WTN News Blogs FusionCIO Fusion CEO-CIO Symposium Digital Healthcare Conference WTN Media Advertise

Home Page Subscribe Calendar Columns IT Biotech Health Tech Economy Capital CIOs Visions More Topics…

Reproduction permitted for personal use only. For reprints and reprint permission, contact reprints@wistechnology.com.

What do we have to lose? Let's lift Wisconsin's nuclear moratorium

Tom Still

June 22, 2009

MADISON - The opponents of nuclear energy in the United States were almost giddy earlier this year when President Obama slashed the budget for a proposed waste storage site in Nevada. Surely, they thought, the inevitable demise of the Yucca Mountain project would end silly talk of splitting more atoms to produce power.

They were wrong. While Obama is no fan of the Nevada waste site, and he's certainly not foolish enough to battle Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in his home state, he understands the need to maintain - and even expand - America's fleet of commercial nuclear reactors.

“Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity,” Obama said during his 2008 campaign. “It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option…”

Some of the money shifted from Yucca Mountain has gone toward “next generation” nuclear energy research through the U.S. Department of Energy, which last month awarded 71 grants to U.S. universities - including 10 to the UW-Madison. The goal is to design a better nuclear plant, solve waste storage problems (perhaps through reactors that burn their own waste) and to keep dangerous materials out of the hands of terrorists and rogue nations.

“As a zero-carbon energy source, nuclear power must be part of our energy mix as we work towards energy independence and meeting the challenge of global warming,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu in announcing $44 million in grants. A day later, Chu unveiled a $2.9 million program to fund scholarships and fellowships for nuclear science and engineering students at U.S. universities and colleges. Chu said a new generation of nuclear scientists and engineers are needed for a growing industry.

This doesn't sound like an anti-nuke administration. In fact, it is cautiously bullish on expanding the use of nuclear energy and has singled out leading research programs such as UW-Madison to help meet that goal.

So, why does the state of Wisconsin cling to its outdated moratorium on building new generation plants?

Increasingly, the reasons for maintaining Wisconsin's Three Mile Island-era moratorium don't make sense. If you believe global climate change is the single largest environmental threat to the planet, you should embrace energy sources that don't emit greenhouse gases. If you believe there will be millions of new plug-in hybrid vehicles, all getting recharged while idle, you should want power sources that can reliably handle the load without generating more carbon.

Of course, solar and wind power will be a part of the answer, but those alternatives can't measure up to nuclear energy when it comes to steady and massive production of electricity. Today, those alternatives account for about 2 percent of electricity generation.

“Nuclear is the only large baseload source of energy that is not a fossil fuel, and the Obama administration has wisely decided to invest in nuclear along with other non-carbon sources,” said Michael Corradini, who chairs the UW-Madison Department of Engineering Physics. Baseload sources such as nuclear run around the clock, while solar and wind operate intermittently.

Supporters of Wisconsin's nuclear moratorium have moved from arguing that nuclear power isn't safe (coal kills thousands of people each year around the world, while the U.S. nuclear industry has yet to kill anyone) to insisting it's too costly. Since 2005, according to the Wisconsin Public Research Group, the projected cost of building a reactor has tripled. But other sources say the cost per kilowatt for nuclear energy is falling, which may explain why 17 applications are pending at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build 26 more reactors.

There are 104 commercial reactors in the United States today, producing about 20 percent of the nation's power. There are two reactors in Wisconsin, where the percentage of electricity coming from nukes is also about 20 percent.

There's nothing to lose by ending Wisconsin's 25-year-old moratorium. Federal investment is spurring work aimed at building safe, reliable nuclear power plants. Nuclear energy can be a major contributor to reducing greenhouse gases and curbing reliance on carbon-based fuels. And some of the leading researchers in the United States, if not the world, are right here in Wisconsin.

Lifting the moratorium doesn't mean Wisconsin will be build a new plant tomorrow. But it does mean the state can be ready for the inevitable day that science produces a cleaner, safer and more efficient reactor.

Recent articles by Tom Still

Tom Still is president of the Wisconsin Technology Council. He is the former associate editor of the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison.

The opinions expressed herein or statements made in the above column are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Wisconsin Technology Network, LLC. WTN accepts no legal liability or responsibility for any claims made or opinions expressed herein.

Comments

John Orth responded 4 months ago: #1

Tom Sills misses one of the key arguments for removing Wisonsin's Nuclear Reactor moritorium. It takes 10 years to plan, fund and build a Nuclear reactor, and no utility will even think of building one in Wisconsin until the Moritorium is lifted.
In the mean time, as he pointed out, 14 Utilities are planning on adding additional reactors in other states that do not have a Moritorium. The ignorance of the Democraticly controlled State Legislature and Governor who have rejected previous efforts to remove the Wisconsin Moritorium, has led them to reject the recommendations of a state legislative research bureau committee.
As a member of the committee I wittnessed a polarized set of Democratic delegates to the committee sleep thru proceedings or ignore them and then vote in unison against the recommendations of the majority. They need to start listening to the scientific experts instead of their politically correct responses.

Ted responded 4 months ago: #2

John Orth's information is classic. One of the reasons why the Wisconsin supporters of the moritorium like to cite the high costs of building a nuclear plant in Wisconsin is that they have been putting legal and technical obstacles to such construction in place for the last 40 years. You can be sure that the costs of building nuclear power plants in France (which gets 70% of its power from nuclear plants) are not prohibitive.
Perhaps 20 years ago, one of the original team of US Navy engineers assigned to design the first US Navy nuclear ship, told a Madison, WI technical audience that the very first nuclear ship was designed, built and launched in just three and one half years, and it performed flawlessly. He said that the only reason nuclear power was more costly than other plants was the excessive regulations put in place by the opponents of nuclear power. The US navy has a nuclear fleet which has never lost a sailor to a nuclear accident. My son-in-law ran the nuclear reactor of a US Navy submarine for 6 years. When the sub was taken in to port for a fuel inspection after 12 years of service running on its original fuel supply, they were told to take it out for another 6 years. Fuel costs for nuclear plants are low. The volume of fuel waste is exceedingly small and can be safely contained, shipped and stored. Public fear fanned by nuclear opponents and and ignorant and noncurious media (many of whom are more interested in attracting readers with nuclear scare stories than presenting the US Navy and US nuclear industry records of ZERO fatalities in 50 years of operation) are costing the nation billions, and forcing the massive use of fossil based energy to produce almost 80% of our electrical energy.
President Obama has said that his carbon carbon credits will "necessarily" cause the cost of electrical power to consumers (that means homeowners) to "skyrocket" because the producers of electrical energy from fossil fuels will all have to pay dearly for the right to burn fossil fuels.
Tom Still's article, while citing the research being done to produce even safer and more efficient and cost effective nuclear power plants, did not acknowledge that nuclear technology has already advanced well beyond the technology that was employed to build our country's present aging nuclear power plants, which have experienced ZERO loss of human life during 50 years of commercial operations with no carbon emissions. Windmills are the least efficient producers of the most expensive and most subsidized electrical power delivered to the grid, and must still be backed up by a power plant which can run when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.
SO, HOW DO WE CONVINCE PEOPLE WITH THE MENTALITIES OF THE DEMOCRATIC DELEGATES TO THE WISCONSIN COMMITTEE TO ACT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF A SOCIETY THAT IS BEING BROUGHT TO ITS ECONOMIC KNEES BY THE UNNECESSARILY EXPENSIVE COSTS OF FOSSIL BASED FUELS (NOW TO BE COMPOUNDED BY A CARBON TAX) THAT WE MUST END WISCONSIN'S KNOW NOTHING MORATORIUM??????????

Phil Carlson responded 4 months ago: #3

Thanks for the great article, Tom. Expanding on your reporting on the grants given to UW Nuclear Engineering Department it is unfortunate that the University of Wisconsin is cutting funding to its programs across the board. The future of nuclear engineering is enormous and the UW program is one of the nation's best. It should be expanded just as the biotechnology programs and facilities have been expanded. Madison should have as its goal to be the top nuclear engineering department in the world. With the people we have it could be done if university administration and the legislature have the wisdom and political will to accomplish it.

Donald Pay responded 4 months ago: #4

First, there is no statutory "moratorium." True, the nuclear industry can't meet some basic commonsense statutory requirements. The state won't license me to drive if I don't have correction to my vision. That's not a moratorium on my driving. For political purposes I might call this a "moratorium," but it really isn't. In fact the legislature would not have passed a "moratorium" or a "ban." The current language was a compromise that has served us well.

Second, if you knew anything about licensing of nuclear power you would understand that the federal government has sole jurisdiction over the radiological safety of nuclear power plants. You criticize the statute and environmental groups for not unconstitutionally wading into radiological safety matters. Let me assure you that should a license be applied for at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it would be challenged on safety matters. But state statute is not the place to do that.

Third, global climate change is a problem, but the radiological safety problems associated with the entire nuclear energy chain is a far bigger problem. Add to that the global security problems, and nuclear is far and away worse than fossil fuels.

Fourth, you call this a "Three Mile Island-era moratorium," but you have your time frame off by 3 years. This statute addressed concerns of cost and waste management, which were not being addressed adequately in 1983, and which still aren't being adequately addressed.

The fact is nuclear power, as you hint at in your piece, is on federal life support. But unlike GM and AIG there will never be a time when nuclear power will be off the government life line. Why would we want to encourage that?