Well, a new poll finds there's widespread support among residents here for developing more renewable energy.

The Stockton University poll released this week shows 57% of residents want state leaders to prioritize energy sources like wind and solar power instead of expanding fossil fuels.

Now, rising utility bills could have a lot to do with that sentiment.

Some 70% also said their electric bills have either increased significantly or somewhat over the past year.

When asked exactly which type of energy residents want to develop in order to increase that supply most, 64% said solar.

Wind was second at 41% and nuclear came in last at 33% according to the poll.

But nuclear energy could be on the verge of a comeback in New Jersey.

Camden-based Holtec International is in talks with state officials to bring what are known as small modular reactors or SMRs to the former Oyster Creek site, backed by new legislation offering fast-tracked approvals.

Some see it as a much-needed step toward carbon-free energy with all of our grid concerns, but there are plenty of criticisms too.

For more on that, I'm joined by investigative reporter Jeff Pillitz of the Jersey Vindicator.

Jeff, thanks for coming on the show.

I don't have to tell you, Holtec has had a pretty controversial history and trend in the state.

What's your sense through this reporting as to why the political climate seems to be a bit more receptive to this proposal?

Well, I think the big thing is the cost of energy is just skyrocketing, as you know.

Electric power is just through the roof and it's only going to get higher.

There just seems to be a consensus emerged that we've got to do something on climate change.

That's what the policy makers want to do.

It just seems that there's a, as I say, a consensus around nuclear as one option of the above.

And we have to pursue that like we pursue all the other carbon-neutral technologies.

So I think that's pretty much the reason.

I think that New Jersey needs a power source and they need it pretty quickly.

And I think that's what's behind it.

I mean, you spoke with a number of lawmakers, Senator Smith among them, who sort of framed it like a necessary evil.

No, that, as you said, we're in a tough spot.

Yeah, Smith has, he's a reputation as an environmentalist in the state.

And I don't think he loves nuclear energy.

He does not like nuclear waste.

That's a big, big problem.

There's still no place to put nuclear waste permanently in this country.

And Smith said, listen, I don't really like voting for this, but we got to do something.

You know, so I, that was, he pretty much said it, you know, he said that we, we face a coming crisis with changing climate, drought, fires, the whole thing.

And, you know, he said, we've got to show the people we're taking some action.

So that pretty much summarizes, you know, the policymaker standpoint.

Yeah.

I mean, what are critics saying?

I know that they've argued that this sort of prolongs our reliance on these type of sources.

These are high risk sources.

Is there any evidence that suggests these, these SMRs are safer than, than past modules?

I think, I think critics are saying, Brianna, that I don't think they necessarily have anything against nukes in themselves.

But I think what they're saying is that it costs, the cost is prohibitive.

And by pursuing nukes with the, all these subsidies that we're, we're contemplating putting on in New Jersey and elsewhere, that it's going to diminish solar.

It's going to diminish wind.

It's going to diminish battery storage and all those technologies which are at hand right now.

The nuclear stuff, SMRs that you're talking about, the small reactors, they're not really ready yet.

They're, they're, they're still several years off.

They are not approved by the, by the NRRC.

So, you know, it's, they're, the critics are saying, why are you throwing out what we have to subsidize something that's, that's elusive and may not even work?

So you mentioned the cost.

Is there any sense of what that dollar figure would be?

And are we talking subsidies?

Are we talking this landing on taxpayers' bills?

I mean, who bears the cost?

We're talking subsidies.

We're talking ratepayers' bills.

We're talking taxpayers' bills.

I mean, it's a, it's a moving figure.

It's billions of dollars.

In Michigan, where they, they've started a subsidized Poltech project there, it's $3 billion between state and federal subsidies there.

And that's still not up and running.

So that's the criticism.

The cost, unknown projects that have started years ago have failed after becoming four or five times what they should have.

In Utah, we had a project like that.

In Georgia, we had a project like that.

So the fear is, and it's a legitimate fear, is that could, why do we want to go down that road in New Jersey?

That's what the critics say.

Is there a sense, very quickly, Jeff, that this is something that will actually materialize, or is it more speculative at this point?

I think there's a sense that it will materialize, at least under the current atmosphere.

You know, all systems seem go for this, that this will happen in Oyster Creek, you know, the first part of the next decade.

It's going to start to happen there.

So I think the way we stand now, this is a done deal.

Jeff Pillitz for us.

Jeff, great reporting, as always.

Thanks for coming on to talk.

Thanks, Brie.

[MUSIC]