“I would support a nuclear power plant being built in my county.”

Climate change is a big part of why nuclear is back in the conversation. Many climate scientists argue that wind and solar alone won’t cut emissions fast enough, because they depend on weather and storage is still hard, and that steady, low-carbon nuclear power has to be part of the mix. Others argue that renewables plus storage can do the job without the cost and risk of reactors. Tech companies like Google and Meta are signing nuclear deals to power AI data centers, and the fights are moving to local communities. This month a developer named a site in Amherst County, Virginia, for a possible small modular reactor, and a packed planning meeting in Carbon County, Utah, heard a company’s plan to build about 70 small reactors, with some residents telling the company they didn’t want it there.

Kerry Emanuel (MIT climate scientist, says nuclear is needed): said “any real solution to this problem is going to have to involve nuclear energy—barring some other kind of technical breakthrough,” in storage or carbon capture. With three other climate scientists, he wrote in 2015 that “nuclear will make the difference between the world missing crucial climate targets or achieving them.” He notes that some scientists, such as Stanford’s Mark Jacobson, believe a 100% renewable system is technically possible. Eric Chiaretta (Carbon County, Utah, resident, opposes): after a planning commission meeting on the proposed reactors, he said “I don’t think it’s good for the environment; I don’t see any economic value in it.” Amy Goodwin (Amherst County, Virginia, resident who lives near the proposed site, undecided): said she was surprised to learn a reactor could be built close to her home. “I have a lot of questions.” The county supervisor for the area, Tom Martin, told local TV he is gathering information so he can make an informed decision.