A Swiftian Solution to the Energy Crisis

Some skeptics criticize the plans of the Bush administration to ignore conservation, start drilling for oil in pristine parks and renew nuclear reactor construction with a program so aggressive it would put the Russians and the French to shame. I think these plans don’t go far enough, especially concerning nuclear power.

With the right mix of geography, hubris and uranium, we can be energy self-sufficient and forget about conservation entirely.

Over the next 10 years, let’s build hundreds of 1,000-megawatt nuclear power stations in Wyoming. This would end our dependence on foreign oil once and for all.

Building so many simultaneously would lower capital and labor costs and, in 10 years, make serial production of reactors possible. Wyoming has a high unemployment level, so construction of scores of reactors will provide thousands of jobs. It also has plenty of open space, so it’s a win-win situation.

Some critics worry that nuclear power will remain costly, even if we gut the ability of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to set the highest safety standards in the world. They point out that most reactors have reached the end of the operating lives, have never ran as efficiently or cheaply as promised and will soon be decommissioned. They claim that old reactors, with the spent fuel that has accumulated since the 1960s, have created a multibillion dollar clean-up and waste disposal problem that will have to be left for another administration to solve. And they obsess about the difficulty of providing workable evacuation plans in the event of an accident.

But, hey, we’ve come a long way since Three Mile Island. Anyway, Wyoming is sparsely populated, so there would be only minor health risks in the event of an accident, and mostly to coyotes, wolves and bears.

Just imagine: Given the population densities and geology of Wyoming, we could even site nuclear fuel fabrication and waste storage facilities in the same spot. Let’s create National Nuclear Park, bringing technology and nature together in a way that satisfies conservationists, tourists and businesspeople alike. A triple-win situation!

The North Platte, Green and Bighorn rivers would provide more than enough water to cool the reactors, and for the dry seasons we could build huge holding reservoirs for winter runoff. Granted, effluent cooling water from the stations would raise river water temperatures several degrees, endangering flora and fauna. But if the tundra of Alaska can take the risk, so can the Rattlesnake Hills of Wyoming.

We can call them hot springs! Ichthyologists could study which fish and game to introduce in the warmer waters, making Wyoming a year-round wonderland for sportsmen.

And why worry about how to get electricity from Wyoming to California and New York? It’s a heck of a lot easier to transmit electricity from Casper to the Bronx than to pipe and tank oil from the Arctic Circle to refineries in the lower 48. And no need to worry about how to finance all this; President Bush’s alternative energy research budget was cut to the bone, so a few billion dollars for superconductivity research is up for grabs.

A major objection to nuclear power has been the siting of stations on coastal waters from Seabrook, N.H., to Diablo Canyon, Calif., not far from big cities in states that have largely voted for Democratic candidates. So let’s give the states that tend to vote Republican the opportunity to have nuclear power stations, too.

A nuclear Wyoming could also calm those critics from the Northeast and Midwest states who are upset about the Western states’ federal subsidies for mineral and grazing rights, the construction of logging roads, etc., etc. Given Wyoming’s willingness to produce electricity for the nation--and why wouldn’t it?--these other states could no longer point to the fact that some states take in more in federal moneys than they pay in taxes.

But why stop at a nuclear Wyoming? We could build 50 reactors in west Texas. Since our president and vice president are so committed to a new energy policy, they should have no objections to offering the services of the states where they have made their careers and livelihoods. Talk about a compassionate energy policy!

There’s no need to worry our heads about such nonsense as a carbon tax that discourages profligate use of fuel in gas-guzzling vehicles, or investing in research on renewables and conservation. We can solve everything by making Wyoming our nation’s “nuclear state.”