OPINION & EDITORIAL
No new nukes: Use solar, wind power
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- Herald wrong to print abortion ad (March 13, 2008)
- Contrary to common contention, religion inspires inquiry (March 12, 2008)
- Science only part of human condition (March 12, 2008)
- Students should respond to bogus policy proposal (March 10, 2008)
- NAFTA not making the grade (March 7, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Stuck in soot (November 29, 2006)
- Nuclear plant ban ridiculous (March 14, 2008)
- Fund conservation programs (April 22, 2005)
- Board misses point (December 1, 2006)
- How WE CONSERVE (December 3, 2007)
by Letters to the Editor
Monday, March 24, 2008
Recently, columnist Sam Clegg wrote about nuclear power plants and the good that they could do for Wisconsin’s economy (“Nuclear plant ban ridiculous” March 14). While a well-stated argument, there are some factors Mr. Clegg neglected to mention in his article. There is a reason the ban is in place right now and there are other, usable resources of energy that would be better for the environment and the residents of Wisconsin. In addition, there are the dangers that disposing of the radioactive nuclear waste has.
Nuclear power plants have not had the best history, which is why some people are skeptical of building more. The meltdowns of Chernobyl in Russia in 1986 and Three Mile Island in New York in 1979 should make people aware of the possible dangers nuclear power plants hold and why there is currently a ban in place to open more plants. Wisconsin’s own ban is in place to protect Wisconsin; the restriction stated in the ban is that there needs to be a waste disposal site nearby the nuclear power plants. Currently, there is not a site by the plant in Wisconsin, which is why there are no more plants being built.
If lifting this restriction will be helpful to Wisconsin’s economy, there should be more effort put in to establishing a safe way to dispose of the waste. Traditionally, huge amounts of water have been used to cool waste. The idea of cooling with more chemicals, like the liquid sodium, seem to be questionable. According to the Georgia State University HyperPhysics website, liquid sodium can burn if exposed to air or water and would need to be kept sealed at all times. This does not seem to be the best solution; we will be spending more money to build containment units for the liquid sodium and risking safety if the sodium is exposed.
Once the waste is cooled, the question remains as to where to store it. Since there is no such place in Wisconsin, the waste must be shipped elsewhere. Currently, this is Yucca Mountain in California. Though the dangers of travelling with radioactive materials have become less due to technologies, there are 2,017 miles to go across. Much could happen to cause a spill and damage the environment.
I do agree that there needs to be more resources found to help power Wisconsin. Fossil fuels are not renewable and will continue to go up in price because of that reason. Biofuels are becoming a lot more popular in research, but according to a 2008 “Energy Policy” article, biofuel prices are actually higher than fossil fuel prices and cost more in land usage due to the fact that there is less land for people to grow crops and live on. There are, however, more options being explored that are both renewable and cost less money.
Two options of which I found are solar and wind energy. Both of these power sources have become more popular in recent years. Wind energy especially has been getting a lot of press because of the wind farms that are being built right now. These wind turbines look like huge windmills that are a part of converting wind, a free renewable resource, into clean electric power. Renewwisconsin.org states there are already wind farms up and in use, supplying 6,000 people around Montfort, Wis., with power.
Solar power panels have become more popular as well. These panels are more individually placed on homes or businesses and can provide lighting and heating for a building at a cheaper rate than nuclear power plants and wind farms, simply because the sunlight is free. Solar panels store energy in them, so even on cloudy days there is enough stored energy to last.
There are many feasible reasons why nuclear power plants may not be the best solution to helping Wisconsin’s
economy. They are practically disasters waiting to happen. If the Democratic Senate does not accept the proposal to lift the ban, it is not a ridiculous notion that the Democrats have no way of supporting. The reason would lie within the dangers of nuclear power plants and the new technologies that are being studied and used that would be better for the environment and cheaper for the residents of Wisconsin.
Sandy Bemis
UW senior, education
bemis@wisc.edu
Correction: Due to an editing error, this article should have indicated that the city of Chernobyl is in the Ukraine, not Russia; the Three Mile Island accident occurred in Pennsylvania, not New York; and Yucca Mountain is in Nevada, not California. We regret the errors.
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 1:05am):
Sloppy research by an education major writing about a science and policy issue. And, largely, she is just spewing out all the standard paranoia about nuclear facilities with nothing to back it up except her own fears. Her issues are made clear through her discussion of the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents as "melt downs". She didn't mention that there has not been a single injury that has been connected to Three Mile Island, or that Chernobyl was not under anywhere near the safety regime a US nuclear plant would be under. The Soviet Union in 1986 wasn't exactly the world's best functioning government in any respect, especially civilian safety. Nor did she mention the many advances that nuclear power have made in the safety area.
There are real issues with nuclear power, particularly nuclear waste. But when you get to the point of fear mongering about nuclear clouds and waste spills from traffic accidents, you're just getting ridiculous.
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 3:52am):
Anybody who does not realize that Yucca Mountain is in Nevada and not California should not be writing a response
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 8:02am):
and that three-mile island was in Pa. and not NY. so much for credibility.
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 9:18am):
I couldn't even begin to address all the problems with this letter...
Here's a great article on nuclear power:
http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=201
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 10:10am):
Chernobyl in the Ukraine you mean? Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania? Yucca Mountain in Nevada? If you're going to state an opinion, at least make it an educated one.
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 10:32am):
Pebble bed nuclear power plants use helium to transfer heat.
Coal/gas/oil power plants also need cooling water.
Wind will not have a chance as long as NIMBYs like Ted Kennedy block windmills that spoil his view.
It would be nice to see solar power used more but then the NIMBYs would have to allow power transmission lines to be built - I don't think that Wisconsin is sunny enough otherwise.
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 10:39am):
Solar and wind power are fantastic - for single families. It isn't feasible to expect an entire state to substitute these sources for nuclear power.
On the point of meltdowns, it has been near thirty years since Three Mile Island. The myriad safety protocols and innovations that have since been instituted make it impossible to the point not even deliberate attempts could force a meltdown.
Liberals and environmentalists harp about global warming and destroying the environment, but when the most efficient source of power happens to be nuclear(which emits no greenhouse gas and apart from the controversial fuel has zero negative effect on the environment) they get up in arms and demand ridiculous "solutions" to the energy problem.
- Jeremy Wick
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 10:56am):
Sodium cooled reactors dangerous to the public? What you fail to understand is that the sodium is used to cool the core, and then that heat is exchanged to water. Water cooled reactors do the same thing, it is water cooling the core, but then that water heat exchanges with another water system so prevent radioisotopes out of the core area. Second, this coolant is not pure elemental sodium, engineers call it sodium because that is the main element in use and nuclear physics deals with elements, not chemicals, but the chemical is not just sodium and will not burn with water. Third, even if it did, the volume is very small and completely within the containment dome. The chemical would react long before getting anyway near public if at all in an accident. You don't worry about drops of hot oil jumping through the air and burning you if there is an oil explosion. and do not think reactors can explode, b/c they can't.
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 11:26am):
This gal does need to be educated on some facts, but I at least agree with her that nuclear power is the wrong way to go. Nuclear power is prohibitively expensive - but the biggest problem is the waste. There are no solutions for the waste.
Renewable energy is the right investment, not one that will burden future generations with toxic waste.
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 1:13pm):
My favorite argument is "the cost" of nuclear power. Solar and wind are not cheap, are not efficient for powering the nation, and the space they have to take up isn't proportional to their output. I'm all for clean energy, I love wind and solar, but the facts have it that nuclear power is our best option, and if we want to power a small city, go for wind or sun, but if you're powering a state? Don't even argue. Nuclear is the way to go.
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 1:36pm):
What has happened to fully researching an issue and fact-checking before you write for publication? Standards have declined, I guess, since I graduated in the 70s?
Both this letter and the earlier piece by Sam Clegg were written under an assumption that there is a "ban" on building new nuclear power generating stations in Wisconsin. There is no ban. A ban on nuclear power was resisted by the Legislature during the late 1970s and early 80s. Not only that, a state "ban" based on radiological safety issues would likely be found unconstitutional, since the federal government has primacy in regulating those matters. However, states have regulatory power over the economics of electrical power generation and water quantity/quality issues. States also have some authority over wastes, though states' authority to regulate the radiological hazards of the waste may be superseded by the federal government.
The current language was a compromise between those who would ban nuclear power and those who would continue to allow nuclear power. State legislators recognized that ceding nearly all authority over nuclear power to the federal government was a bad idea. Essentially, the current language is a statement of "states' rights" against a federal government that has a demonstrated record of extreme incompetence when it comes to nuclear matters.
Wisconsin's language is actually fairly moderate when compared to other states that have threshold statutes on nuclear power.
The statute requires two threshold findings before nuclear power plant can be constructed. The "threshold" nature of the statute is important because that allows for state jurisdiction before any federal involvement.
The first thresold is that the plant be economical for Wisconsin's ratepayers.
The second is that the federal government will have met its statutory and contractual obligations by constructing a high-level radioactive waste facility that will be able to take the waste from all nuclear power plants in Wisconsin.
If these commonsense thresholds are met, a nuclear plant could be constructed.
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 2:48pm):
The universe generally runs on nuclear power. We should get with the program.
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 9:15pm):
Hilarious.
I love it when letters to the editor get torn apart.
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 9:29pm):
"The first thresold is that the plant be economical for Wisconsin's ratepayers.
The second is that the federal government will have met its statutory and contractual obligations by constructing a high-level radioactive waste facility that will be able to take the waste from all nuclear power plants in Wisconsin.
If these commonsense thresholds are met, a nuclear plant could be constructed."
Neither of these is commonsense, nor fair.
What is fair is that a business be allowed to sell a product that people are willing to purchase. It is not fair to have to meet the government's view of what "economical" means.
Secondly, monopolizing the storage and containment of nuclear waste prevents business from developing better solutions and bringing their product to market.
Such "thresholds" constitute an effective ban. It's like telling computer manufactures that they can build computers, but only when the government gets around to building the power supplies for them.
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 11:21pm):
In addition to all of the above, the author is very wrong on many of the technical and economic issues concerning wind and solar power. Solar panels and wind turbines certainly do not store energy. Without significant amounts of reserve capacity or real energy storage equipment (pumped hydro or compressed air combustion turbine being the only relatively economical options at the present), these intermittent power sources are inherently unable to supply base load.
Solar panels do not have comparable payoff periods to fossil fuel plants yet (although progress is being made in this area) and wind turbines are only cost effective due to government subsidies at present. During years when subsidies drop off, wind turbine construction drops off to almost nothing. As someone formerly employed at a utility, I know that the powers that be would love to build more renewable energy generators if it were cost effective, but at the moment it simply isn't competitive without government subsidies and regulations.
I am all for publishing both sides of the issues in the opinion section; however, this letter had a severe lack of factual integrity. Badger Herald editors, please run future science and engineering related letters past an engineer or physicist before publishing such blatantly incorrect pieces.
Anonymous (March 25, 2008 @ 12:33am):
As a nuclear engineer, I fully appreciate the complexity and difficulties that nuclear power generation involves and understand that the average person does not and should not be required to posses an in-depth understanding of either.
Nevertheless, I also volunteer frequently to teach visiting Boy Scout troops the basics of the subject so that they can earn their Nuclear Science merit badge. And I can confidently state that each and every one of the "issues" involving meltdowns or waste which Sandy brought up is completely addressed in this seminar, which is designed for and attended by children in middle school.
To put it bluntly, I know 6th graders who could write a more accurate editorial on this subject. There is absolutely no excuse for the creation, much less the publication of this painfully inaccurate, fear-mongering excuse for an article by anyone who is supposedly intelligent enough to attend this university.
-Stephen Revis
Rod Adams (March 25, 2008 @ 2:20am):
The US Energy Information Agency provides an excellent, factual resource about energy sources and consumption at their web site http://www.eia.doe.gov. It is a rich site with thousands of charts, graphs and spreadsheets.
On this page - http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/overview.html - you can find a simple spreadsheet with the history of US energy consumption since 1949. That sheet shows that the US consumes almost exactly 100 Quadrillion (10^15) BTUs (Quads) of energy every year and that about 85% of that comes from burning fossil fuels. The same sheet shows that all wind and solar energy put together amounts to about 0.33 Quads (0.07 from solar and 0.26 from wind). Both of those sources have been known to humans for thousands of years.
In contrast, nuclear fission, which has only been known since 1942 and which has only been in commercial production since 1956, provides about 8.2 Quads. That number does not include the power produced on US aircraft carriers and submarines. In the few decades that it has been operating, it has taken significant markets away from the fossil fuel industry.
One of the main proponents of the virtual ban on nuclear plants in Wisconsin was the state's very influential coal industry - they did not like the competition from emission free, low cost, reliable nuclear plants.
Read the energy news carefully - whenever a real business decision is made about electricity sources, the only real choices are coal, natural gas and nuclear fission. Wind and solar are unreliable, expensive distractions that never solve any real supply challenges - they only work when the weather is right.
Anonymous (March 25, 2008 @ 8:14am):
Three Mile Island is in Pennsylvania not New York
Yucca Mountain is in Nevada not California
Chernobyl is in the Ukraine not Russia
That about sums up the content of this article
Jim Blair (March 25, 2008 @ 4:13pm):
The recent letters on nuclear power and the Wisconsin ban donât put the question in proper context. Yes, wind turbines and solar panels can provide some electricity, and conservation measures can slow the growth in power usage. But if the US were to take climate change seriously we would need to do far more. We would need to shut down all existing coal and natural gas power plants while at the same time generating considerably more power. Solar and wind within Wisconsin canât come close to dealing with that.
Why shut down coal and gas plants? Because of their CO2 emissions. (duh)
Why would we need more power? In addition to population growth, which we cannot stop or even slow because it is driven by immigration as well as births, there would be the need to switch cars from gasoline to electric power. Plug-in hybrids already can travel the first 40 miles on electric charge before switching to gasoline, and newer batteries are providing several hundred miles on electric power. But even that first 40 miles means that most drivers could commute to work and back daily and re-charge over night. But where to get the power to recharge batteries at night after the coal and gas plants are shut down?
Solar? As you may have noticed, we donât get any at night, and here we donât get much in the winter either, and what we do get is not reliable. How much power would solar panels provide during and after a snow? Houses in Madison have had snow covered roofs for weeks at a time this winter.
Wind? Join the Hoofers Sailing Club and discover how erratic the winds here are. They can blow from any direction, meaning that wind turbines must be spaced far apart so as to not âwind shadowâ each other no matter the wind direction. The month with least wind is August, and summer is the season of greatest electric power usage. And there are just too many calm days and nights during every season.
There is a lot of sunshine (during the day ;-) in the desert southwest, and there is a lot of wind in the Great Plains (Texas to North Dakota) but drawing on that power would require a lot of new transmission lines. Just look at the opposition to Arrowhead and the ATC line across Dane County to see how popular those are.
Proponents of nuclear recognize that of the available options, new nukes are the best way to reduce fossil fuel use while generating more power. The early objection to nuclear centered on the danger of accidents, but after 40 years of providing 20% of US power, the worst accident (Three Mile Island) didnât kill anyone. And we donât build plants using the USSRâs Chernobyl design.
What about a terrorist attack? We already have 103 operating nuclear plants. Would more of them mean the terrorists would have more targets? Thus far Al Qaeda has attacked soft targets like mass transit. Should we shut down trains, planes and buses?
Today the main objection to nuclear power is the âwasteâ. And the way we deal with that does need to be changed. After one pass, the fuel rods are being held under water waiting for a permanent repository to be found. But a fuel rod is not removed from a reactor because its fuel is exhausted. It actually has MORE fuel after the first pass than it did before. It shuts down because of the build up of neutron absorbing reaction products. Nuclear fuel rods can be recycled (reprocessed) to remove to unwanted reaction products and utilize the remaining U-235 and also the plutonium that was created. By recycling, the existing âspentâ fuel rods can yield up to 60 times more fuel than they did on their first pass, and the unusable remains become less radioactive than the original uranium ore after a few hundred years.
Two factoids on this:
1-Today about half of US nuclear power comes from decommissioned nuclear warheads (what better use for them?)
2-Near the end of their âfirst passâ fuel rods are getting about 1/3 of their power from the plutonium that was made in them rather than from the U-325 they started with.
So why donât we recycle our nuclear waste the way some other countries do? President Jimmy Carter issued an executive order prohibiting the recycling of nuclear waste. The idea was probably that the world would follow our example, and thus reduce the likelihood of nuclear weapons spreading to other countries. But other countries did not follow our lead, nuclear weapons have spread (China, India, Pakistan, probably Israel, etc.) and today Green House Gas and climate change are the biggest problems we face.
So I say legalize recycling and repeal the Wisconsin nuclear âban".
Susanne Vandenbosch (March 25, 2008 @ 4:33pm):
Congratulations to all the alert readers who caught the errors in the article.
Susanne E. Vandenbosch
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.
