Energy company Constellation announced last month it aims to restart the nuclear plant at Three Mile Island amid growing energy demand.

Three Mile Island, home of the infamous 1979 partial meltdown, is not the only nuclear site with a possible second life. Holtec International, an energy technology company, bought the closed Palisades nuclear plant in southwest Michigan and is also working to restore and reopen the plant.

Supporters of nuclear power say the carbon-free electricity it generates can help meet growing energy demand for things like electric vehicles and increasing load from data centers for artificial intelligence.

Critics often point to the very high cost to construct nuclear plants, meltdown risk and disposal of radioactive waste.

California only has one nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, which Gov. Gavin Newsom has argued should stay open to avoid rolling blackouts and power shortages.

Question: Was California too quick to abandon nuclear power?

Economists

David Ely, San Diego State University

YES: Maintaining a reliable power grid is critical to the health of the California economy and quality of life of its residents. Given the goal of lowering dependency on fossil fuels and the rising energy demands for EVs and data centers, nuclear power is a viable energy source in the near term to ensure the power grid is reliable. In hindsight, the timeline to close the Diablo Canyon Power plant by 2025 was too short.

Ray Major, economist

YES: California’s aggressive policies to move away from fossil fuels and mandate all electric houses and all vehicles sold after 2035 to be electric will require a massive amount electrical production capacity that we do not have. Rolling brownouts during peak usage times demonstrate that we do not have the production capacity we need. Solar power alone cannot provide the supply required reliably. Energy resilience requires alternates to complement solar power and nuclear provides that alternative.

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

YES: In a tradeoff between nuclear energy and fossil fuel-powered plants, the former is preferred given the problems with climate change. There still are serious problems with nuclear power that need to be addressed. These include the long-term storage of waste and the potential for a catastrophic meltdown. On the latter, the industry gets a massive subsidy due to the Price-Anderson act, which limits liability in such situations. This distorts the market, but eliminating it would kill the nuclear power industry.

Caroline Freund, University of California, San Diego, School of Global Policy and Strategy

YES: Energy demand is rising and we need to exploit all clean options. Nuclear power is clean, reliable and low cost, and the risk of accidents is low and declining. Without sufficient alternative energy sources, abandoning nuclear power is pushing up costs and increasing our reliance on fossil fuels. A problem, not just in California, but around the world. For example, as Germany shuttered its nuclear plants, coal generated power expanded, hardly a win for the planet.

Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research

YES: Nuclear power or any other source of energy generation does not provide enough for all needed, especially with energy demands exponentially increasing. There are limitations and negative impacts to any technology currently available for generating energy. Reliable balances as a means of generating energy are much preferable than depending upon any single source. With inconsistent production capability, renewable and carbon-neutral generation requires much more storage capacity causing greater environmental impact and cost than conventionally presented.

James Hamilton, UC San Diego

YES: Solar and wind are intermittent power sources, and require a backup when the sun’s not shining and the wind’s not blowing. Nuclear is a better alternative than natural gas, and natural gas is much better than coal. What sense does it make for California to shut down our nuclear power plants and then import electricity from coal-fired power plants in Arizona?

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

YES: We have several experts in our backyard that can attest to small scale nuclear power reactors (SMRs) becoming commercially feasible by 2019, with supporting research going back to the 1950s. The approaches and risks inherent in large scale nuclear power plants are no longer valid. Given the energy requirements of data centers and AI-based productivity enhancers that our economy requires to stay globally competitive, we need a multifaceted energy production approach including SMRs.

Executives

Haney Hong, San Diego County Taxpayers Association

YES: There’s no way we can replace all greenhouse gas emitting sources like natural gas and coal without some other source that can supply energy — on scale — when winds don’t blow or the sun goes down. I’m hoping that people will be more open to nuclear fusion, but I’m guessing fusion – when it can produce power on scale – will only trigger the same fears that fission did and get stopped in its tracks.

Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere

YES: It was short-sighted. California has ambitious clean energy goals and skyrocketing demand for electricity. Coupled with renewables, nuclear power could have provided a constant and reliable source of power. Nuclear energy is cleaner than fossil fuels, doesn’t rely on the weather, has a low carbon footprint, reduces dependence on foreign sources, and is one of the cheapest forms of energy. Unfortunately, California didn’t look at the big picture, which is a costly mistake.

Phil Blair, Manpower

YES: Nuclear energy absolutely needs to be an option for decades to come. Yes, there have been several incidents where major repairs have needed to be made but that does not equate with walking away from nuclear as a resource. Europe has depended on it for decades and finds it a safe, efficient and environmentally sound source of energy.

Gary London, London Moeder Advisors

YES: The nuclear business is in a quiet but steady renaissance owed to the need for clean and reliable alternative energy sources. In addition to restarts of existing plants, there are new technologies which update the previously dangerous water cooling methods. Nuclear needs to be one of the tools in our energy toolshed. California policymakers should be sprinting to construct new ones, reversing the previous process of abandonment.

Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates

YES: The state’s plan to reduce its reliance on nuclear energy has not been easy. Renewable energy projects have faced delays due to the pandemic, and worsening droughts could drive declines in hydropower energy production. Heat waves have triggered rolling blackouts and brownouts as electricity demand proliferates. The state must rely on all renewable and carbon-free sources, including nuclear energy. California’s political incompetence has led us to import more electricity than any other state.

Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth

YES: Demand for electricity is growing exponentially due to technologies like electric vehicles and AI. We urgently need as much renewable energy as we can build. Unfortunately, the production, transmission and storage of a solely renewable grid will not suffice. New nuclear technologies are substantially cleaner and safer than fossil-fuel plants for base power. Opposition due to the cost, time to build, mining materials, waste storage and melt-down danger are either solvable, more substantial in alternatives, or overestimated.

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

YES: Energy and electricity costs have gone up significantly as we move more to renewable and clean energy sources. These costs are becoming unaffordable to many people. I would prefer not to rely on nuclear power. But without lower cost and reliably consistent energy alternatives, we should at least take another look at nuclear power as a potential energy source.

©2024 The San Diego Union-Tribune. Visit sandiegouniontribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.