The word “nuclear” is often associated with gigantic, terrifying bombs, or the neon-green sludge that contributes to the erratic behavior of Homer Simpson. And yes, it earned that reputation with infamous mistakes, such as the horrifying incidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. However, one must keep in mind that these mistakes were made by humans who were learning how to harness a massive energy source. Less well known than these incidents is the knowledge that nuclear reactions are the path to a green-energy future.
So, what even is a nuclear reaction? In the most basic of terms, it’s the reaction that happens when an atom, usually a uranium atom, is split into two. This is called nuclear fission, and when it’s controlled, the heat from that reaction is enough to power a reactor and generate a lot of usable energy. This energy can then be consumed by us as electricity, something we need more and more of these days. The best part of all this? Nuclear fission is considered carbon-neutral. Statistics from World Nuclear claim that nuclear fission produces the same or even less carbon emissions than wind does using wind turbines, and even one-third as much as solar power does.
Understanding nuclear fission is the first part of understanding how it may become central on the global stage. In recent years, global actors – including the U.N., the EU, and more than 100 countries – have come together in a major push to dramatically cut carbon emissions globally. The U.N. has recognized climate change as the defining issue of our time. Although the U.S. is no longer a signatory to the Paris Agreement, other world leaders have emphasized the absolute necessity of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. This means that we need to peak our global greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. For those of you without a calendar, that would be this year. The idea is that after this year, emissions will start dropping by over 40 percent.
Although the federal government’s current stance includes fossil fuels at the crux of its policy, California’s Democratic leadership has set forth a different goal. In contrast to Trump’s fossil-fuel funding agenda, California aims to achieve statewide carbon neutrality by 2045. This package of 2022 state bills was nicknamed by the governor as the “California Climate Commitment,” and we are still holding to many of those goals in 2025. To make these dreams a reality, the state must reduce greenhouse gas emissions without support from the federal government. Unfortunately, common renewables, like solar power and wind turbines, aren’t as sustainable as they seem. Not only do they require a lot of emissions to erect the infrastructure needed to power them, but since they rely on natural phenomena, there is a constant issue with power availability. Moreover, the grid we rely on for our electricity requires a steady supply of energy, and so when the weather isn’t providing the necessary elements, society’s only alternative is to turn to non-renewables like gas and oil to keep up with demand.
The challenge presented by this paradox highlights why policymakers at all levels have begun to look beyond wind and solar, toward a newfound interest in nuclear energy. Both the Biden and Trump administrations have made strides in nuclear energy advancement, beginning with the Biden Administration in 2024. Biden’s passage of the Inflation Reduction Act’s Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment program aimed to revamp existing nuclear generating stations, while the Trump administration issued Executive Order 14300, intending to advance and expand U.S. nuclear capacity. This unusual bipartisan effort has opened the door for the American nuclear industry to begin expanding.
In California, too, Democratic Assemblyman Joaquin Arambula has introduced AB 305, a bill that would allow for nuclear power plants to be built in California, provided that reprocessing facilities for used nuclear fuel are feasible and verified as safe. This bill also stipulates that the Public Utilities Commission develop a plan by January 2028 for increasing the supply of electricity generated by nuclear power, while simultaneously phasing out natural gas energy.
One more element of this argument comes from the expansion of artificial intelligence (AI), whose parent companies happen to be situated in California. These companies have claimed that the expansion of AI exponentially increased use of popular platforms, like ChatGPT and Meta. This puts pressure on data centers, which already require massive amounts of energy. AI is considered so wasteful that it alone could threaten California’s carbon neutrality goals. However, the state simply relies too heavily on these companies for tax revenues to completely legislate against them. Therefore, cries from AI companies that present nuclear tech in a favorable light just might have a strong influence on California’s legislature.
What’s the solution? There really is only one way forward for California. If the state wants to stay committed to its goals, and I sure hope that it does, then it must start taking action instead of pushing for more time with things like a “Cap-and-Invest” program. Concurrently, however, the state also must play a balancing act by not eliminating such a lucrative revenue source in corporate state taxes. The clear solution is investing in infrastructure that will allow all of the positives: nuclear energy.
My favorite saying is “As California goes, so goes the nation.” This phrase has been used to describe California’s role in American politics as a seed for social, political, economic, and even technological changes that then take root in the rest of the country. So when it comes to something that covers the political, economic, and technological fields the way nuclear power does, it makes sense that California both metaphorically picks up the torch and literally starts laying the pipes down. Let the state lead by example.
Featured Image Source: CalMatters
