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.”
“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.
