The shuttered Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania, pictured on Oct. 10, 2024. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Researchers and environmental advocates said nuclear energy plants, like the Duane Arnold Energy Center that may restart in Linn County, have environmental, health and economic concerns that other renewable energy projects don’t carry.
Speaking at a press conference Monday with the Sierra Club Iowa Chapter, researchers from across the country said wind and solar energy projects would be cheaper, come online faster and pose fewer risks to Iowan’s health and the environment than reinvesting in nuclear energy sites.
NextEra Energy, which operated the nuclear facility that began decommissioning in 2020, recently received approval from federal regulators to transfer its grid connection rights from three slated solar projects to the nuclear plant. NextEra is still waiting on several permits and licenses before operations to restart the plant can begin.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, said in the press conference that solar and wind generation are more cost effective than nuclear, and have lower carbon footprints.
Jacobson said in general, nuclear energy facilities are more costly than wind or solar projects and can take 10 to 20 years to start new projects, while solar and wind infrastructure can be built and online in a fraction of that time.
While nuclear energy is considered a low-carbon form of energy generation, it’s not considered renewable energy since it still relies on uranium as a fuel source.
While Duane Arnold would be a restart rather than a from-scratch project, Jacobson said it “just makes no sense to go backwards into an albatross technology like nuclear.”
Bill Orlove, a spokesperson for Duane Arnold Energy Center, said in a statement that the possible restart of the plant would help power “Iowa’s growing economy and to help meet America’s surging power demand.”
Some metrics predict U.S. energy demand could grow as much as 25% by 2030.
Orlove said the plant would contribute 600 megawatts of generation, which fits with the Trump administration’s goal of adding 5,000 megawatts of nuclear energy by 2030.
Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds has also noted nuclear energy expansion as one of her priorities in advancing Iowa’s energy systems.
Duane Arnold began operations in Iowa in 1975. Orlove said it “operated safely for decades” and provided “reliable energy to Eastern Iowa homes and businesses.” It remains the only nuclear energy site in Iowa.
Safety concerns
Joseph Mangano, the executive director of the Radiation and Public Health Project, a non-profit dedicated to the research of low-level radiation impacts on public health, said proximity to a nuclear power plant can lead to higher rates of cancer, infant mortality and pre-term and low-weight births.
“In a discussion about what to do with Duane Arnold in the future, one thing has been missing, and that is, what is the effect on the health of people living near Duane Arnold,” Mangano said during the press conference.
According to statistics Mangano compiled from the Iowa Cancer Registry, rates of cancer in Linn and Benton counties from 1999-2022 were more than 10% above the state average for infants through 39 years old, while rates prior to 1975 when Duane Arnold began operations, were more than 5% below the state average rates.
Research conducted by Mangano’s organization also found that following the closures of eight nuclear power plants, including Duane Arnold, infant mortality rates declined in the area.
“The key point here is that these are just early statistics … there should be no final decision on the future of Duane Arnold unless these statistics, and additional ones, (are) thoroughly analyzed and thoroughly understood by officials and shared with the public,” Mangano said.
Orlove said nuclear plants have “rigorous monitoring protocols” including radiation monitors, to “ensure the safety of employees and the public.”
“The health and safety of the public is always our top priority,” Orlove said in the statement. “… Highly trained experts run America’s nuclear plants. With the (Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s) oversight and layers of safety precautions, a nuclear plant is one of the safest industrial environments in the United States.”
Don Safer, a small modular reactors specialist and the co-chair of Sierra Club’s Nuclear Free Team, said in the call that additional safety concerns exist in the operation of the plant. Safer said the risk for serious accidents due to aging and disused reactors pose “a huge threat.”
“About the Dwayne Arnold reactor: restarting it, I can’t say how much of a mistake it would be, how ambitious it is, and how unlikely that they really will be able to get it going again,” Safer said in the call.
Safer said in addition to the risks of operation, nuclear power plants also generate nuclear waste that has been difficult to find storage for across the country.
Safer also asserted there is a connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
“If nuclear power does not exist, nuclear weapons have a lot harder time, even in the United States and the other nuclear weapons countries, of keeping itself going, because that’s not a big enough industry to train people,” Safer said.
Duane Arnold is not the only decommissioned plant that might restart. Other projects in the works include Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Pennsylvania, which would reopen to power Microsoft data centers; Palisades Nuclear Generating Station in Michigan and Indian Point Energy Center in New York.
Driving this trend, according to researchers is an increase in government funding toward nuclear energy projects, which while initiated under the Biden administration, was protected in the Republican mega-bill that was enacted in July.
Orlove said restarting the plant is a “serious undertaking.”
“We have a dedicated team working diligently to pull together all the necessary pieces to return Duane Arnold Energy Center to service,” Orlove said. “The plant’s possible restart will bring millions of dollars in revenue to the county, the Cedar Rapids Community School District and other districts to fund critical programs and services for residents. It would also bring hundreds of permanent, high-quality, well-paying jobs to the area.”
Many locals, labor unions and communities welcome the economic benefits anticipated with the plant reopening, the Cedar Rapids Gazette reported.
Wally Taylor, Sierra Club Iowa Chapter’s conservation and legal chair, opposed the restart of the plant, which he lives near, and said Iowans “should not let that happen.”
“Nuclear power is not the answer to our 21st century energy needs,” Taylor said.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
