America’s Energy Comeback is Leaving Green Fantasies Behind

From CFACT

By Craig Rucker

After years of efforts by radical greens to strangle America’s oil, gas, and coal industries — while forcing the nation to accept costly, land-devouring wind and solar — the U.S. is once again emerging as a global energy superpower.

And this time, it’s not just fossil fuels: In fact, nuclear power is taking center stage.

Tennessee is poised to become the world’s leading hub for nuclear innovation, thanks to Trump administration policies and state leaders willing to back real energy solutions over climate virtue-signaling. Public and private investments are now flowing into advanced reactors, uranium enrichment, and next-generation nuclear technologies.

The Kairos Power Hermes 2 salt-cooled nuclear reactor demonstration plant has already broken ground and is expected to deliver 50 megawatts of reliable electricity to the Tennessee Valley Authority grid by 2030.

Meanwhile, GE Vernova Hitachi plans to invest $40 billion in two small modular reactors — one in Tennessee and one in Alabama. These projects will create 2,000 construction jobs, hundreds of manufacturing jobs, 600 permanent plant jobs, and roughly 65 additional local jobs for every 100 jobs at the reactors themselves.

America’s uranium industry, nearly wiped out during the COVID pandemic, is also roaring back. The Trump administration has approved permits for new uranium mining and enrichment projects, while the Tennessee Valley Authority and Centrus Energy partnership plans to invest $560 million in a major uranium enrichment facility at Oak Ridge. That means less dependence on Canada, Kazakhstan, and Russia for critical nuclear fuel.

Even more exciting, Commonwealth Fusion Systems is moving toward construction of a “commercially relevant” nuclear fusion power plant in Virginia capable of generating up to 400 megawatts of electricity later this decade. The plant is expected to produce more tritium fuel than it consumes.

Together with a resurgence in oil, natural gas, and coal production, these developments will unleash American energy, manufacturing, innovation, and job creation while lowering electricity prices and reducing blackout risks for families and businesses alike. They also send a clear warning to America’s blue states: If you cling to anti-energy ideology, you will be left behind.

Democrat-controlled states remain obsessed with eliminating fossil fuels in favor of wind, solar, and battery systems — supposedly to prevent climate catastrophe. In the process, they ignore the devastating economic damage inflicted on working families and the environmental destruction caused by massive wind and solar projects. Worse, the supposed climate benefits from any individual state’s emissions cuts are effectively meaningless — undetectable against constantly changing global climate systems and constantly rising global greenhouse gas emissions.

Forty years ago, blackouts were routine for India’s 950 million citizens. Today, despite adding another half-billion people, it has made power outages a rarity. Why? Because India built hundreds of coal-fired power plants. China is doing the same thing on an even larger scale.

As energy analyst Vijay Jayaraj observes, Africans from east to west to south are rejecting permanent poverty imposed in the name of climate orthodoxy. Across the continent, nations are embracing oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power because they know abundant, affordable energy is “the only proven path to prosperity.”

Those policies are lifting billions of people out of poverty, disease, malnutrition, and premature death.

Meanwhile, many Europeans are finally waking up to the disastrous consequences of green energy fanaticism: soaring electricity prices, shuttered industries, destroyed jobs, landscapes marred by wind turbines and solar panels, families unable to heat or cool their homes — and rising deaths linked to energy poverty.

Unfortunately, Europe’s ruling elites remain trapped in their climate obsessions. But perhaps some American blue-state governors and legislators will eventually abandon ideology and start governing responsibly.

Electricity prices in Northeastern states are roughly twice those in much of the Midwest and South — and they are still climbing. Even Democratic governors are now quietly delaying or abandoning once-sacred green energy mandates, or at least hinting they may do so.

Some are cautiously reconsidering nuclear power. A few may even join President Trump and Energy Secretary Chris Wright in supporting new pipelines from Pennsylvania’s shale fields to deliver abundant, reliable, affordable natural gas for heating, cooking, and electricity generation — and thus for lights, refrigeration, computers, entertainment, and air conditioning.

If they fail to follow through, their residents will remain dependent on overpriced Canadian gas and electricity, fuel shipped from Texas, or extremely expensive liquefied natural gas imports from Norway and Russia.

Residents of New York and other states could also face the nightmare confronting roughly 40,000 angry residents of Co-Op City in the Bronx. New York City climate mandates demand that the entire complex convert entirely to electric heating by 2035. Between the costs of heat pumps, system retrofits, shutting down an efficient combined heat-and-power gas plant, and purchasing expensive wind-solar-battery electricity, monthly fees for a one-bedroom unit could skyrocket from $950 to nearly $4,000.

And then they’d have to rely on wind and solar, which will appear when Mother Nature chooses to cooperate, regardless of when they need electricity or how much they need.

America finally has a chance to reject decades of energy deprivation and economic self-sabotage. Nations that embrace abundant, reliable, affordable energy prosper. Nations that worship Net Zero mandates decline.

Thankfully, America is beginning to choose wisely.

This article originally appeared at The Hill

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 15 votes
Article Rating
170 Comments
starzmom
May 20, 2026 6:14 am

If we get democrats back in power, we can kiss all of that progress goodbye.

Reply to  starzmom
May 20, 2026 7:04 am

Yeah, Radical Democrats are nothing but trouble.

Maybe if we can get a few successful nuclear designs up and running, then in the future nuclear will be substituted for windmills and solar, even by Democrats.

Ideally, Democrats will never get national political power again. They are poison to this nation. They are unfit to govern.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 20, 2026 7:13 am

Didn’t know Democrats run the show currently.

starzmom
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 20, 2026 7:23 am

You are correct–to their great nattering chagrin, dems don’t run much of anything at the moment.

Scissor
Reply to  starzmom
May 20, 2026 9:24 am

They run scams, theft and fraud operations. For example I see one of their programs in CA offers free hearing aids to deaf children for $70k each. I don’t know if that is per child or per ear.

Reply to  Scissor
May 20, 2026 1:41 pm

And all the sedition and insurrection. !!

F. Leghorn
Reply to  Scissor
May 21, 2026 8:33 am

It better be ‘per child’. ‘Per ear’ would be just too expensive!

Reply to  Scissor
May 22, 2026 7:49 pm

They run all K-12 public education. They run almost all American colleges and universities. They run most Federal, State, and Local bureaucracies. They run most American cities. They run most news outlets on TV and radio. They run most of Hollywood and their studios. So they control the propaganda machines in the U.S.

Reply to  starzmom
May 20, 2026 10:12 am

‘…dems don’t run much of anything at the moment.’

Technically correct, but that’s only because it is the Left that controls many of our institutions today, including the ‘dems’.

Reply to  starzmom
May 20, 2026 1:24 pm

They control the bureaucracy. The deep state is a fourth, unelected branch of government. Even worse are the courts. They control the courts and are very willing to use judges to implement policy.

Reply to  More Soylent Green!
May 20, 2026 5:31 pm

The Democrats go judge-shopping for Leftwing judges, which serve to slow everything Trump does down, but there are enough conservative judges to overturn the Democrat judges, but the process takes time.

Democrats have lost the plot. Their purpose is now to undermine Trump and Republicans and destroy the United States as founded. The Democrats have made themselves a threat to the freedoms of the rest of us.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 21, 2026 5:01 am

You can’t say that you “hate the U.S.” without also saying that its very basic laws need changed.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  starzmom
May 21, 2026 1:41 pm

At the risk of posting a political comment, and I take that risk, the Democrats are excellent at running things…. into the ground. 🙂

strativarius
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 20, 2026 7:26 am

Didn’t know Democrats run the show currently.

That would be Joe Biden syndrome.

DipChip
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 20, 2026 7:47 am

You are confusing Show with their Mouth.

Mr.
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 20, 2026 8:20 am

You spelled “ruin” incorrectly.

You wrote “run”.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 20, 2026 8:56 am

You failed to follow the last Federal election.
Now look at the States.

Or perhaps you would rather someone hand hold you to the results so you can argue irrationally…. again.

gyan1
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 20, 2026 9:44 am

“Didn’t know Democrats run the show currently.”

Amazing how you love to show off your lack of reading comprehension. The whole thread is about not letting Democrats run the show ever again. I think they will go the way of the Whigs if they don’t start living in the real world.

paul courtney
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 20, 2026 11:45 am

Mr. loaded: Your fields of ignorance grow, to include written english. You don’t know who currently run the show. Do you know who currently overpays you to post comment here?

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 20, 2026 1:43 pm

Dow-Jones is over 50,000.. so obviously the Democrats are not running the economic show. USA is so lucky they have Trump and his crew.

Reply to  bnice2000
May 20, 2026 5:33 pm

That’s for sure. The Good Lord must be smiling on us.

MarkW
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 20, 2026 3:02 pm

I know you aren’t very smart, but do you have to go out of your way to prove it?

First, exactly what portion of TA’s post implied that Democrats are currently running the national government.
Secondly, even though Democrats aren’t running things doesn’t mean that they have no power to create problems.
Thirdly, just because Republicans currently hold the majority of power in Washington doesn’t mean Democrats are helpless everywhere. There are many cities and states where they hold absolute power, and everywhere they do hold power is falling apart.

MiloCrabtree
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 20, 2026 5:11 pm

Get lost, stinking troll.

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 20, 2026 5:24 pm

Democrats are not running the show now but they did in the past with disastrous results, which is what demonstrates that Democrats are unfit to serve.

F. Leghorn
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 21, 2026 8:32 am

So only those in charge have a say in how things are run?

Dang it! Think of all Trump could have gotten done if we’d known that!

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 20, 2026 7:25 am

“…Democrats will never get national political power again. They are poison to this nation. They are unfit to govern.
_____________________________________________________________

Thirty years ago I asked my devout Catholic friend, “Why do liberals push policies that are obviously anti-religion, anti-American, anti-marriage, pro-homosexual etc.?”

His simple answer was, “It’s the work of the Devil”

starzmom
Reply to  Steve Case
May 20, 2026 7:41 am

All that may explain why some of us think the Catholic church has abandoned us.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Steve Case
May 20, 2026 9:36 am

With Trumpenstein’s disastrous foreign policy I wouldn’t count out the Demos…

Reply to  Gregory Woods
May 20, 2026 11:04 am

What’s disastrous about less war and less free stuff?

Come on, tell us.

Reply to  Gregory Woods
May 20, 2026 1:46 pm

Dow Jones over 50,000..

There is nothing “disastrous” about Trump’s policies, except for the Democrats.

MiloCrabtree
Reply to  Gregory Woods
May 20, 2026 5:13 pm

And again, go away, stinking troll.

Reply to  Gregory Woods
May 20, 2026 5:43 pm

The Democrats are the ones who can’t handle foreign policy.

They screwed up the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, and the Afghanistan war, and are doing their best right now to undermine the Iran war.

Democrats are incapable of dealing with murderous dictators. Their first, and only instinct is to appease, not oppose. The Democrats are basically cowards when it comes to murderous dictators. They don’t want to fight them, and they don’t want other Americans fighting them, either. They basically want to run and hide. It’s really quite pathetic and the Democrats behave this way every time. They are certainly not fit to guide this nation.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Gregory Woods
May 21, 2026 1:43 pm

I do not agree with your words, but I shall defend to the death your Constitutional right to prove yourself an idiot.

Sonicsuns
Reply to  Steve Case
May 20, 2026 4:28 pm

Since when is it “anti-marriage” to allow more people to get married?

Democrats are certainly pro-homosexual, but that’s because homosexuals are people too and there’s no reason to discriminate against them.

etc. etc.

And what about Republicans repeatedly electing a billionaire to office when the Bible clearly says “Surely I tell you it is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than for the rich to enter the kingdom of God”? What about Republicans repeatedly trying to slash anti-poverty programs when the Bible clearly says that we should feed the poor? Do you have any idea how many poor children died after Trump destroyed USAID last year?

I’m not religious myself, but if you’re going to judge things based on the Bible then it seems that both parties have committed sins. But lots of people who call themselves religious are willing to give Trump a free pass, as if he was a Golden Calf.

Reply to  Sonicsuns
May 20, 2026 6:12 pm

Wealth distracts people from thinking about God. That doesn’t necessarily mean a wealthy person has a corrupt character.

Slashing “anti-poverty” programs is the way some people would put it, while others would call it reforming the programs.

So how many people do you claim Trump killed? Got some evidence?

Mr.
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 20, 2026 8:00 pm

According to morons with stage 4 TDS, Trump is just about to overtake the combined total deaths of citizens perpetrated by Mao, Stalin and Hitler .

(Pol Pot’s 1 million citizens deaths just doesn’t make the cut. Which is why you never hear TDS sufferers comparing DJT to Pol. Makes sense to them I guess)

Reply to  Sonicsuns
May 20, 2026 9:05 pm

USAID was NOT an anti-poverty program.. it was a Democrat slush fund for all sorts of far-left degenerate and depraved activities. Very little of it ever fed poor people.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Sorry that you feel discriminated against..

Derg
Reply to  Sonicsuns
May 21, 2026 1:50 am

USAID…..hahahahaha

slush fund

Reply to  Sonicsuns
May 21, 2026 5:07 am

What about Republicans repeatedly trying to slash anti-poverty programs when the Bible clearly says that we should feed the poor? 

The bible wasn’t referencing the government. It was referencing YOU! PERSONALY! Do you feed the poor? Have you given up your computer, your accessories to provide money to feed the poor? You are the rich that the bible was referencing.

You are a poor bible resource.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
May 21, 2026 1:42 pm

It is not as though Trump never uses his own money for good causes

TheGivingTrump.com

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Jim Gorman
May 21, 2026 1:46 pm

Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.
Give to God what is God’s.

Support for your post.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Sonicsuns
May 21, 2026 1:45 pm

Eliminating the corruption, fraud, and waste rampant in USAID freed up lots of cash to help feed kids in the USA.

Sonicsuns
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 20, 2026 4:20 pm

Most Republicans still insist that they won the 2020 Presidential election when it’s clear that they actually lost that election. Meanwhile, Democrats admit that they were defeated in 2016 and 2024. Clinton and Harris both conceded, but Trump never conceded.

Say what you will about nonsensical climate policies, but at least the Democrats believe in democracy.

Reply to  Sonicsuns
May 20, 2026 6:22 pm

The investigation into the 2020 presidential election is ongoing.

The Democrats believe in the One-Party system: the Democrats in charge in perpetuity. That’s what the Democrats have been about since Trump threw his hat in the ring.

The Congressional Democrats are the most corrupt and dangerous individuals in the nation. If they have their way, there won’t be any political opposition to their Rule.

Trump’s DOJ is working on rounding up the criminals, starting with former FBI Director, James Comey. He won’t be the last Obama/Biden official indicted. They may even get Obama and Biden as unindicted co-conspirators. They are guilty as hell and should be indicted, but politics will probably keep them out of jail.

Reply to  Sonicsuns
May 20, 2026 9:11 pm

The amount of Election Fraud now being discovered from the 2020 elections puts that election very much in doubt. !

Democrats have totally REFUSED to admit they lost the 2024 election , and have been in near full-on insurrection mode ever since.

Democrats only “believe” in democracy when they can fudge the results to suit them.

If Democrats believed in democracy, they would not be so against ICE, removal of illegal immigrants, closed borders, two genders only, cutting down on fraud and waste etc, etc, etc…….

… you know… those things Trump was elected to do by the majority of the American voters.

Derg
Reply to  Sonicsuns
May 21, 2026 1:51 am

Joe Biden had more votes than Obama…right 😉

Reply to  Derg
May 21, 2026 4:42 am

And Trump was ahead in several states.. they Biden’s graph “miraculously” jumped vertically as unknown and unsourced vote were counted.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Sonicsuns
May 21, 2026 1:48 pm

The Democrats do not believe in a Constitutional Republic.
They believe in a uniparty autocracy.

gyan1
Reply to  starzmom
May 20, 2026 9:38 am

“But perhaps some American blue-state governors and legislators will eventually abandon ideology and start governing responsibly.”

Not a chance in hell of that happening. They don’t live in the real world.

Ronald Stein
May 20, 2026 6:21 am

America is starting to catchup with China who is pursuing nuclear generated electricity (38 NEW nuclear reactors) that is emissions free, continuous, reliable, and affordable to support ALL infrastructures.

chadb
Reply to  Ronald Stein
May 20, 2026 6:44 am

If we were to grow 40GW of nuclear would you see that retiring gas fired gen or coal fired gen? Given that existing wind and solar are near zero marginal cost they aren’t going to be shut down, and we aren’t seeing 40GW of gen growth. Well, some projections are, but the reality is as the US population peaks (1.6 fertility rate) the US population will decline, and as population shrinks electricity demand will decline too.

Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 6:53 am

Actually, electricity demand is expected to double by 2050.

chadb
Reply to  More Soylent Green!
May 20, 2026 7:10 am

To put that in perspective, 2000 to 2025 electricity demand grew by 16% as population grew by 21% (yes, the electricity demand per person shrank over that time frame). The Census bureau expects 8% total population growth from now until 2050 (although that assumes decent immigration and higher birth rates than we have seen in the last decade), but somehow our demand is going to double. That means we should expect the next 25 years to have a growth rate 6x the last 25 years.
What will we be using that electricity for? I seriously doubt that my AI usage is going to use as much electricity as my air conditioner.

Ex-KaliforniaKook
Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 4:47 pm

It’s a drop in the bucket, but 1X plans to sell 100,000 ($20K each) robots by the end of next year. The first 10k batch sold out in five days. That’s one company, competing with Tesla’s Optimus. Both of these robots are AI driven. Mine will be pulling weeds, cleaning house, and providing additional muscle when mine aren’t quite sufficient. They’ll require significant power on their own, and they’ll be sucking up lots of AI access – which equals a lot of electricity. One small, domestic example. The power required by commercial robotic interests will dwarf the domestic market. They are already masters of the warehouse. To a far less number are expert medical robots. Still a heavy drain on electrical power.

You go ahead and live like you’re in the 20th century. Show Luddites they are not alone. The rest of us want to live in the 21st century.

chadb
Reply to  More Soylent Green!
May 20, 2026 7:14 am

Our electricity demand doubled from 1977 to 2025. During that time we installed air conditioning nationally, nearly doubled our household square footage per person, rolled out computers, and grew our population by 50%. I think the expectations that we are going to double our electric usage again in the next 25 years…
fanciful.

Scissor
Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 9:31 am

You don’t seem to up to speed concerning the magnitude of energy demands for data centers. Of course there is undoubtedly a bubblelicious component to it.

chadb
Reply to  Scissor
May 20, 2026 10:22 am

I haven’t seen any projections of AI power demands rising to 50% of grid demand. The projections are closer to 10% of grid. The rest of the growth is from general extra demand tied to growing GDP, electrification, and EVs. EVs have undershot forecasts for over a decade, the link between GDP and electricity growth has been broken since 2008, and electrification isn’t driving demand.
Data centers have been growing since Amazon started their first web server. I genuinely think the engineers designing the chips will out strip the growth in token usage. I also think the next round of AI will take a prompt, break it into components, send it to small language models (instead of LLM), and use the LLM to synthesize the results. That should give something that is much more accurate and more efficient usage of tokens.
Between chip design and software implementation no, I do not think I will be using more power to get AI answers than I use to air condition my house in Houston in the summer.

KevinM
Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 9:54 am

we installed air conditioning nationally

Check vs

“American engineer Willis H. Carrier invented the modern electrical air conditioner in 1902”

chadb
Reply to  KevinM
May 20, 2026 10:16 am

Okay, air conditioning was invented in the early 1900’s. Great point. Now, when did the majority of households have central air conditioning? It wasn’t 1904.

Reply to  More Soylent Green!
May 20, 2026 1:29 pm

From Google AI:

US electricity demand is facing a potential doubling, with data center power demand alone projected to more than double by 2027—rising from 31 GW in 2025 to 66 GW. This surge is driven by artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure, industrial growth, and widespread electrification, creating significant pressure on power grids that had seen stagnant demand for nearly two decades.

Key Drivers and Projections

  • AI and Data Centers: Data center electricity consumption is forecast to grow 15% annually through 2030, with AI-optimized server power usage projected to rise nearly fivefold.
  • Industry and Electrification: Growth in manufacturing, oil and gas, EVs, and heat pumps are compounding the demand.
  • Data Center Share: Data centers’ share of total U.S. peak summer power demand is projected to rise significantly by 2027.

—–
This is verbatim, and I find the key drivers lacking in detail.

John Hultquist
Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 7:47 am

Future population can be estimated by taking those already born and death rates that are fairly constant, add births {rates vary by ethnic groups}, add new arrivals {and their birth rates}, take into account health improvements and, also, new causes of deaths {unknown}.
Doing these things says the population of the USA will plateau at about 425,000,000 in about 100 years. That’s an increase of about 75,000,000.
Will the per person use of electricity go up or down? Hmm?
Holy cow! This forecasting gets hard in a hurry. 

Curious George
Reply to  John Hultquist
May 20, 2026 8:28 am

OK, assuming that Joe Biden does not return.

George Thompson
Reply to  John Hultquist
May 20, 2026 12:01 pm

“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future”….Yogi Berra

chadb
Reply to  John Hultquist
May 20, 2026 12:16 pm

Interestingly CBO has us peaking closer to 2050. The Census has a couple projections, the higher one (that lines up closer with your numbers) assumes birth rates recover substantially from where they are.
Interestingly both CBO and Census have total fertility for new arrivals as higher than native born. Most people don’t know that the fertility rate for Mexico is now lower than that of the US, and Mexico City is lower than NYC. I think holding TFR for immigrants as higher than native born is unrealistic.
CMS has a projection closer to CBO than Census (closer to the lower scenario from the Census).

Curious George
Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 8:25 am

near zero marginal cost – ever heard about Ivanpah? The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, the three-tower field of mirrors in the Mojave Desert just past Primm, is once again under the microscope as regulators, utilities and federal officials argue over who gets stuck with the tab. The $2.2 billion complex, visible to anyone driving I-15 out of Las Vegas, was built as a concentrated solar thermal experiment but has stumbled with lower-than-expected power output and higher operating costs. A deal that would have wound down long-term contracts and shut two of the three units is now on ice, leaving taxpayers and California ratepayers waiting to see where the financial fallout lands.

chadb
Reply to  Curious George
May 20, 2026 8:31 am

Sorry, are you implying that Ivanpah is in any way representative of the marginal costs of currently operating solar plants? It sounds like you are suggesting that PV operators have a cost structure like that of a reflecting tower. What am I missing?

KevinM
Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 9:55 am

What is the marginal cost of solar at 3am?

Erik Magnuson
Reply to  KevinM
May 20, 2026 12:33 pm

A very interesting question. Margnal/incremental costs are useful when near term dispatching of on-line generation, but not so useful for capital allotment or planning for the day ahead. Depending on the capital cost of back up generation, it may be cheaper to tell the wind/pv generation to take a hike. Total costs are more important than marginal costs.

Most battery technologies have a quantifiable cost of a charge/discharge cycle, so that would be included in the 3am cost figure.

George Thompson
Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 12:06 pm

Do marginal costs include bird burning at Ivanpah? Or toxic waste cleanup at other solar sites after hailstorms and tornadoes?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 9:03 am

“near zero marginal cost”

Does that include amortizing the infrastructure costs over the life of the system?
Does that include replacement cycle costs? Repair? Maintenance?
Does that include amortizing the Federal debt created by the subsidies?
Is that with or without continuance of Federal subsidies?

Not sure your term is as accurate as you wish people to believe.

chadb
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
May 20, 2026 9:26 am

I’m guessing you are not familiar with the term “marginal cost” if you are asking about amortizing infrastructure costs and debt costs.

KevinM
Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 9:57 am

Definition of marginal cost requires the ability to add a unit as required. You are demonstrating that YOU don’t understand the definition.

chadb
Reply to  KevinM
May 20, 2026 12:19 pm

I guess it would be fair to say there is a marginal cost of a new generator or the marginal cost of the next MWh. Given the original comment (mine) that was discussing the marginal cost of existing wind and solar it should be clear that I was discussing the second and not the first. I guess another term would be the operating cost.

The marginal price of electricity at any given moment (what is traded) does not include adding a new unit. It may involve turning on an existing unit.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 12:15 pm

My wife and daughter are CPAs.
I know the definition and what is involved.
Just adding one more WTG, the marginal cost is not the cost of the structure but all of the costs associated with that addition.

So your speculative ZERO marginal cost is what is questioned.
The items listed are not always variable costs.

“Marginal cost is the additional cost incurred to produce one extra unit of a good or service.”

So one more WTG is free?

MarkW
Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 3:14 pm

In your world, you don’t have to replace equipment when it wears out?
Or perhaps you believe that wind and solar equipment never wear out?

Reply to  MarkW
May 20, 2026 3:53 pm

constantly needing renewal !! 😉

chadb
Reply to  MarkW
May 21, 2026 5:54 am

The marginal cost of driving to WalMart is the gas, oil, and wear and tear on the car. The purchase of the car is a capital investment. When considering whether to take the car or the minivan I don’t consider the amorization of the two vehicles while I might consider the gas price.

Scissor
Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 9:27 am

Data center plans in Wyoming alone call for about a 10X increase in consumption of natural gas for electricity generation for the state, plus addition of nuclear power plants.

chadb
Reply to  Scissor
May 20, 2026 12:21 pm

Do you believe that plan, or do you think developers are adding ridiculous amounts into the interconnect queue trying to get a few approved and then find a tenant for their build? There are only a few companies (roughly 4) that are prospective tenants for all the builds. Do the projections for builds match the announced plans for those tenants? No. Who do you believe more, Google and ChatGPT or the developers hoping to lease a building to Google or ChatGPT?

leefor
Reply to  chadb
May 21, 2026 1:23 am

What is the specific question you ask AI? That is the most important thing. 😉

KevinM
Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 9:49 am

“near zero marginal cost”

“Marginal cost is the additional expense incurred when producing one extra unit of a good or service.”

Free once you massively overpay capital cost.
Available according to a schedule you can’t control.

When available the marginal cost is near zero.
When not available the cost is near infinity.

What is the average of zero and infinity? Half infinity is still undefined.

Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 11:23 am

It’s good that you can predict the future. Always a big plus, especially for those who convince others that they can.

Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 1:51 pm

By 2050, most of the current wind and solar will be dead, and either buried or left to rot, causing further environmental destruction.

USA will run on a mix of Oil, Gas, Coal and nuclear.. much like they do now.

USA-energy
MarkW
Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 3:11 pm

Wind and solar have no marginal costs?
Not in any world I am familiar with.

First off, they are both more labor intensive than is any fossil fuel. That’s one of the biggest marginal costs.
Maintenance costs for wind and solar are as great if not greater than fossil fuels.
Finally you are ignoring the cost of having to replace wind and solar when they aren’t producing, which is most of the time.

MiloCrabtree
Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 5:16 pm

How can you be so completely stupid?

MarkW
Reply to  MiloCrabtree
May 20, 2026 7:16 pm

It takes years of intensive education, err, indoctrination.

Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 7:03 pm

chadb:
To answer your question of what electricity source to retire if we build out nuclear:
IMO we should retire the low density, intermittant sources that make our e grid more expensive & more fragile., ie wind & solar.
The fuel for these two are “free” but it is very costly to integrate them into the grid (especially if you try to firm them up with battery storage).
Next to retire should be coal plants since these are more polluting than nat gas.

Otherwise, I agree with you that electricity demand projections are all over the place, but none of the data center/AI/blockchain groups that may drive demand are investing in wind or solar. They know its a bad economic deal. Too bad our politicians can’t learn from them.

Reply to  B Zipperer
May 21, 2026 4:46 am

“Next to retire should be coal plants since these are more polluting than nat gas.”

Actually, modern coal plants put out very little actual “pollution”…

… plus they provide large amounts of building material, in the form of coal ash, which would otherwise have to be mined elsewhere.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  bnice2000
May 21, 2026 1:56 pm

They also have the advantage of onsite fuel storage and do not require pipelines.

Hard to sabotage a pile of coal next to a coal fired steam turbine generator.

gezza1298
Reply to  Ronald Stein
May 20, 2026 7:36 am

And I believe their 4th generation reactors do not need a supply of cooling water which frees up their locations as well as not suffering the problem the French had recently where the hot weather had reduced the river flow and heated up the water so reducing its cooling potential.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  gezza1298
May 21, 2026 1:57 pm

Certainly a reduction of water, if the design specs match reality, but unclear if it is zero.

chadb
May 20, 2026 6:36 am

Okay sure, we are going to have a 400 MW FUSION reactor later this decade. Somehow Commonwealth Fusion systems will manage to design, build, and get approvals through NRC for a reactor that has never been seen before in 3 years. I guess that makes sense given that NRC is known for moving at speed and removing unnecessary barriers for new technologies.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 9:04 am

As long as the project is privately funded I say let them try.
When my tax dollars are involved then I have a say.

chadb
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
May 20, 2026 9:35 am

“When my tax dollars are involved then I have a say.”
I wish that were the case. How I wish that was the case…

Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 11:26 am

What? You don’t vote? One man one vote, you have exactly as much say as anyone else.

George Thompson
Reply to  doonman
May 20, 2026 12:08 pm

Or not…depending on Dem fraud.

Sonicsuns
Reply to  George Thompson
May 20, 2026 4:30 pm

There’s no significant Dem fraud. There is only Trump making wild claims about Dem fraud. He’s a liar and a sore loser. (Notice that when Dems lost in 2024 they didn’t riot at the Capitol.)

leefor
Reply to  Sonicsuns
May 21, 2026 1:26 am

You mean they couldn’t even organise that? oh dear.

Derg
Reply to  Sonicsuns
May 21, 2026 2:00 am

Joe Biden collected more votes than Obama 😉

George Thompson
Reply to  Sonicsuns
May 21, 2026 6:27 am

Enough fraud votes were found in Georgia alone to have given the state to Trump. Even the MSM, or the so-called legacy media, has acknowledged upwards of 300,000 fraudulent votes. Just for your further education, look at Chicago, California, and Pennsylvania…remember the motto-“vote early and often” and don’t forget the cemetary vote. Get your head…out.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Sonicsuns
May 21, 2026 1:58 pm

Georgia is under serious review.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 12:16 pm

We agree.

KevinM
Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 9:59 am

Will the NRC regulate fusion? I actually do not know.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  KevinM
May 20, 2026 12:17 pm

It supposedly is within their jurisdiction.
We shall see.
Interesting times ahead.

Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 10:10 am

Type one energy, https://typeoneenergy.com.

slated to be sited at a recently closed TVA coal plant. Win win.

strong ties to tva, ornl, and UT.

BeAChooser
Reply to  chadb
May 21, 2026 9:43 pm

In December 2021 CFS predicted it would have a net evergy fusion device by 2025 and that the device would produce 10 times more energy than it consumed. They made it sound like a trivial step.  Obviously, it was not.  In 2024 they announced they’d be ready to ship their first devices in the early 2030s and their demo reactor, SPARC, would be operational in 2025. Well, it wasn’t and now first plasma isn’t projected to occur until sometime in 2027.

CFS announcements are just more of the hopium that has characterized fusion efforts for over half a century,  In that regard, the following (https://whchronicle.com/episodes/a-fusion-power-plants-high-speed-journey-from-concept-to-commercialization-2/) links to a 2024 interview with Brandon Sorbom, co-founder and chief scientist of CFS. If you ask me, Brandon’s spiel sounds more than a little like a scam to me. 

He stays quite vague and offers no real information about why CMS’ approach will work when all the other efforts have failed so far … other than that their device will be smaller. It might sound good on paper, but the devil is in the details and none of their details have been tested yet. In fact, Brandon admits that they’re using the same physics as ITER and ITER hasn’t been demonstrated it will work even after over $20 billion in spending.  

Truth is that CMS’ owners (Gates, Soros, etc) don’t really know that their device will sustain a Q>1 fusion reaction when it’s turned on. They don’t really know what problems they’ll have with instabilities or with material damage. They haven’t worked out where they’ll get the fuel they’ll need to run the machine. It’s all just pipe dreams fed by greed and hopium.

May 20, 2026 7:10 am

The only thing left behind is the US as other countries move towards renewables, EVs and electrification.

GeorgeInSanDiego
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 20, 2026 7:20 am

I don’t know where you get your delusions, Losername.

MarkW
Reply to  GeorgeInSanDiego
May 20, 2026 3:19 pm

They came free with his party membership.

chadb
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 20, 2026 7:21 am

Curious, you seem to assume that renewables , EVs and electrification is moving ahead. What makes solar “ahead” of gas? A properly built gas plant emits almost no pollutants (keep in mind the endangerment finding is overruled, CO2 is not a pollutant), but solar panels carry a whole lot of toxins in the panels that have to be disposed of.

Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 2:20 pm

Globally, solar and wind energy are nothing but a tiny afterthought.

World-Energy-Wind-Solar-2024-Article
SxyxS
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 20, 2026 7:21 am

No one need these green energies, but there’ll also be no real comeback as AI demand will suck up everything new.
And AI seems to be way above Climate BS in terms of importance and hierarchy,
otherwise there would not be those trillion dollar investments if there would not be some reliable supply of energy.

Scissor
Reply to  SxyxS
May 20, 2026 9:40 am

That’s probably the way it is, although I feel some dot com vibes, but maybe that’s the data center down the road or the railroad near the highway.

strativarius
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 20, 2026 7:28 am

Explain why the UK has energy prices 4 times that of the US.

It couldn’t be subsidised renewables, surely….

chadb
Reply to  strativarius
May 20, 2026 7:32 am

Counter – why does ERCOT have such lower power prices than CAISO even though ERCOT has more wind and more solar than CAISO (and in the next year will have more on a percentage of total gen)? Louisianna also has lower power prices, even though wind and solar are almost non-existent in LA. Personally I think it is more market design than renewable penetration.

starzmom
Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 7:39 am

The short answer is that ERCOT has gas, and gets virtually all of its power from inside the state. CAISO imports a lot of power from outside the state and has to rely on spot prices sometimes. So basically you are right, it is market design not renewable penetration.

strativarius
Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 7:54 am

ERCOT, CAISO…

I haven’t the foggiest, but the UK has energy prices 4 times that of the US. That is a [painful] fact of life.

We have a decade’s worth of gas under English counties – that are known thus far. There are huge finds off the [British] Falkland islands. With or without the North sea we could be self sufficient. But no, we have to subsidise renewables, like it or lump it:

So far in 2026, Britain has wasted £720,411,549 switching off wind turbines and paying gas plants to switch on.The total cost for all of 2025 was £1,467,023,332.Wasted

Today – and it’s 16:00 – we have spent:

£69,447 switching off wind turbines
£560,712 buying energy elsewhere

chadb
Reply to  strativarius
May 20, 2026 8:24 am

On this side of the pond people regularly will point to California (CAISO) as the poster child for “renewables drive up prices.” However, the problem is Texas (ERCOT) has even more renewables, almost no state level support for renewables, and far lower prices. California has access to cheap gas (both from West Texas and Canada), but has restricted the flow into the state. They both have similar solar profiles, etc. There is nothing about the available resources that can come close to accounting for the price difference. It is all due to the market design. I think that’s what you’re getting at too. If wind provided the cheapest electricity, great, build wind. However, if it provides the most expensive electricity then stop doing that. Stop paying people to build a wind turbine and then pay them again to turn it off. It is insane.
This site has a lot of people emotionally invested in a particular technology. I don’t get it. I don’t care where the electrons come from as long as my lights turn on, they turn on cheap, and we aren’t dumping mercury in the water.

Mr.
Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 9:41 am

Intermittency > unreliability of generation must also be a major concern that needs to be factored in.

And I jdon’t just mean backup as a permanent necessity.

chadb
Reply to  Mr.
May 20, 2026 10:14 am

I would say that ERCOT has managed that pretty darn well. They have hit nearly 80% renewable penetration this year at some times. Maybe they should train the rest of the market on how to do that.

George Thompson
Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 12:11 pm

…”at some times” huh. Real useful, that.

Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 1:17 pm

Tell that to the families of the hundreds that perished when the wind face-planted in the wake of a winter storm, resulting in a series of fuel and power plant shutoffs that left people freezing.

chadb
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
May 21, 2026 5:59 am

You seem to be discounting the freeze-offs of natural gas production, the shut-down of electricity driven pumps at wells due to automatic price-driven controls on the pumps.
Yes there was a drop in wind gen, but there was a much larger drop in gas fired gen and an inability to get gas to generators due to poor winterization.

MarkW
Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 3:22 pm

Typical acolyte, completely ignoring the majority of time when wind and solar are producing nothing.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  chadb
May 21, 2026 2:01 pm

Tell that to the thousands that had to evacuate when the massive battery farm flamed.

Erik Magnuson
Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 12:43 pm

ERCOT has not limited the fossil fuel plants that can be built, where California has made it harder to add fossil fuel generation. ERCOT is also moving to put wind and solar on the same footing as non-renewable generation, basically mandating that the wind/solar facilities provide the back-up storage to make them as dispatchable as other generation. That is when demand spikes, they have to increase power delivered from their sites and when demand drops, they have to curtail power delivered.

starzmom
Reply to  Erik Magnuson
May 20, 2026 1:46 pm

ERCOT also has a lot of battery storage, and if you follow their dashboard, you will note that they charge it when they have excess power in the grid–usually but not always wind power, and discharge it usually first thing in the morning when the early morning peak is hitting. My impression is that they are managing their system reasonably well. CAISO not so much at peak times.

Reply to  chadb
May 20, 2026 1:13 pm

“Build wind” or “build solar” are idiotic notions. They are intermittent sources and are NOT EQUIVALENT to dispatchable sources such as coal, gas, nuclear and hydroelectric. Since wind and solar cannot be relied upon, they cannot be built in place of dispatchable sources, and MUST BE backed up by dispatchable sources.

It WILL NEVER BE “CHEAPER” to build TWO REDUNDANT WAYS to generate the same end product, so ONLY dispatchable sources should be built, as electricity needs to be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

It isn’t about “being hung up on” certain technologies. It’s about building what WORKS and not building what DOESN’T.

Derg
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
May 21, 2026 2:05 am

This ^

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 20, 2026 8:31 am

The US is getting left behind!

Meanwhile, in reality, China (the “renewables leader”) added 78 GW of new coal plants in 2025 alone – more than India’s entire decade – and keeps approving record coal builds while burning it for baseload.

The US is quietly producing record energy (oil, gas, nuclear), keeping lights on affordably while others virtue-signal and quietly fire up more coal.

Being “left behind” looks an awful lot like pragmatic energy dominance.

PS Where’s your answer to my comment about Chinese EVs? Cat got your tongue?

Reply to  Redge
May 20, 2026 10:00 am

The cat has got his keyboard!

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 20, 2026 9:02 am

What color sky do you have on your planet? Just wondering.

J Boles
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 20, 2026 9:03 am

But look, you use FF every day! HYPOCRITE!

Reply to  J Boles
May 20, 2026 1:20 pm

As do wind power, solar power, and EVs!

😆😅🤣😂

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 20, 2026 9:06 am

Proof?
No do not list links to those pre-green activist sites.
By proof, I mean proof.
You claim the US is being left behind.
Data and details.

Otherwise you are just flame warrioring again.

KevinM
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 20, 2026 9:59 am

Left behind by whom?

Reply to  KevinM
May 20, 2026 1:21 pm

Those running full speed towards the economic cliff edge!

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
May 20, 2026 2:04 pm

Left behind by the Lemmings 🙂

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 20, 2026 11:54 am

😄😆😅🤣😂

I’ll be thrilled to be “left behind” in the rush to return to STONE AGE LIVING, which is where a “renewables, EVs and electrification” economy leads.

You do know that NONE of the aforementioned, worse-than-useless crap can be manufactured, transported, erected on site, maintained and hauled to the landfill without using COAL, OIL AND GAS, right?!

😁😄😆😅🤣😂

MarkW
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 20, 2026 3:18 pm

If all your friends were jumping of a tall building, would you join them?

Leon de Boer
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 20, 2026 5:43 pm

Actually I would like to challenge our little mate to name countries that are still moving towards net-zero at pace. Every country I look at is retreating except the UK which seems likely to keep on going until the next election.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Leon de Boer
May 21, 2026 2:03 pm

Lemmings meet cliff.

strativarius
May 20, 2026 7:23 am

Starmer has an ace up his sleeve to keep our net zero on track

Ease sanctions on Russian oil. Mad Ed says we can do that, but we can’t do anything in the North sea. Cue the criticism

Reply to  strativarius
May 20, 2026 10:24 am

Greenland Energy has discovered 13 billion barrels of light, sweet crude oil in the Henderson basin on east coast of Greenland. Production is scheduled to start this summer. This oil could be a life saver for the UK.

BTW: Net Zero for the UK not possible because there will always be long cold rainy winters. The humans in the UK exhale 70 million kg of CO2 everyday. Add to this the CO2 exhaled by all the domestic animals ranging from cattle to canaries. Why does soda pop, beer and French champagne get a free pass on CO2 emissions?

John XB
May 20, 2026 7:33 am

Nuclear power. Name one plant anywhere in the World that was built without using massive capital input taken out of taxpayers’ pockets and just like wind/solar needs guaranteed, lifetime, inflation linked above market wholesale prices.

Ironically those bedazzled by the rediscovered shiny bauble,, nuclear power, fall into the same trap as the “renewableists” and consider only marginal costs and…. yes we have no CO2..

Japan – re-opening its nuclear power stations with massive State funding and 20 year guaranteed revenues.

Coal and gas can do it quicker, less capital intensive, no subsidies needed, lower wholesale prices.

strativarius
Reply to  John XB
May 20, 2026 7:57 am

Nuclear is 24/7/365

Or am I imagining that fact?

John Hultquist
Reply to  strativarius
May 20, 2026 9:23 am

There are unplanned and planned* outages, occasionally.
*Four to 6 weeks every two years for the Columbia Generating Station.

Reply to  strativarius
May 20, 2026 1:23 pm

Yes, but coal and gas do pretty much the same.

Reply to  strativarius
May 20, 2026 2:06 pm

Theoretically, you should say 24/7/52.25. or 24/365.25 😉

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  John XB
May 20, 2026 8:37 am

Coal, gas, and nuclear were for many years the foundation of our energy grid, providing steady, reliable, and affordable energy. This can be the case again, if we will but let it. Nuclear, especially some of the next gen systems such as SMRs are showing promise. Some of the nuclear naysayers are sounding a bit like the anti-nuke activists of the past decades, with different excuses.

Denis
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 20, 2026 11:12 am

SMRs are claiming “promise” but not yet showing it. Only one company, NuScale, has an NRC approved design (pressurized water with about 70 MW electric output per unit.) Being PWRs, they would probably work. They were to begin building 10 or 12 units in Idaho a few years ago but I understand that the deal failed because they could not offer electricity at a price local utilities were willing to pay. NuScale is recently reported as being near bankruptcy. There are lots of outfits offering various types of SMR reactors but all but water-cooled ones have historic problems. Molten salt cooled – corrosion (are there any materials that will work); liquid sodium – corrosion and the coolant is highly radioactive and burns in air meaning very hard to fix; gas cooled – works but has high maintenance costs and so on. Will 10 or 12 such machines really be cheaper to build and run than one big machine? Will the exotic SMRs actually work? It seems that we will find out many $billions later.

Reply to  Denis
May 20, 2026 2:11 pm

China has couple of fairly small nuclear modular designs running.

Their fuel processing plant was built so it can provide fuel for a lot more of these modular designs.

Now they have the modular design working well, I think we will see a rapid expansion of them in China

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  John XB
May 20, 2026 9:15 am

First, we are not talking about a step function. There will not be an overnight transition from thermal/coal fueled generators to radiation thermal generaton.

Massive capital input taken out of taxpayer’s pockets is not a required (it is with WTG and SV, but that aside). There is no requirement to have command economy (government) dictated prices.
Both could happen, but it is not required for either.

As you point out, the initial investment for nuclear is higher. That is not the only consideration. Total life cycle cost of ownership (or operation) is the business case.

The argument is clearly non-binary.

Denis
Reply to  John XB
May 20, 2026 10:48 am

All of the current US fleet of reactors but for the two new Vogtle plants were built with private money. The Federal Government provides accident “insurance” for the fleet paid for by money from each utility should the need arise and each utility is required to carry about $500 million in private insurance. No Federal moneys are involved.

Reply to  John XB
May 21, 2026 5:29 am

Name one plant anywhere in the World that was built without using massive capital input taken out of taxpayers’ pockets 

Many nuclear plants in the U.S. were created using privately generated capital from shares of stock and the sale of bonds by private companies. These public companies are regulated by a PUC (Public Utility Commission) that allows a rate of return on the capital used. Most PUC’s also have detailed planning that must be done prior to building that shows all the costs and what that will do to electric rates before they receive permission to build it. Keep in mind, many of the these have depreciation intervals that span several decades which minimizes costs to the consumer.

Gregory Woods
May 20, 2026 9:28 am

and what happens when the Democrats take over?

Mr.
Reply to  Gregory Woods
May 20, 2026 9:42 am

chaos, as usual.

Reply to  Mr.
May 20, 2026 1:26 pm

Destruction of the electric grid and our automobile industry, as usual.

Reply to  Gregory Woods
May 20, 2026 11:18 am

Oh Boy! More free stuff to buy votes. We’ve already spent 39 trillion that doesn’t exist and more in the world. Some great great great grandchildren somewhere will thank all the dead people for indebting them with free stuff.

George Thompson
Reply to  Gregory Woods
May 20, 2026 12:15 pm

We’re stewed, screwed, and just wait until you see the tattoo.

MarkW
Reply to  Gregory Woods
May 20, 2026 3:26 pm

death and destruction

Sonicsuns
Reply to  Gregory Woods
May 20, 2026 4:31 pm

They’ll warm up to nuclear power at least. It’s a carbon-free power source after all.

Derg
Reply to  Gregory Woods
May 21, 2026 2:09 am

Make America Sh*tty Again = Democrats

KevinM
May 20, 2026 9:43 am

expected to deliver 50 megawatts of reliable electricity to the Tennessee Valley Authority grid by 2030

I wish they wouldn’t announce due dates like that… more likely twice the power and 3 years late.

May 20, 2026 10:36 am

Nuclear power plants are only 33% thermally efficient and require large amounts of water for cooling. The US has an abundant supply of nat. gas and should be building power plants using CCGT technology which have a thermal efficiency of 64%.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Harold Pierce
May 20, 2026 11:15 am

So? Thermal efficiency is not the be-all and end-all. Nat gas is great. But so can nuclear be. As with any installation, all factors should be considered, including water.

Reply to  Harold Pierce
May 20, 2026 1:27 pm

It has abundant coal and should be using that for baseload. Better to use gas for heating, where coal is far less suitable.

starzmom
Reply to  Harold Pierce
May 20, 2026 1:50 pm

Every thermal generating plant requires large amounts of water for cooling.

Bob
May 20, 2026 2:25 pm

We need to get as much electricity from nuclear as we can to preserve fossil fuels for plastic, medicine, clothing, agriculture and of course fuel for our hot rods.