Kentucky and Texas are just two examples of states opting in on nuclear power. Kentucky created the Nuclear Energy Development Authority in order to develop safe nuclear options. Texas introduced a bill to support advanced nuclear reactors in the state. Utah joined the trend when HB249 was signed into law.
Nuclear energy development is appealing to lawmakers for a variety of reasons: the possibility of low-cost energy, low carbon emissions and its efficiency. Support for nuclear energy among Americans is near a record high, with 61% in favor of its use, according to Gallup.
Lexi Tuddenham is executive director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah.
“I think what's really attractive about nuclear for some of these lawmakers is the idea that where there's a coal plant, you can just plunk a nuclear plant on that same space and then have the same type of centralized power. I think what that concept misses is that the coal-fired power system has not always served everyone equally,” said Tuddenham.
In an Instagram post, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox wrote, “Utah is ready to build advanced nuclear. … We’re accelerating site selection, rightsizing regulation, and getting to work.”
This comes after Cox’s Operation Gigawatt, which launched with a goal of creating an “abundance of energy” by doubling the state’s power production over the next decade.
Marcus Nichol, executive director of new nuclear at the Nuclear Energy Institute said there were a lot of commitments to get to zero carbon emissions in the electricity sector by 2050.
“As these policies were put in place, the companies and other stakeholders had to start asking the questions 'How are we going to get there?'
Cost reductions driven by efficiency increases was another reason cited.
“One of the studies was in Washington State. It looked at how we reach zero carbon emissions by 2050. It had without nuclear, all renewables and storage, and then it had with nuclear,. And it found that the portfolio with nuclear would save the ratepayers $8 billion a year,” said Nichol.
Like any form of energy, nuclear has its financial costs. A 2023 report from Columbia University estimated new U.S. reactors cost from $3,000–$6,200 per kilowatt. Solar and wind projects cost roughly half or even less compared to nuclear per kilowatt.
What happens next for Utah?
"When you make that choice to go down the nuclear pathway, you are committing future generations to deal with that waste for thousands, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of years,” said Tuddenham.
She added that radioactive exposure is a history Utah is "particularly familiar with," referring to residents exposed to nuclear weapons testing known as downwinders and communities impacted by uranium mining.
However, the Nuclear Energy Institute argues enhanced safety due to new technology such as passive cooling systems solve that problem.
The NEI said there is no certainty on costs for development of Small Modular Reactors, which Utah is particularly interested in, but there are projections and estimates available. One estimate for a NuScale SMR with the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), jumped in cost from $5.3 billion to $9.3 billion.
While nuclear energy could offer long-term benefits, these benefits will likely not be seen for a decade. Development could look like adoption of large, small and micro nuclear reactors to power increasingly demanding projects.
“If we didn’t have nuclear power, we would be suffering from challenges to reliability, affordability … we would certainly not have 50% of our clean electricity that we have today without nuclear,” said Nichol.
The question that still needs to be answered is: What do we do with nuclear waste?