Uppity Wisconsin

To the list of safety, environmental, and economic concerns about nuclear power, add another: Utilities do not have enough money set aside to decommission existing nuclear reactors when they are shut down, the Associated Press reports.

The nuclear reactors themselves become huge mountains of radioactive waste when they are shut down, and need to be disposed of.  But no storage site exists to accept the waste, so the reactor on the Mississippi at Genoa, WI, which stopped operating in 1987, is still there, awaiting decommissioning.

Point Beach has only about half of the estimated $684-million it will need for decommissioning, and the Kewaunee reactor is somewhat close to having enough money set aside if estimates of $359-million are correct, the Wisconsin State Journal reports.

Help stop a current effort to open the door to more nuclear reactors in Wisconsin. Learn more and sign an online petition here.

An online petition campaign to maintain Wisconsin's existing regulations on licensing of new nuclear reactors has been launched by the Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice, (WNPJ)  in cooperation with One Wisconsin Now (OWN).   The message:

Dear Friend,

We urgently need your help to maintain reasonable restrictions on nuclear power in Wisconsin.

Learn more and sign our petition here, or read on.

Wisconsin has wisely had a state law in place since 1984 that prohibits the construction of new nuclear reactors unless two conditions are met:

1. There is a federally-licensed facility to dispose of high-level radioactive waste from the reactors, and

2. The Public Service Commission makes a finding that nuclear power makes economic sense.

You wouldn't know it from the news media -- they can only cover one story at a time, and there's a state budget crisis -- but there is a growing, resurgent movement in Wisconsin determined to solve the energy and climate crises without resorting to nuclear energy.

It's not the old "No Nukes" movement, although there are elements of it, and the same reasons for opposing nuclear power in the past -- safety, waste, and cost -- and all still relevant reasons to oppose building more nuclear reactors.

But it's a broader, more thoughtful and sophisticated conversation taking place, that includes a commitment to finding efficient, renewable energy sources, reducing carbon emissions, and using conservation as part of the package.

The latest evidence of the new movement was a letter released Thursday by a dozen environmental and public interest groups, warning the government and the legislature that the unsolved question of how to dispose of deadly, highly radioactive waste, coupled with the high costs of construction, operation, security and storage of waste make nuclear power a bad, risky investment.

Let's give him his say first. I'll respond below.

Just tracked a story on nuclear. Re: your story on nuclear power presentations to legislative committees (from a couple of months ago) - - NEI (the Nuclear Energy Institute) did not, contrary to what your story indicated, pay for my work preparing or presenting my position on nuclear energy. NEI does pay for some of my nuclear advocacy work to individual legislators, and related research and incidental work.

Virtually all of the research and thinking presented to the legislative committees, as well as my fundamental change of position on nuclear (kindly described as a "flip flop" by your article) predated my meeting anyone from NEI.

A graduate student in nuclear engineering at UW-Madison, Brian Kiedrowski, has solved the nuclear waste disposal problem -- something the nuclear industry and the federal government have failed at for 50 years.  Can a Nobel Prize be far behind?

In a letter to the editor in the campus Badger Herald, Kiedrowski says:

Used fuel from all U.S. reactors over 40 years could fit in Camp Randall up to the goal posts. It is solid, compact and insoluble, not a green ooze that can leak.

Or maybe we could each take a small chunk of the solid, harmless stuff and store it in our homes or garages, if the volume's that small.

Kiedrowski doesn't mention that this stuff is highly radioactive, so deadly that the Environmental Protection Agency says it should be kept out of the environment and away from humans for hundreds of thousands if not a million years. (15,000 years ago, Wisconsin was covered by glaciers.)

Grist, the provocative online environmental magazine with an attitude, asks whether Earth Day, bring celebrated on Wednesday for the 40th year, still has any purpose or relevance.

Where I come from, them's fightin' words.

As the biographer of Gaylord Nelson, Earth Day's founder, my response is probably predictable. Others offer their takes, too.

Happy Earth Day.

Last night I counted 77 deer in about a 20 acre field. They were munching on the baby barley
and tender alfalfa shoots. My neighbor at church said there are so many deer they are scaring
away the turkeys. I thought turkeys and deer could live together.
Most folks around me are thinking about turkeys. But today I am thinking about deer.
In my neighborhood there are way too many deer.
This is not true up north. Hard winters and over hunting on public lands have decreased the deer
population.
But in our part of the state those babies are multiplying.
The DNR has a challenge counting deer and figuring out how best to manage the state’s herd.
The Conservation Congress is working hard and voting on possible ideas. At a public hearing in
Madison, scores of citizens offered suggestions.
Last week bus loads of people dressed in camouflage and blaze orange came to Madison to talk
about hunting. The Senate Committee on Transportation, Tourism, Forestry and Natural
Resources and the Assembly Fish and Wildlife Committee held a joint hearing on deer
management.
More than 700 people attended the hearing which filled the committee’s hearing room to
overflowing. Many had to monitor the proceedings over loud speakers set up in two other

Journal Sentinel report:

"I wouldn't classify it as an emergency situation," spokesman Mark Kanz said of the problem, "but it is something we did need to get taken care of right away."

That tends to be the case when you're dealing with highly radioactive uranium. You don't want to put it off.

Here's the report from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which had to be notified because of "a condition that significantly degrades plant safety."

You won't hear this from the pro-nukers trying to change the state law that has prevented any new reactors from being built here, but this shutdown is simply one more in a long series of problems and shutdowns that have plagued both Kewanuee and Point Beach. Point Beach, in fact, has had two of the four highest safety warnings ever issued by the NRC.

Just in time for the 30th anniversary of the Three Mile Island accident on March 28 comes more evidence that the nuclear industry is making Wisconsin a prime target for making nuclear power an option again.

In the last month, Wisconsin has seen a stacked legislative hearing, a drumbeat of pro-nuclear articles in Madison's daily press, and a concerted public relations effort here with visits by two nuclear power advocacy groups.

Now, Diane Farsetta of the Center for Media and Democracy has discovered that the nuclear industry has four lobbyists registered to work the Capitol and state agencies. It's the first time the Nuclear Energy Institute has had lobbyists here since at least 1996, she says in an article at PRWatch.org.

And although more that a dozen states have laws similar to Wisconsin's moratorium, NEI has registered lobbyists in only two other states -- and one per state versus four here.  Three of the four are staff members of NEI in Washington, but the fourth is home-grown.

An unusual closed hearing on nuclear power -- closed in the sense that only invited speakers will get to talk -- has been scheduled by two legislative committees for Thursday, March 12.

At first glance, it looks like one more stop in the railroad job that seems to be barreling down on Wisconsin, with the aim of making it easier to build new nuke plants here. There are some consumer and environmental advocates on the list, but they are outnumbered.

It's conveniently scheduled for Two Rivers, away from the population centers, so only the dedicated few will attend. If you possibly can, consider attending to show that you oppose any easing of the laws.

Two Rivers is best known as the home of one of the state's troubled nuclear power plants, Point Beach, which always seems to be under repair. Maybe the committees will get a tour and "briefing about how safe it all is.