The Resurgence of Atomic Reason: How Anti‑Nuclear Hysteria Is Losing Credibility

By Nancy Carrington for eGeneration News – September 4, 2025

When Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) and NuScale Power quietly terminated their Carbon‑Free Power Project last fall, the usual suspects pounced. Anti‑nuclear lobbyists and renewable cheerleaders crowed that this was the death knell for small modular reactors (SMRs) and proof that the future belonged to windmills and solar panels. Headlines and social‑media campaigns glorified NuScale’s setbacks and declared the age of nuclear over. Yet, like most propaganda driven by fear instead of facts, the narrative was as brittle as the intermittent resources its authors favor.

A Question of Subscription, Not Technology

NuScale’s Carbon‑Free Power Project was to be the nation’s first commercial SMR. But unlike a government mandate, the project depended on cities and towns voluntarily subscribing to the power purchase agreement. By October 2023 it had become clear that UAMPS wouldn’t meet the 80 percent subscription threshold, so NuScale and the cities mutually agreed to terminate the contract. Rising interest rates and material costs had forced NuScale to raise the target price of electricity from $58/MWh to $89/MWh, undermining the deal’s economics. In other words, the project died because not enough customers signed up, not because the technology failed.

Rather than acknowledge these mundane realities, anti‑nuclear activists spun the story as proof that all advanced nuclear is doomed. They conveniently ignored that NuScale’s leadership pledged to refocus on other partnerships, including plans for two NuScale VOYGR‑12 plants that could generate nearly 2 GW of capacity for data centers in the Midwest. They also ignored voices within the industry who saw the cancellation as part of a normal innovation cycle. The Nuclear Energy Institute reminded reporters that “innovation — particularly in new technologies — is defined by fits and starts”. The American Nuclear Society pointed out that advanced nuclear was still coming. None of that made it into the anti‑nuclear press releases.

TVA’s 6‑GW SMR Initiative: Facts Trump Fear

Less than a year after the UAMPS cancellation, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) announced a memorandum of understanding with ENTRA1 Energy to develop up to 6 gigawatts of new nuclear generation across its seven‑state territory. Under the agreement, ENTRA1 will build and own six energy plants using NuScale’s SMR technology and sell the output to TVA, enough to supply approximately 4.5 million homes or 60 data centers. TVA’s president hailed the partnership as evidence that no U.S. utility is “working harder or faster” to pursue next‑generation nuclear.

This is not a pie‑in‑the‑sky promise. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already approved NuScale’s 77‑MW module and 462‑MW plant design. TVA is investing more than $19 billion in generation and transmission upgrades because electricity demand in its region has grown three times faster than the national average. Some 3,570 MW of new generation is under construction, with another 1,950 MW pending environmental review. These are real numbers backed by a concrete business case, not wild speculation.

Why does this matter? Because the same voices who cheered the UAMPS cancellation now pretend that TVA’s 6‑GW plan doesn’t exist. It demolishes their storyline. Instead of acknowledging that advanced nuclear has robust demand from data centers, artificial‑intelligence complexes, and manufacturing hubs, they double down on wind and solar fantasies. They ignore that TVA and ENTRA1 view public‑private partnerships as essential to advancing nuclear technologies. In the face of hard evidence, propaganda must either adapt or self‑destruct. It appears the anti‑nuclear lobby has chosen the latter.

Wind and Solar: A False Salvation

The push to frame NuScale’s setback as a triumph of wind and solar betrays the anti‑nuclear movement’s desperation. Wind turbines and solar panels are increasingly being exposed as complex, unreliable and environmentally destructive technologies; they rely on vast land footprints, heavy metals, and intermittent output that must be backed up by fossil fuels. Worse, their advocates now weaponize a single contract cancellation as justification for more subsidies and mandates. Such behavior is not just intellectually dishonest—it is un‑American. Free people solve problems through competition and innovation, not through propaganda and public‑relations campaigns designed to bully legislators into picking winners and losers.

A real free‑market path would encourage microgrids, behind‑the‑meter generation and dispatchable resources such as natural‑gas peaking plants and nuclear reactors. Ohio’s recent House Bill 15 made modest moves toward enabling microgrids but still kept utilities from offering behind‑the‑meter solutions, an artificial barrier that stifles competition. Genuine reform would let well‑informed consumers sign agreements for resilient power and permit microgrids to sell excess capacity instead of forcing them into isolated silos. Anti‑nuclear advocates, by contrast, would lock ratepayers into an unstable grid built on the false promise that sunlight and breezes can power the modern economy.

The Credibility Gap

The moral of this story is not simply that nuclear is back. It is that reality eventually catches up with propaganda. The anti‑nuclear lobby’s reaction to NuScale’s UAMPS project—portraying a voluntary contract termination as a failure of the technology—shows a movement that has lost touch with facts. Its unwillingness to acknowledge TVA’s 6‑GW initiative exposes a fear that nuclear’s success will undercut the renewable narrative. And its habit of demonizing dispatchable energy as dirty while cheering technologies that require fossil backup raises questions about motives.

Americans deserve better. We deserve an energy debate grounded in empirical evidence and economic understanding, not in wild assumptions and ideological fervor. The Tennessee Valley Authority’s commitment to SMRs demonstrates that next‑generation nuclear is moving ahead with the backing of industry and regulators. The failure of the UAMPS contract was a market signal about subscription risk, not a verdict on nuclear technology. Until the anti‑nuclear lobby comes to terms with these realities, its credibility will continue to erode.

Nancy Carrington writes about energy, economics and public policy for eGeneration News. She is a firm believer in technological innovation, free markets and responsible stewardship of God’s creation.