Dangerous uranium waste from the Kerr-McGee plant, a former nuclear energy fabrication plant, remains in Logan County, Oklahoma’s groundwater more than 50 years after cleanup began (Kliewer 2025). In the 1970s and early 1980s, Oklahoma residents said NO to nuclear energy by protesting and stopping the Black Fox Nuclear Power Plant, but now the state of Oklahoma is once again exploring the possibility of nuclear power. Nuclear energy is NOT a viable, safe, or sustainable solution to Oklahoma’s energy needs. The majority of this power will not benefit Oklahoma residents; it will be used to fuel data centers that harm rural communities and contribute to cumulative environmental risks. We say NO to Nuclear Energy (including “advanced” nuclear).

What is nuclear energy, and what is “advanced” nuclear energy?
Nuclear energy encompasses several technologies aimed at the same basic goal: breaking apart atoms with dense, energetic nuclei to convert the atom’s mass into energy. Breaking one nucleus releases neutrons, which then break other nuclei, triggering the famous atomic chain reaction and vast energy output (Wald 2022).

Traditional Nuclear 
For decades, nuclear energy facilities have been very large, producing gigawatts of electricity. These traditional nuclear reactors, also known as light water reactors (LWRs), used water to cool the facility and to manage the speed of the nuclear reaction (Union of Concerned Scientists 2014).

“Advanced” Nuclear
New technologies have been developed to extract energy from atoms. Known as advanced nuclear energy, these systems fall into two categories: 1) non-light-water reactors and 2) small modular reactors (SMRs). Non-light-water reactors use molten salts, liquid sodium, or helium gas to cool their cores instead of water (Lyman 2021). SMRs are nuclear reactors that are smaller than large nuclear reactors. They can be designed to use water or other coolants to cool their cores. SMRs are a new technology that is still being developed (Lyman 2024).

Six reasons we oppose traditional and advanced nuclear energy

1) Both traditional and advanced nuclear energy generate radioactive, long-lasting, and dangerous nuclear waste that cannot be stored safely. 

• Nuclear power plants generate “high-level radioactive waste that remains hazardous for thousands of years” and long-term storage solutions have faced many political and logistical challenges (Lumley 2025).
• There are no centralized sites where small modular reactors (SMRs) can be taken and disposed of safely. “Any community with an SMR will have to plan to be a de facto long-term nuclear waste disposal site” (Lyman 2024).
• SMRs will “increase the volume of nuclear waste in need of management and disposal by factors of 2 to 30” compared to traditional light water reactors (Krall et al. 2022).
• SMRs inherent design creates new kinds of waste that “will exacerbate the challenges of nuclear waste management and disposal” (Krall et al. 2022).

2) Nuclear energy requires constant cooling and presents a number of known and unknown safety hazards - especially in Oklahoma where we grapple with tornados, earthquakes, and flooding.

• The “passive safety features that SMR proponents like to cite may not always work, especially during extreme events such as large earthquakes, major flooding, or wildfires” (Lyman 2024).  This is especially troubling in Oklahoma where we experience a wide range of these events.
• SMRs’ safety depends on uninterrupted grid-supplied electricity to power coolant pumps and other vital safety systems (Lyman 2024). 
• While rare, nuclear power plant accidents, like Chernobyl and Fukushima, have proven to have severe, devastating, and long-term consequences for environments and human health. “Ionizing radiation can cause immediate damage to a person’s body, including, at very high doses, radiation sickness and death. At lower doses, ionizing radiation can cause health effects such as cardiovascular disease and cataracts, as well as cancer. It causes cancer primarily because it damages DNA, which can lead to cancer-causing gene mutations.” (National Cancer Institute 2022). 

3) Both traditional and advanced nuclear energy require ongoing mining for uranium and plutonium. Nuclear energy is NOT truly renewable or carbon free. 

• Nuclear energy requires uranium mining extraction which “emits dust, radon gas, and chemical waste” (Lumley 2025).
• “While nuclear energy is carbon free, the entire nuclear fuel cycle is not. Nuclear fuel mining and enrichment processes would require the use of fossil fuels, which would lead to significant carbon emissions into the atmosphere” (Jamil et al. 2011).
• SMRs do NOT use fuel more efficiently than large reactors. “In terms of the amount of heat generated, the amount of uranium fuel that must undergo nuclear fission is the same whether a reactor is large or small” (Lyman 2024). 

4) Nuclear energy is not economically viable - especially in Oklahoma.

• A 2018 study found that one-third of existing U.S. nuclear plants were unprofitable or scheduled to close. The average cost to bring an unprofitable plant to profitability is $4 billion over five years (Clemmer et al. 2018). 
• Nuclear plant closures are most common in the middle of the country, where other energy costs are lower (Clemmer et al, 2018). Oklahoma ranks among the lowest in energy costs compared to other states (OK Energy Today 2025).
• Nuclear plants are often predicted to operate for 60 years. Nonetheless as of 2023, 25% of America’s nuclear power plants had been shut down before reaching 40 years, with an average lifespan of 22.8 years (Cleveland 2024). Many reach retirement age and are shut down much earlier. The costs to build plants are incredibly expensive, but the plants have not proven to last. 

5) If profitable, the economics of nuclear energy benefit corporations, not consumers. 

• Even when nuclear does make a profit, operators push the financial cost of storing waste onto consumers. All nuclear power plants are required to pay into a Nuclear Waste Fund. Nuclear facilities “pay” their fair share by shifting the burden to their customers as a utility bill surcharge. Customers have paid over $56 billion (including interest) into the fund as of 2020 (NEI, 2021a; DOE-OIG, 2021). 
• Residents end up carrying the financial burden for the costs of nuclear power plant construction. For example, Nuclear power in Georgia is costing residents an estimated $4.1 billion in advance costs or $913 for ratepayers and cooperative customers paying $500 million through March (Associated Press 2023).
• These power plants will be primarily used to fuel data centers, which disproportionately harm rural and low-income communities (Bennett-Steele 2025). 

6) Nuclear energy production harms plants, wildlife, and ecosystems

• Nuclear reactors often use nearby rivers or lakes as water sources for cooling, and “the discharge of heated water can disrupt aquatic ecosystems” (Lumley 2025). 
• Radiation from power plants can also harm plants, animals, birds, aquatic life and insects through direct cellular damage, reduced reproduction, and long-term effects on their ecosystem. In one study, many species in areas with elevated levels of radiation had reduced populations (Cannon and Kiang 2020).

For these reasons, we say NO to Nuclear Energy in Oklahoma! Advanced nuclear is experimental and consists of multiple unknowns. We should not gamble health and wellbeing with such a risky form of energy production.  Accidents might be rare, but when they do occur, the results are long-term and catastrophic. Oklahoma CAN transition to truly renewable energy solutions without relying on dangerous and unsustainable nuclear energy.