Thursday, May 22, 2025

[decomm_wkg] Trump’s “wins” on nuclear power are losses for taxpayers and public safety

Trump’s “wins” on nuclear power are losses for taxpayers and public safety

By Edwin Lyman | May 19, 2025


The Three Mile Island Unit 1 (right) in Pennsylvania is one of the first two shutdown US reactors, with Palisades Nuclear Power Plant in Michigan, to be on path of being restarted to generate electricity again. The dormant cooling towers (left) are from Unit 2, which was permanently damaged in the 1979 accident. (Credit: Constellation Energy, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons)

The US nuclear power industry is justifiably apprehensive about its future under the second Trump administration. President Donald Trump’s predilection for taking a sledgehammer to both the federal budget and the administrative state would appear to be the exact opposite of what the industry crucially needs to move forward: a predictable, long-term expansion of the billions of dollars in public funding and tax benefits it received under Joe Biden, arguably the most pro-nuclear power president in decades.

With little attention to safety and security concerns, President Biden and Congress made available an array of grants, loans, and tax credits to both operating and proposed nuclear plants, hoping to make them more appealing to risk-averse private investors. Now, at least some of these programs, which stimulated the emergence of a vast bubble of nuclear startups funded by token amounts of venture capital, may be on the chopping block. But this would not be bad news for the industry in the long run. The Biden administration’s “all of the above” support for nuclear power was on shaky ground even before Trump took office, and it needed a critical evaluation and reset.

However, if made final, the draft White House executive orders meant to bolster nuclear power growth that were leaked earlier this month would be a huge lurch in the wrong direction. By focusing on the wrong issues—namely, by scapegoating the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)’s oversight over the industry’s own inability to raise sufficient capital and competently manage large, complex projects—the orders would undermine the regulatory stability that investors demand, not to mention create the potential for significant safety and reliability problems down the road.

Trump’s mixed messages. Many in the industry expected President Trump to be an even bigger booster of nuclear power than his predecessor. They must now be confused by the mixed signals coming out of the new administration.

On the first day of his second term, Trump ordered an immediate pause and review of all appropriations provided through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The decision initially swept up grants and loans for nuclear power along with other low-carbon energy projects, including a $1.52 billion loan guarantee that the Biden administration had awarded to Holtec International to restart the Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan, as well as billions in grants for the two so-called “advanced demonstration power reactor projects” proposed for construction: the TerraPower Natrium sodium-cooled fast reactor in Kemmerer, Wyoming and the X-Energy Xe-100 high temperature gas-cooled reactor complex in Seadrift, Texas.

Despite giving lip service to the need to “unleash” nuclear power, the actions of Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former fossil fuel industry executive, have not matched the rhetoric. As part of the Trump administration’s self-congratulatory celebration of its first 100 days, the Energy Department posted a list of “11 big wins for nuclear.” However, these were typically continuations of programs from previous administrations rather than radically new initiatives.

The first claimed “big win” was restarting the Palisades nuclear plant. It referred to a March announcement that the Energy Department’s Loan Projects Office was going to release additional installments of the Palisades loan guarantee. But this had already been approved under the Biden administration. Even so, the future of the nuclear-friendly office, which in the past had awarded $12 billion in loan guarantees to prop up the two new (and wildly over-budget) reactors at the Vogtle plant in Georgia, remains in doubt under the new administration’s effort to shrink federal agencies. After reports of major staff cuts at the Loan Projects Office—or maybe rather “at the loan office”—surfaced in April, panicked nuclear advocates wrote to Secretary Wright in protest, and there are indications that the department may be moving to shrink the office even though some level of support for nuclear projects could remain.

The second so-called “win” on the Energy Department’s list—“unleashing American-made SMRs” (small modular reactors)—was simply a reissuance of a 2024 solicitation making available $900 million in repurposed funding provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The funding redirection seeks to support the development of light-water SMRs, minus the Biden administration’s requirements for advancing societal goals, such as community engagement, that could help facilitate siting unpopular facilities. But this amount of funding is inconsequential considering the billions of dollars that likely would be needed to build even a single SMR facility. The first light-water SMR to receive a design certification from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), NuScale, was estimated to cost $9.3 billion for a plant with six modules of 77 megawatts of electric power each.

The third nuclear so-called “win” was the submission in March by X-Energy and Dow of a construction permit application to the NRC to build the Long Mott plant (four Xe-100 reactors) in Seadrift, Texas. This can only be considered a win for the Trump administration if one forgets that the application was filed at least a year later than originally anticipated.

The fourth so-called “win”—high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) for advanced reactor developers—would be better characterized as an admission of failure. HALEU is the fuel that most non-light-water reactors under development with Energy Department funding would use, which means it must be available if these reactors are ever going to operate. But because the United States has failed to date to enable industrial-scale enrichment of HALEU to support the new reactor projects, the Energy Department must instead draw from stockpiles of “unobligated” enriched uranium that is not constrained by peaceful-use agreements. These stockpiles were originally preserved for other uses, such as fueling operating reactors that produce tritium for the nuclear weapon stockpile. The decision to tap into this reserve is essentially a loan to the commercial sector, but it will likely have to be repaid in the future.

The remaining seven “big wins” are primarily incremental technical milestones in ongoing research programs: interesting, perhaps, but hardly major achievements.

What is missing from the Trump administration’s “nuclear wins” list, unfortunately, is any mention of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) study that was announced in the final days of the Biden administration by former National Nuclear Security Administrator Jill Hruby to assess the proliferation risks of HALEU. Hruby ordered the study in response to an article in Science magazine last year in which my colleagues and I raised concerns about the potential usability of HALEU for nuclear weapons. The study was suspended by the Trump administration, and its future remains uncertain.

The cost of “winning.” With the Trump administration determined to cut trillions of dollars from the federal budget, the mere survival of any program might be considered a “win” by the program’s supporters. But simply staying the course is not going to be nearly enough to see the nuclear projects already underway to completion, much less pay for all the new reactors that nuclear advocates hope will spring up to meet the huge increases in demand, such as from the deployment of data centers.

Since 2020, the costs of the Xe-100 Seadrift and Natrium projects have ballooned due to inflation and supply chain problems. In 2023, X-Energy revised the cost of its four-reactor Long Mott plant upward to $4.75 to $5.25 billion, and in 2024, Bill Gates, the founder of TerraPower, estimated the cost of the Natrium project as “close to ten billion” dollars. Yet, these estimates were made before factoring in the potential impacts of the Trump tariffs on commodity prices and the supply chain. In total, the cost of these two projects has more than doubled, even as the original authorized amount of $3.2 billion of government support has not changed.

If the pipeline for providing previously appropriated funding continues and Congress does not provide billions of additional dollars for these projects, the remaining cost burden will fall on the companies themselves. It is not at all clear if TerraPower is going to be willing to pony up.

Similarly, the tax credits provided by the Inflation Reduction Act for new nuclear plants (if they survive) are not likely to be enough to make them commercially viable. Even factoring in the tax credits, NuScale’s “Carbon Free Power Project” was still too expensive, and the project was cancelled in 2023.

To really “unleash” nuclear power, far greater subsidies would be required.

But this is not looking too likely in the current frenetic cost-cutting environment. In its proposed budget for the next fiscal year, the White House plans to cut funding for the Office of Nuclear Energy by $408 million (over a quarter of its current annual budget), which it says corresponds to “non-essential research on nuclear energy.” The future of other incentives, such as the tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act, also remains uncertain, causing consternation within the nuclear industry.

Looking at the “nuclear loss” side of the ledger is the Trump administration’s assault on independent federal agencies, including the NRC. Only last year, there was bipartisan concern as to whether the NRC would have enough experienced personnel to efficiently handle a projected onslaught of new applications. Now, the succession of attacks on the NRC’s workforce—from DOGE’s fork-in-the-road e-mail offering voluntary departure to federal workers, to the end of remote work, to the termination of its collective bargaining agreement—will have predictably devastating effects on employee morale, retention, and recruitment. Moreover, Trump’s burdensome and confusing executive orders—including requirements that agency actions be reviewed in secret by White House political appointees, and all energy permitting regulations be periodically reissued or scrapped—are recipes for delays and chaos.

Being serious about supporting safe and economical nuclear energy. What would a genuine “win” look like for the US nuclear energy industry and the public, then?

A good start would be a comprehensive and objective reassessment of the technical viability and realistic costs versus benefits of the Energy Department’s ambitious nuclear power and fuel cycle programs. The focus of these programs must be on their safety, security, proliferation, and waste management implications. While the leaked draft executive orders display a predictable hostility to science-based analysis and environmental protection, President Trump—as a self-proclaimed savvy businessman—may appreciate when taxpayers are getting a bad deal. After all, during his first administration, he terminated the $100 billion “mixed-oxide” (or MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility project in South Carolina. Trump terminated the MOX fuel program despite the entreaties of some of his most loyal supporters, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina. Trump would be right to question, for example, whether a company founded by Bill Gates—one of the richest people in America—needs to continue receiving countless billions of dollars of federal subsidies.

A nuclear power program based less on hype and more on fiscal realities and genuine safety improvements could ultimately be a win not just for the corporate recipients of government largesse, but for the public at large.

Tuesday, May 20, 2025

NRC Accepts for Review Construction Permit Application for Long Mott Generating Station

Nuclear Regulatory Commission - News Release
No: 25-031 May 13, 2025
CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC Accepts for Review Construction Permit Application for Long Mott Generating Station

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has accepted for review a construction permit application from Long Mott Energy LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Dow Chemical Company. The application requests permission to build Long Mott Generating Station, a multi- unit advanced reactor facility at Dow Chemical’s Seadrift site in Calhoun County, Texas. The companies submitted the application on March 31.

The Dow Chemical reactor project’s application includes a preliminary safety analysis report and environmental report for the four-unit facility using X-energy’s Xe-100 reactor design. Each Xe-100 reactor in the facility would generate approximately 80 megawatts of electricity, as well as heat to enhance the Dow Chemical plant’s efficiency. Each reactor would use helium to cool its core. The construction permit, if approved, would not authorize the operation of the units. The Dow project will have to submit a separate application for operating licenses in the future.

The agency’s acceptance, or “docketing” the application, starts the detailed safety and environmental review. More information about new reactor licensing is available on the NRC website.

NRC Begins Special Inspection at Curium

Nuclear Regulatory Commission - News Release
No: III-25-014 May 19, 2025
Contact: Viktoria Mitlyng, 630-829-9662 Prema Chandrathil, 630-829-9663

NRC Begins Special Inspection at Curium

 
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has launched a special inspection to review the circumstances surrounding the loss of control of licensed material impacting two workers at the Curium US LLC radiopharmaceutical facility in Noblesville, Indiana.
 
The NRC inspection follows an April 8 incident involving two employees who entered an area inside the production facility to perform routine radiological work and found an unaccounted for source of radiation. The company secured the area and was able to recover and regain control of the material.
 
The facility is safe and all material was contained within the facility with no release to the environment. However, the event led to both workers receiving a higher-than-expected radiation dose, potentially causing one of them to exceed an annual occupational limit.
 
The NRC determined a special inspection was needed to develop a clear understanding of the circumstances, assess the company’s response and evaluate their abilities to track and control radioactive material while ensuring worker safety. Inspectors from the agency will conduct observations, interviews and document reviews onsite at the facility and in the office.
 
“We expect license holders to ensure workers are protected and maintain appropriate control of licensed material,” said Region III Administrator Jack Giessner. “Our inspectors will look closely at the company’s radiation safety program to assess their compliance with NRC requirements.”
 
The team will document their findings and conclusions in an inspection report, which will be publicly available on the NRC website.

25-014-iii.pdf

US nuclear sector goes on spending spree to fight subsidy cuts


US nuclear sector goes on spending spree to fight subsidy cuts 

Sam Altman-backed Oklo increased lobbying budget by 500 per cent year-on-year 


 The US nuclear industry is intensifying its lobbying blitz to save the Inflation Reduction Act tax credits it says are vital for meeting artificial intelligence-fuelled energy demand. 

On Monday lawmakers from the House ways and means committee, which is responsible for writing tax law, released draft legislation that would phase out nuclear energy subsidies starting in 2029, in a move that caught the sector by surprise. 

 Lobbyists are now racing to persuade lawmakers to rescind or moderate cuts to nuclear industry subsidies, which until recently had more bipartisan support than other low-carbon energy technologies such as wind and solar. 

 “You’re going to see an aggressive push,” said Frank Maisano, a partner in the policy and resolution group of Bracewell, a law and lobbying firm. 

 In the first quarter of 2025 nuclear companies and industry bodies have upped their spending on lobbying. Oklo, the nuclear technology company backed by OpenAI chief executive officer Sam Altman spent $424,000 an increase of more than 500 per cent year-on-year. 

 Oklo chief executive officer Jacob DeWitte said that the ways and means proposal “undermines the momentum” in the US nuclear sector. 

 “It’s hard to overstate the value of the tax credits on helping to de-risk early-stage capital and project developments . . . if the idea is to lead and dominate in this space, we need to use all the tools in the tool belt.” 

 NuScale Power and TerraPower, nuclear reactor developers, as well as the Nuclear Energy Institute, also increased their spending. Constellation Energy, which has partnered with Microsoft to restart the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania, spent over $1.7mn in the first quarter on lobbying across its portfolio, a 16 per cent increase. 

 Industry advocates said they aim to appeal to moderates such as Lisa Murkowski, the senator from Alaska, and Henry McMaster, governor of South Carolina, who already host nuclear facilities in their states. They also hope to spur intervention from President Donald Trump, who has praised nuclear development. 

 Next week the administration is expected to release an executive order to speed up the construction of nuclear power plants by amending federal safety regulations.

 “What came out of ways and means is concerning and disappointing,” said Heather Reams, president of Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, a centre-right energy lobby group. “It isn’t hitting the marks on what the president’s nuclear goals are . . . when he [weighs in] that will have a lot of sway.” 

 Lobbyists are also expected to object to the timeframes suggested in the draft, which they say threaten the development of nascent technologies like small modular reactors (SMRs) that are critical for meeting the AI fuelled energy demand. 

 “We want to encourage the nuclear industry,” said Eric Levine, a Republican lobbyist. “If we’re not bringing energy to grid, all the AI technology in the world is useless if we can’t power it.” 

 However some nuclear companies see the cuts as an opportunity to bring private capital to the sector. 

 “Industries that rely on federal subsidies tend to get stuck in ruts and less favourable towards innovation,” said Isaiah Taylor, CEO of Valar Atomics. “I like the direction that the administration is taking on this, in allowing it to be private and faster.”

Sunday, May 18, 2025

NRC to Hold a Regulatory Conference with Entergy Operations May 21 to Discuss a Proposed Violation

Nuclear Regulatory Commission - News Release
No: IV-25-002 May 13, 2025
Contact: Victor Dricks, 630-829-9662 Tressa Smith, 817-200-1172

NRC to Hold a Regulatory Conference with Entergy Operations May 21 to Discuss a Proposed Violation


The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a regulatory conference on May 21 with officials from Entergy Operations to discuss the safety significance of a proposed violation. The proposed violation, identified in an inspection report, involves the company’s failure to properly maintain an emergency diesel generator, used to supply power to safety-related systems in the event of a loss of offsite power at the Waterford nuclear power plant in Killona, Louisiana.

The enforcement conference will be held at the NRC’s Region IV Office at 1600 East Lamar Blvd., Arlington, Texas, beginning at 9 a.m. Central time.

Company representatives will have the opportunity to provide their perspective or additional information, including any actions planned or completed to prevent recurrence of the issues, before the agency makes its final enforcement decision.

The meeting notice has information detailing how the public can participate in the meeting by phone or online. Members of the public will have an opportunity to ask questions of the NRC staff or provide comments about the issues discussed following the business portion of the meeting; however, the NRC staff is not soliciting comments pertaining to regulatory decisions.

No decisions on the final safety significance or any potential NRC actions regarding the proposed violations will be made at the meeting.

Friday, May 16, 2025

New essay, "Artificial Intelligence Meets Natural Stupidity: Managing the Risks"

This provocative independent essay was just posted for free download at ai-electricity.stanford.edu. That URL takes you to a header. Clicking on the URL in the header then takes you to the paper. Apologies for the extra step, which lets us count visitors (anonymously).

Please enjoy, spread, and react. Thank you! And thanks again to my many thoughtful referees, informants, and Stanford colleagues who kindly gave this essay a nice home. 

For more flavor, here’s the two-page press release that Hastings is disseminating 16 May:
File 051625 Lovins AI Essay news release ver9.docx

Cordially — Amory

Amory B. Lovins        盧安武      एमोरी लिवन्स
Adjunct Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering (2020–24), Lecturer (2025–  ), and Precourt Scholar, Precourt Institute for Energy, Stanford University
Cofounder and Chairman Emeritus, RMI (founded as Rocky Mountain Institute), amory@rmi.org
President, Aspen Fly Right, aspenflyright.org
Member, Lovins Associates LLC

[decomm_wkg] The US buried millions of gallons of wartime nuclear waste – Doge cuts could wreck the cleanup

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/15/us-government-nuclear-waste-doge