Minn. Senate Takes Step Toward New Nuclear Power

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — The Minnesota Senate has approved legislation giving energy regulators authority to issue permits for new nuclear power plants.

Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch says the bill wouldn’t lead to immediate construction of a plant. It would get rid of a 17-year-old moratorium on consideration of nuclear energy facilities.

The bill passed Wednesday on a 50-14 vote.

Democratic Sen. Ellen Anderson failed in her attempt to add language preventing power companies from billing customers for planning and construction before a plant comes on line.

Labor unions and business leaders have promoted a repeal of the moratorium.

Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton has raised concerns over nuclear-waste storage but hasn’t taken a clear position on how he would treat a bill that reaches him.

Minnesota currently has two nuclear plants.

(© Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

  • Rocket Scientist

    I am wondering do they no longer teach the evils of nuclear waste in school?

    • john doe

      yes it in the armor that is on tanks and hummers in the middle east used to save lives of the soldiers there

    • Andrew

      Sounds like some people need to educate themselves.

    • Sean

      If the United States would allow uranium enrichment there would be no nuclear waste… It is the 1 thing the French got right. This Nuclear Power is the cheapest, cleanest, most efficient source on the planet. It is a tragedy that we are aren’t using it to its full capability. Solar, Wind, and Water power have very limited efficiency i.e. it cost more to build the windmill and keep it running then the energy that you can generate from the windmill. If you want electric cars we need more electricity. That means more coal power or nuclear power, somebody needs to make the right call. This legislature just made the right one.

  • Joe

    If they finid a way to store the waste then I’m for it. We need to find a way to make cheap energy. At least someone is thinking for the future.

  • Victim Du Jour

    California doesn’t build power plants, California pollutes Washington State, Wyoming, Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona with their urban sprawl and big stinky economy.

    And the media blames Enron when little States aren’t keeping up with the California energy demand.

  • mabye so

    The lifetime cost of new generating capacity in the United States was estimated in 2006 by the U.S. government: wind cost was estimated at $55.80 per MW·h, coal (cheap in the U.S.) at $53.10, natural gas at $52.50 and nuclear at $59.30. However, the “total overnight cost” for new nuclear was assumed to be $1,984 per kWe

    Why, new plant are VERY expensive. Theres no permanet disposel site built and Yucca has been decommisiones. Govmernmernt subsidies to build the plant. The enormous amount of water it takes to cool a nuclear plant. un-answered questions of costs of future waste disposal. Then ban on nuclear plants mat be replealed, “it may make no diffrence for the above reasons. As far as we know, Xcel is commited to renewable sources for power generatopn.

  • Eartha

    Finally! Nothing more polluting than a coal fired plant. Waste can be handled properly on site for decades. Get moving and build us another Prairie Island. It’s time.

  • Blizz

    There are 2 ‘sites’ in MN and 3 nuclear power plants.

  • Bruce

    Everyone seems ignorant of the facts pertaining to 4th generation nuclear reactors. The information is readily available on the internet for anyone who is interested.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Thursday Night Football

Listen Live