According to an Axios report released this morning, the Natural Resources Defense Council has tentatively endorsed the early stages of a process that would lead to the construction of a new nuclear reactor at the Duane Arnold nuclear power station in Iowa.
“This is unprecedented for us because it marks the first time in our history that we have taken action in support of an individual nuclear power plant,” Manish Bapna, president and CEO of NRDC, told Axios. [emphasis added]
In its last publicly available tax return, covering the year ending June 2024, the NRDC reported total revenue of $204.2 million, making it one of the five largest American anti-energy NGOs and (until now) one of the ten largest American opponents of nuclear power.
Nuclear power does not emit carbon-dioxide nor any other emissions (except steam—water vapor) and is the largest source of emissions-free energy produced in the United States and many other industrial economies. There are 700 American political and nonprofit groups known to oppose nuclear power. Since the summer of 2023, InfluenceWatch has listed profiles of 350 of them and a movement page profiling the Opposition to Nuclear Energy. At last tabulation, the combined annual revenue of the American anti-nuclear movement exceeded $3.3 billion.
Shortly after this essay is posted, the NRDC will become the first name that has ever been removed from this list. At present, the NRDC profile page on InfluenceWatch recounts the nonprofit’s history of opposing carbon-free electricity:
Opposition to Nuclear Energy
NRDC has repeatedly supported the shutdown of nuclear power plants. Environmental Progress accused NRDC of “hypocrisy” because NRDC advocated for taxpayer subsidies for wind and solar energy but opposed similar assistance for nuclear energy. 15
In a June 2021 blog post, NRDC senior scientist Mohit Chhabra stated his nonprofit had “been working for years to retire the aging Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant” in California. 3 During 2017 and 2018 NRDC staffers also argued for shutting down nuclear energy facilities in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio. 4 5
In April 2021, the NRDC celebrated the closing of the Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York. 6 NRDC cited concerns about plant safety due to a series of incidents including a transformer fire, radioactive spills, and failed accident drills. After Indian Point was built in the 1960s, researchers found out that it was located in a seismic zone and that seismic activity “could exceed the earthquake design for the facility,” according to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission panel on the issue. 16 NRDC claimed that New York’s weather-dependent energy sources will be able to make up for the loss of power provided by Indian Point with solar and wind energy. 6 However, the New York Times reported that more conventional fuels were burned in New York to make up for the closure of Indian Point and that Indian Point had been producing more power than all of the wind turbines and solar panels in New York combined. 17
Today’s Axios report also noted that a “former NRDC leader has said the group couldn’t support nuclear because it would lose donations, according to Axios reporting in 2017.”
While this is an unprecedented and hopeful day for the NRDC and the InfluenceWatch list of nuclear energy enemies, it is not yet a certain success.
A 1900 megawatt (MW) nuclear station when it was originally decommissioned in 2020, the reopened Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) will have a reactor rated for just 600 (MW). And that’s assuming it does reopen, as currently planned, in 2029.
Google hopes to use the new facility as a data center, and NRDC has endorsed the transfer of plant ownership towards that goal. In a March 2 filing endorsing the ownership transfer, NRDC reserved the right to change its mind: “While our preliminary view is that the restart of DAEC could have decarbonization and grid benefits, NRDC emphasizes again that its support for this ownership transfer does not constitute a final position on the merits of the proposed restart itself.”
The NRDC statement also reiterated many of the conventional and erroneous claims regarding nuclear power and weather-restricted wind and solar energy: “We note that the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for nuclear power is much higher than that for solar and wind power, which continue to be the least cost sources of new electricity generation—and when paired with battery storage, wind and solar can provide firm clean capacity value in addition to clean electricity.”
If the NRDC reverses field and opposes the reactor restart at Duane Arnold, then it will be re-added to the InfluenceWatch list of anti-nuclear groups.
But ideally, this will become the first of many sensible energy policies promoted by the NRDC. And hopefully, other members of the anti-nuclear club will reconsider their positions.
As an example, there was a time when the Sierra Club was also a pro-nuclear nonprofit. Today, they claim to be “unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy.” Maybe they’ll change their minds tomorrow?
It would be lovely to write 300 more examples of this blog . . . and then close down the InfluenceWatch anti-nuclear profile because there are no names left on it.
Earlier this month, an advocate for Appalachian Voices wrote to us, claiming that nonprofit should be removed from the anti-nuclear list. But, while it’s easy to find evidence that Appalachian Voices has opposed new nuclear reactor construction (in seven specific recent instances, no less) there is no evidence they have ever endorsed the opening or reopening of even one, specific, nuclear power station.
The American energy policy landscape is in a slightly better place today than it was just yesterday. And we have the NRDC to thank for the progress. Tomorrow they will be removed from the InfluenceWatch anti-nuclear list and the NRDC profile will be adjusted to include this new development.
