Letters: Indiana should seriously evaluate nuclear risks

I share George Gemelas’ commitment to abundant, reliable electricity while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But his enthusiasm for a “closed-loop” small modular reactor (or SMR) complex requires a more careful look (“George Gemelas: Indiana just leveled up as leader in nuclear power,” Forefront, Nov. 14). Indiana is being invited to take on risks for an industry whose promises are unproven.

First, the editorial highlights Fanco’s plan to reprocess spent nuclear fuel on-site. This is unprecedented in the USA. The closest analogue is a West Valley, New York, facility that reprocessed commercial spent fuel and operated for only six years. The site has been in cleanup for nearly half a century and remains one of the most complex nuclear remediation projects in the country. Indiana officials should visit West Valley before assuming reprocessing is straightforward or low impact.

Second, Gemelas endorses a strategy of burning more natural gas while hoping new reactors arrive in the 2030s. Natural gas emits about a pound of CO2-equivalent for every 2 kWh generated, worsening the climate crisis now while gambling on technology that may or may not be ready later. If SMRs fall behind schedule or fail to perform, what is Indiana’s Plan B?

Third, even with reprocessing, long-lived high-level nuclear waste remains. The United States has no deep geological repository, and none will be available for decades. That means any high-level waste created here will stay in Indiana indefinitely. Moreover, for the economics of reprocessing to pencil out, Indiana would likely need to import spent fuel from other states. Will this be acceptable to the host community and the state?

Fourth, the plan for six SMRs (enough to power 1.5 million homes) creates a significant resilience challenge. Concentrating so much generation in one location introduces a major point of failure. If the plant goes off-line, half the state could lose power.

Finally, large energy “parks” inevitably attract large consumers such as data centers, increasing demand and potentially requiring yet more power plants. If Indiana needs power, consider weatherization and solar first. If it really wants nuclear, why not consider proven, commercial-scale designs rather than experimental ones?

Indiana deserves a full, transparent evaluation of the benefits, risks and alternatives, not just optimistic projections.

Thomas Webler
senior research fellow, Social and Environmental Research Institute, Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts