We are surrounded by energy. We use it to heat our homes, drive our cars, and power our lights.

Our very society functions on the assumptions that the lights will stay on, and that the fuel will keep flowing. Energy is such an essential part of the way we live that it isnt given much thought. Energy is one of the centerpoints of our statewide infrastructure. Factories and businesses use electricity and heat to make our products, and to drive our economy. The production, transportation, and use of energy creates countless jobs and facilitates trade. There are many different means of producing, refining, and using energy. Each has its own benefits and pitfalls. In Wisconsin, coal remains the most heavily utilized source of energy, with 63.1% 1 of the states electricity being produced in coal power plants. This is not due to an abundance of coal, however; Wisconsin no longer has coal mines. Our state acquires the source of most of its electricity from imports. Coal is comparatively cheap, but with much of our energy being produced by this method, the economic effects on the state are mostly negative. The purchasing of coal from other states causes a considerable drain on our economy. In 2008, Wisconsin spent $853 million on coal imports.2 Coal has been more efficient since the use of pulverized coal, but it is simply not the most efficient way of producing energy, and certainly not the cleanest. This leads to numerous safety issues, as many people who work in coal power plants or live in the area may develop lung problems. Although coal relates to more deaths in the United States than other sources of energy, most of those deaths occur from mining, with the number of mining deaths hovering at 16 each year in the US.3 Coal hurts the environment dramatically as well. There were 218.7 billion pounds of CO2 released into Wisconsins atmosphere in 2010,4 43% of which was from energy production.5 The mass of the yearly CO2 emissions from power generation in Wisconsin is almost equal in mass to one eighth of all the humans on earth. This equates to approximately 16,422 pounds of CO 2 emissions per Wisconsinite per year from energy production. Oil is widely utilized in transportation, and is consequently an important part of Wisconsins energy use. As with coal, all oil in Wisconsin is imported. As a consequence, oil as an energy source has a negative impact on Wisconsins economy (much like coal), although the yearly impact in other states is about the same. While it does have a negative impact on our economy, oil is not easily replaceable due to our dependence on it. It offers a higher efficiency as well as lower human death rates than coal, but causes an extremely high level of pollution. Natural gas accounts for a considerable level of energy production in Wisconsin - 9.2%. There is a large market for natural gas throughout the states. In many ways, it is considered an alternative to coal: it is more efficient, causes fewer deaths, and is better for the environment. All natural gas in Wisconsin is imported because Wisconsin does not produce any. However, the state does play a significant part in the fracking industry. There are a number of mines in Wisconsin which produce fracking sands for use by fracking operations.6 Because natural gas burning is more efficient than coal, and releases less fumes, the natural gas we import is better than coal. Natural gas burning does not give off as many toxins or greenhouse gases as coal burning does. The economic and environmental costs of natural gas are lower than that of coal. However, these costs are still much higher than the costs of renewable energies. Many in Wisconsin have begun to look to renewable energies as an alternative to burning fossil fuels because the environmental and economic costs are lower. One energy source in particular is wind power. Wind power is a viable alternative source of energy because

of Wisconsins wind potential. Production of wind turbines is able to be done in-state, allowing for the creation of thousands of jobs. In 2010 alone, the wind energy business accounted for more than 2000 jobs. Wind energy does not require the importing of raw materials for energy production and requires little maintenance, providing a better economic turnout than other common sources. There are, however, many regulatory hurdles than impede the development of wind turbines.7 These hurdles address issues of safety. Although generally safe for people, wind farms can negatively impact ecosystems by killing migrating birds. 8 Hydro electric energy, another renewable resource, is one which we have used in our state for many years.9 Especially in the northern half of Wisconsin, hydroelectric power is fairly common.10 It is quite efficient and has an almost negligible impact on the environment, with few to no safety hazards. It has demonstrated a positive effect on local economies due its extremely high efficiency and constant production of energy throughout the year. However, its reliance on running water sources makes it extremely difficult to expand to a statewide level, and construction will sometimes cause flooding of communities and ecosystems. Many have also turned to solar power as a clean source of energy. Its power is derived directly from the sun, and is consequently viewed as a very safe technology. The efficiency of solar panels is quite low, and they can be very expensive; however, new technologies are allowing better panels to be built at a lower cost, opening them as a potential economical source of energy in the future. One of the largest benefits from solar panels is their long lifetime. A good solar panel can last for more than 40 years,11 producing energy the whole time. This aspect essentially negates the high upfront cost and the low efficiency. Unfortunately, the manufacturing of solar panels can have an adverse effect on the environment. Their production involves polysilicon, which is made using silicon tetrachloride. Unless expensive recycling processes are put in place, this and other chemicals are simply taken away and put into a hazardous waste storage facility. Occasionally, the transportation of these watered-down chemicals requires the release of so many greenhouse gases that is takes years for the solar panel to pay for itself.12 A more traditional form of energy production common in Wisconsin is the use of biomass plants to provide energy. Biomass plants convert scrap biofuels such as leftover wood from paper production into power as a renewable source of energy. Easy to obtain fuels makes biomass an incredibly economical form of energy, as it is both inexpensive and fairly efficient. The simple process also makes it quite safe for those working the plant. There are few to no related deaths, mostly because there is no mining for the fuel. Biomass power plants can take any sort of scrap wood, plants, leftovers from a farm, weeds, or anything you could put on a fire. If the sources are readily available, coal power plants can be converted to biomass with little cost. However, like sources of energy utilizing fossil fuels, biomass plants release greenhouse gases such as CO2 into the air. One of the most controversial forms of energy utilized in Wisconsin is nuclear. This form of generating power is the most efficient available, generating as much energy as one ton of coal from a single fuel pellet.13 Nuclear power accounted for 21.5%1 of all energy produced in Wisconsin in 2009, despite the existence of only two power plants (today, Wisconsin has one still active). This high efficiency makes nuclear power economically beneficial, both to local communities and the entire state. There are many concerns regarding the safety of nuclear power, highlighted by disasters such as the Fukushima nuclear plants catastrophic failure in

March of 2011. However, studies have shown that when evaluated over long periods of time, nuclear power is one of the safest sources of energy. In certain communities, nuclear power is seen as a way of saving lives from the more dangerous effects of other forms of energy production.14 There are also concerns revolving around nuclear waste, which is capable of delivering radiation poisoning to anything in close contact. As a consequence, waste is often buried deep underground or in mountains where it is too far away to effect any ecosystems. There is research suggesting that nuclear waste can even be utilized as yet another fuel source, which would then produce much cleaner waste, less likely to cause damage. Like anything worth studying, the energy infrastructure and economics in the state of Wisconsin can be confusing. There are so many details to each type of energy production that must be considered. All of the impacts of each way to produce our energy needs must be thoroughly analyzed before any decisions are made. By evaluating the facts, we can find a more thorough understanding of each type of energy, informing our policy decisions. In the next paper, we will take the research we have done and apply it to policy decisions for the state of Wisconsin. We will outline the energy policy for this campaign and, as governor, the actions I will take to bring Wisconsin back to the forefront of energy innovation.

Sources: 1. http://www.nma.org/pdf/americas_power_states/wi.pdf 2. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Burning-Coal-Burning-Cash_fullreport.pdf 3. http://www.msha.gov/MSHAINFO/FactSheets/MSHAFCT2.HTM 4. http://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/?sid=US#/series/226 5. http://www.wisconsinenvironment.org/news/wie/power-plants-are-wisconsin%E2%80%99slargest-source-global-warming-pollution 6. http://www.wisconsinwatch.org/viz/fracmap/ 7. http://docs.legis.wi.gov/2013/related/proposals/ab83 8. http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/collisions/wind_faq.html 9. http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/gilded/jb_gilded_hydro_1.html 10. http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WI 11. http://www.ga4.org/average-lifespan-solar-panels/ 12. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html 13. http://www.nei.org/Master-Document-Folder/Backgrounders/Fact-Sheets/Quick-FactsNuclear-Energy-In-America 14. http://climate.nasa.gov/news/903