Nuclear power too outdated for Utah
Text 
No comments [ Add Comment ]By DYNETTE REYNOLDS and ROBERT W. REYNOLDS
Guest commentary
W
ith all the commotion over global warming, some say the only solution to the energy crisis is to build giant, expensive nuclear power plants. But nuclear power is an old technology whose time has come and gone. Building a nuclear power plant in Utah at this point would represent a step backward in technology. It is simply ridiculous for Utah to move toward nuclear power when the rest of the developed world is moving away from it.
At this point, the only countries jumping into nuclear power are developing ones like China and Iran, who want their own source of weapons-grade plutonium. (The U.S. already has enough plutonium to last hundreds of years.) Nuclear power was indeed the energy of choice in Europe for a short while, due to a lack of cheap coal there. But even in France -- which relies on nuclear power more than any other nation in the world -- nuclear scientists are now advising the government to invest in other energy sources. This is because nuclear technology has proved spectacularly prone to failure under conditions of global warming. The high cost of nuclear power has also meant that very few Europeans could afford microwaves, dishwashers, clothes dryers, air conditioners or even full-size refrigerators in their homes.
For at least a decade now, the European Union has been encouraging the development of less expensive, greener power sources, with the result that Europe now leads the world in wind technology. By 2010, Europe will be producing 75,000 megawatts of wind power, thanks to forward-thinking governments and corporations. Denmark already gets 20 percent of its energy from wind power, with England and Germany close behind.
Although wind power was pioneered in California during the 1980s, the U.S. has fallen far behind due to lack of funding, not because of objections from environmentalists. The U.S. Department of Energy estimated in 1991 that just three states -- North Dakota, Kansas and Texas -- could produce enough wind power to satisfy the electricity requirements of the entire nation. Yet we are still subsidizing oil companies and funding nuclear power more than 15 years later.
When it comes to solar power, Utah could take a clue from Israel, which has a climate much like our own. The Israeli government recently announced plans to build the world's largest solar power plant in the Negev Desert, which will produce an amazing 500 megawatts of power (about the same as an average-sized nuclear reactor). Scientists estimate that all of Israel's power needs could be produced on just 225 acres of land -- far fewer than the proposed 50,000 acres for the Green River nuclear facility in Utah.
These power plants do not utilize older, expensive photovoltaic technology. These are cutting-edge "thermal solar" plants that cost consumers about 12 cents per kilowatt hour. It sounds high, but solar power could actually be less expensive than nuclear, because nuclear power has hidden costs that make it appear more of a bargain due to government subsidies. As technology improves and market forces come into play, the cost of solar power will decrease. If Utah stuck with coal power for just a few more years, we could jump into solar power at very little cost.
Many scientists believe that nuclear power cannot solve the problem of global warming. During recent summer heat waves caused by global warming, nuclear power plants across Europe were unable to function and had to be shut down, causing critical energy shortages and thousands of heat-related deaths. The U.S.-based Union of Concerned Scientists has issued a public statement asserting that nuclear technology will actually make global warming worse.
Furthermore, nuclear technology has proved highly wasteful of our natural resources, leaving behind polluted soil, water and equipment that cannot be re-used for thousands of years. Even in developed countries, under stringent regulation, nuclear power plants have proved leaky. Just this year, more than 1,500 liters of radioactive waste seeped into the ocean after an earthquake damaged a reactor in Japan. Plant officials tried to cover up the spill and even kept the facility running until they were finally ordered to shut down. For a list of major accidents at nuclear power plants -- including many fatal ones -- see www.atomicarchive.com, a Web site maintained by the National Science Foundation.
Why would Utah waste resources on outdated technology that Europe is rapidly discarding? We have a chance to leap-frog past nuclear power and into the future. It is time to leave Cold War thinking and Cold War science behind.
Dynette Reynolds is a Ph.D. student in American Studies at the University of Utah. Robert W. Reynolds is a sociology professor at Weber State University.
