Gov. Kathy Hochul’s proposal to build five gigawatts of new nuclear power capacity, which is more than the entire country has constructed in three decades, is being sold as a climate solution. In reality, it risks becoming an expensive, hazardous and unresolved energy gamble.
According to reporting from Tim Knauss at syracuse.com, Hochul announced the plans last week in her State of the State speech.
“If her vision succeeds, New York’s nuclear capacity would increase from 3.4 gigawatts today to 8.4 GW,” Knauss reported. “New York’s recently released state energy plan anticipates the addition of two-to-three gigawatts of new nuclear power by 2040, but does not describe the path to development. Now Hochul is doubling the quantity and making development a priority for state regulators.”
“‘Advanced nuclear power is a key part of my all-of-the-above energy plan,’ Hochul said in a prepared statement. ‘Our initiative to create a nuclear reliability backbone for New York will ensure safe, around-the-clock, emission-free power to help keep the lights on and rates down,’” Knauss’s story stated.
However, labeling nuclear power a “reliability backbone” does not eliminate its fundamental problems: high costs, safety risks and the absence of a permanent waste solution.
One downside of nuclear power is its massive upfront costs and long construction time.
“The last two nuclear plants built in the United States, Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 in Georgia, cost roughly $35 billion combined, more than twice the initial budget of $14 billion,” Knauss reported. “The 1.1-gigawatt units came online in 2023 and 2024, seven years later than planned. Georgia ratepayers were hit with significant bill increases to help pay for them.’
“It’s not clear how the Public Service Commission will ensure that nuclear power contributes to Hochul’s frequent promises to make energy more affordable,” Knauss stated.
There is no credible reason to believe New York would fare better than Georgia, especially given the state’s history of megaproject overruns.
When accidents happen at nuclear power plants, the consequences are severe and long-lasting.
We don’t have to look far back — the Fukushima nuclear accident was in 2011 — or far away — the Three Mile Island partial nuclear meltdown was on the Susquehanna River, near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
The risk of catastrophic accidents, even if rare, can never be eliminated, and the devastation is borne by communities, not corporate developers.
Perhaps the most glaring omission in the governor’s plan is the challenge of storing long-lived radioactive waste safely for millennia.
“Anti-nuclear advocates also warn that there still is no permanent plan for dealing with spent nuclear fuel, which remains dangerously radioactive for thousands of years,” Knauss reported.
Expanding nuclear power means generating even more highly radioactive material, with no clear plan for who will manage it, where it will go or who will pay. Calling nuclear “clean” while leaving this burden to future generations is not climate leadership.
Every dollar tied up in nuclear development is capital not invested in energy-efficient alternatives — solar, offshore wind, grid energy storage, demand management — that deliver emissions reductions faster and at far lower cost.
Before racing to build more reactors than the rest of the country combined, New Yorkers should ask a simple question: if nuclear power were truly safe, affordable and ready, why does it still need so much political urgency and public buy-in to make it work?
These issues of cost, safety and waste create significant economic, security and environmental burdens that extend for generations. Before committing taxpayers to a massive nuclear buildout, our governor and state regulators must comprehend and confront these realities.
The Daily Star, Oneonta