Skip to main content

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

Ruth Sponsler 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!

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

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 …

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…