Time to put nuclear power back on the table?

Nuclear power has picked up a few unlikely endorsements lately, as some environmentalists reconsider its possible lesser-evil  status as an alternative to carbon-spewing coal plants. Still, when Gov. Tim Pawlenty earlier this month proposed lifting Minnesota’s ban on building new nuclear power plants, it came as a surprise to greens and energy insiders alike. Six nearly identical bills by Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate would carry out the governor’s wish, ending the moratorium and triggering new debate over a risky and expensive energy source.

The bills–which include two introduced this month and four that are still active from 2007–don’t appear likely to move far this year. Key legislators who chair the House and Senate energy committees are lukewarm to the proposals. Sen. Yvonne Prettner Solon, DFL-Duluth, and Rep. Bill Hilty, DFL-Finlayson, say they’re open to a discussion but that nuclear power isn’t a priority in the current session.

That’s roughly the conclusion of Minnesota’s Climate Change Advisory Group, which submitted a draft of its report to legislators about a week before the governor’s statement. The role of nuclear energy needs to be considered, the advisory group report said, but the state figures to be able to meet its greenhouse-gas reduction goals through at least 2025 using more affordable solutions.

“It was certainly not an endorsement of building new nuclear plants anytime soon or removing the moratorium immediately,” says Bill Grant, Midwest regional director for the Izaak Walton League, a national conservation group, and a member of the climate change group’s energy-supply work group. The committee includes representatives from Minnesota’s largest electric utilities, and it voted unanimously to defer the question of post-2025 nuclear power plants as an issue for future study.Charles Bomberger, Xcel Energy’s vice president for nuclear projects, said the company didn’t recommended lifting the moratorium and wasn’t involved in lobbying for the legislation. Bomberger says that Xcel will support the bills, but reiterates that the company has no plans to build new nuclear power plants. (Officials at two other utilities that serve the state, Minnesota Power and Otter Tail Power, said in interviews last week they have no opinion on the legislation because nuclear power is not a part of the companies’ plans.)

“It came as a surprise to us, especially the governor’s announcement,” Bomberger said. “It’s not driven by any utility in Minnesota that is seeking to build a new nuclear plant.”

So if the state’s largest utilities and leading climate experts aren’t behind this apparent renewed interest in nuclear power at the state capital, what is driving the discussion? The governor’s director of energy security, Edward Garvey, responded via email, “[W]e are aware that no utility is proposing a new nuclear facility. Nonetheless, we believe that repealing the nuclear moratorium is appropriate because it will allow for the consideration of such plants. They may not ever be needed let alone built but they should be considered but right now that is not possible due to the moratorium.”

Sen. Steve Dille, R-Dassel, said he’s worked on nuclear issues for more than a decade and always supported expanding the number of nuclear facilities in Minnesota. The reason he waited until Feb. 14 of this year to introduce a bill repealing the moratorium is that he now thinks the proposal is politically viable because of climate change concerns.

It’s been almost 35 years since a nuclear power plant was constructed in Minnesota. Xcel Energy owns the state’s only two nuclear power plants, one in Monticello and another at Prairie Island. Both have been operated since the early 1970s and supply about 20 percent of the state’s electricity. A moratorium was put in place in 1994, the same year legislators settled a lengthy debate and permitted Northern States Power to expand its storage of nuclear waste at Prairie Island. Dille was a primary figure in that debate.

“The bill you see is not something that just came to me in the dead of night a couple weeks ago,” Dille said. “It’s something I would have supported long ago, but it’s got legs now because of this report on how to reduce CO2 emissions.”

The climate change advisory group was much more cool to the prospect of new nuclear facilities, according to its members. J. Drake Hamilton, science policy director at Fresh Energy and a member of the energy-supply work group, said the discussion centered on the high costs and uncertainty surrounding nuclear power. “Actually, all of our computation show that there were many less expensive options before you even had to look at nuclear,” he said. “So we were looking instead at starting with those policies that would result in cost savings, and then much lower costs than (nuclear).” The report shows reducing carbon emissions by building new nuclear power would cost about $70 per ton of carbon reduced, compared to, for example, about $17 per ton from upgrading existing power plants and infrastructure to run more efficiently.

Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, a co-author of Dille’s bill, dismissed the advisory group’s cost estimates. “If you doctor the numbers in a certain way, that’s exactly the kind of calculation you’ll get,” said Murphy, who retired as a welder and technician at Xcel Energy in January after 26 years with the company and has also been a nuclear proponent for years. “When you talk to the people who build these plants, the cost per carbon reduction is pretty comparable with anything else you build. I think it’s a pretty wise investment. We just can’t build enough windmills … You need to have a solid base load of electricity that you can bring on line that is static [and] reliable, and that’s nuclear power.”

Other legislators who have authored bills to lift the state’s nuclear power construction ban include: Rep. Thomas Huntley, DFL-Duluth, Sen. Michael Jungbauer, R-East Bethel, Rep. Joyce Peppin, R-Rogers, and Sen. David H. Senjem, R-Rochester.

“I wonder if any of these legislators have talked to any of the state’s utilities about this, because my strong impression is that none of them have even the slightest interest in pursuing new nuclear power-plant construction in Minnesota, at least not for well into the foreseeable future,” said Grant, of the Izaak Walton League. “My strong impression from all of them–including Xcel, which already owns two nuclear power plants–is thanks but no thanks. So, I don’t get it. I’m just not quite sure where this is coming from.”

Rep. Bill Hilty, chair of the House Energy Finance and Policy Division, said he has doubts about nuclear that would need to be resolved before he supported ending the moratorium. Even though the power plants themselves don’t emit carbon dioxide, he pointed out, they have a large carbon footprint when you consider the mining and processing of uranium, which, like fossil fuels, is a non-renewable resource. Uranium is becoming scarcer, lower quality and more expensive to mine, Hilty said.

“I’m certainly willing to talk about it. But in terms of immediate priorities, I just don’t see anything on the immediate horizon,” Hilty said. “I think that’s something we’ll just get to it when we get to it.”