Bob Brown has had a distinguished career in service to Montana, and I respect his contributions to our state. However, his recent column, Montana’s Nuclear Future (published in early February in papers around the state), is riddled with myths about nuclear energy that deserve correction. If you want to pay more for electricity that results in the storage of radioactive waste across Montana, then the nuclear hype is for you. Otherwise, hold on to your wallet.
First and foremost, nuclear energy is not renewable. Far from it. The process begins with uranium mining, an environmentally destructive practice that has disproportionately harms Indigenous communities worldwide. Extracting, processing, and using uranium leaves behind radioactive waste that poses long-term threats to human health and the environment. There is no such thing as “clean” nuclear energy when the entire fuel cycle is considered.
Brown also claims that nuclear energy is safe, but the reality is drastically different. Unlike many European nations that have invested heavily in infrastructure for nuclear waste disposal, the United States has no long-term solution for dangerous radioactive waste. Finland has spent $3.4 billion on a single long-term storage facility — the only one of its kind in Europe. The U.S. lacks similar safeguards, leaving radioactive waste to be stored onsite for eternity. Do any of us really want nuclear waste stored in your community, because that’s what has to happen if we go down this path.
Beyond safety concerns, nuclear energy is expensive, REALLY expensive. While some tout it as a necessary part of our energy future, the numbers tell a different story. Nuclear plants take at least a decade to build, often suffering from massive cost overruns and delays. The Vogtle plant in Georgia — the only new nuclear facility built in the U.S. in nearly 30 years — saw its price tag balloon from an estimated $14 billion to $36.8 billion. Georgia ratepayers are now paying the price through skyrocketing electricity bills. Bill Gates’ Wyoming proposal, Terrapower, uses a technology that has been tried before and failed. The federal government has already committed $2 billion of the $4 billion price tag. But history shows the cost will balloon way beyond estimates.
The financial track record for nuclear power is bleak. If you’re worried about the national debt you should be incensed that the federal government is paying for new nuclear power plants–to the tune of billions of dollars of taxpayer money. And there’s no end in sight. In the U.S., more than 100 nuclear reactor projects have been canceled, many after construction had already begun. There is little reason to believe that today’s experimental new nuclear designs will be any different.
Montanans already face the fourth-highest energy costs in the nation and the second-highest electricity rates in the region. Ratepayers can not afford to take the risk for exploratory nuclear projects that will inevitably skyrocket their monthly power bill.
Montana does indeed have an opportunity to lead in energy development, but nuclear is not the answer. Our state ranks second in the nation for wind energy potential and fourth for solar, yet we lag behind in deployment, sitting at 20th in wind and 41st in solar capacity. Instead of sinking billions into costly nuclear projects, we should be investing in low cost renewables, which are cheaper, safer, and faster to develop. Large-scale wind and solar projects can be built within a few years at a fraction of the cost of nuclear, and they continue to become more affordable with each passing year.
Perhaps most concerning, Montana citizens have been stripped of their right to weigh in on nuclear development. In 2021, the state legislature passed HB 273, overturning a 1978 voter-approved initiative that required public consent for nuclear facility construction. This means that Montanans now have no say in whether small modular reactors are built in their communities — a decision with potentially enormous and permanent consequences for public health and safety.
Nuclear power is not Montana’s future. It is an unproven, overpriced, and risky distraction from the real solutions that will drive energy independence: wind, solar, and storage. If we want a resilient and affordable energy future, we must focus on renewables, not nuclear pipe dreams.
Shannon James is the Climate & Campaigns Organizer at the Montana Environmental Information Center.