The nuclear power industry’s effort to revive its lackluster image may be paying off. Of course, this new poll (”Nearly 7 of 10 Americans Favor Nuclear Energy, Support Building New Reactors at Existing Sites“–site requires free registration) may require the proverbial grain of salt, because it was commissioned by the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s unabashed cheerleader. It shows an increasing number of Americans ready to live with the uncertainties of nuclear energy. Some stalwart environmentalists, notably Stewart Brand, James Lovelock, and Gustav Speth have set aside decades-old opposition to new nuclear power on the grounds that we need large amounts of nuclear energy to fight global warming. Other analysts, notably Amory Lovins, have shown that if reduced CO2 emissions were the top goal, new nuclear power would be one of the last choices, based on cost.

Closer to home at the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, oral arguments were heard yesterday about whether to authorize new nuclear waste storage outside the Monticello reactor, north of the Twin Cities. The Commission will deliberate on Thursday and presumably reach a decision. The administrative law judge who heard the evidence recommended that the Commission approve the “certificate of need” allowing the waste storage in dry casks outside the Monticello reactor, on a concrete pad, using similar technology as is used at the Prairie Island reactor. The Department of Commerce enthusiastically supported Xcel’s petition, and even offered that maybe the Commission should grant even more nuclear waste casks than Xcel was asking for.

Fresh Energy and Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy intervened against the petition, arguing that Xcel was only asking for permission to temporarily store the waste, but since there is no reasonably foreseeable prospect for it leaving Minnesota, the Commission should deny the application and require Xcel to petition for permanent storage. The North American Water Office also intervened and raised numerous issues of risk, cost, public health, accidents, malice, aging reactor parts, and the need to end production of nuclear waste so “we can get our arms around the problem” of how to “bequeath nuclear waste to the future, essentially forever.”

Bookmark to:

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 27th, 2006 at 9:41 am by Fresh Energy and is filed under Energy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.