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

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…

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 …