With all the hullabaloo of the upcoming Sherco decommissioning, there is a lot of concern over how to replace the coal-burning plants. Local environmentalists demanded that Xcel replace the coal plants with natural gas, which creates a substantially smaller carbon footprint. Xcel agreed and created plans to create a natural gas plant.

Unsatisfied, environmentalists decided this was not good enough, and they would only be satisfied with a zero-carbon energy source. Hence, Xcel started to investigate solar panels.

As we know, however, solar panels are not great resources in Minnesota. After all, we tend to have long, overcast winters, not to mention snow that can pile up on the panels. 

If only there was a power source that was reliable, had no carbon emissions, and could produce similar amounts of energy as Sherco currently does.

And now I shall pull aside the red curtain to reveal the star of the energy world: Nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy is reliable. All you have to do to see this is hop over to the other side of the Mississippi. Xcel has been successfully operating a nuclear energy plant there since 1971, which gives it a longer history than Sherco Units 1 and 2, which came online in ‘76 and ‘77, respectively. Xcel plans to continue operating at this location until 2040. 

Nuclear energy also has zero carbon emissions. For those who aren’t familiar with the science of greenhouse gasses, let me give you a quick crash course (it will be fun, I promise!) Carbon is an element common to all the living creatures on Earth. When that lifeform dies, the body decomposes, releasing the carbon back into the ground. Plants use the nutrients of the decomposing bodies, and animals eat the plants: the cycle continues. 

Of course, the Earth is constantly changing. Millions of years ago, during what is appropriately called the “Carboniferous” period, the world underwent a global cooling period, which killed off most of the Earth’s plants all at once. Because of the sudden and wide-spread death, these plants make up the majority of the fossil fuels we burn today.

Here’s the kicker though – All of that carbon which was locked in the ground behaves differently when burned and it becomes part of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It has a tendency to retain heat. This in and of itself is not a bad thing. It just is. Without some greenhouse gasses in the air, we’d all be pretty cold! Cold enough to cause another mass extinction. We do need some greenhouse gasses – they’re important!

The problem is that over the last one and a half centuries (roughly) humans have burned through a lot of the carbon that was stored in the ground so long ago. The problem isn’t that we are releasing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, but rather that we’re releasing a lot of it in a relatively short amount of time, considering the 4.6 billion year history of the Earth. 

There may be those among you who are quick to point out that the Earth has cooled and heated throughout history, and it’s a natural process. I would like to say, you’re right! Absolutely it’s natural for the planet to heat and cool and for situations to change. Usually, these changes mark mass extinctions, like the one I mentioned above. The conditions of the planet as there are now have led to the success of the human species. Personally, I enjoy the progress we have made leading both to the modern conveniences and beautiful nature we get to enjoy today. I’d rather not see it be changed drastically. The Earth, and life, would evolve and move on, but it will not be the same planet we love today. 

Nuclear energy has zero carbon emissions, and so it halts the release of carbon into the air, which is a good thing.

Nuclear energy requires a relatively small amount of land space, as well. While I couldn’t find an exact figure online, I’d say the size of the Monticello nuclear plant is roughly the same as a school campus. 

Finally, nuclear energy could produce similar amounts of energy. Well, kind of. The Monticello Nuclear plant produces roughly the same amount of energy every year as one of the Sherco units. So one plant wouldn’t be enough to completely replace the plants to be decommissioned. However, Sherco consists of three units comprising the largest power plant in the state, so it’s not going to be easy to replace all the energy.

Still, I think nuclear energy would be a great fit for our community. We’ve already seen it done successfully not even four miles down the river. Xcel, I hope you give nuclear serious consideration when making plans to replace the Sherco plant!