Lawmakers in Washington state believe a proposed $25 million effort to build a next-generation nuclear reactor is crucial to help reach climate goals. However, the proposal has sparked a debate, with environmentalists and Native American leaders expressing concerns the facility will do more harm than good.
This nuclear reactor aims to generate enough energy to power approximately 1 million homes, presenting a promising solution to the state’s energy needs. Advocates, including state congressional members, argue that the project offers “clean, safe, and cost-effective energy options.”
Point phone camera here
“This project holds great promise in providing clean, safe and cost-effective energy options as we strive to meet our climate goals and create new job opportunities in our state,” said Washington Rep. Chris Stearns, D-Auburn.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has also highlighted the potential of this technology for providing low-carbon electricity. This is because of the reduced waste production these facilities put out compared to older reactor designs. This next-generation reactor requires refueling and hazardous material disposal only once every three to seven years, significantly less frequently than its predecessors, which need to be refueled and have waste removed every one to two years.
Meanwhile, environmental groups, such as Columbia Riverkeeper, have voiced their opposition to the nuclear proposal. They argue that nuclear power is “too costly, too dirty, and too late to be part of the solution to climate change.”
The organizations have also contested the IAEA’s assertion about waste reduction, claiming that the new reactor design could potentially result in as much as 30 times more radioactive waste than older models.
The sourcing of uranium for the reactor is also raising concerns among tribal leaders, particularly regarding its environmental impact on Native American lands.
With approximately half of the U.S. uranium reserves situated on Native American reservations, the mining process poses risks of radioactive dust pollution and environmental harm to these areas.
“While the nuclear industry claims to be ‘clean,’ it is an extremely dirty technology, beginning with uranium mining which decimates Indigenous lands,” the Columbia Riverkeeper group said in a statement. “Any community that hosts a nuclear reactor will likely be saddled with its waste—forever. This harm falls disproportionately on Indigenous communities.”
Ultimately, the decision on whether to proceed with the nuclear reactor lies with Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who has reaffirmed his administration’s commitment to the initiative despite opposition from some constituents pushing for a veto. The state already derives about 10% of its energy from an existing nuclear plant, which has been operational for nearly four decades.
NUCLEAR POWER IS BACK ON THE TABLE.
AND A NEXT GENERATION OF REACTORS IS READY TO MEET THE DEMAND.
LAWMAKERS IN WASHINGTON STATE SAY THE TECHNOLOGY IS CRITICAL TO HITTING CLIMATE GOALS.
BUT THERE’S OPPOSITION – WITH MANY VOICES ARGUING BUILDING A NUCLEAR PLANT WOULD DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD.
HERE’S WHAT’S HAPPENING:
THE STATE’S GOVERNOR AND DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS HAVE PROPOSED BUILDING A 25-MILLION-DOLLAR FACILITY THEY SAY WOULD GENERATE ENOUGH ENERGY TO POWER ABOUT A MILLION HOMES.
THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY IS ON BOARD WITH THE CONCEPT.
THEY SAY THIS TYPE OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY WILL PROVIDE PEOPLE WITH LOW-CARBON ELECTRICITY.
THAT’S THANKS TO THIS NEXT GENERATION REACTOR. PRODUCING LESS WASTE THAN ANY PREVIOUS VERSION OF THE TECHNOLOGY.
HOWEVER, ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS LIKE COLUMBIA RIVERKEEPER – AREN’T SOLD ON THE PLAN.
THEIR POLICY DIRECTOR CALLS NUCLEAR POWER TOO COSTLY, TOO DIRTY, AND TOO LATE TO BE PART OF THE SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE.
THE GROUP IS PUSHING BACK AGAINST THE I-A-E-A’S ASSERTION THAT THIS REACTOR WILL PRODUCE LESS NUCLEAR WASTE THAN PREVIOUS MODELS.
THEY SAY WHEN COMPARED TO OLDER NUCLEAR DESIGNS IT COULD CREATE AS MUCH AS THIRTY TIMES *MORE RADIOACTIVE WASTE.
THESE CONTAMINATED MATERIALS WILL RETAIN THEIR RADIOACTIVE STATE FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS EVEN AFTER THEY’VE BEEN DISPOSED OF.
NATIVE AMERICAN GROUPS ARE ECHOING THOSE CONCERNS.
TRIBAL LEADERS ARGUE SOURCING URANIUM COULD REQUIRE MINING ON THEIR LANDS.
ABOUT HALF OF THE URANIUM RESERVES IN THE U.S. ARE LOCATED ON NATIVE AMERICAN RESERVATIONS.
MINING FOR THIS MATERIAL CAN BE ENVIRONMENTALLY HARMFUL TO THE SURROUNDING AREA.
KICKING UP RADIOACTIVE DUST. POLLUTING THE AIR AND WATER.
ULTIMATELY THE NEXT MOVE IS IN THE HANDS OF GOVERNOR JAY INSLEE.
Straight to your inbox.
By entering your email, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.
