State Rep. Kevin Petersen, a Waupaca Republican who clearly believes in individual responsibility, has an idea to solve the problem that has stumped the nuclear industry, scientists and the government for 50 years: What to do with the deadly nuclear waste produced by reactors?

It's such a small quantity, Petersen seems to say, that maybe we could all just carry our own around.

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. 

The proposed new law would eliminate that requirement and open the door to more reactors here.

What's wrong with that?  Well, the high-level radioactive waste the reactors produce is dangerous to humans and the environment for hundreds of thousands of years.  To put that into some perspective, I like to remind people that 15,000 years ago Wisconsin was covered by glaciers.

Climate change is real, and we must act.  But a friend and ally on this issue, Jennifer Nordstrom, likes to say that proposing more nuclear power as a solution to global warming is like telling someone to start smoking in order to lose weight.  Bad tradeoff.

We don't need nuclear power to solve our problems, and we don't need to fake the false choice between nukes and coal.  Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power.

The Clean Energy Jobs Act goes a long way toward putting Wisconsin on the right track toward renewable energy.  Probably 90 or 95% of it is good policy.  It was recommended by the Governor's Task Force on Global Warming, which worked long and hard to produce a comprehensive bill.

But there were a few too many utility reprersentatives and their allies on the task force, who were able to force the outnumbered environmentalists to accept a deal with the devil and include the provisions that reopen the door to more nuclear reactors.

Groups which participated in the task force, including several organizations with solid anti-nuclear credentials from past battles, are forbidden to seek changes in the bill; they are signed on to support the whole package.

So that leaves it up to the general public, the citizens of Wisconsin, the ones who got the current law passed, to keep it on the books.  That sensible law, passed in 1984, is the one that says before you can build another reactor there must be a federal waste repository to handle the waste it produces. 

Why did Wisconsin pass that law?  Here's what the Legislature said at the time:

The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:

SECTION 1 . Legislative findings and purpose. The legislature finds that :

(1) Until there is a facility available for the permanent disposal of radioactive waste from nuclear power plants, the present lack of a long-term waste disposal option increases the risk that the insufficiency of interim storage space for spent fuel could lead to power plant shutdowns.

(2) Large cost overruns in nuclear power plant construction projects in other states have adversely affected ratepayers .

(3) The public service commission, by order, has found that present uncertainties in the nuclear fuel cycle regarding waste storage and disposal, uranium availability, reprocessing and decommissioning costs make it contrary to the public interest for Wisconsin utilities to commit themselves presently to any future nuclear expansion.

(4) The public service commission, by order, has required electric utilities to identify maximum cost-effective conservation and renewable energy potential in their service areas and to submit specific proposals for achieving the potential.

(5) The public service commission, by order, has recognized that wind, water and other alternative sources of energy are potentially valuable as a supplement to conventional electric generation in this state and that it is in the public interest for utilities to become more involved in the development and implementation of such sources.

The US nuclear industry has been producing that waste for more than 50 years, but hasn't been able to solve the problem of how to dispose of it safely and permanently. Neither has any other country, and despite what the nuclear advocates tell you about those clever French folks they haven't done it, either.

Please speak up.  Sign this petition.   Call or write your legislator.  Come to the hearing.  Go to this webpage and get more information and ideas.

Don't let them nuke Wisconsin's climate.

Wisconsin Environment slammed the right-wing Wisconsin Policy Research Institute (WPRI) yesterday about their inaccurate and misleading report about the Governor’s initiatives to grow the renewable energy industry and create green jobs.

Here’s an excerpt from Wisconsin Environment’s report:

“…the WPRI report fails to acknowledge the many obvious economic and other benefits that would result from a broad effort to repower Wisconsin with clean energy.

Among the long list of benefits (apparently) not considered in the analysis are the following:

1.) Avoided costs of electricity generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure resulting from reduced energy demand or the incorporation of on-site renewable generation.

2.) Increased income for Wisconsin farmers resulting from increased use of biofuels and the potential to lease lands for wind turbines and other forms of renewable energy development.

3.) Health benefits (including reductions in absenteeism, early mortality and possibly health care costs) from avoided fossil fuel-related pollution, including reductions in pollutants that form smog and soot, and mercury deposition in waterways.

4.) Avoided economic impacts of global warming in Wisconsin, including predicted changes that threaten to reduce the productivity of agriculture, increase the possibility of dangerous floods, shift the composition of Wisconsin forests, affect the winter recreation industry, and more.

5.) Reductions in the risk to individuals, businesses and government posed by sudden shifts in fossil fuel prices.

6.) Energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy both have hedging value as insurance against sudden spikes in fossil fuel costs.”

 Doyle also critiqued the report, saying “Anybody who doesn’t think this creates jobs is simply not looking around.” Doyle’s Office of Energy Independence released a study saying the legislation would create 15,000 jobs by 2025.

This is far from the first time OWN has noted WPRI’s propensity for twisting the truth to suit the interests of their monied special interest and corporate friends.

And yet the University of Wisconsin-Madison poli sci department doesn’t believe their joint polling effort with WPRI doesn’t help advance a conservative legislative agenda?

You can visit Wisconsin Environment’s report in the report section at www.WisconsinEnvironment.org.

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. And he will explain why Wisconsin’s state statute regulating the construction of new reactors is still a good law.

Bradford will speak Tuesday, November 3, at 7 pm at UW‐La Crosse, Graff Hall Main Auditorium, and on Thursday, Nov. 5, at 7 pm at the Urban Ecology Center, 1500 E. Park Place, Milwaukee. He also will participate in a panel on Saturday, Nov. 7, at the Future Cities conference in Madison.

photo credit: bredgur.com

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. Fifty years and still no way to dispose of the deadly end products, which the Environmental Protection Agency says must be kept away from humans for up to a million years.

If, as the industry would have us believe, a solution is just around the corner, what's wrong with waiting until we turn that corner?

Says Still:

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.

In the meantime, just last week a new study found that it would cost taxpayers and ratepayers about $2- to $4-trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables.

Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power.

If you agree, please sign our online petition here to keep Wisconsin's sensible laws on the books.

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 preserve the state's existing law regulating licensing of new nuclear power 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 1983 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. 

The nuclear industry, using concerns over global climate change, is trying to resurrect itself as a viable option, calling nuclear energy a “clean” solution. 

The Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming, as part of a long list of recommendations, has proposed relaxing the law on nuclear reactors and eliminating the requirement that the waste disposal problem be solved.

To license more reactors to produce more deadly radioactive waste without any way to dispose of it is not only irresponsible.  It is unconscionable.

Sign HERE to stop that from happening.

The waste generated by the reactors is so deadly that the Environmental Protection Agency has issued rules requiring that it be kept out of the environment and away from humans for up to a million years!  To put that into perspective, 15,000 years ago Wisconsin was covered by glaciers.

Opening Wisconsin to more nuclear plants could have another dangerous side effect – increasing federal pressure to select our state as the repository for the nation’s radioactive waste, in the granite formations in central and northern Wisconsin.

Nuclear power has never made economic sense, despite rosy predictions.  No new nuclear plants are being built because the economic risks are too high. That's why the nuclear industry keeps looking for billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidy. 

Act now!  Sign this petition! Tell the governor and legislators there are far better ways to fight global warming than risking the safety and economic well-being of Wisconsinites by opening the door to more nuclear reactors.

Thank you,

Chamomile Nusz and Bill Christofferson, co-chairs,

Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice.

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.

With the state considering solutions to reduce our global warming pollution, a new WISPIRG report finds that renewable energy sources can produce far more electricity than nuclear plants for less money.

Unfortunately, the nuclear industry has proposed thirty new reactors across the country at an estimated cost of $300 billion.

"Taxpayers should not be subsidizing nuclear power when there are faster, cleaner, cheaper alternatives to meet our energy needs," said WISPIRG Advocate Kara Rumsey.

Here in Wisconsin the nuclear industry is pushing to overturn a long-standing law that prevents new nuclear plants from being built unless the proposed plant is economically advantageous to ratepayers and there is safe and adequate disposal for radioactive waste.

Nuclear power is among the most costly approaches to solving America's energy problems.

"Per dollar of investment, clean energy solutions - such as energy efficiency and renewable resources - deliver far more energy than nuclear power," Rumsey stated.

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.

The star lobbyist in Wisconsin -- although he usually isn't identified as a lobbyist -- is Frank Jablonski, a former environmental lawyer who's done a flip-flop on nuclear power. As Farsetta notes, the media love stories about no-nukers who've jumped the fence -- but the story's not quite as good if the convert is on the industry payroll. Jablonski was one of the witnesses at the stacked legislative hearing, but no one mentioned he was on NEI's payroll. He was listed on the hearing agenda as the founder of the Progressive Law Group, his law firm. Nice touch.

Why Wisconsin, a state with a history of anti-nuclear activity that stopped three proposed reactors from being built in the 1970s, passed a moratorium on more plants, and voted 8-1 against a nuclear waste disposal site here?

What makes Wisconsin so attractive to the pro-nukers right now is a set of recommendations from the Governor's Task Force on Global Warming, which includes a relaxation in the current law on licensing nuclear power plants.

The law now requires there to be a federal storage facility to handle the deadly, high level radioactive waste from the plants before any more can be built. The new law would eliminate that requirement.

Trouble is, after 50 years of producing more waste every day the industry and the government still have no long-term solution. It is piling up at nuclear reactors across the country, including three in Wisconsin.

How dangerous is it? The Environmental Protection Agency says some of it is so deadly it must be kept out of the environment for up to a million years. As I pointed out in a recent op ed column, a mere 15,000 years ago our state was covered by glaciers. So planning for a million years out is going to be tough.

The recommendations aren't going to come up for action in the legislature until later in the year, but the nuclear railroad is building up a head of steam now. Meanwhile, many of the environmental groups that have historically opposed nuclear power in the state -- some of the same groups who helped pass the moratorium law and prevented its repeal in past sessions -- were members of the governor's task force. They have agreed to support the whole package -- which contains some very good changes in the law to sharply reduce and limit greenhouse gas emissions, among other things -- and not try to pick out the parts they don't like.

It is not likely to be a fair fight, with the money all on the industry's side and many of the environmental lobbyists on the sideline. But there will be a solid grassroots effort to keep the current law in place. Count on it. This is still Wisconsin.

Happy TMI Day, everyone.