The Biden Administration spent hundreds of billions of dollars to push renewables, and the result was a 30% increase in national utility prices. And yet, despite producing, (intermittent and expensive) electricity, no amount of wind and solar can make rubber or plastic or the millions of products we use, nor can they forge steel or produce cement. Yes, we need more electricity, but the Biden team was determined to be anti-fossil fuels in their push for more electricity, why was nuclear technology left out of the conversation?
There is no imminent replacement for fossil fuels in the production of petrochemical products, but for electricity needs, America stands on the brink of a nuclear energy revolution. Advanced nuclear technology and small modular reactors (SMRs) are proving to be game changers.
Similar to the war on coal and the ongoing attacks on oil and gas, nuclear has the same set of radical activists looking to thwart America’s advancement. President Obama’s former Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman Gregory Jaczko, famously anti-nuclear, at a recent CERAweek conference, was presented as an objective expert on these future technologies, like having a beef panel moderated by vegans.
As NRC Chairman, Jaczko made it his mission to shut down nuclear innovation at every turn. He voted against opening any new nuclear power plants and famously went so far as to call for a global ban on nuclear power. It is frustrating enough Jaczko had the power to curtail nuclear power in America. Giving him a platform to continue to promote his extreme views is baffling.
Fortunately, America has an opportunity to turn the page on this anti-energy agenda and fully embrace a new era of nuclear power. In President Donald J. Trump’s first term, he laid the groundwork for innovation-friendly policies that encourage the development of next-generation nuclear technologies. Now, we have the chance to break free from the bureaucratic roadblocks of the past and usher in a golden age of nuclear energy.
Oklo, a company out of California, has signed agreements to deploy SMRs to operate data centers so America continues to lead the world on AI and not cede ground to China. We need greater electricity production for manufacturing and industrialization, for expanded housing in cities and suburbs, for commercial, farm, and residential use. The only thing standing in the way? Outdated regulations, bureaucratic inertia, and the ideological opposition of people like Jaczko.
We’ve seen this playbook before. The same activists who falsely claim to support “green energy” are actually lobbyists promoting unreliable wind and solar as the only acceptable energy options—ignoring their massive land use, supply chain problems, and dependency on rare earth minerals from adversarial nations like China. Nuclear power, on the other hand, provides a stable energy source with a far smaller environmental footprint, and we have all the raw materials here in America.
President Trump has a chance to champion this cause once again, cutting through the red tape that has long plagued nuclear development. By prioritizing streamlined regulatory approvals, supporting research into next-generation reactors, and pushing back against fear mongering anti-nuclear activists, his administration can unleash the full potential of American energy innovation.
Nuclear needs American raw materials and an American workforce. Nuclear expansion, along with President Trump’s call to reopen natural gas and clean coal plants, will bring electricity costs back down to inexpensive levels after four years of disastrous Biden energy policies.
The future of nuclear power is bright, but only if we allow progress to happen. It’s time to reject the failed policies of the past and embrace the energy solutions that will power our future. The golden age of nuclear energy is here—if we’re willing to seize it.
Daniel Turner is the founder and executive director of Power The Future, a national nonprofit organization that advocates for American energy jobs. Contact him at daniel@powerthefuture.com and follow him on Twitter @DanielTurnerPTF
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Victoria,Australia has 430bn tonnes of low ash, low sulphur lignite. This resource could power Australia for a thousand years or more. It would be stupid to leave this resource in the ground when it can produce the lowest cost electricity and improve living conditions for all plant life.
And the NSW and Qld coal deposits are only being nibbled at around the edges.
Rick:
There are only 3 coal power stations in Vic
Yallourn ‘W’ Power Station – Unit Size (MW) 380
Loy Yang A Power Station – Unit Size (MW) 560
Loy Yang B Power Station – Unit Size (MW) 500
But you are talking about Victoria and I doubt these will live too long.
I would post a picture by seems even 800kb pic is toooooooo big
To be clear, Yallourn has 2 x 360 units and 2 x 380 units
Loy Yang A has 4 x 50 units and Loy Yang B has 2 x 500 units.
They had better find a way to keep all the coal capacity in Australia until nuclear is legalized and running or the wheels will stop turning
All up the SE states integrated network has some 22GW of capacity, down from 19 12 years ago.
We are at the tipping point and entering the red zone where wind droughts overnight are potentially lethal for the grid.
https://newcatallaxy.blog/2023/07/11/approaching-the-tipping-point/
Wish us luck!
I wish you a good long period of dark calm winds. Only an extended grid collapse will (stand a chance of) waking the Green zombies out of their fever dream.
Lignite, you’re talking about (brown) coal. Thanks for making me dig out my dictonary again 😁
Brown coal used in Victoria at Yallourn & Loy Yang has 66% moisture. Lignite as used in Germany and Austria has has 40-45% moisture. That is the quality is very different. The brown coal in Victoria has very low ash (1.5% AD) and also very low sulphur (<0.2% AD),. It is very close to the surface and can be recovered automatically with bucket wheels on surface miners directly feeding conveyor belts. The coal is dried with exhaust gases from the boilers. Even though the boilers are not as efficient as black coal in NSW & Qld and the boilers and steam turbines have less capacity, the electricity produced there is has the lowest cost in Australia. At the end of life of the power stations they will be replaced by nuclear which will have no unions to disrupt operation (unlike the present power stations). The brown coal will be a resource for chemicals (including lubricants)
Plus another identified 131600 PJ of shale oil (22390 mmbbl), mostly in Queensland.
Just in case the coal runs out. No need to waste a good worry.
Yes, at a crude price over $50 per barrel it is a viable resource but the unions and politicians (Greens, labor, & socialists) do not like the idea of Australia being self sufficient in energy.
G’Day Rick,
From a song that I heard and appreciated in the early 1960’s.
Miners tunnel to feed the fires at Wangi.
Others scrape the brown coal at Yallourn.
Turbine blades are yielding to the tumbling tons of Eildon,
And the Snowy will be finished before long.
“Put A Light In Every Country Window”. It’s been recorded a number of times by different artists since then.
German brown coal open-cuts at the end of WW2 just west of Cologne produced not just electrical power but also a low-grade gasoline for the military, even pressed coal dust briquettes for civilian home heating. In at least one of those power plants the generators were from Westinghouse.
Here in Cleveland, Ohio we have been getting our electricity from the Perry Nuclear Plant in Perry, Ohio for almost 40 years.
I have said so many times that nuclear is the only generally available non CO2 emitting generation.
It is Hobson’s choice, i.e. no choice.
Unlike renewables it can be relied upon and has the technical attributes needed for a stable grid.
Hydro is only an option on a large scale if the terrain and rainfall suit, and few countries have such features they can use.
CO2 is a beneficial gas for plant growth. It has no role in heating the Earth’s surface. So it is not a good argument. Nuclear is the safest and long term cheapest for electricity production. It can be automated so that there is no need for unskilled persons (unions, political activists, etc) to be involved.
GW geothermal is coming up fast.
Been tried in many places (eg NZ, & PNG). Corrosion is a major problem. Not reliable and small scale’ Research & pilot plant was subsidised in mainland Australia. A big waste of money already at drilling stage. Greens and climate activists please read about engineering technology which includes thermodynamics, heat&mass transfer, fluid dynamics, properties of materials, capital & operating costs etc. Nuclear power plants is all about engineering. (Chernobyl was the fault of incompetent scientists playing around- it would never have happened if left to professional engineers to design and operate)
Three Mile Island is the prime example of how safe nuclear plants can be.
There was a problem, yes, but the containment was superior and the external radiation was less than a typical home due to radon.
I hope everyone is aware of the international movement to block nuclear power that grew out of the band the bomb movement of the 1950s. This recruited a lot of well-meaning and peace-loving people but extreme radicals took over the leadership and launched the toxic deep green movement that has plagued us ever since.
A mining engineer in Australia named John Grover documented the movement in some detail in a book promoting nuclear power published in 1980. This is a summary of some sections.
http://www.the-rathouse.com/2011/Grover-Power.html
Rafe,
I worked with John Grover when he was writing his book and newsletters.
I felt that he simplified the science too much so that non-technical people could understand, but I have always felt that nuclear was good enough to make its own case. I did not feel his book was required, because it encouraged all and sundry to feel that they would need to form opinions of their own when there was already a core of highly competent engineers and scientists to make good decisions. This need for public opinion allowed Greenpeace and the like to gather many more supporters to reinforce their obvious ignorance. Top scientific people are unused to countering lies, beliefs, propaganda because these are alien concepts that they do not understand, or even want to. Geoff S
You’d be amazed the number of people who still believe that nuclear power plants can blow up, like a nuclear bomb.
“You’d be amazed …” No, I would not.
“…small modular reactors (SMRs) are proving to be game changers.” Really? Show me one that has been built and is producing power at the predicted cost. That will be what “proves” them. So far it’s all just words.
Russians and Chinese have some. However, they are not going to tell you how they work. The Chinese also have a Thorium reactor working. The Russian are looking at very small reactors units to supply remote towns of around 1000people and mining sites. USA has some catching up to do.
There is no such thing as a Thorium reactor and cannot be because thorium is not fissile. What then do you mean by “thorium reactor?’ If you mean a reactor that generates fissile U233 fuel by exposing thorium to a neutron flux, such a reactor was built and tested in the 1970’s in Pennsylvania and another in Idaho many decades ago. The Pennsylvania reactor worked, producing just over 1% more fissile U233 than it was originally built with. The Idaho reactors worked at times but ultimately failed. As to small reactors, the US has built hundreds of them to power our submarines, cruisers and aircraft carriers and even one so tiny as to power a deep diving research submarine equipped with windows, claws to pick stuff up and even wheels on its bottom. The US has no catching up to regarding small or large nuclear reactor technology. As to “small modular reactors,” a company calling itself NuScale was to build a cluster of 70 MW electric “small modular reactors” in Idaho but the plan was cancelled because of high cost. There are some claiming to build 300+/- MW electric “small modular reactors” but such a machine if far to big to fit the definition of small and hundreds or perhaps thousands of machines in that power range have been built to various designs over the years. The Russians have built power reactors on barges to provide electricity to remote coastal or river locations but this was done many years ago. And yes, we know of Russian and Chinese reactor programs and we know how they work.
Far too many errors to take this comment seriously. Thorium fuel has been developed based on CANDU fuel. India has a project to produce U233 from Th232 at its Kalpakkam breeder reactor.
Here is a video on Thorium reactors which the Chinese have just commissioned
You left out long range space craft and some satellites.
I believe the first to be built in the US is not due to come on line until 2029.
That was the plan, but it was cancelled due to high cost.
Referencing the NuScale proposal? The offered price was reasonable, but not going to overcome the much lower costs of fracked gas generation at that location.
Given the regulatory environment, it is easy to see why costs are what they are.
If the current administration is able to effect efficiencies, those costs could come down.
No words from me on this, rather I will defer to nom de plume Illinois EnergyProf :
“So You Want to Build a Nuclear Reactor”
Current status of Small Modular Reactor (SMR) projects sponsored by the US DoE is discussed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89KYlEzW5_M
What a ridiculous claim by Denis. SMRs have been in existence producing power at a predictable cost with high reliability since the completion and commissioning of the USS Nautilus in 1951. Denis, if you are going to lie, try to do it convincingly with at least a pretense of evidence.
Ignoring the very effective Chinese 20 MW pebble bed reactor that has been delivering commercial grid power since Dec 2023?
Until you permanently silence the anti-nuke, anti-coal, anti-gas and anti-hydro radicals we are well and truly screwed. These “people” are enemies of the Human Race and must be driven out of government, academia, the judiciary and industry before anything useful can be accomplished.
The near miss in Fukushima seemed to have set off a new wave of anti logic, anti science, anti humanity fear mongering about nuclear energy
The Germans in particular under the determinedly reckless Merkel used it as an opportunity to push their green agenda
I am convinced that the whole thing was always a wealth transfer tactic. With western economies stagnating or undergoing seismic shocks as in 2008 the elites were looking for easier ways to generate large profits quickly
This was by circumventing the usual capitalist market forces that involve producing and selling products that people actually want by “selling” sh1t that nobody wants, directly to the state, cutting out the masses
This was based on the putative premise that it was benefitting the populace, but the reasons were increasingly less convincing and eventually entered the realm of fantasy – save the planet became cheaper energy became green new jobs
We have reached a point where the lies are so obvious that these things are said half heartedly at best
Furthermore, and more importantly, I think the technologies were demonstrated in the real world to be so patently unsuitable, unworkable, unrealistic, that policy makers could never follow through with promises
This was obvious from the very beginning to anyone with even a basic knowledge of these technologies and the laws of physics
The circling vultures were bound to lose interest at some point, knowing that the big pay day was never going to come
See my comment below. The real problem is ICRP.
Fukushima accident was due to a tidal wave from seismic activity. All the reactors at the plant survived the earthquake. A problem was with poor management at the construction stage in a) putting electrics on the ground floor where is was swamped by water from the tidal wave and b) not having emergency power available some distance inland offsite. Nobody was killed or injured at the plant or anywhere else in Japan from the actual failure of the one reactor due to lack of cooling water. It was complete hype from people including politicians and journalists that have zero understanding of engineering technology (chemical and nuclear engineering)
Nuclear energy is the most expensive form of dispatchable, reliable electricity production. It requires massive capital input which is not forthcoming from private investors without guaranteed lifetime prices for output, and/or taxpayer subsidies, or entirely State-funded and operated. Example: UK Hinckley Point C, private funded EDF + China – over twice the budget, over ten years behind schedule and from an original £24 per MWh originally guaranteed, has now been guaranteed £128 per MWh lifetime plus inflation. This is over twice cost of gas.
Why do people persist with nuclear being the answer?
The answer is kick the whole climate change hoax into oblivion and get back to cheap, dependable technology, coal and gas.
I think that’s what Trump is going to do, promote coal and natural gas as short-term fixes, while opening the door for nuclear power generation.
We can eliminate any shortage of electricity with coal and natural gas, and keep it going with nuclear into the future.
We just have to get out of this “Net Zero” mental concept, and fortunately, the Trump administration has it in the rearview mirror and are moving past fearing the benign gas, CO2.
The problem and the reason why nuclear energy has become expensive is ICRP. See my comment below.😎
re: “Nuclear energy is the most expensive form of dispatchable, reliable electricity production.”
I see the keyword “dispatchable” in there, with AI being a more or less constant power draw this changes things … which now brings me to this – have you seen this now 5 yr old video:
Economics of Nuclear Reactor
re: “Nuclear energy is the most expensive form of dispatchable,”
Have you looked into how the French deal with this, make this ‘work’, the dispatchable part?
The only reason why nuclear is so expensive is because it is over regulated and because any attempt to build one is delayed for decades by lawsuits from know nothings.
The most expensive dispatchable electricity machines are diesel generators. That is among the reasons places like King Island, El Hierro Island, and Hawaii electricity is very expensive.
The reason nuclear power is expensive is because of the ideological opposition of people like you. You want it to fail or be more expensive. This is what political ideologues do.
Absolute rubbish. Due to its higher efficiency and longer operational times, nuclear is only fractionally more expensive than USC coal and CCGT gas. And it’s way cheaper than wind or solar, well under half their cost.
And quoting the outlier Hinkley C, while ignoring all the very successful lower-cost nuclear builds such as Barakah is not providing any support to your case.
When looking at total cost of ownership and lifetime revenues, nuclear wins.
Upfront costs and risks certainly are there, but if one takes the long view, one wins.
Like the ‘renaissance’ with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that produced four new plants: two abandoned during construction and two (Vogtle #3 and #4) busting the budget? Without more government subsidies, the US might not see another project announced for many years if not decades,
It’s not a question of more government subsidies. It’s simply a matter of getting rid of bureaucratic and regulatory obstacles.
Story tip
“By prioritizing streamlined regulatory approvals, supporting research into next-generation reactors, and pushing back against fear mongering anti-nuclear activists, his administration can unleash the full potential of American energy innovation.”
Unfortunately fear mongering is fully institutionalized in the International Commission of Radiation Protection with catastrophic consequences after Fukushima NPP accident. OECD/NEA organized a table top excercise INEX-6 in which the US also participated https://nnss.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Exercise-Updates-EPA-January-25-2023.pdf inspired by the catastrophic “lessons learnt from Fukushima accident and its aftermath”. https://www.thegwpf.org/publications/the-irrationality-of-radiological-emergency-policies/
Of course they did.
The first SMR installation in the US, the Holtec Palisades site in Michigan, plans to be operating in 2030. This assumes no development or installation delays. Even if they stay on schedule they will be too late to serve the initial wave of AI electrical power needs. Of course, once new NG and coal power plants are built it will be cheaper to enlarge them than to install SMRs at those sites. Once SMRs can be rolled out efficiently, the estimate is one year for site prep plus one year for construction at a cost of $1B per SMR. I like SMRs. I think they will play a substantial role in the future, but right now the next decade belongs to NG and coal.
Fully agree. I laughed when reading that Amazon is partnering with a Central Washington power company to have a nuclear plant up and running in 5 years. Noble goal but 5 years from conception to producing power? Good luck.They are going to have to build NG plants first, the only coal plant in the area was shut down many years ago now and hydro is pretty well tapped out.
Yes, that particular undertaking is just in the feasibility stage, with 2030 production being the target. The problem is, the initial surge in electrical needs for AI, et al, is expected to start in 2026 and continue through 2027. More than 220 NG plants are already in various stages of development nationwide.
This will be an interesting race to watch.
Time capsule – to be opened later (and see how accurate this prediction was):
zqzco mznsa msrkr jzgkm wdyha wjrix jazvd vifjn jdqbi yyuvz smocu jemqa xovrr mswhp
ojtvb hlspj klqxg ojpbl vnhnr ijczr hjohw pdfkn gemmu vizdn fwkbx bpmqa gvmyt ehpvc
ldkvs asfnd fbtjl yoagm lbsqc nbvjp cfzjt qfupf ztjuu ntooc ftirk xupgr phgsg whdvw
bxgrl anobu oxstt iddrl gmoxb audzy tascg vrxtp pjlyl vhfuy zyavj ipxdr bpxsy ousqw
gafyv wvnpa herce mtcok fphkv swzuj wy
Fire up all fossil fuel and nuclear generators, build new fossil fuel and nuclear generators. Maintain the grid. Remove all wind and solar from the grid. Stop listening to liars and cheats.
Nuclear for electricity generation AND industrial heat, primarily steam. Huge amounts of fuels burned to make steam for other than making electricity.
Here in Alberta, industrial heat dwarfs electricity generation
SMRs will be perfect for that.
save the natgas for home heating and cooking.
All win except the climate/insane and who really cares if they step off the planet in despair.
“… and small modular reactors (SMRs) are proving to be game changers.”
Is “proving to be” the correct phrase? Are any operating in the USA?
Although the Biden years were by far the worst of it, the insanity goes back much further.