State should keep open mind on nuclear power

Well stated. It may take a bit of guts to suggest this, but your logic is undeniably compelling.

Tom:

Your arguments are well put together and certainly bring to light an excellent option that we in Wisconsin are denying ourselves. I would like to offer an expansion in your statistics, though.

It appears that there may be as many as 30 nuclear reactors in the planning stages in the U.S., which could increase installed nuclear capacity by as much as 40 percent. Prof. Paul Wilson of the UW-Madison's Energy Institute will be giving a talk on just this topic to the Madison section of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). This talk entitled "New Nuclear Generation" will be at 11:45 am on Thursday November 9th, at Rocky Roccoco's Pizza, 7952 Tree Lane, on Madison's West side. (http://www.bugsoft.com/ieee/meetings.html)

Again thanks for your well-stated article.

Mitch Bradt
IEEE Madison Section Chair

Sorry to say, your analysis falls far short of the full picture, causing the question to arise about the purpose of the omissions.

While Wisconsin is a donor in terms of buying fossil fuels (who are the out-state 'beneficiaries' and who 'donate'/sacrifice the degradations for our fossil fuels' extractions), Wisconsin is a recipient (not by any means a beneficiary) of the side effects - among the worst mercury. I was told at hearings about the new Oak Creek coal burner that 66 pounds of mercury will be emitted into the atmosphere each year under the new design in spite of best practices because of the vast increase in quantity of coal burned, and that if no more mercury entered Lake Michigan as of now it would take fifty years to lift the fish consumption advisories. What are the economic costs of losing that resource? Please figure that into the calculations.

A couple of assumptions also need revising.

Government has always been a player in the 'marketplace' and implications otherwise should be expunged. Your citations of Wisconsin government actions on UW campuses, etc. give proof of governments actions in the market - government will be setting specifications and purchasing goods and services from the non-government parts of the market, as usual, to reach their goals, as government determines them under far more stringent oversight than in the 'private sector'.

You write, "environmentalists are fretting over what's "sustainable,"? I thought we were all environmentalists. Why the separation? And are there any who do not fret about what is sustainable?

What are the costs to Wisconsin of nuclear power? The nuclear fuels that come into the state when spent will likely stay here forever and cost ratepayers money every day - even if somehow there is a decision on a place to gather the wastes outside of Wisconsin- all with no return in the form of electricity generated. And don't forget to mention that NE Wisconsin's stable geology is still under consideration for 'storing' the rest of the world's spent nuclear waste. What would the externalities' costs of that be?

You cite the 30+ year age of our two nuclear plants meaning they are close to final shutdown. What then? Careful deconstruction and recycling? Too contaminated with radioactivity for that, so they must remain in place - unused forever and ever. Security costs, upkeep to keep them from rotting and allowing radioactivity to escape into Lake Michigan, costing ratepayers every day - forever and ever.

Nuclear zealots want to try new theories for generating electricity from nuclear power, like pebble bed technology? I read recently that China will be the first to try it. No track record yet. How about a research pebble bed reactor here, in Wisconsin? Zealots should meet with their neighbors and get them on board for siting it near their homes so that the advocates are taking more of the risks - donating themselves for what they see as the benefits.

Thorough analysis would establish theoretical maximum conservation levels for current uses and where we're at - just look around at outdoor lighting that's on during the day to see some of how far we have yet to go toward, say, six-sigma energy conservation.

The Union of Concerned Scientists published a study about powering the Midwest using biomass - over ten years ago. How much has been implemented? Large dairy operations collect manure in large pits, as I saw at a recent Farm Progress Days. Combustible gases from such pits, etc. could be collected and burned in a turbine generator, but are not. Instead, manure is allowed to de-gas into the atmosphere causing further global warming degradation. Yard clippings, tree trimmings, etc. etc. could be centrally collected and burned to boil water. ETC.

Free-fuel energy from wind, un-dammed water, and the sun eliminate the need for Wisconsin to be a 'donor' for fossil fuels and the whole really and ethically messy cycles involved with their extractions. Buffering the intermittent characteristics of free-fuel sources can be done via hydrogen generation and storage. And didn't Lee Sherman Dreyfus suggest an underground superconducting magnet or capacitor of some sort for storage back in the early 1980s?

How far along are we toward implementing what is possible from these free-fuel sources? The prices are right, long-term, and we best be focusing our efforts on what is right, rather than dwelling on trying to figure out a way to jury-rig the forever expenses for fuels already proven to be too costly in so many ways.

With all this to consider, that Advance Plan process tossed out by Republicans years ago sounds pretty good, especially when you add in that Wisconsin’s energy prices have since sky-rocketed.