Assessing the Election’s Impacts on Nuclear

By Valerie Gardner, Nucleation Capital Managing Partner

Kh v dt.png

Presidential elections are always important and this year's election is widely considered particularly critical and unusual. There are vast differences of opinion on matters of great national importance—from voting rights and health policies to international relations and national security policies. Less well litigated is where these candidates stand on matters of energy security, the energy transition and future deployments of both traditional and advanced nuclear power. How will the differences in character, knowledge and respect for facts, science and experts play out on U.S. policies towards nuclear power? Based upon various sources, it appears that the election will have a significant impact. For those still making up their minds, this summary assessment may help clarify how numerous pundits view these differences.

Summary

Nuclear energy has enjoyed enduring bipartisan support across both Democratic and Republican administrations for years now. The Congress has passed, with overwhelming bipartisan majorities, bills aimed at modernizing and accelerating commercialization of new nuclear.

Nevertheless, in 2024, the two presidential candidates bring potentially unconventional approaches that may differ from the standard positions of their respective parties. Republicans have long valued America's nuclear capacity and have seen the need for the US to maintain leadership to boost both national security and to expand our ability to export our technologies. They recognize that the U.S. needs to counter the geopolitical influence of adversaries like Russia and China which are offering to help developing nations with nuclear power as a means of increasing their influence within those countries.

Democrats have also, if more recently, come around to support nuclear. Both the Obama White House and the Biden Administration have provided broad support for the industry and particularly for the acceleration of next-generation nuclear technologies and American leadership in the energy transition. Front and center of their support is the recognition that nuclear power is a critical, differentiated component of a reliable, 24/7 low-carbon energy grid. They support its expansion primarily as a mechanism to meet growing energy needs and fortify grid reliability while reducing carbon emissions and addressing climate change, in tandem with renewables.

The question then of which candidate is more likely to support the continued acceleration of nuclear power is thus wrapped up with policies relating to energy security, fossil fuels, geopolitical competition with Russia and China, and support for addressing climate change. The Inflation Reduction Act passed in 2022 and signed by President Biden marked the Congress' single largest investment in the economy, energy security and climate change and is widely seen as the most important piece of climate legislation ever passed. It simultaneously rebuilds the U.S. industrial capabilities while incentivizing the growth of clean energy technologies including domestic nuclear power. It is already making an enormous and beneficial impact on the U.S. nuclear indsutry.

Kamala Harris, while possibly more progressive than Biden, has shown her support for Biden's approach to incentivizing the clean energy transition through the IRA, Biden's signature piece of climate legislation, which has received staunch support from industry. She is unlikely to make many if any changes to the IRA's clean energy technology-neutral Investment Tax Credits and Production Tax Credits or reduce the billions in loan guarantees available through the Loan Program Office, which have already stimulated significant investment in protecting and restarting existing reactors.

Because of Biden’s Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act’s Civil Nuclear Credit program, California is proceeding with the relicensing of Diablo Canyon, Holtec has chosen to restart, rather than decommission, Michigan’s Palisades nuclear power plant, Constellation has inked a deal with Microsoft to restart Three Mile Island Unit 2, and NextEra Energy is actively considering the restart of Duane Arnold. Meanwhile, Google has signed a deal to buy power from advanced nuclear reactors being designed by Kairos Power and Amazon has signed a similar deal with X-energy, marking the first corporate purchases of next-generation nuclear, thanks to highly motivating tax and financing incentives available through the IRA and LPO.

Harris is clearly committed to addressing climate change. There is no evidence that she rejects the clean energy tech-agnostic approach developed during her term as Vice President, which levels the playing field for nuclear energy as a clean energy source. Harris recognizes the geopolitical importance of America's ability to compete with Russia to produce our own nuclear fuel supply and to provide nuclear technologies to developing nations seeking to build their clean energy capacity but wanting to remain free of Russian or Chinese influence.

In contrast, Donald Trump has repeatedly called climate change a "hoax," and/or a good thing and cares little about reducing U.S. or global emissions. He previously walked away from the Paris accord and would likely try to repeal, roll back or dilute the IRA. He's publicly allied himself with the fossil fuel industry and—in exchange for donations—has promised to roll back EPA regulations and help them "drill, drill, drill."

There is almost no doubt that Trump would step the U.S. away from its leadership role on climate and this time, that may mean reversing the U.S.'s pledge to triple the amount of nuclear power. This would seriously undermine both the U.S. nuclear industry's momentum to expand to meet growing demand as well as international progress. Given Trump’s overt courting of Putin, he may be disinclined to rebuild the U.S.'s nuclear fuel production capacity or seek to accelerate or support American efforts to build nuclear projects internationally in competition with Russia.

None of this would be good for nuclear power. Any potential efforts to rollback the IRA would slow restoration, development and deployment of reactors. Boosting the fossil fuel industry, whether through supporting expanded access to federal land or price manipulation to improve profitability would have severe impacts on the energy transition. Trump's recent acknowledgement that he didn't believe nuclear was safe also belies the stated "commitment" to nuclear energy expressed by his surrogates and gives considerable fodder to those who persist in opposing nuclear. His shoot-from-the-hip, truth-be-damned leadership style and embrace of conspiracy theorists, contrasts starkly with Harris' stated willingness to consult with scientific experts and even give those who disagree with her a seat at the table.

In sumary, Trump's likely propensity to undermine the IRA, oppose climate action and backtrack on US pledges to triple nuclear, his support for expanding fossil fuel production and his continued disdain for science and technical experts, poses extreme risks to the momentum generated within the nuclear sector over the last few years. Trump's ignorance of nuclear energy's exceptional safety performance make him unlikely to provide Oval Office leadership either to the industry or the NRC in support of the bipartisan ADVANCE Act, signed into law by Biden.

In contrast, a Harris Administration would likely remain on the current climate glideslope for leadership, technology-neutral funding and the U.S.'s nuclear tripling momentum as stimulated by the Biden Administration. It may be that a Harris Administration does not prioritize nuclear's growth or add billions in new accelerants as Biden has done, but she will not try to trash it. Having been briefed by senior energy advisors over the last four years about the importance of nuclear, she is well-informed and understands the importance of Biden's initiatives for addressing climate.

Based on this analysis, those who support an expansion of nuclear power and enduring progress towards transitioning away from fossil fuels should thus prefer to see Harris elected, rather than Trump, and the existing policies continued.

Sources

You can find more detailed information about the basis for this Summary Assessment from these sources.

Forbes, Trump Plans To Rescind Funds For IRA Law’s Climate Provisions, But May Keep Drug Price Measures, by Joshua P. Cohen, Sept. 9, 2024.
Bloomberg, US Economy Will Suffer If IRA Repealed, Solar Maker CEO Says, by Mark Chediak, Oct. 22, 2024.
Politico E&E News, Trump cites cost and risks of building more nuclear plants, by Nico Portuondo, Francisco "A.J." Camacho, Oct. 29, 2024.
Huffington Post, Donald Trump Takes A Skeptical View Of Nuclear Energy On Joe Rogan’s Podcast, by Alexander Kaufman, Oct. 27, 2024
Bloomberg, Trump 2.0 Climate Tipping Points: A guide to what a second Trump White House can—and can't—do to the American effort to slow global warming, by Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Sept. 30, 2024.
Joint Economic Committee, How Project 2025's Health, Education, and Climate Policies Hurt Americans, August 2024.
FactCheck.org, Trump Clings to Inaccurate Climate Change Talking Points, Jessica McDonald, Sept. 9, 2024.
New York Times, Trump Will Withdraw U.S. From Paris Climate Agreement, Michael D. Shear, June 1, 2017
Cipher: Here's how cleantech stacks up in three swing states: Taking stock of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Sept. 3, 2024.
Bloomberg Green, Climate Politics: Double-Punch Storms Thrust Climate Into the US Presidential Race, by Zahra Hirji, Oct. 11, 2024.
New York Times, Biden’s Climate Plans Are Stunted After Dejected Experts Fled Trump, by Coral DavenportLisa Friedman and Christopher Flavelle, published Aug. 1, 2021, updated Sept. 20, 2021
Bloomberg, The Donald Trump Interview Transcript (with quote "Green New Scam"), July 16, 2024.
Google: New nuclear clean energy agreement with Kairos Power, by Michael Terrell, Oct. 15, 2024, and Google's The Corporate Role in Accelerating Advanced Clean Electricity Technologies, Sept. 2023.
The New Republic, Trump Pushes Deranged Idea that Climate Change is Good for Real Estate, by Robert McCoy, Sept. 18, 2024.
Grid Brief: What Was Said About Energy During the VP Debate, JD Vance and Tim Walz Discuss Energy and Climate During VP Debate, by Jeff Luse, Oct. 2, 2024.
CNN: Fact check: Sea levels are already rising faster per year than Trump claims they might rise over "next 497 years', by Daniel Dale, June 29, 2024.
CNN: Fact check: Tramp's latest false climate figure is off by more than 1,000 times, by Daniel Dale, April 2023.
Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, YPCCC's Resources on Climate in the 2024 U.S. General Election, by Anthony Leiserowitz, Edward Maibach, Jennifer Carman, Jennifer Marlon, John Kotcher, Seth Rosenthal and Joshua Low, Oct. 8, 2024.
SIGNED: Bipartisan ADVANCE Act to Boost Nuclear Energy Now Law, Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, July 9, 2024.
Rodgers, Pallone, Carper, Capito Celebrate Signing of Bipartisan Nuclear Energy Bill, the ADVANCE Act, July 9, 2024.
The White House, Bill Signed S. 870, July 9, 2024.
Power Magazine, The ADVANCE Act—Legislation Crucial for a U.S. Nuclear Renaissance—Clears Congress. Here's a Detailed Breakdown by Sonal Patel, June 20, 2024
Sidley Austin LLP, Congress Passes ADVANCE Act to Facilitate U.S. Development of Advanced Nuclear Reactors, June 26, 2024.

March 24, 2024

Tech companies collaborating to accelerate advanced nuclear

Google has partnered with Microsoft and Nucor to accelerate advanced clean electricity technologies through a new "demand aggregation model" to help bring "first-of-its-kind" commercial projects to market.

Technology companies compete with each other in a lot of ways but they all want to achieve the goal of being able to run operations and data centers using 24/7 carbon-free energy. They've done about as much as they can trying to buy, build and/or get credits from wind and solar plants and it hasn't been sufficient. With its announcement, Google acknowledges that they "need a broader portfolio of advanced clean electricity technologies" to be able to fully decarbonize their energy consumption.

The announcement lists the following as "advanced clean electricity technologies": next-generation geothermal, advanced nuclear, clean hydrogen and long-duration energy storage. This is an astounding announcement because it makes it clear that the tech companies are now moving their focus away from wind and solar, which are just too inconsistent and unreliable, to better, more reliable options.

The initiative aims to aggregate their demand for better types of clean energy to increase their buying power, their lobby power (we have to believe) and diversify the risks of investing in first-of-a-kind (FOAK) plants, whose costs are always higher than "Nth" of a kind plants. They recognize that there are a bevy of developers looking to build next-generation nuclear (and probably also geothermal) plants and they want to be able to help these ventures build those FOAK units, without each individually and solely having to take on risk. This is a tremendously important initiative and concept, it will definitely help accelerate the timelines for companies seeking to get plants built.

THe announcement comes just a few weeks after Amazon announced their purchase of Talen's nuclear-power Cumulous Data Center, which will enable Amazon Web Services to achieve their very ambitious decarbonization goal by 2025. But there aren't many nuclear power plants with spare generating capacity. In order to get access to sufficient quantities of 24/7 clean nuclear power, the U.S. will need to start building next-generation plants, many of which will be Gen IV designs.

Read more at Google's The Keyword: "A new initiative with Microsoft and Nucor to accelerate advanced clean electricity technologies," by Maud Texler, Global Director, Clean Energy and Decarbonization Development March 19, 2024.

Also see the IEA Report, Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, cited by Google for its support of the need for advanced energy technologies, revised October 2021.

Published by Nucleation Capital in 100% Renewables, Advanced Nuclear, Advanced Nuclear Customers, Carbon emissions, Corporate decarbonization, Corporate purpose, Future of Energy, LINKS, Nuclear competitiveness, Nuclear financing, Nuclear innovation, Private companies, Public companies, Solving climate, US competitiveness, US technological leadership, Zero emission energy

June 21, 2023

Sweden adopts “100% fossil-free” target

Sweden has done something very few countries or jurisdictions have done with respect to energy: they have kept their eye on the goal. The Swedish Parliament adopted an energy target of "100% fossil-free" energy—which should be everyone's goal—rather than falling into the trap of focusing on and dictating the means to that goal. This is so rare, it deserves recognition.

In Sweden adopts '100% fossil -free energy target, easing way for nuclear, EURACTIV reports on Sweden's new plan to remove their "100% renewable" target in order to use all available clean energy resources—including nuclear—to meet the expected doubling of energy demand while also meeting a net zero emissions goal by 2045.

“This creates the conditions for nuclear power,” Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson said in parliament. “We need more electricity production, we need clean electricity and we need a stable energy system.”

This new policy gives a green light for the government to push forward with plans by state-owned utility, Vattenfall, to build new small modular nuclear reactor plants and refurbish the country's existing plants to extend the their operating lives. Meanwhile, they are also working to simplify environmental permitting to speed up not just the build-out of nuclear but also for wind power and to accelerate other green technologies.

This is a very significant and promising change of focus which every country should adopt, while allowing utilities to find the best path forward for eliminating their use of fossil fuels. As far as we can tell, nothing else will enable the transition to move ahead at maximum speed.

Read more at EURACTIV's Sweden adopts '100% fossil -free energy target, easing way for nuclear, June 21, 2023.

Published by Nucleation Capital in 100% Renewables, Advanced Nuclear, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Energy abundance, Fossil fuels, Future of Energy, Government support, International support for nuclear, LINKS, Nuclear competitiveness, Politicians supporting nuclear, Regulatory reform, Solving climate, Zero emission energy

February 11, 2023

Nuclear wins inclusion as “green” source for hydrogen

French energy minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher

France appears to wins another round against Germany in the fight to have nuclear included as a clean energy source within EU Commission rules. The EU has agreed that nuclear energy powered hydrogen will be classified as "green," so long as the carbon-intensity of the country's electricity is below 65 grammes of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hour.

Early reporting on the EU Commission's decision regarding classification of hydrogen as "green" indicates that, once again, the EU will be recognizing low-carbon nuclear power as "green."

For more than a year, the EU has been assessing and evaluating the best way to ensure that hydrogen producers can't easily claim "green" production by using existing renewable energy, in a form of greenwashing, that simply takes credit fo renewable power that was being used elsewhere. This has forced the EU to look closely at both "additionality" and "carbon intensity."

The new rules, a draft version of which leaked out but which have not been formally published, seek to ensure that that green hydrogen is made only from “additional” renewable power, by forcing the producer to correlate its production in time and space to prevent cannibalisation of existing sources of clean energy. The Commission has finally arrived at a decision and set out two important additionality criteria:

By 2030, hydrogen production must be matched to renewable energy production on an hourly basis. Until then, the correlation is set on a monthly basis.
By 2028, hydrogen producers must prove that their electrolysers are connected to renewable energy installations no older than 36 months.

This decision enables investments in new hydrogen production to move forward with a clear understanding of how that production can benefit from the benefits available to clean energy until 90% of electricity production in a given country is produced from low-carbon sources.

While Germany has sought to exclude nuclear energy as a clean power source, France has been lobbying Brussels on the opposite side, arguing that hydrogen produced by nuclear power is also be considered "green." It appears that France has won its case in the draft rules.

In recognition of nuclear's low-carbon production, the EU has agreed that hydrogen produced in a country like France with the intensity of electricity is lower than 18 gCO2eq/MJs (or approximately 65 grammes of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hour), then the hydrogen can qualify as green.

Among all 27 EU countries, only France and Sweden meet this criteria. In 2021, when its nuclear fleet was almost fully operational, French power was 70% of its energy, 85% low-carbon and emissions stood at 56g CO2e per kWh. Sweden, for its part, powered predominantly with hydropower, stands at an average of 28gCO2e/Kwh.

Not only is this EU rule a win for pronuclear countries, it is laying an important precedent in setting out a base level of carbon-intensity that recognizes that what matters is the carbon-intensity of the total grid, not the amount of renewable energy. We believe this will be of increasing importance over time.

Read more at EURACTIV LEAK: France wins recognition for nuclear in EU's green hydrogen rules, by Nikolaus J. Kurmayer, Feb. 11, 2023.

September 1, 2022

California Legislators Vote To Save Diablo Canyon

California's legislature, by nearly unanimous votes in both the Assembly and the Senate, agreed with Governor Gavin Newsom, to extend the operating life of Diablo Canyon. This was the result of multiple converging factors, the most important of which was that the closure would have worsened the already fragile state of the California energy grid, maing black-outs far more likely. But, behind this looming awareness were many other factors influencing public opinion and political pressure, which include pronuclear advocacy, scientific concerns about climate change, shifting political winds in the face of Russia's invastion of Ukraine and leadership from the Biden Administration. There will be many efforts to understand what tipped the political weights in favor of saving Diablo Canyon, and not all will be correct, but the good news for is that rationality prevailed in California, despite concerted anti-nuclear pressures.

Climate change and Russia's invasion of the Ukraine are looming backdrops to this stunning victory. Yet, most directly, the basis of the success comes down to the fact that Governor Newsom himself became convinced that delaying the closure of Diablo Canyon was both the right thing to do and was politically feasible. It isn't clear exactly how he arrived at this conclusion but it is certain that his political weight made it happen. What caused the politics to shift? Possibly, Newsom found sufficient political cover and acceptable polling data from the fact that Illinois Governor Pritzker and Michigan Governor Whitmer, both Democrats, took action to protect their nuclear power.

Nevertheless, coming out in favor of extending the life of Diablo Canyon, was enormously risky and difficult for Governor Newsom, as it involved making a 180 degree shift from his prior position of working to ensure that Diablo got closed. Yet, with state policy experts warning that the closure would cause blackouts and likely deaths as a result, Governor Newsom bit the bullet and did the right thing.

There were a multitude of pronuclear individuals and groups providing support and political cover for this decision. As far back as 2015, Michael Shellenberger and his organizations, The Breakthrough Institute and Environmental Progress, argued on behalf of nuclear power. Shellenberger split out of TBI, a think tank, in order to engage in more active pronuclear advocacy. He and a group of younger activists organized and held the first pronuclear rally, a three day protest and parade against the closure of Diablo Canyon. From there, numerous groups were formed which contributed advocacy towards the support of nuclear power: Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Generation Atomic, Mothers for Nuclear, Climate Coalition, Rethink Nuclear, Nuclear New York, Protect Nuclear NOW and many others.

Meanwhile, filmmakers Robert Stone and Dave Schumacher produced luscious documentaries that challenged the status quo attitudes about nuclear power. Their films, Pandora's Promise and The New Fire respectively brought new insights into our understanding of both the facts about nuclear power and the reality about the concerted and often nefarious efforts to besmirch nuclear's reputation. These films had surprising reach and helped soften widespread knee-jerk antinuclear reactions. Then, the academics from Stanford and MIT played their parts and issued a report providing evidence that closing Diablo Canyon would cost the state $21 billion.

While, no single person or group can take sole credit for this victory, there was little discernable action until the joining of Isabelle Boemeke to the campaign. Representing the younger generation and signing up to support Diablo Canyon as the first "nuclear influencer," Isabelle served as the spark to ignite public attention to the support that Diablo Canyon had as our largest source of clean energy, and helped turn the tide in favor of saving it. Under the handle "Isodope," she adroitly leverage social media tech platforms, including Instagram, TicTok and Twitter, to send highly stylized, informative and compellingly snarky videos to a broad spectrum of followers. She also acted on the momentum garnered by the Stanford/MIT report to organize an in-person rally in San Luis Obispo, complete with support from local politicians and residents. That turned to be very successful and she then parlayed that success to corral scientific experts to weigh in with a direct letter appeal to Governor Newsom.

Finally, with the introduction of the Biden Administration's Civil Nuclear Credit program and its offer of up to $6 billion in support of saving aging plants, Governor Newsom could no longer afford to ignore the reality that saving Diablo Canyon could help him avoid energy embarrassment and liability from the rash of civil lawsuits that would have followed black-out related deaths.

There are now many articles coming out with their assessments of the factors that enabled this success. None capture the whole picture, which spans much more engagement, work and adroit advocacy in California, across the US and even internationally, that contributed to making ignoring reality of nuclear impossible for Gov. Newsom.

Read the Forbes article, In Big Win For Nuclear, California Legislators Vote To Save Diablo Canyon, by Robert Bryce, September 1, 2022 here. There are many other articles reporting on this significant achievement but we can't list them all here.

Published by Nucleation Capital in 100% Renewables, Anti-nuclear campaign, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate mayhem, Environmental support for nuclear, Government support, History Timeline, History-making, LINKS, Nuclear-inclusive energy policy, Politicians supporting nuclear, Pro-nuclear campaign, Solving climate, Zero emission energy

April 30, 2021

The Zero-Carbon Economy’s Possible Land Footprint

We need to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030, which will require an enormous transition in how we generate energy. While many people support renewables, they have little concept of how much land deploying renewables will require. For example, a 200-megawatt wind farm might require 19 square miles of land to replace a natural gas plant with the same generating capacity, that fits onto a single city block.

To fulfill President Biden's goal of an emission-free grid by 2035, the U.S. needs to increase its carbon-free capacity by at least 150%. Expanding wind and solar by 10% annually until 2030 would require a chunk of land equal to the state of South Dakota, according to Bloomberg and Princeton University estimates. By 2050, when Biden wants the entire economy to be carbon free, the U.S. will need up to four additional South Dakotas to develop enough clean power to run all the electric vehicles, factories and more.

To be clear, Biden’s plan doesn’t need to entirely rest on wind and solar. Nuclear energy, which requires far less space, is also emission free. Same for hydroelectric power. Plus, wind farms can be installed at sea. Solar panels work wonderfully on rooftops. And plenty of companies are placing bets that fossil-fuel plants can be retrofitted to burn hydrogen or equipped with systems to capture their carbon dioxide emissions.

Estimates vary widely on how much land the U.S. will need to satisfy Biden’s clean-energy ambitions but, regardless, the U.S. will need to rethink land use for an emissions-free future. This article provides some graphical illustrations of how researchers at Princeton University’s Net-Zero America project estimate it can be done and what the land implications of those pathways would be.

Read Dave Merrill's article and see his graphical analysis in "The U.S. Will Need a Lot of Land for a Zero-Carbon Economy," published by Bloomberg Green.

Published by Nucleation Capital in 100% Renewables, Advanced Nuclear, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Land Use by Energy, LINKS, Solving climate

July 27, 2020

Apocalypse Maybe: Thoughts from MIT’s Kerry Emanuel

National Academy of Sciences member Kerry Emanuel of MIT felt compelled to explain his views on climate change, risk assessments and the debates rekindled by climate deniers and nuclear deniers following the publication of Michael Shellenberger's Apocalypse Never, which bore a review blurb from Emanuel.

Just as it is difficult to have a rational discussion about reducing Covid-19 risks for the broader community when some people are shouting about their right to not wear a mask, the climate debate has been greatly hampered by noisy extremists. Rather than finding any value in the debates about the uncertainties, debates about impacts, or debates about best solutions, Emanuel urges us to "step out of the fray" and take a hard look at the risks. It is worthwhile to invest in mitigating the risks to avert the worst case scenarios and improve on other metrics of health and happiness, just as rational people do with every other type of serious risk they are exposed to.

Read Kerry Emanuel's thought provoking statement published with a foreward by Editor, Bud Ward, at Yale Climate Connections: "Apocalypse Maybe," by Dr. Kerry Emanuel.

Published by Nucleation Capital in 100% Renewables, Anti-nuclear campaign, Brilliant thinkers, Climate change, LINKS, Scientific debate, US competitiveness

May 18, 2020

AOC “leaves the door open” to nuclear

During the 2020 primary debate for New York's 14th district, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reiterated her position from the previous May, that the Green New Deal leaves the door open to nuclear.

“You bring up an important element of our energy mix, which is nuclear. And this is absolutely a critical part of this conversation. So, one thing that I would just like to clarify, the Green New Deal does leave the door open to nuclear. You are right in that we name renewables like wind and solar specifically, but the door is open to nuclear. But we also have to make sure that community input and the technology is vetted but I do believe there's an open door there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVb2uvoidak
See Third Way's tweet on May 19, 2020 following the NY-14 primary debate and listen to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez' answer to a question about nuclear from a constituent here." See previous post from May 2019 here.

Published by Nucleation Capital in 100% Renewables, Advanced Nuclear, Brilliant thinkers, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate policy, Future of Energy, Government support, LINKS, US technological leadership

October 29, 2019

All Pathways to 1.5°C Limit Include Nuclear

Hoesung Lee, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), delivered an address on the opening day of the International Conference on Climate Change and the Role of Nuclear Power, held in Vienna in the second week of October. 2019. He will review the findings of the report released a year ago by the IPCC, which featured four model pathways for limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, the threshold at which most experts believe the worst impacts from climate change can still be avoided. All four model pathways included increases in nuclear power generation by 2050, ranging between 59% and 501%.

To support the low-carbon energy transformation needed to achieve climate change goals, the conference focused on opportunities and challenges for nuclear power development. To this end, organizers brought together representatives of low-carbon energy sectors, international organizations and national experts.

IAEA Acting Director General Cornel Feruta opened the conference. Other prominent speakers included Liu Zhenmin, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs at the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs; William D. Magwood, IV, Director-General of the NEA ; Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency; LI Yong, Director General of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization; and senior officials and scientists from 75 countries including Argentina, China, Egypt, France, India, Mongolia, Morocco, the Russian Federation and the United States of America.

“Nuclear power has long made a major contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and currently produces one-third of the world’s low carbon electricity while also supporting sustainable development and fulfilling growing energy demands,” said IAEA Deputy Director General Mikhail Chudakov, Head of the Department of Nuclear Energy. “We are honoured that Dr. Hoesung Lee, one of the world’s leading scientific voices on climate change, is bringing his expertise to this first-of-a-kind conference.”

Read more at the International Atomic Energy Agency, "IPCC Head to Speak at International Conference on Climate Change and the Role of Nuclear Power," by Jeffrey Donovan, August 29, 2019.

Published by Nucleation Capital in 100% Renewables, Advanced Nuclear, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate policy, Environmental support for nuclear, Future of Energy, History Timeline, LINKS, Politicians supporting nuclear, Scientific debate, Solving climate

May 6, 2019

Ocasio-Cortez’ Green New Deal Leaves the Door Open to Nuclear

Green New Deal sponsor Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez still has an “open mind” on nuclear energy. “I don’t take a strong anti- or pro-position on it,” the New York Democrat said about nuclear energy in an interview in mid-2019.

While Ocasio-Cortez has an "open mind" on nuclear energy, she differentiates between the decades-old plants in the United States and more advanced technologies under development. Her Green New Deal resolution, which calls for “clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy” to meet 100 percent of U.S. power needs in the next 10 years, “leaves the door open on nuclear so that we can have that conversation,” she said.

Ocasio-Cortez, alongside many other progressive lawmakers and environmental groups, is pushing for an expedited U.S. energy transition, showed that she retains an open mind towards getting answers to the typically controversial questions over whether the technology will improve and whether the markets would adopt future generations of nuclear power.

Passing the Green New Deal resolution, she said, “is what will allow us to have these substantive conversations.”

Read more at Morning Consult, "Ocasio-Cortez: Green New Deal ‘Leaves the Door Open’ on Nuclear."

Published by Nucleation Capital in 100% Renewables, Brilliant thinkers, Climate change, Climate policy, Future of Energy, Government support, LINKS, Nuclear innovation, Politicians supporting nuclear

Older Posts ›