Nuclear Tension

This Week's Trend In Brief:

• When the Biden Administration announced it was planning to restart a nuclear power plant in Michigan last week, environmental justice and climate activists went nuclear on the plan. 
   

• While the Administration touted the project’s economic and environmental justice benefits, activists argued the facility would put residents at risk of environmental damage from nuclear waste and do little to meet energy needs, despite nuclear’s zero carbon footprint and reliable power generation. 
   

• At the same time, the project received support and praise from both Republicans and Democrats who view nuclear energy as a key decarbonization strategy and a “practical and clean, long-term energy solution” that creates new jobs. 
   

• The tension between environmental activists and The White House underscores the tightrope Biden is walking as the election draws closer, weighing his need to energize environmental activists with voters’ expectations for affordable, reliable power. 
   

• A growing share of Americans are in favor of expanding nuclear power alongside other clean energy options, but the tension between those seeking practical climate solutions and those dedicated to unabashed climate absolutism is a reminder how hard expanding the mix of low and no carbon energy will be. 

Digging Deeper:

 
Last week, the Biden Administration announced a $1.5 billion commitment to restart a nuclear power plant in Michigan as a part of Biden’s “Investing in America” agenda. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer celebrated the decision for “protecting 600 good-paying, high-skill jobs” and providing “clean, reliable power for 800,000 homes.” Florida GOP Rep. Byron Donalds, usually a critic of the Biden Administration, praised the plan as a “practical and clean, long-term energy solution.” Yet, while the Biden Administration held up the project as an example of clean energy that will “avoid 4.47 million tons of CO2 emissions per year for a total of 111 million tons of CO2 emissions” during its operation, environmental activists blasted the plan “as too risky for the Michigan community where it sits.” 
 
While the Administration touted the project’s economic and environmental justice benefits, activists argued the facility would put residents at risk of environmental damage from nuclear waste and do little to meet energy needs. After the Administration announced the funding to restart the Palisades facility, Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) director of nuclear power safety Edwin Lyman declared, “You don’t bring environmental justice by threatening the public in the vicinity with a potentially unsafe aging nuclear plant starting up.” For many years, groups such as UCS, Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club have remained “unequivocally opposed” to the nuclear option, citing “high profile disasters” and questions regarding nuclear waste storage. Even though the project is part of Biden’s Justice40 Initiative, which aims to assist disadvantaged communities “marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution,” the Sierra Club argued “nuclear power is no solution” and “is risky, dirty, dangerous, slow and expensive.” Instead, the Sierra Club contended Michigan “should be pursuing our cleanest, quickest, safest and cheapest energy options first: nuclear power comes out last in every one of those categories.” 
 
Despite opposition from environmental activists, the decision to revive the Palisades nuclear facility drew support from both Republicans and Democrats who view nuclear energy as a key decarbonization strategy. In March 2024, a bipartisan effort in the Michigan House of Representatives led by Republicans aimed to “encourage safe, clean and reliable nuclear energy generation in the state” by paving the way for advanced nuclear reactors and innovation in the nuclear energy field. State Rep. Pauline Wendzel (R), who helped unveil the nuclear plan, celebrated the decision to revive the Palisades plant as “a historic achievement” and declared the plan “will take us a step further, positioning Michigan as a national leader in the development of the next generation of nuclear technology.” At the same time, State Rep. Mike McFall (D) contended that the expansion of nuclear energy would allow Michigan “to be a leader in energy production while creating jobs and providing real energy solutions for our state.” While activists argue Biden’s support for nuclear plants like Palisades “is not the way to a green and peaceful world,” the case in Michigan shows that there is room for bipartisan coalitions to move forward on clean energy projects without activists’ blessing.
 
The tension between environmental activists and The White House underscores the tightrope Biden is walking as the election draws closer, weighing his need to energize environmental activists with voters’ expectations for affordable, reliable power. While environmental activists remain broadly opposed to green energy solutions deemed unworthy, Biden has repeatedly invested in clean energy solutions they reject, including nuclear energy. Biden’s U.S. Department of Energy has argued preserving the nation’s nuclear fleet “is critical not only to reaching America’s clean energy goals” but also to ensure that homes and businesses “have reliable energy.” Biden and his administration may have learned a lesson from former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who retired a major nuclear facility only to have it replaced mostly by natural gas, not the renewable energy that was promised. Indeed, the Biden Administration is hoping small modular nuclear energy can solve AI’s “energy-intensive operations.” Still, environmental groups like the Environmental Working Group argue the pursuit of “the nonexistent technology” is misguided and will fail U.S. residents. As climate activists ramp up pressure on Biden ahead of the election in November, it is essential for companies to understand who these activists are and what motivates them. 
 
A growing share of Americans are in favor of expanding nuclear power, but the tension between those seeking practical climate solutions and those dedicated to unabashed climate absolutism is a reminder how hard expanding the mix of low and no carbon energy will be. Even some climate activists have acknowledged that nuclear energy may have a role to play, calling on groups like Greenpeace to drop “old-fashioned and unscientific opposition to nuclear power.” The decision to revive the Palisades nuclear facility in Michigan exemplifies could signal momentum for nuclear energy with policymakers and an improving public perception. The rift between vocal climate activists and meaningful climate action, however, reinforces the “the ever increasing gap between a climate industry building solutions for our clean energy future and climate activists whose continued existence requires never being satisfied.” Energy developers will need anticipate opposition from the latter if they hope to succeed as the former. 
 

Trends in Energy is your weekly look at key trends affecting the energy industry, brought to you by the competitive intelligence experts at Delve. As the political and regulatory landscape continues to shift, reach out to learn how our insights can help you navigate these challenges.