I recently attended the nuclear energy forum at the University of Wyoming. As WyoFile’s Dustin Bleizeffer described in his latest story recapping the event, “the conversation about nuclear waste storage in the Cowboy State is far from over.”
Opinion
For most people, it is inconceivable to understand the significance and length of time, on the order of thousands of years, it takes for radioactive nuclear waste to decay, especially when we humans consider 100 years to be a long lifespan. Proponents of nuclear power express confidence that the waste issue will be solved in the future, even though no long-term permanent storage solutions are in sight.
Some believe recycling waste may be the answer, while others see different states vying to store this waste for massive amounts of money even though NIMBYism has been a common reaction given the industry’s past.
Whether any of these solutions occurs is yet to be seen. I believe the decision to build more nuclear power plants that create more radioactive waste without a permanent solution in place is irresponsible and shortsighted. It is a great example of putting the cart before the horse. Ultimately, residents and taxpaying citizens will be left to deal with the liability — at an exorbitant cost.
While small modular nuclear reactors are promoted as safer than conventional reactors of the past, there are still no guarantees that mechanical and operational failures, as well as environmental and weather-related incidents will not cause nuclear accidents in the future. I am confident that when the reactors of the past were built, the same confidence was expressed about their utility and soundness.
To understand my perspective is to understand the formative memories and experiences I have had around the nuclear industry. This was used as a warm-up question at the nuclear forum. I expressed the following examples.
While living in New Jersey in 1979, two major nuclear events occurred. One year after operations began, the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Middletown, Pennsylvania, (renamed the Crane Clean Energy Center in 2024), experienced a partial meltdown in its unit 2 reactor. Releases of radioactive material and a contaminated water leak occurred due to mechanical failure. The damaged core was shipped to the federal Idaho National Laboratory for storage while the remaining waste is stored on site. Decommissioning for unit 2 is expected to be completed by 2030.
Five weeks later, a significant near-miss reactor drain occurred at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Lacey Township, New Jersey, dumping radioactive water into Barnegat Bay. Since then, other accidents have occurred including a 2009 tritium leak, additional leaks, as well as worker safety incidents. Its decommissioning, originally slated for 2035, has been pushed up to 2029. Radioactive waste is stored in 67 concrete-and-steel dry casks on a specially constructed on-site pad.
The major influence that shaped my perspective was the six years I served as a councilmember for the city where the former Rocky Flats Site is located. This site, closed in 1992, was described as one of the most polluted sites in the United States due to its 40-year history as a nuclear weapons production facility. As part of my duties, I served two years on the now defunct Rocky Flats Stewardship Council.
Questions remain today over whether the site was cleaned up enough to prevent health issues. The original cleanup price tag was $37 billion over a period of decades. It was cleaned up in less than 10 years for $7 billion. Did incentivizing the contractors to clean up the mess faster produce a quality job? This question continues to plague residents.
Except for the 1,309 acres still monitored by the Department of Energy , the remaining land — roughly four times the size of the monitored area — is now Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge on which citizens can recreate. Talk about a controversial idea.
There are many practices and behaviors surrounding the nuclear industry that greatly concern me. These include a history of grandiose plans and promises as a clean energy source and creator of employment, the production of highly dangerous radioactive waste, extensive and costly damage to the environment and human health, costly expenses throughout the nuclear life cycle, the loosening of established safety regulations to fast-track project timelines, subsidization by taxpayers, a lack of transparency, and name-calling directed at those who disagree with the industry’s findings.
For 20 years, the political issue of long-term storage for highly radioactive nuclear waste has not been resolved. Yet Wyoming residents are being asked to accept this waste in their communities so energy can be generated to support large data centers with only a few really benefiting.
Fast and potentially unwise decisions are being made because of fear the U.S. will lose the competitive artificial intelligence race with China and other countries. Do most people even know how AI will affect their personal lives?
Conflict over nuclear energy and nuclear waste is why I attended the recent nuclear forum and why I continue to share my story. I believe Wyoming residents deserve to make decisions about their communities and their children’s futures. Wyoming and the nuclear industry are not compatible. Let’s think about the consequences before it is too late. As for me, I don’t want nuclear waste in my community. I have had enough of it for one lifetime.
Thanks. This resonates with me. Also noteworthy is the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, a federal law which limits the liability of many non-military nuclear facilities, and which can be expected to be expanded if industry has its way.
Very good article, thank you. I believe the economic angle still carries the most weight. So it’s important to know that nuclear power never has and never will be economically justifiable,. witness the multi decade saga that we’ve experienced in Georgia where it takes 15 years and $20 billion to build two 2 GB reactors. The same situation was facing South Carolina, but finally clear heads made them take a cold hard look at the costs and they ultimately canceled those reactors,. It is completely unquestionable that a gigabyte of solar or wind is much much cheaper faster, than a nuclear gigabyte. In the amount of time it would take to get a gigabyte reactor, running many many many gigabytes of wind, solar and batteries could be installed for much less money. The argument that renewables are intermittent, and therefore not reliable was really only true for period of time before battery storage became widespread and very inexpensive,. Even if one calculates that solar and wind are effectively generating at peak power perhaps 30% of the time batteries can completely provide a storage to provide the output for the other 70%. Batteries are much more efficient and inexpensive than natural gas peaked plants. Additionally battery technology and chemistries have improved so much in the last 15 years and price drops have been phenomenal that we really may be entering a future just a decade or two from now where we are in energy abundance. Already in California and Australia, during the fall and spring months where electricity is free, renewables provide all the energy the country or the state needs. In fact it’s over produces and we are that we are curtailing the output because batteries have not been installed yet in a sufficient quantity. in 20 years, there will be so many batteries and so much solar and wind generation that the cost of energy will be essentially zero and what we’re really paying on our bills grid expenses because updating the grid is where much of the money needs to be spent. Small modular reactors have been pushing aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines around for 50 years, yet they were so great why aren’t those same reactors sitting on concrete pads and various places around the world? The truth is much of the hype about SMR’s is just that hype.
Thank you for your testimony , Ms. NIMBY. No further questions.
The state calls Dr. Faust to the stand for the defense , your Honor…
There is no resolution to Wyoming’s emerging nuclear conundrums at the present time , especially regarding the waste. There are only mitigations based on the degrees of tolerance and risks we can agree to live with. There are also huge hypocrisies on both sides of the nuclear debate. It all gets really muddled when we start discussing the money.
That’s the part that scares me the most. Wyoming has a terrible record of making the wrong choices for the wrong reasons , then exclaiming it was right. We are too easily deceived by promises of prosperity in the short term that override long term consequences for generations to come . Abandoned mines and 8,000 orphan oil and gas wells ; booms and busts; becoming a national sacrifice zone where we can’t even assure Pronghorn and Mule Deer a safe land migration corridor thru corporate energy’s papered domains.
The question of waste management is valid, and if I’m not mistaken Finland is building/has built a deep underground storage site in a stable rock formation that will be sealed afterward.
Yet, the intermittent energy (e.g., wind & solar) proponents conveniently sidestep the problem of disposing of wind turbines and PV panels at the end of their short (~20-year) lifespan. The metals can be recycled relatively easily. The blades not so much due to the epoxy resins impregnating the fiberglass and/or carbon fiber coverings that provide strength to the blades’ cores. The PV panels have similar issues due to the materials used in their construction.
Then there are the massive amounts of concrete and steel in each turbine’s foundation that run into the hundreds of tons. Sure, the concrete and steel can be recycled; but the monolithic nature of the foundations would require explosives to economically break them down into manageable pieces for processing. Environmentalists promote BESS (Battery Energy Storage Systems) to even out the intermittent nature of wind and solar. Well, these lithium-ion batteries are like every other battery in that they start to degrade the moment they leave the factory. When these things catch fire, they release toxic smoke in massive quantities. Think of them as an EV fire on steroids, uppers, and energy drinks at the same time. To my knowledge, no economically viable and safe method to recycle/dispose of li-Ion batteries of all sizes exists.
Of course the amount of land required for modest utility scale electricity generation is immense compared to compact size of nuclear and hydrocarbon power plants.
The bottom line is a modern technological society needs energy in massive quantities, and that requires affordable and reliable energy, and no system is perfect. Nuclear and hydrocarbon fulfills those requirements. Solar and wind have their place in the mix; but in a niche way better suited to remote areas in my opinion.
Very good article. I have held the same beliefs for many years. I was aghast that Wyoming is going to have a nuclear reactor, seems to me it should have been voted on.
And I believe, a nuclear reactor with serial number 0001.
In general I agree with the opinion posted here.However there are several other factors to consider when talking about nuclear power plants built in Wyoming.
My agreement is with the stance that any waste needs to be addressed before the reactors are built. By not addressing waste now we are kicking the can down the road for future generations to deal with.
France operates a closed nuclear fuel cycle, recycling 96% of its spent nuclear fuel to produce new energy, primarily through the Orano La Hague facility. This process has been denied operation in the United States and it is confusing as to why.
Waste Reduction: This process reduces the volume of high-level waste (HLW) to only 4% of the original spent fuel, which is subsequently vitrified—trapped in glass—for stable long-term storage.
There are still storage issues to be dealt with using Frances process but if your reducing HLW (high level waste) to only 4% why is the United States not active in pursuing this technology?
Frances technology has been in use for the past 50 to 60 years and is model i think we here in the states need to examine in depth.
The part of the opinion I don’t agree with is that nuclear has no place in Wyoming.
Why not? We have had a historical tie to energy production through coal, natural gas and methane production.
I take issue with the idea that just because of issues that happened in the early years of analog nuclear energy production that 50 years later we can’t do it better and safer.
The new designs are operating much cleaner and much safer producing a much more efficient power supply.
If we as a whole can come together and agree on common sense waste control then there is no reason that we can’t produce nuclear energy right here in Wyoming.
Thank you Daniel for a more sane & calm take on this issue. I was a little surprised to read so many hair-on-fire, Chicken Little comments from Wyoming folks. I would like to say that conflating the environmental mess that remained at Rocky Flats after decades of DOD’s building nuclear weapons there with the long -term storage of spent fuel rods from civilian Nuclear power reactors is exactly the kind of disingenuous, fact averse fear mongering that the anti-nuclear crowd has been using for more than 50 years to distort the issues around nuclear power. If their case against nuclear power was factually strong, they wouldn’t need to resort to chicanery, like suggesting that there was no difference between weapons manufacturing and power generation.
Good editorial. And don’t forget about the source for nuclear power – uranium – and the toxic legacy of pollution left and still being created by uranium mining. Wyoming has several polluted sites from past and current uranium mining. Still not cleaned up! Governor Gordon and others are pushing for Wyoming to host data centers for AI and lots of nuclear reactors to power those data centers. AI + Data Centers + Nukes = Disaster – not sustainable economic development. Wake UP Wyoming!
If you have ever been to Kememer Wyoming, you know that beauty that surround this small town. With this nuclear plant that is being built to the south it will destroy this small town. Look at the oil boom in North and South Dakota. The same thing will happen in Kememer. I live in Clark Wyoming which is one of the most beautiful places in Wyoming. I live here because not many people want to live here, it is a great place to live and raise kids. But if we continue to allow outsiders to come to our state and destroy all this beauty for the sake of this nation, then we are bigger fools than the people coming here to destroy our life style. We probably can’t keep progress out of the state, but maybe we can control it a little better than we have done in the past.
There is a nuclear reactor buried in Sundance with “no problems”, but Wyoming allows the continued deposition of coal ash into unlined pits with no pushback from the community? The US and the world needs to get its nuclear waste in order of that there is no doubt, but let’s not buy into fear about on energy source while ignoring the most prevalent polluter in Wyoming.
And anyone downwind of coal fired plant should get checked for elevated mercury levels, but alas we do not do that either.
The billionaires are here and they’re here to enrich themselves by degrading Wyomings resources. Our land, water and air is for sale. Think about that. Do we need jobs bad enough to justify the destruction of our state?