Every society reveals its priorities by what it builds but is judged just as much by what it decides is no longer worthy of its effort.
In the West, water systems signal foresight. Transmission lines signal ambition. Power plants signal seriousness. And here our society now stands, with some too hesitant or cautious to engage seriously with one of the most demanding achievements of modern civilization: nuclear energy.
Opposition to nuclear power often arrives clothed in the language of prudence: “Too expensive,” “too dangerous” and “too complex.” But don’t mistake paralysis for prudence or think caution is a substitute for judgment. These arguments usually falter because they confuse difficulty with irresponsibility and scale with recklessness.
Nuclear energy is not a speculative enterprise. It may have been 60 years ago, but it is now among the most established industrial technologies of the modern era. It has powered cities, industries and hospitals for decades, with a safety record that — measured over time and output — compares favorably to nearly every alternative. The countries that rely on it most heavily are not taking chances. They are making deliberate choices.
Cost objections fare no better. Large undertakings require capital. Dams, highways, aqueducts and transmission lines are expensive and were almost all built before the demand they now serve. But cost without context is pointless. The real question is not whether nuclear plants require investment but whether they repay it through reliability, durability and scale. A power source that operates almost continuously for generations, with modest fuel needs and no carbon emissions, should not be dismissed by anyone concerned with long-term affordability and reliability.
The greater danger is not attempting something difficult and occasionally falling short, but persuading ourselves that we should no longer attempt difficult things at all.
What often goes unspoken in these debates is that energy abundance is not a luxury. It is the foundation of modern life. A society that wants advanced manufacturing, reliable hospitals, electrified transportation, and a growing digital economy cannot power itself on vibes and talking points. Because a system that feels nice in April can prove fragile in January.
This is where leadership matters.
Energy systems are not built on timelines that flatter politics. They are built on timelines that test them. Leading responsibly means thinking beyond the next headline and resisting the temptation to treat restraint as a virtue in itself.
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox has approached Utah’s energy future with an instinct that is increasingly uncommon: curiosity without alarm, ambition without theatrics and a clear respect for trade-offs rather than slogans. He has not treated nuclear energy as either a cure-all or a menace, but as one option among many that a serious state has an obligation to examine in a holistic energy conversation.
That posture matters. A governor who refuses to close doors before the facts are in is not choosing sides. He is keeping the state’s future open.
Too many energy debates today collapse into moral performance. The heroes and villains are chosen in advance. Conclusions are assumed rather than argued.
But governing well is a grind. It is the steady work of looking around the corner, past the next election, ensuring that hospitals stay powered, industries remain competitive, households are shielded from avoidable shocks and that we build for the world we want to live in rather than living in the past.
Leaders who understand this do not confuse caution with immobility. In places shaped by distance, weather and scarcity, the greater danger is not attempting something difficult and occasionally falling short, but persuading ourselves that we should no longer attempt difficult things at all.
Utah’s prosperity was not inevitable. It was built by people who laid plans before there were cities, strung lines before there were customers and invested ahead of certainty because waiting for perfect conditions meant never building at all. Exploring nuclear energy today is not a break from that tradition; it’s a continuation of that spirit.
History tends to reward societies that expand their options and penalize those that shrink them. The mark of seriousness is not that every tool is used but that none are ruled out by fear or fashion.
A confident state builds systems it expects its children to rely on.
A hesitant one is left explaining their folly to the next generation.
Utah still knows the difference.