Nuclear Moratorium LTEs

Sample letters from Jim Hopf, Policy Lead with Generation Atomic and CCL volunteer in California

You are encouraged to use these letters as a basic template and tweak them, such as by naming your Minnesota state legislators or state legislative districts, referencing a recent article in your newspaper.

1) Sample MN Moratorium Repeal Letter – Need for Nuclear

The Star Tribune’s (December 15th , page 4) article about lifting Minnesota’s nuclear moratorium was “right”  (or “wrong”). There is growing consensus that reliable, carbon-free nuclear power generation will have to increase significantly if the world is to meet its climate goals. The reason being a growing realization that we can’t get all of our power from intermittent sources like wind and solar, while maintaining grid reliability, at a reasonable cost.

The IPCC itself says that nuclear will need to double or triple by 2050. The US and a large number of other nations agree. They’ve pledged to increase world nuclear capacity by a factor of three by that time. Many of those nations, and the US Dept. of Energy, are making plans to achieve the goal. Tech companies like Google, Microsoft and Amazon, that have made firm commitments to achieve net zero emissions, are also investing in new nuclear because they’ve

realized that nuclear will be necessary to achieve full decarbonization.

Given the above, it makes no sense to disallow construction of new nuclear plants. It also makes no sense that a clean, carbon-free, reliable, and needed source is the only one that is banned in the state. At a minimum, nuclear should be given a fair chance to compete. The world is moving towards tech-neutral climate/energy policies that include nuclear. Minnesota should join

them.

2) Sample MN Moratorium Repeal Letter – Environment

The Star Tribune’s (December 15th , page 4) article about lifting Minnesota’s nuclear moratorium was “right” (or “wrong”). The record, based on operation of ~400 reactors over ~50 years, shows that nuclear’s public health risks are orders of magnitude lower than those of fossil power sources. The data, which include nuclear’s rare accidents, also show that nuclear’s risks are similar to those of solar and wind.

There is scientific consensus on this point. The European Union turned to its formal scientific bodies, to decide whether nuclear should be classified as a “green” power source. Those bodies concluded that nuclear was as good as solar and wind in terms of environmental impacts/risks. Nuclear was classified as “green”.

Nuclear also has the lowest CO 2 emissions of all sources (solar and wind’s emissions are somewhat higher). Fossil power sources’ CO 2 emissions are over 100 times larger. This includes all the emissions associated with nuclear plant construction and fuel enrichment, etc.. No one has ever been harmed by nuclear power waste. Also, nuclear is the only energy source that is required to show that its waste stream will never cause any harm, for as long as it remains

hazardous.

In terms of both climate and public health, fossil power is the problem. Thus, it makes no sense for clean nuclear to be the one source that is banned in Minnesota. There is no environmental justification for the state’s moratorium.

As far as climate solutions go, let’s start local.

Paul Thompson, Minneapolis Star Tribune, January 7, 2025.

My heart goes out to those impacted by the postponement or cancellation of the two sled dog races near Lake Superior, also to the many recreational skiers who need natural snow to enjoy their skinny skis (“Lack of ice and snow along route postpones Beargrease,” Jan. 3). And thanks to Cassidy Hettesheimer for their article, which gives me, as a Birkie skier of four-plus decades, some hope that climate solutions can be discussed on the sports pages (“Nordic ski coaches ponder future,” Jan. 4). With snow-making now an essential element for the success of any cross-country ski program, what are ski programs going to do after temps hit 28 degrees Fahrenheit and snow-making ceases?

Out at Hyland Lake Park Reserve last week training for my first Kortelopet, I asked a group of high-school skiers from the Eagan Nordic team, “Do your teammates talk about the lack of snow and what it means for skiing’s future?” They smiled, looking a bit unprepared for such a question, and acknowledged that it was important for the future of the sport they love.

Not wanting to leave them without an outlet for action, I mentioned that another district, Edina Public Schools, had applied for two electric school buses through a $5 billion Environmental Protection Agency grant program. The skiers’ demeanors shifted as they realized their own school district could do something to slow climate change. As we departed, one of the girls asked me: “What was the name of that agency again?”

Our society is at a crossroads. Our warming world is a complicated situation. The simple solution is to slow our burning of fossil fuels and move toward renewables: solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, etc. Why shouldn’t our devotion to sports be part of the conversation?

The most effective and easiest thing? Talk about climate and watch the solutions rise to the surface. Humans are good at solving problems when we discuss with respect and concern for the health of future generations. Perhaps the Nordic coaches can include climate conversations in their training programs. A bunch of EV buses would be a good place to start — here’s the link to learn more: epa.gov/cleanschoolbus.

Paul Thompson, Edina

________________________________________

Nuclear energy--the best imperfect solution yet. 

Katya Gordon, Lake County Press, March 14, 2025

You have been reading about nuclear energy in this paper. This issue has changed a great deal over the years without most of us, myself included, realizing it. It is hotly debated in environmental and climate-minded groups, including the Citizens Climate Lobby, of which I am a member. Proponents of nuclear point to its clear advantage as a clean energy, its value as a base load energy source (keeping the lights on when renewables are inactive) and its highly regulated and safe waste practices. Opponents reject nuclear based on the high cost and slow pace of building nuclear plants, the fear around toxic waste, and the potential (and past) exploitation of communities near nuclear plants. While proponents speak of the high electric demand that is forecasted due to electrification and data centers, those against argue that we must reduce our consumption and recycle its products to the degree that distasteful and dangerous developments like nuclear plants and potentially toxic mines are unnecessary.

I could not tell you where I would have stood on this ten years ago, but I can tell you what I think today. Having watched us humans grapple with a growing climate crisis and all the financial, institutional, and natural stresses it lays on us, I can say with some level of confidence that disruption will continue to be the norm even as millions of people and governments do their best to mitigate the effects of climate which include political unrest, famine, and an unprecedented number of people on the move. To put it bluntly, the human race is not poised to evolve smoothly and quickly into a world where advanced a small fraction of today's emissions that we can run ourselves solely on sun, waves, and water.

This does not mean some demands do not warrant a critical eye. I am dismayed that Al, that didn't exist a few years ago, is considered so critical that we must all bow to the inevitable development of data centers immediately, however they tax our current electric power sources. There are alternative responses to the one that assumes we must provide free, unlimited, on-demand AI services for everyone in the modern world--but to get at other answers, we must have a functioning political system. It may take skyrocketing utility bills at communities near data centers to draw enough attention to this problem to regulate it.

Meantime, there are other critical modern services that are, indeed, drawing up the demand on electricity, most notably electric cars and heat pumps. And in developing countries where coal is the path of least resistance, however lethal it is, people are demanding the electricity that we have enjoyed for over a hundred years, and I for one don't blame them. Demand for electricity is, by any measure, growing. Because of this, nuclear doubters need to answer to the assertions below, which I find compelling.

1. Nuclear is cleanly produced by any standard. Its waste products can be and are safely stored as they cool. Better yet, they are becoming recyclable. What other form of energy can claim that? "There is no free lunch," says physicist and Citizens Climate Lobby volunteer Barbara Jones in Ely. Blades from wind turbines need to be recycled. Solar energy takes up vast tracts of land and provides only when the sun shines. Natural gas and oil have major problems with both production and waste that is dirty and dangerous.

2. Though nuclear energy is expensive, it provides baseload power (when all other forms fail). Without nuclear, studies show that we cannot get off our dependence on fossil fuels quickly if ever. Further, the cost of nuclear will drop as research and development and expertise re-start after a few decades out of favor.

This is all immediately relevant because the MN legislature is considering a bipartisan bill to lift the 30-year ban on nuclear energy. I have been on a steep learning curve with nuclear and have come to wholly support lifting the moratorium. If nothing else, the imperative to transform our energy system necessitates comparing all types of energies, and nuclear is undeniably a contender. Lifting the moratorium allows us to consider it on its merits.

Yes, we must do better with local communities. The Prairie Island Indian Community, which lives adjacent to a nuclear plant and which stores its waste (for a price), has spoken compellingly about the role it was not allowed to play in the creation of the plant, which opened 50 years ago. I have watched Senate hearings with the MN legislature, including tribal representatives. The Senate’s bill, we are assured, will imbed local community decision-making into law. We must be involved and make sure it does.

The climate does not give us time to insist on perfection, as Minnesota already knows with its goal of using only carbon-free sources of energy by 2040. Adding nuclear to the mix provides the clearest path to reaching this goal that I have seen yet. It is heartening to see numbers that actually add up! It gives me a real and realistic hope that we can not only avoid the worst future climate scenarios, but that everyone— not just Republicans, who largely favor nuclear--must bend in order to do so.

Katya Gordon is a Two Harbors resident and reporter for the Lake County Press She can be reached at kgordon@cherryroad.com.

Star Tribune Op Ed: Minnesota should nuke its nuclear moratorium. Discard misconceptions and consider the state’s needs.

By Darrick Moe and Jim Schultz

June 30, 2024 at 6:00PM  Minnesota Star Tribune

In 1994, Minnesota enacted a moratorium on new nuclear power plants. Since then, there have been immense changes in nuclear power and energy more broadly, and it is time to reopen the conversation to make new nuclear energy possible in Minnesota.

The truth is Minnesota’s energy policies are holding us back from ensuring an affordable, reliable and sustainable energy future. To meet the moment, the state must embrace an all-tech-on-deck approach to meet our energy needs where every energy source is evaluated by merit and not by misconception. Possibly nowhere is this gap between policy and reality larger than with our current nuclear moratorium.

Minnesota today stands as the only state with a complete ban on all new nuclear energy and one of only 12 states with any nuclear moratorium at all. Just last December, Illinois’ Democrat governor signed legislation, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, lifting his state’s outdated nuclear moratorium for small modular reactors. And the Biden administration has joined other nations in pledging to triple the world’s nuclear energy capacity by 2050.

In Minnesota, legislators in both parties have stepped forward on the issue. This year, Sen. Andrew Mathews, R-Princeton, authored a bill to study advanced nuclear energy, and Sen. Nick Frentz, DFL-North Mankato, had included this study in his committee’s omnibus energy bill. Unfortunately, the nuclear study failed to pass during the legislative session due to opposition in the House.

At the heart of the need for new nuclear energy in Minnesota is the economy and the well-being of Minnesota families. Rising energy costs hit middle and low-income Minnesotans hardest with nearly 10% of Minnesota families reporting difficulty in paying their energy bills. These challenges will persist and get worse as existing power sources shut down without finding reliable replacements. Just this month, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), which manages our grid’s reliability, concluded that our region may not have enough power to meet capacity as early as next summer.

Nuclear is a sustainable resource that ranks as the most reliable source of energy because it provides the consistent, baseload electricity generation necessary to complement renewables, which are subject to weather fluctuations. This reliability is essential for maintaining grid stability and meeting the demand for round-the-clock power. This is all the more important as our society becomes increasingly reliant on electricity for transportation, heating and industrial processes.

Lifting the nuclear moratorium would also stimulate investment and job creation in Minnesota. The construction of new nuclear facilities would require a significant capital infusion, creating opportunities for employment across various sectors, including construction, engineering and manufacturing. And resources that are not spent on high energy prices can be invested in businesses and jobs.

One of the most common misconceptions about nuclear power is that it isn’t safe. Some critics seem to believe modern nuclear sites are still designed like Chernobyl and that Homer Simpson will be the chief safety inspector at any new plant. Such misconceptions should be set aside. Modern nuclear plants incorporate multiple layers of safety features, making them inherently safer than older designs. Moreover, rigorous regulatory standards ensure continuous monitoring and enforcement of safety protocols, minimizing the risk of accidents.

Another common criticism we hear of nuclear power is concerns about the management of the spent fuel. It’s worth noting that all the spent fuel from the entire worldwide fleet of nuclear power plants ever built would easily fit within a single football stadium, and on-site storage of this spent fuel has been safe and incident-free. Furthermore, significant progress has been made in developing future fuel disposal alternatives. Advanced reprocessing techniques and deep geological repositories offer viable solutions for managing spent nuclear fuel responsibly.

The time has come for Minnesota to set aside its nuclear moratorium. By embracing nuclear energy, the state can enhance its commitment to safety, stimulate economic growth and bolster energy security. While challenges remain, the benefits of nuclear power — combined with advancements in technology and regulatory oversight — demonstrate the need to move on from the outdated nuclear moratorium. Let’s get it done for Minnesota’s future.

Darrick Moe is the president and CEO of the Minnesota Rural Electric Association. Jim Schultz is the president of the Minnesota Private Business Council.

Star Tribune Op Ed: It’s time to end Minnesota’s moratorium on nuclear power 

By Amy Koch

January 6, 2025 at 1:56 PM CST. Minnesota Star Tribune

The warning lights are flashing red for Minnesota’s energy future. A sobering new report from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) has confirmed what energy experts have long feared: Our regional power grid faces a high risk of electricity shortfalls within the next five years. The diagnosis is stark: “Resource additions are not keeping up with generator retirements and demand growth.” This isn’t a distant threat; it’s an immediate crisis that demands immediate action.

Against this backdrop of looming power shortages, the Minnesota Legislature faces a critical choice in 2025: to continue with an outdated ban on new nuclear energy generation, or finally embrace all available tools to ensure reliable, carbon-free power for our future.

The policy landscape and political environment have aligned to create not just an opportunity, but an imperative for this long-overdue change.

The facts are clear. Energy demand across the nation is reaching record levels, according to the Energy Information Administration. Here in Minnesota, this demand will only intensify as we implement Gov. Walz’s “Clean Cars” standards, which will accelerate electric vehicle adoption across our state, and increasingly respond to the demand to locate new data centers here in our state. Meanwhile, Minnesota has committed itself to an ambitious goal of 100% carbon-free energy by 2040.

Yet remarkably, since 1994, Minnesota has maintained a “gag rule” that prevents even discussing new nuclear energy generation. This moratorium stands in stark contrast to rapidly advancing nuclear technology, particularly in the field of Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). These aren’t your grandfather’s nuclear plants – they represent cutting-edge technology that the Biden Administration’s Department of Energy has embraced as a “key part of the department’s goal to develop safe, clean, and affordable nuclear power options.”

The 2024 election results delivered a clear message: Minnesotans want their legislators to work together. With a tied House and the DFL holding just a one-seat edge in the Senate, voters have essentially mandated bipartisan cooperation. What better issue to tackle together than repealing this reactionary and counterproductive ban on nuclear energy?

This wouldn’t be the first time the parties have found common ground on this issue. During my time in the Senate, numerous bills to repeal the nuclear moratorium garnered support from both DFL and Republican legislators. In 2008, the DFL-controlled Senate successfully passed a repeal with Republican support, though it unfortunately stalled in the House. Even more telling, in 2009, then-U.S. Rep. Tim Walz joined Republican U.S. Rep. Erik Paulsen in calling for the moratorium’s end. That was nearly 15 years after the moratorium’s passage. Sadly, 15 more years have passed without movement on this issue that would unlock safe, carbon-free, baseload energy options for Minnesota utilities and their customers.

As we face the monumental challenge of transitioning to carbon-free power while maintaining reliable service, we need every tool at our disposal. The voters have sent almost exactly equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats to St. Paul, signaling their desire for balanced, practical solutions to our energy challenges. By allowing nuclear energy to compete in the resource planning marketplace, we can demonstrate that Minnesota’s political leaders can move beyond partisan divisions to solve real problems.

The path forward is clear. We must embrace a “best of the above” approach to energy generation, letting the most effective technologies compete fairly in the marketplace. Repealing the nuclear moratorium would send a powerful message that Minnesota is serious about both clean energy and bipartisan problem-solving. With NERC’s warning of potential power shortfalls now hanging over our state, we can no longer afford to wait. After thirty years of this unnecessary ban, 2025 presents not just an opportunity, but a necessity to chart a new course for Minnesota’s energy future.

Amy Koch of Edina is a former majority leader of the Minnesota Senate. During her time in the Legislature she served on the Energy and Jobs and Economic Development committees.