The case for a state authority to license power plants is becoming more compelling with announced interests by two corporations to locate nuclear power plants in Idaho in remote areas where nuclear expertise is virtually nonexistent.
Furthermore, the case for allowing nuclear power is becoming increasingly weak. Within the last week, for example, the planned nuclear waste storage tunnel at Yucca Mountain, Nev., hit another major snag. U.S. Department of Energy budget cuts forced the layoff of 63 workers, effectively halting work on the facility.
Keep in mind, Yucca Mountain had been scheduled for a 1998 opening. Now, 10 years later, virtually no enthusiasm exists in Nevada for the site. Opposition has been building steadily. Even Las Vegas odds-makers would be foolhardy to bet on Yucca Mountain's being completed.
Without Yucca Mountain, existing nuclear plants are resorting to temporary storage sites, an interim measure that inspires no confidence because of the possibility of leakage of radioactive waste into water aquifers. So, without a major permanent disposal facility, where would waste from plants be stored?
However, this isn't all that Idaho must consider when promoters of nuclear power talk of the joys of the atom.
Nuclear plants are gluttons for water. A plant proposed in Florida would use more than 30 million gallons of seawater per day to cool the generating system.
Various studies show, for example, that wind-powered, electricity-producing turbines consume one six-hundredth of the water needed for nuclear plants.
This is a significant fact for Idaho: The Gem State was among the top four in the nation (California, then Texas, Idaho and Illinois) in consuming water, principally for agriculture. In the year 2000, some 3,750,000 acres were irrigated in Idaho.
Imagine the loss of water to Idaho agriculture—and to the state's economy and job force—if a nuclear plant suddenly pumped millions of gallons per day from Idaho rivers and streams for cooling, especially when Idaho has consistently run a deficit in water reserves and the future impact of global warming on the state's water supplies is an enormous unknown.
Idaho has no obligation to the nuclear industry to provide space and water for plants that essentially would be built to export power to other states.
But Idaho's business and political leaders are obliged to be perpetual guardians of the state's air, water, wildlands and wildlife. A far better vision for Idaho is development of vast areas known for their relentless winds as farms of wind power, with far less impact on the environment.
