OPINION & EDITORIAL
Nuclear plant ban ridiculous
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Sam Clegg:
- No movie plotline: Iraqi plan won't fly (March 6, 2008)
- Grocery store has a profit potential (February 29, 2008)
- Keep on turning in illegal immigrants (February 21, 2008)
- Robin Hood only lives in fairy tales, liberals' fantasies (February 7, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Justification for Iraq in North Korea (April 28, 2003)
- U.S. has no right to regulate nukes (February 7, 2007)
- Beyond cogen (October 17, 2003)
- Iran key concern for Israel (January 26, 2006)
- Nuclear power worth risks (October 18, 2007)
by Sam Clegg
Friday, March 14, 2008
I try to refrain from doing this. Neither political party can claim exclusive rights to stupidity. And yet sometimes it is impossible not to wonder if certain members of the state Legislature have their heads screwed on right.
Such is the case with the state Assembly Democrats’ opposition to lifting a de facto statewide ban on the construction of nuclear power plants in Wisconsin. Current state statute effectively prohibits any additional nuclear power in the state by prohibiting the production of a nuclear plant until a permanent waste storage site is found, and it can be proven that Wisconsin residents would save money through the operation of such a facility.
The 57-38 vote took place along what were essentially party lines, meaning the Republicans who make up the majority of the Assembly managed to pass the legislation. Because the Democratic Senate will almost undoubtedly kill the proposal, however, it is reasonable to expect that this last salvo of legislative progress on the part of Republicans will be tossed. The flimsy justifications the Democrats have given merit to further investigation.
The most valid arguments the Democrats could produce are the provisions of the ban itself –— nuclear energy will not currently save energy users much money, and there is nowhere to permanently store the waste.
First to the economics. Rep. Chuck Benedict, D-Beloit, a leading proponent of upholding the ban, believes that “Wisconsin should invest in viable, cleaner, renewable alternatives.”
Although the financial incentives of nuclear power in the state do not currently compare with fossil fuels, this neglects the acknowledged specter of the future — fossil fuels will only get more expensive, because they are running out. More problematically for the ban, other potential energy investments such as biofuels or natural gas also require substantial amounts of subsidies before biofuel facilities can even be built, much less exist competitively.
Thus the difference between nuclear power and the most commonly pushed alternative — biofuels — is a colossal one. Nuclear energy can be effectively produced now at competitive prices. Biofuels would require subsidies only so that more research could be done without any tangible benefit in the short run. Ethanol is one such an example. Even with massive federal investment, the miracle that was to liberate us from our dependence on foreign energy has failed to do, well, anything at all.
Most tellingly, continual defense of the ban neglects the vast intellectual resources present in the state itself. This university also has one of the most advanced nuclear programs in the country. Since the research infrastructure is already in place, I have to wonder why university administrators are not fighting the ban more ardently, especially considering the limitless potential for cooperation between our own nuclear researchers and the corporate moguls on the business side of the equation.
Preventing nuclear facilities from being built is also a self-fufilling prophecy — they will never be economically viable if we refuse to allow companies to build them in the first place.
Finding a practical and responsible method of cooling and permanently storing nuclear waste, on the other hand, is a valid concern, and the Democrats are right in expressing it. Massive amounts of water are traditionally used to cool the spent fuel rods, which make up the greatest proportion of radioactive waste from a nuclear plant.
With the development of advanced Generation 4 reactors, which use helium or liquid sodium to cool spent nuclear fuel, the question of water usage seems to be answered. And as for permanent storage, despite how much it might irk U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, all signs point to Yucca.
Technical arguments aside, the question should be asked: Why should I give a damn?
Global warming, environmental pollution, the lack of affordable energy — all of these shake the very notion of our existence to its core by posing a fundamental question: Are we, as human beings, capable of sustaining ourselves?
The answer is yes. Unequivocally. But as ridiculous as ignoring the question may be, ignoring the answer is far worse.
Sam Clegg (sclegg@badgerherald.com) is a freshman majoring in political science and economics.
Anonymous (March 14, 2008 @ 7:25am):
Politicians in general, especially the Dems (but the Reps are almost as guilty) will never try to solve a problem. They want energy prices to soar using "alternative" fuels that will impact not only fuel costs (make them rise), but will also affect the cost of food and more. They want as many people to suffer as possible to they can make them think they can "solve" the problem (that they actually caused). If a politician thinks it is a good idea, then odds are it is not. They cannot fix anything, because if they do, they no longer have an issue. In recorded history, there has been almost nothing solved by the political process, other than reversing measures once used to solve a problem.
Regarding nuclear power, if the politicians (and the antis) would take time to actually learn about what they do not understand, their mind may be changed. As one who has taken the time to educate myself, I can say the excuses given by the politicians do little more than prove their ignorance (and tells me why they are politicians and really not contributing to society). The sad thing is people actually vote for these people, so what does that say about the reasoning of the voters?
Anonymous (March 14, 2008 @ 9:06am):
Building pebble-bed nuclear power plants would solve many problems. To run everything possible on electricity from them would greatly reduce oil/coal use and CO2.
Anonymous (March 14, 2008 @ 3:51pm):
and pebble bed reactors are the most efficient way to produce hydrogen in a carbon-free manner via thermochemical production of hydrogen which can only take place at the temperatures produced by pebble bed reactors.
Anonymous (March 14, 2008 @ 4:52pm):
Very good points. I would add, however, that the question of which energy sources to pursue is a matter for investors and industrialists to decide. Just as government has no right to decide what computer technology is "right for Wisconsin," it has no right to decide what energy people use.
Also, government subsidies are always harmful to energy production because they divert funds from promising energies - ones that would attract investors in a private market - to ones that are not promising.
Anonymous (March 14, 2008 @ 9:30pm):
A lovely article.
Anonymous (March 15, 2008 @ 6:35am):
Actually, you are wrong about the cooling, fuel assemblies can be stored in dry storage units (called casks) after 5 years (actually sooner, but laws are laws). No water is required.
As for radioactivity, the "bad stuff" (the stuff that will hurt you by standing next to it, vice ingesting it) is around for 500-800 years (not the 10s of thousands that antis claim), a long time, but more manageable. One could further reduce waste by reprocessing, but our friend Jimmy Carter saw to it that it will not happen here in the US.
As I said, get educated (good article, but it still had misconceptions).
Anonymous (March 15, 2008 @ 11:45am):
First, there is no "ban" on nuclear power. That attempt was thwarted in the early 1980s. The current law represents a reasonable compromise between those who would ban nuclear power outright and those who want to build nuclear power without regard to its costs or the fact that waste disposal issues are not solved.
The current law creates two commonsense threshold steps placed in front of nuclear power plants. Those thresholds were reasonable in 1983 and they are even more valid today.
Anonymous (March 15, 2008 @ 4:15pm):
Carbon burning "waste disposal" is a bigger problem than anything conceivable with nuclear power.
Anonymous (March 15, 2008 @ 7:55pm):
The waste products from coal burning are a huge problem, but nothing like the high-level radioactive waste issue. There is no solution to that problem in the near future.
Anonymous (March 16, 2008 @ 2:49pm):
Except the "problem" of nuclear waste is one that is currently being solved. The waste products from nuclear power are being safely stored right now, not harming anyone. The issue is over the longterm viability of current storage facilities, as in we might have to replace them every couple of decades. There is no solution to the waste products from coal burning, temporary or long term.
Anonymous (March 16, 2008 @ 4:20pm):
"First, there is no "ban" on nuclear power."
Not true. Current laws impose an effective ban - which is still a ban - on nuclear power, because there's no way to meet the government's arbitrary requirements.
It is none of the government's business whether Nuclear plants are cost effective or not. This is only a concern for investors and owners of these plants. Also, there are plenty of solutions for storing nuclear waste, and they too are continually hampered by government regulations.
The only concern of government should be ensuring that no one's rights are being violated. Otherwise they should stay out of the way.
Anonymous (March 16, 2008 @ 7:44pm):
Current storage is not a long-term solution. That certainaly is not the position of the nuclear industry. They are suing and winning in federal claims court against DOE because DOE has not taken control of the high-level waste. Clearly, the nuclear industry wants the federal government to take control of the waste. They understand the waste is a long-term liability issue that would kill their industry if they were ever to have to take responsibility for safe and permenant disposal of the waste. They certainly understand that permanent storage onsite would doom nuclear power.
If you want to kill the nuclear industry fast, just make them be totally responsible for the waste on-site forever. I'd be in favor of lifting the "ban" if you would agree to enact this in its place.
There's over 100+ years of established legal precedent regarding state regulation of public utilities. States who have deregulaged have regretted it.
Anonymous (March 17, 2008 @ 9:59am):
"The waste products from coal burning are a huge problem, but nothing like the high-level radioactive waste issue."
You are right.
The waste products of coal burning are killing people every day, not to mention the long term effects of the radioactive by-products of mining and burning coal, or the effects on the climate of the CO2 and particulates.
I'm not aware of anyone dying from the effects of nuclear waste.
That is a big difference.
Anonymous (March 17, 2008 @ 12:45pm):
Hey, I've got a great idea. Why don't we replace the stuff we dig out of the ground with different stuff we dig out of the ground?
Solar, wind, and geothermal are the LONG TERM best choices. Germany and Iceland are doing terrific work in solar and geothermal, respectively.
Anonymous (March 17, 2008 @ 3:43pm):
I'm happy you recognize the radioactive nature of some of the ash produced from coal burning. It's something many environmentalists recognized 30+ years ago. However, there's lots of nuclear waste left from mining and milling of uranium, and a lot of it has caused cancer.
Anonymous (March 17, 2008 @ 5:31pm):
Except during our fabulous Wisconsin winters is there even enough sunlight to power my computer? and geothermal is nice if you happen to live on top of volcanoes. Solar, wind and geothermal are all parts of the long term solution, but there are a ton of places where none of those solutions will work and nuclear can step in to fill those gaps.
Anonymous (March 17, 2008 @ 6:57pm):
"If you want to kill the nuclear industry fast, just make them be totally responsible for the waste on-site forever. I'd be in favor of lifting the "ban" if you would agree to enact this in its place."
Well, I don't share your desire to kill the nuclear industry. I want it to thrive, because having inexpensive and safe sources of power is a good thing.
Also neither I nor you have a right to place arbitrary rules such as "total responsibility forever" on anyone. Such non-objective law would kill the nuclear industry and protect no one.
The proper policy is to allow private industry to innovate solutions for storage (which they already have). If these solutions are shown to be an objective danger, then they would be dealt with in a court of law.
Anonymous (March 17, 2008 @ 8:54pm):
"The proper policy is to allow private industry to innovate solutions for storage (which they already have). If these solutions are shown to be an objective danger, then they would be dealt with in a court of law."
Yeah, that's what happened with uranium mining back in the 50s-80s. All that private industry "innovation" without adequate regulation resulted in mining and mill tailings inadequately isolated from the environment, and most of the costs paid by taxpayers. Nuclear power seems to be "cost effective" only because it has been able to socialize a good share of its true cost.
Anonymous (March 18, 2008 @ 8:00am):
"Except during our fabulous Wisconsin winters is there even enough sunlight to power my computer?"
Yeah, it's totally dark during the day. I walk around in total blackness, except for the spelunking helmet that is barely enough to illuminate my path.
When I was growing up, I believed that America was the most innovative country on the planet. The brains of this country could overcome any obstacle, but that perception has faded over the past 10 years.
Any innovation is happening in Europe and Asia. Colleges here are pumping out worthless degrees for masses of drone workers. Innovation has been stifled, because corporations are comfortable maintaining their near-monopoly positions.
So, dim Wisconsin winter sun, can you give us anything? Nah, it's not even worth trying... the situation is hopeless.
Anonymous (March 18, 2008 @ 2:24pm):
"So, dim Wisconsin winter sun, can you give us anything?"
Nope, nothing economical, but you'd need to know a bit of science to understand why.
PS. Keeping the snow and ice off the apparatus would also be a problem.
Anonymous (March 18, 2008 @ 6:07pm):
"If these solutions are shown to be an objective danger, then they would be dealt with in a court of law."
"Yeah, that's what happened with uranium mining back in the 50s-80s. All that private industry "innovation" without adequate regulation resulted in mining and mill tailings inadequately isolated from the environment, and most of the costs paid by taxpayers."
Hardly. Instead of protecting property rights and prosecuting any actual violations, they focused instead on senseless goals such as requiring "isolation from the environment," and then socked taxpayers to achieve these ends.
It is not innovation that causes these problems, it's having regulations that "protect the environment" instead of laws that protect people's rights.
Anonymous (March 18, 2008 @ 6:13pm):
The point of that comment was not to say that solar power is not part of the solution, it certainly is, but merely to point out that it will not be the entire solution. There are some areas that might be able to rely almost entirely on solar power, but in other areas of the country there will continue to be a need for power that we can access wherever and whenever we need it.
Anonymous (March 18, 2008 @ 8:25pm):
"Instead of protecting property rights and prosecuting any actual violations, they focused instead on senseless goals such as requiring "isolation from the environment," and then socked taxpayers to achieve these ends.
It is not innovation that causes these problems, it's having regulations that "protect the environment" instead of laws that protect people's rights."
It's pretty clear you are ignorant of the history of the nuclear industry, and the way in which the government has protected it from liability and prosecution.
First, I do agree nuclear industry executives and policymakers,scientists and engineers from industry and government ought to be prosecuted. What has happened in too many communities in the West is premeditated murder by the nuclear industry-government-academic complex.
There are lots of ranchers out
west whose property has been devalued by the nuclear industry, but that's hardly their most pressing concern. They are far more concerned with whether the groundwater is going to be safe to drink or the air to breath for their children. They are concerned because uranium mining elevates radionuclide levels above background levels, with attendent elevated risks for cancer.
In scores of places out west the nuclear industry "innovated" by carting radioactive wastes off site and incorporting them into building materials, fill, etc. Rather than taking responsibility for remediating these problems, the nuclear industry let the government do the job for them.
Anonymous (March 18, 2008 @ 10:47pm):
"It's pretty clear you are ignorant of the history of the nuclear industry, and the way in which the government has protected it from liability and prosecution."
No, I agree with your historical points, I don't agree with your evaluation of them. You are mixing two things: innovation and premeditated murder. These are not the same.
I am for leaving the nuclear power industry free to innovate and produce energy. If someone or some company is causing health problems or polluting someone else's property, then they should be stopped.
But, you have to show an objective harm. Some farmer's "concern" about radiation levels above background is not grounds for regulating nuclear power out of existence.
Anonymous (March 19, 2008 @ 7:13am):
Objective harm is strewn all over the Western US. It was premeditated murder in a lot of instances. These scientists and engineers knew or ought to have known the danger in the materials they were scattering. Objective harms: cancer clusters associated with elevated levels of radionuclides due to uranium mining, milling; reduced productivity of pasture; reduced property values; illnesses and reduced growth rates in cattle due to foraging on lands previously mined. You are either ignorant of the history of the nuclear industry or you are purposely obfuscating.
Anonymous (March 19, 2008 @ 4:51pm):
This is not a historical question. I'm not saying anything about history. I'm saying that when objective harm has been done, this needs to be addressed in a court of law. If you don't feel this was done, fine. That's a different issue.
So, you don't need to keep bringing up these cases, because my response will continue to be the same: if objective harm has been done then this can and should be proven in a court of law.
The issue we are talking about is whether nuclear power should be deregulated. It should be. It is a safe, clean, and beneficial source of energy.
The fact that you keep raising these alleged cases of harm proves nothing about the safety of nuclear. It's like saying because there are cases where cars have been defective and killed someone, cars should be regulated out of existence. This doesn't follow.
Anonymous (March 19, 2008 @ 8:37pm):
I'd suspect that coal mining and burning has killed many more people and released more radioactivity than uranium and nuclear power.
Come on, even Stewart Brand is for nuclear power these days.
âThere were legitimate reasons to worry about nuclear power, but now that we know about the threat of climate change, we have to put the risks in perspective,â he says. âSure, nuclear waste is a problem, but the great thing about it is you know where it is and you can guard it. The bad thing about coal waste is that you donât know where it is and you donât know what itâs doing. The carbon dioxide is in everybodyâs atmosphere.â
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/science/earth/27tier.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Anonymous (March 20, 2008 @ 8:59am):
"The issue we are talking about is whether nuclear power should be deregulated."
Allow me to interject. Has deregulation worked well for airlines? I seem to remember a story last week about Southwest failing to inspect their planes; at least one had a cracked fuselage. Also, how many airlines have gone out of business or declared bankruptcy since deregulation? How many times has the government (ie, not the free market) had to bail them out?
We would all like to believe that private industry is the ultimate form of capitalism in this country, but corporate America has consistently relied on the federal government, the tax-payer as a safety net.
I would rather not allow NUCLEAR power to fall into the hands of profit-focused businessmen who have often proven that making money is their sole objective. Welfare of the economy and individual livelihood are often an afterthought. (Enron, Bear Stearns, Health insurance companies, Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, etc)
Anonymous (March 20, 2008 @ 8:10pm):
"The issue we are talking about is whether nuclear power should be deregulated."
About the only thing the nuclear industry and I would agree on is that the industry must be regulated. There are strong disagreements about what those regulations should be, but only an ultra-extremist fringe (one more associated with a cult than the nuclear industry), would eliminate all regulation on the industry. I've been fighting the nuclear industry off and on for forty years, and your extreme arguments have never been put forward by anyone in any responsible position in the nuclear industry. The extremism just blows my mind, and I don't think the industry would appreciate it. It sort of makes me wonder whether you are truly a supporter of nuclear power. Your extremist position is not doing the industry any favors.
Anonymous (March 21, 2008 @ 3:28pm):
"Has deregulation worked well for airlines?"
Deregulated? That's pure fantasy. The airline industry is so regulated it's almost an arm of the government. The government dictates everything from what items can be carried on a plane, to what the stewards must say, to how the airplanes have to be built, how heavy they can be, how the runways need to be built, when inspections need to be done, etc.
"I seem to remember a story last week about Southwest failing to inspect their planes; at least one had a cracked fuselage. Also, how many airlines have gone out of business or declared bankruptcy since deregulation? How many times has the government (ie, not the free market) had to bail them out?"
All of these cases are CAUSED by government regulation. The government has driven many of these airlines out of business since 9/11 by preventing mergers, grounding planes for extended periods of time, dictating hiring, firing practices, and work hours, imposing TONS of homeland security regulations, etc.
If an airline fails in a free-market, it should be allowed to fail - government bailouts are wrong.
"I would rather not allow NUCLEAR power to fall into the hands of profit-focused businessmen who have often proven that making money is their sole objective. Welfare of the economy and individual livelihood are often an afterthought."
There is no conflict between making money and individual livelihood. All the alleged evils you cite are a product of government, not free-markets. Oil companies, for example, are under constant pressure NOT to develop new sources of oil and are dragged before Congress to apologize for making "too much profit." That's anything but a free-market.
Anonymous (March 21, 2008 @ 3:44pm):
"The extremism just blows my mind, and I don't think the industry would appreciate it."
It blows many people's minds, because very few people today understand the value of freedom.
My extreme position - and it is extreme - is that people should be left free to create values such as nuclear power, airplane transportation, etc. The only role of government is to prevent force or fraud.
The idea that leaving people free to pursue their own interests (making profit, for example), leads to death and destruction is wrong.
Rather than citing a million cases of capitalism's alleged harm - all of which are caused by our mixed economy, not capitalism - ask yourself why, in principle, a free-market would lead to all these things. It doesn't.
Anonymous (March 22, 2008 @ 12:37pm):
"If an airline fails in a free-market, it should be allowed to fail - government bailouts are wrong."
Wrong, if an airline fails in the free market, people die. Stripping regulations would cause many corners to be cut for the sake of profit.
The free market is a fantasy. The invisible hand is not real.
Anonymous (March 22, 2008 @ 7:36pm):
"Wrong, if an airline fails in the free market, people die. Stripping regulations would cause many corners to be cut for the sake of profit."
How so? By "fail" I mean fail financially; this is what government bail-outs prevent - financial failures. If a company fails to make money this does not cause people to die.
In fact, it is profit that protects against incompetence. The inability to make money, and hence to fail, in a free-market is what weeds out those who cut corners. To make a profit in a free market one has to attract customers - no one's going to support an airline they deem to be unsafe.
Regulation invites incompetence because rather than having to prove oneself in the market place, all one has to do is follow government rules. This punishes companies who may have a better way of doing things, and props up (and bails-out) those who have no skills but to follow orders.
Nuclear power is a prime example. Look at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Was this caused by the pursuit of profit? Certainly not. It was caused by people following government mandated rules.
Anonymous (March 23, 2008 @ 11:06am):
"In fact, it is profit that protects against incompetence."
What are you smoking? Profit gets us the least acceptable product at the highest price we'll be willing to pay.
Fast food hamburgers, for example. So delicious and bargain priced, but you can almost taste the immigrant workers' fingers in the beef. The bargain basement prices almost make me forget about the occasional hemorrhagic E. coli outbreak.
Anonymous (March 23, 2008 @ 4:51pm):
"It blows many people's minds, because very few people today understand the value of freedom."
Nothing like insulting nearly all the people in the world and bragging about yourself to convince people of your view. Keep blogging; you're making everyone realize what a complete fool you are.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
