News
Energy forum looks ahead
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Katherine Kehoe:
- Skeptics doubt likelihood plan will create jobs (May 3, 2009)
- State law may ban free labor (April 12, 2009)
- Supporters march for troops (April 5, 2009)
- Baldwin seeks passage of universal health care (March 30, 2009)
- New bill would allow for privatization of road tests (March 2, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
The University of Wisconsin hosted the Energy Hub Conference Friday where keynote speaker Dr. Patrick Moore discussed the future of alternative energy.
Moore co-founded Greenpeace, serving for nine years as president of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as director of Greenpeace International. Moore split with Greenpeace in 1986 and has since become a vocal critic of many of their policies, especially Greenpeace’s stance against nuclear power.
Today, Moore serves as co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, an organization which promotes nuclear power. He also works as chair and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies, a consultant group which, according to Moore, is devoted to “sensible environmentalism.”
In his speech at the eHub Conference, Moore talked mainly about the benefits of nuclear power, emphasizing that “public policy wants nuclear plants, not coal plants.”
After a lack of progress in nuclear energy for decades, experts have seen a recent increase in interest surrounding it.
“The number of students studying nuclear engineering has … quadrupled in four years,” said Gerald Kulcinski, UW professor of nuclear engineering and director of the Fusion Technology Institute.
According to Moore, the nuclear power revival has begun within the last decade because of the pragmatism of the solution as “a long-term power source that’s sitting there, able to be used.”
Along with the environmental advantages of moving away from using fossil fuels, supporters credit the financial benefits of nuclear energy compared to other alternative fuel sources as another major draw.
“The cost of electricity from nuclear plants is the lowest, always competing with coal in today’s market,” Kulcinski said.
Although Moore and others support nuclear energy, a vocal section of the population remains against pursuing nuclear power as an alternative fuel source.
“Until there’s a way to adequately recycle waste or turn it into a state that eliminates its radioactivity, it really is not the best option for us as a country,” said Tony Uhl, chair of Wisconsin Student Public Interest Research Group.
Uhl also added that nuclear power plants are extremely expensive, and that money can easily be invested in other types of energy to provide the same sort of returns.
Despite these concerns, Kulcinski insists that nuclear power is not only a practical alternative to the use of fossil fuels, but one that will cause no harm to the public as it is “very, very safe.”
Moore agreed in his speech, referring to a recent interview where, when asked if he would live near a nuclear power plant, he replied, “I’d not only live by a nuclear power plant, I’d live in one.”
Kulcinski also said that part of the reason why nuclear plants have been controversial in the past is because of a negative perception of anything nuclear.
“People will always associate nuclear power with nuclear weapons, and that’s really a misconception because they’re quite different,” Kulcinski said.
Despite some public protest against the power source, both Kulcinski and Moore are optimistic about its future and think that people will begin to see nuclear power differently because of recent increase in public concern for environmental issues.
—Alex Brousseau contributed to this report.
5 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
Energy Independence needs to be included in the realm of our serious economic issues. Our dependence on foreign oil impacts every aspect of our society and economy We have so much available in the way of FREE energy, solar and wind that can be utilized to replace oil. Hybrid and electric plug in cars would replace another huge percentage of our dependence on foreign oil. We spent 168 BILLION on a stimulus pkg that did nothing for our economy. Now there is talk of another stimulus pkg. Why not invest in initiating alternative energy sources and making hybrid and plug in car technology. It cost the equivalent of 60 cents a gal of gas to drive an elec car. Investing in renewable sources of energy would create millions of badly needed jobs. It is a win-win situation. We have the knowledge and the technology, what we seem to lack as a nation is a PLAN. Jeff Wilson has a great new book out called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence NOW. I highly recommend this book.
After 30 years of irrational rhetoric from Luddites like Tony Uhl and Courtney Ehlers, a nation starved for energy is again considering nuclear power. Great! Get on with it! And in the process, not only push the myopic resistance aside but firmly backhand them.
As Prof. Kulcinski can attest, the federally funded fusion energy research programs supporting the Tokamak Physics Experiment(TPX) and International Tokamak Experiemental Reactor (ITER) had their budgets savaged by the Clinton administration in the mid 1990s. The Change Team from Hope, AR decided that social welfare programs were more important than developing new energy sources based on the exceedingly clean fusion of hydrogen atoms.
The results? The US did not build the double walled titanium toroidal fusion reactor TPX. We did not learn and demonstrate and teach how controlled fusion reactions can be initiated and sustained. We did not lead an increasingly energy starved world into a new century of bountiful and exceedingly clean energy. We spent the money on feel good welfare programs that produced nothing but more welfare dependency.
As for the other international fusion energy research program ITER, US support was reduced to a minimal effort. The first full scale demonstration reactor for fusion energy is being built in France. They are learning and demonstrating and teaching how fusion energy can become a reality. The French are leading the way in nuclear technologies because the US has chosen to accomodate Luddites like Uhl and Ehlers. The US has chosen to starve its economy of the energy it so desperately needs.
There is no shortage of energy sources or supply within the borders of the US. There is only the lack of political will to use them. Similarly, we don’t need government support to make conventional nuclear power the abundant and low cost alternative to any other method of generating electricity. We just need the government to remove the Luddite roadblocks and streamline the permitting, construction, and certification processes. The stay the hell out of the way.
“Until there’s a way to adequately recycle waste or turn it into a state that eliminates its radioactivity, it really is not the best option for us as a country”
Yeah, and until you can get wind energy without windmills that spoil the view and solar power without despoiling the pristine desert those are “bad” too.
Let’s also not forget the Clinton/Gore/Kerry cancellation of the successful Integral Fast Reactor project in the 1990’s that demonstrated the highly efficient closed system of recycling spent fuel, and the Carter legacy of roadblocks to spent fuel reprocessing and fast reactor research. Where would we be today if all of that would have been implemented instead of shelved??