The end to a moratorium?

More than 16 years ago, Minnesota policy makers declared that more nuclear power plants would be bad for the state's environment and banned new construction of plants. Now, legislators say economics and energy uncertainty call for repealing that nuclear ban. But a well respected economist says don't buy the economics argument. Constructing new nuclear plants could actually wind up costing ratepayers more.

Before we get into those arguments, let's look at the moratorium's background.

Minnesota currently has three nuclear reactors at two sites. One reactor is located in Monticello, and the other two are located on Prairie Island near Red Wing. These three reactors currently provide almost 24% of Minnesota's electricity. The moratorium on building any new nuclear reactors was put in place in 1994, primarily for environmental reasons.

As MPR reports, the moratorium was part of the deal that allowed Xcel Energy to store nuclear waste above ground at Prairie Island. The storage of nuclear waste is the major sticking point for nuclear power, especially since the U.S. Department of Energy has cancelled the plans to store the country's nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain in Nevada. In January of 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy created the 'Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future'  to study nuclear waste storage solutions. Their interim report is expected by July 2011, with a final report by January 2012, according to the commission's press release.

Though Minnesota originally enacted a moratorium for environmental reasons, its proposed repeal is based on economics. It's one of the first pieces of legislation making its way through the new state legislature (fyi: it's SF4, HF9). The senate version passed the first week of February, and the legislation also passed the House Commerce Committee. It is expected to pass the Republican-controlled House, but Governor Dayton may yet veto it.

At the repeal's House Commerce Committee hearing, State Representative Joyce Peppin (R-Rogers) argued that the moratorium should be lifted for Minnesota's future energy needs. Peppin, the bill's House author, believes Minnesota will need a new source of base-load energy in the future, because renewables are not reliable enough: "The sun does not always shine, and the wind does not always blow."

Those testifying for the repeal touted the benefits of more nuclear plant construction. They included utility investors, PaR Nuclear (part of Westinghouse), the Minneapolis building trades, and the MN Chamber of Commerce. A conversation about more nuclear power could only start after the moratorium is lifted, they argued.

Repeal opponents offered both environmental and economic reasons for keeping the moratorium. Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at Vermont Law School offered the most thorough testimony against repeal.

Dr. Cooper's argument for keeping the moratorium in place was entirely economic. He cited the enormous costs of building a nuclear reactor-a two-unit reactor can cost upwards of $20 billion-and argued that these costs are usually placed on the ratepayers, as well as the taxpayers, through government subsidies.

Cooper argued that the conversation about additional nuclear reactors is already taking place, and that removing the moratorium would actually tilt the playing field, because nuclear plants take up so much attention and investment. As Cooper put it, "I cannot predict when, if ever, nuclear reactors will become economically competitive, but I can say with a great deal of confidence that they are not economically rational today and that Minnesota has alternatives available to it that are preferable and capable of meeting its needs for electricity, even in a carbon-constrained environment."

Lending credence to Cooper's arguments is the fact that no utilities in Minnesota have set forth any plans for a new nuclear plant for the next 15 years. Noting that reactors can take up to ten years to construct, there is no strong job creation argument behind the repeal. The reasoning lies in the predicted future energy need of Minnesota (there is no current energy demand, as the Star Tribune reports) and the view that renewable energy simply cannot meet our needs. As Peppin argued, Minnesota needs a new 'base-load' source of energy in the future. When we talked to Dr. Cooper about this he told us, "Base-load is getting fuzzy. If you combine wind and solar with gas, you have reliable energy." He also pointed out that renewable energy will likely see technological strides in the next 15 years, making those types of energy much more viable.

As one of the supporters stated, every type of energy has positives and negatives, which is true. When the subsidies that nuclear plants require were brought up, wind and solar subsidies were mentioned to justify those subsidies. The difference is the cleanliness of those energies. Though industries have worked very hard to pitch coal and nuclear as 'clean' in various ways, the fact remains that coal plants produce harmful emissions and nuclear plants produce hazardous waste.

Still, nuclear and coal are Minnesota's biggest sources of energy. The question we need to ask ourselves is what we want our energy future to be, not just how we can provide for our future with current major power sources. Though the arguments around this repeal are economic, the environmental questions of waste storage persist for nuclear energy, and should not be ignored.

    Our primary commenting system uses Facebook logins. If you wish to comment without having a Facebook account, please create an account on this site and log in first. If you are already a registered user, just scroll up to the log in box in the right hand column and log in.

    Comments

    Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

    Gas and wind reliability

    Dr. Mark Cooper (PhD in Sociology from Yale) is quoted as saying:

     "Base-load is getting fuzzy. If you combine wind and solar with gas, you have reliable energy."

    He also pointed out that renewable energy will likely see technological strides in the next 15 years, making those types of energy much more viable.

    I am not sure what in his background as a sociologist, expert witness in telecommunications cases, or as a senior fellow at Vermont Law school gives him the background to make that statement, but I strongly disagree with his technical prediction. There is nothing in any laboratory today that is going to stop the sun from setting every day or going south in the winter. There is nothing that is going to turn the wind into a source of power that can be controlled by humans.

    During the Feb 2-3 cold front that affected large swaths of the United States, the combination of a large percentage of wind combined with a large percentage of natural gas on the Texas power grid demonstrated that the system is inherently unreliable.

    Wind generation varied considerably; the American Wind Energy Association issued a press release bragging about wind supplying 3,500 MWe, but that is not impressive considering that wind capacity in Texas is about 11,000 MWe. Natural gas supplies were stressed by the cold, which increased heating demand, interrupted some production and inhibited some deliveries. Rolling blackouts combined with lack of gas for heat caused some real hardship and economic damage.

    Meanwhile, Texas's five nuclear plants operated at 100% capacity (4,800 MWe) throughout the week before and after the cold front passed through. Nuclear plants employ careful maintainers who make sure that systems are protected from the weather and operate with impressive reliability. Over the past 10 years, the average capacity factor for the US nuclear fleet has been right at 90% year in and year out.

    I do not have a PhD in sociology from Yale. I have MS in Systems Technology from the Naval Postgraduate School and served as the Engineer Officer of a nuclear powered submarine. I am now part of a team that is designing a small, modular reactor that builds on 56 years of experience with smaller nuclear plants that must exhibit high levels of reliability. Cooper's predictions of nuclear costs are wildly out to lunch.

    Rod Adams, Publisher, Atomic Insights

     

    My question is a very basic

    My question is a very basic one about economics.  How much did the nuclear plants in Minnesota cost and how much revenue have they generated over the time they have been running?  How much more revenue will they generate until they are retired?  Many things are expensive up front (like houses and cars) but I doubt that there are very many investments out there that have paid off as well as nuclear power!!