Republican Socialism Goes Nuclear: Trump Bets $80 Billion on Government-Backed Energy
After years of decline, nuclear energy's prospects are looking bright. The worst thing the government can do now is get more involved in the industry.
Since President Donald Trump's return to the Oval Office, the federal government has trademarked its own version of Republican socialism by nationalizing steel production and taking equity stakes in chip manufacturers and mining projects. Now, it's getting involved in the nuclear power sector.
On Tuesday, Westinghouse Electric Company announced that it had entered "into a strategic partnership" with the federal government, Brookfield Asset Management, and uranium fuel supplier Cameco Corporation to build "at least" $80 billion worth of Westinghouse's AP1000 nuclear reactors across the country. The agreement was made "in accordance" with Trump's May executive order, which called for the deployment of 10 new large nuclear reactors in the U.S. by 2030, according to Westinghouse.
The details of the agreement are still a bit murky, but the federal government will underwrite at least some of these projects, while others might be financed by Japan. On Tuesday, Japan's trade ministry pledged to invest $550 billion into American projects, in exchange for lower tariff rates from the Trump administration. Included in this package was an "artificial intelligence and a nuclear reactor construction initiative that was expected to be worth up to $100 billion and involve Mitsubishi Heavy [Industries] and Toshiba," reports The New York Times.
The deal might also allow the federal government to take an equity stake in America's largest nuclear power company. Bloomberg's Liam Denning writes that as long as the U.S. government follows through on its financial commitment, "it would then get a 20% share in any dividends paid out by Westinghouse above a $17.5 billion threshold." If these projects are up and running within the next "three years or so" and "Westinghouse is deemed at that point to be worth at least $30 billion, the company may then be required to do an initial public offering with the government getting warrants that may convert into an equity stake," according to Denning.
Nuclear power is clean, reliable, and safe, but forcing taxpayers to bet on its future success is risky. After thriving throughout the '60s, '70s, and '80s, the industry has been plagued by P.R. disasters and project failures that have hampered nuclear power for much of the last 30 years.
Recent efforts to revive the industry have not done much to build public confidence. A failed nuclear power plant project in South Carolina, which featured two AP1000 reactors, left ratepayers on the hook for millions of dollars, although Brookfield Management is considering reviving the project, according to the Associated Press.
Vogtle 3 and 4 in Georgia, which also feature two AP1000s, became the first newly constructed nuclear power plants to power the U.S. grid in the 21st century. However, it was seven years delayed and nearly $21 billion over its initial budget.
Despite these setbacks, there is good reason to be optimistic about nuclear energy's future. Big Tech firms are scaling up investments in the technology to meet the power needs for AI, shuttered power plants are being restarted, and the public is beginning to recognize the environmental and economic benefits of the energy source.
Still, this does not mean that the federal government needs to stake its claim in the industry for the industry to thrive. In fact, the government has often been the biggest impediment to nuclear power's success. State moratoriums on the power source have hollowed out much of the industrial workforce, which is one reason why Vogtle 3 and 4's price tags were so high. Stringent and costly federal regulations have driven up the price of nuclear power, making it harder for it to succeed. To its credit, the Trump administration has begun to address some of the regulatory challenges that inhibit nuclear power and the energy sector broadly.
After years of decline, America's nuclear energy prospects look bright. The best thing the government can do now is remove regulatory barriers and allow the private sector to lead, not put taxpayers on the hook by getting more involved.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
What could go wrong?
How about a dot art mushroom cloud, Chumby?
Your doomsdayish appeal to emotion is not an argument.
You took that way too seriously.
It's nothing to do with doomsday and everything to do with the government messing about where it has no business, literally.
I understand why: since AOC in 2029 would be able to undo this with a simple executive order, no private business will risk their own money on such an expensive slow project. That doesn't justify one government wrong piled on another.
Too bad economic liberty got sidelined by the Supreme Court. It is literally not the government's business.
I understand why: since AOC in 2029 would be able to undo this with a simple executive order, no private business will risk their own money on such an expensive slow project.
That's what I've been saying since he took office. Trump is pissing into the wind because all of his executive orders will be reversed by the next Democratic administration.
Congress needs to get off their collective asses and do these things legislatively, since laws are much more difficulty to change than presidential edicts.
Apparently that makes me a leftist or something.
Chernobyl was just an 'emotional' disaster! /s
Considering after many decades of nuclear power that there have only been 2 meltdowns that are classified as the extreme level - The first being Chernobyl and the second being Fukishima - it is definitely an appeal to emotion.
And let me guess. Containment zones still in effect today are just 'emotional'?
Or maybe. Cheer-leading an energy source that takes decades to even break-even ($ wise) while posing a massive-acres lifetime+ risk of pollutant is the 'emotional' part going on.
I don't need to politically cheer-lead it so its costs (pollutant-risk & $-risk) can be ignored. Frankly; Nuclears cost/risk to benefit ratio is really crappy when compared to fossil/hydro.
Make nuclear pay for insurance (held liable) on disaster and see what happens with it.
Guess this doesn’t get glowing reviews.
It's a rad plan!
We can always count on that Chumby guy girl whatever.
Don’t have a meltdown about it.
I so hope this nuclear revival is not a flash in the pan.
The worst thing the government can do now is get more involved in the industry.
By "get more involved" do you mean "strangle it to death" or "airdrop supplies" to it? Because while I agree that the latter is a problem if it's an untouched free market that can't make it on its own, but if it's been struggling under the former, I'm not sure I'm going to retire to the fainting couch if Trump is suggesting the latter.
So, I guess you could view subsidies for nuclear power as like "reparations" for the nuclear industry? To correct for past perceived injustices?
Can something alive be demonstrated to have been directly hurt by a set of government actions still in force?
Sure. Is your argument that the nuclear industry is owed compensation as restitution for past wrongs perpetrated against it?
It's ok because Trump is doing it. Democrat subsidies bad. Trump subsidies good. See how they are completely and totally different? That's what makes it ok.
Thats not what he said though.
Rick: I’m not going to get the vapors because the President wants to underwrite a nuclear power plant, especially after past presidents have done nothing but try to strangle the infant while in the crib.
Jeff: so you want reparations for nuclear power plants.
I mean this in the nicest way possible, but what the fuck?
I've seen some really retarded shit on reason, but not realizing utilities are basically already nationalized due to city and state incorporating then, regulating the shit out of them, etc is up there.
Nah, you see, this is like *looks at retarded commenters* like... 'reparations'. And therefore it should be eschewed. Because like, reparations to a Haitian immigrant who arrived in 2016 is directly exactly like loosening the chokehold of government regulations which are literally currently in place and trying to rehabilitate the guy the government is literally currently strangling to death. Literally.
I didn't say they should be necessarily eschewed. That was you.
If you were arguing that the government should deregulate the nuclear industry and leave it at that, I would tend to agree.
But that isn't what you are arguing - you think the government should be directly subsidizing the nuclear industry, and justifying it by pointing to past poor treatment of the government against the nuclear industry. That sure sounds a lot like reparations to me.
If you want to try to claim that it's actually restitution from a type of tort, then make that case.
No he didn't. He said hes not going to overreact about it, especially if it helps the industry.
Um, the companies that bring the power to your door may be regulated as utilities (but not monopolies - I have two power companies' high voltage wires running through my back yard). But you do realize power grids are markets where producers bid against each other right? Or are you really that fucking stupid?
Anyone who criticizes Trump is a hypocrite who didn't criticizes about Democrats That makes all criticism of Trump invalid because of who is doing the criticizing. That means whatever he does is ok because no one can complain about it without being a hypocrite.
Tu quoque for the win!
Poor sarc. No more ideas™ .
He is so fucking broken. Just getting sad at this point.
Maga branded socialism has to be better than some wokey marxist socialism that would come from the other party, so it's not a direct comparison.
"Maga branded socialism has to be better than some wokey marxist socialism..."
Make shit so, Captain Doug Digs the VERY Youngest of the Heifers!!!
PLEASE make the PervFected ORANGE Socialism BETTER than ALL of the udder, older, passe socialists who just were SNOT doing shit right!
Maga is great branding though. Trump branding can make bad stuff good. What have the democrats got in terms of marketing for their socialism? None of the leadership democrats even have their own cryptocurrency yet. That is just leaving money on the table, as well as being woefully insufficient in terms of marketing. Trump realizes that the marketing is the whole ball game. With good marketing it doesn't really matter what policy lies underneath, or if it ever really goes into effect or not.
I think the entire idea of MAGA is an insult. Specifically the word "Again".
The implication is that America is not "great". Well, I think it is.
If the Trump Regime were to becum more honest...
SMAGMA = Super-Mighty Almighty Government Making Advancements. . .
SMEGMA = Super-Mighty-Expensive Government Making Aggressions
Old “New Thang” MAGA make way for the NEW New Thang!!! MAGA meet MANGABA, Making Almighty NEW Government Almighty Bigger Again!!! All Hail MANGABA!!!
(Shit will also stimulate the economy by giving regulators, judges, and lawyers LOTS of NEW shit to fight about!!!)
AKA MANGEE… Making Almighty NEW Government Expensive and Expansive!!!
Reason: Let's agree to disagree on the best method of reversing the 70 year long trend of throttling nuclear to death. Let's leave the noose around the neck and declare the market must remain free of Literally Worse than Hitler's interference!
If you want to deregulate the nuclear industry, then say that.
If you want to subsidize the nuclear industry, then that is a different argument.
Reason: A bailout for the nuclear sector which has been forced to meet ever-longer timing and logistics standards for 7 decades and has been salami sliced and bled into an almost comatose state with unnecessary and patently false safety standards within those same timeline is untenable, even for infrastructure spending.
Also Reason: OMG! Trump's tariffs are making the price of Bavarian Juniper berries and cheap, "environmentally friendly" Chinese liquor bottles upredictably erratic (right next to the port of LA)!
The editors at Reason want the electrons but don’t want to hitch their wagon onto how the sausage is made.
Unfortunately this is not much of a departure from longstanding policy. Before I was born, the US government took ownership and control of all fissile material in its borders.
The best thing the government can do now is remove regulatory barriers and allow the private sector to lead, not put taxpayers on the hook by getting more involved.
hahaha ok. So I guess the first step is to revoke the 1957 Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act which puts the taxpayer on the hook for anything catastrophic by limiting industry/owners liability to, basically, nothing.
Because of course the private sector has been jumping up and down for decades to assume full liability for potential nuclear incidents. After all that's why they know better which 'regulations' are useless bureaucracy and which 'practices' really do reduce potential liability exposure.
So that they can 'take the lead' - and restore the huge vibrant private sector nuclear energy industry that existed before that 1957 government imposition -- 1 working reactor already online - which had a partial meltdown two years later; 1 research reactor which was within weeks of going online (I'm sure a total coincidence) when the legislation passed - which shut down in 1963 and was then discovered to have been built on an earthquake faultline; and 1 which came online a few months later and worked well for its 25 year lifetime.
Oh - you didn't mention insurance did you.
The saddest part of all this is [D]emon-rats will never take stuff like this to court, or object to it what-so-ever, which really leaves the Constitution on the matter completely naked.
Welcome to the Uni-Party of the [Na]tional So[zi]alist Empire!
The Democrats are not going to endanger their subsidizing of "green" energy by that kind of legal precedent.
"Nuclear power is clean, reliable and safe."
Clean - Tell that to the folks downstream of Three Mile Island, Hanford or Chernobyl.
Reliable - Tell that to the folks near Three Mile Island, Chernobyl or Rancho Seco. As I recall, the voters shut down Rancho Seco because it was a total lemon.
And Sale - Tell that to the folks around Chernobyl and Fukhushima, Oh, you can't, because there are no folks arround those plants they are surrounded by thousands of acres of exclusion areas.
"...because there are no folks arround (sic) those plants they are surrounded by thousands of acres of exclusion areas."
MANY of them would DEARLY LOVE to live there, butt pants-shitting and pearl-clutching Government Almighty assholes do SNOT allow them to do so! THAT is the plain and simple truth! I have read that many elderly Japanese landowners have committed suicide, since they are snot ALLOWED to live out their last years ON THEIR OWN LAND!!!
How many nuclear powered vessels have their been? Let me google it.
Over history, more than 700 nuclear reactors have been used at sea, powering an unknown but substantial total number of naval vessels, which includes submarines, aircraft carriers, cruisers, and icebreakers. While a precise total is not available, the U.S. Navy alone has built over 200 nuclear-powered ships, and Russia built at least 248 nuclear submarines and five naval surface vessels between 1950 and 2003.
We already have people making nuclear reactors with enough power for a city, that have been tried and tested on and under the high seas.
I think someone figured out how to make them clean, reliable, and sale. (I think you meant safe)
Imagine being able to buy something the size of a shipping container that can power a city for ten years.
And when it is done it is easy to dispose of.
That’s crazy talk! To assuage Gwegan’s fears, we should only use wind and solar. Pay no attention to the rare earth mining required for either of those, or the environmental hazards they pose, or the fact their lifespans are measured in years not decades.
(Real talk, I’m super interested in the Thorium Salt reactors. The science involved is really intriguing.)
I mean, I guess it depends on what you mean by a city, ~200MW of thermal energy isn't nothing for a nuclear sub, but it's "college town" not "metropolis". Not to say I don't agree we need to be deploying SMRs all over the place, every energy source is needed, this is an AND proposition, not an OR. But get the government out of picking favorites for sure
"buy something the size of a shipping container that can power a city for ten years"
That costs $6,500,000,000.
And no - it is not "easy to dispose of".
Haven't heard any news where nuclear-waste can be neutralized by any other means than thousands of years of idle-decay.
Which is really the #1 hold-up for the energy source short of it's horrendous fuel cost.
Peddle your retarded disinfo somewhere else.
Even if you weren't talking to libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and actual energy, power, and infrastructure engineers, only the most shit-stupid, disinformed boomer shut-ins and out-of-touch hippie stoners still fall for your eco-doom con game rhetoric. This was pointed out to you, even by many of your fellow doomers over a decade ago. The rhetoric of stupidity only works for so long.
Everybody knows the area around mines for coal, lithium, and rare earth metals, for both normal, reliable power and renewables can be and does get polluted. Everybody knows that areas around pipelines and petrol coke depots are subject to spills and inhalation pollutants. Everybody knows that even regardless of all of that, California at least in part has to keep powerlines clean either way to avoid fires that erupt pollutants and burn down the Pallisades... near annually. Everybody knows gas and coal fired boilers explode and kill people relatively steadily. Everybody knows Fukushima was a tsunami first and that the only people who died were from the evacuation. Everybody knows billions were spent on Ivanpah burned natural gas daily and routinely failed to produce power reliably. Everybody knows that Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island happened over 30 yrs. ago and because of inferior safety controls and designs.
Even Bill fucking Gates has moved on. You might as well be trying to lecture people under 40 yr. olds of the dangers of the proliferation of the Carcano Model 91/38 rifle for fear of the assassination of Kennedy. Dumbass.
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
"...Chernobyl..."
"Combined death toll from Chernobyl
To summarize the previous paragraphs:
2 workers died in the blast.
28 workers and firemen died in the weeks that followed from acute radiation syndrome (ARS).
19 ARS survivors had died later, by 2006; most from causes not related to radiation, but it’s not possible to rule all of them out (especially five that were cancer-related).
15 people died from thyroid cancer due to milk contamination. These deaths were among children who were exposed to 131I from milk and food in the days after the disaster. This could increase to between 96 and 384 deaths, however, this figure is highly uncertain.
There is currently no concslusive evidence of adverse health impacts in the general population across affected countries, or wider Europe.
Combined, the confirmed death toll from Chernobyl is less than 100. We still do not know the true death toll of the disaster. My best approximation is that the true death toll is in the range of 300 to 500 based on the available evidence, but this comes with significant uncertainty."
"...Fukhushima..."
"No one died directly from the disaster. However, 40 to 50 people were injured as a result of physical injury from the blast, or radiation burns.
In 2018, the Japanese government reported that one worker has since died from lung cancer as a result of radiation exposure from the event."
[...]
"The year after the 2011 disaster, the Japanese government estimated that 573 people had died indirectly as a result of the physical and mental stress of evacuation. Since then, more rigorous assessments of increased mortality have been done, and this figure was revised to 2,313 deaths in September 2020."
They were scared to death by bullshit from the lying piles of shit like Gwegan
"Nuclear is one of the safest energy sources
No energy source comes with zero negative impact. We often think of nuclear energy as being more dangerous than other sources because these low-frequency but highly-visible events come to mind.
However, when we compare the death rates from nuclear energy to other sources, we see that it’s one of the safest. The numbers that have died from nuclear accidents are very small in comparison to the millions that die from air pollution from fossil fuels every year. As the linked post shows, the death rate from nuclear is roughly comparable with most renewable energy technologies.'"
All from here:
https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima
Fuck off and die, watermelon asswipe
Now do coal mines. What a clown
"As I recall, the voters shut down Rancho Seco because it was a total lemon."
The voters shut down Rancho Seco because they're California voters, and because the Sacramento Municipal Utility District operators of Rancho Seco were not very competent.
The same company (Babcock & Wilcox) that built the Rancho Seco nuclear power system built the three reactors at the Oconee nuclear power station in South Carolina, which generated more electrical power over its history than any other nuclear power plant in the United States. (That's because Duke Energy knows how to operate and maintain nuclear reactors.)
Ok, let's play with just safe
Fossil fuels - tell that to the people around the refineries.
Solar - tell that to people downstream from the material strip mines.
Wind- oops, same strip mining problem.
Nat gas - just look at all the propaganda documentaries.
Fire - but the carbon dioxide.
So now you can freeze in the dark because by your standards nothing is perfectly safe.
Your appeals to emotion are not arguments.
Trying to pretend nuclear disasters are just 'emotional'...
Is the 'emotional' (i.e. denial) you're selling.
I'm sure nuclear has it's positive place. Just like wind & solar (remote locations/service) but you don't need to politically cheer-lead nuclear unless you're trying to DENY it's costs/hazards.
Meanwhile New York State legislation outlawing natural gas usage in most new construction went into effect this month.