Salt Lake Tribune
Weekly Ad Specials
No nukes: Nuclear power plant plans should be shelved
This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2007, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Utah dodged a nuclear catastrophe last week. State lawmakers pulled the plug, hopefully forever, on plans that would make it easier to build a nuclear power plant in Utah.

It wasn't the threat of nuclear disaster - a meltdown or a terrorist attack - that made lawmakers pull back. And it wasn't the lack of a permanent nuclear waste depository - nuclear power plants have been storing spent fuel on-site for decades. Nor was it the threat of environmental damage from uranium mining, or Gov. Jon Huntsman's opposition, or the acknowledgement that nuclear plants take a decade or more to build.

No, it was the staggering cost of nuclear energy - up to $2 billion to bring a new plant online - and the potential impact on your pocketbook that brought the Legislature's Interim Public Utilities and Technology Committee to its senses Wednesday. At least temporarily.

The committee was considering legislation based on a Florida law that allows utilities to recover the cost of nuclear plant construction from ratepayers years before a plant becomes operational. Even, in some cases, if the plant fails to become operational. Legislators had hoped to reduce the financial risk for utilities and their investors, thus creating incentives for nuclear plant construction.

But energy industry experts told the panel that nuclear power is not the panacea for our long-term energy needs. Demand for electricity is increasing by about 3 percent per year in Utah, which depends largely on coal for power, a fossil fuel that rapidly is falling out of favor due to its enormous contribution to the greenhouse gases that warm the globe.

Labor-intensive nuke plants are also expensive to operate. And that translates to high energy costs for consumers. Construction and operation costs are the primary reasons, the experts testified, that there hasn't been a new nuclear power plant built in the U.S. in more than 20 years.

The committee responded by requesting a study that compares the cost to consumers of various alternative energy options, including nuclear power. And the proposed bill was, thankfully, set aside.

While awaiting the results of the study, lawmakers need to explore all of the ramifications of nuclear power, not just the economic ones. The blunt truth is that an accident could kill thousands of people, something that could never happen at a solar, wind or geothermal power plant.

Article Tools

 
Affiliates and Partners