Nuclear nonproliferation panel warns Utah leaders to tread lightly

Yahoo

11-02-2025

There's a reason why small nuclear reactors were developed in the 1960s and later abandoned: they were too costly.
That was one cautionary tale detailed in a panel discussion hosted Monday in Salt Lake City by the Non Proliferation Education Center, a think tank based in Washington, D.C.
Scott Kemp, an associate professor of nuclear science and engineering and director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Laboratory for Nuclear Security and Policy, said what is old has become 'new' again.
'There's a really deep history here that you may not know about. The fact that they're small is not in and of itself actually that new. This is where we started in the nuclear industry back in the '50s and '60s,' he said. 'But the industry, as it stretched forward, the reactors kept getting bigger and bigger. So why did we abandon these small reactors? Because they weren't capital efficient, they were too expensive. We needed to make nuclear power more affordable, and we did that by pulling more watts out of a single reactor, and that's still true today.'
For small nuclear reactors to compete on a cost scale to other baseload energy and even renewables, there would be millions — many millions — of the unites that would need to be built, he asserted.
In terms of costs and accountability, many pointed to the Carbon Free Power Project pursued by the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, which was shelved because not enough independent power producers took interest, and as the project progressed, the cost of energy became too high.
Scott Williams, a former director of HEAL Utah that opposed the project, said one of the most troubling aspects of the the UAMPS process was its reliability on municipal investors and their lack of knowledge on the ramifications of embracing nuclear. In addition, UAMPS is not subject to Utah's open meetings law and could pursue the small modular reactor plant at Idaho National Laboratory without scrutiny, Williams said.
UAMPS did have to get municipal buy-in from its participating entities, all subject to city council meetings and a vote open to the public. The project had 'off ramps' for cities that wanted to bow out because of costs, and many ultimately opted to get off the nuclear highway.
Others expressed doubt over President Donald Trump's commitment to nuclear energy, especially with his 'drill baby drill' agenda.
Ken Maize, proprietor of the Quad Report, a platform dedicated to in-depth analysis of energy policy and political developments, said he hasn't heard a word about nuclear from Trump.
Although his newly-nominated Energy Secretary Chris Wright listed nuclear as one of his top priorities — it was down on the list as No. 7 out of a list of nine goals.
Although Maize said Wright was an investor in a small modular reactor company, he does not hold out much hope for any revolutionary change in the field of nuclear energy since energy dominates the conversation when it comes to how much someone pays at the pump.
'So that leaves my bottom line, which is I don't see much coming out of Washington that will have a significant impact on nuclear energy around the rest of the country, at least not until after the 2026 midterm elections.'
When pressed about Operation Gigawatt and its commitment to funding nuclear, Tim Kowalchik, an emerging technology strategist at the Utah Office of Energy Development, said Utah Gov. Spencer Cox's Operation Gigawatt is a long-range plan eying Utah's energy future down the road.
The governor's budget plan aims to set aside $20 million for nuclear and a Utah lawmaker is seeking to establish a nuclear energy consortium made up of experts.
Kowalchik stressed it is up to Utah lawmakers to decide how that money is spent and the consortium is meant to get the ball rolling. That is part of a bill, HB249, sponsored by Rep. Carl Albrecht, R-Richfield.
'These are exploratory steps. It's worth looking at, and at the very least, gauging the temperature.'