Jane Fonda’s Views on Nuclear Energy Are Stuck in the 1970s

Jane Fonda reprises her “No nukes!” lines from the 1970s, ignoring the safety record of, and innovations in, nuclear energy since then.

You might think that a self-proclaimed climate advocate would be thrilled to see an announcement of more clean, reliable energy on the grid. But, you’d be wrong.

Jane Fonda cries, “No nukes!” as Three Mile Island prepares to reopen

Last month, Constellation Energy announced a deal with Microsoft to reopen a reactor at Three Mile Island, now called the Crane Clean Energy Center. Expected to open by 2028 and operate for at least 20 years, the reactor is a promise of not only energy security amidst exploding energy demand, but an economic boon for Pennsylvania as well. According to a report completed by the Brattle Group, reopening the reactor is expected to create more than 3,000 jobs and add $16 billion to Pennsylvania’s GDP.

Yet, actor and activist Jane Fonda took to the pages of The Philadelphia Inquirer to proclaim that “Nuclear power at Three Mile Island is no climate solution.” Fueled by her decades-long hatred of the energy source, Fonda makes a bizarre and convoluted argument that America’s single largest source of clean energy is not what we need to tackle climate change.

This is NOT the reactor that partly melted down

Even worse, she misleads readers by conflating the two reactors at TMI. Unit 2, owned by Energy Solutions, was the site of the partial meltdown in 1979 and has not operated since. Unit 1 is owned by Constellation and was one of the most reliable nuclear power plants in the country until it closed in 2019 for economic reasons. Having grown up just an hour south of the facility in southern York County, I remember hearing about the ramifications of the accident. Nuclear power was seen as “scary” and “dangerous” by Pennsylvanians who simply cared about their family’s health and safety. Unlearning this perspective has been no easy feat, but it was necessary.

After all, nuclear energy is one of the safest sources of energy we have at our disposal. The “radiation” argument is incoherent, as the average radiation exposure from simply living in Denver, Colorado is higher than for those working at nuclear plants. Running up to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, reactors are “baseload” energy, which means we can rely on them to power our lives no matter the weather conditions.

Why nuclear energy costs so much upfront

While Ms. Fonda is right that nuclear energy does have high upfront costs and long timelines, these costs and time delays are due to, in no small part, overregulation of the industry that prevents us from fully unleashing nuclear energy. The more nuclear energy projects we pursue, though, the faster the construction process will be. For instance, Georgia Power decreased costs by 30% between Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 through lessons learned in real-time earlier this year.

As a young person who cares about climate change, I know that nuclear power absolutely is part of the solution. Contrary to Ms. Fonda’s assertion, “Like two people trying to get through a narrow doorway at the same time, there isn’t room for both nuclear and renewables in our energy future,” I believe that we need an all-of-the-above energy approach with an emphasis on clean, reliable nuclear power. For those of us who actually believe climate is an urgent issue in need of solutions, this isn’t an either-or conversation. Those, like Ms. Fonda, who refuse to embrace nuclear energy as part of the energy mix simply aren’t serious.

Jane Fonda made the wrong choice

Importantly, my generation and Pennsylvanians agree with me. A recent Pew Research Center poll shows that 56% of Americans support new nuclear power, and an August poll of Pennsylvania voters found that 70% support nuclear power and 56% support reopening TMI Unit 1, more than double those who oppose. The consensus is clear: nuclear energy will be a key part of reducing emissions, increasing energy security, and creating American jobs for years to come.

Branding nuclear energy as dangerous and unrealistic for our climate goals is an outdated, out-of-touch argument. The choice is obvious, Ms. Fonda, but somehow, you’ve made the wrong one.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.