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.
