Wisconsin Committee Votes to End State's Nuclear Construction Moratorium

The reports I'm seeing now are sketchy and incomplete, but taken together the news is pretty clear: A special committee of the Wisconsin State Legislature created to study legislation that would end the state's 1983 nuclear construction moratorium has voted to recommend lifting the ban.

Here's a clip from BusinessNorth.com:

Greenhouse gas emissions from coal and oil fired power plants have people like liberal Democratic Representative Frank Boyle of Superior switching sides in favor of nuclear power. "If you had told me 10 years ago that I would be here advocating for the lifting of the ban on nuclear construction, I'd say you were crazy." Boyle says the danger of climate change has future generations facing catastrophe.

"The time has some for nuclear proliferation in terms of energy plants versus continuing to fire up those generators with coal and gas and oil and produce a climatic effect of carbon loading the upper atmosphere that could ultimately kill us and destroy the earth."

[...]

Today, a committee narrowly voted to lift the restrictions on a party line vote with only one Democrat voting for the lifting. The measure may go to the full Assembly next.

More evidence, the local Green Party of Wisconsin has issued a press release condemning the vote.

I'm making some phone calls. Back in a bit. In the meantime, more discussion from We Support Lee and Atomic Insights.

UPDATE: I had a brief phone call with David Lovell, a staff person at the Wisconsin Legislative Council who had some additional details. The final vote in the committee was 12-9 in favor, with one member absent. That means that the bill now goes to the full assembly with the special committee on nuclear power named as its sponsor. Thanks to David for taking the time to speak with me.

Comments

Anonymous said…

Fantastic! Thanks for the in-person update!!

I look forward to the submission of the matter to the full Wisconsin State Assembly and assignment of a bill number!

May 11, 2007 at 9:54 PM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog