Long live nuclear power

What if I told you Congress just passed significant clean energy legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support? Would you believe it? That’s what just happened. On Tuesday, the Senate passed the ADVANCE Act (the Act) by a vote of 88-2. It is attached to a larger bill providing federal grants to local fire departments. The House passed it last month by a vote of 393-13 with 1 voting present. It now goes to Biden’s desk and he will sign it.

One thing I try to do on this blog is highlight progress and positive developments. I’m strongly against doomerism and the widespread belief that everything is terrible. I’m trying to do my part to push against those ideas. The overwhelming support for the Act definitely qualifies as a positive development and something to be happy about. Even with all the polarization and division we have, good things can still happen and our political system remains capable of acting.

What does the Act do? Its focus is on promoting nuclear energy, particularly smaller modular reactors (SMRs). SMRs are about 1/3 the size of a traditional reactor. None are currently in use, but if nuclear power is going to make a comeback, which we should all want, that is how it will happen.

The Act makes some key changes to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which is in charge of regulating and approving nuclear reactors. Since its creation in 1975, it has only approved one new reactor design. Its mission has been exclusively about nuclear safety. That is certainly not a bad goal, but it has resulted in nuclear power being hindered and held to a much higher standard than fossil fuel plants are. The Act changes the NRC’s mission from being exclusively about safety to also ensuring that the regulation of nuclear plants doesn’t “unnecessarily limit…the benefits of civilian use of radioactive materials and nuclear energy technology to society.” That’s long overdue.

The NRC’s current framework is way out of date. It treats SMRs as if they are no different from traditional reactors when in fact they are very different. Traditional reactors use a lot of water that is highly pressured and requires a complex pumping system to keep reactors from overheating. SMRs don’t use water, they use liquid sodium, which allows them to run at a lower pressure. SMRs don’t need a pumping system, which is part of what makes them much less expensive than traditional reactors. Rather than relying on pumps to cool down a reactor in an emergency, SMRs use air vents.  

The NRC has long been stubborn and set in its ways. The Act is the first step in beginning to change that. Safety matters, but it can’t be the only goal. There are tradeoffs and other concerns that matter more than dogmatically adhering to out of date safety standards.

Changing the NRC’s mission is arguably the Act’s biggest provision, but it does more than just that. It increases hiring at the NRC so work can be done faster. Hopefully, the new staff that gets hired will be familiar with SMRs and how different they are from traditional reactors. It reduces the length of the permitting process for new reactors and reduces the fees the NRC charges. It also encourages the deployment of SMRs and other advanced reactor technology to other countries.

Deploying technology will be very important. China and Russia are working on advanced reactors and using it as a way to curry favor abroad. The US will need to step up and is currently years behind China when it comes to advanced nuclear reactor technology. From a climate change standpoint, what counts is global carbon emissions so getting clean energy technology deployed and used abroad is obviously essential. Reducing domestic emissions is good and should be done, but unless other countries do it, too, it won’t amount to much.

Another provision of the Act gives prizes to incentivize the creation of advanced reactor technology. It also promotes the placing of SMRs at the sites of closed or soon to be closed fossil fuel plants. There is such an effort going on right now at a coal plant in Wyoming. TerraPower, a company partly financed by Bill Gates, broke ground on building the first ever SMR at a coal plant scheduled to close in 2036.

Placing SMRs at fossil fuel plant sites brings many benefits. Replacing a dirty source of energy with a clean one is obviously good, but there are many more benefits from it. Because fossil fuel plants are already attached to the grid, the SMRs that replace them will be ready to go as soon as they’re built. There won’t be any need to build new transmission lines. Another benefit is to the areas and the workers at the plants.

In the case of TerraPower, the town where it’s building an SMR is heavily reliant on the coal plant there for revenue and jobs. By putting an SMR there, it will keep workers employed and keep a source of revenue for the town in operation. That will be a big part of the energy transition. There are many places where fossil fuel plants are a key economic engine. Those places are understandably uneasy about losing them. If SMRs can pick up where fossil fuels leave off, that should help ease concerns and make the transition smoother.

A major problem nuclear power has faced is upfront costs. Recently, two traditional reactors came online in Georgia. They are the first traditional reactors that have been built in 30 years. That’s great, but their total cost was around $35 billion, which was more than double the initial estimate. They also took well over 10 years to get built. For nuclear power to have a future, both of those will have to go way down.

SMRs are not nearly as expensive and will take a much shorter time to build. For now, though, they still are far from cheap. The SMR being built by TerraPower is estimated to cost $4 billion by the time it’s operational in 2030. The Act will hopefully lower those costs and make it much more likely that its SMR design will be approved. The construction that has started is for the non-nuclear parts of the SMR that don’t require NRC approval.

The hope with SMRs is that their parts can be produced in factories and assembled on site. Mass production, if it works, will reduce the cost of SMRs and make them commercially viable. The $4 billion price tag is too high for that to happen, but someone needs to take the plunge. The good news is Bill Gates is someone with plenty of money who can afford to take on that kind of risk. If TerraPower succeeds, others will follow.

Nobody noticed and that’s okay

I wrote two weeks ago about how issues that don’t get a lot of media coverage and don’t inspire a lot of passions are easier to get things done on. The timing was great. There is no better example of that than the Act.

There are environmental issues that can fire people up, but I would wager hardly anyone even knows what the NRC is. People will go out and protest over pipelines, but they’re not going to pull their hair out over changes to an agency they’ve never heard of and technology they know nothing about. As best I can tell, none of the loudmouth environmental activists and groups have said anything about the Act.

It’s not just the activists and groups who missed the Act getting passed. So did the bulk of the national media. The first link in this piece is to an article on CNN’s website. That is the most mainstream news source that has covered the Act as of this writing. I checked the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post websites and haven’t found anything. I didn’t find anything on CBS, NBC, CNBC, ABC or NPR. There was nothing on Bloomberg either.

Between SMRs and the NRC being almost completely unknown and sparking no interest from national media outlets, the Act will get no attention from the general public. I wish people knew about it, but it is what it is. Like I wrote about earlier, there is a tradeoff between the salience of an issue and the likelihood of anything getting done on it.

Getting things done matters more than an issue’s salience so I’ll take it. In my view, the end goal of politics is to govern and that includes enacting legislation that makes things better. Getting elected is obviously important, but it’s a means to an end. That can be easy to forget and very little media coverage focuses on governing, but I try hard to not lose sight of it.

I understand why most media outlets aren’t interested in governing. It’s boring and generally can’t be reduced to a black-and-white, good versus evil story. Legislating has much more in common with watching grass grow than riding a rollercoaster.

People want to hear about drama and fighting, not negotiating and compromising. To the extent what happens in Congress gets coverage, it’s usually because the most militant members put on a show. Democrats and Republicans got together, compromised and passed legislation with broad, bipartisan support? Nobody’s interested in that. Marjorie Taylor Greene and The Squad traded insults? That’s what gets clicks and views.

Nobody watches cable news, listens to talk radio or podcasts or goes on social media to hear about committee meetings and legislative horse trading. I can count on no hands the number of protests that happened because of a decision an obscure government agency made. No crowd has ever shouted, “What do we want?” “Faster permitting for transmission lines!” “When do we want it?” “Now!”

Needless to say, the Act’s electoral impact will be zero. The combination of it getting virtually no media attention, the NRC being largely unknown, SMRs not yet being in existence and the lack of partisan fighting guarantees that literally nobody will vote on it. That’s a small price to pay even though I wish it was different. Elections happen all the time and majorities come and go. The Act is here to stay and will do good things no matter who wins in November and beyond. That’s what I call a victory.

Nuclear power is the biggest no-brainer

The Act is a big deal. It won’t turn the world into gold, but it should be very helpful for a key component of the energy transition. The broad support it enjoyed was very encouraging. The opposition many Democrats once had to nuclear power is nearly gone. Not only are they supportive of SMRs, but the Biden Administration has made efforts to keep open traditional reactors. The Biden Administration has also approved a loan from the Department of Energy to try to reopen a shuttered nuclear plant in Michigan.

The passage of the Act is a milestone in what I believe is a needed shift in how to address climate change. It’s a recognition that regulatory barriers to clean energy of all kinds are a big problem and need to be addressed. It’s also a recognition that climate change is radically different from the environmental problems of the 1960s and 1970s. While problems from 50-60 years ago were dealt with by stopping things and preventing things from being built, tackling climate change will require the opposite and nuclear power is going to be a big part of that.

For Democrats, the Act marks a turning point in how they support nuclear power. While previous efforts involved supporting nuclear power by giving it money, the Act supports it by reducing red tape. That is the biggest barrier nuclear power is facing and Democrats look to be fully on board with fixing it. I hope to see similar efforts on other fronts, i.e., permitting reform for transmission lines.

The dead-enders opposed to nuclear power are a small and rapidly diminishing number of people. Pragmatism wins out in the end. Nobody has to love nuclear power, although I do, but anyone concerned about climate change has to be supportive of it and gung-ho in favor of anything that increases its odds of success.

The crippling of the nuclear power industry in the US and around the world will go down in history as one of the worst policy decisions ever made. When nuclear plants are closed, fossil fuels take their place. At best, nuclear is replaced by gas. Otherwise, it’s replaced by coal, the dirtiest fuel source there is. Coal and gas are much worse environmentally than nuclear not just for carbon emissions, but for air, soil and water quality, too. I wonder how much of a problem acid rain would have been had it not been for the shuttering and preventing of nuclear plants from being built? How many people around the world would still be alive and in good health had we not hindered nuclear power?

Opposition to nuclear power is one of the most irrational, mind boggling things there is. Those who cite Fukushima really need to do their homework. I wrote about that almost three years ago and am not going to repeat it here. Don’t get me started on Chernobyl. Not a single person has died in a nuclear plant in the US nor has anyone died from nuclear radiation even though they have been operating here for 70 years.  

Despite their great safety record, nuclear plants have been closing down, often to the celebration of supposed environmentalists. I have absolutely no patience or tolerance for those who are against nuclear power. It is a 100% clean, reliable source of energy that has never killed anyone in the US, Europe or Canada. Yet there are people who claim it’s not safe and should be ended.

Being against nuclear power is no different from being an anti-vaxxer. Saying nuclear power is dangerous is no different from saying vaccines cause autism. It’s pure emotion, hysteria and crankery. There is literally zero science or evidence to support it.

If someone is against nuclear power and claims it’s dangerous, they shouldn’t be called an environmentalist. They should be talked about and thought of the same way an anti-vaxxer is. They’re as scientifically illiterate as RFK Jr, who just so happens to be anti-nuclear. If you’ve ever heard anything he’s said about vaccines and thought he was bat shit crazy, you should think the same about anyone who says nuclear power isn’t safe.

It’s worth briefly discussing why nuclear power is so beneficial beyond the fact that it’s clean, reliable and safe. I think the climate change argument for it is rock solid, but there are other reasons to be in favor of it. In fact, when trying to sell nuclear power to the general public, the best way is to talk about all the non-climate change reasons.

One benefit of nuclear power is economic security. Providing reliable, clean and cheap power means lower costs. The biggest costs nuclear plants face are upfront. The fuel is cheap. If SMRs can become widespread, their costs will go down, which will also reduce the cost of their fuel. That will, in turn, reduce costs to consumers. Given that inflation is a concern, I think the single best case to make for nuclear power today is that it will help to combat it.

While unemployment is low and people care more about prices than jobs right now, that won’t be true forever. The building of more nuclear plants will create jobs, both permanent ones at the plant and temporary ones in building them. In areas where SMRs are attached to retired fossil fuel plants, the jobs created could be a boon to the local economy and help other businesses there. That has the potential to create a virtuous cycle of spending and hiring.

I like electric vehicles (EVs) and want them to become mainstream and eventually the only kind of car around. If that happens, though, there will be a huge increase in demand for electricity. Nuclear power will help provide that electricity while ensuring its reliability. I want to get to the point where gas prices are no longer a concern and nuclear power can help with that.

Electricity demand in the US and abroad is going to go up. AI data centers alone ensure that demand will continue to grow. The more demand there is, the more supply will be needed. Otherwise, the chances of blackouts go way up. Nobody wants that, especially during the summer heat. We need all the supply we can get and nuclear power is a part of that.

Related to economic security is national security. China and Russia are not our friends. Both of them are working on SMRs and other types of advanced reactors. Both want to export that technology to other countries to gain footholds there and have influence. I don’t want the US to fall behind and wake up one day to discover that China and Russia have won the war for advanced nuclear technology. Laws like the Act are necessary to avoid that scenario.

Part of why I want EVs to succeed is because I don’t want to finance petro states like Russia. While the US doesn’t buy oil from Russia, its price is set globally. Changes in demand for oil from anywhere can affect its price everywhere. If the US and other allied countries can move rapidly towards EVs, that will reduce demand for oil, which will reduce revenue for petro states and make them weaker.

While the national security case for nuclear power is strong in the US, I think it’s a much stronger abroad. The US is fortunate to never have been dependent on Russia for oil or gas, but Europe was not. Germany had earlier decided it would be a great idea to shut down its nuclear plants and become further dependent on Russia. When Russia invaded Ukraine, most European countries had to scramble fast to get oil and gas from elsewhere, but Germany in particular was in a bad spot.

France did comparatively well. France gets a large majority of its electricity from nuclear power and has since the 1980s. That hasn’t eliminated energy issues or the threat from Russia, but made it has made it much less of a problem. Other countries should take note of that.