Authored by RJ Roux & Yaël Ossowski via RealClear Wire,
For decades, the fruits of the fracking revolution, plus our newly minted status as the world’s top net exporter of natural gas, demonstrated that American consumers were swimming in bountiful energy.
But as the pandemic effects of supply chain shortages, the war in Ukraine, and higher government spending gave way to inflation hikes, suddenly all eyes were on utility bills. In 2021, Americans spent as much as 25% more on energy than in the previous year.
Compounding that problem for energy consumers are political pledges aimed at the “electrification of everything,” including massive subsidies for electric vehicles, home heat pumps, and solar panels in pursuit of a carbon neutral future.
Now state policies are accelerating that, as at least 22 states — plus Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. — have committed to either 100% carbon-free electricity generation or “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050.
But rather than subsidize our way toward political climate goals with foreign-made solar panels, batteries, and wind turbines, what if we looked to the new generation of a safe technology that is already the densest and carbon-free source of electricity in the world? What if it’s time to once again champion nuclear energy?
Energy investors, customers, and even green politicians should have every reason to love the atom. Nuclear energy is safe, clean, and reliable for decades. It produces no emissions and produces tens of thousands of good jobs for generations. There’s a reason nuclear plants have larger parking lots than wind turbines or solar farms.
At least three states — Illinois, New Hampshire, and South Carolina — currently generate over 50% of their electricity needs from nuclear power, making them effectively carbon neutral and an ideal hub for energy-intensive industry.
Even green warrior California Gov. Gavin Newson was forced to rethink the closing of Diablo Canyon in the face of aggressive climate goals, giving the state’s only nuclear plant a lifeline. Other states are reconsidering nuclear energy as their licenses head toward their expiration date.
That said, traditional nuclear energy faces several obstacles. Environmental and radiation concerns are invoked, though new innovations like accident-tolerant fuels have lessened the risk. Regulatory restrictions and permitting can delay approvals and renewals for up to a decade. Most importantly, nuclear projects are significantly labor and capital intensive, testing the financial limits of private investors and utilities who dip into subsidies to stay afloat.
But the age of the brutalist concrete cooling towers and highly centralized state control as the only features of nuclear power may already be over.
Next-generation nuclear energy technology — such as small modular reactors — may share the splitting of the atom with its predecessor, but its modern form is anything but.
SMRs can be as small as an SUV but still produce plenty of megawatts of energy. They can more quickly and reliably deliver power to the electric grid or industry, and in some cases, the spent fuel can be reused. SMRs could become the main carbon-free power source for a large manufacturing facility that would employ thousands of people and keep the load off residential grids.
For example, SMR developer X-energy is collaborating with chemical giant Dow to install an advanced SMR nuclear plant at Dow’s manufacturing site in Seadrift, Texas. The Dow project is focused on providing its Seadrift site with safe, reliable, zero carbon emissions power and industrial steam as existing energy and steam assets near their end-of-life.
The project is contingent upon delivering on various reviews and approvals, as companies like Dow must follow strict timeframes to ensure continued operation of its site. X-energy first initiated NRC pre-application activities for their Xe-100 reactor in 2018.
Only one small modular reactor design, made by Oregon-based NuScale, has been certified by the National Regulatory Commission, which released its final rulemaking after a decade-long application process.
If we want to deliver energy at scale and at a low cost for millions of energy consumers, that pace will have to move to a warp speed timeline.
There are simple solutions that could save us time. Every state with an expiring nuclear license should consider supporting plant life extensions. States with anti-nuclear statutes should rethink their implications. Where possible, states should include nuclear and fusion technology within “clean energy” definitions, as North Carolina seems poised to do. The NRC should continue its steadfast efforts in reducing regulatory burdens to fast-track reviews and permits for new nuclear while still keeping a laser focus on safety.
Rather than closing coal plants without alternatives, states should quickly allow experienced project proponents to convert those facilities into nuclear stations. The US Department of Energy estimates that over 80% of the country’s existing coal plants could be cheaply converted into SMRs or advanced nuclear reactors, saving up to 35% in infrastructure costs while reducing emissions for decades. Roadmaps already exist to convert coal plant jobs to next-generation nuclear jobs.
This would represent billions in savings to energy customers, hundreds of thousands more good-paying jobs, and unlimited opportunities for innovators to unleash the next generation of nuclear power technology both domestically and as a global export.
Politicians and regulators have created the paradigm of a net zero world. Nuclear energy will enable that and provide prosperity, resilience, and sustainability that will keep us energy independent.
It’s time we recognize nuclear energy’s vital role and champion it as a force for good in our world.
RJ Roux is a nuclear industry strategist and president of Lions Global, a clean energy consulting firm, and Yaël Ossowski is deputy director at the Consumer Choice Center, a global consumer advocacy group.
HT/David H and Yooper
It isn’t just the best answer, it’s the ONLY answer.
The essential thing is to undo the Jimmy Carter era revisions to the environmental impact regulations, which I understand to have been almost entirely based on executive orders.
The current regime is organized to encourage indefinite delays to any project, through endless appeals by multitudes of “independent” groups, with the regulators not relying on precedent.
Funny timing for this article.
NuScale just cancelled its Idaho project. No longer working in the US.
Probably much greener pastures in Poland, etc., away from the Brandon administration.
The Chernobyl disaster was 37 years ago (with Russian cost-cutting), Three-Mile Island was 44 years ago. The first experimental nuclear reactor was tested 72 years ago.
It stands to reason that the technology has improved. The only objections seem to come from (and I don’t think this is a straw-man argument) people who are committed to Marxist ideologies and want the power grid to fail.
Unfortunately, that category includes the propagandists who make up the mainstream media these days, so politicians don’t have the intestinal fortitude to make this happen.
The only renaissance on offer in the U.K. is a doubling down of technocracy/managerialism
The Cameroons are back and globalism is the order of the day
I am all for nuclear, but I am against promoting it for wrong reasons.
If the false NetZero narrative is not defeated, the lower cost nuclear energy will be used to subsidize inefficient wind and solar, putting $$ in the pockets of green scammers.
The consumer will still be paying the tax to the church of CAGW.
Regarding feasibility of NetZero with nuclear, I think it is nonsense. Not everything can be electrified.
Russia building more nuclear reactors than any other country, IAEA data show
According to the IAEA, a total of 412 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world now, with their total capacity at about 370.2 gigawatts
MOSCOW, November 13. /TASS/.
Russia is building more nuclear reactors that any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The data show a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia. A plant may have up to 4 reactors, usually 1100 MW each
“Indeed, Rosatom is doing the most construction of international nuclear power units.
It is interesting that our state corporation’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, currently are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.
They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted that they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with us.
If we talk about the Americans and Europeans, they are lagging behind by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the atominfo.ru website, told TASS.
Any time I see a statement of “SMRs could become the main carbon-free power source” or “Zero Emissions” I see nothing but a scam. Nothing is Zero Emissions, and to state it as shows either shows significant ignorance, a deceptive agenda, or a pandering to the ignorant. You cannot use just electricity to produce any major construction project. The use of hydrocarbons is required throughout the process.
Do I think that these small modular reactors would be helpful? Maybe, if the economics work, and we start reprocessing spent fuel, and using more modern systems. However, their is a fear within the public of these activities, that is not based upon reality, and the Media and Hollywood are fighting against it.
It is about time for us to stop using the Weasel Words and Phrases, and speak in reality. If truth is not told and adhered to we will not get out of this mess without a lot of pain.
Living next to NH and didn’t know how much nuclear it has. Nice to know. I think they hate wasting their landscape for wind and solar.
“Regulatory restrictions and permitting can delay approvals and renewals for up to a decade.”
But… but… I though we’re having an emergency! If it really was, these issues would be resolved in a hurry.
“But as the pandemic effects of supply chain shortages, the war in Ukraine, and higher government spending gave way to inflation”
If you want to change your name to ‘Really Real Wire’, this statement should be:
This whole mess is Western World Policy-Caused- Economic and Social- Disaster. This was all baked in before the war in Ukraine. A focused campaign of of legislation, defunding, restrictive regulation, and renewables mandates was aimed at destroying the fossil fuel industry (FFI). Add to this that they had targets for outlawing ICE cars and trucks, even though EV buses, cars and grid batteries. Political nimrods amazingly were unaware that ridiculous wind and solar do not work without FFI.
Indeed, you cannot manufacture and install solar and wind generators without products from FFI. Nuclear could have done part of this, it but nimrods shut these down, even though the economic problems they created were already halfway manifesting themselves.
Then reality struck and nimrods jumped into the FFI spot market bidding prices up in a short supply market that they had created . Com’on Real Wire. Even our friends have bought into the official meme covering up the crimes against humanity.
https://www.science.org/content/article/deal-build-pint-size-nuclear-reactors-canceled
Here in Cleveland, Ohio, there is a nuclear reactor about 50 miles from here and they just applied for a new 20-year permit to operate.
This is the most important paragraph in this article:
“Rather than closing coal plants without alternatives, states should quickly allow experienced project proponents to convert those facilities into nuclear stations. The US Department of Energy estimates that over 80% of the country’s existing coal plants could be cheaply converted into SMRs or advanced nuclear reactors, saving up to 35% in infrastructure costs while reducing emissions for decades. Roadmaps already exist to convert coal plant jobs to next-generation nuclear jobs.”
As Voglte 3 and 4 have proven, Gen 3 nuclear is very expensive and not ready for prime time. At least in the US, the best path forward for about the next 40 years is CCGT. During those decades, seriously examine the several Gen 4 nuclear proposals, then build pilots of the few most promising and operate them for a decade to shake the bugs out. Then decide to go nuclear with the best new stuff.
Many years ago the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was created to have all Government authority over nuclear reactor safety issues to the extent even of deciding what is and is not a safety issue.
Imagine that police departments throughout the country were suddenly empowered to write all law, enable all law and enforce all law with no involvement of legislatures, Presidents, Governors, or any elected office whatsoever and with no consideration of cost, reasonableness or any constraining philosophy at all. Then consider what Barak Obama did with the appointment of Gregory Jaczko as chairman of the NRC in 2005, an individual who refused to permit the construction of any new reactors whatever and to shut down all efforts to develop an effective waste management system, goals which he achieved and, when is no longer Chairman, called for the elimination of nuclear power everywhere for all time. That is what we have with the NRC. Nuclear power has little chance of becoming reestablished in the US until the issue of reactor safety is rethought and the NRC is reformed into a rational institution.
While I am on board for nuclear generation I would not hitch my wagon to net zero or so called green energy. Green energy and net zero are a farce a political ploy for power. Nuclear should be promoted because it works, it is safe, it is dependable and it is clean. I also believe it would be cheap if we put an end to the mindless court delays, regulatory delays, environmental delays and on and on. All of these delays and cost overruns are avoidable. Matter of fact I think they are built in by those who oppose nuclear.
The opening paragraphs may need tweaks to acknowledge the international readership. Even as a US citizen I feel like the context assumes a US-centered universe.
Hasn’t France realized this for decades now, and doesn’t nuclear provide 58% of its electricity, some of which is being exported to Germany to make up for shortfalls in their wind and solar output? In addition, isn’t China, despite its reliance on coal, also the country that’s currently building the greatest number of nuclear plants? So all North American electricity producers have to do is add more nuclear and hydro, and they’ll have the green power that the environmentalists are demanding, but not wise enough to accept.
Coal power is the best path forward, cheap to install, cheap to run, cheap to renew, best for base load, abundant coal at relatively stable low prices.
This only works if the CO2 greenhouse gas controls the Universe fiction and lies are rejected.
The ‘best’ answer does not validate the question.
The Germans in 1940 spent a great deal of time and effort in determining the best answer to their ‘problem’ – does that justify, validate, excuse the ‘problem’ they invented and its best solution?
The Germans by contrast were somewhat modest in their aims, Climatists want to exterminate most of the Human Race.
Idaho Power, November 10, 2023, withdrawing from NuScale’s SMR technology proposal because of inflation escalation pushed USA SMR commercialization back at least 10 years. SMR’s, like solar panels, will need to come from China. We are out of the game. How we’re going to keep buying things by increasing the National Debt continues to be ignored.
Several, I believe, relevant points concerning commercial nuclear power particularly in the US:
1. Nuclear power can operate safely. Currently operating US pressurized, and boiling water reactor power plants bear no relation to the issues experienced at Chernobyl.
First, Chernobyl was designed with a “positive power coefficient”. That means if the reactor lost coolant to the core, the power level would increase. Hence, when the reactor did lose coolant during a test gone awry, it spiraled out of control overheating, burning the graphite moderator core, and melting the fuel. All US plants are required to have a “negative power coefficient” so if coolant is lost it leads to a power decrease.
Second, the Chernobyl reactor had no inner or outer containments, so the burning reactor graphite moderator components were released to the environment and spread across the countryside. All US reactor designs have always been required to have two containments, a core barrel of ~6-inch steel and a concrete housing that is 3-4 feet thick. Both of these design features would have precluded a Chernobyl-type accident. New third-generation reactor designs in the US will be even safer, precluding a Fukushima-like accident due to auxiliary power loss from back-up diesel generators. Cooling will be available without auxiliary power.
2. Used nuclear fuel can be stored safely. Financing of US commercial nuclear power plants has always included back-end charges to facilitate storage of used fuel once it comes out of the reactor. That money (upwards of $12 billion) was used to design and build a storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. (Yucca Mountain was chosen after a survey of other potential sites in the US.) As the site was under development, design bases were revised mainly dealing with required assured length of the stored fuel isolation from tens of thousands of years to hundreds of thousands of years, thus adding significant costs to the project and subsequently rendering the site technically unsuitable. I believe this was done for political reasons to stop more nuclear power plants from being built. Hence came the battle cry—”We can’t build more nuclear because there is no place to store the waste”. So, now the used fuel is stored all across the US at individual reactor sites. This situation can be remedied by a reconsideration of the Yucca Mountain storage facility in light of nuclear power being the only practical solution to the “climate emergency”.