar panels they can put on the acreage that the plant is on ????

Not even close. For existing nuclear plants, costs per MWH (megawatt hour) are the cheapest among generation sources in the United States. Nuclear generation still represents around 20% of our baseload generation despite the fact we haven't built a new plant in decades - the generation capability is predictable and significant (unlike renewable sources), and produces no greenhouse gases. Modern reactor designs used in much of Europe are inherently safe - I'd recommend doing some reading on French reactors (the US has much to learn from the rest of the world in terms of reactor design). Shutting down nuclear plants simply means burning more natural gas or coal to replace the baseload generation, so it's ultimately a net loss to the environment. Nuclear generation is scary only to those who don't understand it.

That there it will sit and rot with all the nuclear waste it has generated over the years.

I'm just sayin'...

Long overdue. Most people don't realize that nuclear is more expensive than other ways of generating electricity.

Germany is in the process of shutting down all nuclear plants in favor of green energy.