The Generation Professionals Group is for utility professionals who work in biomass, coal, gas/oil, hydro, natural gas, or nuclear power generation fields. 


Nuking the anti-nuke crowd

Paul Driessen's picture
Senior Policy Analyst Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and Heartland Institute

PAUL DRIESSEN is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and Heartland Institute, public policy institutes that promote...

  • Member since 2001
  • 37 items added with 72,803 views
  • Dec 24, 2020

Written By: Duggan Flanakin

How has the Trump Administration fared in meeting the multiple challenges that have slowed the growth of nuclear energy in the U.S. to a near-halt? And what are the prospects for nuclear energy in a Biden-Harris Administration? It’s time to nuke the anti-nuke crowd, and it seems to be happening.

It is now seventy-five years since the U.S. ended the war against Japan by dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (both currently thriving). Eight years later, President Eisenhower, in his world-famous “Atoms for Peace” speech before the United Nations, invited citizens to the debate over using nuclear science and technology for power generation.

President Kennedy switched the nation’s attention from nuclear to the space program but, beginning in the Nixon Administration and augmented following the 1973 oil embargo through the Three Mile Island incident in 1979, the U.S. authorized most of the 61 plants and 99 nuclear reactors still operating in 2017.  As President Trump took office, the Aspen Institute issued a report stating, “Nuclear power in the U.S. is at a moment of existential crisis. If the present challenges are not addressed, the future of nuclear energy may be far less promising and superior U.S. nuclear expertise diminished.”

President Obama’s Clean Energy Plan provided funding for nuclear energy, including creating the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN). In 2012, despite objections by the chairman, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) authorized Southern Company to build and operate two new reactors at its Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia, the first in the USA since 1979.

The Aspen report boldly asserted that the U.S. needs a strong domestic nuclear program to maintain its exceptional competence to address safety, threat reduction, and nonproliferation issues. They courted the environmental community by noting that nuclear is a necessary component in the war against climate change, if we are to also maintain an adequate supply of affordable electricity. “A world without nuclear power,” the authors concluded, “would require an incredible – and likely unrealistic – amount of renewables to meet climate targets.” 

The Aspen authors observed that Americans are generally supportive of nuclear power but concerned about nuclear waste. Worse, far too many nuclear power plants in development have broken budgets and fallen behind schedule. Given the lack of political will or a national energy crisis at the time, the authors placed their hopes on advanced reactors that use new types of coolants, operate at different pressures and temperatures, or are smaller and more modular.

Many now view nuclear waste as an overhyped, unscientific issue. In a 2019 paper, Aspen Institute trustee Bill Budinger argued that the fear of nuclear waste is largely unfounded – an issue “hugely exaggerated when we were trying to scare people away from nuclear.” The total amount of nuclear waste accumulated over the past 60 years from all U.S. nuclear power plants would fit inside a two-story building covering one city block. Unfounded fear applies to power plant radiation, as well.

Cost overruns and delays are largely the product of anti-nuclear attitudes that have driven regulation to extremes that are inappropriate for newer reactor designs. 

In April 2020 President Trump unveiled his Strategy to Restore American Nuclear Energy Leadership and competitive nuclear advantage. The first step outlined in the plan is to revive and strengthen America’s uranium mining industry, support uranium conversion services, end reliance on foreign uranium enrichment, and sustain the current fleet of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines.

Other objectives include creating a Uranium Reserve, streamlining regulatory reform and land access for uranium extraction (cutting red tape), supporting the National Reactor Innovation Center and Versatile Test Reactor, demonstrating the use of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and micro-reactors to power federal facilities, and adding protections to prevent future uranium dumping into the U.S. market.

In November, the Associated Press reported that the Idaho National Laboratory was the Energy Department’s first choice for constructing and operating the Versatile Test Reactor (VTR). This first new test reactor built in the U.S. in decades would give the nation a dedicated “fast-neutron-spectrum” testing capability. Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette explained that the VTR “continues to be a high-priority project for DOE to ensure nuclear energy plays a role in our country’s energy portfolio.”

Meanwhile, Llewellyn King reports that an active community of entrepreneurs is promoting reactors of various designs (including molten salt modular reactors), using seed money for SMRs provided through the Obama-era GAIN program. The increase in private investment in nuclear technology and development is a strong sign that nuclear may have finally overcome the media-induced stigma resulting from Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

In reality, the Chernobyl accident happened largely because a test procedure started going wrong when senior technicians were off duty and less experienced technicians made wrong decisions that rapidly compounded the disaster, nuclear physicist Kelvin Kemm explains. Environmentalist Michael Shellenberger notes that radiation from Chernobyl “will kill at most 200 people, while the radiation from Fukushima and Three Mile will kill zero people.” Moreover, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of women aborted their babies after the Chernobyl incident, UCLA researchers found that children born near Chernobyl had no detectable abnormalities.

Further advancing President Trump’s efforts to establish a U.S. national strategic uranium reserve, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee recently approved a bipartisan bill, the American Nuclear Infrastructure Act (ANIA). Uranium Energy Corp CEO Amir Adnani called it “broad-reaching legislation, important for supporting the U.S. nuclear fuel industry, national security, and clean energy.”

Under ANIA, the Department of Energy may only buy uranium recovered from facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or equivalent agreement state agencies; uranium from companies owned by, controlled by or subject to the jurisdiction of Russia or China would be excluded.

According to several prognosticators, the presumed Biden Administration will carry on or even accelerate Obama and Trump efforts to revitalize and prioritize U.S. nuclear energy programs. The primary difference between Trump and Biden nuclear policies, says progressive policy analyst James Conca, is that Biden’s is part of a climate change agenda, while Trump’s focus was on national security concerns.

“Leading climate scientists” say we cannot address climate change without significant nuclear power, Conca contends. So supporting nuclear power – or not – is a clear signal about how serious candidates are about manmade climate change and “how serious they are about supporting science over mere activism.” He added, “if Democrats want any clean energy plan to succeed at all, it better include nuclear.”

Washington Examiner energy reporter Josh Siegel says “Biden’s support for nuclear power … promises to be one of the rare instances of energy policy continuity between the incoming and outgoing administrations.” Democrats, he believes, finally realize that wind and solar alone are insufficient to decarbonize the power grid and are starting to give up their longstanding opposition to nuclear energy.

Of course, all this will also require a new reality-based public attitude about the risks of radiation, be it from nuclear power plants, nuclear waste storage or other sources, says energy journalist Robert Bryce.

There is one more huge caveat. Should Kamala Harris for any reason replace Biden as Commander-in-Chief, her support for nuclear power is far less assured. Asked during the 2020 Presidential campaign whether she supported nuclear energy, she replied on multiple occasions: “Yes, temporarily, while we increase investment into cleaner renewable alternatives.”

That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement, nor even an acknowledgment of the growing bipartisan energy reality. And it certainly doesn’t explain how millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of battery modules – and massive increases in mining, metals processing and manufacturing, to build those technologies – are “clean, green, renewable or sustainable” alternatives to fossil fuels.

Duggan Flanakin is Director of Policy Research at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (

Paul Driessen's picture
Thank Paul for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Dec 29, 2020

Strikes me the primary focus of the laws and administrations has been to fund the DOE, including their policy of picking marketplace winners and losers. Their track record in that regard is abysmal.

Better to simply provide tax incentives, remove excessive regulations and let private industry take the lead. Fundamentally, nuclear needs to be cost effective. That is currently not the case.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Jan 1, 2021

"Better to simply provide tax incentives, remove excessive regulations and let private industry take the lead."

If we were to prioritize enriching investors over the next 5 years, over protecting the environment for the next 100,000 years - yes, that might be better.

Jaak Saame's picture
Jaak Saame on Dec 30, 2020

I have many problems with your article because it leaves out many facts about nuclear accidents, regulations, and economics. 

You say TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters only resulted in 200 deaths at Chernobyl. But you ignore the huge economic costs and human suffering each of those disasters caused. The Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters have not been decontaminated and made habitable.

You say regulations are too stringent. Well we saw what happened at Fukushima when regulations were lax and operating procedures were inadequate.

You do not say what regulations should be relaxed for nuclear plants. Do you want to eliminate the costly security systems? Do you want to eliminate the costly evacuation procedures and drills? Do you want to eliminate safety systems? Do you want eliminated quality assurance requirements for safety related systems, structures and components? Westinghouse tried to do some of these in the design of AP-1000. It did not turn out to reduce costs or save schedule. 

NRC has already relaxed some safety requirements for existing nuclear plants by not requiring them to upgrade the plants to the new seismic and flooding data published by USGS scientists several years ago. That is what Fukushima regulators did and look what happened.

Yes the economics of the large nuclear plants (old and new) is awful. The SMR may have a chance to make nuclear plants economic. But there is a lot of work required to build and test these plants to see if they are safe and their cost and schedule can compete with wind, solar and natural gas.

Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Dec 30, 2020

Overregulation does not improve safety. Indeed, readily leads to the opposite. Resources are finite and not all considerations are equally important. If their are thousands of rules, what is actually important is lost in the fog of confusion.

Bureaucracies inevitably pile on all manner of rules as time evolves, particularly if there are no particular checks and balances on their thirst for more control.

Concentrate on what is actually important and do not worry about minor considerations.

The government should set key boundaries. Ultimately, the publics’ safety is the responsibility those designing, building and operating nuclear facilities. The bureaucrats would do well to remember that their role is to make sure those actually responsible meet their obligations. These obligations need to be centered on what is actually important to protect the public.

Jaak Saame's picture
Jaak Saame on Dec 30, 2020

Typical handwaving response. You can not even pick out one regulatory item that needs to be eliminated. The nuclear industry with the NRC has developed the regulations we currently have in place. The nuclear industry meets with the NRC regularly to eliminate regulations that can be eliminated or modified. 

Do you want the NRC and nuclear industry to copy the Boeing MAX 737 method of being irresponsible in the design, operation, and training of their aircraft?

You really do not understand the regulations, the NRC and the nuclear industry. You generalizations are worthless.

Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Dec 31, 2020

Typical response from someone with little knowledge and an agenda.

I have been in the energy business over 50 years, half of that designing, building and operating nuclear power plants. I hold several nuclear patents and have earned several degrees, including in nuclear engineering.

I am more than familiar with the regulations and have seen first hand the actual results of excessive regulations.

Jaak Saame's picture
Jaak Saame on Jan 3, 2021

You write: "Typical response from someone with little knowledge and an agenda."

Maybe you should first ask about my experience before sticking your foot in your mouth.

I have a BS and MS in Mechanical Engineering. I first worked for Westinghouse in reactor core thermal and hydraulics and fuel rod analysis for commercial nuclear power plants. Then I joined Bechtel Power  Corp in the engineering and licensing of commercial nuclear power plants. I worked on San Onofre, Palo Verde, Diablo Canyon and Susquehanna projects.  Later I worked on the GE/Bechtel/B&V team Design Certification of ABWR and the ABWR FOAKE effort. As part of Bechtel management I lead efforts on the design, licensing, cost, and schedule developments for new onshore and offshore nuclear power plants.

Later I was part of Bechtel management of DOE nuclear weapons programs for building new production facilities and the cleanup of old production facilities.

I am a registered professional Mechanical and Nuclear Engineer.

I have no agenda except honest evaluation of the pros and cons of nuclear power. Your ignoring the cons of nuclear power shows you have a pro-nuclear agenda. 

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »