The story presents numerous factual claims regarding the resurgence of nuclear energy in the United States, such as the legislative support from 25 states and the increased public approval for nuclear power. These claims are generally supported by credible sources like Pew Research for public opinion data and the Nuclear Energy Agency for technological developments. However, some claims, such as those about specific legislative actions and investments by tech companies, require further verification to ensure their precision. Additionally, while the article mentions safety concerns raised by the Union of Concerned Scientists, it could benefit from more detailed exploration of these risks to provide a balanced view.

The article predominantly focuses on the positive aspects of nuclear energy, particularly highlighting advancements like SMRs and molten salt reactors. While it does mention safety and environmental concerns, these are somewhat overshadowed by the optimistic portrayal of nuclear technology's potential. The perspectives of nuclear advocates are well-represented, but the article could improve balance by providing more space to critics and skeptics, such as those from the Union of Concerned Scientists, who express concerns about the safety and environmental impact of new nuclear technologies.

The article is generally well-written, with clear language and a logical structure that makes it easy to follow. It effectively explains complex topics like small modular reactors and molten salt reactors in a way that is accessible to a general audience. However, the article could benefit from more explicit definitions or explanations of technical terms for readers unfamiliar with nuclear energy concepts.

The article references credible sources like Pew Research and the Nuclear Energy Agency, which enhances its reliability. However, it lacks direct citations for some claims, such as the specific legislative actions in 25 states and investments by tech companies, which could affect the perceived authority of the information. Including more direct quotes or data from primary sources would strengthen the article's credibility and provide a clearer picture of the nuclear energy landscape.

The article provides a broad overview of the current state of nuclear energy but lacks detailed explanations of its methodology or the sources of some claims. While it quotes experts and references studies, it does not consistently disclose the basis for all its assertions, such as the specific legislative actions or the extent of tech companies' investments. Greater transparency in these areas would help readers better understand the context and validity of the information presented.