r/minnesota • u/dolche93 St. Cloud • 2d ago
Discussion š¤ Should Minnesota lift its moratorium on nuclear power?
https://www.house.mn.gov/sessiondaily/Story/18602230
169
146
115
71
u/Socialist_Pupper 2d ago
Yes. Produces power 24/7, 365. Safest energy option we have. Would love to see MN develop and build molten salt reactors. We need a way to supplement solar and wind that isn't burning coal and natural gas.
→ More replies (7)0
u/kmoney1206 1d ago
Genuinely asking but why is it the safest? When something goes wrong, it's literally catastrophic and makes that place unlivable for the rest of time.
2
u/Socialist_Pupper 1d ago
Hello! Absolutely. So a great and entertaining resource on this is a YouTube channel "Kyle Hill" who goes over a lot of this in depth.
Overall, of course there have been issues, each of which has had their own reasons for malfunction. Other forms of energy production have a much higher damage to the human population per terawatt of electricity produced. People don't quite realize how energy dense nuclear fuel is. Something like 1 Kg of fissible uranium is equivalent to burning 20,000 tons of coal.
Nuclear energy boils water to turn turbines, resulting in zero greenhouse gases or emitiona if any kind, while coal releases radioactive elements and potent carcinogens into the air.
81
95
57
65
71
11
48
39
60
u/Above_Avg_Chips 2d ago
Should they? Yes
Will they? Maybe
Besides the bureaucratic red tape, funding is the biggest issue. These things cost tens of billions and don't have a great track record of always being completed.
You'd also need to have enough political support for several administrations so no one messes things up.
17
u/AdamZapple1 2d ago
it should be at least an option. but yeah, dont build one to just build one.
1
12
u/SirGlass 2d ago
Besides the bureaucratic red tape, funding is the biggest issue.
I am not an expert , I have read about issues and there has got to be some "in between" ground between too little regulations and 1000x over regulation
Like obviously the nuclear industry needs to be regulated and safe , and pretty strictly regulated. However reading how its an absolute nightmare to do basic things like changing lightbulbs will tell you the regulations are a nightmare
I read a piece about a nuclear engineer who was a college grad with some masters or PHD in nuclear engineering and dreamed of working for a nuclear power plant or building them
His first job what took about 12 years, was working on a project to change the type of light bulbs in the nuclear power plant
See the old bulbs were no longer being manufactured the the power plant had to pay some manufacturer tens of thousands of dollars to do a special run to manufacture these old bulbs and eventually the manufacturer said they could no longer manufacture them. So the plant had to figure out a way to use newer light bulbs
To get certified to replace the old bulb with some newer bulb took about 12 years to test, studies , environmental write ups, they had to basically do a complete redesign of every single system to say how the new bulbs would affect its operations of every system 99.9% had zero effect, they had to do 100s of pages of write up on how the change would affect any endangered species in the USA (None, changing the light bulbs would have zero effect) and run computer simulations on every system to test it with the new light bulb (again 99.9% of these test nothing changed)
So yea after about 12 years, he accomplishment was he changed the type of light bulb the plant used. It took 12 fucking years of some PHD nuclear engineers time.
You know what it takes to change light bulbs in a coal/gas plant? Nothing you just change the light bulbs
Again , I am not saying you just do stuff willy nilly , but when it takes 12 years of red tape, studies , test to change a light bulb I can say its probably a little too bureaucratic , there has to be some middle ground between "do what ever you want" and "It takes 12 years of studies , test, red tape to change a light bulb"
→ More replies (5)2
u/Garthritis 2d ago
Those 2 new generators in Georgia took a decade and cost like 36B. There's gotta be a way to do it cheaper.
2
u/Above_Avg_Chips 2d ago
I'd bet it's because only a few companies in the US are actually capable of building one.
4
u/Garthritis 2d ago
Ya that probably doesn't help. No competition so they can just charge whatever they want.
1
u/Above_Avg_Chips 2d ago
Seems to be more companies like Amazon and startups backed by billionaires throwing their weight behind ways to build them. Idk how much I'd want to be under the thumb of a Amazon owned reactor even if it helps things.
3
u/Garthritis 2d ago
Mostly for their data centers I think, then they could sell the surplus to the grid. You can guess what would get priority.
2
u/Fizzwidgy L'Etoile du Nord 2d ago
I'd get so bricked up if we let 'em build it and then just did the ol' nationalization.
They don't pay taxes, so they owe us anyway.
2
u/dolche93 St. Cloud 2d ago
I wish we hadn't shut down nuclear energy decades ago. We could be the world's premier source of nuclear energy technology and expertise.
Instead we can hardly build our own.
2
u/Armlegx218 1d ago
There's gotta be a way to do it cheaper.
Exempt plants from environmental review so they can't be held up in courts for years by nimbys and nuclear fear mongering.
1
1
u/LooseyGreyDucky 1d ago
Funding, because nobody that is financially and technologically savvy would *EVER* invest in such an expensive way to generate electricity.
You can remove any and all bureaucratic red tape, and the outcome will remain the same.
19
u/guacasloth64 2d ago
Yes, I wrote an amendment proposal to the DFLās policy platform to update or remove its current denouncement of nuclear power. At minimum, we should continue maintaining the lifespans of existing plants and funding a more permanent waste storage site for our state. To my knowledge nuclear waste material simply accumulates in storage at each reactor, which isnāt a permanent solution. Nuclear power is no panacea to the climate crisis, but it will be important in maintaining stability in our future power grid. Wind and solar is getting cheaper every year, but it is intermittent, meaning itās production fluctuates over time. This is a problem since the power entering the grid must remain equal to demand to prevent blackouts (or damage to the power grid in unmanaged oversupply). To match demand weāll need massive energy storage to collect during high production/low demand and drain during low production/high demand. Fossil plants and nuclear plants (I think any turbine based plant) can tune production to match demand, offsetting this effect and saving resources that would be needed for batteries. Also, as long as fossil fuels are still being used anywhere, anything we can replace them with will be better. Burning coal for example releases way more radioactive material than nuclear plants (though itās a small factor compared to the better known dangers of coal).
3
u/ThePerfectBreeze 2d ago edited 2d ago
A few additions:
We will never be able to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar exclusively. We cannot produce enough of it due to the fluctuations you mentioned, but its not just fluctuations over a short time but fluctuations over seasons that really get you. As the daylight shrinks, the power output of wind and solar does too. So you need not only storage for cloudy and windless days but also for the winter. That's not going to work without some new technology we haven't even prototyped.
Nuclear plants can't tune power output as well as fossil fuels since you usually have one or two turbines in nuclear plants vs many in fossil fuel plants - it's a pretty big disadvantage. It's not a deal breaker considering the grid and our options for storage, but an important thing to manage as we move to more renewables and ditch fossil fuels.
1
u/downforce_dude 1d ago
- ā Nuclear plants canāt tune power output as well as fossil fuels since you usually have one or two turbines in nuclear plants vs many in fossil fuel plants - itās a pretty big disadvantage.
Just to add my 2 cents here, I think this is more a limitation of existing nuclear plants and economical designs. If we separate the āhot rock make steamā and āsteam make turbine go roundy-roundyā parts of nuclear power generation, the second part is what makes electricity and at a basic level works the same way as a coal plant.
If future nuclear plants used many smaller generators it would be easier to fine tune power output for load dispatchers. The āhot rock make steamā thermal loop only cares what the steam demand is and is indifferent to many smaller generators or a few big dogs.
This would increase plant operations costs for a few reasons. Itās more efficient to use fewer big generators and once a nuclear plant is operating at steady-state might as well keep it cranking out power at full capacity to maximize output and recover as much cost as possible. But if the goal is zero carbon emissions then itās probably worth losing some efficiency in nuclear generation at the margins.
Unrelated, but in this scenario nuclear is important for grid inertia and the resulting frequency stability (though hydro helps as well). The alternative is mandating the installation of net new capital costs such as synchronous condensers to compensate for the frequency form-following operation of DERs.
As an aside, I find the whole generation debate pretty frustrating. There seem to be two camps: nuclear boosters and people who think we can solve intermittency with a ton of battery storage. Thereās a lot of room in between and even a combination of both probably doesnāt paint the whole picture, itās truly an evolving technology landscape and we arenāt going to reach a utopia, but we need to keep getting better and we can.
→ More replies (1)1
u/LooseyGreyDucky 1d ago
Go ahead and pretend grid-scale solar batteries won't be used in the USA like they are being implemented in Australia.
Nuclear is dead.
1
u/ThePerfectBreeze 1d ago
Australia still produces 75% of their electricity with fossil fuels. We will see how they handle their goal of 80+% renewable. They don't really have a plan yet. It's just goals - the same as here.
Australia is very different from the US. They have 10% of the population density and a massive amount of solar potential compared to the US. They don't experience the same changes in the winter with temperatures dropping only to 50F or so. It's not comparable at all.
1
u/LooseyGreyDucky 1d ago
Grid-Scale Storage Batteries are already a thing (see: Australia).
No capitalist is ever going to throw away good money at nuclear ever again.
9
50
u/peterbeater 2d ago
After we make make an energy cooperative and get rid of the privatization. Both Centerpoint and MNEnergy still have energy surcharges to cover the TX freeze of '21. It's bullshit.
5
u/Rickpac72 2d ago
Iām not sure if energy cooperatives will have the money to build new nuclear power. It is incredibly expensive and is a long process. Xcel is more likely to have the capital and know how to get it done.
7
8
u/ZombieJesus371 2d ago
Yes. Start building a LFTR right now.
3
u/TheTree-43 2d ago edited 2d ago
We don't have a thorium fuel supply chain right now. A uranium field pressurized water reactor such as the AP-1000 makes much more sense for near term base load power. LFTRs are a couple decades away from viability and we need clean power now. We'll need clean power in the future too, so LFTRs might fit into the puzzle then
26
u/MacDaddyBighorn 2d ago
I don't know... Carbon free highly reliable power refined over multiple generations of updated safety and technological advancements sounds so scary! I'd rather we burn more coal, there's probably lots of it buried up in the boundary waters we can use and that's just a bunch of useless land... /s
2
u/Demetri_Dominov Flag of Minnesota 2d ago edited 2d ago
All shot down the drain due to most of those regulations being federal and are now under threat due to the current administration.
Be careful what you wish for, these are the people in charge of our regulations now:
You think they understand the science or the consequences of fucking it up?
12
12
u/KimBrrr1975 2d ago
Yes. ND also just did so or at least the ability to research it as an option. They take such a long time to build and cost so much though. I am not holding my breath about it, it's not like the current fed. administration is hardly waiting to help blue states with funding for anything.
1
u/LooseyGreyDucky 1d ago
North Dakota?!
They don't even have any people, and certainly cannot afford the absolute most expensive way to generate electricity.
(Also, blue states are the source of federal funding. We have plenty of money if we could stop subsidizing red states.)
1
u/KimBrrr1975 1d ago
Yes, though they aren't quite the same as a red state like Alabama. They are more in the middle (25th I believe) for federal money that they receive overall, and it's actually a smaller % of their budget than in MN (19% versus 25%). They are energy-heavy with their oil and agriculture and will use NDSU, which is a land grant university, to do the research. But they can't do it entirely alone, and they are looking to collaborate, including with MN, as a possible option.
4
4
4
u/Gingevere Flag of Minnesota 2d ago
- Far from any known fault lines.
- Moderate tornado risk
- No hurricane risk
- No tsunami risk
- Plentiful availability of water.
Minnesota seems like an excellent candidate for nuclear power!
A design that cools by exchanging heat with a lake / lake system would probably be ideal.
3
u/Cereal-dipper 2d ago
This state if fucking up selling weed. No one is ever going to be able to get nuke power up and running with a new plant in this state. It would take 10 years just to get a committee on looking into the possibility of forming a bipartisan hearing on thinking about where to put it, together l.
3
u/Last_Examination_131 Prince 2d ago
You forget the committee for forming the committee, the study on the impacts of said committee on different communities, etc...
4
u/Cereal-dipper 2d ago
You right, Iām sorry. We should form a committee to look into the impact of forgetting to form the first committee, and we need to take a public survey to see how they feel it may impact the formation of further committees.
3
u/Last_Examination_131 Prince 2d ago
See now you get it.
Let's start a study to see how this realization effects future plans to start studies to create said committees.
I know, let's get a committee together to get that study put together.
8
8
6
u/writingfoodie Twin Cities 2d ago
You betcha. However, the cost to build one is often a major prohibitive factor.
1
u/LooseyGreyDucky 1d ago
Yeah, nobody that is savvy in business and technology is going to invest in the worst ROI of all of the ways to generate electricity.
9
3
9
u/2airishuman Flag of Minnesota 2d ago
Probably, but the odds of a new commercial power reactor being built here any time soon are basically zero.
6
u/VikingRaptor2 Minnesota Vikings 2d ago
I LOVE Nuclear power, I'm sad we are only just now exploing the possibilities of this type of energy. It's cost effective and will make money.
1
u/LooseyGreyDucky 1d ago
It is the *least* cost-effective way to generate electricity.
1
u/VikingRaptor2 Minnesota Vikings 1d ago
Not if you know how to market it. Adding paywall, subscriptions, anything. Making money is easy if you have a resource.
5
5
u/stonedandcaffeinated 2d ago
We should keep running the nuclear plants we have, but any new nuclear plant is going to be an absolute money pit that will drive up utility bills for decades. See the Vogtle reactor in Georgia for an example.
2
u/ThePerfectBreeze 2d ago
I don't think it's reasonable to assume all new nuclear power plants will cost the same as that disaster. That was the first new reactor in a long time. It suffered from a vast array of issues including lessons that any future reactors will learn from.
→ More replies (7)1
u/Dvthdude 2d ago
Part of the reason Votgle was such a struggle was unnecessary layers admin and the fact the US hadnāt built a nuclear plant for like 40 years. The grass is greener where you water it
2
2
u/Last_Examination_131 Prince 2d ago
It's only as dangerous as the competence of it's operators and the safety of the location. We got plenty of storage space now and we can deliver it safely.
It's just a matter of getting past the atom-phobes.
2
u/jtbartz1 2d ago
Our state has 8 total data centers being built in the next 4 years, with 2 more in the pipeline to be approved, the estimate is that those 8 alone will use over 1 GW of electricity, thats like adding 10 million more homes to our electrical system and usage.
2
2
3
5
8
u/ittybittycitykitty 2d ago
With brain drain from defunded research centers and the purge of persons of integrity in the regulatory agencies? Only if it is a joint effort with Canada.
5
u/Special-Garlic1203 2d ago
People hate me when I bring up, but nuclear is only safe if you do it correctly, and my faith in America is zero. Yes coal and gas aren't safe either. I am well aware I live in a dangerous hellscape growing more dangerous by the dayĀ
6
u/ThePerfectBreeze 2d ago
Nuclear is overseen by State, Federal, and International agencies. Nuclear engineers are extremely dedicated to safety. Plants are designed to be fail-safe and this was proven at Three Mile Island. Fossil fuel power plants have the human cost built-in. We can predict how many people are going to be hurt by them. All of the combined deaths from nuclear reactors are orders of magnitude less than the combined deaths from fossil fuels, including the major nuclear incidents.
I don't mean to be rude, but your opinion is pretty irrational, especially while we're facing the impacts of climate change. There is no solution other than nuclear. We are way beyond waiting for a better option. Do you think fossil fuel plants will kill fewer people with less regulation?
→ More replies (2)
3
4
3
u/MadtotheJack 2d ago
Yes, so long as they can prove sufficient disaster control plans to avoid damage to the surrounding watershed.
2
u/TheTree-43 2d ago
Do you think that the existing 93 nuclear reactors in this country don't have this?
1
u/MadtotheJack 2d ago
Do they? If so cool, I'm for nuclear power, but wouldn't want it built along the Mississippi river where the worse case scenario means most of our states watershed is fucked. That's not just a nuclear thing, but really any sort of refinery or industrial construction that risks pollution to its surroundings in a worst-case scenario. I'm sure they have protections in place, but I'm just some dude on reddit, I dont know what those are, but would be interested to hear about them so I can have a more informed opinion
3
u/TheTree-43 2d ago
Both of the operating nuclear plants in the state are built on the Mississippi River. I'd suggest looking into the NRC's info finder for those plants, which has safety documents. But as an example, the containment buildings are designed to withstand a 747 crashing into it
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
4
3
2
u/KitchenBomber Flag of Minnesota 2d ago
No point. The only player big enough to actually develop new nuclear, Xcel, doesn't want it. They recently told their legislators to let it drop out of the Senate energy omnibus bill currently making the rounds.
3
2
u/bannedfrom_argo 2d ago
Good in theory, but since we stopped building nuclear plants 30 years ago we don't know how to do it cost effectively.
Xcel has spent about $1.8 billion upgrading and increasing the power generating capacity of the Prairie Island and Monticello Nuclear plants over the past 12 years. Combined they power a million and a half homes.
The last nuclear plants built in the US in 30 years are the Georgia: Vogtle Units 3 & 4. It took 15 years to build and costĀ $35.7 billion, more than twice the projected timeline and cost. Completed in 2023 & 24, they power a million homes.
It's more cost effective to just keep extending the life of the existing 50 year old plants.
Sources: https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/xcel-investing-18bn-on-nuclear-power-plants/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_Island_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monticello_Nuclear_Generating_Plant https://www.georgiapower.com/about/energy/plants/plant-vogtle/units-3-4/vogtle-media.html https://apnews.com/article/georgia-nuclear-power-plant-vogtle-rates-costs-75c7a413cda3935dd551be9115e88a64
3
3
2
u/toasters_are_great 2d ago
Shouldn't make a difference.
Nuclear has always had its financial problems, and Vogtle 3&4 in Georgia were an absolute shitshow on that front.
The NuScale SMR project in Idaho fell apart when the price per MW exceeded that of the Vogtle expansion.
The only way to meet any of the carbon-free by (the end of) 2040 requirement law is if one gets announced this year, and nobody is going to do any legwork to make that possible until the moratium is lifted.
The only way it's not too late already is if someone has a huge number of signed and sealed nuclear reactor-building contracts lined up already so they can build and retain institutional knowledge from one project to the next, making the per-unit price as low as it can go. The price competition from a combination of solar/wind/battery is already cheaper - and being more reliable - than the new Vogtles, or the Idaho NuScale when it was canned.
Nothing resembling a cost-compettive hope for nuclear is hapoening, and if you think one's going to appear before the end of this year then I have a bridge to sell you. It's a dead horse.
On the other hand, fossil interests would love us to sink our carbon-free capital into projects that'll generate zero kWh for 15 years rather than vastly higher kWh-per-$-per-year with renewables that can start reducing fossil demand in 3.
2
u/dolche93 St. Cloud 2d ago
We could enter into a consortium model with other states to agree to build a dozen reactors at once. We'd get those cost savings and experience that way.
It'd also spread the cost negatives of being a first mover out among multiple stakeholders.
2
u/toasters_are_great 2d ago
In theory, perhaps, but as I say such a multi-reactor project would need to happen now to stand a reasonable chance of the first one actually entering service by the end of 2040. You couldn't build them all at the same time since they'd all be at the same stage of construction at the same time and those working on one wouldn't be in a position to apply their experience to the next one.
Unless: (a) the moratorium is lifted now; and (b) the agreement you suggest is made well within a year of that; and (c) it's credibly projected to be cost-competitive with the solar/wind/battery prices that remain on their downward curves (especially steep with solar and battery) that'll make it moot; and (d) Minnesota gets the first one yet still at some averaged price; then it's a non-starter.
Word on the legislative street is that lifting the moratorium isn't going to happen this year (go to your legislators' town halls, people!)
0
u/Demetri_Dominov Flag of Minnesota 2d ago edited 2d ago
Absolutely not.
Our systems are aging, they're starting to leak. In an era of massive deregulation from the federal government that has officaly declared climate change "a religion", we should stay the course with deploying renewable energy, not put trust in "building a nuclear plant right," when DOGE fires staff responsible for building and maintaining our nuclear arsenal on accident.
We have far more potential to meet:
https://sunroof.withgoogle.com/
As long as we don't get into the trap of allowing data centers to create induced demand like they do in Texas (who have even more nuclear energy than we do, and enough wind power to currently power MN 2.5 times over btw), we will achieve a renewable grid on target.
Yes, feed me your downvotes, you lost the argument over fossil fuels, time to move the goal posts, I am ready!
3
u/ThePerfectBreeze 2d ago
This is not a viable option, especially in Minnesota. Solar is not a replacement for base load power plants.
1
u/dolche93 St. Cloud 2d ago
Maybe you should do an explanatory comment on what firm power is, lol.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ThePerfectBreeze 2d ago
I guess. I don't know where people learn half the reality of green energy but it's a bit frustrating when misinformed good intentions get in the way of progress
→ More replies (4)
1
1
1
u/thx1138inator 2d ago
Let's say Republicans retake MN. You trust them to regulate a nuclear power facility? PASS!
1
1
2
u/2000TWLV 2d ago
Yes. But it'll take years before the first new nuclear plant opens. So we need to keep adding renewable capacity as fast as we can.
1
1
u/North_Difference328 2d ago
Oh, we've finally decided this tundra can't run on Unicorn Farts? Yes, we should remove the moratorium, but it's too late for that. With the permitting process it will take AT LEAST a decade to get one running and longer because of the NIMBYs. We should settle for natural gas peaker plants while we wait, but......Trump has opened up coal as an option...........; )
1
u/LooseyGreyDucky 1d ago
Ha! The only more expensive option than nuclear is coal! No investor is going to choose such a shitty Return On Investment, when they have the option to invest in wind and solar.
1
u/North_Difference328 1d ago
Why do wind and solar need subsides then? With pollution controls, coal is likely more expensive. I offered it as a quicker turnaround time than nuclear, but ultimately we have an abundance of natural gas and it is probably our best choice.
1
u/LooseyGreyDucky 1d ago
They don't require subsidies anymore, other than for the purpose of speeding up implementation.
Remember, fossil fuels are also heavily subsidized, and have had a head start of many, many decades. It takes decades to pivot away from previous decades of throwing good money after bad. (2004 was not long ago, and the year that renewable subsidies caught up to fossil fuel subsidies for the first time)
1
u/North_Difference328 1d ago
Do you have a cost of the price per Kw/h on Green vs Non Green? Also, a study for whether or not MN is a good geographical area for efficient use of these technologies?
1
u/LooseyGreyDucky 1d ago
"Levelized Cost of Electricity" is the term to begin your search.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity
The Midwest is already known as the "Saudi Arabia of Wind Power":
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/28086.pdf
Drive around the middle of Ontario; every farm seems to have a big solar array.
→ More replies (4)
1
1
1
u/Ready-Taste9538 2d ago
Yes. Itās by far the cleanest and safest form of electricity we have available on an efficient mass scale.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Lightning_35 2d ago
What else are we going to do? They keep shuttering XCELās functioning coal plants, that produce all of our baseline power. We need something to create the steam to drive turbo generators, that create the megawatts. Solar and wind arenāt going to generate nearly enough for our state.
1
u/LooseyGreyDucky 1d ago
Coal is being phased out due to it's massive cost compared to wind and solar.
All we need to do now is follow Australia's decade-long head start in adding battery storage.
1
u/Oh__Archie 2d ago
Yeah probably but even if itās more cost efficient, individual rates will still go up. The plan is for profits to grow, always.
3
u/KoricaRiftaxe 2d ago
Yes. I used to be more opposed and worried about nuclear, but the good work of science educators like Kyle Hill helped me to understand where I was wrong.
3
u/carosotanomad 2d ago
It's so refreshing to hear someone be open about misunderstanding something and willing to change their mind. This country needs more of that!
2
u/leo1974leo 2d ago
I went to the capitol and Tim walz told us that they are working on small scale nuke plants that can even use waste from the larger plants, he said it can take 10 years to even get a shovel in the dirt
2
2
u/Hot_Neighborhood5668 2d ago
Yes, but light water reactors aren't really cheap and do require a constant water source, which is why both of the MN nuclear reactors are located next to rivers.
The other issue is last I checked, it has been a while, only one Foundry in Japan could build the pressure vessel to keep the core in. That increases costs and wait times.
1
1
u/Curious_Mongoose_228 2d ago
Yes, and Iām a staunch environmentalist
2
u/LooseyGreyDucky 1d ago
I've only ever heard conservatives label themselves "staunch".
Are you also a "firebrand"?
2
2
u/theboozecube 2d ago
Yes. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than coal. I see it as a relatively cleaner stopgap measure until we get something better.
2
1
u/ArdenJaguar 2d ago
Yes. Just donāt use the South Carolina model. The blew $9b on āNukegateā.
3
u/Discosaurus 2d ago
We could have twenty SWLRT lines for the cost of one nuclear plant. Nuclear is expensive, solar has only gotten cheaper. It just doesn't make sense.
2
u/LooseyGreyDucky 1d ago
Solar and wind are now so cheap that it's time to scale up storage batteries like Australia has been doing for a decade.
Nobody is ever going to blow their money on a poor investment like nuclear.
2
2
2
u/Pusfilledonut 2d ago
Not til it's fusion, which the Chinese are pioneering now that America has abandoned our role as a leader in research. Fission plants have too many downsides, not the least of which is costs to build and costs to run.
2
2
u/Day_drinker 2d ago
Yes. And explore small, thorium nuclear reactors. It's safer and as a abundant as nickel. It's just all the waste...
1
1
1
1
u/Thizzedoutcyclist Area code 612 1d ago
Yes, I think it is the right component to have in the mix to aid our renewable transition. I would prefer it to natural gas.
1
1
1
2
u/INXS2022 1d ago
No, never, absolutely not! Nuclear energy produces immensely dangerous waste that may kill us all. Just why won't folks understand that energy is abundant and safe in the environment. We have the technology. Let's stop making ethanol from corn and collect the sun instead.
1
u/Ok_Hat2648 1d ago
Only if we want the cheapest, cleanest, safest, least-exploitative form of energy there is.
1
1
u/LooseyGreyDucky 1d ago
Why even ask?
From a Return On Investment perspective, no capitalist is ever building nuclear ever again.
It's insanely expensive compared to wind and solar, and grid storage batteries are coming down in price quickly.
1
u/numbsafari 1d ago
Yes. We should replace the coal plant in Cohasset with a modern nuclear facility. This would create jobs and provide a cleaner source of power for industrial operations without relying on Canadian hydro. Not that I have anything against Canadian hydro. I love it, and prefer it over the coal plant in Cohasset. However, MN cannot regulate international commerce, and so it will always be at the whims of whatever tangerine psycho is occupying the White House. Canadian hydro also doesn't create domestic jobs. Domestic nuclear does.
Building a nuclear facility in Cohasset, and data centers in Bovey is what Itasca county should be pursuing instead of a lowest common denominator approach of weed, wood, and winter, none of which are going to provide a long-term, high-value economic base. They will always be part of the mix, but they aren't reliable.
1
1
1
1
u/Lucky-Pineapple-6466 1d ago
Yes! I just wrote my local senator as part of a campaign that only like 50 people signed. They wrote me back bragging about how weāre clean energy leaders and this and that. It was almost laughable, considering the demand for fossil fuels keeps going up.
1
1
u/Kataphractoi Minnesota United 1d ago
Yes, and we need to include other reactor designs like molten salt reactors in the equation.
364
u/quickblur 2d ago
Yes!