The Department of Energy has announced new plans for Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses to modernize the U.S. nuclear fuel cycle and support potential advanced reactor deployment nationwide...
On Nov. 5th, as part of SOSV's Climate Tech Summit, Rod Adams of Nucleation Capital and Matt Loszak, CEO of Aalo Atomics joined Tim De Chant of TechCrunch in a panel called "Nuclear Fission Refueled: Putting Nuclear Back on the Map." Aalo Atomics, one of Nucleation's portfolio companies, had an opportunity to shine, as the only fission venture featured. Matt spoke about where Aalo is in its development cycle, why it has been pursuing DOE authorization for the past two years, why it was a serendipitous choice, given recent actions by the DOE and how that intersects with Aalo's NRC licensing process, among many other aspects of how Aalo is progressing with its development of a Gen IV nuclear reactor that is "purpose built" for data centers.
Ajay Banga, the World Bank president, announced that it would lift its decades-long ban on financing nuclear energy and “begin to re-enter the nuclear energy space” in partnership with the International Atomic Energy Agency. This policy shift is aimed at accelerating development of the low-emissions nuclear technology to meet surging electricity demand in the developing world.
takes a systems-oriented perspective to evaluate electricity decarbonization pathways and finds that LCOE is not an effective approach to planning decarbonization policies.
Compounding the loss of old-growth tropical forests in 2024 (estimated to have covered an area as large as Ireland) and the release of their carbon stores, is the loss of the moisture and climate systems maintained by those forest ecosystems, which previously provided localized cooling effects, produced cloud cover and contributed to the atmospheric moisture necessary for rain. These had also helped to brighten the earth, thereby reflecting more of the sunlight that otherwise would cause heating. This moisture and water cycle activity gets destroyed along with the trees, plants and animal life. This climatic loss to broad areas may be having more of a negative feedback effective on the planet's overall warming than has previously been recognized.
Global Surface Temperature Change (published 2/3/25)
This news add yet more data to the alarming report published in February by Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Pushker Kharecha and a team of sixteen other climate scientists plainly titled "Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed? In it, Dr. Hansen's team explains that global temperatures have leaped up more than a half degree (0.7°F or 0.4°C) over the last 2 years, with a total average temperature rise of +1.6°C relative to the temperature at the beginning of last century (the 1880-1920 average). This reflects a temperature rise over the +1.5°C (or 2.7°F) level that we set as our goal for maximum increase. As of the last year, we've already exceeded that level.
These increases have, according to Hansen, baffled Earth scientists, as the increase's magnitude was literally off the charts. There were multiple explanations presented as to what could have caused such a big increase. Declining aerosol pollution was seen as a key contributor, by reducing nuclei that aided cloud formation and thus reflection of sunlight, thereby effectively darkening earth and allowing more heat to be absorbed. These are very troubling and portentious changes that may, in fact, show that feedback effects are already accelerating the heating impacts of our CO2 emissions, such that they no longer follow a direct relationship.
Dr. Hansen's report received considerable criticism both because it departed scientifically from the mainstream's more conservative consensus of a lower rate of warming and climate "sensitivity," as determined by the IPCC, and because it called for "a complement to the IPCC approach" to "avoid handing young people a dire situation that is out of their control." In a response to some of that criticism, Drs. Hansen and Karecha decried the ad hoc opinions, ad hominem attacks and sense that the media has gravitated towards reporting the opinions of just a small handful of scientists, rather than covering the total community and range of analyses, including their own.
Dr. Anatassia Makarieva, an atmospheric physicist, responded to this debate with a substack post titled "On the scientific essense of Dr. James Hansen's recent appeal." In it she agreed with Drs. Hansen and Karecha that many scientists were understating the degree of climate forcing but also shared her sense that many of the climate models in use, including Dr. Hansen's, erroneously ignored the major role of the biosphere in the climate destabilization that we are now experiencing. Which may, she argued, partially explain why none of the models predicted the heat anomaly of the 2023 - 2024 time period. Dr. Makarieva writes:
Why is this [i.e. accurate climate models] so important? Unless external causes of this recent temperature anomaly are identified, we may be dealing with a self-reinforcing process — for example, of reduced cloud cover causing more warming, this warming causing even less clouds and so forth until something truly ugly happens to our planet. But, if so, such a process could be started by many factors and does not necessarily need CO2 to kick off. For example, deforestation-induced reduction of evapotranspiration in the Amazon is associated with extreme heat events. This alone could trigger the warming that could then self-amplify via cloud (or some other) feedbacks.
Whether or not we have permanent self-reinforcing amplification happening with the climate now is being debated, partially thanks to new voices like Dr. Makarieva's, entering the field. What is clear, however, is that the fewer clouds, aerosols, snow cover, sea ice and also more invisible sources of water vapor (such produced by tropical forests and other natural ecosystems) the darker the earth is and the more sunlight gets through and heats the ground, the oceans and the air. This heating further impacts existing vegetation, ice sheets, permafrost and bodies of water negatively, which then also contribute more CO2, more fires, and further darkening of earth's surface. Earth's climate has been in a state of equilibrium for eons. Given what is happening with the climate now, it appears that it is leaving that state of equilibrium.
According to some reports, the Earth has "dimmed" by 0.5% in the past 25 years. We've known this and scientists have been able to track decreases in sea ice at the poles, a major factor in global warming. We're now seeing the climate effects of reductions in aerosols (due to the shipping industry trying to clean up their act and emit less aerosols), and we're seeing reduced cloud cover. The bottom line is that even just looking at cloud feedbacks, the more the climate warms, the fewer the clouds. The fewer the clouds, the more the planet warms. This feedback loop is enough to take us into very dangerous territory. Which is yet another reason why we want to prevent the loss of tropical forests, not just because of the CO2 impacts but because of the cloud and water vapor impacts. This feedback loop could explain why the rate of heating of the planet has increased beyond what was expected, even by scientists like Zeke Hausfather and James Hansen.
Dr. Hansen continues to urge immediate action and has proposed that "a multitude of actions are required within less than a decade to reduce and even reverse Earth’s energy imbalance for the sake of minimizing the enormous ongoing geoengineering of the planet; specifically, we will need to cool the planet to avoid consequences for young people that all people would find unconscionable."
Columbia University, Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions,"Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?, published in Taylor & Francis, February 3, 2025 by James E. Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, George Tselioudis, Joseph Kelly, Susanne E. Bauer, Reto Ruedy, Eunbi Jeong, Qinjian Jin, Eric Rignot, Isabella Velicogna, Mark R. Schoeberl, Karina von Schuckmann, Joshua Amponsem, Junji Cao, Anton Keskinen, Jing Li, and Anni Pokela
As we reported in a post titled "States vying to host nuclear development," most U.S. States—along with many countries—recognize that nuclear power is vital to every jurisdiction's ability to generate reliable and clean power and that demand for nuclear is going to grow. Accordingly, many U.S. States have begun efforts to attract nuclear developments and nuclear power developers so as to both gain the additional power being added and the economic development benefits of hosting some portion of this growing sector. Now that AI development has sent Big Tech out in search of locations to build new data centers, which require massive amounts of energy, the race to attract nuclear power has grown even fiercer. There are so many developments, it would not be practical to post each individual state's initiatives separately. Thus, we are using this page to try to provide current updates on each state's nuclear initiatives, listed alphabetically.
Arizona
Arizona, home to one of the country's largest nuclear power plants, lawmakers are considering a utility-backed bill to relax environmental regulations if a utility builds a reactor at the site of a large industrial power user or a retired coal-fired power plant..
California
Alone among the most populated, industrial and progressive U.S. states, California remains mired in antiquated antinuclear politics. Although there is a large fraction of advanced nuclear innovation happening at startups located in California, California’s moratorium on new nuclear plants will force these ventures to seek alternative states in which to build their technologies. California’s leadership has shown no interest in competing to win the race to attract all of the talent, federal funding, jobs and economic development that will accompany the growth of this innovative sector and, by all appearances, the state has now fallen behind Texas, Wyoming, Illinois, New York and even Connecticut.
But, there are signs of attitudinal shifts happening even in deep blue California. Both California’s progressive Governor, Gavin Newsom, who for years workd to force the retirement of Diablo Canyon, and the state’s legislature reversed their decisions at the last minute and delayed the closure of the nuclear facility for five more years. They recognized, if reluctantly, that the plant had reliably provided almost 20% of the state’s zero-emission power and 8% of its electricity for decades. Shutting it down would expose the state to dire and life-threatening power outages without the plant’s high capacity-factor reliability and highly differentiated, non-intermittent generation. It would also set back progress on the state’s climate goals.
Sadly, despite several attempts over the years by elected legislators to bring the state into competitive parity with the country and do away with its 49-year old nuclear moratorium, make exceptions for SMRs, and/or conduct feasibility studies about SMRs, these bills have not made it out of committee. Thus, the state appears poised to miss out on the energy revolution made possible by next-generation nuclear, even with many advanced nuclear ventures being located in California.
Connecticut
Connecticut has a state-wide ban but passed an exception in 2022 that allows more nuclear construction at the site of the state’s one operating nuclear power plant, the Millstone Power Station. This specifically allows Dominion Energy to build advanced nuclear at the Millstone site. Dominion has shown interest in SMRs and recently announced a deal with X-energy to build their advanced design, in partnership with Amazon.
Illinois
One of the largest nuclear generating states, Illinois produces 53% of its electricity (and 90% of its clean energy) from nuclear power, and recently passed HB 2473, lifting the state’s moratorium on building new nuclear reactors—but only for small modular reactors (SMRs) rated for 300 megawatts or less. This measure was signed by Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat.
Indiana
Indiana lawmakers passed legislation to let utilities more quickly seek reimbursement for the cost to build a modular reactor, undoing a decades-old prohibition designed to protect ratepayers from bloated, inefficient or, worse, aborted power projects.
Maine
Maine, which has not had an operating nuclear power plant since 1996, considered a bill to classify nuclear power as “clean,” to thus qualify it for carbon credits and other preferential treatment.
Maryland
Maryland joined the National Association of State Energy Officials’s Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative, or ANFMI, to develop supportive policies, coordinate with private stakeholders, and work toward unique procurement and financing options for nuclear energy projects. Meanwhile, lawmakers in Maryland are considering a bill that would include nuclear power in a new zero-emissions credit program, creating an additional revenue stream for nuclear projects there.
Michigan
Michigan has worked to protect and increase its nuclear power and sits at the forefront of resurgent state interest in nuclear energy. Michigan’s Democratic Governor, Gretchen Whitmer, worked to prevent the closure of the Palisades nuclear power plant. But, when a mechanical problem forced the plant’s sudden closure, the state legislature agreed to put $150 million toward the potential restart of Palisades, in what would be the US’ first-ever restart of a shuttered generating station. Under the Biden Administration’s Civil Nuclear Credit program, the plant subsequently received a $1.5 billion conditional loan commitment from the U.S. Department of Energy, to help fund the repairs and restart and potentially enable Holtec to build several SMRs on the site as well. Michigan lawmakers are also considering millions of dollars in incentives to develop and use the reactors, as well as train a nuclear industry workforce.
New York
New York has no statewide restriction but still has a narrow ban on new reactor development in the service territory of the Long Island Lighting Company, which covers Nassau, Suffolk and some of Queens counties. Although New York’s disgraced former governor, Andrew Cuomo, forced the premature closure of Indian Point which eliminated 80% of the then available clean energy for downstate New York, New York’s current Governor, Kathy Hochul appears to be bringing nuclear back. She announced the state’s largest and most ambitious initiative to tackle the climate crisis with a new master plan. This includes a commitment of $1 billion by the state and specifically includes NYSERDA’s Blueprint for Consideration of Advanced Nuclear Energy Technologies, which outlines a process for the inclusion of advanced nuclear in the state’s Master Plan consideration process. Additionally, New York State will co-lead a multi-state initiative to support nuclear refurbishment and new nuclear development. This seems to place New York State firmly in the race to attract next-generation nuclear developers. New York joined the National Association of State Energy Officials’s Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative, or ANFMI.
New York issued a request for information from “entities either already pursuing, or interested in pursuing, a potential role in advanced nuclear energy technology development” and an interim “blueprint” for nuclear power deployment as it prepares to release a more comprehensive nuclear “master plan”. Constellation Energy said that, with support from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, it would apply for a federal grant to seek an early site permit “for one or more advanced nuclear reactors” at its 1,907-MW Nine Mile Point Clean Energy Center near Oswego, New York.
Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee proposed allocating more than $90 million to help subsidize a Tennessee Valley Authority project to install several small reactors, boost research and attract nuclear tech firms. As a long-time proponent of the TVA’s nuclear project, Lee also launched Tennessee’s Nuclear Energy Fund in 2023, designed to attract a supply chain, including a multibillion-dollar uranium enrichment plant billed as the state’s biggest-ever industrial investment.
Texas
Texas prides itself on being the “energy capital of the world.” It is setting itself up to become the “epicenter” for deployment of advanced nuclear and has taken some impressive steps to achieve this goal. In the aftermath of Winter Storm Uri, which resulted in extended power outages that caused many cold-related fatalities, an industry group got together to form the Texas Nuclear Alliance, dedicated to the advancement of nuclear technology in Texas and a mission to make Texas the “Nuclear Capital of the World.” TNA’s underlying premise was that, to meet the need for low-carbon and reliable energy, Texas could not afford to turn its back on “clean, safe, reliable and secure” nuclear energy.
By late 2023, Texas Governor, Greg Abbott, directed the Texas Public Utility Commission to establish a working group to study advanced nuclear. A year later, in November 2024, the Governor and the PUCT announced the release of the Texas Advanced Nuclear Reactor Working Group’s final report on Texas’ plan to build a world-leading advanced nuclear power industry. The report’s multiple goals sought to enhance electric reliability and energy security, promote economic development, and unleash new opportunities for the growing Texas workforce. In commenting on the PUC’s report, Governor Abbott said:
“Texas is the energy capital of the world, and we are ready to be No. 1 in advanced nuclear power. By utilizing advanced nuclear energy, Texas will enhance the reliability of the state grid and provide affordable, dispatchable power to Texans across the state. As we build an advanced nuclear industry in our great state, we will ensure Texas remains a leader in energy and strengthen the Texas grid to meet the demands of our growing state.”
If you click on the report image on the right, it takes you directly to the report package, which is a thing of beauty. The Executive Summary finds five key benefits to making Texas the epicenter of advanced nuclear in the U.S.: 1) Enhance energy security; 2) Improve grid reliability; 3) Expand economic development opportunities; 4) Capture first-in-nation advantages that bring jobs, revenue and industrial growth; and 5) Capture international trade opportunities as the world works to triple the amount of nuclear available by 2050.
How will Texas take this lead? By doing what Texas does best: cutting “red tape” and establishing major “incentives” to “attract investments,” accelerate advanced nuclear deployments and overcome regulatory hurdles. It’s a very good plan . . . and far exceeds efforts by any other state to attract advanced nuclear development to itself.
Best of all, Texas isn’t merely posturing. The Texas Nuclear Alliance has partnered with the Texas A&M University System (TAMUS, which boasts eleven universities, eight agencies and an enormous 2100 acre parcel of land called the Rellis Campus devoted to supporting technology innovation) and announced that they have selected four advanced nuclear ventures to build their own advanced reactor at Texas A&M. These companies, called TNA Founding Members, include: Kairos Power, Natura Resources, Terrestrial Energy and Aalo Atomics. These companies responded to an RFP in the summer of 2024 to bring their designs to the Rellis campus and were accepted. While there are unknowns about what this selection means for these companies, solving the siting issue can provide a significant advantage in the highly competitive race to be the first to deploy. [Click here to see how beautifully Texas A&M promotes the Rellis campus.]
Utah
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox announced “Operation Gigawatt” to double the state’s electricity generation in a decade. He wants to spend $20 million to prepare sites for nuclear. State Senate President J. Stuart Adams told colleagues when he opened the chamber’s 2025 session that Utah needs to be the “nation’s nuclear hub.”
In Wisconsin, several lawmakers introduced a resolution calling on the Legislature to publicly support nuclear power and fusion energy. They intend that the state, in passing the resolution, makes what could be deemed a formal declaration that Wisconsin is open for nuclear industry business.
Wyoming
Wyoming, seen as an “early mover,” is one state that began laying the groundwork to attract and build next-generation nuclear prior to 2020, when Republican Gov. Mark Gordon, signed a bill forbidding coal plants to close but allowing small modular reactor capacity to replace the coal generation capacity. Subsequent legislation in 2022 and 2023 provided regulatory streamlining for advanced reactor deployment and authorized the state to match private funds up to $150 million. These actions helped the state win over TerraPower, the advanced nuclear venture owned by Bill Gates, which is now building infrastructure for what may be the first advanced nuclear power plant near the site of a retiring coal-fired power plant, in Kemmerer, Wyoming. It helped Wyoming a lot that Bill Gates was then close friends with Warren Buffet whose Wyoming-based company, PacifiCorp, owns many struggling coal plants and so found a site they were willing to let TerraPower use. Wyoming joined the National Association of State Energy Officials’s Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative, or ANFMI, to develop supportive policies, coordinate with private stakeholders, and work toward unique procurement and financing options for nuclear energy projects.
[Note, we endeavor to keep this article updated with more recent information.]
Nucleation’s listing of the notable benefits of nuclear power in helping secure and stabilize the world’s energy supplies in a zero-emission economy, while posing the least amount of ecologic impact, cost and materials burden.
By Valerie Gardner, Nucleation Capital Managing Partner
Presidential elections are always important and this year's election is widely considered particularly critical and unusual. There are vast differences of opinion on matters of great national importance—from voting rights and health policies to international relations and national security policies. Less well litigated is where these candidates stand on matters of energy security, the energy transition and future deployments of both traditional and advanced nuclear power. How will the differences in character, knowledge and respect for facts, science and experts play out on U.S. policies towards nuclear power? Based upon various sources, it appears that the election will have a significant impact. For those still making up their minds, this summary assessment may help clarify how numerous pundits view these differences.
Summary
Nuclear energy has enjoyed enduring bipartisan supportacross both Democratic and Republican administrations for years now. The Congress has passed, with overwhelming bipartisan majorities, bills aimed at modernizing and accelerating commercialization of new nuclear.
Nevertheless, in 2024, the two presidential candidates bring potentially unconventional approaches that may differ from the standard positions of their respective parties. Republicans have long valued America's nuclear capacity and have seen the need for the US to maintain leadership to boost both national security and to expand our ability to export our technologies. They recognize that the U.S. needs to counter the geopolitical influence of adversaries like Russia and China which are offering to help developing nations with nuclear power as a means of increasing their influence within those countries.
Democrats have also, if more recently, come around to support nuclear. Both the Obama White House and the Biden Administration have provided broad support for the industry and particularly for the acceleration of next-generation nuclear technologies and American leadership in the energy transition. Front and center of their support is the recognition that nuclear power is a critical, differentiated component of a reliable, 24/7 low-carbon energy grid. They support its expansion primarily as a mechanism to meet growing energy needs and fortify grid reliability while reducing carbon emissions and addressing climate change, in tandem with renewables.
The question then of which candidate is more likely to support the continued acceleration of nuclear power is thus wrapped up with policies relating to energy security, fossil fuels, geopolitical competition with Russia and China, and support for addressing climate change. The Inflation Reduction Act passed in 2022 and signed by President Biden marked the Congress' single largest investment in the economy, energy security and climate change and is widely seen as the most important piece of climate legislation ever passed. It simultaneously rebuilds the U.S. industrial capabilities while incentivizing the growth of clean energy technologies including domestic nuclear power. It is already making an enormous and beneficial impact on the U.S. nuclear indsutry.
Kamala Harris, while possibly more progressive than Biden, has shown her support for Biden's approach to incentivizing the clean energy transition through the IRA, Biden's signature piece of climate legislation, which has received staunch support from industry. She is unlikely to make many if any changes to the IRA's clean energy technology-neutral Investment Tax Credits and Production Tax Credits or reduce the billions in loan guarantees available through the Loan Program Office, which have already stimulated significant investment in protecting and restarting existing reactors.
Because of Biden’s Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act’s Civil Nuclear Credit program, California is proceeding with the relicensing of Diablo Canyon, Holtec has chosen to restart, rather than decommission, Michigan’s Palisades nuclear power plant, Constellation has inked a deal with Microsoft to restart Three Mile Island Unit 2, and NextEra Energy is actively considering the restart of Duane Arnold. Meanwhile, Google has signed a deal to buy power from advanced nuclear reactors being designed by Kairos Power and Amazon has signed a similar deal with X-energy, marking the first corporate purchases of next-generation nuclear, thanks to highly motivating tax and financing incentives available through the IRA and LPO.
Harris is clearly committed to addressing climate change. There is no evidence that she rejects the clean energy tech-agnostic approach developed during her term as Vice President, which levels the playing field for nuclear energy as a clean energy source. Harris recognizes the geopolitical importance of America's ability to compete with Russia to produce our own nuclear fuel supply and to provide nuclear technologies to developing nations seeking to build their clean energy capacity but wanting to remain free of Russian or Chinese influence.
In contrast, Donald Trump has repeatedly called climate change a "hoax," and/or a good thing and cares little about reducing U.S. or global emissions. He previously walked away from the Paris accord and would likely try to repeal, roll back or dilute the IRA. He's publicly allied himself with the fossil fuel industry and—in exchange for donations—has promised to roll back EPA regulations and help them "drill, drill, drill."
There is almost no doubt that Trump would step the U.S. away from its leadership role on climate and this time, that may mean reversing the U.S.'s pledge to triple the amount of nuclear power. This would seriously undermine both the U.S. nuclear industry's momentum to expand to meet growing demand as well as international progress. Given Trump’s overt courting of Putin, he may be disinclined to rebuild the U.S.'s nuclear fuel production capacity or seek to accelerate or support American efforts to build nuclear projects internationally in competition with Russia.
None of this would be good for nuclear power. Any potential efforts to rollback the IRA would slow restoration, development and deployment of reactors. Boosting the fossil fuel industry, whether through supporting expanded access to federal land or price manipulation to improve profitability would have severe impacts on the energy transition. Trump's recent acknowledgement that he didn't believe nuclear was safe also belies the stated "commitment" to nuclear energy expressed by his surrogates and gives considerable fodder to those who persist in opposing nuclear. His shoot-from-the-hip, truth-be-damned leadership style and embrace of conspiracy theorists, contrasts starkly with Harris' stated willingness to consult with scientific experts and even give those who disagree with her a seat at the table.
In sumary, Trump's likely propensity to undermine the IRA, oppose climate action and backtrack on US pledges to triple nuclear, his support for expanding fossil fuel production and his continued disdain for science and technical experts, poses extreme risks to the momentum generated within the nuclear sector over the last few years. Trump's ignorance of nuclear energy's exceptional safety performance make him unlikely to provide Oval Office leadership either to the industry or the NRC in support of the bipartisan ADVANCE Act, signed into law by Biden.
In contrast, a Harris Administration would likely remain on the current climate glideslope for leadership, technology-neutral funding and the U.S.'s nuclear tripling momentum as stimulated by the Biden Administration. It may be that a Harris Administration does not prioritize nuclear's growth or add billions in new accelerants as Biden has done, but she will not try to trash it. Having been briefed by senior energy advisors over the last four years about the importance of nuclear, she is well-informed and understands the importance of Biden's initiatives for addressing climate.
Based on this analysis, those who support an expansion of nuclear power and enduring progress towards transitioning away from fossil fuels should thus prefer to see Harris elected, rather than Trump, and the existing policies continued.
Sources
You can find more detailed information about the basis for this Summary Assessment from these sources.
To provide the best experiences, our website uses technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
