A new report finds the Trump administration has added nearly $40 billion in federal subsidies for oil, gas, and coal in 2025 — locking in $4 billion more per year for the next decade, on top of existing support for fossil fuels.
Climate Damage Is Already an Economic Line Item—Just Not One We Recognize
By Ian Brusewitz and Valerie Gardner
Over just the past 12 months, the US has spent nearly $1 trillion on climate-related disaster recovery and infrastructure damage. That’s 3% of GDP — money that could have gone toward innovation, productivity, benefits, or debt reduction. Instead, it's being rerouted into extreme weather damage cleanup, reconstruction, and emergency response. According to Bloomberg Intelligence, this surge in climate-related spending has effectively become a "stealth tariff" on Americans: a hidden cost that shows up not as a line item, but in the form of higher prices, larger insurance premiums, and government spending that collectively erode household budgets and wealth without being labeled for what it is. The conversation around climate change often centers on long-term risk — but the reality is that US citizens are already paying an average of almost $3,000 annually towards covering the costs of our worsening climate, even if these costs are not specifically identified as such.
This economic burden isn’t theoretical — it’s already bleeding into the real economy in visible, destabilizing ways. Climate-related costs are no longer confined to isolated events or specific regions. Climate change is indifferent to boundaries, and its financial impacts are bleeding into housing markets, food systems, labor dynamics, consumer prices, and state and federal budgets. As these disruptions grow more frequent and severe, as last evidenced by the devastating fires in Los Angeles and deadly flash floods in Texas — no sector, geography, demographic, or business is immune. This suggests that as the capital allocations necessary for climate recovery grow, the environmental risks bleed increasingly into financial risks. Not only are our physical assets vulnerable, but so are our financial assets. This then raises the stakes of where and how to invest.
Insurance and Public Safety Nets Are Starting to Fray
As the economic footprint of climate disruption expands, the institutions we’ve historically relied on to manage risk are showing cracks. Insurance is becoming a visible point of failure in that equation. In 2024, Hurricane Helene hit Florida as the strongest storm ever recorded in the state’s Panhandle. Days later, Hurricane Milton followed. Combined, the two storms caused $113 billion in damage. Then came the devastating California wildfires in January 2025, burning through L.A. suburbs, which added another $65 billion to the total. The LA Times has since estimated total fire damage could exceed $250 billion, making it one of the costliest fire seasons in U.S. history. And, most recently, the devastating Texas floods — with damage estimated at upward of $22 billion — don't even account for the tragic loss of life from these events.
Historically, the federal government covered about one-third of climate-related disaster costs. That share has since dropped to around 2%, leaving municipalities and states to issue debt or delay recovery projects, and shifting more of the burden onto insurers and property owners. In 2023, insurers covered approximately 70% of the $114 billion in U.S. climate-related losses, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Because of rising costs, insurance premiums have doubled since 2017, including a 22% spike in 2023 alone. These increases aren’t reflected in the Consumer Price Index, which means that what we’re calling "inflation" may actually be something distinctly different. The question we can ask is whether or not people would make different choices if these embedded costs were more clearly labeled as a "Fossil Fuel Waste Damage Premium" or something similar. This lack of clarity and failure to accurately attribute these rising costs to what we think of as cheap fossil fuels means that we understate the full costs and consequences of our use of these fuels.
The "Tragedy of the Horizons" Issue
In 2015, former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney coined the phrase "Tragedy of the Horizons" to describe the problem that results from the fact that people want what's cheap for them today and are unwilling to pay more for something even if it is better for them or their children in the future. The same problem exists at every level in the investment world: financial actors operate on quarterly cycles, while climate impacts unfold over years or decades. This mismatch between how we invest today versus what we need for tomorrow means markets routinely discount the long-term consequences of inaction, prioritizing short-term returns over long-term stability, even when instability is well predicted. The result of this short-term orientation is a structural disconnect that undercuts our ability to invest in climate action and solutions, so as to limit the long-term damage we will inevitably have to pay for, before it gets really bad.
A decade later, this structural blind spot surrounding investing in climate solutions persists. At a recent Financial Stability Board meeting, a U.S. Treasury official dismissed climate concerns unless they posed an "imminent" financial risk. But that logic depends upon people not recognizing the growing annual Fossil Fuel Waste Damage Premium that they are already paying. In addition to revealing an utter failure to understand the real-world progression of climate impacts and looming tipping points, which are beyond "imminent," they are being expressed with disasters everywhere, even if these costs are economically masked and not clearly identified as climate costs. This disconnect is one of the clearest reasons capital hasn’t shifted meaningfully towards investing in the technologies that can enable the energy transition to the extent that we should. So long as people don't realize how expensive climate inaction actually is, human nature tragically rewards inertia, which means that both the damage done in the interim and the costs of solving climate change will continue to rise.
We’re Still Underestimating the Real Costs
Surveys from Yale’s Climate Change in the American Mind series show rising concern among Americans about climate change. Yet, far fewer people connect climate change directly to the rising costs of food, insurance, consumer products, or energy prices. This perception gap matters. When the public doesn’t see their rising costs as climate-driven, there’s less support for regional climate mitigation efforts, long-term adaptation investments, or even innovative clean energy investments that can help accelerate the energy transition, reduce the impacts of future extreme weather events, a hedge the rising climate risks to their overall portfolio.
While consumer awareness lags, markets have begun to price in climate risks. Bloomberg tracks a basket of 100 companies in insurance, infrastructure, and disaster response that have outperformed the S&P 500 by 7% annually. Capital is adapting faster than federal policy — and faster than public awareness. This divergence captures a core tension. While markets have begun reallocating capital toward climate adaptation — outpacing both federal policy and public awareness — the broader system still treats climate disruption as a distant risk, even though the costs are already embedded in household budgets increasingly squeezed by insurance premiums, rising costs, and disaster recovery bills not covered by insurance or the government. Climate impacts and costs are no longer theoretical or negligible. They are already large, compounding, and for many households, causing significant budgetary pain. And yet, despite the mounting data, policy and public sentiment lag. Yet, there is very little recognition of how these climate costs are escalating or communication to the public about the real price of our government's climate ignorance and inaction.
A Smarter Way Forward
The trillion-dollar annual cost of climate inaction isn’t a projection — it’s already here. It reflects not just extreme weather, but the fallout from underbuilt systems and delayed clean energy investment. We haven’t invested adequately in low-carbon technologies that can reduce and eliminate carbon emissions at scale and possibly even begin to repair the damage that has already been done to the climate. Investments lagged because investors doubted the need for these technologies as well as their commercial viability. Clean energy technologies that were seen as more expensive than fossil fuels were deemed less competitive in today's market and hence, not a good investment. But if we begin to factor in today's Fossil Fuel Waste Damage Premium plus the growing costs of not having those technologies — namely the ever-escalating costs of climate damage — then these clean energy solutions really start to seem attractive.
This is where next-generation nuclear becomes decisively appealing. Not only does it deliver clean, dense, reliable, and dispatchable power — but it generates power (and so earns money) without relying on the weather or being vulnerable to it, which is a growing risk to renewables projects reliant on the weather cooperating. As both a hedge against the systemic economic risks of climate disruption and as a source of long-term returns and near-term risk reduction, nuclear power offers a uniquely strategic return. If the Fossil Fuel Waste Damage Premium is now a recurring cost, the only rational move is to invest in the most scalable solutions that cut exposure to climate risk, preserve economic value, and secure a livable future.
References:
Bloomberg, “US Spending on Climate Damage Nears $1 Trillion Per Year,” by Eric Roston, June 17, 2025.
Bloomberg, “Carney’s Risk Warning Reverberates as Global Regulators Disagree Over Climate,” by Alastair Marsh, June 19, 2025.
Congressional Budget Office, “Federal Insurance and Disaster Spending”, September 2023.
Los Angeles Times, “Estimated Cost of Fire Damage Balloons to More Than $250 Billion”, by Sammy Roth, January 24, 2025.
MSN, “Texas Flood Damage to Homes May Cost Up to $22B”, by Michael Walrath, May 2025.
Nature, “Warming Accelerates Global Drought Severity,” by Solomon H. Gebrechorkos et al., June 4, 2025.
NOAA, “Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters”, 2024 Report.
Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, “Climate Change in the American Mind: Beliefs & Attitudes”, Fall 2024.
Published by Nucleation Capital in Advanced Nuclear, Capital reallocation, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate Costs, Climate mayhem, Climate policy, Energy transition, Extreme weather, Fission, Fossil fuels, Future of Energy, Global emissions, Government support, NEWS, Nuclear competitiveness, Nuclear financing, Nuclear innovation, Solving climate, Venture capital support for nuclear
She wants what's best for you . . .
Moms protect their children. For better or worse, she does what she thinks best, given her means. She sees to our needs, supports us when we struggle and helps us develop into self-reliant adults, often at great personal sacrifice.
But we are now at a critical junction in human history, perhaps one of the most crucial moments that will determine our trajectory. Our moms, for all their superpowers, may not fully recognize the new threat we face—because it is entirely invisible.
CO2, the waste emission created by our growing energy usage, is both colorless and odorless. Yet, it is impacting our future. Unlike with most types of toxic emissions that contribute to smog, moms can't see that the emissions from powering things we love—cars, boats, planes, televisions, computers, refridgerators, washing machines, phones, the Internet, websites and especially our homes—has filled our atmosphere with large molecules that serve to turn the heat up on the planet.
Can moms adapt to defending us from the risks posed by climate change?
For eons, moms have been perfectly evolved to meet their primary job qualifications: to provide for her child's physical and psychological safety. For as long as we have had recorded history, moms' love has helped populations thrive. But things have changed dramatically. Humanity, empowered with technologies unimaginable mere decades ago, are causing profound changes to our climate and ecosystems for the worse. Weather patterns are changing. Days are hotter and there are more of them. Trees flower earlier in the season. There is less and less rain, more severe droughts and forest fires. Areas that could once be farmed, can no longer grow crops. Fish populations that fed millions have declined. Bees, bats and insects are disappearing. Hurricanes and tornadoes arrive more frequently and fiercely. How can moms defend their children from a heating planet and all of its related effects? The job of protecting children from these climate threats is not straight-forward and may seem quite impossible, yet there are important things moms can and should do.
Focus on root causes and support an effective energy transition.
Many moms are already concerned about climate and fighting back. She may be planting trees, using less paper, fussing to close lights and turning down the heat. She's also probably recycling, refusing plastic straws and plastic bags and composting. Moms with excess resources are likely donating to stem deforestation, habitat loss and species extinction. She may even opt to invest in ESG and impact-focused funds. While laudable, none of these activities directly target the cause of the problem and so are not a good use of moms' time, talents or resources.
Mom, like the rest of us, must focus on the root cause of climate change. Which is the CO2 emissions from humanity's collective burning of over 100 million gallons of oil per day, 25 million tons of coal and a comparable amount of natural gas each day. It is these daily energy choices that generate over 100 million tonnes of CO2 emissions waste daily and over 40 billion tonnes annually—an enormous amount that goes almost entirely into the atmosphere, which further heats the planet. This is the real problem and the only way to lessen the threat we're facing is to transition away from carbon-emitting fossil fuels to other types of energy that don't emit CO2.
The good news: Over 200 countries agreed that transitioning away from fossil fuels is a global imperative. In late 2023, world leaders met in Abu Dhabi, Dubai at COP 28 and specifically agreed on this. It won't surprise Mom at all that it took all 28 of these week-long annual "Conference of the Parties" gatherings to arrive at this generic agreement. It was every bit as difficult as getting a child to agree to clean up his room. But they got it done at last. Some thirty countries committed to triple the amount of nuclear they use. Others committed to increasing their wind and solar. As hard as it was to arrive at this agreement, there's still much disagreement over how to effect this transition and over what period of time.
The bad news: While there's been considerable progress building out wind and solar, these technologies haven't lived up to the hype that they can solve the problem. Everyone hoped they would and, yes, we love getting free energy from the sun and the wind. Sadly, the actual technologies required to capture and convert that natural energy into power are neither free nor efficient. In the "you get what you pay for" department, renewables are cheap but so unreliable that even where they've been fully built out, we still need to burn fossil fuels to meet the 24/7 level of energy demanded by customers. It turns out that our near constant energy demand doesn't pair well with highly intermittent sources like wind and solar. Adding them to the grid has increased costs to end users largely because of the need for significant further expenditures on peaker gas plants and large batteries to try to firm up their very low generation capacity.
What other clean energy options are there?
There aren't many, which is why we need better options. And we need them urgently. Among the options we have are hydro power, geothermal power and nuclear power. Hydro and geothermal power are currently limited to specific geographies, most of which areas are already fully exploited. Traditional grid-scale nuclear is pretty darn good (despite its reputation) but has historically come in a "one-size-fits-all" configuration that can cost billions and take a decade or more to build. Against this backdrop, there's more good news.
Entrepreneurs are working to innovate to make nuclear power smaller, modular and safer. And, best of all, these new advanced designs are on the verge of being commercialized, so adding exciting new energy options that can directly replace smaller coal and gas plants. Meanwhile, they are rapidly becoming the most compelling medium-term solution to our energy problems. Just recently, Google, Amazon, Dow Chemical, Nucor and other large companies have begun to place orders for power from advanced nuclear because they see it as helping them meet both their energy growth and decarbonization goals.
Tech companies have but will Moms go Nuclear to protect their children?
For most of our lives, our moms opposed nuclear power. They feared nuclear bombs and believed that nuclear power plants posed similar risks. The idea that a melt-down accident at a nuclear power plant could explode and contaminate huge swaths of land seemed like an existential threat that had moms everywhere up in arms. Accidents like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima seemed only to prove them right. Protesting moms did their thing and eventually succeeded in preventing new nuclear power plants from being built for most of the last 40 years. At the time, with their then limited understanding of the risks, this seemed like the right thing to do, so it is easy to understand the rationale. But was it?
Now, more than 40 years later, we actually have a much better understanding. And it turns out it was a huge mistake. Had the original plans developed by Presidents Eisenhower and, later, John F. Kennedy to build out a fleet of nuclear power plants to meet all US energy needs succeeded, we would not have a climate catastrophe on our hands. But, because of public opposition, nuclear grew only to be 20% of our electricity needs and then its growth was halted.
In its place, the fossil fuel industry was allowed to grow unchecked, vastly accelerating CO2 emissions and turning global warming into a full blown catastrophe. We've already seen 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) of confirmed warming and there much more to come, as more emissions are added to the existing molecular blanket trapping solar radiation and heating the planet. It is as bad for the health of our planet as it would be if your child had a fever of 102.7 that just continued rising.
While the worst impacts of our use of fossil fuels may still be a ways off, even the current level poses an existential risk to humanity. We are failing to meet our initial goal of reducing emissions by 50% by 2030, which is five years away and emissions have not declined at all. Not solving this problem by greatly reducing our level of emissions is causing tremendous psychological stress in younger generations. This is why moms everywhere need to act and fast. They need to show their children that they are doing what it takes, which requires thinking outside the box and being willing to do things we may not be comfortable with.
Next-generation nuclear is the disruptive, scalable solution we need.
Things seem bad right now. The Trump Administration is in denial about climate change and the very topic of climate change has become terribly polarized. Progressives want to end fossil fuel use but demand that we replace it with renewables, which clearly aren't up to the job. Conservatives are rightly worried about rising energy prices and energy reliability and love nuclear but they've shown little concern about addressing climate. While thsese differences cause political dysfunction, there is considerable bipartisan agreement about the need to accelerate advanced nuclear. Somehow, between climate doom and climate denial, both sides for vastly different reasons, agree on the importance of accelerating next-generation nuclear.
This bipartisan support is not new It started with the Obama Administration, which set the stage to support nuclear innovation. Thereafter, the first Trump Administration signed several pieces of legislation passed by the Congress aimed at accelerating the commercialization of next-generation nuclear. Then, in the lead-up to the IRA, President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act, which set up the Civil Nuclear Credit Program, with funding to help prevent the premature closure of nuclear power plants. Governor Newsom used these funds to help save Diablo Canyon. The IRA provided further support for nuclear by levelling the playing field and allowing nuclear power to qualify for the same clean energy tax benefits that wind and solar could. Biden also signed the ADVANCE Act, which accelerates the commercialization of nuclear with a series of reforms of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, its mission and its process.
In each instance, Congress supported efforts to accelerate the commercialization of next-generation with huge bipartisan majorities, and often just a few nay votes. This shows just how much attitudes have changed around nuclear energy, which has one of the lowest carbon intensities—so is a top solution to climate change—while at the same time, providing energy security, job creation and national security. At the moment, although the Trump Administration has shown no interest in supporting climate goals, the DOE recently re-issued a $900 million funding solicitation left over from the Biden era for advanced nuclear. Nuclear energy is the middle ground we need to solve climate.
Mom will likely be thrilled to support a true climate solution
Supporting the growth of advanced nuclear energy is the ideal pathway for those seeking to solve climate change. Next-gen nuclear is already in demand by tech hyperscalers and others seeking clean and reliable sources of energy. The innovations underway are working to make these new designs safer, cheaper and easier to deploy. The whole nuclear industry is hard at work increasing capacity factors, improving materials, fabricating safer fuels, making operations more efficient and training workers. This makes it the perfect time to invest into these ventures, so that new designs can finally get to market and energy buyers can begin to displace fossil fuels.
A pregnant Maddy Hilly standing next to a dry cask storage tank holding nuclear waste.
So, for Mother's Day, help your mother get caught up with nuclear's incomparable safety record. Explain the many amazing benefits of nuclear. Show her that nuclear helps reduce ecologic impacts and cleans the air. Clarify why concerns about nuclear waste are a political red herring, since nuclear's waste is already safely stored on site—as shown by Maddy Hilly at the INL—hurting no one and definitely not causing climate change, in stark contrast to fossil fuel waste, which pollutes the air, contributes to millions of premature deaths annually and causes our slow-moving global climate disaster.
Help your Mom go Nuclear on Mother's Day
Help mom become one of the growing numbers of women supporting nuclear. Introduce her to groups like Mothers for Nuclear, and show her how working mothers have launched pronuclear non-profits and permeated the nuclear industry because of their concerns about climate change. It doesn't take a mom to recognize that fossil fuels are well past their "Sell by" dates and need to go! But before that transition can happen, there has to be a much better way to generate reliable energy. That's next-generation nuclear power and why it is so important to get these technologies to market as fast as possible.
Mom will appreciate learning about next-gen nuclear and the many ways that she can help, whether by joining or supporting an organization like Mothers for Nuclear, investing into this sector and funding the companies developing innovative solutions or just by talking to her friends about nuclear power—it will all help. Almost nothing else she can do will be as effective at the global scale. But helping next-generation nuclear succeed can have a direct future impact on reducing carbon emissions.
She already loves you forever. You can now help her do her job to protect your future.
Happy Mother's Day from the Nucleation team!
Thank you for reading this. Love of our children and deep appreciation of what nuclear offers humanity is why we have worked to build the first venture fund that invest in advanced nuclear and deep decarbonization innovations. Nucleation's Fund I is in its fourth year and still accepting new accredited investors every quarter. We have made it easy and affordable. If you or your mom subscribe between Mother's Day and May 30th, 2025 and reference this Mother's Day post, we will send you your choice of a Nucleation Capital T-shirt, vest or baseball cap. Learn more and subscribe here.
Published by Valerie Gardner in Advanced Nuclear, Air pollution, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Energy abundance, Energy transition, Extreme weather, Fission, Fossil fuel mortality, Fossil fuels, NEWS, Nuclear innovation, Nucleation communications, Pro-nuclear campaign, Solving climate, US technological leadership
IEA's Global Methane Tracker 2025: Methane emissions have been vastly under-reported
As more measured data has become available, it appears that most national inventories are underreporting emissions: our estimate of total energy-related methane emissions globally is about 80% higher than the total reported by countries to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This gap is narrowest in Europe, where countries regularly submit inventories and some producers report emissions based on measured data.
Published by Nucleation Capital in Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate mayhem, Fossil fuels, Global emissions, REPORTS, Solving climate
By Valerie Gardner, Nucleation Capital Managing Partner
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.
Published by Valerie Gardner in 100% Renewables, Advanced Nuclear, Advanced Nuclear Customers, Biden-Harris Administration, Capital reallocation, Carbon emissions, Carbon markets, Climate change, Climate mayhem, Climate policy, Construction costs, Energy abundance, Energy transition, Fission, Fossil fuels, Fusion, Future of Energy, Government support, International Collaboration, International support for nuclear, Investor activity, NEWS, Nuclear competitiveness, Nuclear innovation, Nuclear maritime propulsion, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Nuclear-inclusive energy policy, Politicians supporting nuclear, Pronuclear States, Regulatory reform, Solving climate, Solving nuclear waste, Uranium & Mining, US competitiveness, US technological leadership, Zero emission energy
By Rod Adams, Managing Partner
Mined hydrocarbons, also known as fossil fuels, have been the foundation of modern industrial society for several centuries. But most parts of society don't depend on the specific action of burning hydrocarbon fuels. People need and want the heat that the combustion reaction produces and the services provided using machinery designed to convert heat into motion.
The growing importance of electricity
Most energy use cases can be supplied by alternative sources of heat and mechanical motion, but non-emitting alternatives such as wind and solar have been constrained by temporal and geographic availability. By themselves, they are not as flexible or as deliverable as hydrocarbons. The electrical grid, however, enables a wide variety of non-fossil fuel alternatives (think wind, solar and nuclear) to deliver controllable heat and motion almost anywhere at almost any time.
When electricity is a) clean, b) abundant, c) reliable and d) cost competitive, it can often win in the markets for services provided by burning hydrocarbons. All four criteria are important. But electricity isn't a fossil fuel replacement, and thus cleaner, if is produced using fossil fuel power.
Currently, 60% of U.S. electricity is still produced by burning fossil fuels because they have generally been reasonably available and affordably priced. We are now producing most all of our own fossil fuels with enhanced U.S. production but we shouldn't forget those worrying times when the lack of availability and high prices of fossil fuels have threatened the rest of the economy.
Using electricity to replace fossil fuels requires continued reductions in the use of fossil fuels in the electricity sector, and substantial increases in the total amount of electricity produced. Some calculate that electricity production needs to more than triple to enable an energy transition away from fossil fuel dependence.
Several power sources have proven their ability to take significant shares of electricity production from fossil fuels. These include hydropower, nuclear power (from fission) and wind and solar power. Hydro power (essentially falling water) is a well proven way to generate electricity, but due to geographic and environmental constraints it has not grown in the US since 1970. Its production fluctuates with varying precipitation but remains close to 6% of electricity supply. We shall consider the remaining options.
Fission
All nuclear power used today comes from the fission of atoms. When it was initially developed and booming, nuclear energy quickly captured about 20% of the electricity market. Initially discovered in late 1942, fission entered the commercial market in 1957 and grew to 2300 terrawatt hours per year (TWh/yr) of primary energy production by 2000.
Eventually, due to aggressive political opposition, poor project cost and schedule performance, growing regulatory uncertainties – from both state public utility commissions and federal safety regulators – and flat electricity market growth combined to reduce and then halt new nuclear power plant orders by 1978. This was bad enough but, during the 1970s and 1980s, there were a significant number of project cancellations after major expenses had already been incurred. The new nuclear plant construction industry atrophied, nevertheless, ongoing plant operations and services continued to improve, and nuclear capacity factors grew and resulted in upratings on plant generation capability.
Memories of financial losses and periodic abundance of low priced hydrocarbons have helped to delay or derail attempts to revive the nuclear plant construction industry until now.
Wind and solar
Stimulated by Renewable Portfolio Standards, federal production and/or investment tax credits, similar pieces of legislation at state and local levels and tens of billions of dollars in investments appropriated as part of the Recovery Act of 2009, wind and solar have grown rapidly since 2000 to capture about 15% of the US electricity market. Sustained investments and growing markets enabled the supplier (mostly Chinese) and installation industries to achieve economical scale and substantial manufacturing cost reductions. Advocates for wind and solar have lauded these price reductions and have argued that, because these costs are so low, wind and solar are going to be able to grow to replace all of fossil fuel demand.
Unfortunately, the evidence surrounding the growth of renewables show that they are growing rapidly but not even keeping up with the rate of growth of energy demand. Additionally, they are not replacing fossil fuels, which plants are also growing as a function of being needed to supplant the intermittency and low capacity factors of both wind and solar.
The energy transition that we need to achieve has a far greater chance of success in a future where nuclear and renewable energy sources both grow to their potential instead of the historical either-or growth pattern shown to the right.
That binary alternative energy history of growing either nuclear or wind and solar has given us a history of doing very little to reduce fossil fuel consumption or its inherently associated pollution and greenhouse gas production. The graph below shows U.S. historical energy usage and the shifting patterns of growth of coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind and solar.
This graph leaves out oil because it provides only 1 percent of electricity generation (though it is largely used in sectors like transportation and heating that are not yet seeing much impact from competition with alternative sources delivered to end users via electricity). It also leaves out geothermal because its production is barely visible in the graph. What's clear from this image is that wind and solar have helped enable the growth of natural gas, at the expense of coal usage but they have not caused a net decline in the total amount of fossil fuel use, just a marked shift in type.
Multiple tools needed
Transitioning our energy system from fossil fuel dominance to a system producing far less pollution while retaining the availability and abundance that provides prosperity is a difficult task requiring a full set of tools, including nuclear, wind and solar.
Using available tools to their fullest extent requires application of enabling policies, relying on experience of what has worked and what has failed to work. The undeniable success of the wind and solar build out offers lessons that can be applied to new nuclear as an energy source that is as clean and as safe as wind and solar.
Government policies
It is immensely encouraging to see that there is growing political support and action in this direction. Congresses over the last decade have managed to pass several major pieces of legislation supportive of nuclear energy with overwhelming bipartisan majorities. The parties have even engaged in positive competition boosting support to new nuclear energy. Most recently, the Biden Administrative launched the Nuclear Power Project Management and Delivery working group, an expert group empowered to accelerate the approval, construction and deployment of both traditional and advanced nuclear power. This is just the most recent initiative, yet it goes further than any prior administration, and reflects growing public support for the deployment of nuclear power to reduce carbon emissions and continued reliance on fossil fuels.
Internationally, the progress has been equally as impressive. At COP 28 in the UAE this past winter, the US joined with nearly every other nuclear-powered nation in a pledge to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050, even as the entire conference itself agreed to "transition away from fossil fuels."
Investors and innovators
Along with the government enablers, private sector investors and innovators are applying lessons from the early rise (and then stagnation) of nuclear energy and from the accelerating rise of wind and solar. Nuclear energy sources, now both advanced fission and multiple approaches to fusion, are being developed in a wide variety of sizes, shapes and operating temperatures designed to fit the needs of a much larger universe of potential customers.
The term small modular reactor (SMR) has entered the lexicon and been the subject of much discussion within the small community of people that focus on energy. We like to think of the term as meaning smaller, manufactured reactors and believe it should be viewed as covering a market sector as broad and impactful as the terms PC or AI. We also assert that the world has successfully been using SMRs since the 1950s, but strategic and political considerations restricted their use to military applications, such as for powering submarines.
Some SMRs are designed to be small enough to be fully produced inside factories and delivered as complete units. These are often called micro or very small reactors. Many of these will be able to operate for a decade or more without needing new fuel, giving them capabilities that are unobtainable by fossil fuel generators.
Other SMRs are designed to allow various components and systems to be manufactured, fabricated and assembled in factories and then shipped to sites where the parts can be connected into a complete power plant. These are often being designed to reduce or avoid the mega-project risk that has plagued very large nuclear plants.
Some vendors are focusing on producing reactors as heat sources; letting others design and build systems that will either use the heat directly or as the driver for an energy conversion system that produces electricity. There are designs that focus on producing very high temperature heat and others that focus on improving the fuel cycle to make better use of the energy content of natural actinides like uranium and thorium.
Outside of reactor vendors there are emerging suppliers for waste handling, supportive IT and AI systems, improved displays and simulators, better ways to engage with communities and regulators and an emerging group of companies focused on developing nuclear projects. New business models are being developed to better fit a market that is no longer dominated by vertically integrated monopoly utilities.
The opportunities associated with renewed growth in nuclear are enormous and the variety of solutions is almost overwhelming. As someone who believes in the enormous prospects for nuclear power and as a managing partner in Nucleation Capital,, I spend my days focusing on understanding the teams, the improvements, the markets, the obstacles, the mitigations, the political situation and all of the other complexities associated with successfully deploy a new generation of advanced energy technologies to help change the direction of one of the largest segments of the world's economy. We are now in our third year of operations and continuing to assemble a portfolio of investments in companies in this sector with outsized growth potential.
Broadening Participation by Investors into Venture Capital
At Nucleation Capital, we believe a successful energy transition can only be accomplished when attacked with a complete range of the best available tools. This includes advanced nuclear. Plenty of other investors are focusing on wind and solar; we see new nuclear as an under-appreciated sector whose immense value is just beginning to be recognized, so we are focused on investing into this sector and providing access for more investors to participate.
Though some large, public companies will benefit from nuclear energy growth, most of them are widely diversified conglomerates whose nuclear divisions are a relatively small portion of the company. A number of them are working on SMRs of their own. These ventures can usually be accessed through the public markets. We focus our efforts on the younger, smaller and emerging ventures that are targeting nuclear energy innovations and which are raising venture capital to finance their development and growth. By targeting the energy buyers in various niches with products that can compete head-to-head with fossil fuels, they have enormous growth opportunities given the urgency with which the world needs to transition to carbon-free energy sources.
Nucleation Capital is an open-ended fund that has almost unlimited capacity to include new investors (at almost any capital level) that recognize the potential and want to gain investment exposure to this sector. We bring expertise to this sector to synthesize the complexities and make the investment choices for our investors. If this interests you, please make contact to find out how you might prosper with us.
Nucleation announces its investment in Twelve's Series C through its Fund I.
Twelve's tagline, "a world made from air," seems quite incredible at face value. The average person may not realize that gaseous components of air, like CO2 and H2O molecules, contain the ingredients required for hydrocarbons, namely carbon and hydrogen. Twelve, however, has managed to develop some special technology that finally makes it possible to take CO2 and H2O, run them through an efficient electrolysis process, and get CO and H, which can be blended to create synthetic hydrocarbons that are exact substitutes for kerosene and naptha, which until now, have been produced from oil that has been extracted from the ground.
We all know that burning oil, coal or gas and releasing CO2 emissions is what is causing our atmosphere to warm. With every gallon of gasoline burned, we're releasing 2.7 times that volumetric amount in pollution, most of which converts to gas that is invisible to the eye but which traps solar radiation and warms up in the atmosphere.
Twelve's technology, however, utilizes CO2 that is "captured" rather than released into the atmosphere, and it blends that with hydrogen extracted from water using an electrochemical process powered by clean energy, to create a carbon-neutral high-octane fuel that is chemical identical to kerosene, also called Jet A. Twelve's sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), which it calls E-Jet, can be substituted as a way to enable the aviation industry to achieve carbon-neutrality between now and 2050.
The key for Twelve, which uses a "power-to-liquid" pathway to create its carbon-neutral E-Jet, is to be able to power this production without releasing more carbon dioxide in the process. To do so, Twelve needs to have access to abundant, always-on, affordable and clean energy. Which explains why Twelve opted to build its first production plant not in California, where the power mix is primarily natural gas, but in Washington State, where Twelve can get access to hydropower.
With that source of energy, Twelve's fuel, once deliveries begin later this year, can help reduce aviation emissions by as much as 90%. In the future, Twelve's growing E-Jet production business will benefit from being able to cost-reduce by being sited near sources of supply for its E-Jet, captured CO2 and airports where its customers refuel. We suspect that, in the future, being able to site a small advanced nuclear power plant near where Twelve's factories want to be, could give them yet another competitive advantage.
Meanwhile, the airline industry's projected demand for SAF far exceeds all known production from all sources, so in the short term, Twelve is able to sell its E-Jet fuel at a premium, while also qualifying for a myriad of local, state and federal incentives aimed at helping businesses like Twelve scale up production capabilities in combination with non-dilutive grants and sales of Scope 3 carbon credits.
Twelve's current Series C financing is providing it with the capital it needs to finish manufacturing its initial stock of reactors and complete the construction of its first commercial-scale fuel production plant in Washington State, where Twelve has a firm contract for hydropower sufficient to meet its production needs for now. Twelve is on track to begin this production and begin delivering initial quantities of E-Jet to Alaska Airlines for use on its flights later this year.
Nucleation is thrilled to have co-invested in Twelve's Series C round together with DCVC, Capricorn (Jeff Skoll), TPG (private equity), Pulse Fund and join many other investors, which include Microsoft, Shopify, Alaska Airlines and the US Air Force. In 2023, Twelve was name one of the Climate Tech Companies to Watch by the MIT Technology Review and was featured in this Bloomberg Green article, Microsoft-Backed Clean Jet Fuel Startup Fires Up New CO2 Converter, a Bloomberg Originals Episode: Dusk or Dawn and other press.
In addition to SAFs, Twelve's reactors can produce a range of carbon-neutral synthetic hydrocarbons, especially e-naphtha, that can be sold into other markets as clean ingredients to enable consumer product companies to make a wide array of carbon-neutral manufactured plastics items, reducing their carbon footprint by over 90%. Twelve has already successfully tested their use through partnerships with Mercedes-Benz (for use in car parts), Procter and Gamble (ingredients for Tide) and Pangaia (for the world's first CO2-made sunglass lenses, in a production run that sold out in under two hours).
Soon after we invested, Twelve was in London to jointly announce a 10+ year, 1 billion liter off-take agreement with the International Airlines Group (IAG), the world's largest publicly traded airline group, which was immediately recognized as the "SAF deal of the year." Twelve's deliveries under that contract will help decarbonize five European airlines, which include British Airways, Iberia and Aer Lingus, potentially as soon as 2025. This delivery contract is a testament both to the level of demand and to customer confidence in Twelve and its final product. It also signals that funding development of future decarbonization technologies can fundamentally transform our energy future and begin to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
[Note: Investor access to Twelve is currently available through Nucleation's syndicate SPV. If you join our syndicate, we will forward the deal details to you.]
Published by Valerie Gardner in Air pollution, Carbon emissions, Carbon markets, Carbon negative, Carbon utilization, Climate change, Corporate decarbonization, Fossil fuels, Investor activity, NEWS, Public companies, US technological leadership
For the first time ever, and despite being hosted the United Arab Emirates, the COP agrees to "transition away" from fossil fuels. This is the first time in over 35 years of meeting internationally to address climate change, that the UNFCC has reached an agreement that even mentions reducing fossil fuels.
Though not the firm commitment to "phase out" fossil fuels that many attendees were hoping for, this agreement nevertheless goes further in specifically calling for nations to begin reducing their dependence upon fossil fuels than any other prior agreement did. Now, the question becomes "how can such a transition happen" without compromising the reliability of the grid? The answer was not provided in the text of the agreement. But the answer was provided in the pledges made during the conference: a tripling of nuclear power, renewables and energy efficiency. Increasingly, nations will be looking to see how they can replace fossil fuels with another energy source that is equally as firm and reliable. They will eventually find their way to nuclear power if they don't already have hydro or geothermal resources.
Read more at Reuters "Nations strike deal at COP28 to transition away from fossil fuels," by Valerie Volcovici, Gloria Dickie and William James, December 13, 2023.
Published by Nucleation Capital in Capital reallocation, Carbon emissions, Carbon markets, Climate change, Climate mayhem, Climate policy, Fossil fuels, Future of Energy, Government support, History Timeline, History-making, International Collaboration, International support for nuclear, LINKS, Solving climate, Zero emission energy
Nucleation Capital sponsored free screenings of Oliver Stone's timely documentary, Nuclear Now, through June. Now you can stream this film through iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, Vudu, Microsoft Store/X-box, and cable-on-demand platforms like Comcast, Spectrum and Cox. Stone finally clears away the myths and fictions about this powerful source of carbon-free energy with a surprisingly positive and even encouraging film. Learn why a growing number of energy and climate experts call for the use of nuclear power in humanity's fight against fossil fuel emissions.
Oliver Stone’s documentary “Nuclear Now” opened in New York, Los Angeles and other markets across the U.S. and Canada on April 27th with great critical acclaim. Many theaters held a panel discussion after the screening, so viewers could continue the conversation. We hosted a series of virtual panel discussions that were well attended. We have one final panel planned for later this summer. If you would like to learn about that and have not previously signed up to attend an event, use this registration link and we will send you an invitation to this event. If you have already signed up for an event, you don't need to do so again.
Schedule of Events
April 27, 2023
May 1, 2023
The film premiers in 350 theaters around the the country. Check for theaters and purchase tickets online through this link.
May 2, 2023
(5:00 pm PT/8:00 pm ET)
The 1st VIRTUAL PANEL DISCUSSION, hosted by Nucleation Capital, for those who were able to attend a viewing during the film's premier in theaters. To obtain the calendar invite and Zoom Link to attend this discussion, click this link to register. [PAST EVENT]
May 11, 2023
(5:00 pm PT/8:00 pm ET)
The 2nd VIRTUAL PANEL DISCUSSION, hosted by Nucleation Capital, for those who were able to access the GWU screening link. To obtain the calendar invite and Zoom Link to attend this discussion, click this link to register. [PAST EVENT]
May 25, 2023
(5:00 pm PT/8:00 pm ET)
The 3rd VIRTUAL PANEL DISCUSSION, hosted by Nucleation Capital, for those who register to view the film through Nucleation's Sponsored Screening Link. Fill in our registration form, and we will send you a link to download and stream the film. You will also receive a calendar invite and Zoom Link to attend this discussion, click this link to register. [PAST EVENT]
June 6, 2023
(5:00 pm PT/8:00 pm ET)
The 4th VIRTUAL PANEL DISCUSSION, hosted by Nucleation Capital, for those who register to view the film through Nucleation's Sponsored Screening Link. Fill in our registration form, and we will send you a link to download and stream the film. You will also receive a calendar invite and Zoom Link to attend this discussion, click this link to register. [PAST EVENT]
Stay tuned . . .
(Nuclear Movie Director Panel . . . being planned for later this summer.)
Streaming and other licenses
The Nuclear Now Film
(https://nuclearnowfilm.com)
There are many ways that NUCLEAR NOW can be licensed for viewing by groups or institutions through the filmmaker and media partners, including RoCo and Participant Media. Please visit the website to learn more.
Original publication date: April 29, 2023. Updated May 15 and June 30.
Published by Valerie Gardner in Brilliant thinkers, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate mayhem, Climate policy, Energy abundance, Environmental support for nuclear, Fossil fuels, Future of Energy, NEWS, Pro-nuclear campaign, US technological leadership, Zero emission energy
Sign up to receive Nucleation Insights
For Current Investors
(Note: Must be logged in at AngelList)
Nucleation Direct Messages
Nucleation (Fund I) Posts
Your Portfolio Dashboard
Your Funding Page
How to Contact Us
© 2025 Nucleation Capital | Terms & Policies
