Monday, May 19, 2025
While I was in law school, way back in the 1970s, I was fortunate to get a part time job at Con Edison, which later became full time, after graduation. In that job, I was assigned to work on various projects associated with the Indian Point nuclear power plant, and so became somewhat knowledgeable on the subject. Eventually I left that job and went into different areas of practice, but I always stayed in touch with developments.
When I moved to Long Island, in 1987, a big nuclear plant was near completion in Shoreham. The project was beset with problems, such as cost overruns and opposition, based on fears of a nuclear accident, like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, that would wreak havoc.
Just after the plant was completed, then Gov. Mario Cuomo forced it to shut down, due to those fears. It was then sold by the Long Island Lighting Co. to the newly created Long Island Power Authority, which also eventually took over LILCO operations.
We Long Islanders are still paying for the $6 billion cost of construction and then decommissioning of the plant. I have always regarded this as a financial disaster and a huge environmental mistake. With our ever-increasing demand for electricity, especially since artificial intelligence systems have added huge new needs, costs can only go up further, as supply and therefore reliability become shakier.
Nuclear power actually boasts an exceptional safety record, especially when compared with other sources of energy. The stringent regulations and rigorous safety protocols in place ensure that nuclear plants operate with minimal risk. Contrary to popular belief, incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima are exceedingly rare, and stem from specific, often avoidable circumstances.
In fact, when you look at the statistics, nuclear power has one of the lowest accident rates and fatalities per unit of energy produced. This remarkable safety record is often overshadowed by sensational media coverage and public misconceptions, which unfairly tarnish the reputation of nuclear energy.
One of the most compelling advantages of nuclear power is its zero-emissions profile. Unlike fossil fuels, which spew harmful pollutants and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, nuclear plants produce no carbon emissions during operation. Another advantage is cost. While the initial investment in building a nuclear plant is substantial, the long-term operational costs are relatively low, and with the advent of smaller “modular” reactors, costs should go down further.
Finally, nuclear power is always “on,” as compared with most “green” power sources, which don’t work when the wind is quiet or the sun isn’t shining.
New York, like many regions, has faced increasing strain on its electrical grid due to growing energy consumption and aging infrastructure. Had Shoreham been allowed to operate, it could have contributed approximately 820 megawatts of reliable electricity — enough to power hundreds of thousands of homes — thereby reducing dependence on fossil fuels and mitigating the risk of blackouts. Like many people I know, I don’t trust the reliability and capacity of our electric system, and I invested in a home generator. That’s something that should not have to happen.
To sum up, our state officials are not doing what we need. Between forced shutdowns of nuclear plants, unwise dependence on unreliable wind and solar and refusal to allow a sufficient use of relatively clean and plentiful natural gas, we are heading for trouble. Nuclear power is the only currently available power source that is always available, is safer than almost all the others and emits no greenhouse gases.
Anyone serious about maintaining our way of life while also preserving a clean environment should be wildly in favor of a strong nuclear power revival. I know that I am.
Howard Kopel epresents Nassau County’s 7th Legislative District and is the Legislature’s presiding officer.
