Letter to the Editor: Denver Deserves Safer and Cheaper Energy Than Nuclear Reactors

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices

Dear Editor,

Recently, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston has supported Denver International Airport’s (DIA) director, Jeffrey Kruse’s idea of putting Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) at DIA to make the airport energy more self-sufficient. To my mind, this reads as a ridiculous notion  that would not only set the stage for potential disaster in the event of a crash but would also make it a tempting target for terrorists, among other things.

Consequently, I made the following post on Facebook to encourage people to raise their voices in opposition to the same way they did when Gov. Polis proposed his ridiculous bridge project. We have seen that when we stand together and raise our voices, we can make a difference, and I hope others will raise their voices to oppose this ill-conceived idea when we have much better, safer, and less costly solutions right in front of us

Most of the responses to that post were positive and supportive however, a question posed by one person who responded really stood out to me :

‘What are you afraid of? Nuclear power is nothing to be afraid of.’

My response pointed out that natural gas isn’t particularly harmful when used to generate energy, but the process of extracting natural gas in the first place is harmful enough to outweigh the benefits of how much cleaner it might burn.

Photo from ELG21 from Pixabay

Any clue what the environmental harms are from the extraction and processing of the ores? Any idea when we “might” have an actual clue what to do with the spent waste? Any idea how extraordinarily expensive it is compared to any and every other source of energy? There’s that before we even get to the point where, if we were to start spreading SMRs all over the country, we would be creating hundreds, if not thousands, of potential targets for domestic or foreign terrorists looking to either make a dirty bomb or turn an SMR into a dirty bomb right where it sits.

Then there is the simple fact that if you actually follow the science (and the economics) on wind and  solar, or the considerable advances in battery technology being rolled out quite successfully, there are better alternatives.

California, with the 4th largest economy in the world, is currently producing 40% of its energy using solar. During the daytime, they overproduce energy and can store that excess energy for nighttime usage. Likewise, Texas, rather than going nuclear, has invested more in solar, wind, and batteries than any other state in the country. If even Texas and California are on the same page, nuclear fans should take notice.

I’m not as much afraid of nuclear power as all the harms surrounding it, its expense, and the fact that there is little chance that we can even roll it out  fast enough.

It should be pretty obvious to anyone who takes the time to look at the science and the actual physical evidence growing all around us that solar and wind power, in conjunction with the latest battery developments, is the way forward in the short term, with an eye towards perhaps “clean/green) hydrogen power as part of the mix in the longer term.

Sincerely,

Ron Booth
Westminster, CO