Skip to main content

That Darn Ban! Wisconsin Rethinks Nuclear Energy

wisconsin_dairy_farm_400 Wisconsin has been rethinking its ban on new nuclear energy plants for awhile now:

Wisconsin's 24-year-old moratorium on nuclear power plant construction is wrong.

The foundation for removing the moratorium has already been laid. Earlier this year, the Governor's Global Warming Task Force recommended that the state modify the moratorium, lowering barriers to plant construction.

That recommendation followed the a decision in 2007 by the Legislature's special committee on nuclear power to support eliminating the moratorium altogether.

That's from the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison and what can we say? We agree. But:

So far, however, adamant nuclear power opponents have blocked attempts to remove the moratorium, which has prevented the state from adding to the three nuclear reactors that generate 20 percent of the state's electricity.

So perhaps its time to pull out the big - well, we won't say guns. How about, as Jessamyn West might put it, Friendly Persuasion:

Self-proclaimed “sensible environmentalist” Patrick Moore opened the UW [University of Wisconsin] Energy Hub Conference Friday by advocating nuclear energy, calling it the most effective way of reducing carbon emissions and consumption of fossil fuels.

Although he was a founding member of Greenpeace, Moore left the organization, feeling his colleagues created policies based on sensation rather than science. He is now a co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, a pro-nuclear energy association. [CASEnergy describes itself this way: "The CASEnergy Coalition is a large grassroots coalition that unites unlikely allies across the business, environmental, academic, consumer and labor community to support nuclear energy." "Association" doesn't quite catch it.]

“Nuclear energy is one of the most important, beneficial energy technologies for the future of this world, and we need to go down that road,” Moore said.

With a nuclear moratorium up for repeal in Wisconsin in January 2009, Moore said the state government needs to remove “the barrier to nuclear energy which has been erected here.”

We can't predict the future, of course, but we suspect the Wisconsin ban is not long for this world. The Journal has it about right:

Nuclear power is required.

Nuclear power is not free of problems. The high cost of plant construction and questions about long-term waste disposal are drawbacks. But solutions are available.

The moratorium should go.

Sing it loud, sing it strong.

A Wisconsin dairy farm. We may be focused on energy , but in Wisconsin it's all about the dairy.

Comments

Neurovore said…
It would be nice if Minnesota also reconsidered their ban on nuclear power as well. I have heard of some discussion of lifting the ban a few years ago, but I think it practically ended after people got upset at the idea of storing spent fuel at Prarie Island. Now I think the possibility is being raised again but I am not sure how serious the Minnesota legislature is about it.

How many other states besides Wisconsin and Minnesota have outright bans on nuclear power?
perdajz said…
Hey neurovore,

West Virginia has a ban on nuclear power because it's supposedly too hazardous! They'd rather burn coal instead. Hilarious.
Neurovore said…
I suppose part of the motivation for the ban is because West Virginia is heavily dependent on its coal mining industry. Because of this I imagine the state would rather not dismantle one of its main income generators.
perdajz said…
Yes, exactly. The irony is that by comparison to splitting uranium, burning coal is murderous, never mind hazardous. One rationale, if it can be called that, for the WV ban is that the problem of waste disposal remains to be solved. There is no problem, of course, and even if you argue that there is, it is certainly nothing like burning coal, where the solution to waste disposal is using the atmosphere for an open sewer.
xoff said…
In the 25 years since Wisconsin passed the law, the nuclear industry still has not found a safe way to dispose of high level radioactive waste, although more is generated every day.

Plutonium 239, one of the byproducts, needs to be kept our of the environment for 250,000 years. Considering that Wisconsin was covered by glaciers 10,000 years ago, that is a significant challenge.

Pretending that problem has gone away doesn't make it so. That is still the best reason not to build more plants.

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…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …