H -°, L 6° | Tomorrow: 
H 18°, L 6°
Wisconsin could be in for higher costs if it lifts it’s ban on new nuclear energy plants, a former commissioner for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Friday at the State Capitol.
Peter Bradford, who served on the NRC from 1977 to 1982, outlined the apparent and hidden costs associated with using nuclear energy if Wisconsin lifted its moratorium on building new nuclear plants.
“Obviously, it’s not my place to tell you what to do in terms of Wisconsin law and policy, so what I’ll try to do is to give … a sense of the backdrop and the effect that new nuclear power is having,” Bradford said.
Bradford said nuclear production comes with serious financial risks for companies, taxpayers and consumers because of their uncertain returns on investments and their high costs to build and operate.
“This is not just speculation on my part,” Bradford said. “It really is playing out in states that are further down this road.”
Instead of solving the country’s energy problems with nuclear options, Bradford said energy efficiency measures can lower demand for new nuclear plants and other energy sources, ultimately leading to more savings for the state’s consumers.
According to Bradford, the capacity for nuclear energy production has been constant both nationally and worldwide for many years. These numbers, he said, are not indicative of a “nuclear renaissance,” but the interest in using nuclear energy has arisen due to climate concerns.
Bradford said the United States Department of Energy announced a plan in 2002 that would build new nuclear plants by 2010, but the plan has since been modified to approve plans by 2010 to build facilities over the next decade.
“Congress passed a number of incentives to get new plants built … and the result was that the NRC does now have 17 pending applications to build 24 plants,” Bradford said.
Bradford added, however, this is a “paper renaissance” because those companies have been careful to say they have not made a firm decision to implement those plans.
Rep. Mark Honadel, R-South Milwaukee, a member of the Committee on Energy and Utilities, however, said he does not understand why nuclear power is not put to use when the country already built a storage facility for the byproducts.
“I am one of the representatives [who] have been to Yucca Mountain, and it’s heart-wrenching that they spent millions for that hole and we can’t use it to store waste,” Honadel said.
Honadel said nuclear energy should be used because it is a good baseload energy source and it does not create a lot of carbon emissions.
Senate President Fred Risser, D-Madison, welcomed Bradford to the Capitol, the last stop on a three-city tour hosted by the Wisconsin branch of Physicians for Social Responsibility, which included the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse and the Urban Ecology Center of Milwaukee.
IP hash: fc732ce0
PSR respectfully suggests that Rep. Honadel double check his facts about Yucca Mountain and nuclear energy:
To begin with, the high level nuclear waste facility at Yucca Mountain is NOT “already built.” In fact, its license has not yet been granted.
Secondly, nuclear energy is not a good baseload energy source because it is much more expensive, dangerous and slow to come on line than currently available alternatives.
Lastly, to address climate change, we need to change carbon emissions as soon as possible. We don’t have the industrial capacity or financial resources to build enough reactors fast enough to mitigate climate change.
The $10 Billion of rate-payer money that has been spent in exploring the geologically flawed site in Nevada should serve as a warning to rate-payers and taxpayers about the extreme costs and dangers of nuclear power. After 51 years, the nuclear industry cannot build a single new reactor without taxpayer subsidies, such as the currently proposed nuclear loan guarantees in federal climate legislation.
IP hash: 1d5efc01
Alfred,
I respectfully disagree with your idea that nuclear power is dangerous. What is dangerous about it? The reactors are designed to shut down automatically: the ‘scram’ or ‘trip’ process with control rods and neutron deactivators is capable of stopping even intentional reactor overload processes in less than 4 seconds! These processes are also tied to the PRESENCE of power - loss of control systems power instantly shuts down the reactors —> No ‘meltdowns.’
Your comment about the availability of nuclear power with respect to other production methods is also misinformed. I challenge you to make the wind blow faster or the sun shine brighter when you need more power. I guarantee that the nuclear plant operators can increase power output on demand, since they actually have a fuel and power-regulating processes.
If you meant with regards to baseload power plants, please recall that natural gas plants are on-demand plants, and not baseload. Coal, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear are the backbone, 24/7 plants in use. The cost of coal, yes, is cheap. The environmental cost of its CO2 emissions, which you state we must cut, is very high and/or unknown. Nuclear plant emissions consist of steam (water) and spent fuel, but their spent fuel is tightly controlled and regulated. (Good luck tracking down all of the coal plant emissions, but I bet you can track down every piece of spent fuel from a reactor — just look on site).
Also, ‘geologically flawed’? Surely you don’t feel that Hanford or Texas offer better choices?
Personally, I would love the development of nuclear power in Wisconsin, especially right in my own backyard. We need to move past the use of just light-water reactors and begin recycling our nuclear waste with fast reactors, which can burn up the ‘nasty’ actinides that dominate high-level waste.
You mention changing carbon emissions; I challenge you for a method. Carbon sequestration is unproven and unwieldy, thanks to the lack of usefully-located geologic structures. For example, only NW Wisconsin has the geologic structure to support a sequestration plant, but the idea of building a plant where there is no local demand for sequestration is asinine.
Lastly, I am sure Rep. Honadel was referring to the bored hole and side channels that already exist in the YM facility, and not that the facility does not have its operating license.