Skip to main content

What the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant Means to Connecticut & New England

The following is a guest post by Matt Crozat, Senior Director, Business Policy at NEI.

Matt Crozat
Occupying less than a square mile along the busy Northeast Corridor between New York and Boston, it’s easy to miss the Millstone Power Station. A new economic impact study released today by NEI documents just how important the two-unit Dominion plant is to Connecticut and the region. Indeed, if Millstone were lost it would be dearly missed.

Millstone, owned and operated by Dominion Resources, provides almost 60 percent of the electricity consumed in Connecticut, and adds nothing to the region’s air pollution. In fact, it displaces fossil-fired plants, which would pollute.

But its role is felt even more deeply when one considers the economic value the plant generates. There are 1,569 full-time employees at the plant, in Waterford, but the economic activity they create supports an additional 1,691 jobs in the state and beyond.

But Millstone’s main role isn’t to provide employment, it is to produce electricity. The Millstone Power Station generates over 17 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity annually which is enough to supply 2 million homes. This generation provides economic benefits to everyone in New England by keeping electricity prices low. Money that families aren’t spending on their power bill can be used for other goods and services that families need, and their spending helps the economy. This report estimates that Millstone provides an additional $1.6 billion in economic activity from lower electricity prices in Connecticut and New England which leads to almost 9,000 jobs across the region.

Each of the nuclear plants in the U.S. has significant economic impacts in their communities. NEI has produced economic benefits reports for Ohio, Illinois and Texas, to name a few. A longer list can be found here.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…