Advertisement
Some see it as a necessary part of our energy mix. They say it’s cleaner than coal and more reliable than renewable sources like wind for meeting our growing needs.
 |
Looking up from the first floor in the reactor building. Dick Riniker photo |
Others see it fraught with environmental and economic dangers and have no interest in lifting a moratorium on new nuclear plants in the state.
But with both major party presidential candidates at least considering nuclear as part of their energy policies, the energy source that fell out of favor in recent decades has, surprisingly, found its way back to the table.
Five years ago, political science professor Joe Heim wouldn’t have expected presidential candidates to be talking about nuclear.
But now Sen. John McCain has called for 45 new nuclear plants to be built by 2030, with an ultimate goal of 100 new plants. Sen. Barack Obama does not mention nuclear in the energy policy published on his Web site, but has said it should be explored as part of the mix.
“The government seems to be warming up to the idea of at least considering nuclear power,” said Heim, of the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. “What they like to say is that everything has its place but there’s no one solution to our problems. And that’s why nuclear is being looked at again.”
After nuclear plants sprang up around the nation in the 1960s, safety issues caused support to wane. But a new energy context, affected largely by climate change and a desire to become energy-independent, has made nuclear power more palatable to some.
Dairyland Power Cooperative began commercially operating the first nuclear plant in Wisconsin in 1969, a decade after the nation’s first commercial plant went online.
With a 50-megawatt capacity, the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor in Genoa, Wis., was a relatively small generator. Dairyland shut down the plant in 1987.
Dairyland closed the plant because regulations and a systemwide surplus of powermade it unprofitable, company officials said.
At the same time, the industry as a whole was facing new challenges.
Two accidents — Three Mile Island in 1979 in Pennsylvania and Chernobyl in 1986 in the former Soviet Union — made the public wary. And since 1977, when President Jimmy Carter put a moratorium on reprocessing nuclear fuel out of a concern for weapons proliferation, the industry and government have not been able to agree on where to store the spent fuel.
The government chose Yucca Mountain in Nevada, and it was to begin accepting waste there in 1998. But opposition has kept plans on hold, and energy companies have sued the government. Dairyland is seeking $54 million and counting for the ongoing costs of storing its waste.
Dairyland still employs 27 people plus 24-hour security at its Genoa plant, which costs $5.5 to $6 million a year to maintain. While some of the plant has been dismantled and shipped to storage sites, rods filled with used fuel pellets still sit in a cooling pool there.
“We would not be here if the government had picked up the fuel, like they had promised, in 1998,” said plant manager Roger Christians, standing near the cooling pool.
But while the Genoa plant has been shut down, Dairyland, like other energy companies, would like to see more nuclear plants in the future. They recently studied the feasibility of collaborating to build and operate a new plant outside of Wisconsin, said Charles Sans Crainte, vice president of generation. The La Crosse-based cooperative serves customers in Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois as well as Wisconsin.
But on its own, Dairyland doesn’t have enough money to build a new plant, he said.
The cost can range from $5 billion to $12 billion, according to industry estimates.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is processing 17 applications for new plants.
Supporters point to the need for an around-the-clock base load energy supply, which currently comes from coal, natural gas and nuclear plants.
While Dairyland and Xcel Energy are both pursuing renewable energy sources like wind and solar, the companies say these sources can complement, but not sustain, that base load.
“When you look at the load forecast and the energy appetite of the public and business, it doesn’t seem to be going down,” said Terry Pickens, Xcel’s director of nuclear regulatory policy. “We’re still learning how we’re going to incorporate all of these renewables into our system... Wind doesn’t blow all the time. Sun doesn’t shine all the time... The one carbon-free resource we have that does have a long-established history is nuclear.“
Xcel operates three nuclear reactors at two sites in Minnesota, with a combined capacity of about 1,600 megawatts. They are applying to increase the output by about 235 megawatts.
Wisconsin gets about 20 percent of its electricity from three nuclear reactors at two sites on the eastern side of the state.
While Minnesota and Wisconsin both have legislation prohibiting new nuclear plants from being built, those have been challenged in recent years.
Rep. Mike Huebsch, speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly, has introduced legislation to lift the state’s moratorium in the past. The West Salem Republican said he’d like to see nuclear producing as much energy as possible in this state.
Besides being cleaner than natural gas and coal, he said, it keeps the U.S. from relying on foreign fuel.
“Generally you’re not going to purchase (energy) from countries who have put funds into armies who are out to destroy us,” Huebsch said.
Major suppliers of uranium are Canada, Australia and Russia’s weapons stock. The U.S. also has uranium.
Huebsch’s opponent in the November Assembly race, Democrat Cheryl Hancock, is less supportive of nuclear.
“I wouldn’t block it from being discussed,” Hancock said. “But my personal belief is that I don’t believe it’s the answer.“
State Rep. Jennifer Shilling voted against lifting the ban in the last legislative session. The La Crosse Democrat wrote in an e-mail that her opposition was based on transportation and storage issues for nuclear waste.
“Given that the Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming included modifying the current moratorium to allow (the nuclear) option … I would expect nuclear power to be included in a comprehensive energy package that would come before the Legislature in the near future,” she wrote. “However, without knowing what other elements would also make up that package, I cannot give it my support at this time.”
Generally, Democrats have been less supportive of nuclear than Republicans.
Heim, the political science professor, said both houses would probably have to become Republican for the moratorium to be lifted.
“Even proponents of this are not just running down the road as fast as they can,” Heim said. “They’re fairly controlled in their response. Lifting the ban is not the same as approving a power plant. It’s sort of like opening the door just a bit.“
State Sen. Dan Kapanke said nuclear should be on the table, but he currently supports the moratorium. He said allowing the reprocessing of nuclear fuel, which is done in some European countries, is key to making nuclear work here.
Others think the moratorium should remain.
“Discussion about lifting the moratorium does a disservice to the discussion we need to have,” said Dan Kohler, director of Wisconsin Environment. “We get sidetracked with the nuclear question.“
Energy policy must prioritize sources that are cheapest, most efficient and cleanest, he said, and nuclear does not rank high on that list.
“It fails miserably at cheapest and most efficient,” Kohler said.
While energy companies argue nuclear is needed to create emissions-free base load energy, Kohler would like to see investments in renewable technologies.
“It depends on your framework for where we are headed,” Kohler said. “What does your energy approach look like 10 to 20 years down the road?“
Homeowners, farmers and businesses could generate their own energy from windmills, biomass and solar power sources, he said. The UW system could be tapped for research into these new technologies. And new jobs could be created retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency and building an infrastructure for renewable energy, which could be more local and decentralized than the current infrastructure.
“I think most people would agree it’d be better if you could just create your own energy,” Kohler said. “Most people would agree if we could have an energy mix in this country that didn’t involve nuclear power, that would be better. … The question is just, ‘Can we do it?’ And we think absolutely we can.”
No one interviewed for this article sees new nuclear coming to Wisconsin in the near future, and the national future of nuclear energy depends largely on the next president.
At the Genoa plant last week, plant manager Christians discussed the candidates with Tim Krueger, a health physics technician there.
“Obama says he’ll look at nuclear and that’s what he’ll do,” said Krueger, a McCain supporter. “He’ll look at it and he’ll discount it.“
Christians, an Obama supporter, said if nuclear was the only issue, there’d be only one candidate: McCain.
“There’s a lot of other issues,” he said.
Where the candidates stand on the issue
State Rep. Mike Huebsch (R-West Salem): Supports nuclear and has introduced legislation to lift state moratorium on new plants.
Cheryl Hancock (Democrat challenging Huebsch): Against
Would not vote to lift the moratorium today, but wouldn’t block nuclear from discussions.
State Rep. Jennifer Shilling (D-La Crosse): Voted against lifting the moratorium; concerned about transportation and storage of waste.
State Sen. Dan Kapanke (R-La Crosse): Nuclear should be considered but supports moratorium pending solution to waste storage.
Tara Johnson (Democrat challenging Kapanke): Against. “I am an open minded problem solver. However, I lived in Pennsylvania, was 16 years old when Three Mile Island happened. So I’m not there yet. I am not convinced of its safety yet.”
U.S. Rep Ron Kind (D-La Crosse): Supports nuclear power as part of energy mix.
Paul Stark (Kind’s Republican challenger): Supports nuclear power as part of energy mix.
Kevin Barrett (Kind’s Libertarian challenger): Supports nuclear power as part of an overall transition to sustainable energy, agriculture, and infrastructure. That transition requires planet-wide demilitarization, without which there will almost certainly be a world-war-driven civilizational collapse during the coming century.
