Uppity Wisconsin

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.

One of the continual drum-beats of the energy industry is the promotion of the myth of clean coal.  If we need to continue the intense us of fossil fuel in this country, it's a reassuring notion to believe that somehow the environmental damage of coal burning could be stopped, while still using the vast resource of coal the US has. 

However, as a Christmas present to the people of Tennessee , we're reminded this morning just how clean coal can be, as a wall of fly-ash sludge has breached its containment pond, and washed over 400 acres of land.  This has contaminated the water supply for a large number of people and made several homes uninhabitable.  I expect that the cleanup for this incident will be lengthy and extremely expensive. The current push to continue to use coal and nuclear energy, despite the long-term environmental damage caused by both, is an irresponsible approach to stewardship of our country and the planet, and as we continue to reap the rewards of not maintaining the fragile infrastructure that holds this garbage in place, we'll see this sort of incident more and more.

The proposed Alliant Energy coal power plant in Cassville was turned down yesterday by the Citizen Utility Board - Following is the press release:

Coal Plant Proposal Rejected for First Time in Wisconsin History

Historic Decision will Save Ratepayers Money and Reduce Pollution

 

Madison, Wis -  Wisconsin regulators rejected a proposal to build a conventional coal plant for the first time in state history today when the Public Service Commission voted unanimously to reject Alliant Energy's highly controversial $1.26 billion coal plant on the shores of the Mississippi River in Cassville, Wisconsin.

The PSC will soon make a final decision on the application by Alliant Energy to build a coal-fired plant n the Mississippi River near Cassville, WI.

We are currently in a public input period for this, but it ends at Midnight Today.  If you are interested in stopping this plant, please leave input on the PSC's Web Site .

Why oppose this plant?  It will

One of the lessons the Republicans seem to have learned during their "Reign of Terrorism" is that it really doesn't matter how bald-faced the lie is - if you just keep repeating it, even after it's been proved to be a lie, it becomes the truth.  At least in the minds of a lot of Americans.  

As one of many recent examples, note that although all of us who actually read the papers know that the story about China drilling off-shore in Cuba is a lie, it keeps coming up.  Most recently, John Gard is using this particular lie in his campaign against Steve Kagan. Let's take a peek at the ad, which seems to imply that we should move to Venezuela or Saudi Arabia to get cheap oil - not sure that's what he intended:

So the Republican Cause Celebre for today is Obama saying that people should keep their tires inflated and get tune-ups to keep us from having to drill offshore.  They're sending tire gauges to congresscritters labeled "Obama Energy Plan".  Rush Limbaugh has gone completely out of control ridiculing Obama. And it's all one big silly joke amongst the always-humorous right.

Thing is- Obama is right.  Off-shore drilling is expected to be able to increase our oil intake by about 1% eventually.  Simple conservation measures like - oh, car maintenance, turning down your thermostat at night, changing your light bulbs to something more efficient - these all save one hell of a lot more energy than that.  God forbid someone should point it out.  It's really not the case that our thirst for energy needs to be ever-increasing.  It's really not the case that we need to freeze in the dark to lower our energy consumption.  Why is the right so determined to deplete the earth's resources that they won't even consider alternatives?  Not to mention any good energy-conserving public policy like backing public transit - according to our own state intelligentsia, there's no point in public transit because it's only used by "fringe" people.   Count me as a proud fringe person.

See Original Post

Last Thursday, the University of Wisconsin-Madison published this story:

An electric snowmobile built by student members of the University of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering Clean Snowmobile Team is now in Greenland, on loan to the National Science Foundation . . . at the Greenland Environmental Observatory (GEO Summit Camp).

Dubbed the Bucky EV, the snowmobile won the zero-emissions category of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Clean Snowmobile Challenge (CSC) in Houghton, Michigan, earlier this spring. The goal of this event is to promote the development of clean vehicles that can be used in environmentally sensitive areas where a gas-powered vehicle would contaminate air or snow samples . . .