You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Here’s what you need to know about the nuclear power comeback — including what’s going on, what’s new this time, and is it safe?

For a while there, nuclear energy looked like it was on its way out. After taking off post-World War II, it lost momentum toward the dawn of the 21st century, when sagging public support and mounting costs led to dozens of cancellations in the U.S. and drove the rate of new proposals off a cliff. Only a few reactors have been built in the U.S. this century; the most recent, Georgia Power’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4, were years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. Vogtle-3 came online last summer, with Vogtle-4 — which was delayed even further by an equipment malfunction — expected to follow early this year.
It’s funny how time works, though. With demand for reliable zero-carbon energy rising, a new wave of nuclear developers is trying to recapture some of the industry’s long-lost momentum. They’re entering the race to net-zero with big ambitions — and much smaller reactor designs. Whether you’re wondering about the state of the U.S. nuclear power sector, what’s new about new nuclear, where the nuclear waste is going, and of course, whether it’s safe, read on.
Let’s start with the basics.
Nuclear reactors generate electricity using a process called fission. Inside the reactor’s core, a controlled chain reaction splits unstable uranium-235 into smaller elements; that process releases heat — a lot of heat.
The reactors in today’s U.S. nuclear fleet fall into two categories: boiling water reactors and pressurized water reactors. Each circulates water through the reactor core to manage the temperature and prevent meltdowns, and both use the heat produced by fission to create steam that powers turbines and thereby generates electricity. The main difference is in the details: Boiling water reactors use their coolant water to produce electricity directly, by capturing the steam, whereas pressurized water reactors keep their coolant water in a separate system that’s under enough pressure to prevent the water from turning to steam.
Some experimental reactors and newer commercial designs use different cooling systems, but we’ll get into those later. Lastly, while nuclear energy is not considered renewable, in the sense that it relies on a finite resource (enriched uranium) for fuel, it is a zero-emission energy source.
The sector emerged in the late 1950s and expanded rapidly over the next several decades. At its peak, the country’s nuclear fleet included 112 reactors — a number that has declined to about 90 today. Most of the surviving plants were built between 1970 and 1990.
The shrinkage has partly to do with the nuclear disarmament movement, which arose during the Cold War and grew to encompass nuclear power development, as well. (As it happens, much of the present day environmental movement has its roots in anti-nuclear activism.) Then there was the partial nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979, which intensified existing public opposition to nuclear energy projects. That growing pushback, combined with reduced growth in electricity demand and the significant up-front investments nuclear plants required, caused some projects to be scrapped and fewer to be proposed. The Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986 seemed to confirm everyone’s worst fears.
Interest began to reemerge in the U.S. in the early 2000s as the budding public awareness of climate change cast doubt on the future viability of fossil fuels, but the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident quashed many of those plans. The last U.S. nuclear plant to start up before Vogtle-3 entered construction in 1973 but was suspended for two decades before its completion in 2016.
As of 2022, 18.2% of U.S. electricity came from the country’s remaining nuclear reactors, according to federal data. That’s less than we’ve seen in decades.
The share of nuclear power on the grid has been slowly dwindling as aging reactors are shut down and other resources — mainly natural gas and renewables — have taken on a greater proportion of the country’s electricity-generating burden. The share of electricity from renewables surpassed energy from nuclear for the first time in 2021; in 2022, renewables contributed 21.3% of U.S. electricity.
Like coal and gas plants (and renewables when paired with sufficient storage), nuclear provides baseload power — meaning it sends electricity onto the grid at a consistent, predictable rate — as opposed to sources like wind and solar on their own, which provide intermittent supply. Electric utilities depend heavily on nuclear plants and other baseload resources to match supply with continuously fluctuating demand, accommodating the variability of wind and solar without sending too much or too little power onto the grid, which would cause power surges or blackouts.
Generating electricity using nuclear fission remains a divisive issue that cuts across partisan lines. In the inaugural Heatmap Climate Poll, nuclear came in a distant last among clean energy sources people feel comfortable having in their communities.
Some major environmental groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace maintain that the risk of serious disasters at nuclear power plants poses an unacceptable risk to communities and ecosystems. Others, including the Nature Conservancy, view it as a reliable low-carbon energy resource that’s — crucially — available to us today, while promising but immature options such as long-duration energy storage are still catching up.
Historically, nuclear has caused far fewer fatalities than fossil fuels, which generate all kinds of toxic, potentially deadly pollution — and that’s without factoring in their contribution to climate change and its associated disasters.
The companies now hoping to pioneer a new generation of nuclear reactors in the U.S. say their designs incorporate the lessons learned from the accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima, putting even more safeguards in place than the fleet of reactors operating across the country today. (There’s still a debate over whether the proposed reactors will actually be safer, though.)
Spent uranium fuel is radioactive, and will remain radioactive for a very long time. As a result, there’s still a lot of disagreement about where that waste should go.
The federal government tried in the early 2000s to create a national repository in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, but the project was stopped by intense local and regional opposition. The Western Shoshone, a tribe whose members have long faced exposure to radioactive fallout from nearby nuclear tests, sued the federal government in 2005. Harry Reid, a former U.S. Senator from Nevada who served as Majority Leader from 2007 to 2015, also fought against the repository.
In the absence of a central repository, the waste produced by nuclear plants is usually stored in deep water pools, which keep the spent fuel cool, or in steel casks onsite to keep the radiation from escaping into the surrounding environment.
If a repository eventually opens, some existing waste will likely be moved out of temporary storage and relocated there.
In short, the concrete behemoths that have long been the norm in the U.S. are really, really expensive to build. They also — like the two new Vogtle reactors — have a tendency to go way over their deadlines and budgets. That makes the electricity nuclear plants generate particularly expensive.
The vast majority of U.S. coal plants were built during the same few decades as most of the country’s nuclear reactors. But when utilities started to face more pressure to reduce their carbon emissions, toppling coal’s reign over the power sector, utilities wound up preferring to build cheaper — and, at least at the time, less controversial — natural gas power plants over nuclear power plants.
But public opinion is beginning to shift. About 57% of American adults favor building new nuclear power, a Pew Research Center survey found last year, compared with 43% in 2016. Though support is higher among Republicans than Democrats, it’s on the rise within both parties.
Today’s electric grid is a far cry from the 20th-century grid that traditional nuclear reactors were built for, and the new reactor models that are making the most headway reflect those changes. In general, these designs are smaller, cheaper (at least on paper), and more flexible than those already in operation.
Unlike traditional reactors, which generally require a lot of custom fabrication to be completed at the project site, small modular reactors — such as the ones being developed by NuScale Power — have components that are meant to be made in a factory, assembled quickly wherever they’ll operate, and combined with other modules as needed to increase power output. Fast reactors (so-named for their highly energized neutrons), like Bill-Gates-fronted TerraPower’s Natrium design, circulate coolants other than water through the core. (Natrium uses liquid sodium.)
Advocates of next-generation nuclear power are optimistic that the first such reactors will come online before the end of the decade. Several of the leading proposals have run into financial and logistical troubles over the last couple of years, however. In November, NuScale canceled its flagship project at the Idaho National Laboratory. It had been on track to be the first commercial small modular reactor built in the U.S. but was thwarted by rising costs, which caused too many expected buyers of its electricity to pull their support.
Nuclear’s image is recovering globally, too. Some of the companies working on demonstration reactors in the U.S. have been outspoken about wanting to see their designs supplant fossil fuels and provide abundant energy all over the world. Meanwhile, many countries are devoting plenty of their own resources to nuclear power.
Japan, which shuttered its sizable nuclear fleet in the aftermath of the Fukushima accident, is slowly bringing some of its nuclear capacity back online. In December, Japanese regulators lifted an operational ban on the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant, the largest nuclear plant in the world.
Nuclear power is also enjoying renewed popularity in parts of Europe, including France and the U.K. In France, where the long-dominant technology has faltered in recent years, a half-dozen new nuclear power plants are in the works, and even more small modular reactors could follow. The U.K. is also planning a new wave of nuclear development.
Elsewhere, including in Germany, nuclear hasn’t found the same traction. After delaying the closure of its last three nuclear reactors amid natural gas shortages caused by the war in Ukraine, Germany closed the reactors last spring, eliciting a mixed reaction from environmental groups.
Meanwhile, China has close to 23 gigawatts of nuclear capacity under construction — the “largest nuclear expansion in history,” Jacopo Buongiorno, a professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT, told CNBC last year.
It’s still early days for most of the world’s next-generation nuclear reactors. With even the most promising designs largely unproven, there’s plenty of uncertainty about where today’s projects will ultimately lead. That makes it tricky to predict what role nuclear power will play in the energy transition over the coming decades.
There’s plenty of interest in building more capacity, however. In December, at COP28, the U.S. and 24 other countries — including Japan, Korea, France and the UK — signed on to a goal of tripling global nuclear energy capacity by 2050 in order to stay on track to reach net-zero emissions by then. Nuclear plants could also be an important source of carbon-free energy for producing green hydrogen, a nascent industry that got a major boost from tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act.
But the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s most recent capacity forecast projects that the total amount of electricity from the country’s nuclear plants will decline in the coming decades — representing just 13% of net power generation by 2050.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Talking with National Grid’s Matthew Satterwhite about his new report with S&P Global.
This week’s conversation is with Matthew Satterwhite, head of U.S. policy for National Grid. This week National Grid released a report in collaboration with S&P Global I found noteworthy amidst the data center backlash, asserting that building new transmission lines can potentially reduce consumer costs. I reached out asking if we could chat about how this argument leans into the fight over hyperscale infrastructure. I found our conversation illuminating and educational.
The following Q&A was lightly edited for clarity.
Why did you make this report?
It’s all focused on our customers. We’re always looking to find ways to make sure we can provide our service in the most affordable way possible, the most efficient way possible, and we always think of transmission, but it’s fallen out of favor recently. There’s so much demand with large loads, data centers, advanced manufacturing, reshoring. There’s such a need, and a lot of the debate has been focused on what we need on the generation side. We think transmission is an answer, as well.
We focused on what we have control over — since we’re in deregulated states, the only generation we’re doing is to help states reach their renewable goals. It’s a real page-turner. We really get to the core of everything.
Can we lower customer bills with transmission? This report actually showed us that’s a good investment and helps with the resource adequacy and the constraint problems we have in the Northeast. You can bring cheaper electricity in.
With respect to concerns for everyday consumers, how much do you feel like new transmission might alleviate ordinary Americans’ concerns about rising energy prices?
When you look at the demand that’s coming, the projection is that by 2035, we’ll have to add 45 gigawatts, currently. We’re on that path right now. Transmission alone isn’t going to meet that, but the question is, how do we temper that down? What do we do as National Grid to help alleviate the need for all that demand? Can we get that somewhere else rather than in the region by building generation? It's a different version of all of the above. It’s not a generation single answer or a transmission single answer. We think transmission is a big part of that.
This also allows you to bring in cleaner energy from other places. The more robust the network is, you can have energy in different places and bring that in. It replaces the need for some of the generation to be built and pays for itself by creating a cheaper return for customers adding this.
How much of the data center backlash is affecting your transmission project planning calculus? How is it changing what lines are built in the country?
We’re focused on how we can provide the cheapest service for our customers and physics. It’s science and long-term planning. We don’t have the luxury — we can’t follow, this month we’re thinking something, someone got mad, and so we’re thinking something else. We study a lot of science and physics to figure out how to build the grid.
Do you feel like the average Joe Schmoe American sees transmission as making their life less expensive and making their electricity more reliable?
I think there’s frustration and a lack of understanding about the industry overall. There’s fear of the unknown. Are data centers really driving everything that’s happening? That’s where I think, with reports like this, the benefit of it will be that people will read this and see there’s other things we can do to address the load that we need, something different than building a bunch of generation plants.
How do the question marks around whether data centers get built affect transmission planning? How much harder is the backlash making your job?
It’s a science question. Do we do a bunch of work and then nothing happens? That’s why states put their policies out. There’s multiple studies you go through with a region and with a utility. I think that’s one reason why you see states slowing down, to make sure the policy is in check so people don’t do work they don’t need to do. It’s about having the policy to make sure, if you’re studying something, you’re doing it with a purpose.
Plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.
1. Clark County, Nevada – The first data center approved on federal lands has hit a legal brick wall.
2. Jackson County, Missouri – We have yet another high-profile case of a city councilor losing their job over voting for a data center, and this one’s a doozy.
3. Utah – What’s it take for the Bureau of Land Management to approve a big transmission line for zero-emission energy generation these days? Geothermal, baby.
4. Huntsville, Alabama – You can’t even build a tiny battery storage facility in the middle of Alabama anymore.
Where temporary moratoria could happen next.
Brace yourself for more statewide data center moratoria.
So far there are only two full state-wide blocks on data center permits, in New York and Texas. At least fifteen states have moratorium legislation in the pipeline, but few if any of those bills stand a chance of becoming law in the short term. Here are five states, however, where a broad development pause may gain momentum in the next year or two — and all of them are crucial to watch this November.
If you blinked you may have missed it: New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayotte, a Republican, said she wants to enact a statewide data center moratorium.
Ayotte first came out in support of a pause last month at a Rotary Club meeting, declaring, “It does not make any sense at all to site a data center in New Hampshire.” She also reportedly plans to include a moratorium proposal in her upcoming 2027 fiscal budget. New Hampshire’s legislative sessions occur in the first half of the year, so we won’t see action on a moratorium bill this fall. But Ayotte’s statements suggest the Granite State — which is controlled by the GOP — could pivot to a pause very soon.
New Hampshire has very few data centers. Like, almost none. Only two project fights exist in the Heatmap Pro database, both in Portsmouth, and each has been canceled amidst opposition. Ayotte’s remarks were prompted by the fight against a hyperscale project being studied in the small town of Bow at a former coal plant that closed in late 2025.
None of this should surprise anyone familiar with New England NIMBYs. A New Hampshire moratorium also makes sense given the state’s proximity to Maine, which almost had one of its own. Ayotte, who is up for re-election this year, is likely looking at the political fortunes of Governor Janet Mills and trying to avoid potholes ahead of a likely blue wave hitting her state.
This week, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, came out in support of a statewide data center moratorium.
Mayes told Arizonans in a public statement on Monday that she wants to avoid undue strain on the electric grid and adding to the burden of water cuts led by the Trump administration. Phoenix, where opposition grows by the day, seems to be the primary reason. This shouldn’t in any way be a surprise given the backlash to these projects, which in Arizona’s case is rooted in legitimate water security concerns.
One of the first high-profile data center conflicts I ever learned about was in Arizona: Project Blue, which had to move on from the city of Tucson after officials voted it down last summer. That led Amazon to bail from the facility, though it’s still under development elsewhere on county land. Locals are deeply concerned about the water impacts.
Ordinarily an attorney general wouldn’t have any sway on legislative or executive policy, but the state is already quite receptive to restricting data center development. Governor Katie Hobbs has enacted a three-year pause on tax abatements for data centers, and in response to requests for comment on Mayes’ statement, has told media she’s working on more policies targeting the sector. Hobbs has said she will do more in the following legislative session, but it’s not clear what.
The real decisive action here is probably going to be legislation, and that will depend on the reception any moratorium finds with Republicans in the state legislature, which is typically split in this purple state. The Arizona GOP is quite pro-industry, and Mayes’ opponent in her race for re-election opposes restricting data center construction.
You really should get to know the name Cindy Holscher for the next two months.
Holscher, a state senator, won a surprise upset victory in the Democratic gubernatorial primary this year, and currently sits within a one-point margin of her Republican opponent. How’d she get the nom? By calling for a statewide data center moratorium. “It reminds me of when the automobile manufacturers had to put seatbelts into their cars,“ Holscher told MSNOW after she won the primary. “We as a people and as a state just need to make sure there are guardrails in place.”
Kansas politics are weird. The state is best known as a conservative ideological bastion that’s pro-business. Full Republican control of the Kansas government during the Obama era led to significant social services cuts most closely associated with former Governor Sam Brownback. But after that, Kansans seemed to like moderate Democratic governors, electing Laura Kelly in 2022. Kelly is now term limited out of office.
Kansas already has a colorful patchwork of local data center and renewable energy restrictions. Land use is a big deal in this agricultural behemoth. Should Holscher win in a blue wave year, she would have a mandate to enact a statewide moratorium. Still, Republicans control the legislature, and that’s unlikely to change. My major questions are, should Holscher win, would the GOP in state government listen to Holscher’s request? Or can she do this through the executive branch?
Politics nerds are obsessing over Ohio right now. There, Trump acolyte Vivek Ramaswamy is neck-and-neck in the polls for governor with a Democratic candidate who backs a “conditional” data center moratorium: Amy Acton.
What’s a conditional moratorium? It’s in the eye of the beholder, really. Technically speaking, Governor Josh Shapiro instituted a conditional moratorium in Pennsylvania, where data center projects cannot get permits unless they meet very specific standards set by the governor himself. Shapiro did it through executive action, but in this case, it’s unclear whether the moratorium will be codified through that process or through law.
Should Acton win — or if former Senator Sherrod Brown defeats sitting Senator Jon Husted in the U.S. Senate race — I anticipate major legislative action on data centers in Ohio. Republicans there have essentially permanent control of the state legislature, and they’ve historically been pro-data center. But the freakout over opposition to artificial intelligence and hyperscalers in the senate race specifically has spooked national Republicans, who think it provided the opening Brown needed to potentially win back his seat. Acton and Brown’s political fortunes appear to be wedded to one another, linked to a general angst in the American public.
Every top 5 list needs a wild card, and mine is Oklahoma.
Currently, there’s minimal risk of a data center moratorium. I might’ve had this state higher on my list had Gentner Drummond won the runoff for the GOP gubernatorial primary, given his proclivity to side with anti-renewables activists who also oppose data centers. Instead, likely future governor Mike Mazzei is running on a more moderate, Trump-friendly approach to data centers centered on maintaining industry growth while protecting ratepayers from new infrastructure costs. His opponent, Cyndi Munson, supports a one-year moratorium.
I consider Oklahoma’s odds of having a data center moratorium about equal to the chance of a statewide wind energy ban. Momentum for anti-wind legislation began in the state legislature, and I expect the same to happen with data centers. But unlike the wind industry, which has enormous power in the state, data centers are still a nascent industry. This is a place that may take about two or three years to manifest full cultural upheaval over these projects.