Uppity Wisconsin

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.

From Friends of the Earth.

I'm happy to announce that a book by my favorite author (well, after Mark Twain) is now available in audio book format.

Twelve hours? I would not have guessed it. More here.

This is not a Wisconsin story, but in light of the current debate in Wisconsin over expansion of nuclear energy, I think it's worth discussing.  Although the Vermont Yankee power plant in Vermont has been poised for a license renewal, the Vermont Senate today decided that they had had enough, and voted to close the plant down in 2012.  Those of you who follow these things will now ask "How the heck can that be? -- The state has no power over this". Normally true, but when Entergy purchased the plant, they agreed to let the state renew the state license for the plant at the time that the Federal license came up for renewal.Thus Vermont Yankee will soon be the first nuclear plant shut down by local government since Rancho Seco in 1989 (and that was simply because the plant had become too expensive to operate).

The Vermont Yankee plant has been troubled in recent years, having had a cooling tower collapse in 2007 (pictured here), and there have been recent disclosurs that the 38 year old plant has been leaking radioactive tritium.  Entergy and the state legislature have been embroiled in controversy over the tritium leak, since Entergy claimed the plant had not underground pipes capable of leaking tritium, a claim which later turned out to be false.

Although Entergy may consider filing suit to fight the shutdown, it seems unlikely that they will succeed in the unique legal circumstances of this particular plant. 

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?

Without comment, excerpts from two news stories this week.

The AP reports:

[State Sen. Glenn] Grothman issued a statement saying Wisconsin has seen two consecutive colder-than-average winters and the panels should suspend their work for two years until global warming is proven.

The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The decade ending in 2009 was the warmest on record, new surface temperature figures released Thursday by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration show.

The agency also found that 2009 was the second warmest year since 1880, when modern temperature measurement began. The warmest year was 2005.

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. 

Our own Bill Christofferson talks about Gaylord Nelson in this book chat.

Photo:  Fighting Bob LaFollette (upper right)  harmonizes with the Grannies.

From Here to There Conference this November 13-14 in Fitchburg, WI.

This Midwest-focused Bioneers event is designed to address the question of "How can we get from where we are right now, to where we want to be?" Seeking to spark imaginative conversations about a just and sustainable tomorrow, key issues relating to food, water, energy, transportation, clean air -- to life on Planet Earth -- will be addressed.

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.

This from our friends at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service:

The New York Times yesterday published a remarkable joint op-ed from Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC). Remarkable not because Graham became the first Republican to sign on to a climate bill, but because of the enormous price Kerry paid for that support.

Their op-ed calls for vastly increased support not only for new nuclear reactors but also coal and oil as well. Indeed, their proposal reads like nothing more than a wish list from the dirty energy industry. If adopted, their proposal would make the climate bill one in name only, and instead would provide a dirty energy bonanza that would rival the worst excesses of the Bush administration.