New Jersey Needs Nuclear Power, Not Green Vetoes

If New Jersey wants lower energy costs, reliable electricity and a future in artificial intelligence, it cannot let yesterday’s anti-nuclear politics decide tomorrow’s economy.

New Jersey has a habit of making life more expensive and then acting surprised when residents complain about the bill.

That is why Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s decision to sign legislation opening the door to new nuclear energy development in New Jersey deserves more than a polite nod. It deserves serious public support.

For decades, New Jersey effectively blocked new nuclear power construction through a moratorium tied to radioactive-waste disposal requirements. That policy may have satisfied the anti-nuclear politics of another era, but it did nothing to solve the energy challenges of this one. On April 8, Sherrill signed legislation removing those barriers and creating a Nuclear Task Force to examine the state’s future nuclear-energy potential. (NJ.gov)

Now there are reports that a new nuclear reactor could be located near the Salem Nuclear Power Plant in Lower Alloways Creek Township, alongside the Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station. That is not some wild experiment in the wilderness. It is a logical place to look. Salem and Hope Creek already sit on an established nuclear-energy site in South Jersey, and together they generate more than 40 percent of New Jersey’s electricity and roughly 80 percent of the state’s pollution-free power. (Patch)

In other words, nuclear power is not a theory in New Jersey. It is one of the reasons the lights turn on.

Yet the predictable opposition has already arrived. The Green Party of New Jersey and other anti-nuclear activists warn about safety, waste and future generations. Those concerns should be heard, but they should not be allowed to become a veto over reality.

The reality is this: New Jersey needs more electricity, not less. Families are already feeling higher utility costs. Businesses are watching operating expenses rise. And the next wave of economic growth, especially artificial intelligence and data centers, will require enormous amounts of reliable power. Reuters reported that New Jersey’s policy shift comes as the regional grid faces rising demand, including from data centers, while new power supply has lagged. (Reuters)

That is the part the “just say no” crowd never quite answers. What powers the future they claim to want?

Solar panels and wind turbines have a place. Conservation has a place. Efficiency has a place. But New Jersey cannot run a modern economy on slogans. We cannot attract high-tech investment, support advanced manufacturing, electrify more of daily life, and keep homes affordable if our energy policy is built around wishful thinking.

AI is not coming someday. It is here. Every search, every data center, every advanced business platform and every new technology infrastructure project consumes power. States that can provide reliable, affordable, clean electricity will compete. States that cannot will watch jobs, investment and innovation go elsewhere.

That is why nuclear power matters. It provides steady, large-scale electricity without carbon emissions from generation. It does not disappear when the wind slows. It does not sleep when the sun sets. It is not perfect, and it must be regulated carefully, but perfection is not the standard. The real question is whether nuclear is safer, cleaner and more reliable than the alternatives we will actually use if we reject it.

And if we reject nuclear, let us be honest about what fills the gap. It will not be a fantasy grid powered by press releases. It will mean more dependence on fossil fuels, more imported power, higher costs, weaker reliability and fewer options when demand spikes.

The anti-nuclear movement likes to present itself as the guardian of future generations. But future generations will also need electricity. They will need jobs. They will need technology. They will need hospitals, universities, transportation systems, water systems and communications networks that do not fail because policymakers were afraid of the word “nuclear.”

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission says spent nuclear fuel can be safely stored in dry cask storage after removal from fuel pools, and the NRC remains the federal regulator responsible for nuclear safety. That does not mean citizens should stop asking questions. It means the discussion should begin with facts, not fear. (Patch)

New Jersey should demand strict oversight. It should require transparency. It should protect host communities. It should insist that any new project be safe, economically sound and beneficial to the state. But it should not allow ideological opponents to lock the door before the discussion begins.

There is also a refreshing political lesson here. Gov. Sherrill is a Democrat. Nuclear energy has often drawn support from Republicans, labor unions, engineers, climate realists and local officials who understand the value of reliable power. This should not be a partisan issue. Keeping the lights on is not Republican or Democratic. Neither is lowering electric bills. Neither is making New Jersey competitive.

For too long, the loudest voices in environmental politics have acted as if saying “green” ends the argument. It does not. A serious clean-energy policy must be serious about energy. That means production, reliability, affordability and scale.

New Jersey has already benefited enormously from nuclear power. Salem and Hope Creek prove it every day. If a new generation of nuclear technology can help the state meet rising demand, reduce emissions, stabilize costs and support the AI-driven economy, then we should examine it with open eyes.

The future of New Jersey should not be controlled by activists whose answer to every hard energy question is “no.”

The state needs power. Its residents need relief. Its economy needs room to grow.

And if New Jersey wants to lead in the age of artificial intelligence, it had better make sure it has the intelligence to build the energy supply to match.