What’s the Difference between $4 Billion & $26 Million? - A lot—when it comes to nuclear waste storage in Wyoming

by Wyoming Liberty Group

Not to state the obvious, but there's a big difference between $26 million and $4 billion.

Like three billion nine hundred seventy-four million, if the math is correct. That's a lot of kibbles—and zeroes.

But that's the gulf between the promise of annual revenue and the facts as we know them when it comes to a proposal to store nuclear waste in our beautiful state of Wyoming.

Rep. Donald Burkhart Jr. (R-Rawlins), co-chair of the Minerals, Business and Economic Development Committee, recently said that he plans to introduce a bill in October that would permit the building of a private nuclear waste storage site in Wyoming. And he said it could yield over $4 billion a year for the state coffers, "Just to let us keep it here in Wyoming," he said in a committee meeting in Casper.

Revenue of over $4 billion annually would, of course, make a significant difference for Wyoming, which is grappling with changes in the energy sector, including the decline of coal production and sales.

Burkhart also said that spent nuclear fuel would be stored in dry form. That apparently means the nuclear waste would be kept in casks, which is a method of storing highly radioactive waste that has been cooled for years.

That is helpful to know but we need to know more to make an educated decision on something so important to our state and way of life in Wyoming. Burkhart disclosed some kind of draft of the proposal to his committee colleagues but not to the rest of us yet.

But apparently the U.S. Energy Department would provide roughly $26 million for such a project. Now, that's a start but it's a far cry from over $4 billion in revenue for the state. Where is the rest coming from?

Maybe some of that $4 billion would come from reprocessing the stored nuclear waste. It's an idea that Burkhart mentioned and others have discussed elsewhere, but nobody does this in the United States as of now.

And who, by the way, would cover some of the upfront costs of such a nuclear storage facility? That apparently includes about $2 million to buy the land for it and an additional $400 million to build the facility. Burkhart indicated that would come from private sources. But it's not chump change.

For what it's worth, this isn't the first time big dollar figures have danced before our eyes when it comes to proposals to bring radioactive waste to Wyoming for storage. This goes back to the early 1990s but it keeps going nowhere because of the obvious reasons: Who wants to store radioactive nuclear waste, given the hazards?

As recently as 2019, the Legislative Management Council asked a subcommittee to study the issue when it was thought that nuclear waste could bring in about $1 billion a year. But what the subcommittee learned was that the federal government would only put in $10 million annually, which just didn't cut it.

Now, we're all aware that all things nuclear are a major Wyoming issue these days. Tech billionaire Bill Gates is spearheading a project to build a $4 billion nuclear power plant in the Kemmerer area. By the way, the Gates project also touts the economic benefits of its nuclear project—desperately needed jobs, for one.

There's also been a lot of chatter about bringing small nuclear plants—microreactors—to Wyoming.

And this is coming at a time when other powerful interests—including the federal government—are pushing alternative sources of energy. Renewable energy, such as wind and solar, to power communities raises a host of other questions.

But as a starting point, we need to better understand Burkhart's proposal to bring nuclear waste storage to Wyoming. There are significant questions about safety; for one thing, nuclear waste contains poisonous chemicals, which can be toxic for thousands of years.