Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

"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."

"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."

"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.""

"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.""

"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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

A new report says nuclear power plants would take too long to build and are too expensive to make any impact on global warming. The report, released by Wisconsin Environment, an environmental advocacy organization, notes scientists believe developed nations must reduce emissions dramatically by 2020 to limit global warming. The report says the first new nuclear reactor in the United States probably won't be completed until at least 2016. Money that would go to new plants would be better spent on renewable sources. State Rep. Mike Huebsch, a West Salem Republican, has pushed to repeal Wisconsin's moratorium on nuclear power. He says groups like Wisconsin Environment are still living off the hysteria of 1970s meltdowns and Will do anything to delay nuclear plant construction.

A new report says nuclear power plants would take too long to build and are too expensive to make any impact on global warming. The report, released by Wisconsin Environment, an environmental advocacy organization, notes scientists believe developed nations must reduce emissions dramatically by 2020 to limit global warming. The report says the first new nuclear reactor in the United States probably won't be completed until at least 2016. Money that would go to new plants would be better spent on renewable sources. State Rep. Mike Huebsch, a West Salem Republican, has pushed to repeal Wisconsin's moratorium on nuclear power. He says groups like Wisconsin Environment are still living off the hysteria of 1970s meltdowns and Will do anything to delay nuclear plant construction.

Wisconsin could be in for higher costs if it lifts it's ban on new nuclear energy plants, a former commissioner for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Friday at the State Capitol. Peter Bradford, who served on the NRC from 1977 to 1982, outlined the apparent and hidden costs associated With using nuclear energy if Wisconsin lifted its moratorium on building new nuclear plants. "Obviously, it's not my place to tell you what to do in terms of Wisconsin law and policy, so what I'll try to do is to give … a sense of the backdrop and the effect that new nuclear power is having," Bradford said.

Wisconsin could be in for higher costs if it lifts it's ban on new nuclear energy plants, a former commissioner for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Friday at the State Capitol. Peter Bradford, who served on the NRC from 1977 to 1982, outlined the apparent and hidden costs associated With using nuclear energy if Wisconsin lifted its moratorium on building new nuclear plants. "Obviously, it's not my place to tell you what to do in terms of Wisconsin law and policy, so what I'll try to do is to give … a sense of the backdrop and the effect that new nuclear power is having," Bradford said.

he argument that nuclear power can contribute to reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions that cause global climate change ("Ban on new nuclear power plants should be lifted" Oct. 16, Green Bay Press-Gazette) is flawed for three main reasons. First, nuclear power is not carbon-free electricity. At each stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining, milling, enrichment to construction, decommissioning and waste storage, nuclear power uses fossil fuels and contributes greenhouse gas emissions that accelerate global climate change. Compared to renewable energy, nuclear power releases four to five times the CO2 per unit of energy produced. A recent study of solutions to global warming by Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford University concluded that over its entire lifecycle, nuclear electricity emits between 68 and 180 grams of CO2-equivalent emissions per kilowatt hour, compared to 3 to 11 grams for wind and concentrated solar.

he argument that nuclear power can contribute to reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions that cause global climate change ("Ban on new nuclear power plants should be lifted" Oct. 16, Green Bay Press-Gazette) is flawed for three main reasons. First, nuclear power is not carbon-free electricity. At each stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining, milling, enrichment to construction, decommissioning and waste storage, nuclear power uses fossil fuels and contributes greenhouse gas emissions that accelerate global climate change. Compared to renewable energy, nuclear power releases four to five times the CO2 per unit of energy produced. A recent study of solutions to global warming by Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford University concluded that over its entire lifecycle, nuclear electricity emits between 68 and 180 grams of CO2-equivalent emissions per kilowatt hour, compared to 3 to 11 grams for wind and concentrated solar.

A Wisconsin-based anti-nuclear publication may be going out of business as contributions are not keeping up With costs. For 30 years, Nukewatch has been an advocate of non-violent resistance against nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons for northwestern Wisconsin and northeastern Minnesota. The quarterly publication has contributed to some of the nation's largest anti-nuclear movements, including the closing of naval submarine communications base "ELF" in Clam Lake. Editor John LaForge says many non-profits are in tough financial shape. He says quite a few environmental groups have been affected recently, including Clean Water Action and Eagle both closed offices in northern Wisconsin. LaForge says the December issue may be the last one unless more contributions come in. He says closing his publication would be a loss, since people would have to go to sources of information from outside the area.

A Wisconsin-based anti-nuclear publication may be going out of business as contributions are not keeping up With costs. For 30 years, Nukewatch has been an advocate of non-violent resistance against nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons for northwestern Wisconsin and northeastern Minnesota. The quarterly publication has contributed to some of the nation's largest anti-nuclear movements, including the closing of naval submarine communications base "ELF" in Clam Lake. Editor John LaForge says many non-profits are in tough financial shape. He says quite a few environmental groups have been affected recently, including Clean Water Action and Eagle both closed offices in northern Wisconsin. LaForge says the December issue may be the last one unless more contributions come in. He says closing his publication would be a loss, since people would have to go to sources of information from outside the area.

The Lakeshore area has been a longtime friend of the nuclear power industry. We are home to the nuclear plants at Point Beach in the town of Two Creeks and a few miles away near Kewaunee. Advertisement They provide hundreds of good-paying jobs and produce energy in the context of a good safety record. Wisconsin in 1983 banned construction of new nuclear plants, in large part because there is no national or international site to permanently dispose of the waste they would generate. That's still the case 26 years later and it's the reason we remain concerned With proposals to lift the moratorium on nuclear plant construction.

The Lakeshore area has been a longtime friend of the nuclear power industry. We are home to the nuclear plants at Point Beach in the town of Two Creeks and a few miles away near Kewaunee. Advertisement They provide hundreds of good-paying jobs and produce energy in the context of a good safety record. Wisconsin in 1983 banned construction of new nuclear plants, in large part because there is no national or international site to permanently dispose of the waste they would generate. That's still the case 26 years later and it's the reason we remain concerned With proposals to lift the moratorium on nuclear plant construction.

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.

The University of Wisconsin Research Reactor and Neutron Radiography Reactor at INL have been converted from the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) to low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has now converted or verified the shutdown of a total of 67 HEU research reactors around the world. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), in cooperation With Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the University of Wisconsin, the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy recently completed the conversion of the two research reactors through NNSA's Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI).

The University of Wisconsin Research Reactor and Neutron Radiography Reactor at INL have been converted from the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) to low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has now converted or verified the shutdown of a total of 67 HEU research reactors around the world. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), in cooperation With Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the University of Wisconsin, the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy recently completed the conversion of the two research reactors through NNSA's Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI).

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.

New WISPIRG report shows that dollar for dollar, a clean energy portfolio can produce more energy than nuclear power (Madison, WI) - WIth the state considering solutions to reduce our global warming pollution, a new WISPIRG report finds that renewable energy sources can produce far more electricity than nuclear plants for less money. Unfortunately, the nuclear industry has proposed thirty new reactors across the country at an estimated cost of $300 billion. "Taxpayers should not be subsidizing nuclear power when there are faster, cleaner, cheaper alternatives to meet our energy needs," said WISPIRG Advocate Kara Rumsey. Here in WIsconsin the nuclear industry is pushing to overturn a long-standing law that prevents new nuclear plants from being built unless the proposed plant is economically advantageous to ratepayers and there is safe and adequate disposal for radioactive waste.