Why lift the 30-year moratorium on nuclear power in Minnesota now?

Expanding access to nuclear power generation is essential for Minnesota to meet its goal of having a carbon-free electricity grid by 2040. The 100% Clean Electricity Law (SF4) passed in 2023 requires 100% of electricity delivered in Minnesota to be zero-carbon in only 15 years. Nuclear is the only readily available and proven technology to bridge this gap, as it provides always-on, weather-independent, zero-emission energy to complement other intermittent renewable sources.  Minnesota’s nuclear plants generate roughly half of our carbon-free electricity, however, as large coal and gas generation retires, this will not meet our future needs. In a reversal of historical trends, the total electrical demand in Minnesota is expected to rise significantly over the coming decades. This projection is a result of anticipated EV adoption, electrification of heating and appliances, and the demand from new data centers that are needed to power our increasingly online lives. Nuclear energy is needed to retire and replace existing coal and gas plants, to ensure that we have enough power to meet capacity for decades to come while minimizing the impact on Minnesota’s environment and maintaining the integrity of our grid. Nuclear power uses less land and mined resources than alternatives. Building additional nuclear capacity and retiring fossil fuel plant sites would create high-quality and higher-paying jobs for Minnesotans, but projects take a long time to develop. That’s why we believe it’s time to eliminate Minnesota’s nuclear power ban.

Couldn’t we just use more renewables instead?

Probably not. While theoretically possible, no major grid has been able to deeply decarbonize with wind and solar alone.  An ideal carbon-free grid utilizes diverse generating sources in a broad portfolio based on their relative strengths. Solar and wind provide inexpensive variable supply but are not always available and we lack the ability to store substantial amounts of electricity to use at night or when the winds are calm. Biomass can be burned on demand but releases CO₂ in doing so, calling into question its carbon-neutral status. Hydropower generates carbon-free electricity in a dispatchable manner but requires specific geography and watersheds not present in Minnesota limiting its use in our state. While Minnesota should expand the use of all zero-carbon sources, nuclear fission is the only technology available in Minnesota that is proven, dispatchable, and produces the zero-carbon electricity needed to meet our decarbonization goals.

Is nuclear power safe?

Yes. The safety record of generating electricity from nuclear power is the same as that of wind turbines and solar panels globally. We understand that the word “nuclear” alone can evoke public fears. However, most modern technologies have inherent risks; be it flying in airplanes, or simply having electricity in our homes – both of these have the potential to cause both great harm and yet provide tremendous benefit. As with such technologies, we make the benefits of nuclear power available safely to the public by managing the risks, developing safety regulations, and learning from our mistakes. Modern nuclear plants are safe, in part, because of how we build them, including robust containment structures and automated fail-safe systems to ensure the safety of workers, the public, and the environment. Strict safety regulations and oversight have enabled the industry to operate for over 70 years with negligible impact on public health and the planet. As with other industries like aviation, lessons learned from prior incidents improve upon this already remarkable safety record.

What about radiation risks?

Nuclear plants emit extremely low levels of radiation under normal operating conditions. Exposure to naturally occurring sources in the environment, like radon, exceeds these trace amounts. While ionizing radiation has known carcinogenic effects at very high doses, the established regulatory limits in place for nuclear plants are well below any level that has been shown to cause harm. Moving to nuclear fuel waste, when removed from a reactor, used nuclear fuel does pose a high radiation hazard, and must be handled with extreme care while the radioactivity declines over time. However, as explained below, the nuclear industry has safely managed these isolated waste streams for over 50 years.

Can we safely store waste forever?

Yes. Keeping any harmful wastes produced by nuclear power plants out of the environment has been the plan and intent since the technology’s inception. In fact, nuclear power is the only power generation technology with such a goal.

The primary waste of concern in nuclear power is used fuel. The nature of this waste is that when it is removed from the reactor it is extremely hot, both thermally and radioactively. As time passes the most dangerous parts of it decay away the most quickly. For this reason, spent fuel is initially placed in a pool of water within the plant itself for a number of years, before being moved into engineered dry casks which can be stored outside the plant. 

These casks have been rigorously designed and tested to prevent any radiological release in all plausible accident scenarios. Although there have been no known or suspected attempts to sabotage cask storage facilities, they have been tested to withstand such attacks. Even after decades of use, inspections of spent fuel and cask components confirm that the systems are providing safe and secure storage. Since the first dry casks were loaded in 1986, dry storage has released no radiation that affected the public or contaminated the environment. With continuous monitoring, the spent fuel can be stored in this manner indefinitely.

There are ongoing efforts to reduce the future burden of this storage method even further by placing the waste in a permanent repository. Under binding federal law, however, this is the exclusive obligation of the federal government, preempting any action by the states. The technologies needed to build such long-term repositories are readily available, but there has been no consensus reached as to where they can be sited. In addition, it is important to realize that there is actually very little waste. The entirety of spent fuel from U.S. commercial reactors since 1950 could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards. Minnesota’s share is 1.7% of those fuel wastes.

What about environmental justice for communities near plants?

The concerns expressed by Minnesotan communities located close to nuclear facilities should be meaningfully addressed. Their input on waste storage decisions and emergency planning is vital. The voices of these stakeholders should inform responsible policymaking on nuclear’s role. Although used fuel storage has proven physically safe, a concern that must be addressed is that used fuel remains stored at plant sites and in communities that did not agree to keep it indefinitely. The Federal Government has failed to meet its duty to remove spent fuel from reactor sites, leaving local communities dissatisfied, and the State and utilities powerless. These unmet obligations are not for lack of technical solutions nor funding, but rather political stagnation. Promisingly, the Department of Energy has now begun exploring “Consent Based Siting.” The presence of a moratorium does not solve this issue nor accelerate the implementation of any solution.

What about the leak of tritiated water at Monticello?

The tritiated water leak at Monticello has raised understandable questions, but it’s important to put this in perspective. 

Tritium is one of the least hazardous radioactive materials – its radiation cannot penetrate the skin and is too weak to be detected by a Geiger counter. To understand the scale: the entire 829,000-gallon leak contained less tritium (1.7 mg) than a single emergency exit sign (2.5 mg). Even at its highest concentration, drinking a cup (8 oz.) of the undiluted water would give you the same radiation exposure as a 15-minute airplane flight, while eight gallons would equal one chest X-ray. For comparison, a banana’s natural radioactive potassium-40 emits radiation 70 times more energetic than tritium.

Based on extensive laboratory studies conducted at Brookhaven National Laboratory in the 1970s, the leak concentration (185,840 Bq/L) was nearly 600 times below the lowest levels where any mild biological effects have been observed (110,000,000 Bq/L). However, the plant’s initial communication approach – using technical units and delayed public notification – created unnecessary concern. Best practices would have been to immediately inform the required regulatory bodies and the press right away, using clear, relatable comparisons to help people understand the actual scale and safety context of the leak.

The primary waste of concern in nuclear power is used fuel. The nature of this waste is that when it is removed from the reactor it is extremely hot, both thermally and radioactively. As time passes the most dangerous parts of it decay away the most quickly. For this reason, spent fuel is initially placed in a pool of water within the plant itself for a number of years, before being moved into engineered dry casks which can be stored outside the plant. 

 How will this affect the Prairie Island Indian Community?

The Prairie Island Indian Community (PIIC) has been a neighbor to Minnesota’s largest nuclear facility for over 50 years. Their experience and perspective on nuclear energy development are uniquely important to consider. The Community has raised valid concerns about used nuclear fuel storage on their ancestral lands, particularly given the federal government’s failure to fulfill its obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The PIIC has consistently advocated for the removal of spent fuel from their tribal lands and their voice is integral to any discussion about nuclear energy’s future in Minnesota.

Any changes to nuclear policy must meaningfully include the PIIC’s participation in decisions that might affect their community. Supporting federal efforts to implement consent-based siting for spent fuel storage and ensuring that historical environmental justice issues are not perpetuated must remain priorities. The lifting of the moratorium should be accompanied by strong commitments to environmental justice, tribal sovereignty, and community engagement.

Aren’t nuclear plants costly and don’t they take a long time to build?

The costs of generating electricity from nuclear fission are mostly associated with the building of the reactors. Once constructed, however, the power they generate is very inexpensive and the plants themselves can last much longer than alternative generator types. Some nuclear buildings have faced significant budget and schedule overruns, but nuclear construction in the US has historically been much less expensive when we were building them routinely. This is in part from the loss of specialized knowledge and skills during the decades when few new plants were built. Nuclear plants built outside of the US by countries such as South Korea have avoided these higher costs and delays. Now that there is renewed interest in nuclear power, companies are working to rebuild this project expertise and skilled workforce. We can learn more successful construction methodologies from these other countries. Studies have also shown that new nuclear plants can leverage infrastructure from retiring coal plants, such as transmission lines, thereby reducing project costs. With greater industry experience, innovative construction techniques, and new reactor designs with modular construction, costs and timelines can be expected to decrease dramatically.

Even though these new designs are anticipated to reduce the risk of cost and schedule overruns, building any large infrastructure still requires extensive planning and permitting activities. With only 15 years remaining to meet our zero-carbon target, the right time to start these activities is now.

Is Minnesota’s electric grid at risk of blackouts in the coming years?

The risk is real. Minnesota and the broader Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) region face significant grid reliability concerns. MISO projects potential capacity shortfalls as soon as next summer, with deficits potentially growing to 14.4 GW by the end of the decade in worst-case scenarios.

This unanticipated shortage is due in part to surging demand from electric vehicles, appliance electrification, and data centers, but also the retirement of existing coal plants, such as the planned retirement of the Sherburne County (Sherco) coal plant, Minnesota’s largest generator. Its closure will increase reliance on neighboring states and weather-dependent sources, including unpredictable hydroelectric power from Manitoba. 

However, this transition presents an opportunity. Department of Energy studies show significant infrastructure and job overlap between coal and nuclear power plants. Pioneering efforts like the Natrium reactor in Kemmerer, Wyoming, demonstrate how advanced nuclear facilities can replace retiring coal plants, maintaining grid reliability and local economies. Minnesota’s neighbor, Ontario, achieved the fastest greenhouse gas reduction in North American history by replacing coal with nuclear power. This approach could be particularly beneficial for communities affected by the Sherco closure.

The path forward will require a diverse mix of solutions, including strategic transmission upgrades, advanced storage technologies, and flexible demand management. Increasing dispatchable generation, particularly nuclear power, would provide the predictable, round-the-clock electricity needed to balance intermittent renewables and meet growing demand.  By leveraging the opportunity to transition from fossil fuels to nuclear power, Minnesota can address both its energy reliability concerns and economic transition needs.

What about Small Modular Reactors?

The term Small Modular Reactors is not well-defined and has different meanings depending on context. The Advanced Nuclear Reactors definition, which is part of U.S. statute, conveys all of the benefits of SMRs but does not state an arbitrary cap on output capacity.  Minnesota has large coal plants that need replacing, so large advanced reactors should be an option to evaluate as well, especially considering that we have the most contemporaneous construction experience and robust supply chain with the recently built AP1000 large reactors completed in Georgia.