Uppity Wisconsin

Milwaukee Magazine's News Buzz:

Filmmakers will use a building on [Milwaukee's] Tower Automotive site to stage a scene that is supposed to take place at the infamous Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine — where a 1986 meltdown remains the world’s worst nuclear power accident.

Why not just use Point Beach,(pictured), a real nuclear plant, not too far up the road?

Point Beach hasn't had a major accident yet, although it is one of the oldest opeating reactors in the nation.

But the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which inspects the nation's 102 operating reactors, has only issued five "red findings," the most serious safety warning, since it began using that system. Three of the five red warnings have gone to Point Beach.

In bureaucratic terms, the NRC says a red finding has a "high safety significance." How high? Well, there is no color higher than red on the scale.

But not to worry. The reactors have been relicensed to operate until 2030 and 2033, when they will be 60 years old.

Republican Senate candidate Ron Johnson outlines his energy policy for Wisconsin:

Drill, baby, drill, and nuke, baby, nuke.

That's remarkably consistent.  He's for drilling under the Great Lakes and building more nuclear reactors while high-level radioactive waste continues to pile up on the shores of Lake Michigan. 

The Journal Sentinel, on a forum with Johnson and primary opponent David Westlake:

Johnson, an Oshkosh business owner, supported a "full steam" ahead approach to developing nuclear power plants.

Obviously, the disaster in the Gulf gives Johnson no pause about the likelihood of an even bigger catastrophe that is almost certain, sooner or later, to occur at a nuclear reactor if we keep building them.

Mostly, they did it for all the wrong reasons, but Wisconsin legislators have refused to pass a Clean Energy Jobs Act that would have greatly relaxed the rules on new nuclear reactors in the state. 

This from the website of the Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice, part of a Carbon Free Nuclear Free coalition that fought to take the nuclear section out of the bill, or at least modify it to offer stronger protections against terrorist threats, nuclear waste and excessive costs.

On this fortieth anniversary of Earth Day, we have something to celebrate -- Wisconsin's safeguards on new nuclear reactors remain intact!

The state Senate adjourned for the session without voting on the Clean Energy Jobs Act (Senate Bill 450 / Assembly Bill 649). That means the bill is dead.

This is a bittersweet victory. We would have preferred that the state legislature pass a climate bill strong on renewables and energy efficiency that didn't undermine our nuclear safeguards.

Unfortunately, that wasn't what was under consideration.

UPDATE: No new nukes in Wisconsin; bill fails.

What's in a name?

The Bush administration was famous for giving Orwellian names to its legislation.

His Clear Skies Initiative, for example, actually weakened the Clean Air Act and other air pollution regulations, and did nothing to deal with carbon dioxide emissions.

Which brings us to Wisconsin's cleverly-named Clean Energy Jobs Act, a piece of legislation still dangling in uncertainty on the final day of the legislative session -- which just happens to be Earth Day.

The bill (let's call it CEJA for short) has been three years in the making, and is the product of a global warming task force appointed by the governor in April 2007. A long list of recommendations from that task force were eventually shaped into a comprehensive bill, and someone, somewhere along the way, quit calling it the climate change bill and started calling it the Clean Energy Jobs Act.

They say a camel is a horse designed by a committee, and this bill certainly has some humps. They're called compromises, or trade-offs. And one of them, which opens the door to more nuclear reactors in Wisconsin, is a whopper.

It's a well-established fact that nuclear reactors at 103 power plants in the US are suseptible to terrorist attack. It's one of those inconvenient truths we try not to think about, especially if we live near one of the sites.

The issue surfaced again recently when it was learned that an Al Qaeda suspect had worked at five nuclear sites.

The Center for Defense Information says nuclear waste could become an ingredient for a so-called "dirty bomb":

The most accessible nuclear device for any terrorist would be a radiological dispersion bomb. This so-called 'dirty bomb' would consist of waste by-products from nuclear reactors wrapped in conventional explosives, which upon detonation would spew deadly radioactive particles into the environment. This is an expedient weapon, in that radioactive waste material is relatively easy to obtain. Radioactive waste is widely found throughout the world, and in general is not as well guarded as actual nuclear weapons.

It's accumulating in Wisconsin at Point Beach and Kewaunee. And if pro-nuclear forces have their way with the Clean Energy Jobs Act, Wisconsin could be living with growing stockpiles of high-level radioactive waste for a long time to come.

The party line from people trying to pass the Clean Energy Jobs Act is that there's no reason to worry about the changes that would make it much easier to build a new nuclear reactor in Wisconsin.

No one wants to do that anytime soon, they say, so it's not a big deal.

Sen. Spencer Black, D-Madison, co-chair the Assembly clean energy committee. "stressed this week that the state only has a de facto moratorium on nuclear power anyway, since new plants could be built if they are deemed cost-effective and are supported by a federally approved site to store nuclear waste," WisPolitics reported. "But Black said reducing those standards won't spark a wave of new plants since Wisconsin's energy production is currently outpacing demand.

"Black added that by investing in energy efficiency, the state could push off the need for more power plants -- nuclear or otherwise -- for decades."

State Sen. Jeff Plale (D-South Milwaukee), co-chair of teh Senate committee working on the bill -- and a nuclear advocate -- also downplays the nuclear changes.

"The likelihood of a nuclear power plant being built in Wisconsin any time soon is virtually nil," he told WisPolitics.

The Inside Baseball Report, which may be more than you want to know about this subject:

Rumors are rampant in the Capitol about a new version of the Clean Energy Jobs Act now being prepared for rollout sometime in the next week.

It's being done in private, as usual, so it's impossible to say exactly what will be in the substitute version or omnibus amendment being drafted.

But if you're part of the Carbon Free Nuclear Free coalition that's been fighting against relaxing the laws on new nuclear reactors, this is guaranteed not to be good news.

Pro-nuclear forces do not have a majority in the legislature. On its own merits, the nuclear section of the bill would never pass.

But it is tied to some positive renewable energy policies that many nuclear opponents want to see passed. They seem willing to swallow hard and support the bill, even though they oppose expanding nuclear power.

The bill is in much the same status that the health care bill is in Congress. There are no Republican votes for it, so Democrats must round up enough votes to pass it themselves. With narrow majorities in each house, it only takes two defecting Democrats to derail the bill -- or to get a concession.

Great news for people concerned that the proposed Clean Energy Jobs Act will open the door to more nuclear reactors in Wisconsin: State Rep. Mike Huebsch, an Onalaska Republican who's been trying for years to repeal the state's so-called nuclear moratorium law, says the bill is "anti-nuclear" and "a wish-list penned by Madison’s environmental fringe," one that "obliges the Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice, CUB, Clean Wisconsin and others..."

That certainly comes as a surprising revelation to WNPJ and other members of a Carbon Free Nuclear Free coalition who have strong objections to the bill, which eliminates the requirement for a federal nuclear waste repository before new reactors can be built.

When is a "tweak" in a legislative bill a deal breaker?

Maybe, just maybe, when the change is to an already controversial section on nuclear power that's part of the proposed Clean Energy Jobs Bill for Wisconsin.

Many activists think the language agreed upon by the Governor's Task Force on Global Warming, which is the basis for the bill, already goes too far in relaxing state laws on nuclear reactors.

Now, at the request of utilities which want to be able to build new reactors, changes are being considered to make it even easier.

The utilities say it's just a little "tweak" in the language, and that the original draft may be unconstitutional. But some of the environmentalists and consumer advocates who have been supporting the bill are signaling that the changes could be a deal-breaker.

Environmentalists on the Task Force reluctantly agreed to swallow a compromise that removes the requirement that a federal nuclear waste repository be operating before a new reactor can be built in the state.

What they got in return, supposedly, was protection against so-called "merchant plants" -- reactors built by non-Wisconsin companies to send power elsewhere in the country.

Darn!

Just when the nuclear industry is doing such a great job of selling its "renaissance" as the way to fight climate change, along comes another irritating little problem.

As my mother used to say, there's always something to take the joy out of life.

This time it's a tritium leak at a Vermont plant -- something that's already happened in Wisconsin at Point Beach and Kewaunee, as noted in the map above. The AP reports:

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — Radioactive tritium, a carcinogen discovered in potentially dangerous levels in groundwater at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, has now tainted at least 27 of the nation’s 104 nuclear reactors — raising concerns about how it is escaping from the aging nuclear plants...

Tritium, found in nature in tiny amounts and a product of nuclear fusion, has been linked to cancer if ingested, inhaled or absorbed through the skin in large amounts.

Is it anything to be concerned about?

It may be impolitic to say this while we are encouraging people to attend public hearings on the Clean Energy Jobs Bill, but the first public hearing on the bill, held Wednesday by a special State Senate committee, was a nightmare if you were a member of the public trying to have a voice.

Most of the activists from the Carbon Free Nuclear Free campaign, opposed to the nuclear section of the bill,waited more than eight hours to testify for four minutes in a nearly-empty room with almost all of the committee members gone. Environmental groups, who supported the bill, didn't fare much better.

If you had the misfortune to be a woman, or a person of color, you were at the absolute bottom of the barrel. With a single exception, a parade of white men in suits testified for the first eight hours. The one exception was a woman representing an electric utility.

The hearing on the comprehensive 174-page bill drew a full house in one of the State Capitol's biggest hearing rooms. Many of the CFNF representatives -- which included most of the women in attendance -- got there early and registered before the hearing started at 10 a.m., when the room was less than half full.

If the banks, who have shown themselves willing to fund almost anything, won't fund the nuclear industry, why should we?

Let's start by accentuating the positive, this quote from a Capital Times story on the pros and cons of nuclear power:

Tia Nelson, co-chair of Gov. Jim Doyle’s Task Force on Global Warming, says that while the costs of nuclear power grow and the price tag for renewable sources shrinks, it is not fiscally smart for the state to invest in nuclear energy.

“We know that nuclear power is more expensive and more dangerous than any other alternative before us today,” says Nelson, daughter of Gaylord Nelson, the late U.S. senator who founded Earth Day.

As the state's Clean Energy Jobs Act starts working its way through the legislature, coverage of the nuclear power issue -- one of the more contentious piece of the huge bill -- is increasing. That's a positive;; public education and debate is good. But there's a big helping of misinformation and spin being served up as part of the menu.

Wisconsin citizens will have their first chance on Wednesday, Jan. 27, to tell state legislators that making it easier to build more nuclear reactors should not be part of a proposed Clean Energy Jobs bill.

A special State Senate committee considering the bill, (SB 450)  will hold a public hearing at 10 a.m. in Room 412 East of the State Capitol.  

It is critical that people turn out in numbers to register and testify against changing the current law, which protects citizens and the environment by requiring that a federal nuclear waste repository be operating to handle high-level radioactive waste from nuclear power reactors before any new ones can be built. 

Wisconsin urgently needs to reduce its carbon footprint while providing safe, secure, dependable and affordable energy. One proposed solution is to build new nuclear reactors to boil water to produce electricity. But can Wisconsin afford new nuclear reactors? Energy expert Peter Bradford says no, and will explain why in talks in LaCrosse on Nov. 3 and Milwaukee on Nov. 5.

Related story: Milwaukee Dems vote Carbon Free,Nuclear Free.

With over 40 years of experience in the fields of energy and utility regulation, Bradford is particularly well suited to answer this question. He served on the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission and is the former chair of the New York and Maine utility commissions.

Bradford will address the unfavorable economics of new nuclear reactors and debunk the myths that prop up the ‘nuclear renaissance’ idea. He will show that nuclear power is more expensive than alternative ways of combating climate change and how new nuclear reactors can only be built with taxpayer subsidies. Bradford will illustrate how investing in nuclear reactors will cost Wisconsin jobs, not create them as claimed by the nuclear industry.