“too late, too expensive, too risky, and too uncertain,” 

As we race to the approaching deadline of a zero-emissions energy sector, many different types of “green” or “low carbon” energy sources have been put forward as solutions to our energy demand. While these supposed green and low carbon energy sources may sound great on paper, many still emit high levels of emissions compared to other sources; they also need huge amounts of money and require something that we are running out of…time. 

When we can least afford it, this proposal slows us down and diverts limited climate resources to unproven SMR technology and away from currently available power solutions like wind, solar, and battery storage that are cheaper, cleaner, reliable, and faster to deploy.

We also need to be clear that Nuclear power is not necessarily low carbon when its full life cycle is considered, from the mining of uranium to the decommissioning of the power plant. In addition, we cannot afford to endanger our ever-scarcer water resources by committing them to projects like these.

Lastly, we are concerned about this proposed site because of its implications for waste storage in the West. Although we already have a history of nuclear contamination through uranium mining and fallout from tests, up until now, Utah has had a powerful argument for not accepting additional high-level nuclear waste: we simply do not use nuclear power and should not be responsible for its long term storage in our state. This project could open us up for the import of more highly radioactive waste from around the country, and we already know that SMRs will likely generate significantly more waste per megawatt. We should be finding solutions to waste disposal that don’t create more public health problems in overburdened communities, not creating new waste streams.