Independent voters do themselves a service—and their country—by seeing through nuclear fear-mongering and recognizing this untapped potential.
The Big Picture: America Needs a Reliable Energy Grid
Energy is a concern that affects the lives of every American. As more Americans face rising living costs, having a reliable grid and affordable energy becomes even more vital. People expect their lights to turn on when they flip a switch; they expect their homes to be cool in the summer and warm in the winter; and they expect to live in the 21st century without interruptions caused by outages and blackouts.
Americans need and deserve an energy policy rooted in reality. Setting arbitrary deadlines for when the grid should be powered by unreliable energy sources, no matter how well-intentioned, harms Americans and the grid more than supporters admit. A majority of Americans care about the environment and support “alternative” energy sources, yet they remain hesitant to fully phase out fossil fuels.
Zooming In
Fortunately, a solution exists that could satisfy everyone, regardless of political views: nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy supplies the grid with baseload power, which is the minimum amount of electricity needed to keep the grid functioning. Baseload generation must come from sources that operate continuously. If Americans want a cleaner energy grid that remains reliable, increasing power supplied by nuclear plants would help achieve this goal.
Dispelling the Nuclear Fears
When people think about nuclear energy, the first thing that may come to mind is the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. This incident is considered the worst nuclear accident in history; the plant in Pripyat, Ukraine (then part of the Soviet Union), released large amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere. After the disaster in the Soviet Union, the construction of nuclear plants in the U.S. came to a halt.
The U.S. avoided a major nuclear tragedy in the late 1970s. Our most serious incident involving nuclear mishaps occurred at Three Mile Island; however, there were no injuries, illnesses, or fatalities recorded as a result of the Three Mile Island incident. A crisis on the scale of Chernobyl was prevented thanks to the containment building at Three Mile Island, which the Chernobyl plant lacked. Additionally, Three Mile Island benefited from a reactor core with greater integrity and emergency systems that initially functioned as intended.
While nuclear energy poses unique challenges, it is actually the safest way to supply energy to the grid. Advances in efficiency and technology keep making this energy source safer.
Unlocking America’s Nuclear Energy Potential
The American South is emerging as a hub for nuclear innovation, especially in small modular reactors (SMRs). Southern states no longer prohibit the construction of nuclear facilities; every Southern state could host and operate SMRs. A 300-megawatt SMR could produce about 2.6 million megawatt-hours and supply roughly 200,000 homes for a year. By empowering the private sector, the U.S. can drive innovation and improve SMR technology to transform power generation.
Another key step toward unlocking the U.S.’s nuclear potential is reducing regulatory burdens and standardizing nuclear reactor designs. To prevent excessive costs and delays like those experienced with the Vogtle plant in Georgia, the U.S. should adopt standardized reactor designs, similar to France, and modularity that would streamline manufacturing, promote competition, ensure safety, and encourage innovation for already proven technologies. Standardized designs also help cut costs.
Currently, nuclear construction faces significant regulatory hurdles. Regulations can delay projects by decades, and permits and fines can reduce the profitability of nuclear power plants. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is quite strict; any minor change in plans requires additional approval from the NRC.
A Nuclear Renaissance in America
After decades of inaction on nuclear construction in the U.S., more states are turning to nuclear energy to supply the grid, keep the lights on, and lower energy costs. In January 2025, the Wyoming Industrial Siting Council granted TerraPower a permit to begin construction on its Natrium nuclear power plant near Kemmerer, WY. This permit allows for the construction of non-nuclear facilities; TerraPower has a permit pending with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for nuclear-related facilities that is on track to be approved in December 2026.
Among the flurry of executive orders signed by President Trump was an order to accelerate the construction of nuclear power plants in the U.S. Governor Kathy Hochul of New York is testing the Administration’s sincerity. After more than 15 years of inaction, New York aims to build the first major nuclear plant in the country in a generation. The new plant would add at least one gigawatt of energy to the grid – enough to power roughly one million homes. The New York Power Authority may pursue construction alone or with investments from private entities.
The tech industry is also looking to invest in nuclear plants as AI continues to grow and consume massive amounts of electricity. In December 2024, Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS) announced that it would independently finance, build, own, and operate the world’s first grid-scale commercial fusion plant in Chesterfield County, VA. This is an exciting breakthrough in power generation. Fusion can act as a long-term energy source that does not produce greenhouse gases or long-lived radioactive waste, and there is no risk of a meltdown at a fusion plant. Dominion Energy currently owns the site where the plant will be built, and CFS is collaborating with Dominion Energy for development and technical expertise. In June 2025, Google announced that it had reached an agreement with CFS to procure 200 megawatts of power from the planned fusion plant in Chesterfield; this marks Google’s first procurement deal with a fusion company.
Independent Lens
Affordability remained the top concern for voters heading into the 2024 election, and this issue has continued to dominate since then. However, independent voters do have an energy policy they told us they prefer: “[V]oters do not support political extremes on energy and the environment. Instead, the most appealing approach recognizes climate change while emphasizing personal choice in solutions.”
There is considerable uncertainty about the economy, and the only concrete plan Trump proposed during the previous campaign, tariffs, remains a major source of this growing uncertainty. As society adopts new technologies like data centers and electric vehicles, the U.S. will require more power generation. Without expanding the generating capacity, energy costs will rise and supply will become scarcer; this is a factor in America’s affordability crisis that few in Congress acknowledge.
It is important that voters are informed about the scientific and political realities of American energy policy; this is especially true for the voting bloc that determines the makeup of Congress and the Presidency. Independent voters helped decide the 2024 election, and they focused on affordability. These voters want tangible results, and potential drastic increases in energy costs are an ongoing problem that must be addressed. Wiring the electrical grid for nuclear energy will help reduce costs. Independent voters do themselves a service—and their country—by seeing through nuclear fear-mongering and recognizing this untapped potential.
