Walz and Paulsen want nuke ban lifted

Posted at 6:58 AM on November 24, 2009 by Tom Scheck (6 Comments)
Filed under: Campaign 2008: MN Legislature, Campaign 2010, Campaign 2010: Minnesota Governor, Campaign 2010: U.S. House

DFL Rep. Tim Walz and GOP Rep. Erik Paulsen will hold a news conference in St. Paul this morning to call on Minnesota to end its moratorium on the production of nuclear power plants. They will be joined by members of the Building and Trades Council Union and the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce.

Minnesota has banned the expansion of nuclear power plants in 1994 but an effort to repeal the moratorium has been gaining steam in recent years. The Minnesota Senate passed the effort last year and it was narrowly defeated in the Minnesota House. Critics of the moratorium say nuclear energy should be considered "clean power" and would help provide power to an energy hungry nation. The Washington Post reports this morning that nuclear power is gaining support from the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress.

But opponents of nuclear power who support of the moratorium in Minnesota argue that nuclear power is too expensive and is too dangerous.

There are two nuclear power plants in Minnesota - in Red Wing (GOP Rep. John Kline's district) and in Monticello (GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann's district).

Today's key question: Will Paulsen or Walz support a nuclear power plant in their district?

Comments (6)

Why would Minnesotans living in the districts of Reps. Paulsen or Walz want nuclear waste to be stored in their backyards?

More nuclear energy is not a sensible or cost-effective solution to increasing our energy independence, mainly because there is no long-term plan for nuclear waste storage.

Until solutions can be found to answer the concerns about new nuclear power plants, Minnesota should focus its efforts on increasing energy efficiency and developing more home-grown renewable energy resources.

Posted by E Jordahl Redlin | November 24, 2009 8:57 AM

If you want to be educated about this subject take a look at nuclear energy use in France. This progressive nation depends on nuclear power for 75% of its energy. If you believe that climate change is for real, we can't depend on windmills (they kill birds) and other uninvented or too costly sources.

Posted by David Dingee | November 24, 2009 10:12 AM

New tax credits for nuclear power production combined with rising energy prices make these plants very profitable.

The construction effort is big money for the local area, short term. Ongoing operation provides some jobs as well. I expect that is what the congressmen are aiming for. But the real money is in the ownership of the plant, and I assume the putative owners have asked the congressmen to start clearing the way in exchange for these jobs.

If the congressmen are just carrying water for Xcel then the deal has already been wired behind the scenes, and this is just the end game. But if they are truly taking the initiative on securing cheap power for Minnesotans, they should investigate the possibility of a co-op nuclear plant, where the profits go back to the customers.

Posted by Craig | November 24, 2009 12:20 PM

The feature article in Scientific American (November, 2009) contains a plan to completely convert to renewable energy by the year 2030, making nuclear power unnecessary. For more information why nuclear power is NOT the answer, see www.wmgwag.org, click "legislative update," then scroll down to a letter to Speaker Kelliher, with attached exhibits. Also, click "nuclear power."

Posted by Thomas E. Casey, Attorney at Law, on behalf of West Metro Global Warming Action Group, Inc | November 24, 2009 12:35 PM

At the present time the nuclear waste is being stored at the reactor site as there is no alternative. Alternative methods of dealing with this extremely radioactive waste will be considered by a Blue Ribbon Commision. They will consider building temporary regional storage sites, developing new geological permanent repository sites, re-examining Yucca Mountain, reprocessing nuclear waste, pyroprocessing and transmutation of actinides using fast reactors. Their recommendations will come under scrutiny by scientists . S. E. Vandenbosch

Posted by Susanne E. Vandenbosch | November 24, 2009 1:50 PM

I have a simple inexpensive safe storage solution for radioactive nuclear wastes that answers the related problems, the best part of this solution is it is simple. What has been spent on security to care for these wastes would more than pay for an International nuclear wastes dump that could be started today and finished within years because of being very simple.
I feel the wrong group of scientists have been working on this problem I am not a scientist but can see how simple this is and how inexpensive this would be to make, use, and care for far better than Yucca Mountain.
and 1000 times better than dry storage and lead lined water towers-Secretary Chu!

Posted by Gregory Cragg | November 24, 2009 3:26 PM

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories