|
 When I’m asked to list my top issues that have been neglected or shut down by the DFL controlled legislature, it consistently comes down to these two: Voter photo ID and nuclear power. Both of these are maddening topics. Photo ID is wanted by a strong majority of the public, the only valid argument against it is to increase fraud, and it’s not as if we don’t have our problems with ACORN and election integrity. But at least photo ID gets heard. The issue of nuclear power is not even allowed to be discussed. The word for it is moratorium in the State House.
Nuclear power is safe, efficient, cost-effective, and it’s what the fast growth countries have been doing for years. Even liberal France gets 80% of it’s power form nukes. So why DFL can’t we drop the 30 year old fear form the China Syndrome and Silkwood days and get back to reality? Today I was talking to Aaron Mielke who shares my interest in promoting nuclear power in Minnesota and across America. He forwarded me a post form John Rohlf, who has spent 20 years implementing energy efficiency projects and is chair of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce’s Energy Policy Committee. Rohlf’s title of his post makes no mistake about his position and I agree: 2010 Legislative Priority: Repeal ban on nuclear power. I don’t believe this has been published outside MN Chamber e-mail transmission so I am posting it here. It’s a message that needs to be spread (bold emphasis mine).
Minnesota is marching toward a dangerous crossroads in its ability to provide a reliable supply of electricity at competitive prices. Additional reliable power must be available to maintain the economic vitality of this state and the quality of life for all Minnesotans. It is time to repeal this state’s nuclear power moratorium and allow it to be one of the options available to provide businesses and households alike with affordable energy.
Nuclear power is good for the economy and the environment. Repealing the ban is among the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce’s priorities for the 2010 Legislature.
Minnesota has made significant strides in ensuring investment in sustainable energy. That’s commendable. But our efforts to expand renewable energy cannot mask the looming electricity shortage. A 2009 report by the Minnesota Office of Energy Security suggested that Minnesota needs another 400 megawatts of base-load electricity in addition to its planned wind projects. That’s electricity available 24/7, 365 days – regardless of whether the wind blows.
Nuclear power should be one of the tools in the tool box for a variety of reasons – among them, reliability, health, cost and safety.
Nuclear plants are among the heavy lifters, supplying about 20 percent of electricity in Minnesota and the United States. They are reliable and among the most efficient on the U.S. electricity grid – on average, operating at 91-percent capacity.
They do not produce the type of health hazards that other generation sources produce. Nuclear power eliminates the significant discharges of sulfur dioxide, mercury and carbon dioxide emissions. This improves life for our lakes and forests while eliminating greenhouse gases.
They are cost competitive. Nuclear power has shown it can compete as the lowest cost producer of electricity.
Minnesota needs federal assistance, too, if it wants to expand nuclear energy. The U.S. government must meet its decades-long commitment to remove spent nuclear fuel from commercial plant sites for permanent storage in the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Minnesotans still should feel secure. Nuclear plants at Monticello and Prairie Island in Red Wing – like the rest of the industry – have a history of safe, onsite storage for used nuclear fuel. The nuclear industry is one of the safest industries in the world. New technologies ensure even safer conditions.
The 2009 Legislature made some significant headway toward removing the ban – evidence that nuclear power is gaining momentum among individuals of all political persuasions and walks of life. The Minnesota Chamber was at the center of those efforts leading a broad-based coalition of business and labor.
The measure to repeal the ban passed the Senate but failed in the House and was not included in the conference committee report. Still, 102 lawmakers – a majority of the Legislature – individually voted to repeal the gag rule that prevents regulators from even talking about expanding nuclear energy.
The status quo is frustrating and disappointing because it’s clear that Minnesota and the rest of America will need more energy. Conservation and efficiency measures, though important, will not erase the gap alone. Hundreds of power facilities still need to be built to meet this increasing demand, and nuclear energy should be among the alternatives.
Our projected energy shortage is exacerbated. Effective August 1, 2009, new large electricity facilities that emit greenhouse gasses (namely coal plants) were banned in Minnesota, even if the energy is imported from facilities in another state. Minnesota could be missing out on economic benefits of generating power within our state, creating permanent jobs, a stable tax base and a multitude of support services.
Minnesota is simply out of step. In other states the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reviewing permits for 26 new reactors. Most important, repealing the ban does not give immediate license to building another plant. It does, however, allow policy-makers to explore building more nuclear generation.
Planning, seeking regulatory approval and building generation facilities can be a long and complicated process. Even if the moratorium were repealed tomorrow and a new plant proposed the next day, the first watt of electricity would probably not be generated for at least a decade. The existing ban deters any utility from even investing in the exploration of a nuclear plant in Minnesota. Nuclear power might not be the "silver bullet," but it needs to be included in discussion.
It’s time for Minnesota to ensure that we have a viable energy landscape for the 21st century. The ban must be repealed.
Well I'm sold, but that's no newsflash. In case you think the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce is not in agreement with Rohlf, that he is just an advisor pushing an agenda, consider their official position on nuclear power and the DFL controlled house form their website.
Issue
Should Minnesota repeal policies that make it extremely difficult to update, expand and otherwise improve existing nuclear plants and that ban new nuclear plants from being built?
Policy
• Remove the outdated ban on issuing a Certificate of Need for a new nuclear power facility.
•The Minnesota Legislature should address the question of long-term storage of waste as best it can, but should not wait for Congress to resolve the issue before removing the ban on new generation.
— The Legislature also should make recycling of spent nuclear fuel legal in Minnesota. While an act of Congress is likely necessary to provide the proper legal incentive to adopt spent fuel recycling, states can lead by making the practice officially legal.
—When it removes the ban on new nuclear generation, the Legislature also should pass a resolution urging Congress to fully fund the development of a long-term waste storage facility at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, and encourage a national nuclear waste recycling program.
• Remove the requirement for legislative oversight for Certificates of Need related to additional storage of spent nuclear fuel.
• Fund the Renewable Development Fund directly from the general fund, instead of linking its funding to spent nuclear fuel storage.
Business Impact
Minnesota's business and residential customers' electricity needs are steadily growing. Even taking into consideration new laws increasing conservation targets and mandating major investments in renewable energy, and assuming these efforts are successful, the need for additional “base-load” electricity - generated by plants that run 24 hours a day, seven days a week - is likely to occur within the next decade. Until a statewide carbon emissions plan is enacted, new fossil-fuel based resources face an uncertain future to help meet that need.
Minnesota is among a minority of states in the country that has adopted a state policy banning new nuclear energy. This policy, in concert with other state policies, effectively limits new base-load resource options to natural gas-based generation and exposing customers to an expensive, volatile regional market. Eliminating Minnesota's outdated nuclear ban would give customers a clean, safe, reliable option to fill the eventual need for new power with a technology that doesn't contribute to global climate change.
Any serious attempt by the Legislature to address Minnesota's contribution to climate change must include the possibility of new nuclear generation into our base-load energy profile. Without this option, meeting the state's greenhouse gas reduction goals will be much more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
Again, emphasis mine. Assuming you are still drinking the global warming kool-aid, you are in a dilly of a pickle by ruling out the nuclear option—if you want to both cut greenhouse emissions and satisfy increasing power demands.
So the question remains Ms. Kelliher. Why? Why are you and those in your party so adamantly opposed to even discussing such a popular, dare I say, progressive solution to a serious problem?
|
