KSL News Daily: The nuclear debate Utah can’t avoid

This story was adapted from a radio broadcast script using artificial intelligence. Every story, including those adapted with AI, is reviewed by a human editor before publication to ensure that KSL’s editorial standards are upheld.

SALT LAKE CITY — As Utah looks for ways to meet growing electricity demand from data centers, artificial intelligence, manufacturing and population growth, nuclear energy has become part of the state’s energy conversation.

Gov. Spencer Cox has said Utah must embrace nuclear energy if it wants to meet surging electricity demand and remain competitive in the global economy.

“And as I’ve said many times, if you are serious about energy abundance, you have to be serious about nuclear energy,” Cox said.

Much of that demand is being driven by artificial intelligence data centers, which require enormous and reliable power supplies. Proponents say small modular reactors are the answer — offering stable, carbon-free electricity that traditional renewables struggle to match.

Critics, including downwinders and environmental advocates, said Utah’s history with radiation exposure should make state leaders more cautious.

Listen to parts one and two of the nuclear energy reporting on KSL News Daily below. 

Advocates tout nuclear reliability and clean air benefits

John Kotek, senior vice president of policy and public affairs at the Nuclear Energy Institute, said nuclear power’s fuel cycle gives it an edge over fossil fuels.

“Once you fuel a nuclear reactor, it’ll run between 18 and 24 months before you have to shut it down and put new fuel in it,” Kotek said. “So you’re not dependent on shipments of coal or gas in a pipeline or what have you.”

Kotek added that nuclear energy produces no carbon emissions or air pollutants, saying it has “a real role to play in cleaning up air quality in the West.”

Dr. Tatjana Jevremovic, director of the nuclear lab at the University of Utah, said the math also favors uranium.

“The amount of energy you get out of a kilogram of uranium is about 10,000 times the amount of energy you get out of a kilogram of coal or petroleum,” Goodell said. “And also it is an energy source that has basically zero carbon emissions along with it.”

Environmental, health groups raise alarms

Not everyone is convinced the benefits outweigh the risks. Carmen Valdez, a senior policy associate at Heal Utah, said co-locating reactors with data centers creates compounding dangers.

“If something were to catch on fire, if something were to fail, you are now accumulating a lot of issues as well as creating toxic spaces,” Valdez said. “If we’re concerned about the cancers coming from data centers, what is the concern about a data center with a nuclear reactor, with spent fuel, on site?”

Valdez urged state lawmakers to invest instead in resources Utah already has in abundance.

“We are extremely equipped for solar. Maybe we should start looking at rooftop solar for our large communities and consumers,” Valdez said. “We have battery storage. We have so many opportunities.”

Waste disposal remains unresolved

Even nuclear supporters acknowledge one lingering challenge: the United States has no permanent disposal facility for radioactive waste.

“The very good part about spent nuclear fuel is that it’s very easy to manage. You put it in pools for a few years, you put it in these concrete and steel containers, and you can leave it on site,” Kotek said. “The challenge is, of course, it is radioactive, so it needs a long-term place to be stored and ultimately disposed.”

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is an independent federal agency that licenses and regulates the civilian use of nuclear energy.  Kotek said the commission has helped to significantly improve plant safety over decades of operation.

“We’ve been operating commercial nuclear power plants in the United States for more than 60 years,” Kotek said. “And when you do something that long, you learn a lot about it. You get good at it.”

Utah’s Downwinders say history demands caution

Between 1951 and 1962, the U.S. government conducted above-ground nuclear testing at what was then called the Nevada Test Site. As a result, the wind carried radioactive debris to thousands of people in Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico.

The people subjected to that fallout are known as Downwinders. For Mary Dickson, a Downwinder and thyroid cancer survivor, the push for nuclear energy carries a deeply personal weight. Dickson advocates for Utahns harmed by radiation exposure from nuclear weapons testing, and she said the state’s history should give leaders pause.

“The idea that they would be so cavalier and just welcome nuclear energy and everything that goes with it, including nuclear waste, into our state makes us expendable,” Dickson said. “And you’d think with our legacy, we would be far, far more cautious and just say ‘no.'”

Dickson said the concern extends beyond reactors themselves.

“They’re pushing for the facilities for every step — to develop uranium for reactors, to mine it, mill it, fabricate it, enrich it, all of that,” Dickson said. “And they’re looking at these throughout the state.”

Modern reactors designed to contain worst-case scenarios

Goodell said residents worried about safety should consider the track record of communities that already live near nuclear plants. He said modern facilities are engineered with multiple layers of protection.

“We don’t just design them to prevent accidents. We design them to contain accidents, so that even in a worst-case scenario for a nuclear power plant, all of the nasty radioactive material will stay at the plant,” Goodell said.

Dickson acknowledged that newer technology is safer than past designs but said no system is foolproof. She called on Utahns to demand answers from government leaders and push for regulations that protect public health and safety.

Contributing | Simone Seikaly