https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/york-big-bet-nuclear-energy-073000578.html
 

Canary Media

New York’s big new bet on nuclear energy

Alexander Kaufman
Thu, September 3, 2026 at 3:30 AM EDT

When Gov. Kathy Hochul took office in 2021, New York was in the middle of a complicated energy transition. Albany had passed one of the nation's most ambitious decarbonization laws only two years earlier, yet the state had just shuttered its single largest source of carbon-free power: the Indian Point nuclear station.

Five years later, the situation has flipped. Hochul, a Democrat who is up for reelection in November, watered down the state's decarbonization goals this spring and is now calling for the biggest buildout of new nuclear reactors in decades.

"Expanding our nuclear energy capacity will play a key role in my all-of-the-above energy strategy to ensure we have enough reliable power to keep the lights on and costs down for New Yorkers while helping attract 21st century economic development opportunities," Hochul said in a statement to Canary Media.

If successful, the 5 gigawatts of new nuclear power plants that Hochul aims to build would make New York the No. 3 state in the country in terms of atomic generating capacity.

It's an ambitious target. The entire U.S. has built just over 3 GW of new nuclear capacity over the last 20 years, and most of it came from the first-of-a-kind AP1000 buildout at Southern Company's Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating plant in Georgia, which was plagued by cost and deadline overruns.

Hochul's nuclear embrace comes as federal support flows toward efforts to build both smaller next-generation reactors and larger-scale facilities similar to the three New York already has.

"This is part of the return of energy realism to the Western world," said Isuru Seneviratne, the co-founder of Nuclear New York, an advocacy group that has pushed for more atomic energy in the state.

Not everyone is happy with the move. Influential local groups such as NY Renews say the state has not done enough to maximize wind and solar power, and some state lawmakers have called for a moratorium on nuclear.

Hochul, for her part, has cast nuclear energy as necessary for long-term decarbonization. The state has struggled to execute on its plan to build large-scale renewables upstate and ferry the power downstate, and President Donald Trump has all but crushed the offshore wind industry that New York was otherwise banking on for clean power.

"While dangerous policies coming out of Washington, D.C., threaten to halt our progress, I am doubling down on our efforts to strengthen our grid and invest in the clean energy we need to power New York," Hochul said in the statement to Canary Media.

Changing tides

The Empire State's turnaround marks a major shift in state energy policy.

Indian Point station, north of New York City — at one point the state's largest nuclear plant — shut down its last reactor in April 2021, following a decades-long campaign by those who believed the facility represented a grave risk from a September 11–style terrorist attack; among them were then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who also argued that the warm water the facility discharged harmed wildlife in the Hudson River.

Hochul took office later that same year, but it wasn't until 2024 that she began calling for the state to revisit nuclear energy.

In January 2025, Hochul issued a nuclear "master plan" for the state. Five months later, she ordered the New York Power Authority (NYPA) — the largest state-owned utility in the country — to help bring down the cost of building the first gigawatt of new nuclear capacity.

That December, New York inked a partnership with Ontario, where the conservative government is building what will likely be North America's first small modular reactor: a 300-megawatt BWRX-300 from the American Japanese giant GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy. The pact was aimed at working together to settle on one or two reactor designs that the entire Northeast could get behind, allowing for a regional supply chain to form that would bring down the costs of building the second, third, and fourth versions of the same technology.

In January 2026, Hochul upped the target, adding another 4 GW of capacity to the state's nuclear goal while announcing that eight upstate New York communities had responded to NYPA's request for information to express their interest in hosting nuclear facilities.

Two months later, she spearheaded a deal with the governors of all six New England states to coordinate plans for new nuclear projects with the hopes of further cementing a regional standard for nuclear. In June, her office kicked off the Public Service Commission process to begin siting the plants.

While Hochul has moved fast in recent months, the process of actually getting a new nuclear power plant built will be much slower.

"These are generational investments that we're talking about," said Doreen Harris, the chief executive of the New York State Research and Development Authority, the government agency in charge of charting the state's energy future. "These are not investments that necessarily mean you have a project in the ground in a small number of months. This is an infrastructure investment that the governor has committed us to that will be beneficial for many generations to come."

Political blowback could build once projects get underway.

Already, state Sen. Kevin Parker, a Democrat from Brooklyn, has introduced legislation to temporarily ban construction of any nuclear power projects. The bill, proposed in April, calls for a two-and-a-half-year pause and mimics the tactic data center opponents used in pushing the state to adopt the nation's first moratorium on the computing facilities.

Plans by the U.S. Army to deploy a microreactor at Fort Drum, located in the state's northern reaches, also drew pushback following the announcement last week.

"This is going to be the first one of these reactors that's ever been deployed anywhere. You'll discover how expensive it is and you'll discover how potentially dangerous it is," Alan Kuperman a professor at the University of Texas at Austin and coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project, told WWNY, a CBS affiliate located upstate.

Figuring out financing

Still the biggest hurdle to building a new nuclear power plant is financing it. In New York, electricity markets make the task that much harder.

In 1999, Albany established the New York Independent System Operator as the new overseer of the liberalized electricity market, officially breaking up the monopoly utilities

New York isn't alone in this. In the post–Cold War scramble to apply market logic to as many facets of American society as possible, most states broke up their utilities. Rather than one company owning the power plants, the distribution system, and the sales to customers, new electricity markets forced vertically integrated utilities to split apart, pitting electrical generators against one another at an auction overseen by new nonprofit grid operators. The idea was to drive down prices.

The new system had benefits. No longer could an obstinately coal-burning utility, for example, block the construction of increasingly cheap renewables. Independent developers could just build clean energy on their own and compete.

But financing large-scale power plants that take years to build has proved virtually impossible. The hydroelectric buildout of the 1920s and 1930s — and the nuclear boom of the 1960s and 1970s — relied on utilities offsetting the losses from megaprojects with soaring electricity sales in another division of the business. The private developers who now build power plants in markets like New York have no such ability, and are thus generally not willing to bear the risk of a capital-intensive project like a nuclear power plant.

New York's most recent nuclear reactor, Unit 2 of Nine Mile Point plant, in Oswego, came online in 1988. No new nuclear projects have even been attempted in the state since then.

All that is what makes NYPA's role so compelling. The state created the power authority in 1931, when then-Gov. Franklin D. Roosevelt sought a way to harness more hydroelectric power. NYPA later served as a national model once Roosevelt became president and enacted the New Deal, establishing federal utilities such as the Tennessee Valley Authority in the rural Southeast. Now, it can serve as a tool to help Albany exceed the typical limits of a liberalized market.

The state-owned power company can provide steady financing and support to help lower the hurdles private developers face in building electricity megaprojects.

NYPA's current nuclear mandate is limited to the first gigawatt Hochul wants to build. Asked whether NYPA could be used for more projects going forward, Sean Ewart, the deputy secretary of energy Hochul tasked with overseeing the new reactor buildout, said Albany was open to the idea.

"My honest answer to that question is that it's TBD," he said. "Our mission is to build this in the fastest way possible … so we're not thinking about this from any kind of ideological perspective. We're just thinking about this practically. Let's get this done.”

NOW JUST A WEEK AWAY!
 
Please share widely and invite all who might be interested:
 
Wednesday September 9, 2026, 7-8:30 PM ET
 
&
&
 
 
 
THREE MILE ISLAND:
LEGACY & RESISTANCE TO REOPENING 
 
AN ONLINE PUBLIC FORUM
 
Wednesday September 9, 2026, 7-8:30 PM Eastern time
 
Three Mile Island was the site of the most serious nuclear accident in U.S. history. Unit 2 suffered a partial meltdown in 1979 and has been shuttered ever since. People in central Pennsylvania still face lingering health effects from the reactor meltdown, and are now organizing to stop the re-0pening of Unit 1.
 
The announced restart of Three Mile Island Unit-1 is aimed to serve just one client: Microsoft, and has been met with unabashed enthusiasm by Governor Shapiro and the PA legislature. This deal was cooked up in the dark in board rooms and political parlors with the backing of Microsoft founder, Bill Gates.
 
SPEAKERS
 
Eric Epstein is the spokesperson and Chairman of Three Mile Island Alert, founded in 1977. He first joined the Lancaster-based Susquehanna Valley Alliance (SVA) in 1982, working to prevent the illegal dumping of 700,000 gallons of radioactive water into the Susquehanna River. Eric has litigated at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other regulatory bodies, written numerous professional papers, and provided testimony regarding utility rates, electric power competition and radioactive waste isolation.
 
Patricia Longenecker is a retired teacher and healthcare professional who has lived on a family homestead near TMI since 1974.  She has been an active member of Three Mile Island Alert for over four decades. She will discuss the powerful contributions of women and mothers who have tirelessly exposed the risks to children and other vulnerable groups following the massive TMI radiation release.
 
Aaron Datesman is a researcher and inventor based in Washington, DC, who led a recent biomedical study of residents exposed to radiation from the TMI meltdown who are still at risk. He has held technical positions at Argonne National Laboratory, the US Department of Energy, NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and the University of Virginia. His recent book, with Doug Brugge, Dirty Secrets of Nuclear Power in an Era of Climate Change challenges the claim that low-level ionizing radiation released by nuclear power reactors is not dangerous, and demonstrates that there is no such thing as low-risk exposure. 
 
Moderator: Joseph M Hunt is an activist with the Clamshell Alliance  and Massachusetts Peace Action, a development economist with 30 years’ experience in Asia and Africa working on public health and food security programs, and a retired instructor in Harvard's graduate sustainability degree program.
 
 
ACCESSIBILITY: Live captioning will be available.
If you have accessibility questions, reply to your registration email to confirm your requirements or request more information.
 
QUESTIONS?
 
For social media sharing: 
 
To share on Facebook, paste this link into a page:
Or go to: 
https://www.facebook.com/ClamshellAlliance/ and copy the top/featured post.
 
A copy of the social media blurb is attached and the flyer, but please make sure the register link is included.

https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/batteries/us-built-more-grid-batteries

The US built more grid batteries last quarter than ever before

The outlook for storage construction keeps getting brighter as everyone from the Trump White House to clean energy advocates to AI giants clamors for more.

By Julian Spector

 

Two green-vested workers stand near batteries near a dirt road
Workers at the Pastoria battery energy storage facility in Arvin, California (Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

There’s never been a better time to build energy storage in the U.S. than right now.

Grid batteries — which sop up power when it’s abundant and discharge that energy when it’s needed — have been ascendant for a decade, as the price of the underlying lithium-ion cells fell precipitously. Bolstered by plummeting costs and increasing familiarity with the tech, developers started building bigger and in more parts of the country.

Now, the U.S. power sector has added more battery capacity in the second quarter of this year than any quarter ever, according to a report out today from the Solar Energy Industries Association and Benchmark Mineral Intelligence. Even as the wind and solar industries face uncertain futures, the outlook for continued battery growth is so strong that Benchmark Minerals upped the prediction for cumulative installs through 2030 by 11.5% from its previous report, issued just three months ago.

The 20.2 gigawatt-hours of battery capacity built from April through June represents one-tenth of the nation’s entire grid storage capacity. Seven of the new projects mustered at least 1 GWh or more of storage capacity, reflecting developers’ rising appetite for megabatteries.

To contextualize the numbers, the second-quarter installations can inject 6.7 gigawatts of instantaneous power onto the grid — equivalent to nearly seven big old-school nuclear reactors, but without the decade-plus wait time for construction. That comparison has its limits, though, because nuclear plants can generate around the clock, whereas batteries must refill and discharge.

Batteries can make a huge difference in places where the grid is stretched thin, and can be built quickly and closer to centers of energy consumption than new fossil-fuel-burning plants with their smokestacks and emissions.


Those qualities make the tech attractive in places where capacity is scarce, which happens to include California, Texas, the Southeast, the mid-Atlantic, the Northeast, and just about anywhere else. AI data center developers are turning to batteries to ensure they can keep the algorithms running during peak demand hours. And solar developers leverage batteries to turn their clean electrons into a more valuable on-demand resource; 44% of the new storage capacity was built alongside solar plants.

This widespread zeal for batteries extends to the Trump White House, which revoked wind and solar subsidies last year but kept Biden-era tax incentives for batteries. As the executive branch found novel and often legally dubious means to thwart wind and solar construction, it has left battery developers to go about their business.

Recently, the administration has more proactively encouraged the battery industry, loaning $490 million dollars to a battery project in Puerto Rico as well as funding efforts to reshore the supply chain for critical minerals used to make the tech. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who regularly blasts solar power on his official platforms, recently stopped by the Maine site of a novel iron-air battery that Form Energy plans to build, with help from Department of Energy grant funding.

An observer unencumbered by historical nuance might conclude that Trump is the battery president, and that no president has done more for batteries than he. SEIA even gestures in that direction, noting in its press release that large-scale storage nearly doubled during the first year and a half of the second Trump term, and that 74% of the second-quarter storage additions happened in states that voted for him — like Texas, Utah, and newly minted battery storage powerhouse Arizona.

The reality is these outcomes took years to build up to. Technologists tinkered with batteries in big boxes; California mandated its utilities buy storage and subsidized it for smaller customers; Texas wildcatters took big risks on early battery investments and made windfall profits; and companies like LG and Tesla built huge factories to solidify domestic battery supplies. Now, all that hard work is paying off with installations on a scale we’ve never seen before.

Oklo has another permitting application denied for lack of information – this one by PJM.
 
Oklo is appealing to FERC. The matter includes a clearer picture of what Oklo is planning under its power deal for a Meta data center in Ohio:
 
  • 150 MW of nuclear (evidently, comprised of two of its now-75 MW reactors)
  • 300 MW of fuel cells
  • 300 MW of gas generation
 
This is a far cry from the 1.2 GW of nuclear generation Oklo said the deal involved early this year. And it begs the question of how the fuel cells are going to be powered (perhaps with H2 produced from methane, or operated as a storage system using electricity generated by the other sources?). 

Westinghouse Renews IPO Bid Amid AI Power Crunch, With U.S. Government Targeting $30 Billion Valuation

Westinghouse Renews IPO Bid Amid AI Power Crunch, With U.S. Government Targeting $30 Billion Valuation

U.S. nuclear power plant company Westinghouse is pursuing an initial public offering (IPO) in a bid for a comeback, nine years after suffering its worst crisis — a 2017 bankruptcy. The surge in electricity demand driven by the proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) data centers, along with the Donald Trump administration's nuclear expansion policies, are cited as the key drivers behind the IPO push.

The Wall Street Journal reported on August 31 (local time) that Westinghouse filed confidentially for an IPO in July. The listing timeline and offering size have not yet been finalized.

Market estimates project Westinghouse's enterprise value at between $15 billion (approximately 20.6 trillion won) and $20 billion (approximately 27.4 trillion won). David Nicholas, CEO of X Funds, which manages a nuclear energy exchange-traded fund (ETF), said, "If investors assign value to the AP1000, a valuation exceeding $20 billion is not out of the question."

From Bankruptcy to Revival

Founded in 1886, Westinghouse began as an electrical equipment company and went on to lead the nuclear power industry, building the world's first commercial nuclear power plant after World War II. However, competition intensified as latecomers such as South Korea and Japan gained market share, and the company ultimately filed for bankruptcy in 2017 amid construction delays and cost overruns at the Vogtle nuclear plant project in Georgia.

The two Vogtle reactors were originally expected to cost $14 billion (approximately 19.2 trillion won) to build, but with construction delayed by roughly seven years, the final cost exceeded $30 billion (approximately 41.2 trillion won). Its then-parent company, Japan's Toshiba, could not absorb the losses.

In 2023, Canadian private equity firm Brookfield and uranium miner Cameco acquired Westinghouse for $8 billion (approximately 11 trillion won). At the time of the acquisition, the nuclear construction business — the direct cause of the bankruptcy — was assigned no value, with only the nuclear fuel manufacturing and nuclear services segments, which generate stable cash flow, included in the valuation.

Full-Throated Support from the Trump Administration

The Trump administration is aiming to push Westinghouse's valuation above $30 billion. In October of last year, the administration entered into a partnership with Westinghouse shareholders and agreed to pursue $80 billion (approximately 109.8 trillion won) in domestic nuclear construction. In exchange for providing regulatory streamlining and financial support including low-interest loans, the U.S. government would secure a 20% equity stake if the company's post-listing valuation exceeds $30 billion.

President Trump has set a goal of expanding U.S. nuclear generating capacity from the current roughly 100 gigawatts (GW) to 400 GW by 2050, with an interim target of breaking ground on 10 new reactors by 2030. Westinghouse's AP1000 reactor technology is considered central to this plan.

Dan Sumner, CEO of Westinghouse, emphasized, "There is virtually no realistic path to achieving AI infrastructure expansion and energy security without nuclear power."

Power demand from AI data centers is already emerging as a tangible constraint. Last month, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed an executive order halting new data center construction for one year. Applications totaling 12 GW of data center capacity are pending on New York's power grid — equivalent to Portugal's peak electricity demand.

Overseas Order Prospects

The U.S. government is also working to secure business opportunities for Westinghouse abroad. The United States agreed in July to a nuclear cooperation agreement (a "123 Agreement") with Saudi Arabia, under which Westinghouse is expected to become the exclusive supplier of AP1000 reactors to the kingdom. The contract value is expected to reach several billion dollars, with some analysts projecting the economic impact of the 30-year agreement at tens of billions of dollars.

However, having suffered bankruptcy during full-scale nuclear construction, Westinghouse has maintained a management principle of not bearing direct construction risk. Accordingly, the U.S. government and Westinghouse are reportedly proposing partnerships with South Korean companies that have extensive nuclear construction experience to serve as construction partners.

As part of trade agreements tied to tariffs, the United States secured commitments last year for large-scale investments from South Korea and Japan. The U.S. government is also reportedly developing plans to channel a portion of those investment funds into its domestic nuclear revival.

NRC Masthead

Updated Inspection Plan for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Report 05000387/2026005 and 05000388/2026005)

ADAMS Accession No. ML26240A056

ADAMS Public Search - Home

Bookmark and Share

NRC Masthead

Updated inspection Plan for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 (Report 05000277/2026005 and 05000278/2026005)

ADAMS Accession No. ML26243A074

ADAMS Public Search

How much of a threat do heat waves pose to nuclear plants?

Hot water and low river levels have hampered nuclear power in Europe this summer, forcing a reckoning over plant preparedness.

  
By Alexander C. Kaufman
27 August 2026


Two workers and construction equipment, low river, and nuclear plant in distance
Construction crews prepare to increase water levels on the River Danube near Hungary’s Paks nuclear power station on Aug. 14, 2026. (Attila Kisbendek/AFP via Getty Images)


Europe’s increasingly hot summers come with a worrying trend. The air conditioning that the continent long eschewed as an American indulgence is becoming a necessity, and some of the nuclear reactors needed to run those cooling units are tapping out right as thermometers spike. This summer was especially bad: The series of extreme heat waves that roasted Europe, killing thousands and fueling historic wildfires, also severely impacted the rivers that provide water to cool thermal power plants such as nuclear stations.

In France and Switzerland, nuclear plants went offline as river temperatures rose, to prevent the discharge of warm water into sensitive aquatic ecosystems. In Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria, nuclear plants built along the Danube River either shut down or reduced output as drought dropped the water levels below intake pumps.

Critics of nuclear power have seized on the moment to challenge whether nuclear energy is as reliable and efficient as its supporters claim.

“Strange that anyone would support new nuclear, which depends on cooling, in the face of an ongoing superlinear global temperature rise,” Mark Z. Jacobson, a Stanford University professor who has long advocated for replacing atomic energy with renewables such as wind, solar, and hydropower, wrote in a post on X after France took 6.3 gigawatts of nuclear plants offline amid the heat wave.

At the heart of the issue is the large supply of water that nuclear plants need to cool their reactors. The problem is most acute in Europe, where many plants rely on rivers — unlike in Asia, where most stations are built near the ocean, or in North America, where reactors more often have cooling towers that help avoid problems with overheated water supplies. Experts say that Europe’s situation has more to do with how its individual plants are engineered and that the flaws are fixable.

“There are multiple solutions to this,” said Madison Hilly, managing director of the nuclear consultancy Radiant Energy Group. But ​“if you don’t like nuclear, this is the annual occurrence that basically allows you to try … and say, ​‘No, actually nuclear is not reliable and it can’t be built for a changing climate.’”

The climate challenge for Europe’s nuclear plants is twofold. First, above-average river temperatures trigger environmental regulations barring the release of water that’s too warm. Second, drought conditions mean that the water levels are too low for the plants’ intake pumps to work. Along the Danube, the intake pumps that pull cooling water into the plant weren’t constructed to handle the low water levels reached this summer. When these plants were designed and built between the 1970s and 1990s, ​“there was no awareness of the dramatic changes in river flow rates and temperatures that we are witnessing now,” said Jacopo Buongiorno, the director of science and technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Nuclear Reactor Laboratory.

Still, he said, ​“moving the intake is technically feasible, albeit expensive.”

“One has to put things in perspective. Even a severe heat wave like the one experienced by Europe this summer reduces the average capacity factor of these plants by only a few percent on an annual basis,” Buongiorno said. ​“And while all the attention goes to a handful of struggling facilities located on problematic rivers, the vast majority of nuclear power plants go through the summer heat without any issue. Nuclear plants remain the most reliable power generators on the planet.”

Making nuclear plants more resilient

The most obvious solution to water levels dropping below the intake pump is, as Buongiorno described, to lower the equipment. It’s difficult to say exactly how much that would cost, since the renovation of the relevant components would amount to a bespoke engineering project.


But virtually every structure at a nuclear plant is expensive, and renovating part of an existing plant typically costs more than building that section from the ground up. Case in point: Most nuclear plants in the U.S. and Asia were built with cooling towers, the hyperboloid structures that are often the most visible component of a nuclear plant and which prevent the discharge of too-hot water. The towers also allow a plant to recirculate and reuse water in a closed-loop cycle. In 2009, a study that Tetra Tech prepared for California’s Ocean Protection Council found that adding a cooling tower to a built plant would cost about $87 million. Accounting for inflation, that would be roughly $135 million today. Such renovations also take years.

The recent disruptions ​“call for an upgrade in Europe’s nuclear preparedness for extreme climate events that sadly are now a new norm,” said Adam Błażowski, the Poland-based chair of the pro-nuclear climate group WePlanet.

As a short-term solution to the water-level problem, the Hungarian government sank two barges near the Paks nuclear power station, Hungary’s only such plant, to artificially hike the river levels enough to keep water flowing into the plant’s two units.

While ​“numerous ideas and technical solutions for securing the cooling water needed for operation have appeared in the press and on social media,” cautioned the HUN-REN Centre for Energy Research, a government laboratory for studying nuclear and renewable energy, ​“reaching a final, well-founded decision requires the professional evaluation of nuclear safety and electricity generation alongside a number of other considerations — navigation, water and agricultural management, flood protection, and so on.”

“However tempting these proposals may seem from the standpoint of security of supply, economic efficiency — and, should the water level later rise on a sustained basis, the restart of the other units — they conflict with the fundamental principles of nuclear safety and are therefore unacceptable under any circumstances,” the organization said in the statement.

Still, the HUN-REN Centre noted, the problems with specific nuclear plants in France, Romania, and Hungary shouldn’t detract from the critical role nuclear has played in keeping the lights on across the region.

“In these very days, avoiding a collapse of the electricity system owes much to the nuclear power plants operating in the Czech Republic and Slovakia — which are almost entirely identical to Paks NPP but use cooling towers instead of fresh water cooling,” the HUN-REN Centre said. ​“This also demonstrates that nuclear power plants with different cooling solutions respond differently to extreme hydrological conditions.”

A prime example in Arizona

For proof that nuclear plants can be designed to operate in extreme heat and drought, simply look to Arizona.

The three-reactor Palo Verde nuclear plant provides more than one-quarter of Arizona’s electricity. Perennially drought afflicted, the Copper State — now facing fresh cuts to its allotment from the Colorado River under the Trump administration’s plan to ration the region’s dwindling freshwater source — built the plant to run on recycled wastewater from Phoenix, 50 miles away. It could serve as a model for future plants.

“Palo Verde uses recycled water from the city of Phoenix, so it’s pretty much self-sustaining. It’s also an example of brilliant engineering,” Buongiorno said. ​“They managed to build and successfully operate a three-reactor nuclear power plant in the middle of the desert, without becoming a burden on the city water supplies.”

Environmental groups file FTC complaint against Utah’s pro-nuclear energy campaign • Utah News Dispatch 

 
“It’s disturbing and wrong that taxpayers are footing the bill for state-sponsored propaganda promoting this ill-considered nuclear power frenzy,” said Steve Erickson, a volunteer for Downwinders. “Utahns need to hear hard truths about nuclear power, the dangers, tradeoffs, not nuclear industry promotional pablum that distorts or diminishes the reality that nuclear power is not clean and certainly not safe as these ads claim.”

Pages