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.

New ad from Senator Feingold on protecting our resources.

Brighton, Colorado (FNS)—Attorneys from the Republican Study Group (RSG) descended upon the 17th Judicial District courtroom of Judge John T Bryan today to present an amicus brief and associated oral arguments in order to prevent a settlement in a lawsuit related to an automobile accident in this Colorado city.

The intervening attorneys claim the settlement reached between the two parties to the accident is a “shakedown” because the plaintiff had not yet exhausted all possible legal remedies when the agreement was finalized, and because the agreement was executed in the presence of the plaintiff’s brother, a well-known local attorney.

They hope Judge Bryan will decline to approve the settlement in today’s hearing, and that he will order the parties to move forward to trial. “What we have is government transferring property from one party, an admittedly unattractive one, to others, not based on preexisting laws but on decisions by one man, a car czar”, said Crush Mimbaugh, attorney for the RSG, “and we are here today to protect all Americans from this legally sanctioned rape of an innocent driver.”

We’re now into day way too many of the BP oil spill, and the President has just yesterday been down on the Louisiana coast—again.

There have been suggestions that the Administration should take action to essentially push BP out of the way and take over the work itself, particularly as it relates to the cleanup.

It may have even occurred to you that an official declaration of some sort might be needed, in order to bring the full power of the Feds into play.

That’s some good thinking, but before we go jumping right into declaring things we better understand the law, because if we don’t, we could actually make things worse.

Wisconsin is giving $45 million in bond money it recently received from the federal government to a maker of wind-turbine blades  to help it set up a factory in Wisconsin Rapids, reports Thomas Content of the Journal Sentinel. The new wind power factory could create about 600 non-polluting, non-violent jobs, a welcome and refreshing use of state and federal money. Energy Composites, which makes, among other things, sulfur dioxide scrubbers for coal-fired power plants, is a smaller, local corporation now employing 67 people.

Baton Rouge (FNS)—Facing both a massive oil slick from a sunken offshore drilling platform and a second year of declining tourism revenues along the Louisiana Gulf Coast caused by high gas prices, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal today introduced a new tourism promotion that he reports is going to “...make lemons into lemonade”.

Jindal, flanked by British Petroleum's Director of Marketing Dick Timoneous and the Executive Director of the Louisiana State Tourism Board, Jenna Talia, announced that the “All The Oil You Can Carry Festival” would officially commence today just east of New Orleans, and last at least through the month of May.

According to Jindal, "Louisiana produces 30 percent to 40 percent of the nation's oil and gas off our coast. It is certainly good for our economy...It is also good for the nation...We're sending tens of billions of dollars overseas, often to countries who are not friendly to us...this is one of the reasons we've got such a large trade deficit...and today, we’re doing something about it."

Executive Director Talia told the assembled journalists that Louisiana Highway 90 will be closed at Fort Macomb for the weekend so that families can fan out across The Rigolets and gather their own free samples of BP oil.

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.

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.

Nuclear waste is no laughing mattter. The highly radioactive waste from nuclear reactors is so daedly it must be contained, out of the environment and away from people, for hundreds of thousands of years. (No one has yet figured out how to do that, by the way.

But it's hard not to chuckle when someone drags out the old illustration intended to minimize the problem. The latest to use the same old example is State Rep. Kevin Petersen, a Waupaca Republican:

A 12 ounce can of soda would hold one person's lifetime worth of spent nuclear fuel.

So, no problem, right? If each of us just carried around that soda can, or left it in the fridge, or under the bed, we could quite looking for a nuclear waste repository. Of course, we'd all come down with fatal diseases. But no point in mentioning that; it's a bummer.

Rep. Petersen may not remember, because he graduated from high school in 1983, but that was the same year voters of Wisconsin were asked, in an advisory referendum, whether they wanted our state to be the site of a nuclear waste repository.

State legislators who want more nuclear reactors in Wisconsin are ready to try again, with a bill to repeal what is commonly, and incorrectly, called the state's nuclear moratorium law.

The usual suspects, State Reps. Mike Huebsch and Phil Montgomery and State Sen. Joe Leibham, are circulating a draft of their proposal and looking for co-sponsors before introducing it. Current law does not prohibit new nuclear reactors. It simply sets two requirements before a new nuclear plant can be licensed:

(1) That a federally-licensed facility be available to dispose of the high-level radioactive waste generated by the reactors, and (2) that the Public Service Commission make a finding that nuclear power makes economic sense for consumers.

That has amounted to a de facto moratorium on news plants because there is no safe, permanent way to dispose of the radioactive waste, which is so deadly it must be kept out of the environment for hundreds of thousands of years. The nuclear industry has been producing the waste for more than 50 years, but has not solved the problem. Instead, it wants to change the rules.

Profuse apologies to John Lennon. But that refrain was in my brain after reading Tom Still's plea that Wisconsin consider nuclear power. "What do we have to lose?" he asks. (More on that later)

Still, president of something called the Wisconsin Technology Council, thinks it's a crying shame that Wisconsin has a moratorium law on the books that won't allow the state to even consider nuclear power as an option.

It will come as a surprise to many -- but not, I suspect, to Tom Still -- to learn that there is no nuclear "moratorium" in effect that bans more nuclear power plants in the state.

What is on the books is a perfectly reasonable law that says if you want to build a new reactor here, there are two requirements that must be met first:

(1) There must be a federal site to dispose of the dangerous, high level radioactive waste the reactors produce, and

(2) The Public Service Commission must find that nuclear power makes economic sense.

That's no ban or moratorium. It merely sets some reasonable requirements. But since the law was passed in 1984 the nuclear industry has not been able to meet those tests. So now it wants to relax the law.

It has been more than 50 years since the US began generating nuclear power -- and nuclear waste.

I drew my conclusion that nuclear energy should be used as part of an environmental and energy strategy from looking over a lot of documents written by scientists who have engaged the question of nuclear energy.  The following is a good summary example of the perspective I believe to be common among knowledgeable scientists:

http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/rpt_SustainableEnergyFuture_Aug2008.pdf

This, document, issued at about the time of the 2008 political conventions, is titled  “A Sustainable Energy Future:  The Essential Role of Nuclear Energy”

This document was signed by all the heads of the National Labs, including Steven Chu, who went on to become Secretary of Energy in the Obama Administration.  Here is a quote:

It’s great to see that people are starting to think about hybrid vehicles, but so far, they really haven’t been for me.

You know why?

Because for the most part, they have no...style.

The Prius?

If you look at it sideways, and squint, it looks more like a pepita than a car.

The Insight?

They say it’s stylish...but it looks like a Prius to me.

You know what I want?

I want someone to build the biggest, nastiest, most oversized hybrid the world has ever seen. Something drenched with chrome, with seating for...many, and a convertible top; and maybe, if all my dreams come true: tail fins.

Something crazy.

Something ridiculous.

Something...American.

Well, guess what?

Somebody’s already gone out and had one built—and ironically, that somebody is Neil Young, Canadian.

So let me tell you what Neil Young did: lately, he’s been tearing around the countryside in a converted 1959 Lincoln Continental Mark IV that he calls the LincVolt.

Here’s the good part: it’s a “series hybrid” vehicle that gets 65 miles to the gallon.

I'd rather be writing this for readers of the Wisconsin State Journal, who have been fed a steady diet of pro-nuclear news and views lately, but the WSJ was not interested in my point of view. (They weren't too interested in it when I worked there 30+ years ago, either.)

 I considered raising the $600,000 or so it would take to buy up all of the Lee Enterprises stock and shut down the whole chain, including the State Journal. But that will have to wait.

 In the meantime, the recent op ed column by an editorial page intern demands a closer look, even if it is only for my own readers. It's headlined, "Nuclear fear factor: It's really not so bad." The premise is that young people have grown up with a lot of false worries about how dangerous nuclear power is.

There are so many targets in the piece that it's hard to know where to aim. Let's just settle for picking a few choice quotes:

The beginning of the New Year brings legislators back to Madison to open a new legislative session. A flurry of bills are being introduced and every imaginable interest group is finalizing their legislative agenda and bringing their concerns to the Capitol. Many groups are organizing grassroots campaigns to encourage local people to contact their legislators.

In my home neighborhood a wind energy development firm is writing to encourage local farmers and other land owners to contact me in support of wind-power.

Renewable energy is on nearly every legislators ‘to do’ list. Although challenges vary across the state, there is almost universal agreement that we need to move beyond our current fossil fuel based economy. Wisconsin is moving forward with leadership from the Office of Energy Independence, the Global Warming Task Force and state agencies.