Recent commentary in The Post-Standard ("Nuclear power emits no carbon dioxide but is 'anything but clean,' " Sept. 12, 2024) and similar pieces in other papers around the state ("No place for nuclear in New York's energy plans" in the Albany Times-Union) get most of their facts wrong.

Nuclear is expensive, but not more expensive than Clean Path, Champlain-Hudson and offshore wind -- other projects Albany is pursuing in a misguided effort to get intermittent generators to power the state. When their short lifespan -- 20 years -- and decommissioning costs are considered, when thousands of miles of new transmission are paid for, when batteries for storage are built, and we are still burning almost as much gas as before -- look at California's 20-year experiment -- we will realize that nuclear would have been a wiser path.

While construction of a nuclear power plant does use a lot of concrete and steel, it generates carbon-free energy at a 95% capacity factor (as opposed to solar in New York state, 14%, and onshore wind, 25%) and lasts 80 years. Even including fuel, nuclear uses fewest materials of any generating source, according to the UNECE Integrated Life-cycle Assessment of Electricity Sources, 2021.

Wherever nuclear is shuttered -- Massachusetts, California, New York, Vermont -- it is replaced by fossil fuels. Notably, Germany shut down its nuclear power plants to mine and burn coal. New York state's grid went from almost 60% carbon-free in 2019 to 50% fossil-fuel powered with the shuttering of Indian Point and its replacement by two big gas plants, Cricket Valley and CPV. According to Harvard, 8 million people die annually from combustion emissions from fossil fuels. And New York is generating tens of millions of additional CO2E emissions annually thanks to the closure of Indian Point.

Stored nuclear waste has never harmed anyone. It can be reprocessed and used in newer reactors, as France is already doing. Estimates are that this "waste" represents over a hundred years of fuel. All the waste of 60 or so years from U.S. reactors would fit in a Walmart. Coal plants globally produce that amount hourly, and cadmium, arsenic, lead and mercury have no half-life. According to Oxford, nuclear power is as safe as solar or wind.

Gov. Kathy Hochul held a summit exploring the economics of energy solutions to reliably power New York. This came in response to a NYSERDA report, a Comptroller audit, a letter from the Business Council and continuing analysis by the grid operator, NYISO, that the current scoping plan and solar/wind/battery buildout is not working.

NYSERDA indicated that we'd need to install solar and wind at many times our current rate to meet the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act's target of 70% renewable energy by 2030. It's unclear whether supply-chain and labor constraints, siting limitations and community opposition will support even the current rate of build out going forward.

The Comptroller found that the plan was not supported by any fiscal analysis. Rather, sloppy arithmetic from the Public Service Commission had been used. The Business Council is concerned that unrealistic targets were driving decarbonization efforts. The Business Council stressed that economical reliable power must be available for homes, industry and businesses. But the grid operator NYISO projects a narrowing capacity margin for the next decade with a half a gigawatt capacity shortfall for New York City next summer. Offshore-wind strike prices are four times current wholesale electricity and a million ratepayers are already in arrears.

Reactors provide highly paid generational employment for thousands. After the bulldozers leave and the Chinese solar panels or Danish turbines are installed, solar and wind generate one job per thousand acres cleared.

Climate and energy are a single problem. Hochul is right to look at nuclear power as a sensible path forward.