Demand for electricity is growing in the U.S., including in Utah. Some industry and government leaders claim future needs won’t be met without a huge expansion of nuclear power. U.S. reactors have operated since the late 1950s, but never in Utah. The nuclear power experience outside the state raises concerns, which should be understood by Utah’s pro-nuclear leaders.
Early in the atomic age, nuclear power was touted as cleaner than oil, coal and gas, and affordable, or “too cheap to meter.” But reactors failed to live up to the hype. They have been very costly to build and maintain, and posed new dangers. Splitting uranium atoms creates cancer-causing isotopes — the same fallout from atomic bombs. Meltdowns at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima soured the public, and new reactor orders ceased in the 1970s. The 94 current reactors produce just 18% of the nation’s electricity. They are aging, and there are no new units under construction. Recently, 13 reactors shut permanently.
As nuclear power stagnated, renewable wind and solar power flourished — now far less expensive than nuclear power and with no public health risk. Last year, renewables generated 24% of U.S. electricity, exceeding both nuclear and coal. Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson projects that all American electricity can be renewable in the next 10 to 20 years.
As the sun is setting on nuclear power, recent efforts aim to revive it. First came massive state and federal bailouts to keep old, brittle (and money-losing) reactors from closing. Then came proposals to re-start closed reactors, also bolstered by taxpayer funds. Most recently, proposals to build new small modular reactors (SMRs) have been floated.
SMRs are at least 80% smaller than the current fleet of reactors, and are constructed in factories, not on site, giving them the label of “modular.” Since the 1990s, federal funds have supported SMR research — with no results. Today, the only operating SMRs are one each in Russia and China. But with no demonstration on how well they work, SMRs are being proposed by federal and state officials — including those in Utah.
SMRs in Utah are off to a poor start. In 2015, NuScale Power Corporation proposed six units at a plant, bolstered by a U.S. Energy Department pledge of $1.35 billion. But the original estimated construction cost of $3 billion soared to $9.3 billion by 2023. NuScale was aware of worries over rising expenses by ratepayers, and cancelled the project.
But Utah’s leaders aren’t giving up. In recent months, Utah joined Texas in a lawsuit to loosen federal regulations for licensing SMRs. Governor Spencer Cox proposed using $20.4 million for nuclear power infrastructure, plus $1.8 million for a public relations campaign to educate Utahns about SMRs. The state has also signed four agreements with nuclear companies.
Even though Utah has never operated a nuclear reactor, it has a lengthy history with the atom. Utah received more fallout from above-ground nuclear weapons tests in the Cold War than any other state. Southwest Utah was hardest hit, but all parts of the state were exposed to high levels. Utah has also mined uranium used in bombs and reactors.
Both bomb fallout and uranium mining raised cancer rates in Utah. Research has shown that cancer rates in areas near U.S. reactors increase over time, and that levels of radioactive Strontium-90 — the same chemical so feared during atom bomb testing — is highest in baby teeth of children living near reactors. Do Utahns want to repeat this experience?
Backers claim SMRs are a new and different from existing reactors. But they use the same process of splitting uranium atoms that generate over 100 radioactive chemicals like Sr-90, and creating the same health hazards that have existed since the 1950s. Some radioactivity is routinely released into local air, water and food, with the rest being stored at plants for thousands of years. And a catastrophic meltdown is still possible.
SMRs offer nothing to ease long-standing concerns about nuclear reactors. They are very costly, and create a risk to public health. Renewable energy, especially solar power, is growing rapidly. It costs much less than nuclear power, and poses no public health risk. Public support for future energy in Utah should be placed squarely behind renewables, and not nuclear power.