Politics
Has nuclear power entered a new era of acceptance amid global warming?
When Heather Hoff took a job at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, she was skeptical of nuclear energy — so much so that she resolved to report anything questionable to the anti-nuclear group Mothers for Peace.
Instead, after working at the plant for over a decade and asking every question she could think of about operations and safety, she co-founded her own group, Mothers for Nuclear, in 2016 to keep the plant alive.
“I was pretty nervous,” said Hoff, 45. “It felt very lonely — no one else was doing that. We looked around for allies — other pro-nuclear groups. … There just weren’t very many.”
Today, however, public support for nuclear power is the highest its been in more than a decade as government and private industry struggle to reduce reliance on planet-warming fossil fuels.
Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science.
Although a string of nuclear disasters decades ago had caused the majority of older Americans to distrust the technology, this hasn’t been the case for younger generations.
Old-school environmentalists “grew up in the generation of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. … The Gen Zers today did not,” said David Weisman, 63, who has been involved in the movement to get Diablo Canyon shut down since the ’90s and works as the legislative director of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility.
“They don’t remember how paralyzed with fright the nation was the week after Three Mile Island. … They don’t recall the shock of Chernobyl less than seven years later.”
Many of these younger nuclear advocates — outwardly vocal on social media sites such as X and Instagram — hope the renewed interest will fuel a second renaissance in nuclear power, one that helps California, the U.S. and the globe meet ambitious climate goals.
“I think we are the generation that’s ready to make this change, and accept facts over feelings, and ready to transition to a cleaner, more reliable and safer energy source,” said Veronica Annala, 23, a college student at Texas A&M and president of the school’s new Nuclear Advocacy Resource Organization.
In the past few months alone, Microsoft announced plans to fund the reopening of Three Mile Island’s shuttered unit to power a data center. Amazon and Google have also invested in new, cutting-edge nuclear technology to meet clean energy goals.
While some advocates wish nuclear revitalization wasn’t being driven by energy-hungry AI technology, the excitement around nuclear power is more palpable than it has been in a generation, they say.
“There’s so many things happening at the same time. … This is the actual nuclear renaissance,” said Gabriel Ivory, 22, a student at Texas A&M and vice president of NARO. “When you look at Three Mile Island restarting — that was something nobody would have ever even thought of.”
This enthusiasm has also been accompanied by a surprising political shift.
During the Cold War nuclear energy frenzy of the 1970s and ’80s, nuclear supporters — often Republicans — touted the jobs the plants would create, and argued that the United States needed to remain a commanding leader of nuclear technology and weaponry on the global stage.
Meanwhile, environmental groups, often aligned with the Democratic Party, opposed nuclear power based on the potential negative impact on surrounding ecosystems, the thorny problem of storing spent fuel and the small but real risk of a nuclear meltdown.
“In America … it has been highly politicized,” said Jenifer Avellaneda Diaz, 29, who works in the industry and runs the advocacy account Nuclear Hazelnut. “That is a little bit shameful, because we have great experts here — a lot of doctors, a lot of scientists, a lot of engineers, mathematicians, physicists.”
Today, younger Republicans are 11% less likely to support new nuclear plants in the U.S. than their older counterparts. Meanwhile the opposite is true for the left: Younger Democrats are 9% more likely to support new nuclear than older Democrats, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center.
As a result, while Republicans older than 65 are 27% more likely to support nuclear energy than their Democratic peers, Republicans age 18 to 29 are only 7% more likely to support it than their Democratic counterparts.
“Young Democrats and young Republicans may be looking at numbers — but two separate sets of numbers,” said Weisman. “The young Republicans may be looking at the cost per megawatt hour, and the young Democrats are looking at a different number: parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Brendan Pittman, 33 — who founded the Berkeley Amend movement, aiming to get his city to drop its “nuclear-free zone” status — said he’s noticed that younger people have become more open to learning about nuclear energy.
“Now, as we’re getting into energy crises, and we’re talking more about, ‘How do we solve this?’ Younger people are taking a more rational and nuanced review of all energy, and they’re coming to the same conclusion: Yeah, nuclear checks all the boxes,” Pittman said.
“I remember getting signatures on the streets of Berkeley, and I would say most young people — when I said we’re looking to support nuclear energy — they would just stop me and say, ‘Oh you’re supporting nuclear energy? Where do I sign?’” he said. “I didn’t even have to sell it.”
This newfound enthusiasm has also affected the nuclear industry, where two dominant age groups have emerged: baby boomers who mostly took nuclear jobs for consistent work, and millennials and Gen Zers who made a motivated choice to enter a stigmatized field, advocates in the industry say.
“You get all sorts of different backgrounds, and that really just blooms into all sorts of fresh new ideas, and I think that’s part of what’s making the industry exciting right now,” said Matt Wargon, 33, past chair of the Young Members Group of the American Nuclear Society.
Like the workers themselves, the industry has formed two bubbles: the traditional plants that have been operating for decades and a slew of new technologies — from small reactors that could power or heat single factories to a potentially safer class of large-scale reactors that use molten salt in their cores instead of pressurized water.
At existing plants, younger folks have injected innovation into longstanding operation norms, improving safety and efficiency. At the startups, those who’ve worked in the industry for decades provide “invaluable” knowledge that simply isn’t in textbooks, industry workers say.
The infusion of new talent and ideas is a significant change from when Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island disaster in 1979 and the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986 devastated the industry. Regulations became stricter, and development on new reactors and new technology slowed to a halt.
False narratives around the technology ricocheted through society. Both Hoff and Avellaneda Diaz recall their parents worrying about radiation affecting their ability to have children. (The average worker at Diablo receives significantly less radiation in a week than a passenger does on a single East Coast to West Coast airplane flight.)
“Radiation is invisible — you can’t see it. You can’t smell it. You can’t hear it,” said Wargon. “And people tend to fear the unknown. … So if you tell them, ‘Oh this power plant has a lot of radiation coming out of it,’ it’s hard to dispel [the misinformation and fear].”
Only as the memories faded and new generations entered the workforce did the reputation of nuclear power slowly recover.
Advocates also say that college campuses have become a leading space for nuclear advocacy, with Nuclear is Clean Energy (NiCE) clubs popping up at multiple California schools in the past few years.
In August, Ivory held up a big “I [heart] nuclear energy,” sign behind an ESPN college football broadcast. It quickly spread on social media and even caught the attention of the U.S. Department of Energy.
Nuclear advocates say the internet and easy access to accurate information has also helped their cause.
“That was certainly a revolution because right now, it’s super easy to Google it,” Avellaneda Diaz said. “Back then you needed to go to the library, get the book — it was not that easy to get the information or be informed.”
A poll conducted by Ann Bisconti, a scientist and nuclear public opinion expert, found that 74% of people who said they felt very well informed strongly favored the use of nuclear energy in the U.S., whereas only 6% who felt not at all informed supported it.
As such, public outreach and education has become a core tenant of the new nuclear advocacy movement.
“Let’s be real,” Annala said, “our generation has the whole internet at our fingertips … so, just starting the conversations is really the big thing.”
Advocates speculate that the ability to rapidly disseminate information on nuclear energy to combat misconceptions might have helped prevent nuclear energy from becoming politically and culturally toxic after the Fukushima accident, unlike with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
While the Texas A&M students were quite young when the disaster unfolded, both Wargon and Pittman were in college in 2011 when an earthquake and tsunami in Japan crippled the power systems at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, triggering a meltdown. Avellaneda Diaz was in high school.
Hoff was working at Diablo Canyon when Fukushima happened. The public scare, in part pushed by the media, almost led her to quit her job.
Instead, after taking the time to analyze the causes of the meltdown and the errors made, she decided to embrace nuclear.
For her, Fukushima was a reminder that nuclear power comes with risk — however small — but that even in a worst-case scenario, operators are skilled at preventing a disaster. (PG&E says a Fukushima flooding episode would be impossible at Diablo Canyon.)
Today, Hoff writes the emergency protocols for Diablo Canyon and hopes the industry will learn again how to engage with the public.
She said that’s what happened with her when she first — somewhat reluctantly — took a job at Diablo.
“I was a little obnoxious for the first few years,” Hoff said of her constant questioning and search for a critical flaw.
Instead of pushing back against her, the plant welcomed it.
Politics
Video: How Trump Could Justify His Immigration Crackdown
President-elect Donald Trump is likely to justify his plans to seal off the border with Mexico by citing a public health emergency from immigrants bringing disease into the United States. Now he just has to find one. New York Times White House Correspondent, Zolan Kanno-Youngs, explains.
Politics
Trump to be sentenced in New York criminal trial
President-elect Trump is expected to be sentenced Friday after being found guilty on charges of falsifying business records stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s years-long investigation.
The president-elect is expected to attend his sentencing virtually, after fighting to block the process all the way up to the United States Supreme Court this week.
Judge Juan Merchan set Trump’s sentencing for Jan. 10—just ten days before he is set to be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States.
TRUMP FILES MOTION TO STAY ‘UNLAWFUL SENTENCING’ IN NEW YORK CASE
Merchan, though, said he will not sentence the president-elect to prison.
Merchan wrote in his decision that he is not likely to “impose any sentence of incarceration,” but rather a sentence of an “unconditional discharge,” which means there would be no punishment imposed.
Trump filed an appeal to block sentencing from moving forward with the New York State Court of Appeals. That court rejected his request.
Trump also filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that it “immediately order a stay of pending criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York, pending the final resolution of President Trump’s interlocutory appeal raising questions of Presidential immunity, including in this Court if necessary.”
“The Court should also enter, if necessary, a temporary administrative stay while it considers this stay application,” Trump’s filing requested.
TRUMP FILES EMERGENCY PETITION TO SUPREME COURT TO PREVENT SENTENCING IN NY V. TRUMP
Trump’s attorneys also argued that New York prosecutors erroneously admitted extensive evidence relating to official presidential acts during trial, ignoring the high court’s ruling on presidential immunity.
The Supreme Court denied Trump’s emergency petition to block his sentencing from taking place on Friday, Jan. 10.
The Supreme Court, earlier this year, ruled that presidents are immune from prosecution related to official presidential acts.
But New York prosecutors argued that the high court “lacks jurisdiction” over the case.
They also argued that the evidence they presented in the trial last year concerned “unofficial conduct that is not subject to any immunity.”
Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. He pleaded not guilty to those charges. After a six-week-long, unprecedented trial for a former president and presidential candidate, a New York jury found the now-president-elect guilty on all counts.
Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and repeatedly railed against it as an example of “lawfare” promoted by Democrats in an effort to hurt his election efforts ahead of November.
Politics
Column: Trump shoots his mouth off as L.A. burns. His claims about fire hydrants don’t hold water
SACRAMENTO — OK, I admit it. I’m biased. I hate it when an opportunistic politician capitalizes on other people’s miseries and tries to score political points.
I’m especially biased when it’s a president-elect who shoots off his mouth without regard for facts and blames a governor for fire hydrants running dry.
Not that Democrat Gavin Newsom is a perfect governor. But his California water policies had no more to do with Pacific Palisades hydrants drying up during a firestorm than did Republican Donald Trump’s turning on sprinklers at his golf course.
News reporters shouldn’t allow personal biases to seep into their stories, as Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong has reminded us. Reporters have long strived to not do so and mostly succeeded. But I’m not a reporter. I’m a columnist who analyzes and opines. And yes, I’m biased — but on issues, not politics.
It has always been my view that liberals, moderates and conservatives all have good and bad ideas. Neither party has a monopoly on truth and justice — except in relating to Trump.
I wanted to give Trump the benefit of the doubt and watch whether he really intended — as promised — to be a president for all Americans. But the guy just can’t help himself.
When Trump blamed Newsom for water hydrants going dry as Pacific Palisades burned, it wasn’t something people should dismiss as just another Trumpism.
Here was a president-elect mouthing off and showing his ignorance in a barrage of vindictiveness and insensitivity as thousands of people fled for their lives and hundreds of homes blazed into ashes.
Yes, I’m biased against anyone who’s that uncivil, especially when he disrespects facts or — worse — is a pathological liar.
So, let’s recap what Trump did.
As scores of hydrants went dry while fire crews battled flames in Pacific Palisades, the president-elect instinctively went on social media to point the finger at his left coast political adversary, the Democrat he tastelessly derides as Gov. “Newscum.”
“Governor Gavin Newscum refused to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water from excess rain and snow melt from the north to flow daily into many parts of California, including the parts that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way,” Trump asserted.
“He wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt … but didn’t care about the people of California. Now the ultimate price is being paid.
“I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to flow into California. He is the blame for this. On top of it all, no water for fire hydrants, not firefighting planes. A true disaster.”
True drivel, putting it politely.
First, what was this so-called water restoration declaration?
“There’s no such document,” responded Izzy Gardon, Newsom’s communications director. “That is pure fiction.”
Trump probably was referring to his policy differences with Newsom on water exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to farmlands in the San Joaquin Valley. In his first presidency, Trump wanted to drain more fresh water from the delta for irrigation in the valley. But both Govs. Jerry Brown and Newsom took a more centrist approach, striving for a balance between farms and fish.
Second, it’s not the demise of the tiny smelt — the Republicans’ favorite target — that’s so concerning to many conservationists. It’s the rapid decline of iconic salmon that previously provided world-class recreational angling in the delta and fed a healthy commercial fishery on the coast. Salmon fishing seasons have been closed recently to save what’s left of the fish.
Third, despite Trump’s claptrap, plenty of fresh delta water is being pumped south to fill fire hydrants and the tanks of firefighting aircraft. Hundreds of millions of gallons of water flow daily down the California Aqueduct. Major Southland reservoirs are at historically high levels. Anyway, much of L.A.’s water doesn’t even come from the Delta. It flows from the Owens Valley and the Colorado River.
Fourth, the hydrants went dry simply because there were too many fires to fight, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power explained. Storage tanks went dry.
“We pushed the system to the extreme,” Janisse Quinones, DWP chief executive and chief engineer, said. “Four times the normal demand was seen for 15 hours straight.”
Yes, I’m biased against politicians who make up stuff.
But you’ve got to listen to Trump because he could follow through on what he’s bellowing about.
For example, Trump vowed during the presidential campaign to deny Newsom federal money to fight wildfires unless the governor diverted more water to farms.
That apparently wasn’t an idle threat.
Trump initially refused to approve federal wildfire aid in 2018 until a staffer pointed out that Orange County, a beneficiary, was home to many voters who supported him, Politico reported. And in 2020, the Federal Emergency Management Agency rejected an aid request during several California wildfires until Republicans appealed to Trump.
So, what’s Trump going to be like when he actually becomes president again and is wielding real power, not just running off at the mouth?
Will he try to annex Greenland? Seize the Panama Canal? When a reporter asked him whether he’d commit to not using “military or economic coercion” to achieve these goals, he immediately answered: “No.”
Will he keep calling Canada our “51st state?”
Yep. I’m biased against such immature and dangerous political leaders.
-
Business1 week ago
These are the top 7 issues facing the struggling restaurant industry in 2025
-
Culture1 week ago
The 25 worst losses in college football history, including Baylor’s 2024 entry at Colorado
-
Sports1 week ago
The top out-of-contract players available as free transfers: Kimmich, De Bruyne, Van Dijk…
-
Politics1 week ago
New Orleans attacker had 'remote detonator' for explosives in French Quarter, Biden says
-
Politics1 week ago
Carter's judicial picks reshaped the federal bench across the country
-
Politics6 days ago
Who Are the Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
-
Health5 days ago
Ozempic ‘microdosing’ is the new weight-loss trend: Should you try it?
-
World1 week ago
Ivory Coast says French troops to leave country after decades