Minnesota legislator: Let voters decide state's nuclear power f...

Laura Brod, State Representative and Small business owner from New Prague. A Republican state representative wants the public to decide whether additional nuclear power should be in Minnesota's future.

[Cory in St Paul]

Great idea. Let the uneducated, uncaring people of a nanny state decide if Nuclear power is in our future. What the hell? If we did this all of the time, we would still be burning wood and leaves for fuel. It needs to be decided on my educated, honest, non politically influenced peo..who am I kidding? Money is involved, right? Not possible to be honest.

Bleck...

[Jim]

Rep. Brod's proposal needs to be amended: to require the plant to be built in New Prague, in Rep. Brod's district. Her enthusism for nuclear power is predicated on the fact that her legislative district wants cheap electricty but wants the plant someplace other than their backyards.

[Vikings Fan]

With a democratically controlled house and senate they would never approve any more nuclear power plants here in Minnesota. That is why the republicans want to send this to the voters. It's clean energy, and the best and brightest will run these plants. Just have to figure out how to take care of-dispose of the nuclear waste. We can never build enough solar/wind power to meet our needs, so think about it. The alternatives are Coal, Natural Gas, or Fossil Fuels?

[Jerod]

I didnt' know we we're in a power shortage here in the state, but if we were, I'm all for it. Cleanest form of energy as long as the waste is taken care of properly, which it has been the last 30 yrs. Cleaner than coal and wind just isn't efficient enough yet.

[kecker]

Jerod wrote:

I didnt' know we we're in a power shortage here in the state, but if we were, I'm all for it. Cleanest form of energy as long as the waste is taken care of properly, which it has been the last 30 yrs. Cleaner than coal and wind just isn't efficient enough yet.

Since a new plant takes at least 10-15 years to build, we probably shouldn't wait until we ARE in a power shortage.

At least allow it to be an option for discussion. Removing it as even an option is just plain silly. If it's an option and you still come up with a better plan, fine, great, terrific. But at least we had the option.

Right now we have the option between coal, gas or oil because as a previous poster pointed out we will never be able to build enough windmills, hydro plants, etc to meet our energy needs.

Never understood the logic in even allowing it as a topic of discussion.

[kecker]

Jim wrote:

Rep. Brod's proposal needs to be amended: to require the plant to be built in New Prague, in Rep. Brod's district. Her enthusism for nuclear power is predicated on the fact that her legislative district wants cheap electricty but wants the plant someplace other than their backyards.

I don't think there is quite a paranoia about nuclear power as there used to be. I think by now most people understand it's clean and it's safe.

I got a foreclosed home next to me, if you can figure out a way to build one in that lot, you have my blessing.

[Mike]

this is a good idea. Congratulations to a legislator who wants to actually let the people decide. My legislator told me that he thinks putting items on the ballot for the people to decide is a poor idea. My opinion is that moral issues belong on the ballot and so do things where a great deal of lobbying money is spent, such as building state-run casinos. This is why we vote in this country. For 8 years lobbyists and the rich ran the country until they ran it into the ground. This is why everyone has a vote.

[Mr Right]

She is right we need two nuke plants!

[Mr Right]

It is not uncommon for the power company to call large organizations and ask them to reduce their power consumption during the summer. Yes we need more nukes!

[Thomas F Schraad]

Best idea to come out of this session.

[Bob]

Frankly, I would not feel comfortable with all decisions decided by majority vote. First of all, less than 50% of eligible voters participate in most elections. Secondly, the average voter does not have the knowledge to decide complex issues, such as nuclear power. Emotion and bias are not the basis of wise public policy. If everything were decided by popular vote, most southern states would still have slavery and blacks would have no rights, drugs would be legal in some states and homosexuality would be illegal in others. Do we really want what people do in private (that does not harm others) to be regulated by popular vote?

[Nukes is fer Pukes]

A centralized hugely expensive power system. Right comrade,
just turn over all your property rights to the Kommisar.
Nuclear power is the embodiment of centralized planned
economy. F'n Commies are the only ones pushing for it.

[Owl Gore]

Nuke has proven economical. Wind power has not.

Wind power is only a money-maker because it receives $23.37 per MWhr in subsidies; nuclear receives $1.59, predominantly as insurance guarantees.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsid...

Most states have laws REQUIRING the purchase of all the green power that is generated. So not only do you get $23.37 per MWhr generated, but the Government will guarantee the purchase of everything you can generate.

It’s even worse in some places - in California, power from "green sources" must be purchased at the highest rate available. Meaning not only a good subsidy, and a guaranteed market, but a market that guarantees a price equal to the highest charged by any other source.

Must be nice to be paid to generate power, and guaranteed to sell everything at top dollar, and all under Government mandate.

[kecker]

Nukes is fer Pukes wrote:

A centralized hugely expensive power system. Right comrade,
just turn over all your property rights to the Kommisar.
Nuclear power is the embodiment of centralized planned
economy. F'n Commies are the only ones pushing for it.

LOL, okay just out of curiousity, I'd like to know what in your feverish mind is the power source of Democracy and Capitalism??

Unicorn farts?

[Thomas F Schraad]

Bob wrote:

Frankly, I would not feel comfortable with all decisions decided by majority vote. First of all, less than 50% of eligible voters participate in most elections. Secondly, the average voter does not have the knowledge to decide complex issues, such as nuclear power. Emotion and bias are not the basis of wise public policy. If everything were decided by popular vote, most southern states would still have slavery and blacks would have no rights, drugs would be legal in some states and homosexuality would be illegal in others. Do we really want what people do in private (that does not harm others) to be regulated by popular vote?

You said "I would not feel comfortable with all decisions decided by majority vote."

You probably are right.

I also would not feel comfortable with this decision being made by our politicians. They are not knowledgeable and rely on compaign contributions for re election to determine how they vote.

It might be a good policy to have only politicians that have promised to retire at the end of their term to vote as they could finnally vote for the common good.

[Pragmatist]

Bob wrote:

Frankly, I would not feel comfortable with all decisions decided by majority vote. First of all, less than 50% of eligible voters participate in most elections. Secondly, the average voter does not have the knowledge to decide complex issues, such as nuclear power. Emotion and bias are not the basis of wise public policy. If everything were decided by popular vote, most southern states would still have slavery and blacks would have no rights, drugs would be legal in some states and homosexuality would be illegal in others. Do we really want what people do in private (that does not harm others) to be regulated by popular vote?

But you probably voted to increase my sales tax last year by 3/8%. If voting on controversial things the legislature can't get through is good for you, its good for us.

If you can vote to allow the state taxpayers to pay for puppet show training, why can't we vote for lifting the moratorium on a non-greenhouse gas generating power source?

[Monk]

Thomas F Schraad wrote:

<quoted text>
You said "I would not feel comfortable with all decisions decided by majority vote."
You probably are right.
I also would not feel comfortable with this decision being made by our politicians. They are not knowledgeable and rely on compaign contributions for re election to determine how they vote.
It might be a good policy to have only politicians that have promised to retire at the end of their term to vote as they could finnally vote for the common good.

Thomas-
"politicians that have promised to retire at the end of their term to vote." Or have term limits. Politicians are driven by ambition. If we limit their ambition, that may stifle some the lobbying and fund raising that drives the system.
They also become intransigent when they are almost guaranteed re-election in many districts.
It would also get at the problem of earmarks. What good is any politician if they can't bring home the bacon? Rep
Kline frustrates those in his District who want that pork.
And sometimes that pork is roads and bridges. But pork is in the eye of beholder- it's only in someone else's District, not mine. Finance reform was a good first step,
now let's apply term limits to all politicians. Monk

[Monk]

Pragmatist wrote:

<quoted text>But you probably voted to increase my sales tax last year by 3/8%. If voting on controversial things the legislature can't get through is good for you, its good for us.
If you can vote to allow the state taxpayers to pay for puppet show training, why can't we vote for lifting the moratorium on a non-greenhouse gas generating power source?

I agree. We already have 2 nukes. Let's plan for
replacing them with better nukes. Anti-nuke people know
what they don't want, but what do they want that gives us
the power we need for the next 50 years? No fossil fuel, no nukes= no electricity or only 20% of what we need.
What's the plan, moritorium people?

[Laughing Larry]

legislators are far from "informed" decision makers when it comes to emotional subjects such as nuclear energy, "global warming", and the like. Sit in on any committee hearing and listen to some of these idiotic statements and questions our vaulted leaders put to the "experts".

I doubt the public could do any worse.

[kecker]

Monk wrote:

<quoted text> No fossil fuel, no nukes= no electricity or only 20% of what we need.
What's the plan, moritorium people?

A plan? You're asking a bit much don't you think?