In a move that’s sparked both excitement and debate, the Trump administration made a significant push to revitalize the nuclear energy sector. A recent video from the New York Post highlights President Trump signing three executive orders aimed at boosting nuclear energy. He also emphasized the advancements in nuclear safety.
But what do these orders really mean for the future of nuclear power? And how might they impact our energy landscape? Let’s break it down. Video Summary generated by Artificial Intelligence.
Executive Orders: A Triple Play for Nuclear Energy
President Trump signed three executive orders intending to breathe new life into the nuclear industry. Here’s a closer look at each one:
- Reforming the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: The goal here is to streamline the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Think of it as decluttering a messy office to make things run smoother. The hope is to accelerate the licensing process for new nuclear facilities without compromising safety. How might this impact the industry? Faster approvals could mean more projects get off the ground, leading to growth and innovation.
- Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy: Imagine upgrading the testing process for new nuclear reactors. That’s the idea behind this order. By modernizing the way reactors are tested at the Department of Energy (DOE), the hope is to encourage new designs and technologies. More efficient testing could lead to safer and more effective reactors in the future.
- Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base: This order gets serious by invoking the Defense Production Act. This act aims to spur closer collaboration with private industry to ensure there are enough fuel supplies for a modern nuclear energy sector. It also focuses on developing a skilled workforce in the nuclear field. This is about rebuilding the foundation of the nuclear industry, from fuel to skilled workers.
Trump’s Confidence in Nuclear Safety
Safety has always been a key concern when it comes to nuclear energy. So, what did President Trump have to say about it?
Trump stated nuclear energy is “very safe,” citing automatic shutoffs and redundant safety systems. He pointed out how much safety technology has improved over the years. He even mentioned his uncle, a “great nuclear person,” suggesting that even he would be impressed by today’s safety measures.
Of course, speeding up licensing and fuel processing raises questions. What about safety and the potential for nuclear proliferation? Trump’s answer was clear: the goal is to move quickly, but also safely. He mentioned the idea of building multiple smaller reactors, similar to what France has done successfully.
Trump believes it’s “time for nuclear,” and he wants the U.S. to be a leader in the field. He envisions a future with both small and large reactors contributing to the nation’s energy supply.
“Restoring Gold Standard Science”: A Commitment to Integrity
Beyond nuclear energy, Trump also signed an executive order focused on scientific integrity in government policymaking. This one is called “Restoring gold standard science.”
The concern is that government policies have sometimes been based on flawed or biased scientific studies. This order aims to address issues like conflicts of interest and scientific misconduct.
The goal is to ensure that government decisions are based on reliable science. This means using proper scientific methods, being transparent, and ensuring that studies are free from conflicts of interest. If agencies are relying on scientific studies to create rules, then that science should be highly reliable and available to the public.
How might this affect nuclear energy? It could lead to more rigorous evaluations of safety and environmental concerns. Policies would be based on sound science.
These executive orders could have significant consequences for the nuclear industry and the country as a whole.
There’s potential for job creation and economic growth in the nuclear sector. Private industry collaboration could drive innovation and efficiency.
Nuclear energy is a low-carbon energy source, which can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But there are also challenges, like nuclear waste disposal and potential environmental risks.
A revitalized nuclear industry could contribute to U.S. energy independence, reducing reliance on foreign energy sources. This could have geopolitical implications.
The Trump administration has clearly signaled a commitment to nuclear energy. These executive orders could reshape the industry. The focus on safety and scientific integrity is also notable. What does this mean for the future of energy in the U.S.?
At Last, a Company With Integrity in the Gold IRA Industry
For several years, I’ve been vetting out precious metals companies in search of the best. I believe in gold and silver but it’s hard to find integrity in the Gold IRA industry. The vast majority operate with shady tactics and gigantic spreads that take advantage of Americans who simply want to protect their life’s savings.
I’ve found a handful that I like and I’ve worked with some of them. By no means would I “unrecommend” them because, again, I vetted them out and found them to be above the fold. Unfortunately, it isn’t hard to be better than the rest when the rest are so darn awful.
After years of searching, I finally found a company that truly operates with integrity. Augusta Precious Metals has three important attributes that set them far above the competition:
- Non-Commissioned Sales Team: I cannot stress how important and unique this is. With just about every other company in the Gold IRA industry, the sales teams make commission from every account they open. This means they steer their clients toward the gold and silver products with the highest commission. With Augusta Precious Metals, the team is solely focused on putting the best gold and silver for their clients into their IRA. They get paid to serve the best interests of the Gold IRA client, NOT their own commission pay.
- Incredibly Low Fees: Most Americans would be shocked if they knew the spread other Gold IRA companies charge. Augusta charges just 5% versus up to 45% elsewhere.
- No Pressure, No Gimmicks: There’s an understanding among most in the Gold IRA industry that fear and pressure is the way to go. Augusta Precious Metals takes a sober approach when working with clients because they hold integrity in the highest possible regard. This is why they don’t offer gimmicks like “free” or “bonus” silver. It’s also why they do not apply pressure tactics to get quick sales. Their educational and transparent approach to doing business is exceedingly rare in the Gold IRA industry.
I have worked for almost 50 years in the energy industry first as an engineer then into senior management. Not bragging but saying I might know what I am talking about.
Most people believe nuclear power (fission) died in the U.S. because fears of a meltdown as was highlighted by the 1979 film “The China Syndrome” which played up fears about 3-MileIsland. Later we had Chernobyl in what is now Ukraine and Fukushima in Japan. That’s not true, at least in a direct manner.
Nuclear-powered power plants are really simple. You get radioactive materials like uranium and plutonium packed very close and this kicks off the rapid decay into smaller molecules and a relatively large amount of heat. To turn the heat into electricity, it is used to boil water at high pressure which is then expanded through steam turbines and the spinning turbines shafts make electricity. Very simple and basic. Should be very cheap. But it’s not. Why? safety concerns of radioactive material and the horrendous consequences of a reactor meltdown cause extra systems (major extra water loop that keeps the superheated water that goes through the reactor away from turbines and cooling towers where a small leak can release significant amounts of radiation, double and triple redundant systems (what happens if a cooling water pump breaks down, or even two. Better put 3 of them in there to prevent potential overheating disasters, etc.). I am not saying these aren’t needed; what I’m saying is that these plants become extremely expensive. The cost to build and operate these giant facilities makes a lot of the electricity produced from these plants too expensive.
The other dagger in the heart of the nuclear industry was cheap alternatives. For a long time the competitor was coal which is ridiculously cheap. To some extent the green energy hurt coal-fired power plants but the real killer for both coal and nuclear plants was natural gas. These are very cheap, flexible and produce about 1/3 the CO2 as a coal plant and without the meltdown concerns of nuclear plants. That’s always been the case but it was a massive drop in gas prices that killed coal and nuclear. In the past couple of decades we have had a surplus of gas production and prices hover in the range of $2-$3 per million BTU’s. That doesn’t mean much to normal people but here’s the key. If you multiply a gas price by about 5.5 you get the equivalent price of the gas in oil terms, $ per barrel on an energy content (really all that matters in a power plant since either way you are burning the fuel). Most people know that oil has been hanging out around $75 per barrel for quite a while. Natural gas that sells for $2.50 per MMBTU is the equivalent of crude oil (or refined products like gasoline and diesel) of $13.75 per barrel, only 18% of oil at $75/barrel. It’s obvious that because of that we don’t burn oil products to make electricity but without boring you with all the economic numbers of investment and operating cost, coal and nuclear plants haven’t been able to compete. Wind and solar don’t either except for government subsidies (whole different discussion).
There are a lot of new schemes I see for newer ways to generate power with nuclear but I am dubious until somebody steps up, commits a couple of billion dollars, builds it and gets it online without going broke. There’s a lot of hype from small companies pitching these very small modular plants that are supposedly the industry savior. That’s nonsense. Economies of scale are very real and until someone demonstrates that any of these new designs work for large plants, I absolutely do not believe they will be economical for tiny plants.
What might change? The U.S. is exporting every more natural gas in the form of LNG and the Trump administration is pushing for even more. I won’t get into the detail here but it isn’t going to take much more export to make the ultra-low prices for gas to basically go to a crude oil equivalent. When that happens, gas won’t sell for $2.50 but rather in the range of $13.50. That will make all other forms of electricity much more competitive including nuclear, coal, solar, wind and hydro. This will be a massive change in the energy industry. You can see it coming like a “ton of bricks” but nobody is talking about it publicly but rest assured that all the real players in energy are discussing this internally.
So, for nuclear to be competitive, one or more of the following has to happen: 1) the price of gas skyrockets to crude equivalent prices as supply/demand comeback into balance, 2) the U.S. or state governments take serious actions towards eliminating CO2 from power generation or 3) one or more of these new designs for nuclear plants cuts build and operating costs not by 5 or 10% but in the range of 50%. Any of these may happen but don’t just buy the hype and think nuclear is the magic bullet right now; it is much more complicated than that (and way more complicated that what I can discuss in an internet comment).