The power needs for artificial intelligence data processing are expected to skyrocket over the next five years. That has Utah leaders open to all possibilities for electricity production, including nuclear.
Last October, Utah Department of Natural Resources Executive Director Joel Ferry told the crowd at the One Utah Summit that the Beehive State “should be leading the way as we advance nuclear technologies.”
“[We should also] invest in having nuclear [power] produced in Utah in the next decade.”
At the summit, state leaders announced Operation Gigawatt in response to the looming AI demand. The goal is to double the state’s power generation capacity in the next decade, which includes investments in clean energy sources like nuclear and geothermal.
But for all the fanfare around nuclear, there is a catch or two.
First off, it’s expensive. A project in Kemmerer, Wyoming bankrolled by multibillionaire Bill Gates and has a price tag of $4 billion. After years of planning, that project broke ground last summer. Nuclear also has a checkered past with many still pointing out the disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl in the 1970s and 80s. Currently, there are 54 active nuclear power plants in the United States, down from a high of 112 in 1990.
The nuclear fuel supply chain also has a complicated history.
The consequences of Uranium mining in the 20th century have affected thousands in the Navajo Nation and, alongside the fallout from atmospheric nuclear testing, was largely responsible for the passage of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act in 1990. RECA expired in June and legislation extending benefits has yet to be taken up by Congress.
Despite the unease the prospect of new nuclear power creates for some people, even organizations in the clean energy space are curious about modern-day advancements.
“We’re technology agnostic,” said Sophie Hayes, the clean energy manager for Western Resource Advocates. “We prioritize greenhouse gas emissions reductions over specific technologies.”
Hayes supports nuclear as an alternative to fossil fuels but cautions that nuclear likely is not a silver bullet — at least not right now.
“At this point in the United States, these advanced nuclear technologies are sort of unproven at scale,” she said. “We don't know how quickly we can bring them online or how economically we can bring them online.”
Given those uncertainties, Hayes said nuclear power is “likely not an effective near-term solution to load growth,” and instead suggested that state leaders look toward alternatives with a proven track record like like hydrogen and geothermal.
Given nuclear’s current limitations, Utah Office of Energy Development Deputy Director Dusty Monks told the One Utah Summit the conversation in Utah will likely be a long-term one.
“We don't have a nuclear reactor in the state at a commercial scale,” he said. “So we need to make sure that we have a policy pathway, policies that allow for us to align with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that we're not an obstacle, but we're in line with them.”
Monks said his office will gather local, regional and national resources to explore over the next year what it would take to build a Utah nuclear project.
What that could look like is anyone’s guess. Rocky Mountain Power has suggested that once its Utah coal-fired power plants close, they could be candidates for retrofitting to nuclear technology. However, those closures have been pushed back to 2036 and 2042.
With nuclear being such an uncommon approach to American energy production in the 21st century, advocates like Hayes said they are diligently weighing the pros and cons as the conversation evolves in the coming years.
“I think nuclear [power] is worth looking at, but we need to be careful and deliberate and not perpetuate additional harms.”
