Regarding Nuclear Moratoria Repeals:

“FIRST GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT; THEN YOU CAN DISTORT THEM AS MUCH AS YOU WANT,” – Mark Twain

By David Kraft, Director

Nuclear Energy Information Service, Chicago

As a critical component of advancing the nuclear power juggernaut on an ill-informed public, for several years now pro-nuclear cheerleaders have been working feverishly to get state legislatures to repeal state-mandated moratoria on new nuclear plant construction.

The Biden and now Trump Administrations both have lavished tens-of-billions of dollars on promoting the nuclear fetish. Both also turned the Dept. of Energy into a pro bono advertising arm for the nuclear industry, which conducted numerous promo tours, photo ops and produced slick literature and advertisements asserting the “need” for more nuclear power.  

But this promotional effort was not confined to mere government operations.  The mainstream media was heavily incorporated into the effort to once again (our third “Nuclear Renaissance” this century) try to sell nuclear power to the public, by any rationalization necessary (whether truthful or not): a  predicted – if as yet unsubstantiated —  energy shortage from data centers; a “nuclear power gap” with China and other international sellers; minimization of energy efficiency, renewables and storage; promises of reactors that will “eat” radioactive wastes, be meltdown-proof, are fully portable and mass-produced, be “cheap” to build, and provide “cheap” electricity – just to name a few of the promo points.

While all these glittering baubles were dazzling the public and their legislators, virtually no serious mention let alone detailed discussion of the numerous and universally unstated liabilities of nuclear power ever appear – proving that lies of omission can often be worse than lies of commission.

A prime example of this media propaganda campaign was a recent Washington Post editorial (Jan. 15, 2026)., praising Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and the state legislature for finally “seeing the nuclear light” by repealing Illinois’ 39-year old nuclear construction moratorium. As an Illinois nuclear power watchdog organization for 45 years, we wrote a rebuttal op-ed to correct the numerous “facts” of commission and omission in the WaPo’s op-ed on “the ‘facts’ about nuclear energy” here in Illinois – which of course they did not publish.

First, nuclear plant construction moratoria are not “bans.” The enormously significant difference is that construction is conditionally prohibited until the dangerous high-level radioactive waste (HLRW) produced by nuclear plants are given an environmentally responsible final and permanent place for disposal. The federal government was supposed to have provided a facility by 1997.  It failed to do so then, and continues to fail to this day.  Making more waste absent responsible permanent disposal methods is societally unacceptable and environmentally dangerous – a fact government and media nuclear cheerleaders routinely ignore.  We still have no permanent disposal methodology or facility for the ~100,000 tons of HLRW already produced, which grows annually in the U.S. by nearly 2,000 tons.  Building new reactors adding even more waste absent an operational disposal facility is – criminal.

Concerns about radioactive waste disposal are not trivial.  A study conducted by a team of experts which included former Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairwoman Alison Macfarlane determined that, depending on the design, the currently mythical “small modular reactors” (SMRs) would produce 2 to 30 times as much radioactive waste per unit of energy delivered compared to today’s “old fashioned” reactors.

Second, Illinois Governor Pritzker’s stated concerns about a lack of safety are now borne out as totally justified by President Trump’s recent Executive Orders which cut staff at the NRC while simultaneously calling for a quadrupling of nuclear capacity; shift new reactor licensing emphasis to speed over safety; allow for higher levels of “allowable” radiation exposure for the public; and allow DOGE personnel to overrule some NRC licensing decisions.  Recently, the President has suggested that private entities using nuclear power for data centers could get operating licenses within three weeks – as opposed to the years of thorough engineering review it now takes.  What could possibly go wrong?

Pritzker’s concerns about new large reactor costs are borne out by the most recent Lazard’s analysis (June 2025) of levelized costs, indicating new reactors as more expensive than new solar, on- and off-shore wind, and energy storage.  Projected costs for mythical SMRs vary wildly, but seem to be following this same trend.

Polling reports of increased public support should not come as a surprise.  Like all public opinion, it is driven by money spent and media saturation achieved.  Both the Biden Administration and now the Trump junta over the past five years have used the DOE’s bully-pulpit to lavish tens of millions of dollars into promotional nuclear power propaganda directed at the public, and bestowed huge grants to pro-nuclear projects.  Coupled with current panic-peddling over data center electrical demand and rising costs for electricity, and the Trump Administration’s ill-informed and pathologic policies towards viable renewable energy alternatives, they have driven a poorly informed, if not indoctrinated public to the dubious conclusion that new nuclear is a “necessity.”

Finally, not surprisingly the WaPo op-ed joins government and industry nuclear cheerleaders, in being totally silent about the inconvenient nuclear power side effects like nuclear security, environmental justice, just transitions for reactor communities, proliferation impacts, and the fact that wind and solar combined (and more, including storage) produce more electricity both in the U.S. and worldwide than all operating nuclear power reactors – cheaper, and without radioactive waste and nuclear safety/security concerns.

Ironically, it was a FoxNews analyst who once quipped that while facts may change opinions, opinions will NEVER change the facts.  Deliberately cherry picking and omitting inconvenient facts is not journalism, or responsible editorializing – it’s propaganda. It should be treated as such by the public, and with the healthy skepticism it deserves.

Hochul and Trump’s Wild Nuclear Gamble

By The Nuclear Skeptic

New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s desire to build 5GW of new nuclear power in order to keep New York’s electric bills affordable and meet future energy demand has one pesky problem: the numbers simply don’t add up. That’s the overarching conclusion of a new report authored by the University of Pennsylvania’s Dr. Joseph Romm, which was presented in New York last week. 

Echoing the Trump administration’s desire to revive the nuclear energy industry from its global downturn over the past few decades, Governor Hochul and President Trump appear to be in lock-step in their shared desire to build new nuclear reactors, despite the economic reality that cheaper and faster power alternatives exist and are already being utilized across the globe to meet growing electricity needs. There are a myriad of possible reasons why both politicians believe new nuclear generation is a viable option moving forward, but it’s clear neither are paying attention to what just happened in Georgia  – when two incumbent Republican Public Service Commission (PSC) members were removed from office by voters  following massive increases in consumer electric bills. To be fair, neither Hochul nor Trump will be around to face the music if their plans are realized and New York starts the decades-long process to build 5GW worth of the world’s most expensive source of energy.  

Keeping the lights on and affordable should be a top priority for any politician in the current economic landscape but there is a clear disconnect between major decisions about our future energy grid being made today and the future ramifications of those decisions both economically and electorally. New sources of affordable and clean electricity are needed to power data centers, vehicle electrification and other sources of new demand, but it’s unclear how much electricity is truly needed and how fast. According to AI proponents, New York and the U.S. at large are going to need massive amounts of new electric power and fast. For example, New York’s Master Energy Plan anticipates nearly 40GW of new power needed by 2040, therefore doubling New York’s current energy supply in the next 15 years.

Setting aside the (very real) possibility of the AI data center bubble bursting far before 2040, Hochul and Trump are calling for more nuclear generation to meet energy demand predictions and both have cited nuclear’s “affordability” as reason why. Well, as Romm’s recent report concludes, this is pure fantasy. 

Romm notes that Georgia’s two new reactors at Plant Vogtle, which went online in 2024 after nearly two decades of construction and delays, resulted in a 25% percent increase in consumer electric bills. The ~2GW from the twin Vogtle reactors cost more than $36 billion, 2.5+ times more than original estimates! But that sudden spike in electric bills is just the tip of the iceberg. The recent spike doesn’t account for the billions of taxpayer dollars currently subsidizing the plant, the billions in loans from the Department of Energy used to build it, nor does it account for the high cost of servicing debt and ongoing operations into the future which will inevitably require further subsidization – similar to New York’s $33 billion in state subsidies going towards the existing reactors at Ginna, Nine Mile Point, and FitzPatrick accounting for 5.4GW in capacity. Simply put, Georgia’s two new reactors are the most expensive electricity on the planet and for a myriad of reasons not related to “affordability,” both Trump and Hochul want to recreate that terrible recipe.

But the most disturbing finding in Romm’s report is what was buried in the middle of the NY Master Energy Plan. The plan inexplicably does not include cost or cost overrun figures, instead references a separate analysis used to inform the state’s approach. Hochul’s team, in Trump-like fashion, has decided to ignore its own experts, relying on financial figures included in a separate report by a NYSERDA ‘contractor’ that begins with the unprecedented disclaimer: 

“NYSERDA, the State of New York, and the contractor make no warranties or representations, expressed or implied, as to … the usefulness, completeness, or accuracy of any processes, methods, or other information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report. NYSERDA, the State of New York, and the contractor … will assume no liability for any loss, injury, or damage resulting from, or occurring in connection with, the use of information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report.”

To sum it up, the plan to build 5GW of new nuclear generation in New York is based on an economic analysis that might as well be a science fiction novel. The basic assumption of the “contractors’” economic analysis is that the cost to build reactors in New York, notorious for its cheap construction costs, will be cheaper than at Plant Vogtle in Georgia. Did anyone on Hochul’s team ask Plant Vogtle’s construction monitor if this was achievable? Apparently not. 

Anyone who claims new nuclear power plants in New York will lower your electric bill is lying. We should ask why? Why is Hochul drinking the nuclear kool-aid? I don’t believe New York will actually build and operate a new nuclear reactor any time soon, but like the cancelled-after-spending-$9-billion-dollars twin reactors at South Carolina’s VC Summer, or the abandoned-after-spending-$6-billion dollars reactor at Shoreham which Long Islanders are still paying for, there’s a lot of money still on the table. Our money. 

Dr. Joe Romm, January 2026. New York’s Nuclear Anti-Affordability Fiasco: Why the State’s Deeply Flawed Energy Plan Would Explode Electricity Rates. Research Report, Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media.