LANSING, Mich. - Between Canada and the United States, there are 38 nuclear reactors on the Great Lakes and a watchdog group says if something isn't done, the world's largest body of surface water will become a nuclear garbage dump.

Dave Kraft is director of the Nuclear Energy Information Service.

He says safe energy may not be as exciting as other topics to advocate for, but people who want safe drinking water should get involved.

Kraft cites some international disasters as examples of what could happen here.

"We have the fifth anniversary of the Japanese Fukushima disaster, which took place on March 11, 2011," says Kraft. "But it's also the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster; the anniversary is April 26 of this year."

The Great Lakes supply drinking water for more than 40 million people, and Kraft says with all the nuclear reactors on their shores, it's reasonable for Americans to demand protection.

Kraft says what's happening in Flint brings to mind this question, How safe is our water?

"Mistakes happen, accidents happen," he says. "So, we're concerned that there's quite a cavalier attitude on the part of regulators, on the part of government officials, as we have seen exemplified in Flint, that we can't afford that level of risk on the Great Lakes, to have some sort of a nuclear accident."

Kraft says the government is considering creating new waste sites that would mean moving toxic materials by truck, rail and barge.

He believes that's another potential disaster that needs attention.

"Radioactive materials tend to re-concentrate through a lot of biological processes, through a lot of chemical processes," says Kraft. "And particularly as we get into a more climate-stressed scenario of the future, the constraints on water are going to be different."

Kraft urges people to become more vigilant in the effort to protect water sources, while at the same time moving toward a more renewable energy future.


get more stories like this via email

Backers say a law adding nuclear power to the definition of "green" energy will give Ohioans another option to cut carbon emissions but some environmentalists are skeptical.

House Bill 308, signed in December by Gov. Mike DeWine, is designed to open the state to nuclear power research and development. However, critics are concerned it could be used to diminish the roles of renewables, such as wind and solar energy in reaching future climate goals.

Rep. Sean Brennan, D-Parma, is a co-sponsor of the bill. He is unsure the state can reach its climate goals with the current mix of renewables.

"My belief is that if we're ever going to wean ourselves off of coal and natural gas, fossil fuels, we've got to expand our nuclear portfolio in Ohio. We just have to do it," Brennan asserted. "Wind and solar just aren't going to do it for us."

Environmental groups such as Earthjustice say the measure is similar to a controversial 2022 law classifying natural gas as green energy despite the fact its use creates hydrocarbon emissions. Critics also fear the language could be used to divert public funding from renewable energy projects.

Brennan noted the bill does not promise any financial incentives for nuclear power or divert public funds from renewable energy projects. He argued opening up to nuclear energy, which does not emit carbon into the atmosphere, will help attract jobs and federal funding.

"We need to continue to expand on solar and wind," Brennan contended. "I truly believe we have to do that, but I believe nuclear is going to be hugely important for our future energy independence, and hopefully, Ohio will become an exporter of electricity in the future."

Ohio ended its renewable energy standard in 2019 in the midst of a corruption and bribery scandal involving nuclear and coal-powered energy plants in the state. Brennan emphasized Ohio needs to move forward in its efforts to fight climate change.

"I decided to join the legislation because I believe it's a good idea to send a message to stakeholders that Ohio is open to explore expanding nuclear, whereas some states have moratoriums on nuclear," Brennan added. "I think it's going to be important to our future energy needs in Ohio."

This story is based on original reporting by Kathiann M. Kowalski for Energy News Network.


get more stories like this via email

Many contend Utah, like the greater United States, is facing an energy crisis, and the fast development and expansion of artificial intelligence could make the problem even worse.

It is estimated AI data centers will require 14 gigawatts of new power capacity by 2030. Estimates show one gigawatt alone is enough energy to power about 750,000 homes.

Gov. Spencer Cox announced Operation Gigawatt late last year, an initiative he said will double Utah's energy production over the next decade. The main goals of the initiative are to increase transmission capacity, expand and develop more energy production, enhance Utah's policies and invest in Utah research.

Cox argued the state needs more energy.

"We've looked at the future and where we are headed," Cox explained. "We've made a determination that we have to do something bold. We have to change the way we develop power in the state of Utah, and we are so fortunate to live in a state where we have these opportunities."

Coal fuels almost 50% of Utah's total electricity net generation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Natural gas accounts for about 34% and the rest primarily comes from renewable energy. Cox and others want to diversify the state's energy portfolio and bring nuclear and geothermal power into the mix. Opponents of nuclear power said it is expensive and dangerous.

Dusty Monks, deputy director of the Utah Office of Energy Development, said while nuclear power has a smaller footprint and is a zero-emissions energy source, getting nuclear power to Utah could be a long and complicated challenge. The state does not currently have a nuclear reactor at a commercial scale.

"We need to make sure that we have a policy pathway, policies that allow for us to align with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that we are not an obstacle but we're in line with," Monks outlined. "Then as we talk about energy, or nuclear, we actually need to deploy a project."

Monks added his office will bring local, regional and national resources over the next year to consider what would be required to build a nuclear project in the Beehive State.


get more stories like this via email

The Department of Energy is taking a close look at the economic and environmental impacts of liquefied natural gas exports, which some experts argue are driving up household energy costs and worsening climate challenges.

The report comes as LNG export projects rapidly expand, with U.S. demand at record levels and expected to grow as new facilities open.

In Virginia, household natural-gas bills have increased 50% since 2016, far outpacing inflation, said Jeremy Symons, principal at Symons Public Affairs. He attributed the increase to growing LNG exports, which limit domestic supply and drive energy costs.

"A single LNG plant - the controversial CP2 facility that's being proposed for Louisiana - would export twice as much gas every day than Virginia consumes," he said. "That means that, even though it's happening on the other side of the country, it drives up energy prices across the country."

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network Action Fund has gathered more than 5,000 signatures urging the Biden administration to pause LNG export licenses until a full review is completed.

Supporters of these exports argue that expanding infrastructure bolsters U.S. energy independence and strengthens global energy markets.

Symons encouraged the public to use the 60-day comment period to ensure that affected communities are heard.

Quentin Scott, federal policy director for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network Action Fund, emphasized the environmental risks and called on the Biden administration to act decisively.

"Secretary [Jennifer] Granholm said it in her own words," he said, "that continuing to export LNG at the scale and the trajectory in which the United States has been exporting LNG over the last few years is unsustainable and not good for consumers, not good for businesses, not good for our environmental and climate goals."

As Virginia faces rising costs and environmental pressures, the debate over LNG exports has become more urgent. Scott said he hopes the Department of Energy's findings and public comment period will bring attention to the local and national implications of America's growing liquefied natural-gas industry.