Nuclear Is Back
The Biden administration gets it. Local Democrats, not so much.
Last Tuesday, President Biden signed into law America’s first comprehensive nuclear energy bill since 2005. The landmark ADVANCE Act provides incentives for new nuclear technologies, reduces licensing fees, and extends protection from liability related to the nuclear industry through 2045. It’s a huge win for pro-nuclear advocates like me, and holds out the promise of abundant, reliable, safe energy that generates no carbon. In a rare sign of bipartisan agreement in these times of division, the ADVANCE Act passed the Senate with a vote of 88-2 and passed the House by 393-13.
Even before the new law was signed, nuclear power was already making a comeback. Unit 4 of Georgia’s Vogtle Nuclear Power plant came online last April, a year after its twin reactor, Vogtle 3. Nuclear plants Diablo Canyon in California and Dresden in Illinois were saved from premature closures by rowdy pro-nuclear protesters, including your correspondent. Now, if the administration gets its way, these will be followed by a huge new raft of reactors. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm has said that to achieve its climate goals, the United States needs to triple its nuclear capacity and build 200 more reactors by 2050.
It’s a remarkable turnaround. A few years back, nuclear power in America was comatose: there weren’t many approvals for new plants, and the few projects that got greenlit faced huge cost overruns. During this century, only three new nuclear reactors have been built. Some projects cost billions and were never finished. Some ended up with their executives facing criminal charges following allegations of financial misconduct.
Yet the Biden administration’s case for nuclear is overwhelming. Shutting down nuclear power plants almost always causes an increase in carbon emissions, since fossil fuels are used when solar and wind power are not available to supply enough electricity to cover demand. On the other hand, countries and regions like France, Sweden and Ontario have decreased their emissions and decarbonized their grids by using nuclear power. Wind and solar power enjoy excellent PR, no doubt, but they’ve failed to show they can reliably decarbonize grids. The administration is right that only nuclear power can offer enough power affordably enough to make the “energy transition” more than a slogan.
Ironically, the biggest threats to this shift come from the president’s own party. Biden’s administration is the most pro-nuclear in decades, and nuclear power gets a mention as a climate solution in the Democratic Party platform. In some ways, nuclear energy should be an easy win for the Democrats: it is supported by the largest union of electrical workers in North America, and most Americans tell pollsters they favor it.
But things are never so simple. An older generation of Democratic activists cut its environmental teeth on the anti-nuclear beat. Plenty of Democrats elected at the state and local level are still skittish around nuclear plants, which is one reason they keep shutting down any legislation supportive of nuclear power and denying permits to companies seeking to build new plants.
And so big obstacles stand in the way of Granholm’s goal to deliver 200 more nuclear power plants. Twelve states, most of them blue, have moratoriums on their books against the construction of new plants. Even in states where building them is permitted, Democratic state legislators have shot down legislation that would have benefited nuclear power. Last year, in Illinois, the Democratic governor vetoed a pro-nuclear bill passed by the legislature.
There’s no end of rhetorical tricks you can turn to if you’re dead-set against nuclear. Critics harp on the long delays and substantial cost overruns those few recent nuclear projects have faced, never quite accepting that it’s their own NIMBYism that, in many cases, causes the delays and forces the cost overruns. Too often, opponents have pushed regulations that make nuclear projects much more expensive than they need to be, then turn around and use the expense as an argument against nuclear power.
In reality, the most reliable way to make big projects cheaper is to get experienced at building them. What economists call learning-by-doing means that the only sure way to make nuclear power plants cheap is to make a lot of them. This isn’t just some theory: it’s the process that allowed France to decarbonize its electric grid in the 80s, which is why it enjoys some of Europe’s cheapest, cleanest and most reliable electricity today.
To get that kind of virtuous circle going, leadership makes all the difference. For example, California’s last nuclear power plant, Diablo Canyon, was supposed to be shut down two years ago. Governor Gavin Newsom promised as much, and a group of powerful actors, including the unions, PG&E and environmental organizations all signed the agreement underlying the plan. The issue was not on the radar of public opinion, and efforts by a small group of activists were considered unlikely to keep the plant open.
But after a paper from researchers at Stanford and MIT and an analysis by electricity experts in the state reported the benefits of keeping the plant open, Newsom changed his mind and was able to successfully use his leadership to overcome partisan concerns about nuclear power. Newsom personally advocated for extending the plant’s life once he realized that, without it, the state would run short of power.
The Biden administration needs to inject a similar sense of urgency in Democrats all around the country. If they are serious about their climate plans, they must put an end to senseless nuclear moratoriums, and welcome new reactors nationwide. The ADVANCE Act paves the way, but in the American system most of the relevant decision-making is spun out to the state and local level. Before legislation is discussed at the committee level in state legislatures, Democrats on those committees should have the Riot Act read out to them—faced with the climate emergency, dilly-dallying on nuclear power will cost lives.
Guido Núñez-Mujica is Head of Data Science at the Anthropocene Institute.
Follow Persuasion on Twitter, LinkedIn, and YouTube to keep up with our latest articles, podcasts, and events, as well as updates from excellent writers across our network.
And, to receive pieces like this in your inbox and support our work, subscribe below:
This is great news, and an excellent article!
I've been tracking nuclear since reading a book on fusion in 1961 -- Tokamaks were going to be ready to commercialize in about 10 years. The latest, biggest Tokamak, which will be nowhere near commercial, just got delayed until (I believe) 2034. These have been sucking up all the development money.
But for the last five years I've been seeing terrific progress in fission designs. They can now burn radioactive waste, they don't produce bomb grade material, and they don't run under super-high pressure, so they can't de-pressurize an melt down. But this has been done on shoestrings of private funding.
Even James Hansen, the #1 climate scientist for the environmental movement, has been saying nuclear is necessary for about 15 years. But most (not all) environmentalists have refused to listen to him.
This new bill could really turn things around. Not just for the US, but for the world.
I think it's the biggest climate news since I got into climate science almost 20 years ago.
Lots of "environmental" groups got in bed with fossil fuel people. Nuclear power is dangerous, Only to the fossil fuel lobby- it can replace them. NRDC & Sierra Club ran brilliant anti-coal campaigns, partly funded by the gas frackers. (They claim not-anymore.) Wiki "anti-nuclear movement" and you will see otherwise useful pro-nature groups like Friends of the Earth (FOE) who got their founding funding from Atlantic Richfield's head, Big Oil. So they were born anti-nuclear power. And they are preaching to their old base.
The gas industry loves "100% renewable wind and solar only" schemes - because that cements demand for more expensive gas. Gas would remain the essential fuel to keep the heat and lights on. Wind and solar provide cheap intermittent energy, so frack-Gas providers make more money, producing less gas. Gas burners and stockpilers reap high prices on the real time market thanks to renewable chaos.