Earlier this month, the state Assembly passed a measure that would effectively lift Wisconsin’s ban on new nuclear power plants by eliminating two essential clauses. The clauses stipulate that nuclear power would be proven to be a cheaper source of energy to residents and requires a federal repository site for spent nuclear waste. ……..

energy experts like Al Gedicks, of the Wisconsin Resources Protection Council, said they would rather see the state invest in renewable energy systems. While Gedicks said he agrees that nuclear energy is better than coal, natural gas and oil in terms of overall greenhouse gas emissions, he worries that nuclear plants take years to construct and get operating — years we can’t afford to spend when faced with such devastating consequences of climate change. Moreover, he said he fears extreme weather incidents could disrupt radioactive waste stored at nuclear power plants.

Gedicks also believes the bill would open the door to Wisconsin itself becoming a federal repository site.

“If you lift the restriction on no nuclear power plants without a waste disposal site, you are setting up the state of Wisconsin to become if not the first, then certainly the second nuclear waste repository,” he said.

Wisconsin already was targeted by the U.S. Department of Energy as a potential repository site to compliment Yucca Mountain back in the 1980s, according to Gedick. But massive opposition, including from four tribal nations, eventually led for the federal agency to look elsewhere. Soon after, Wisconsin implemented the moratorium.

Gedick said Wisconsin could remain an attractive location for a waste dump site because of granite rock formations in the northern part of the state.

“Wisconsin was high on the list in the 1980s and it is still high on the list now,” Gedlick said. “We  are essentially going into this blindfolded because we haven’t had a discussion on whether this is what the citizens of Wisconsin want if they lift that nuclear power moratorium.”…… http://www.wpr.org/energy-experts-are-split-whether-wisconsin-should-lift-ban-new-nuclear-power-plants

It’s hard to find a more knowledgeable advocate of nuclear energy than Michael Corradini, a professor of engineering physics at UW-Madison, a past president of the American Nuclear Society and a longtime advisor to governments at home and abroad.

But if you ask Corradini whether a bill lifting a 1983 moratorium on building nuclear plants in Wisconsin will make a tangible difference any time soon, his answer is a starkly practical “no.”

The reasons for his pessimism reflect the reality of the costs of building such a plant in a state where incentives to do so are virtually non-existent. Barriers include the low global cost of oil and natural gas, decades of planning and approval time, continued opposition by most environmental groups and a state regulatory structure that doesn’t allow owners of a nuclear plant to recover costs in any reasonable amount of time.

Toss in the fact that energy demand in Wisconsin is relatively stagnant – the result of conservation efficiencies as well as economic trends – and the prospects for a “next-generation” nuclear power plant popping up in the Badger state are dimmer than a candle in a coal mine……..

• Some utility companies are adopting wind and solar power more quickly than others as they strive to stay a step ahead of current regulations, not to mention those they may face if President Obama’s Clean Power Plan and international standards take hold. Costs are falling for wind and solar, although low oil and gas costs are slowing adoption in some cases.
• Breakthroughs in energy storage technologies can help smooth out the bumps in intermittent energy sources such as wind and solar. Mechanical, thermal, compressed air and other technologies can make it possible to efficiently store electricity produced when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining…….. http://host.madison.com/wsj/business/tom-still-repeal-nuclear-moratorium-but-don-t-expect-new/article_4af610da-8dbc-55e7-a720-1ffb0f82f3af.html

Sen. Sharon Brown wants nuclear to be included to maximum extent possible

Sen. John McCoy says no reason to call out nuclear above all other power sources

Bill passed out of committee 5-1

Alliant Energy spokesman Scott Reigstad says the company is focusing on transitioning its energy generation mix away from large, coal-fired plants and ramping up natural gas generation, which produces 50% to 60% less carbon. Alliant also owns wind farms and hydroelectric dams and has seen growth in customer-owned renewables, like solar panels.

Madison Gas and Electric recently launched a renewable energy initiative, Energy 2030, which aims to supply 30% of its retail energy sales from renewable sources by 2030. The plan makes no mention of nuclear power, says Dana Brueck, MGE spokeswoman.

Environmental groups agree on the need to cut carbon emissions. But many say renewable energy sources like wind and solar offer a cheaper option for generating power.

“If we want to reduce customers’ bills, energy efficiency is the answer,” says Mitch Brey, organizer for renewable energy advocacy group RePower Madison. He says that instead of exploring nuclear options, the Legislature should focus on reducing the state’s dependency on coal. Wisconsin is one of the biggest coal consumers in the nation — more than 60% of the net electricity generation came from burning the fossil fuel in 2013, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

Renewable energy is also safer than nuclear power, say environmentalists, who fear the prospect of nuclear catastrophes like those that occurred at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima.

“There’s a saying that when you have a solar spill, it’s called a sunny day,” says Elizabeth Ward, a program coordinator with the Sierra Club-John Muir Chapter.

Ward says nuclear power plants are unlikely to help Wisconsin meet the EPA’s Clean Power Plan goals by the 2030 deadline. Facilities are costly and time-consuming to construct, and utility companies have no plans to build in the near future.

“There’s no way we could see a proposal, approval and construction of a nuclear power plant by that time,” she says.

Ward also warns of a possible “unintended consequence” of the legislation. She believes if the moratorium is lifted, it would “strongly signal” to the U.S. Department of Energy that Wisconsin is open to storing nuclear waste. President Barack Obama halted plans to store spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but the DOE has also identified Wisconsin’s Wolf River Batholith as a possible site for a repository.

“That does not bode well,” Ward says……….