I have admired your work for many years and for the most part continue to do so. But I think your call for a new Energy Policy Act is misguided. The history of energy policy in the US has for the most part been a tale of rent-seeking, waste and failure. I have little doubt that any new legislation would be the same. If you want to know the history of policy, may I recommend my book from 2013: U.S. Energy Policy and the Pursuit of Failure (Cambridge).
It is extraordinary to me that you would cite past bills as ones worth emulating. True, the 1975 EPCA created the CAFÉ standards although you neglect the rebound effect with respect to any new means of energy efficiency; moreover, the urge for consumers to seek greater efficiency has been the result of high market prices not legislation. As for the SPR it was designed to fill in supplies in case of the (then-expected) next OAPEC oil embargo, which became increasingly implausible with price and quantity deregulation in the 1980s. The reserve has since been used to lower oil prices by presidents worried about their reelection prospects (especially our current one). The 1970s also gave us a wasteful solar water heating program that ultimately drove most businesses connected with solar out of business (twice!), a prohibition on the use of natural gas in new electric generation (repealed several years later) and of course (in 1980) the multi-billion dollar effort to turn coal into a substitute for oil and gas.
As for later acts, they have saddled us with among other dross (in the 1992 Act) an apparently immortal subsidy for wind (due to expire in 1999 and several times thereafter, now going stronger than ever), an even worse subsidy/mandate program for biofuels (the 2005 EPAct greatly expanded by the 2007 EISA), and now with the absurdly named Inflation Reduction, a quixotic effort to completely remake the electric system of the US transitioning to a dangerous system based on wind, solar and batteries, which will cost (according to some estimates) over $1 trillion and will not achieve the goals the Biden administration seeks.
You mention that several of these bills passed bipartisan majorities in Congress. That is true, but in all cases the motivation to pass these bills was a perception of crisis (ongoing or just past) and the need of Congress to “do something” to quell constituent discomfort and anger. All of these bills have been poorly thought out and bloated with giveaways (the 2005 bill was 1724 pages with something for many, many rent-seekers). For the last four years, the Biden administration has sought to gin up a crisis atmosphere around climate change but look what it has gotten us to date.
Let me close by saying you make some good arguments for certain energy incentives (LNG for example) but anything good in a new "comprehensive" energy bill would likely be swamped by the boondoggles that would be added to it—if such a thing was ever imposed on the American people.
Peter Z. Grossman
Clarence Efroymson Professor of Economics Emeritus
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 was indeed highly consequential, but largely of base.
1. Even with oil embargo, there was no need to reduce use of “energy” just imported oil. Viewed as way to prevent OPEC dominated by countries with authoritarian forms of government from interfering with US foreign policy a temporary modest subsidy to US oil production giving it a bit more of a boost than the higher price itself did.
2. Public support for the development of fracking technology was a big win which we can perhaps attribute to EPCA.
3. I have my doubts that CAFÉ passes a cost benefit test even if we factor in, as we should, the benefits of reduced CO2 emissions.
4. The ban on exports of petroleum from the US was sheer stupidity.
5. The US Petroleum Reserve was probably a good idea by adding a large deep-pocketed speculator to the international petroleum market.
6. The great failing of the EPCA, of course, not to have placed a tax on net emissions of CO2.
With this mixed record I’d be suspicious of new “energy” legislation.
The list of significant developments since EPCA while highlighting need for policy change in a number of areas does not suggest an “energy” umbrella.
• The U.S. has become the world’s energy superpower, having massively increased oil and natural gas production;
• Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has reordered global energy geopolitics, leading to greater reliance by Europe on U.S. natural gas supplies;
These developments call for no change in US energy policy other than NOT blocking production, transportation, or exports of fossil fuels as a means of reducing global CO2 emissions
• Domestic electricity demand, which plateaued for much of the past two decades is set to increase dramatically, requiring new supply;
• The U.S. grid shows signs of strain and vulnerability;
Both these require removing regulator constraints on investment in electricity generation and transmission technologies.
• Production of electricity by wind and solar have grown in capacity and are expected to continue to expand, based on generous federal subsidies;
Subsidies for production of zero CO@ emitting energy should be replaced with taxation of net CO2 emissions.
• The U.S. president signed on to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, which has aggressive targets for emissions reductions, and the U.S. has implemented a range of legislation designed to accelerate decarbonization;
Taxation of net CO2 emissions, regulatory reform to make needed investments possible, and R&D ofo zero and net negative CO2 emissions technologies will likely reduce US emissions more than Paris Club agreements and certainly at lower cost than alternative ways of meeting those targets.
• China has come to dominate energy supply chains, critical minerals, and low-emission technology manufacturing in areas such as solar panels and electric vehicles;
The US needs to ensure that it does not depend on supplies from hostile powers for any important goods. This has no particular “energy” component.
• Countries around the world are increasingly focused on security of energy supply and the prices paid by their citizens for energy and energy products and services (which is to say — everything);
Duh!
• The U.S. has largely abdicated any federal role in supporting the continued development and deployment of nuclear power, ceding leadership to other countries, even as nuclear power is experiencing new interest around the world;
The US has placed significant obstacle to the development of nuclear power that it should remove, as for any other zero CO2 emitting energy technology.
• The U.S. lacks a coherent policy on its role in supporting energy development around the world, seemingly conflicted about the role of fossil fuels in supporting economic growth in poor countries.
Just as the US should tax domestic emissions of CO2, it should at the COP encourage other countries to do the same and should exempt those that do so from its import fees on high CO2 content goods.
I see these policy concerns fitting better under a “Climate Change” than an “Energy” umbrella if an umbrella is needed. OTOH, if the needed policy reforms can better be sold as an “Energy” bill, let’s not let a little misleading semantics stand in the way.
Nuclear plants have a reputation for coming in way over budget and behind schedule. In Bent Flyvbjerg's book "How Big Things Get Done" he concludes that nuclear plants are the worst of all large projects for coming in on time and on budget. The reason is that every nuclear plant (at least in the US) is unique. Every nuclear plant has a unique design and faces different challenges.
The best kind of project for coming in on time and on budget are solar farms. The reason is modularity. A solar farm is an array of identical solar panels. A solar panel is an array of identical cells. Modularity squared.
Modularity is an important factor across a wide variety of projects in determining if they come in on time and on budget. In order to go nuclear we will need modular designs to avoid each new nuclear plant suffering cost and budget overruns.
I must disagree with you on nuclear "standardization". We built out over 100 power plants over 25 years of varying designs without egregious cost overruns or delays. It wasn't until the irrational public opposition to nuclear power following the 3 Mile Island incident stoked by environmental groups created so much regulatory hostility that new plants can't be built. "Paper reactors" like SMRs have no proven track record of reliability, safety or security (because they don't exist) and face the same regulatory hostility as large PWRs.
Why is it that people can't see that we have been building SMRs since the 1950's. United States aircraft carriers, surface ships, and submarines in the past 70+ years have been powered by a SMR. (The first nuclear-powered ship built for the US Navy was the USS Nautilus (SSN-571) launched in 1954.)
In less than 70 years we went from learning how to fly (Kitty Hawk, 1903) to landing men on the moon (July 20, 1969). Had we spent the last 70 years applying our innovative genius perfecting the SMR, we would now have a robust, reliable, hardened, and affordable electric grid.
There would have been little need for long, high-voltage transmission lines since SMRs would have been abundantly and strategically located throughout the grid to provide primary and backup power. Manufacturing facilities with a high electrical load would have their own SMR. I could go on and I'm not even a genius:)
I'm a retired Naval Officer who operated nuclear power plants on aircraft carriers and cruisers 1985-2006. The naval power plants are not a good model for SMRs. They are very expensive because of their militarized ruggedness, dynamic operating characteristics, and having to operate in a submerged submarine, things not valuable in commercial plants.
My gripe with SMRs is they are theoretical. There are few physical prototypes. None are in serial production. Many use exotic heat cycles (molten salt, high temp gas (He), liquid sodium) that are not proved to work at scale. Some use exotic uranium fuels (TRISO and HALU) that are not widely available and not proven in commerical applications. It's extremely difficult to even build prototype plants and fuel cycles because of government and public hostility to nuclear technology. It's an enticing model: build small plants that are "walk-away safe" in a factory and distribute or cluster them on the grid. I hope the challenges can be overcome. But it will require a wholesale change in the NRC and public opinion to succeed.
Tom, thanks for your perspective. It's apparent that you have a wealth of knowledge in the area of ship-board nuclear power plants.
My unspoken hope is that folks like you and others with expertise in the nuclear power industry could develop and deploy "land-based" SMRs that are functional, efficient, safe and affordable.
Tom, my hope is that we restore regulator sanity and let the great minds and entrepreneurs bring these new technologies (which have great potential) to the market. They may not succeed, buy they deserve a shot.
I both agree and disagree with you, Tom. No question that the major cause of the expense and duration of building nuclear plants has been the regulatory regime that "grown" [accreted?] around them. However, I think SMRs will face - in fact, are already facing - less hostility. Unfortunately, I also don't believe the SMRs are that much of a component in the generation burst that's needed now.
The US response to the oil crisis in the 70s was to reduce production so that reserves would not be depleted too soon (or was this reduction a provocation of that crisis?). This had the consequence of a flood of oil and petrodollars in the hands of not so easy geostrategic countries. Later, African oil & gas producing countries and post-soviet Russia came to that party.
Now, the US lead again in production, and export a lot of gas in the form of LNG. Together with the US military-industrial complex, a clear benefit is reaped from the embargo imposed on Russia. The policy is "produce as much as possible and sell as high as possible, as long as demand allows", with a positive impact on the US trade balance. The strategic reserve issue is no more on the agenda.
What would be the reason to change such position?
Even the climate-decarbonization complex is requiring massive investments that still include the further development of fossil fuels (including a lot of coal in China and India) for decades to come. Without exploiting these resources, any zero-carbon policy will remain wishful thinking.
Is this an unsolvable conundrum, or an obvious policy to be followed without qualms?
Section 1: Abolish the IRA subsidies on everything but nuclear energy.
Section 2: Transfer all cancelled IRA subsidies from Section 1 to nuclear.
Section 3: Ruthlessly trim regulations that interfere with nuclear and natural gas transitions in electricity sector.
Republicans are happy because the idiotic subsidies for weather restricted energy, EVs and so forth are gone, regulations are getting cut, reliable electricity is getting a major boost over present policy.
Democrats get to keep their war on coal in the short term and get massive support for carbon free power long term that -- unlike wind & solar--is both reliable & theoretically limitless.
Nobody is perfectly happy. Personally, I don't want to subsidize any of it.
But most everyone gets a win in sections 1-3. That's how compromises should work in "our democracy."
Any policy should have a direction, what are plausible 20-30 year goals. Then include an assessment of the current situation with an eye towards constraints on those longer term goals. I'd especially invite comments from Public Cooperatives (NRECA) - I trust them more than the for-profit utilities or some university "experts".
Legislation would also help with agency alignment over time (despite different parties being in power) which seems necessary for a successful transition. Example:
Roger lots of good points. I do think the energy policy is ripe for an update and hopefully channel people's focus in a more productive vs combative direction.
I think the updated comprehensive energy policy should have the following:
1) The word "reliable" used 3x as much as "renewable"
2) Special focus on building out the electric grid to make it more reliable, efficient, and resilient.
3) Special effort on repurposing/recycling existing infrastructure as the "exit from coal" takes place naturally or via mandate.
Roger, your idea is great. What if there were an NGO, say, Energy Policy for the People, who build a bottom-up comprehensive approach to increasing dependable, safe, inexpensive, and low carbon energy sources. Built from the ground, alternatives with data openly reviewed and debated on the internet. Alternative approaches considered, again, openly. Then the info schlepped to the Congressfolk. Someone needs to step in to the partisanized gap IMHO.
Effective legislation would require a greater consensus than we have now on the magnitude of the impact U.S. CO2 emissions have on society. Currently there's little recognition/agreement as to what benefit would be achieved by U.S. decarbonization relative to the costs of doing so. Roger has made great strides in combating misinformation with respect to droughts and extreme weather events which certainly helps. The biggest problem we have is that support for net zero by 2050 or any date is not linked in any way that I'm aware of to a cost/benefit considerations. It's just taken as a given that this must be done. I deliberately restrict my comments to U.S. emissions as those would be most impacted by U.S. legislation. China, India, and Russia will pay lip service to the emissions movement but any action by them will be driven by perceived net benefit. A different approach by the U.S. will only weaken America relative to these countries with no measurable effect on climate. I would welcome any challenge to the preceeding sentence which simply reflects my opinion in the absence of any much needed quantitave discussion of what U.S. decarbonization would accomplish.
I agree, it seems clearly manifest that net zero and other deadline driven and politically chosen targets are both bad policy in design and in goal
The best answer to this would be for moderate conservatives to make their climate policy to commit to net zero by 2050 unless the cost ever exceeds say $500 per household per year. Instead of people talking about whether the Republicans have any climate policy the conversation shifts to why the Democrats have no limit to how much of your well being they will spend
There are good reasons for clean energy like air quality and energy security whether or not climate is a real concern. Boxing Democrats into improving the cost-effectiveness of their own policies is unfortunately also a significant benefit
That would be one decent way to focus attention on costs I guess. The problem might be that the cost is far from evenly distributed and Democrats would likely message it "as making corporate polluters pay." The ultimate costs will of course trickle down but very few people may see it that way. I think the air quality argument needs to be separate from the climate issue. It might be worthwhile to advocate for less particulates or toxic emissions but that has nothing to do with CO2. My understanding is that health effects contribute disproportionately to official estimates of "cost of carbon." I expect that's due lumping particulates and actual toxic emissions in with CO2. I hope I'm wrong.
Oh, my understanding has been that CO2 costs have been calculated separately from air quality and they just tag it on sometimes as a policy benefit. Ironically for coal I have heard that the air pollution is significantly more costly than proposed CO2 costs, and not for richer people in 2100 dealing with economic costs but people today dealing with health issues
Thanks. I hope you’re right and suspect you are. My understanding is that there are technologies to clean up coal emissions and these should be considered in the policy mix if health is the main concern. I've lived near a coal generating station and recall that emissions became undetectable when new stacks were installed (anecdotal only). I remember seeing a cost of carbon breakdown awhile back and somewhere in excess of 60% of the harm was due to health effects. I suspect that was an air quality add on.
Deregulation is the clearest path to a safe energy future. Any energy transition needs to be lead by engineers not politicians who want power, media who want clicks, or"scientists" who want funding.
Roger, as you note, no new energy legislation has come out of Congress for some time. Most recent energy policy has come as a result of opaque regulations from federal agencies. To be beneficial, the 2026 Act will need to reverse many of these regulations and undo the magical thinking that motivated them. The goal must be to improve the lives of ordinary Americans by making energy cheaper, more abundant and more accessible. Regulations which make energy more expensive, make movement of goods or services less economical, and limit the population's mobility and freedom must be pole-axed.
Leadership CAN come from Congress but they have ceded so much power to both the executive and judicial branches it is unlikely to act. Members of Congress seem united in posturing against the actions of the president and supreme court to raise money for future campaigns.
The "exit from coal energy" cannot occur without corresponding expansion of other dispatchable generation. The "all-electric everything" transition would require further expansion of other dispatchable generation. Arguably, existing intermittent renewable generation could be rendered dispatchable with the installation of massive energy storage. Further expansion of dispatchable renewable generation would also be possible with the inclusion of sufficient storage. However, current storage is extremely expensive. and is not suitable for all of the electricity storage needs of the grid. There is also the issue of who would fund the storage. Renewable developers have no interest in doing so because it would destroy their "cheapest generation" argument.
Energy policy development is its own "wicked problem". ;-)
A comprehensive and future-forward energy policy is desperately needed. It needs to include small nuclear facilities and investments in fusion. Hydrogen fuel cell technology is working well in smaller manufacturing plants and needs to be expanded to include data centers. Solar and wind subsidies need to be phased out—they are too unreliable and more environmentally harmful than advertised. And I would not give up on coal, if only because you'll need those states' congressional delegations to get something passed. Research on new uses for coal other than energy production would be worthwhile.
Dear Dr. Pielke:
I have admired your work for many years and for the most part continue to do so. But I think your call for a new Energy Policy Act is misguided. The history of energy policy in the US has for the most part been a tale of rent-seeking, waste and failure. I have little doubt that any new legislation would be the same. If you want to know the history of policy, may I recommend my book from 2013: U.S. Energy Policy and the Pursuit of Failure (Cambridge).
It is extraordinary to me that you would cite past bills as ones worth emulating. True, the 1975 EPCA created the CAFÉ standards although you neglect the rebound effect with respect to any new means of energy efficiency; moreover, the urge for consumers to seek greater efficiency has been the result of high market prices not legislation. As for the SPR it was designed to fill in supplies in case of the (then-expected) next OAPEC oil embargo, which became increasingly implausible with price and quantity deregulation in the 1980s. The reserve has since been used to lower oil prices by presidents worried about their reelection prospects (especially our current one). The 1970s also gave us a wasteful solar water heating program that ultimately drove most businesses connected with solar out of business (twice!), a prohibition on the use of natural gas in new electric generation (repealed several years later) and of course (in 1980) the multi-billion dollar effort to turn coal into a substitute for oil and gas.
As for later acts, they have saddled us with among other dross (in the 1992 Act) an apparently immortal subsidy for wind (due to expire in 1999 and several times thereafter, now going stronger than ever), an even worse subsidy/mandate program for biofuels (the 2005 EPAct greatly expanded by the 2007 EISA), and now with the absurdly named Inflation Reduction, a quixotic effort to completely remake the electric system of the US transitioning to a dangerous system based on wind, solar and batteries, which will cost (according to some estimates) over $1 trillion and will not achieve the goals the Biden administration seeks.
You mention that several of these bills passed bipartisan majorities in Congress. That is true, but in all cases the motivation to pass these bills was a perception of crisis (ongoing or just past) and the need of Congress to “do something” to quell constituent discomfort and anger. All of these bills have been poorly thought out and bloated with giveaways (the 2005 bill was 1724 pages with something for many, many rent-seekers). For the last four years, the Biden administration has sought to gin up a crisis atmosphere around climate change but look what it has gotten us to date.
Let me close by saying you make some good arguments for certain energy incentives (LNG for example) but anything good in a new "comprehensive" energy bill would likely be swamped by the boondoggles that would be added to it—if such a thing was ever imposed on the American people.
Peter Z. Grossman
Clarence Efroymson Professor of Economics Emeritus
Butler University
Here's the starting point for The Energy Policy Act of 2026: https://newsletter.doomberg.com/p/be-like-ike?r=2jvin&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 was indeed highly consequential, but largely of base.
1. Even with oil embargo, there was no need to reduce use of “energy” just imported oil. Viewed as way to prevent OPEC dominated by countries with authoritarian forms of government from interfering with US foreign policy a temporary modest subsidy to US oil production giving it a bit more of a boost than the higher price itself did.
2. Public support for the development of fracking technology was a big win which we can perhaps attribute to EPCA.
3. I have my doubts that CAFÉ passes a cost benefit test even if we factor in, as we should, the benefits of reduced CO2 emissions.
4. The ban on exports of petroleum from the US was sheer stupidity.
5. The US Petroleum Reserve was probably a good idea by adding a large deep-pocketed speculator to the international petroleum market.
6. The great failing of the EPCA, of course, not to have placed a tax on net emissions of CO2.
With this mixed record I’d be suspicious of new “energy” legislation.
The list of significant developments since EPCA while highlighting need for policy change in a number of areas does not suggest an “energy” umbrella.
• The U.S. has become the world’s energy superpower, having massively increased oil and natural gas production;
• Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has reordered global energy geopolitics, leading to greater reliance by Europe on U.S. natural gas supplies;
These developments call for no change in US energy policy other than NOT blocking production, transportation, or exports of fossil fuels as a means of reducing global CO2 emissions
• Domestic electricity demand, which plateaued for much of the past two decades is set to increase dramatically, requiring new supply;
• The U.S. grid shows signs of strain and vulnerability;
Both these require removing regulator constraints on investment in electricity generation and transmission technologies.
• Production of electricity by wind and solar have grown in capacity and are expected to continue to expand, based on generous federal subsidies;
Subsidies for production of zero CO@ emitting energy should be replaced with taxation of net CO2 emissions.
• The U.S. president signed on to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, which has aggressive targets for emissions reductions, and the U.S. has implemented a range of legislation designed to accelerate decarbonization;
Taxation of net CO2 emissions, regulatory reform to make needed investments possible, and R&D ofo zero and net negative CO2 emissions technologies will likely reduce US emissions more than Paris Club agreements and certainly at lower cost than alternative ways of meeting those targets.
• China has come to dominate energy supply chains, critical minerals, and low-emission technology manufacturing in areas such as solar panels and electric vehicles;
The US needs to ensure that it does not depend on supplies from hostile powers for any important goods. This has no particular “energy” component.
• Countries around the world are increasingly focused on security of energy supply and the prices paid by their citizens for energy and energy products and services (which is to say — everything);
Duh!
• The U.S. has largely abdicated any federal role in supporting the continued development and deployment of nuclear power, ceding leadership to other countries, even as nuclear power is experiencing new interest around the world;
The US has placed significant obstacle to the development of nuclear power that it should remove, as for any other zero CO2 emitting energy technology.
• The U.S. lacks a coherent policy on its role in supporting energy development around the world, seemingly conflicted about the role of fossil fuels in supporting economic growth in poor countries.
Just as the US should tax domestic emissions of CO2, it should at the COP encourage other countries to do the same and should exempt those that do so from its import fees on high CO2 content goods.
I see these policy concerns fitting better under a “Climate Change” than an “Energy” umbrella if an umbrella is needed. OTOH, if the needed policy reforms can better be sold as an “Energy” bill, let’s not let a little misleading semantics stand in the way.
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/cop-28-and-counting
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/why-not-lng-exports
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/climate-risk-and-insurance
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/legal-remedies-for-climate-change 1
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/legal-remedies-for-climate-change 2
Nuclear plants have a reputation for coming in way over budget and behind schedule. In Bent Flyvbjerg's book "How Big Things Get Done" he concludes that nuclear plants are the worst of all large projects for coming in on time and on budget. The reason is that every nuclear plant (at least in the US) is unique. Every nuclear plant has a unique design and faces different challenges.
The best kind of project for coming in on time and on budget are solar farms. The reason is modularity. A solar farm is an array of identical solar panels. A solar panel is an array of identical cells. Modularity squared.
Modularity is an important factor across a wide variety of projects in determining if they come in on time and on budget. In order to go nuclear we will need modular designs to avoid each new nuclear plant suffering cost and budget overruns.
I must disagree with you on nuclear "standardization". We built out over 100 power plants over 25 years of varying designs without egregious cost overruns or delays. It wasn't until the irrational public opposition to nuclear power following the 3 Mile Island incident stoked by environmental groups created so much regulatory hostility that new plants can't be built. "Paper reactors" like SMRs have no proven track record of reliability, safety or security (because they don't exist) and face the same regulatory hostility as large PWRs.
Why is it that people can't see that we have been building SMRs since the 1950's. United States aircraft carriers, surface ships, and submarines in the past 70+ years have been powered by a SMR. (The first nuclear-powered ship built for the US Navy was the USS Nautilus (SSN-571) launched in 1954.)
In less than 70 years we went from learning how to fly (Kitty Hawk, 1903) to landing men on the moon (July 20, 1969). Had we spent the last 70 years applying our innovative genius perfecting the SMR, we would now have a robust, reliable, hardened, and affordable electric grid.
There would have been little need for long, high-voltage transmission lines since SMRs would have been abundantly and strategically located throughout the grid to provide primary and backup power. Manufacturing facilities with a high electrical load would have their own SMR. I could go on and I'm not even a genius:)
I'm a retired Naval Officer who operated nuclear power plants on aircraft carriers and cruisers 1985-2006. The naval power plants are not a good model for SMRs. They are very expensive because of their militarized ruggedness, dynamic operating characteristics, and having to operate in a submerged submarine, things not valuable in commercial plants.
My gripe with SMRs is they are theoretical. There are few physical prototypes. None are in serial production. Many use exotic heat cycles (molten salt, high temp gas (He), liquid sodium) that are not proved to work at scale. Some use exotic uranium fuels (TRISO and HALU) that are not widely available and not proven in commerical applications. It's extremely difficult to even build prototype plants and fuel cycles because of government and public hostility to nuclear technology. It's an enticing model: build small plants that are "walk-away safe" in a factory and distribute or cluster them on the grid. I hope the challenges can be overcome. But it will require a wholesale change in the NRC and public opinion to succeed.
Tom, thanks for your perspective. It's apparent that you have a wealth of knowledge in the area of ship-board nuclear power plants.
My unspoken hope is that folks like you and others with expertise in the nuclear power industry could develop and deploy "land-based" SMRs that are functional, efficient, safe and affordable.
Tom, my hope is that we restore regulator sanity and let the great minds and entrepreneurs bring these new technologies (which have great potential) to the market. They may not succeed, buy they deserve a shot.
Interesting, thanks!
I both agree and disagree with you, Tom. No question that the major cause of the expense and duration of building nuclear plants has been the regulatory regime that "grown" [accreted?] around them. However, I think SMRs will face - in fact, are already facing - less hostility. Unfortunately, I also don't believe the SMRs are that much of a component in the generation burst that's needed now.
The US response to the oil crisis in the 70s was to reduce production so that reserves would not be depleted too soon (or was this reduction a provocation of that crisis?). This had the consequence of a flood of oil and petrodollars in the hands of not so easy geostrategic countries. Later, African oil & gas producing countries and post-soviet Russia came to that party.
Now, the US lead again in production, and export a lot of gas in the form of LNG. Together with the US military-industrial complex, a clear benefit is reaped from the embargo imposed on Russia. The policy is "produce as much as possible and sell as high as possible, as long as demand allows", with a positive impact on the US trade balance. The strategic reserve issue is no more on the agenda.
What would be the reason to change such position?
Even the climate-decarbonization complex is requiring massive investments that still include the further development of fossil fuels (including a lot of coal in China and India) for decades to come. Without exploiting these resources, any zero-carbon policy will remain wishful thinking.
Is this an unsolvable conundrum, or an obvious policy to be followed without qualms?
Bipartisan Plan...
Section 1: Abolish the IRA subsidies on everything but nuclear energy.
Section 2: Transfer all cancelled IRA subsidies from Section 1 to nuclear.
Section 3: Ruthlessly trim regulations that interfere with nuclear and natural gas transitions in electricity sector.
Republicans are happy because the idiotic subsidies for weather restricted energy, EVs and so forth are gone, regulations are getting cut, reliable electricity is getting a major boost over present policy.
Democrats get to keep their war on coal in the short term and get massive support for carbon free power long term that -- unlike wind & solar--is both reliable & theoretically limitless.
Nobody is perfectly happy. Personally, I don't want to subsidize any of it.
But most everyone gets a win in sections 1-3. That's how compromises should work in "our democracy."
Sounds good!
Any policy should have a direction, what are plausible 20-30 year goals. Then include an assessment of the current situation with an eye towards constraints on those longer term goals. I'd especially invite comments from Public Cooperatives (NRECA) - I trust them more than the for-profit utilities or some university "experts".
Legislation would also help with agency alignment over time (despite different parties being in power) which seems necessary for a successful transition. Example:
https://thejoulethief.substack.com/p/ferc-in-around
Dumb stuff, which will be litigated, and folks will have partisan talking points, and nothing actually gets done.
Roger lots of good points. I do think the energy policy is ripe for an update and hopefully channel people's focus in a more productive vs combative direction.
I think the updated comprehensive energy policy should have the following:
1) The word "reliable" used 3x as much as "renewable"
2) Special focus on building out the electric grid to make it more reliable, efficient, and resilient.
3) Special effort on repurposing/recycling existing infrastructure as the "exit from coal" takes place naturally or via mandate.
Roger, your idea is great. What if there were an NGO, say, Energy Policy for the People, who build a bottom-up comprehensive approach to increasing dependable, safe, inexpensive, and low carbon energy sources. Built from the ground, alternatives with data openly reviewed and debated on the internet. Alternative approaches considered, again, openly. Then the info schlepped to the Congressfolk. Someone needs to step in to the partisanized gap IMHO.
Effective legislation would require a greater consensus than we have now on the magnitude of the impact U.S. CO2 emissions have on society. Currently there's little recognition/agreement as to what benefit would be achieved by U.S. decarbonization relative to the costs of doing so. Roger has made great strides in combating misinformation with respect to droughts and extreme weather events which certainly helps. The biggest problem we have is that support for net zero by 2050 or any date is not linked in any way that I'm aware of to a cost/benefit considerations. It's just taken as a given that this must be done. I deliberately restrict my comments to U.S. emissions as those would be most impacted by U.S. legislation. China, India, and Russia will pay lip service to the emissions movement but any action by them will be driven by perceived net benefit. A different approach by the U.S. will only weaken America relative to these countries with no measurable effect on climate. I would welcome any challenge to the preceeding sentence which simply reflects my opinion in the absence of any much needed quantitave discussion of what U.S. decarbonization would accomplish.
I agree, it seems clearly manifest that net zero and other deadline driven and politically chosen targets are both bad policy in design and in goal
The best answer to this would be for moderate conservatives to make their climate policy to commit to net zero by 2050 unless the cost ever exceeds say $500 per household per year. Instead of people talking about whether the Republicans have any climate policy the conversation shifts to why the Democrats have no limit to how much of your well being they will spend
There are good reasons for clean energy like air quality and energy security whether or not climate is a real concern. Boxing Democrats into improving the cost-effectiveness of their own policies is unfortunately also a significant benefit
That would be one decent way to focus attention on costs I guess. The problem might be that the cost is far from evenly distributed and Democrats would likely message it "as making corporate polluters pay." The ultimate costs will of course trickle down but very few people may see it that way. I think the air quality argument needs to be separate from the climate issue. It might be worthwhile to advocate for less particulates or toxic emissions but that has nothing to do with CO2. My understanding is that health effects contribute disproportionately to official estimates of "cost of carbon." I expect that's due lumping particulates and actual toxic emissions in with CO2. I hope I'm wrong.
Oh, my understanding has been that CO2 costs have been calculated separately from air quality and they just tag it on sometimes as a policy benefit. Ironically for coal I have heard that the air pollution is significantly more costly than proposed CO2 costs, and not for richer people in 2100 dealing with economic costs but people today dealing with health issues
Thanks. I hope you’re right and suspect you are. My understanding is that there are technologies to clean up coal emissions and these should be considered in the policy mix if health is the main concern. I've lived near a coal generating station and recall that emissions became undetectable when new stacks were installed (anecdotal only). I remember seeing a cost of carbon breakdown awhile back and somewhere in excess of 60% of the harm was due to health effects. I suspect that was an air quality add on.
Deregulation is the clearest path to a safe energy future. Any energy transition needs to be lead by engineers not politicians who want power, media who want clicks, or"scientists" who want funding.
Roger, as you note, no new energy legislation has come out of Congress for some time. Most recent energy policy has come as a result of opaque regulations from federal agencies. To be beneficial, the 2026 Act will need to reverse many of these regulations and undo the magical thinking that motivated them. The goal must be to improve the lives of ordinary Americans by making energy cheaper, more abundant and more accessible. Regulations which make energy more expensive, make movement of goods or services less economical, and limit the population's mobility and freedom must be pole-axed.
Leadership CAN come from Congress but they have ceded so much power to both the executive and judicial branches it is unlikely to act. Members of Congress seem united in posturing against the actions of the president and supreme court to raise money for future campaigns.
Roger,
The "exit from coal energy" cannot occur without corresponding expansion of other dispatchable generation. The "all-electric everything" transition would require further expansion of other dispatchable generation. Arguably, existing intermittent renewable generation could be rendered dispatchable with the installation of massive energy storage. Further expansion of dispatchable renewable generation would also be possible with the inclusion of sufficient storage. However, current storage is extremely expensive. and is not suitable for all of the electricity storage needs of the grid. There is also the issue of who would fund the storage. Renewable developers have no interest in doing so because it would destroy their "cheapest generation" argument.
Energy policy development is its own "wicked problem". ;-)
Agreed
Gas or nuclear
Could you do a post on modern nuclear plants and 'new' nuclear fuels, like Thorium?
What are the arguments that for nuclear that speak to you? What arguments against are legitimate and which ones are less so?
It's perhaps a bit farther from your field of expertise, but I am sure you had a thorough look at it.
Better both.
A comprehensive and future-forward energy policy is desperately needed. It needs to include small nuclear facilities and investments in fusion. Hydrogen fuel cell technology is working well in smaller manufacturing plants and needs to be expanded to include data centers. Solar and wind subsidies need to be phased out—they are too unreliable and more environmentally harmful than advertised. And I would not give up on coal, if only because you'll need those states' congressional delegations to get something passed. Research on new uses for coal other than energy production would be worthwhile.