I think there's some valid concerns about a meltdown contaminating groundwater, etc.
But I agree that "radiation" is something we should be thinking about more pragmatically. For decades it's been a scary buzzword that the public completely misunderstands and fears. We should be having more rational discussions about it.
Nuclear power has unfairly suffered attacks from "both" "sides" here in the US. The "left" has tended to be generally anti-nuke in what I consider to be very blind ways. And the "right" has closer ties to the fossil fuel industry and has always had a vested interest in torpedoing nuclear. These are vast generalizations with plenty of exceptions, but that's the big picture and I hate it.
Not an expert, just searched for it, but this article suggests - just skimmed it - that while most groundwater is indeed not that deep, there is groundwater several miles down and the interaction between deep and shallow ground water is not well understood.
- I explicitly said both "sides" dislike nuclear, and made no proclamations about which "side" was more anti-nuclear, so pointing out that "red states have nuclear plants" is a non sequitur
- There are quite a few party-independent factors at work as well, obviously, such as the need for plants to be near running water, and the fact that NIMBY anti-nuclear pressure is higher in more populous areas which tend to skew blue
- Red/blue maps at the state level are nearly useless for anything but discussing electoral politics; all states have individual counties that are intensely red or intensely blue, so this level of detail tells us nothing of use
The state with the highest number of nuclear power plants is Illinois. The state with the largest percentage of electric generation from nuclear power is New Hampshire (61%): <https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=43256>.
NPP's location is best characterised as "eastern US", which tends to reflect other factors, most especially population, industrialisation, generation alternatives, and per-capita electrical demand (most especially cooling demand).
Population: the US population is largely concentrated in the east and specifically north-east, which already has a large concentration of nuclear power plants. This elevation-based population catogram gives a good visualisation: <https://infographic.tv/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Visual-US-...>
Industrial output (about 30% of total power consumption) is still concentrated in the old "rust belt", but has increasingly moved toward the south-east. This will drive some power consumption.
Generation alternatives: Coal remains predominant in the Apallachian region (WV, KY, TN) and a fair bit of the central US. The Pacific Northwest has immense hydroelectric capacity. California also relies strongly on hydro as well as solar and natural gas, with nuclear (Diablo Canyon) providing 7% of the state's power. Plains and southern states in particular lack large-scale hydroelectric capacity (possibly excepting the Tennessee Valley Authority, a/k/a TVA).
Per-capita energy consumption tends to be highest in ... AK, WY, ND, and LA, all of which are low-population states. Several of those states have higher heating loads (generally on-site combustion-based) and transportation demands (long distances, sparse populations). But you'll see both higher-than-average energy consumption and higher population in the southern US. Much of that demand is also summer-time cooling load, which is both electrical and fairly continuous over time, a pattern which matches well with NPP operating modes. Nukes like to run continuously at constant output, rather than ramping up and down quickly as with gas and hydro power.
Put that together and ... NPPs tend to be found in Eastern states with larger populations and higher electrical demand. Not exclusively in the SE, but that's a region with a good match generally.
But I agree that "radiation" is something we should be thinking about more pragmatically. For decades it's been a scary buzzword that the public completely misunderstands and fears. We should be having more rational discussions about it.
Nuclear power has unfairly suffered attacks from "both" "sides" here in the US. The "left" has tended to be generally anti-nuke in what I consider to be very blind ways. And the "right" has closer ties to the fossil fuel industry and has always had a vested interest in torpedoing nuclear. These are vast generalizations with plenty of exceptions, but that's the big picture and I hate it.