New Jersey stands at a critical juncture in its energy policy. Governor Phil Murphy and the Democratic leadership have championed an ambitious vision for a clean energy future, aiming for 100% clean electricity by 2035. This goal, outlined in the state’s Energy Master Plan, leans heavily on expanding solar and offshore wind, with plans for 11,000 megawatts of wind power by 2040 and a doubling of solar capacity by 2026.
Why is New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy and the Democrat Party so afraid of using the N-word?
While the commitment to reducing carbon emissions is commendable, the state’s reluctance to fully embrace nuclear energy—a proven, reliable, and low-carbon power source—raises serious concerns about grid reliability, affordability, and the risk of an energy crisis. Recommitting to nuclear energy, alongside a balanced approach to renewables, is essential to secure New Jersey’s energy future. Relying solely on wind and solar, with their inherent limitations, is a gamble the state cannot afford.
In 2023, nuclear power provided 42% of New Jersey’s electricity, second only to natural gas at 49%. Together, these sources accounted for over 90% of the state’s power generation, underscoring their role as the backbone of a stable grid. Nuclear plants, like the Salem and Hope Creek stations, operate with a capacity factor above 90%, meaning they deliver consistent, round-the-clock power regardless of weather or time of day. By contrast, solar power in New Jersey has a capacity factor of 8-12%, and offshore wind hovers around 30%. This means that for every 100 megawatts of solar or wind capacity installed, only a fraction is reliably available, requiring massive overbuilds to meet demand.
The closure of the Oyster Creek nuclear plant in 2018, the nation’s oldest at the time, reduced New Jersey’s nuclear capacity and serves as a cautionary tale. The state scrambled to provide financial support to prevent further closures, recognizing that losing nuclear would devastate grid reliability and emissions goals. Yet, despite this, the Murphy administration’s rhetoric and policy focus remain heavily tilted toward wind and solar, with nuclear often treated as an afterthought. This hesitation—some might say fear—of fully embracing nuclear energy ignores its unmatched ability to provide baseload power, a critical need as electricity demand surges.
New Jersey’s grid is under increasing strain from high-load operations like data centers, water treatment plants, and even cannabis farms. The regional grid operator, PJM Interconnection, has struggled to integrate new renewable projects quickly enough to replace retired fossil fuel plants, contributing to a 20% spike in electricity bills in 2025.
Wind and solar are vital components of a clean energy future, but their variability makes them ill-suited to serve as the sole foundation of New Jersey’s grid. Solar panels generate power only when the sun shines, and even the best systems lose efficiency under cloud cover or at night. Offshore wind, while promising, faces significant hurdles. The cancellation of Ørsted’s Ocean Wind 1 and 2 projects, which were meant to deliver over 2,200 megawatts, exposed the economic and logistical challenges of offshore wind. Supply chain issues, high costs, and community opposition have slowed progress, leaving New Jersey far from its 7,500-megawatt wind goal by 2035.
A recent opinion piece in NorthJersey.com cited Spain’s cascading blackout, triggered by a sudden drop in solar power, as a warning for grids overly dependent on renewables without sufficient baseload backup. New Jersey’s own renewable portfolio, while growing, supplied only 8% of electricity in 2023, with solar dominating at 7%. Wind contributed a mere 0.3%, hampered by limited onshore capacity and the slow pace of offshore development. The state’s Energy Master Plan envisions a massive scale-up, but the physics of renewables cannot be ignored. To replace the 42% of electricity from nuclear with solar, New Jersey would need millions of panels and vast land areas—an impractical proposition given the state’s density. Offshore wind, even at its target capacity, would require extensive transmission infrastructure, further driving up costs.
Energy storage, often touted as a solution to renewable intermittency, is not yet a viable fix at scale. New Jersey’s ambitious 2,000-megawatt storage target by 2030 is a step forward, but current battery technology is expensive and better suited for short-term peak demand than long-term reliability. The state’s Board of Public Utilities (BPU) is exploring storage incentives, but these are years from fruition. In the meantime, natural gas plants, which emit carbon, are filling the gap left by retired coal and nuclear facilities—a step backward for climate goals.
Nuclear energy offers a proven, zero-emission solution that aligns with New Jersey’s climate ambitions while ensuring grid stability. Unlike wind and solar, nuclear plants produce consistent power, reducing the need for fossil fuel backups. They also have a smaller land footprint than sprawling solar farms or wind turbines, a critical advantage in a densely populated state. The BPU’s recent request for information on advanced nuclear technologies, including small modular reactors (SMRs), signals a tentative step toward recognizing nuclear’s potential. SMRs, which are smaller, cheaper, and faster to build than traditional reactors, could position New Jersey as a leader in next-generation nuclear innovation.
Recommitting to nuclear means more than preserving existing plants. It requires investing in license extensions for Salem and Hope Creek, which received 20-year renewals in 2011 but will need further extensions into the 2060s. It also means exploring new reactor development, leveraging federal subsidies, and streamlining permitting to reduce costs and timelines. Critics often cite nuclear’s high upfront costs, but these pale in comparison to the long-term economic and environmental toll of an unreliable grid. A single nuclear reactor can produce 1,000 megawatts of power, equivalent to millions of solar panels or hundreds of wind turbines, with a lifespan of decades.
Nuclear energy also creates high-paying, long-term jobs. The state’s clean energy sector already employs 7,000 in solar alone, but nuclear could expand this workforce while providing stable careers in engineering, maintenance, and operations. France, which generates 70% of its electricity from nuclear, exports $3 billion in energy annually. New Jersey could emulate this model, becoming a net exporter of clean power and boosting its economy.
New Jersey’s energy policy must move beyond the false dichotomy of renewables versus fossil fuels. Nuclear, wind, and solar are not mutually exclusive—they are complementary. A balanced portfolio would maintain nuclear as the baseload, expand wind and solar where feasible, and invest in storage and grid upgrades to handle variable renewables. This approach aligns with the findings of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which notes that nuclear and natural gas have powered over 90% of New Jersey’s grid since 2011, and with the state’s own Energy Master Plan, which recently acknowledged a role for “emerging clean firm technologies” like new nuclear.
Governor Murphy’s reluctance to champion nuclear may stem from political pressures. The Democratic base often associates nuclear with safety concerns, despite modern reactors’ impeccable safety records and rigorous oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Misconceptions about radiation risks, fueled by decades-old incidents like Three Mile Island, overshadow nuclear’s 90% carbon-free contribution to New Jersey’s grid. Meanwhile, the allure of wind and solar as “green” poster children makes them politically safer bets, even if their practical limitations threaten reliability.
New Jersey cannot afford to sideline nuclear energy in its quest for a clean future. The state’s soaring electricity rates, strained grid, and slow renewable rollout are warning signs of a potential crisis. By recommitting to nuclear—extending existing plants, exploring SMRs, and integrating it with wind and solar—New Jersey can ensure reliable, affordable, and low-carbon power for its residents. Relying solely on wind and solar, with their low capacity factors and long development timelines, is a recipe for blackouts, higher bills, and missed climate targets.
Governor Murphy and the Democratic leadership must shed their hesitation and embrace nuclear as a cornerstone of the state’s energy strategy. The BPU’s nuclear inquiry is a start, but bold action is needed now. New Jerseyans deserve an energy policy grounded in reality, not ideology—one that keeps the lights on, protects the environment, and powers the state into a sustainable future.
