This essay was first published in the 2020 edition of Voices and uses MLA documentation.

YOU AND I MEET AT THE BUS STOP, AND I HAND YOU A BLOCK of metal the size of a sugar cube. I then casually comment that the cube is 100% raw uranium; what would your response be? Would you quickly fling it away? Would you be fascinated? Would you think I was a Soviet spy? Here’s an interesting fact, if you didn’t throw it out, you would be receiving more radiation from the 15 or so people around us, waiting for the bus to arrive, than from that cube in your hand (“Are Our Bodies”).

“Radiation” and “nuclear” are big buzzwords in our minds. We automatically think of bombs, three-eyed frogs, and maybe even The Simpsons. However, despite those unfortunate eyesores on the reputation of atomic energy, the good that nuclear fission has done in society far overwhelms the bad and needs to be brought to light. Furthermore, nuclear energy has the potential to continue to meet community needs in the world abroad and here at home in our state of Utah.

The population of Utah is projected to grow by about 1 million people in the next 20 years (Lee). Given that there are only about 3.2 million of us in Utah right now, this is significant (Lee). How will we sustain these newcomers? We could continue building coal plants, natural gas plants, or even more wind farms, but I believe that nuclear energy, more than any other source, is our best option to provide safe, clean, and reliable energy for Utah.

Until now, discussions about nuclear power in Utah have been scarce, to say the least, but in 2011, a company called NuScale received approval to construct a brand-new type of nuclear reactor in Idaho that is a breakthrough in nuclear technology. Many cities in Cache Valley, Logan included, have contracted for a portion of the power generated by this plant once it is running (which could be as early as 2026). Maybe you’re wondering if this is really such a good idea. Or heck, maybe you’re wondering if one of these things is even safe to have around. Well, as we’ll soon see, there’s no reason to fear these marvels of the modern age.

To clear away some of the mists of mystery surrounding “nuclear energy,” let’s briefly explore the process. Uranium is a metal, like any other metal on earth, and is made of atoms. In the center of an atom, called the nucleus, is where all the protons and neutrons live. Most atoms, say oxygen, carbon, and iron, have a relatively stable nucleus with roughly as many protons as neutrons and everyone is happy. For some elements though, like uranium (or even some in our bodies as I mentioned in the beginning), a percentage of their atoms tend to have unbalanced and unstable nuclei. This unbalance results in little pieces literally flying off the nucleus and the entire thing even splitting in two. This process is what we call nuclear fission. These extra cast-away bits of matter or energy are what we call “radiation,” and while there’re several types, for now, just remember that one of these pieces is a neutron. In the early 1930s, we realized that if we stuck enough of these unstable atoms in the same place, the neutrons released from natural atomic splitting or “fission” would slam into neighboring atoms, triggering fission, which then would trigger other fissions, and on and on, resulting in a fission chain reaction.

The most important part of this process is that each atom’s fission releases not only neutrons but enormous amounts of heat. Let’s go back to your little cube of uranium (which is hopefully still in your hand) for some perspective. If we were to make that cube (Cole et al.) out of reactor-grade uranium (which has a slightly higher concentration of the unstable atoms, AKA “enriched uranium”), it could produce about as much heat as one ton of coal (“Nuclear Fuel”). In a nuclear plant, many long rods of enriched uranium are bundled under water. The heat from the fission chain reaction boils the water into steam, and that steam drives a turbine which generates electricity like any other power plant. These plants can go for an incredibly long time without refueling (as much as two to three years), all the while providing enough energy to power several Cache Valley’s worth of people. Surprisingly, this technology has never made it into Utah, perhaps because our cheap and abundant fossil fuel reserves have rendered nuclear uncompetitive, and perhaps because public perception of nuclear power is stuck on the infamous disasters of Chornobyl and Fukushima. Whatever the reason(s), we have neglected to make nuclear power a part of the state of Utah. Until now.

The good news is, this is about to change in only a few short years. NuScale, a leading company in modern nuclear technology innovation, has developed what are called Small Modular Reactors or SMRs. These incredible feats of engineering essentially condense an entire power plant down to a cylinder about 15 feet wide and 80 feet tall. These contain nearly all the components of traditional nuclear reactors but are small enough to be made in a factory and can, in a simplified sense, be plugged into a facility like batteries in a remote control. NuScale is constructing one of these SMR facilities in Idaho Falls, ID and many cities in Utah, including Logan City have contracted to receive some of the power it will produce. This is a remarkable development, but there are still some, such as the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah (HEAL) who remain skeptical about whether the benefits of nuclear power really outweigh the costs, touting renewables as the future of Utah (“Small Modular”).

Before we begin any sort of cost-benefit discussion, however, we must define one thing first. Priorities. What are our priorities? I think we can agree that our people come first; we want our people to have peace of mind, and to be safe and healthy. After our people are taken care of, we turn to what surrounds us. We want to responsibly use the many resources Utah has been blessed with. We want our policies and infrastructure to be sustainable, and even provide a surplus for those additional 1 million people we’ll be accommodating in the next few decades. And of course, we want to ensure that comfortable living is affordable. Nuclear power, particularly NuScale’s SMR project, helps us ensure that these priorities are met, and here is why.

Let’s first talk about the dollar signs. While I concede that given its history, nuclear is at a cost disadvantage; many experts in the field will tell you that a large portion of these costs are due to poor project management and lack of public support and funding. Additionally, since most of the cost of nuclear comes from construction loans (Muller), the current discount rate (essentially the loan interest rate) plays a large part (“Economics of Nuclear”). Once the plant is paid off, however, the electricity is very cheap. Richard A. Muller in his book Energy for Future Presidents (which I highly recommend) states that the incredibly low costs of fuel and plant operation allow most facilities to turn around 80% of their revenues into paying off loans. In fact, once you take into account that a nuclear power plant can last for 60 years, while a typical wind and solar farm needs to replace its turbines and solar cells about every 15 years, the net cost can become competitive. To add to all this, current technological innovations are lowering the price significantly. The SMR design from NuScale has been able to cut construction costs by as much as 30% (Botha), and since each module operates independently of the others, you no longer need to shut the entire plant down for maintenance or refueling (a process that otherwise sets plant revenue back significantly).

While these general improvements are exciting, ultimately this boils down to how much you and I would be paying every month in your power bill, right? Well, while NuScale is currently being funded by the Department of Energy (DOE) and others to initially get these projects going, they are able to offer electricity to the grid for an astounding 5.5 cents per kWh (UAMPS). For perspective, the average kWh for most homeowners in Utah (coming mainly from fossil fuels) is between 8 and 14 cents. This is remarkably competitive in today’s market.

But what costs are we saving by using nuclear power, how does that affect our people? Recall that “peace of mind for the people of Utah” was one of our listed priorities. Most nuclear power plants can, in a matter of minutes, finetune the output of the reactor with control rods that slide in between the uranium rods. These control rods block neutrons, so the further they slide in, the fewer neutrons can get to other uranium atoms, and the slower the chain reaction goes. On the other hand, renewables, while extracting energy from ongoing and ever-usable sources are very resourceful, they too are under the dictates of mother nature. When the sun does not shine, or the wind does not blow, energy must be supplied in another way to fill the gap (usually by means of a backup natural gas or oil generator). Either each renewable energy plant builds its own small army of fossil fuel generators, or major institutions, such as hospitals, which can’t afford extended power outages, would have to buy their own. Either way, we risk long periods without power or continue burning fossil fuels to support our carbon-free renewables. Nuclear power solves all of these problems without any additional risk.

Speaking of risk, one fear surrounding nuclear is the chance that it could “meltdown and blow up.” There’s a lot of physics involved, but suffice it to say that with our current reactor designs, an actual nuclear meltdown is incredibly unlikely. Literally, everything would have to go wrong. And even if everything did in fact go wrong, it is physically impossible for a reactor to explode like an atomic bomb. Let me say that again, the laws of physics make it impossible for a reactor to explode like an atomic bomb. In fact, SMR reactors are designed to shut down and cool themselves off naturally, even if the power and control systems went down.

However, admittedly in the cases of Chornobyl and Fukushima, everything actually did go wrong, but let’s look at some numbers. Per unit of energy produced, nuclear totally takes the cake for safety, with only 0.04 deaths per TWh (trillion watts). What does that mean? Well, taking fatalities per TWh statistics for other energy sources, if we lined up a coal plant, a hydroelectric plant, a wind farm, and our trusty SMR (or other nuclear plants) side by side and ran them for 100 years, we could attribute over 4,000 deaths to coal power, 35 to hydroelectric, and more than three to wind. Meanwhile, our friendly neighborhood SMR plant would have caused about 0.6 fatalities during that time (Rose). In addition, it might interest you to know that 7 million people die globally each year due to air pollution (Botha). Maybe you’ve seen the inversions here in Cache Valley on a particularly cold fall afternoon, and perhaps you have friends or relatives who find it hard to go out on “red days” because of the breathing hazards. But every day we run our SMR power plant, we would be avoiding literally thousands of tons of CO2 emissions along with other nasty byproducts of fossil fuels.

With environmental preservation as a priority, the main reason anyone is even considering non-fossil fuel energy sources is because of the growing concern about carbon dioxide emissions. One might think that wind and solar are as carbon-free as you can get, but once you take into consideration manufacturing, construction, and maintenance costs, nuclear energy is actually only behind “land-based” wind farms in terms of net carbon output. In addition to this, both wind and solar farms require the clearing of hundreds of acres of land prior to installation. On average, for every ton of coal burned in a power plant (a coal plant equal to our SMR plant would burn about 5,000 tons per day) (Hanania et al.), three tons of CO2 are emitted into the atmosphere. In comparison, a nuclear reactor core itself releases zero carbon dioxide during the process of generating electricity, the only CO2 attributed to a nuclear power plant is from the vehicles and equipment used in construction and occasional maintenance. In fact, there is hardly any waste at all except for heat and spent fuel.

So, what about the horror stories of green nuclear sludge climbing out of barrels to take your children? Should we worry about exposure? Well, yes and no. Nuclear waste can be toxic and very dangerous, but only under two conditions when you are near it (and I’m talking about using it as home décor), or when it is very fresh. The waste is the remains of nuclear fuel after it has expended most of its useful energy and while its radioactivity decreases exponentially with time, the really nasty stuff termed high-level waste (HLW) can still be deadly after thousands of years (“Radioactive Waste”).

Currently, there are extravagant measures taken to ensure that HLW is kept contained. Ultimately, HLW is encased in “dry storage casks” which are absolute marvels of engineering. You can actually find videos of “durability tests” on YouTube involving anything from dropping them from 30 feet in the air to literally ramming them with a train (both of which they passed, by the way). These casks are then buried hundreds of feet underground to prevent leakage into groundwater or other public resources. Many argue that this isn’t enough, but many analyses have been done showing that these precautions reduce public exposure risk down to very benign levels (Kautsky et al.).

Fears of radiation and radioactive waste have yielded standards of caution that are exaggerated, unnecessary, and can even do more harm than good. Of the 100,000 people evacuated from Fukushima following the reactor failure, more people died from exposure, stress, and accident during evacuation than were killed by the reactor failure and resultant radiation contamination (Muller). Obviously, nuclear waste can be dangerous, which is why we have protocols for disposing of it, but I think it is less dangerous than you might believe. Additionally, as mentioned before, the amount of waste produced by a reactor is actually extremely small, so its volume is certainly not an issue, at least not when compared to entire solar and wind farms (all containing environmentally toxic chemicals) being scrapped every few decades and replaced. Our society needs to re-evaluate our perspective on nuclear energy and waste and begin to see them in context.

While nuclear plants may be more expensive monetarily than other sources, the problems they solve far outweigh those costs. They are reliable and can be scaled to fit energy needs very easily. The new SMR design has reduced construction costs and have taken safety to a whole new level. Nuclear plants contribute very little waste (whether as radioactive leftovers or greenhouse gasses) and the waste produced can more than adequately be dealt with. Nuclear energy is the best option to ensure a safe, secure, and reliable future for Utah as we continue to grow and welcome newcomers to our amazing state. While Logan is currently on board to participate in the incredible developments with NuScale, many discussions are still being had. You and I may very well be able to participate in these discussions whether publicly or even with a friend. Go out, learn more. Let’s help Utah reap the benefits that this incredible resource has to offer. 

Works Cited

 “Are Our Bodies Radioactive?” Health Physics Society, https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/faqradbods.html#targetText=As%20carbon%20is%2023%20percent,would%20be%20about%203.08%20kBq. Accessed 19 Nov. 2019.

Botha, Derick. Public Presentation on NuScale Facility in Idaho Falls. 18 Nov 2019, American Nuclear Society chapter at USU, Utah State University, Logan.

Cole, Vera J., et al. “Uranium Fuel Cycle.” Penn State College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme444/node/238#:~:targetText=A%20single%20uranium%20fuel%20pellet,metal%20tubes%20called%20fuel%20rods. Accessed 19 Nov. 2019.

“Economics of Nuclear Power.” World Nuclear Association, Sept. 2019, https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx. Accessed 19 Nov. 2019

Hanania, Jordan, et al. “Coal Fired.” Energy Education, University of Calgary, 24 Feb. 2019, https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Coal_fired_power_plant#:~:targetText=Burning%20huge%20amounts%20of%20coal,100%20tonnes%20in%20each!). Accessed 19 Nov. 2019

Kautsky, Ulrik, et al. “The Impact of Low and Intermediate-Level Radioactive Waste on Humans and the Environment over the next One Hundred Thousand Years.” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, vol. 151, Jan. 2016, pp. 395–403. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.jenvrad.2015.06.025.

Lee, Jason. “State’s Economy Fueling Population Growth.” Deseret News, 15 Apr. 2017, https://www.deseret.com/2017/4/15/20610419/state-s-economy-fueling-population-growth. Accessed 19 Nov. 2019.

Muller, Richard. Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines,1st Edition, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2013, 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110 (pg. 11-23, 179-197).

“Nuclear Fuel.” Nuclear Energy Institute, https://www.nei.org/fundamentals/nuclear-fuel. Accessed 19 Nov. 2019.

Rose, Sunniva. “How Bad is it Really? Nuclear Technology.” Tedx Talks, YouTube, uploaded by Tedx Talks, 15 Nov. 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTKl5X72NIc.

“Radioactive Waste – Myths and Realities.” World Nuclear Association, May 2017, www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx. Accessed 11 Oct. 2019.

“Small Modular Nuclear Reactors”. Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah (HEAL), www.healutah.org/smnr/. Accessed 24 Oct. 2019.