MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER by Conor Ploeger
D
Nuclear Energy: Promising Future or Unnecessary Distraction?
iscussions regarding nuclear energy are heating up. As more Americans recognize the urgency of the climate crisis, they also start to worry about how we can decarbonize the energy system as quickly as experts say is necessary. While wind, solar, storage, and advances in transmission and efficiency technologies continue to be popular and surprise us with their developments, there are still those who remain skeptical that these sources will be able to meet all of our energy needs. That’s where proponents of nuclear energy come in. Billionaires such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have spent the past few years advocating for nuclear energy, proposing it as one of the most practical solutions to the climate crisis. They discuss the possibilities of “advanced” nuclear reactors and how the size of the new generation of nuclear technology allows for them to be stored beneath the surface — keeping them out of harm’s way. In some respects, nuclear energy has come a long way in the last 50 years, but in some ways, it has not. Nuclear projects tend to be exceptionally more costly than renewables, and the hazards of
mining, transport, and waste storage are significant. While the climate crisis is daunting, pursuing nuclear energy in Montana or anywhere should be met with healthy skepticism.
Substantial Roadblocks
The advanced nuclear reactors that are being advertised still use radioactive substances such as uranium as a source of fuel, the mining and disposal of which remain a serious problem. There is no long-term storage solution for uranium waste in the U.S. Uranium waste remains radioactive for hundreds of thousands or, for some types of uranium, millions of years, and the dangers posed by that waste stream can be extreme. Groundwater contamination, irradiated foliage and wildlife, and adverse effects on human health are just some of the consequences that arise when nuclear waste is improperly stored. Additionally, it remains uncertain if the new generation of nuclear technology advertised will be ready in time. Current estimates suggest that these plants might be operational by the 2030s. That might be too little too late when it comes to the climate crisis.
Myths and Facts: The Wyoming Nuclear Project Earlier this summer, TerraPower, PacfiCorp, and the Wyoming governor’s office announced a partnership to install “advanced” nuclear reactors in Wyoming. This partnership will allow the companies to explore the potential of using nuclear reactors that rely on molten salt (i.e., thorium) to cool down the uranium-powered reactors. This technology, known as Natrium, is starting to gain some traction, but is it too good to be true…? Myth: Natrium reactors are ready now for commercial use. Fact: This is not true. The Wyoming reactors are a “demonstration project” meant to determine the viability of using Natrium reactors commercially in the future. In fact, experts argue that reactors that rely on molten salt will not be ready for decades. Myth: The plant will only cost $1 billion. Fact: This is not true. Nuclear power plants always cost more than initial estimates. Expect this project to cost billions more than was originally estimated. Myth: The plant will be fully operational in seven years. Fact: This is a very optimistic estimate. Even after the Navy explored molten salt reactors in the 1960s and 1970s, advanced nuclear reactors are still in the prototype stage. The industry has yet to produce reactors that are readily available for commercial use.
16
Protecting Montana’s natural environment since 1973.
