Nuclear power appears to be making a comeback. After years of decline in the number of operating U.S. reactors, there are signs that new ones may be on the way.
At a forum of the World Nuclear Association in September, 14 major global banks joined government officials in calling for a tripling of nuclear energy capacity by 2050. “Nuclear energy is clean energy,” said John Podesta, President Biden’s senior adviser on climate policy, “and if we are to ensure a livable planet, build secure, sustainable supply chains for clean energy, and bolster prosperity around the world, we need to make sure that nuclear energy does its part.”
The plan, according to a Nov. 12 White House statement, includes “building new nuclear power plants, uprating existing reactors, and restarting reactors that have retired for economic reasons.” There’s talk of reviving the Three Mile Island plant and the Palisades plant in Michigan, acquired in 2022 by Holtec International, the company that owns the shuttered Pilgrim reactor in Plymouth.
Public opinion about nuclear power is shifting, too. The Pew Research Center reported in August that 56 percent of U.S. adults favor expanding it, an increase of 13 percent since 2020. In that same period, said Pew, support for solar and wind power “declined by double digits.” The reasons behind those shifts — both facts and myths — have not been properly investigated and reported.
Advocates of nuclear say that it’s clean and green — and key to reducing fossil-fuel emissions from power plants that are driving climate change. That’s disputed by the advocacy group Public Citizen, which argues that nuclear is dirty, expensive, and dangerous, even though it doesn’t produce carbon waste. The issue of toxic nuclear waste has never been resolved, opponents point out.
There are fewer opponents, though. Many environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and Defenders of Wildlife, have shut down their campaigns to clean up nuclear waste and enact tougher reactor standards because of financial pressures. They say they are focusing their work on climate initiatives — an easier pitch for donations.
Here at the Independent, we have our own enforcer of tough standards: Christine Legere, who has been reporting on the Pilgrim nuclear saga for more than 20 years. Whatever your views may be on the pros and cons of nuclear power, we believe everyone has a stake in closely watching what the people in charge of it are doing and not doing.
In the past year we have published 10 articles by Legere on Pilgrim and its owner, Holtec, including last week’s report on apparent security violations in the spent fuel storage area. Other pieces have detailed the company’s misuse of funds and its efforts to dump radioactive wastewater into Cape Cod Bay and then, a year ago, to get around restrictions on dumping by using heaters to vaporize 200,000 gallons of the contaminated water.
Securing and disposing of toxic waste safely is not about politics. It’s about basic competence, civic responsibility, and truthfulness. Whether we need nuclear power or not, we surely need more reporters like Christine Legere.
