State's 2 nuclear plants will get post-Fukushima upgrades

  • Article by: DAVID SHAFFER , Star Tribune
  • Updated: March 5, 2012 - 6:38 PM

Changes in U.S. plants could take several years -- too long and not enough, say critics.

  • 29
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
martiankingMar. 4, 12 9:59 PM

Let's see, $250 million for upgrades to the plants for safety. Pumps for the reactors to pump river water into the cooling tanks in case the ones there fail. Will that contaminated water flow back into the Mississippi downstream into Minneapolis' water supply? So we can choose either more mercury poisoning from coal and oil power plants, or nuclear safety issues? I choose neither. Find me safe alternatives!

jeebers76Mar. 5, 1212:36 AM

Bear in mind that all of these new precautions are for worst case scenarios. I rather doubt Minnesota is capable of earthquakes anywhere near the level Japan is. After all, this whole state lies on bedrock. The closest area with serious geological activity is Yellowstone, but if that triggers we have much bigger problems than just an earthquake! Of course that possibility is remote at best. Near as I can figure, nuclear power plants are still a LOT cleaner and safer than other forms of serious power generation. Still, I would like to see such things as methane farming at our various city dumps.

vooch11Mar. 5, 12 6:55 AM

Yes by all means waste more of our tax dollars, I am so fearfull of a Fukushima type earthquake and sunami hitting Minnesota.

jbeyerMar. 5, 12 7:02 AM

Read the article, like the first sentence. It's not tax dollars being spent.

mom2fourMar. 5, 12 7:16 AM

Critics of nuclear power have but one agenda: economic warfare against nuclear plants. Their mission is to apply economic pressure anyway they can to require the most expensive measures be taken possible. It would not matter how much has been done or whether the most expensive demand provides even a micro percentage of increase in safety, they will fight tooth and nail to drive another economic knife into the heart of this resource. And don't forget who pays for this - us the ratepayers. And all at a time of tremendous overall economic pressures and energy price crisis.

toolman28Mar. 5, 12 7:25 AM

mom2four , if there was a accident on the level with Japans then 30 mile radius around the plamt would be uninhabital for decades - what would be the economic cost of that ?

khislopMar. 5, 12 7:28 AM

We will not suffer effects from a tsunami here, but given this weekend's tornado damage, that we can expect as an outside possibility here. Should such weather strike a power plant, it could be week/s before power can be restored. That, I believe, we should consider, given that the battery backup is good for only 4 hours.

betty99Mar. 5, 12 7:33 AM

Both Minnesota nuclear plants, as like others in the U.S.,have passed their proposed lifespan (25-30 years) when they were built.

jimmatejcekMar. 5, 12 7:54 AM

toolman28: just so you have a little perspective read the Time Magazine article here: Not you right-wing mag, so your excuses as to the origin may be minimized ahead of time. We need to take ALL precautions that make sense, not those that don't improve safety at a huge economic cost. Focus on the problems at hand, not those you imagine exist.

gopherfan10101Mar. 5, 12 8:30 AM

"mom2four , if there was a accident on the level with Japans then 30 mile radius around the plamt would be uninhabital for decades - what would be the economic cost of that ?" posted by toolman28

Well, since the largest fault that could cause a quake like that is about 1000 miles away and since the Mississippi is unlikely to cause a tsunami I think we're safe.


Comment on this story   |  


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters