Old energy source sparks new interest

For now, efforts to make nuclear power a bigger piece of Wisconsin's energy pie are a lot of talk, with little action expected anytime soon.

Legislation approved in 1983 put a halt to any serious talks of another nuclear power plant being built here, but there have been recent rumblings from some pushing for a new look at the technology.

The state Assembly this summer included a provision in its version of the budget that would have ended the moratorium on new plants, but it didn't make it into the final budget Gov. Jim Doyle signed into law.

The governor's own Task Force on Global Warming has discussed the possibility of more nuclear energy as it tries to compile recommendations to reduce greenhouse gases. And others are openly talking about the possibility of reconsidering nuclear power as a real option.

Drawbacks cited

Still, opponents say the drawbacks significantly outweigh any benefits of adding more nuclear power to Wisconsin's energy grid and the money needed to build a new plant could be better spent on other technologies.

Some estimates for a new nuclear plant are in the $4 billion to $5 billion range. By comparison, the coal-fired power plant Wisconsin Energy Corp. is building in Oak Creek, which features two 615 megawatt units, is the most expensive in state history at $2.3 billion.

When members of the governor's Task Force on Global Warming asked Doyle whether they should consider nuclear power as part of their effort, he told them nothing should be kept off the table.

Still, Doyle said the expense, liability issues and other economic factors make it unfeasible right now. What's more, Doyle said, someone else would likely have to go first before there would be any movement in Wisconsin.

Currently, there are two applications pending with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for new reactors in Texas and Alabama. The agency expects an additional 19 applications through 2009.

"It's very clear that Wisconsin is not going to be the first state in 35 years to build a new nuclear power plant," the governor said. "If there is going to be anything happening with nuclear energy, you'll see some other state with current applications pending moving forward and then people will probably take another look at it at that point, when they see what modern nuclear power plants look like."

Plants 30 years old

Wisconsin's two active nuclear power plants are more than 30 years old.

The Kewaunee plant has one unit that produces about 570 megawatts of power a year, while the two units at Point Beach generate about 520 megawatts each. Both are located along Lake Michigan.

Point Beach's operating permits expire in 2030 and 2033, while Kewaunee's expires in 2013. Dominion Reserve, which owns the Kewaunee plant, has told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission it intends to apply for a license renewal next year. If approved, it would extend the plant's life until 2033.

A third nuclear plant owned by Dairyland Power Cooperative along the Mississippi River was decommissioned several years ago.

Altogether, nuclear power accounted for 13.3 percent of the energy consumed in Wisconsin during 2005, compared to 60 percent from coal and 7.5 percent from natural gas, according to the latest Strategic Energy Assessment compiled by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.

State Rep. Phil Montgomery, R-Green Bay, has been pushing lawmakers to consider nuclear power. Montgomery chaired a special committee on nuclear power that produced legislation to repeal Wisconsin's "moratorium" on new nuclear power plants.

Rules block new plants

The law does not outright ban the construction of a new nuclear power plant. But it places a series of restrictions on state approval that currently makes it impossible to win approval for a new one.

That includes barring the state Public Service Commission from signing off until there is a federally licensed facility to dispose of nuclear waste from all plants operating in the state.

The U.S. Department of Energy has been studying Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a possible repository for nuclear waste since 1978. But intense opposition has held up those efforts.

Though the moratorium repeal was taken out of the budget, Montgomery is still pushing the proposal as stand-alone legislation. He said nuclear energy is the best option in Wisconsin to meet the growing demand for energy while reducing the emission of greenhouse gases.

Still, he said opposition remains intense because of the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island and other fears about nuclear power.

"To explain the benefits and the safety features and environmental features of nuclear, it takes some time and some thoughtful and deep research," Montgomery said. "Yet to oppose it and get people to fear it, it only takes a couple of seconds."

Roy Thilly, president of Sun Prairie-based Wisconsin Public Power Inc., co-chairs Doyle's Task Force on Global Warming, which is expected to wrap up its recommendations this spring. Thilly told WisPolitics this fall that he doesn't know what recommendations will make the final product. But he believes nuclear power should be considered part of the mix to reduce greenhouse gases.

"To say that we can't consider nuclear as an option in the future would be imprudent," he said.

But Brett Hulsey, an advocate for renewable energy, says proponents are overselling the benefits of nuclear power while ignoring the downsides.

He said it's vastly more expensive to produce nuclear energy than other options and not nearly as efficient. There still isn't a good solution for dealing with the nation's built up nuclear waste and efforts to bring back nuclear take away attention from more viable alternatives, he said.

"Nuclear is the most expensive, dangerous way ever invented of boiling water," said Hulsey, whose consulting business promotes biomass alternatives. "Using nuclear energy to make electricity is like cutting butter with a chainsaw."

JR Ross is the editor at WisPolitics.com.