In this section:
• News Releases
• Press Kits
• News Releases: Subscribe
• News Release Archive
• Media Contact
Resources for Journalists:
• Publications
• Photos
• Videos/Presentations
• Organizational Fact Sheet
• Opinion Editorials and Statements
• Staff and Board

Ivey on the wrong track regarding nuclear power

In his recent column ("Renewable Energy Talk Ignores the Nukes"), Mike Ivey stated that Wisconsin's 1984 nuclear moratorium law is based on a "knee-jerk" reaction to the meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant. Unfortunately, he left out a number of crucial facts. Contrary to his assertion, if one examines the history of the moratorium law's development, it would reveal that the Wisconsin Legislature was concerned about disposal of high level radioactive waste long before the incident at Three Mile Island. The resulting law reflects that concern and foresight, requiring that the Public Service Commission determine that a safe disposal site exists before a new nuclear plant can be licensed.

Mr. Ivey also omitted the fact that the nuclear industry and the federal government have not yet figured out where to dispose of high level radioactive waste. The proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear repository has yet to be licensed to receive waste. If and when this happens, its storage capacity will be exceeded by 2010 if nuclear waste generation continues apace in the U.S. The federal Department of Energy will have to determine the need for a second repository between 2007 and 2010 when Wisconsin's Wolf River Batholith will again be on the list of potential permanent disposal sites for the nation's nuclear waste. In the meantime, more than 1,000 tons of this waste is stored along the shores of Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River. More than five tons of plutonium — one of the most lethal substances known and a primary ingredient in nuclear weapons — are contained in this waste, which will remain dangerously radioactive for thousands of years. New nuclear reactors — should they be built as Mr. Ivey suggests — would only compound the nuclear waste problem in Wisconsin.

Mr. Ivey also fails to mention that the cost of constructing a new nuclear power plant would be an economic disaster for utility customers. We Energies, which owns the Point Beach nuclear plant, estimates that it would cost more than a staggering $2 billion to construct a 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant. A recent analysis by the Public Service Commission verified that nuclear power would be too expensive to meet Wisconsin's energy needs. Nuclear plants are so expensive to build that no new reactors have been ordered in the U.S. since 1978.

The issues surrounding nuclear power problems are far too serious to whimsically repeal Wisconsin's protective law, as Mr. Ivey suggested. Wisconsin must certainly curtail global warming pollution from Wisconsin's existing and proposed fleet of coal burning plants and devise a plan that protects Wisconsin's environment and public health from this dirty energy source. But substituting one dangerous option — nuclear — for another dangerous option — dirty coal — is not the solution.

The key to Wisconsin's energy future lies in using electricity efficiently while rapidly expanding our use of renewable and non-toxic energy. We must do this so that current and future generations are not burdened with either a toxic nuclear legacy or the impacts of climate change caused by global warming.

Katie Nekola, Attorney
Clean Wisconsin
608.251.7020 ext. 14
Cell: 244.3878