Trump’s Nuclear Push Wins On Efficiency, Costs, And Scale—Climate Benefits Are Secondary

A recent, surprising article in the usually climate-alarmist Washington Post (WaPo) describes how President Trump’s recent efforts to streamline and promote the development and expansion of nuclear power plants are great for the climate, will reduce U.S. dependence on fossil fuels, and help meet growing energy demand. [some emphasis, links added]

While the climate angle is not something necessary to prioritize because there is nothing wrong with using fossil fuels, the article is correct that nuclear power has been hamstrung for too long, and more development of the technology will aid in covering growing energy demand more effectively than so-called renewables like wind and solar.

The article, titled “Trump’s Surprising Win for the Climate,” written by Ted Nordhaus, explains how the Trump administration has accelerated the commercialization of new nuclear energy technology, particularly small modular nuclear reactors, despite describing climate change as a “Chinese hoax.”

Nordhaus writes that Trump “has withdrawn the United States from the Paris climate agreement, slashed funding for climate research, and laid waste to greenhouse gas regulations.”

All of this is true, and a good thing. Climate change is not an existential threat to mankind’s survival or prosperity, as even Bill Gates lately acknowledges.

However, the burdensome and frankly tyrannical efforts to stop the climate from changing, as they have been passed down by organizations like the United Nations, remain a real threat.

In fact, the modest warming and growing concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide of the past hundred-plus years seems to have had a net benefit to life on Earth, evidenced by a trend towards more precipitation in the mid-latitudes of the northern hemisphere, a decrease in deadly extreme cold spells, and the greening of the planet.

Plus, alongside technological improvements driven mainly by the use of oil and gas, agricultural productivity has skyrocketed across the globe.

Nordhaus has nothing but good things to say about Trump’s efforts on the nuclear energy front:

“Love Trump or hate him, his administration’s determination to quickly demonstrate, license and commercialize new nuclear technology is unprecedented. Executive orders that mandated sweeping reform at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are underway. […] the White House has appointed two remarkably qualified commissioners, Ho Nieh and Douglas Weaver. Both are nuclear engineers and seasoned regulators who were confirmed by the Senate with bipartisan votes.

“[T]he NRC is expected to make public a revision of its regulatory code. The Energy Department is on track to review, approve and demonstrate multiple small test reactors at the Idaho National Laboratory this year. The Defense Department has started a program to offer contracts to deploy small reactors at military bases […] the Energy Department is revamping radiological health standards, setting practical thresholds for exposure rather than assuming, without well-established epidemiological evidence, that exposure to vanishingly low doses of radiation creates significant public health risks.”

It does make sense that someone concerned about carbon dioxide emissions would be appreciative of the administration’s efforts, even if that concern is misplaced.

Nuclear energy is emission-free aside from water vapor from cooling towers.

The main benefit, though, of nuclear energy above all other “green” technologies like wind and solar is that it doesn’t take up so much land, and it doesn’t depend on the weather to work.

Nuclear is also less expensive than wind and solar (as discussed in this Climate Realism post) when one accounts for the Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity, which includes the cost of the intermittency of weather-dependent sources, the fact that they require some kind of equivalent power backup, and the cost of balancing to grid to manage the uneven and unplanned ebb and flow of electricity generated by them.

Compared to oil, gas, and coal, nuclear is more expensive because it is dependable, and nuclear plants are very long-lived. Thus, it is a worthwhile energy source to pursue.

Moreover, most of the expense of nuclear is driven by high government regulatory costs, which the current administration could alleviate.

At the end of the WaPo piece, Nordhaus says Trump’s efforts qualify as “climate moonshots” despite Trump’s disinterest in pursuing climate goals. Unsurprisingly, Nordhaus maintains that even if Trump’s nuclear agenda is successful, it still won’t solve “the problem of climate change.”

Climate change is not a problem that needs solving, nor does the world need to reduce its “dependence on fossil fuels.”

More dependable energy available is a good thing, especially if it means the government will stop pouring money into wind and solar boondoggles that destroy pristine lands for the same – or, very often, less – available electricity.

Top image: The Byron nuclear power plant in Illinois via Wikimedia Commons

Read more at Climate Realism