News Release: Lifting nuclear moratorium bad decision for Minnesota

Report outlines problems of cost and waste storage
March 1, 2010

ST. PAUL – High costs to electricity customers and a lack of long-term nuclear waste storage plans top the list of problems related to building new nuclear reactors in Minnesota. Legislation has been introduced to repeal Minnesota’s long-standing moratorium on the construction of new nuclear reactors and will be heard in the Senate Energy, Utilities, Technology and Communications Committee on March 2 and 4 (click here for info on the committee hearings).

A report released today by a coalition of conservation and environmental groups highlights the possible consequences of lifting the nuclear moratorium. (PDF of report at http://www.mepartnership.org/documents/FINAL%20nuclear%20report%20mn.pdf – large file, 15.61 MB)

The report cites a 2007 estimate by Moody’s Investors Service of the cost of new nuclear reactors at $5,000 to $6,000 per kilowatt, which works out to $5 billion to $6 billion for a 1,000 megawatt plant (about the size of the two-reactor Prairie Island plant).

However, more recent experience with planned reactors in other states suggests the price of new nuclear power is even higher. The report cites an example in Florida where costs to build a two-reactor, 2300-megawatt plant in Levy County have tripled from original estimates, to $17 billion. The utility, Progress Energy, is charging ratepayers for pre-construction costs at $6 per month for the average household, with no guarantee that the plant will ever deliver electricity or even be built.

“During an economic downturn, when many Minnesota businesses and residents are struggling to pay electricity bills at current rates, it doesn’t make sense to support a proposal that could raise rates even higher,” said Lisa Ledwidge of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. “But that’s what could happen if legislators lift the moratorium on new nuclear reactors and utilities charge ratepayers for pre-construction costs as is happening in Florida and other places.”

The report highlights the lack of a long-term nuclear waste storage solution for the waste currently piling up on site at Minnesota’s two nuclear plants and for the waste created by any potential new reactors. Permanent waste storage at Yucca Mountain looks very unlikely, due to cuts to federal funding and technical problems at the site that make it unsuitable for storing radioactive waste.

“Minnesota’s moratorium on the construction of new nuclear reactors was enacted for a good reason — we had no safe, long-term storage for our existing radioactive waste,” said Dan Endreson of Clean Water Action. “That hasn’t changed. Temporary waste storage casks are still on the banks of the Mississippi River. The federal nuclear waste storage site at Yucca Mountain is not open and may never open. These were problems in 1994 and they are still with us today.”

The report also addresses the possibility of a second repository for disposal of high-level radioactive waste sited here in Minnesota. According to a 2008 report from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), even if Yucca Mountain is opened, a second repository will be needed to store the nation’s high-level radioactive waste. During the search for a national repository in 1985, the DOE identified eight sites in Minnesota, as well as sites in several other states, that could serve as a potential second repository. In Minnesota:

Four of the potential sites are located in the northwest corner of the state, between East Grand Forks, Karlstad, Thief River Falls, Bemidji, Park Rapids, Detroit Lakes and Moorhead.
Three of the potential sites are located in the central part of the state, one southwest of Morris, one east of Glenwood, and one between St. Cloud and Princeton, north of Becker.
The eighth potential site is located in the south central part of the state, just north of New Ulm.

Maps of the eight Minnesota sites considered by the federal government are included in the report.

“Minnesota has made great progress toward a vibrant clean energy economy,” said Steve Morse of the Minnesota Environmental Partnership. “Moving away from renewable energy toward nuclear power would undermine years of progress. Minnesotans prefer increased investments in homegrown renewable energy sources like wind and solar over the possibility of higher electricity bills and more radioactive nuclear waste being stored on the banks of the Mississippi River or in a long-term national repository located here in Minnesota.”

The report was prepared by a coalition made up of Clean Water Action, Conservation Minnesota, Environment Minnesota, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Izaak Walton League – Midwest Office, League of Women Voters of Minnesota, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Minnesota Environmental Partnership, and Sierra Club North Star Chapter.

For Immediate Release
March 1, 2010

CONTACT:
Dan Endreson
Clean Water Action
612.382.4729
dendreson@cleanwater.org

Keep up the pressure on our elected officials to protect our Great Outdoors!

Thank you for your continued support to protect Minnesota’s lakes, rivers, streams, prairies, forests, and our Great Outdoors. Your calls, letters, and emails to your legislators and the Governor helped us claim some victories this year!

Though the 2010 Minnesota legislative session produced mixed results for Minnesota’s clean energy and Great Outdoors future, our work does not stop here.

We need your help to pass strong environmental policies next year! We need to hold our elected officials accountable and make certain these issues are highlighted in the November Election.