Group items tagged

The nuclear power industry, virtually dormant for decades, is hoping that concerns about global warming will bring its resurgence. Wisconsin, which has not built a new nuclear reactor since 1974, got a taste of the well-orchestrated pro-nuclear campaign last week at a legislative hearing stacked with nuclear power apologists, including two former critics of nuclear power who now support it as part of a solution to the converging challenges of climate change and energy shortages. Times have changed, the converts say. One of them, Patrick Moore, who also wrote the March 12 op-ed "Put nuclear energy to work," assured legislators that nuclear power was "one of the safest technologies that has ever been invented by human beings." (Moore is paid by the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, funded by the nuclear industry.)

The threat of global warming makes it imperative to have nuclear power options available as the state and nation plan for future energy needs, the former general counsel of a state environmental group said Thursday. "We need to have all hands on deck," said Frank Jablonski of Progressive Law Group of Madison.

After decades of national debate over what to do with spent nuclear fuel, and with no resolution in sight, the Kewaunee nuclear power plant in northeastern Wisconsin finally ran out of storage space inside the plant. So over the past week, Kewaunee workers have begun storing radioactive waste in casks on the grounds of the reactor, a short distance from the shores of Lake Michigan. After a practice run a few weeks ago, workers moved spent fuel into the first of the 25-ton, 16-foot-long casks and then transferred the cask into a concrete vault outside the building Aug. 22, said Mark Kanz, spokesman for the Kewaunee Power Station. A second cask was transferred Thursday. An expert on nuclear waste from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regional office in Chicago was on hand for the first procedure, said Viktoria Mitlyng, an agency spokeswoman. The process went smoothly, she said.

Opponents of nuclear power are gearing up for a big fight over changes to the state's nuclear moratorium. Nuclear plants are just too expensive to build, opponents say, and the lack of a resolution to the nuclear industry's waste problem means the time hasn't arrived to reconsider a Wisconsin policy that's been in place for 25 years that, in effect, bans construction of new reactors. No bills to change the state's nuclear moratorium have yet been introduced, but opponents are reacting to increased lobbying by the nuclear industry in the state. Wisconsin's utilities say nuclear power, which generates no greenhouse gas emissions, must be at least on the table for consideration as the nation and state move toward regulating heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide.

A new report suggests building new nuclear power plants would be a bad investment for Wisconsin. The nuclear industry has proposed building dozens of new plants across the country, at a cost of nearly $300 billion. WISPIRG advocate Kara Rumsey says taxpayer subsidies and rate hikes would end up covering a large portion of that price tag. A study from WISPIRG found that renewable energy options can produce more cost-effective electricity. Dollar for dollar, Rumsey says implementing more energy efficient technologies could produce up to five times more energy than nuclear power.

Wisconsin law sets two conditions that must be met before new nuclear power plants can be built in the state. One is that there must be "a federally licensed facility" for high-level nuclear waste. In addition, the proposed nuclear plant "must be economically advantageous to ratepayers." It's a law that the nuclear power industry doesn't like. Given the near-death of the planned waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, and the estimated $6 to $12 billion cost (pdf) of building one nuclear reactor -- not to mention the lack of interest from private investors and the tanking economy -- Wisconsin's law effectively bans new nuclear plants in the state, for the foreseeable future.

"Would a truly "clean energy" source produce "one of the nation's most hazardous substances"? Of course not. So why include provisions on nuclear reactors in the state's Clean Energy Jobs Act, recently introduced in the state Legislature? Nuclear reactors generate high-level radioactive waste, which is "one of the nation's most hazardous substances," according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. In a November 2009 report, the respected nonpartisan agency found there were no good options for dealing with the radioactive waste. As the federal government continues its decades-long struggle to find a solution to this public safety, environmental and political problem, the costs to taxpayers and ratepayers will skyrocket. In the meantime, radioactive waste is piling up at 80 sites in 35 states, including three sites in Wisconsin."

"Your recent report "No nukes for now," by Lavilla Capener and Mike Ivey, states without qualification that Wisconsin's two nuclear facilities "have operated quietly and safely since the 1970s." It is easy to prove this statement false. Every U.S. government agency that regulates radiation exposure agrees that there is no safe level of exposure. The Environmental Protection Agency says, "There is no level below which we can say an exposure poses no risk. ... Radiation is a carcinogen. It may also cause other adverse health effects, including genetic defects in the children of exposed parents or mental retardation in the children of mothers exposed during pregnancy.""

Lofty claims about the benefits of nuclear power are coming from the Nuclear Energy Institute and others. Meanwhile, news, financial and energy journals make clear that boiling water with uranium is the costliest and dirtiest energy choice. Even Time magazine reported Dec. 31, 2008, "It turns out that new (reactors) would be not just extremely expensive but spectacularly expensive." Florida Power and Light's recent estimate for a 2-reactor system is a shocking $12 to $18 billion. The Wall St. Journal reported on nuclear's prospects May 12, 2008 finding, "[T]he projected cost is causing some sticker shock ... double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. These estimates never include the costs of moving and managing radioactive waste - a bill that keeps coming for centuries.

Lofty claims about the benefits of nuclear power are coming from the Nuclear Energy Institute and others. Meanwhile, news, financial and energy journals make clear that boiling water with uranium is the costliest and dirtiest energy choice. Even Time magazine reported Dec. 31, 2008, "It turns out that new (reactors) would be not just extremely expensive but spectacularly expensive." Florida Power and Light's recent estimate for a 2-reactor system is a shocking $12 to $18 billion. The Wall St. Journal reported on nuclear's prospects May 12, 2008 finding, "[T]he projected cost is causing some sticker shock ... double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. These estimates never include the costs of moving and managing radioactive waste - a bill that keeps coming for centuries.

Four lawmakers involved in energy and environmental issues on Thursday released details of the global warming legislation that is expected to be introduced soon in the state Legislature. The draft legislation would relax the state's ban on building nuclear power plants while requiring the state's utilities to increase the amount of renewable power they generate and increase their investment in energy efficiency. The draft "is intended to track the recommendations of the (global warming) task force," the four legislators said in a letter Thursday. The task force, appointed by Gov. Jim Doyle, included legislators, utilities, environmental groups and businesses.

Four lawmakers involved in energy and environmental issues on Thursday released details of the global warming legislation that is expected to be introduced soon in the state Legislature. The draft legislation would relax the state's ban on building nuclear power plants while requiring the state's utilities to increase the amount of renewable power they generate and increase their investment in energy efficiency. The draft "is intended to track the recommendations of the (global warming) task force," the four legislators said in a letter Thursday. The task force, appointed by Gov. Jim Doyle, included legislators, utilities, environmental groups and businesses.

Weakening Wisconsin laws regulating new nuclear reactors should not be part of a climate change bill. The Clean Energy Jobs Act, unveiled in the state Legislature recently, is a significant step toward addressing global warming while strengthening our state economy. Although much of the bill is a positive step to addressing global warming, it weakens Wisconsin's current law on building new nuclear reactors. Wisconsin's current law is common sense and protects citizens and the environment from radioactive nuclear waste, which poses considerable risks for tens thousands of years and contains plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons if separated. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power.

Weakening Wisconsin laws regulating new nuclear reactors should not be part of a climate change bill. The Clean Energy Jobs Act, unveiled in the state Legislature recently, is a significant step toward addressing global warming while strengthening our state economy. Although much of the bill is a positive step to addressing global warming, it weakens Wisconsin's current law on building new nuclear reactors. Wisconsin's current law is common sense and protects citizens and the environment from radioactive nuclear waste, which poses considerable risks for tens thousands of years and contains plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons if separated. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power.

Wisconsin's business community is divided over Gov. Jim Doyle's clean energy plan that calls for increasing the use of renewable fuels and opens the door to nuclear power, with opponents saying the new mandates will weaken Wisconsin's already struggling manufacturing sector. Doyle's plan was introduced in the Legislature on Wednesday and the governor discussed it Thursday at a news conference in Madison. He and other proponents, including large employers like auto parts and building products maker Johnson Controls, argue it will improve the environment and create thousands of green-energy jobs.

Wisconsin's business community is divided over Gov. Jim Doyle's clean energy plan that calls for increasing the use of renewable fuels and opens the door to nuclear power, with opponents saying the new mandates will weaken Wisconsin's already struggling manufacturing sector. Doyle's plan was introduced in the Legislature on Wednesday and the governor discussed it Thursday at a news conference in Madison. He and other proponents, including large employers like auto parts and building products maker Johnson Controls, argue it will improve the environment and create thousands of green-energy jobs.

"Would a truly "clean energy" source produce "one of the nation's most hazardous substances"? Of course not. So why include provisions on nuclear reactors in the state's Clean Energy Jobs Act, recently introduced in the state legislature? Nuclear reactors generate high-level radioactive waste, which is "one of the nation's most hazardous substances," according to the U.S. Govern-ment Accountability Office. In a November 2009 report, the respected nonpartisan agency found there were no good options for dealing with the radioactive waste. And, as the federal government continues its decades-long struggle to find a solution to this grave public safety, environmental and political problem, the costs to taxpayers and ratepayers will skyrocket."

"Would a truly "clean energy" source produce "one of the nation's most hazardous substances"? Of course not. So why include provisions on nuclear reactors in the state's Clean Energy Jobs Act, recently introduced in the Legislature? Nuclear reactors generate high-level radioactive waste, which is "one of the nation's most hazardous substances," according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. In a November report, the respected nonpartisan agency found there were no good options for dealing with the radioactive waste. And as the federal government continues its decades-long struggle to find a solution to this grave public safety, environmental and political problem, the costs to taxpayers and ratepayers will skyrocket. In the meantime, radioactive waste is piling up at 80 sites in 35 states, including three sites in Wisconsin. Many sites have active nuclear reactors, where the mounting waste problem has forced plant operators to rearrange "the racks holding spent fuel in (cooling) pools … to allow for more dense storage," according to the GAO report. "Even with this re-racking, spent nuclear fuel pools are reaching their capacities.""

"Wisconsin's Clean Energy Jobs Act could be a job killer -- but not from energy efficiency or renewable energy, as some are claiming, against all evidence. The nuclear portion of the bill is far more likely to raise electric rates by opening the door to building expensive new nuclear reactors and allowing for prepayment schemes to fund them. I was born and raised in Wisconsin but have spent the past decade in Savannah, Ga., working with the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. I've seen firsthand how the push for risky new nuclear reactors has impacted Southeastern states. It's not an experience that Wisconsinites would want to replicate. In recent years Georgia, Florida and South Carolina have all passed legislation to encourage building new nuclear reactors. What's happened next -- particularly in Florida and South Carolina -- is that ratepayers already dealing with tough economic times have seen their electricity bills increase."

"Nuclear power plant construction in Wisconsin likely will be just as difficult to accomplish after the legislative session as it was before. "It's definitely disappointing," said state Rep. Jim Soletski, D-Green Bay. "I'm not saying we should ring Lake Michigan with 20 new plants, but we need to have the option on the table." Soletski and three other lawmakers drafted that option as part of the Clean Energy Jobs Act. But the Assembly did not debate the act during its session Tuesday, and, even if it were to pass the Assembly, the Senate does not have the votes to pass the act as drafted, said Carrie Lynch, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, D-Wausau."

Republican lawmakers work to decrease carbon footprint via new energy source Three Republican legislators proposed ideas for new legislation Monday to repeal the state's ban on construction of new nuclear power plants. Rep. Michael Huebsch, R-West Salem, Rep. Phil Montgomery, R-Green Bay, and Sen. Joe Liebham, R-Sheboygan, said in a statement Monday they are crafting the bill as a way to prevent energy shortages, unsustainable price increases and utility taxes.

Republican lawmakers work to decrease carbon footprint via new energy source Three Republican legislators proposed ideas for new legislation Monday to repeal the state's ban on construction of new nuclear power plants. Rep. Michael Huebsch, R-West Salem, Rep. Phil Montgomery, R-Green Bay, and Sen. Joe Liebham, R-Sheboygan, said in a statement Monday they are crafting the bill as a way to prevent energy shortages, unsustainable price increases and utility taxes.