Public Comment on The Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming Strawman Proposal - June 18

Informations

• Publié par: Thuen
• Nombre de lectures: 59
• Langue: English

Extrait

Public Comment on The Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming
Comprehensive Strawman Proposal

Received on June 18, 2008
- Part I -


Comments from Page
Wayne Stroessner 2
Michael Orth  4
Judy Johnston 4
Tom Arden 5
Dr. John Wm. Ridge 6
Mark Honadel 7
Alana Aubin 7
Bonnie Aller 8
Mike Neuman 8
Terry Glembo 9
Lloyd LaDuke 10
Rick Sovitzky 10
Bruce L Weimer 10
Sherry Albrecht  10
Laura Gassner 11
Quinn Fiske 11
Phil Hoyer 11
Ken and Sandi Summerfield 12
Bruce Nielsen, P.E. 12
Fred Raatz 12
Blane R. Vik  13
Chuck Roloff 13
Jose R. Sepulveda 14
Danne Reagles 14
Warren Wiegratz 14
Bonez Yang 15
Robert Rettler 15
Terry Gerlach 15
Clayton Hill 16
Eileen Stutt 16
Al Roberts 17
Andy Mitchell 17
Jolanta Sears 17
Randall Smith 17
LARRY SCHIER 18
C. Smith 18
Mark Winnen 18
Tim Ritten 19
Tony Rink 19
Kevin F. Keyser 19
Walter Klaffenboeck 20
Suzanne Herold 20
Page 1 of 26 Kim Larson 21
Mike Gallagher 21
Cliff Peters 22
Schroeder, Marylyn 23
Skip Ticha 24
Cris Luetzow 24
C.R. Milazzo 24
Steve Foley 25
Roger Viel 25


From: Wayne Stroessner
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 1:01 AM
To: DNR GLOBALWARM TF COMMENTS
Subject: Comments to Task Force
To: The Global Warming Task Force
From: Wayne Stroessner, WICEC Past President
Wisconsin Interfaith Climate and Energy Campaign

There are four items that are of special concern to us:

Item I: Modifying Wisconsin’s nuclear moratorium so that “the proposed plant must be built to meet Wisconsin
electricity needs, at a cost that is reasonable in comparison with available alternatives, taking account of emission
reductions benefits…”

A. It appears that the Task Force is thinking in terms of electricity produced by nuclear technology that was
developed more than a half century ago. Research has been done which indicates that there is a far better
alternative to using Uranium/Plutonium as nuclear fuels. That alternative is Thorium. By itself, Thorium is not fissile
so it eliminates most of the hazards associated with present day nuclear plants.

I would hope that members of the Task Force will take the time to educate themselves to the fact that Thorium offers
a host of benefits not provided by the old, outdated Uranium/Plutonium technology for producing electrical energy.
Thorium may provide a win-win-win situation. It is only fair to give it a fair evaluation.

These are some of the advantages:
• Dramatically lowers the volume and toxicity of waste
• Significantly improves reactor safety
• Clean and easy fuel processing
• Removes the hazards associated with current fuel production
• Operates in an environmentally safe manner
• Prevents weapons proliferation
• Significantly reduces reactor size and complexity
• Drastically reduces fuel costs, making hydrogen production economical
• Lasts for hundreds of years ... acting as a bridge from oil, gas and coal to fusion
• Thorium is more widely abundant than uranium - USA has world’s fourth largest supply
• Safe environmental operation
• DBI (Dauvergne Brothers Inc.) Thorium Reactor offers these additional advantages:
• No refueling for the life of the reactor (30+ years)
• After 30+ years, a 90% reduction in volume and toxicity of waste
• Energy produced at less than 3 cents per kilowatt-hour
• Capital investment paid back in record time
• Solutions for handling the waste of the other reactors
• Enables higher fuel burn-up rates
• Produces less long-lived radioactive actinide waste
• Is less expensive to process
• Eliminates the possibility of radiation release to the environment, catastrophic failure
through operator error, or core meltdown
Page 2 of 26 • Provides facility decommissioning at the end of the reactor's useful life

Below are some websites that will provide a good background concerning the use of Thorium:

[ALL LINKS EXIT DNR]

Norway Can Solve the Global Energy Crisis
<http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/energie_elektrotechnik/bericht-71533.html>
Green nuclear power coming to Norway | COSMOS magazine
<http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1341>
DBI Thorium Reactors
<http://www.dauvergne.com/english/pages/safety.htm>
Accelerating Future » A Nuclear Reactor in Every Home
http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2006/10/a-nuclear-reactor-in-every-home/
Diva International.“Thorium-based nuclear energy” Interview with …
<http://www.divainternational.ch/spip.php?article161>
Thorium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium>
Idaho Samizdat: Nuke Notes: Norway mulls Thorium nuclear plant
<http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2007/05/norway-mulls-thorium-nuclear-plant.html>
<djysrv.blogspot.com/2007/05/ norway-mulls-thorium-nuclear-plant.html>
Thorium Nuclear Power - Truth versus Guns
http://www.rolf-witzsche.com/peace/global/canada/thorium.html
Thorium - Encyclopedia of Earth
<http://www.eoearth.org/article/Thorium>

B. Concerning the second part of the above paragraph (in Item I): “at a cost that is reasonable in comparison with
available alternatives, taking account of emission reductions benefits…” and another Task Force statement: “ the
Task Force recognizes the need to take all cost-effective, feasible emissions mitigation actions,” In the past, when
“real” costs were involved with utility coal burning, neither the PSC nor the courts appeared to be concerned with
costs related to pollution which causes: illnesses or deaths; acid precipitation; hospital, doctor and medicine bills
required because of pollution; effects of mountaintop removal with accompanying pollution of drinking water and
streams; effects on recreation i.e. activity limits during non-attainment (ozone) days, limits on eating fish because of
mercury, fishing decline because of fish contamination, etc. If all externalities were added to the costs of burning coal
for electrical generation, it would be far more expensive than nearly any other methods of producing energy.

Item II: “Provide assistance to farmers to cultivate the next generation of energy crops.” If this involves subsidies for
farmers to produce kernel corn for ethanol production, WICEC is against it. If there is any net gain in renewable
energy from this process, it is too small to be effective and the destructive toll that corn crops have on the soil leaves
future generations with low quality farmland.

However, if assistance to farmers is for the production of ethanol from cellulosic crops, wood wastes, plant stubbles,
or other waste biomass, we would endorse that promotion.

Item III: The statement: “The Task Force should recommend that the state also increase its own funding for such
R&D and that the PSC permit reasonable increased spending on GHG emissions reduction-related R&D by electric
utilities to be recovered in rates.” This recommendation especially affects low income families who already are
having difficulties with energy bills. Considering the salaries paid to CEOs and other utility officials in addition to the
rate paid to shareholders, it would seem reasonable that this expense should be considered as part of doing
business and not be tacked onto ratepayers. The best incentive to get results from researchers is to motivated them
by paying their salaries. That control should be in the hands of shareholders and management.

Item IV: Some of the Task Force recommendations actually gut the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Bill
(Act 141). These are some alternative recommendations:

Page 3 of 26 • Do not change the definition to non-renewable forms of power, like large-scale hydro and
derivatives of fossil-fuels.
• Keep green-pricing programs honest!
• Prevent double-counting of renewable energy! Do not remove the expiration date on the
energy credits.
• Create incentives for small, immediate cuts in global warming gases now. Not later.

Wayne Stroessner
Random Lake, WI


From: Michael J. Orth
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 2:08 AM
To: DNR GLOBALWARM TF COMMENTS
Subject: Global Warming Task Force Comments
I oppose the gutting of a past Conservation Priority, the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Bill (Act 
141).  I think the task force should leave the definition of renewable energy alone!  Your 
recommendations attempt to change the definition to non‐renewable forms of power, like large‐scale 
hydro and derivatives of fossil‐fuels.  Any action must keep green‐pricing programs honest!  Right now, 
citizens can enroll in special programs where they cho