In 2007 Governor Jim Doyle created a task force to investigate how Wisconsin can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The task force identified short- and long-term goals and provided policy recommendations to achieve those goals. A variety of stakeholders, including environmental groups, utilities and citizen groups, participated and agreed to endorse the set of recommendations. This spring, Wisconsin lawmakers will debate the legislation that encompasses these policies. This legislation should be passed as a whole.
Recently there have been statements and articles in the news suggesting that some of the environmental groups that participated in the task force are withdrawing support of the part of the bill that deals with nuclear power plants. Nuclear plants are very low-emission across their life cycle, and they are a safe, proven, existing, ready-to-build technology. The reason the task force is proposing the nuclear legislation (and presumably that the environmental groups originally agreed to the recommendations) is ""so that this option may be considered, among others, in the effort to meet the state's emissions reduction goals over the long term.""
The new rules would make it easier to consider nuclear power plants but still require ""the proposed nuclear plant must be built to meet Wisconsin needs at a cost that is reasonable and advantageous to customers in comparison with available alternatives, taking account of emission reductions benefits,"" and ""the Public Service Commission must find the nuclear waste plan for the plant is economic, reasonable, stringent and in the public interest, given the safety and other risks presented by such waste.""
These are great requirements, and nuclear should absolutely have to meet them. In fact, all electricity generation methods should have to meet them. It seems sensible to me that all sources should have to be economically reasonable and advantageous to customers and account for their waste. Why is it that only nuclear power is expected to be responsible enough to meet these requirements? The nuclear industry has always carefully tracked and accounted for its wastes. Had other generation forms been required to be responsible about their waste streams, e.g. coal CO2 emissions, we would have not needed this task force in the first place. I'm not suggesting nuclear should not meet these standards. I'm simply pointing out that other sources are not necessarily held to such high standards.
One of the strengths of the task force recommendations is the portfolio approach, focusing first on efficiency and conservation. The new rules about nuclear would only go into effect after the 25 percent renewable portfolio standards by 2025 legislation have been enacted and a revised energy efficiency program is approved. The idea of focusing first on efficiency and later on nuclear makes perfect sense. A recent study detailing the costs of carbon abatement found that in general, efficiency measures were cost negative and nuclear was very close to cost neutral.
The Global Warming Task Force wants to make it easier to consider nuclear power plants because they recognize nuclear could be part of a cleaner energy future. Existing coal plants provide 65 to 70 percent of Wisconsin's electricity, and we will eventually need to replace these plants. Electricity demand may grow in the future if, for example, we switch to an electricity-based vehicle fleet. This electricity must come from somewhere. We should at least be able to talk about choosing low-emissions nuclear when evaluating the possibilities for how this electricity will be made.
There are many reasons to make good choices about how electricity is generated—ocean acidification, air pollution, resource scarcity, energy security, climate change and general good stewardship of the environment. We must conserve and increase efficiency. We must use more renewable electricity sources. It is fair to ask that all resources be comparatively advantageous for customers and to take care of their waste. The Global Warming Task Force legislation should be passed as a whole so all technologies will be available for solving our energy challenges while protecting the environment.
Rachel Slaybaugh is a Ph.D. student in nuclear engineering and a founder of UW Energy Hub. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author, and do not reflect the views of UW Energy Hub. You can send all feedback for the Green Room to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
